So, the police stole my buddies car trailer...

[Baron Von Crowder]

Hypothetical. Luckily it's not an issue. However, simple supply side economics. No supply, no demand. But I wouldn't have an issue with dealing with demand reduction and supply elimination. You do what you gotta do for your family.

are you one of them that think if we make all guns illegal and confiscate them, that they will disappear and we will eliminate gun violence?

[Rick Modena]

Hypothetical. Luckily it's not an issue. However, simple supply side economics. No supply, no demand. But I wouldn't have an issue with dealing with demand reduction and supply elimination. You do what you gotta do for your family.

Mmmmmkkkkaaaayyyy....

[ceyko]

I can't read that without a German accent.

I typed it in a USSR/Russian accent. Can't you tell?

[Broncojohnny]

One thing many of you may not have picked up on in the TCU story is how property with liens is treated. If a bank has a note on something they shy away from trying to take it. This is because banks have armies of lawyers who routinely crucify these idiots in legal proceedings. They do their best to only steal from folks who don't have the deep pockets to fund a legal battle.

[ceyko]

From BP's linked article:



Taking this one step further, "those involved in narcotics sales fuel their bodies with tasty snacks, such as Doritos, Honey Buns, and Funyuns. Therefore the Doritos, Honey Buns, and Funyuns in the pantry were sought after and seized."

Where is the line drawn?

Ultimately, what would stop a police agency from taking every possession owned by a person that they pull over with a joint in the car? Why should police forces get to seize anything they want without due process of law, and then spend the proceeds any way they please? This is fucking preposterous. Anyone that supports this practice has ZERO knowledge of history. You can't just let the government steal property and keep it for themselves.

If you're doing nothing wrong, you don't have anything to worry about!

[46Tbird]

From BP's linked article:

The arresting officer knew “that those involved in narcotics sales sometimes use data processing equipment, such as a computers, smart phones and iPads to … facilitate drug transactions,” the 2012 affidavit said. “Therefore, the computer, iPad and iPhone were sought after and seized.”

Taking this one step further, "those involved in narcotics sales fuel their bodies with tasty snacks, such as Doritos, Honey Buns, and Funyuns. Therefore the Doritos, Honey Buns, and Funyuns in the pantry were sought after and seized."

Where is the line drawn?

Ultimately, what would stop a police agency from taking every possession owned by a person that they pull over with a joint in the car? Why should police forces get to seize anything they want without due process of law, and then spend the proceeds any way they please? This is fucking preposterous. Anyone that supports this practice has ZERO knowledge of history. You can't just let the government steal property and keep it for themselves.

[Broncojohnny]

HUH ? They negotiated to pay to get their car back. The "negotiation" had nothing to do with any wrong doing or charges.
The asset forfeiture case is separate from criminal. And these would HAVE to be felony cases for the items to be seized here in Texas. (see chapter 59 Texas CCP).
I don't see any issue with asset forfeiture in the case of these drug dealers.
I do think taking the money out of a bank account (in these cases) was a bit over the top, however they had to get a warrant to do that, so a District Court Judge at least reviewed that prior to it happening

Exactly my point, it has nothing to do with any wrong doing or charges or how they cases ended. Whether they were innocent or guilty they had to "negotiate" to get their shit back. It is a nice way of saying they had to pay cash or use legal hours to get their property back whether they were convicted of a crime or not. In many parts of the country, part of the "negotiation" is the victim agreeing not to sue the police department for wrong doing by seizing property that had nothing to do with a crime. Read the article, it is pretty obvious that the police just take what ever they like for the hell of it, how much of the property in that article is returned to people by a judge?

[YALE]

Hypothetical. Luckily it's not an issue. However, simple supply side economics. No supply, no demand. But I wouldn't have an issue with dealing with demand reduction and supply elimination. You do what you gotta do for your family.

If you think that's what supply side economics are, you're wrong.

[91CoupeMike]

Hypothetical. Luckily it's not an issue. However, simple supply side economics. No supply, no demand. But I wouldn't have an issue with dealing with demand reduction and supply elimination. You do what you gotta do for your family.

That's like being pissed at the kid who bones your daughter, not his fault she wants the d.

[matts5.0]

Hypothetical. Luckily it's not an issue. However, simple supply side economics. No supply, no demand. But I wouldn't have an issue with dealing with demand reduction and supply elimination. You do what you gotta do for your family.

Damn straight, weed destroys families.

[dcs13]

I love how your kids and nephews seeking out "dope", is someone else's problem.

Hypothetical. Luckily it's not an issue. However, simple supply side economics. No supply, no demand. But I wouldn't have an issue with dealing with demand reduction and supply elimination. You do what you gotta do for your family.

[bcoop]

Agreed, BUT they can't bring that up in court on the criminal case. It has nothing to do with the criminal case and any lawyer worth a nickel will object to that in a second. Sounds like they all plead guilty in the criminal cases anyway.

I tell ya, you deal dope to my kids or nephews, the cops are the least of your concern...

I love how your kids and nephews seeking out "dope", is someone else's problem.

[dcs13]

Negotiation is also construed as an admission of guilt, to some extent.

Agreed, BUT they can't bring that up in court on the criminal case. It has nothing to do with the criminal case and any lawyer worth a nickel will object to that in a second. Sounds like they all plead guilty in the criminal cases anyway.

I tell ya, you deal dope to my kids or nephews, the cops are the least of your concern...

[dcs13]

Others had to "negotiate" to get their shit back. Which is a nice way of saying "pay cash and sign something that says the cops did nothing wrong". .

HUH ? They negotiated to pay to get their car back. The "negotiation" had nothing to do with any wrong doing or charges.
The asset forfeiture case is separate from criminal. And these would HAVE to be felony cases for the items to be seized here in Texas. (see chapter 59 Texas CCP).
I don't see any issue with asset forfeiture in the case of these drug dealers.
I do think taking the money out of a bank account (in these cases) was a bit over the top, however they had to get a warrant to do that, so a District Court Judge at least reviewed that prior to it happening

[Broncojohnny]

Might wanna re-read that story...Most plead guilty to delivery cases and got probation or deferred.

Others had to "negotiate" to get their shit back. Which is a nice way of saying "pay cash and sign something that says the cops did nothing wrong". This is happening every day in this country and the people who are doing it are no better than the shitbags who do it. The badge makes no difference to me.