Using asset forfeiture against MS-13 or the Winter Hill Gang - good or bad thing?

Asset forfeiture. LOL. What, with that and dumb cops I'm so glad I'm not American.

Oh, and no online poker. What's that all about? The land of the free. LOL

Did your account get hacked by someone sensible?

Given basic legal principles like equal protection, I don't think the question of whether or not a law is good should be answered based on who it is perceived that it will be used against. The question is about the abuses of the law, both potential and actual. The obvious and absurd problem with civil forfeiture in practice is that there's no requirement that the government ever prove a crime in order to justify keeping seized property.

Is the injustice less, or do I care less, when property is seized from people who probably really are involved in a bunch of crimes than when it's seized from people who are almost certainly not? Sure. But that's not a justification of the law. It doesn't excuse the outrageous abuses of the law which are fairly widely documented. There's a pretty good article by Conor Friedersdorf on civil forfeiture today which cites a number of conservative objections. I don't really think outrage at these abuses should be a polarizing issue.

Whoops, I dunno what came over me.

But seriously looking back at all my trips to America, it's a ****ing miracle I didn't get shot by some trigger-happy cop somewhere along the way.

You don't usually get shot, you usually get beaten up. Like British historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, beaten up by five fat hick cops in Atlanta GA in 2007 for... crossing the road. (Apparently he did it at the wrong place, or the wrong time, even though there wasn't any traffic, and they call that 'jaywalking' and it gives them total licence for five of them to pile on top of you and beat you to pulp.)

Or like my elderly aunt and uncle, beaten up by two fat hicks of the Missouri State Highway Patrol at the airport in St Louis MO for 'being heard speaking with British accents'. They were forcibly deported and had their passports stamped saying they could never enter the United States again. Which was odd, as they'd never entered the United States in the first place. They were changing planes at St Louis en route from Australia to England, they were still airside and had never passed immigration or legally entered the country. Fat hick US cops aren't bothered about that type legal nicety, though.

I think that a fair compromise is to reserve asset forfeiture to federal cases. I agree, that state and local usage gets abused, especially for petty crimes. I understand that some agencies get around these rules by turning the property over to the feds. I would then try to limit it to only felonies prosecuted by the DOJ. Should be enough to limit the abuses.

Really there needs to be a conviction before the property is taken.

That's not quite true. What about evidence?

More accurate, there should be a conviction if property is not going to be returned.

That said, I doubt gang members are good at keeping receipts proving ownership of their "goods".

Law enforcement says it's to reduce drug deals. Cash = drug deals, ldo. Apparently the cops use it to find their year end parties and stuff.

Kind of awful. Actually, it's just awful. Especially since I'm a cash guy.

Depends.

If there is some concept of "gang" property, confiscating that would probably be okay.

Confiscating property from someone not convicted of anything is bad IMO.

So to be clear you are against civil asset forfeiture?

Yeah, I agree that maybe you should be able to take stuff without a conviction (reasonable suspicious might be enough) but it should have to be returned in a reasonable amount of time if there is no conviction.

Uh oh, somebody's narrative is going to take a hit.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017...h_20170719_wwr

The New York Times details how the United States Army Corps of Engineers has begun preliminary preparations to begin construction of a wall along the border with Mexico. Last week, the House appropriations committee approved spending $1.6 billion to get started on building the wall. Homeland Security officials told the Times they plan to build four to eight prototypes to the existing border walls in San Diego to determine which barriers are “most effective in giving Border Patrol agents time to respond to illegal drugs and human smuggling.”

IMMEDIATELY!!!

Like I said, I think I'd limit this to Federal cases only. And tighten up the loopholes allowing local law enforcement to simply turn over property to the Feds. I'd be willing to entertain other creative ways to compensate those who are wrong by such a system.

It's been a while since I really thought about this and I'm hazy on some of the details on the existing constraints, so I wouldn't offer a concrete proposal without reminding myself of a bunch of stuff I've forgotten.

But, the above seems like a reasonable start. It would be easier to develop standard procedures and enforce them if it were federal only. While I agree that there are probably scenarios in which seizure prior to conviction (as part of an investigation) is reasonable, I think that it should be illegal to hold property indefinitely in the absence of a conviction on charges that somehow relate to the seized property. That just seems like the most obvious due process issue.

It seems clear that there are scenarios in which asset forfeiture is a reasonable law enforcement tactic for combating organized crime. The main problem is just a lack of real oversight leading to obvious abuses.

I was talking in context of asset forfeiture. the government should not permanently take the property without a conviction. Sure if there is evidence hold the evidence, if you have probable cause that the asset is subject to forfeiture then seize it but it should be returned if there is no conviction.

Without a conviction, yes.

And I think it has been totally abused and there was a hysteria where local law enforcement thought it was a good idea and then the states had to back the **** up. It's a pendulum.

And I'm not anti-Police (obviously ), but I do want law enforcement to stay out of our lives as much as they possibly can.

What a bunch of... um... oh... um... yeah.




Here's the kicker:

NOT EVEN CHARGED!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a73168bf2167

Keep holding onto the "immediately" line like that ship hasn't already sailed. Don the Con is counting on it.

Yeah, I disagree with it. It's nothing but blatant theft.

And it's dumb. But it is America, so there you go.

Great we are going to spend a bunch on the wall we don't need. It's a win...

Great we are going to spend a bunch on the wall we don't need. It's a win for waistful government spending to comfort fools

Thanks for linking, good read. It looks like both Rand Paul and some representative have already come out in opposition to this, hopefully more conservatives grow a spine on an issue that nearly everyone can agree on.