- cross-posted to:
- law@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Police are criminals.
Statistically, someone carrying a badge is more likely to be a criminal than someone carrying money.
Do you have a source for that, because i’d love to be able to use it.
Just count the news stories about “local person with a bag of cash responds to domestic disturbance call, shoots elderly woman, her grandson, and their dog” or “local person with a bag of cash kills pedestrians in DUI crash, suspended with pay”.
I don’t know how or why asset forfiture was ever allowed, moral, or legal but it should have been outlawed a very long time ago.
Legalized thievery is worse than actual theft. It is corrupt and morally bankrupt.
If, BIG IF, forfeiture is allowed, it should only be court ordered after a conviction, and recovered funds should not go to anyone related to the seizure, or ordering of forfeiture, as well as no metrics of such forfeiture contributing to any potential bonus, benefit, or payout for ‘a job well done’.
For sure, police should not be allowed to make that call.
Stuff like this should never happen: https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/index.html
An inanimate objects should not be able to be named as accessories to crime, the owner of the inanimate object should get due process, and in reality, it should be more of an order to investigate, and access given within reason (like a warrant would do), not forfeiture.
I would prefer to throw that baby out with the bathwater.
Given how corrupt this is now it seems wiser that this just not be a thing at all. I see your point, but I believe it will encourage backsliding to the insanity we have now.
Maybe in 20 years.
After “seizing” a bunch of cash, the police are carrying a bunch of cash. Statement checks out.
Yet if you’re not carrying any you’re a criminal vagrant, so you’re screwed either way
Oh cool so the cops are just openly doing banditry now.
Just a lil bit.
Funny because anyone carrying a badge is absolutely a criminal.
I know everyone likes to hate on cryptocurrency, but I think there is something beautiful about cash you can carry entirely in a series of words you’ve memorized that no one can prove you even have.
Unless you use something like Monero it’s still useless since blockchain is neither anonymous, not private and since all exchanges requires KYC (Know Your Customer), your identity will be tied to that money.
Unless you use something like Monero
So just do that? I don’t get this argument that lack of anonymity is a fatal flaw when various effective anonymizing solutions exist.
But anyway that talking point isn’t even relevant in this circumstance. It doesn’t matter if it is possible in theory for someone with access to exchange records to uncover a link between you and your crypto holdings. Cops looking to mug you at a traffic stop or the airport are not going to find it practical to do that, and even if they did they have no way to take it from you simply because it isn’t a physical object. It’s an objective fact that cryptocurrency is massively more resistant to civil forfeiture than physical cash.
I don’t get this argument that lack of anonymity is a fatal flaw when various effective anonymizing solutions exist.
It’s only not a flaw if people do take those extra steps. By default, it’s not anonymous and that is an important caveat.
It’s an objective fact that cryptocurrency is massively more resistant to civil forfeiture than physical cash.
As is a bank account if that’s the threat model. Everything is relative to a threat model you want to protect from.
As is a bank account if that’s the threat model.
I see this as being about control as much as threat model. Using a bank as a defense against civil forfeiture is exactly what these cops are calling people criminals for not doing.
I agree with you there.
