Posted on 07/05/2009 1:32:21 PM PDT by SampleMan
We do not have the freedom to do whatever we want on someone else’s private property.
If the cop was acting contrary to the wishes of the property owner, he exceeded his mandate. If not, he didn’t. But, that determination is for the property owner, not the guest thereof, to make. He doesn’t have the right to question the mandate of an officer to control unsafe behavior on property that is not his own.
SnakeDoc
Perhaps you’re misunderstanding me. I am not talking about traffic-law enforcement — I’m talking about cops directing traffic. I was asked for an example of a law allowing a cop to protect against private tort possibilities — directing traffic is such an example.
SnakeDoc
“We do not have the freedom to do whatever we want on someone else’s private property.”
He wasn’t doing ‘whatever he wanted’, he was enjoying the reason the private property owner invited them there. nor was he damaging the property. nor was an appointed representative of the owner involved with this incident.
“If the cop was acting contrary to the wishes of the property owner, he exceeded his mandate.”
If the cop was not hired by the property owner he was abusing his authority under color of the law. From the story the cops admitted there were not representing the owner.
“He doesn’t have the right to question the mandate of an officer to control unsafe behavior on property that is not his own.”
We all have a duty to question our public servants especially when they are abusing their delegated authority.
Well perhaps if they stayed out of Krispy Kreme they could deal with some normal people.
Normal people don’t go into Krispy Kreme?
What if the wishes of the property owner were not known?
If CSX said nothing specific one way or the other about sitting on a pillar it waould be safe to say that the cops overstepped their authority.
Now if only Obama would produce his papers
“I’m talking about cops directing traffic. I was asked for an example of a law allowing a cop to protect against private tort possibilities”
Still disagree with you. Cops generally direct traffic for two reasons. 1) to assist in the smooth flow of traffic for large events and 2) to assist in the smooth flow of traffic for private organizations. Many cases the private organizations are required to employ off duty cops to direct traffic in order to hold their event.
Their purpose is the smooth flow of traffic, it is not to prevent lawsuits. That is a side benefit from the smooth flow of traffic.
>> He wasn’t doing ‘whatever he wanted’, he was enjoying the reason the private property owner invited them there. nor was he damaging the property. nor was an appointed representative of the owner involved with this incident.
He was engaging in unsafe behavior at the determination of the people apparently tasked with making that determination. Property damage is not required. The cops were within their mandate in acting on behalf of the owner.
>> From the story the cops admitted there were not representing the owner.
No, they admitted the owner hadn’t specifically asked them to keep people off of the pillar.
>> We all have a duty to question our public servants especially when they are abusing their delegated authority.
There is a time and a place. The entity in a position to question is the owner, not the complainant.
SnakeDoc
>> If CSX said nothing specific one way or the other about sitting on a pillar it waould be safe to say that the cops overstepped their authority.
Not if the cops had been given the authority to identify “unsafe behavior” within their discretion — which seems to be a general mandate for event cops.
SnakeDoc
“He was engaging in unsafe behavior at the determination of the people apparently tasked with making that determination”
Apparently they weren’t.
>> Apparently they weren’t.
According to whom? The guy complaining about his kids not being able to sit on a pillar? Come on.
SnakeDoc
Unless he stops a speeder from plowing though your living room wall smashing your big screen
Cars are private property.
SnakeDoc
I’m reading these posts and hearing how things were with the police “back in the day.”
Seems to me that ‘back in the day’ our society acted a bit more Christian than it is today.
The simple concept that works for me is remembering the words of Christ, ‘serving’ instead of ‘being served.’ Remembering ‘whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.’ ‘Take up your cross.’ Christ endured insults, I can do the same.
Not to say I am not tough on criminals when I have to be, but the discipline is to try to serve humanity, walking in the steps of Christ.
It works for me.
Still having trouble reading I see.
From my perspective, I expect to be able to walk about in public without being rudely accosted. When I am rudely accosted, I tend to hold my ground. Police who treat every person like a child molester should not be surprised that the average citizen (fellow citizen) gets upset.
“Seems to me that ‘back in the day’ our society acted a bit more Christian than it is today.”
The problem seems to be getting worse on both sides of the equation. I agree that if we moved back to a Christian model things would be better.
I'll file that under "Shut up and take it or we'll really give you something to cry about". Again, its hard for me to rectify that attitude with being free.
“According to whom? The guy complaining about his kids not being able to sit on a pillar? Come on.”
Ahh so he has to prove his innocence now.
>> Ahh so he has to prove his innocence now.
(1) This is not a court of law;
(2) We’re not discussing criminal activity, we were discussing the level of “proof” required of a cop to verify his authority to a member of the public on private property;
(2) Cops do not have to meet an “innocent until proven guilty” standard of proof to verify their authority.
SnakeDoc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.