[Yo-Yo]

Me too. I have no problem seizing assets of drug dealers, but only after proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that the assets are from illegal activity, and that the person holding the assets has been convicted.

Seizing cash, cars, etc., never filing any charges against the owner, then forcing the owner to prove that the property is not proceeds from illegal activity turns our justice system on its head with a 'guilty until proven innocent' approach.

How SCOTUS upheld this practice I'll never understand.

[IYAS9YAS]

Seizing cash, cars, etc., never filing any charges against the owner, then forcing the owner to prove that the property is not proceeds from illegal activity turns our justice system on its head with a 'guilty until proven innocent' approach.

I remember reading a story here on FR years ago where a little old lady had her house seized because her punk grandson was selling drugs out of her house without her knowledge.

[Lazamataz]

Because SCOTUS is part of the Criminal Government of the Soviet Socialist States of America.

[AndyJackson]

How SCOTUS upheld this practice I'll never understand.

Because some of our revered "conservatives" were actually authoritarians and not conservatives at all.

[GraceG]

It has turned law enforcement into "Legalized highway banditry" We are fast approaching turning law enforcement into the "Sheriff of Nottingham".

Robin hood was about the government becoming highway robbers and an uprising against that. Not the socialist clap trap about "rob from the rich give to the poor" message they perverted it to.

Robin hood was returning property stolen BY a government, not redistribution.