The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Where are the teabaggers this time? Why have they not surrounded the home and stopped the seizure?
It sounds like they'll win their lawsuit against the city, have their property returned, and get a bunch of taxpayer money for their trouble. It sounds like an obvious over-reach, since the cops/DA have no proof that the home was built with, or purchased with illegal funds.
More "legal" institutionalized theft. Don't stand for it.
DO make a complaint to all your reps, local, state, and federal, and tell them if they don't move to fix this issue they will lose your vote in 2 months (or when their next election comes around) and create a vocal critic with an issue near 100% of the public agrees with no matter their political affiliation. Contrary to the video poster's past comments, well worded, well thought out complaints with follow through often DO get results, and even if they don't you'll know you tried the right thing first.
"doesn't pursue forfeiture because the issue is resolved....when a settlement agreement is reached with the property owner" sure sounds like quasi-legal blackmail and/or bribery to me. Why has this not been tried in this case, or did the owner refuse to pay the bribe, having committed no crime?

Fucking amazing...

edit: In any other business, the innate conflict of interest would land you in a hell of a lot of hot water. But because it's "legal", it's all fine and well... /eyeroll

nice find trance.
*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, September 10th, 2014 1:03pm PDT - promote requested by enoch.

Can corporations be treated that way?

By that logic the city could take over any bussiness property they want as long as there is even the smallest drug related offence reported there..
Microsoft here I come!!

Whatever. Being a statist is its own punishment. The institution of the state has too much popular support, even if the particular criminals who get "elected" sometimes lose their popularity after a few years. They get "replaced" by "new" more popular criminals and so the cycle repeats itself. Nothing will likely stop it, regardless of the nation, be it Israel, the U.S., or elsewhere... Except perhaps the economic collapse. So the good always comes with the bad and vice versa. Probably best to get out of the way as things fall apart. At least you can say there's drama constantly. Never boring.

And as someone has said about being a contrarian:
"Following the herd is a sure-fire way to mediocrity."



@newtboy writes: "well thought out complaints with follow through often DO get results, and even if they don't you'll know you tried the right thing first."

Yeah, "the right thing," eh? According to whom? You?

Even if you replace the cop (even if it happens which often doesn't), so what? Another one takes his place. It's the whole police system, these are not just "isolated" individuals who are out of control. A lot of people insist that these are just "bad apples." Then those people become victims themselves. Poetic justice.

Trancecoach gonna Trance.

Not sure how this will go over with everyone, but this is precisely the reason why I can actually agree with the pro-gun crowd. If you've read any of my past posts on the subject you'd know I was split down the middle (or rather, hate it all but could still make a valid, sane argument to each side). This would be the 'other' side I could argue. If law enforcement feels they can treat you this way in your own home, country, life, then "get you the hot bullets of shotgun to die!", I say.

lol - you're allowed to own a gun, not point one at anyone in Law or Government - then you're a terrorist

"Gun control" applies to those who abide by the law, not for those who enforce it. It never means disarming the state and its agents, or even the criminals who don't care about the law. "Gun control" simply means disarming law-abiding citizens, or minorities. In this way, "gun control" would be about as successful as the "war on drugs" (i.e., a poorly disguised anti-minority law). Alas, gun control advocates remain in the overwhelming minority in the U.S. and, if by some fluke, it were to pass at the Federal level, it would be the first regulation nullified by states, counties, and even local law enforcement agencies. Such is the futility of most legislative efforts of this kind.

incorrect. there was what 90 percent of people wanted SOME form of gun control implemented after sandyhook.

you're confusing the people who want gun control for those who want a total gun ban. But that's ok, It's my understanding you've made that lie, err I mean mistake repeatedly.

It was the gun lobby, aka the NRA, that prevented anything from anything being done. That overwhelming minority controlled what happened to the majority.

We've seen this before on other sifts. The rhetoric is that people should own weapons to throw off tyranny. but apparently tyranny only applies when the guy you didn't vote for (wait, how can you have tyranny when you can vote?) wins. When actual law enforcement goes bad and abuses their power. suddenly the stand your ground folks are silent. Then there's the obvious racial component. white people are allowed to stand their ground, but if you're black, suddenly you're supposed to shut up and take it.

A rather disturbing discrepancy to say the least.

It's just bad legislature towards the role of a police force creating poor incentives to earn revenue rather than 'serve and protect'. I'm sure state budget cuts of late given the low growth rate have been an additional squeeze. The Economist had an article about this practice at federal/state level, particularly with the Justice Department essentially now being seen as profit centre.

Bit off topic, but the article itself is an interesting take on how back door settlements (particularly with banks recently) have not been in the public interest when they have circumvented the legal system (without establishing precedent and on dubious grounds having never actually been presented publicly as evidence) and have usually led to nobody personally prosecuted and no admission of guilt through a plea deal.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21614101-corporate-america-finding-it-ever-harder-stay-right-side-law-mammoth-guilt

Why are you arguing with someone who essentially agrees with you on something? You brought up points I wasn't even talking about. You just view any response to your sift as someone handing you a soapbox to rant on, don't you? Sheesh.

Gun control worked fairly well in Australia, no? For law abiding and not, and enforcers too. In England too, where it DID mean 'disarming' the average cop (not all cops, they do still have guns, they just don't wear them on a daily basis for normal contact with the public, so they have far fewer officer involved shootings). Enforced gun control would mean disarming anyone found with an illegal gun, not the law abiding, not just minorities.
As said above, about 90% of Americans said they favor some type of gun control. Gun control does not mean gun eradication, just as car control (speed limits and other laws of the road) does not mean car eradication. Duh, I'm so sick of that insanely wrong 'argument'.
Federal law 'nullified by the states, counties, and even local law enforcement agencies"?!? Wow.
Are you even American, because you have absolutely 0 grasp of the American governmental system (evidenced by your stated position that voting is worse than useless, and you've indicated the same about voicing your opinion to your 'representatives'..."useless". ?!?).
In America, the Fed can't be over-ridden or 'nullified' by the states, it's pretty clear, cut, and dry. It's certainly been tried, but never successfully, because our law says the Fed trumps all other government and they have the national guard and army backing them up. For instance, many states have 'legalized' marijuana, but no where is it actually legal because it's still federally illegal, they simply aren't prosecuting people for small amounts normally...but they are still prosecuting larger marijuana cases and seizing money and property, even where it's 'legal' because the state 'nullified the federal law'. Another good example (better actually) is ending school segregation. How did 'nullification' work out for those states that ignored/contradicted/'nullified' the fed? I'll answer for you...Not so good.
Please take a civics class, or be prepared to be contradicted at every turn until you get how the system is designed and operates.

No, crime, especially burglaries went up in Australia after gun control was implemented.

You won't get any "gun control" in the US in any case. Get used to it. You are also not going to disarm any "illegal" gun "owners."

But hey, since you're already a loser, that shouldn't bother you so much.

Permanently or temporarily 'crime and burglaries went up'?...by a statistically relevant amount or by .1%? ...by exactly the amount of armed robberies that no longer occurred (not armed, now it's burglary)? Could it be that cops had more time to police without worrying about armed thugs all day long and needing 6 officers to write a ticket to feel safe, so there's wasn't more 'crime' only more arrests? I assume you have a non-partisan Australian URL with the national crime statistics (both # reported and # of arrests) by year to verify your assertions and that this isn't wishful thinking masquerading as data? How about VIOLENT crimes and/or murders (there's a much more direct relation to that data set)?
(sorry, I took statistics, so I know that you can miss-represent statistics to 'prove' whatever you want, 47% of all people know that!)
We've had plenty of 'gun control' in the US already. You can't buy a Vulcan cannon, a full auto without an FFL, a 20MM, a 9lb gun (battleship style), and thousands upon thousands of models have been 'banned' either federally, state wide, or by county/city. There are limits on clip size, silencers, selective fire modes, unregistered sales, etc....the list of 'gun control measures' already in existence goes on forever...but we'll "never get any"?!? What the hell could you mean? I think you may just be being contrary, no matter how silly it makes you seem.
"Illegal gun owners" are disarmed every single day in the US, any time they are caught with the illegal guns. Again, what could you possibly mean? That we won't get rid of 100% of illegal guns (as if that's someone's plan or a necessity to solve most gun related issues), so there's no reason to ever limit their availability to anyone? Huh?!?

If often being correct and usually getting what I'm after (because my methods, which you decry as useless, worked for me) makes me a "loser", se la vie. I suppose, even though every statement you made is in direct opposition to all fact, you're a "winner"? Enjoy that.

Would have been nice if the feds hadn't taken all those bitcoins from the innocent silk road users.

AFAIK Silk Road acted like a middle man. You gave it coins, had a balance, and would spend them on whatever.

A lot of people had substantial balances on there, and they had spent their coins on completely legal things. Not even taking part in any of the illegal stuff going on there - but never got their coins back.

A lot of this stuff stems from the RICO laws, where property seized in an investigation doesn't have to be returned.

-scheherazade

If I could down vote you I would. You sir are the troll.

"Not only does the action of Governments not deter men from crimes; on the contrary, it increases crime by always disturbing and lowering the moral standard of society." Leo Tolstoy

Thanks to our Australian Sifters for disputing this false claim/wishful thinking with actual knowledge.

Lesson of the day : In Philadelphia, better sell drugs from a rented appartment than from a place you own.

so many components to this video. Trance's arguments may be worthless, but the video itself is great.

you have the class aspect. Here we are shown this nice upper class home of a hardworking man (which alone opens up the sub-argument of whether or not he really does work hard or does he just reap the benefits of his employees' work,) and we're supposed to feel bad because the police confiscated their house over something relatively trivial. Would you care if it was a lower class home? middle class? or would you just assume the lower class family are probably guilty and deserve it?

Then you got the whole war on drugs component, which is even more nuanced because heroin is a nasty drug which I would agree should remain illegal. But then weigh that against the idea that it was a trivial amount of heroin. Would you feel bad for the family if the son wasn't small time and had a couple grand worth in the house? how about a 100 grand? a million?

All completely separate from the police abuse and corruption issue that's already been discussed. This video is crazy dense with issues that need to be addressed

As to the amount of heroin being important, I think it is. $40 worth is obviously consistent with 'personal use' not an amount for sale. That does make a difference. It's certainly not enough to allow seizure of 3rd party property because of what he's been doing (secretly) at someone else's home he's staying at, IMO. If he had $100 grand/million worth of heroin, it would be hard for the home owners to say they had no idea, it would have to be willful blindness to not notice that amount in your home, or the strung out people coming and going.
The reasonable/normal thing that should happen in these cases is the owner is notified about the criminal activity and given a chance to remove the perpetrator/stop the activity, not treated as if a tenant/family member is the owner. That's an over-reach that will likely win this family their home back and restitution in the end.

Seems like short term volatility is always a trend when it suits your argument.

http://i.imgur.com/ufoNwKM.png

Heroin is indeed a nasty drug. However, when it's managed, people can actually lead normal, even productive lives and still be addicts. It was legal in the UK up to the 1950s as diamorphine and we didn't see anything like the kind of problems we have with it now.

That said, I'm in favour of decriminalising it, not legalising it. It might sound like a non-distinction, but there's a difference between allowing anyone to go out and buy heroin from a pharmacy and prosecuting some poor fool who made some bad life choices.

As for Trance, he continues to push his childish agenda in the face of reality. That Tolstoy quote is cute and sounds great, until you realise that it is completely and utterly wrong.

Which is why I intend to stop "arguing" on videosift altogether. Other people's choice to remain anti-gun and therefore unarmed is none of my business. In fact, I encourage you to give up your guns if you have them. Just don't expect other Americans to do so. And if you don't like, well, move to Australia.

You seem to label anyone that's pro-gun regulation as anti-gun (and also conclude that anti-gun people wouldn't have guns because they want them eradicated). You couldn't be more wrong in those assumptions. I'm totally pro-regulation, and a happy gun owner.

Already in Australia!

If you offer an opinion, I can't exactly see why you would expect others not to dispute it if they think it's wrong, especially on a discussion 'forum' of sorts such as this one.

Even better!

And just because people dispute my comments doesn't mean they know of which they post! And while videosift certainly is a "forum," I find the term "discussion" to be quite a bit of a stretch with regards to what goes on here.

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

So what gun(s) do you own?

Haha!
I know I know that I don't know. But yet know this much.
And, fools be damned, I ain't leaving.. Sucker!

STATISTS GONNA MOTHERFUCKING STAAAAATTE UP IN THIS BITCH!

Which about sums up the level of the libertarian argument....

I find that question inappropriate. Like asking how much I make or how much I can bench press. Not OK to ask casual acquaintances.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.