http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/07...obile_home

the GOP loving libertarians sure aren't gonna like this.

I strongly oppose civil forfeiture, even if originally crafted to go after drug dealers. To me that is not a political party issue, it is a rights issue.

(07-18-2017 09:25 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  I strongly oppose civil forfeiture, even if originally crafted to go after drug dealers. To me that is not a political party issue, it is a rights issue.

Agreed

(07-18-2017 09:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  the GOP loving libertarians sure aren't gonna like this.

F no we don't! This is highway robbery.

But I didnt hear a libturd one denounce this when Holder and Lynch seriously abused this. Not one. And there was serious abuses going on.

"No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime." So you guys disagree with that statement? I would agree that there is a huge potential for abuse here but on its face I agree with the above statement.

(07-18-2017 09:25 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  I strongly oppose civil forfeiture, even if originally crafted to go after drug dealers. To me that is not a political party issue, it is a rights issue.

Agree 100%. There's a lot I don't like about Trump and his administration, and this is one of those things.

(07-18-2017 09:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  But I didnt hear a libturd one denounce this when Holder and Lynch seriously abused this. Not one. And there was serious abuses going on.

Yes, where was all the liberal opposition back then? Or do they oppose it only when so-called conservatives do it?

There is nothing conservative about this policy, by the way.

I've been against Civil Forfeiture since I learned about the practice back in 2014. Prior to that, I was wasn't aware / was ignorant to the issue.

Criminals shouldn't be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime, but this practice is being severely abused. In many cases, people can lose their property without being charged or convicted of a crime. For example, if my son used my car without my permission or my consent to make a drug deal, my car can be seized as civil forfeiture. It puts the burden of proof on the accused, rather than the government... I don't like that.

It really just seems like a way local police forces can add a bit of a cash infusion into their budgets, or to get them some fancy new piece of equipment.

(07-18-2017 09:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:25 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  I strongly oppose civil forfeiture, even if originally crafted to go after drug dealers. To me that is not a political party issue, it is a rights issue.

Agree 100%. There's a lot I don't like about Trump and his administration, and this is one of those things.

(07-18-2017 09:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  But I didnt hear a libturd one denounce this when Holder and Lynch seriously abused this. Not one. And there was serious abuses going on.

Yes, where was all the liberal opposition back then? Or do they oppose it only when so-called conservatives do it?

There is nothing conservative about this policy, by the way.

Yep. And I have been very vocal about some of the shenanigans they pull. For instance, I have stated that under no circumstance should the government be allowed to offer a settlement. Al too often they will confiscate $500,000 in cash, and then tell the victim that they'll offer to give back half and will drop all charges. No way that should be allowed.

I'm with Jeff on this one.

These laws are invaluable.

(07-18-2017 09:48 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  "No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime." So you guys disagree with that statement? I would agree that there is a huge potential for abuse here but on its face I agree with the above statement.

You don't have to be convicted or even charged for them to keep your money, just the suspicion. Still agree?

(07-18-2017 10:06 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm with Jeff on this one.

These laws are invaluable.

Well, you do love authoritarianism.

(07-18-2017 09:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  But I didnt hear a libturd one denounce this when Holder and Lynch seriously abused this. Not one. And there was serious abuses going on.

you are high off your ass if you believe that statement. I am just as against this as anyone else on this forum.

proposals to abolish it have found dem cosponsers in congress. blue states are just as likely as red states to have curbed it. heck of the only 17 states that require clear and convincing proof for it, VT, CT, NY, and CA are among those states.

CT literally just banned it a week ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/institutefo...7eccba52e7

eric holder actually curbed its use

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fede...rfeitures/

Democrats by a margin of +10 are more opposed to it than Republicans.

https://www.cato.org/blog/84-americans-o...forfeiture

like I said. High off your ass.

(07-18-2017 09:40 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  the GOP loving libertarians sure aren't gonna like this.

F no we don't! This is highway robbery.

literally. even those who think they realize how abused the practice is don't realize just how corrupt the whole thing is.

It's one of the few areas of Big L libertarian thought I don't fall in line with.

I do not like that civil forfeiture laws can be abused and there needs to be some checks and balances inserted. However, I am all for sweeping the decks of ill-gotten gains or property used in the commission of certain classifications of clearly defined crimes to the benefit of taxpayers.

I'd prefer the funds not be limited to use in LEO agency slush funds and go to direct costs involved in the investigation and policing of that individual crime with the rest going to victims rights, etc.

(07-18-2017 09:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:25 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  I strongly oppose civil forfeiture, even if originally crafted to go after drug dealers. To me that is not a political party issue, it is a rights issue.

Agree 100%. There's a lot I don't like about Trump and his administration, and this is one of those things.

(07-18-2017 09:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  But I didnt hear a libturd one denounce this when Holder and Lynch seriously abused this. Not one. And there was serious abuses going on.

Yes, where was all the liberal opposition back then? Or do they oppose it only when so-called conservatives do it?

There is nothing conservative about this policy, by the way.

I would argue it is perfectly in-line with conservative ideology. It's a "tough on crime, police can do no evil, let's look the other way on civil rights, and I don't care about the rights of criminals" issue. all of which are conservative positions.

(07-18-2017 09:25 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  I strongly oppose civil forfeiture, even if originally crafted to go after drug dealers. To me that is not a political party issue, it is a rights issue.

I also agree.

The Democrats liked this very much. Take a person's money and then use the resources of the government to crush them.

Charge a crime before confiscating. Convict and keep it. Lose, give it back. Jury trials only.

More theft by the government than law enforcement going on.

Quote:Joseph Rivers was hoping to hit it big. According to the Albuquerque Journal, the aspiring businessman from just outside of Detroit had pulled together $16,000 in seed money to fulfill a lifetime dream of starting a music video company. Last month, Rivers took the first step in that voyage, saying goodbye to the family and friends who had supported him at home and boarding an Amtrak train headed for Los Angeles.

He never made it. From the Albuquerque Journal:

A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why. When Rivers replied that he was headed to LA to make a music video, the agent asked to search his bags. Rivers complied.

Quote:The agents found nothing in Rivers's belongings that indicated that he was involved with the drug trade: no drugs, no guns. They didn't arrest him or charge him with a crime. But they took his cash anyway, every last cent, under the authority of the Justice Department's civil asset forfeiture program.

This is wrong.