you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

“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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments