Law Enforcement took more things from People than Burglars Did Last Year

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ce14928ba0

"That's the facts!"
-Sam the Keeper

[Admiral X]

And stuff like this is why I'm libertarian. Mostly.

[Karha of Honor]

But wee need to racialize this conversation to assure there won't be police reform just distracting race bs.

[clearspira]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ce14928ba0

"That's the facts!"
-Sam the Keeper

Seriously, I don't see the problem. Moral of this story: don't be a criminal and you won't lose your stuff.

[Worffan101]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ce14928ba0

"That's the facts!"
-Sam the Keeper

Seriously, I don't see the problem. Moral of this story: don't be a criminal and you won't lose your stuff.

You don't have to be a criminal to have the cops steal from you.

The way civil asset forfeiture works, the cops can just take what they like, say "well I thought that so-and-so might be thinking about using that to do something bad", and get it because the burden of proof is SIGNIFICANTLY lower in these cases than in actual criminal cases.

[Darth Wedgius]

Minor correction to the title -- the article is talking about 2014, not last year.

Or at least not one Earth year.

I wouldn't mind much stricter rules bout civil asset forfeiture.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I'm glad to hear that, Darth.

Slash, please engage with the actual thread topic instead of a conversation you fast-forwarded to in your head.

[Admiral X]

Yeah, the thing about this is that there is no due process, and that the police need only claim to suspect something to get away with it. This then effectively reverses the idea of innocent until proven guilty as those who have had their assets seized have to prove their innocence, and this isn't exactly a cheap process. Most never bother because of it, and honestly the agencies that do this count on that. They have plenty of incentive to do this because they get to keep most of what they seize.

[Worffan101]

Yeah, the thing about this is that there is no due process, and that the police need only claim to suspect something to get away with it. This then effectively reverses the idea of innocent until proven guilty as those who have had their assets seized have to prove their innocence, and this isn't exactly a cheap process. Most never bother because of it, and honestly the agencies that do this count on that. They have plenty of incentive to do this because they get to keep most of what they seize.

You're wrong on one point; the person whose assets have been seized doesn't have to prove their innocence. Only the assets themselves do.

Obviously, there is a lot of room for abuse here.