Prompted by “Asset Forfeiture push-back”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/08/asset-forfeiture-push-back/
It feels like there’s a growing concern around the country regarding the travesty of use of civil asset forfeiture to steal from citizens. We’re starting to see more states push back…
“Guilty until proven innocent” isn’t how the United States is supposed to work, but that’s the basis of Wyoming’s asset forfeiture law.
Currently, members of law enforcement can seize any property even when the owner hasn’t been convicted of anything. Simple suspicion is enough. If police think money, vehicles or guns are related to the drug trade, for example, they can confiscate those items. Then, owners must go to court and mount a defense to regain possession.
I suspect there are good members of law enforcement who (among the brutal challenges they encounter) remain concerned about being ironically portrayed as a serious public enemy.
If so, those good members must go after the criminals.
Now that may sound obvious and simple, but the evidence against that basic understanding in our judicial community is substantial.
Factually speaking, the Commerce Clause (“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”) cannot possibly allow Certain Drug Prohibition (sequel to Alcohol Prohibition, which needed a federal constitutional amendment) by any uncorrupted measure.
That means any citizen victimized on behalf of police militarization (on behalf of the war on some drugs) cannot possibly be a criminal, but the police certainly are criminals engaging in mass rights-infringement (i.e. harm) decade after decade with insufficient righteous friction.
That absence of friction comes from the public (including major drug policy reform groups) oddly refusing to even minimally address the powerful Commerce Clause issue in the court of public opinion — the true highest court of the land.
Those good members are constitutionally obligated to go after those ironic criminals to serve and protect the public (not law enforcement wallets).
Thugs foolishly fail to recognize reality’s demonstrated need for balance (what I call the Rule of Reality, but also more familiarly recognized as karma and ‘what goes around, comes around’), basically because of their serious denial of their addiction to thugs.
Therefore, that Rule means any bully (thug) literally or metaphorically engaged in the ‘why are you punching yourself?’ act can ironically be asked the exact same question.
Good members of law enforcement indeed need good public support, because there’s strength in numbers and corruption always fails against proper public exposure. That most certainly includes a seriously broad and deep public intervention to ensure those addicted to thugs get the help they so obviously need on behalf of public safety.
We could emulate former (and taxpayer-expensive) anti-drug-addiction efforts with “Just Say No to Thugs” and “Above the Influence”, instead of justly treating such addiction as the health issue it most certainly is.
In other words, for justice to prevail, we must get the job done right and understand that thuggery too is a health issue worthy of serious public address.
Any form of abuse is a compensation mechanism (a rough effort against unhealthy stress to sustain reasonable balance for survival) against the imperfection of anyone, as effectively mandated by reality.
Flinging anger and demonization (like monkey crap) cannot possibly be the path to law and order, but mental illness combined with trustworthy appearance powerfully corrupts too many public minds against that obviousness.
Insanity is apparently public enemy number one.
How much more leverage do sane people need to restore actual law and order?
Somewhat in other words, how many sane people exist?
I'm an honest freak (or reasonably responsibly balanced "misfit", if you prefer) of an artist working and resting to best carefully contribute towards helping society. Too many people abuse reasoning (e.g. 'partial truth = whole truth' scam), while I exercise reason to explore and express whole truth without any conflict-of-interest.
Leave a Reply