3 ms·

American law enforcement would overwhelmingly "side" with the buyer here, by virtue solely of siding with the status quo. The moment they said "contract," Depu

American law enforcement would overwhelmingly "side" with the buyer here, by virtue solely of siding with the status quo. The moment they said "contract," Deputy Notmyjob will hold up a hand and say, "Sounds like a civil matter. Mr. Smith has advised you not to trespass on his property. Small claims office is at 1234 Fuckoff Street downtown. We'll be leaving now, and you will too, unless you'd like to take a trip to the station with us for booking."

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
It depends. If Dealer's lawyers decided they wanted to go after some transgression which may or may not have occurred, that can cause a lot of difficulty for Buyer. Individual officers are pretty likely to point them to small claims but not if a prosecutor is in the picture.
- torstenvl 3y ago
  I've served as a prosecutor both in a state jurisdiction and within the military justice system. I am immensely skeptical that any competent lawyer would want to spend resources on pursuing charges based on a third party's NDA.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    Fair enough. Recent disputes around copyright are likely distorting my view on the matter. That feels very much like a corporation going to a prosecutor to tattle on someone. To your point, law enforcement would likely side with the buyer here but the buyer isn't necessarily going to be in a position to understand that (in fact, likely the other way).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 3y ago
> American law enforcement would overwhelmingly "side" with the buyer here Not if the private security are off-duty or former cops with a strong relationship with local departments.
- zamalek 3y ago
  Which would be great. Now we're rapidly travelling down the hundreds of thousands of dollars lawsuit path. Anything the cops do, apart from siding with the land owner (never mind buyer), would have an extremely high chance of being a constitutional violation.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    lol The courts will decide there's "no clearly established law". https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/micah-jessop-brittan-ashjian-v-city-of-fresno-et-al/ https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/micah-jessop-br... > After local police officers searched the homes and business of Micah Jessop and Brittan Ashjian, more than $100,000 in cash and $125,000 in rare coins went missing. Jessop and Ashjian sued the officers and the City of Fresno under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that authorizes damages actions against state and local officials for constitutional violations, arguing that the officers’ alleged theft violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that under the doctrine of qualified immunity the officers cannot be sued because, according to the court, it is not “clearly established” that this type of theft violates the Fourth Amendment. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/30/police-george-floyd-qualified-immunity-supreme-court-column/5283349002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/30/police-geo... > For instance, last November the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that Tennessee cops who allowed their police dog to bite a surrendered suspect did not violate clearly established law. There, the victim cited a case where the same court earlier held that it was unconstitutional for officers to sic their dog on a suspect who had surrendered by lying on the ground with his hands to the side. That was not sufficient, the court reasoned, because the victim had not surrendered by lying down: He had surrendered by sitting on the ground and raising his hands.
ozfive 3y ago
Yeah, people often forget that possession is 9/10ths of the law.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

It depends. If Dealer's lawyers decided they wanted to go after some transgression which may or may not have occurred, that can cause a lot of difficulty for Buyer. Individual officers are pretty likely to point them to small claims but not if a prosecutor is in the picture.

torstenvl 3y ago
I've served as a prosecutor both in a state jurisdiction and within the military justice system. I am immensely skeptical that any competent lawyer would want to spend resources on pursuing charges based on a third party's NDA.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  Fair enough. Recent disputes around copyright are likely distorting my view on the matter. That feels very much like a corporation going to a prosecutor to tattle on someone. To your point, law enforcement would likely side with the buyer here but the buyer isn't necessarily going to be in a position to understand that (in fact, likely the other way).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ceejayoz 3y ago

> American law enforcement would overwhelmingly "side" with the buyer here Not if the private security are off-duty or former cops with a strong relationship with local departments.

zamalek 3y ago
Which would be great. Now we're rapidly travelling down the hundreds of thousands of dollars lawsuit path. Anything the cops do, apart from siding with the land owner (never mind buyer), would have an extremely high chance of being a constitutional violation.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  lol The courts will decide there's "no clearly established law". https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/micah-jessop-brittan-ashjian-v-city-of-fresno-et-al/ https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/micah-jessop-br... > After local police officers searched the homes and business of Micah Jessop and Brittan Ashjian, more than $100,000 in cash and $125,000 in rare coins went missing. Jessop and Ashjian sued the officers and the City of Fresno under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that authorizes damages actions against state and local officials for constitutional violations, arguing that the officers’ alleged theft violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that under the doctrine of qualified immunity the officers cannot be sued because, according to the court, it is not “clearly established” that this type of theft violates the Fourth Amendment. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/30/police-george-floyd-qualified-immunity-supreme-court-column/5283349002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/30/police-geo... > For instance, last November the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that Tennessee cops who allowed their police dog to bite a surrendered suspect did not violate clearly established law. There, the victim cited a case where the same court earlier held that it was unconstitutional for officers to sic their dog on a suspect who had surrendered by lying on the ground with his hands to the side. That was not sufficient, the court reasoned, because the victim had not surrendered by lying down: He had surrendered by sitting on the ground and raising his hands.

ozfive 3y ago

Yeah, people often forget that possession is 9/10ths of the law.