Don't like someone? Have the police take their car.

In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:

>> heck, I work with a guy whose neighbors have complained about his
>> "unsightly" Ford pickup (a '93 model in good shape) and I have another
>> friend who's constantly being harassed about his (all plated,
>> registered, etc.) project cars in the driveway because someone objects.

> And these car were actually seized, right? Because *that* would prove
> your point.

I came to find a big fat tow sticker on a car in my driveway that
complied with every law on the books. Is a 7 day waiting period to a zero
waiting day period really that big of a leap?

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:14 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:

>
> Except the next step proposed *isn't* the next logical step! It's a
> huge leap, not supported by anything but the imagination. The step
> from cops seizing a car due to drug crimes

Crimes which have NOT been proven in a court of law. You're the one
making the "huge leap" from reality to fantasy.

An excellent example of this was shown on the show COPS a few years back.

The cops did a reverse sting where they posed as dealers selling dime
bags of marijuana. After the "buy", a cop would drive in and hit the
suspects vehicle - then they told the suspect not to worry about the
damage to their car because it belonged to the police department now.

Where was the trial?

And even if you consider such an arrest to be a fair trial, can the
confiscation of a vehicle be considered a just part of the sentence?

After all, purchase of $10 worth of marijuan is a misdemeanor NOT
punishable by the worth of a potential suspects vehicle.

> and a city seizing yor car
> because the neighbor called to complain are not even in the same legal
> universe.

Sure it is - in neither case it there a trial BEFORE the property is
confiscated. By the same illegal doctrine that allows the confiscation
of property WITHOUT a trial in a suspected drug crime - often where the
crime is not specificed, known or charged, why not seize property based
upon the suspicion of illegal behavior based upon the word of other
citizens?

According to links I posted in the news (either the Denver Post or the
Rocky Mountain News - I forget which now), the word of your "neighbors"
could be enough for the CSP to issue you a citation.

>
> The only thing they have in common is "seizing your car". No logic
> involved.
>

Well, you're right about that last sentence - there is no logic involved
in your arguments.

> E.P.
>

In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:

>> We suspect you, therefore, you're guilty.

> The state still has to meet some burden of proof other than "because I
> said so."

Maybe not to pay out on a lawsuit if the victim brings one, later. But to
take the car... no.

> And screw-ups where people are falsely accused and assets seized are
> so rare as not be an issue.

How do you know this?

>> It doesn't seem like that huge a leap before they suspect you because
>> your neighbor said so.

> In the imagination, yes. In reality, they are worlds apart.

Neighbor tells cop, cop believes neighbor over suspect. Cop makes the
determination that the car was involved in street racing because it has a
big fart can muffler and a big drag racing tach and has the car siezed.
Simple.

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:20 am, (Matthew T.
> Russotto) wrote:

>>It ain't magic making it happen. It's people making it happen. Every
>>step they push makes the next step that much easier, whether you see a
>>logical connection or not. You pretend there's a bright line between
>>where we are today and the predicted consequence, but there simply is
>>not. Once the step is taken to those predicted consequences, you'll
>>claim a bright line between that one and the next prediction... and
>>you'll be wrong again.
>
>
> Re-iterating the imaginary slippery slope does not make it appear, by
> magic or otherwise.
>

Except it's NOT imaginary.

> Like the taxation analogy - there were those who predicted that if
> allowed, government would take all your income for tax.

I've never heard anyone but you bring up the alleged argument that
income tax would eventually take all of someone's income.

But, if you know your history, we do see the slippery slope in action.

Initially, the income tax was only supposed to take a very small
percentage away from the mega-wealthy.

Now, it takes a very significant portion of almost everyone's income who
lives above the poverty level.

If the public in the early 20th century would have known how much it
would eventually take, do you think they would have accepted it so easily?

I think not.

> I see no
> difference between that fear-mongering and this fear-mongering. Other
> than the subject is different.
>
> The bright line exists because your neighbors cannot get your car
> taken from you without some proof of a fairly serious crime being
> committed,

No proof is required in civil forfeiture for alleged, suspected or even
imagined drug crimes.

> and even then, agents of the state must be involved in
> investigation. "Hey, Matt does drugs" is not enough for the cops to
> seize your assets.

No, but "Hey, Ed sure has a lot of traffic coming in and out of his
home. He has no job, lives in a $400 a month apartment, and yet he owns
a $60,000 car" could lead to a search warrant and when the cops find a
roach in your ashtray, they decide you're a major drug dealer and seize
your vehicle and any cash they find on the premises. And yet, they
don't think it's worth it to prosecute you for the 10th of a gram of
marijuana they found in your ashtray.

If you don't like it - you can go to court to get your car back - but
they took all of your money and potential collateral, so you're screwed.

In reality, you just have a lot of friends who like to drop by and visit
you, you inherited that expensive car from your dead mother and you you
had a party the nite before where people you didn't even know sparked up
a joint in your living room while you were out on the patio drinking a
beer with people you did know - you didn't even know there had been any
illegal drugs at your party.

Does that seem unlikely to you? I'm sure it does, but that's the reason
we have courts in which you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

> There actually needs to be something more than
> somebody's say-so.

Of course there has to be. You own a car which is capable of driving
fast is another requirement.

> The huge leap from seizure of assets (or car) by a
> government agent by due legal process and seizure due to your neighbor
> not liking you are so far apart as to be, dare I say it, absurd.
>

It's so absurd that our Founding Fathers thought it wise to include the
4th Amendment in our Constitution.

> But, because my mind is open to the possibility that some smart person
> in the U.S. might think it a good idea, I will happily recant at the
> very first passage of such a law in the U.S.
>
> I'm guessing I won't be recanting. Ever.
>

I'm guessing that too - especially since you would never admit you were
wrong, even if you were proven to be wrong.

> E.P.
>

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:11 am, "Fred G. Mackey" > wrote:
>
>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 14, 9:31 am, "Fred G. Mackey" > wrote:
>>
>>>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>>>>I see his point went way over your head. You don't HAVE to commit a
>>>>drug crime in order for your cash, vehicle or even home to be seized.
>>
>>>But you do have to be suspected of one,
>>
>>LOL - that's wonderful, isn't it?
>>
>>We suspect you, therefore, you're guilty.
>
>
> The state still has to meet some burden of proof other than "because I
> said so."

No they don't.

>
> And screw-ups where people are falsely accused and assets seized are
> so rare as not be an issue.
>

It's happened way too often in the past. Just because you think it's
rare does not make it a non-issue.

>
>>It doesn't seem like that huge a leap before they suspect you because
>>your neighbor said so.
>
>
> In the imagination, yes. In reality, they are worlds apart.
>

I hope it never happens, and yet things that I hope never happen do so
on a regular basis.

>
>>Why did you ignore my links regarding the CSP line for reporting
>>aggressive drivers which clearly said that based on the words of others
>>you can be given a citation?
>
>
> I didn't ignore them - because they don't apply. One person can't do
> it - it has to be five.

It's still analogous. Those five people are your "neighbors" in the
sense that you have used the word.

> And if five separate people take the time to
> call in, I'm guessing the problem actually exists.
>

You see, "guessing" shouldn't be good enough in a court of law.

It's disheartening that some people think it should be.

>
>>>and PC rules are still in
>>>effect. Cops can't arbitarily decide to take your stuff.
>>
>>And yet it happens.
>
>
> It doesn't. I'll agree that mistakes happen. Humans make mistakes -
> no doubt about it.
>
>
>>>>The cop gets to play judge, jury and executioner and take it and then
>>>>it's up to you to come up with bond and hire a lawyer and fight to get
>>>>it back - a task which is made more difficult when your assets have just
>>>>been seized.
>>
>>>Except it's not like that at all.
>>
>>You mean it shouldn't be like that.
>
>
> No, I meant what I wrote, exactly.
>
> E.P.
>

In article .com>,
Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>> And I didn't make this one up; it's the
>> "brain"child of a St. Louis legislator.
>
>And you need a perscription to buy baking soda? Or is it hidden
>behind the counter?

Not yet. But it has been proposed. And it was the successful
pseudoephedrine pseudoban which resulted in the proposal.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article .com>,
Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>On Apr 14, 11:20 am, (Matthew T.
>Russotto) wrote:
>> In article .com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>> >On Apr 14, 9:36 am, "Fred G. Mackey" > wrote:
>> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >> > On Apr 10, 6:00 pm, (Brent P)
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > As far as I can tell, folks are screaming about precisely nothing.
>>
>> >> Nobody here is screaming, except perhaps you.
>>
>> >LOL. I'm the only one *not* hurling invective.
>>
>> >> > Everyone here, and everyone participating in this thread has ZERO
>> >> > chances of their car being seized on the say-so of a neighbor.
>>
>> >> Not today, but it could happen in the future.
>>
>> >No matter how much people pretend that the slippery slope exists, it
>> >doesn't make it magically happen.
>>
>> It ain't magic making it happen. It's people making it happen. Every
>> step they push makes the next step that much easier, whether you see a
>> logical connection or not. You pretend there's a bright line between
>> where we are today and the predicted consequence, but there simply is
>> not. Once the step is taken to those predicted consequences, you'll
>> claim a bright line between that one and the next prediction... and
>> you'll be wrong again.
>
>Re-iterating the imaginary slippery slope does not make it appear, by
>magic or otherwise.
>
>Like the taxation analogy - there were those who predicted that if
>allowed, government would take all your income for tax.

Actually, the early objections were that the income tax could go as
high as 10%. That slope has already slipped.

>The bright line exists because your neighbors cannot get your car
>taken from you without some proof of a fairly serious crime being
>committed

No proof is necessary. The accusation is sufficient; it's then up to
the subject of the forfeiture to prove in civil court that the
property is innocent.

>But, because my mind is open to the possibility that some smart person
>in the U.S. might think it a good idea, I will happily recant at the
>very first passage of such a law in the U.S.
>
>I'm guessing I won't be recanting. Ever.

No. Because however bad it gets, you'll move the line until the law
doesn't meet your standards. And if you can't move it that far,
you'll deny the law acts the way it does.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.