9 dead in Waco

[kingjason]

Where may I find constitutional authority to seize property without due process of law and a conviction? How is asset forfeiture constitutional?

Frost they impounded it for evidence or processing and it was put on hold. Then the paperwork was filed for seizure and they will have to go to court on it. I don't think anything has been awarded yet. All that you were reading was the paperwork being filed. It is subject to open records and some one found a back door to retrieve information that hasn't been released yet. The asset part will be separate from the criminal and be a different court.

[Forever_frost]

Frost they impounded it for evidence or processing and it was put on hold. Then the paperwork was filed for seizure and they will have to go to court on it. I don't think anything has been awarded yet. All that you were reading was the paperwork being filed. It is subject to open records and some one found a back door to retrieve information that hasn't been released yet. The asset part will be separate from the criminal and be a different court.

And it is separated due to the fact that they made a neat little way to charge the inanimate object instead of the person which is a violation of the owner's 4th amendment right.

[David]

No, it's not. If you seize property, the constitution is clear.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't see an exemption for civil matters.

No fucking way? When did they write that nonsense up?

All I'm sayiing is Im guessing they're probably handling civilly rather than criminally. Civil asset forfeitures don't require a conviction or necessarily the defendant to be charged.

[Forever_frost]

No fucking way? When did they write that nonsense up?

All I'm sayiing is Im guessing they're probably handling civilly rather than criminally. Civil asset forfeitures don't require a conviction or necessarily the defendant to be charged.

Which is why it's unconstitutional. If there is no conviction or charges, you cannot be deprived your property according to the constitution.

[David]

Which is why it's unconstitutional. If there is no conviction or charges, you cannot be deprived your property according to the constitution.

SCOTUS says differently.

[kingjason]

SCOTUS says differently.

Shhhhhhh don't wake the bear!

[Forever_frost]

SCOTUS says differently.

They also said internment was constitutional. The constitution disagrees. They ruled abortion was constitutional, the constitution is silent on it. Would you like more instances of the SC being wrong? Oh I know, most of the cases they hear, they lack standing to hear.

[Forever_frost]

Shhhhhhh don't wake the bear!

Yes, they also ruled that police have no obligation to protect or serve or actually enforce restraining and protection orders. Doesn't keep cops from lying and putting Protect and Serve on their cars and stating on the back of those orders that police will enforce them, does it?

[dcs13]

Yes, they also ruled that police have no obligation to protect or serve or actually enforce restraining and protection orders. Doesn't keep cops from lying and putting Protect and Serve on their cars and stating on the back of those orders that police will enforce them, does it?

Actually "restraining" orders are a civil matter, police are prohibited from enforcing civil orders. Only the Judge can enforce them, usually by a fine.

A properly issued "Protective" order in Texas "Shall" be enforced by the Police. It's one of the very few times the Code of Criminal Procedure says that police "shall" do something...

[Forever_frost]

Actually "restraining" orders are a civil matter, police are prohibited from enforcing civil orders. Only the Judge can enforce them, usually by a fine.

A properly issued "Protective" order in Texas "Shall" be enforced by the Police. It's one of the very few times the Code of Criminal Procedure says that police "shall" do something...

Castle Rock V Gonzalez says that that is just paper.

JUNE 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html?_r=0

[dcs13]

The guy wasn't there when officer responded. He was in Denver about 50 miles away. She had allowed him to have the kids during non visitation dates and times and now she's complaining he has the kids ?
What protection should they have afforded her ? She routinely violated the order as well by letting him have the kids on non visitation days.
So what protection should they have given her ?

[Tremor14]

dude, you cant do that to frost..

[Forever_frost]

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.


How about looking at the paper, doing what it says? He took the kids from the front yard, in violation of the order and the police refused to do anything. I remember this case from my undergrad days. As a matter of fact, they kept putting her off until he came and opened fire on the police department and brought the issue to their doorstep.

The Court ruled that cops have no obligation to protect anyone. They are there to file reports and generate revenue and that's pretty much it. Hell,

"A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. By framing her case as one of process rather than substance, Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers hoped to find a way around that precedent."

[Nash B.]

They also said internment was constitutional. The constitution disagrees. They ruled abortion was constitutional, the constitution is silent on it. Would you like more instances of the SC being wrong? Oh I know, most of the cases they hear, they lack standing to hear.

Doesn't the Constitution say the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret what is and isn't constitutional, so how could they be wrong? Have you ever considered that perhaps your interpretation(s) is/are wrong?

[Forever_frost]

Doesn't the Constitution say the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret what is and isn't constitutional, so how could they be wrong? Have you ever considered that perhaps your interpretation(s) is/are wrong?

Please cite the authority in Article 3 that says anything about 'interpreting.' I'll wait until you find that word.