1a auditor guilty of trespass (Page 2 of 24)
|
Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. But that isnt trespass. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11852
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: No a judge or jury did. Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I didn't use the legal term "trespass" and you know it. Tell me what you think my position is, so that I know you understand it. There's no point debating this otherwise. Sounds like you are backing yourself into the corner of they should have been running for their lives, instead of walking. Tell me what you think my position is, so that I know you understand it. There's no point debating this otherwise. Whatever it is, its not congruent with the law. The law just found the 1A Auditor guilty of trespass. No a judge or jury did. Oh my mistake. So Tell me what you think my position is, so that I know you understand it. There's no point debating this otherwise. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By Ecarl4100: Without watching, was this one of the videos where the auditor gets themselves just about to the fafo point, then turns on the camera and plays victim? No. They peacefully walked up to the door knocked, backed away, were asked to leave. And did so. Then the guy came out of the house trying to start a fight, assaulting them, after retrieving a gun that he had in his hand. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11853
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: But that isnt trespass. Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. But that isnt trespass. Entering private property where you know you are not welcome is not trespass? |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: But that isnt trespass. Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. But that isnt trespass. Apparently it it part of the law. |
BikerNut:
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
|
Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Apparently it it part of the law. Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. But that isnt trespass. Apparently it it part of the law. Where? Where does it say that if you go onto the property of someone that doesnt like you. That is trespassing. |
|
Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. Interesting. So if I have a negative experience with a cop, that cop can't do a knock at talk at my house since he should know he isn't welcome? |
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Entering private property where you know you are not welcome is not trespass? Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. But that isnt trespass. Entering private property where you know you are not welcome is not trespass? When was he told he was unwelcome? |
|
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: No. They peacefully walked up to the door knocked, backed away, were asked to leave. And did so. Then the guy came out of the house trying to start a fight, assaulting them, after retrieving a gun that he had in his hand. Why did they peacefully walk up to the door? It wasn’t to start shit was it? Heavens no!!! |
|
Originally Posted By Ecarl4100: Why did they peacefully walk up to the door? It wasn’t to start shit was it? Heavens no!!! Originally Posted By Ecarl4100: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: No. They peacefully walked up to the door knocked, backed away, were asked to leave. And did so. Then the guy came out of the house trying to start a fight, assaulting them, after retrieving a gun that he had in his hand. Why did they peacefully walk up to the door? It wasn’t to start shit was it? Heavens no!!! To ask questions on camera. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11854
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: When was he told he was unwelcome? Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. But that isnt trespass. Entering private property where you know you are not welcome is not trespass? When was he told he was unwelcome? I did not say that he was told he was unwelcome. See, this is why I keep asking you to tell me what you think my opinion is, so that I know you understand it. I said that he KNEW he was not welcome. Please be precise in your language. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: I did not say that he was told he was unwelcome. See, this is why I keep asking you to tell me what you think my opinion is, so that I know you understand it. I said that he KNEW he was not welcome. Please be precise in your language. Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. But that isnt trespass. Entering private property where you know you are not welcome is not trespass? When was he told he was unwelcome? I did not say that he was told he was unwelcome. See, this is why I keep asking you to tell me what you think my opinion is, so that I know you understand it. I said that he KNEW he was not welcome. Please be precise in your language. How do you know his thoughts? Even still, if he thought that all on his own. Not trespass. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11855
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Imzadi: Interesting. So if I have a negative experience with a cop, that cop can't do a knock at talk at my house since he should know he isn't welcome? Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. Interesting. So if I have a negative experience with a cop, that cop can't do a knock at talk at my house since he should know he isn't welcome? Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By Ecarl4100: So to start shit. Got it. Sounds like assholes colliding from afar. Originally Posted By Ecarl4100: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: To ask questions on camera. So to start shit. Got it. Sounds like assholes colliding from afar. Sure. But only one side was hostile and unable to control himself. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11856
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Imzadi: If it is, then every cop that goes to the house of a criminal for a knock and talk is trespassing. Wanna go there? Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Entering private property where you know you are not welcome is not trespass? If it is, then every cop that goes to the house of a criminal for a knock and talk is trespassing. Wanna go there? Wanna go there? Not without a warrant. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? So he has to tell him now? I thought they should just know... |
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. Interesting. So if I have a negative experience with a cop, that cop can't do a knock at talk at my house since he should know he isn't welcome? Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? But that isn't what is being discussed here. The auditor left when asked to leave. The argument being made is that he should have known he wasn't welcome and never should have gone. I'm just wondering if that is true for cops too. Because I'm aware that police have no special rights in this situation but people seem to be applying special responsibilities to the auditor. |
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Wanna go there? Not without a warrant. Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Entering private property where you know you are not welcome is not trespass? If it is, then every cop that goes to the house of a criminal for a knock and talk is trespassing. Wanna go there? Wanna go there? Not without a warrant. No more knock and talks for anyone with a criminal background then. Somebody needs to tell the courts that GD has decided. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11857
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: How do you know his thoughts? Even still, if he thought that all on his own. Not trespass. Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. But that isnt trespass. Entering private property where you know you are not welcome is not trespass? When was he told he was unwelcome? I did not say that he was told he was unwelcome. See, this is why I keep asking you to tell me what you think my opinion is, so that I know you understand it. I said that he KNEW he was not welcome. Please be precise in your language. How do you know his thoughts? Even still, if he thought that all on his own. Not trespass. I love this part of the debate. It's where one party pretends to be stupid. It's usually super convincing. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: The law just found the 1A Auditor guilty of trespass. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11858
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: So he has to tell him now? I thought they should just know... Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? So he has to tell him now? I thought they should just know... Tell me what you think my opinion is, so that I know you understand. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11859
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Imzadi: But that isn't what is being discussed here. The auditor left when asked to leave. The argument being made is that he should have known he wasn't welcome and never should have gone. I'm just wondering if that is true for cops too. Because I'm aware that police have no special rights in this situation but people seem to be applying special responsibilities to the auditor. Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. Interesting. So if I have a negative experience with a cop, that cop can't do a knock at talk at my house since he should know he isn't welcome? Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? But that isn't what is being discussed here. The auditor left when asked to leave. The argument being made is that he should have known he wasn't welcome and never should have gone. I'm just wondering if that is true for cops too. Because I'm aware that police have no special rights in this situation but people seem to be applying special responsibilities to the auditor. Yes, it is true for cops. Cops cannot remain on your property after you tell them to leave without a warrant, or exigent circumstances. Was I the only one who learned the Bill of Rights in high school? |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Tell me what you think my opinion is, so that I know you understand. Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? So he has to tell him now? I thought they should just know... Tell me what you think my opinion is, so that I know you understand. No idea as you keep talking in circles. Sounds like you just dont like the guy and nothing else matters. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11860
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Imzadi: No more knock and talks for anyone with a criminal background then. Somebody needs to tell the courts that GD has decided. Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Entering private property where you know you are not welcome is not trespass? If it is, then every cop that goes to the house of a criminal for a knock and talk is trespassing. Wanna go there? Wanna go there? Not without a warrant. No more knock and talks for anyone with a criminal background then. Somebody needs to tell the courts that GD has decided. I'm sure there are circumstances where people under probation are required to interact with cops sometimes. Is that what you think this discussion is about? |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11861
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: No idea as you keep talking in circles. Sounds like you just dont like the guy and nothing else matters. Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? So he has to tell him now? I thought they should just know... Tell me what you think my opinion is, so that I know you understand. No idea as you keep talking in circles. Sounds like you just dont like the guy and nothing else matters. If you have no idea what my position is, then why do you keep arguing against it? |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Yes, it is true for cops. Cops cannot remain on your property after you tell them to leave without a warrant, or exigent circumstances. Was I the only one who learned the Bill of Rights in high school? Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. Interesting. So if I have a negative experience with a cop, that cop can't do a knock at talk at my house since he should know he isn't welcome? Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? But that isn't what is being discussed here. The auditor left when asked to leave. The argument being made is that he should have known he wasn't welcome and never should have gone. I'm just wondering if that is true for cops too. Because I'm aware that police have no special rights in this situation but people seem to be applying special responsibilities to the auditor. Yes, it is true for cops. Cops cannot remain on your property after you tell them to leave without a warrant, or exigent circumstances. Was I the only one who learned the Bill of Rights in high school? Read what I'm writing and respond to what I'm writing. The argument being given here is that the auditor did not have the traditional invitation to knock on the door. He should have known he wasn't welcome. Does that assumption apply to cops too? |
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: I'm sure there are circumstances where people under probation are required to interact with cops sometimes. Is that what you think this discussion is about? Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Entering private property where you know you are not welcome is not trespass? If it is, then every cop that goes to the house of a criminal for a knock and talk is trespassing. Wanna go there? Wanna go there? Not without a warrant. No more knock and talks for anyone with a criminal background then. Somebody needs to tell the courts that GD has decided. I'm sure there are circumstances where people under probation are required to interact with cops sometimes. Is that what you think this discussion is about? Amazing that the person asking for us to be specific is talking about probation when I never said anything about that. You keep asking what your argument is, what is mine? |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11862
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Imzadi: Read what I'm writing and respond to what I'm writing. The argument being given here is that the auditor did not have the traditional invitation to knock on the door. He should have known he wasn't welcome. Does that assumption apply to cops too? Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. Interesting. So if I have a negative experience with a cop, that cop can't do a knock at talk at my house since he should know he isn't welcome? Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? But that isn't what is being discussed here. The auditor left when asked to leave. The argument being made is that he should have known he wasn't welcome and never should have gone. I'm just wondering if that is true for cops too. Because I'm aware that police have no special rights in this situation but people seem to be applying special responsibilities to the auditor. Yes, it is true for cops. Cops cannot remain on your property after you tell them to leave without a warrant, or exigent circumstances. Was I the only one who learned the Bill of Rights in high school? Read what I'm writing and respond to what I'm writing. The argument being given here is that the auditor did not have the traditional invitation to knock on the door. He should have known he wasn't welcome. Does that assumption apply to cops too? No, that assumption does not apply generally to cops. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: No, that assumption does not apply generally to cops. Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. Interesting. So if I have a negative experience with a cop, that cop can't do a knock at talk at my house since he should know he isn't welcome? Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? But that isn't what is being discussed here. The auditor left when asked to leave. The argument being made is that he should have known he wasn't welcome and never should have gone. I'm just wondering if that is true for cops too. Because I'm aware that police have no special rights in this situation but people seem to be applying special responsibilities to the auditor. Yes, it is true for cops. Cops cannot remain on your property after you tell them to leave without a warrant, or exigent circumstances. Was I the only one who learned the Bill of Rights in high school? Read what I'm writing and respond to what I'm writing. The argument being given here is that the auditor did not have the traditional invitation to knock on the door. He should have known he wasn't welcome. Does that assumption apply to cops too? No, that assumption does not apply generally to cops. Interesting. So where is it codified that cops have more rights to go to a person's door for a conversation if they aren't welcome? |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11863
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Imzadi: Amazing that the person asking for us to be specific is talking about probation when I never said anything about that. You keep asking what your argument is, what is mine? Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Entering private property where you know you are not welcome is not trespass? If it is, then every cop that goes to the house of a criminal for a knock and talk is trespassing. Wanna go there? Wanna go there? Not without a warrant. No more knock and talks for anyone with a criminal background then. Somebody needs to tell the courts that GD has decided. I'm sure there are circumstances where people under probation are required to interact with cops sometimes. Is that what you think this discussion is about? Amazing that the person asking for us to be specific is talking about probation when I never said anything about that. You keep asking what your argument is, what is mine? I entertained a hypothetical. If you have some argument to make, then make it. You seem to think that cops are immune from trespassing laws. I hope I'm wrong about that. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11864
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Imzadi: Interesting. So where is it codified that cops have more rights to go to a person's door for a conversation if they aren't welcome? Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. Interesting. So if I have a negative experience with a cop, that cop can't do a knock at talk at my house since he should know he isn't welcome? Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? But that isn't what is being discussed here. The auditor left when asked to leave. The argument being made is that he should have known he wasn't welcome and never should have gone. I'm just wondering if that is true for cops too. Because I'm aware that police have no special rights in this situation but people seem to be applying special responsibilities to the auditor. Yes, it is true for cops. Cops cannot remain on your property after you tell them to leave without a warrant, or exigent circumstances. Was I the only one who learned the Bill of Rights in high school? Read what I'm writing and respond to what I'm writing. The argument being given here is that the auditor did not have the traditional invitation to knock on the door. He should have known he wasn't welcome. Does that assumption apply to cops too? No, that assumption does not apply generally to cops. Interesting. So where is it codified that cops have more rights to go to a person's door for a conversation if they aren't welcome? There is no such code. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: No. They peacefully walked up to the door knocked, backed away, were asked to leave. And did so. Then the guy came out of the house trying to start a fight, assaulting them, after retrieving a gun that he had in his hand. Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By Ecarl4100: Without watching, was this one of the videos where the auditor gets themselves just about to the fafo point, then turns on the camera and plays victim? No. They peacefully walked up to the door knocked, backed away, were asked to leave. And did so. Then the guy came out of the house trying to start a fight, assaulting them, after retrieving a gun that he had in his hand. You forgot spitting on them |
|
For this case, you have to separate the issues: what is legal, smart and moral to do. Legally, by the letter of the law, it wasn't trespassing. The signage is ambiguous vs common law and practices. And I'm guessing the law doesn't say how quickly a person has to leave when asked and that there's no precedent if a private driveway sign is the same as a trespass sign. Definitely not smart to shake the beehive and go to the residence. I got no problem with pestering the officer at work or in public. Also to continue pestering the owner with a gun pointed at him. And not moral to pursue the 1A's guys agenda by going to the officer's home and stretching what they are allowed to do under the law. So not trespassing, but also not smart or moral. |
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you have no idea what my position is, then why do you keep arguing against it? Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? So he has to tell him now? I thought they should just know... Tell me what you think my opinion is, so that I know you understand. No idea as you keep talking in circles. Sounds like you just dont like the guy and nothing else matters. If you have no idea what my position is, then why do you keep arguing against it? I'm arguing against what you are posting. Apparently thats not your opinion/position though. |
|
Originally Posted By _Matt_: You forgot spitting on them Originally Posted By _Matt_: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By Ecarl4100: Without watching, was this one of the videos where the auditor gets themselves just about to the fafo point, then turns on the camera and plays victim? No. They peacefully walked up to the door knocked, backed away, were asked to leave. And did so. Then the guy came out of the house trying to start a fight, assaulting them, after retrieving a gun that he had in his hand. You forgot spitting on them Thats what I was talking about when I said assault. |
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: I entertained a hypothetical. If you have some argument to make, then make it. You seem to think that cops are immune from trespassing laws. I hope I'm wrong about that. Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Entering private property where you know you are not welcome is not trespass? If it is, then every cop that goes to the house of a criminal for a knock and talk is trespassing. Wanna go there? Wanna go there? Not without a warrant. No more knock and talks for anyone with a criminal background then. Somebody needs to tell the courts that GD has decided. I'm sure there are circumstances where people under probation are required to interact with cops sometimes. Is that what you think this discussion is about? Amazing that the person asking for us to be specific is talking about probation when I never said anything about that. You keep asking what your argument is, what is mine? I entertained a hypothetical. If you have some argument to make, then make it. You seem to think that cops are immune from trespassing laws. I hope I'm wrong about that. I have made my argument. The justification for a knock and talk is that cops have the same implied invitation to go directly to a person's front door, knock, and interact with the homeowner unless asked to leave. But in this thread we are told that some people should just know that they don't have that implied invitation. I am exploring who else this psychic knowledge requirement extends to. |
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77237
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. He should have never gone up there. He had proper notice. He chose to ignore it. |
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: There is no such code. Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. Interesting. So if I have a negative experience with a cop, that cop can't do a knock at talk at my house since he should know he isn't welcome? Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? But that isn't what is being discussed here. The auditor left when asked to leave. The argument being made is that he should have known he wasn't welcome and never should have gone. I'm just wondering if that is true for cops too. Because I'm aware that police have no special rights in this situation but people seem to be applying special responsibilities to the auditor. Yes, it is true for cops. Cops cannot remain on your property after you tell them to leave without a warrant, or exigent circumstances. Was I the only one who learned the Bill of Rights in high school? Read what I'm writing and respond to what I'm writing. The argument being given here is that the auditor did not have the traditional invitation to knock on the door. He should have known he wasn't welcome. Does that assumption apply to cops too? No, that assumption does not apply generally to cops. Interesting. So where is it codified that cops have more rights to go to a person's door for a conversation if they aren't welcome? There is no such code. Then there is no such privilege. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11865
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By TheJudgeHolden: Would a reasonable person see a No Trespassing sign and think "I shouldn't go here"? Originally Posted By TheJudgeHolden: Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot: does "No Trespassing" mean you can't walk up to the door and knock? If he were a 'legitimate' news agency, this would never have been charged. You've fallen for a logical fallacy. You assume that a 1A Auditor is a Reasonable Person. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77238
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Originally Posted By Imzadi: I'm waiting for Girl Scouts to be prosecuted when trying to sell cookies People actually want girl scout cookies. Nobody wants a 1A auditor going up and harassing them at their home. |
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11866
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Imzadi: I have made my argument. The justification for a knock and talk is that cops have the same implied invitation to go directly to a person's front door, knock, and interact with the homeowner unless asked to leave. But in this thread we are told that some people should just know that they don't have that implied invitation. I am exploring who else this psychic knowledge requirement extends to. Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Entering private property where you know you are not welcome is not trespass? If it is, then every cop that goes to the house of a criminal for a knock and talk is trespassing. Wanna go there? Wanna go there? Not without a warrant. No more knock and talks for anyone with a criminal background then. Somebody needs to tell the courts that GD has decided. I'm sure there are circumstances where people under probation are required to interact with cops sometimes. Is that what you think this discussion is about? Amazing that the person asking for us to be specific is talking about probation when I never said anything about that. You keep asking what your argument is, what is mine? I entertained a hypothetical. If you have some argument to make, then make it. You seem to think that cops are immune from trespassing laws. I hope I'm wrong about that. I have made my argument. The justification for a knock and talk is that cops have the same implied invitation to go directly to a person's front door, knock, and interact with the homeowner unless asked to leave. But in this thread we are told that some people should just know that they don't have that implied invitation. I am exploring who else this psychic knowledge requirement extends to. Again, that's up to the Reasonable Person standard. Not the standard likely to be found among 1A Auditors. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
11867
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Imzadi: Then there is no such privilege. Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By subcomunic8r: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If you're on private property, and you know you aren't wanted, then you should leave with haste. I don't think this terribly controversial. He was leaving. Perhaps there would have been more haste had he not been walking backwards because a man with a gun was following him while yelling and spitting. I actually think that would induce more haste in a normal person, not less, don't you? Stay off other people's property if you're not wanted. I don't know about you but I can walk faster forward than backward. But if someone is following me with a gun I'm walking backward so I can watch him. Are you entering private property with the intent to harass the homeowner? Secondly, since when is it a crime or a sin to hold a pistol, pointed at the ground, on your own property? Is it a crime to spit on someone? Obviously he was trying to prevoke a lethal force situation while armed. I'm sure it's usually a crime to spit on someone. That is irrelevant to the fact that the "auditor" instigated this whole thing. He entered private property where he KNEW he was not welcome, and after being told to leave, took what I consider to be excessive time in leaving. That's it, that's my whole opinion. Do not enter another man's property when you know you are not welcome. Then again, I had a father. Not all of us did. Nothing was excessive about them walking away. That is being dishonest. I said "what I consider to be excessive time." Don't accuse me of being dishonest because we have a different opinion about what a length of time should be. Following your logic, you would call me a liar if I said that he should have covered the distance in one second less time. I'm sure that's not what you meant. So you are unreasonable then? I think people should not enter private property where they know they are not welcome. If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. But not previously given a trespass notice. Not wanting someone you don't like to enter your property isnt automatically trespass. Nor does it justify the guys reaction. I can't remember the wording used but they argued over whether or not auditor still had the same open invitation as normal people because of their previous run ins. Something like this. If you and I have beef and get in actual altercations numerous times to the point where attempts are made for protective orders you would probably assume I don't want you at my house. At that point I you no longer have the same privilege as a normal person who goes door to door or an uninvolved news crew doing a story. That was discussed a lot. Interesting. So if I have a negative experience with a cop, that cop can't do a knock at talk at my house since he should know he isn't welcome? Correct. A cop can only enter or remain on your property under the "consensual encounter" doctrine. If you tell him to leave, he has to leave, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Were you under the impression that cops are allowed to just hang out at your doorstep all night long? But that isn't what is being discussed here. The auditor left when asked to leave. The argument being made is that he should have known he wasn't welcome and never should have gone. I'm just wondering if that is true for cops too. Because I'm aware that police have no special rights in this situation but people seem to be applying special responsibilities to the auditor. Yes, it is true for cops. Cops cannot remain on your property after you tell them to leave without a warrant, or exigent circumstances. Was I the only one who learned the Bill of Rights in high school? Read what I'm writing and respond to what I'm writing. The argument being given here is that the auditor did not have the traditional invitation to knock on the door. He should have known he wasn't welcome. Does that assumption apply to cops too? No, that assumption does not apply generally to cops. Interesting. So where is it codified that cops have more rights to go to a person's door for a conversation if they aren't welcome? There is no such code. Then there is no such privilege. Okay? |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By fadedsun: People actually want girl scout cookies. Nobody wants a 1A auditor going up and harassing them at their home. Originally Posted By fadedsun: Originally Posted By Imzadi: I'm waiting for Girl Scouts to be prosecuted when trying to sell cookies People actually want girl scout cookies. Nobody wants a 1A auditor going up and harassing them at their home. Very few people want a cop harassing them at their home. |
|
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: No idea as you keep talking in circles. Sounds like you just dont like the guy and nothing else matters. Dude, you had a decent line of reasoning, but now you're just being obtuse and refusing to answer the person you're arguing withs questions. Just stop with the act already. And if it's not an act, try repeating the 7th grade to help with the comprehension and debate skills. |