Well, the bandwidth is being taken up by other things.
I heard about the practice for the first time a year or two ago, and it seemed odd to me that a jurisdiction could simply confiscate money in a car, because it existed, and not because of some other criminal activity. And if I had thought about it much, I would have concluded that if the person was subsequently not charged or acquitted then they would get their money back. So I assumed.
But the examples he gave in the talk about that guy's motel being confiscated or the other story about that kid's parents having their family home taken away instead of arresting the kid at the site of his crime were simply unbelievable. I might have cried bullshit if I'd heard all this in another context, social media or something. These actions are WAY past any confiscatory taxes levied by British monarchs on colonies, I'd say. It's gobsmacking crazy, is what it is. As you say, these are rights violations worth fighting about.
