Gas leak exception to the 4th Amendment.

[mrsleeve]

No my experience tells me that there is no reason for the cops to be picking the locks to your home to Shut off fucking valves if you cant be reached to garner permission to enter. My experience tells me that there are such valves located out side of the structures, that are there just for this type of occurrence.

The rest is a mental exercise as to WHY this even happened let alone the possible intended and unintended consequences of such a violation of private property rights.

You still have not provided any reasonable argument for why the State was entering private property with out cause or permission. Other than to say maybe the article is wrong.

Yet I have provided you with many sound and creditable arguments as to why this should never have been carried out in the 1st place and the possible consequences to the persons who's rights that have trampled upon. Citing many possible out comes, and correlations to the general mentality of those that carried out these actions, that a few simple Google search will yield hours of in depth legitimate reading, and many pending and settled legal cases.

Yes I suppose it could be construed that I have been a bit generic and stereotypical, but running rough shod over the fundamental rights of property owners is not something to be taken lightly either, no matter the justification. Especially with something that implicates this many victims and this flimsy of a premise used for that justification.

[cale]

Valves can be found outside, therefore the man is out to get us in whatever way possible and will take any opportunity possible to rape you of your rights.....sound summary?

You're taking big steps on unknown ground to get to the finish line with that hypothesis. There is nothing to even show cops actually helped the company enter homes, the last article even provides information that could be seen as contrary to that very act. Yet you dismiss it because it's not clearcut? Ironic coming from someone who's crying civil rights violation from one sentence and no further info regarding it to even validate it.

It's a real wolf this time, I swear! I'll concede it's fishy...but you've ran with this and show no sign of slowing down.

[smooth]

reality is that the police aren't coming for your or anyone else's guns

I know it feels like it sometimes I certainly hear it often enough, but just to be clear I haven't actually ever seen a single gun proponent actually stand up to the local police or government agencies *ever* no matter what for something that wasn't a personal cause

of course, now would be the perfect opportunity, with all these kids getting their heads busted up all over campuses for sitting down protesting. but whatever, guess the gun advocates are too busy shining their barrels to actually load the chambers and protect fellow citizens' rights to demonstrate

sure would be nice if it wasn't so because I doubt these campus cops would have the nut sack to bust heads if even a handful of armed men were standing idly by observing and documenting their behavior, but reality is that gun owners don't present a threat to the government because they don't do anything about government abrogation of rights...unless it's that one particular right.

well for instance right now...I don't see any people going and guarding those homes. but one would think that if people were really agitated about police actually violating perceptions of rights, then they'd actually get off their asses and go tell the police to fuck off and get off the property without warrants.

[mrsleeve]

well for instance right now...I don't see any people going and guarding those homes. but one would think that if people were really agitated about police actually violating perceptions of rights, then they'd actually get off their asses and go tell the police to fuck off and get off the property without warrants.

Those 3 words are the only thing worth addressing in your entire post as the rest nothing more than a attempt or pigeon hole me into particular group you find easier to attempt to discredit than the actual content of the posts them selves.

On to your 3 words. With those few taps of the key board you have shown your ignorance, and naivet' in such matters. You see with those 3 words applied to this topic you have shown your hand more than the rest of ill conceived distractionary post that has nothing to do with anything other than an example of 1 possible consequence as a result this kind of flagrant violation of both fundamental laws and rights . You have shown that you for 1 dont understand the concepts in which you are attempting to debate, or just have been taught incorrectly. I suspect its a bit of both.

Our fundamental rights, to life, liberty and happiness (aka pursuit of property) and our rights to defend our selves from any an all persons or entities that wish to infringe on them, are not mere perceptions. They are fundamental conditions to life itself, they are derived from our creator (if you believe in one), or just a by product of life it self.

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate. - Thomas Jefferson

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place - Frederick Bastiat.

2 men who's works I encourage you to read from.

Here for your benefit and those like you. The 4th amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

An agent of the state entering your home without your express permission is a violation of that period. There are some very narrow exceptions to this that are abused, even have some members of this site become victims of such attempted abuse of those narrow exceptions.

Why would one need to rush out an place an armed guard on a secured home when the owners cant be reached. To keep agents of the state at bay, when we have such Private property rights to do just that. No need to use force of arms after the act has been perpetrated, use the LAW and and file suit against all conspiring parties. Your mentality along with Cale and the others that see this as a no big deal and acceptable course of action by the state, are the real problem, as you are willing to surrender your rights to the state, for the most miniscule of reasoning. Just because my self and others are not so naive, does not detract or discredit any part of the argument.



Cale: 1 not crying civil rights, property rights, semantics yes but there is a difference. Are you originally from Quebec and English is your second language?? The 1st article states plainly that Cops with the aid of a lock smith were entering properties with owners that were not present. The 2ed article state the 100 customers that cant be reached (to garner permission to enter) will remain with out gas service, because they are not going to reenter the structure just to turn it back on. There is no crisis to use as a justification to enter anymore.

I am just reading the articles at face value as there is not reason not to. Your reaction when presented with reasonable and prudent arguments with fact and precedent to support plausibility, is to say the article is more than likely false or the reporter was mistaken. Yet have no evidence to support that conclusion. Who is the one reaching here??


Merry Christmas guys.

[cale]

Isn't the 4th amendment to protect against searches and seizure? Honest question here, there very well may be a clause I'm not aware of that addresses this.

[mrsleeve]

Isn't the 4th amendment to protect against searches and seizure? Honest question here, there very well may be a clause I'm not aware of that addresses this.

Yes, and a agent of the state entering your private property with out your permission or warrant supported by an oath of affirmation of probable cause, constitutes an UNLAWFUL search of your private property. If its not in plain view from public property then the 4th applies. Needing to gain access to private property to kill a gas service does not fit any provision of the 4th especially when there is a shut of valve located out side the property.

[smooth]

I'll have to read your reply later as I'm out the door. I saw you called me ignorant so I'm going to lay my hand on the table before I return. My doctorate is in Criminology, Law & Society from UC Irvine's Social Ecology department. I think this is the only site I actually link my real life to internet persona but that's fine because enough people know me in real life that it doesn't matter here.

I'm the furthest thing from ignorant to be speaking about rights and/or perceptions of such on this forum. I'm literally an expert in the thing you're arguing over. Interesting use of personal attack in order to deflect me challenging your armchair activism on an internet forum. BTW, your most recent post is factually incorrect.

[mrsleeve]

I'll have to read your reply later as I'm out the door. I saw you called me ignorant so I'm going to lay my hand on the table before I return. My doctorate is in Criminology, Law & Society from UC Irvine's Social Ecology department. I think this is the only site I actually link my real life to internet persona but that's fine because enough people know me in real life that it doesn't matter here.

I'm the furthest thing from ignorant to be speaking about rights and/or perceptions of such on this forum. I'm literally an expert in the thing you're arguing over. Interesting use of personal attack in order to deflect me challenging your armchair activism on an internet forum. BTW, your most recent post is factually incorrect.

I see, well it seems the folks at Cornell happen to agree with my position.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment

2ed paragraph

A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society considers reasonable is infringed by a governmental employee or by an agent of the government. Private individuals who are not acting in either capacity are exempt from the Fourth Amendment prohibitions.

I see I assume you are going to reference the fact that Agents of the state, can enter with out violation, if there is a matter of emergency. Well Please again like I have said to everyone else, WHY or where is the justification to enter under this clause to "shut off a valve" under the guise of public safety, when there are such valves for just such occurrences placed OUT SIDE the home. Which sort of places the justification for the entries in a rather murky area does it not.


Which opens up a dangerous precedent would it not???

Well my apologies, to you, since you seem to have taken the comment out of the context in which it was written. But you had spent a good 3 paragraphs attempting to quantify me into a particular demographic (something we both seem to be guilty of in this exchange) and trying to tie this discussion to the occupiers, and seemed with in those paragraphs to have a limited understanding from my perspective. Pardon my defensive nature to your attempts to attack and "shoot the messenger". I will apologize again for taking some liberty with my assumptions.

Really Social Ecology huh. Wow that pings almost every single thing that is counter to the core beliefs and founding principals of the USA. I honestly dont know much about it, but from what I have gleaned from its mentions in some past readings. We are at totally different ends of the values and ideals spectrum. While my "education" may not be as formal or in depth as yours, I still strive to further my understanding of such matters, but it seems form a vastly different perspective. I have chosen to base my studies on those persons and ideals that founded this nation and personal freedoms, you seem to have gone the opposite and went with the the 60's radicals, and to me, that is a little bit disturbing.


Edit: With a very quick look into social ecology......................................... You sir and your ilk truly scare me

[Farbin Kaiber]

I find it interesting that the people who have no issue with this are either from Southern California or Canada.

[cale]

Must be because we're all liberal socialist atheists right? I could say the same thing about how alot of the people I argue with a Christian republicans and post quite often in the gun thread. I don't though, nor should you be so judgemental.

[Farbin Kaiber]

And your statements could be construed as talking trash, whereas I simply made an observation.

[cale]

I replied in the exact same fashion as you posted in, hypocritical much? You find it interesting because you're stereotyping.

[Farbin Kaiber]

No, you said I was passing judgment when I was making an observation, you came in and tried to pigeonhole Californians and Canadians. I was a Californian at one time, so I am apt to make that observation in regards to others.

[smooth]

My point about perception of rights was in reference to the disjunction between how people feel about them vs. what is written on the books...how understandings don't sync when we most need them or when they threaten state power. It's more about the fiction of rights in practice and less about whether that should be the case.

I think you read my comment as a judgment about the existence of rights whereas I was commenting on the efficacy of them.

Sent from my SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

[mrsleeve]

That makes some sense. Thanks for the clarification