This is actually over an year old..but..it brings up questions of property rights and governmental power. Notice the bureaucrat states that "she has a right to do what she is doing"...and the officer states..."but if you have nothing to hide...." This guy seems to have been very prepared for this encounter. What do you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_jp3Sm1BY

The guy is a tad "odd," you know, a little "uncomprehensible," but the cop and the lady blew it. At some point the guy should have said to the girl "I'm gonna count to 3 and if you're not heading off my property I'm gonna belt you." And then he should have belted her and then let the lady and cop explain to a judge why the guy got arrested for assault for defending his rights.

Yes, it was an abuse of power AND that man is crazy.

(12-01-2009 07:20 PM)Claw Wrote:  Yes, it was an abuse of power AND that man is crazy.

The thing that I noticed is how confident that the bureaucrat was that she had some "rights" at all while acting as an agent of the state. The government and its minions have NO rights.

She probably had never had anyone refuse to comply with her orders before and really felt as she said "I have a right to come onto your property and look around." She was dead wrong. The system has a method for doing that..it is called a warrant...It is just another example of the government not following its own rules... We forget that we are NOT obligated in any way to interact with bureaucrats if we choose not to and instead just let them do whatever the hell they want to. Once you let them in...you are at their mercy.

While I think this guy most likely had something to hide and he seems somewhat radical... He did exactly what was within his rights and I give him props for not using violence against this woman(which was within HIS rights to do) after she trespassed onto his property. He could have used whatever force necessary to remove her from his property. She was a very luck young lady that he was not a violent person. This could have ended badly. Meanwhile Deputy dumb@ss stands there totally lost. Do they NOT cover this type of stuff in basic criminal justice class?

On another website it was reported that this bureaucrat lost her job over this.

(12-01-2009 09:17 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  On another website it was reported that this bureaucrat lost her job over this.

I hope so. The b***h certainly deserved to.

(12-01-2009 07:13 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  The guy is a tad "odd," you know, a little "uncomprehensible," but the cop and the lady blew it. At some point the guy should have said to the girl "I'm gonna count to 3 and if you're not heading off my property I'm gonna belt you." And then he should have belted her and then let the lady and cop explain to a judge why the guy got arrested for assault for defending his rights.

So you agree with the PATRIOT act's warrantless searches but not this?

(12-01-2009 09:17 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  On another website it was reported that this bureaucrat lost her job over this.

Can you provide a link?

(12-01-2009 10:10 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(12-01-2009 07:13 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  The guy is a tad "odd," you know, a little "uncomprehensible," but the cop and the lady blew it. At some point the guy should have said to the girl "I'm gonna count to 3 and if you're not heading off my property I'm gonna belt you." And then he should have belted her and then let the lady and cop explain to a judge why the guy got arrested for assault for defending his rights.

So you agree with the PATRIOT act's warrantless searches but not this?

Having some dumb*** woman barge onto your property without permission is slightly different than monitoring a phone call to Osama. In this situation there should have been a huge time-out while the cop called his bosses and got a ruling.

I have to admit, though, this video was almost an 8 minute how-to on stereotyping: Uppity government woman with power, trailer trash constitutional expert with a video camera, and a clueless cop who was probably wondering where the nearest Dunkin Donuts was. All that was missing was the Dueling Banjos song playing in the background.

(12-01-2009 10:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Having some dumb*** woman barge onto your property without permission is slightly different than monitoring a phone call to Osama.

They could be listening to your phone calls daily, and if someone asks why, all they have to point to is the PATRIOT act. No more questions. It can be used however they want to use it. There is no way to make sure they're doing what the act intended. How does unchecked governmental power not worry you?

(12-01-2009 10:58 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(12-01-2009 10:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Having some dumb*** woman barge onto your property without permission is slightly different than monitoring a phone call to Osama.

They could be listening to your phone calls daily, and if someone asks why, all they have to point to is the PATRIOT act. No more questions. It can be used however they want to use it. There is no way to make sure they're doing what the act intended. How does unchecked governmental power not worry you?

Could be listening and actually listening are two different things. This woman was a rogue witch not representative of most government workers. I doubt G-men are listening to me and I'm not going to worry about that happening. One of the things age gives you is the knowledge that you generally can't worry about things you can't control and you certainly don't worry about things that are probably not even happening - isn't that called paranoia?

After a little of the Google, It seems the situation is as such

*Land owner (Ray Kirkus) was building an illegal septic or sewer system in his backyard that was allegedly polluting neighborhood wells.
*Local health department (Julie Wolfe) had been by the day before to try to document the concern, but Ray chased her off.
*Julie returns the next day with the a local Sheriff (Deputy Cooper) to assist.
*Ray did indeed sue the Health Department et.al, however his case was thrown out and he was ordered to vacate his property as a health hazard (unsure if this is exactly correct.)
*Ray sells this property on eBay, moves to Michigan and is now perhaps both the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Michigan and a member of the Michigan Militia

Now, what is unknown, or is at least open to interpretation, is if the Health Department had the right to enter onto his property.

*Some say yes, because "line of sight" from the public road did allow the Sheriff and the Health Department to view the construction.
*Some say yes, because Indiana law does allow Health Inspectors to enter onto private property without a warrant if there is an immediate health concern.

*Some say no, because the Health Department could not ascertain specifically that the visible construction was the source of the contamination problem, regardless of "line of sight."
*Some say no, because the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits agents of the government from unreasonable search.

(12-01-2009 10:37 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-01-2009 09:17 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  On another website it was reported that this bureaucrat lost her job over this.

Can you provide a link?

It was second hand info...not to be taken as fact.

(12-01-2009 11:18 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  After a little of the Google, It seems the situation is as such

*Land owner (Ray Kirkus) was building an illegal septic or sewer system in his backyard that was allegedly polluting neighborhood wells.
*Local health department (Julie Wolfe) had been by the day before to try to document the concern, but Ray chased her off.
*Julie returns the next day with the a local Sheriff (Deputy Cooper) to assist.
*Ray did indeed sue the Health Department et.al, however his case was thrown out and he was ordered to vacate his property as a health hazard (unsure if this is exactly correct.)
*Ray sells this property on eBay, moves to Michigan and is now perhaps both the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Michigan and a member of the Michigan Militia

Now, what is unknown, or is at least open to interpretation, is if the Health Department had the right to enter onto his property.

*Some say yes, because "line of sight" from the public road did allow the Sheriff and the Health Department to view the construction.
*Some say yes, because Indiana law does allow Health Inspectors to enter onto private property without a warrant if there is an immediate health concern.

*Some say no, because the Health Department could not ascertain specifically that the visible construction was the source of the contamination problem, regardless of "line of sight."
*Some say no, because the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits agents of the government from unreasonable search.

Seems to me that if any of this is true a search warrant would have been a snap.

(12-01-2009 11:18 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  After a little of the Google, It seems the situation is as such

*Land owner (Ray Kirkus) was building an illegal septic or sewer system in his backyard that was allegedly polluting neighborhood wells.
*Local health department (Julie Wolfe) had been by the day before to try to document the concern, but Ray chased her off.
*Julie returns the next day with the a local Sheriff (Deputy Cooper) to assist.
*Ray did indeed sue the Health Department et.al, however his case was thrown out and he was ordered to vacate his property as a health hazard (unsure if this is exactly correct.)
*Ray sells this property on eBay, moves to Michigan and is now perhaps both the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Michigan and a member of the Michigan Militia

Now, what is unknown, or is at least open to interpretation, is if the Health Department had the right to enter onto his property.

*Some say yes, because "line of sight" from the public road did allow the Sheriff and the Health Department to view the construction.
*Some say yes, because Indiana law does allow Health Inspectors to enter onto private property without a warrant if there is an immediate health concern.

*Some say no, because the Health Department could not ascertain specifically that the visible construction was the source of the contamination problem, regardless of "line of sight."
*Some say no, because the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits agents of the government from unreasonable search.

Funny thing...My wife is the Director of our County Health Department(yes..a dreaded bureaucrat!!). I showed her this. Her reaction was that after the first encounter with this guy that a warrant and deputy would have accompanied her on the next visit.
She has had health inspectors run into similar stuff(pig farms and such) and they are instructed by protocol to NOT get into arguments with property owners and use the appropriate legal channels to gain access.