This should piss everyone off

[Vegasdogg]

Three responses to the article said it better than I could......

Another by and large good article from Lexington. "Policing for profit" is indeed an alarming conflict of interest. However, Mr. Ali’s story just sounds like just a dodgy car loan gone sour. That the police was involved is rather circumstantial. A used car salesman who also extends vendor financing should be prepared for his clientele to default in any number of ways

....................................

Before writing an article, and provide the public with a half-way done analysis, we must first ask ourselves a few important questions:
The owner knew about the missing payments, if so, why not report the truck stolen?
Was the owner of the vehicle making the payments while the buyer missed payments?
On average; how long does it take for a government agency to notify one of personal property being seized?
Was a simple drunk and driving the real crime for the third time?
Can a person be sent to prison for D.U.I? I did not know; I knew people would go to jail for such "crime".
Would one (with the right mind that is) give responsibility of a personal valuable, to another, without knowing their background?
Why claim the vehicle (an American truck! worth cents by now) after six years?
What is the relationship between drugs and banknotes? Was this example taken from a 1980s movie where individuals snorted cocaine with Dollar bills?
Since when the "poor" carry large amounts of cash?
Is the article providing the public with a rational and unbiased point of view?
There are certainly more questions to ask, but I think the message is obvious. The magazine is loosing quality, and just producing quantity. I would suggest the editor of the Economist to be more careful when publishing articles, the magazine keeps loosing it's touch.

-------------------------------------------

Lexington wrote: "By and large, the police do a dangerous job honourably. But they are human, so giving them a financial incentive to seize people’s property is dotty. Why should the money not be put in the general pot of public funds? And seizing a citizen’s assets without proving him guilty of anything is nakedly unjust."
Actually, federal asset forfeiture and most state asset forfeiture laws DO require that proceeds from seized assets go back to the federal or state treasury. Some jurisdictions give assets directly to the locality, but more often than not they are set into separate funds in the main treasury that are used to supplement government enforcement activity, or for restitution to victims of crimes.
Second, Lexington misapprehends the purpose of asset forfeiture laws. They are not in place to enrich the government, they are in place to empoverish the guilty. It seems incongruous to let a drug dealer get convicted of his crimes, yet keep all the fruits of his ill-gotten gains, does it not? Even in civil forfeiture, the purpose is to deprive wrongdoers of the fruits of their misbehavior, as well as take away the tools they use to further their misbehavior.
For those that hand-wring over the fact that civil forfeiture can occur under a lower standard of proof, the answer is "who cares?" We deprive people of money and property in civil trials all the time under a preponderance of evidence standard -- look at any wrongful death lawsuit, any divorce proceeding, or any action involving civil penalties (for example, BP is likely going to have courts deprive it of billions of dollars in a multitude of lawsuits, all under a preponderance of evidence standard). OJ Simpson was actually ACQUITTED in his criminal trial, yet lost his wrongful death civil lawsuit and was ordered to pay damages to the Brown family. Is anybody thinking OJ was treated unfairly?
Finally, all asset forfeiture statutes provide for an "innocent owner" defense, and Texas's statute is no different. The state of Texas is just making Mr. Ali put forth some actual EVIDENCE that he is, in fact, an innocent owner and not just a front-man helping is drunkard friend keep his car. Mr. Ali's attorney is better off just providing proof that his client is an "innocent owner" rather than fighting the losing battle to have it declared unconstitutional -- that fight was fought centuries ago and was lost decisively. Asset forfeiture is constitutional, has been since the founding of this nation, and will be with us to stay.

[Vegasdogg]

Directly regarding Mr Ali :

Finally, all asset forfeiture statutes provide for an "innocent owner" defense, and Texas's statute is no different. The state of Texas is just making Mr. Ali put forth some actual EVIDENCE that he is, in fact, an innocent owner and not just a front-man helping is drunkard friend keep his car. Mr. Ali's attorney is better off just providing proof that his client is an "innocent owner" rather than fighting the losing battle to have it declared unconstitutional -- that fight was fought centuries ago and was lost decisively. Asset forfeiture is constitutional, has been since the founding of this nation, and will be with us to stay.

[Vegasdogg]

Again Grimm, it is not that I don't want to agree with people. But I am not sure what you're pissed off about. The article? How do you know when to be pissed off if you only have 1/2 the facts. Certainly what the author of this article presented would surely piss people off, and yes I am for smaller govt. I just don't know how to debate a subject with 1/2 the facts.

[Papa Pump]

Welcome to Amerika immigrant!

Now you will understand why we protest commi presidents like Obamao.

Leave it to a bunch of bleeding heart libs to allow a bunch of BS that they themselves stood against in their younger days.

[mz.]

[Rich4eagle]

Originally Posted by Vegasdogg

And people wonder why I am against big government. This case is about bigger govt holding all the cards, asking for ridiculous documents and tax papers, and all the guy can do is hire a lawyer. The law in on the books for a reason, but they need to give the guy his vehicle back. Sorry part of this all is most of the govt workers agree, but the red tape prevents this from happening.


This is a misleading statement. If the case has not been heard yet, the citizen's guilt or innocence is irrelevant.


Ah yes, the obligatory "be nice and we'll cooperate with you" statement. Pulling out guns and fining citizens is not the reason they don't cooperate. Death threats and murder by the criminals does that.

Overall I understand the plight of Mr Ali and think this case is about the govt having all the control and basically hoping he goes away. But to turn this into a "Cops do it for the cash so point the finger at the department" is BS and a stretch.

Do I think cops pull people over to line the budget with cash? No, and the DA will see to that. Do I think 10% of the cops ruin it for the other 90%? Yes.

But by and large the article has an agenda and I didn't buy into it.

And just think the Bush Admin bloated big govt the greatest of all times cept WWII and you want the Republicans back in power...........and are a Republican.......bit of Hypocrite maybe????

[Papa Pump]

Originally Posted by Rich4eagle

And just think the Bush Admin bloated big govt the greatest of all times cept WWII and you want the Republicans back in power...........and are a Republican.......bit of Hypocrite maybe????

stupid is, as stupid speaks

[Vegasdogg]

Originally Posted by Rich4eagle

And just think the Bush Admin bloated big govt the greatest of all times cept WWII and you want the Republicans back in power...........and are a Republican.......bit of Hypocrite maybe????

WTF does what you wrote have anything to do with the article? If you're going to comment, stay on topic. If you can't comment on the topic, shut your cum receptor.

[Tobalaz]

Been reading about this law and some of the cases, and some of the things you have to do if something like this happens to you.
If someone commits a crime in your vehicle, even if you had reported that vehicle stolen already, it falls under the seizure laws and you forfeit ownership of said vehicle to the arresting agency.
That's right.
If someone steals your car, you report it stolen, and then it it used in a crime before it can be found and returned to you you've given up all rights to your vehicle via the law books.
BUT....
There is a way you might get your vehicle back.
You've go to hire an attorney and have him or her file an injunction for a hold of sale with the courts before your property can be sold by the agency that is holding it, so you've got to act fast!
Next you have to go to court, and prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you had no knowledge that your vehicle was going to be used in a crime, including proof you did not know those that used the vehicle to commit the crime.
THEN the judge has to decide whether or not you've made a strong enough case and if you may or may not be entitled to the return of your property.
IF the judge decides you don't deserve your vehicle back, you are still expected to pay all attorney fees and court costs related to the case.
If the judge decides you deserve your vehicle back, you are still expected to pay all attorney fees and court costs, plus the impound fees for the time while your car was being held.
AND...
Unless you have the money to pay all attorney fees, court costs and impound fees upon a verdict for you to receive your vehicle back, you will ALSO receive a daily impound fee which will occur until all amounts due are paid in full and the vehicle can be retrieved from the designated impound lot.
BOTTOM LINE....
By the time you pay for all the fees and costs, it's cheaper for a "poor or lower middle class" person to just let it go or sign over the vehicle to the government agency then attempt to get it back.
The ONLY people who it makes sense to fight for their vehicles would be the rich with high end sports cars.
It looked like a great law on paper, but the little guy gets screwed just like an English serf from medieval times.

[Vegasdogg]

Tob rarely does it work that way in real life. Judges and DA's don't keep property that often if it belongs to innocent individuals.

[Tobalaz]

Originally Posted by Vegasdogg

Tob rarely does it work that way in real life. Judges and DA's don't keep property that often if it belongs to innocent individuals.

That's it, rarely.
It does happen, rarely.
Just like innocent people going to jail.
It rarely happens.
God only knows how bad it would suck if it happened to you or anyone you knew.