- 1,552
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- ScorchingAngel01
The 2020 George Floyd/BLM/Police Brutality Protests Discussion Thread
- Thread starter DesertPenguin
- 2,722 comments
- 163,870 views
- 30,041
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
This can't be said with absolute certainty, but it's unlikely he will. If he legitimately ventures a defamation suit, he has some hurdles to clear.
First and foremost is that a defamation suit requires a false statement of fact. This applies to anyone. Opinion doesn't meet that requirement, and false statements not known to be false at the time of statement can be damning, but aren't likely to be.
An even higher hurdle is the likelihood he's deemed a public figure, though possibly only for limited purposes because he's in the public eye as a result of of his actions and the trial that followed his actions, and statements made about him relevant to the reason he's in the public eye will need to be shown to have been made out of actual malice per the decision in the US Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan of 1964.
If he does file suit, he'll want to be deposed because the case won't see a courtroom otherwise and no insurance company is going to pay to avoid the attention of a court case if it won't see a courtroom anyway. Again, they're not likely to settle big anyway because of the hurdles mentioned above.
Then there's legal fees. Performative legal counsel may waive fees because they see the suit as an opportunity for attention, but they're not likely to be competent (think L. Lin Wood, though Wood himself is unlikely because he feels wronged by Rittenhouse), and competent counsel is unlikely to come cheap or be willing to waive fees.
What's more, something like this could easily bite Rittenhouse in the ass if he files in a state with a robust anti-SLAPP statute. If he's filing against a media organization, they're likely to be beneficiaries of such a statute. If the case is deemed to run afoul of anti-SLAPP statute ("SLAPP" is a "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation") because it's a reaction to protected speech regarding a matter of public concern, he'll be required to pay the legal fees of those he filed against.
- 13,914
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I find it wild that politicians and cops can be like "we need to protect people from the consequences of their actions, but only if they're police officers". Meanwhile, normal people are out there getting consequences for actions they never took, or stuff that really shouldn't have consequences like Walking While Black.
I'd say it was cognitive dissonance, but that implies some discomfort in holding a set of conflicting beliefs. I don't think they find it uncomfortable at all.
I'd say it was cognitive dissonance, but that implies some discomfort in holding a set of conflicting beliefs. I don't think they find it uncomfortable at all.
- 13,914
- Adelaide
- Neomone
FPV MIC
Premium
- 4,335
- Australia
- GT-MIC
I'm not sure what your laws are like in the US or what the circumstances were in this particular case but over here having that sort of cash is going to get you a please explain no matter who you are as having money from the proceeds of crime is a crime. Even bringing in over 10k from overseas will get you in strife unless you've declared it.
That person should be able to prove it quite easily if they have it in their possession lawfully, and again I don't know your rules but here you'd get it back once you have.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,776
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
No, the police and courts should be required to prove you have it illegally (innocent until proven, etc.), what they categorically should not be able to do is take it and never return it even if you never get arrested, let alone charged or convicted of anything.
It's widely used and abused in the US.
Asset Forfeiture Abuse | American Civil Liberties Union
The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.
www.aclu.org
Civil forfeiture in the United States - Wikipedia
Civil asset forfeiture: I'm a grandmother, not a drug lord. Why can police take my property?
It shouldn't take six years and the threat of legal action to be treated fairly. I hadn't been accused of any crime. I shouldn't have been punished.
eu.usatoday.com
Law enforcement now seizes more property from citizens than burglars
U.S. law enforcement took in more than $5 billion from the American public in 2014 through asset forfeiture, compared to the $3.5 billion lost nationally to burglary.
The list of cases of abuse is near endless.
Last edited:
- 24,034
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
I assume it was an international flight and the amount not declared to customs?
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,776
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Doesn't look to be that way at all
"The woman who owned the bag was not arrested, but the money was seized and police say it will be subject to the civil asset forfeiture process."
Rather (unfortunately) normal seizing of property by police without charge or arrest, you don't need to have broken a law under civil asset forfeiture, the police just need to think the item may be linked to a crime (and they don't need to prove it - the law states that you need to prove it's not).
I have little issue with Criminal Asset Forfeiture, in which the court takes the assets that have, in a criminal case, proven are linked to criminal activity; but Civil Asset Forfeiture is simply a route by which the police and prosecutors can fund themselves via what is systematic abuse. As it's civil as well you will not be able to get any representation (which would be required in a criminal case), so the poorer you are, the less chance you have of being able to takle a legal route to reclaim what has been seized.
Last edited:
FPV MIC
Premium
- 4,335
- Australia
- GT-MIC
Of course they shouldn't be able to keep it if there was no crime but it seems it's a lot different here. We just prove it's lawfully ours and that's the end of that, you get it back without the arrest and charged bit, that happens if you can't prove it. We actually get the innocent until proven guilty bit you mentioned, the money is just seized till then.No, the police and courts should be required to prove you have it illegally (innocent until proven, etc.), what they categorically should not be able to do is take it and never return it even if you never get arrested, let alone charged or convicted of anything.
It's widely used and abused in the US.
Asset Forfeiture Abuse | American Civil Liberties Union
The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.
The list of cases of abuse is near endless.
That's similar to here. They just don't get to keep it if you can prove it's lawfully obtained, which to me seems a simple task if it is indeed lawfully obtained.
Last edited:
- 87,702
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Doesn't that seem at odds with "innocent until proven guilty"?
The police can take your property off you under the nebulous "suspicion" of crime, but you can't get it back until you prove it's not from crime. Surely the burden should be on them to prove their suspicions on the basis that you are innocent until proven guilty, not on you to prove you aren't.
FPV MIC
Premium
- 4,335
- Australia
- GT-MIC
Probably, but we all know that isn't the definition they use for the legal system
. It's really, as you alluded to, guilty until proven innocent in a court of law.Just as an anecdotal example of how I see the innocent until proven guilty, I could prove it's mine during questioning if I was silly enough to put myself in that position. I wouldn't be arrested or have the money seized simply because the money would be legal. The police have every right to question me but it wouldn't have to go any further than that.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,776
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
That's still the wrong way around.
Say you take $200 out of the cash machine, explain to me how you can prove that those notes were obtained legally?
Showing a pay slip doesn't do it, that shows you earned $200, not those exact $200. Ditto with a receipt from the cash point.
That's why the onus should be on proving it was illegally gained, not on you showing you didn't obtain it illegally.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,776
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
No you can show you took $200 out, not those exact $200.
And absurd as it sounds that is exactly what has happened in the past.
You were arguing that the burden of proof was with you not with the police.
"They just don't get to keep it if you can prove it's lawfully obtained, which to me seems a simple task if it is indeed lawfully obtained."
What you have just illustrated here is exactly why the burden of proof must lie with the police if abuses are to be avoided. Proving a negative (that it wasn't illegally gained), far from being a simple matter, is actually an almost impossible burden, which is why it should never be the case. That's ignoring the fact that forfeiture should always be a criminal matter and not a civil matter.
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,776
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Exactly, it's an absurd burden of proof to try and meet.
Add in that because it's civil and not criminal it means that you can't get legal aid or free legal representation (you have to hope to get pro-bono) and than the average cost to challenge it is around $3k (from one of my links above) and you have a system that allows the police to steal with impunity.
FPV MIC
Premium
- 4,335
- Australia
- GT-MIC
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,776
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Yep, that's exactly how it works in the US, and why it's such an issue.
Just one of the reasons why the police are not trusted.
Nor do many limits exist on what they can then spend the money on, forces for example have used money from civil forfeiture to buy a Zamboni, kegs of beer and margarita machines!
Edited to add.
I've got some bad news for you @FPV MIC . Australian police may not abuse it to the same degree the US Police do, but it works in almost the exact same way.
"The main criteria in determining whether an asset can be forfeited is whether the asset was used as an instrument of crime and whether the realised funds are the result of the proceeds of crime. If an entity is subject to a pecuniary penalty order or a similar type of order in the various States and Territories in Australia, legitimately acquired assets can be used by the authorities to satisfy the debt attached to the order.
It’s worth noting that proceeds of crime litigation in Australia is generally regarded as civil in nature, meaning that the relevant threshold standard is the lower test of the balance of probabilities rather than the higher criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Proceeds of crime legislation is also unique as it often reverses the onus on the defendant to prove that the property in question is not derived from nefarious activities, rather than the plaintiff having to prove that it was from nefarious activities."
Guilt Not Required: A Look at Criminal Asset Confiscation in Australia - Lawyer Monthly
Brian also discusses the legal criteria for asset forfeiture and the powers of the Australian Federal Police to confiscate property believed to be connected to a criminal act. Having your assets confiscated due to criminal allegations can have deleterious effects; how should clients prepare...
www.lawyer-monthly.com
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,077
- Mile High City
It just screams war on drugs doesn't it? So much nonsense comes from that.No, the police and courts should be required to prove you have it illegally (innocent until proven, etc.), what they categorically should not be able to do is take it and never return it even if you never get arrested, let alone charged or convicted of anything.
It's widely used and abused in the US.
Asset Forfeiture Abuse | American Civil Liberties Union
The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.
Civil forfeiture in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Civil asset forfeiture: I'm a grandmother, not a drug lord. Why can police take my property?
It shouldn't take six years and the threat of legal action to be treated fairly. I hadn't been accused of any crime. I shouldn't have been punished.eu.usatoday.com
Law enforcement now seizes more property from citizens than burglars
U.S. law enforcement took in more than $5 billion from the American public in 2014 through asset forfeiture, compared to the $3.5 billion lost nationally to burglary.www.illinoispolicy.org
The list of cases of abuse is near endless.
Last edited:
- 30,041
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Watch Nevada Highway Patrol Officers Seize a Veteran's Life Savings Through Asset Forfeiture
"I just want to tell you Officer Brown, you're taking money out of my kids' mouths," Stephen Lara said as Nevada Highway Patrol officers confiscated his
reason.com
Danoff
Premium
- 34,077
- Mile High City
Another problem with civil asset forfeiture (and it's fitting that it's in this thread), is that anything which bypasses due process (like for example qualified immunity), is an excellent opportunity for a biased officer to enforce the law unequally according to their bias. I'd be shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that this is unequally enforced against black people.
I haven't watched the John Oliver, but I'd also be shocked to discover that he covers exactly that angle in the piece posted earlier. I'll watch it later.
I haven't watched the John Oliver, but I'd also be shocked to discover that he covers exactly that angle in the piece posted earlier. I'll watch it later.
Last edited:
Similar threads
