One of Trump's first acts in office was to resurrect the practice[1]. He joked with sheriffs about destroying the career of a Texas politician who was trying to rein it in[2].
Potentially NSFW language. Also: long video warning.
TL;DW they’re (at least in many states) not just another type of police force basically the same as the others, but a distinct kind of thing with a lot of autonomy and not a lot of checks on what they get up to. Unsurprisingly, they have a tendency toward corruption. And their lobbying groups are weird and creepy.
EDIT anyone wanna clue me in why this way-tamer-than-many-posts post is upsetting folks so much, so I can avoid doing it in the future? Does everyone else just already know this stuff about sheriffs (I didn’t find out until I was well into my 30s…)?
This rings more than a little hollow given that the ongoing justification for local inaction against "drug cartels" is that it's solely the Federal government's responsibility.
In other words: even if civil asset forfeiture wasn't blatantly unconstitutional, why give such a power to people who've demonstrated every intent to do nothing of (ostensible) value with it?
This letter is particularly concerning when you consider there are individuals represented by this org who also believe in the Constitutional Sheriff theory. They want to be lords of a fife, not law enforcement.
For those of you who don't know, civil asset forfeiture is the practice of the government, or law enforcement agencies in the United States, confiscating your property if said property could be the proceeds of any illegal activities.[1]
Only a 'preponderance of evidence' is required, a much lower burden of proof than in criminal trials. This essentially means 'more likely than not.' [2]
Also, unlike you the individual, your property is not 'innocent until proven guilty' as it has no rights. You must prove that you deserve your property back.
Theft.. it's the process of the government employees literally stealing from citizens. If people want their money back, it's off to the labyrinthine constructs meant entirely, to waste someone's time and money and dissuade them from pursuing it.
While I realize you're simply defining the term, I believe, in a more accurate summation.
I feel like if they were serious about seizing assets that are connected to a crime they'd start raiding Sotheby's art auctions. That'd be fun to watch play out in court.
I don't get who's for this. The Trumpian "don't tread on me" populists who mistrust government don't want it, do they? The left wing "everything is about race and gender" don't want it, do they? Like, honestly, is anyone other than LEOs themselves arguing for civil asset forfeiture?
The "The Trumpian 'don't tread on me' populists", for the most part, have no trouble with this. They don't mistrust government at all... as long as it's their conception of government, supporting their priorities. The "don't tread on me" is just a convenient phrase to trot out when things aren't going their way.
Think about it, these are often the same people that tout their "tough on crime" stances and support for civil asset forfeiture is a way of showing support for making law enforcement's job easier. For some, an arrest is as good as guilt.
If only you could convince the people you'd like to see in power to agree. There's much more that could be said about how willing those you apparently support are willing to put the machinery of government power to work treading on everyone that doesn't tow their line, but that discussion is unlikely to move anyone here.
Well, we had two recent presidents. In all honesty, I was totally willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt; like he was talking a big circus, but sometimes for a politician that's just "dazzle and chaff" to distract the media.
In and among the nonsense there were a bunch of great promises, like pulling us out of China, getting massive infrastructure projects, resourcing a ton of our manufacturing from Mexico, maybe finally taking out the Ayatollah. Legitimately good shit!
So like; honestly if he was gonna do any of that, I'm game, man. We need it.
…
If I sit back and objectively look at it … he did a couple of tiny "token gestures", like saving a few hundred jobs at the Carrier plant, or whacking Soleimani. But for the most part … almost none of it got done, and not because of "Democratic obstruction", but because he just didn't even try. At all.
Really had me bummed, because damn if he wasn't -saying- all right stuff, but honestly I feel like I just got taken for a ride, you know? Like he said all that stuff just to get elected, and then just forgot about us.
This is a letter concerning a bill pending in the U.S. House of Representatives which would provide some reforms to how civil asset forfeiture is conducted in the U.S.
Unsurprisingly, for law enforcement, any hinderance of their ability to engage in such forfeitures does make their jobs harder (individual rights can add pesky additional hoops to jump through) and, perhaps more importantly, threatens a revenue stream (discussed in the letter as "equitable sharing"... in essence the cut of the take local agencies get from a forfeiture).
A more direct way to limit the influence of cartels may be to start cutting funding for agencies like the DEA who are supposed to be stopping - not facilitating - the transfer of drugs into the US.
These are the same state-sponsored criminals who obtain evidence unlawfully then lie about it under oath as part of their evidence laundering schemes.
31 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 80.2 ms ] thread[1] https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/civil-forfeiture-...
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/07/513976112...
Background on the bizarre and kinda scary institution that is the office of “sheriff”, in the US:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gt5I3V5hWkU
“Some More News — Maybe We Don’t Need Sheriffs”
Potentially NSFW language. Also: long video warning.
TL;DW they’re (at least in many states) not just another type of police force basically the same as the others, but a distinct kind of thing with a lot of autonomy and not a lot of checks on what they get up to. Unsurprisingly, they have a tendency toward corruption. And their lobbying groups are weird and creepy.
EDIT anyone wanna clue me in why this way-tamer-than-many-posts post is upsetting folks so much, so I can avoid doing it in the future? Does everyone else just already know this stuff about sheriffs (I didn’t find out until I was well into my 30s…)?
In other words: even if civil asset forfeiture wasn't blatantly unconstitutional, why give such a power to people who've demonstrated every intent to do nothing of (ostensible) value with it?
https://www.poam.net/poam-members/letter-regarding-hr-1525/
Signed,
The Treasurer of the Sheriffs' Association
Only a 'preponderance of evidence' is required, a much lower burden of proof than in criminal trials. This essentially means 'more likely than not.' [2]
Also, unlike you the individual, your property is not 'innocent until proven guilty' as it has no rights. You must prove that you deserve your property back.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
[2] https://versustexas.com/blog/beyond-reasonable-doubt/
While I realize you're simply defining the term, I believe, in a more accurate summation.
Think about it, these are often the same people that tout their "tough on crime" stances and support for civil asset forfeiture is a way of showing support for making law enforcement's job easier. For some, an arrest is as good as guilt.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/jeff-sessions-and-t...
And how about you, with the people you'd like to see in power?
In and among the nonsense there were a bunch of great promises, like pulling us out of China, getting massive infrastructure projects, resourcing a ton of our manufacturing from Mexico, maybe finally taking out the Ayatollah. Legitimately good shit!
So like; honestly if he was gonna do any of that, I'm game, man. We need it.
…
If I sit back and objectively look at it … he did a couple of tiny "token gestures", like saving a few hundred jobs at the Carrier plant, or whacking Soleimani. But for the most part … almost none of it got done, and not because of "Democratic obstruction", but because he just didn't even try. At all.
Really had me bummed, because damn if he wasn't -saying- all right stuff, but honestly I feel like I just got taken for a ride, you know? Like he said all that stuff just to get elected, and then just forgot about us.
Meanwhile Biden's doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/06/09/biden-administrati...
https://fortune.com/2023/04/17/biden-manufacturing-chips-com...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2023/12/08/watershe...
…
I don't care who delivers, but I do take note of who chose not to do so, and don't vote for them a second time. "Fool me once".
Wow.. just grand mal stupid there, friend.
Try not to die crossing streets out there.
You're looking for FOX, not Hacker News.
edit: awww.. did the wittle snowfwake get him wittle feewings hurt after voting for literal treason? Cry me a river, traitor.
This is a letter concerning a bill pending in the U.S. House of Representatives which would provide some reforms to how civil asset forfeiture is conducted in the U.S.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1525...
Unsurprisingly, for law enforcement, any hinderance of their ability to engage in such forfeitures does make their jobs harder (individual rights can add pesky additional hoops to jump through) and, perhaps more importantly, threatens a revenue stream (discussed in the letter as "equitable sharing"... in essence the cut of the take local agencies get from a forfeiture).
These are the same state-sponsored criminals who obtain evidence unlawfully then lie about it under oath as part of their evidence laundering schemes.
https://narco.news/articles/private-network