- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:15 pm to O
quote:
It's total bull shite. I fully agree with you there. Unconstitutional? I have my doubts. If it was unconstitutional the Supreme Court would have put an end to it when a few cases were heard in the 90s. It's still going on, stronger than ever!
The person is being deprived of the property, not only without due process, but without any process at all.
The Supreme Court isn't infallible. They're just (for all practical purposes) the last word.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:16 pm to O
Eh the Supreme Court routinely takes a while to get it right.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:17 pm to OGtigerfan73
quote:
It is he most cut and dry topic I have ever read about.
Is it? The existence of gravity is the most cut and dry topic I have ever read about. If it was so cut and dry it would not continue happening. We wouldn't continue reading insane stories involving people losing tens of thousands of dollars.
My favorite is the story about the kid who lost his college savings due to civil asset forfeiture and thirteen police departments fought over who got the money.
LINK
Edit: I failed to mention that he is the son of a disabled veteran.
LINK
This post was edited on 11/17/15 at 9:19 pm
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:18 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
There's a politician trying to do this in Oklahoma but the pro police crowd says that if you do that then you support drug dealers and the Mexican mafia.
This is just criminal and stupid. They do know that they can temporarily confiscate and freeze their assets, right? No need to steal it. Civil Forfeiture is total bullshite and makes the property to have to defend itself, not the other way around. It is pure insanity and just makes the police into the mafia.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:20 pm to OMLandshark
While I'm at it, here is an article about a new $4.1 MILLION law enforcement training facility funded through civil asset forfeiture.
LINK
quote:
The sign outside a new, $4.1 million law enforcement training facility in Richland, Mississippi, reads, "Richland Police Station tearfully donated by drug dealers." As Watchdog.org reported on Monday, it's a proud declaration of the fact that funding for the building, as well as for a new fleet of Dodge Charger police cruisers, came entirely from a civil asset forfeiture program used by police in this town of about 7,000 people.
LINK
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:22 pm to CherryGarciaMan
quote:
Amendment Numero Cuatro
Actually, no, Civil Forfeiture is not covered under the 4th Amendment. The case is made against the property, you know, an inanimate fricking object, not against the defendant. The defendent doesn't have to be charged with a crime, just that the cops suspect he MAY be involved in a crime. They need to charge the person first with a crime, then they can freeze his assets and confiscate the property they suspect was acquired under illegal dealings. If he's convicted, then I don't have much a problem with the government seizing the property, but this isn't the case at all. They just fricking steal it and divide among themselves pretty instantly. It's fricking theft.
Please watch this if you doubt me: LINK
This post was edited on 11/17/15 at 9:25 pm
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:24 pm to stout
quote:
Then by 2014, that number had ballooned to roughly $4.5 billion for the year, making this 35% of the entire number of assets collected from 1989 to 2010 in a single year. According to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals.
quote:
In 2008, there were less than $1.5 billion in the combined asset forfeiture funds of the two agencies. By 2014, that number had tripled, to roughly $4.5 billion. A Justice Department spokesman pointed out that big cases, like the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment and a $1.2 billion case associated with Toyota, have led to large deposits to forfeiture funds in a single year. The total figures above show the size of the funds after deposits and expenditures are accounted for. "In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money—with a portion going back to victims—thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the report found.
This is from a link that your link has as a reference. Not saying that forfeitures are right but that's a big reason why its so damn high. Doesn't look as bad after taking that into consideration.
This post was edited on 11/17/15 at 9:28 pm
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:28 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
This is from a link that your link has as a reference. Not saying that forfeitures are right but that's a bog reason why its so damn high. Doesn't look as bad after taking that into consideration.
From John Oliver's link, he has the stat that out of 2.5 billion dollars seized, none of the 63,000 people were charged with a crime. Please tell me how you can possibly justify this. Why should it be acceptable for a government to steal 2.5 billion dollars from its people without being charged with a crime. I'll wait.
This post was edited on 11/17/15 at 9:29 pm
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:36 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
From John Oliver's link, he has the stat that out of 2.5 billion dollars seized, none of the 63,000 people were charged with a crime. Please tell me how you can possibly justify this. Why should it be acceptable for a government to steal 2.5 billion dollars from its people without being charged with a crime. I'll wait
quote:
Not saying that forfeitures are right but that's a big reason why its so damn high
And who is John Oliver? Is he the liberal british comedian? It clearly says in the link that site stout got as a source for the 4.5 billion in forfeitures that 2.9 billion of it was from 2 cases. 4.5 billion minus 2.9 billion is 1.6 billion. So that 2.5 billion in forfeitures is coming from 2014? Because that would be a load of horse sh*t if it were. Like I said, I'm not for it, but at least get the facts right.
ETA: He says since 9/11, so that's 178,000,000 a year which is a lot. And 63,000 people putting into 2.5 billion would come out to around a 40,000 average per person. How the hell does that even happen?
This post was edited on 11/17/15 at 9:54 pm
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:39 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
how else are they going to pay for all the bullets to shoot those dogs?
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:50 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
And who is John Oliver?
Well hell, if a comedian said it then you know its 100% accurate and true.
Also, you have to take into account that many civil forfeitures are agreed upon by the defendant in lieu of charges or as plea deals.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:51 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:53 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
And who is John Oliver? Is he the liberal british comedian?
OK, so I'm talking to a simpleton here who simply shoots the messenger. Oliver always gets his facts right, but I do often disagree with him on how we should implement the said facts.
Like for instance, he did the Syrian refugee crisis a few weeks ago, and mentioned Europe needs them due to their declined birth rate and the fact that some of them seem like good people. I'm sure those people are good people, but his report didn't acknowledge the fact that they aren't all good people and the fact that these people come from a radically different culture whose birthrate could likely destroy European culture in the long run.
That said, please defend 2.5 billion being taken from 63,000 people who weren't convicted of a crime? That's a pretty blatant fact that you haven't acknowledged.
quote:
It clearly says in the link that site stout got as a source for the 4.5 billion in forfeitures that 2.9 billion of it was from 2 cases. 4.5 billion minus 2.9 billion is 1.6 billion. So that 2.5 billion in forfeitures is coming from 2014? Because that would be a load of horse sh*t if it were. Like I said, I'm not for it, but at least get the facts right.
Well, that's from last year's civil forfeiture, so as the OP says, it has only gotten worse. He's got the facts right, but you're just dismissing the facts because he's a liberal. This is just plain stupidity. Hell, the Mizzou protesters, I agree we should be less racist. The problem is they demand impossible bullshite and shut down the opposing sides' viewpoint. I like to listen to the opposing side since it gives me a bit more perspective on something my viewpoint would have never thought of. But anyone who shares a different opinion from yourself when looking at facts that can't be contested must be a liberal idiot. Just a simpleton's mindset, like most of the SJW's points.
This post was edited on 11/17/15 at 9:53 pm
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:54 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
Oliver references a September report from The Washington Post, which states that, since 9/11, police have seized $2.5 billion in 61,998 cash seizures from people "who were not charged with a crime." "Under civil forfeiture laws, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent," says Scott Bullock, senior attorney for Institute for Justice. And to illustrate the insanity of having a government square off against a piece of property, Oliver then cites genuine cases such as "United States of America vs. an Article. . . Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls. .
This post was edited on 11/17/15 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 11/17/15 at 9:58 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:
How about you watch the actual link first
Because I had no idea what link he was talking about, because I wasn't responding to that post. But I watched it and 63,000 people getting robbed of 2.5 billion dollars come our to about 40,000 a person. That's a lot more than the $2,400 that guy got ripped off in Nevada. How does a cop take $40,000 per person and nobody asks any questions? And they can't afford lawyers? I guess not after getting 40,000 stolen from them.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:00 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
How does a cop take $40,000 per person and nobody asks any questions? And they can't afford lawyers? I guess not after getting 40,000 stolen from them.
I added some quotes. This is literally people asking questions.
And you watched the entire video? Feel free to read the Washington Post article too.
This post was edited on 11/17/15 at 10:02 pm
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:01 pm to O
You're being dense. Those assets are a persons property and the constitution directly addresses protection of that.
You're basically presupposing for us that civil asset forfeiture is not addressed point blank in the 4th amendment and then asking us to find it elsewhere. Durrr
You're basically presupposing for us that civil asset forfeiture is not addressed point blank in the 4th amendment and then asking us to find it elsewhere. Durrr
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:06 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:No but things like "innocent until proven guilty" and "no unnecessary search and seizures" are pretty cut and dry. In other words, if the state wants something, they better prove they deserve it.
Civil Asset Forfeiture isn't as cut and dried as people want to make it out to be.
This post was edited on 11/17/15 at 10:09 pm
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:07 pm to Swoopin
quote:
You're being dense. Those assets are a persons property and the constitution directly addresses protection of that.
You're basically presupposing for us that civil asset forfeiture is not addressed point blank in the 4th amendment and then asking us to find it elsewhere. Durrr
Civil Forfeiture is pretty damn recent. The cops may have found some sort of loop hole, but there's no way the Founding Fathers had this in mind with the 4th Amendment. And I don't see it on there. The trial is against the property itself, not the person who owned it, and it is "guilty until proven innocent" which I can fricking assure you that they didn't want that. Civil Forfeiture is bullshite.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News