4 ms·

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

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.
- eduction 2y ago
  > police and courts gave themselves permission That’s not how something becomes legal. Civil forfeiture is part of the legal codes in various states and has been left intact in its present state by the courts. Making crack is just something some police did. No law was ever passed saying they could do it. This ruling isn’t saying the laws on the books are good, or universally constitutional. It isn’t saying police will always stay within the constitution by following laws. It is simply saying that they are definitely not allowed to go outside the law. That’s the baseline standard of behavior the ruling established.
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  > police and courts gave themselves permission people give themselves permission to commit illegal actions all the time! That's what being a criminal is all about.
lupusreal 2y ago
> It said police cannot commit illegal acts full stop. Of course this is only true in the deontic sense of 'cannot'. They're not permitted to commit illegal acts, but they're demonstrably capable of it.

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.

eduction 2y ago
> police and courts gave themselves permission That’s not how something becomes legal. Civil forfeiture is part of the legal codes in various states and has been left intact in its present state by the courts. Making crack is just something some police did. No law was ever passed saying they could do it. This ruling isn’t saying the laws on the books are good, or universally constitutional. It isn’t saying police will always stay within the constitution by following laws. It is simply saying that they are definitely not allowed to go outside the law. That’s the baseline standard of behavior the ruling established.
bryanrasmussen 2y ago
> police and courts gave themselves permission people give themselves permission to commit illegal actions all the time! That's what being a criminal is all about.

lupusreal 2y ago

> It said police cannot commit illegal acts full stop. Of course this is only true in the deontic sense of 'cannot'. They're not permitted to commit illegal acts, but they're demonstrably capable of it.