|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 5, 2010 0:55:09 GMT -5
Wrong. The law is still the law. That's the beauty of the law. It applies equally to every one regardless of class, age, gender, etc... or at least it should anyway. So obviously you think the police is OBSCENELY understaffed in America, and that they just need to start pulling over basically every car, every day? Sounds like a good plan. We need to exercise some level of intelligence when enforcing laws. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 5, 2010 2:24:19 GMT -5
Unjust laws should be broken. Laws that violate our civil liberties should be broken.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Dec 5, 2010 2:50:36 GMT -5
Unjust laws should be broken. Laws that violate our civil liberties should be broken. AMEN! |
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Dec 5, 2010 3:41:13 GMT -5
The guy has 38 acres. If it's only him there...especially if it's only him, how do you expect one man to care for 38 acres 24/7. I could see if this was 1/4 acre in the middle of a city where the guy has neighbors on both sides of him and across the street...but he doesn't. The Declaration of Independence guarantees us 3 unalienable rights.
It is under his right to the pursuit of happiness that he chooses to live without modern conveniences, such as plumbing or electricity. What did the soldiers in the 1800's do when they had to s*it? I guarantee the war didn't stop so they could take a bathroom break. They dug out latrines, so they could s*it, and piss, and then cover it up when they were done. Who is anyone to say that this man is not allowed to do the same, especially when he has 38 acres of land to spread it out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 5, 2010 9:51:22 GMT -5
And Hulk, I realize you're just trying to illustrate your points, but you are using extreme examples. I don't doubt that laws have been broken, but this case is clearly not in the same league of lawbreaking as a murder or a reckless speeding driver. Whilst I agree that laws are there for a reason, and should be challenged and changed if needed in an organised and civilized manner, it's not appropriate for vastly different types of laws/crimes, or even vastly different cases, to all be enforced/prosecuted/dealt with in the exact same manner. So if this guy was your next door neighbor and did the exact same thing it would be ok? You would be alright with looking your window and seeing an outhouse 20 feet away? You think this guy is being singled out because he's in the middle of no where? I'm sorry, but that's not the case. You can't say that it's ok to break the law for some people, but it's not for other people. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Dec 5, 2010 11:17:46 GMT -5
And Hulk, I realize you're just trying to illustrate your points, but you are using extreme examples. I don't doubt that laws have been broken, but this case is clearly not in the same league of lawbreaking as a murder or a reckless speeding driver. Whilst I agree that laws are there for a reason, and should be challenged and changed if needed in an organised and civilized manner, it's not appropriate for vastly different types of laws/crimes, or even vastly different cases, to all be enforced/prosecuted/dealt with in the exact same manner. So if this guy was your next door neighbor and did the exact same thing it would be ok? You would be alright with looking your window and seeing an outhouse 20 feet away? You think this guy is being singled out because he's in the middle of no where? I'm sorry, but that's not the case. You can't say that it's ok to break the law for some people, but it's not for other people. But he's not anybody's next door neighbor, his lifestyle affects him and him alone. It's one thing if your in a populated area, but this guy is all by himself, he should be able to live any way he wants. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 5, 2010 13:41:07 GMT -5
So if this guy was your next door neighbor and did the exact same thing it would be ok? You would be alright with looking your window and seeing an outhouse 20 feet away? You think this guy is being singled out because he's in the middle of no where? I'm sorry, but that's not the case. You can't say that it's ok to break the law for some people, but it's not for other people. But he's not anybody's next door neighbor, his lifestyle affects him and him alone. It's one thing if your in a populated area, but this guy is all by himself, he should be able to live any way he wants. So you're arguing again that some laws ought to be enforced and others shouldn't. I disagree. All laws ought to be enforced even the unjust ones. If the unjust laws aren't enforced, they'll never, ever get changed. |
|
|
|
Post by theryanegan on Dec 5, 2010 13:55:58 GMT -5
I have gathered two things from this entire thread...
1. Kliquid, Dr. Hulk, and Slappy all care waaaay too much about this, but they all argue their point well, and I respect them for that.
2. Sanctimonious SOB may have a mild form of mental retardation.
I feel like this: If the guy doesn't want to have water, electricity, etc., that's his right. He has the right to do so. On the other hand, if laws are being broken, it's the government's right to do something about it. It's really kind of a catch 22, in a way.
|
|
Captain d00m - Mr. 3000
Main Eventer
Bringing death and destruction since 2005!
Joined on: Dec 2, 2005 20:52:43 GMT -5
Posts: 3,376
|
Post by Captain d00m - Mr. 3000 on Dec 5, 2010 18:43:23 GMT -5
It really is a case-by-case basis. He lives on 38 acres. I doubt that theres anyone living right next door. If he was on a small plot on the outskirts of a city, with a lot of neighbors, then yeah, he should have to change. But I highly doubt hes hurting anyone. Now speeding, thats a whole different story. Ill admit, if Im all alone on the highway, Ill speed. Hell, Ive hit 110 one time. Was it wrong? Yeah. But Im not gonna speed in the city. Or, In short. Unjust laws should be broken. Laws that violate our civil liberties should be broken. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 6, 2010 0:24:32 GMT -5
So if this guy was your next door neighbor and did the exact same thing it would be ok? You would be alright with looking your window and seeing an outhouse 20 feet away? You think this guy is being singled out because he's in the middle of no where? I'm sorry, but that's not the case. You can't say that it's ok to break the law for some people, but it's not for other people. My family's cabin (which I choose not to go to because of this) has no plumbing. This means an out-house. And yes, people LIVE (permanently) within visual distance, probably about 100-150 feet away, in homes with plumbing. Never has one single person complained about it. Not to mention, this story ISN'T in a populated area. It's not anywhere near other people. I highly doubt his trailer can be seen by anyone else who isn't trespassing in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 6, 2010 10:13:32 GMT -5
You're missing the point. The law is there. The law is being broken. That's all there is to it. The law is blind. Or at least it should be. Yes, we all know of situations where people broke the law and got out of it because they were rich or they were famous, but these are situations where the system is broken, not where it's working.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 6, 2010 12:34:51 GMT -5
Again, I ask....
So obviously you think the police is OBSCENELY understaffed in America, and that they just need to start pulling over basically every car, every day?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 6, 2010 12:40:22 GMT -5
Again, I ask.... So obviously you think the police is OBSCENELY understaffed in America, and that they just need to start pulling over basically every car, every day?No. I'm saying that you can't violate housing regulations and expect to get away with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 6, 2010 18:55:25 GMT -5
No. I'm saying that you can't violate housing regulations and expect to get away with it. So you CAN violate driving regulations (such as speeding) and expect to get away with it... But you can't violate housing regulations that have absolutely no effect on anyone but yourself? If you're for enforcing all laws to a T and not letting anyone off the hook based on situation, then you must subscribe to the idea that there needs to be a police car about every 1000 feet on major highways, pulling over every car that cracks even 1mph over the speed limit. We simply don't have the manpower, nor do we NEED the manpower, to operate that kind of speed trap. It's a complete waste of taxpayer money. Just like the situation with this guy living on his own land is. He's not harming anyone - he's living how he wants to live... And we shouldn't be wasting taxpayer money to go harass him. There needs to be rationality used when enforcing laws or we will have a complete police state. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 6, 2010 19:21:06 GMT -5
You can violate them until you get caught. If you're driving 100 mph in a 30 mph zone and get pulled over you can't make the argument that you're a NASCAR driver so it's ok. Cops don't care if you really are a NASCAR driver, they'll ticket you anyway. This guy got caught breaking the law. Now you're going to make the case that even though he broke the law and got caught he shouldn't be punished.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 6, 2010 19:26:21 GMT -5
You can violate them until you get caught. If you're driving 100 mph in a 30 mph zone and get pulled over you can't make the argument that you're a NASCAR driver so it's ok. Cops don't care if you really are a NASCAR driver, they'll ticket you anyway. This guy got caught breaking the law. Now you're going to make the case that even though he broke the law and got caught he shouldn't be punished. You're "breaking the law" if you're driving 46mph in a 45mph zone. But do cops pull you over for that? No. Could they? Yes. This is rationality. We need to exercise this same type of rationality when enforcing other laws, as well. There are simply MUCH better things for officers to be spending their time doing than going and harassing some poor guy who is just trying to "live off the land" that he OWNS. |
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Dec 6, 2010 19:33:27 GMT -5
You can violate them until you get caught. If you're driving 100 mph in a 30 mph zone and get pulled over you can't make the argument that you're a NASCAR driver so it's ok. Cops don't care if you really are a NASCAR driver, they'll ticket you anyway. This guy got caught breaking the law. Now you're going to make the case that even though he broke the law and got caught he shouldn't be punished. NASCAR driver Kurt Busch was pulled over in Dover after a race one year, and he pulled the "Do you know who I am" card. He got off. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 6, 2010 19:33:50 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with rationality. If you got pulled over for going 46 in a 45 mph zone are you really going to throw a hissy fit? No. Because you've got no where to go.
This isn't a case where the guy is barely violating the law. It's not like the ADA says the sink has to be 48 inches off the floor and his sink is 47 and 3/4 inches off the floor. It's nothing like that. The guy is in clear violation of not just one, but several laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 6, 2010 19:44:10 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with rationality. If you got pulled over for going 46 in a 45 mph zone are you really going to throw a hissy fit? No. Because you've got no where to go. No, it does have to do with rationality because practically no one is pulled over going 1mph over the speed limit. Even 5mph over the limit is usually let off the hook without even being pulled over. Once you get to 6+mph over, that's when you become a target to be pulled over for a few reasons... 1. It's not worth their time to pull someone over going 1-5mph over because this is not considered a dangerous offense. 2. Even if they think it is worth it and do pull you over, they know that will have to prove that their speed gun is in completely perfect working condition, which none of them are -- so they usually let the person off with a warning. 3. If they do write a ticket for 1-5mph over the limit, there WILL be people (like myself) who will fight that ticket and win. Every time. This isn't a case where the guy is barely violating the law. It's not like the ADA says the sink has to be 48 inches off the floor and his sink is 47 and 3/4 inches off the floor. It's nothing like that. The guy is in clear violation of not just one, but several laws. It's clear violation - just like speeding is - that they don't NEED to enforce because it has absolutely no effect on anyone else. Stop wasting my  ing tax money on stupid poop like this, god damn it! |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 0:23:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2010 19:51:09 GMT -5
Laws are there for a reason. If you think the laws are bad or shouldn't apply to you, then there are channels where you can appeal them. You guys are arguing that even though this guy is clearly violating the law that he shouldn't be punished. What laws? Are they serious enough that he should have his land taken? |
|
