9
   

You kids get off my lawn! Oops

 
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 04:28 pm
@jespah,
Sounds a little extreme on all sides, actually, but again, we don't know all the info. She might have put up with this for years, with or without prized plants, and perhaps other inconveniences as well. And maybe the police tried to reason with her and it was no go, hence the charge. Who knows. Likely it will just result in a judge simply ordering her to return it and the kids to play elsewhere, all a supreme waste of time at our expense.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 04:32 pm
@NickFun,
Quote:

Is there a problem with our legal system or is it just me???

No, its just u.
If those burglars had not broken in,
there 'd have been no trouble.
For example:
I bet that u probably did not commit burglary that nite,
and no one shot u. ( Prove me rong. )





David Fun
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 05:19 pm
@NickFun,
Quote:

Keep in mind, in Texas it's OK to kill kids if they try to steal snacks.

Is there a problem with our legal system or is it just me???


I think the problem is with Texas.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 05:38 pm
@ebrown p,
Quote:

I think the problem is with Texas.

It seems to be getting along OK
0 Replies
 
Always Eleven to him
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 06:53 pm
@jespah,
More like conversion.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 03:03 am
@jespah,
Quote:

I wonder if this means that now teachers can't take comic books any more.

U raise an interesting, tangential point.

"Take" ( as u very non-judgmentally put it, instead of rob )
comic books; is the problem in the DOCILITY of young
American students who don t have the heart to stand up for their rights
to defend their property (the books) from a robber ?

I offer this against a background of my strong belief
that we citizens need to keep our creation, our child, our Frankenstein monster
on a short leash, for our own defense from the damned thing.
The stronger (domesticly) it gets, the weaker (relatively) we citizens get.

Personal freedom is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to the domestic power of government.





David
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 04:27 am
@Always Eleven to him,
Always Eleven to him wrote:
More like conversion.


Oh yes, of course. My error. You can tell I don't do that any more.

And David -- take comic books as in take them for a day or even a semester so that learning can go on. There are conflicting "rights" going on. Is there a right to be disruptive in a class while others are trying to learn? I'd argue that even a kid reading quietly, if it wasn't the subject matter, can be disruptive. Somewhere in there, if we want children to learn in a setting other than private one on one tutoring, we need to have this kind of taking happen.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 07:07 am
@jespah,
Quote:

David -- take comic books as in take them for a day
or even a semester so that learning can go on.

Well, is this distinct in principle
from a robber in the street who promises to return
the victim 's wallet the next day, or at the end of a semester ?
Shud that robber be immune from prosecution if he returns the loot
(i.e., he converts it into an extorted loan) ?


Quote:
There are conflicting "rights" going on.

OK, I am aware of the child's right to remain unrobbed.

What other rights are in operation, and to whom do thay belong ?
Does the teacher have a right to force information
( be it accurate or not ) on the citizen ? (What about substantive disagreement ? )
Does the 13th Amendment have age limits on it ?
I don 't think it does.

One of the rights going on is that of self defense.
If the cititzen boldly and bravely rises to the defense
of his property, employing the degree of force
that is necessary to defeat the robber and preserve his property:
where does that leave us ?


Quote:

Is there a right to be disruptive in a class while others are trying to learn?

Absolutely NOT.
The law against disturbing the peace applies.


Quote:
I'd argue that even a kid reading quietly,
if it wasn't the subject matter, can be disruptive.

OK; HOW can this be ?
I 'm willing to consider the argument. Please proceed.
What is it ?


Quote:

Somewhere in there, if we want children to learn
in a setting other than private one on one tutoring,
we need to have this kind of taking happen.

Do u wish to argue
that a citizen's rights (I have in mind that no person be deprived
of life, liberty or property without due process of law, 5th n 14th A.
and the principle against involuntary servitude of A#13)
are subverted or abrogated by what "we" want or need ?
I have some doubts about that,
but I will listen to your arguments with an open mind.

Will u indicate the jurisdictional predicate of the position
that u r representing ?





David


0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 07:22 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I think you are taking this waaaay to serious - or perhaps you do not understand or appreciate my humor.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 07:30 am
@Linkat,
I did not mean to ignore your humor, Linkat.

Perhaps my analysis was reflexive & ill considered.
I was just focusing my attention
on Jespah's contribution, in my last post.





David
jespah
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 08:09 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Sorry, but I'm not going to get into this quite so heavily.

Is there not a difference between a comic book being confiscated for a semester versus someone robbing you in the streets? I hardly think the two even qualify for comparison. Taxpayers have the right to have their children educated, and society has an interest in children's education proceeding with minimal interruptions. There is a societal good from kids learning to read, etc. I do hope I don't have to prove that to you.

Enforcing learning -- and don't forget that school is mandatory up until a particular grade -- is a far cry from someone grabbing your wallet and watch.

As for the disruption, it happens because there needs to be a focus on learning. I am not saying that goofing off never happens and I am sure plenty of comic books are read and no one bats an eye. And at the same time things like this do happen and they can be distracting. Whose rights are more important -- the kid goofing off or the thirty other kids trying to learn without distractions?

Anyway, sorry, but I'm not going to go into chapter and verse for proof. A2K is, I have to say, a place where I come to relax and God knows it's not where I play Lawyer, Part II in my life, beyond minimally suggesting that people get professional help for legal problems and light efforts to point them in the right direction. But heavy legal research? No. I have not done that since 1990 and I am a far, far happier person since I stopped.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 10:34 am
@jespah,
I did not mean to solicit of u
that u do any research at all.

We are only discussing general principles.
I did no research, just used my memory.





David
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 10:47 am
@jespah,
I think this falls into the realm of common sense. Intially stealing a purse vs. taking away a comic book because it is disruptive to the class. I think most reasonable people would agree that it is ok and not stealing to take the comic book.

As a parent I would thank the teacher and tell her to throw it away, there are better things for my kids to read.
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 11:46 am
@jespah,
If you park your car on my lawn without my consent, I reserve the right to have it towed or even sell it. If you put up a hunting stand on my land - it will disappear or be destroyed. Funk off - get your crap off my property ya trespasser.

The comments on this thread to the contrary are clearly an indication of the dangerous socialist bs that is creeping across our nation. No notion of private property - everything belongs to everyone. Again, funk off.

This is an abject failure of the police department and they should be reprimanded. First off, they shouldn't have responded, but once they did, all they had to ask was "Did you kids leave your stuff on that lady's lawn?". Because the correct answer to the response to that question lies in the two paragraphs that precedes this one.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 04:06 pm
@Linkat,
Quote:

I think this falls into the realm of common sense.
Intially stealing a purse vs. taking away a comic book because
it is disruptive to the class. I think most reasonable people would
agree that it is ok and not stealing to take the comic book.

As a parent I would thank the teacher and tell her to throw it away,
there are better things for my kids to read.

The child was the victim of the robbery, not YOU.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 04:20 pm
How woud a parent feel,
if he were robbed of his wallet
and his child told the robber
just to take the cash and throw away the rest,
that there are better wallets that the owner can get.





David
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 04:22 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David, I think you're missing the point. It's a private property issue. You cannot trespass and expect no repercussion. As I stated, if you come onto my land and put up a hunting stand, I will take it. It's mine.
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 04:58 pm
@cjhsa,
cjhsa wrote:
David, I think you're missing the point. It's a private property issue. You cannot trespass and expect no repercussion. As I stated, if you come onto my land and put up a hunting stand, I will take it. It's mine.


I think you're right. The first violation is the one performed by the child, not the woman.

PS David, I apologize if I sounded a little put off. Frustrating day at work.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 05:02 pm
@cjhsa,
Quote:

David, I think you're missing the point.
It's a private property issue.

It IS, but this is true bilaterally.
If a trespasser drops his eyeglasses, his wallet or his shoes,
title thereto does not shift to the realty owner.
The owner of the eyeglasses, wallet, etc.
has a right to the return of his private property.

Quote:
You cannot trespass and expect no repercussion.

Agreed.
At the common law, this was 1 of the 4 trespasses;
it was called:
" trespass quare clausum fregit " ( trespass wherefore he broke the close ).
Plaintiff realty owner has a cause of action in litigation for this trespass.

Quote:

As I stated, if you come onto my land and put up a hunting stand,
I will take it. It's mine.

U have accurately described the law of real property
(in my jurisdiction, anyway). When someone adds to real estate
(e.g., if he installs a chimney into your house)
that addition becomes the property of the realty owner.
That does not apply to loose balls, unless the owner
of the ball attaches it to the real estate.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 05:05 pm
@jespah,
Quote:

David, I apologize if I sounded a little put off. Frustrating day at work.

That 's OK, Jespah. I wish u a serene evening.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How a Spoon Can Save a Woman’s Life - Discussion by tsarstepan
Well this is weird. - Discussion by izzythepush
Please Don't Feed our Bums - Discussion by Linkat
Woman crashes car while shaving her vagina - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Genie gets sued! - Discussion by Reyn
Humans Marrying Animals - Discussion by vinsan
Prawo Jazdy: Ireland's worst driver - Discussion by Robert Gentel
octoplet mom outrage! - Discussion by dirrtydozen22
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 10:25:00