If they succeed, which i think is very far from certain given immunity issues, it will take several years. This was easily foreseen and will happen over and over in various forms.
And I have had about enough of the comrade bullshit.
It was easily foreseeable hence it will be an easy case. Also it will hopefully drive change so the sheriffs are more diligent. I tend to think cops are people who donât want to be responsible for kicking the wrong people out of their homes.
Comrade
noun
a companion who shares oneâs activities or is a fellow member of an organization.
Would you prefer buddy instead?
I will not know what word you use, as I will not see it.
1 Like
Who pissed in your cornflakes?
Exactly there is going to be absolutely no punishment for the cops that failed here. Even if they are able to sue, the cops wonât have to pay. It will be the city. There will also be no punishment for the cops that failed in their job here. Normally if someone so spectacularly fails at their job, like the cops did here, they would be punished somehow.
The obvious thing is the cops should be held responsible, since the law explicitly makes the decision their responsibility! But the obvious thing wonât happen here because the people that wrote the law wanted to give the cops the power, but also did not want any accountability.
I think the obvious thing is the people who proposed and then passed the law should be held responsible.
No disrespect to cops, but determining the veracity of all the details in an affidavit is not a âcop job.â Thatâs a court job.
Punishing the cops and then calling it good ignores the root of the problem.
Blockquote
The law, which will go into effect July 1, will allow wine to be sold in 4.5-, 6-, 9-, 12- and 15-liter glass bottles.
Who the hell needs/wants a 15 litre glass bottle of wine?
No the law explicitly requires due diligence on the part of law enforcement who are required to verify the person making the claim is telling the truth about the situation and is the actual homeowner.
This was put in the law because they were removing all the due process a tenant has, so they needed some outside party to be responsible to make sure the system is not abused and they put that on the police.
But they also made sure they wonât have any consequences if they fail at their responsibilities.
I love this actually. Turns the power balance over on its head. Usually its a Landlord with more resources taking the money and the tenant having to argue in court to the contrary. Iâve been screwed in the past because landlords make stuff up and then I have to go to court and show pictures of the place upon leaving to hope to get my money back.
Why do you start with ânoâ and then say nothing that contradicts anything I wrote? Pretty sure weâre in full agreement. My only point was the root cause is the law, not the cops. So punishing cops doesnât hold responsible the people who created and passed the law. Iâm sure the cops want exactly zero part of examining affidavits.
You and DSW, man.
Who the hell needs/wants a 15 litre glass bottle of wine?
Fun people who have parties.
Buy 15 Litre Nebuchadnezzars | The Champagne Company
Sure, itâs great for tenants because you basically have no accountability.
Say a tenant moves out and leaves a ton of damage. Now you have to return the DD, spend money going to court, and if you win you still have to track down and get the tenant to pay you. If they donât give you a forwarding address youâre screwed.
Tenants know this and since this law passed most donât even bother cleaning out their rental before leaving as they know you canât hold them accountable.
This is nothing but an erosion of property rights and is in no way good. It stops the small and easily solvable problem of unscrupulous landlords by creating a much larger issue.
This could have easily been solved by implementing a costly fine for unlawfully withholding damage deposits. The threat of that alone would stop the behavior of the few shitty LLs that do that sort of thing. Itâs much easier to track down and hold accountable a landlord with a fixed address and property you can levy fines against than a transient tenant who can disappear like a fart in the wind and has absolutely zero incentive to do the right thing.
Iâm sure the prospect of months or years in court, a small potential settlement, and the comfort of knowing you were in the right will keep wrongfully evicted tenants warm at night as they find themselves among the homeless population having to scramble to leave their rentals and pile everything they own into the family car (if they even have one to pile into).
The police had the choice to not evict this family. Nobody forced them here. It was their choice to do no due diligence.
So yes, they should be punished here.
I never said they should not be punished. I wrote, âPunishing the cops and then calling it good ignores the root of the problem.â
Might give you a warm fuzzy, but solves absolutely nothing.
Pick someone else to fabricate an argument with. Maybe windy?
Parties in the Villages gonna be lit this year
Large format wine ages better, which is why they are prized by collectors. It is odd that Florida had laws against them.
So itâs a law to appease the snootiest of snooty toots.
Good use to time.