REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

USA: Police State?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, October 5, 2007 17:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9780
PAGE 3 of 6

Monday, October 1, 2007 8:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I just had to bring this Hero quote from another thread to this because it reveals Hero's basic outlook:
Quote:

Covering up the truth actually serves an important purpose in that it allows the underlying truth to be presented to the public without confusing facts that can only serve to harm the war effort.... I would suggest the truth is better off not known
www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30797

You're scary, dude. But at least we all got to see the snakes twisting around in your head.


---------------------
BTW- there are a few other rights in that Bill of Rights that Hero tries to downplay.

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.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


It seems so straightforward to me! Read them carefully and support them, because that's what's standing between you and prosecutors like Hero.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 1, 2007 9:25 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Meh, Hero doesn't scare me, in the grand essence of things, he is but a single grain of sand.

It's the vast desert he is part of that's fucking scary.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 1, 2007 1:39 PM

KANEMAN


Not if the RP revolution wins...till then we get this....

....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 5:10 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
It seems so straightforward to me! Read them carefully and support them, because that's what's standing between you and prosecutors like Hero.


I'm a State prosectutor. The Federal Bill of Rights alone offers you no protection against me. For that you must rely on the Ohio State Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution. That amendment includes the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and gave rise to the doctrine of incorporation which bound states to the standards imposed by the Bill of Rights. (I note for the record that Ohio, like most states, has its own nearly identical Bill of Rights in it's Constitution. Some states vary on the wording or details, most often offering more specific rights. A good example is Ohio's Right to Bear Arms is much more broad then the Federal one.)

The Constitution does not stop at Amendment number 10. Try reading the whole thing sometime...Due Process is very interesting since essentially it is a mechanism by which the Federal Govt. can systematically deprive you of all of your rights, property, and life. I'd think the crazy-talkers would be much more afraid of that prospect.

Fortunately there is a crap-load of precedent establishing just what Due Process is. Essentially a hearing, an appeal, the right to cross examine, to have counsel present (and sometimes appointed), a neutral magistrate/judge, a gavel, a glass of water, a cushioned seat, a recording (or at least one available if requested), notice, the court's subpoena power (within reason), right to view the state's evidence, rules of procedure, funny whigs (ok, that one they got rid of in our country), etc. All of those things to some degree or another must be present to constitute Due Process.

Now the crazy-talkers think that its all crap cause its a fixed game. Perhaps it is. Or, you're mad cause you got convicted of something since they seem to share the sentiment with most shoplifters, speeders, child rapists, drunk drivers, and the fellow who showed up for his DOC Intox trial yesterday and blew over 4x the legal limit (0.344). They all feel a might put upon. Rightfully so, since most of you crazy-talkers (and teenagers) out there believe in the right to get drunk, drive drunk, steal, and hurt people in the worst possible ways. I have a different interpretation. Sure, you have the right to do all that...I then have the privilage of putting you all in jail so you can get to know each other...intimately.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 4:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Fortunately there is a crap-load of precedent establishing just what Due Process is. Essentially a hearing, an appeal, the right to cross examine, to have counsel present (and sometimes appointed), a neutral magistrate/judge, a gavel, a glass of water, a cushioned seat, a recording (or at least one available if requested), notice, the court's subpoena power (within reason), right to view the state's evidence, rules of procedure, funny whigs (ok, that one they got rid of in our country), etc. All of those things to some degree or another must be present to constitute Due Process.
Tellingly, you keep forgetting a few things about due process. Let's see- glass of water? No. Seat cushion? Got that.


What's missing?

Oh, I KNOW....!

A JURY!! In your jurisdiction!





---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 4:37 AM

JONGSSTRAW


If we indeed lived in anything resembling a "police state", most of the posters here would have had their front doors busted down long ago, been taken away in handcuffs, and never heard from again.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 4:52 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

most of you crazy-talkers (and teenagers) out there believe in the right to get drunk, drive drunk, steal, and hurt people in the worst possible ways. I have a different interpretation. Sure, you have the right to do all that...I then have the privilage of putting you all in jail so you can get to know each other...intimately.


Hello,

I don't think you can lump 'most people' unhappy with the system into the same category as criminals who wish to 'drive drunk, steal, and hurt people in the worst possible ways.'

It's disturbing to me that you categorize people who yearn for fairer trials as 'crazy talkers.'

It is also disturbing to me that a State Prosecuter believes that rape is a viable part of the prison experience, and that you put people in jail so that they can endure that experience.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 5:01 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

most of you crazy-talkers (and teenagers) out there believe in the right to get drunk, drive drunk, steal, and hurt people in the worst possible ways. I have a different interpretation. Sure, you have the right to do all that...I then have the privilage of putting you all in jail so you can get to know each other...intimately.


Hello,

I don't think you can lump 'most people' unhappy with the system into the same category as criminals who wish to 'drive drunk, steal, and hurt people in the worst possible ways.'

It's disturbing to me that you categorize people who yearn for fairer trials as 'crazy talkers.'

It is also disturbing to me that a State Prosecuter believes that rape is a viable part of the prison experience, and that you put people in jail so that they can endure that experience.

--Anthony


You want "fairer" trials....what do you think about replacing the current "jury of your peers" ( which is usually a bunch of working stiffs who don't wanna be there & know nothing of the law)...replace them with permanent professional juries?

I agree with you about the "rape" thing, although for child and sexual predators I think their own violent rape in jail would be a measure of justice for them....but your average everyday criminal should not have to endure being raped in prison.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 5:29 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


How about better trial rules ? Or letting the jury ask questions ? There are ways to make trials 'fairer' without eliminating juries ... (strawman)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 8:45 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
How about better trial rules ? Or letting the jury ask questions ? There are ways to make trials 'fairer' without eliminating juries ... (strawman)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."



I don't know about that. Strangely enough a lot of the rules that seem to make little sense are actually there to help the accused.

I have only been in a jury once and that was in England so while I'm sure that the form of the trial was similar rules of evidence may be different. Anyway, we had an assault case where the victim was so badly beaten that he lay in a coma for 3 weeks. There was no doubt that our defendant was involved, he admited as much, but he claimed that one of the other people there had undertaken the majority of the beating and that he himself had a minor role. Because the second guy had already pled guilty we never heard from him and the details of that trial and the past history of our defendant was kept from us.

To our mind the case swung on the level of involvement of our defendant. The Victim couldn't remember anything about that entire week (brain damage) and the case came down to a game of "he said" between the guy on trial and the statements of the guy already convicted. We asked on occasion for evidence from the other case, specifically the second guy's clothes to try and assess his level of involvement by the amount of the victims blood on him. Because it was a different case these requests were denied. One juror was especially keen to give our defendant a pass on the basis that

1) The other guy already admitted he did it.
2) "He looks like such a nice young man"

In the end he was convicted of lesser charges.

It was later in sentencing that we learned he had a history of muggings and violence and had violated bail in this case by beating another man with a steel pipe during a drunken argument. Had these facts been known I doubt the juror that thought him a "nice young man" would have prevailed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 9:06 AM

JONGSSTRAW


I personally hate the court proceedings in this country. Almost everything is set up to protect criminal defendants; and to me getting a unanimous verdict is almost frikkin' impossible. I am truly amazed that anyone is ever convicted in this country.

Tell me in what other field of human endeavour can you get 7 or 9 people to ever all agree on anything??

Browncoats here have been posting for years about their interpretations of things in Firefly, usually with vastly different opinions of things they've all seen over and over again...and still cannot agree on everything.

I'm not ready ...yet....to call for "guilty until proven innocent", but if you think about that, you might see how clean and neat that could work. All these high-powered defense attorneys have to do is raise "reasonable doubt" now to get their clients off...I say that's too damn easy...must be a bigger burden of proof to either prove innocence...or please...please eliminate this Unanimous bullshit...a simple majority of jurors saying guilty should be enough.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 9:06 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I've been on three cases of increasing severity - auto-theft/ possession; attempted murder; murder. (guilty/ not guilty/ guilty)

The prosecutor presents one scenario, the defense another, and you know there's information in between that you aren't hearing about.

In the second case, the missing piece of information was that the 'victim' did steal a man's handgun from his gym bag at a party. If we had known that he had (that was a different trial as well) I think we would have voted the other way. B/c it would have meant that the accused thought he was facing a person armed with a gun that had been stolen from him by the 'victim' and would have put in his mind that he was facing a deadly threat.

This kind of system - where you can't get all the relevant facts, makes for bad decisions.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 9:09 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


On a side note, in my opinion, one piece of hard evidence is worth more than any amount of testimony. The murder conviction was based on a spatter of the victim's blood inside a wad of folded money.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 9:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Part of the problem is that often-times the case if presented as if one person is the "innocent vicitim" and the other person is the "evil perp". But a lot of times both people are guilty to some extent.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 10:03 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Part of the problem is that often-times the case if presented as if one person is the "innocent vicitim" and the other person is the "evil perp". But a lot of times both people are guilty to some extent.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.



I'm not sure that is important. If you provoke me to the point where I beat you to death then I'm still guilty of murder (which is what the jury has to decide) the best that can be said is that there might be mitigating circumstances. The law says you can't kill someone, not that you can't kill them if they don't deserve it.

Law is by it's nature an imperfect tool, to some degree Juries and judges try to make "off the shelf laws" into made to measure justice.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 10:12 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


OOC, were you one of the people who supported tasering for impoliteness ? I forget.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 10:13 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
The law says you can't kill someone, not that you can't kill them if they don't deserve it.


Laws are different in different places. In Florida we have the Stand Your Ground Law which basically recognizes your right to self-defense...you can shoot to kill someone who is threatening you...inside your home or outside on the streets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 10:32 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
OOC, were you one of the people who supported tasering for impoliteness ? I forget.


That's why threads are archived. Here, let me give you a hand.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30610

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 10:43 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Fletch2

"Well ultimately all laws in a society are backed by the treat of force because you can escallate even something as minor as jaywalking into a force issue. Since I want laws to be followed then ultimately I condone the use of force to uphold them."


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 12:07 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Fletch2

"Well ultimately all laws in a society are backed by the treat of force because you can escallate even something as minor as jaywalking into a force issue. Since I want laws to be followed then ultimately I condone the use of force to uphold them."


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."



And how exactly is this is relevant to the current topic?

Reality check. Laws are ultimately backed by the threat of force, because the treat of force is used to enforce them (bad sentence but you know what I mean.)

For any crime to be punished the perpetrator has to be arrested, held, transported and incarcerated all of which are activities that take place against his will in most cases. Should he resist at any stage force will be used to compel him.

So for any law you want enforced, even something as trivial as jay walking you are implicity condoning the potential use of force to implement it.

Now if you don't care if laws are implemented or not that's your business but if you do then you are agreeing to the use of force to implement them.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 12:39 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Well, (obviously) I was thinking about the taser incident. The 'rules' for the event weren't laws. They were just an agreement to make sure everyone had an equal chance to ask their question and keep the program timely. Since the program was over, the 'rules' no longer applied. So on the one hand you think that a person breaking no laws and posing no threat can 'provoke' the police to justifiable violence. But then you also think there is NO way a private person can 'provoke' another to justifiable violence. I see a double standard.

I also do have a few scenarios in mind where one could be provoked into throwing the first punch and it would be, in my mind, completely justifiable - though not by saying 'you mother swims after troop ships'.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 1:00 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Well, (obviously) I was thinking about the taser incident. The 'rules' for the event weren't laws. They were just an agreement to make sure everyone had an equal chance to ask their question and keep the program timely. Since the program was over, the 'rules' no longer applied. So on the one hand you think that a person breaking no laws and posing no threat can 'provoke' the police to justifiable violence. But then you also think there is NO way a private person can 'provoke' another to justifiable violence. I see a double standard.



Well as always you

1) take remarks out of context and
2) decide my opinion for me and then claim I'm inconsistant.

I was asked in the Taser thread if I condoned the use of violence to remove the idiot. My answer was that like every citizen that believes in law and order I implicitly condone the use of violence to uphold the law. That was my answer then and I have clarified it above.

My comments on provocation came in answer to Sigs remark that criminal trials tend to paint the victim as innocent when in fact they could be a contributing factor to the crime. My point was that the courts only decide if the crime happened as a point of fact, contributing factors are taken into account in the penalty phase and not in establishing if the crime took place. "Because he deserved it" is not a defence to murder anywhere except here in Texas.

So no, provocation is not a defence to a crime. You are as usual equating two incompatable questions. There is no contradiction.

And before you cry too many tears about poor Mr Meyer, I think you will find that the organiser of an event is allowed to remove or exclude anyone from that event. The organiser wanted him gone and when Meyer refused I suspect he was guilty of criminal treaspass. If that is not true please tell me so I can use the soft furnishing departement of Sears as a hotel next time I travel.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 1:21 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The organiser wanted him gone and when Meyer refused I suspect he was guilty of criminal treaspass. If that is not true please tell me so I can use the soft furnishing departement of Sears as a hotel next time I travel.
I think this was addressed at length. Both the facilty AND the event were "public". As such, the organizer did not have the authority to have anyone removed because he wasn't "breaking a law".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 1:29 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


No inconsistencies.

Here's one example where I think one could be accused of 'assault' but that it would be based on provocation - a person (non-violently) backs you into a corner all the while yelling at you. You, fearing for your health, decide that catching said person off-guard might be your best way out, so out of the blue you throw a punch in your attempt to get away. Now, as the first person to make physical contact, you're technically liable for assault. OTOH the 'victim' wasn't innocent. So I can see how JohnQ citizen could be 'provoked' into violence.

When it comes to the taser incident, there was no actual 'provocation' - just a bit of theatricality carried on for a few seconds too long. And yet you seem to think that that was enough to justify violence.

BTW the events are "always free and open to the public", and that particular event was held on a public campus - ie - a public area. (Not a Sears store, as you so tellingly mischaracterized). I hope you're capable of drawing the correct conclusions about trespassing.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 1:40 PM

FLETCH2


Not at all. A Sears store is "free and open to the public" when I walk in during normal store hours. Later "after the event is over" ie the store is closed I am asked to leave and refuse. Just because I had permission to be there during the day does not mean that I have permission for all time. Sears revoked my permision when they asked me to leave, when I refused to go I was liable for trespass.

Likewise if Meyer pulled out a bedroll and started to sack out for the night are you really saying that nobody had a right to remove him because he was allowed to be there earlier in the day.

You can't have it both ways.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 1:43 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
No inconsistencies.

Here's one example where I think one could be accused of 'assault' but that it would be based on provocation - a person (non-violently) backs you into a corner all the while yelling at you. You, fearing for your health, decide that catching said person off-guard might be your best way out, so out of the blue you throw a punch in your attempt to get away. Now, as the first person to make physical contact, you're technically liable for assault. OTOH the 'victim' wasn't innocent. So I can see how JohnQ citizen could be 'provoked' into violence.



JohnQ still resorted to thowing the first punch, what he thought MIGHT happen are mitigating factors at trial but he still technically commited assault.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 1:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


But it was under the perception of threat.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 1:46 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


A Sears store is "free and open to the public" -- but it's private property. That's the difference. (I can't believe I had to explain that.)

"if Meyer pulled out a bedroll and started to sack out for the night are you really saying that nobody had a right to remove him"
It's a legal problem. Some cities try to keep people from living in the parks (which also close at night) by making them inhospitable - not having benches to sit on for example. (They feel that if you don't give homeless people a place to roost, then they won't.) But as long as the homeless are not impeding anyone, blocking entries, aggressively panhandling, or posing a threat, there's not too much that can be done -legally. Being out on the street or in the park is their right. And if they took to camping on campus (as I did once when I was homeless for a few weeks) I don't know if legally, removing them could be made to stick.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 1:55 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Well as always you 1) take remarks out of context and ...
People are for the most part "context sensitive". TOO "context sensitive". There were several interesting papers on how context can lead people to completely different conclusions when confronting basically the same question. That is why "assault and battery" in a civilian context suddenly looks very different when the aggressor is wearing blue.

When considering a question or a situation it helps to approach it from several different directions. Would it look the same if the speaker were saying something I disagreed with? If the cop was a civilian? If they had simply shoved Meyers out? At what point WOULD I say that using a taser is justified?

I hear a lot of complaints about "taking things out of context" but it really is a useful tool for analyzing a question w/o prejudice (or at least revealing them) and one that the right wing doesn't use nearly often enough IMHO.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:08 PM

FLETCH2


Well he's inside a building and someone owns that building even if it is a university campus. Are you really saying that I can squat in any university building and they never have the right to throw me out?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:24 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

The organiser wanted him gone and when Meyer refused I suspect he was guilty of criminal treaspass. If that is not true please tell me so I can use the soft furnishing departement of Sears as a hotel next time I travel.
I think this was addressed at length. Both the facilty AND the event were "public". As such, the organizer did not have the authority to have anyone removed because he wasn't "breaking a law".

Actually, it was long discussed, and at the end Rue expressed an opinion that the organizer had no right to ask him to be removed, and I expressed an opinion that they did. No case law was ever presented to substantiate either side (I did some looking and decided I didn't even know how to look for it).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:28 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


The pretend students who never were admitted got thrown out, but that was for using the food service and dorm rooms without paying.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:29 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Well he's inside a building and someone owns that building even if it is a university campus. Are you really saying that I can squat in any university building and they never have the right to throw me out?

Keeping in mind that an important part of the point is, -public- university.

Specifically, if there is an -organized event-, can the group which has the permission to have the organized event at a public university able to request someone to be ejected if the event has no admission charge? (Details may be important.)

And if anyone knows the law; does the circumstance change if admission is charged or otherwise restricted? Or if the group has 'paid' to rent the space as opposed to if it is merely space made available to the group at no cost? These last questions are just to satisfy my curiosity. Though I would also be curious as to the answer of Fletch's question above.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:30 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
The pretend students who never were admitted got thrown out, but that was for using the food service and dorm rooms without paying.

Food service is problematic; that is really 'private' food having been sold. The dorm rooms is a different matter; it's still a public university, right?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


When one attends a public university one has the option of living in a dorm or not. If you choose to live in a dorm you pay for the living space. It's an extra service you're paying for. If you live in that living space without paying the fee then you're stealing that service from the state.

As far as I know living in a public space in a public university building has never been tested.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:52 PM

FLETCH2


How could a public university ever close off any venue? If Rue is right they could never exclude anyone for any reason. If I want to be an asshole at the gay and lesbian society I just occupy their meeting space and shout them down after all nobody could evict me (and if they did Rue would rush to my defence.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:55 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


When campus protestors took over buildings in the 70's they removed them by force - but then it was a question of what to charge them with. In the one instance I know of they were charged with interfering with government operations.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:55 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
When one attends a public university one has the option of living in a dorm or not. If you choose to live in a dorm you pay for the living space. It's an extra service you're paying for. If you live in that living space without paying the fee then you're stealing that service from the state.

So, do you agree you have established that if you pay money for a space at a public university, you have the right to use that space (in this case, a dorm room) to the exclusion of anyone else (except your roommate of course)?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:57 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I'm not 100% sure if one would consider it more like a rental or a service, though my recollection is that it's considered a service. I think that makes a difference in how it's legally interpreted.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 3:01 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

What is a 'Public University?'

I was under the impression that you either had to pay money to attend a college or university, or that a scholarship paid your way.

I was also under the impression that some group earned income from Colleges and Universities - that the money spent to attend not only went to sustain the University but also to earn a profit for somebody.

I was further under the impression that Colleges and Universities might be subsidized by the state or federal government in some ways. However, unlike my neighborhood Elementary, Middle, or High School, I was under the impression that Colleges and Universities were private businesses of some kind. More akin to a Private School than a Public School.

I was finally under the impression that my local Elementary school, a Public school, occasionally holds public activities. These include PTA meetings and the like. But that if I attended one of these meetings and created a disturbance or made a nuisance of myself, that I may be asked to leave. I've been under the impression that the police officers who patrol these Public Schools have the authority to make me leave, up to and including the use of force if I resist.

Am I mistaken about the nature of Colleges, Universities, and Public schools?

Thanks,

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 3:02 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
When campus protestors took over buildings in the 70's they removed them by force - but then it was a question of what to charge them with. In the one instance I know of they were charged with interfering with government operations.


Case closed, Meyer was interfering with government operations.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 3:09 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BDN_And hence the concept of a "police state".

Anthony- Public universities are indeed public. Tuition helps defray- but does not cover the cost- of the education/ instruction that you receive there. You are therefore not paying for your "presence" on campus, if that's what you're driving at.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 3:23 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Public universities (like UCLA) are funded by the state, as opposed to private universities which are privately owned (like USC). Public universities don't make money for anyone - student tuition and fees don’t cover the cost of maintaining them, paying salaries to professors, administrators, TAs, janitors etc.

Public universities and colleges aren't quite akin to lower-level schools. There the school system is in effect the guardian of minor children. Security during and after hours is much tighter to maintain the safety (and reduce the liability) of the school and grounds. (For example, you don't want a tubercular person spitting all over the halls.)

Public colleges and universities are considered community resources and places for independent thinking and action. Not only do they have a different legal role regarding their students, they have a different ethic for their being.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 3:26 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Case closed, Meyer was interfering with government operations."

Not really. The 'interference' came from secretaries not being able to access their offices and do their normal jobs. No jobs were being interefered with in Florida. And (I can't believe I have to say this again ...) the function WAS OVER. DONE. FINI. Can you understand that simple concept ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 3:31 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I just found this online:

Quote:


"In the United States, most public universities are state universities founded and operated by state government entities. Every U.S. state has at least one public university to its name, and the largest states have more than a dozen. This is partly as a result of the 1862 Morrill Land-Grant Acts, which gave each eligible state 30,000 acres (120 km²) of federal land upon which to establish educational institutions. Many U.S. public universities began as teacher training institutions and eventually were expanded into comprehensive universities. Examples include Missouri State University, formerly Southwest Missouri State Teachers College; Sam Houston State University, formerly Sam Houston State Teachers College; State University of New York at Cortland, formerly Cortland State Teachers College; and the University of North Alabama, formerly Florence State Teachers College.

States generally charge higher tuition to out-of-state students, a practice which the United States Supreme Court has deemed constitutional because the state is acting as a market participant providing a service, rather than protecting a fundamental right. It has never been determined whether the U.S. Constitution would allow the federal government to establish a federal university system; the only federally chartered universities that currently exist are those under the auspices of the U.S. military, such as West Point.

Historically, most of the prestigious universities in the United States have been private. Some public universities are also highly prestigious and increasingly selective; Richard Moll designated such prestigious public universities Public Ivies. State support of public universities has been declining, forcing many public universities to seek private support. Some professional graduate programs in law, business, and medicine rely almost solely on private funding."



Which supports what you say about public universities. They do indeed appear to be state institutions.

Which puts them into the same category as my local Public Elementary School, I think. Except that they are more expensive.

So we only need to determine my rights at a Public Elementary School, and apply them to the University.

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 3:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Public universities and colleges aren't quite akin to lower-level schools. There the school system is in effect the guardian of minor children. Security during and after hours is much tighter to maintain the safety (and reduce the liability) of the school and grounds. (For example, you don't want a tubercular person spitting all over the halls. Or child molesters hiding out at night in the library.)

Public colleges and universities are considered community resources and places for independent thinking and action. Not only do they have a different legal role regarding their students, they have a different ethic for their being.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 3:38 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"If I want to be an asshole at the gay and lesbian society I just occupy their meeting space and shout them down after all nobody could evict me ..."

But then you'd be interfering with their meeting. A simple concept I had to explain to BDN appears to have escaped you as well - the Florida meeting WAS OVER. Therefore, Meyer was interfering with NOTHING.

***************************************************************
Isn't it scary when you find yourself in BDN's company ?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 4:02 PM

FLETCH2


Why would that matter? It doesnt change the nature of the meeting space? You deciding it makes a difference doesnt make it different, if the school cant evict someone at the end of a meeting why would they have the right to evict them during a meeting? There being a meeting does not effect their property rights.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 4:07 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Interfering with a function is an issue.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 4:17 PM

LEADB


I don't believe the function was over; it was nearing conclusion. I do not believe Kerry had completed his final statement. I'm also not sure if the event would be deemed to be over until the organizer's allotted time had expired. My guess is they had an additional 30 minutes or so of exclusive use of the room; at least, when I organized club meetings at college, I always did that. Luckily, I never had to have anyone disruptive removed; the worst we ever had to do was glare at someone and tell them they were out of order.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL