They know your deepest, secret, fear.

Clodfobble · 08-01-2006, 02:00 PM

Also, it's not quite as strong a statement as it appears to be:

In 80% of cases, the property owner is never charged with a crime.
"Usually" in these cases, so we'll say 51%, the government ends up keeping the property. The rest of the time they don't.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-01-2006, 02:08 PM

I disagree. What can be a stronger statement than the government seizing private property without due process.
That flies in the face of the constitution and the entire legal system.
The sanctity of private property is the very foundation of the United States and our freedoms.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-01-2006, 02:13 PM

Why would you have to reclaim property from the police? Were not talking about lost and found umbrellas, are we?
The only case I can think of is weapons surrendered under a protection order but wouldn't you have to be charged to obtain an order? Maybe not? And that's surrendered not seized, but that's semantics I guess.

Spexxvet · 08-01-2006, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I disagree. What can be a stronger statement than the government seizing private property without due process.
That flies in the face of the constitution and the entire legal system.
The sanctity of private property is the very foundation of the United States and our freedoms.

Maybe they decided it was eminent domain!

With the "it's ok to shoot somebody if you feel threatened" law in FLA, I wonder how many impoundment contractors will be killed. YeeeeeHaaaaa!

08-01-2006, 02:08 PM	#2
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	I disagree. What can be a stronger statement than the government seizing private property without due process. That flies in the face of the constitution and the entire legal system. The sanctity of private property is the very foundation of the United States and our freedoms. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

08-01-2006, 02:13 PM	#3
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Why would you have to reclaim property from the police? Were not talking about lost and found umbrellas, are we? The only case I can think of is weapons surrendered under a protection order but wouldn't you have to be charged to obtain an order? Maybe not? And that's surrendered not seized, but that's semantics I guess. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

08-01-2006, 02:00 PM	#1
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Also, it's not quite as strong a statement as it appears to be: In 80% of cases, the property owner is never charged with a crime. "Usually" in these cases, so we'll say 51%, the government ends up keeping the property. The rest of the time they don't.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)