Lots of interesting news today

JSJJ388 said:
My job is to protect you. If that means you get detained to keep you out of the fire, so be it. Lets just all get back to interesting news stories.
Click to expand...
I thought your job was to put out the fire :confused:
 
JSJJ388 said:
My job is to protect you. If that means you get detained to keep you out of the fire, so be it. Lets just all get back to interesting news stories.
Click to expand...
I totally get what you are saying. For someone who is so supportive of the second amendment, I really figured you wouldn't be so vocal about having no problem violating someone's fourth amendment.
 
jeepinmatt said:
I thought your job was to put out the fire :confused:
Click to expand...

"To protect life and property". Putting out the fire is protecting people.

RHSCTJ said:
I totally get what you are saying. For someone who is so supportive of the second amendment, I really figured you wouldn't be so vocal about having no problem violating someone's fourth amendment.
Click to expand...

Well, youre right. Because its not a violation of the 4th amendment...
 
JSJJ388 said:
"To protect life and property". Putting out the fire is protecting people.



Well, youre right. Because its not a violation of the 4th amendment...
Click to expand...
So if you seize my house because it is on fire and seize my person by restraining me from entering my property, how is that not a violation of my 4th amendment rights? Because you are keeping me safe?

Me: Hello sir! Im here to keep you safe. Im taking your guns.
You: It is ok to take my guns because you are keeping me safe.

Not trying to be a dick but you cant staunchly support one amendment disregard another.
 
.... and THIS is exactly why I posted he article, I was looking forward to the $hitstorm.
 
I cant believe an internet post led to a debate about fire departments and the constitution. I am in awe of your ability and disappointed in myself. @RatLabGuy
 
Someone needs to start a Black Dogs Surely Matter movement!
 
UTfball68 said:
dogs aren't people, and for no more than a couple grand can be replaced.
Click to expand...
Oh my God, you are such an asshole.
How could you say that?
 
RHSCTJ said:
I have several friends who drive red trucks and value what yall do. My point is just dont let that power get to your head. Dont put your hands on anyone in that situation. If someone wants to put themselves in harms way, they have that right. That is an ABSOLUTE violation of the 4th amendment and your halligan is no match for my FiveseveN.
Click to expand...
I'm not violating your 4th, it's my house now:fuck-you: and I'll be asserting my "Stand your ground" rights:sniper:
 
GotWood said:
I'm not violating your 4th, it's my house now:fuck-you: and I'll be asserting my "Stand your ground" rights:sniper:
Click to expand...
You can have it. The way local houses have been selling I would profit huge from a house fire. And as a matter of fact I think I see smoke from the next time @jeepinmatt doesn't have a credible alibi. Ive have screenshots of threats made against me.
 
20190829_183620.jpg
 
GotWood said:
Fun fact:
When the FD shows up to your burning house you no longer legally own it. It is property of the FD until released back to you.
Click to expand...
I've "heard" that thrown around but never seen it the law as it is written. Care to share?
 
awheelterd said:
I've "heard" that thrown around but never seen it the law as it is written. Care to share?
Click to expand...
I'll have to look up the specifics. Basically it's because there could be a crime scene and this allows for the preservation of evidence. If the homeowner had committed a crime then was allowed entry they could hide evidence.

Edit:
We can blow up your house even if its not on fire.

Even in the absence of specific statutes, courts have recognized the unique challenge the threat of fire poses. Consider the following quote from the Supreme Court of California in an 1853 case that arose when a San Francisco house was intentionally blown up with gunpowder in a tactical effort to stop an advancing fire on Dec. 24, 1849: “The right to destroy property to prevent the spread of a conflagration as been traced to the highest law of necessity and the natural rights of man, independent of society or civil government. It is referred by moralists and jurists to the same great principle, which justifies the exclusive appropriation of a plank in a shipwreck, though the life of another be sacrificed; with the throwing overboard goods in a tempest for the safety of a vessel; with the trespassing upon the lands of another to escape death by an enemy…

“A house or fire, or those in its immediate vicinity, which serve to communicate the flames, becomes a nuisance which it is lawful to abate, and the private rights of the individual yield to the considerations of general convenience and the interests of society. Were it otherwise, one stubborn person might involve a whole city in ruin by refusing to allow the destruction of a building which would cut off the flames and check the progress of the fire, and that too, when it was perfectly evident that his building must be consumed.” (Surocco v Geary, 3 Cal 69; 58 Am Dec 385, January 1853)
 
Last edited:
RHSCTJ said:
So if you seize my house because it is on fire and seize my person by restraining me from entering my property, how is that not a violation of my 4th amendment rights? Because you are keeping me safe?

Me: Hello sir! Im here to keep you safe. Im taking your guns.
You: It is ok to take my guns because you are keeping me safe.

Not trying to be a dick but you cant staunchly support one amendment disregard another.
Click to expand...
I would consider the seizure of your house while it is on fire to be very reasonable. It's not just a threat to your home, it's a threat to surrounding homes and other people. Its also very reasonable that you be detained to prevent you from putting yourself and others at risk.

I staunchly support all rights. The key word in the 4th is unreasonable. Do you consider it unreasonable for you to be detained after committing a victim crime?

Edit to add: I absolutely oppose unreasonable searches and or seizures. If there is not reasonable suspicion supported by evidence that a crime has been committed or that there is an immediate threat to life, then there should be no search or seizure. Take most minir drug busts for example. (Note: I am all for legalizing drugs. You have the right to be stupid and harm yourself. As long as you dont harm others, I don't care what you do.) Unless the cop can SEE the evidence, it's an unreasonable search.
 
Last edited:
JSJJ388 said:
I would consider the seizure of your house while it is on fire to be very reasonable. It's not just a threat to your home, it's a threat to surrounding homes and other people. Its also very reasonable that you be detained to prevent you from putting yourself and others at risk.

I staunchly support all rights. The key word in the 4th is unreasonable. Do you consider it unreasonable for you to be detained after committing a victim crime?

Edit to add: I absolutely oppose unreasonable searches and or seizures. If there is not reasonable suspicion supported by evidence that a crime has been committed or that there is an immediate threat to life, then there should be no search or seizure. Take most minir drug busts for example. (Note: I am all for legalizing drugs. You have the right to be stupid and harm yourself. As long as you dont harm others, I don't care what you do.) Unless the cop can SEE the evidence, it's an unreasonable search.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's different up north, but in south carolina a fire fighter (even fire chief) has no authority. The only one granted police power is the fire marshall. You don't have the authority to decide what is reasonable. I think it is reasonable to enter a burning home to save you dog if the firefighters aren't. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.:beer::usa:
 
RHSCTJ said:
Maybe it's different up north, but in south carolina a fire fighter (even fire chief) has no authority. The only one granted police power is the fire marshall. You don't have the authority to decide what is reasonable. I think it is reasonable to enter a burning home to save you dog if the firefighters aren't. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.:beer::usa:
Click to expand...


We dont have the authority, but the cop that is usually propped up against the truck sure does. Im just gonna be honest, if we (speaking for my dept only) wont go in to get something (pet, heirlooms, ect.) you wont be able to. We do all we can to protect life and property.

I guess we will just have to disagree, and thats fine. :usa::rockon::beer:
 
Back
Top