Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:


As a gun owner myself, this kind of magical thinking makes me cringe.

Wait a second. We live in a world where things like the OP happen, and you're calling this absurd?

What, that a gun is a magical amulet that protects you from danger at all times?

Yes, that is absurd.

I didn't see anywhere that he said that. I saw him saying that he was afraid the police would find a gun and, rather than concern themselves with whether it's legal or not (or better, concern themselves specifically with whatever the feth they claim they're doing there to begin with) they overreact first and ask questions later.

Thus, the above is hardly absurd, given that we're discussing this in a thread where we learned that the police overreacted to a man refusing entry into his home, showing that the police ARE capable of overreacting in situations.

 Ouze wrote:
What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.

Welcome to the dark side.

 daedalus wrote:
I didn't see anywhere that he said that. I saw him saying that he was afraid the police would find a gun and, rather than concern themselves with whether it's legal or not (or better, concern themselves specifically with whatever the feth they claim they're doing there to begin with) they overreact first and ask questions later.

Thus, the above is hardly absurd, given that we're discussing this in a thread where we learned that the police overreacted to a man refusing entry into his home, showing that the police ARE capable of overreacting in situations.

Again, we're getting away from the fact that I was speaking from a point of principle.

I guess the overriding theme here is that we should be able to trust LEOs more than we do as a society, but many of them make it hard to do so.

The plain sight doctrine, which I still agree with, is what has created the problem with police cooperation.

 Monster Rain wrote:

I guess the overriding theme here is that we should be able to trust LEOs more than we do as a society, but many of them make it hard to do so.

That I can certainly agree with.

 Ouze wrote:
What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.

Agreed. I found myself exalting many posts in this one. I'm encouraged that Dakka has so many concise defenders of personal liberty.

I understand the broad point that MonsterRain is trying to defend, however in this instance (with the information on available) it seems to be a gross trespass and abuse of authority.

How about the scenario outlined in the OP, but with ample evidence that someone in your house has a reasonable expectation of being killed or seriously injured and law enforcement officials have a legitimate need to gain access to some of your neighbors houses for a tactical advantage.

How would that help again?

in the OP they said domestic dispute. Thats not a hostage situation. Thats nothing to do with needing to be in your house.

 daedalus wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

I guess the overriding theme here is that we should be able to trust LEOs more than we do as a society, but many of them make it hard to do so.

That I can certainly agree with.

I would go further to say that the fact that a perceived lack of accountability for when they do overstep their bounds is causing what seems to be a growing number of people to avoid assisting them out of concern for their personal safety, not just from criminals but from the police themselves. I'm not saying it's unreasonable to be distrustful of police in some situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

How about the scenario outlined in the OP, but with ample evidence that someone in your house has a reasonable expectation of being killed or seriously injured and law enforcement officials have a legitimate need to gain access to some of your neighbors houses for a tactical advantage.

How would that help again?

in the OP they said domestic dispute. Thats not a hostage situation. Thats nothing to do with needing to be in your house.

I believe the term "standoff" was used, was it not?

That term carries certain connotations that can explain people not wanting to simply kick the door in.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.

Welcome to the dark side.

They all float down here....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I would go further to say that the fact that a perceived lack of accountability for when they do overstep their bounds is causing what seems to be a growing number of people to avoid assisting them out of concern for their personal safety, not just from criminals but from the police themselves. I'm not saying it's unreasonable to be distrustful of police in some situations.

You have just now pegged me to a T. My position on the Justice System Industrial Complex have ebbed and flowed over the years, but has recently hardened quite a bit.
I know cops. I shoot with them (remember, the safeest place to be in a shoot out is right in front of a cop hahahah). The wife and I have been pulled over by them. Some suck. Some are excellent. Most are along the normal bell curve and just tryign to get through the day like everyone else on the planet. But the policies and culture have changed.
I'm seeing a lot more of the "LA mentality" now, and that is not a good thing.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Again, we're getting away from the fact that I was speaking from a point of principle.

I guess the overriding theme here is that we should be able to trust LEOs more than we do as a society, but many of them make it hard to do so.

I'm still waiting to hear your elaboration on this "magical thinking" about a gun being a "protective amulet" that I apparently exhibited when expressing my desire not to put myself in a position to have cops massively overreact to something legal in a thread about cops massively overreacting to something legal.

While you are pulled over, you are under detainment. When you are under detainment, your right to carry is curtailed a bit in that an officer can secure any scene he's dealing with for his safety. It shouldn't be that shocking that you get pulled out and patted down when you say you have a gun.

Why? if he's a legal permit holder there is no heightened status at that point.

Many cops are able to act pretty rationally when you tell them that you are legally carrying.

Most cops here either don't care if you are carrying, or it is a simple:

Cop: Where are you carrying
Me: Front right pocket
Cop: Don't reach for your front right pocket please
Me: No problem

 d-usa wrote:
Many cops are able to act pretty rationally when you tell them that you are legally carrying.

Most cops here either don't care if you are carrying, or it is a simple:

Cop: Where are you carrying
Me: Front right pocket
Cop: Don't reach for your front right pocket please
Me: No problem

In Texas you are required to tell them you are a CHLer, even though it comes up when they run the license. Texas also is a right to have a weapon in your vehicle state without any certificate. Typically in Texas (outside of Austin and certain smaller locales in SA and Dallas), you inform them and thats the end of it.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
While you are pulled over, you are under detainment. When you are under detainment, your right to carry is curtailed a bit in that an officer can secure any scene he's dealing with for his safety. It shouldn't be that shocking that you get pulled out and patted down when you say you have a gun.

Ah, excellent, let's confuse the issue more.

The point wasn't that I'm particularly concerned about getting pulled over again. The question was asked why I wouldn't consent to allow police into my house without a warrant. I provided the reason, aside from general principal: I'd be concerned about an overreaction if they saw one of our guns, or an ammo box in trash, or mistook the mint plant in the little balcony garden for a weed plant, for that matter.

Monster Rain felt this was "magical thinking," I provided a similar personally-experienced example of police overreaction. So, the issue isn't the stop, it's the presented hypothetical.

 d-usa wrote:
Many cops are able to act pretty rationally when you tell them that you are legally carrying.

Most cops here either don't care if you are carrying, or it is a simple:

Cop: Where are you carrying
Me: Front right pocket
Cop: Don't reach for your front right pocket please
Me: No problem

Yep. This is the best way to handle it. If you're in a car, expect to get called out of the car and stand where they can see you as well.

 d-usa wrote:
Many cops are able to act pretty rationally when you tell them that you are legally carrying.

Most cops here either don't care if you are carrying, or it is a simple:

Cop: Where are you carrying
Me: Front right pocket
Cop: Don't reach for your front right pocket please
Me: No problem

Many are, yes. Some are not. Why chance it when there's no legal requirement to do so?

Hey, that's sort of my argument for not allowing cops into the house, too. Why chance it when there's no legal requirement to do so?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Yep. This is the best way to handle it. If you're in a car, expect to get called out of the car and stand where they can see you as well.

I simply don't tell them I'm carrying. Much easier and efficient.

 Seaward wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Again, we're getting away from the fact that I was speaking from a point of principle.

I guess the overriding theme here is that we should be able to trust LEOs more than we do as a society, but many of them make it hard to do so.

I'm still waiting to hear your elaboration on this "magical thinking" about a gun being a "protective amulet" that I apparently exhibited when expressing my desire not to put myself in a position to have cops massively overreact to something legal in a thread about cops massively overreacting to something legal.

Meh, I thought you were making two statements with that post.

I understand the point you were making, and maybe read something else into your post that wasn't there.

 Seaward wrote:

The point wasn't that I'm particularly concerned about getting pulled over again. The question was asked why I wouldn't consent to allow police into my house without a warrant. I provided the reason, aside from general principal: I'd be concerned about an overreaction if they saw one of our guns, or an ammo box in trash, or mistook the mint plant in the little balcony garden for a weed plant, for that matter.

You know, even if they had a warrant there would still be a chance they'd see these things.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Many cops are able to act pretty rationally when you tell them that you are legally carrying.

Most cops here either don't care if you are carrying, or it is a simple:

Cop: Where are you carrying
Me: Front right pocket
Cop: Don't reach for your front right pocket please
Me: No problem

Yep. This is the best way to handle it. If you're in a car, expect to get called out of the car and stand where they can see you as well.

I've not experienced that. I have experienced where the wife and the cop got into an extended discussion on good pistols for de wimminz. This would normally be cool but I was in dire need of recycling about a quart of tea at the time.

You know... I'm not so sure this is a bad case for the third amendment, really. While the constitution says "soldiers"; in the context of the time - wasn't this a catchall for the state? Weren't the Redcoats responsible for enforcing at least some laws, like the Townshend act - is it likely there is a meaningful distinction here?

The comments in Griswold vs Connecticut seem to support this line of thinking a little, too.

I'm actually thinking that LEO agency are somewhat semi-military that they can fall under the Third Amendment. Its not much of stretch of the imagination. Same weapons...well their main weapons are handhelds compare to Battle Rifles....Assault Rifles I kid I kid...tacticool gear....minus 1st line APC and MBT's. I do know a lot of LEO agency received Kiowa's OH-58's from the Army when we started implementing the Kiowa Warrior...M16's as we convert to the M4...GFYI the M4 range is like 100m short of the M16..though I will admit I rather them to have our IOTV vest's but I hear the Dragonscale vest is on par with ours. I've a feeling its going to go to SCOTUS du to definition of "soldiers"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Granted...in our life time...this probably be the only 3rd Amendment trial we ever see in the US...times we live in

 Peregrine wrote:
To be fair, a right to privacy only matters if you can say no. If you're socially obligated to say yes then your right doesn't have very much value.

If you're socially obligated if you have no good personal reason.

It could pretty reasonably be argued that anyone has a good reason to deny access, since there's a very real possibility that something you think is innocent could be interpreted as evidence the police are looking for in some case you've never even heard of (for example, they think you have stolen property). With that in mind the best policy is to never talk to the police without a lawyer or allow them access to your property.

I don't think there's going to be too many instances of police spotting something that the person didn't know was illegal. I don't, for instance, think the police are so expert in their jobs that they can identify on sight stolen goods that have been fenced to the homeowner.

I mean, really, when it comes to things the police might spot, we're talking about drugs. And then the homeowner will know full well that they're illegal, and then tell the police quite sensibly that they can't use the house.

Of course this could easily be avoided by throwing out any evidence (short of a dead body/bomb/etc) that the police find if they request access to private property in a situation like this. In that case you wouldn't have a reasonable objection because once the emergency power is invoked you could no longer suffer any legal harm from allowing the police to enter. But I guess it's more important to ensure that you can send someone to jail if you happen to see a bag of pot on the table.

That's a possibly. Or we can accept that folk with pot in their house will reject the police, while those without pot really should let the police use the house.

It's short-term for the immediate occupation, but there's a much broader issue with living in a society where the police can ignore property rights any time they like. It's like with all the various questionably-legal spying the US government has been doing, most people will never suffer even the slightest practical impact from it, but that doesn't stop it from being a disturbing lack of privacy that the government can spy on you without a warrant as long as they call you a terrorist first.

But no-one is saying the police can ignore property rights. Everyone here accepts the police have to ask, and if rejected they have to respect that.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.

Welcome to the dark side.

We have snacks! and a ton of weiner dogs....

 Ouze wrote:
You know... I'm not so sure this is a bad case for the third amendment, really. While the constitution says "soldiers"; in the context of the time - wasn't this a catchall for the state? Weren't the Redcoats responsible for enforcing at least some laws, like the Townshend act - is it likely there is a meaningful distinction here?

The comments in Griswold vs Connecticut seem to support this line of thinking a little, too.

Wait, there might actually be a 3rd Amendment case here? Seriously?


....damn.

Never thought I'd see that.

Also I just found out my buddy The Baron (non-dakkanaut) knows the Mitchell family fairly well. If I get cool inside updates I'll be sure to share.

 Steve steveson wrote:
No, I was pointing out that you are wrong. Your saying people don't have a moral right to refuse the police use of there house.

You're still not reading what I've said. I said absent a good reason people don't have a moral right to deny the police use of their house.

This is a waste of time.

and I mean properly read, not just make up what you THINK I have said, you will see I am disagreeing with the idea that the police have a moral right to enter your house whatever the situation.

And if you'd read the thread, or even just read my first post before you tried to argue with me, you'd have seen I said your obligation to let the police in exists absent a good reason not to.

But whatever. You don't want to read, and this is a waste of time.

Your making up what you think people are saying based on your own ideas of them. What people are saying is that the police clearly felt they had a right to enter this persons house.

No, I'm going by the exact words stated by KalashnikovMarine, in which he replied to my statement "That doesn't mean they're not allowed to deny the police the use of their home, but they're most likely being self-entitled nitwits for doing so" with the response;

"Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops. Unless they have an active hostage situation... oh wait, even then I really couldn't care less."

You would know this if you had read the thread.

Weasel words and double talk. "police have a moral right to use someones house"... "I am saying that individual's... have a moral obligation to allow the use of their property to help the police" Same difference. Your saying there is a moral obligation on one party therefor justifying the other party's actions to enforce this moral obligation.

No, that isn't what that means at all. You're making gak up. You're pretending that if a person has a moral obligation to do something, then it becomes okay for another person or the state to make that person act in that way, but that isn't true at all.

If I walk past a person lying unconscious on the road, and I could drag them off the road with no danger to my own life, then I have a moral obligation to do that. But if I decide I don't want to do that for whatever insanity might exist in my head, then no other party can physically make me do it.

Do you get it now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I agree with you. Well, partially, anyway - I probably don't agree that you don't have a moral requirement to assist when lives are at stake (and I don't know that is the case, I'm speaking generally).

But I think you do have the right to say no, and the cops have to respect that.

Which is all I was saying.

If you don't think that's a disturbing precedent to set, I don't know what to say. Either we have the rule of law in this country, or we do not. The victim blaming started early but predictably with this one, huh?

Well, possibly. At this point we have the complaint, and no more. It could be that the facts as stated are the whole of the story in which case the police behaved terribly, but it's also possible there's more to it. Which is why I thought it was best not to comment on the specifics of the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Except in this case there are quite a number of Amendments within the constitution that outline that this sort of situation just cannot legally happen. It's not a "strange fetishisation", it's one of the basic rights that the People granted the Government when we drafted up the constitution.

No. It is not a strange fetishisation to be able to deny the police entry in to your home. That right exists for good reason, and people can and should use it in many situations, for many good reasons.

It is a strange fetishisation to blindly insist that right should be enforced at all possible times, simply because it is a right that a person can enforce. Simply put, if there's a hostage situation next door and it's clear the police could gain better control of the situation by accessing your house, and you reject just because it's your house so you can... well you're placing property rights above helping people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Necroshea wrote:
Oh look, cops being thugs again and still some here defend them.

No-one has defended the actions of the cops as detailed in the OP's story. fething read the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
I would think that any reasonable adult would understand why saying 'no' just because you can in any situation, and saying you would not consider the context of a situation would be pretty evident as to why it is silly on it's face. Sometimes you should say no, sometimes you should say yes, but the circumstances and reason should determine it, not just that you can say no.

Ahtman nails it.

To be 100% clear on the quote Sebster is so upset about. I have no moral, ethical or legal obligation to expose to any possible reprisal, danger, damages or any thing else that might occur, myself, my family, or my property in any way, shape, or form by allowing police officers to use it as they see fit. It is my home. Not a police barracks, or good place to stick a police marksman, an LP/OP, or like the Cops in the OP apparently a good place to kick your boots up, eat a snack and enjoy the AC if you aren't me or one of my guests.

Chances are if a cop can convince me of the need, and asks nicely, I'll probably help. Hell I might even make lemonade and bake a cake. Show up waving your badge and demanding access to my property, demanding I willingly compromise my safety and privacy? Get stuffed.

 Ouze wrote:
What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.

Well, given your earlier post I'm not sure we're disagreeing.

And you missed the strangest one - I'm agreeing with Monster Rain in this thread. Truly the end times are upon us.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
To be 100% clear on the quote Sebster is so upset about. I have no moral, ethical or legal obligation to expose to any possible reprisal, danger, damages or any thing else that might occur, myself, my family, or my property in any way, shape, or form by allowing police officers to use it as they see fit. It is my home. Not a police barracks, or good place to stick a police marksman, an LP/OP, or like the Cops in the OP apparently a good place to kick your boots up, eat a snack and enjoy the AC if you aren't me or one of my guests.

Chances are if a cop can convince me of the need, and asks nicely, I'll probably help. Hell I might even make lemonade and bake a cake. Show up waving your badge and demanding access to my property, demanding I willingly compromise my safety and privacy? Get stuffed.

Agreed.

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.

Well, given your earlier post I'm not sure we're disagreeing.

And you missed the strangest one - I'm agreeing with Monster Rain in this thread. Truly the end times are upon us.

Hey! I thought that was when you agreed with me on some things. o.O

When was that?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
To be 100% clear on the quote Sebster is so upset about. I have no moral, ethical or legal obligation to expose to any possible reprisal, danger, damages or any thing else that might occur, myself, my family, or my property in any way, shape, or form by allowing police officers to use it as they see fit. It is my home. Not a police barracks, or good place to stick a police marksman, an LP/OP, or like the Cops in the OP apparently a good place to kick your boots up, eat a snack and enjoy the AC if you aren't me or one of my guests.

Chances are if a cop can convince me of the need, and asks nicely, I'll probably help. Hell I might even make lemonade and bake a cake. Show up waving your badge and demanding access to my property, demanding I willingly compromise my safety and privacy? Get stuffed.

Why didn't you just say that the first time? Instead of all that stuff about saying no even if there was a hostage situation next door.

I mean, it's still weird that you'd say no if the policeman isn't polite, but whatever, at least now you're recognising some kind of sensible thing.

I still wouldn't /care/. The nature of the situation really doesn't change the really vital factor that I actually care about. Risk to me and mine.