Duplicitous Executioner Amateurs
It’s been a grim week. And this is very grim.
I truly hope the DEA “needs” that judge’s house sometime soon.
I’m confused… is the DEA there to defend my supply of probably crappy weed from being grabbed by cartel types?
Because I don’t need that service, there are plenty of supplies locally grown and distributed friendly, not nearly so crappy as what I see so often down south either.
Ahhh weed near the border, that extra kick that gasoline gives it makes all the difference.
I think we can all assume that was part of the conversation:
Judge: OMGWTFBBQ! RU peoplez in-fucking-sane?!?!?!?!?
DEA: Stuff it judgie, let us off the hook or we take all your shit and all your family’s shit to the 7th generation - legally!
Judge: Oh, well, when you put it that way… (Uh, can we have one little $100k payout to keep the proles from rioting?)
DEA: Alright, being as you’re cooperating and all, (and it’s ultimately their money we’re spending anyway, lulz!)
Pig. Scum. I hope it fucking hurts those fuckers deeply when it’s legal everywhere.
no accountability. what could possibly go wrong in that environment?!
this is why whistleblowers are needed more than ever; and to prevent that, there is a government war against whistleblowers.
According to how you’ve portrayed this; the business owner was exposed to the attention of the Zetas, and was deprived of ~$100,000 worth of physical property because the DEA had its hooks in some sorry dirtbag he’d happened to hire.
There is absolutely no excuse for this ruling. If it follows precedent, then case law precedent need to be upended with legislation forbidding this kind of taking from ever happening again.
Small business owners can be bankrupted – driven out of business entirely – by unprotected losses of this size. It’s damned near certain his business insurance doesn’t cover it; government action of this kind is explicitly excluded in most policies (try reading the fine print on your own homeowner’s or renter’s folks. Riots, civil disturbance, and many other gray area ephemera involving law enforcement… put all the burden back on you.)
It almost sounds worthy of a third amendment challenge, especially if you consider the DEA to be government armed forces fighting foreign enemy combatants. Surely the insurance company would see it that way.
Like mass surveillance is open to a 4th Amendment challenge, civil forfeiture is open to a 5th Amendment challenge, etc… At some point people will realize that “law and order” just means illegality and disorder in the interests of the ruling class.
I see (although disagree with) the reasoning for “they’re allowed to do that,” but I’m not seeing any justification whatsoever for refusing to remunerate Patty for material damages.
So, whenever there’s a thread about gun control, it’s always overwhelmed by new accounts proclaiming how they need their weapons to protect against government tyranny.
When we have situations like this (and the ongoing shit from the last few years), I look forward to one day seeing them put their money where their mouth is. But I don’t think I ever will.
The savage side of me; yeah.
But I’d really rather they’d just STFU about “protectin’ mah freedums!” once they realise they’ve no intention of actually doing that, instead of having a bunch of dumb gun-totin’ motherfuckers get themselves deaded as they finally and fatally grok the difference between ‘a well regulated militia’ and just wandering into Burger King or a church with a rifle strapped to their back.
Riots and the like are exempted for a different reason: they can cause lots of damage all at once, just like war. Insurance companies exempt themselves because they can plan ahead for ones and twos, but not for a black swan like 9/11. That’s the reason life insurance companies initially tried to get out of covering Twin Towers employees. It’s not just cruelty, it has to do with statistics.
Those statistics don’t apply in this case because it’s just one guy and one truck, not a national disaster. They’re happy to pay for the truck, they’ve planned years in advance that somebody’s truck will get totaled. They’re not going to pay for the employee because do you really get a payout if your employee gets shot? The government might have cause to compensate his wife or his kids, but not his boss.With rare exceptions, you do not have an insurable interest in your employees. Thank goodness.
although “consent” may be “required”.
To play the devil’s advocate, BB gets it’s hackles all up when dudes with rifles do exactly that.
(not that this was a particularly good example of resisting government tyranny, but there are “patriots” just raring for armed conflict…)
Yep, every item in that article is insurance 101. The key employees are the rare exception - Google can insure the lives of their geniuses, if their death would cripple the company. The Winn-Dixie story is why it’s generally not allowed.
Considering the byline, that’s not entirely surprising. Anyway, just wanted to bring up Winn-Dixie.
It’s true, context matters.