 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / June 2008Vortex Spring -- Political Correctiveness Invades the Florida Panhandle
I recently checked on the Vortex Spring website and noticed the following: "Public displays of alcohol or intoxication will not be tolerated and all under aged drinking will be reported" Upon contacting them and asking for clarification on it with regards to whether they were really wanting to prohibit alcohol at their location or if they were just wanting to ensure that the people kept the drinks in generic cups / containers, I was informed: "No alcohol on the property......period. If you are caught anywhere on the property then you will be removed and have a trespass warning put against you and you will not be allowed back ...ever. This is not a joke and it is people like you that are going to make us search coolers this year." To bad... It was a nice place to go sit back after a dive, drink a beer, and watch the young ladies parade around in their Confederate Battle Flag bikinis... Who would have ever thought that the Florida Panhandle would succumb to the curse of political correctiveness... Must be all that Yankee influence, being that they are a couple of miles *north* of I-10... Of course, I thanked the manager for his clarification on this issue and told him that we would be going elsewhere from now on...  SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >I recently checked on the Vortex Spring website and noticed the following: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Of course, I thanked the manager for his clarification on this issue and > told him that we would be going elsewhere from now on... seems that they don't want drunken perves at their property. You not going seems to show that their policy is working. >>I recently checked on the Vortex Spring website and noticed the following: >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > seems that they don't want drunken perves at their property. You not going > seems to show that their policy is working. See Mike, after you slap him around a few times, and rub the truth in his face, then he follows you around and humps your leg. Notice how he has time for this nonsense, but he's steering -wide- around the post that identifies the truck? That's the spinelessness and intellectual cowardice that is their team norm. SignaturePopeye "I mean to kill you in one minute, Ned, or see you hanged, at Fort Smith, at Judge Parker's convenience. Which'll it be?" - Cogburn www.finalprotectivefire.com > See Mike, after you slap him around a few times, and rub the truth in > his face, then he follows you around and humps your leg. Damn... And here I thought that the wet spot on my foot was because I had missed the urinal and pissed on my foot... > Notice how he has time for this nonsense, but he's steering -wide- > around the post that identifies the truck? One could argue that we should take pity on the visually challenged... I guess it's not his fault that he was born and has lived his live upside down... Hell, this was an actual on-topic thread that I started... Of course, it quickly morphs into a sex and firearms thread... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >>>I recently checked on the Vortex Spring website and noticed the >>>following: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > That's the spinelessness and intellectual cowardice that is their team > norm. and popeye is excluded > "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in >> See Mike, after you slap him around a few times, and rub the truth in >> his face, then he follows you around and humps your leg. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > and popeye is excluded Yes, he is. SignaturePopeye "I mean to kill you in one minute, Ned, or see you hanged, at Fort Smith, at Judge Parker's convenience. Which'll it be?" - Cogburn www.finalprotectivefire.com > I recently checked on the Vortex Spring website and noticed the following: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Of course, I thanked the manager for his clarification on this issue and > told him that we would be going elsewhere from now on... "I appreciate your presumptiveness and will look forward to being a loyal cutomer of your competition." > "I appreciate your presumptiveness and will look forward to being a loyal > cutomer of your competition." Or, glad to have a place where we don't have to deal with drunks.......see you again soon. Curtis > > "I appreciate your presumptiveness and will look forward to being a loyal > > cutomer of your competition." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Curtis Just to clarify, I wouldn't stop supporting the business because of their alcohol policy. I would stop supporting their business because, if the exchange happened the way Grumman described, I didn't like the management. > Just to clarify, I wouldn't stop supporting the business because of their > alcohol policy. I would stop supporting their business because, if the > exchange happened the way Grumman described, I didn't like the management. Okay, I can buy that. But, I can also see where some may invite an attitude from management. I saw one side only, it was already criticizing the other party, so....... I view such a ban as either a liability issue, having problems with the percentage that do indeed cause problems for other customers, or both. Most of the places I dive do indeed ban alcohol, I have absolutely no problem with that. If, on rare occasion, I do desire an adult beverage, I merely take it elsewhere more appropriate. Curtis > I view such a ban as either a liability issue, having problems with the > percentage that do indeed cause problems for other customers, or both. Most > of the places I dive do indeed ban alcohol, I have absolutely no problem > with that. If, on rare occasion, I do desire an adult beverage, I merely > take it elsewhere more appropriate. Reason in the face of reason. A couple beers or drinks should be cool, but it isn't that simple, hence the DUI laws, deaths and such. Drink or don't; choose where and why. I could go on about cigarettes, but I wont. > I view such a ban as either a liability issue, having problems with the > percentage that do indeed cause problems for other customers, or both. So do the rest of us. The problem is, this is punishing the innocent for the acts of the guilty. We, at least you and I, have no problem seeing what's wrong with that when it's the right to keep and bear arms. Why do we have a problem seeing it when it's other, frankly, much less dangerous things involved? > Most of the places I dive do indeed ban alcohol, I have absolutely no > problem with that. If, on rare occasion, I do desire an adult beverage, I > merely take it elsewhere more appropriate. There are a few problems with such rules. First, they don't get to the heart of the issue. The risk is that people who are significantly impaired by alcohol will create some kind of problem, anywhere from being a nuisance to something more serious. You can't stop that even by preventing consumption on the premises. The consumption can take place anywhere. A ban on being under the influence of alcohol or drugs is better focused on the risk, but can not, practically, be enforced. Carrying alcohol in your vehicle, is not risk at all, to anyone. Alcohol, still in the bottle or can, has never hurt anybody. Neither has a gun, locked in an employees car in the parking lot. No consumption or no display of alcoholic beverages are reasonable and potentially enforceable rules. No possession, in the vehicle or even in a cooler outside of the vehicle, isn't. Either way, search without due process, is not an acceptable activity. Lee > > I view such a ban as either a liability issue, having problems with the > > percentage that do indeed cause problems for other customers, or both. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have a problem seeing it when it's other, frankly, much less dangerous > things involved? Less dangerous than alcohol? Compare drunk-driving fatalities to handgun fatalities for a start, not even counting alcohol-fueled violence and non-motor-vehicle accidents and alcohol consumption causing disease/death. > Either way, search without due process, is not an acceptable activity. By a private entity? Of course it is. The search is entirely consensual. If you don't want it, don't consent and take your business elsewhere. If it's a government entity, the line isn't as clear, but consensual searches occur all the time. Airports and courthouses and public schools come immediately to mind. Last night for example, I, along with hundreds of other consenting adults, willingly allowed our persons and possessions to be searched by the Secret Service in order to gain entrance into a certain conference room at the Century Plaza Hotel. Some of the ladies were a bit freaked at how the gloved agents pawed through their purses, but submit they did nonetheless. Nightclubs, concerts, even Disneyland requires one to submit for a search. Why should Vortex Spring be any different? > No consumption or no display of alcoholic beverages are reasonable and > potentially enforceable rules. No possession, in the vehicle or even in a > cooler outside of the vehicle, isn't. And there's no requirement for them to be reasonable - they aren't the government. On May 19, 10:02 pm, dwee...@gmail.com wrote: > > No consumption or no display of alcoholic beverages are reasonable and > > potentially enforceable rules. No possession, in the vehicle or even in a > > cooler outside of the vehicle, isn't. > > And there's no requirement for them to be reasonable - they aren't the > government. Exactly. If they wanted to ban water, they could do that too. > Just to clarify, I wouldn't stop supporting the business because of their > alcohol policy. I would stop supporting their business because, if the > exchange happened the way Grumman described, I didn't like the management. For me, it depends on why I'm using their facility in the first place. If my goal is to find someplace where I can swim, laze in the sun, and have a few beers, then I'm not going to do business with these people. In fact, there are quite a few places I don't go right now because of similar rules. For me, it's most often a boating or a shooting issue rather than a diving one. There here are a number of places I do go, with alcoholic beverages in my vehicle, where alcohol is not allowed. I just don't consume it where it's prohibited. I don't ever, however, grant anyone, the right to search my property. Lee > There here are a number of places I do go, with alcoholic beverages in my > vehicle, where alcohol is not allowed. I just don't consume it where it's > prohibited. I don't ever, however, grant anyone, the right to search my > property. > > Lee See, you do understand. Once you take the cooler out of your vehicle and bring it with you, you have demonstrated intent, and should be ejected from the property. >>There here are a number of places I do go, with alcoholic beverages in my >>vehicle, where alcohol is not allowed. I just don't consume it where it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Once you take the cooler out of your vehicle and bring it with you, you > have demonstrated intent, and should be ejected from the property. Only if there were alcoholic beverages inside, together with the intent to display them. Some people keep other beverages in a cooler, too. Matthias >> Once you take the cooler out of your vehicle and bring it with you, >> you have demonstrated intent, and should be ejected from the property. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Some people keep other beverages in a cooler, too. Evidently, not the ones getting upset. > >> Once you take the cooler out of your vehicle and bring it with you, > >> you have demonstrated intent, and should be ejected from the property. > > Only if there were alcoholic beverages inside, together with the intent to > > display them. > > Some people keep other beverages in a cooler, too. > Evidently, not the ones getting upset. "But I LOVE you bro!" Everyone should be free to poison themselves as they see fit, and free to die and go to jail for being a dickhead. Gawd knows I tried. >> Some people keep other beverages in a cooler, too. > > Evidently, not the ones getting upset. You are the only one that has supported the concept of searching coolers. You are the only one that seemed to presume that anyone that has a drink is drunk and disorderly. You are the only one that said that just taking the cooler out of the car shows intent. Or did I mistread something you said? Lee > >> Some people keep other beverages in a cooler, too. > > > Evidently, not the ones getting upset. > > You are the only one that has supported the concept of searching coolers. Hardly. I support the concept. After all, someone might try to sneak in a gun. > You are the only one that seemed to presume that anyone that has a drink is > drunk and disorderly. Anyone with alcohol has the potential to cause alcohol-related mischief. Sure, two beers might not get most of us very buzzed, but zero tolerance is often the best way to enforce a policy to eliminate the grey area. > You are the only one that said that just taking the cooler out of the car > shows intent. > > Or did I mistread something you said? You mistread quite often. In a zero-tolerance atmosphere, there's no need for intent. > Hardly. I support the concept. After all, someone might try to sneak in > a gun. Guess what? Some of us have already brought guns onto their property... What will probably surprise you even more is that no one was shot in the process... > Anyone with alcohol has the potential to cause alcohol-related mischief. > Sure, two beers might not get most of us very buzzed, but zero tolerance > is often the best way to enforce a policy to eliminate the grey area. Zero tolerance was created by individuals with a zero IQ... If someone is a beligerant drunk, ban them... On the other hand, for those of us old farts who are mellow drunks, not punish us for the actions of the idiot minority... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. On May 16, 7:56 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581+usenet-2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hardly. I support the concept. After all, someone might try to sneak in > > a gun. > > Guess what? Some of us have already brought guns onto their property... > What will probably surprise you even more is that no one was shot in the > process... Not yet. It only takes one time to make history. Believe it or not, most recent sites of gun massacres were virgins. Do we need to wait until CNN reports on the Vortex Spring massacre before banning the instruments of death? > > Anyone with alcohol has the potential to cause alcohol-related mischief. > > Sure, two beers might not get most of us very buzzed, but zero tolerance [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > farts who are mellow drunks, not punish us for the actions of the idiot > minority... Maybe, but you're in the minority. Even a mellow drunk like me has been known to get belligerent at times. Do you have a test that can prove you won't become belligerent? > Anyone with alcohol has the potential to cause alcohol-related mischief. > Sure, two beers might not get most of us very buzzed, but zero tolerance > is often the best way to enforce a policy to eliminate the grey area. Anyone with a dick has the potential to commit rape, but we don't ban them. > Zero tolerance was created by individuals with a zero IQ... I certainly agree with that. I've been telling you that your stand against the 2nd amendment was idiotic for years. Glad to see you finally recognize the truth. > > Anyone with alcohol has the potential to cause alcohol-related mischief. > > Sure, two beers might not get most of us very buzzed, but zero tolerance > > is often the best way to enforce a policy to eliminate the grey area. > > Anyone with a dick has the potential to commit rape, but we don't ban them. Try whipping out your dick at Vortex Spring and see how quickly you're banned. > > Zero tolerance was created by individuals with a zero IQ... > > I certainly agree with that. I've been telling you that your stand against > the 2nd amendment > was idiotic for years. Glad to see you finally recognize the truth. Talking about idiotic. You've been posting here for how many years and still can't figure out who said what? >> Zero tolerance was created by individuals with a zero IQ... > > I certainly agree with that. I've been telling you that your stand > against the 2nd amendment was idiotic for years. Glad to see you > finally recognize the truth. Greg still hasn't... That was my quote about zero IQ... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > You are the only one that has supported the concept of searching coolers. Maybe the only one that posted it. I actually dislike the idea, but understand where some form or check of compliance may be necessary due to the stubbornness of some to obey the wishes of those within their rights to ban an item on their property. Never did I endorse a vehicle search in this instance. > You are the only one that seemed to presume that anyone that has a drink > is > drunk and disorderly. That is not true. In fact, that is a purposely inflammatory statement you're making using failed logic. You are linking statements related only by similar subject and getting a false conclusion. > You are the only one that said that just taking the cooler out of the car > shows intent. I assumed you understood we were already talking about having alcohol in the cooler, not just an "innocent" cooler. I guess I am guilty of assuming short term memory of the context of a reply. > Or did I mistread something you said? Apparently. >> Anyone with alcohol has the potential to cause alcohol-related mischief. >> Sure, two beers might not get most of us very buzzed, but zero tolerance >> is often the best way to enforce a policy to eliminate the grey area. Aye > Zero tolerance was created by individuals with a zero IQ... If someone is > a beligerant drunk, ban them... On the other hand, for those of us old > farts who are mellow drunks, not punish us for the actions of the idiot > minority... BS Sometimes even the "mellow drunks" can be quite annoying and a greater liability due to their loss of judgment, motor skills, etc. Remember, "mellow drunks" is your description, not mine. I can appreciate that a couple of drinks may not make one a drunk, but definitely in non-compliance with management's policy. As stated before, not everyone feels that it's cute to be mentally impaired by a drug. Sometimes it's acceptable behavior, but not to some property owners and businesses, and they do have that right to ban consumption of alcohol on their premises. >> Lee, Mike and Scott, the fat guy is right. It's called private >> property rights. Um, thank you? > Yes it is, and my car and my cooler are personal property. (repeat of earlier concept, clarified) Yes, and your vehicle is an extension of your home. If you left the alcohol secured in your vehicle, you have a valid argument in this scenario. But, if you leave it in a cooler that is removed and brought out to a site, you have pretty much shown either intent to consume alcohol or intent to defy the policies of the property owner, either one to me a reasonable reason for ejection from the property. This whole argument (to me) is only being made to try to circumvent the policy and/or intimidate those who choose it. Once again, don't like the policy, don't go. Try not to let the gate hit you in the a.s on the way out. > That said, most likely, I will elect *not* to patronize Vortex or any such > entity that enforces such a policy. First, with a few exceptions, I will > most likely be with dive buddies that might carry such things and wish > to enjoy them on such a premises, even if I choose not to. I can certainly > elect to leave if their "enjoyment" makes me uncomfortable legalwise. Personally, once I decided on a place, I'd be far more likely to dump the buddy that insisted on being totally selfish about forcing his views on the policies of such a business. To me that would define an alcoholic more than a patriot, being they could not abstain for a few hours, trying to rationalize why he is more astute that the property owner or average person. This is one time that the "sheep" are the true leaders. I suspect that many, given human nature, would be tolerant due to appeasement beyond comfort level, and wait until they felt threatened. This said, there are witnesses on this forum who can verify I have no problems with alcohol consumption in it's accepted locations. Think one even submitted to being wanded for weapons to enter an establishment that sold alcohol as their business, as I did, which was a business owner exercising his right of judgment to disarm all who entered his business. Guess a few would have a problem with that too. > Not even the National Park Service, the State of Florida, or any other > governmental entity I know of searches anyone just for entering the > property > except where the risk of attack is considered high. The only local place > I > know of that does that is the Federal Reserve Bank in Miami. From my personal experiences while diving/swimming/camping, never seen a vehicle checked, but have had my cooler spot checked in State Parks for alcohol. The checks were done by the rangers having me lift the lid, then looking in without touching anything anything. Done very politely, with the choice being open or leave. Many years ago, after a nearly 100 mile bicycle ride to such a park, we did have a single six-pack to split three ways, well below what could be considered a quantity that could present a problem. We were politely given the choice of dumping or leaving. We dumped the cans, grumbled a bit of course, but accepted the fact we were in violation of a rule that did indeed make the park more enjoyable to the general public. Was explained to us that they used to only enforce the problem causers, but that didn't seem to work well enough, so "zero tolerance" became policy. We enjoyed a very pleasant remaining afternoon picnicking and swimming. I have since had enough personal observations to appreciate the policy. I'm really concerned now that I know people keep their weapons in their coolers too. Greg must be LOVING those statements of bravado. Curtis > > You are the only one that seemed to presume that anyone that has a drink > > is > > drunk and disorderly. > > That is not true. Lee tends to lie a bit. > In fact, that is a purposely inflammatory statement you're making using > failed logic. Lee tends to do that too. > You are linking statements related only by similar subject and getting > a false conclusion. Surprise, surprise. > >> Anyone with alcohol has the potential to cause alcohol-related mischief. > >> Sure, two beers might not get most of us very buzzed, but zero tolerance > >> is often the best way to enforce a policy to eliminate the grey area. > > Aye Are you me-tooing me? > > Zero tolerance was created by individuals with a zero IQ... If someone is > > a beligerant drunk, ban them... On the other hand, for those of us old [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sometimes even the "mellow drunks" can be quite annoying and a greater > liability due to their loss of judgment, motor skills, etc. Yep. I'm one of those annoying mellow drunks, so I should know. I wouldn't want to be around me if I weren't drunk too. > As stated before, not everyone feels that it's cute to be mentally > impaired by a drug. Sometimes it's acceptable behavior, but not to some > property owners and businesses, and they do have that right to ban > consumption of alcohol on their premises. And the right to ban people who have already consumed alcohol, though that would be much harder to enforce without getting sued. They even have the right to ban people who are merely thinking about consuming alcohol, though that's really hard to enforce. > >> Lee, Mike and Scott, the fat guy is right. It's called private > >> property rights. > > Um, thank you? Hey, you're not the fat guy, it's me. You're the other fat guy. We're all the fat guy? > Yes, and your vehicle is an extension of your home. If you left the > alcohol secured in your vehicle, you have a valid argument in this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > policies of the property owner, either one to me a reasonable reason for > ejection from the property. So you're saying that if Lee drove his truck onto the property and it was filled with cases of beer, the owners could not object? Bullshit. Even if it was Scott's home filled with tequila bottles, his trailer home that he pulled onto the property with Lee's truck, the property owners could definitely demand to search it before they allowed it onto their property. A property owner can set whatever conditions he deems necessary before allowing others onto his property, as long as those conditions aren't constitutionally impermissible discrimination. If Vortex Springs demands its patrons consent to a strip search, even a cavity search, before being admitted to the premises, it has every right to do that. What it cannot do, for example, is only subject white people to a cavity search while allowing all Pacific Islanders to enter. (On the other hand, reversing the situation by submitting only, say, Chuukese, to a cavity search might be constitionally permissible given the reputation of the Chuukese.) The exception, of course, would be if they had entered into an agreement to rent space to be used as a residence, say a parking spot for Scott's trailer on at least a semi-permanent basis. Then landlord- tenant law would give the tenant more privacy, allowing the landlord entrance only upon notice or in cases of emergency. > Personally, once I decided on a place, I'd be far more likely to dump > the buddy that insisted on being totally selfish about forcing his views on > the policies of such a business. To me that would define an alcoholic more > than a patriot, being they could not abstain for a few hours, trying to > rationalize why he is more astute that the property owner or average person. > This is one time that the "sheep" are the true leaders. Baaa. I mean, Yaaa. That's the case I was trying to make to mag3. Lead the way by proudly rising above those afraid to be search. A wanding never hurt anyone. (Though I draw the line at proudly submitting to a cavity search) > I suspect that many, given human nature, would be tolerant due to > appeasement beyond comfort level, and wait until they felt threatened. Huh? Are you talking about cavity searches? Yeah, those sure threaten my comfort level. > This said, there are witnesses on this forum who can verify I have no > problems with alcohol consumption in it's accepted locations. Sure you have a problem. You don't consume it. That's kind of weird, unless you're a recovering alcoholic or you get migraines like mag3 or you don't have a liver. Did someone steal your liver? > Think one even submitted to being wanded for weapons to enter an > establishment that sold alcohol as their business, as I did, which was a > business owner exercising his right of judgment to disarm all who entered > his business. Guess a few would have a problem with that too. Heck, no. Best idea I've heard all day. Like I've said, it's getting pretty common nowadays to get searched. With the omnipresent threat of terrorism and the never-ending war on drugs and the proliferation of concealed firearms, searches aren't going anywhere. Might as well get used to it. Cavity searches will become routine by 2012 before you can even enter a grocery store. > I'm really concerned now that I know people keep their weapons in their > coolers too. Greg must be LOVING those statements of bravado. Loving it. Ya never know when someone will carjack you for a beer, especially in South Florida. When he's drawing down on you while you open up the trunk to reach in and grab his beer, you fart loudly to create a distraction, grab your piece on ice, spin around and start shooting until the clip is emptied. Blow smoke from tip of gun, stash gun back in cooler, get back in car and calmly drive away. Just another day in the life of a rec.scuban gun nut. Yee haw! I am the NRA! correction > Maybe the only one that posted it. I actually dislike the idea, but > understand where some form of check of compliance may be necessary due to > the stubbornness of some to disobey the wishes of those within their > rights to ban > an item on their property. Never did I endorse a vehicle search in this > instance. >> You are the only one that has supported the concept of searching >> coolers. > Maybe the only one that posted it. I actually dislike the idea, but > understand where some form or check of compliance may be necessary due to > the stubbornness of some to obey the wishes of those within their > rights to ban an item on their property. Never did I endorse a vehicle > search in this instance. That's considerably different from your original statement that you had no problem with their policy. Their need to impose their will does not give them a right to search anything, on their premises or off. >> You are the only one that seemed to presume that anyone that has a >> drink is drunk and disorderly. > That is not true. Here are your exact words: "Not everyone views drunk & disorderly as "cute", nor believes alcohol is necessary to enjoy life." That certainly seems to presume that anyone that has a drink is drunk and disorderly to me. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but it's sure what you seemed to be saying. >> You are the only one that said that just taking the cooler out of the car >> shows intent. > I assumed you understood we were already talking about having > alcohol in the cooler, not just an "innocent" cooler. I guess I am guilty > of assuming short term memory of the context of a reply. You know the results of assuming things. You appeared to assume that the only thing in the cooler was alcohol and the context of your comment related to consumption, not mere possession. I'll say it more clearly. You're the only one that equated taking a cooler containing alcoholic beverages out of the car to show intent to consume it in an area where doing so is not permitted. > Sometimes even the "mellow drunks" can be quite annoying and a greater > liability due to their loss of judgment, motor skills, etc. You're presuming again. Chances that you would even know a mellow drunk was drunk are very small. It's hard to be annoyed by what you don't know about. Not everyone loses judgement just because they have a few drinks. Not everyone loses significant motor skills because they have a few drinks. Some people have better motor skills, and reaction times when their drunk than others have when they are sone cold sober. I've proved that more than once. > Sometimes it's acceptable behavior, but not to some > property owners and businesses, and they do have that right to ban > consumption of alcohol on their premises. Yes they do, but presence of alcohol in a cooler is neither consumption nor intent and they do not have the right to search cars or coolers regardless. > Yes, and your vehicle is an extension of your home. If you left the > alcohol secured in your vehicle, you have a valid argument in this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > intent to defy the policies of the property owner, either one to me a > reasonable reason for ejection from the property. Works for me. First time you see me take some out of my cooler, feel free to impose the rules. Until then, hands off. No search without due process. > This whole argument (to me) is only being made to try to circumvent the > policy and/or intimidate those who choose it. Once again, don't like the > policy, don't go. Try not to let the gate hit you in the a.s on the way > out. Not at all. Grumman's first statement was that he would take his business elsewhere. So was mine. > Personally, once I decided on a place, I'd be far more likely to dump > the buddy that insisted on being totally selfish about forcing his views [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rationalize why he is more astute that the property owner or average > person. This is one time that the "sheep" are the true leaders. The only person forcing their view on anyone is the property owner. The rest of us simply decided to take our business, and his income, elsewhere. The golden rule still reads "He who has the gold, makes the rules." I'll keep my gold. > Think one even submitted to being wanded for weapons to enter an > establishment that sold alcohol as their business, as I did, which was a > business owner exercising his right of judgment to disarm all who entered > his business. Guess a few would have a problem with that too. You bet. There is no right to disarm anyone who enters any business. The only right is to exclude those who decline to disarm themselves. > The checks were done by the rangers having me lift the lid, then > looking in without touching anything anything. Done very politely, with > the > choice being open or leave. I'd have been gone. > Many years ago, after a nearly 100 mile bicycle ride to such a park, we > did have a single six-pack to split three ways, well below what could be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > did > indeed make the park more enjoyable to the general public. You went beyond intent, right to consumption. I would have dumped it too. What part of your comment supports "a rule that did indeed makethe park more enjoyable to the general public?" Did you abuse somebody in your drunk and disorderly state or were you your normal considerate self? > Was explained to us that they used to only enforce the problem causers, > but that didn't seem to work well enough, so "zero tolerance" became > policy. They same the same thing about guns, exactly the same thing. > I'm really concerned now that I know people keep their weapons in their > coolers too. Greg must be LOVING those statements of bravado. That would be a silly place for them. If I have a weapon, it's either under lock and key or under my direct control. I usually have one in state parks and soon will be able to say the same thing about national ones. There seems to be a presumption that those that carry weapons in parks and preserves, the Everglades in my case, do so for defense against criminals, as most do outside of such areas. Personally, I am a lot more conserned about dangerous animals than I am people. As a result, I carry a very different weapon in these areas, one with the ability to stop dangerous four legged animals rather than the two legged kind. A hog, bear, panther, alligator, python or anaconda, all of which are to be found in the swamps of south Florida, are a lot harder to discourage than even the most hard core criminal. Lee >> Maybe the only one that posted it. I actually dislike the idea, but >> understand where some form or check of compliance may be necessary due to >> the stubbornness of some to obey the wishes of those within their >> rights to ban an item on their property. Never did I endorse a vehicle >> search in this instance. > That's considerably different from your original statement that you had no > problem with their policy. Their need to impose their will does not give > them a right to search anything, on their premises or off. The policy of banning alcohol. Didn't clarify how originally, so how does it differ? I suspect you are trying to impose your will as well. > Here are your exact words: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > disorderly to me. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but it's sure what > you seemed to be saying. That is a big, misguided jump. I could look up the exact name for the type of fallacy, but I won't, suffice to say I know that is an error in logic. > I'll say it more clearly. You're the only one that equated taking a > cooler containing alcoholic beverages out of the car to show intent to > consume it in an area where doing so is not permitted. Yes, bringing the alcohol with you, out of the vehicle, indicates intent to drink it. >> Sometimes even the "mellow drunks" can be quite annoying and a greater >> liability due to their loss of judgment, motor skills, etc. > You're presuming again. Chances that you would even know a mellow drunk > was drunk are very small. It's hard to be annoyed by what you don't know [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > their drunk than others have when they are sone cold sober. I've proved > that more than once. No, you're not proving anything, since 1) You're hung up on the label drunk, not even mine, being given too lightly. 2) You insist on making a policy or general opinion a personal attack on your habits. and 3) You are trying to win an exemption. Since what I am really addressing is that the policy of banning alcohol from a business is an acceptable policy, not whether Lee is a nice drunk, not quite drunk, or merely a social drinker, what I personally consider to be drunk, or how well you can function when you're drinking alcohol, your whining is falling on deaf ears. I purposely made replies to "unidentified" quotes to keep it as a general statement. My own anecdotes merely show that the "a.shole" image in enforcement has been incorrect in my experiences. >> Sometimes it's acceptable behavior, but not to some >> property owners and businesses, and they do have that right to ban >> consumption of alcohol on their premises. > Yes they do, but presence of alcohol in a cooler is neither consumption > nor intent and they do not have the right to search cars or coolers > regardless. My opinion differs. Why would you carry a beverage you do not intend to drink? First Aid? Self Defense? Or for consumption at the point you were carrying it, or maybe just in defiance of the management? >> This whole argument (to me) is only being made to try to circumvent the >> policy and/or intimidate those who choose it. Once again, don't like the >> policy, don't go. Try not to let the gate hit you in the a.s on the way >> out. > Not at all. Grumman's first statement was that he would take his business > elsewhere. So was mine. So he didn't make a derogatory post about a business's policies in the process? Is that not what started the rebuttal? I cannot recall reading a simple "Hey guys, they don't allow us to drink at (blank)!" > The only person forcing their view on anyone is the property owner. The > rest of us simply decided to take our business, and his income, elsewhere. > The golden rule still reads "He who has the gold, makes the rules." I'll > keep my gold. Bet he'll do well without yours. You've lost your bet about other businesses surviving without your endorsements. >> Think one even submitted to being wanded for weapons to enter an >> establishment that sold alcohol as their business, as I did, which was a >> business owner exercising his right of judgment to disarm all who entered >> his business. Guess a few would have a problem with that too. > You bet. There is no right to disarm anyone who enters any business. The > only right is to exclude those who decline to disarm themselves. Exactly, that was the idea. I didn't take it as a right to disarm, I took it as his right to turn away those who chose to be armed from their establishment. Comparing the right to bear arms with a private business's right to keep armed persons from their business, a business that sells a legal mood altering drug for on-site consumption, is just plain silly. >> The checks were done by the rangers having me lift the lid, then >> looking in without touching anything anything. Done very politely, with >> the >> choice being open or leave. > I'd have been gone. Your choice. Obviously not mine. >> Many years ago, after a nearly 100 mile bicycle ride to such a park, we >> did have a single six-pack to split three ways, well below what could be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> did >> indeed make the park more enjoyable to the general public. > You went beyond intent, right to consumption. I would have dumped it too. > What part of your comment supports "a rule that did indeed make the park > more enjoyable to the general public?" Did you abuse somebody in your > drunk and disorderly state or were you your normal considerate self? Actually, no, I did not get beyond intent. And, although my involvement was reluctant, I was indeed responsible for going along. Specifically, I was more likely to appease friends and bend to peer pressure at that time. My comment about "more enjoyable" is not supported in my comments, it is my opinion based on personal experiences, story more supports my views that enforcement has been done tactfully in my experiences. I am also now burdened by being an example to my approaching legal age children. Some rules are worthy of rebellion. These are not. In fact, they may well be considered commendable. >> Was explained to us that they used to only enforce the problem causers, >> but that didn't seem to work well enough, so "zero tolerance" became >> policy. > They same the same thing about guns, exactly the same thing. Major differences. >> I'm really concerned now that I know people keep their weapons in their >> coolers too. Greg must be LOVING those statements of bravado. > That would be a silly place for them. Then how are they going to find out you have one by checking your cooler? Are you going to protect your imaginary right to posess alcohol on private property with deadly force? > There seems to be a presumption that those that carry weapons in parks and > preserves, the Everglades in my case, do so for defense against criminals, > as most do outside of such areas. So, you are insisting that possession of alcohol is for self defense? First Aid? Guess I'll have to put a can in a sock and try it sometime.......of course, a can of soda would work as well, but that wouldn't support your thesis. Guess this means I don't buy your analogy. Curtis > Yes, bringing the alcohol with you, out of the vehicle, indicates > intent to drink it. So, you're saying that as long as you go back to your vehicle and drink it from there, it's OK? Hmmm... That could be workable... Back up my truck to the dive site and have a tailgate party from the bed of my pickup... With the higher vantage point, I would even get a better view of the young ladies in their Confederate Battle Flag bikinis... Cool... Great idea, Curtis... > I purposely made replies to "unidentified" quotes to keep it as a > general statement. Actually, I think you replied to one of your own quotes... That's kind of like talking to yourself... Either a sign of mental illness or just old age... Knowing you, I would have to conclude that it just a case of you being an "old fart in training"... <grin> > So he didn't make a derogatory post about a business's policies in > the process? Which part was derogatory? The part about the Florida Panhandle succuming to the curse of political correctiveness or claiming Yankee influence due to them being *north* of I-10? > I am also now burdened by being an example to my approaching legal > age children. In other words, you're hoping that they won't realize that you have been a hypocrit during your life... I will freely admit that I'm a hypocrit with regards to my daughter... I have every intention of protecting her from guys who are like I was at that age... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. On May 19, 7:04 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581+usenet-2...@gmail.com> wrote: > In other words, you're hoping that they won't realize that you have been a > hypocrit during your life... I will freely admit that I'm a hypocrit with > regards to my daughter... I have every intention of protecting her from > guys who are like I was at that age... Or worse, guys who are like you are at your age. > The policy of banning alcohol. Didn't clarify how originally, so how does > it differ? The very first post discussed searching coolers. That's the only reason I got involved in this. > That is a big, misguided jump. It was not a big jump at all. It was pretty much what you said. If you meant something else, fine. You have to be careful to ensure you're not misunderstood. > Yes, bringing the alcohol with you, out of the vehicle, indicates intent > to drink it. No, it doesn't. More than one person has mentioned that coolers often contain more than just alcoholic beverages. Mine, in fact, almost always contain sodas, water and food as well. The fact that it's in there does nothing at all to indicate my intent to consume alcohol, or anything else in the cooler. You presume too much. > 2) You insist on making a policy or general opinion a personal attack on > your habits. My habits? Which of my habits are you addressing? > 3) You are trying to win an exemption. Exemption from what? > Since what I am really addressing is that the policy of banning alcohol > from a business is an acceptable policy, not whether Lee is a nice drunk, > not quite drunk, or merely a social drinker, what I personally consider to > be drunk, or how well you can function when you're drinking alcohol, your > whining is falling on deaf ears. I'm not any kind of drunk and it's a huge presumption on your part that I am. I'm not whining at all. I'm perfectly happy taking my business elsewhere. I'm just not going to lay down and give up one of my rights just because somebody else thinks they can do as they please. The various governmental agencies are already doing a good job of taking them away without my helping them by letting some land owner do the same. > My opinion differs. With the Constitution. > Why would you carry a beverage you do not intend to drink? First Aid? > Self Defense? Can't think of any reason at all, huh? Try these: 1. Because my wife would like to have one later and the only place to keep it cold is in the cooler. 2. Because if I left it out in plain sight, some jerk would deny me entry to his property. 3. Because I had a drink earlier or I planned on having one later, after I left the premises and the only place to keep it cold is in the cooler. 4. Because it's my cooler and I can keep anything in it I like. 5. I figure you're going to want to break the rules (again) and, being a nice buy, I brought some beer for you. 6. Because we're camping out that night and I figured it would be nice to share a beer with a friend. > Once again, don't like the policy, don't go. That's what Grumman said in the first place and I agreed with. > Try not to let the gate hit you in the a.s on the way out. For the gate to hit me on the way out, I'd have to be inside. As both Grumman and I said, we'll take our business, and our money someplace else. > So he didn't make a derogatory post about a business's policies in the > process? He said he didn't like them. You have a problem with free speech too? > Bet he'll do well without yours. Works for me. Businesses need customers. I don't need his business. I have alternatives that provide service more to my liking. > You've lost your bet about other businesses surviving without your > endorsements. What bet was that? >> You bet. There is no right to disarm anyone who enters any business >> The only right is to exclude those who decline to disarm themselves. > Exactly, that was the idea. I didn't take it as a right to disarm, I took > it as his right to turn away those who chose to be armed from their > establishment. Then why did you say it was his right to disarm. >> I'd have been gone. > Your choice. Obviously not mine. Yep. It's been made very clear that my concern over the right to freedom from search and seizure without due process exceeds yours. > Actually, no, I did not get beyond intent. So how did they find the beer? > I am also now burdened by being an example to my approaching legal age > > children. A whole different problem. > These are not. In fact, they may well be considered commendable. Violation of my Constitutonal right against search and seizure without due process is not commendable, period. You can characterize this any way you want, but that's been my position, my only position since the beginning. I do not find your willingness to surrender your right to be commendable. In fact, I find it a real shame. What's even worse is that you're far from being alone in your willingness to do so. >>> Was explained to us that they used to only enforce the problem causers, >>> but that didn't seem to work well enough, so "zero tolerance" became [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Major differences. No difference at all. You just don't happen to be on the same side when it comes to guns. Addressing the tool rather than the act, limiting the innocent because of the abuses of the guilty is never right. > Then how are they going to find out you have one by checking your cooler? They're going to get to see it in my hand. > Are you going to protect your imaginary right to posess alcohol on private > property with deadly force? Nope. I'm going to prevent a forcable felony, the illegal search of my property without my consent. >> There seems to be a presumption that those that carry weapons in parks >> and preserves, the Everglades in my case, do so for defense against >> criminals, as most do outside of such areas. > So, you are insisting that possession of alcohol is for self defense? > First Aid? Oops, my mistake. I should not have used the word alcohol in that paragraph. Wait a minute, I didn't. Please point me to whatever you're referring to. > Guess I'll have to put a can in a sock and try it sometime.......of > course, a can of soda would work as well, but that wouldn't support your > thesis. State the thesis. Whatever you're talking about now did not come from me. > Guess this means I don't buy your analogy. Could it possibly be because it was not an analogy? Lee >> There here are a number of places I do go, with alcoholic beverages in my >> vehicle, where alcohol is not allowed. I just don't consume it where [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Once you take the cooler out of your vehicle and bring it with you, you > have demonstrated intent, and should be ejected from the property. I've understood from the beginning. My statement was that about the time they tried to search my cooler, they'd find out I carry a gun too. I have not demonstrated anything by tanking my cooler out of the car. Why would you presume that the only thing in the cooler was alcoholic beverages? Personally, I keep water, sodas and food there too. Lee > > Once you take the cooler out of your vehicle and bring it with you, you > > have demonstrated intent, and should be ejected from the property. > > I've understood from the beginning. My statement was that about the time > they tried to search my cooler, they'd find out I carry a gun too. Are you suggesting that you carry your gun in your cooler, or are you giving us anti-gunners ammunition by claiming a "normal guy" like you would pull your piece on a couple of people that had no more evil intent than checking to see if you're smuggling beer? > For me, it depends on why I'm using their facility in the first place. If > my goal is to find someplace where I can swim, laze in the sun, and have a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it's prohibited. I don't ever, however, grant anyone, the right to search > my property. Sure you don't. It must suck having to drive for all your government- related travel, or do you flash your badge and somehow avoid the search that the rest of us put up with? > Just to clarify, I wouldn't stop supporting the business because of their > alcohol policy. I would stop supporting their business because, if the > exchange happened the way Grumman described, I didn't like the management. I agree. To respond to a simple inquiry with the assumptions implied is the dregs of customer service. For all he knew, Grumman was calling to insure the place was actually dry, and not nudge-and-wink dry. >I recently checked on the Vortex Spring website and noticed the following: > > "Public displays of alcohol or intoxication will not be tolerated and all > under aged drinking will be reported" Bravo for the rights of property owners to bar something they evidently found to be a problem. Not everyone views drunk & disorderly as "cute", nor believes alcohol is necessary to enjoy life. Nor is Darwin enough to cleanse the gene pool, seems the innocent too often suffer for the guilty. Curtis > Bravo for the rights of property owners to bar something they evidently > found to be a problem. > > Not everyone views drunk & disorderly as "cute", nor believes alcohol > is > necessary to enjoy life. Ban being a disorderly drunk, not those of us who know how to be civilized drunks... If I've been diving for a day, I want to kick back afterwards with a beer... That's not a crime and assuming I keep the number per hour down to a reasonable amount, neither would driving afterwards... There's a lot of places I would expect this sort of leftist behaviour, but the Florida Panhandle is not one of them... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > Ban being a disorderly drunk, not those of us who know how to be civilized > drunks... If I've been diving for a day, I want to kick back afterwards > with a beer... That's not a crime Appeasement.......not the choice of the property owner. and assuming I keep the number per hour > down to a reasonable amount, neither would driving afterwards... Ah, so you can handle it? > There's a > lot of places I would expect this sort of leftist behaviour, but the > Florida Panhandle is not one of them... So you're for the Liberal concept of denying a property owner the right to say what behavior isn't welcome on his property? Curtis > Ah, so you can handle it? I know my limits... Not that I don't choose to exceed them upon occasion... > So you're for the Liberal concept of denying a property owner the > right to say what behavior isn't welcome on his property? No, I'm for the conservative concept of taking my money elsewhere when a business has a practice that I don't approve of while also informing the people that I know of his practice so that they can also choose whether they want to associate with this sort of business... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > No, I'm for the conservative concept of taking my money elsewhere when a > business has a practice that I don't approve of while also informing the > people that I know of his practice so that they can also choose whether > they want to associate with this sort of business... Great, then you can appreciate the Constitutional rights involved in my saying don't let the gate hit you in the a.s as I choose to spend my monies at such a place. > Great, then you can appreciate the Constitutional rights involved in > my saying don't let the gate hit you in the a.s as I choose to spend > my monies at such a place. And I'm sure that you can appreciate my constitutional rights involved when I point out that you are mixing your metaphors... <grin> Seriously though, I doubt Vortex Spring is quite at your level... You would have to pass up so many more nicer places to dive to get there from where you live that one would have to question your sanity... When I make a Florida trip, I sometimes stop there on my way out of the state for a last freshwater dive to clean the gear, have a beer, and watch the healthy young southern ladies in bikinis before entering the portion of the Gulf Coast where shore diving is useless due to the runoff from the Mississippi and other rivers... If I can't relax with a beer after a day of diving, I'll just go elsewhere... Jackson Blue had better diving, but I don't remmeber the female scenery being quite as interesting... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > Seriously though, I doubt Vortex Spring is quite at your level... You > would have to pass up so many more nicer places to dive to get there from > where you live that one would have to question your sanity... Be a ways from me, but I am usually at sites where they do indeed ban alcohol. Usually nicer atmospheres than the few that allow drinking, not because of the crowd that controls themselves, but because of the ones who fail to respect others. Curtis > Be a ways from me, but I am usually at sites where they do indeed ban > alcohol. Usually nicer atmospheres than the few that allow drinking, not > because of the crowd that controls themselves, but because of the ones who > fail to respect others. A perfectly logical position. The answer, however, is to address those without respect for others, not those who are not a problem. >> Be a ways from me, but I am usually at sites where they do indeed ban >> alcohol. Usually nicer atmospheres than the few that allow drinking, not >> because of the crowd that controls themselves, but because of the ones >> who fail to respect others. > A perfectly logical position. > The answer, however, is to address those without respect for others, not > those who are not a problem. Seems like a perfectly acceptable answer was already given. > Seems like a perfectly acceptable answer was already given. I've given one several times. On May 14, 7:22 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581+usenet-2...@gmail.com> wrote: > with a beer... That's not a crime and assuming I keep the number per hour > down to a reasonable amount, neither would driving afterwards... There's a > lot of places I would expect this sort of leftist behaviour, but the > Florida Panhandle is not one of them... There's nothing leftist about a PRIVATE property owner deciding what conduct will be permitted on their PRIVATE PROPERTY. That's quite the opposite of leftist. The fact that the prohibited conduct is something you like doesn't make it leftist for them to assert their property rights. > There's nothing leftist about a PRIVATE property owner deciding what > conduct will be permitted on their PRIVATE PROPERTY. Which private property, their land or the customer's car? > The fact that the prohibited conduct is > something you like doesn't make it leftist for them to assert their > property rights. The prohibited conduct we're talking about is search without due process of law. What are you talking about? Lee > > There's nothing leftist about a PRIVATE property owner deciding what > > conduct will be permitted on their PRIVATE PROPERTY. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The prohibited conduct we're talking about is search without due process of > law. What are you talking about? Consent overrides "due process of law" even when the search is by a government entity. What are you talking about? > Which private property, their land or the customer's car? If the car is on their land, there is no difference. Cars are not the same as real property. > The prohibited conduct we're talking about is search without due process of > law. What are you talking about? They are not law enforcement - the Fourth Amendment does not constrain them. In fact, if they find something incriminating, and turn it over to law enforcement, it's admissible. Apparently, you've spent too much time as a minion of Big Brother to understand that the rest of the world are not part of the praetorian guard. >>Which private property, their land or the customer's car? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > enforcement, it's > admissible. Except it generally isn't. Admissible, I mean. Apparently, you've spent too much time as a minion of > Big Brother to understand that the rest of the world are not part of > the praetorian guard. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > Except it generally isn't. Admissible, I mean. As long as they weren't acting as agents of the state, it is. >>Except it generally isn't. Admissible, I mean. > > As long as they weren't acting as agents of the state, it is. Not in my experience. I operate a motel, and w are requested to not do more than inform LEO if something is found in a room. Even then, they will generally get a warrant to search a room, or bring in a dog to sniff the hallways and see if he will "hit" on the room. And you have no expectation of privacy in a motel room unless the prohibited item is locked in luggage or equivalent. Perhaps it is different in Canada? Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 On May 21, 6:45 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote: > dwee...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Perhaps it is different in Canada? Perhaps it is. It also could be different in Indiana, as individual states have their own constitutions too and often these are more restrictive than the U.S.'s. For example, I recall that the State of Washington's constitution does not permit the DUI checkpoints or photo radar methods of enforcement that are common in other states, including California. California's constitution does not permit VASCAR speed traps (nor does Washington State), though it invites photo radar and DUI checkpoints. A state cannot adopt and enforce a standard less than what the U.S. Constitution requires as protection for U.S. citizens against government intrusion, but it can certainly adopt stricter standards. I don't have the time to fully research Indiana law on the subject, but I was able to quickly Google the following case as an example where the plaintiffs attempted to throw out the results of a search of their trash based on the Indiana Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, because they actually had a chance under the Indiana Constitution to get a trash search ruled unconstitutional: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06120601lmb.pdf Footnote 11 reveals: "In California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 39 (1988), the United States Supreme Court upheld the warrantless search of the defendant’s garbage left at the curb for pickup, holding that there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356, 358 (Ind. 2005). Apparently recognizing that Greenwood forecloses any claim under the Fourth Amendment, the Richardsons do not challenge the search of their trash under the Federal Constitution, but rather ask us to exclude the evidence in question as the product of a search and seizure in violation of Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. See Litchfield, 824 N.E.2d at 359." On May 21, 9:45 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote: > Not in my experience. I operate a motel, and w are requested to not do > more than inform LEO if something is found in a room. Because if law enforecement instructed you any differently, you could more easily be construed as acting as their agent or on their behalf, which would make it inadmissible. > Even then, they > will generally get a warrant to search a room, or bring in a dog to > sniff the hallways and see if he will "hit" on the room. And If your discovery of what was in the room constituted a Fourth Amendment violation, the warrant would be ruled invalid as fruit of the forbidden tree. >> Which private property, their land or the customer's car? > > If the car is on their land, there is no difference. Cars are not the > same as real property. Wrong and right. Cars are not the same as real property. In Florida, your car is an extension of your home. > They are not law enforcement - the Fourth Amendment does not constrain > them. The Bill of Rights does not only apply to the government. It's quite specific in addressing the preservation of the rights of individuals from anyone. Equality, security, privacy, speech, religion and pretty much all other rights are protected . . . or do you think it's OK to pain religious hate symbols on the local place of worship as long as you're not the government. > In fact, if they find something incriminating, and turn it over to law > enforcement, it's admissible. That's true. I'm part of a government of the people, by the people and for the people and a country that was founded on, and exists for, the preservation of individual rights. Sorry you're not. > >> Which private property, their land or the customer's car? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wrong and right. Cars are not the same as real property. In Florida, your > car is an extension of your home. It does get tricky, especially in Florida when so many people live in trailers. But I'm sure you're confusing a narrow court ruling having to do with self-defense law into a far broader picture. If you, with the government's blessing, were automatically able to drive your car onto someone else's property and thereby take away the rights of the real property owner to decide who gets to come onto his property, that would be an unconstitutional "taking" under the 5th amendment requiring at least due process and just compensation for the real property owner. I believe there may be cases in various jurisdictions having to do with employees who carry guns in their cars parked on the employer's property, but again, the employee/employer relationship is vastly different than the one between Vortex Springs and the paying customers it invites on their property. Are you prepared to compense Vortex Springs out of your own pocket for "taking" its right to decide who enters upon its privately owned real property? As a taxpayer, I'm certainly not willing to contribute just so you can drink a beer there. I'm already paying far more than my fair share for the stupid Iraq invasion. Drink a beer in Iraq if you must, at least we paid enough to "take" the right to drink there. > > They are not law enforcement - the Fourth Amendment does not constrain > > them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hate symbols on the local place of worship as long as you're not the > government. If you own the place of worship or have permission from the owners to do so, why not? Otherwise it's vandalism. There's no constitutionally protected right to vandalism. Funny you mention privacy. Where is that listed in the Bill of Rights? (Hint, it's not. J. Brandeis created it out of thin air by "interpretation".) Equality, enforced against private entities? Again, not until 1960's civil rights legislation. Like Dweeb said, maybe you should read this Constitution and Bill of Rights that you're so fond of quoting. > Like Dweeb said, maybe you should read this Constitution and Bill of > Rights that you're so fond of quoting. Where has he quoted it? He hasn't, because nothing in it supports his distorted view, He's been arguing by straw men and blind assertion, Perhaps it's time to break out the big guns and start citing more precedent - I presume you have a Westlaw or Lexis subscription, no? On May 21, 4:22 pm, dwee...@gmail.com wrote: > > Like Dweeb said, maybe you should read this Constitution and Bill of > > Rights that you're so fond of quoting. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > precedent - I presume you have > a Westlaw or Lexis subscription, no? No. I don't even bother to subscribe to the cheap versions anymore. Too expensive. I'm a grocer. Even my law books are dated now. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message