Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
*laugh*, can you please stop the hyperbole? You take my statement, and extend it to a universal exagerrated one.
|
I only respond in kind. I'm not the one valuing one person's safety 100 times more than another.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
"trumps all privacy rights" -- when did I say this? Oh wait, you made it up.
|
You didn't use that phrase but you seem to support him valuing his girlfriend's safety in situations that present no danger over this guy's privacy rights. Is that an incorrect statement?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
I was describing why you didn't care about levels of danger that other people would care about. It's called empathy, understanding where people are coming from.
|
Understanding where he's coming from doesn't make his fear reasonable. I wouldn't want to be arrested by the cops because he's unreasonably afraid for his girlfriend's safety.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
However, I live in a universe with a very different topology. As such, I would hold your universal statement is overly strong and counterproductive.
|
I use universal statements because I'm trying to find out what your position is. It appears to be very situational and totally inapplicable to other circumstances. Certainly there should always be some flexibilty in one's beliefs, but having general rules we can agree on is not unreasonable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
If a police officer saw what that person saw, and knew what that person knew, that police officer would have been justified asking what the that person was doing. There was reasonable suspiscion of a criminal act going on. If someone agrees with a law, and sees reason to have reasonable suspiscion of a criminal act going on, they are justified in reporting this suspiscion to the police.
|
Maybe in Canada but probably not here in the states. There was no evidence of an illegal act there. Not recognizing someone does not supply reasonable suspicion or probable cause. A police officer may not enter private property to search or arrest without probable cause, therefore a police officer would not have been justified if he stumbled on this situation on his own.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
It seems to be your position that a criminal act being perputrated on a 3rd party is not your business. Is this accurate?
|
Partly. Let me be very clear here. I believe this is the most important part of this thread. Please respond to this section (if you respond to anything) and be specific about your disagreement.
My contention: A possible non-violent criminal act committed on another's property is not your business.
I believe that is the best description of the situation the original poster found himself in.
1. Possible: The "criminal act" was not confirmed. The poster did not know if the guy had legal access to the property. Not recognizing someone does not mean the guy didn't have legal access.
2. Non-violent: The guy was not breaking anything, waving a weapon or disturbing the peace.
3. Another's property: The original poster has no property rights in the management company's property.
When those three elements are present, as I believe they were in this case, a person should mind his/her own business.
Let's try to make this as simple as possible. If you disagree with my characterization of the incident, please specify. If you disagree with my conclusion, please be specific.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
I have no wish to live in a society with curfews, dispite your implied allegations to the contrary. Do you not understand that my constant use of qualifications has meaning? That the world has more than two colours? You seem to ignore every single qualification I ever use.
|
Do you not understand my constant use of sarcasm has meaning?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
Sure, I do not consider 'the invasion of privacy rights in the name of protection as the highest virtue' to be true. It's a completely ludicrous statement, constructed out of absolutes, which nobody in the thread has ever put forward.
|
That was in response to your ridiculous statement that I never put forward:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
Not everyone views alienation from other people as the highest virtue.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
If I'm understanding correctly, no one has advocated a complete suspension of privacy rights, just a suspension of privacy rights when you are committing a crime in public.
|
Right, except that the poster didn't know the guy was committing a crime, and it was happening on private property. Should privacy rights when someone may or may not be committing a crime on private property be suspended?