Sessions revives civil asset forfeiture for people suspected but not convicted of crimes.

[irish_thug]

I don't think you will get many arguments there. I just don't like giving these guys that type of power. Look how they abused it in this case.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/

I just like to think of it as how Vic Mackey got his new ride in the Shield.

 

[Undying Poster]

Unfortunately, this probably won't have the backlash that, say, any suggestion on cracking down on legal marijuana would create.

 

[Gregolian]

Unfortunately, this probably won't have the backlash that, say, any suggestion on cracking down on legal marijuana would create.

I have no issue with legal marijuana... I voted for it here in WA.

I just wish we could force the state to show us WHERE the money from the taxes and profits are going.

 

[Rod1]

@Der Eisbar

Another great example of the totally western and completely fair and logical common law.

 

[Der Eisbär]

@Der Eisbar

Another great example of the totally western and completely fair and logical common law.

Nah, civil asset forfeiture is totally antithetical to the spirit of western common law. It's absolute horseshit and a violation of your rights. Nearly everyone I've ever heard talk about it is against it.

 

[Rod1]

Nah, civil asset forfeiture is totally antithetical to the spirit of western common law. It's absolute horseshit and a violation of your rights. Nearly everyone I've ever heard talk about it is against it.

No true scotsman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Legal_origins

 

[Der Eisbär]

No true scotsman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Legal_origins

There's historical roots of them. That doesn't mean they're coherent with western law. They are inherently anti-western and anti-freedom which is why nearly everyone is against it.

 

[Toastytoy]

Where's all those conservative patriots who dream about fighting a tyrannical government? Jeff Sessions is pro-private for profit prison, anti-states rights on marijuana and pro-asset forfeiture of those not even CHARGED with a crime.

That's pretty tyrannical IMO.

agreed, and i hope more conservatives realize this

 

[lecter]

<18><18><18>

 

[Rod1]

There's historical roots of them. That doesn't mean they're coherent with western law. They are inherently anti-western and anti-freedom which is why nearly everyone is against it.

Except that the whole process has been developed by common law judges and given jurisprudence due to how common law operates.

 

[Der Eisbär]

Except that the whole process has been developed by common law judges and given jurisprudence due to how common law operates.

I don't know what your point is.

 

[Rod1]

I don't know what your point is.

Remember when you claimed that Mexico was a third world country for following civil law?

 

[HomerThompson]

<18><18><18>

 

[Der Eisbär]

Remember when you claimed that Mexico was a third world country for following civil law?

I don't believe I made that assertion. I just said it's a third world country, which it is.

 

[lecter]

I'm sure Republicans who totally care about the second amendment and individual liberties will understand when brave Americans use their guns to defend their private property against an overreaching government.
While we're at it, Comrade Sessions should also seize the means of production.

 

[Rod1]

I don't believe I made that assertion. I just said it's a third world country, which it is.

You said a third world country would never understand "western laws" like those of Canada.

 

[WiolentOne]

"This system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses " --Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

 

[lecter]

You said a third world country would never understand "western laws" like those of Canada.

> Western country
> Canada

 

[WiolentOne]

Just for accuracy I need to mention that asset forfeiture was well alive during Obama. Holders restrictions(re: not ban) were for the FEDERAL gov( i.e. FBI, ATF, DEA) who generally go after the bigger dawgs of the drug trade. They are actually less of a problem when it comes to abuses. Holders restrictions didn't apply to states or local LE where most of the potential abuse comes from. But the Obama admin did provide a loophole for LE under states that did have restrictions thru the Equitable Sharing Program.

This thread title can be misleading for those that don't know any better..

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

"This system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses " --Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

Has lead to? It's flat out criminal.

...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.