Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SampleMan
As you keep having trouble with the meaning of commonly accepted English words and terminology, yet are fast to grab hold of semantics to bolster your point, I'm going to guess that you are currently in higher education or a recent graduate. There is nothing like a little bit of knowledge to bring a fool to full bloom.

I am a recent graduate; in fact your life may one day literally be in my hands as I am desirous to get a job working with the programming language Ada --which is commonly used in mission-/safety-critical software, like air traffic control, medical devices, nuclear reactors, military weapons-- so it's a DAMN GOOD THING that I am "fast to grab hold of semantics."

In such a job it is IMPERATIVE that one consider the exceptional-circumstances. (i.e. things like your conditionals being illegal/invalid.)

I'm very curious what punishment you will hand out for those who treat their property as if it were theirs to do with as they please.

None; I never claimed that it wasn't. What I did claim was that some of your conditions might be immoral or illegal.

You certainly don't want to live in a state where people can just abridge YOUR rights at their home, right?

Where did I *EVER* say that you had no right to use force to remove me from your property [in the case of trespass]? Even lethally.
I have no problem with that.

FYI, the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not individuals.

True; however there are "grey areas" where something might be applicable: consider private security guards / police organizations... I sure as hell don't want them exempt from 4th Amendment restrictions simply because they aren't "government entities." {If they were there is little doubt in my mind that the government could employ such a "private force" in order to circumvent Constitutional restrictions; before you say that doing so would be illegitimate (and I agree there) consider the case of tax-laws: the supreme court has ruled that the prohibition on retroactive [that is, ex post facto] laws applies only to criminal law, yet the Congress may retroactively change tax-laws by deeming them "regulatory" yet they [government] pursues such tax-law violators in criminal court.}

90 posted on 03/05/2011 5:02:34 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]


To: OneWingedShark
I am a recent graduate; in fact your life may one day literally be in my hands as I am desirous to get a job working with the programming language Ada --which is commonly used in mission-/safety-critical software, like air traffic control, medical devices, nuclear reactors, military weapons-- so it's a DAMN GOOD THING that I am "fast to grab hold of semantics."

I just wish that you understood them. Being a Naval Flight Officer for 21 years, you'll have to excuse my lack of awe for directing aircraft about. Good to know that I was spot on concerning your educational time frame.

None; I never claimed that it wasn't. What I did claim was that some of your conditions might be immoral or illegal.

If someone gives you illegal or immoral conditions, I highly recommend that you refuse them. That said, you still have no right to go on their property. Two felonies don't make a right. If someone demands that you perform a sex act to go in their home or business, you have the right to refuse, not to push your way on in. This is what you have previously pointed out as a contradiction on my part, with the parsed quotes.

I sure as hell don't want them exempt from 4th Amendment restrictions simply because they aren't "government entities

Why not (and by the way, they are exempt unless acting as an agent of the government, as the courts have ruled)? However, just because they (like you) are exempt doesn't mean that they have no restrictions. If a private person searches your person or property without permission it is a felony. Note that individuals are charged with kidnapping or false imprisonment, while government entities are charged with false arrest or civil rights violations.

{If they were there is little doubt in my mind that the government could employ such a "private force" in order to circumvent Constitutional restrictions; before you say that doing so would be illegitimate (and I agree there) consider the case of tax-laws: the supreme court has ruled that the prohibition on retroactive [that is, ex post facto] laws applies only to criminal law, yet the Congress may retroactively change tax-laws by deeming them "regulatory" yet they [government] pursues such tax-law violators in criminal court.}

Which is the point I made above and upon which the courts have been very circumspect. If a private individual acts at the request of the police, their actions are treated as a government action. However, if they act on their own they are not. There are multiple clear cases of this, the clearest being a burglar who turned in a pedophile. This tip was allowed, even though the tipper was committing a felony. Very few people fully understand the implications in this, or I suspect that we would have more such tips.

Civil cases against private citizens concerning civil rights violations are generally spurious law, such instances were always covered my normal criminal code or tort law prior to the Civil Rights Act, except in the cases where the law protected such violations, e.g. Jim Crow.

91 posted on 03/05/2011 5:29:08 PM PST by SampleMan (If all of the people currently oppressed shared a common geography, bullets would already be flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson