What a crock of @#%^$

[Michael]

I sense that this is an emotional issue for you and suggest that you're being blinded by your emotions. This is not an emotional issue for me. I have a reasoned framework for dealing with questions such as this.

1) If the Founding Fathers wanted that protection to be there, it would have been insurmountably clear in the Constitution

2) The Supreme Court, who decides these types of issues, is appointed by the President and vetted by the Senate. The President and Senate are elected by the people. Although their choices and decisions cannot be the same as every person, I am willing to accept that they are the will of the people.

There is an inherent danger to not accepting the decisions of the Supreme Court. Picking and choosing between decisions is potentially a great problem. I respect and admire the framework that the Founding Fathers documented into the fundamental law of the land. They built in recourse in that the Supreme Court is appointed by elected officials. The Founding Fathers knew that some questions would be a matter of interpretation and built in a way for the interpretation to change as society changed. This gave our basic laws the flexibility needed to remain strong and relevent over time.

As such, after careful reflection and thought, I accept the rulings of the Supreme Court.

Michael

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: Michael
2) The Supreme Court, who decides these types of issues, is appointed by the President and vetted by the Senate. The President and Senate are elected by the people. Although their choices and decisions cannot be the same as every person, I am willing to accept that they are the will of the people.

In the 1896 case of Plessy v Ferguson, the Supreme Court concluded that a Louisiana law requiring whites and blacks to ride in separate railroad cars did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The "separate but equal" doctrine was quickly extended to cover many areas of public life, such as restaurants, theaters, restrooms, and public schools.

Granted the decision was made over 100 years ago but does that mean that blacks had no moral grounds to be digusted with the Court's decision, a Court appointed by the President, vetted by the Senate, both who are elected by the people...? Majority rule still does not make it de facto just.

 

[Michael]

No, you have every right to be upset by laws you do not believe to be moral. You also have the right to express your beliefs. With 20/20 hindsight, it is easy to pick and choose "no brainer" decisions that today seem wrong-headed. The system worked as the Founding Fathers intended and the injustice you cited was later corrected. However, I bet that that very same Suprem Court made decisions that are considered to be right and valid even today.

Michael

 

[mithrandir2001]

I can't speak for Amused and other libertarians but I believe in a higher authority that overrules Man's laws. As an atheist I obviously don't mean a divine entity but rather Natural Law. I believe that no matter what Man's law says we have certain inalienable natural rights that cannot be taken away.

For instance, I consider the handgun ban in Britain to be null and void. Natural Law says that we all have the right (if not the responsibility) to security of property and self. Does that mean you can get away with owning a handgun in the UK? No, beliefs aren't going to let you slip out of the grip of Man's laws and you'll get dragged through the court system if you are caught with one. But if the situation were dire and it came down to life or death I believe that the individual has the right to subvert the rule of law, if the law does not act in the individual's best interests.

Of course my talk may come across as that of an anarchist but I'm not advocating the destruction of civil society. I simply believe that no one is more responsible for an individual than the individual himself and I don't blindly accept all the laws of the land as irrecovable contract. By the same token, I haven't had any criminal offenses in my 29 years of existence. Obviously, if you want to be accepted by society you have to reasonably play within that society's rules. However, in an extreme situation I believe I should act by my own internal compass even if it flies against standard convention. Hopefully, none of us will ever have to face decisionmaking under intense duress but I think it is emotionally healthy to consider how to preserve one's existence.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well well well, the discussion has turned to questions of fundamentals. How much more interesting. You make an excellent case, Michael, and you have been challenged by a concept of higher law. How much more tenuous it is to argue idealistically than from the solid fact of law, no? Perhaps what people feel instinctively as truth is dependent on some sort of personal evolution. Laws that were once just are seen in the fullness of time to be wanting. I would be curious, Michael, how you react to the notion of government taking without prior conviction of crime. Perhaps you could supply us with the courts reasoning. Clearly a strict, the law is the law, is a prescription for the law of the jungle, the good once, good forever original.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Michael
1) If the Founding Fathers wanted that protection to be there, it would have been insurmountably clear in the Constitution

Amendment V.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Any Supreme Court interpretations aside, that, I believe, is insurmountably clear.

 

[waggy]

While the people in Cops derserved to have the car taken. i do belive that teh forfiture law needs to be re-tooled. It is to widely abused.

I wrote a paper my about 5 years ago on it. it was scarry then and it has gotten a whole lot worse. Many departments depend on it to get income. There has been stories about older people getting there house/car/bank accounts taken just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time (did not buy drugs but drug dogs sniffed it on money) and had everything taken.

While doing the paper there was a court case going where a single mother had her house and car taken because her boyfriend bought crack in her car (he took the car without her permission and bought it) but since it was her car she had her car taken. then they found out he lived with her and took the house. she went to court and won but it cost her tens of thousands of dollers.

i dont feel sorry for a guy who goes and buys some illegal drugs and gets his car taken away. booo hoo! I do feel sorry for the people who are innocent that get fu#$ed by the cops just to make a buck.


oh and yes i do think pot should be legal for personal use.

 

[Michael]

Moonbeam,

I am an accountant, not a scholar of law. At best I could give an educated guess.

1) Police are allowed to seize goods to look for clues and evidence. For example, if a person uses a hand gun to commit a crime and is caught, the police can put the gun into their custody. The person may own the gun and have a legal permit for it and the police are still empowered by law to take it.

2) There is a right to a trial (I think this goes deeper - the right to a speedy trial, not just a trial, and there are a whole bunch of deadlines by which the person must be charged with a crime). The outcome of the trial determines what happens to the gun or other property that is taken for evidence.

3) The key item is the appearance in court. For the government to keep the property - as part of the "fine" - guilt has to be determined in a court of law.

The issue I have with the seizure laws is not the seizure part; it is the incentive part that allows the police force to keep some of the proceeds. I think that part provides too much of an incentive for the local police to cross over an ethical line and work towards seizing the property. The counter-argument to that, of course, it that the law makers intended that to be a consequence - they put extra incentive into the law to get that exact result as they felt that the "war on drugs" was important enough to merit the extra attention by the police.

4) The law in question was created and passed by our elected representatives. Countless polls have shown that the public as a whole (there are large minorities that disagree with this) wants stricter enforcement of drug laws. The severe loss of property when committing a felony seems to add to the "sting" of being caught breaking the law and should be a disincentive to do so.

When you get to the question of "natural law" or "God's law", I must admit that I'm at a loss to interpret a final response. Certain aspects of that discussion would, by definition, fall back on Faith. Even the Jesuit education I received has not convinced me that there is a logical basis or explanation to all things that are Faith-based. Since I cannot prove that I am right, in the end, or that the other person is wrong, and these types of discussions are not resolvable. I can use my force of persuasion / personality. Society as a whole can render an opinion and document it into law, but contentious objectors will still remain, unbowed by popular opinion.

I think that the Founding Fathers of the USA but together a contract between the people and the government that allows people to publicly disagree with the government and with the laws. There is a difference between disagreement and action. For example, blowing up the federal buildings in OK City was expressing disagreement, but not sane disagreement that society can afford (I differentiate this from the attacks in NYC and Washington because OK City seemed to be US citizens attacking other US citizens vs. an outside attack).

Failing the ability to answer the question of "higher" law, I can only fall back on the Constitution - the highest law of the USA.

Mithrandir2001 and Amused both argue from a Libertarian point of view (I'm going from memory on Amused and I'm sure that he/she will correct me if I'm wrong). Based on the very small percentage of Americans that vote Libertarian (even if you double the number to account for those who flap their jaws but vote for on of the main parties anyways), I consider that point of view to be extreme/radical. To be honest, views such that mithrandir2001 expressed about hand gun ownership in Great Britain worry me almost as much as the Taliban. A strong belief that you know what is right because of a "natural law" can lead to great acts of heroism, but it can also lead to great acts of horror.

Michael

 

[Michael]

Vic,

Without due process of law

I think the Supreme Court ruled that there was due process of law.

Michael

 

Originally posted by: waggy
While doing the paper there was a court case going where a single mother had her house and car taken because her boyfriend bought crack in her car (he took the car without her permission and bought it) but since it was her car she had her car taken. then they found out he lived with her and took the house. she went to court and won but it cost her tens of thousands of dollers.

i dont feel sorry for a guy who goes and buys some illegal drugs and gets his car taken away. booo hoo! I do feel sorry for the people who are innocent that get fu#$ed by the cops just to make a buck.

I don't feel sorry for the lady. if she knew that illegal drugs were being harbored in her house and/or car, then she should have a) reported it to the authorities, b) kicked her boyfriend out c) made him use his own car for drug deals and get the drugs out of the house.

If someone else is driving your car and they get a parking ticket, you're the one whose license plate it's recorded under. People are entitled to protection of property, but if this lady was letting her car be used for illegal purposes, then she is an accessory to her boyfriend's drug deals. Plain and simple.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Michael
Vic,

Without due process of law

I think the Supreme Court ruled that there was due process of law.

Michael

No, actually they ruled that there was not.
You see, this subject is old. Asset forfeiture has been strictly curtailed the last few years after its heyday in the early 90s. While it still takes place, and some states are worse about it than others, it is now understood that charges must be filed and a conviction obtained in order for the government to acquire the property.
Unfortunately, the government still freezes assets and property (including bank accounts) prior to trial, stating that the accused can have the property back if the court finds them not guilty. This, however, makes it nearly impossible for most defendants to defend themselves in court, as very few lawyers of any worth will work for nothing.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I see. When your argument is shattered, it's time for you to start insulting the person.

And if I'm not mistaken, you were arguing too... But you were wrong. So if I'm a clueless fool, what the fsck does that make you?

And guess what? I'll correct your spelling, grammar, stupidity and any other thing about you I damn well please. WTF are you going to do about it, tough guy? In fact, I'm making it a point to search out every post you make from now on, just to correct your spelling.

LOL, once again proving my theory that you do not have a life, other than the ATOT Forums where you pretend to be a know it all on every subject imaginable. You insulted me first, thereby shattering that little angle of your battle. Who are you to say I am wrong? It's all a matter of opinion, there is no right or wrong answers here. Stupid fool, maybe one day you'll wake up and find a friend or two that doesn't involve a monitor or keyboard. Enough arguing with you, can't bring myself down to your level anymore, no matter how hard I try. Be gone.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

In fact, I'm making it a point to search out every post you make from now on, just to correct your spelling.

Therefore, that would make you an A1 Certified Stalker. Be careful, you may get caught up in a sting and have whatever little you own seized.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: JuMpR629

Originally posted by: waggy
While doing the paper there was a court case going where a single mother had her house and car taken because her boyfriend bought crack in her car (he took the car without her permission and bought it) but since it was her car she had her car taken. then they found out he lived with her and took the house. she went to court and won but it cost her tens of thousands of dollers.

i dont feel sorry for a guy who goes and buys some illegal drugs and gets his car taken away. booo hoo! I do feel sorry for the people who are innocent that get fu#$ed by the cops just to make a buck.

I don't feel sorry for the lady. if she knew that illegal drugs were being harbored in her house and/or car, then she should have a) reported it to the authorities, b) kicked her boyfriend out c) made him use his own car for drug deals and get the drugs out of the house.

If someone else is driving your car and they get a parking ticket, you're the one whose license plate it's recorded under. People are entitled to protection of property, but if this lady was letting her car be used for illegal purposes, then she is an accessory to her boyfriend's drug deals. Plain and simple.

the point is she did NOT KNOW. NO please tell me how she deserves to have her property taken away? Second she did NOT LET him have the car he took it. again how does she deserve to have it taken away? She did NOTHING wrong besides not choose the correct boyfriend.

She never did drugs. She did not buy the drugs. She did not allow the guy to take her car. She did nothing illegal but she still had her house and car taken and was forced to spend thousands of dollers to get them back. This is abuse plain and simple. This is what needs to be fixed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JuMpR629

Originally posted by: waggy
While doing the paper there was a court case going where a single mother had her house and car taken because her boyfriend bought crack in her car (he took the car without her permission and bought it) but since it was her car she had her car taken. then they found out he lived with her and took the house. she went to court and won but it cost her tens of thousands of dollers.

i dont feel sorry for a guy who goes and buys some illegal drugs and gets his car taken away. booo hoo! I do feel sorry for the people who are innocent that get fu#$ed by the cops just to make a buck.

I don't feel sorry for the lady. if she knew that illegal drugs were being harbored in her house and/or car, then she should have a) reported it to the authorities, b) kicked her boyfriend out c) made him use his own car for drug deals and get the drugs out of the house.

If someone else is driving your car and they get a parking ticket, you're the one whose license plate it's recorded under. People are entitled to protection of property, but if this lady was letting her car be used for illegal purposes, then she is an accessory to her boyfriend's drug deals. Plain and simple.

When dealing with government, my advice is to never condone any government action that you would not, with any reasonable moral conscience, want to happen to you in the same circumstance.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin

I see. When your argument is shattered, it's time for you to start insulting the person.

And if I'm not mistaken, you were arguing too... But you were wrong. So if I'm a clueless fool, what the fsck does that make you?

And guess what? I'll correct your spelling, grammar, stupidity and any other thing about you I damn well please. WTF are you going to do about it, tough guy? In fact, I'm making it a point to search out every post you make from now on, just to correct your spelling.

LOL, once again proving my theory that you do not have a life, other than the ATOT Forums where you pretend to be a know it all on every subject imaginable. You insulted me first, thereby shattering that little angle of your battle.

Your memory is as short as your IQ, tough guy. We were having a civil conversation until you decided to post:

Amused can kiss my hairy Italian @$$. He's probably one of the morons I see out protesting infront of the Federal Building "Don't bomb Iraq", "Don't bomb Afghanastan", blah blah blah.

Who insulted who first?

If you're going to rewrite history, at least have the intelligence to not do it in the very thread containing contradictory evidence.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: JuMpR629

Originally posted by: waggy
While doing the paper there was a court case going where a single mother had her house and car taken because her boyfriend bought crack in her car (he took the car without her permission and bought it) but since it was her car she had her car taken. then they found out he lived with her and took the house. she went to court and won but it cost her tens of thousands of dollers.

i dont feel sorry for a guy who goes and buys some illegal drugs and gets his car taken away. booo hoo! I do feel sorry for the people who are innocent that get fu#$ed by the cops just to make a buck.

I don't feel sorry for the lady. if she knew that illegal drugs were being harbored in her house and/or car, then she should have a) reported it to the authorities, b) kicked her boyfriend out c) made him use his own car for drug deals and get the drugs out of the house.

If someone else is driving your car and they get a parking ticket, you're the one whose license plate it's recorded under. People are entitled to protection of property, but if this lady was letting her car be used for illegal purposes, then she is an accessory to her boyfriend's drug deals. Plain and simple.

the point is she did NOT KNOW. NO please tell me how she deserves to have her property taken away? Second she did NOT LET him have the car he took it. again how does she deserve to have it taken away? She did NOTHING wrong besides not choose the correct boyfriend.

She never did drugs. She did not buy the drugs. She did not allow the guy to take her car. She did nothing illegal but she still had her house and car taken and was forced to spend thousands of dollers to get them back. This is abuse plain and simple. This is what needs to be fixed.

How do you know she didn't know? If you're a cop, and you walk up to a car, how do you know that the little old lady isn't going to pull a gun on you? My point is that you don't know. She could have known about the drugs all along, and not done anything about it. When their property was seized, the feds had no way of knowing she wasn't involved. I would have assume that she was involved, anybody would. In any matter, she took it to court, and won her property back, correct? You know what she should have done next? Sue her boyfriend for the court fees and anything else. You see? If you think about a situation before complaining about it, you don't sound as stupid.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: JuMpR629

Originally posted by: waggy
While doing the paper there was a court case going where a single mother had her house and car taken because her boyfriend bought crack in her car (he took the car without her permission and bought it) but since it was her car she had her car taken. then they found out he lived with her and took the house. she went to court and won but it cost her tens of thousands of dollers.

i dont feel sorry for a guy who goes and buys some illegal drugs and gets his car taken away. booo hoo! I do feel sorry for the people who are innocent that get fu#$ed by the cops just to make a buck.

I don't feel sorry for the lady. if she knew that illegal drugs were being harbored in her house and/or car, then she should have a) reported it to the authorities, b) kicked her boyfriend out c) made him use his own car for drug deals and get the drugs out of the house.

If someone else is driving your car and they get a parking ticket, you're the one whose license plate it's recorded under. People are entitled to protection of property, but if this lady was letting her car be used for illegal purposes, then she is an accessory to her boyfriend's drug deals. Plain and simple.

the point is she did NOT KNOW. NO please tell me how she deserves to have her property taken away? Second she did NOT LET him have the car he took it. again how does she deserve to have it taken away? She did NOTHING wrong besides not choose the correct boyfriend.

She never did drugs. She did not buy the drugs. She did not allow the guy to take her car. She did nothing illegal but she still had her house and car taken and was forced to spend thousands of dollers to get them back. This is abuse plain and simple. This is what needs to be fixed.

How do you know she didn't know? If you're a cop, and you walk up to a car, how do you know that the little old lady isn't going to pull a gun on you? My point is that you don't know. She could have known about the drugs all along, and not done anything about it. When their property was seized, the feds had no way of knowing she wasn't involved. I would have assume that she was involved, anybody would. In any matter, she took it to court, and won her property back, correct? You know what she should have done next? Sue her boyfriend for the court fees and anything else. You see? If you think about a situation before complaining about it, you don't sound as stupid.

Why should she have to foot the legal bills to prove her innocence? Isn't the cornerstone of our legal system, "innocent until proven guilty?" By this standard, the police could not seize her property for forfeiture unless they had compelling evidence she was involved in the crime. By the standard now, they can seize it, forfeit it, and put the burden on HER to prove she was not involved.

Folks, if they were doing this with people (seizing them and selling/jailing them with no charges or convictions) you'd all be outraged... and rightly so. Why is people's property any less important?

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: JuMpR629

Originally posted by: waggy
While doing the paper there was a court case going where a single mother had her house and car taken because her boyfriend bought crack in her car (he took the car without her permission and bought it) but since it was her car she had her car taken. then they found out he lived with her and took the house. she went to court and won but it cost her tens of thousands of dollers.

i dont feel sorry for a guy who goes and buys some illegal drugs and gets his car taken away. booo hoo! I do feel sorry for the people who are innocent that get fu#$ed by the cops just to make a buck.

I don't feel sorry for the lady. if she knew that illegal drugs were being harbored in her house and/or car, then she should have a) reported it to the authorities, b) kicked her boyfriend out c) made him use his own car for drug deals and get the drugs out of the house.

If someone else is driving your car and they get a parking ticket, you're the one whose license plate it's recorded under. People are entitled to protection of property, but if this lady was letting her car be used for illegal purposes, then she is an accessory to her boyfriend's drug deals. Plain and simple.

the point is she did NOT KNOW. NO please tell me how she deserves to have her property taken away? Second she did NOT LET him have the car he took it. again how does she deserve to have it taken away? She did NOTHING wrong besides not choose the correct boyfriend.

She never did drugs. She did not buy the drugs. She did not allow the guy to take her car. She did nothing illegal but she still had her house and car taken and was forced to spend thousands of dollers to get them back. This is abuse plain and simple. This is what needs to be fixed.

How do you know she didn't know? If you're a cop, and you walk up to a car, how do you know that the little old lady isn't going to pull a gun on you? My point is that you don't know. She could have known about the drugs all along, and not done anything about it. When their property was seized, the feds had no way of knowing she wasn't involved. I would have assume that she was involved, anybody would. In any matter, she took it to court, and won her property back, correct? You know what she should have done next? Sue her boyfriend for the court fees and anything else. You see? If you think about a situation before complaining about it, you don't sound as stupid.

Why should she have to foot the legal bills to prove her innocence? Isn't the cornerstone of our legal system, "innocent until proven guilty?" By this standard, the police could not seize her property for forfeiture unless they had compelling evidence she was involved in the crime. By the standard now, they can seize it, forfeit it, and put the burden on HER to prove she was not involved.

Folks, if they were doing this with people (seizing them and selling/jailing them with no charges or convictions) you'd all be outraged... and rightly so. Why is people's property any less important?

If I arrested somebody for selling drugs out of their car and house, that's compelling evidence enough to make me believe the other party is involved inthe crime. While I do agree that she should not have to foot the bill, that is more the lawyer's fault than it is the court's. I don't know why you are making such a big deal of this one case with this... you have to foot huge lawyer fees with any trial. When you are found innocent, you just turn around and sue the person who caused you to have to go to court.

When her boyfriend was caught, the property was seized. When he was found guilty, it was forfeited. This is what I disagree with. Was the woman charged with the same thing he was? Or was it something like knowingly aiding a criminal? If she was found not guilty of this, she should have gotten her property back. (assuming it was in her name as well).

 

Originally posted by: Amused
Why should she have to foot the legal bills to prove her innocence? Isn't the cornerstone of our legal system, "innocent until proven guilty?" By this standard, the police could not seize her property for forfeiture unless they had compelling evidence she was involved in the crime. By the standard now, they can seize it, forfeit it, and put the burden on HER to prove she was not involved.

The COMPELLING EVIDENCE that she was involved in the crime was that HER VERY OWN CAR was used to make the deals, and the buyer LIVED WITH HER. The United States legal system, like I've said, gives you protection of property, but it requires that you keep your property out of a sh!tty situation. This lady, by NOT protecting her property, is RESPONSIBLE for her boyfriend's actions.

If he took her car without permission, she should have reported it stolen. By doing that, she'd be cleared of all responsibility, and her car would have been returned to her after it was searched.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: JuMpR629

Originally posted by: Amused
Why should she have to foot the legal bills to prove her innocence? Isn't the cornerstone of our legal system, "innocent until proven guilty?" By this standard, the police could not seize her property for forfeiture unless they had compelling evidence she was involved in the crime. By the standard now, they can seize it, forfeit it, and put the burden on HER to prove she was not involved.

The COMPELLING EVIDENCE that she was involved in the crime was that HER VERY OWN CAR was used to make the deals, and the buyer LIVED WITH HER. The United States legal system, like I've said, gives you protection of property, but it requires that you keep your property out of a sh!tty situation. This lady, by NOT protecting her property, is RESPONSIBLE for her boyfriend's actions.

If he took her car without permission, she should have reported it stolen. By doing that, she'd be cleared of all responsibility, and her car would have been returned to her after it was searched.

She was cleared of all responsibility. BUT that dont change the fact they took her property and she HAD to spend a bunch of money getting her house and car back. Just because he was doing it and had it in her home does not mean she knew. Granted the lady was not very picky about men and did have checkerd past regarding them she still did NOT deserve it.

sad part is there are other cases like this. innocent people haveing there property taken and sold.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JuMpR629

Originally posted by: Amused
Why should she have to foot the legal bills to prove her innocence? Isn't the cornerstone of our legal system, "innocent until proven guilty?" By this standard, the police could not seize her property for forfeiture unless they had compelling evidence she was involved in the crime. By the standard now, they can seize it, forfeit it, and put the burden on HER to prove she was not involved.

The COMPELLING EVIDENCE that she was involved in the crime was that HER VERY OWN CAR was used to make the deals, and the buyer LIVED WITH HER. The United States legal system, like I've said, gives you protection of property, but it requires that you keep your property out of a sh!tty situation. This lady, by NOT protecting her property, is RESPONSIBLE for her boyfriend's actions.

If he took her car without permission, she should have reported it stolen. By doing that, she'd be cleared of all responsibility, and her car would have been returned to her after it was searched.

So let me get this straight. If a teenager used their parent's house and/or car for illegal purposes without their knowledge (this happens every day) the parents deserve to lose their house and car???

It is VERY possible for a spouse or a child to conduct illegal activities without the knowledge of their spouses or parents. Responsibility is expected, but within reason. It is not reasonable to expect someone to know what another person is doing 24/7, nor is it within reason to expect someone to know what the other person is doing if that person is being dishonest about their activities.

The original intent for forfeiture laws is to insure criminals do not profit from their crimes. That no longer seems to be the case, as the burden of proof is no longer on the prosecution to show the property was obtained as the profits of illegal activity.

 

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JuMpR629

Originally posted by: Amused
Why should she have to foot the legal bills to prove her innocence? Isn't the cornerstone of our legal system, "innocent until proven guilty?" By this standard, the police could not seize her property for forfeiture unless they had compelling evidence she was involved in the crime. By the standard now, they can seize it, forfeit it, and put the burden on HER to prove she was not involved.

The COMPELLING EVIDENCE that she was involved in the crime was that HER VERY OWN CAR was used to make the deals, and the buyer LIVED WITH HER. The United States legal system, like I've said, gives you protection of property, but it requires that you keep your property out of a sh!tty situation. This lady, by NOT protecting her property, is RESPONSIBLE for her boyfriend's actions.

If he took her car without permission, she should have reported it stolen. By doing that, she'd be cleared of all responsibility, and her car would have been returned to her after it was searched.

So let me get this straight. If a teenager used their parent's house and/or car for illegal purposes without their knowledge (this happens every day) the parents deserve to lose their house and car???

It is VERY possible for a spouse or a child to conduct illegal activities without the knowledge of their spouses or parents. Responsibility is expected, but within reason. It is not reasonable to expect someone to know what another person is doing 24/7, nor is it within reason to expect someone to know what the other person is doing if that person is being dishonest about their activities.

The original intent for forfeiture laws is to insure criminals do not profit from their crimes. That no longer seems to be the case, as the burden of proof is no longer on the prosecution to show the property was obtained as the profits of illegal activity.

Parents should be held responsible if their kid is a fvckup. That's beside the point. If you let illegal activities go on in your house, you should have to pay (if it's a serious crime, you should have to pay with your house). The U.S. isn't a sit-back-and-have-everything-given-to-me country. You need to TAKE CARE of your property so that it remains safe. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, will the U.S. gov't offer you LEGAL protection of your property.

EDIT: if I know that my car won't be taken away, why shouldn't I loan it to my roommate (who is a drug dealer - and who I have reported to the proper authorities, which gives me amnesty in future occurrences if such a thing should happen in our dorm room) to complete a drug deal? I take CARE of my property by not loaning it to him and keeping the keys with me at all times. If he takes the car, I'll report it stolen; problem solved.

Certain protections are built into the laws to prevent people from loaning a car to a drug dealer and then saying, "Oh, I didn't know he took it." Laws are there for a reason.

 

[vi edit]

Parents should be held responsible if their kid is a fvckup. That's beside the point. If you let illegal activities go on in your house, you should have to pay (if it's a serious crime, you should have to pay with your house). The U.S. isn't a sit-back-and-have-everything-given-to-me country. You need to TAKE CARE of your property so that it remains safe. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, will the U.S. gov't offer you LEGAL protection of your property.

How old are you, and do you have kids? Kids are going to do, what kids are going to do. 2 parents working full times jobs simply cannot micromanage a household 24/7 and keep a watchful eye on things. My sister and I grew up in the same household, with the same parents, and the same rules. I was more or less an angel, and she fscked up every chance she had.

Kids will do as they choose. You can try and help them to guide the best choices they can, but you aren't a God. Parents can only assume *so* much responsibility for the actions of their children.

 

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Parents should be held responsible if their kid is a fvckup. That's beside the point. If you let illegal activities go on in your house, you should have to pay (if it's a serious crime, you should have to pay with your house). The U.S. isn't a sit-back-and-have-everything-given-to-me country. You need to TAKE CARE of your property so that it remains safe. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, will the U.S. gov't offer you LEGAL protection of your property.

How old are you, and do you have kids? Kids are going to do, what kids are going to do. 2 parents working full times jobs simply cannot micromanage a household 24/7 and keep a watchful eye on things. My sister and I grew up in the same household, with the same parents, and the same rules. I was more or less an angel, and she fscked up every chance she had.

Kids will do as they choose. You can try and help them to guide the best choices they can, but you aren't a God. Parents can only assume *so* much responsibility for the actions of their children.

Exactly. That's why a $30 marijuana deal shouldn't require forfeiture of a HOUSE...that's extreme. But, if parents haven't instilled a small enough bit of values into the kid to keep them from buying or selling drugs while they live at home, then they deserve to be held monetarily or criminally responsible. I'll lean toward monetarily, however...criminal charges seem a bit harsh.