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

[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?

[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.

[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!

[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]

I can't read that without a German accent.

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

[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....

[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]

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?

No shit, I guess If his kids or nephews turn into alcoholics, he's gonna start torching liquor stores and bars, lol...

[dcs13]

Have no issues with guns or alcohol. Love em both, just not too much of the one, while using the other.
Illegal drugs, a whole different ball game. Drug dealers are scum and pray on the weak to make their profits and support their habits. They care nothing about what happens to the users. Eff them.

[matts5.0]

Have no issues with guns or alcohol. Love em both, just not too much of the one, while using the other.
Illegal drugs, a whole different ball game. Drug dealers are scum and pray on the weak to make their profits and support their habits. They care nothing about what happens to the users. Eff them.

That could be said about almost any business/industry trying to make a profit. You are an idiot.

I'm not sticking up for drug dealers, your logic just sucks.

[46Tbird]

Have no issues with guns or alcohol. Love em both, just not too much of the one, while using the other.
Illegal drugs, a whole different ball game. Drug dealers are scum and pray on the weak to make their profits and support their habits. They care nothing about what happens to the users. Eff them.

Your opinion is a steaming pile of shit. Guess what, even drug dealers have rights.

[dcs13]

Your opinion is a steaming pile of shit. Guess what, even drug dealers have rights.

I never said they didn't. I have no use for them . Support them all you want. They're scum and pray on weak people.

[Broncojohnny]

I would always support any private citizen over a thieving government agency.

[dcs13]

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.

Actually the "lienholder" has an "innocent owner defense". Because they have an interest in the property, and they did not commit the felony offense, they shouldn't lose their interest. That's why the big boy dope dealers don't have stuff in their names...
And in your contract, you stipulate that you won't use the vehicle or property for illegal acts or they can demand the note due or reposses to satisfy their interest. Because if they give it back and the guy gets popped dealing again, they no longer have an "innocent owner" defense.

[46Tbird]

They're scum and pray on weak people.

I agree. These cops are stealing private property from citizens by abusing a rigged system.