Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master_Shake
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.
|
The police officer knows the landlord. He also knows that the apartment associated with the storage unit isn't being rented. And someone walks up to that storage unit (3 by 4), enters it, closes the door behind him.
That police officer isn't justifed knocking on the door, or saying 'hey, what are you up to?'
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master_Shake
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.
|
I personally restrict "violent" to be "causing physical harm to a person", and don't include property crimes, but that's just my personal nomenclaiture.
And I would disagree. If I saw someone shoplifting, I would mention it. If I saw someone sleeping under a neighbours porch, I would mention it.
In the case in question, it wasn't a matter of merely not recognizing someone. The wierd behaviour (entering a 3x4 room and closing the door behind you for extended periods of time), and the fact that the apartment associated with the locker wasn't owned, go above and beyond that bit of evidence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master_Shake
Do you not understand my constant use of sarcasm has meaning?
|
No, I don't understand why you are constantly being sarcastic. Enlighten me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master_Shake
That was in response to your ridiculous statement that I never put forward:
|
Point. That was my bad.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master_Shake
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?
|
I would disagree with your statement 'no danger'. 'Little danger' I'd agree with.
And no, I don't think people have much privacy in the acts which they do outside of a domicile and in full view of a street or other public/shared area.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master_Shake
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.
|
First, I hold myself to different standards than I do others. A bunch of my moral beliefs are. as far as I can tell, arbitrary, and others disagreeing with them or having different priorities is ok with me.
Second, almost every one of your statements are very universal and unqualified -- I find them ridiculous. There are tradeoffs in everything, and an ethical system that says 'meh' to an entire range of choices is both honest and valid. I would hold that every interesting ethical system will have to throw up it's hands at some point.
What happens to your neighbours, and in your neighbourhood, has ramifications. I respect the fact that people do want to live in communities with less anonymity and more safety. Others prefer more anonymity and less safety. Hopefully people will self-select to live in a community that shares their values.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Painted
Did you ever find out what the guy was doing there?
|
Good point! What was that guy up to?