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.

 

California skate park now requires fingerprints to enter

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
reply to post by abecedarian
 


I thought the same thing initially. But it's not a STATE park, it's a SKATE park. A city park. The gov't of the city of San Diego started this fingerprinting business. And aren't they liberal democrats?

edit: Jerry Sanders, Mayor of SanDiego is Republican.

www.sandiego.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...(politician)


[edit on 7/10/2010 by this_is_who_we_are]


Umm.. ookay. The mayor of San Diego has no authority in the city of Poway as Poway is a city located within San Diego County, not within the city of San Diego. Therefore, the mayor of San Diego is no more relevant to the operation of Poway's park than the gov of Cali.




posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 


The fact is that the right to privacy is an inalienable right. ...

I stopped reading there.
You do not have a right to privacy when in public places.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 


The "small detail" of crime that has been happening in the skate park for the past few years does not give the government the right to treat every person who enters that park as if they are a criminal, or potential criminal.

Wow... hate much?

That is not due process of law. Law enforcement has been tasked with solving crimes not treating people as criminals in a hopeless attempt to prevent crime.

So fingerprints, photos and then vandalism happens in order... law enforcement knows who was there, has video proof... crime solved. That's what you want, right? Solving crimes?

If you don't like it, move there and rally the residents to overturn it.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Only a child would assume their opinion reflects a universal attitude. Only children view themselves as the center of the universe. Only an ignoramus would identify themselves as a "taxpayer". Only a government sycophant would frame a park as existing because "the city (was) kind enough" to do so. Only an agenda driven advocate would frame "the users" of the park as vandals all. Only an advocate of the police state would blame the people for causing the police state and point to a few isolated instances of vandalism of all things to justify this police state. Only an aspiring tyrant would label people with pejoratives in order to ask, who cares about these people, and then smugly call them losers all.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
If anyone wants to get mad, they should take it out on the vandals and druggies who ruined it for everyone. To blame the City is tantamount to admitting a person is one of those who caused the problems. Everyone else will just do what amounts to joining a club and enjoy the park without the Trolls. The criminals will have to find someplace else to commit their crimes. That is as it should be. This is not a privacy issue, its an attempt to stop the crime issue. Of course the criminals will run around claiming some sort of offense against them. They don't give a damn.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Please expand.

You support vandalism?

You support drug use by children?

You support the destruction of public property by vandals?

Is that what you are saying? Be honest now.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I have a much better idea.

Why don't we just put fingerprint systems on every homes lock, on the inside.

That way, any criminals just won't be allowed out of the house.

Or if thats just too far, why not set up random checkpoints throughout the city where if you want to enter you have to provide your prints. That will surely cut down on crime, and relieve police from actually doing their job's and patrolling neighborhoods etc...

While hopefully you see the sarcasm, it has a point too.

I see their right to ask for fingerprints, but it seems as a cop out for actually finding and stopping criminals. But instead just says "hey go commit a crime elsewhere".

Instead, you could actively investigate crimes, patrol neighborhoods, increase presence in high crime ares. Catching and prosecuting the people responsible for the behavior at the park is a higher deterrent and goes farther towards saying "this is not acceptable here", than pretty much putting up a sign saying go break something else.

For example, where I live you will see more police parked on the side of the road, or in parking lots trying to deter speeders, than in crime and drug riddled neighborhoods.

I can sit at a just one park in town, and watch all manner of drug use and sale, fights, and other illegal activity without as much as a police patrol for hours at a time. A park known for murders, drug activity and everything I've mentioned. Yet on any Tuesday of the month I can find a police car parked in a random parking lot for 2 hours waiting for someone to go 45 in a 40 zone.

Maybe I'm just not thinking right, but that whole scenario seems backwards to me.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 





I stopped reading there. You do not have a right to privacy when in public places.


Of course you stopped reading there, and it is fairly assumed you have never read the California State Constitution:


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


~Article I, Section 1; Declaration of Rights~

Inalienable means non-transferable. What is inalienable cannot be granted, taken away, nor qualified in anyway, and the right to privacy has not been qualified in any way whatsoever. Of course, who expects you to actually read this post, right?



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I grew up with the surfer/skater crowd & they have always been pigeon holed as degenerates who will obviously grow up to become criminals. I can honestly tell you that some have become this, but the majority have not.

I believe this activity of obtaining their fingerprints is to have them on record now because law enforcement & city/county officials believe they will eventually commit a crime & doing things this way will make it easier to catch them later after the age of 18.

These kids are most certainly being stereotyped as potential future criminals.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I support the rule of law, which is something you clearly do not. By your own logic, since you have no regard for due process of law, since you have no regard for inalienable rights, it is you who support crime. The Constitution serves as the Supreme Law of the Land. When vandalism happens, then those who are guilty of the crime should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but that law does not give you or government the right to declare all people criminals, and your advocacy of tyranny is a support of crime.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You do have a right to privacy, but they are not violating your right to privacy, because they arent forcing you to get fingerprinted. If you dont want to be fingerprinted then you are free not to, but you wont be able to use the park.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You do have a right to privacy, but they are not violating your right to privacy, because they arent forcing you to get fingerprinted. If you dont want to be fingerprinted then you are free not to, but you wont be able to use the park.


Equal protection under the law is also a right, and discrimination is prohibited by government. You can hope to justify this tyranny as long as you want, in the end it still remains justification, and justification is only needed to explain bad behavior, as good behavior requires no justification.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Dude, I think that spending 91,000 fingerprinting people to use a skate park is a total waste of money and totally ridiculous, however it is constitutional and not discriminatory as long as they fingerprint everyone who uses the park.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Here is another question not answered in the article....are these prints being sent to a database??? Like a state or city database. Lets say you like 7-11 slurpees, you push open the door at said slurpee heaven and leave say a good thumbprint on the glass. A few minutes after you leave Mr. dirtbag robs 7-11. The Police then gather several latent prints from the glass and get a hit on....your print. Now your in hot water because you like to skate at the park. Just something to think about here.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Dude, I think that spending 91,000 fingerprinting people to use a skate park is a total waste of money and totally ridiculous, however it is constitutional and not discriminatory as long as they fingerprint everyone who uses the park.


I have all ready posted just one section of the California Constitution that demonstrates that it most certainly is not Constitutional, dude. It is most certainly discriminatory as it is only fingerprinting those people that enter the park by way of acquiescence to the fingerprint rules, and in no way covers those criminals who will simply circumvent the fingerprint rules and enter the park anyway. Again, I repeat, this fingerprinting rule is in no way Constitutional. You can insist it is as loud and as long as you want, but you have failed to supply any section of the California Constitution that would override the right to privacy, in order to prove that.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by abecedarian
 





I stopped reading there. You do not have a right to privacy when in public places.


Of course you stopped reading there, and it is fairly assumed you have never read the California State Constitution:


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


~Article I, Section 1; Declaration of Rights~

Inalienable means non-transferable. What is inalienable cannot be granted, taken away, nor qualified in anyway, and the right to privacy has not been qualified in any way whatsoever. Of course, who expects you to actually read this post, right?
lol...

inalienable means incapable of being separated, surrendered or revoked.
HOWEVER, when one enters an area where the populace can observe acts it is logical to conclude that such rights become questionable at best.

Say you witness a murder... the murderer has a right to privacy so do you have an obligation to ignore the act?
Say you're a doctor and see someone fall to the ground and convulse. Do you respond in accordance with your oath or allow that person their inalienable right to privacy?


Some things are not either/or.

The City of Poway built the park with the approval of the residents- public land use hearings as well as re-zoning and such are public record, and the public is invited to attend and voice their concerns.

It's people that need someone to hate... and the skaters themselves causing the backlash. In spite of what they say, and I have been and have known a few, the culture is anarchistic in nature. And although I cannot find specific fault with the "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" type of person, the fact remains that places like this skate park are created and funded by people that live in the area as a place for everyone to enjoy, yet the area is denegrated and claimed by a clique' and transformed from a public area into territory ruled by the locals.

I see bumperstickers and such everywhere claiming "skateboarding is not a crime"... even in areas that the law says it is.

Again, if you don't like it, move in and get the laws changed.

*edit to add-
Yes I have read the Cali Constitution. There are provisions in there for California law enforcement agents to uphold the borders. Are they doing it?

[edit on 7/10/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




I have all ready posted just one section of the California Constitution that demonstrates that it most certainly is not Constitutional, dude. It is most certainly discriminatory as it is only fingerprinting those people that enter the park by way of acquiescence to the fingerprint rules, and in no way covers those criminals who will simply circumvent the fingerprint rules and enter the park anyway.


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. Now I agree that if they went around forcing you to be fingerprinted and you werent using/entering the park then it would be unconstitutional. However, since they just made using the park contingent on you being fingerprinted it is constitutional, because you can retain your privacy by simply not using the park.

Also, you cannot say it is discriminating because some people will break the rules and somehow use the park without getting fingerprinted thus vioolating the rules. That would be like saying that the automatic weapons ban is discriminatory, because some people purchase automatic weapons illegally. So are you saying the automatic weapons ban is unconstitutional because it is discriminatory? It is unconstitutional, but only because it violates the 2nd Amendment's intended purpose.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
I have a much better idea.

Why don't we just put fingerprint systems on every homes lock, on the inside.

That way, any criminals just won't be allowed out of the house.

so you mean leave the door unlocked so people come in, then catch them when they leave?


Or if thats just too far, why not set up random checkpoints throughout the city where if you want to enter you have to provide your prints. That will surely cut down on crime, and relieve police from actually doing their job's and patrolling neighborhoods etc...

The police are supposed to enforce laws. Patrolling is part of that responsibility. What you said makes little sense. A checkpoint, which is 'static patrolling', or rather letting them come to you, enforces laws as does patrolling enforce laws. Really, what's the difference? A cop has to observe you doing something which raises their suspicions. You can do that driving with a cop in your rear-view, or a cop on the side of the road, whether radar gun or checkpoint the difference is moot.


While hopefully you see the sarcasm, it has a point too.

What sarcasm?


I see their right to ask for fingerprints, but it seems as a cop out for actually finding and stopping criminals. But instead just says "hey go commit a crime elsewhere".

Instead, you could actively investigate crimes, patrol neighborhoods, increase presence in high crime ares. Catching and prosecuting the people responsible for the behavior at the park is a higher deterrent and goes farther towards saying "this is not acceptable here", than pretty much putting up a sign saying go break something else.

For example, where I live you will see more police parked on the side of the road, or in parking lots trying to deter speeders, than in crime and drug riddled neighborhoods.

Go to town meetings.


I can sit at a just one park in town, and watch all manner of drug use and sale, fights, and other illegal activity without as much as a police patrol for hours at a time. A park known for murders, drug activity and everything I've mentioned. Yet on any Tuesday of the month I can find a police car parked in a random parking lot for 2 hours waiting for someone to go 45 in a 40 zone.

Maybe I'm just not thinking right, but that whole scenario seems backwards to me.


The system is backwards. Police should be actively preventing, deterring crimes, not responding to reports. If there's too much crime .....
Maybe you can see the problem.

[edit on 7/10/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Inalienable defined:


# inalienable, unalienable (incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another) "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" # S: (adj) unforfeitable, inalienable (not subject to forfeiture) "an unforfeitable right"


Inalienable defined:


That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights.


Inalienable defined:


: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred


Clearly these lexicographers have been remiss in not checking with you first and getting your opinion on how words should be defined. Perhaps you could write them and clear this matter.




HOWEVER, when one enters an area where the populace can observe acts it is logical to conclude that such rights become questionable at best.


Inalienable rights are never questionable, and the fact that a person enters a public area where they can be easily observed does not give a government mandated with protection of inalienable rights the right to disregard those rights. That it is a public area where one can be easily observed suggests that witnesses to a crime can be used to prosecute that crime, and fingerprinting is not necessary.




Say you witness a murder... the murderer has a right to privacy so do you have an obligation to ignore the act? Say you're a doctor and see someone fall to the ground and convulse. Do you respond in accordance with your oath or allow that person their inalienable right to privacy?


Inalienable rights do not cancel other inalienable rights, ever. Your hypothetical doesn't even speak to fingerprinting and only speaks to the witnessing of a crime, of which I have all ready answered.




Some things are not either/or.


With inalienable rights, they are always either/or. Either they are respected or they are not.




It's people that need someone to hate... and the skaters themselves causing the backlash. In spite of what they say, and I have been and have known a few, the culture is anarchistic in nature. And although I cannot find specific fault with the "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" type of person, the fact remains that places like this skate park are created and funded by people that live in the area as a place for everyone to enjoy, yet the area is denegrated and claimed by a clique' and transformed from a public area into territory ruled by the locals.


Wow! Hate much?


I see bumperstickers and such everywhere claiming "skateboarding is not a crime"... even in areas that the law says it is.


Skateboarding is not a crime, and no ones needs a pithy little bumper sticker to know this. The common law right to travel is an ancient right that has existed for thousands of years, and mere legislation cannot legally abrogate and derogate the inalienable right to travel. Your willingness to equate legislation with law is part of the problem here. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law, and the courts right to judicial review and the ability to strike down legislation not Constitutional exists because legislation is not law.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
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]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join