Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles
Title: NYPD Steals $18,000 from Man Because He Was Carrying a Banned Pocket Knife
Source:
The Anti-Media
URL Source: http://theantimedia.org/nypd-steals-18000-knife-law/
Published: Sep 16, 2016
Author: Alice Salles
Post Date: 2016-09-17 14:59:03 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 15570
Comments: 50
In the past five years, the New York Police Department has spent $347,000 on false arrest lawsuit settlements. According to the Village Voice, these costs stem from the city’s “gravity knife statute.” Passed in 1958, the law banned New York residents from carrying knives fitted with blades that fall out of the handle as the user points them toward the ground while pushing the lever. This antiquated law is responsible for thousands of yearly arrests, despite the fact that current knife designs bear no resemblance to the blades of yesteryear. But estimates suggest that over the past ten years, this particular ban has been the reason for the prosecution of “60,000 New Yorkers … many of them working people who use folding knives as part of their jobs.” A recent incident shows another unintended consequence of upholding the gravity knife statute — one that cost a South Bronx resident $18,000. In a very public tweet, the NYPD announced Sunday that officers from Police Service Area 7 had “arrested a male for a gravity knife and vouchered $18,000 dollars cash for forfeiture.” The triumphant tweet, The Village Voice pointed out, even “[publicized the prisoner’s] name and address, down to the apartment number.” By coupling an outdated law with civil asset forfeiture rules — which in New York state, happen to be draconian — officers managed to take advantage of yet another property owner in order to “prop up” the local police budget. While few details about the arrest were made public, the Village Voice added, many on Twitter commented that the model of knife the arrestee was carrying “appear[ed] to be a style often carried by first responders, with a feature designed for safely cutting clothes and tangled seat belts after, say, a car accident.” The news outlet reached out to the NYPD for more information, but officers failed to respond with more details. The gravity knife ban was tweaked in June when Democrats added an amendment to the state law clarifying “the definition of a gravity knife by excluding any folding knife with a ‘bias toward closure.’” The change has yet to be signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo. But even if it’s signed, this change to the state law does little to protect the New Yorkers’ constitutional right to own and carry any means of self-defense. Nevertheless, it could help to limit the number of individuals framed by the NYPD over folding knives and pocket knives, which are often “used for work or passed down in a family.” Even if the tweak to the state’s knife ban is finally signed into law, this measure, alone, will not be enough because the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws remain intact. Until serious criminal justice reforms are passed in the Empire State, New Yorkers will continue to be bullied in the name of policing for profit.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
This falsely claims forfeiture due to carrying banned pocket knife. Cash and other property is seized upon belief that is was involved in an illegal enterprise, such as drug dealing. If the owner can show that he lawfully possessed the money, he may get it back.
What exactly was the man charged with? Illegal possession of a banned pocket knife or carry excess amount of cash? We still have Due Process in this country where one is innocent until proven guilty. The burden rests solely on the officers to prove this guy broke the law. Not the other way around.
I agree with you. You know innocent until priven guilty.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#22)
(Edited)
What caught my attention was this statement: If the money is seized for forfeiture, anyone who wants to obtain the money must claim ownership of the money and show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is lawfully his. This quote tells me in code language that the defendant is being treated like a narcotics dealer and that the use of that case law is being used to deny the defendant's basic Due Process Rights. What the judge did was use a case law which would not apply to this defendant. What the judge should have used was the proper statute and if applicable use a parallel case to support their findings. Narcotics dealing would fall under Internal Revenue codes which are not positive law. See here: http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta16013.htm#ta16014 and that Dan Meador explains this about how the IRS and Bureau of Internal Revenue merged with the Customs Clearance Act and that neither are positive law and therefore their statutes have no legality in the United States. See here: The asset need not be traced to a specific sale of drugs, only to drug trafficking generally. [Emphasis added here] The burden rests on those officers to prove their case against the defendant.
An action in rem determines lawful ownership of property, not guilt or innocence of a person.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest NYPD Steals $18,000 from Man Because He Was Carrying a Banned Pocket Knife
#17. To: nolu chan (#1)
"...If the owner can show that he lawfully possessed the money, he may get it back."
#22. To: goldilucky (#17)
Replies to Comment # 22.
#29. To: A K A Stone, goldilucky (#22)
I agree with you. You know innocent until priven guilty.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]