[subego]

Without having to go "downtown"?

[Laminar]

"I SUPPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT." allcaps

"BLUE IS A GOOD COLOR ON YOU." allcaps

[nonhuman]

Anything you want.

Or do you mean in the real world rather than the ideal world?

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Anything you want.

Threats of violence?

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Or do you mean in the real world rather than the ideal world?

Good question. I threw in "should" at the last second, so I guess I'm leaning towards ideal, but I don't want to dismiss real world considerations.

At least not all of them.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Threats of violence?

Yes. If the cop is on your property without judicial warrant then you should have every right to ask him to leave as forcefully as you like. He's trespassing, he's armed, he's clearly a threat (unless this is the UK, where he's just trespassing and wearing a silly hat). What would you do about any other armed intruder on your property?

Good question. I threw in "should" at the last second, so I guess I'm leaning towards ideal, but I don't want to dismiss real world considerations.

At least not all of them.

In the real world, I believe that the advice for when an armed intruder is on your property is to call the police and hide and wait. Sadly, I don't think that would do much in this instance...

[andi*pandi]

I believe it's required to throw out at least one "yo mamma" reference.

[Rumor]

Scream, "Let go of my purse!", then kick him in the nuts.

[wallinbl]

Depends on whether you & the cop have the same skin color.

[besson3c]

How about "would you like to buy a kilo of cocaine? Ha ha, just kidding"

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes. If the cop is on your property without judicial warrant then you should have every right to ask him to leave as forcefully as you like. He's trespassing, he's armed, he's clearly a threat (unless this is the UK, where he's just trespassing and wearing a silly hat). What would you do about any other armed intruder on your property?

This might be splitting legal hairs, but is the cop necessarily an intruder/trespasser?

I'm assuming (of course, IANAL) there's some clause that allows a cop to promptly remove themselves from a residence after an intrusion for which they had probable cause to make.

I mean, you ask what one does with an armed intruder on their property? In a lot of states can't you just shoot them? We both know that's not going to fly.


I like your answer though. Part of the idea behind this thread was to push the limits a bit, and "get off my property or I'll blow your ****ing head off" does so quite nicely.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

This might be splitting legal hairs, but is the cop necessarily an intruder/trespasser?

If they're uninvited and have no judicial warrant, then yes.

I'm assuming (of course, IANAL) there's some clause that allows a cop to promptly remove themselves from a residence after an intrusion for which they had probable cause to make.

I would hope that one would give any intruder the option of removing themselves before taking more drastic actions. I would start with a 'this is private property, please remove yourself from it', and escalate from there if and only if it became necessary. If nothing else, in the absence of posted signs warning people not to enter your property, you have to allow people the option to enter your property either unawares of the boundary, or with the intention of communicating a message or delivering a package to you. In other words, I see no problem with a cop coming onto your front porch so that they can knock on your door in the process of canvasing a neighborhood after a crime's been committed or whatever. It's not until they (or anyone else) refuse to leave when asked, or enter in defiance of posted signage that they become intruders.

I mean, you ask what one does with an armed intruder on their property? In a lot of states can't you just shoot them? We both know that's not going to fly.

Won't fly, but should. Without the aforementioned warrant, if they're on your property without permission and don't leave when asked, I see no reason that a police officer should be treated differently from any other intruder.

I like your answer though. Part of the idea behind this thread was to push the limits a bit, and "get off my property or I'll blow your ****ing head off" does so quite nicely.

[SpaceMonkey]

"Help, help, I'm being repressed!"

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

"Help, help, I'm being repressed!"

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I would hope that one would give any intruder the option of removing themselves before taking more drastic actions.

What I'm saying is if they had probable cause to enter, I'm assuming they are an intruder/trespasser in the eyes of the law if and only if it can be shown they have failed to promptly vacate after having determined no crime was committed.

Otherwise, they have protections which would not be given to a garden variety intruder.

I could be wrong, and/or this could be precisely what you are taking issue with. I'm not sure.

[andi*pandi]

"fire in a crowded theater!"

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

What I'm saying is if they had probable cause to enter, I'm assuming they are an intruder/trespasser in the eyes of the law if and only if it can be shown they have failed to promptly vacate after having determined no crime was committed.

Otherwise, they have protections which would not be given to a garden variety intruder.

I could be wrong, and/or this could be precisely what you are taking issue with. I'm not sure.

Oh yes, I agree with you then. With probable cause (though I'm sure I would define that much more strictly than any police officer and most to all judges) they should be able to enter private property without a warrant, but I think that in such a situation their possible actions should be severely curtailed.

[stumblinmike]

If you're in Hollywood, Florida you should yell "Don't frame me, you bad cops!"

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes. If the cop is on your property without judicial warrant then you should have every right to ask him to leave as forcefully as you like. He's trespassing, he's armed, he's clearly a threat (unless this is the UK, where he's just trespassing and wearing a silly hat).

Over here, there's something called "implied right of access". Coppers have it, postmen have it (so they can get to your letterbox), general visitors have it (so they can knock on your door). You can withdraw this implied right of access by writing to the organisation/individual involved and then it'd be trespassing, but that's it.

Although I'm not actually sure we have any trespassing laws over here any more.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Over here, there's something called "implied right of access". Coppers have it, postmen have it (so they can get to your letterbox), general visitors have it (so they can knock on your door). You can withdraw this implied right of access by writing to the organisation/individual involved and then it'd be trespassing, but that's it.

Although I'm not actually sure we have any trespassing laws over here any more.

That sounds more or less like what I was advocating. I wouldn't support people just popping off a few rounds at a person the minute they stepped over the property line, they have to give fair warning so that the person knows they are trespassing and unwelcome, and then give them a reasonable chance to remedy the situation.

Although there is something quite nice about the concept of allemansrätten...

[residentEvil]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Scream, "Let go of my purse!", then kick him in the nuts.

which we could alias people's screen names here...

you are forever now know as: Bobby (Hill).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That sounds more or less like what I was advocating. I wouldn't support people just popping off a few rounds at a person the minute they stepped over the property line, they have to give fair warning so that the person knows they are trespassing and unwelcome, and then give them a reasonable chance to remedy the situation.

I'm with you on that. It'd save on ammo at the very least.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Although there is something quite nice about the concept of allemansrätten...

No no no! That's just a recipe for chavs dropping their crap all over your land and generally screwing up the hard-work you've put in in maintaining the place. It'd perhaps work if the general public weren't complete and utter halfwits*.

Also:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...-third-victim-

The unnamed 63-year-old is the third person killed by cows in the past four weeks.

And not forgetting the story of the farmer whose sheep caused a road accident because some plank exercising their "allemansrätten" left his gate open. Farmer got sued for damages and lost, even though it wasn't his fault.

I don't want folks walking on my land. Reason for this is that I bought the land as a buffer between me and folks. Folks are noisy, can't seem to have a conversation without shouting at each other. I don't want that near me - I want peace and quiet.

(* polite version)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No no no! That's just a recipe for chavs dropping their crap all over your land and generally screwing up the hard-work you've put in in maintaining the place. It'd perhaps work if the general public weren't complete and utter halfwits*.

Yeah, I know. It's got a nice romantic, utopian feel to it, which unfortunately means it's probably destined to be more trouble than it's worth most of the time.

Also:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...-third-victim-

And not forgetting the story of the farmer whose sheep caused a road accident because some plank exercising their "allemansrätten" left his gate open. Farmer got sued for damages and lost, even though it wasn't his fault.

I don't want folks walking on my land. Reason for this is that I bought the land as a buffer between me and folks. Folks are noisy, can't seem to have a conversation without shouting at each other. I don't want that near me - I want peace and quiet.

(* polite version)

Clearly any attempt to implement allemansrätten needs to be combined with well defined boundaries on those rights and on the liability of property owners. You'll get no argument from me on that. Though I would contend that the best/only way to properly avoid the noisomeness and annoyingness of the general populace is to move to a very low population density area such as Montana or Wyoming or similar places in *your country of choice here*.

My experience in such places, in America at least, is that even though you do tend to find a more allemansrätten attitude you also tend to find a much more individualistic strain in people and so they tend to respect the right and desire of other people to be left alone and not have their property messed with. So they might walk or ride a horse across your land, but they're not likely to leave a trail of garbage as they go.

My dream is basically to get a cabin somewhere with enough land (or at least a low enough population density) that my nearest neighbors in any direction are over the horizon.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And not forgetting the story of the farmer whose sheep caused a road accident because some plank exercising their "allemansrätten" left his gate open. Farmer got sued for damages and lost, even though it wasn't his fault.

There's a strange sense of legal obligation anymore. Had a guy over to my house last year. He asked if is son could jump on my trampoline. I said "he's your son, it's your call". He replied "it's your homeowner's insurance". I was rather shocked*. Guess what? No jumping for you if you're going to lay the bills on me. It would never occur to me to make someone else pay for something I did to myself (or my kid did to herself). WTF?

* Especially given the fact that in Florida, if you file a claim, you'll get dropped and have a hell of a time finding new coverage.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

There's a strange sense of legal obligation anymore. Had a guy over to my house last year. He asked if is son could jump on my trampoline. I said "he's your son, it's your call". He replied "it's your homeowner's insurance". I was rather shocked*. Guess what? No jumping for you if you're going to lay the bills on me. It would never occur to me to make someone else pay for something I did to myself (or my kid did to herself). WTF?

* Especially given the fact that in Florida, if you file a claim, you'll get dropped and have a hell of a time finding new coverage.

I learned in home economics class (required in my high school), that if you don't have a fenced in yard with "No trespassing" posted, you're liable for what happens in your yard. So if a kid jumps your fence and jumps into your pool and drowns, you're at fault. Not the kid.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If they're uninvited and have no judicial warrant, then yes.

I don't believe a warrant is required to pursue crime in action. If someone kills someone else on the street for instance, I'm pretty sure they don't have to go get a warrant to run in after them if they enter their home and the owner can't claim injustice as the police are there on legal, official business.

Also, when a person expresses themselves to the police (or anyone else) in a way that might disturb others, there isn't "first amendment" protection for that. The laws on disturbing the peace have been on the books for years, and never found unconstitutional. If you are making an ass out of yourself in front of your neighbors, you can be hauled away legally.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Also, when a person expresses themselves to the police (or anyone else) in a way that might disturb others, there isn't "first amendment" protection for that.

Give me a rough and ready example of what you believe to be acceptable.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The laws on disturbing the peace have been on the books for years, and never found unconstitutional.

Irrelevant. A law need not be unconstitutional for a court to overstep its boundaries. I'll note that the SCOTUS has overturned individual convictions of disorderly conduct because the specific conviction was found to have violated the defendant's first amendment rights.

Of course, it actually has to go to trial for this to be determined. I understand most cases of disorderly don't.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

I learned in home economics class (required in my high school), that if you don't have a fenced in yard with "No trespassing" posted, you're liable for what happens in your yard. So if a kid jumps your fence and jumps into your pool and drowns, you're at fault. Not the kid.

I have a six foot privacy fenced, locked from the inside. I have a screen enclosure with a door. I have a pool fence inside the screen enclosure. If a kid gets through all of that and drowns, I will not pay, even if told to do so by a court. I have taken the precautions generally known to be taken by a reasonable person.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

So if a kid jumps your fence and jumps into your pool and drowns, you're at fault. Not the kid.

F that. I would drag the kid from the pool, shoot him in the head and tell the cops he was trying to rape me.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If they're uninvited and have no judicial warrant, then yes.

False. If they have PROBABLE CAUSE, they have every right to come onto your property. For example, if a cop were walking by your house and heard screaming cries for help coming from inside, he would have every right to come onto your property.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

False. If they have PROBABLE CAUSE, they have every right to come onto your property. For example, if a cop were walking by your house and heard screaming cries for help coming from inside, he would have every right to come onto your property.

Yes, I believe probable cause has already been discussed and determined to be an exception.

[stupendousman]

[QUOTE=subego;3868321]Give me a rough and ready example of what you believe to be acceptable.[quote]

Gates very well have expressed his dissatisfaction with Crowley in a way that would not attract the attention and cause the disturbance of his neighbors. Once Gates had Crowley's identification information, he could have either stayed in the house and called whoever was necessary or went outside and refrained from yelling and slandering people and used a vocal level that would not attract the unwanted attention of his neighbors. He has no right however to express himself in a manner that intrudes on his neighbor's right to live peacefully in their own homes and neighborhoods without having to deal with loud obnoxious verbal attacks.

Irrelevant. A law need not be unconstitutional for a court to overstep its boundaries. I'll note that the SCOTUS has overturned individual convictions of disorderly conduct because the specific conviction was found to have violated the defendant's first amendment rights.

Crowley wasn't being stopped from expressing himself, as is his right. He was stopped from expressing himself in a manner that was disruptive to the rest of his neighborhood, which is not his right.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

he could have either stayed in the house and called whoever was necessary or went outside and refrained from yelling and slandering people and used a vocal level that would not attract the unwanted attention of his neighbors.

So, you're saying any yelling at a cop which attracts unwanted attention is off limits?

If this isn't what you're saying, I'll be most appreciative of a correction.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

I learned in home economics class (required in my high school), that if you don't have a fenced in yard with "No trespassing" posted, you're liable for what happens in your yard. So if a kid jumps your fence and jumps into your pool and drowns, you're at fault. Not the kid.

Wrong.

(It's a lot more complicated than that. "At fault" how... in a criminal or civil court? If you're talking about negligence or occupiers' liability, then AFAIK you do have to have some element of negligence on your part.

Of course, this is America... your court system works in nutty ways. Which I suspect may be what happens when you start electing your arbitrators of justice based on their self-proposed platforms.)

greg

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Wrong.

greg

Correct, in the sense that even a fence and a sign will NOT protect you from potential lawsuits and liability.

Welcome to America.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, you're saying any yelling at a cop which attracts unwanted attention is off limits?

I'm saying that yelling at ANYONE in public which creates a disturbance is off limits. Cops or no.

Of course, since cops usually get to determine what is and isn't a "disturbance", it's probably a good idea when they tell you that YOU ARE creating a disturbance, you moderate your tone even if you continue expressing the same sentiments.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm saying that yelling at ANYONE in public which creates a disturbance is off limits. Cops or no.

I disagree with you, but appreciate you answering my questions.

Most importantly, I appreciate the consistency between what you post here and what you've posted in the Gates/Crowley thread.

As someone who takes pretty much the opposite opinion of what you say above (I think people should have a lot more leeway than that), I found the assuredness with which you defended Crowley to be confusing. This explains it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

A strange position indeed, given that it apparently means raising your voice at someone in a fashion whereby people around you will be "disturbed" from their daily life is enough of a threshold. So...apparently... you can't start yelling in public, huh?

I thought America was Free(tm)? An odd position, from my perspective.

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

A strange position indeed, given that it apparently means raising your voice at someone in a fashion whereby people around you will be "disturbed" from their daily life is enough of a threshold. So...apparently... you can't start yelling in public, huh?

Can you yell down the street, "hey, are you coming over to my house" and not fear arrest? Most likely. In your own house can you scream at your wife angrily at the top of your lungs with your windows open at 12am even after your neighbor asks you to keep things quiet because they are being kept awake by the noise? Most likely not.

The law requires you to not be engaging in behavior which is likely to start problems for your neighbors and others you encounter in public in a loud and boisterous way. If someone specifically tells you that your loud, obnoxious behavior is interfering with their right to a reasonably peaceful environment, and you refuse to stop, you could be in for some legal trouble. Not because your "freedom of speech" is being squelched, but because how you chose to exercise that freedom is infringing on the rights of others.

I thought America was Free(tm)? An odd position, from my perspective.

greg

You are free. You aren't however free to be an @ss in a way that can't be easily ignored to the rest of America just because it suits you. You can't be stopped from saying most anything in America. You can however be limited in how and when you say it, when how you are saying it is likely to cause a "disturbance of the peace" for others. It's the reason why people yelling in protest over the voice of speakers at a political rally can be removed by cops.