I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.
Agreed.
Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.
Agreed.
Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."
Yes, I think that you should have to prove it in a court of law.
I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.
Agreed.
Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."
Yes, I think that you should have to prove it in a court of law.
I'm with Doc on this one.
It's really easy to start changing the rules and assuming that everyone is guilty before they're even charged.
Then again, I'm in the "Better 1,000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison" camp.
I think the idea of civil forfeiture is fine - ie the feds take your drug profits. The problem is the application which in this case is the burden of proof. It would be reasonable after a criminal conviction to allow civil forfeiture using the civil burden of proof.
The reverse burden without a conviction is simply appalling.
Taking goods as the spoils of crime is fine, but you (should?) have to prove that they were obtained through or used to commit crime. Guy files a $10,000 tax return and gets busted with a kilo of cocaine on a speed boat? Fine, take the boat and his Ferrari too. Another guy gets busted with a kilo of cocaine, but doesn't show any unusual assets for his reported income? Fuck off, he's likely a mule.
I'd be happy if the process could only start after a conviction and would be fine with a lower burden of proof since the conviction already took place.
Medo can correct me if I have this ass-backwards, but here's what I see as reasonable in American terms.
Buddy gets convicted of possession with intent to distribute (or whatever it's called) and the state meets a burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" which means the judge/jury has to be pretty sure. After the conviction, the state goes after the dealers assets and the judge can take the Ferrari "on a preponderance of evidence" which is more of a "seems that way to me" standard.
The current "prove you're not a criminal" strikes me as completely unconstitutional, but I'm certainly not an expert in these matters.
Kildy, if the sofa and recliner have been in the same living room for long enough together, wouldn't they be considered to be married?
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.
Agreed.
Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."
Yes, I think that you should have to prove it in a court of law.
What they do is take your cash, and say to you "You let us keep this cash, or we will file drug charges against you," or "You give us this gun, or we will file gun charges against you." Even if they don't have the evidence to prosecute those charges.
I'd be happy if the process could only start after a conviction and would be fine with a lower burden of proof since the conviction already took place.
Medo can correct me if I have this ass-backwards, but here's what I see as reasonable in American terms.
Buddy gets convicted of possession with intent to distribute (or whatever it's called) and the state meets a burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" which means the judge/jury has to be pretty sure. After the conviction, the state goes after the dealers assets and the judge can take the Ferrari "on a preponderance of evidence" which is more of a "seems that way to me" standard.
The current "prove you're not a criminal" strikes me as completely unconstitutional, but I'm certainly not an expert in these matters.
Kildy, if the sofa and recliner have been in the same living room for long enough together, wouldn't they be considered to be married?
This is pretty much how it works, only there is no need to get a conviction first. So basically they take your shit at a much lower burden of proof.
I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.
Agreed.
Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."
Yes, I think that you should have to prove it in a court of law.
What they do is take your cash, and say to you "You let us keep this cash, or we will file drug charges against you," or "You give us this gun, or we will file gun charges against you." Even if they don't have the evidence to prosecute those charges.
This will continue until people realize that the Democratic and Republican parties do not serve their interests in the least. Instead people argue over two shit sandwiches in McCain and Obama. My shit sandwich is better! No... mine is! I think this country is finally dying.
This will continue until people realize that the Democratic and Republican parties do not serve their interests in the least. Instead people argue over two shit sandwiches in McCain and Obama. My shit sandwich is better! No... mine is! I think this country is finally dying.
And your going to ...... bitch about it on the internet and then vote Barr?
This will continue until people realize that the Democratic and Republican parties do not serve their interests in the least. Instead people argue over two shit sandwiches in McCain and Obama. My shit sandwich is better! No... mine is! I think this country is finally dying.
This will continue until people realize that the Democratic and Republican parties do not serve their interests in the least. Instead people argue over two shit sandwiches in McCain and Obama. My shit sandwich is better! No... mine is! I think this country is finally dying.
Do you have any constructive solutions beyond "this country sucks!!"?
This will continue until people realize that the Democratic and Republican parties do not serve their interests in the least. Instead people argue over two shit sandwiches in McCain and Obama. My shit sandwich is better! No... mine is! I think this country is finally dying.
And your going to ...... bitch about it on the internet and then vote Barr?
Barr's a comprimiser! He's gonna pitch-fork the old lady at the voting booth.
They aren't going to tear up anything. They just aren't going to change anything. And who the hell said anything about dicatorship or nuclear war?
You guys spend most of the thread railing against improper procedure specifically prohibited in the Constitution and then vehemently disagree with someone who suggest that maybe the answer isn't within one of the two parties that have allowed this exact situation to occur.
If you have a constructive idea as to what citizens of this nation can to do to prevent the type of behavior in the OP from happening, I'd love to hear it.
If your answer is: "nothing this sucks" then I think we can be done here.
They aren't going to tear up anything. They just aren't going to change anything. And who the hell said anything about dicatorship or nuclear war?
You guys spend most of the thread railing against improper procedure specifically prohibited in the Constitution and then vehemently disagree with someone who suggest that maybe the answer isn't within one of the two parties that have allowed this exact situation to occur.
Are you paying attention?
What makes you think that Obama won't be against this nor appoint judges who are against this?
I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.
Agreed.
Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."
Yes, I think that you should have to prove it in a court of law.
I'm with Doc on this one.
It's really easy to start changing the rules and assuming that everyone is guilty before they're even charged.
Then again, I'm in the "Better 1,000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison" camp.
I think somehow you all failed to read what I wrote.
I just edited my post with a pretty rational question. Would you care to answer it? Clinton and Bush both expanded an absurd war on drugs and terror while restricting civil liberties in this country. You think this will somehow change in this election with McCain or Obama. Why do you believe in either candidate? The parties haven't changed in a very long time.
I just edited my post with a pretty rational question. Would you care to answer it? Clinton and Bush both expanded an absurd war on drugs and terror while restricting civil liberties in this country. You think this will somehow change in this election with McCain or Obama. Why do you believe in either candidate? The parties haven't changed in a very long time.
Do you know anything specific about either candidate or are you dismissing them out of hand due to their association with a party you don't like?
I think somehow you all failed to read what I wrote.
I'm in agreement that if you can prove that a piece of property was actually commissioned in a crime, it doesn't matter if you can make charges stick to the person or not; that property is forfeit. I just think that a critical step is actually proving that the property was used/related to the crime, and not just seizing it indefinitely without any real recourse.
Well, I haven't followed their careers in depth, but I have outlined the policies of each remaining candidate off of their political survey answers on votesmart. I disagree with both of them on 9 issues each that are generally related to the party stance. So no, I don't think they stray much from their parties. The only thing I can see different about McCain is his stance on climate change, which I don't agree with.
PeekingDuck on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I assume they did not have a warrant as he is still "under suspicion" and has not been charged with anything. This happened a few months ago so presumably he is not going to be charged. They just charged all of his and his dad's stuff with a crime and walked off with it. (Oh, and got him fired to boot)
The way it usually works is a search warrant is served, the evidence is considered by the law enforcement organization, and the decision is made whether to issue an arrest warrant.
Especially when it comes to computer crime, don't expect a couple months to be indicative of a done deal. It takes time to sift through evidence, and if he's eventually charged it could easily be over a year before everything is said and done, even if he ends up pleading out before a trial.
Posts
Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."
Yes, I think that you should have to prove it in a court of law.
I'm with Doc on this one.
It's really easy to start changing the rules and assuming that everyone is guilty before they're even charged.
Then again, I'm in the "Better 1,000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison" camp.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I'd be happy if the process could only start after a conviction and would be fine with a lower burden of proof since the conviction already took place.
Medo can correct me if I have this ass-backwards, but here's what I see as reasonable in American terms.
Buddy gets convicted of possession with intent to distribute (or whatever it's called) and the state meets a burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" which means the judge/jury has to be pretty sure. After the conviction, the state goes after the dealers assets and the judge can take the Ferrari "on a preponderance of evidence" which is more of a "seems that way to me" standard.
The current "prove you're not a criminal" strikes me as completely unconstitutional, but I'm certainly not an expert in these matters.
Kildy, if the sofa and recliner have been in the same living room for long enough together, wouldn't they be considered to be married?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I wish I was making this up.
This is pretty much how it works, only there is no need to get a conviction first. So basically they take your shit at a much lower burden of proof.
I know; it sucks as-is.
And your going to ...... bitch about it on the internet and then vote Barr?
Rondroid or Naderite?
Do you have any constructive solutions beyond "this country sucks!!"?
Barr's a comprimiser! He's gonna pitch-fork the old lady at the voting booth.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Naderites are just stupid.
I sure do
I also expect the President, as the head of the executive branch, to hold some sway on how the FBI operates
Not to mention the appointment of judges that are more likely to uphold search and seizure rules
Not to mention working with Congress to pass laws that restrain this kind of practice
I mean uh....they're both shit sandwiches that plan on tearing up the Constitution and starting a dictatorship/nuclear war as soon as taking office
There is no sacred "original meaning" of the constitution.
And Nazis too maybe.
Islamo-Commie-Nazi-Facists?
You guys spend most of the thread railing against improper procedure specifically prohibited in the Constitution and then vehemently disagree with someone who suggest that maybe the answer isn't within one of the two parties that have allowed this exact situation to occur.
Are you paying attention?
No no no. It is obviously set up to create a Christian nation. That is why it is replete with references to God.
Oh did you want to have a rational discourse? I'm sorry, I couldn't tell that from your posts.
If your answer is: "nothing this sucks" then I think we can be done here.
Maybe if you offered something, y'know... rational, for us to discuss?
Association fallacy.
I just edited my post with a pretty rational question. Would you care to answer it? Clinton and Bush both expanded an absurd war on drugs and terror while restricting civil liberties in this country. You think this will somehow change in this election with McCain or Obama. Why do you believe in either candidate? The parties haven't changed in a very long time.
Do you know anything specific about either candidate or are you dismissing them out of hand due to their association with a party you don't like?
I'm in agreement that if you can prove that a piece of property was actually commissioned in a crime, it doesn't matter if you can make charges stick to the person or not; that property is forfeit. I just think that a critical step is actually proving that the property was used/related to the crime, and not just seizing it indefinitely without any real recourse.
The way it usually works is a search warrant is served, the evidence is considered by the law enforcement organization, and the decision is made whether to issue an arrest warrant.
Especially when it comes to computer crime, don't expect a couple months to be indicative of a done deal. It takes time to sift through evidence, and if he's eventually charged it could easily be over a year before everything is said and done, even if he ends up pleading out before a trial.