Civil Forfieture. WTF.

Reactions
2,757 795 25
#73
I just find it more surprising that they don't just increase the amount of seizures to make up for the shortfall.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
1,126 213 0
#74
I just find it more surprising that they don't just increase the amount of seizures to make up for the shortfall.

--Patrick
The article mentioned that many states have more restrictive seizure rules than the fed, so in those states, cops push seizures through the federal system. This is because the fed would give 80% of the money back to the state. Slashing the federal seizure budget means that they can't afford to give money back to the state, so there's no reason to push seizures through the fed program any longer. Increasing fed seizures would just mean more work for state cops with no payoff.
 
Reactions
471 226 1
#75
An agency I once worked for confiscated $10 million in one drug bust. I guess all that cash will just sit in an evidence lockup from now on.
 
Reactions
954 71 2
#76
... and we're about to find out exactly which precincts have proper funding and which do not, not to mention the market value of all that excess military equipment they can no longer afford to main and use. Expect to see a huge uptick in grift as older officers no longer have a huge pool of money to mismanage all the way into their bank accounts and they start getting involved in organized crime (again).
 
Reactions
1,417 510 7
#77
You'd probably see less of that if you guys actually paid your civil servants enough to live in the cities they work in (not excusing them, I find it disgusting).

It shocks me that I make more money (even after exchange) than most NYC police and I don't live in NYC.
 
Reactions
892 353 14
#79
... and we're about to find out exactly which precincts have proper funding and which do not, not to mention the market value of all that excess military equipment they can no longer afford to main and use. Expect to see a huge uptick in grift as older officers no longer have a huge pool of money to mismanage all the way into their bank accounts and they start getting involved in organized crime (again).
There are better ways of dealing with corrupt or greedy police officers and politicians than "just give them enough of our money so they don't need to take bribes". Pay them enough for an, often dangerous, hard job, of course; supply them with materiel they need, clearly. Giving them left-overs from the army and access to an all-you-can-take buffet of criminals' property and so on is bonkers.
 
Reactions
954 71 2
#80
There are better ways of dealing with corrupt or greedy police officers and politicians than "just give them enough of our money so they don't need to take bribes". Pay them enough for an, often dangerous, hard job, of course; supply them with materiel they need, clearly. Giving them left-overs from the army and access to an all-you-can-take buffet of criminals' property and so on is bonkers.
You seem to be under the impression that I think it's bad they are losing all that funding. No, it's good because now we won't have full teams of fucking storm troopers marching down the streets to tear gas their neighbors all the fucking time because they just can't afford to. My point was that now we're going to see which departments have appropriate management and which ones had ones skimming off the top of that civil forfeiture money... but really, there is no "fair" amount of money we could pay these people to keep them out of grift. It's a crime of access and opportunity, cops get involved because it's easy and easy to get away with. Maybe it'll be a bit easier to track with body cameras but I'm exactly hopeful.
 
Reactions
892 353 14
#81
I didn't and don't think you think so. It's not because I continue on from something you said, that I disagree with it.

There is a fair amount of money we can pay to keep good cops out of grift: a living wage. Abuse of power, be it police, military, clergy, village notable, parent, or whatever, by someone in power and authority, "because they can get away with it" is one of the best ways to get me mad in a hurry. I don't care what bad excuses they come up with, a police officer accepting a bribe is almost at the same level of "betraying trust placed" as a priest abusing a choirboy. No sympathy at all.

(plenty of sympathy for good cops having to deal with bad situations and overworked underpaid people making mistakes and all that.)
 
Reactions
1,180 122 0
#82
The North Carolina Supreme Court has issues as ruling in Kirby v. North Carolina Dep't of Transportation. The issue was over "The Map Act" which allowed the government to designate private land for future highway use and block any development of that land. The court found that "[t]hese restraints, coupled with their indefinite nature, constitute a taking of plaintiffs’ elemental property rights by eminent domain." The insidious aspect of this law, if it had stood, was to allow the government to devalue the land before purchase. This is not speculation since "the DOT's counsel conceded that one of the express purposes of the Act was to keep the eventual acquisition price of the designated properties low." (inversecondemnation)
 
Reactions
2,757 795 25
#83
I'd like to know how that act stood in the first place.
Doesn't matter whether you intend to take it now or later, taking is still taking.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
2,757 795 25
#86
I'm all for rule changes that bring laws closer to making sense.
When a police department or legislature is revealed as being corrupt, you don't see folks come in and sell off the courthouse furnishings and department vehicles for being associated with a crime.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
1,371 611 31
#87
That seems good. I don't have a problem with civil forfeiture as long as the burden of proof rests with taking the asset.
 
Reactions
1,180 122 0
#88
Interesting case in the Red River area in Texas:

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has laid claim to up to 90,000 acres of private property in Texas. The boundary between Oklahoma and Texas in this region was defined in 1923 by the Supreme Court using the position of the Red River, with Texas territory ending at the average water level on the Southern bank and Oklahoma territory beginning at the medial line of the river. The "thin strip of sand" between the two boundaries was considered federal land. The BLM contends that even though the river has changed position since 1923, the Texas boundary did not move with it. They appear to believe that the Oklahoma boarder is set by the current position of the river. Seven landowners have brought suit against the government claiming that there is no precedent for this interpretation of the boundary (which the BLM did not adopt until 2008.) (Law360, TribTalk)
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,571 1,194 23
#89
Rivers change all the time. This is bullshit. I hope the land owners win based on this slight information.

And did anyone else have to stop and think for a second about why the Black Lives Matter interest group had anything to do with this?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,630 1,619 31
#90
Rivers change all the time. This is bullshit. I hope the land owners win based on this slight information.

And did anyone else have to stop and think for a second about why the Black Lives Matter interest group had anything to do with this?
Unfortunately I did not, because Imgur's been hee-hawing about "BLM? What's wrong with the bureau of land management" jokes for the past week.
 
Reactions
471 226 1
#91
Rivers change all the time. This is bullshit. I hope the land owners win based on this slight information.

And did anyone else have to stop and think for a second about why the Black Lives Matter interest group had anything to do with this?
No with the Bundy stand offs, I think Bureau of Land Management when there is rioting.
 

Necronic

Staff member
Reactions
104 0 0
#95
I mean is anyone actually surprised that Trump is pro civil forfeiture?
 
Reactions
1,126 213 0
#98
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14830278/civil-forfeiture-supreme-court

Right now, the police can legally take your stuff even if you haven’t committed a crime — through what’s widely known as “civil asset forfeiture.”
On Monday, the conservative Justice Clarence Thomas made it clear he is very skeptical that this practice is constitutional. While he ultimately denied a petition that would bring a case about civil forfeiture to the Court, he did so on a technicality — adding that modern civil forfeiture practices are very questionable.
 
Reactions
1,180 122 0
#99
Interesting ruling from the Supreme Court striking down Colorado's practice of keeping court costs and fines taken from defendants who have their guilty verdicts overturned:

“Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. (New York Times)
 
Reactions
2,757 795 25
I think he's secretly in contact with Scalia's ghost or some shit.
Or else he's being manipulated by a so-called medium with her own agendum who's stringing him along, like he's the subject of some 20's-era comedy hijinks.

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
Reactions
299 37 13
I think he's secretly in contact with Scalia's ghost or some shit.
Ya but Alito voted for the overturning (was on the "correct" side according to all of us) as well, and he's generally been portrayed as mini-Scalia, so that isn't it either.

That original law is just insanity.
 
Top