It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police arrest Census taker

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by grey580
 


They certainly can keep trying, but again, there are limits to their enforcement authority. US Code explicitly defines the penalty for non-compliance with the census, and that penalty is a fine.

Once the home owner refused all contact from the census worker and told him to leave the property, that should have been the end of the discussion.


btw did you read the article?

Again the census worker is empowered to repeatedly gain access to your home in order to complete his duty. I'd infer that to mean that he is not subject to tresspassing unless he's being a real asshat.

In this case he went back to the gate once the homeowner asked him to leave and waited for the police to arrive so that he could give the police the form to hand to the propterty owner. I would hardly call that tresspassing.

If you read the article it's pretty plain to see that the police are in the wrong. They should of handed the homeowner the census, end of story. However this wasn't the case. They failed to uphold the laws of this country. They should be in deep crap and I hope the federal government prosecutes them.




posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


The census cannot 'gain access to your home'. As I posted above, the Census Bureau states that they will never ask for entry into your home.

The police can't force the guy to take the census form. If he refuses it, there is nothing they can do about it. Nothing. Again, look at the US Code regarding census law. There's only one enforcement action that the government can take, which is to issue a fine.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by black cat
 



It's interesting how Benevolent sides with the census taker and others side with the police. I guess you see what you want to see in this story.


I side with Benevolent on this. The census worker was doing his job, and working with a certain set of expectations..."We'd been trained to wait by the gate for the cops to get there and hand them the forms that we would have handed to the guy."

That part I accept. But this part makes it a bit clouded...

" The police then hand it to them and tell them, 'It's the law, do it.' "

I wonder about that part... is it the law?

I predict it will be Case Dismissed.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


again did you read the article?

the worker never tried to gain entrance into this guys home.
he did his job as he was supposed to do.
when asked to leave he waited by the gate to this mans property until the police arrived.
How is that trespassing?

the police, instead of upholding the law, arrested this man trying to do his job. he did what he was trained to do by the federal government.
when confronted by a non compliant person wait for the police to arrive.
give the census form to the police to hand to the home owner.

Now I'm going to assume that when the federal government trains you to do something. It's the right way of doing things.

You are correct that the census worker has no authority to do anything other than try to get the census taken.

And that's not what i'm arguing. my point is that the cops were wrong. they did not uphold the laws of the land. they should be held liable and be fined by the government for not following the law. just because the homeowner is a cop doesn't mean he's exempt from following the law.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by black cat
 




Census takers have the right to take the census, but I don't think they have the right to trespass on your property. When I was reading the story and I got to the part where it said ""When I opened his gate and walked in ..." that's where the red flags went up. The census taker had no right to just walk into the guy's gate on his private property, uninvited.


How is the census worker (or UPS guy, or Girl Scout selling cookies, etc.) supposed to ring your doorbell without stepping on your property?

Sounds silly to me.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by Portugoal
Actually, by law, they are allowed to go into your house if you aren't answering, for the sake of the census.



Not true.

Most importantly, the Census Bureau will NEVER, under any circumstances, ask to enter your home.

Straight off the US Census website.


That would be not safe for the census worker at all. Can you imagine the amount of census workers getting shot if they did that?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


You said it:


Again the census worker is empowered to repeatedly gain access to your home


Otherwise, as far as the police are concerned, I can't see anything they've done wrong. I don't know what you expected them to do. If he refuses to take the form, they have no real enforcement authority. That's the job of the Census Bureau, and again, the penalty they may issue is clearly defined in US code.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Oh I don't know. Abuse of power? Intimidation? False arrest?

In any case I guess we agree to disagree.

This one will play out in the courts. I predict the federal government will win in court, the census worker will be cleared and fines will be dished out.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


I don't doubt that the census worker will win his case. The Feds will protect their own, that much is a given.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by grey580
 


I don't doubt that the census worker will win his case. The Feds will protect their own, that much is a given.


So, hypothetically, if he wins his case... does that mean the cops were wrong in arresting him for tresspassing?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


No, at least not in the eyes of the court. Technically, the police are not on trial. It simply means that the census worker was found not guilty of 2nd degree criminal trespass. Nothing more, nothing less. In order to prove wrongdoing by the police, he'd have to win a case against them in civil court.



[edit on 1-6-2010 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


fair enough. that would be a second case then.

which will probably happen when the census office starts to issue fines.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
However, you can on the grounds of religious objection to answer all questions save the number of people and gender of persons living at a residence.


Can you show me where you get that information? The only religious exemption I'm aware of is that you don't have to disclose your religion, which the census didn't ask anyway.


Originally posted by black cat
It's interesting how Benevolent sides with the census taker and others side with the police. I guess you see what you want to see in this story.


Not sure why you are so concerned with my opinions, but I do NOT "side" with the Census taker. I side with the law of the land. The US Constitution.




[edit on 6/1/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I think all parties involved were each a little wrong.

The census worker should have stepped off the property the first time he was asked instead of attempting to get the guy to take the census form. They don't have to have it filled out by the resident, after they have made three attempts they can use a proxy and get the info from a neighbor that doesn't even really know you.

The guy could have just answered the questions, or taken the form and never sent it back.

The police have nothing to enforce, but they were wrong for stuffing the form into the census worker's chest.

The census worker should have known better than to say this....


"I turned to him and said, 'Or what?' And he said, 'I'll lock you up.'" And I turned back and said, 'So make your case.'


Basically he was asking to get locked up.

When he didn't leave the property the first time he was asked, he was tresspassing. Just because he was working for the federal government doesn't give him the right to tresspass.

I doubt he'll be convicted of tresspassing since he was off the property when the police got there (unless the man's property extends beyond his fence), but he was wrong for not leaving the first time he was asked.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I don't understand why these census workers are trained the way they are. They are not enforcers of the law, just because the law states a person should answer a census. If they break the law in not answering the questions then go ahead and fine the person (but they can't because they have no authority). If someone feels like they want to blow $5,000 on fines every 10 years by not answering questions then so be it. But the census workers have no authority, outside of reporting non compliance to their supervisors, and resulting supervisors deciding whether or not to bring federal charges against the citizen.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
BH, I find it difficult to stomach a blaring contradiction between your citing USC and your signature: "signature
The height of personal responsibility and accountability is to live to one's own standards, regardless of the standards to which others choose to live."

For me, my personal standards do not involve forced labor for the bidding of any system- be it digging ditches or filling out forms. I understand that the Code states this and that... and IMHO to lean upon it so stringently is to make the same errors Ms. Parks had to challenge, or what the terrible euthanasia of Small Pox infected blankets did for the natives.

I won't answer the questions for any reason- irrespective of the law- irrespective of the punishment for violating USC.

Instead of looking at the subject as a matter of code violation or not, I look at its purpose, its feasibility, and my own standard; therefore, I see that these folks are charged with a mission, and it is their duty to execute it dutifully. They're free to sit on the street corner and count the people coming and going- I have no problem.

The moment a law, statute or code is passed that Compels through Force for anyone to surrender labor, resource or future resource, I see that simply as servitude.

I will not choose self manacling of serfdom knowingly.

I refuse to answer the Census, and applaud everyone who enjoins this civil disobedience.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sakokrap
BH, I find it difficult to stomach a blaring contradiction between your citing USC and your signature:
The height of personal responsibility and accountability is to live to one's own standards, regardless of the standards to which others choose to live."


I don't see a contradiction at all. I cite the USC because someone said the questions were illegal and we have a right not to answer them. It's not that I particularly support the code, I was just citing the law for another member.

I support the Constitution, which calls for a census every 10 years, so I have no problem answering the questions. (Interestingly, I've been thinking about changing my signature recently. Not because it's not true for me, but because I want something new.)



For me, my personal standards do not involve forced labor for the bidding of any system- be it digging ditches or filling out forms.


That's cool. I don't agree that there is forced labor involved, but you're free to have your opinions. And if your personal standards are against the Census, then I support you in your civil disobedience. I'm not forcing you to fill it out.
I'm not even suggesting that you do. I think each person has to decide that for themselves. I don't have to agree with someone to support them.



I won't answer the questions for any reason- irrespective of the law- irrespective of the punishment for violating USC.


OK.
That's fine with me.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join