4 ms·

The sentence you're arguing with comes directly from the court, and your argument doesn't show it's wrong. While it's true that police officers can "get away wi

The sentence you're arguing with comes directly from the court, and your argument doesn't show it's wrong. While it's true that police officers can "get away with other things that ordinary citizens would be punished for", that's because certain laws treat police officers differently -- because those acts aren't illegal when police officers do them -- and not because they can commit illegal acts. Similarly, it's illegal for a 20 year old to drink but legal for a 21 year old to drink, and that doesn't mean 21 year olds can do illegal acts. You can certainly believe that it's bad for the law to allow civil asset forfeiture; but that has nothing to do with the court's statement here. Furthermore, it's rather absurd to say that the law should never treat police officers or other government agents differently in any way, which you seem to be implying by referring to this as categorically "unfortunate". Police officers need to arrest and jail people, for example, which are (with some exceptions) powers not granted to ordinary citizens. If agents of the government had no powers beyond those of ordinary citizens, then in what sense would we even have a government?

lazide 2y ago
Yup, and is typically the case there are explicit carve outs in the law for law enforcement for possession, etc. ‘in the course of their duties’ (Florida 893.06(2), 893.09(5), among others). [https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/Chapter893/All https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/Chapter893/All] That second carve out making them immune to both civil and criminal penalties (talk about immunity!) is especially generous. But as noted, in the eyes of the legislature there has to be or it would literally be impossible for them to do their jobs. And hey, it wasn’t that long ago you had literal machine gun shootouts [https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/mac-10-submachine-gun/462788 https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/mac-10-submachine-gun...]. “The two assassins returned to the van and liberally sprayed the parking lot and surrounding shops with gunfire apparently just for meanness.” Also [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_drug_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_drug_war] No cop is going anywhere near that insanity without near blanket immunity. You have to go pretty above and beyond to have the courts slap you down like this in that kind of environment. Like manufacturing your own crack, apparently.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > You have to go pretty above and beyond to have the courts slap you down like this in that kind of environment. Like manufacturing your own crack, apparently. Well, after three years of it. And then when the court says "No, don't do that any more, and erase the records of the people that were arrested and/or convicted by that" you can sit on that for three decades saying "Eh, maybe we will, maybe we won't, depends on how we feel" before it gets pushed at all.
kmoser 2y ago
Most of your takeaway of what I wrote is simply a fabrication, and not at all what I was saying. My main point was to note that the ruling only makes this particular act illegal for police officers. I'm not saying the police should have no authority beyond that of citizens. The "unfortunate" part of civil asset forfeiture is that it is almost always abused for the benefit of the police at the expense of otherwise law-abiding citizens. You are correct that it has nothing to do with the court's statement, and that's ties into my first point.
- eduction 2y ago
  It was incorrect of you to say the court scoped its statement to a particular illegal act. It said police cannot commit illegal acts full stop. There goes your first sentence. You repeat your error in your reply: “the ruling only makes this particular act illegal for police officers”. That makes no sense. It literally says that police cannot do illegal acts and that this is why they could not convict people based on making crack. How could it even be otherwise? You really think the court is saying police could vandalize a store or murder someone to bust others involved in the crime, since those illegal acts weren’t specified in the ruling? It seems like you missed the part where eurleif said the TLDR is a verbatim quote from the ruling. In your second sentence you made an inapt comparison to civil forfeiture. What makes civil forfeiture outrageous is precisely its legality. The whole point of the ruling is that police must confine themselves to legal behavior. So civil forfeiture is as relevant to this ruling as walking, cooking, or breathing. Legal and permissible by police. It’s also wrong of you to accuse eurleif of fabrication. I can’t see a single thing they fabricated. They very carefully and precisely explained why your entire comment was wrong. You should thank them!
  - mapt 2y ago
    At the time, police and courts gave themselves permission to manufacture and sell crack cocaine informally, despite this being very clearly illegal. Currently, police and the courts with formal legislative backing give themselves permission to rob people, despite this being very clearly unconstitutional.
FireBeyond 2y ago
> because those acts aren't illegal when police officers do them -- and not because they can commit illegal acts Well by logical conclusion, they can't commit all illegal acts, but they can commit some, if those acts aren't considered illegal when police officers do them.

lazide 2y ago

Yup, and is typically the case there are explicit carve outs in the law for law enforcement for possession, etc. ‘in the course of their duties’ (Florida 893.06(2), 893.09(5), among others). [https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/Chapter893/All https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/Chapter893/All] That second carve out making them immune to both civil and criminal penalties (talk about immunity!) is especially generous. But as noted, in the eyes of the legislature there has to be or it would literally be impossible for them to do their jobs. And hey, it wasn’t that long ago you had literal machine gun shootouts [https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/mac-10-submachine-gun/462788 https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/mac-10-submachine-gun...]. “The two assassins returned to the van and liberally sprayed the parking lot and surrounding shops with gunfire apparently just for meanness.” Also [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_drug_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_drug_war] No cop is going anywhere near that insanity without near blanket immunity. You have to go pretty above and beyond to have the courts slap you down like this in that kind of environment. Like manufacturing your own crack, apparently.

FireBeyond 2y ago
> You have to go pretty above and beyond to have the courts slap you down like this in that kind of environment. Like manufacturing your own crack, apparently. Well, after three years of it. And then when the court says "No, don't do that any more, and erase the records of the people that were arrested and/or convicted by that" you can sit on that for three decades saying "Eh, maybe we will, maybe we won't, depends on how we feel" before it gets pushed at all.

kmoser 2y ago

Most of your takeaway of what I wrote is simply a fabrication, and not at all what I was saying. My main point was to note that the ruling only makes this particular act illegal for police officers. I'm not saying the police should have no authority beyond that of citizens. The "unfortunate" part of civil asset forfeiture is that it is almost always abused for the benefit of the police at the expense of otherwise law-abiding citizens. You are correct that it has nothing to do with the court's statement, and that's ties into my first point.

eduction 2y ago
It was incorrect of you to say the court scoped its statement to a particular illegal act. It said police cannot commit illegal acts full stop. There goes your first sentence. You repeat your error in your reply: “the ruling only makes this particular act illegal for police officers”. That makes no sense. It literally says that police cannot do illegal acts and that this is why they could not convict people based on making crack. How could it even be otherwise? You really think the court is saying police could vandalize a store or murder someone to bust others involved in the crime, since those illegal acts weren’t specified in the ruling? It seems like you missed the part where eurleif said the TLDR is a verbatim quote from the ruling. In your second sentence you made an inapt comparison to civil forfeiture. What makes civil forfeiture outrageous is precisely its legality. The whole point of the ruling is that police must confine themselves to legal behavior. So civil forfeiture is as relevant to this ruling as walking, cooking, or breathing. Legal and permissible by police. It’s also wrong of you to accuse eurleif of fabrication. I can’t see a single thing they fabricated. They very carefully and precisely explained why your entire comment was wrong. You should thank them!
- mapt 2y ago
  At the time, police and courts gave themselves permission to manufacture and sell crack cocaine informally, despite this being very clearly illegal. Currently, police and the courts with formal legislative backing give themselves permission to rob people, despite this being very clearly unconstitutional.

FireBeyond 2y ago

> because those acts aren't illegal when police officers do them -- and not because they can commit illegal acts Well by logical conclusion, they can't commit all illegal acts, but they can commit some, if those acts aren't considered illegal when police officers do them.