TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

547 点作者 davidiach超过 9 年前

24 条评论

coreyp_1超过 9 年前
Amendment IV<p>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.<p>I don&#x27;t get it, which is why I&#x27;m asking here: Why is this &quot;stop-and-seize&quot; not considered unconstitutional? Has it just not been challenged that far yet, or is there a legal rationale that I have not heard yet?
评论 #10560307 未加载
评论 #10560227 未加载
评论 #10560243 未加载
评论 #10560233 未加载
评论 #10560613 未加载
评论 #10560163 未加载
评论 #10560239 未加载
评论 #10560422 未加载
评论 #10561792 未加载
评论 #10560679 未加载
评论 #10560445 未加载
评论 #10560200 未加载
DickingAround超过 9 年前
We cannot expect the world to become more sane. We must ourselves engineer our way out of it. We will engineer our way out of surveillance with encryption. We will engineer our way our of highway seizure with bitcoin (or a similar tech). If does seem bad now, but we will solve it and we will solve it without needing to convince others it&#x27;s broken.
评论 #10561473 未加载
asift超过 9 年前
The author&#x27;s reference to Morris&#x27; high-end&#x2F;low-end classification of states and absolute preference for centralization seems simplistic and out of touch with economic research on the topic.<p>I think Elinor Ostrom (the only female recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics to date) provides a much more useful framework for evaluating institutional design. In some cases centralization works and in others decentralization is preferable, but a very important component that gets left out of Morris&#x27; dichotomy is the role that jurisdictional overlap plays in forcing centralized and decentralized institutions to compete against each other and ultimately provide better outcomes than either could independently.
heapcity超过 9 年前
I was arrested while hiking and acquitted because I did nothing wrong. But the police never returned my expensive sun glasses or my expensive optical water purifier. &quot;We don&#x27;t have them.&quot;
评论 #10561133 未加载
kbenson超过 9 年前
It seems pretty clear to me the problem here is misaligned incentives. If the police weren&#x27;t allowed to keep seized money, and where it did end up was disconnected enough, there would be little reason to confiscate property without due cause.<p>Where we could redirect the money that it didn&#x27;t cause problems is an interesting question, and I&#x27;m not sure I know of an answer that doesn&#x27;t create other considerable problems.
评论 #10561234 未加载
walterbell超过 9 年前
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;international&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2015&#x2F;03&#x2F;return-of-the-mercenary&#x2F;388616&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;international&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2015&#x2F;03&#x2F;ret...</a>, <i>&quot;The use of mercenaries in warfare has a very long history—much longer, in fact, than the almost-exclusive deployment of national militaries to wage wars. Before the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended Europe&#x27;s Thirty Years&#x27; War and marked the rise of the modern state system, medieval powers from kings to popes routinely hired private fighters to do battle for them. As state governments sought a monopoly on the use of force within their territories in the 17th century, however, they moved to stamp out violence by non-state actors, including mercenaries, driving the industry underground.&quot;</i><p>The Peace of Westphalia, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Peace_of_Westphalia" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Peace_of_Westphalia</a>, <i>&quot;… was a series of peace treaties signed between May and October 1648 … established … a new system of political order in central Europe, later called Westphalian sovereignty, based upon the concept of co-existing sovereign states … General recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, people, and agents abroad, and responsibility for the warlike acts of any of its citizens or agents. Issuance of unrestricted letters of marque and reprisal to privateers was forbidden.&quot;</i>
评论 #10561170 未加载
downandout超过 9 年前
Perfect example of this [1]: A poker player carrying a large amount of cash is pulled over. The cops not only seize his $167,000 poker bankroll, but his vehicle, laptop, and cell phone. They then tell him that he is &quot;free to go&quot; and leave him by the side of the road in the middle of the desert with $192 in cash and no cell phone.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cardplayer.com&#x2F;poker-news&#x2F;19177-hawaii-man-fights-asset-forfeiture-case-similar-to-the-poker-players-in-iowa" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cardplayer.com&#x2F;poker-news&#x2F;19177-hawaii-man-fights...</a>
eshem超过 9 年前
More in-depth investigation by the Washington Post from 2014:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;sf&#x2F;investigative&#x2F;2014&#x2F;09&#x2F;06&#x2F;stop-and-seize&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;sf&#x2F;investigative&#x2F;2014&#x2F;09&#x2F;06&#x2F;st...</a>
maxerickson超过 9 年前
I&#x27;d prefer a seize and destroy policy for contraband over the current system of prosecution. For stuff like heroin or cocaine there doesn&#x27;t even need to be much of a system for recovery, for prescription pills and the like there probably does, but I think there are some bright lines that can be drawn there.<p>Cash and other legal property should not be seized without a warrant though.
alistproducer2超过 9 年前
Serious question. We&#x27;re all problem solvers here. There has got to be a better way to get our elected leaders to pay more immediate attention to blatantly immoral and unconstitutional stuff like this.<p>As developers and engineers we should come up with a technology to force issue on things like this. I&#x27;m pretty tired of reading a story like this and feeling helpless to change it,
评论 #10560884 未加载
评论 #10560848 未加载
clumsysmurf超过 9 年前
&quot;If you believe -- as many economists do -- that the rule of law is a key determinant of a nation’s prosperity, then you should be worried about this. Stop-and-seize should be stopped.&quot;<p>A good book that talks about this is &quot;The Locus Effect&quot; <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Locust-Effect-Poverty-Requires-Violence&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0190229268" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Locust-Effect-Poverty-Requires-Violenc...</a>
erjjones超过 9 年前
Its a booming business for the states and law enforcement. The stats don&#x27;t lie. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#&#x2F;media&#x2F;File:Payouts_to_states_in_USA_by_Federal_Govt_under_Equitable_Sharing_Program.png" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...</a>
spacemanmatt超过 9 年前
Scenario: You&#x27;re on the jury of a person accused of killing an undercover policeman who tried to deprive them of their suitcase full of cash. We can&#x27;t know if the cash was illegally obtained, as they are not on trial nor will the government charge them for any crimes that would connect the cash to a crime. They&#x27;re only saying the undercover policeman was attempting to make a civil forfeiture. We can&#x27;t know whether the undercover identified himself to the defendant, because he&#x27;s dead. There&#x27;s no evidence that the defendant should have been able to know the deceased was an officer.<p>How are you inclined to find for the accused?
YesThatTom2超过 9 年前
Why is this a bad thing? We don&#x27;t want to pay ANY taxes, so this way only THE BAD PEOPLE pay to fund the municipalities that do this. ARE YOU A BAD PERSON? OR ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE TAX US TO DEATH PEOPLE?<p>Obviously I&#x27;m not serious in what I wrote above. The serious point I want to make is that this is one of the many unintended side-effects of the whole &#x27;lower taxes for the sake of lower taxes&#x27; movement. Don&#x27;t say I didn&#x27;t warn ya.
评论 #10560661 未加载
javajosh超过 9 年前
Actually, the core problem is that when (usually) white, middle-class America sees a police boot on someone&#x27;s face their instinct is to say, &quot;Well, I guess he deserved it.&quot; This is particularly the case for working middle-class mothers. Based on anecdotal conversations, when they see a story about the police shooting an unarmed man in the back, they think, &quot;Well, the guy was probably going to grab someone&#x27;s little girl and take her hostage.&quot; When confronted with stories where the cop was undeniably wrong, they say, &quot;Oh just a bad apple.&quot;<p>Another problem is when (usually) black America sees a police boot on someone&#x27;s face, and notes that statistically it&#x27;s usually a black face, and their instinct is to say, &quot;Well, I guess it was because he was black.&quot; When confronted with stories where the face is white, they say nothing.<p>This breaks my heart. We should never allow a police boot on anyone&#x27;s face for any reason. The police are public servants, our servants, there to keep the peace, and stop violence from happening. They are not the punishers - that is the role of the court. They are not above the law - they need to hold themselves to a <i>higher</i> standard of conduct. <i>The police should be the best of us</i>, but instead we get low-to-average intelligence physically large men who can keep themselves clean and fit, fill out basic paperwork, and who can follow orders. Emboldened by the attitudes of white, middle-class women that &quot;cracking heads&quot; is a sign of order, also a sign of machismo, and absent any authority to stop it, it continues, and it gets worse.<p>Now, cops go out on a disturbance call, escalate it to violence, and then they &#x27;hurt the bad guys&#x27; - cracks some heads, throw &#x27;em in jail. The cop moves on, but &#x27;the bad guys&#x27; keep getting hurt, in local lock up, by a justice system that will never hear their case, and then for years by a privatized penal system that takes every economic and social advantage of the prisoner that it legally can.<p>What we have now is a police force whose individual instinct and unmet need for &quot;respect&quot; (actually, dominance) drives their decisions. No-one can stop them. The police have each other&#x27;s backs. The judiciary has the backs of the police. And the voters are split between two very different, very wrong reactions to the problem - which takes back seat to things like &quot;the economy&quot; and &quot;abortion&quot; in every election.<p>Right now, the best we can do is tell the stories of the people who&#x27;ve been harmed by the police. We need to focus on white, middle-class people, to address both mistaken instincts. We need to fund independent police-malpractice commissions with real teeth, to investigate allegations of wrong-doing. More than anything, we need to reform the way police work is done, making it illegal, for example, for a uniformed cop to coerce a suspect, to lie about the law, or to escalate a situation. We need a &quot;broken windows&quot; policy <i>applied to the police</i> where even small breaches of policy - words of disrespect, for example - trigger a reprimand. We need to ask ourselves why cops <i>swarm</i> on every encounter with a citizen, why they have their hand on their gun when they walk up to your car, why they beat people up so much and get away with it.
评论 #10560934 未加载
评论 #10560947 未加载
评论 #10560803 未加载
golemotron超过 9 年前
The real solution to this is not to reform civil forfeiture law but to pass legislation that makes sure that seized property is held in escrow and destroyed if a court decides that it does not revert to the owner.<p>If police&#x2F;municipalities can&#x27;t profit from forfeiture and have to pay real costs for exercising it, it will disappear.
rm_-rf_slash超过 9 年前
I disagree with the author&#x27;s attitude towards mercenaries operating in foreign countries. Having read &quot;The Modern Mercenary&quot;, by former Blackwater merc, Sean McFate, I am fully convinced that mercenaries have a desirable and necessary place in future conflicts.<p>Take Afghanistan for example. It is a nation at a major geographic crossroads that truly acts as a set of tribes and alliances, not a Westphalian-style state that is Westerners think ought to be the standard. That&#x27;s why no matter how much &quot;nation building&quot; we do, nothing succeeds.<p>Instead, as McFate argues, we should have mercenaries prevent groups like al Qaeda from using that space to plan attacks on American soil, instead of spending political capital on forever wars. Mercenaries will be seen as a foreign defense mechanism against terrorism, like what we see the TSA doing at home. (Disagree with their tactics all you want, but they have stopped <i>some</i> bombings).
评论 #10560207 未加载
评论 #10560870 未加载
评论 #10560211 未加载
评论 #10560657 未加载
评论 #10560309 未加载
commentzorro超过 9 年前
This is the Republican Dream. Shifting taxes to states then to localities and finally to each group within the locality. As the nation moves farther and farther to the right expect the to happen in every state and local agency out there.
评论 #10560922 未加载
评论 #10560543 未加载
评论 #10563184 未加载
评论 #10561512 未加载
评论 #10561035 未加载
Your_Creator超过 9 年前
John Oliver explains it pretty well: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks</a>
alistproducer2超过 9 年前
It&#x27;s interesting that &quot;conservatives&quot; and &quot;freedom loving people&quot; become pretty OK with tyrannical practices as long as they are practiced on some undesirable group. &quot;Don&#x27;t tread on me&quot; becomes &quot;Don&#x27;t tread on me, tread on the brown people instead.&quot;
评论 #10561197 未加载
Dowwie超过 9 年前
there was a recent discussion about this from Cato: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cato.org&#x2F;multimedia&#x2F;daily-podcast&#x2F;policing-profit-proceeds-apace" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cato.org&#x2F;multimedia&#x2F;daily-podcast&#x2F;policing-profit...</a><p>here&#x27;s the web site by the people who gave the talk (the paper is downloadable from the right margin) <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ij.org&#x2F;report&#x2F;policing-for-profit&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ij.org&#x2F;report&#x2F;policing-for-profit&#x2F;</a>
AC__超过 9 年前
Democracy has been bastardized over the past 150+ years to the extent that governments are now effectively nothing more than organized criminal organizations. Police serve as the enforcing arm of these organizations.
评论 #10561039 未加载
评论 #10560842 未加载
Fezzik超过 9 年前
Ugh, so much misinformation. Having lurked here for a while HN seems to think civil forfeiture is the boogie man. To clarify a few things, at least on the county level:<p>1) There are always drugs when property is seized this way. I review every single civil forfeiture in a rather large county, and the affidavits officers submit read something like: &quot;I stopped Bob after an informant purchased a large amount of heroin from Bob, Bob had syringes, heroin, weed, a scale for weighing drugs etc... on his person, and a rolled up wade of bills&quot;. The money is then seized as proceeds of prohibited conduct.<p>2) IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO CONTEST A CIVIL FORFEITURE. The defendant is given a single piece of paper, that is insanely easy to understand, and simply has to sign the paper saying the forfeited property is not proceeds of a crime. They then have to appear in court, before a judge, and demonstrate this fact. The bar is not high, but I have never once seen this happen.<p>3) The money does not all go directly to the seizing agency. Much of it goes towards drugs programs, oversight for civil forfeitures, and other programs. See, for example: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.oregonlaws.org&#x2F;ors&#x2F;131A.360" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.oregonlaws.org&#x2F;ors&#x2F;131A.360</a><p>Perhaps at the federal level things work very differently and the process is abused, but every time I see these articles it really feels like an anomaly of a story is used to paint an entire program as being demonic, with little to no data to back up the conclusion.<p>edited for clarity, the statutory language is &quot;prohibited conduct&quot; not &quot;criminal activity&quot;
评论 #10560964 未加载
评论 #10560918 未加载
评论 #10561141 未加载
评论 #10560901 未加载
评论 #10561702 未加载
评论 #10561258 未加载
评论 #10561448 未加载
评论 #10560892 未加载
entropyneur超过 9 年前
&gt; With government unable to pay police as much as they need or would like, police are confiscating their revenue directly from the populace.<p>Where does the author think the funding comes from in the normal situation? It&#x27;s confiscated from the populace just the same. What is this elusive property of the government that makes it not a self-funding gang which is not present in any part of the government (e.g. police in this case) but present in the whole?
评论 #10559970 未加载
评论 #10559982 未加载
评论 #10559984 未加载
评论 #10559980 未加载
评论 #10560302 未加载
评论 #10560699 未加载
评论 #10559959 未加载