California skate park now requires fingerprints to enter

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Fine. Don't answer the questions. You've just done little more than prove you're the zealot that deals in concrete actions and has little to no finesse with dealing with the more subtle issues in life. You're more deflective than substantiative, and with all due respect I wouldn't expect anything more rational from you.

I'd hate to see your response if they chose to have an admission fee.

Because skaters are future terrists.

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Ok so according to your logic then companies that use fingerprinting to access certain areas,are violating the California constitution. Also, every law on the books is unconstitional based on the fact that according to you they are discriminatory because some people break said law.

Had to star you for that.

Considering most cities are "incorporated" and thus a company in their means and motives, the analogy is sound.

reply to post by abecedarian

I'd hate to see your response if they chose to have an admission fee.

Great point. I bet she would find that discriminatory based on the fact that some people couldn't afford the fee. I guess using her logic, every person poorer than say Bill Gates is being discriminated against.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


OK, what is your plan? How would you stop the vandalism and drug use, knowing no city in California could afford to place a full time Officer in a park to babysit? How would you make the park safe for the others who share no guilt?

How exactly does requiring an ID and using a fingerprint entry harm anyone other than the bad people?

I will say this. I'd go after the Parents and if it is adults doing it, I'd double or triple the sentences for conducting criminal activity in a park used by Kids. Going after Parents is a win, win. They are forced to deal with what their children are doing and the kids get a real Parent who pays attention to them.

reply to post by ZuluChaka

What was listed in the section of the California Constitution does not demonstrate it is unconstitutional. What you listed says you have a right to privacy. So therefore you can maintain your privacy by simply not using the park anymore.

The right to privacy means precisely that, the right to privacy. The right to due process of law means precisely that, due process of law. People cannot be forced to acquiesce to fingerprinting simply because they want to use a public park. Insisting they are not forced to do so because they have the choice of not using the park ignores the myriad of ordinances regarding skateboarding that seeks to herd skateboarders into parks such as these. Of course those ordinances are just as dubious in their legal nature but that is a different topic. You have still failed to show by Constitution how the government derives the right to fingerprint people who have not yet been charged with a crime, and just keep bellowing it is okay.

The use of public areas is a fundamental right of the public. That is what makes it public as opposed to private.

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Ok so according to your logic then companies that use fingerprinting to access certain areas,are violating the California constitution. Also, every law on the books is unconstitional based on the fact that according to you they are discriminatory because some people break said law.

For example speeding laws are discriminatory, because people speed. That is classic.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

Confusing private ownership with public places is not using my logic at all and is you using your own pretzel logic. Private is private, and public is public.

Your own ignorance is perfectly demonstrated by your last sentence. You hope to illustrate your oppositions arguments by inventing arguments that they never made, and it is fairly presumed you are doing this because you don't have any valid arguments to make, only fallacious ones.

Originally posted by abecedarian
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Fine. Don't answer the questions. You've just done little more than prove you're the zealot that deals in concrete actions and has little to no finesse with dealing with the more subtle issues in life. You're more deflective than substantiative, and with all due respect I wouldn't expect anything more rational from you.

I'd hate to see your response if they chose to have an admission fee.

But I did answer your questions, and just as you hoped to redefine the word inalienable to mean something other than what it actually means, now you hope to pretend that your hypothetical's were not addressed.

As to the zealotry, the only difference between you and I, is that where I zealously defend the rights of all people, you zealously defend tyranny. As incremental as that tyranny may be, it is tyranny just the same. It is precisely because of petty tyrants such as yourself that inalienable rights must be jealously guarded and zealously defended.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Well first you would have to establish that requesting you give your fingerprints in order to do or use something is unconstitutional or that your fingerprints are even private.

So what about banks requiring you give a fingerprint to cash a check? What about police taking fingerprints at the scene of a crime? What about police storing criminal fingerprints of convicted criminals? What about when you have to get your fingerprints taken when you adopt or foster a child? What about taking your fingerprints when you get a Passport and/ or visa? Is that unconstitional, on the grounds of privacy?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Dear Jean Paul you are such an asset to us all but also a pain, causing me to realize Im used to a world of convenience,
quick resolutions.
Your knowledge, respect, and protection of the Constitution of the United States is spot on!

At first, in the mindset of a single parent, I liked the idea that I could take my child to a skate park that would deter criminals and also criminal activity. Focusing on having fun with minimal worries of criminal behavior.

Then after reading more and more of what you are posting, I see how TPTB, who could care less about the protection of the citizens/children in the first place, have actually cornered us into thinking they are cracking down on the criminals when in fact they are tightening the control grid.
We are slowly losing our Constitutional Rights, swapping them for the mindset of feeling secure. A false form of thinking we are protecting our children and their rights to enjoy the freedom of participating.
I feel some in the City and in the Government are for what is best for the citizens but they fail to realize they have been cornered too by the very ones who aren't in our best interest.

We have more choices and don't exercise them.
I appreciate your contributions to ATS, all be it, your posts cause my brain to feel like its working overtime

So the safety of the citizens isn't living in a cage like state, it begins with making the officials who chose their profession, to be accountable to actually enforcing what the take and oath to enforce, City, State and Government.

Set me straight please if Im misunderstanding.

Always,
Liberty

reply to post by Blaine91555

OK, what is your plan? How would you stop the vandalism and drug use, knowing no city in California could afford to place a full time Officer in a park to babysit? How would you make the park safe for the others who share no guilt?

Abrogating and derogating the rights of people is not a valid plan, nor will it do a thing to prevent crime. You justify the expense of technology that would finger print all people who enter a public park, then turn around and insist that no city in California could afford to place a full time officer in that park to babysit, clearly ignoring the expense that comes with the use of the technology to fingerprint people. Further, another advocate of tyranny in this thread spoke to all "the concerned citizens" who have spoken on this matter, although clearly, they are not concerned enough to volunteer their own time to babysit in the public park. Just concerned enough to advocate tyranny.

How exactly does requiring an ID and using a fingerprint entry harm anyone other than the bad people?

From no fly lists to identity theft, the "requirement of ID" has harmed many innocent people, and it is people like you who simply shrug their shoulders and say, "oh well, it hasn't directly affected me yet, so what is the problem?", who only make the problem worse. You have no regard for inalienable rights, this much is clear.

The right to privacy is an inalienable right, as is the right to due process of law. Creating a pre-crime system just to make you feel more secure is folly. It is horrifying when polls come out suggesting that the majority of Americans would gladly give up "some of their rights" in order to be more secure, and I would love to believe that those polls are not reflective of reality, but people like you make it clear this is the reality that people face, people like you. You ask how "requiring ID" affects anyone other than bad people and this question seems to predicated on the belief that you are a good person. I think not.

reply to post by ZuluChaka

So what about banks requiring you give a fingerprint to cash a check? What about police taking fingerprints at the scene of a crime? What about police storing criminal fingerprints of convicted criminals? What about when you have to get your fingerprints taken when you adopt or foster a child? What about taking your fingerprints when you get a Passport and/ or visa? Is that unconstitional, on the grounds of privacy?

1.) Banks are private institutions.

2.) Once a crime has actually been committed, the gathering of fingerprints is well within the mandate of due process of law.

3.) The process of adoption when done through the state is a privilege not a right. Adoption is a contractual agreement, and all parties must be in agreement to the terms of that contract in order for it to have any validity. If people want to adopt they must agree to the contracts of that adoption in order to gain access to the privilege of adoption. Adoption laws is yet another area that brings in many more questions, such as the right for next of kin to raise their family in the event the parents have died and can no longer raise their own children. People have fundamental rights, and as long as the right to raise next of kin is not contested by another family member, the states involvement is not at all necessary. Adoption outside of that paradigm is a different story.

4.) Application for state or federal issued identification is not a right. People do not need identification in order to enjoy their rights. If they want identification and apply to the state or federal government for such identification then they are applying for a privilege and not a right.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

2.) Once a crime has actually been committed, the gathering of fingerprints is well within the mandate of due process of law.

3.) The process of adoption when done through the state is a privilege not a right. Adoption is a contractual agreement, and all parties must be in agreement to the terms of that contract in order for it to have any validity. If people want to adopt they must agree to the contracts of that adoption in order to gain access to the privilege of adoption. Adoption laws is yet another area that brings in many more questions, such as the right for next of kin to raise their family in the event the parents have died and can no longer raise their own children. People have fundamental rights, and as long as the right to raise next of kin is not contested by another family member, the states involvement is not at all necessary. Adoption outside of that paradigm is a different story.

4.) Application for state or federal issued identification is not a right. People do not need identification in order to enjoy their rights. If they want identification and apply to the state or federal government for such identification then they are applying for a privilege and not a right.

I though you said that your right to privacy was inalienable and therefore could never ever under any circumstances be violated.

As far as 3 and 4 go, my reply is that skate boardng in a publc park is also a privelege and not a right. So you basically just supported my argument that it is completely constitutional to request people be fingerprinted in order to have the privelege to use the state park.

But in your defense, I will agree that banks are private institutions.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

[edit on 10-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

reply to post by sweetliberty


Yes Liberty,

Being a parent is fraught with much concern, and the sad reality is that the world has never been safe, and a parent must do all they can to protect their children. That protection means protecting their fundamental rights as well, for just as surely as the state can "erase" the right to privacy, they can "erase" the right to life, liberty, and property. This is why rights are inalienable, so as to keep them out of the hands of government. Particularly democratic governments where voters and "taxpayers" believe they have the "right" to abrogate and derogate the rights of minorities. There is no greater minority than that of the individual, and each individual must do what they can to protect their rights, each and every one.

If those people in this thread who are advocating an oppressive state, actually cared about your child, they would be volunteering to help monitor the parks in which your child would play, instead of advocating tyranny. You are right to surmise that the government cares not a whit for you or your child's safety, and it would be prudent to understand that these sycophants of government care not a whit about you or your child either.

Those who do care about you and yours will make themselves known not by their rhetoric advocating a police state, but by their clear and identifiable actions that reveal themselves as genuine friends who would valiantly fight to protect you and your child's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. There are indeed, some law enforcement officers who actually fit this description, but they are unfortunately outgunned and outnumbered by petty tyrants.

Take good care of your child and teach him well, for I assure you the state has no intentions of taking care of him, nor teaching him well. I submit the vast array of those in this thread who have willingly revealed their own ignorance of the law as just one example of how poorly the state has taught them.

reply to post by ZuluChaka

I though you said that your right to privacy was inalienable and therefore could never ever under any circumstances be violated.

I have and have not contradicted this. Your game of semantics will not work. Just as surely as someone has the right to privacy, so does a person have the right to property. A private bank is property privately owned. It is not public and therefore any person who would contract with that bank must either agree to the terms of that contract or decide not to do business with that bank. The same cannot be said of public property which belongs to all people equally.

You are mistaken that access to a public space is privilege. This is a mistake of fact and/or misinterpretation of law. All people have the inalienable right to enjoy that which is public.

Public Property defined:

public property n. property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public.

Who is the government?

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You are mistaken that access to a public space is privilege. This is a mistake of fact and/or misinterpretation of law. All people have the inalienable right to enjoy that which is public.

Well if you believe that then try to drive on the PUBLIC roads without a drivers license or tags and see how that works out for you. I dare you to let your license and tags expire and then drive around and go up to a cop and tell him its ok, because its public property and you have a right to use it without any stipulations whatsoever.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

Gestapo Jackboot move, California.

Skate parks are used by young people. I agree with the above poster who said this is a war on youth and it has nothing to do with skaters or druggies or crime.

This is the war on our youth, because our youth who obey the law and just wanna skate are being tricked into giving up their fingerprints to God only knows what type of databases.

Skaters sweat. There is the potential to collect DNA as well.

This will happen more and more and more.

It is important for some reason our government collects as many samples of its citizens as possible, and getting them younger is quite good.

These same government oppressors get our children's dna and fingerprints in school too, which is mandatory.

Our world has become sick.

I would boycott the park myself and skate free elsewhere.

reply to post by ZuluChaka

Well if you believe that then try to drive on the PUBLIC roads without a drivers license or tags and see how that works out for you. I dare you to let your license and tags expire and then drive around and go up to a cop and tell him its ok, because its public property and you have a right to use it without any stipulations whatsoever.

Police Encounter: Freeman gets off driving without a license

The fact that you have to sign a contract in order to obtain a drivers license and registration to a vehicle should make clear that contract law is in place. No one has forced you to enter a DMV and apply for a license to drive. There is a legal definition for the word license as well:

License defined

The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.

The right to travel is inalienable and cannot be construed as an illegal act. Application for a license to drive is a privilege, and once asking for this privilege those who ask for it must abide by the rules set forth by contractual agreement. Thus, when the DMV declares "driving is a privilege and not a right", what makes that legal is the voluntarily acquiescence of those who applied for membership into this club of privilege. Just because you might be card carrying and privileged member of this club, does not give you the right to abrogate and derogate the inalienable rights of others.

Look, you have made clear the disregard you have for inalienable rights and you have made clear how ignorant of the law you are. You are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to abrogate and derogate the rights of others.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

No one has forced you to enter a DMV and apply for a license to drive.

I am pretty sure nobody has been forced to go to the skate park and skateboard either. You are destroying your own argument.

Acclimatisation is the word I was thinking of...

Originally posted by alaskan
This is just like ad agencies using skateboards/extreme sports to sell all their other detrimental crap.

The young kids that have no idea there's anything to worry about are going to grow up thinking about these systems like "Oh this is just like at the park, no big deal..."