The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: twyacht on May 01, 2009, 10:34:56 PM
-
I caught this and realized the restraint used by this man.
You will be yelling at your monitor for this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_jp3Sm1BY&feature=related
>:(
-
You are right, I was yelling at my monitor! I can not f'ing believe this! The arrogance and smugness of the officer and the inspector is beyond words.....They believe he doesn't have the stones to do anything about it is the reason why they did what they did.........And when the day comes for them to attempt to take our guns, this video will look like child's play by comparison..........
-
Oh, man! I'm fuming and I wasn't even involved in the situation. I hope the poor guy sued the crap out of the county and little miss inspector and Barney Fife, would now consider scrubbing toilets with their personal toothbrushes a step up in work. I would love to know how this ended, although I would assume it was not in the gentleman's favor. >:( Just another case of the gubment keepin' the man down.
Swoop
-
You are right, I was yelling at my monitor! I can not f'ing believe this! The arrogance and smugness of the officer and the inspector is beyond words.....They believe he doesn't have the stones to do anything about it is the reason why they did what they did.........And when the day comes for them to attempt to take our guns, this video will look like child's play by comparison..........
I'm still pi**ed! This was unreal. A little gov't employee with NO WARRANT, NO PROBABLE CAUSE, and NO EXPLANATION, except to say " I work for the gov't" and I need to look around.
This was PRIVATE PROPERTY! The owner said get a warrant and you can do what you need to do. Who was he gonna call the LEO'S were already there doing NOTHING!.
Just imagine if this was a SWAT team coming for YOUR GUNS on YOUR PROPERTY!.
If this little brunette can do this, God help us when the SHTF.
I wish it were winter, I could chop a cord of wood in 15 minutes after this one.
-
That was bad. I'm an inspector. I can't enter a property unless I have exigent circumstances (an emergency that causes me to be there), permission from the owner, or a signed court order. Clearly that was not exigent circumstances, she didn't have permission or a court order. She was wishing he'd assualt her so the deputy would be able to arrest him.
I deal with that kind of property owner often. He's right. I deal with lots worse kinds of property owners that basically run junkyards in the middle of town; basically lots of haz mat and other bad stuff. If they don't give me permission to enter I have to go to the city attorney with my case file to prove my case and then the city attorney gets the court order, I get a team together, we present the court order and enter the property. That is how it is done.
-
People read about an armed stand off and wonder "How could this happen?"
Well, that right there is how it can happen. In Me. even if your property IS NOT posted, if you tell an individual to stay OFF your property, you have the right to shoot them if they return. (At least it was that way when I had a pistol permit there in the 80's)
-
I give the guy credit for controlling himself. He kept his language clean, he stayed on topic, he did not get violent or even threaten beyond law suits. Well done, and I hope you are rewarded for fighting for not only your Rights but the Rights of all Citizens
Unfortunately I can see it coming. Based on some of what he said, the materials I noticed, some of the exposed areas on the trailer and the way she was taking some of her pictures I think they were looking into his hooking up of a sewer system. My guess is he doesn't have a permit, it was reported by a neighbor, the county has decided he isn't doing it legally, and his Rights will not only be trampled but also lost in the other issues. As was said in some of the comments on You Tube, he will be labeled a whack job and the Constitutional Rights issue will be totally lost :'(
-
I think I would have called 911 to report trespassers who refused to leave my property, one armed.
And My Lawyer.
-
Granted there is possibilities the property owner was doing something without a permit. But if the little chick was so hell bent on inspecting the prop. for "something" to the point of having an LEO present she could have gotten a court order, warrant, SOMETHING.
She just walked right on by, and took her pictures, while the LEO stood there.
It's BS. That's how Katrina victims were "disarmed", that's how the future CAN look if we let it.
-
You are right twyacht. However, think back to Katrina and NO. Outside of the NRA and places like this, how many viewed those citizens as victims rather than nuts? We view their Rights being infringed, and we view this man's Rights as being infringed, but the general public is going to get lost in what ever else it was that he was doing and see him as a "ranting nut."
I'm not saying that the inspector or the officer were anywhere near legal, but they are driving the wedge deeper and deeper every time they do this and we let it go by. Unfortunately, like I was trying to point out, the media will focus more on what she finds than the real issue ... Constitutional protection of Rights.
-
but they are driving the wedge deeper and deeper every time they do this and we let it go by. Unfortunately, like I was trying to point out, the media will focus more on what she finds than the real issue ... Constitutional protection of Rights.
Totally agree, unfortunately.... Just like Scooter Libby, it's not the act of doing anything wrong, it's the inquiry or the investigation that has to have a crime.
It's a liberal/bureaucratic mindset, and one exploited by our gov't, at all levels.
The Amendments can be "modified" at the whim of a gov't official, judge, President, county, city, etc,... Consequences mean little when suing the gov't, we're the "little" people, hoe dare we quote statute, and Constitutional Law.
The little chick in the vid, empowered by the useless LEO, just did what she wanted,.on PRIVATE PROPERTY.
It is a slippery slope, gaining speed downward.
I think in the near future, some may not be so restrained by such a flagrant smack in the face of our rights.
-
If I told you all the trouble my neighbor has caused me you wouldn't believe me. One of their things is calling me in on "wetland violations". The County comes out and lets themselves on my property to check things out. All my acreage is not fenced so they can walk right on. I don't like it and would rather tell them to ask permission first but I'm told they have the right. Each time the violations have been found without merit so I play along as a good guy hoping to not skewer attitudes. Even at this level it doesn't seem right.
-
old news, the guy was installing a septic system illegaly. people complained. the health dpeartment came out. he was given several warnings and a S and D order. Its been a few years, but the back story on this is very long, he actually got off easy with just a fine. They did go thru the legal processes, The officer was there to enforce those court orders and insure her safety.
BTW they do have the right to search. its come up in court many, many times every time its come out that public helath and safety wins.
-
There used to be a legal principle (and no, I'm not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV) called "fruit of the poisoned tree". Basically, in this situation, without the warrant, anything and everything she discovered would be inadmissible in court, and could not be used for any action against him. One of the "little" protections we used to enjoy from unreasonable gummint intrusion.
And Tab, if Barney Fife was actually enforcing a warrant or court order, he would have been by her side every step of the way, not leaning up against the car a hundred yards away. I doubt seriously there was a court order involved, no paperwork was ever shown.
It would be wise for everyone to remember that the gummint does not have ANY rights, only powers.
-
and there still is.
This is not one of those cases.
Like it or not, health inspectors, building inspectors don't need a warrent to enter your property. They can brake in with out paying for the damage. Trust me, any time you replace a spectic system, every one on your street knows about it. its the same thing as a cop pulling you over and smelling pot. They no longer need a warrent to search your car. This guy had already been flaged and notifed, having dealt with this in 4 states, its always the same. You get a stop work order( s and d), They then fine you. After that you get condemnation. This guy had already made it to the condemnation, the inspector had already tried to inspect it before. the guy refused, she came back with a cop. That is how it works. I'd bet 99% of the LEOs out there have never had any exp with this type of thing.
-
TAB,
Thank you for proving my point! The fact that the Constitution has been thrown out the window in this situtaion is lost in the septic system. In this discussion you represent the general public that is justifying and defending the unConstitutional action.
-
TAB,
Thank you for proving my point! The fact that the Constitution has been thrown out the window in this situtaion is lost in the septic system. In this discussion you represent the general public that is justifying and defending the unConstitutional action.
you missed mine. If a cop pull syou over and you smell of pot does the officer need a warrent to search your car?
its the same thing here, she saw the piles of dirt from the street and I'm sure she smelled it. There were also reports from people close by telling exactly what he was doing.
if you work in the trades for any length of time, you will be able to spot work being done a mile away.
-
One more thing... a septic system installed incorrectly is a hazard to the local water table. Which could make every one using that water table for water sick or worse. They are clearly on wells in that area... you really want to be drinking the guy across the streets shit?
-
Sorry TAB, have to disagree...
Read my post earlier. I'm a fire department inspector. I worked a task force with building dept, city attorney, police, etc in our slum areas. If we were denied entry, barring exigent circumstances, we had to get the admin warrant or court order to enter. Then we came back with a lock smith if we needed one to gain entry. We could get our probable cuase if the violations were visable from the public way or if we had a hx of complaints; pretty easy in these neighborhoods. Most of the times we talked our way in and used education and persuasion to get the property owner to give us permission, or gave notice by mail or phone call and gained permission and made an appointment to met at the property. Some times though we ran into the staunch NO answer and then we had to go the route I described. Heck...it took us ten years in one case to get the PC and the city attorney with the balls to proceed on one owner. Then again...I do live and work in California...
Not saying this guy didn't have violations. He looked like he maybe did...but the health inspector needed the admin warrant or court order to enter here, and she needed Diplomacy 101 to boot. There are ways to deal with guys like the property owner in the video and she failed every test. Having come the day before she could have taken her PC and easily gotten the warrant by the next day or so. Then the guy would have shut up and let her on without all the drama. She was being lazy and power tripping.
-
While this video is disturbing on several levels, it hits me more that as we age as a society and get further and further away from the ideals that formed this country, people will begin to believe that what this woman did was justified.
I can assure you that of the 75 or 80 people I deal with on a daily and weekly basis, less than 10% of them know what the 4th Ammendment means or what right it guarantees, including those folks closet to me. It's a case of "just becasue you can, doesn't mean you should", regardless of the reason for him digging a hole in his yard, she had no right to enter his property. Period!
-
TAB,
you missed mine. If a cop pull syou over and you smell of pot does the officer need a warrent to search your car?
Driving is a privilege NOT a right, on PUBLIC Roads, you give up certain rights while driving. My FL drivers license states at the bottom:
"Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law."
Can I refuse? Sure, will there be consequences YES.
Wrong argument TAB.
All this guy was asking for was the DOCUMENTED AUTHORITY for them to come on his PRIVATE PROPERTY, court order, injunction, warrant, s + d, whatever. Whether he was right or wrong, SHOW ME SOMETHING THAT SAYS YOU CAN COME ON MY PROPERTY! Which she didn't.
If the little "chick", was smart she would have had something. Not just a COP who stood in the driveway.
He should have had a fence with attack dogs on crack, than she would have had a warrant.
-
Was it just my observation, or did that Sheriff need a larger shirt or just less sheriff stuffed into it?
Why do people not see that they've outgrown their Spiderman jammies and need to go the next shop over that says "Big & Tall & Probably Overweight!" above the door!
;D
-
Donut boy would have probably shot the dogs.
What is it with these LEO's that let themselves get out of shape? Don't they realize that the bad guys train in jails and prisons to be rock hard bad asses. And when they get out, that fattie is gonna get his ass kicked if he gets in a fight with one of them.
My PD has over 150 officers. Each one is a rock. They have a motivational sign in the training room with a rock hard convict sitting on a weight bench in prison. "He's training for you. Are you ready for him?" That sure motivated me to get my act together and I'm not a cop.
-
Sorry TAB, have to disagree...
Read my post earlier. I'm a fire department inspector. I worked a task force with building dept, city attorney, police, etc in our slum areas. If we were denied entry, barring exigent circumstances, we had to get the admin warrant or court order to enter. Then we came back with a lock smith if we needed one to gain entry. We could get our probable cuase if the violations were visable from the public way or if we had a hx of complaints; pretty easy in these neighborhoods. Most of the times we talked our way in and used education and persuasion to get the property owner to give us permission, or gave notice by mail or phone call and gained permission and made an appointment to met at the property. Some times though we ran into the staunch NO answer and then we had to go the route I described. Heck...it took us ten years in one case to get the PC and the city attorney with the balls to proceed on one owner. Then again...I do live and work in California...
Not saying this guy didn't have violations. He looked like he maybe did...but the health inspector needed the admin warrant or court order to enter here, and she needed Diplomacy 101 to boot. There are ways to deal with guys like the property owner in the video and she failed every test. Having come the day before she could have taken her PC and easily gotten the warrant by the next day or so. Then the guy would have shut up and let her on without all the drama. She was being lazy and power tripping.
shockinglt enough it is rather hard to get permission in CA to break in. in OR and NV it is not.
-
Amendment IV: Warrants and searches.
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.
The fact that some states drivers licenses say that you must agree to sobriety tests is irrelevant. Pot is an ILLEGAL substance with a distinctive odor, a cop smelling that odor constitutes probable Cause, just like if he saw a guy run out of a bank with red dye all over him.
The little chippie was not a sworn Police Officer, therefore she has no "police powers" and should NOT have been there with out a warrant. Had the Deputy known anything about the law he would have simply said that they were investigating the stench of shit permeating the area. They DID NOT conduct themselves properly.
-
One item concerning the traffic stop brought up earlier and going along with driving being a privilege. When you sign for your driver's license you give consent to search in the obvious, however you still have Rights that can be exercised. If something is in plain sight they can investigate, and if they smell pot or alcoholl they can administer a sobriety test. However, smelling alcohol does not give permission to search, and beyond basic sobriety test the driver can refuse blood, urine or breath until speaking with an attorney.
The same goes with a building permit. When you get a building permit you are giving permission for inspectors to make spot as well as scheduled inspections (at least in our locality). Had this man had a permit she could have come on under that, but he did not, and she did not have a court order, and the officer did not have a warrant ... did I note a little Dunkin frosting on the lower lip ... so they had no legal reason for the inspection at that time.
My concern is that it is well known in our small community that I have guns and that I shoot. There are also a fair number of anti-gunners in this community. What happens if I am doing some wood projects in the garage at the office and someone in the parking lot hears the air nailer "popping?" What can law enforcement do concerning searches based on someone calling in and telling them I am shooting in the building in town?
If we don't hold them to the Constitution on everything It will stand for nothing!
-
Amendment IV: Warrants and searches.
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.
The fact that some states drivers licenses say that you must agree to sobriety tests is irrelevant. Pot is an ILLEGAL substance with a distinctive odor, a cop smelling that odor constitutes probable Cause, just like if he saw a guy run out of a bank with red dye all over him.
The little chippie was not a sworn Police Officer, therefore she has no "police powers" and should NOT have been there with out a warrant. Had the Deputy known anything about the law he would have simply said that they were investigating the stench of shit permeating the area. They DID NOT conduct themselves properly.
I can't speak for all states but here they are sworn officers of the court.
iThere is a stack of case law that says they did. In most states teh rank of who has the most search and seaure powers is
1 game wardens
2health inspectors.
.....
federally its US marshels fallowed by USCG.
-
I can't speak for all states but here they are sworn officers of the court.
iThere is a stack of case law that says they did. In most states teh rank of who has the most search and seaure powers is
1 game wardens
2health inspectors.
.....
federally its US marshels fallowed by USCG.
Doesn't means it is right. In Minnesota the DNR lost their no knock entry of ice houses and blinds in the Courts. They aren't happy, but sounds good to me, and they didn't appeal to a higher Court.
-
Than all she had to provide was an official Health Inspector Signed document from the city, county, whatever, and provide the prop. owner with a copy, quoting statute, ordinance, law, that would have "served" him with official notice. The LEO on the scene would have been a witness, and he seemed reasonable UP UNTIL the little power b**** walked past him.
Her ID was sketchy at best, I could make a badge right now saying almost anything.
Lack of professionalism, and respect for the LAW. She failed as other gov't agencies often do at citizens expense.
I'm not defending the owners activities, I'm defending his Constitutional right to tell them to F OFF, without signed, documented, notarized, authorization to be there.
The states make me sign, notarize, show ID, etc,.. for all kinds of crap, is it too much to ask the same in return?
Evidently, those that cater to cede more power to the state/feds, will go down quietly.
"I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth."
William F. Buckley Jr.
-
I saw this vidieo quite some time ago and did a little follow up on it. If I remember correctly this happened in Indiana. I don't remember the details, but I think Indiana law allowed her to perform her inspection. "I'm not saying it is right, just allowed by what the law said. I believe the guy was doing some sewer or septic work.
My concern is that it is well known in our small community that I have guns and that I shoot. There are also a fair number of anti-gunners in this community. What happens if I am doing some wood projects in the garage at the office and someone in the parking lot hears the air nailer "popping?" What can law enforcement do concerning searches based on someone calling in and telling them I am shooting in the building in town?
A few years ago there was an incident in my area where a firearms enthusiast's neighbor complained that they heard "automatic gunfire" coming from their rural property. This was the probable cause used to investigate and issue a search warrant. The couple were tailed and both pulled over simultaneously. He was apparently some kind of firearms instructor and arrested for having a handgun in his vehicle and she was eventually arrested for pot. I don't remember if she had pot on her at the time, but pot was found in a spare bedroom in the house that someone else had recently been staying in. BATF was involved in the raid on the house and confiscated many firearms and thousands of rounds of ammuntion. The firearms, including bolt actions were confiscated to test if they were automatic weopons. A big media deal was made about the thousands of rounds of ammo.
Eventually all the firearms were determined not to be fully automatic. BATF sought forfeiture of the firearms based on the 4473 question about do you use or are addicted to drugs. Not sure what the disposition was of the forfeiture proceedings or the pot possession charges were, but I believe he plea bargined the handgun charge.
I'm not saying that maybe this couple wasn't doing something they shouldn't have been , but what is scary to me is that probable cause can be nothing more than your anti gun neighbor reporting the sound of automatic gunfire. I have had a LEO friend tell me that if law enforcment wants probable cause, they can find it one way or another and get a warrant.
By the way from what I understand in Michigan that Conservation Officers have they highest police powers of any law enforcment units. They have all the powers of the state police plus the powers of game and enviromental laws and regulations.
-
By the way from what I understand in Michigan that Conservation Officers have they highest police powers of any law enforcment units. They have all the powers of the state police plus the powers of game and enviromental laws and regulations.
I don't think one agency should have that much power to exert on the general public. Just my .02
-
And this boys and girls is why we need at least one more liberal or a conservative with a libertarian streak on the Court. In a very recent case (this term) Alito wrote a majority opinion severley restricting the exclusionary rule (which dissallows illegally obtained evidence). Incredibly the tool wrote that law enforcement had developed procedures and safe guards respecting warrants over the years. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that DA's insisted on these procedures and training so evidence wouldn't be lost? Cops will only respect the law if they're forced to. The idea that the police will prosecute one of their own over this is a joke. Anybody care to lay odds on that inspector getting cited for tresspass? In the old days, as in two months ago, she could have foud Jimmy Hoffa's body and 50 pounds of crack, much less a code violation and it wouldn't have seen the light of day. This would have gotten her fired or at least reprimanded because an easy catch would be thrown out as she was too lazy to get a court order (something very easy to do). Now she knows she doesn't have to bother, as there is no consequence unless the guy can pony up the money for a lawyer and it didn't look like had all that much money. This why when conservatives complain about crooks getting off on a technicality, I always say "Wait till it happens to you".
FQ13
-
I am going to sum it up IMHO, There should be NO LOOPHOLES in Constitutional Amendments.
You want to search my property, get "something" official that says you can, and give me a copy. This guy may have been doing something wrong, but he didn't have a meth lab or underage prostitutes, or a crop of pot spotted from the air. All those examples would have a warrant issued, why not this one?
The slippery slope that allows "exemptions" in Amendments is to the detriment of us all.
That's all. Probable cause, stench, no posted permit, whatever the case may be, give me something to give to my lawyer, signed, stamped, notarized, etc,....
It would have diffused this entire situation.
-
I am going to sum it up IMHO, There should be NO LOOPHOLES in Constitutional Amendments.
You want to search my property, get "something" official that says you can, and give me a copy. This guy may have been doing something wrong, but he didn't have a meth lab or underage prostitutes, or a crop of pot spotted from the air. All those examples would have a warrant issued, why not this one?
The slippery slope that allows "exemptions" in Amendments is to the detriment of us all.
That's all. Probable cause, stench, no posted permit, whatever the case may be, give me something to give to my lawyer, signed, stamped, notarized, etc,....
It would have diffused this entire situation.
+100
-
And this boys and girls is why we need at least one more liberal or a conservative with a libertarian streak on the Court. In a very recent case (this term) Alito wrote a majority opinion severley restricting the exclusionary rule (which dissallows illegally obtained evidence). Incredibly the tool wrote that law enforcement had developed procedures and safe guards respecting warrants over the years. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that DA's insisted on these procedures and training so evidence wouldn't be lost? Cops will only respect the law if they're forced to. The idea that the police will prosecute one of their own over this is a joke. Anybody care to lay odds on that inspector getting cited for tresspass? In the old days, as in two months ago, she could have foud Jimmy Hoffa's body and 50 pounds of crack, much less a code violation and it wouldn't have seen the light of day. This would have gotten her fired or at least reprimanded because an easy catch would be thrown out as she was too lazy to get a court order (something very easy to do). Now she knows she doesn't have to bother, as there is no consequence unless the guy can pony up the money for a lawyer and it didn't look like had all that much money. This why when conservatives complain about crooks getting off on a technicality, I always say "Wait till it happens to you".
FQ13
It was the damned "liberals" that brought us to this point. Socialists who are destroying our country need to be removed.
-
It was the damned "liberals" that brought us to this point. Socialists who are destroying our country need to be removed.
Amen to that!
-
It was the damned "liberals" that brought us to this point. Socialists who are destroying our country need to be removed.
Why is it that some of the staunchest defenders of the constitution are liberals like the ACLU, until it comes to the 2A and then all of a sudden they have never heard if the Bill Of Rights,
-
Why is it that some of the staunchest defenders of the constitution are liberals like the ACLU, until it comes to the 2A and then all of a sudden they have never heard if the Bill Of Rights,
For the same reason the religious right is very good (and quite correctly so) at defending the free excersize of religion, and yet is the first in line to censor what they consider pornography. Folks don't seem to undersand two basic home truths:
The first is that you don't get to choose which of the first ten ammendments you defend. You either protect all of them or you protect none of them, because if we get to pick and choose, sooner rather than later, the government will do the choosing for you.
Secondly, its because its a difficult concept for most people to understand that the price of living in a free society is tolerating people whose lifestyle offends you. Some people don't like homosexuality, some people don't like guns. If we want to be free, we must realize that we are NOT our brother's, much less our neighbor's, keeper, and learn to live and let live. This seems simple, yet its not, because the urge to control other's behavior seems to be hardwired into us. You can't truly be free until you recognize that impulse and reject it. Most folks don't. Hopefully they will, and we will see a majority Libertarian country.
FQ13 who is holding his breath (honest)
-
you missed mine. If a cop pull you over and you smell of pot does the officer need a warrent to search your car?
its the same thing here, she saw the piles of dirt from the street and I'm sure she smelled it. There were also reports from people close by telling exactly what he was doing.
if you work in the trades for any length of time, you will be able to spot work being done a mile away.
Motor vehicles have an exception that was just tightened under the recent Supreme Court Ruling - Gant vs. Arizona. Motor vehicles have a lower threshhold because of their mobility.
A leach field in a yard is another story. You said they had the court order to inspect, I will take your word on it, but if not, I would have told the young lady to get the court order, it would not have taken long and should have been done the day before when he would not let her on during her first visit. Sometimes people are lazy and think the police can get people to do things because they are there.
There are seven recognized exceptions to warrant requirements:
1.) exigent circumstances which includes:
a.) imminent danger or destruction of material evidence
b.) escape of the criminal suspect
c.) immediate changes or injury to the officer or public
2.) search incident to an arrest,
3.) impounded/ inventory searches of vehicles,
4.) plain view,
5.) caretaker function,
6.) motor vehicle exception,
7.) consent
One other observation, the guy had piping commonly used in leach fields at the curb with his garbage, which does not give him the right to privacy and can be seized. Police do garbage pulls all the time in drug investigations.
Hope this adds to the discussion.
-
For the same reason the religious right is very good (and quite correctly so) at defending the free excersize of religion, and yet is the first in line to censor what they consider pornography. Folks don't seem to undersand two basic home truths:
The first is that you don't get to choose which of the first ten ammendments you defend. You either protect all of them or you protect none of them, because if we get to pick and choose, sooner rather than later, the government will do the choosing for you.
Secondly, its because its a difficult concept for most people to understand that the price of living in a free society is tolerating people whose lifestyle offends you. Some people don't like homosexuality, some people don't like guns. If we want to be free, we must realize that we are NOT our brother's, much less our neighbor's, keeper, and learn to live and let live. This seems simple, yet its not, because the urge to control other's behavior seems to be hardwired into us. You can't truly be free until you recognize that impulse and reject it. Most folks don't. Hopefully they will, and we will see a majority Libertarian country.
FQ13 who is holding his breath (honest)
Got to give a +1 on that one.
And, quit holding your breath....you're turning blue. ;)
-
For the same reason the religious right is very good (and quite correctly so) at defending the free excersize of religion, and yet is the first in line to censor what they consider pornography. Folks don't seem to undersand two basic home truths:
The first is that you don't get to choose which of the first ten ammendments you defend. You either protect all of them or you protect none of them, because if we get to pick and choose, sooner rather than later, the government will do the choosing for you.
Secondly, its because its a difficult concept for most people to understand that the price of living in a free society is tolerating people whose lifestyle offends you. Some people don't like homosexuality, some people don't like guns. If we want to be free, we must realize that we are NOT our brother's, much less our neighbor's, keeper, and learn to live and let live. This seems simple, yet its not, because the urge to control other's behavior seems to be hardwired into us. You can't truly be free until you recognize that impulse and reject it. Most folks don't. Hopefully they will, and we will see a majority Libertarian country.
FQ13 who is holding his breath (honest)
Which is why, although I am against gay marriage, I feel I must support the Iowa Supreme Court decision in that regard. It made some thought provoking points about the civil rights of same sex couples. If I'm going to fight for my constitutional rights, I must be willing to support the constitutional rights of those with whom I disagree, even if I disagree vehemently.
It's easy to support free speech, for example, if you agree with what's being said. The true test is to support the right of somebody to say something, at the top of his lungs, that you would spend the rest of your life opposing at the top of your's.
-
Which is why, although I am against gay marriage, I feel I must support the Iowa Supreme Court decision in that regard. It made some thought provoking points about the civil rights of same sex couples. If I'm going to fight for my constitutional rights, I must be willing to support the constitutional rights of those with whom I disagree, even if I disagree vehemently.
It's easy to support free speech, for example, if you agree with what's being said. The true test is to support the right of somebody to say something, at the top of his lungs, that you would spend the rest of your life opposing at the top of your's.
My argument against "Gay Marriage" is this;
1) "Marriage" per se, is a RELIGIOUS ritual, NOT a legal one. That is why they have "Civil ceremonies" for atheists
2) Couples joined in marriage through church ceremonies must still go through the "Civil" actions of getting a license and filing it.
3) The Bible expressly condemns homosexuality as an "Abomination before God", that should pretty much exclude it's adherents from the rites of Christian churches.
This leads me to believe that gays who wish a formal union should therefore utilize the contractual structures of a "Civil" union.
-
I'm all for civil unions. After all, how could I deny Bert & Ernie?
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/Support_Gay_Marriage-1.jpg)
::)
LMAO.
-
you know its funny, here in CA gay couples have had exactly the same rights as married ones. they fought long and hard to for those. Just about every one agress that its a good thing. Infact every gay couple I know, ( I work on a lot of victorians, trust me I know alot of gay couples.) has said they could careless about the term married. Its just a small group in SF that is making it a big deal. The bad part is, its turning public opinion against gays with there repeated court cases after the voters have told them to STFU twice now.
-
With the talk of conservation officers I thought I would post a little anticdote:
While living down in South Florida (Naples) I was driving along a long strait heavily used county road. The lower half of this road touches some Florida State park at some point. The afformentioned conservation officer was driving a large Bronco with blue lights. He seemed upset with my rate of speed. Neither he or I were in the state park at this time. I was heading home from community college for work. Needless to say, his lights were flashing and he was gesturing wildly for, at my best estimation, about 15 miles when he finally pulled up along side of my vehicle and motioned more wildly than before. I could not, in good conscience, say I had missed this final attempt by the fine, upstanding conservation officer so I pulled over. The minute he could roll himself out of his vehicle (he was a body double to the featured officer here) he was standing red faced and panting at my window. In my most innocent voice I asked him if there was a problem. The first words out of his donut disposal were, "If I had my ticket book...". At that point I knew there would be no real reprocutions to my rebellious streak. He proceeded to read me the riot act with his face roughly the color of the topic summary bar below (you can see it when you reply). I continued with my innocent act (hold the jokes, please). I even asked him to explain a few things about the law, etc. In the end he "agreed to let me off with a verbal warning" (missing ticket book anyone?) and drove 10 miles out of the way in the process of doing so.
The moral of the story, sometimes you can play dumb with dummys and have a real good time doing it. That, and stay calm. It will add a couple of years to your life along with a bit lower blood pressure.