documents uncovered by the Institute for Justice today demonstrate that federal law enforcement officials in the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Treasury are collaborating with local law enforcement organizations in California to undermine efforts to reform the state’s civil forfeiture laws.

You really didn't bother to read my post.

The LAPD doesn't get 1.7% of its budget from civil forfeiture.

I said if all of the civil forfeiture amount in the state of California went to the LAPD, it would only constitute 1.7% of their budget.

Considering that all of the assets seized don't go to the LAPD and that California only allows for police to keep 65% of what they do seize, the actual percentage is incredibly lower than that. Probably so low it doesn't even have its own line item in the budget.

And you just keep moving the goal posts.

A) a logical fallacy called Hasty Generalization because your sample size is too small

The sample size is appropriate because this post is specifically toward California, which my samples of forfeiture come from all of California. I cannot increase the sample size.

B) assumes that the agency you named wouldn't care about losing that percentage because it's small--which is pathetically naive.

No, the implication is that their desire to keep the program is not because of the added money. The added money is not a significant amount. People here are posting as if police departments would no longer function if they stopped getting this money and they are acting with malice in order to get it.

But there is nothing to support that. Why would your average cop care about that stuff to go out of his way, to stop and search someone, take their money, do the paperwork, appear in court just so their department can have a budget increase of a fraction of a percent? Do I really need to post the 'Meeting with the Bobs" Scene from office space?

The rational for your argument simply doesn't exist. The logic of the individual cop on the street is "I know this guy is doing illegal stuff with this money and this property, but I don't have enough to get him convicted yet, so I'm going to do what I can and tie him up in the legal system so he can't commit crimes and hurt innocent people"

Attributing anything more to that, making it some giant evil conspiracy is what is pathetically naive, not even naive, just absolutely fucking idiotic.

/r/news Thread Parent Link - ij.org