18 ms·

Or maybe, just maybe, she thinks she's doing the right thing?

by emkemp 14y ago

stfu 14y ago
Exactly. Some people see it as confirmation of their "mission" when they face criticism.
spigoteater 14y ago
Like Göring?
mpyne 14y ago
I think it's the Marines that have the saying: "Anything worth shooting, is worth shooting twice." Unless the judge points out some obvious mis-application of the prosecutor's legal logic then it shouldn't be unusual to "weigh an appeal" as the logic was supposed to have been sound enough to warrant the case in the first place.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >I think it's the Marines that have the saying: "Anything worth shooting, is worth shooting twice." The war on drugs is not a war between nation states. This hotel owner is a civilian and a citizen of the United States, not an enemy soldier. >Unless the judge points out some obvious mis-application of the prosecutor's legal logic ... Isn't that what the judge just did in throwing out the case?
  - mpyne 14y ago
    I didn't mention anything about the war on drugs. I'll spell out the analogy though: Anything worth trying once for, is worth trying twice for. > Isn't that what the judge just did in throwing out the case? Judges throw out cases on non-obvious reasoning all the time. E.g. "the prosecutor failed to consider the test used in this Circuit since U.S. v. Foo (2004) and therefore the charges are moot".
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      >I didn't mention anything about the war on drugs. I'll spell out the analogy though: Anything worth trying once for, is worth trying twice for. The context of the case is the war on drugs. That's the pretense for the government trying to steal his hotel, and I get the analogy. The problem is the premise. Even if everything worth trying once is worth trying twice, that doesn't do anything to prove you were right the first time, without which trying again is just compounding the error. >Judges throw out cases on non-obvious reasoning all the time. And is that what happened in this case? Because it seems like in this case it was "obvious" that the government was trying to take this man's hotel because it had no mortgage, they expected him to have insufficient liquid assets to successfully contest a seizure and when law enforcement seizes assets they get the resale value added to their budgets.
      - mpyne 14y ago
        >>Judges throw out cases on non-obvious reasoning all the time. > And is that what happened in this case? I don't know, I haven't checked the details of the ruling. > Because it seems like in this case it was "obvious" that the government was trying to take this man's hotel because it had no mortgage, they expected him to have insufficient liquid assets to successfully contest a seizure and when law enforcement seizes assets they get the resale value added to their budgets. Oh sure, real obvious. I'm sure all $1 they'd be able to get for that property would really help boost their training budget...
        AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        >I'm sure all $1 they'd be able to get for that property would really help boost their training budget... From the article: "his mortgage-free property is worth more than $1 million."
    - jerf 14y ago
      "Anything worth trying once for, is worth trying twice for." I can give you a far more specific principle. The only solution a government bureaucrat knows for when the first thing they tried didn't work is do the same thing, only harder. The logic is simple: Any other proposed second solution by the bureaucrat is ipso facto proof that their first idea was bad and wrong. Therefore, this is not an acceptable proposal, since it implies they should be removed from office or should have less power. Clearly, the problem will not be solved by doing less, and it wasn't solved by doing the amount we tried the first time, so therefore, the only thing we can propose is to do the same thing, but harder. War on drugs? Education reform? Significant swathes of foreign policy? This pattern is everywhere in government, and companies large and secure enough to be dominated by politics rather than market realities. Personally I consider it one of the root problems facing society today.
betterunix 14y ago
Then she has a pretty warped sense of what "the right thing" is. Not that that should come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the actions of the DOJ...
darkarmani 14y ago
I don't think she is concerned with the right thing unless the right thing furthers her career. That's how prosecutors are measured. She knows the owner isn't connected with the drug trade at all. She is playing up that angle, so she can put the $1.5M seizure on her resume.

Or maybe, just maybe, she thinks she's doing the right thing?

by emkemp 14y ago

Or maybe, just maybe, she thinks she's doing the right thing?

stfu 14y ago

Exactly. Some people see it as confirmation of their "mission" when they face criticism.

spigoteater 14y ago

Like Göring?

mpyne 14y ago

I think it's the Marines that have the saying: "Anything worth shooting, is worth shooting twice." Unless the judge points out some obvious mis-application of the prosecutor's legal logic then it shouldn't be unusual to "weigh an appeal" as the logic was supposed to have been sound enough to warrant the case in the first place.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>I think it's the Marines that have the saying: "Anything worth shooting, is worth shooting twice." The war on drugs is not a war between nation states. This hotel owner is a civilian and a citizen of the United States, not an enemy soldier. >Unless the judge points out some obvious mis-application of the prosecutor's legal logic ... Isn't that what the judge just did in throwing out the case?
- mpyne 14y ago
  I didn't mention anything about the war on drugs. I'll spell out the analogy though: Anything worth trying once for, is worth trying twice for. > Isn't that what the judge just did in throwing out the case? Judges throw out cases on non-obvious reasoning all the time. E.g. "the prosecutor failed to consider the test used in this Circuit since U.S. v. Foo (2004) and therefore the charges are moot".
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >I didn't mention anything about the war on drugs. I'll spell out the analogy though: Anything worth trying once for, is worth trying twice for. The context of the case is the war on drugs. That's the pretense for the government trying to steal his hotel, and I get the analogy. The problem is the premise. Even if everything worth trying once is worth trying twice, that doesn't do anything to prove you were right the first time, without which trying again is just compounding the error. >Judges throw out cases on non-obvious reasoning all the time. And is that what happened in this case? Because it seems like in this case it was "obvious" that the government was trying to take this man's hotel because it had no mortgage, they expected him to have insufficient liquid assets to successfully contest a seizure and when law enforcement seizes assets they get the resale value added to their budgets.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      >>Judges throw out cases on non-obvious reasoning all the time. > And is that what happened in this case? I don't know, I haven't checked the details of the ruling. > Because it seems like in this case it was "obvious" that the government was trying to take this man's hotel because it had no mortgage, they expected him to have insufficient liquid assets to successfully contest a seizure and when law enforcement seizes assets they get the resale value added to their budgets. Oh sure, real obvious. I'm sure all $1 they'd be able to get for that property would really help boost their training budget...
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        >I'm sure all $1 they'd be able to get for that property would really help boost their training budget... From the article: "his mortgage-free property is worth more than $1 million."
  - jerf 14y ago
    "Anything worth trying once for, is worth trying twice for." I can give you a far more specific principle. The only solution a government bureaucrat knows for when the first thing they tried didn't work is do the same thing, only harder. The logic is simple: Any other proposed second solution by the bureaucrat is ipso facto proof that their first idea was bad and wrong. Therefore, this is not an acceptable proposal, since it implies they should be removed from office or should have less power. Clearly, the problem will not be solved by doing less, and it wasn't solved by doing the amount we tried the first time, so therefore, the only thing we can propose is to do the same thing, but harder. War on drugs? Education reform? Significant swathes of foreign policy? This pattern is everywhere in government, and companies large and secure enough to be dominated by politics rather than market realities. Personally I consider it one of the root problems facing society today.

betterunix 14y ago

Then she has a pretty warped sense of what "the right thing" is. Not that that should come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the actions of the DOJ...

darkarmani 14y ago

I don't think she is concerned with the right thing unless the right thing furthers her career. That's how prosecutors are measured. She knows the owner isn't connected with the drug trade at all. She is playing up that angle, so she can put the $1.5M seizure on her resume.