Asset Seizures fuel Police Spending

[hog88]

can you give an example of what to do besides raise our taxes?


btw, if the seizure was undue you can get your money back

After you're out attorney fees, if you're lucky. It's still theft! No other way to look at pre-conviction seizure.

 

[hog88]

what else do you want to call it? it is money obtained from criminals and or criminal activies. Does that help you? Not sure why the wording has you worked up

This is a source of funding that does not add to the burden of the tax payer. It is using the resources available without depleting the bottom line which is the business plan governments work on.

If you have any suggestions on how to provide funding for a police department without adding to the tax payer then lets hear it.

Then wait until there is a person convicted and seize the assets/cash.

As to funding, legalize drugs, tax them and cut the police forces by 1/2.

 

[RetardedElf]

After you're out attorney fees, if you're lucky. It's still theft! No other way to look at pre-conviction seizure.

From the video posted earlier it seems like when you go to get your money back you go in front of the DA so you're not getting it back there. I think the process is set up for you to have to spend more money than you lost to get it back so most people will just write it off

 

[hog88]

From the video posted earlier it seems like when you go to get your money back you go in front of the DA so you're not getting it back there. I think the process is set up for you to have to spend more money than you lost to get it back so most people will just write it off

Bingo!!!!

People losing 5 and 6 figure amounts that were legitimate go after it. Under 5 figures you'll probably spend as much if not more than was taken to get it back. The police understand this and abuse it.

 

[YorkVol]

and you're overlooking the fact that they are not using tax payer money to make purchase to help their department. Are you comfortable for your tax money being paid for this instead of the bad guy's money?

I'm not a fan of any punishment without due process or a conviction.

I'm also not a fan of police departments profiting off this procedure. It is a distinct conflict of interest for them.

It would be like a town only paying the fire fighters when they put out a fire, instead of all the time they sit around waiting to fight fires. No one should be surprised when that town suddenly has a rash of fires.

 

[YorkVol]

what else do you want to call it? it is money obtained from criminals and or criminal activies. Does that help you? Not sure why the wording has you worked up

This is a source of funding that does not add to the burden of the tax payer. It is using the resources available without depleting the bottom line which is the business plan governments work on.

If you have any suggestions on how to provide funding for a police department without adding to the tax payer then lets hear it.

The police should be funded for everything they need, from patrol cars to officer equipment--whatever they need. The key word is "need." They use these seized assets to buy things that would be nice to have. Consequently, we have police departments with equipment they bought but will maybe use once, if ever, in a real life scenario. Often, in that rare case when they do use these nice to have items, they find they aren't really adequate to the task.

And when all is said and done, the tax payers have to pick up the tab for training, maintenance and repairs of that equipment.

No, in my view, any assets that are legitimately seized after due process and conviction, should be either turned over to a crime victims support fund, or returned to the population in the form of a tax break.

 

[#VFL__]

Meanwhile all this happens along side an agreement to keep prisons full. Too bad they don't go after the rich criminals in this country or I would actually be on board with that idea. Poor drug users are not criminals.

 

[RetardedElf]

Meanwhile all this happens along side an agreement to keep prisons full. Too bad they don't go after the rich criminals in this country or I would actually be on board with that idea. Poor drug users are not criminals.

It doesn't have to be criminals. They can just pull and say however much cash you have is suspicious, take it, and send you on your way without charging you with anything. Or come in your house confiscate it and bring charges against the house. How are you supposed to defend against that?

 

[#VFL__]

.

 

[WallyBalls]

Yes, not buy the stuff that small town police forces don't need; which was also already addressed in this thread.

This.


And, I'd add, give any decent accountant 2 hours with the department's budget.

I'm fairly sure they could find PLENTY of savings.

I know that's the case with both KCSO and KPD.

 

[WallyBalls]

And when all is said and done, the tax payers have to pick up the tab for training, maintenance and repairs of that equipment.

THANK YOU.

This is always something that's left out when the newest 'toy' is paraded around.

 

[GreveHaller]

This.


And, I'd add, give any decent accountant 2 hours with the department's budget.

I'm fairly sure they could find PLENTY of savings.

I know that's the case with both KCSO and KPD.

that would be fine, if it was the private sector. But its the public and that's not how funding for the public sector works.

Problem with the public sector is that if you "find" a savings means that you get less money the next year. Its called a budget that you must abide by. If you save money, you have to give it back. If you have to have more money then you have to go to the council and request it. The bottom line is always zero. Extra money is spent so its not used else where. No profits, no loss. Zero. Add that to request to cut spending then you run into all kinds of problems. "Fully funding" a department wont help either. Just like police, fire, teachers, etc... no matter how much money you throw at them it will never be enough. And throwing money at a problem never fixes anything (Intro to Macro Economics 102).

 

[RetardedElf]

It's all beginning to happen. Technology. Record these ignorant fools and get them fired one by one until none are left.

You can record them doing it but they aren't braking any laws and unless it gets on a major news outlets you'll still be up the river without a paddle

 

[#VFL__]

You can record them doing it but they aren't braking any laws and unless it gets on a major news outlets you'll still be up the river without a paddle

I know but just like concussions in the NFL. Things change when you bring awareness to it. Body cameras could make it an overall better experience for both sides.

 

[WallyBalls]

that would be fine, if it was the private sector. But its the public and that's not how funding for the public sector works.

Problem with the public sector is that if you "find" a savings means that you get less money the next year. Its called a budget that you must abide by. If you save money, you have to give it back. If you have to have more money then you have to go to the council and request it. The bottom line is always zero. Extra money is spent so its not used else where. No profits, no loss. Zero. Add that to request to cut spending then you run into all kinds of problems. "Fully funding" a department wont help either. Just like police, fire, teachers, etc... no matter how much money you throw at them it will never be enough. And throwing money at a problem never fixes anything (Intro to Macro Economics 102).

I'm an item on a public sector budget, I know how they work.

My problem with it is that FAR too many groups use that line of thought to defend and prop up wasteful spending...but that's a problem of government in general.


Setting the economics of public sector budgets aside, it doesn't change what this thread is ultimately about.

To me, the idea of using money seized from private citizens to fill a gap in police funding is ridiculous and somewhat scary. Practically, it's an unpredictable and unreliable revenue source. Ethically, it creates a pretty damn large conflict, imo.

 

[VolGee4]

I didn't read the article, but if you guys only knew the kinds of cases I see. A majority of seizures are legit. But authorities are getting really aggressive.

 

[VolGee4]

I'm an item on a public sector budget, I know how they work.

My problem with it is that FAR too many groups use that line of thought to defend and prop up wasteful spending...but that's a problem of government in general.


Setting the economics of public sector budgets aside, it doesn't change what this thread is ultimately about.

To me, the idea of using money seized from private citizens to fill a gap in police funding is ridiculous and somewhat scary. Practically, it's an unpredictable and unreliable revenue source. Ethically, it creates a pretty damn large conflict, imo.

No doubt, that it is a huge conflict. At the end of the day, they are more concerned with finding the money than making the arrest. One day, there will be a case that will blow up.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I didn't read the article, but if you guys only knew the kinds of cases I see. A majority of seizures are legit. But authorities are getting really aggressive.

Here's my soundbyte, so get ready if this offends you or anyone else.

But I would rather see 1000 drug dealers go free than see one innocent man get his property taken in this manner.

 

[govols/cc]

Here's my soundbyte, so get ready if this offends you or anyone else.

But I would rather see 1000 drug dealers go free than see one innocent man get his property taken in this manner.

It's about the money grab

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Here's my soundbyte, so get ready if this offends you or anyone else.

But I would rather see 1000 drug dealers go free than see one innocent man get his property taken in this manner.

This right here! That is extactly why the Founding Fathers put a clause in the Bill of Rights to prevent this sort of thing. A clause that our courts have apparently decided to ignore.

 

[tumscalcium]

Revenue enhancement. That's all cops do.

 

[VolGee4]

Here's my soundbyte, so get ready if this offends you or anyone else.

But I would rather see 1000 drug dealers go free than see one innocent man get his property taken in this manner.

You won't offend me. I am not on the side that you think I am on. All I said was that I see many that are legitimate. But, I see others that are not, and it really is scary.