zhuliu, See the "or ...( 2 weeks ago by DavidForthoffer)
zhuliu, See the "or" in clause (3). You obviously think "A or B" means B is advised over A. I believe most intelligent people would think you are twisting the meaning.
So explain the ...( 2 weeks ago by lysolbombs470)
So explain the point of PRIVATE property? Or does that just not exist anymore?
Array( 2 weeks ago by zhuliu)
DavidForthoffer,
All I had to do was easily show how your quote failed to support your claim. Since it obviously failed, my job is done. IOW your quote served my purpose fine. Remember: all I needed prove was that you did not prove what you said. Far from "amazing", my conclusion is only the meaning of the quote.
Array( 2 weeks ago by zhuliu)
DavidForthoffer,
IC 16-41-5-1 certainly "advises" getting a warrant. The only exception is in case of a communicable-disease emergency (epidemic or outbreak, I assume). But the one exception does not mean it doesn't advise getting a warrant. Read it again.
There you have it, ...( 2 weeks ago by DavidForthoffer)
There you have it, folks. "A or B" means you are "advised" to do B rather than A, at least according to zhuliu. How can I argue in the face of such logic?
Despite zhuliu's proclamations, people should read United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987), to understand why the health inspector was on areas not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Array( 2 weeks ago by zhuliu)
DavidForthoffer,
IC 16-41-5-1 says a warrant is required for entering private property, except in an emergency. If that's not "advising" then what? Many people here have already read your quote from 480 US 294, and I don't see anybody translating it as you do. It's funny how you must perform a contradiction to reverse the meanings of both. In the latter, you change optional factors into mandatory requirements. In the former you change a mandatory requirement into an option.
oh my god i would ...( 2 weeks ago by wellyshelly)
oh my god i would beat her ass !!!!! lady get a real job!!!
" 480 US 294, and I ...( 2 weeks ago by kaysandesses)
" 480 US 294, and I don't see anybody translating it as you do."
How do you know that "many people here" have read US v Dunn? If they have then English comprehension must not be their strong suit. It is a very easy to understand decision, IF you read it.
Array( 2 weeks ago by zhuliu)
Kaysandesses,
With the number of viewers of this video, "many people" is only a logical assumption. You want to argue about THAT? Or did you have another point?
The only logical ...( 2 weeks ago by DavidForthoffer)
The only logical assumption is that people who take the time to look up United States v. Dunn and understand it relative to this case would also comment about it in this thread.
That logical assumption means only three viewers have read Dunn. The majority agree that the officer and health inspector were behaving legally.
Sorry DF, but 81K ...( 2 weeks ago by zhuliu)
Sorry DF, but 81K views & only 737 text comments would suggest that your logic is not the best. But even if you are right that Kaysandesses is the only other viewer to read Dunn, the Constitution is not a popularity contest & can't be voted down no matter how unpopular. Much of the Constitution is unpopular with the majority. In fact, it protects the individual from the threat so often posed by the majority (and reflected by the tendency of the government).
Kaysandesses and I ...( 2 weeks ago by DavidForthoffer)
Kaysandesses and I are not voting. We are demonstrating our understanding of United States v. Dunn, while you are demonstrating your lack of understanding.
Array( 2 weeks ago by zhuliu)
DavidForthoffer,
"Kaysandesses and I are not voting."
No, but you repeatedly claim that most people do/will interpret Dunn as you do; as if popularity is some kind of legitimate basis.
julie W ...( 2 weeks ago by oo00Epidemic00oo)
julie W lolololololololol sue her to the ground.
well done for ...( 1 week ago by 4153james)
well done for keeping your cool
This guy was kinda ...( 6 days ago by bwhited1)
This guy was kinda a dick, but he is right. He does have rights that they ignored.
He posted "no trespassing" signs and told them not to enter. They could have approached it better.
As a retired deputy ...( 5 days ago by griz312000)
As a retired deputy sheriff, I would NOT have stepped onto that property without a warrant. If there was probably cause to believe that a crime was being committed on the property, GET A WARRANT!!!! Search and seizure 101..plain and simple. Looks like a lazy public servant who wouldn't take the time to do the right thing. I'd like to know the out come of this situation. Anybody out there know how it ended?
The man's name is " ...( 5 days ago by zhuliu)
The man's name is "Ray Kirkus". Google it for all the update info. Reasonable people will get even angrier. The outcome was against Ray.
How do you know the ...( 4 days ago by mi6QBranch)
How do you know the outcome was against Ray? What judge ruled against the 4th amendment??? That's ludicrous. I'd take this to the Supreme court. No Warrant, No search!
The guy wasn't a ...( 4 days ago by mi6QBranch)
The guy wasn't a dick. He's standing up for his rights under the constitution. You'd be a dick too if those very same rights were being violated in your person. How is he being a dick??? Make some sense!
The guy was ...( 4 days ago by DavidForthoffer)
The guy was behaving quite consistently with believing that she was violating the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately for him, the Fourth Amendment does not say it protects "private property". It says it protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects". Whether it protects open fields near a home is not obvious. Studying United States v. Dunn, 480 U. S. 294 (1987), will educate you on the issues.
DavidForthoffer ...( 4 days ago by zhuliu)
DavidForthoffer offers nothing but baseless repetition. He sends you elsewhere to read because he can't prove his consistent pro-government bias on his own. Doing exactly as he says will NOT excuse the actions of the agent. Dunn, which is based on the Constitution and the Open Fields Doctrine, clearly does not exclude this resident from 4th Amendment protection.
zhuliu obviously ...( 3 days ago by DavidForthoffer)
zhuliu obviously wants interested people with reading skills to NOT read United States v. Dunn, 480 U. S. 294 (1987).
When government ...( 4 hours ago by trck12)
When government agents come to your door and say we're just here to look out for your health or whatever you can bet their there to criminalize you somehow. Guaranteed!
All I had to do was easily show how your quote failed to support your claim. Since it obviously failed, my job is done. IOW your quote served my purpose fine. Remember: all I needed prove was that you did not prove what you said. Far from "amazing", my conclusion is only the meaning of the quote.
IC 16-41-5-1 certainly "advises" getting a warrant. The only exception is in case of a communicable-disease emergency (epidemic or outbreak, I assume). But the one exception does not mean it doesn't advise getting a warrant. Read it again.
Despite zhuliu's proclamations, people should read United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987), to understand why the health inspector was on areas not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
IC 16-41-5-1 says a warrant is required for entering private property, except in an emergency. If that's not "advising" then what? Many people here have already read your quote from 480 US 294, and I don't see anybody translating it as you do. It's funny how you must perform a contradiction to reverse the meanings of both. In the latter, you change optional factors into mandatory requirements. In the former you change a mandatory requirement into an option.
How do you know that "many people here" have read US v Dunn? If they have then English comprehension must not be their strong suit. It is a very easy to understand decision, IF you read it.
With the number of viewers of this video, "many people" is only a logical assumption. You want to argue about THAT? Or did you have another point?
That logical assumption means only three viewers have read Dunn. The majority agree that the officer and health inspector were behaving legally.
"Kaysandesses and I are not voting."
No, but you repeatedly claim that most people do/will interpret Dunn as you do; as if popularity is some kind of legitimate basis.