Liberty Sanders On Asset Forfeiture

[mrjarrell]

Imagine my surprise this morning when I ran across this little gem in the Indy Star. INGO's very own Liberty Sanders has a letter to the editor concerning asset forfeiture. He is correct. It's something that truly needs to be addressed in a sane fashion in Indiana (not like the legislature did this time around by listening to the people who profit from it the most). It corrupts cops and is an affront to the Constitution. Well done, Liberty!

Police aren't bounty hunters; stop for-profit busts | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

 

[PatriotPride]

Well done! Fantastic letter!

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Spot on! Well written.

 

[garyindiane]

+1

 

[Kutnupe14]

Should this concept be extended to businessmen who use ponzi schemes to fleece the elderly of their retirements? Should the proceeds go to schools?

 

[Pocketman]

To be fully transparent, for 2-3 years I drove a late model Mercury acquired through asset forfeiture. Like so many other programs, it's too easy to abuse. Never thought of it a "bounty hunting" but, see it much like the letters of marque issued by governments to legalize piracy. Worth talking about. Thanks for raising the issue Liberty.

 

[CarmelHP]

Police should never stand to profit through the use of their power. The perverse incentives are too strong to resist the temptation to abuse that power.

 

[jeremy]

Just another Tool of Oppression...

 

[MinuteMan47]

Bravo.

 

[level.eleven]

Should this concept be extended to businessmen who use ponzi schemes to fleece the elderly of their retirements? Should the proceeds go to schools?

Why wouldn't it be returned to those that were "fleeced"? In your scenario there is a clear cut victim of fraud.

 

[E5RANGER375]

HIP HIP HOORAY!!!! Spot on!

 

[spearheadersarge]

Very well written letter. I applaud your efforts to expoze this practice. Great Job!

 

[dross]

I've read several examples over the years where people were carrying large amounts of cash for legitimate reasons who lost their money for years while they tried to get it back.

I remember one of the elements for the justification was that supposedly certain characteristics and behaviors indicate drug activity. Reading the list, the cops can pretty much peg anyone for those characteristics. For instance, appearing nervous is one and overly confident is also one. Not following the speed limit and following the speed limit perfectly are both characteristics.

 

[dross]

Should this concept be extended to businessmen who use ponzi schemes to fleece the elderly of their retirements? Should the proceeds go to schools?

With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about?

 

[Kutnupe14]

With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about?

Individuals suspected of such financial crimes have their assets immediately frozen. If they are innocent until proven guilty, then that should run afoul of the logic given here, right?

 

[Benny]

With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about?

LMAO, I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Benny]

Individuals suspected of such financial crimes have their assets immediately frozen. If they are innocent until proven guilty, then that should run afoul of the logic given here, right?

You might want to take another gander at the letter...You may have missed the point.

 

[XMil]

Well said. Thanks for posting this.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You might want to take another gander at the letter...You may have missed the point.

I did, it is in reference to drugs. I'm debating the legality of the practice regardless of the motive. If you agree that asset forfeiture/freezing of assets violates a persons rights because of "innocent until proven guilty," then you have to extend it across the board. You can't pick and choose which instances are ok and which are not.

Here's an example:
Big Game Asset Hunters - BusinessWeek

 

[dross]

Individuals suspected of such financial crimes have their assets immediately frozen. If they are innocent until proven guilty, then that should run afoul of the logic given here, right?

So, I'm suspected of a financial crime and before I'm arrested my assets are frozen. You equate that with cops pulling me over, seeing I have a large amount of cash, then taking that cash with no other reason to believe I'm involved with drugs than the fact I have that cash.

Then I have to sue to get the cash back, taking me years and substantial money, all because my cash was taken from me for the "crime" of carrying cash.

You really want to defend this position?