Remix clone Hacker News

I have no relation to anyone here, but:

Every time I've carried a large amount of money, it was essentially all of the money I had in the world.

If I had lost it [for any reason, including theft by civil forfeiture], I'd have been essentially broke and have nothing to fight with.

If I were additionally charged with crimes, I'd still be broke and still have nothing to fight with.

The money is just...gone.

---

Now, suppose a DA or prosecuter gives me a binary choice and I can select between the following options:

1. Be broke.

2. Be broke and in prison.

...then I think I'll cut my fucking losses and stick with option 1.

▲

namaria 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It's scary how people immediately side with authorities in these situations. You can lose everything in an instant by getting charged with something nefarious and it just takes a couple of bad cops.

▲

wing-_-nuts 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not 'siding with the authorities', I'm advocating fighting if you're innocent. Plea'ing out when you're innocent just encourages this sort of abuse. If everyone that remotely had the resources to fight charges actually fought them, this whole system would collapse on itself. Civil rights are only upheld when they're exercised.

▲

namaria 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty, which is a perverse argument given the immense cost and general toll a legal defense can impose on a person.

> If everyone that remotely had the resources to fight charges actually fought them, this whole system would collapse on itself.

Yes, that is precisely why the system is stacked against the average person being able to fight the State on criminal charges, and it is very out of touch to imply that anyone that the State has convicted presumably deserved it for not putting up an effective defense.

The system is working as intended on you and I hope you never find yourself on the wrong end of a criminal prosecution.

▲

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty

I can see how one could get this implication because they said "why would you" but that's a common phrase that people use to (I guess literally) call some decision into question. It's not necessarily about saying that they are obviously lying and could be more about wondering why someone would make that choice. The reply made a good case, which they don't seem to be arguing with.

▲

ssl-3 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Why would you use that kind of phraseology, if not to imply something?

	▲	lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Because you're curious for the answer to your question. Why would you think there must be some other implication? (What did I imply by using that phrase in the previous question?)

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]