[Asset Forfeiture] Police took more stuff from people than burglars did in 2014.

[ArcadiaGP]

What say you INGO? Is this a problem, or just something that's going to happen from time-to-time?

In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. Martin Armstrong pointed this out at his blog, Armstrong Economics, last week.

Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I'm not sure that it's a fair comparison if only based on dollar value. It takes a lot of home break-ins to equal the seizure of a 100' yacht.

 

[mbills2223]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm not sure that it's a fair comparison if only based on dollar value. It takes a lot of home break-ins to equal the seizure of a 100' yacht.

Yeah I was wondering that... plenty of variables to make the graph sway one direction over the other. Get a few ultra high priced items and it's bound to happen

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yeah I was wondering that... plenty of variables to make the graph sway one direction over the other. Get a few ultra high priced items and it's bound to happen

Maybe it should be based on the number of Playstations or flat screen tv's...

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not sure that it's a fair comparison if only based on dollar value. It takes a lot of home break-ins to equal the seizure of a 100' yacht.

All that demonstrates is that theft is easier when the State sends the gunmen, and ignores constitutionally protected rights.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Can we add the statistic of how much $$ IRS fraud takes? The two existing lines would appear as one due to scale changes.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

All that demonstrates is that theft is easier when the State sends the gunmen, and ignores constitutionally protected rights.

Well, theft of large, expensive items/properties certainly.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Can we add the statistic of how much $$ IRS fraud takes? The two existing lines would appear as one due to scale changes.

 

[hoosierdoc]

All that demonstrates is that theft is easier when the State sends the gunmen, and ignores constitutionally protected rights.

That's the IRS being used to redistribute. It's illegal for me to go take it but fine if Bernie takes it and gives to me.

 

[seedubs1]

Seems our rights are being trampled by civil forfeiture no matter how you look at it. By civil forfeiture, I'm talking about police seizing property and the rightful owner never getting it back with no trial or other conviction or proof of wrong doing. This is where assets are seized and burden of proof is actually put on the person the items or money were seized from. That person must prove (essentially impossible) that the items/cash were legal and only intended to be used for legal purposes. Essentially, the items/cash are what go on trial.....not the person. And items/cash don't have rights.

4th Amendment - Prohibit unreasonable searches and SEIZURE
5th Amendment - Protects the right to DUE PROCESS
8th Amendment - Protects against EXCESSIVE FINES

Seems all of those are being broken.

There should be public outrage.

 

[femurphy77]

At least the burglars are being honest about it when they do it. You KNOW they're not there to help.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Florida Governor Signs Bill Requiring Actual Criminal Charges Before Seizing Property - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[Denny347]

Seems our rights are being trampled by civil forfeiture no matter how you look at it. By civil forfeiture, I'm talking about police seizing property and the rightful owner never getting it back with no trial or other conviction or proof of wrong doing. This is where assets are seized and burden of proof is actually put on the person the items or money were seized from. That person must prove (essentially impossible) that the items/cash were legal and only intended to be used for legal purposes. Essentially, the items/cash are what go on trial.....not the person. And items/cash don't have rights.

4th Amendment - Prohibit unreasonable searches and SEIZURE
5th Amendment - Protects the right to DUE PROCESS
8th Amendment - Protects against EXCESSIVE FINES

Seems all of those are being broken.

There should be public outrage.

Not true, in Indiana anyway. If we seize property, we must go to civil court within a certain number of days and prove they are the fruits of the criminal activity. Now since it is civil, the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but 51%...more likely than not. Much like victims of a crime that sue the suspect in civil court and it is separate to the criminal case...even if it was still pending.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Not true, in Indiana anyway. If we seize property, we must go to civil court within a certain number of days and prove they are the fruits of the criminal activity. Now since it is civil, the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but 51%...more likely than not. Much like victims of a crime that sue the suspect in civil court and it is separate to the criminal case...even if it was still pending.

Better than in some other states, but still, allowing the .gov to jack our stuff on 51% seems to invite abuse.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Better than in some other states, but still, allowing the .gov to jack our stuff on 51% seems to invite abuse.

That's why making the standard clear and convincing is a much needed reform IMHO.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That's why making the standard clear and convincing is a much needed reform IMHO.

Sounds good, and conviction of crimes proven to have yielded the assets in question beyond a reasonable doubt would be a good standard, unless we simply abolish asset forfeiture completely.

 

[Denny347]

Sounds good, and conviction of crimes proven to have yielded the assets in question beyond a reasonable doubt would be a good standard, unless we simply abolish asset forfeiture completely.

So, is civil law not sufficient to decide civil matters? Or, is it that the Gov should not be using this legal process? I remember the OJ Trial and the groans of the jury decision. I also remember the cheering of "justice done" when the civil jury found him guilty. It is a fair process for civilians but unfair for the government?

 

[IndyDave1776]

So, is civil law not sufficient to decide civil matters? Or, is it that the Gov should not be using this legal process? I remember the OJ Trial and the groans of the jury decision. I also remember the cheering of "justice done" when the civil jury found him guilty. It is a fair process for civilians but unfair for the government?

Right there. If I run a stop sign and slam into your patrol car, that would be different, and would be a true civil matter between a .gov agency and Yours Truly. Claiming civil process as a remedy for alleged criminal behavior (or even proven criminal behavior, in which case if forfeiture is to exist, it should be a CRIMINAL penalty for CRIMINAL activity, tried in CRIMINAL court under CRIMINAL standards) which can then be run through court on a 51% standard is nothing but a way to short-circuit due process.

I would have to add that the OJ fiasco is a poor example of most any point other than why the justice system should not be allowed to be converted into a circus. The juror flashing a 'black power' gesture at OJ as he left the courtroom acquitted did not aid the cause of an impartial trial. The civil trial being used as a second crack at OJ did not strike me as a good thing, even with questions about the criminal trial given that two wrongs don't make a right, especially when the two wrongs reinforce precedent for the next time and the time after that.

 

[amboy49]

Yeah I was wondering that... plenty of variables to make the graph sway one direction over the other. Get a few ultra high priced items and it's bound to happen

Just goes to prove, if you're gonna steal go big !