> There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one.

This implies (to me) that this case is less abusive than others. I don't agree.

I was responding to this comment:

> Cops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy.

I don't know if it is ESL or Twitter but people seem to be having trouble parsing grammar these days.

What I said is "There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one."

The adjective "abusive" applies to the noun "civil forfeiture." The adjective "better" applies to the noun "examples." This is how standard English syntax works. Adjectives are taken as applying to the nearest noun following them.

The issue isn’t your grammar — you were perfectly clear, and everyone understands what you were saying. We just disagree with it. This is a textbook example of abusive civil forfeiture.

No, OP is clearly saying that this instance of civil forfeiture theft is less outrageous (a “worse example”) than others because the victim was acting suspicious.