Police Ripped Off More Stuff Than Burglars Did Last Year

According to a new report on asset forfeiture from the Institute for Justice, police seized $4.5 billion in cash and property through civil forfeiture last year. That exceeds the $3.9 billion worth of property stolen in burglaries during the same period. The valuation of burglary proceeds is from the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report.

Now, not every dollar seized by police is stolen. Some of it is seized legitimately from real criminals who should pay for the damage their crimes cause. But in too many cases, property is seized from people who have not been convicted of anything.

Police Ripped Off More Stuff Than Burglars Did Last Year

Just a quick post that I thought would be of interest to the membership. I've always known that forfeiture laws were being abused but not to this extent as I don't know anyone who's been subject to this 'legal' crime.

They give one extreme example that truly turns the stomach. This isn't a detailed article but I think it brings to our attention another aspect of 'militarized policing' that we need to be aware of.

Happy December.

This is why I never travel with more than $50 in cash. Driving to Texas, to visit family, I have to go through Tennessee, well known for confiscating money. I got pulled over once, right outside of Memphis and the 3rd question asked, after license and insurance, was, "How much cash are you carrying?"

ETA : I asked the officer why he pulled me over. I was not speeding, no defective equipment [ I always do a check before traveling - lights, turn signals, etc ] tags were up to date. He had to get a car behind me to slow down to get between us to pull me over. He said some BS about highway safety checks. [ eyeroll ]
I know why. Out of state plates and hoping for some cash.

Highway Robbery: Tennessee Police Are Seizing Cash From Out-of-State Visitors In Policy Called “Policing For Profit”

a reply to: FyreByrd

It's totally criminal, but under the name of "protecting the public" they are allowed to do this.

It's such a joke.

Police "policing the public" and protecting the state.

And its all legal. What they call it, confiscation and forfeiture? What else do we expect from a government who calls bribes, 'campaign contributions'?

a reply to: FyreByrd
The system is corrupt and broken.

“People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.”
Alan Moore - V for Vendetta

LEO's have created their own untenable position and they are not trusted by large portions of the general public any longer. Perhaps not a majority, YET, but still having large numbers concentrated heavily among those under 40 years of age. Also, even, IF, the under 40 crowd does not believe that LEO's are dangerously lethal to civilians (which they do), this under 40 cohort, ABSOLUTELY believes that LEO's are, primarily, "revenue collectors".

LEO's MUST learn to live with the LONG TERM consequence of these actions, which they, as a group, have taken, while in the field and has been compounding all the issues surrounding their increasingly negative public image. Over the last 25 years, contemporary LEOs have proven, through their actions, that they are in place to do the following and NOTHING MORE:

1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local governments authorizing their activities.
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on the behalf of the big corporations)
5. Protecting the private property and political interests of large, influential, land & business owners, residing within their jurisdiction, that also contribute to and participate in local politics (i.e. campaign donations for Police Chief and Sheriff elections).
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.

They’ve been totally co-opted, insulated from financial consequences and tax paying citizens are picking up the tab. That's the sad reality of where we are today, in regards to contemporary Law Enforcement Culture. Civilians should view the police no differently than the way in which police typically view the general public, with suspicion.

Here is an example of a sleepy county in Oregon, that is 92% white, with 56% of the population over 45 years of age, yet, these people still VOTED TO DE-FUND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT because they got sick of receiving unjust traffic tickets:

Defunding government is a sensible voter solution to reining in local government By Dave Duffy

Think about that for a minute, if LEO's can't hold the trust of small communities, with these kinds of demographics, what chance do they stand anywhere else? Not much. This should be a VERY CLEAR message that LEO's, in general, have lost the trust of the public

Civilians should not trust the motivations of LEO's and must always assume that their lives are in danger, with EVERY interaction they have with LEO's.

Why? Not because ALL LEO's are bad, but because ALL LEO's are LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to kill civilians AND TAKE THEIR PROPERTY, as they see fit.

Why should civilians take any risk of death or loss of property, when its far easier to simply not interact with, refuse to help and actively avoid contact with LEO's, whom are LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to kill civilians AND TAKE THEIR PROPERTY, as they see fit?

We have come full circle, except now, LEO's don't regularly "exterminate" undesirables TO TAKE THEIR PROPERTY, they simply put them in jail indefinitely, for petty offenses, so someone can make money off their existence while in the system, via a government contract.

Law Enforcement Agencies, AS CURRENTLY OPERATED (see above items 1-6), can't function when large numbers of people with good consciences serve in them. So, even if good people with consciences tried to enact grass-root change from within, they would simply be denied entry to the agency or get quickly removed from the ranks through various legal and administrative means.

Here is an except from Bowers v. DeVito. In 1982, the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents... but it does not violate... the Constitution."

"no duty" = "free to ignore" because if there is no financial or legal consequence to inaction, then certainly some "bad apples" will use that as a legal basis for "choosing", when to "render services" or when not to.

From the perspective of LEO's, the above noted ruling means that they may "pick and choose" when they attempt to "save someone from death or injury" because the ruling does not obligate them to act. It is that perspective, which LEO's are allowed to legally take, that should matter to the average citizen. The context from Bowers v. DeVito is very clear, the police CHOSE to not assist, despite Marguerite Anne Bowers repeatedly requesting their help and the courts then determined that the police are not liable for making the "choice" to not help her.

As for the "Oath's" that LEO's typically take, lets use the LAPD oath for example, which seems to be MOSTLY concerned with swearing to not overthrow the government:

"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."

Here is another sample Oath, that focuses on "Peace with the Communities" within the "Sovereign Country and State":

I SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL - UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE ­ OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER

So exactly how, do these above noted sample Oaths, keep officers from "picking and choosing" when they attempt to "save someone from death or injury" due to having no LEGAL obligation to act? Other than of course, having the LEGAL obligation to keep "Peace with the Communities" within the "Sovereign Country and State" and also swearing to not overthrow the government.