2014-Nov-22
Cities Budget Civil Asset Forfeiture As Part of their Funding
By Martin Armstrong
Armstrong Economics
November 22, 2014
*** begin quote ***
Since 2009, Washington, D.C. officers have made more than 12,000 civil asset seizures under city and federal laws, according to records and data obtained from the city by The Washington Post through the District’s open records law. Half of the more than $5.5 million in cash seizures were for $141 or less, with more than a thousand for less than $20. D.C. police have seized more than 1,000 cars, some for minor offenses allegedly committed by the children or friends of the vehicle owners, documents show. Any excuse to simply rob the people is in full bloom.
*** end quote ***
# – # – #
You decide: Good Cop or Bad Kop?
# # # # #
Reinke Faces Life 
Absolutely! Who do you think rounded the Jews up in Germany and who do you think “loads” the prisons with drug dealers and libertarians in the USA? The police!
LikeLike
I understand the intent of what you cite, but comparing these police actions to the Nazi gas chambers?
LikeLike
Sorry it, “Respondeat Superior”, didn’t work in Nuremberg. AND, it doesn’t work here. There are actions that are so vile, so inexcusable, and so beyond the pale that you can NOT claim “Just Doing My Job”. Loading Jews on the train is the moral equivalent of turning on the “showers”. If you are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, and you pledged yourself to that voluntarily, then you can’t violate the basic Zero Aggression Principle we learn as children (i.e., don’t hurt people and don’t steal their stuff).
Respondeat Superior
[Latin, Let the master answer.] A common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.
The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law. It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The employer is called the principal when engaging someone to act for him. The person who does the work for the employer is called the agent. The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent’s behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent’s actions.
An employee is an agent for her employer to the extent that the employee is authorized to act for the employer and is partially entrusted with the employer’s business. The employer controls, or has a right to control, the time, place, and method of doing work. When the facts show that an employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists, the employer can be held responsible for the injuries caused by the employee in the course of employment.
In general, employee conduct that bears some relationship to the work will usually be considered within the scope of employment. The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. A court may consider the employee’s job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee’s act, the extent to which the employee’s actions conformed to what she was hired to do, and whether such an occurrence could reasonably have been expected.
[TIP ‘o’ the HAT to: Tom Woods http://tomwoods.com/ for the continuing eddykation!]
AND, you know I have no use for the Gooferment, its politicians and bureaucrats, or “We, The Sheeple” who let it and them run wild.
# – # – # – # – # 2015-Jan-26 @ 09:34
LikeLike
The police are only doing their job. It’s the lawmakers you should be mad at.
LikeLike