Just mere life is not victory, just mere death is not defeat.

Search The Knowledge

Sunday Evening Thoughts

If you have not seen this short clip yet, check it out below.  It shows officers with the Philadephia Police Department removing a man from a public transit S.E.P.T.A. bus which was seemingly due to him refusing to wear a mask on board the bus.

The reason I am bringing this to your attention is that even though LEO's, and other first responders, are out in the world coming to work every day during this coronavirus pandemic, risking their lives, there are still those in the public opinion sphere who will try to demonize them at every possibility.  This is an example of how the law works, it may not be aesthetically appealing, it may have a certain twist to it which every single person looking at it could immediately understand, it surely doesn't look like it may be done on a daily basis either, but yet, it is done almost everywhere in the USA daily.  The fact here is that the media and those who are extremely anti-police will always try to find reasons and ways to make those out there doing the job look bad.

Over on @thesheepdogdefenseproject a post was made about this very topic, reposted from a well-known content producer in the 2A/gun community social media world, who is exceedingly wrong about his thoughts having to do with the LE world especially since he claims to have been formerly on the job.  That guntertainment social media person was highly irresponsible in posting this without any sort of deep-dive explanation, tantamounted to him walking into a room dropping a live grenade just before walking out of the room.  What do you expect from someone who previously advocated the murder of LEOs?  However, the post from @thesheepdogdefenseproject is neutral and having seen many previous pro-LE posts in the past by this account I know that he himself is not anti-LE, he just reposted something that was presented as anti-LE to cause a conversation.  This, however, did not stop the idiots from chiming in.  I saw this post and decided to post some info.  The issue is, as you could have guessed it, is that people on social media will post crazy things, and water is wet, right?

Not too seriously condescending though. If you did not know ACAB stands for "all cops are bastards" and is used by those who cannot form high school sentences.

These types are the one more colorful posts.  Those which really bring out the ignorance of the anti-police crowd.  You have to remember that thinking like this comes from a warped and uneducated world view, which was clearly based on a misunderstanding of how the current laws were conceived.

As James Madison explains, the constitution has many purposes, but the government was originally designed for the preservation of individual rights and rights to the property those individuals own.  In case you forgot, the 4th amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  This is the foundation through which the majority of case law which has since been ruled upon by SCOTUS, no virus, pandemic or otherwise will ever change or suspend that.  In fact, the opposite is true, during very difficult and trying times for the American people, case law along with the fundamental concepts of the constitution are even more applicable.

You may immediately point to the "takings clause" of the 5th amendment when seeing the situation with the man on the bus play out.  The "takings clause" is not applicable here as nothing was physically taken from anyone.  You may then astutely point out that this man's "fair use" or "public use" rights were violated here, again this would not be correct as travelling on that bus is not free and requires payment for service prior to use, therefore, this is a private transaction with a private company for service.  Just because it is open to all members of the public does not mean it is a "public" service in the same way an ungated park is or a city sidewalk.  You then may explain that the man's 14th amendment "due process" rights were violated when he was deprived of a service he paid for, and you may have had something to stand on except he was not discriminated in any way against that was clearly obvious in the video.  In fact, there was no such statement made by anyone to that effect or such accusation.  You might even make the case that this was not a criminal matter, but a civil matter as it was an issue over services, and you would be incorrect as this may constitute disorderly conduct and/or trespass depending on what your local laws state.

I am not going to get into the concepts of corporate personhood, you can research it if you want to.  Currently in the US, any company, business or person who is conducting business may make nearly any arbitrary rule which their customers must follow or else those services may be refused to them.  The only time this is not applicable is when, as stated above, their rights are violated.  So a company cannot say they will refuse business to a person of a particular race or religion for example.  They can, however, mandate their customers must wear clothing of a certain type, or that their customers only come at a certain time of the day.  A private business can make any rule which may aid them in the function of their business.  Just like you cannot walk into a chik-fil-a without a shirt on, you cannot cause disruption towards other customers on "public" transit.

You, as an individual, are not entitled to any other individual's, or private business's property or, services.  This is something which a lot of people seem to misunderstand, disregard or believe something which is not accurate in the way modern laws are written.  Maybe it is not taught in schools properly, as many aspects of the constitution are not, like our second amendment rights.

The man in the video did not wear a mask while on the bus.  At the time that bus company had a policy in place which required all passengers to wear a mask while using their service.  The bus driver knew this policy was in place and asked the man to leave the bus or put on a mask.  That was hardly an unreasonable request.  The man refused, as it is his right to refuse as a free person the request of another free person.  However, in this context the refusal of the man to follow the rules and policies of the service agreement meant that he would have to be refused service.  When he refused to exit the bus, the bus driver, as per the companies policies was to contact the police.  The officers arrived at the bus and there was likely a conversation between the officers and the driver, then the officers and the man.  I don't actually know as I was not there, but we know that the video starts when the officers are already taking him off the bus.

The police are tasked with the physical enforcement of laws in the US, this is something which people disagree with, but the police are here to enforce the laws on the books, respective of their states and localities.  In this situation, people do not seem to understand that if this man were to go into any business, onto any private property, and begin to act in such a way that is counter to the service agreement of being in that business or property he would be physically removed by the police when they are called and after asking him to leave peacefully.  If this man were to have gone into a restaurant and fall asleep in the bathroom or try to shower in the bathroom, requiring the owner/agent/manager of that business to tell him to stop that man would then be removed by the police when he refused.  If this man were to have gone on the same bus, this time last year and took his shirt off, he would have been asked to leave and then physically removed when he refused.  This is completely normal, it is actually expected to be done by the police.  Your personal rights end when they begin to infringe on other's rights, which also applies to property rights to an extent.

Asking why the police didn't just give him a mask is as cliche as asking why the police cannot shoot the gun or knife out of a suspect's hands.  The police are not here to monetarily subsidize people for doing the wrong thing, that's not possible nor should any LE agency do that.  The law is pretty clear on this topic and any deviation from it would only cause more issues. 

Our fundamental property rights have existed before the revolutionary war, and have been enshrined as one of the inalienable rights which we have as Americans.  This right to property and the government's support of that right exist in the best possible form at this moment in time.  You either educate yourself about it properly or proceed ignorantly down an agenda-driven path.  The choice is always yours.