• 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

Charges were dropped and they still hold the guy's Jeep as ransom, or is the towing company keeping it until the towing and daily storage is paid?
 
Cops are thieves and murderers. Civil asset forfeiture just proves there's no such thing as a good cop, otherwise they would refuse to take innocent peoples property.
 
don't break the law
 
Is there another thread where the party of law and order complains about the law?
 
americanwoman said:
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?
Click to expand...

Depends on what the circumstances are. In this particular case, yeah, I agree. If you're caught in the commission of a crime, you don't need to be proven guilty if they've seen you do it, for your property to be taken. IMO.
 
Had a roomie, that got pulled over. The roach was jettisoned. They searched the car, and came up with ONE seed. They intended to impound and take the car, but they did a google of car worth, and it was a tad too cheap, so they did nothing.
 
The Republicans, have determined that you dont have a right to your possessions. They also, have determined that your property have no civil rights. It is your property that they have a problem with. So, no prob.
 
Reagan was the first person since the 30s to use this crap, and I didn't hear any right wingers complain about that.
 
Luce said:
Reagan was the first person since the 30s to use this crap, and I didn't hear any right wingers complain about that.
Click to expand...

I did. Reagan was one of the worst drug warriors we've ever had and everything he did regarding drugs was a direct contradiction of every anti-government statement he ever made.
 
Luce said:
Reagan was the first person since the 30s to use this crap, and I didn't hear any right wingers complain about that.
Click to expand...

He signed the bill, but it passed the Democrat controlled House 316-91, with 210 Democrats supporting it. It’s not a party thing, it’s a government thing.
 
aociswundumho said:
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/
Click to expand...

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.
 
Glitch said:
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.
Click to expand...

After reading various opinions regarding that case, I'm not as optimistic as you are. Here's a couple of them:

Timbs vs. Indiana Civil Forfeiture Case Won’t Have Much Impact > National Conference of State Legislatures

www.ncsl.org
www.aclu.org

The Supreme Court Didn’t Put the Nail in Civil Asset Forfeiture’s Coffin | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org
 
aociswundumho said:
Meanwhile:

https://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/trump-signs-collins-irs-civil-asset-forfeiture-bill/
Click to expand...
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.

dave8383 said:
Don't break the law.
Click to expand...
Don't pass stupid laws.

Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental aspect of our judicial system. But inanimate objects do not enjoy the Constitutional protections that citizens do. So what do they do? Absolute insanity like this:

United States vs. $8,850
United States vs. $100,120
United States vs. $63,530
United States vs. $17,900

They bring criminal charges against the money, not the person. The money is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Then it's up to the owner to prove that the money is innocent (i.e. was not acquired via criminal means). Which often costs more in legal fees than the original amount, so many legitimately innocent victims simply cut their losses and give up. Then the police use the victim's money to fund the department.
 
Last edited:
Binary_Digit said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're right.

CAF shows that in the end, government isn't much more than a large criminal gang.
 
dave8383 said:
Good idea. Are you a defund the police guy?
Click to expand...
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!
 
Binary_Digit said:
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!
Click to expand...


You mean you don't want our police to become like the police in Mexico? You know, just take what they want, justice be damned? Can't imagine why?
 
aociswundumho said:
After reading various opinions regarding that case, I'm not as optimistic as you are. Here's a couple of them:

Timbs vs. Indiana Civil Forfeiture Case Won’t Have Much Impact > National Conference of State Legislatures

www.ncsl.org
www.aclu.org

The Supreme Court Didn’t Put the Nail in Civil Asset Forfeiture’s Coffin | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org
Click to expand...
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.

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.
Click to expand...

The next time any State seizes a vehicle or other property for a relatively minor offense they will find themselves justifying their seizure in the courts. That alone is huge, because prior to February 2019 the Eighth Amendment did not apply to the States. Now it does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom