• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cops confiscate guy's $15,000 Jeep over a $25 marijuana sale

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
15,086
Reaction score
6,809
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Cops Took This Guy’s $15,000 Jeep Because His Girlfriend Allegedly Used It for a $25 Marijuana Sale – Reason.com

The Cops Took This Guy's $15,000 Jeep Because His Girlfriend Allegedly Used It for a $25 Marijuana Sale

Tucson handyman Kevin McBride was hard at work one Friday last May when his girlfriend offered to get him a cold drink from a convenience store. She took his Jeep, his sole means of transportation and the basis of his livelihood. Then the cops took his Jeep, and local prosecutors are now demanding a $1,900 ransom before he can get it back.

This sort of shakedown would be clearly felonious if ordinary criminals attempted it. But as McBride discovered, it is legal under Arizona's civil asset forfeiture law. The cops said McBride's girlfriend had used his Jeep to sell a small amount of marijuana to an undercover officer for $25. Although the charges against her were dropped, the Jeep is still being held as a party to that alleged offense, and McBride has to pay for the privilege of getting his property back.


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:

Harris was likewise a firm proponent of civil asset forfeiture, sponsoring a bill to allow prosecutors to seize profits before charges were even filed. Years before that, she opposed AB 639, a bill that aimed to reform asset forfeiture. The bill easily cleared the state assembly, but was soon scuttled by a united wall of opposition from law enforcement, with whom Harris was united.

The Two Faces of Kamala Harris

and

The bill comes a month after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sharply limited a civil asset forfeiture program that had come under bipartisan scrutiny. A number of ideologically opposed groups, including American Civil Liberties Union, The Institute for Justice and Americans for Tax Reform, have all criticized forfeiture programs, particularly when no criminal charges are filed.

The bill is being sponsored by Attorney General Kamala Harris, who has focused on battling transnational criminal organizations. Harris said those groups have made California the biggest point of entry for methamphetamine trafficking into the United States, adding that this bill could equip local and state law enforcement with tools to “dismantle these dangerous organizations.


Luis Alejo, Kamala Harris back asset seizure before criminal charges – Monterey Herald

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/
 
Biden and Harris want the government to be able to take everything you have for itself with no due process whatsoever - just take it. That doesn't surprise any of you, does it?

Still, I think it likely every or nearly every Democrat on this forum will vote that the government should be able take anything and everything they want to from legally defenseless poor and working people who can't afford to sue the government.
 
Biden and Harris want the government to be able to take everything you have for itself with no due process whatsoever - just take it. That doesn't surprise any of you, does it?

Still, I think it likely every or nearly every Democrat on this forum will vote that the government should be able take anything and everything they want to from legally defenseless poor and working people who can't afford to sue the government.

Well, technically they aren't taking it as their core belief is that government merely allows people to have things. Remember, you didn't build that. Government provided everything you needed to get where you are.
 
On the other hand, the law helped the Mueller investigation turn a profit.
 
Asset forfeiture laws are among the worst of legislation, and many states have already backtracked on the idea themselves.

That said, aging gaffe prone Biden is still a far better choice over Trump.
 
Civil asset forfeiture is not just an Arizona issue. Politicians from both parties seem perfectly fine stealing from people who haven’t done anything wrong. Do you support that activity?


As a good, honest, hard-working citizen, I support law enforcement. Don't you?
 
As a good, honest, hard-working citizen, I support law enforcement. Don't you?

My disdain for civil asset forfeiture has nothing to do with supporting law enforcement. I take it you support civil asset forfeiture as it currently exists?
 
My disdain for civil asset forfeiture has nothing to do with supporting law enforcement. I take it you support civil asset forfeiture as it currently exists?

How does it currently stand? The proceeds of crime are forfeit? Sounds OK.
 
How does it currently stand? The proceeds of crime are forfeit? Sounds OK.

You should read up on it. It’s a lot more than the proceeds of crime.

In this particular case, the woman committed the crime, so how is her boyfriend’s property forfeit?
 
Stupid. They should legalize Mary Jane. Better than addicting alcohol
 
My disdain for civil asset forfeiture has nothing to do with supporting law enforcement. I take it you support civil asset forfeiture as it currently exists?

Sometimes in an organized society unwanted and unexpected costs arise.
 
How does it currently stand? The proceeds of crime are forfeit? Sounds OK.

Jesus, no, that's not how it stands.



How it stands is that if the police announce that something is a proceed of a crime or say that it is in any way related to a crime, they just take it. There's a farce of a 'procedure'. So if they say a guy is a drug dealer, they take everything they can grab right off the bat. That then leaves the guy unable to hire a lawyer. He's then thrown into a public defense system which is intentionally and massively underfunded. And even those the defense lawyer might be great and really really care, he has hundreds of cases in a year. He's not going to be able to devote much time, maybe a couple hours. So the person gets convicted.



But politicians call it "the proceeds of the crime are forfeit" so people say what you do. But it's not what's happening.

Civil forfeiture is used as a fundraising scheme by police and they are not in any rational sense proving in court that a thing they seized was in fact the proceeds of crime.



Did you read the link? Someone's girlfriend borrowed their car. She then got busted selling a pittance of pot, which should be legal anyway. So they take the guy's car and refuse to give it back - it's not even hers - unless he pays $1,900 anyway.

Did they prove that that guy's car was bought with the girlfriend's pot proceeds? Did they prove he had even received one single dollar from her having sold pot? Of course not. She just happened to be in it. They saw a quick buck for the department and stole it. Now they're trying to ransom it.

That's ****ing extortion. But a politician says "we need this so criminals don't profit from crime!" and all that gets swept under the rug.





Read up on it. Civil forfeiture is an abomination.
 
Last edited:
Remember progressives, stick to your principles and don't forget to vote Joe/Blow!

Because Trump has ended civil forfeiture, Trumpist?

Because Trump has even lied about supporting an end to it, Trumpist?

Because Trump is against the War on Drugs, Trumpist?



Chances are the politicians you have regularly voted for want to expand legalized theft by police. Don't tell me about "principles."
 
How does it currently stand? The proceeds of crime are forfeit? Sounds OK.

And Manc, it gets even better!



Qualified immunity in layman's terms: unless a person with an IQ of 1 would understand that a specific action was described in detail and said to be completely wrong in a controlling decision, a cop cannot be sued for what they did.

Cop Who Allegedly Kneed a Subdued Suspect in the Eye ’20 to 30 Times’ Gets Qualified Immunity – Reason.com

(Kneeing a suspect in the eye 20-30 times; but there wasn't a case in the relevant jurisdiction saying that you can't knee someone in the eye 20-30 times. Sure, there was a case saying you cannot do a "knee drop" that fractures their face. (Gill v. Maciejewski). Sure, there was a decision saying you can't "hip toss" someone, then have two other cops beat them to death as they lay on the ground. (Krout v. Goemmer).

But there wasn't saying a decision saying you can't knee someone in the eye 20-30 times. So the cop cannot be sued. Unreasonable to expect him to know his behavior was unconstitutional.

All this stuff that sounds good on paper so that people will approve without even looking into it. It's a bad guy so who cares, next.



Oh yes, and using the dogs of people the police say are criminals for target practice:

Detroit Police Department Settles Another Dog Shooting Lawsuit After Video Contradicts Cop’s Account – Reason.com

Police conduct drug raid, blow away two dogs, lie about it. Only because it happened on camera could anything happen about it. Otherwise the cops would be protected by their lies (specifically, that the dogs attacked them).

In the video linked in the article. You can see one dog standing at the end of a hallway. Another comes out, looking like it wants to say hello. The cop blows it away. The cop wrote in his report that "he 'observed a black pit bull and a tan pit bull showing his teeth, charging, and attempting to bite crew.'"

Later, he wrote "a large black pitfall came charging at me down the hallway from the northwest bedroom. I fired two shots…neutralizing the threat. While still in the hallway, a second brown pit bull came charging down the hallway towards me."





These days I don't think Americans deserve their freedoms anymore, especially not the ones they think they have. I can excuse you for maybe not knowing a lot about civil forfeiture given that you live in England. But I'm telling you: there is such a massive web of laws and judicial precedents that protects police that they can get away with almost anything.

Our rights are a joke. Our laws are a disgrace. We've got some really scummy cops, and so many more that lie to cover-up for the really scummy ones.

Gotta kill someone by kneeling on their neck for a full three minutes after they fall unconscious on camera to get charged . . .
 
Last edited:
civil forfeiture laws should be banned nationwide. there's way too much potential for abuse.
 
On the other hand, the law helped the Mueller investigation turn a profit.

No it didn't nor is that the topic. The cost of the Mueller investigation was NOT just the cost of his team's salary as you and others like to claim.
 
civil forfeiture laws should be banned nationwide. there's way too much potential for abuse.

I 100% agree.

There should be a requirement that the burden of proof is on the government, that they must obtain a probable cause warrant first, must obtain a conviction, must prove ALL the money and/or property seized came from the crime/crimes of relevant to that conviction, and failing at any of that owe the person their money back, plus 10% interest, plus their attorney fees and costs of court.
 
Because Trump has ended civil forfeiture, Trumpist?

No, but he did sign a reform bill into into law, which was the last link in my post. Trump's no libertarian, in case you haven't noticed.

Because Trump has even lied about supporting an end to it, Trumpist?

As opposed to voting for the politician who created it? Or the corrupt cop who has consistently worked to stop any sort of reform?

Because Trump is against the War on Drugs, Trumpist?

He was at one time:

Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Google News Archive Search

That's a lot more than you can say Biden or Copmala. Biden co-wrote the disastrous 1994 crime bill, and Copmala put people in prison for weed (which she admitted to using). Imagine how many thousands of lives these two scumbags have ruined, and you have the balls to criticize Trump?
 
Jesus, no, that's not how it stands.



How it stands is that if the police announce that something is a proceed of a crime or say that it is in any way related to a crime, they just take it. There's a farce of a 'procedure'. So if they say a guy is a drug dealer, they take everything they can grab right off the bat. That then leaves the guy unable to hire a lawyer. He's then thrown into a public defense system which is intentionally and massively underfunded. And even those the defense lawyer might be great and really really care, he has hundreds of cases in a year. He's not going to be able to devote much time, maybe a couple hours. So the person gets convicted.



But politicians call it "the proceeds of the crime are forfeit" so people say what you do. But it's not what's happening.

Civil forfeiture is used as a fundraising scheme by police and they are not in any rational sense proving in court that a thing they seized was in fact the proceeds of crime.



Did you read the link? Someone's girlfriend borrowed their car. She then got busted selling a pittance of pot, which should be legal anyway. So they take the guy's car and refuse to give it back - it's not even hers - unless he pays $1,900 anyway.

Did they prove that that guy's car was bought with the girlfriend's pot proceeds? Did they prove he had even received one single dollar from her having sold pot? Of course not. She just happened to be in it. They saw a quick buck for the department and stole it. Now they're trying to ransom it.

That's ****ing extortion. But a politician says "we need this so criminals don't profit from crime!" and all that gets swept under the rug.





Read up on it. Civil forfeiture is an abomination.

Ok, you talked me into it: End Civil forfeiture.
 
I 100% agree.

There should be a requirement that the burden of proof is on the government, that they must obtain a probable cause warrant first, must obtain a conviction, must prove ALL the money and/or property seized came from the crime/crimes of relevant to that conviction, and failing at any of that owe the person their money back, plus 10% interest, plus their attorney fees and costs of court.

So criminals should be allowed to profit from their crime so long as they convert it into property?
 
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:

Trump signs Collins’ IRS civil asset forfeiture bill
- Gainesville Times


Looks like there are two ways around that. 1. Don't sell drugs. 2. Use a cheap used car and the cops won't take it.
 
So criminals should be allowed to profit from their crime so long as they convert it into property?

No, any confiscation of money or property should be determined through due process, not because a cop suspects you of committing a crime. Like Mr. Person said, civil asset forfeiture is being abused to raise money for the cops and local governments. It needs to stop.
 
Back
Top Bottom