jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (6 posts)

GOP Sen. Bob Hall, a Tea Party guy.

  1. ptosis profile image72
    ptosisposted 11 months ago

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos … 2#comments

    Trump said genially, “Who’s the state senator? Do you want to give his name? We’ll destroy his career.”  (laughter ensued) they laughed. Doesn't mean they thought it was a joke.

    Eavenson was more likely referencing State Senator Konni Burton, a Republican who introduced a bill last year that would require a felony conviction before police are allowed to seize assets, according to the Texas Observer.

    “I am filing a major reform package which keeps asset forfeiture in the toolbox of law enforcement but creates reasonable protections for citizens, requires proper reporting on the use of forfeiture, and raises the legal standard for the government to engage in the taking of property,” Burton wrote on her website. “Property rights are the foundation of any free system of government, and we have allowed the government to erode them in the name of law and order. We must do better and I intend to lead the charge.”

    Currently allowing local law enforcement officials to keep a substantial amount of the proceeds obtained from seizing contraband for their own official use gives the police and prosecutors a ludicrous enticement to disturbingly pursue civil forfeitures.


    1. ahorseback profile image79
      ahorsebackposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      If an illegal  perpetrator  has altercations with the law , say drug laws ,   and the system has to await the courts to determine guilt or not ,  who should hold the drugs and money in the trial process ?
      The Mafia ?  The" Crypts",? Al Capone ? The criminal who has NO  ties to the legal world  You are looking at the property rights of arrested criminal   in a too simplistic view .   It is the way it is for a reason .

      Somebody confiscate your  pot pipe ?

      1. ptosis profile image72
        ptosisposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        You don't understand.  The person is not being charged. The person is not arrested. The money is charged with a crime.

        Get with the program and know what you are talking about before insulting me with "pot pipe comments" as if you are the superior species, it makes you look like the specious feces.

        Civil forfeiture—a process by which the government can take and sell your property without ever convicting, or even charging, you with a crime—is one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today.

        The Supreme Court has ruled in 1996 that said seizure of an innocent person's property didn't violate due process.

        Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, which made targeted changes to federal forfeiture laws. More recently, the Department of Justice has been reviewing its asset-forfeiture program, and the Department has announced new restrictions on how it will use a few of the powers that federal law gives it. Some state legislatures have gone much farther; nine states require most forfeitures to be predicated on criminal convictions, and one of those states no longer authorizes civil forfeiture at all. - http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/t … forfeiture

        Nearly all contemporary forfeiture involves the civil variety. Criminal forfeiture operates as punishment for a crime. It, therefore, requires a conviction, following which the state takes the assets in question from the criminal. Civil forfeiture rests on the idea (a legal fiction) that the property itself, not the owner, has violated the law. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forfeiture

        Recent developments in how law enforcement officials seize citizens’ property who have not been charged with or convicted of a crime have raised serious concerns—including racial profiling and constitutional infringements,” writes Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) resident scholar Dr. Merrill Matthews in a new publication, “Civil Asset Forfeiture and the Constitution.”

  2. ahorseback profile image79
    ahorsebackposted 11 months ago

    Oh I do understand -Property - Cash , Investments , dope ,    what shouldn't be confiscated if the authorities  know  what's going on in long term investigations - YES you are STILL looking at it simplistically .--   There has to be this ability to control ---for instance  --   a ship load of cash and  cocaine  !   And yes , even BEFORE charges are filed . 

    Lets face it dude , the mistakes or  over-zealous acts of law enforcement are FAR fewer than the incredible accomplishments !   Why does the left always go to ultra -liberties of  -even lawbreakers ?

  3. ahorseback profile image79
    ahorsebackposted 11 months ago

    For instance -     Animal cruelty charges , state to state ,  ALWAYS had to wait for prosecution  BEFORE  the abused animals could be moved , fed , watered or  otherwise protected ! 

    Guess what  , a new movement within multiple states laws , law enforcement ,  the courts  and the protectors  are now able to confiscate the animals and  change ownership of abused animals everywhere ---in order to save them .    Before charges are resolved !

    Is that also wrong ?

  4. ptosis profile image72
    ptosisposted 11 months ago

    You don't understand. We are talking at cross purposes here.
    You are talking about criminal forfeiture.
    I'm talking about civil forfeiture.

    Please talk about civil forfeiture or get off this thread.

    Unless you are being willfully ignorant and hijacking this thread to confuse and obfuscate - why are you talking about criminal forfeiture? Quit pontificating with blatant avoidance and disregard with the facts. If your next post continues with criminal forfeiture then you are merely exposing yourself as a troll.