FWIW...
In Indiana we can go onto ANY land in the state that is not posted. In other words, if you come accross a big field and want to walk across it, go right ahead and do so without fear of repercussion from the law. BUT, if there are signs and fences, it is to be presumed that the land is posted, and does not allow public entry.
Same goes for bars, restaurants, grocery stores, day care centers, bingo halls, doctors offices....
If there are no signs to inform you to stay away, and the place is accessible, then you have the right to go onto that property, be it owned by a private individual or the State. Now, the private land or business owner has every right to deny access to his property. And in such event you would see a CLOSED sign on the window, locks on the doors, or a NO TRESSPASSING sign on the fence.
OK, now we have a bar...and it is obviously open for public enjoyment. In either event, be the patrons within a private establishment, or within a public venue...they have rights that are NOT left at the door. And they have every right to be protected from a drunk inside the bar, as they are outside the bar. The patrons rights have not changed simply because they are on what some may consider private land...or public land, it matters not when it comes to the rights of others.
I simply can't understand why the drunk gets so much backing from some here. He has broken the law in most places if he is intoxicated. And at that point, he is not obeying the law. Yu guys who scream for his rights are on the wrong bandwagon, IMO. Because if I am sitting in a bar having a beer, and Mr Drunk starts a fight with me and punches me...you better bet that if Officer Ivan dosesn't come in and arrest him, stating that the perpetrator is on private property, I will slap a lawsuit on Officer Ivan and his bosses so fast their heads will swirl.
This district in Texas seems to be having a plauge of problems from drunks. They are the people that are living, and dying, with the issue, and they are the ones with the RIGHTS, not the criminals.
IMO, a law breaker loses his everyday rights, until the point that he is not considered a criminal and proven as such in a court. At the very least, my law abiding rights trump the drunks rights.
I think many need to start thinking in realistic terms, rather than some sort of visualistic perception of losing rights.
Of course, if we really want to have the right to be drunk and disorderly around others without fear of being arrested, then you need to get out and vote for the man who promises to protect the rights of criminals, and piss on the rest of the public. If he gets voted in, then you can be happy that you have the right man for your needs.
Good luck with that election, and good luck telling folks the reason you backed such a guy.
as a side...I know a guy who owns a very nice lake. He never allowed anyone to fish in it, or even get closed to it for that matter. He was always on patrol of the lake and always carried a gun with him.
(the guy was known for doing this) Anyway, some kids decided they would sneak in and do some bluegill fishing..he spots them from accross the lake and starts to fire at them.
One of the kids was shot, not killed or seriously injured, but shot nonetheless.
The guy, who was a respected member of the community, is sitting his sorry ass in prison right now.
He used the defence that his signs were clearly posted, including the one that stated; "Violators Will Be Shot!"
Not sure this has any relevence to the thread, but it is an example of how some folks think they know what's within their rights and what is not.
Btw...Al Queda thanks you, those that are fighting the good fight for the rights of criminals, to have the ability to do whatever they want on private property. Especially on the grounds of those private mosques and fake storefronts. Everyone knows that everyone inside the mosque has rights...and to infiltrate that mosque, without being called on by the owner of the mosque...and arrest anyone who is plotting an attack against US citizens, is simply violating the rights of those inside the mosque planning the attack.
Maybe the plan uncovered was to drink a bit of alcohol and go onto the highway and ram a carload of Christians. Ala praise the souls of those who are protecting us and our inalianable rights.
I say we get the folks into office that will absolutley protect these individuals rights, and the rest of us be damned.
In Indiana we can go onto ANY land in the state that is not posted. In other words, if you come accross a big field and want to walk across it, go right ahead and do so without fear of repercussion from the law. BUT, if there are signs and fences, it is to be presumed that the land is posted, and does not allow public entry.
Same goes for bars, restaurants, grocery stores, day care centers, bingo halls, doctors offices....
If there are no signs to inform you to stay away, and the place is accessible, then you have the right to go onto that property, be it owned by a private individual or the State. Now, the private land or business owner has every right to deny access to his property. And in such event you would see a CLOSED sign on the window, locks on the doors, or a NO TRESSPASSING sign on the fence.
OK, now we have a bar...and it is obviously open for public enjoyment. In either event, be the patrons within a private establishment, or within a public venue...they have rights that are NOT left at the door. And they have every right to be protected from a drunk inside the bar, as they are outside the bar. The patrons rights have not changed simply because they are on what some may consider private land...or public land, it matters not when it comes to the rights of others.
I simply can't understand why the drunk gets so much backing from some here. He has broken the law in most places if he is intoxicated. And at that point, he is not obeying the law. Yu guys who scream for his rights are on the wrong bandwagon, IMO. Because if I am sitting in a bar having a beer, and Mr Drunk starts a fight with me and punches me...you better bet that if Officer Ivan dosesn't come in and arrest him, stating that the perpetrator is on private property, I will slap a lawsuit on Officer Ivan and his bosses so fast their heads will swirl.
This district in Texas seems to be having a plauge of problems from drunks. They are the people that are living, and dying, with the issue, and they are the ones with the RIGHTS, not the criminals.
IMO, a law breaker loses his everyday rights, until the point that he is not considered a criminal and proven as such in a court. At the very least, my law abiding rights trump the drunks rights.
I think many need to start thinking in realistic terms, rather than some sort of visualistic perception of losing rights.
Of course, if we really want to have the right to be drunk and disorderly around others without fear of being arrested, then you need to get out and vote for the man who promises to protect the rights of criminals, and piss on the rest of the public. If he gets voted in, then you can be happy that you have the right man for your needs.
Good luck with that election, and good luck telling folks the reason you backed such a guy.
as a side...I know a guy who owns a very nice lake. He never allowed anyone to fish in it, or even get closed to it for that matter. He was always on patrol of the lake and always carried a gun with him.
(the guy was known for doing this) Anyway, some kids decided they would sneak in and do some bluegill fishing..he spots them from accross the lake and starts to fire at them.
One of the kids was shot, not killed or seriously injured, but shot nonetheless.
The guy, who was a respected member of the community, is sitting his sorry ass in prison right now.
He used the defence that his signs were clearly posted, including the one that stated; "Violators Will Be Shot!"
Not sure this has any relevence to the thread, but it is an example of how some folks think they know what's within their rights and what is not.
Btw...Al Queda thanks you, those that are fighting the good fight for the rights of criminals, to have the ability to do whatever they want on private property. Especially on the grounds of those private mosques and fake storefronts. Everyone knows that everyone inside the mosque has rights...and to infiltrate that mosque, without being called on by the owner of the mosque...and arrest anyone who is plotting an attack against US citizens, is simply violating the rights of those inside the mosque planning the attack.
Maybe the plan uncovered was to drink a bit of alcohol and go onto the highway and ram a carload of Christians. Ala praise the souls of those who are protecting us and our inalianable rights.
I say we get the folks into office that will absolutley protect these individuals rights, and the rest of us be damned.
