[oh_sigh]

If you're referring to the case I think you are, it is pretty clear that that "black kid" was actually a money runner for drug dealers. He claimed to have withdrawn the money from his bank, but could never provide any kind of evidence that he had done this.

[EdHominem]

And what case proved that assertion?

Because in non-corrupt situations it's not your responsibility to explain yourself to not be robbed by the police.

[oh_sigh]

Getting your money back would be very simple - just show you withdrew it from the bank and it was deposited normally. If you can't show you withdrew it from a bank, show it was earned from a job and show pay stubs. If you can't show it was earned from a job, get testimony from people who employed you.

If you can't do any of that - you may be a drug dealer or drug/cash runner.

I'm fine with you having some kind of moral outrage at asset forefiture, but while it is currently the law, there are ways of going about getting your money back. Again, feel free to argue that you shouldn't need to prove where it came from, but, while you do need to prove it, you have those options available to you in pretty much any circumstance where you can save up $11k.

[prutschman]

How much does it cost to hire a lawyer to (try to) get your $11k back?

[oh_sigh]

I'm sure there were people lining up to defend him pro bono because he was a national case...

[Sacho]

We've gone from "the kid is actually guilty", to "well if the kid is innocent it would be trivial to get his money back", to "well if the kid is innocent it's not trivial to get his money back but because it was a national case there's bound to be someone willing to do the work for him out of altruism".

While these may all be true, on your way to be right you've discarded everyone who doesn't get media spotlight, is innocent, and still has their assets forfeited.

No one was disputing your original point anyway - yes, there are ways to get your money back - which you shouldn't have lost in the first place. That's the whole problem with these half-assed, poorly thought-through laws - they are intended to only be applied to criminals, so by assumption the person they are applied to is a criminal, so it's no big deal if they have to jump through ridiculous, possibly life-ruining hoops to go back to their normal life.

Another point that isn't really discussed - after sacrificing the civil liberties of people who have to go through civil forfeiture, is there a worthwhile effect on the drug lords and drug runners, or is this a case like DRM?

[oh_sigh]

I think the problem is that you are arguing whether the law should exist or not - I was only arguing that, given that the law exists, it is possible to reacquire your money if it was legally earned.