That's the problem. I guess you didn't read the links I posted because it is not a case of property being seized after a trial.

But those links describe completely different situations. Confiscating a vehicle as a punitive response to kerb-crawling or because it was associated with drugs is completely different from the protective measure we were talking about here. Any chance you can suggest a better protective measure that cannot be argued to violate the risk originator's rights in some fashion?

We reached this point because red light running was used as a metaphor for government taking partial or full ownership of banks that could not survive a liquidity crisis, which is all US banks. Recently I reviewed capital ratios of large national banks and was shocked to see tiny capital ratios of around 2% which technically required a FDIC takeover. At least one of those banks continues to insist that it did not need the money, meaning that those people can be expected to resume running the financial red light at the first opportunity. I see no problem at all in government taking shares in exchange for the billions of dollars invested or if government removes the ability of selfish or incompetent people to put us all in danger again. Rip me once, shame on you. Rip me twice, shame on me.