The Glade 4.0

Horse ****. That is the single worst argument I've ever seen here. It's circular for one, and non-sensical to boot.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Everyone I know who works for ODoT is nuts.

Just sayin'...

_________________
"I've got twenty ways to tell you shut the f*ck up / nineteen of them are twenty-four bars long / the other one goes: SHUT THE F*CK UP" - Aesop Rock
"There is no God higher than truth." -- Gandhi
Formerly: Tulamian

ODOT was a fun job. I miss it lol.

Anyway, what did he say to his boss that freaked him out bad enough to call the police?

_________________

I'm saying he's being unreasonable because he thinks the presence of 2 SWAT trucks outside his home would caus him to assume he isn't free to leave in and of itself, without any further information:



And that is a patently unreasonable stance. If you see 2 SWAT trucks outside your home, your main concern before you assume anything is to find out why they're there.

So we're left with one of two conclusions:

1) You don't understand if-then statements
2) You're a strawmanning ******* who ignored what I said in order to make a claim of circular argument

I mean, heaven forbid that someone who's basically agreeing with you call into question your assertion on one of the details thereof. We can't have that, can we? I mean, where would we be if cricticism of the incident doesn't come to the level Elmo wants it to?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Except that it's not. Remember that 10th Ammendment you guys like to wank off to? Well, this is a power reserved to the states. They are the authority that adjudicates mental incompetance.

As for gathering information, gathering information of any kind is something any entity necessarily does do by virtue of being an entity. You can argue with how it collects it, you can argue with how it acts on it, you can argue with other entities giving it information, but you can't argue with the mere fact of collection or posession of it. "You need a certain type of authority to merely be aware of cerian types of information" is both impossible to achieve and absurd.

Way to edit that remark out of its context though. Is this "invent a circular argument" day or something?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, actually it doesn't seem obvious at all. He was contacted by a negotiator, not just some regular cop askign him "Hey, can you come outside for a sec?" It's quite safe to presume that the negotiator held a brief conversation with him and explained why they were there and why they had the SWAT team. A person of normal intelligence would be curious about that.

This is especially true when taken in conjunction with the Castle doctrine. The man was within his own home, and the police did not have a warrant, hence they made no attempt to come get him. If they had no warrant, they also had no basis to arrest him when he was leaving, and any suspicion that he would be arrested if he did is mere speculation on his part. The mere presence of large numbers of officers, by itself, is not a reasonable basis to assume one is not free to leave.

As the case you cited states:



In this case, while there were numbers of armed officers present, the subject also was not a young person, was not directly in contact with the officers, and was within the safety of his home from where he could easily ascertain their intent during the phone conversation. Like the case you cite, there is little reason to think that his Fourth Ammendment protection against seizure has, in any way, been compromised.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The 10th was nullified by the 14th, and don't lump me in with any group of "guys". In addition, my personal philosophical feelings about "shoulds" don't really matter when we are discussing what is.

Having said that, I specifically asked you where government authority to compile data and evaluate mental competence derives from, and you answered "because it is the government". There was no crafty editing involved, the rest of your statement was used to elaborate on, and defend the first part of your statement. I did not invent a circular argument. I didn't have to. You offered one.

Edit: Which reminds me, I still need to finish outlining what I believe good government is.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

DE, I get what you're saying, but I think you're looking at it from the perspective of an expert (i.e. a cop) who's quite familiar with the rules and limits regarding police conduct and suspect rights. Most people really don't know much about that (hell, I took entire courses on it, and I still had to look it up). The average person, faced with a dozen heavily-armed cops (e.g. a SWAT team) asking him to do something really isn't going to feel like he can just shrug it off and ignore their requests. I think it's entirely reasonable, from a layperson's perspective, to think that if he tried to leave his house and walk/drive away, he'd be arrested.

Not to mention that the standard for what could be expected of a reasonable person does not arbitrarily change from person to person. Law is law. It is only functions as law if it applies equally to all of us.

In addition, I wonder if DE believes that non-compliance with the SWAT negotiator would be grounds for acquiring a warrant.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

What I think DE's saying on this point, Rynar, is that in the Anglo-American legal/political system, there's a concept of traditional "police power" - that is, the power to regulate with respect to the safety, health, morals and general welfare of the public - and that the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution is understood to reserve such power to the States. (As an aside, "morals" is generally no longer included in that concept under recent Supreme Court rulings.)

I disagree, there is a concept of limited police authority,and that authority is intentionally specific. It has to be, such that citizens can have an understanding of laws with which they must comply. Furthermore, the police do not have to power to regulate anything. They are part of the executive branch. The power to regulate come from the legislate, and the police are beholden to those regulations themselves. There is no blanket "police power", and as such, I want to know where this specific authority derives from. The 10th is an empty argument, as it was nullified by the 14th. So if not from there, from where? "Because it is the government" does not suffice as an answer because a) it is circular, and b) it is an anathema to a free society.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

The police power is derived from Common Law and tradition, and historically it actually was a blanket power, though again, tradition (and practicality) limited its application to whatever impositions society would tolerate at the time. In the US context, the individual States inherited this general police power from the Crown and reserved it for themselves, rather than granting it to the Federal government in the Constitution. They did, however, limit their police power via their own State constitutions. Subsequently, the 14th Amendment (which limited but did not nullify the 10th), applied some Federal Constitutional limits to State police powers as well, so today, they have considerably less leeway than they used to.

Nevertheless, the State police power is still quite broad in that it basically reverses the formula for evaluating government authority that we think of in reference to the Federal government. For the Feds, we ask, "Does anything in the Constitution specifically allow the government to do this?" For the States, we ask, "Does anything in the Constitution or the State constitution specifically prevent the government from doing this?" Not very comforting from a modern, libertarian perspective, but that really is the underlying doctrine for State authority.

RangerDave:

The Fourteenth Vacated the Tenth Amendment, and it is disingenuous to state otherwise.

_________________

That's simply not true, Khross. Nothing in the text of the 14th Amendment says that, and no court has held any such thing. Hell, the Supreme Court has even overturned federal laws on 10th Amendment grounds in recent years, and 10th Amendment issues are periodically raised in both opinions and dissents.

It is true that the 14th, in combination with federal Spending and Commerce Clause powers, substantially limit the scope of exclusive State authority, but like I said, it's simply wrong to claim the 10th has been "vacated" or (as Rynar said) "nullified".

We also forget that the police likely violated Federal law and so did at least one Federal agency. NICS data exists for verification purposes only (felony to release it for anything else) and is to be destroyed 24 hours after it is ran.

So unless one observed him buying the firearms or the store owner commented sometime - its a whole other can of legal worms.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

There's a great deal of truth to that. however, it's also the obligation of the layperson to understand such basic civics as warrants and the right to safety in their own home.

In any case, the absurdity here comes entirely from the assertion of "constructive arrest" by Elmo. The man was not actually in their control; arrest requires more than mere perception of lack of freedom to leave. By this argument, if the man had decided to start shooting as soon as he discovered them, he would have still been "under arrest" even though he was clearly not under any physical control.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's already been explained. No authority is needed for any entity, government or otherwise, to collect information. It just happens.

The part about the inability of the polcie to "regulate" is irrelevant. The Legislature sets the standard for determinations of mental competance, the executive ensures that they are enforced, and the court makes final rulings.

As for the 10th Ammendment being an empty argument, that's a load of bullshit. The 10th ammendment was not nullified or vacated by the 14th; only certain applications of it were. What you're essentially arguing is that States must specifically be granted powers from somewhere to do each and every thing that they do. That's not the case. States can do pretty much anything that they aren't forbidden from doing in the Federal Constitution.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

While I agree in principle, there are certain methods of collecting information that are illegal. Collecting information by unauthorized wiretap, torture, or unwarranted search and seizure are and should remain illegal. None of those was in effect in this instance, except the last and then only after the man had given permission for the police to enter his house and they seized his firearms, if the article has it right.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Like I said, it is perfectly legitimate to question the means of gathering information, and what is done with it. That does not extend to a general need for a power to gather information at all. When you put a sign outside your buisness saying "Mike's Seafood Restraunt Here" the government will necessarily be aware that there is a seafood restraunt there because you have a sign out and government employees can read it like everyone else.

Demanding an articulated power to gather information is tanamount to demanding that government employees, especially those in law enforcement, forget everything they observe in the performance of their duties.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

RD/DE:

Even if I were to agree with your stance that the 10th still held, which I do not, I'm still correct according to the Constitution of the State of Oregon.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20