Which he might eventually get back, after 5-10 years I guess.
A few law enforcement types are going to lose their jobs soon, I take it. (And if they were connected with this farce of a case, all the better)
You could say the same thing about the cops in Russia who raid businesses that have gotten on the wrong side of the state or its business network. Of course it should be the ones who give the orders who get canned. But noone gets canned.
The definition of tyranny is "arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power". That accurately describes the current situation where authorities can, with no risk to themselves, freely take your property and destroy your livelihood even when you've broken no laws. The fact that the US can even do this to people in other countries should be concerning to anyone who values rule of law.
"I merely played my part"
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article...
And the good ole Elevator Experiment:
But all I was saying is try to see things as the other side would. As the guys carrying out orders would. We have a hard time putting ourselves in others' shoes around here. Try it out and maybe what I said will sound just a little more reasonable.
"Doing bad things just because you were told to do so doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for doing bad things"
It applies whether you are a cop, a third reich officer, an employee at a corporation, whatever. The principal still stands.
If if we wanted to give such automatic immunity, the way to do this is simply to assume that an agreement like the one described above has been made: i.e., the government should have to compensate you. If state, acting as a collection of flawed humans, harms an innocent person, the state as a whole should have to compensate that person.
I think you are mostly wrong here, and WALoeIII 2 is mostly right, but I wanted to add some detail.
Certainly, if the police destroy your property inadvertently while pursuing a criminal, they are under no obligation to compensate you. It's considered tantamount to the criminal having destroyed it (and so you might be able to seek redress from him). But, it looks like if the police commandeer your property, they do in fact have a responsibility to compensate you, a la eminent domain. The Straight Dope article has good details. Choice quote:
> In United States v. Russell the Supreme Court was faced with a claim for three steamers commandeered by military authorities during the Civil War. The Russell court found it obvious that "the taking of such property under such circumstances creates an obligation on the part of the government to reimburse the owner to the full value of the service." The court continued, "private rights, under such extreme and imperious circumstances, must give way for the time to the public good, but the government must make full restitution for the sacrifice." The court concluded that the obligation to make full restitution was based on an implied promise "on the part of the United States to reimburse the owner for the use of the steamboats and for his own services and expenses, and for the services of the crews during the period the steamboats were employed in transporting government freight pursuant to those orders."
That said, things aren't always so clear:
>The Supreme Court hasn't said what happens if equipment is borrowed and returned damaged, but lower courts have been reluctant to award compensation in such cases. In Blackman v. City of Cincinnati, for instance, the Ohio Supreme Court refused to compensate a vehicle owner for a crash that occurred when police ordered him to chase a fleeing suspect. Other courts have followed suit.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2247/can-cops-reall...
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/10/11/feds-off-hook-for-...
This is an outrageous statement.
There are special exceptions to the law, but the 4th Amendment of the Constitution explicitly protects citizens from illegal search and seizure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
If you have money, you have some recourse - but if you're an average citizen, the police can with any sort of drug- or terrorism-related charge, even if you are acquitted or the charges are dropped, de facto steal your shit and not reimburse you at all.
It's 'unreasonable' and not 'illegal' by the way - and the latter would be even easier to get around, because you just legislate 'this is legal now', no semantic tricks required.
Yes, exactly. That is why so many outrageous search and seizure laws have been passed, thus making them legal.
(2) He's living in his house now.