Re:U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
by beart on Monday June 25, 2018 @11:07PM
(#17397610)
Without a conclusive study, the only proven conclusion is that "large amounts of cash are sometimes seized, sometimes not". However, a study could reveal that this happens very typically, or not very typically (for some definition of typical). In either case, that is not proving a negative.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
by topmonk on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @10:36PM
(#17405396)
That's exactly my point. Stating that seizure is 'very typical' as fact, and if someone says you have no evidence, the retort shouldn't be "Prove it isn't."
Re:U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
by lostcolony on Thursday June 28, 2018 @11:31AM
(#17417705)
No one said I had no evidence (the original statement for this subthread wasn't mine), and my retort wasn't "prove it isn't", but "your supplied anecdotal data is not actually helpful".
I totally agree the original post to this subthread supplied no data. That's obvious. But to counter it with badly qualified anecdotal evidence does nothing to actually counter it.