Theft by Justice Officers

[Director Michael]

You said:
"- any seizure of personal property by a justice office may rightfully be done only by order of the court, for the purpose of a good and necessary reason in accordance with established righteous laws which are applied fairly (without favoritism or prejudice)."

That was very well said. Very well said. If this principle is breached, is that a fault in terms of theft, or in terms of injustice, or both?

If an officer seizes for himself something from a person's property, just because he personally covets that particular thing, it is theft.

Also, the modern police of today, are they a function/extension of courts (equivalent to the justice officer I was speaking of) or an extension of the ruling power?

Some countries have both types of officers. For example, if the country has a system of government with separation of powers, there may be regulatory agencies, under the authority of the executive branch, that have their own officers.

Since you accept the term "the law of the king/kingdom is law", then, if the police are an extension of the ruling party, does that entitle them to take away an individual's personal property under the edicts and laws of the ruling power? Does that give them more powers to take away a person's property?

The answer to both questions is: not arbitrarily. But once can imagine a scenario in which the government makes it illegal for all citizens to own a certain type of item - say, for example, handguns. Then police might be dispatched to collect all handguns from all the citizens and turn these collected items over to a government agency, and then any citizen who retains one in defiance of this law might be subjected to some type of specified punishment. The validity of this government action would depend in large part on whether or not it is in conflict with some other existing law - for example, a previously established guarantee in the country's constitution of a citizen's rights.