Liberty President Trump's thoughts on civil asset forfeiture reform

[CPUd]

TN already has these laws. If you get stopped and they find a large amount of money, they will take it.

 

[dannno]

No, it should be completely and entirely banned. Civil Forfeiture is a guilty until proven innocent scheme. They basically assert that your car, money, antique painting, cat food bowl etc was involved in a crime and won't give it back unless you prove it wasn't.

Some states have banned it, which doesn't mean they have banned the government from taking stuff. They just require you to actually be convicted before they take it (criminal asset forfeiture).

Ya, you're probably right, but was civil asset forfeiture meant to hold onto the property until conviction in which case criminal asset forfeiture occurs? It seems like that loop got broken at some point..

 

[phill4paul]

Ya, you're probably right, but was civil asset forfeiture meant to hold onto the property until conviction in which case criminal asset forfeiture occurs? It seems like that loop got broken at some point..

I would imagine it originally started as forfeited assets kept in escrow until conviction. It doesn't matter. It's wrong to rob an individual of his wealth to the point they have to forego paying for their own defense attorneys and accept those provided by the very entity taking them to court.

 

[jkr]

treasonous traitors gonna treasonous trait...

i am done with this asshat

 

[juleswin]

Even Trump supporters know better than to back him on this one on the RPF's.

But Danno is yet to give his opinion on the issue so all bets are off.

 

[dannno]

But Danno is yet to give his opinion on the issue so all bets are off.

Wrong as always...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...iture-reform&p=6413133&viewfull=1#post6413133

 

[William Tell]

Ya, you're probably right, but was civil asset forfeiture meant to hold onto the property until conviction in which case criminal asset forfeiture occurs? It seems like that loop got broken at some point..

I don't know the origin of it but they can hold onto stuff as evidence or whatever until there's a trial anyway. They confiscate billions worth every year now through CAF and in many cases there are no trials.

 

[LibertyInJeopardy]

This is a very good example of the $#@!ty side of Trump. He is a major "law and order" type of guy that believes in crap like stop and frisk and asset forfeiture. Not much of an expert on the Constitution.

You mean "orders are law" type guy.

"Hand over your property" being the order in this case. Why? Because it's an order from gov authority...So law.

 

[juleswin]

Hmm, there might be some justifiable reason for it in a small minority of cases, if so I'm guessing probably less than 1% of the cases.

Most of the time they are stealing property from drug dealers, they figure they made the money to buy the property by dealing drugs. That's bad enough from a liberty perspective, but next thing you know, they find a half gram of herb under some guy's car seat and they steal his $20k car, because clearly he bought a $20k car by driving around selling weed in $10 increments.. Or they find $1500 in cash and they steal it because they thought they were drug dealers or something and they never prosecute them for a crime and keep the money. These are the really egregious cases, but even stealing from a drug dealer is wrong.

The brainwashing is 100% complete. You have finally left the realm of liberty and is now seated at the right hand of Mr. Authoritarian. Civil asset forfeiture is not even good in any case, I know I always say there is an exception to every rule but I think this is the exception to the "there is an exception to every rule" rule. If the govt truly believes an asset was ill gotten then they should try said person in court and prove their case before taking said property. As it stands now, they just seize the property and don't even bother going for a conviction. Because what they are really going after is the property not preventing crime.

I thought you hit rock bottom months ago but you continue to surprise me. For shame

 

[dannno]

The brainwashing is 100% complete. You have finally left the realm of liberty and is now seated at the right hand of Mr. Authoritarian. Civil asset forfeiture is not even good in any case, I know I always say there is an exception to every rule but I think this is the exception to the "there is an exception to every rule" rule. If the govt truly believes an asset was ill gotten then they should try said person in court and prove their case before taking said property. As it stands now, they just seize the property and don't even bother going for a conviction. Because what they are really going after is the property not preventing crime.

I thought you hit rock bottom months ago but you continue to surprise me. For shame

Why don't turn the crazy thoughts off in your brain for a moment and actually read my post?

 

[klamath]

Unfortunately I have seen the ugly underbelly of this. I used to belong to a SAR team tightly associated with the local SO. Being from a small poor county we always struggled to get equipment. We were in need of an ATV and we were brainstorming how to get one. One of the deputies spoke up that he knew where there was one exactly like the one we needed. It was owned by a private person and was on their property. He suggested he could check around for any pot plants and seize the ATV with asset forfeiture if they found a plant. Needless to say a lot of us were horrified. They could have gotten a lot out of Danno...

 

[dannno]

The brainwashing is 100% complete. You have finally left the realm of liberty and is now seated at the right hand of Mr. Authoritarian. Civil asset forfeiture is not even good in any case, I know I always say there is an exception to every rule but I think this is the exception to the "there is an exception to every rule" rule. If the govt truly believes an asset was ill gotten then they should try said person in court and prove their case before taking said property. As it stands now, they just seize the property and don't even bother going for a conviction. Because what they are really going after is the property not preventing crime.

I thought you hit rock bottom months ago but you continue to surprise me. For shame

If I were a mod I would consider banning you for outright lying and slander. You clutter up this forum with the most egregious bullshit sometimes.

The first thing I said was that it might be justifiable in less than 1% of the cases. In other words, it might not EVER be justified, and 99%+ of the cases are not justified, but it is POSSIBLE it could be justified in a few handful of cases. If somebody thinks something is justifiable less than 1% of the time, does that person agree with the policy if they honestly believe it is not justified 99% of the time? Of course not. So there is your first lie.

When I said it might be justifiable in a small number of cases, I mean, there might be a situation where say a criminal enterprise has a chop shop. The police verify they have chopped up hundreds of cars. They have a car lift. The police return the stolen cars and such to the owners they take the car lift and prosecute everybody. The prosecution occurs and they are convicted of chopping the cars, and the police auction off the car lift to a local car mechanic. Yes, they can't claim it as their property until after conviction, but they have to forfeit the lift at the time the arrests are made otherwise they can just sell it off during the trial.. it's also evidence.

That's just an example, and I don't claim to know enough about this, but if you think that is anti-liberty then whatever.. that is a separate issue anyway.. but nobody is going to complain about that if that is all it was used for, even the most ardent libertarians would be pretty happy if that was all it was ever used for.

But the fact that I spent the entire post railing against the fact that they use civil asset forfeiture against people who are innocent and simply carrying money, or have a half gram of herb on them is completely wrong - then also stated that it is wrong even in the cases where they are dealing drugs and bought the property with the proceeds.

So the entire post I said it was wrong, then you come in here and say I think it is right. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[opal]

and here's the tube for those like that me who don't twit

 

[Philmanoman]

Lmao
You sound like a stuck up little brat danno.
At least every post I've read by you has been how you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Step off your high horse for once,sheesh.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Hmm, there might be some justifiable reason for it in a small minority of cases, if so I'm guessing probably less than 1% of the cases.

Most of the time they are stealing property from drug dealers, they figure they made the money to buy the property by dealing drugs. That's bad enough from a liberty perspective, but next thing you know, they find a half gram of herb under some guy's car seat and they steal his $20k car, because clearly he bought a $20k car by driving around selling weed in $10 increments.. Or they find $1500 in cash and they steal it because they thought they were drug dealers or something and they never prosecute them for a crime and keep the money. These are the really egregious cases, but even stealing from a drug dealer is wrong.

Ya, you're probably right, but was civil asset forfeiture meant to hold onto the property until conviction in which case criminal asset forfeiture occurs? It seems like that loop got broken at some point..

Why all the hemming and hawing? Is this one of those issues where Stefan hasn't told you what to think yet?

 

[dannno]

Lmao
You sound like a stuck up little brat danno.
At least every post I've read by you has been how you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Step off your high horse for once,sheesh.

No, I'm not going to take this bullshit slander, I am choosing to defend myself. If you want to try and tell me this shit, why don't you do it on an issue where I might actually be wrong instead of one where I'm rightly defending myself?

I clearly said the policy was wrong. I said there MIGHT be a small handful of cases where it is justified (less than 1%), or their might be NO cases where it is justified. That doesn't fucking mean I support the policy..in fact it means the exact opposite.

There might be cases where the death penalty is justified too, but I'm against the policy of having a death penalty.. Ron Paul has the same view - death penalty could be justified in some cases, but the government doesn't deserve to have that privilege because government isn't a good enough entity to deserve it. Somebody made a comment whether civil asset forfeiture could ever be justified, and I said maybe it could be, but 99% or more of the time it is not - even when they use it to take proceeds and property bought with proceeds from drug dealers which is mostly what it's used for.

Then somebody had the gal to come in and say that I support it. Fucking bullshit, sorry, I don't stand for that shit.

 

[dannno]

Why all the hemming and hawing? Is this one of those issues where Stefan hasn't told you what to think yet?

What the fuck are you talking about??

Somebody asked a question and I answered it. In my answer, I made it clear that the policy of civil asset forfeiture is wrong. Maybe the policy could be changed, and maybe it could possibly be used in the less than 1% of cases where it might be justified. Nothing in that statement is there anything about supporting the current policy.

You anti-Trump people are some of the biggest bullshit artists in the world I swear to God.

 

[dannno]

Hmm, there might be some justifiable reason for it in a small minority of cases, if so I'm guessing probably less than 1% of the cases.

Most of the time they are stealing property from drug dealers, they figure they made the money to buy the property by dealing drugs. That's bad enough from a liberty perspective, but next thing you know, they find a half gram of herb under some guy's car seat and they steal his $20k car, because clearly he bought a $20k car by driving around selling weed in $10 increments.. Or they find $1500 in cash and they steal it because they thought they were drug dealers or something and they never prosecute them for a crime and keep the money. These are the really egregious cases, but even stealing from a drug dealer is wrong.

Raise your hand if you are dumb enough to think that the person who made the above statements agrees with our current policy of civil asset forfeiture.

 

[silverhandorder]

Danno is right and you are some sad mofos.

It's pretty clear he says he is against civil forfeiture. You need to be a moron or a lying prick to say otherwise.

 

[silverhandorder]

This is why we win and you all lose. You hallucinate strawmans left and right and lie.