4 ms·

I’d then sue them for illegal detainment for every day illegally detained....

candiodari 8y ago
Ok ... that sounds so cool. You would fail. You see, there is a slight problem. The government has legislated that this does not happen. And it doesn't happen. The only thing that can happen is that government employees do something they did not have the legal right to do, by abusing state power (unknown to them). For this they are ... personally liable. Gotta love what happens when you give people the authority to make the rules, don't you ? Such reasonable rules ... So a judge has 2 choices (in most states): Either he ignores you or gives you some token amount without making a big fuss out of it, for some bullshit reason (not for illegally detaining you, but for some bullshit but legal reason like illegally charging you some fee or something). The other choice a judge has is to hold the people who actually did this personally liable ... and assigns real monetary damages. Not on the government, as the government explicitly forbade them from doing this, on the individuals. This will open those individuals to a slam-shut kidnapping case, which if the victim plays it correctly will lead to them receiving prison sentences. They cannot claim they didn't do it, because it's part of another court case's conclusion that they did it, including that it was illegal. So a judge can either almost ignore you, or utterly destroy the lives of some 20 government employees that just did what they were told to do. At this point, you have to understand, those government employees' lives are utterly destroyed: they are very likely to go to jail, they'll have 6 or 7 figures in debt (enough to almost certainly lose all their possessions), garnished wages for a decade at least and can never work for government again (in other words, on top of everything else, they're fired from their job). A reasonable person would say that a judge needs a third option: a way to tell the government that they fucked up lawmaking, assign damages based on that, and that laws need to come with clear details on what to do. That a rule like "no citizen may be arrested" must come with a clear and foolproof way to distinguish citizens from non-citizens to be valid, but judges are explicitly forbidden from doing this (you might even say the very definition of their job is to NEVER do this). Why are the rules like this ? Government, the big exception to employer responsibility ? To save the government a buck. Needless to say, unless there was a daily rape regimen, a judge will not do this. Frankly, even then it's probably not a reasonable thing to do.

Ok ... that sounds so cool. You would fail. You see, there is a slight problem. The government has legislated that this does not happen. And it doesn't happen. The only thing that can happen is that government employees do something they did not have the legal right to do, by abusing state power (unknown to them). For this they are ... personally liable. Gotta love what happens when you give people the authority to make the rules, don't you ? Such reasonable rules ... So a judge has 2 choices (in most states): Either he ignores you or gives you some token amount without making a big fuss out of it, for some bullshit reason (not for illegally detaining you, but for some bullshit but legal reason like illegally charging you some fee or something). The other choice a judge has is to hold the people who actually did this personally liable ... and assigns real monetary damages. Not on the government, as the government explicitly forbade them from doing this, on the individuals. This will open those individuals to a slam-shut kidnapping case, which if the victim plays it correctly will lead to them receiving prison sentences. They cannot claim they didn't do it, because it's part of another court case's conclusion that they did it, including that it was illegal. So a judge can either almost ignore you, or utterly destroy the lives of some 20 government employees that just did what they were told to do. At this point, you have to understand, those government employees' lives are utterly destroyed: they are very likely to go to jail, they'll have 6 or 7 figures in debt (enough to almost certainly lose all their possessions), garnished wages for a decade at least and can never work for government again (in other words, on top of everything else, they're fired from their job). A reasonable person would say that a judge needs a third option: a way to tell the government that they fucked up lawmaking, assign damages based on that, and that laws need to come with clear details on what to do. That a rule like "no citizen may be arrested" must come with a clear and foolproof way to distinguish citizens from non-citizens to be valid, but judges are explicitly forbidden from doing this (you might even say the very definition of their job is to NEVER do this). Why are the rules like this ? Government, the big exception to employer responsibility ? To save the government a buck. Needless to say, unless there was a daily rape regimen, a judge will not do this. Frankly, even then it's probably not a reasonable thing to do.