Police state?

[Neptune Cat]

If this has aready been posted, please accept my apologies.

http://www.break.com/index/sheriff-allows-illegal-trespass2b.html

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

If this has aready been posted, please accept my apologies.

http://www.break.com/index/sheriff-allows-illegal-trespass2b.html

The answer to the question in your tag line is

"Icecream has no bones".

 

[Neptune Cat]

The answer to the question in your tag line is

"Icecream has no bones".

That would be the proof of the solution, not the solution itself.

 

[Jaxon]

Do we know the reason for the visit and any outcome by the land owner?

 

[MichaelJ]

Good for him. I would like to be an officer of the law one day and this disgusts me. How could the sheriff let her on the property? It seemed that he was afraid to be what he is paid to be with the lady. Yes, maybe he had nothing to hide but she should not have gone on the property and the sheriff should have arrested her for it. I would love to know the causing of this as well as the outcome.

 

[drgrant]

The problem with this video is it doesn't tell you the (full) background of
the story.

Of course the fact that they don't have a warrant is pretty telling- and the
lady didn't say something like "Your neighbor called us because they
smelled human poop smell coming from your backyard" or anything else
which would qualify as a matter of "emergency circumstances".

I guess this raises the old question... where do our rights begin and the so
called "rights of the public/state" begin. I'd understand, per se, if they could
prove that his septic tank was contaminating the public water supply, but this is a bit much.


-Mike

 

[wilkinshire]

Welcome to America.

 

[Jaxon]

I would have requested a supervisor and made sure my attorney was on the way as well.

 

[Jose]

Good for this guy to stand up for himself.

The health inspector definitely looks like of those Birkenstock-wearing do-gooders that think the government must authorize everything one does.

You can tell the deputy is mostly clueless about what to do. I love it when the deputy brings up the old canard about "if you have nothing to hide...." and the property owner just cuts him off at the knees.

 

[rscalzo]

I'd like to hear the whole story before I form any opinions. I would be mighty pissed if my neigbor was dumping something that destroyed the wells in the area. We have had areas of the town finding high levels of chemicals from industrial and gas stations long gone. If everyone stood by as my home became inhabitable due to poisoned wells, someone would wind up paying.

 

[Cato]

Of course the fact that they don't have a warrant is pretty telling- and the lady didn't say something like "Your neighbor called us because they smelled human poop smell coming from your backyard" or anything else which would qualify as a matter of "emergency circumstances".

So if the "lady" had received such a call her actions would have been proper? What if she had received a call indicating that the guy had firearms that are illegal to possess in his house? I guess as long as there are "emergency circumstances" you feel government representatives can do as they please. Even when law enforcement feel that someone is selling drugs to kids out of their house they get a court order to enter the property.

I won't even go into a property rights rant as it will do no good. Its all really "our land" now isn't it?

I guess this raises the old question... where do our rights begin and the so called "rights of the public/state" begin. I'd understand, per se, if they could prove that his septic tank was contaminating the public water supply, but this is a bit much.

The state does not have rights. The state has powers granted to it by the people.

So called collective rights trumping individual rights is socialist thinking.

The Massachusetts liberal gun owner is interesting to say the least.

 

[drgrant]

So if the "lady" had received such a call her actions would have been proper?

I think I mis-stated what I really meant to say...

If it was backed up by a warrant obtained by presenting evidence
that this guy's poop tank excursion was causing a problem, then yes.

In this particular case I doubt this guy putting in a poop-chute or whatever
he was doing would qualify for a full blown "probable cause" type of
exception to the usual due process. I doubt installation of such a
tank would "instantly" change the quality of the water in such a time
period that they couldn't obtain a warrant.

What if she had received a call indicating that the guy had firearms that are illegal to possess in his house?

Bogus comparison. A pile of guns and drugs in a house is not the
same as an improperly installed shit-tank which is leaching fecal
smegma into someone elses property/water table/etc.

I guess as long as there are "emergency circumstances" you feel government representatives can do as they please. Even when law enforcement feel that someone is selling drugs to kids out of their house they get a court order to enter the property.

As a society we've long conceded (at least in a legal sense) that if the
circumstances are truly "emergency" in nature then the government
can do certain things. The devil is in the details- how do we define
what is or is not an "emergency"? The courts have spent the better
parts of our existence as a nation trying to hammer that out.

I won't even go into a property rights rant as it will do no good. Its all really "our land" now isn't it?

SCOTUS seems pretty willing to just sell us out to the highest
bidder. (I certainly don't agree with eminent domain as it is currently
implemented.... the way it is now f'ing wal mart can buy someones house
if they want to. )

The state does not have rights. The state has powers granted to it by the people.

I agree, but try telling them that, next time they do something
that is against that ethos, and see how far you get. (Hint: Yelling "I pay
your salary" at the police officer the next time you get a traffic ticket
will not result in you getting out of it. )

So called collective rights trumping individual rights is socialist thinking.

Agreed, but if bubba's shit tank is spewing garbage onto others' property,
now he's infringing upon someone else's rights. (There isn't enough
data posed in the video to know whether or not his actions are really
infringing on someone else's rights, though. ) In some circumstances
the government acting on behalf of someone else certainly isn't
socialism. (Although in a completely libertarian world, the typical
response would be civil litigation.... oh the joy. )

Under our current system, there are "collective rights" which, in certain
circumstances, DO trump others individual rights. EG, noise statutes,
motor vehicle regs, etc. I certainly don't agree with a lot of them
but I can "not agree" with them all I want- that doesn't make them go
away. (if we want them to go away, the machine must be
destroyed, there is no other way. )

The Massachusetts liberal gun owner is interesting to say the least.

Way to go making assumptions about someone you don't even
know.


-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I won't even go into a property rights rant as it will do no good. Its all really "our land" now isn't it?

Only religious and educational institutions can own land in this country. Other persons and entity merely have transferable leases - their rent is sent by the town/city each year, and failure to pay the rent results in eviction and location of another tenant to pay the rent.