[Winstonm]

On my way home today I was passed on the expressway by a white SUV (a Ford, I think) that had no markings other than police lights on the back interior window, but on the outside of the back window in large white letters was this sign:

This vehicle used to belong to a drug dealer but now it is ours!

Probably unsurprising to those of you who have read my W/C posts, this pissed me off greatly. Not only did it remind me of the forfeiture laws, which I consider grossly unfair and unconstitutional, but it rubbed all our faces in it by pointing out there isn't a damn thing we can do when government has been granted power to legally steal.

Am I the only one who finds these laws detestable? How can an object be guilty of a crime? And why is it that in forfeiture, the burden of proof is on the property owner to prove innocence?

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Apr 24 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

On my way home today I was passed on the expressway by a white SUV (a Ford, I think) that had no markings other than police lights on the back interior window, but on the outside of the back window in large white letters was this sign:

This vehicle used to belong to a drug dealer but now it is ours!

Probably unsurprising to those of you who have read my W/C posts, this pissed me off greatly. Not only did it remind me of the forfeiture laws, which I consider grossly unfair and unconstitutional, but it rubbed all our faces in it by pointing out there isn't a damn thing we can do when government has been granted power to legally steal.

Am I the only one who finds these laws detestable? How can an object be guilty of a crime? And why is it that in forfeiture, the burden of proof is on the property owner to prove innocence?

Let me be the first to agree with you wholeheartedly.

One of the most horrifying I remember is a woman who lost a challenge when she tried to get the family car back from a police department that seized it (I believe this was in Michigan) not even because it was being used in any ongoing criminal enterprise, but because her husband was busted picking up a hooker in it.

[jonottawa]

I find the concept of 'victimless crimes' detestable. I find most pigs/cops/police, who are lying xxxxxx (obscenities removed: ui) bullies, detestable. I find wingnut bravado detestable.

I think that pretty well covers it.

[Winstonm]

I am not anti-police. I am anti repressive laws. Simply carrying a large amount of cash - with no other hint of criminal wrongdoing - is sufficient to have the cash confiscated. And then the burden of proof is on the owner to show it was not to be used in a crime or earned in a crime.

[Winstonm]

I did a quick Google. There have been some minor changes to forfeiture laws but it is essentially the same as I remember.

Here is the first link that came up if anyone want further information: http://www.fear.org/

[rbforster]

I certainly agree with you on the numerous abuse of power and conflicts of interest problems raised the forfeiture drug laws.

Winstonm, on Apr 24 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

there isn't a damn thing we can do when government has been granted power to legally steal.

I'd say taxation comes to the same thing however, and you can do the same things about it - vote for people who support your view and/or bribe (err lobby) the lawmakers to change the laws to something you like better.

In the case of forfeiture, a few well publicized media cases about abuse of power and theft by police officials based on fabricated crimes might get the rules reconsidered a bit. Isn't it enough to throw people in jail for their crimes once they're convicted? Since when do we steal their stuff too?

[rbforster]

Winstonm, on Apr 24 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

This vehicle used to belong to a drug dealer but now it is ours!

Perhaps you need to buy one of these cars at a police auction and put your own sign in the window -

This vehicle was seized by the police without due process and sold to me for cheap!

[nickf]

jonottawa, on Apr 25 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

I find most pigs/cops/police, who are lying xxxxxx  bullies, detestable.

Can you clarify please? I found this ambiguous.

Are you inferring:

- most but not all police who lie, bully and practice oral sex on men are detestable?

OR

- all police lie, bully and practice oral sex on men but you only find most of them detestable?

And while you're answering, what exactly makes them detestable? Is it the lying? Is it the bullying? Or is it the oral sex on men bit?

nickf
sydney

[Winstonm]

Rob F, on Apr 25 2009, 01:45 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 24 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

This vehicle used to belong to a drug dealer but now it is ours!

Perhaps you need to buy one of these cars at a police auction and put your own sign in the window -

This vehicle was seized by the police without due process and sold to me for cheap!

This has a lot of merit. But then, after I'm pulled over in my new car with the new sign and the police impound and steal the car back, how will I get home?

[blackshoe]

Hitchhike.

[Lobowolf]

I just wanted to bump this thread lest I be said that I never agree with Winston.

I also like his thread on the nature of time.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 24 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

On my way home today I was passed on the expressway by a white SUV (a Ford, I think) that had no markings other than police lights on the back interior window, but on the outside of the back window in large white letters was this sign:

This vehicle used to belong to a drug dealer but now it is ours!

Probably unsurprising to those of you who have read my W/C posts, this pissed me off greatly.  Not only did it remind me of the forfeiture laws, which I consider grossly unfair and unconstitutional, but it rubbed all our faces in it by pointing out there isn't a damn thing we can do when government has been granted power to legally steal.

Am I the only one who finds these laws detestable?  How can an object be guilty of a crime?  And why is it that in forfeiture, the burden of proof is on the property owner to prove innocence?

OK, you may be very correct but pls explain what about these laws is unjust?

Winston I think you need to understand in a War, War on drugs people tend to use slogans/bravado often. If you hate War ok....I understand.

Yes I know about the taking clause in the constitution. I am not defending these forfeiture laws, just do not know much about them.

btw side note saw article that said the war on drugs is over, Washington has dropped the phrase.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on May 14 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

btw side note saw article that said the war on drugs is over, Washington has dropped the phrase.

Maybe so. Doesn't mean the Feds won't continue to do as they have been wrt drugs.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on May 14 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

mike777, on May 14 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

btw side note saw article that said the war on drugs is over, Washington has dropped the phrase.

Maybe so. Doesn't mean the Feds won't continue to do as they have been wrt drugs.

The article claimed no more war.......just treatment treament treament.....


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huff...t_b_203768.html




http://online.wsj.co...1527617397.html

[cherdanno]

I am sorry Winston. But I have to admit I feel a bit more sorry about my own car, which was stolen two days ago.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I am sorry Winston. But I have to admit I feel a bit more sorry about my own car, which was stolen two days ago.

That sucks. I hope the insurance won't make too much trouble and that you're mobile again soon!

[blackshoe]

mike777, on May 14 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

blackshoe, on May 14 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

mike777, on May 14 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

btw side note saw article that said the war on drugs is over, Washington has dropped the phrase.

Maybe so. Doesn't mean the Feds won't continue to do as they have been wrt drugs.

The article claimed no more war.......just treatment treament treament.....

The Huffington article says

Quote

But when it comes to putting its rhetoric into action, the Obama administration has faltered

and goes on to mention several cases in which, rhetoric aside, it's "business as usual" as far as the Feds are concerned.

[luke warm]

blackshoe, on May 15 2009, 09:55 AM, said:

The Huffington article says

Quote

But when it comes to putting its rhetoric into action, the Obama administration has faltered

and goes on to mention several cases in which, rhetoric aside, it's "business as usual" as far as the Feds are concerned.

i don't believe that anyone who has been around for any length of time expected anything to actually be different

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on May 15 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

i don't believe that anyone who has been around for any length of time expected anything to actually be different

I think that the description of the government as a battleship rather than a speedboat is apt when it comes to changing directions.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Apr 24 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

Am I the only one who finds these laws detestable? How can an object be guilty of a crime? And why is it that in forfeiture, the burden of proof is on the property owner to prove innocence?

The object is of course not guilty. Unless the car is Herbie or Kit, it also doesn't suffer. So forget about whether the object is guilty.


I have (fortunately) had no experience with this but I think my view is:


If a drug dealer's car is confiscated, I have no problem with that.There are penalties for dealing drugs, I don't see why confiscating his car is a more serious punishment than sending him to jail for five years.

It's my understanding that often something is confiscated that does not belong to the drug dealer. This, if true, is far more of an issue. Say I take a position in another state for a year and I rent out my house. Unknown to me, the guy sells drugs, or maybe just uses drugs. I can lose my house if he is caught? I don't know if this is so, but I have heard that it is.

So: I don't really see why an announced punishment for drug dealing is unfair, but it does seem to me that uninvolved bystanders are entitled to an assumption of innocence.

I really know nothing about this. Long ago I decided that the legal system in this country is totally effed up (not that anywhere else is better) and a happy life requires staying as far away from it as possible.