The judge should make the dept pay her. How is this not the automatic result? I know, don’t explain it to me. I’m just mad.
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
377 points (99.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8235 readers
403 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, the money's not gone. We know where it went, and there was no actual crime related to the money.
Civil forfeiture is state-sponsored theft.
Don't worry about silly things like rights. You have no rights and no property if the proper authority arbitrarily decides you don't.
"Rights don't exist if someone can take them away" - Carlin
Can't most departments seize for feds and get a cut in return, state civil asset forfeiture is getting less common because it's getting easier to fight because it's more known and everyone thinks it's idiotic.
Daily reminder that the police are not here to help
The case is a stunning example of the misplaced priorities and perverse incentives that asset forfeiture creates for police
The case is a reminder this entire concept is theft.
They steal the money, charge the inanimate object with a crime, and expect you to sue to get it back. They stole it. Stop using big words to make it sound sane. We legalized theft, for cops.
Oops replied to wrong post
Police already stole the cash..
Fun fact, civil forfeiture started in maritime law when ships were seized carrying illegal items and the perpetrators were foreign nationals that were never in the country, so the only way to pursue an indictment was to seize the ship and charge the ship itself with the crime.
Boy howdy are cops abusing maritime law then.
There are rules, after all.
Ya just gotta be quicker. /s
The civil forfeiture rule is, “gotcha money BIIITCH!” (And your car, house, etc.)
Those who receive stolen property may be required to return it to the person it was stolen from.
Let her take something from the police in return. Maybe some of their cars?