3 ms·
It is abusive. It is also either indicated of a crime (fishy), or incredibly stupid. None of these things are mutually exclusive.
by casion 5y ago
It is abusive. It is also either indicated of a crime (fishy), or incredibly stupid.
None of these things are mutually exclusive.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoCops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy. If it’s not evidence of the crime they’re charging you with, they need to keep their hands off.
- throwaway894345 5y agoNo one is arguing otherwise. Everyone here has explicitly agreed with this in the first sentence of each comment.
- aqme28 5y ago> There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one. This implies (to me) that this case is less abusive than others. I don't agree.
- throwaway894345 5y agoI was responding to this comment: > Cops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy.
- morpheos137 5y agoI don't know if it is ESL or Twitter but people seem to be having trouble parsing grammar these days. What I said is "There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one." The adjective "abusive" applies to the noun "civil forfeiture." The adjective "better" applies to the noun "examples." This is how standard English syntax works. Adjectives are taken as applying to the nearest noun following them.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoThe issue isn’t your grammar — you were perfectly clear, and everyone understands what you were saying. We just disagree with it. This is a textbook example of abusive civil forfeiture.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoNo, OP is clearly saying that this instance of civil forfeiture theft is less outrageous (a “worse example”) than others because the victim was acting suspicious.