So, because you watch "a couple of Steve Lehto's videos" before, that means you don't need to watch this one?   

Strawman. I never said I didn't watch that one. I watched the one you posted then a few more that came up after.

You most certainly are offering a "blanket defense of any and all asset forfeiture laws in place," because you haven't given a single example of where it is being done according to your standard of being "used justly."

Non sequitur.
If I pointed to a bunch of instances where cops made bad traffic stops that doesn't mean I have therefore proven all traffic stops are bad.

You still hold the view that the CAF system/concept/practice is not flawed -- just a few bad actors are spoiling it for the people using it properly and effectively to fight crime.  But you offer no actual evidence or cases to back up your assertions.

You haven't proven that all CAF systems/concepts/practices are bad so why should I have to disprove something you haven't proven?
Like I said, there are 50 states with 50 different laws/rules on asset forfeiture. Are you making the claim that you read all of them and that they are all unconstitutional?

The video details a STUDY in the STATE of SC showing not only is CAF being used as a way to enrich the operating budget of police departments, but it's being applied to people of limited means (most seizures are < $1,000 and not worth the hassle and cost to sue over) and race (65% of cases involve Black men in a population of about 25% Black men).

Great, you have made an argument that SC CAF laws/rules are broken.

Your opinions and beliefs are not facts.  You aren't doing a very good job of convincing anyone you are right, and that Civil Asset Forfeiture is not on its face government-sanctioned theft.

So you are expecting me to prove a negative....

Which is stronger:  your need to be right, or your need to for me to be wrong?

Need is irrelevant. You are making an unsupported claim and I pointed it out. You are obfuscating by trying to claim my comments opinions and getting defensive when I pointed out you are painting with too wide a brush. You can't seem to separate the concept or general practice from specific bad instances of the practice. You want to throw the baby out with the bath water.


As per your comment about someone having to prove their ignorance, you are purposefully selecting specific bad practices and misrepresenting them as if they are all that same way.

Agree to disagree

The whole point of modern policing is to convince people they are helpless and make them dependent on government “services” so that elites can rip them off whenever they want and the tax cattle will think it’s normal.

The left political class has turned the police and justice system from being a community protector and friend into an enforcer arm of their terror and extortion racket.

Don’t think it’s true?  Look around you while you drive around all the filth, squalor, vandalized property, public drug use, dumping, blatant stolen property being used, etc., then look at all the tickets being given out for victimless infractions of the driving laws. Or the constant harassment of the lawful person just trying to protect themselves and their loved ones.

It’s obvious that the left run government would much would rather harass those that are easy to victimize, such as the common joe just trying to make a decent living, than to go for those real criminals that are blatantly doing serious felonies.

People need to stop voting democrat.

Agree to disagree

Why can't you just say you disagree? That statement makes no sense.

"I did watch a couple of Steve Lehto's videos..."

"Strawman. I never said I didn't watch that one. I watched the one you posted then a few more that came up after."

We could fill volumes with what you didn't say -- until after you've been challenged.

Why not be as clear in your posts to start with instead of always having to come back and defend or expound on your posts?

"Great, you have made an argument that SC CAF laws/rules are broken."

Argument?  How about proof?  Why must everything be about arguing with you?  Just accept that at least one state that I posted about has proof their system is not only targeting law abiding citizens, but has been ruled unconstitutional?

Given that ruling, it's more likely than not that the majority of other states using people they encounter as piggy banks are also operating outside the Constitution.  CAF on its face is against the law.  Present day CAF began in the 80s to go after assets of crime bosses and organizations who have no documented sources of income, live lavish lifestyles, and pay no taxes on the money they spend, but are well known in the drug trade.

With the advent of electronic banking systems and stricter laws governing movements of large sums of money, illegal drug organizations found it necessary to deal in cash to avoid the money laundering detection schemes of the past.

Some states, like NY, used CAF to confiscate the cars of suspected DUI drivers.  Never mind that the car might not be the driver's property.  The point was to grab the property, then see if the owner has the time, resources and inclination to pursue it in court.

I realize you have an opinion, but supporting law enforcement seizing property without any evidence of an actual crime tells us everything we need to know about you. 

I hope one day you get on a plane with a large sum of money that you saved for years to gamble with in LV -- and TSA calls the Cops on you/your money.

We could fill volumes with what you didn't say -- until after you've been challenged.

Same with you. So what?
You suggested I watch his videos. I did, then you accused me of not watching them. Strawman or are you moving the goalpost?

You seem to be confused that just because you posted a youtube video doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

Why not be as clear in your posts to start with instead of always having to come back and defend or expound on your posts?

My post was clear, your reading comprehension is lacking because you read things that weren't there. Lets go over it:

I said: "I did watch a couple of Steve Lehto's videos and he presents many valid criticisms and covers how broken the laws are in some jurisdictions."
You replied: "So, because you watch "a couple of Steve Lehto's videos" before, that means you don't need to watch this one?"

Please highlight where I said the word "before". Then highlight where I said I didn't watch this one.

Argument?  How about proof?

Like I said to you earlier, I can give you examples of bad traffic stops but proof of bad traffic stops isn't proof all traffic stops are bad. You can "prove" that SC has a broken CAF program and I might likely agree but you absolutely have not proven that the CAF programs in all 50 states are broken.
Just accept that you overstepped and make specific defendable criticisms instead of indefensible blanket criticisms.

Given that ruling, it's more likely than not that the majority of other states using people they encounter as piggy banks are also operating outside the Constitution. 

Is that your "proof"? Your opinion that it is more likely than not the majority? Not only are you just making a blind assumption here but you are even admitting you can't say that all the CAF systems are bad.

CAF on its face is against the law.

Ok, here is an actual specific statement that you can try to defend reasonable. How are any and all CAF systems illegal? What federal statute or constitutional provision makes CAF illegal?

I realize you have an opinion, but supporting law enforcement seizing property without any evidence of an actual crime tells us everything we need to know about you. 

You seem to be under the incorrect assumption that all CAF programs seize property without any evidence of an actual crime.

Don’t think it’s true?  Look around you while you drive around all the filth, squalor, vandalized property, public drug use, dumping, blatant stolen property being used, etc., then look at all the tickets being given out for victimless infractions of the driving laws.

You present a false dichotomy by implying that cops must do one or the other, stop drugs, theft, and assaults OR give traffic tickets.
Not only do cops do both, it is very often the case that traffic stops lead to the arrests of thieves and drug dealers.

For example, my house got burglarized when I was young. Cops did a traffic stop on a kid a day or two later and found his car full of our stolen items.

You present a false dichotomy by implying that cops must do one or the other, stop drugs, theft, and assaults OR give traffic tickets.
Not only do cops do both, it is very often the case that traffic stops lead to the arrests of thieves and drug dealers.

For example, my house got burglarized when I was young. Cops did a traffic stop on a kid a day or two later and found his car full of our stolen items.

No it's called selective enforcement.

You present a false dichotomy by implying that cops must do one or the other, stop drugs, theft, and assaults OR give traffic tickets.
Not only do cops do both, it is very often the case that traffic stops lead to the arrests of thieves and drug dealers.

For example, my house got burglarized when I was young. Cops did a traffic stop on a kid a day or two later and found his car full of our stolen items.

No it's called selective enforcement.

^^This


One example. Every single day I see Stolen property blatantly being used (shopping carts), yet I never see any arrests or prosecution. Don’t tell me the police never see it going on. This is right in front of the police station!  Yet they are one block over they are setting up speed traps to enforce a nonsense 25mph speed limit on a 4 lane main thoroughfare, which has no residential driveways and where the speed limit suddenly goes from 35 down to 25. I don’t speed and I’ve never got a ticket, this is just my observation. It more important to create revenue than stop thievery.


I do not blame the police. They are given this assignment. As well as if they do make any arrests, most definitely the criminals would be immediately released and not be prosecuted. Wasting all the officers time and effort.


Like I said in my post, if you read it carefully, the political leftists climate encourages and supports this nonsense.

Kam Hwy leading into Wahiawa right across Wheeler Army Airfield.  F*ckn sign goes from 35 to 25 in a heartbeat.  And a cop will be right there to give you a "speeding" ticket even though right behind him is the H2 freeway where everyone is speeding and driving like lunatics.

Make money for the City comes first.

Kam Hwy leading into Wahiawa right across Wheeler Army Airfield.  F*ckn sign goes from 35 to 25 in a heartbeat.  And a cop will be right there to give you a "speeding" ticket even though right behind him is the H2 freeway where everyone is speeding and driving like lunatics.

Make money for the City comes first.

The motorcycle cops tend to sit under or near the Ka Uka overpass of H2 between 4-6PM, looking for people racing to get home from work.  Imagine the non-stop ticket writing that happens during evening rush hour.

And they seem to be more present in the final 2-3 days of the month, I assume because they haven't reached their non-existent quota of tickets for the month.   

They showed their hand when the traffic cams which were supposed to be used on busy streets in town were exclusively placed on the interstates to catch speeders.  No intention of increasing safety -- just revenue generation in part to pay for the new equipment.

As for catching law breakers through a traffic stop, that's just dumb luck.  Luck that the cop was there to do the traffic stop, and dumb on the part of the crook/druggie for giving the cops a reason to stop them.  How many traffic stops of bad criminals have resulted in the cop not even issuing a ticket, much less effecting an arrest?  Ted Bundy comes to mind.  I bet there are more criminals who get stopped for speeding or running a stop sign and aren't arrested than those who are.  They just weren't dumb enough to have stolen property or drugs and paraphernalia in plain sight.

According to EEF, there's a direct causal effect between traffic stops and solving crimes.  I say it's just bad luck for the criminal, not a great side benefit of traffic stops intended to raise revenue for the state/city.

One example. Every single day I see Stolen property blatantly being used (shopping carts), yet I never see any arrests or prosecution. Don’t tell me the police never see it going on. This is right in front of the police station!  Yet they are one block over they are setting up speed traps to enforce a nonsense 25mph speed limit on a 4 lane main thoroughfare, which has no residential driveways and where the speed limit suddenly goes from 35 down to 25. I don’t speed and I’ve never got a ticket, this is just my observation. It more important to create revenue than stop thievery.

Looking at this from a purely legal standpoint and ignoring the political ones:
Yes, the cops all know these are stolen shopping carts. However, you have issues making it not as simple as it seems.
Officers have to justify detaining the person with the shopping cart, merely seeing the person with a shopping cart is pretty weak PC for a stop in most places, but sometimes it can be articulated.
Officers then have to identify who owns the cart. Not usually a big issue
Officers usually have to work without a time element or specific address of the offense
Officers then have to find an employee from that store who wants to press charges.

This isn't impossible to do and I wish they would do it more but it isn't quite as easy as it sounds.

No it's called selective enforcement.

No, no it isn't. Solving a burglary is nothing like making a traffic stop. Burglaries are not going unsolved because cops would rather issue traffic tickets.

No, no it isn't. Solving a burglary is nothing like making a traffic stop. Burglaries are not going unsolved because cops would rather issue traffic tickets.

I wasn't referring to your response as an example but to Heavies. You said his argument was a "false dichotomy". Your response tried to steer it away from his argument into yours. There is always traffic enforcement, never "burglary enforcement" just prevention.

 

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

For those who voted for biden, you actually voted for barack and michelle and all those other pukes pulling biden's strings.

My opinion.  Of course.

No, no it isn't. Solving a burglary is nothing like making a traffic stop. Burglaries are not going unsolved because cops would rather issue traffic tickets.

Really?  How many departments are complaining they are understaffed (HPD comes to mind), but they still find time to write tons of tickets.

Seems like HPD's priorities are on non-criminal, revenue-generating activities and less about solving burglaries and other property crimes. 

It's a well-known fact that property crimes in Hawaii go to the bottom of the priority heap.

Yep.  "They" even go as far as telling the public to just give it to them and don't confront them.

No wonder property crimes and shoplifting is so rampant.

For those who voted for biden, you actually voted for barack and michelle and all those other pukes pulling biden's strings.

My opinion.  Of course.

Whoever is pulling his strings, they doing a better job than Trump!

Whoever is pulling his strings, they doing a better job than Trump!

You obviously are for open borders, student loan forgiveness for the wealthy, foreign pay-to-play influence in the WH, and sending billions to Ukraine and iraq.

Glad you post your prioritizes for all to see.