Ah, I see what's going on here.
Criminal law:
reasonable suspicion to stop
probable cause to arrest persons or seize property
beyond reasonable doubt to convict (in a courtroom)
Civil law:
suspicion of crime to seize
preponderance of evidence to prevail (in a courtroom)
Cops are stopping people in the streets where their constitutional protections in regards to criminal law control the interaction
But they are seizing assets according to civil law where those normal constitutional protections don't apply (because they don't have to charge you with a crime)
The end result is when you try and get your money back you're playing by the rules of a small claims hearing except you're fighting against the government instead of your neighbor.
This may be the result, and I major focus on your part regarding the discussion.
But that is not my focus, my focus is false sensationalized claims by "civil rights organizations" and media reporters and these false claims being so easily accepted by others and echoed. Why have readers on this forum, not that they are different then anywhere else, so accepting of what the media writes without challenging it and taking a look for themselves?
We can only act on what we know about. But if we continue to just accept what these "reporters" tell us without ever questioning it, well we'll get what we deserve.
EDITED:
And I just spotted this at the end of your post and I completely accept it.
Also, sorry for the troll comment. I see where you were coming from and you see where I was coming from and it was a genuine mistake on my part that I apologize for making.
I also hope you will accept that I think you are correct in your ethical approach to this problem because despite our arguing back and forth, I do think there is a problem as well. I just don't think that the media has to go overboard and make false or inaccurate assertions to help get it fixed.
Last edited: