It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by Amaterasu
Whatever became of Our right to be safe from unreasonable seizure...?
That disappeared long ago with the war on drugs.
Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by Maluhia
Didn't you read? Over 40% of police stations require revenue from civil asset seizure to finance their operations. Meaning Police departments use these illegal seizures of property to fund themselves without having to go to the taxpayers. There-by eliminating civil oversight of their activities.
Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Ookie
high point 9mm i got one with 2 mags for 90 bucks at a pawn shop not the fancyest or best gun but its heavy enough if i run out of ammo i can beat some one pretty good with it im not too good with it but my girl friend was 5 for 5 having never shot a hand gun before today so they get the job done....and life time warenty for any owner which is pretty chill but glocks they are not
Originally posted by Maluhia
reply to post by crankyoldman
That's the scary thing about civil asset forfeiture - the lines are blurry to say the least.
Only three states demand that the government show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the property was part of a criminal act.
This in practice is meaningless. The government has unlimited money to spend taking something - in their system, where a regular person has nothing to fight with (especially if they seize the liquid assets) and will die in the process. The above limitation is simply a fig leaf. A recent case I saw had a private company, who desired another's private property, go to the city and ask them to seize it via imminent domain - the city complied and the owner was eventually forced to sell as he could not afford to fight.
Fact is, all property is owned by the crown, we are only allowed to lease it. When these folks take something, it is simply taking away the right to lease.
Most states, 27, use a lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard - basically, the government must show it is more likely than not that the property was related to criminal conduct. This is also the standard in federal law.
This link explains it best -
Originally posted by jude11
Police Departments are in need of cash so under the law, anything "connected" to crime is fair game to seize and sell. Even if they have to fabricate such claims. We can't win in their eyes.
I am getting to be that guy that looks at police on the street and sees nothing but a criminal in a freshly pressed uniform with a badge to stand behind and a gun to make them feel bullet proof.
Well, take off those guns and badges and meet us on neutral ground to see if we understand our rights or not.
I say fight...and fight hard. It's his property and no one has the right to take it if he didn't commit a crime. It's the same if a drug dealer sits on your lawn, sells a joint and you get your property seized because of that act.
IMO, all Americans should stand behind this man because if he can lose his lone fight, the entire Nation lose their rights to everything.
edit on 31-12-2011 by jude11 because: (no reason given)