As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Civil Forfeiture is the Lamest thing ever

MrMonroeMrMonroe passed outon the floor nowRegistered User regular
edited June 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
So a family member of mine is suspected of a crime (I'm not going to say exactly what). The FBI showed up at his doorstep a while back with the Sheriffs and they told him he was under investigation. Without being charged with anything, they charged his stuff with the crime of being suspected to have something to do with a crime, and proceeded to haul off perhaps $75k worth of computer equipment (including monitors), his cameras (professional photographer), his iPod, his entire CD collection, and all his photo albums, including pictures of family as well as records of his work (weddings, sports events, etc.). They seized similar assets belonging to other family members who happen to live with him.

Basically, in order to circumvent that irksome constitutional right to be secure in life liberty and property until convicted of a crime, the police arrest your stuff, charge it with a crime, then hold it indefinitely without ever bringing prosecution to bear on it. (like a computer could be guilty of a crime in the first place) The burden of proof that the stuff was not used in a crime is on the suspect, and in order to even begin proceedings to recover it, one must post a bail bond of 10% of the value of the property seized within 30 days of the seizure. The seized property usually goes up to the feds, who auction it and then return a portion of the money to whatever local agency stole the goods in the first place.

Federal Bureau of Taking All Your Shit indeed.

MrMonroe on
«1345

Posts

  • SkutSkutSkutSkut Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Same sort of thing happened to Steve Jackson Games while they were writing GURPS Cyberpunk. They eventually took the feds to court about it, since it basically put them out of business for the time being.

    Lord Yod on
    steam_sig.png
  • CauldCauld Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I'm listening to a story about this on NPR right now :lol:

    Cauld on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I hate to politicize, but this is what we get for years and years of voting in elected officials who are "tough on crime" - corrupt law enforcement.

    And by corrupt, I mean overly powerful. It's impossible to imbue law enforcement with additional power without receiving additional corruption.

    Regina Fong on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    It's a very political issue, I don't see the problem.

    You're right of course. This all comes out of the War on Drugs but has been expanded to many, many other areas.

    MrMonroe on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    It's a very political issue, I don't see the problem.

    You're right of course. This all comes out of the War on Drugs but has been expanded to many, many other areas.

    Well when a policy is as effective* as the War on Drugs has been, how can you not want to expand it to everything?





    *effectively producing a huge windfall for the law enforcement industry at the expense of taxpayers

    Regina Fong on
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    Opening new markets!

    Just_Bri_Thanks on
    ...and when you are done with that; take a folding
    chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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.

    an_alt on
    Pony wrote:
    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.
  • dgs095dgs095 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I'm Canadian and not up to date on US law, but I recall being kinda sickened at hearing how easily "special measures" were put in place in the US allowing the government to basically do all the stuff they used to need a warrant for without a warrant....
    You let the government take away your rights out of fear of terrorists.
    I've traveled in the USA and for the most part Canadians and Americans aren't nearly as different as everyone likes to think.

    I think we are all good people, I know Canadians happily living the US, and I know Americans who live here in Canada and are also quite happy.

    Is not the goal of terrorists to make you afraid? Giving in to that fear was basically letting them win....

    Yes, some security measures can be taken, yes worldwide crackdowns on terrorist groups make a difference..

    but there were a ton of knee jerk reactions and "safety measures" and heck, I'd even slate the war in Iraq as a knee jerk reaction, these knee jerk reactions don't provide actual safety.

    The world saw through the veil, to the core of "were scared and angry so were gonna do what we want!" and the rest of the world isn't impressed. It's time to take a step back. Elect Obama, get rid of stupid laws and special powers which provide little in the way of safety and protection and take away your rights. Pull out of Iraq, get national health coverage, and fix your economic problems before you pull the rest of the world into a recession.


    Also: how the hell can inanimate objects be guilty of a crime? How do you even go about proving your equipment is innocent? What kinda crime do they accuse your equipment of? illegal file hosting? And data is not stored on 99% of that equipment....its on hard drives...confiscating screens is just ignorant.

    Edit: OK I see how taking money criminals made from committing crimes makes sense, but shouldn't the burden of proof rest on the prosecution to prove that the money used to buy the equipment in question or the equipment in question came from criminal acts or criminals who have been convicted?

    dgs095 on
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    They don't actually charge your equipment with a crime - that's an exaggeration to make a point here I think.

    Medopine on
  • ubernekouberneko Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Am I allowed to post this link? It has to do with the subject.

    http://www.fear.org/
    Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime. Until FEAR achieved the nation's first major federal forfeiture law reform at the turn of the millenium, the government was allowed to keep whatever property it seized without ever having to prove a case. Seized property was presumed guilty and could be forfeited based upon mere hearsay—even a tip supplied by an informant who stood to gain up to 25% of the forfeited assets. Owners were forced into the untenable situation of trying to prove a negative—that something never happened, even though no proof of any illegal act had been offered at trial.
    Innocent owners who are never charged with a crime still must prove their innocence in complex proceedings, where many cases are lost before even coming to trial. Most forfeiture cases are never contested, in part because contesting the proceedings can cost more than the value of what's been confiscated. "The average vehicle siezed is worth about $4,000," states FEAR president Brenda Grantland, Esq. "To defend a case, especially when you're out of state, they've pretty much made it cost prohibitive." Under civil asset forfeiture laws, the simple possessoin of cash, with no drugs or other contraband, can be considered evidence of criminal activity.

    Crazy stuff, but hopefully something will done to stop it. I had never heard of this before and it was good to see some info about it.

    uberneko on
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Did the FBI have a warrant, MrMonroe?

    Septus on
    PSN: Kurahoshi1
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Step 1: Stop voting for fucking Republicans and DINOs like Lieberman and Feinstein (What is it about Jewish Senators that makes them suck, but strangely doesn't afflict their colleagues in the House?)

    Regina Fong on
  • EriosErios Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    Step 1: Stop voting for fucking Republicans and DINOs like Lieberman and Feinstein (What is it about Jewish Senators that makes them suck, but strangely doesn't afflict their colleagues in the House?)

    Not that I don't agree, but Democrats can do the same thing, since they(we) are often morally obligated to do acts "in defense of the people."

    EDIT: I was never even aware of this power on the part of law enforcement. After reading up on it, I must say I am somewhat appalled.

    Erios on
    Steam: erios23, Live: Coconut Flavor, Origin: erios2386.
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Wait, they just had a show about this on NPR on my car ride home
    This isn't a coincidence is it?
    Regardless, check out NPR's site, I think it was during All Thing Considered

    EDIT: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91555835 here is the program, have a look or a listen

    Shazkar Shadowstorm on
    poo
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Cauld wrote: »
    I'm listening to a story about this on NPR right now :lol:
    Ah, missed this. Well, I posted the link for the story just above if anyone wants to listen or read.

    Shazkar Shadowstorm on
    poo
  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Wait, they just had a show about this on NPR on my car ride home
    This isn't a coincidence is it?
    Regardless, check out NPR's site, I think it was during All Thing Considered

    EDIT: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91555835 here is the program, have a look or a listen

    From the article:
    Richard Weber, chief of the asset forfeiture section of the Justice Department, was asked if he found these cases troubling. They're insignificant, he said, compared with the thousands of traffic stops where major drug money couriers are busted.

    "What's troubling to you?" Weber asks. "That a drug trafficker who's bringing money from the U.S. to Mexico, who's carrying hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars in cash in their pickup truck, who just sold dope and crack and cocaine to children in your playgrounds, and his money is being taken away? That troubles you?"

    Wow, that's some refined rhetoric right there.

    Why didn't he just say "Why are you against this? You a terrorist?"

    Taramoor on
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    They don't actually charge your equipment with a crime - that's an exaggeration to make a point here I think.
    No, they actually file suit against the property. It's pretty fucked up.

    deadonthestreet on
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    They don't actually charge your equipment with a crime - that's an exaggeration to make a point here I think.
    No, they actually file suit against the property. It's pretty fucked up.

    Well then. So messed up even a lawyer to be didn't think it would be possible.

    Medopine on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    an_alt wrote: »
    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.

    TL DR on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Well, I guess you could charge a purse with being accessory to murder.

    Can your friend call himself the equipment's guardian and bring a habeas corpus suit?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Was your uncle charged with possessing kiddie porn?

    electricitylikesme on
  • RedThornRedThorn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Holy cow, the interview with the Chief of the Asset Forfeiture section of the Department of Justice in that NPR show was rage inducing. When asked whether the mentioned cases of people having money taken from them unjustly and it being so expensive that they are inable to challenge it in court were troubling, he answered:
    What's troubling to you? That a drug trafficker who's bringing money from the United States to Mexico, who's carrying hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars in cash in their pickup truck, who just sold dope and crack and cocaine to children in your playgrounds, and his money is being taken away? That troubles you?

    EDIT: Oops I fail at grammar today.

    RedThorn on
    League of Legends: Drokmir
    Steam: Drokmir
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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)

    One example of how this can hurt innocents: (and I will link this as soon as I have access to the article again)

    Back in the 90's this guy got caught with some pot and was offered probation if he started working as an informant. They paid him $4 something/hour... and gave him 10% of all the property seized on his info. He fingered a guy he'd never met, saying he sold him weed that he had grown on his farm. The Feds walked in, with warrant, arrested the guy, and then arrested his 60 acre farm. No marijuana was ever found on the farm, nor and other evidence of drug dealing. The guy never got the farm back because he couldn't post the bail. How many farmers you know that can post bail of 10% of their net physical worth with no notice? (plus lawyers' fees)

    MrMonroe on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    RedThorn wrote: »
    What's troubling to you? That a drug trafficker who's bringing money from the United States to Mexico, who's carrying hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars in cash in their pickup truck, who just sold dope and crack and cocaine to children in your playgrounds, and his money is being taken away? That troubles you?

    Except, what troubles me is that this law isn't exclusively applied to drug traffickers. What also concerns me is that no one took a second to go "well if he can get that much, he can get more just as easily to post the bond on the items" whereas a normal citizen usually can't.

    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
  • NoelVeigaNoelVeiga Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Glad to be European.

    No, really, anti americanism aside, having put some study into compared constitutional traditions, my opinion is the US needs to rewrite their Constitution ASAP.

    Proud as you guys are of having the oldest democratic system, you seem painfuly unaware that its age also makes it the patchiest, most archaic one in the western world. Sadly, you've sacralized your Constitution, which is now more a religious than a legal document, and you're not even considering a big time revision at this time.

    You should just start on your electoral system and go on from there.

    But yeah, I'm so sorry about the abuse. Your relative being guilty or not is beyond the point, that procedure is bullshit either way. I knew people here in simiar situations. They had their business seized on suspicion of copyright infringement. They won the case and got their stuff back, plus extra money due to the biz being closed over Christmas season. They weren't happy about it, but at least they didn't go broke due to the procedure.

    EDIT: For the record, the investigation to these guys was IMO very reasonable. They owned a video rental shop AND a DVD copy station, both in the same street. They did a good job of making a legal argument and won, but the investigation wasn't uncalled for. They still got decent compensation money.

    NoelVeiga on
  • SkutSkutSkutSkut Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    NoelVeiga wrote: »
    Glad to be European.

    No, really, anti americanism aside, having put some study into compared constitutional traditions, my opinion is the US needs to rewrite their Constitution ASAP.

    Proud as you guys are of having the oldest democratic system, you seem painfuly unaware that its age also makes it the patchiest, most archaic one in the western world. Sadly, you've sacralized your Constitution, which is now more a religious than a legal document, and you're not even considering a big time revision at this time.

    You should just start on your electoral system and go on from there.

    But yeah, I'm so sorry about the abuse. Your relative being guilty or not is beyond the point, that procedure is bullshit either way. I knew people here in simiar situations. They had their business seized on suspicion of copyright infringement. They won the case and got their stuff back, plus extra money due to the biz being closed over Christmas season. They weren't happy about it, but at least they didn't go broke due to the procedure.

    That's the problem with the constitution in the first place, it was made to be rewritten.

    SkutSkut on
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    NoelVeiga wrote: »
    Glad to be European.

    No, really, anti americanism aside, having put some study into compared constitutional traditions, my opinion is the US needs to rewrite their Constitution ASAP.

    Proud as you guys are of having the oldest democratic system, you seem painfuly unaware that its age also makes it the patchiest, most archaic one in the western world. Sadly, you've sacralized your Constitution, which is now more a religious than a legal document, and you're not even considering big time revision at this time.

    You should just start on your electoral system and go on from there.

    But yeah, I'm so sorry about the abuse. Your relative being guilty or not is beyond the point, that procedure is bullshit either way. I new people here in simiar situations. They had their business seized on suspicion of copyright infringement. They won the case and got their stuff back, plus extra money due to the biz being closed over Christmas season. They weren't happy about it, but at least they didn't go broke due to the procedure.

    It's not the Constitution, it's the fucked up interpretation of it. Also if you think "big time revision" is possible at this point, you're living in a dream world. We need a better administration (as the executive branch controls the FBI and all that) and we need courts to step up and uphold what the Constitution really means.

    And I believe Athens was the oldest democratic system :P

    Medopine on
  • NoelVeigaNoelVeiga Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    NoelVeiga wrote: »
    Glad to be European.

    No, really, anti americanism aside, having put some study into compared constitutional traditions, my opinion is the US needs to rewrite their Constitution ASAP.

    Proud as you guys are of having the oldest democratic system, you seem painfuly unaware that its age also makes it the patchiest, most archaic one in the western world. Sadly, you've sacralized your Constitution, which is now more a religious than a legal document, and you're not even considering big time revision at this time.

    You should just start on your electoral system and go on from there.

    But yeah, I'm so sorry about the abuse. Your relative being guilty or not is beyond the point, that procedure is bullshit either way. I new people here in simiar situations. They had their business seized on suspicion of copyright infringement. They won the case and got their stuff back, plus extra money due to the biz being closed over Christmas season. They weren't happy about it, but at least they didn't go broke due to the procedure.

    It's not the Constitution, it's the fucked up interpretation of it. Also if you think "big time revision" is possible at this point, you're living in a dream world. We need a better administration (as the executive branch controls the FBI and all that) and we need courts to step up and uphold what the Constitution really means.

    And I believe Athens was the oldest democratic system :P

    Nope, the US is the oldest democratic system still in place without interruption. Everybody else has had more than one constitution in their democratic histories.

    And yeah, it's the Constitution. Your maximum legal court is chosen for a lifetime position, which is ridiculous on XXI century lifespans, it contains anachronic dispositions recognizing firearms as rights and not banning death penalty (both inherited from colonial origins, both considered barbaric in most modern democracies), you have a non-proportional electoral system, not applying now-standard D'Hont system and producing statistically inaccurate results that deviate from actual public opinions. Your electoral system is also too long and complex and lacks a few basic guarantees. You have criminal laws tha differ in each state which, again, doesn't make sense on modern transporation systems, you have an excessively presidential system that could potentially render the whole system inactive if things get messy...

    It's been patched to be serviceable, but it doesn't hold a candle to a modern Constitution designed to work as a closed system on the basis of nearly 300 years of democratic experience.

    Also for the record, Spain got a new constitution in 78 and it's been reformed twice already, and there's a consensus on the need for a big revision to amend the Senate, the Crown and the federal structure already. And ours isn't the youngest Constitution of the bunch.

    Modern tends to be better in most things. This is no different.

    NoelVeiga on
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Ohhhkay then.

    Let's just say I disagree.

    Medopine on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Please, there's far more pressing issues with the US system. The first one that always comes to my mind is the way it's set up forces the Federal Government to REALLY REALLY loosely interpret the InterState Commerce Clause to actually DO stuff. At least, from last I remember.

    But that's all off topic. On topic, every story in this thread?

    Fucked. Up.

    You can charge property with a crime? And then seize it? The fuck?!

    shryke on
  • NoelVeigaNoelVeiga Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Ohhhkay then.

    Let's just say I disagree.

    You disagree with the facts about your system I provided (which are accurate as far as I know) or with the idea that they should cause the US to rewrite their Constitution?

    EDIT: Totally honest question, by the way. I really wanna know what you mean, I'm not being sarcastic.

    NoelVeiga on
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    NoelVeiga wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Ohhhkay then.

    Let's just say I disagree.

    You disagree with the facts about your system I provided (which are accurate as far as I know) or with the idea that they should cause the US to rewrite their Constitution?

    EDIT: Totally honest question, by the way. I really wanna know what you mean, I'm not being sarcastic.

    I don't think we need to rewrite our Constitution.

    But really this is for another thread.

    Medopine on
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    Please, there's far more pressing issues with the US system. The first one that always comes to my mind is the way it's set up forces the Federal Government to REALLY REALLY loosely interpret the InterState Commerce Clause to actually DO stuff. At least, from last I remember.

    But that's all off topic. On topic, every story in this thread?

    Fucked. Up.

    You can charge property with a crime? And then seize it? The fuck?!

    The only up side to this entire messed up system is the idea of your sofa being called to testify against your recliner.

    Yeah, Civil Forfeiture is one of those stupid rules that was made up so that if you couldn't prove something in court but totally knew the dude was a crook, you could still hurt him. Which is not how the laws are supposed to work.

    kildy on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Was your uncle charged with possessing kiddie porn?
    That was my first thought, and explains exactly why they took what they took.

    Yar on
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    Was your uncle charged with possessing kiddie porn?
    That was my first thought, and explains exactly why they took what they took.

    It would be taken as evidence against him then, not civil forfeiture. Though yes, it's a very selective list of shit to take. The photo albums standing out as "uh what?"

    kildy on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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.

    Yar on
  • SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    NoelVeiga wrote: »
    Glad to be European.

    No, really, anti americanism aside, having put some study into compared constitutional traditions, my opinion is the US needs to rewrite their Constitution ASAP.

    Proud as you guys are of having the oldest democratic system, you seem painfuly unaware that its age also makes it the patchiest, most archaic one in the western world. Sadly, you've sacralized your Constitution, which is now more a religious than a legal document, and you're not even considering a big time revision at this time.

    You should just start on your electoral system and go on from there.

    But yeah, I'm so sorry about the abuse. Your relative being guilty or not is beyond the point, that procedure is bullshit either way. I knew people here in simiar situations. They had their business seized on suspicion of copyright infringement. They won the case and got their stuff back, plus extra money due to the biz being closed over Christmas season. They weren't happy about it, but at least they didn't go broke due to the procedure.

    EDIT: For the record, the investigation to these guys was IMO very reasonable. They owned a video rental shop AND a DVD copy station, both in the same street. They did a good job of making a legal argument and won, but the investigation wasn't uncalled for. They still got decent compensation money.

    Uh, if you read the damn thing you would know that this should be a violation of the Constitution:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    It's hard to blame the Constitution when the government can get away with ignoring the spirit of it and in many cases the wording of it. Due process is supposed to mean something.

    Savant on
  • wazillawazilla Having a late dinner Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    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.

    How can you prove that the gun was used in the crime without having possession of the gun in order to see whether or not it was the gun used in the crime?

    wazilla on
    Psn:wazukki
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    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.

    Doc on
Sign In or Register to comment.