Right wing domestic terrorists.

[Mercedes]

47 minutes ago, Winchester said:

You still haven't read the articles.

You're reading them with bias.

[Peace]

22 hours ago, Winchester said:

It's no different to spoils of war. People don't understand that the state is at war with whatever people it rules.

This is silly. The US government does not rule the people. There is not a single person in the US government that cannot be removed, if the public wills it.

[Winchester]

18 hours ago, Mercedes said:

You're reading them with bias.

How much cash should we be allowed to carry on our person without concern that it will be confiscated without us even being charged with a crime?

5 hours ago, Peace said:

This is silly. The US government does not rule the people. There is not a single person in the US government that cannot be removed, if the public wills it.

Mob rule by proxy isn't comforting to someone in a minority.

[Peace]

6 hours ago, Winchester said:

How much cash should we be allowed to carry on our person without concern that it will be confiscated without us even being charged with a crime?

As much as you like.

6 hours ago, Winchester said:

Mob rule by proxy isn't comforting to someone in a minority.

There is not mob rule in the US so that is irrelevant.

[Winchester]

8 hours ago, Peace said:

As much as you like.

There is not mob rule in the US so that is irrelevant.

So you now agree with me that civil asset forfeiture is theft. amesome.

I said "mob rule by proxy".

[Peace]

32 minutes ago, Winchester said:

So you now agree with me that civil asset forfeiture is theft. amesome.

No, I do not agree with that, although I do find the laws problematic and subject to abuse.

32 minutes ago, Winchester said:

I said "mob rule by proxy".

No, if you don’t have “A” there cannot be “A  by proxy”. It’s the same with voting or anything else.

[Peace]

Here is the federal forfeiture statute:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/981

You can see right here that seizures require a warrant or probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture (i.e. probable cause that the property was used in connection with criminal activity, as defined in section (1) of the statute).

Quote

 

(2) Seizures pursuant to this section shall be made pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as provided for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, except that a seizure may be made without a warrant if—

(A)

a complaint for forfeiture has been filed in the United States district court and the court issued an arrest warrant in rem pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims;

(B) there is probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture and—(i)

the seizure is made pursuant to a lawful arrest or search; or

(ii)

another exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement would apply; or

(C)

the property was lawfully seized by a State or local law enforcement agency and transferred to a Federal agency.

 

So all this talk about law enforcement officers being authorized to seize property "on a whim" is clearly false.

If a law enforcement officer seizes property without a warrant or probable cause, he is acting illegally. He is committing an abuse that the law does not authorize.

[Winchester]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

No, I do not agree with that, although I do find the laws problematic and subject to abuse.

No, if you don’t have “A” there cannot be “A  by proxy”. It’s the same with voting or anything else.

So you don't believe that the state should have to go through due process before taking property? A mere accusation is sufficient, and the owner should bear the burden of proving innocence? 
If I'm not getting it right, could you tell me which of the incidents in the articles you view as "abuse"?

 

It's mob rule by proxy. The mob selects a master, and the master rules (although appointed officials, over whom you have even less control, exercise a great deal of the political power). Democracy is might makes right. It's barbaric.

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Here is the federal forfeiture statute:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/981

You can see right here that seizures require a warrant or probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture (i.e. probable cause that the property was used in connection with criminal activity, as defined in section (1) of the statute).

So all this talk about law enforcement officers being authorized to seize property "on a whim" is clearly false.

If a law enforcement officer seizes property without a warrant or probable cause, he is acting illegally. He is committing an abuse that the law does not authorize.

And Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution grants the federal government no such power. Civil asset forfeiture evades due process by its nature. I get that you think "me gubbmint issue permission slip, it mean me okay to take stuff me want" is a complex legal process, but it's really just legalized theft.

I've provided you with more than one instance of the government taking property on a whim. "Probable cause" has been reduced to a whim. That's how it works. And that's how it was designed to work. The government hated having to go through criminal asset forfeiture because it requires due process. They had to prove guilt before taking assets.

 

Technically, they still have to prove mens rea. But they don't mess with that much, either.

Reason.com has a lot of work on this. You can go there and look up civil asset forfeiture as it exists in fact, and the use of plea bargains to evade trials. Several years ago, I would have made the same arguments you're making. 

[Peace]

 

11 minutes ago, Winchester said:

So you don't believe that the state should have to go through due process before taking property? A mere accusation is sufficient, and the owner should bear the burden of proving innocence? 
If I'm not getting it right, could you tell me which of the incidents in the articles you view as "abuse"?

That's not how the law works. See my post above. The property has to be seized based on a warrant, or based on a probable cause that the property was involved in criminal activity. Any seizure outside of that is an abuse.

11 minutes ago, Winchester said:

It's mob rule by proxy. The mob selects a master, and the master rules (although appointed officials, over whom you have even less control, exercise a great deal of the political power). Democracy is might makes right. It's barbaric.

The very existence of government is "mob rule" according to you, no?

Let's say that a majority of citizens vote that there should be a 10% tax on all income, but you don't want to pay any tax on your income, placing you in the minority. When Uncle Sam takes the 10% out of of your paycheck, that would be "mob rule" according to you, no?

Basically "mob rule" is whenever law requires you to do something that you do not want to do, correct?

Edited September 26, 2021 by Peace

[Peace]

35 minutes ago, Winchester said:

And Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution grants the federal government no such power.

The laws may be unconstitutional. You probably take the stance that 90% of federal laws and agencies are unconstitutional. That's fine by me.

35 minutes ago, Winchester said:

Civil asset forfeiture evades due process by its nature. I get that you think "me gubbmint issue permission slip, it mean me okay to take stuff me want" is a complex legal process, but it's really just legalized theft.

No, it does not evade due process by its nature. As I wrote, the law requires a warrant or probable cause. When the property is seized, there is a legal process available for the rightful owner to get the illegally seized property back.

35 minutes ago, Winchester said:

I've provided you with more than one instance of the government taking property on a whim. "Probable cause" has been reduced to a whim. That's how it works. And that's how it was designed to work. The government hated having to go through criminal asset forfeiture because it requires due process. They had to prove guilt before taking assets.

No, that's not how its designed to work. The law requires probable cause. It does not state anything about "probable cause" being reduced to a whim. The instances you noted are abuses - and proper action should be taken to prevent those abuses. We are starting to see that already, even in the articles you cite yourself.

35 minutes ago, Winchester said:

Technically, they still have to prove mens rea. But they don't mess with that much, either.

Reason.com has a lot of work on this. You can go there and look up civil asset forfeiture as it exists in fact, and the use of plea bargains to evade trials. Several years ago, I would have made the same arguments you're making. 

Sure, there appears to be plenty of abuses. But that's true with almost any governmental agency, or any laws that are in place. Police stop and arrest people all the time without probable cause. I'm a black American. That's happened to me several times. But that doesn't mean that criminal procedure code, which requires probable cause to stop a suspect, is secretly designed to enable the police to stop black people on a whim. Police officers who do that are abusing power.

[Winchester]

10 hours ago, Peace said:

The laws may be unconstitutional. You probably take the stance that 90% of federal laws and agencies are unconstitutional. That's fine by me.

No, it does not evade due process by its nature. As I wrote, the law requires a warrant or probable cause. When the property is seized, there is a legal process available for the rightful owner to get the illegally seized property back.

No, that's not how its designed to work. The law requires probable cause. It does not state anything about "probable cause" being reduced to a whim. The instances you noted are abuses - and proper action should be taken to prevent those abuses. We are starting to see that already, even in the articles you cite yourself.

Sure, there appears to be plenty of abuses. But that's true with almost any governmental agency, or any laws that are in place. Police stop and arrest people all the time without probable cause. I'm a black American. That's happened to me several times. But that doesn't mean that criminal procedure code, which requires probable cause to stop a suspect, is secretly designed to enable the police to stop black people on a whim. Police officers who do that are abusing power.

"Probable cause" was a way to get a warrant for search or arrest, not seizure of property without due process.

No, due process isn't "Cop makes up a story that convinces a judge."

There's no reason at all that the government should have the power to take property from someone before proving guilt in a court of law. None.
 

You're looking at the letter of the law and forgetting that the courts have a history of interpreting it in the way most favorable to state power. Civil asset forfeiture is unjust even when it follows the letter of the law. "Probable cause" is merely an assertion by the state. It skips due process.

Reason.com also has done work on the erosion of the standards of probable cause.

11 hours ago, Peace said:

 

That's not how the law works. See my post above. The property has to be seized based on a warrant, or based on a probable cause that the property was involved in criminal activity. Any seizure outside of that is an abuse.

The very existence of government is "mob rule" according to you, no?

Let's say that a majority of citizens vote that there should be a 10% tax on all income, but you don't want to pay any tax on your income, placing you in the minority. When Uncle Sam takes the 10% out of of your paycheck, that would be "mob rule" according to you, no?

Basically "mob rule" is whenever law requires you to do something that you do not want to do, correct?

But that is how the law works. Confiscation is done on a whim with no due process. The government employees speak amongst themselves, decide there's probable cause, steal the property, and the victim of the theft is then forced to prove the property innocent.

Yes, consent is really important to me. Why isn't consent important to you?

[truthfinder]

In many jurisdictions, civil forfeiture has a much lower threshold: 'on the balance of probabilities.'

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Winchester said:

"Probable cause" was a way to get a warrant for search or arrest, not seizure of property without due process.

No, due process isn't "Cop makes up a story that convinces a judge."

Well there is no definition of what constitutes "due process" in the constitution itself. That leaves it up to the public, the legislatures that we elect, and the judges that our elected legislators appoint to determine what constitutes sufficient "due process" and when due process has been satisfied.

If you think that a particular standard should apply - I suggest that you utilize the democratic process that you seem to hate so much, convince others that your standard should apply, and get politicians elected who will support your standard and enact the laws that you want. It's been done before you know.

2 hours ago, Winchester said:

There's no reason at all that the government should have the power to take property from someone before proving guilt in a court of law. None.

Oh I think that is silly. If a police officer has a warrant, enters a home and conducts a search, and finds a kilo of cocaine, a bag full of pipe bombs, and a blueprint of the Pentagon lying on the table, he should seize them. You think he should leave the cocaine and the pipe bomb lying on the table until a jury of 12 is convened and the owner is convicted of attempted murder?

2 hours ago, Winchester said:

You're looking at the letter of the law and forgetting that the courts have a history of interpreting it in the way most favorable to state power.

No, I did not forget that. Look I am more or less a Milton Friedman / Thomas Sowell type of thinker when it comes to economics and politics, although my leanings toward classical liberalism are tempered by Catholic Social teaching. I am a big fan of limited government.

But not "no government" which seems to be the only acceptable option for you. You seem to go to too far of an extreme in your thinking.

2 hours ago, Winchester said:

Civil asset forfeiture is unjust even when it follows the letter of the law.

Maybe it is, but you certainly have not provided any valid reason why anyone should think it is unjust.

2 hours ago, Winchester said:

"Probable cause" is merely an assertion by the state. It skips due process.

No, I would say that "probably cause" is more of an objective fact. If a police officer pulls over a man for speeding and notices a dead-body on the back seat, it's reasonable for him to check the trunk for another dead body.

2 hours ago, Winchester said:

Reason.com also has done work on the erosion of the standards of probable cause.

But that is how the law works. Confiscation is done on a whim with no due process. The government employees speak amongst themselves, decide there's probable cause, steal the property, and the victim of the theft is then forced to prove the property innocent.

No, that's not how the law works. If a police officer seizes property without probable cause, he is not acting according to the law. He is acting lawlessly. Look, a police officer can come over to my house right now, take my TV, and shoot me in the face. That does not mean that he is authorized by the law to do so.

Hopefully we will start to see cases where people fight back against these police abuses, and the abusive activity ceases or the police who engage in it are penalized. Since you seem to care so much about this particular topic, it could be an area where you could get active in, to stop the abuses from occurring. It seems that a lot more attention has been given to police misconduct the past few years, so the climate is more favorable for change now.

Wouldn't that be a bit more productive than whining and complaining on the internet about how "the State is the enemy of the people" and other such things?

2 hours ago, Winchester said:

Yes, consent is really important to me. Why isn't consent important to you?

Are you referring to consent to take a portion of your money in the form of taxes?

I desire to live in the United States, with all of its various laws and so forth. I like living here, despite its many problems. In this country we have tax. Paying whatever tax the majority decides upon is one of the obligations that I must satisfy in order to obtain the many benefits of living here. To me, it's worth it.

There are a few places left on the Earth with no government, where you are basically free to do whatever you want, whenever you want. I think Antarctica is one of them. If absolute freedom were my top priority I could pack up my bags and go live on the ice, but I'd much rather pay the 10% and have electricity and roads. I value personal freedom, but it's not as though personal freedom is some panacea that will solve all of the problems of the world.

I mean, if you value personal freedom so much, hate government, think that the state is the enemy mankind and so-forth, why not pack up your family and go live on the ice?

I mean, what exactly is the alternative world in which you want to live? The easiest thing in the world to do is to look at any institution and prove that it is not perfect, the USA being no exception. But what are you offering that is better? A land with no government? A land with no tax?  Complete anarchy?

[Winchester]

On 9/26/2021 at 11:40 PM, Peace said:

Well there is no definition of what constitutes "due process" in the constitution itself. That leaves it up to the public, the legislatures that we elect, and the judges that our elected legislators appoint to determine what constitutes sufficient "due process" and when due process has been satisfied.

If you think that a particular standard should apply - I suggest that you utilize the democratic process that you seem to hate so much, convince others that your standard should apply, and get politicians elected who will support your standard and enact the laws that you want. It's been done before you know.

Oh I think that is silly. If a police officer has a warrant, enters a home and conducts a search, and finds a kilo of cocaine, a bag full of pipe bombs, and a blueprint of the Pentagon lying on the table, he should seize them. You think he should leave the cocaine and the pipe bomb lying on the table until a jury of 12 is convened and the owner is convicted of attempted murder?

No, I did not forget that. Look I am more or less a Milton Friedman / Thomas Sowell type of thinker when it comes to economics and politics, although my leanings toward classical liberalism are tempered by Catholic Social teaching. I am a big fan of limited government.

But not "no government" which seems to be the only acceptable option for you. You seem to go to too far of an extreme in your thinking.

Maybe it is, but you certainly have not provided any valid reason why anyone should think it is unjust.

No, I would say that "probably cause" is more of an objective fact. If a police officer pulls over a man for speeding and notices a dead-body on the back seat, it's reasonable for him to check the trunk for another dead body.

No, that's not how the law works. If a police officer seizes property without probable cause, he is not acting according to the law. He is acting lawlessly. Look, a police officer can come over to my house right now, take my TV, and shoot me in the face. That does not mean that he is authorized by the law to do so.

Hopefully we will start to see cases where people fight back against these police abuses, and the abusive activity ceases or the police who engage in it are penalized. Since you seem to care so much about this particular topic, it could be an area where you could get active in, to stop the abuses from occurring. It seems that a lot more attention has been given to police misconduct the past few years, so the climate is more favorable for change now.

Wouldn't that be a bit more productive than whining and complaining on the internet about how "the State is the enemy of the people" and other such things?

Are you referring to consent to take a portion of your money in the form of taxes?

I desire to live in the United States, with all of its various laws and so forth. I like living here, despite its many problems. In this country we have tax. Paying whatever tax the majority decides upon is one of the obligations that I must satisfy in order to obtain the many benefits of living here. To me, it's worth it.

There are a few places left on the Earth with no government, where you are basically free to do whatever you want, whenever you want. I think Antarctica is one of them. If absolute freedom were my top priority I could pack up my bags and go live on the ice, but I'd much rather pay the 10% and have electricity and roads. I value personal freedom, but it's not as though personal freedom is some panacea that will solve all of the problems of the world.

I mean, if you value personal freedom so much, hate government, think that the state is the enemy mankind and so-forth, why not pack up your family and go live on the ice?

I mean, what exactly is the alternative world in which you want to live? The easiest thing in the world to do is to look at any institution and prove that it is not perfect, the USA being no exception. But what are you offering that is better? A land with no government? A land with no tax?  Complete anarchy?

I gave you examples. When you're ready to deal with the reality of civil asset forfeiture, I'll be happy to hear defenses of taking poo from people on a whim, which is in fact what your beloved rulers do.

[Peace]

13 hours ago, Winchester said:

I gave you examples. When you're ready to deal with the reality of civil asset forfeiture, I'll be happy to hear defenses of taking poo from people on a whim, which is in fact what your beloved rulers do.

You know nothing of reality. Your mind resides in a fantasy land where you have convinced yourself that you are a martyr oppressed by the state. A fantasy land where police officers should leave harmful drugs and pipe bombs lying on a table because the owner has not been tried and convicted by a court.