That is “legal” theft, which can be fought in court, and isn’t what I’m referring to. A law enforcement officer committing theft not associated with their duties is what I’m talking about like this example reported just yesterday.
“Legal theft”. Careful not to choke on your words. It is a well known and well documented abuse of the legal system. A great many police departments, corrupt even more than usual, use it to fund departmental expenses, staff perks and bonuses.
Fighting street level injustice through inaccessible and notoriously corrupt courts is also a sad joke.
“Legal theft”. Careful not to choke on your words. It is a well known and well documented abuse of the legal system.
Abuse? Its codified in law. Its working as intended. I don’t agree with it, but its not extra-judicial. You’ll see I specifically put it quotes to communicate that, while it meets the letter of the law, it is far from actual justice.
Just because it is codified into law doesn’t make it not abusive in nature. That just means the law is attempting to justify abuse.
Almost as if something being a “law” is nothing more than those in power attempting to legitimize their oppression of the people under their authority.
Just because it is codified into law doesn’t make it not abusive in nature. That just means the law is attempting to justify abuse.
Are we really just having semantic arguments now?
“Abuse of the law” I interpret as equal to “breaking the law”. Civil Forfeiture doesn’t break the law it is written from. Is it unjust? Absolutely! Do I agree it should be abolished? Absolutely!
Almost as if something being a “law” is nothing more than those in power attempting to legitimize their oppression of the people under their authority.
Again, I’ve clearly separated the concepts of “lawful” from “justice”. They ARE NOT always equal. This is a case where they aren’t.
Are we done having arguments over grammar and semantics? You can keep going if you like, but I’m more interested in focusing on our world burning than arguing over something we both already agree should be abolished.
That is “legal” theft, which can be fought in court, and isn’t what I’m referring to. A law enforcement officer committing theft not associated with their duties is what I’m talking about like this example reported just yesterday.
“Legal theft”. Careful not to choke on your words. It is a well known and well documented abuse of the legal system. A great many police departments, corrupt even more than usual, use it to fund departmental expenses, staff perks and bonuses.
Fighting street level injustice through inaccessible and notoriously corrupt courts is also a sad joke.
Abuse? Its codified in law. Its working as intended. I don’t agree with it, but its not extra-judicial. You’ll see I specifically put it quotes to communicate that, while it meets the letter of the law, it is far from actual justice.
It adheres to the letter of the law only when you ignore the 4th and 5th ammendments. But why bother? The constitution ain’t worth shit anyways.
Just because it is codified into law doesn’t make it not abusive in nature. That just means the law is attempting to justify abuse.
Almost as if something being a “law” is nothing more than those in power attempting to legitimize their oppression of the people under their authority.
Are we really just having semantic arguments now?
“Abuse of the law” I interpret as equal to “breaking the law”. Civil Forfeiture doesn’t break the law it is written from. Is it unjust? Absolutely! Do I agree it should be abolished? Absolutely!
Again, I’ve clearly separated the concepts of “lawful” from “justice”. They ARE NOT always equal. This is a case where they aren’t.
Are we done having arguments over grammar and semantics? You can keep going if you like, but I’m more interested in focusing on our world burning than arguing over something we both already agree should be abolished.
Sorry the point went over your head it seems.
Then be more clear.
deleted by creator