3 ms·

> You should be able to be the worst person in the world and not hung for it. Do you just believe that someone should be allowed to do anything they want and n

> You should be able to be the worst person in the world and not hung for it. Do you just believe that someone should be allowed to do anything they want and not face repercussions?

kbelder 2y ago
Well, they should be able to do anything they want that's legal without facing legal repercussions.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  He’s facing civil repercussions. He, as a worker of the city, disseminated information to the press that reveals undercover police reports, witness names and testimonies, and various other sensitive information. That may not be illegal, but if he broke a contract or other agreement then it’s expected that he faces repercussions. The city may be in the wrong for downplaying the severity, but he’s in the wrong for directly handing over the hacked information he has to journalists.
  - axus 2y ago
    Did the journalists publish or share the details that could harm witnesses or investigations? Our default assumption is that journalists keep these kind of details confidential and secure from spreading... more than the city did. I think they city would need to actually believe witnesses or investigations were actually harmed, and I don't mean picking whatever belief is most convenient for them. Maybe they do believe it. If they can prove it, they should win their suit.
Spivak 2y ago
No, I'm saying your rights aren't conditional on whether or not you're an asshole.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  They are, though, considering how poorly we treat non-violent felons. That’s beside the point though, because his legal rights are not being infringed. Being sued and being charged are completely different. One is civil, the other is criminal.
  - sbuttgereit 2y ago
    Civil asset forfeiture is not criminal, but civil, and the legal matter is against the property, not the property owner. Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions.
    - late2part 2y ago
      "against the property" You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too. Just because the narrative calls it something, doesn't make it right. It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable.
      - sbuttgereit 2y ago
        >You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too. Huh? I'm relaying what the law considers civil asset forfeiture to be. It's not my opinion and it is not a "narrative". In fact, here's some commentary addressing the issue I raised. "Technically, civil asset forfeiture involves a government lawsuit against the personal property itself or, in legal terms, `in rem`. As strange as it may seem, the inanimate property, whether a yacht or a bag of cash, is the defendant in such a proceeding." --- (https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civil-asset-forfeiture.html https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civ...) If you don't believe that, maybe you'd believe the Justice Department on issue: "Civil Judicial Forfeiture: In rem (against the property) court proceeding brought against property that was derived from or used to commit an offense, rather than against a person who committed an offense." --- (https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture) What you ignored is the only opinion I expressed and the context of that expression: "Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions." How does this square with anything about identify theft responsibility? > It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable. Actually, the historical origin of civil asset forfeiture has some rational basis, though, as with most sensible legal moves, gets corrupted by those willing to exploit the letter of the law in spite of its spirit. Nonetheless, unless there's something I'm missing I don't find your retort particularly coherent. I urge you to reread the original comment to which I replied and my reply and try again.
yimmothathird 2y ago
Only if that person is me

> You should be able to be the worst person in the world and not hung for it. Do you just believe that someone should be allowed to do anything they want and not face repercussions?

kbelder 2y ago

Well, they should be able to do anything they want that's legal without facing legal repercussions.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago
He’s facing civil repercussions. He, as a worker of the city, disseminated information to the press that reveals undercover police reports, witness names and testimonies, and various other sensitive information. That may not be illegal, but if he broke a contract or other agreement then it’s expected that he faces repercussions. The city may be in the wrong for downplaying the severity, but he’s in the wrong for directly handing over the hacked information he has to journalists.
- axus 2y ago
  Did the journalists publish or share the details that could harm witnesses or investigations? Our default assumption is that journalists keep these kind of details confidential and secure from spreading... more than the city did. I think they city would need to actually believe witnesses or investigations were actually harmed, and I don't mean picking whatever belief is most convenient for them. Maybe they do believe it. If they can prove it, they should win their suit.

Spivak 2y ago

No, I'm saying your rights aren't conditional on whether or not you're an asshole.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago
They are, though, considering how poorly we treat non-violent felons. That’s beside the point though, because his legal rights are not being infringed. Being sued and being charged are completely different. One is civil, the other is criminal.
- sbuttgereit 2y ago
  Civil asset forfeiture is not criminal, but civil, and the legal matter is against the property, not the property owner. Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions.
  - late2part 2y ago
    "against the property" You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too. Just because the narrative calls it something, doesn't make it right. It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable.
    - sbuttgereit 2y ago
      >You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too. Huh? I'm relaying what the law considers civil asset forfeiture to be. It's not my opinion and it is not a "narrative". In fact, here's some commentary addressing the issue I raised. "Technically, civil asset forfeiture involves a government lawsuit against the personal property itself or, in legal terms, `in rem`. As strange as it may seem, the inanimate property, whether a yacht or a bag of cash, is the defendant in such a proceeding." --- (https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civil-asset-forfeiture.html https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civ...) If you don't believe that, maybe you'd believe the Justice Department on issue: "Civil Judicial Forfeiture: In rem (against the property) court proceeding brought against property that was derived from or used to commit an offense, rather than against a person who committed an offense." --- (https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture) What you ignored is the only opinion I expressed and the context of that expression: "Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions." How does this square with anything about identify theft responsibility? > It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable. Actually, the historical origin of civil asset forfeiture has some rational basis, though, as with most sensible legal moves, gets corrupted by those willing to exploit the letter of the law in spite of its spirit. Nonetheless, unless there's something I'm missing I don't find your retort particularly coherent. I urge you to reread the original comment to which I replied and my reply and try again.

yimmothathird 2y ago

Only if that person is me