Comments by "Ficus-lovin\x27 Capybara N\x27 pals • 🌟 • 25 yrs ago" (@YourCapybaraAmigo_17yrsago) on "Law Enforcement Caught Snooping on Private Land... Again" video.

Did they ever state why they were even there? What are they investigating? Usually that's the first thing they're going to tell the property owner? "We had a report of this, we heard this was happening we're just here to check something out". I mean it's just common sense why wouldn't that be the first thing out of their mouth? I mean what do they care about his land unless they heard that there's something going on that shouldn't be??
15
Well, just because they're game wardens and they know that he hunts that is not a sufficient enough reason to conduct coordinated surveillance of his property. If they're not investigating suspected illegal activity then they need to leave. It seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. I hope this gentleman wins his lawsuit... maybe there's some other ulterior motive going on here but those game wardens need to have more respect for private land and have legitimate cause-based reasons before they start making themselves at home. I mean if there's no reason for them to be there then why don't they just move on? I'm sure there's some other work they could do or complaint they could investigate.
6
I mean for me it's a very simple- it comes down to how much power do you want an outside authority to have? If people want to bow down and worship authority or violence no matter how abusive it gets I guess that's their prerogative but I don't want to live that way. No thank you. If people want the citizens to be a pseudoslave I guess that's their prerogative but I don't share that view. People seem to have it twisted here, they think we exist to serve the feds and the governmental structure, not the other way around. I'm all for fair courts, Fair legal procedures, fair whatever, with many levels of independent oversight and checks and balances, and the right to seek help from State force if one so desires it. But I don't agree with the prison State in its current form, I don't agree with most cops, I don't agree with cops being able to do whatever the hell they want and having total impunity the way we do now, I don't agree with the prison industrial complex, I don't agree with the 1984 pseudo-State we have now, I don't agree with a lot of it. I don't agree with drugs or the drug trade being illegal nope sure don't. I don't agree with large corpos and Wall Street being able to run away with everything and I don't agree with the current extent of IP law. I don't agree with the public not having a say on many matters, we should have direct voting on most items, other than those that are self-evident to be needed immediately & serve a life-affirming purpose; etc. I don't agree with HOAs because I mean, for SO many obvious reasons. I don't agree that cops have the right to occupy public land at any time for ANY purpose without being on an emergency call or a legitimate investigation. That means all patrolling, stalking and the endless river of thieving & unnecessary bodysnatching they get away with must be stopped IMMEDIATELY, it's crime that we've all been nass brainwashed to accept as normal! It's CRIME ffs!! Its not right. There's a LOT I don't agree with. We can have a small State while still managing our affairs in a positive, efficient, forward-thinking way that serves everyone. I'm all for rational fair and positive public management that strives to serve the needs of everyone while doing its best not to infringe on citizens' autonomy.
5
I'm still not understanding what they wanted to know about????? Like what's the point of even wanting to see what's there I'm not even hearing that yet which is very puzzling. If they can't show a reason or rational cause then seems to me that yes the Constitution trumps anything that's come after. I don't know if they're just bored or what but if they don't have any reason to be conducting surveillance, then they need to leave. I mean do they just go around investigating random fields in their jurisdiction?
3
@richdemanowski2575 I mostly agree. Initiated force is almost always wrong. Idk..... It's kind of mess. Everyone wants more autonomy (except those that seem to want to be told what to do because it relieves them of the burden of having to think for themselves), but where do we draw the line? The shit is simple and complicated at the same time. We live under a fascist corporate dictatorship right now, from HOAs to the ruthless pursuit of small farmers by corp giants, holistic docs by big pharma, to the gross overextension imo, of IP law regarding online downloading, otherwise called a pirating or filesharing and so on. Marginalized communities are constantly oppressed and poverty is getting worse. How to resolve these? We have car primacy everywhere and not nearly enough appreciation of multimodal forms of public transit. I believe I have the answers but who am I? If I come out being on the far left I turn some people off, if I come out as a mostly civil libertarian I turn others off. If I say I'm for open borders because I'm compassionate other people shut down. If I say I have no problem with businesses making a profit because that's what they're there for, but I don't believe it should be unlimited or totally unregulated, I turn others off. I say I love most of the sincere public sector but I hate most cops. I guess there's no way to ever appeal to everybody. I say tenants' lives matter because we do, but I also understand that landlords need to make a profit to make it worth their time. I think it's pretty clear the big $$ owns, controls, directions & commands both mainstream political parties equally (the red/blue uniparty I call them). You may not like redistributive financial policies but I see no other way to end poverty. And so the debates begin. It's kind of a mess. All I know is for sure is thad I hate Big Brother always ready with yet another jackboot with a shove or a smile coming to steal what I have YET AGAIN or stop me on the side of the road for some oppression (I'm W btw but can happen to anyone), telling me I can't enjoy the beauty of a night evening in a public park simply because it's no longer daylight, unjustly sequestering our public spaces either on a time basis or just because (this really offends me); showing intentional cruelty to the unhoused simply because they're in need, I am pretty convinced that our courts in this country are mostly fixed, either intentionally or through poor oversight and poor procedures/bad incentives, and that's just not good. Ugh its a fuggin mess and I'm still figuring out where I stand and what if anything I hope to do about it.
1
@richdemanowski2575 I think I agree with a lot of the above but be careful you don't fall into old racist thought tropes. It was a disgusting and ugly thing that Reagan (an absolute dirtbag or at a minimum of puppet of calculating dirtbags, but that's pretty much all the feds so,) tapped into when he spun the lies of the welfare queens. Nobody talks about welfare queens when it was poor W people getting the help but the moment that we closed the racial gap suddenly there's a problem? That's not right. Besides, the biggest welfare queens in this country are the people and corp interests at the top, that's where billions of subsidies and pure handouts go, not those at the bottom just trying to scrape by hand to mouth. Maybe if there was more control of the private sector, larger companies wouldn't be able to shed workers like underwear and chase poverty wages around the world thus preventing layoffs and offshoring. This is why I'm a pretty committed communist on $$ issues, bec I stand with Labor. I have to, I've been a worker all my life and while I may or may not consider starting my own small business someday, I'm always going to be a worker. I never came from money and I doubt I'll ever have much money and that's fine. As long as I have enough to have a reasonable standard of living that will be perfectly acceptable. You wouldn't imply that a W girl is out here intentionally having babies with all different fathers just for the welfare benefits. And I doubt you'd say that to a Blk person's face so just be careful, it's easy to get carried away by old outdated abusive hateful dehumanizing stereotypes even if we don't mean to. It's really not fair to anyone to be talked about that way and I don't know anybody who actually lives like that. Plus you wouldn't want people to get married who really didn't love each other and who weren't mature enough to make a real go of it. That just leads to misery and disadvantage and in some cases child abuse or abandonment down the line. It's much better for two people to stay separated but share childrearing in the case of unplanned pregnancy if they aren't in love (and don't choose to abort). There's nothing wrong with being a singular unwed parent, this isn't the 1800s anymore and a person's personal religious beliefs are a private matter and should have absolutely no bearing on our social attitudes. Same for abortion, same for stem cell research, everything. One of the most perceptive concepts that the FFs did get right was the separation of church and State so I always give them credit for that. What's important is that any child has the best possible start in life and that means material security and at least one parent who is responsible and loves them. Two is wonderful and ideal, but at least one is what matters. Nobody should stay married to somebody who isn't ready just because of some piece of paper. Nobody benefits from that. I'm not here to judge on anyone based on their early life experiences, we all have a lot of shared values or we wouldn't be here right now, so all I'm saying is let's just try to be aware and cognizant of the old harmful attitudes we have that we've picked up over the years that might have been more accepted in previous times but are rightfully no longer accepted by sincere well-meaning people today. We can do better now. Racism, fear, xenophobia, ignorance, classism; these aren't things that people like us should be subscribing to. We are much better than that and we should be striving to raise others up to our level. For the record I'm over 40 so I'm not young if that's what you're thinking. I've been there done that. I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree and I don't really think we disagree other than just have areas where we place more emphasis than others. I totes agree that those in a position of public roles often do a great deal of harm either intentionally or unintentionally, directly or indirectly, with a lot of measures they bring forth however, that doesn't mean that there should be no public management. We have to try to do a better job going forward. There are some key areas where we need to have non-profit interests and ethical people at work, or harm will happen- it already has. Protecting our environment, working on getting us off fossil fuels, proper urban planning, investing in more forms of mass transit, ending all avoidable forms of poverty (material security for all), determining proper business regulations, debating all forms of civic reform, protecting and reinvesting in public education, providing better higher educational opportunities, managing our open spaces properly, racial matters, protecting smaller enterprise and preventing big business domination of all industry, and the list goes on. For-profit interests will never do that, so there's always going to be a place for ethical people who really do care about making a better world for the next generation to step up and get work done. The problem is in this country they all seem to be bought and paid for by the deep pockets (they are) but it doesn't HAVE to be that way. We COULD have an alternative, I just don't know the best way to get there. Anyhow you posted a lot which I appreciate but haven't had a chance to really go over it in depth so I'm going to do that now.
1
@richdemanowski2575 I would love to respond but youtube blocked my comment so that's unfortunate.
1
@robbobcat7286 I mean.... But it's legally held private property? It really shouldn't cause curiosity. I mean that's the whole point of private property if somebody wishes to secure it from random unrelated outside traffic that is their legal right. Why would random land cops be curious about private land unless they've had a report of some sort of questionable activity on the premises?? You don't have the right to be curious when it's private land that's the whole point. It's PRIVATE. Either people have the right to their privacy or they do not. I don't walk around my area looking for no trespassing signs and saying "oh my gosh that's not my land I'm going to make sure to find out what's going on there". I mean once curiosity doesn't give one the legal right to assess someone else's property that they have stated they do not wish outsiders to access. It's just like I don't have the legal right to let myself into my neighbor's house when he's not home because you know "I'm just curious". so that makes it okay? All this man was asking is that the game wardens show him a legitimate reason why he's under surveillance. Either they didn't have one and we're just trying to kill time I guess, or the one they had they knew wasn't legal or wouldn't what the man wanted to hear. I'm all for right to roam laws that allow passersby by to access private land such as open fields for innocent reasons such as simply relaxing on it or passing through like they have throughout europe,but these game cops were aggressing into it continually and even putting in cameras? I think it's pretty fair for the owner to ask why?? Why should he be surveilled without legal or good cause? Anyhow curiosity doesn't justify anyone's right to violate your personal rights so I hope you don't think that's ok. I'm not against all cops in all situations provided they limit their effort to legitimate actions, but either rights matter or they don't. It's really simple.
1
@YouveBeenMiddled judges can easily be corrupted or do wrong or sign warrants like candy but at least it's another layer of check and balance if an imperfect one. So yes, def, agreed.
1