- Joined
- Jul 9, 2018
- Messages
- 6,976
- Reaction score
- 2,672
- Location
- Boston Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Having money or property stolen from you is not a cost, it’s just theft.
Don't break the law.
Having money or property stolen from you is not a cost, it’s just theft.
So criminals should be allowed to profit from their crime so long as they convert it into property?
Don't break the law.
don't break the law
Who was charged with a crime?
don't break the law
Many times people who have their property taken are found not guilty or the charges dropped.
I think we can all agree a person should be found guilty before their property is taken, or what?
Who was charged with a crime?
Reagan was the first person since the 30s to use this crap, and I didn't hear any right wingers complain about that.
Reagan was the first person since the 30s to use this crap, and I didn't hear any right wingers complain about that.
The Cops Took This Guy’s $15,000 Jeep Because His Girlfriend Allegedly Used It for a $25 Marijuana Sale – Reason.com
Guess who had a big part in creating awful laws like these?
Some other links about Joe:
Civil libertarians have a beef with Joe Biden over asset forfeiture
Joe Biden: Father of the Drug War's Asset Forfeiture Program | Mises Wire
Let's not forget the Blow part of the ticket. Yes, Copmala luvs civil forfeiture even more than Joe:
and
Remember progressives, stick to your principles and don't forget to vote Joe/Blow!
Meanwhile:
https://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/trump-signs-collins-irs-civil-asset-forfeiture-bill/
This will be an easy case for the defendant to win since the Supreme Court recently (February 2019) incorporated the Eighth Amendment and applied it to the States in Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019). It only took them 152 years, but they finally got around to it.
All the anti-drug laws that seize large amounts of property for any quantity of illegal drug discovered are now history. States are now prevented from imposing excessive fines, which includes seizing property for drug violations.
Not to excuse Biden's repulsive position on this issue, but that bill Trump signed only prevents the IRS from leveraging civil asset forfeiture against suspected tax fraud on money that was not acquired illegally. It does virtually nothing toward removing its harmful effects overall. And let's not forget that Jeff Sessions expanded civil asset forfeiture every time he turned around and Trump said and did nothing. They're both CAF champions and it's despicable.
Don't pass stupid laws.Don't break the law.
Then the police use the victim's money to fund the department.
Not to excuse Biden's repulsive position on this issue, but that bill Trump signed only prevents the IRS from leveraging civil asset forfeiture against suspected tax fraud on money that was not acquired illegally. It does virtually nothing toward removing its harmful effects overall. And let's not forget that Jeff Sessions expanded civil asset forfeiture every time he turned around and Trump said and did nothing. They're both CAF champions and it's despicable.
Good idea only if the state first proves in court that the assets were acquired via criminal means. Otherwise it's guilty until proven innocent. As it stands they can just take on suspicion alone, and the people have to spend money (which they may no longer have now) trying to prove it's legitimate. That's a travesty of justice and the American way. And no, I'm more of a de-militarize the police kind of guy, but thanks for asking!Good idea. Are you a defund the police guy?
Good idea only if the state first proves in court that the assets were acquired via criminal means. Otherwise it's guilty until proven innocent. As it stands they can just take on suspicion alone, and the people have to spend money (which they may no longer have now) trying to prove it's legitimate. That's a travesty of justice and the American way. And no, I'm more of a de-militarize the police kind of guy, but thanks for asking!
The ACLU is not a good source, since they don't deal with Eighth Amendment issues. They also claim that the Supreme Court did not claim that the Timbs' rights were violated, which isn't true since the Supreme Court overturned Indiana's case with their opinion. By overturning the Indiana decision they are in fact stating that Timbs' Eighth Amendment rights were violated.After reading various opinions regarding that case, I'm not as optimistic as you are. Here's a couple of them:
So while the court said that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to Timbs’ civil asset forfeiture case, it didn’t say that Timbs’ forfeiture case violates the Excessive Fines Clause.