The city of Rotterdam has announced that they are going to start actually taking the clothes off the backs of people on the street if they “look too poor” to be able to afford them. Unless you carry all of the receipts in your pockets for the clothes you’re wearing, they will take them right then and there, and then use them under civil forfeiture to line the pockets of the city government
That’s fucked up
Fuck Rotterdam. At least the police who came up with this stupid idea.
But to keep this in perspective the idea is that the police will seize expensive jackets, shoes and luxury watches from teenagers already under suspicion of being in criminal youth gangs if they can’t prove how they paid for them. It isn’t just grabbing people off the street because they have on a nice jacket and asking for a receipt the way that link portrays it. Hereis a slightly less sensational report.
Despite that, it will certainly lead to racial profiling and it’s a really stupid idea.
This could be Rotterdam, or anywhere.
It’s certainly a stupid idea but it’s not like it doesn’t happen in the US
This would never happen in Liverpool or Rome.
You’re telling me… National Review published an article critical of racial profiling?
I’m all for it. It’s happening in some other country to people who dress better than I dress.
Civil forfeiture is not the same as taking your clothes because you’re dressing above your station.
Aren’t clothes the most prominent indication of your station? If I wear an $1,800 jacket, I look like i have money. If they don’t think* a lot of young people have access to a lot* of money, I suggest they spend one Saturday evening in the lobby of the Wynn Hotel in Vegas.
Does the Netherlands not have the fucking presumption of innocence?
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The OP didn’t say “I pit the city of Rotterdam (but not the United States, because when we do it, it’s totally cool!)” And the National Review article he linked to included a link to a “related article” from last year: Civil Asset Forfeiture: Where Due Process Goes to Die, which is about this shit in the United States, and which is definitely not saying “Hooray for taking poor people’s stuff without due process!” (When the right-wingers actually get something right, I for one still agree with them, even though they’re right-wing.)
Well, fuck. So you are saying “I pit the city of Rotterdam (but not the United States, because when we do it, it’s totally cool!)”?
No because nobody in the United States is taking things because of presumption of being too poor to afford what you’re wearing.
Yeah, that specific wrinkle may be unique to the city of Rotterdam. But more generally, this sort of thing has been happening in the United States. See A power that lets police take property for themselves — even when there’s no crime (editorial from the generally left-of-center Washington Post), Asset Forfeiture Abuse (from the ACLU), and Policing for Profit: the Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture (from the Institute for Justice, politically libertarian).
Holy shit you’re stupid. In the US they might take your car instead because they can presume you’re too poor to afford what you’re driving, so they assume you must have bought it with drug money and seize it. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own?
We do it in the US to keep blacks in their place.
How odd. Are we only allowed to pit only the worst thing possible? Should the Pit be closed to any threads not related to the Michigan State child abuser?
Civil forfeiture is bad.
What Rotterdam is doing is also bad, right?
They are different – the police at least have to pretend something was amiss when they take your money and your car. They have to have some fig leaf of probable cause or something. It’s still terrible.
Sounds like Rotterdam doesn’t even need that. If you’re wearing a fur coat that you got from whatever their equivalent of Goodwill is, they may take it away from you. It’s like they never saw the video for Thrift Shop!
Is that better? Worse? It’s different. Both are bad.
Many of responses in this thread are baffling to me. “You think Rotterdam is bad? How about the Nazis? They were worse! How dare you pit the Rotterdam cops!”
You are of course allowed to pit whatever you feel like. In return, I am allowed to comment with whatever thoughts I have, including my opinion I could eat alphabet soup and shit out a better argument than the one you just made.
Now if the OP hadn’t tried to claim that existing US civil forfeiture laws that steals 12 BILLION dollars a year from it’s citizens as being “totes different” from the proposed Rotterdam civil forfeiture which hasn’t even happened yet, I probably wouldn’t have posted anything. But the OP appears to be a fucking moron as well as a hypocrite, and they actually did try to claim just that. Thus my reply.
Unfortunately, sumptuary laws have a long history.
Civil forfeiture is bad, sure. But this is worse than that. Civil forfeiture at least requires actual suspicion of a crime. This is explicitly about people who don’t look like they should be able to afford the stuff, unless they have (on their person) papers proving they own it.