GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
Apparently California Police Can Steal Your Property
- Thread starter GOYABEAN
- Start date
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
It’s California they can do anything they want. It’s a collective commune there.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
I haven’t read the case but I am going based on what he is saying and just knowledge of the system.
I believe the court is saying that the plaintiffs can’t sue for a constitutional rights violation in federal court.
They probably can sue in state court for theft just like they can sue a normal person in state court.
the court is saying it’s not a constitutional question.
I believe the court is saying that the plaintiffs can’t sue for a constitutional rights violation in federal court.
They probably can sue in state court for theft just like they can sue a normal person in state court.
the court is saying it’s not a constitutional question.
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
But they also said police were immune from being sued
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
No, the qualified immunity applies to that lawsuit of a civil rights violationBut they also said police were immune from being sued
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
Well I think they got screwed by cali and the 9th probably would have had better outcome if this happened in another country !
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I know that the police have broad--and absurd--powers to seize things. If you have thousands of dollars on you because you're about to buy a used car and they pull you over they can accuse you of being about to use it for purchasing drugs and tie it up in court for a very long time with essentially no evidence. People have had huge sums of money seized.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
It’s a jurisdiction question. It’s not a constitutional issue and I bet that’s what the city lawyer said.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
I thought SCOTUS just recently limited this bullshit with the range rover case or whatever (where they confiscated the guys SUV) as being Constitutionally impermissible "excessive fines."
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
That’s a different issue and fact pattern. That was a matter of a policy.
There has to more to this story and maybe I will bother to look it up. The 9th is usually anti cop
C3D
.308 Win
If you don't want to sit through the video this is the story
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article235405267.html
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article235405267.html
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The constitution guarantees a jury trial for anything over $20.
The states do a blatantly improper end run around this by charging the property not the person they are stealing it from, then declaring that it has no rights because it's just property.
It's disgusting. If the government takes anything worth more than $20 from someone it's supposed to require a jury if they demand it.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Please cite the section where it says 20 dollars? I haven’t heard of that before .
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Having read on the admendment after reading your cite ( thank you by the way), this admendment has not yet been incorporated against the states yet.
And explains why the court doesn’t want to hear the case.
And explains why the court doesn’t want to hear the case.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
All part of the end run.
Any reasonable interpretation of the law would require either the entire bill of rights to have been incorporated, or none of it.
Just like any reasonable interpretation says that if property can be sued, then it should have all the rights to defense too.
It's nothing new, way back to the founding of the country the declared that some people were property so that they could avoid recognizing their rights (and avoid acknowledging their own crimes infringing those rights).
Eventually history will recognize this behavior for what it is. My main regret is that all the people perpetrating it today are going to get away with it. IMHO every DA who participates in this charade should end up in prison, along with everyone who assists.
But they will get away with it for the same reason that slave owners got away with countless atrocities. There are too many of them and they are too prominent in society.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Did you read the part that court can’t change the determination of fact by a jury? Even on appeal. Which means in the anti cop climate , someone can make up a story that the cops took something, get a jury decision on emotion, and later evidence says it’s BS, the jury decision stands. As opposed to suing in state court where the tax payer might have a chance to challenge it.
and just to show your “slave owner” argument is wrong, the federal government said people were property and free states had to return freed people because the government could not take their “ property “
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
so basically what he's saying here is: BECOME A POLICE OFFICE, YOU are licensed to steal/take/confiscate ANYTHING YOU LIKE and you can walk away without worrying about any legal consequences.
Professional thievery.
Professional thievery.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The jury thing says that a judge can't overturn a jury finding of fact. I stand by that.
A judge *can* order a new trial and get another jury to overturn it (in a defendant's favor in a criminal trial, not the other way around because of double jeopardy). Assuming there is evidence that the original jury got it wrong anyway.
As for returning slaves, the government was wrong in classifying them as property. That is the fundamental problem, anything they got wrong because of that that is just consequences of that fallacy.
I’m glad this isn’t a thing around here.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
I just read the decision.
It is as suspected. Just a question of is it a constitutional issue vs a theft. It doesn’t belong in federal court .
basically the seizure was legal but the keeping of it isn’t and they sued in the wrong court for the wrong reason.
It is as suspected. Just a question of is it a constitutional issue vs a theft. It doesn’t belong in federal court .
basically the seizure was legal but the keeping of it isn’t and they sued in the wrong court for the wrong reason.