Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Again, it doesn't appear like you really know what you're talking about.
|
Well I do know what I'm talking about, and I think PM has a point. Why should you have to prove cash is yours? How the hell are you supposed to do that? The government should have to prove it's NOT your cash before they get to seize it. And by the way you might not know this but it isn't like the government seizes this money and then makes a good faith effort to find the rightful owner.
If you set up a program where the government can just take your cash and then force you to prove that every dollar of it is yours, then you've set up a program that is rife for abuse. Need a new car for the office? Eh, swipe $20k and you're good to go. You're not supposed to have to prove you're not a criminal. Sure it looks suspicious to be running around with $24,000 in the back of your truck but looking suspicious isn't enough to justify stealing someone's money.
Quote:
|
You are talking about the police. Period. End of story.
|
No, he's talking about the government that passed a law that allows the police to do this without themselves getting jailed for grand theft. There's a difference.
Quote:
|
the law says that the state can seize the money if it appears that it resulted from drug proceeds. Anyone walking around with $24,000 in cash should be able to prove where he got it from pretty easily, even if he doesn't trust banks.
|
if it APPEARS? How do we define APPEARS? Appears can mean anything you want it to - -- it could have to have mountains of cocaine on it to appear to be drug money, or you could even say that a wrinkled bill appears to be drug money. The government is supposed to have EVIDENCE of wrongdoing before they seize property. And "Oh hey this guy has money, he must've gotten it illegally" does not constitute evidence, but wildassed speculation.