Welcome to PatsFans.com

Proven guilty

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Oct 25, 2009.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,922
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12

    Article about seizures of property without a trial based upon suspicion of property being a result of illegal activity. This has always bothered me, but you don't see much note of it in the press. Now there is a case going to the USSC. Hopefully this is stopped:

    Paul Jacob : Proven guilty - Townhall.com




    The ACLU and CATO Institute (not too common being on the same side) are on the side of innocent until proven guilty, many state and local government have filed briefs supporting this practice.


    The people vs the government. Like the question asked by Sotomayor referenced in the article. Hopefully the court does the right thing here unlike Kelo...
     
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,181
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +290 / 12 / -10

    It's an interesting issue. We often read of this type of thing happening to drug dealers. Are there other groups who are more sympathetic that are victims of this injustice? I think one of the challenges for the Supreme Court will be to find a ruling that does not allow every single person who was a victim of this type of injustice to sue.
     
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,358
    Likes Received:
    203
    Ratings:
    +717 / 2 / -9

    Look what the President Of The USA is trying to do to one of America's News Service's (FOX)
     
  4. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    If its still based on the preponderance of the evidence, like other civil actions, I'm ok with it.

    Beyond a reasonable doubt is for locking people up or branding them as felons for life.
     
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,922
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12

    So if a cop thinks you look like a drug dealer and you are driving a Porsche and have 20K it's ok for them to seize the cash and car even if you are never convicted or even charged????


    WOW.
     
  6. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    WOW is right there captain Strawman.

    Since when does a cop's word automatically provide the preponderance of the evidence?
     
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,969
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +424 / 12 / -26

    A less hysterical source, with no t-shirt ads or editorializing... pretty confident that this will be overturned...

    Grant Write-Up: Alvarez v. Smith | SCOTUSblog

     
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,181
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +290 / 12 / -10

    I agree it's an injustice, but I know the Supremes consider practical aspects of a case. There were a few FOI cases that were won or lost based on the the practical issue of whether the FBI had the resources to comply with requests for information, not whether or not the law required them to do so. But, I do agree that the law needs to be changed, but usually one is motivated to support or oppose something because of a sympathetic group or story. While I think the Supremes should outlaw these kinds of seizures, I don't have strong feelings on this issue because I have not read any stories that have personally resonated with me.
     
  9. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,553
    Likes Received:
    109
    Ratings:
    +304 / 38 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    No, No, NO, No.............................at least in federal law, I can't speak about Illonios, the home of everything corupt.

    As for federal seizures, they are all covered under CAFRA (Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act). If you are CONVICTED of selling drugs out of your car, then your car was used in the furtherance of the crime, THAT YOU WERE CONVICTED OF, and it can be siezed by the government. Now most times, the vehicle is not worth the storage costs, so they are rarely siezed. Now if you are CONVICTED of selling drugs out of your house, then your house can be indicted and will be "on trail" along with you. ALL REAL PROPERTY SEIZURES MUST GO THOURGH THE COURTS!!

    What most likely happend to these people is that the lent their cars to someone, and that person got arrested, then you have to come up with an "innocent owner" defense, and prove that you actually did not know that your buddy was going to sell drugs out of your car, house, etc...

    Asset forfieture is a real bonus and a real deterent (because if they could keep the money and stuff that they buy with their illegal proceeds, they would gladly do the jail time) in fighting crime. Plus the money, vehicles seized go right back into a seperate fund for LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY, and most undercover cars were seized from criminals. Asset forfeiture is a very good thing as it deters crime, and keeps the costs of fighting crime down.
     
  10. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    It's a real bonus, alright.

    Since when is it OK (I know "since when" - right about the time the bogus "War on Drugs" began) for a government agency to fund itself using any other means than the public funds made available by the civilian government and allocated as the People see as appropriate?

    Now the cops can just obtain warrants, take people's stuff and hold it while "due process" is conducted through the courts? Why should that be an option? So someone's house could be held up in a civil action even after the victim of the police has been cleared of any wrong-doing. You think that's OK? Why the hell should anyone's property be out of their control for their use as they see fit?

    What makes you say it is a deterrent? Do you have any links to any studies supporting that claim?
     
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,969
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +424 / 12 / -26

    What most likely happened is a very low standard of evidence... in reality you do not know, but think this happened..
     
  12. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    One shouldn't think of this sort of money as a bonus. Whatever money the cops end up with by way of asset forfeiture is just money the state/feds don't have to provide out of their general funds.

    Its just the same as the BS the Mass lottery trots out about how the proceeds go to local schools. Sure that's where the state puts the money; but when I was a kid the lottery was a tiny fraction of what it is today and the schools still got money. So every lottery dime that comes in today frees up regular tax money for some stupid idea the legislature has come up with, rather than what people want it spent on, which is educating kids.

    Even still I know I don't want drug dealers to benefit from dealing drugs. I just wish there was a legit way to take stuff from them without giving it to the politicians.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>