9 ms·

Yes, I would think so. Anyone basically has any right to anything you allow.

by 0x0x0x 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
shabble 15y ago
Going completely off topic, there are, at least in some places, irrevocable rights which cannot be overruled by consent. In the UK, R v Brown[1] "ruled that consent was not a valid legal defence for wounding and actual bodily harm". I believe there is also law (again, varying by jurisdiction and treaty obligations) to prevent a person from consenting to their own slavery. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Indentured_servant#Legal_status https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Indentured_se... seems to cover it briefly, but I can't find a better reference immediately. [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Operation_Spanner https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Operation_Spa...
- 0x0x0x 15y ago
  Sigh. I emphasized "basically" precisely to avoid this discussion.
  - dfc 15y ago
    Basically? Saying basically just avoids any real discussion of legal distinctions. When you said "basically" did you also mean to prevent discussion of duress? False pretenses? Fraud?
    - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
      Oh come off it, calm down a bit. He said basically IMO because he meant "of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed". It's an internet forum not rendition of statute. He can't say anything that "prevent"s proper discussion on an open internet forum. If you wanted to discuss informed consent, duress or fraud why not just do that.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        If he wants to make a comment discussing giving away your rights, he should damn well be prepared to discuss it's legality.
        0x0x0x 15y ago
        Oh please. Use a little common sense next time you post. Anyone who attends, what sixth grade, knows there are some rights you can't give up and my comment was merely an attempt to avoid some tired lengthy discussion of that. From what we know the "suspect" consented to a search of his apartment. That's the end of at least this part of the story.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        The general population barely knows what rights they have, let alone what rights they cannot give up. It is an important aspect of the conversation.
      - dfc 15y ago
        I'm not sure I understand what you meant by: "of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed". I do not understand the "consent to the further subset..." Part. Its not a sentence construction I am familiar with.
        pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        Sorry that would be my legal training. Perhaps you can attempt to construe the sentence in the spirit it was written (like with badly drafted law ;0), you sound like you're intelligent enough to do that. Commas aren't free you know ...
        dfc 15y ago
        No worries. I was not trying to be a jerk, I really did not understand how the two parts of the sentences worked together.
pyre 15y ago
But this is aggravated by the SFPD's presence. Sounds like things went down like: 1) A group of people show up at his door in plain clothes. 2) Some of them identify as police officers. 3) They ask him about the iPhone 5 and he denies it. 4) They threaten him a bit and then ask him to allow a search of the premises. 5) Since, from his perspective, there are a bunch of police officers threatening the immigration status of his family, he consents. 6) Two people from the group (Apple employees) enter the premises and search for the iPhone. He assumes that they are police because they are all in plain clothes (no way to tell them apart without asking to each each badge). Seems to me like the police used their muscle to strong-arm the guy, but then stopped short of doing the search themselves (because that would be illegal). Since the guy consented to the search, then there may not be anything illegal about the Apple employees performing the search. This whole thing stinks: * Sounds like the ex-police security guy that Apple hired got some of his buddies to use their badges to get him in the door. * The police performed a search without technically performing a search. * The Apple security employees impersonated police officers without technically impersonating police officers. My take: A bunch of police officers (and an ex-cop) were behaving badly on their off-hours and now the SFPD is going to go into CYA-mode. No charges will be brought. Nothing will happen to anyone. Maybe the Apple security guy will get dressed-down by his superiors for being so heavy-handed and causing bad press.
- ScottBurson 15y ago
  Agreed, it stinks. But I think the real responsibility here lies with the SFPD officers, who deliberately conveyed the false impression that everyone in the group were police. I don't know if there's a law on the books against a police officer representing another person as a police officer, but if not, there damned well should be.
  - RexRollman 15y ago
    You're right. The cops knew what they were doing was wrong or else they would have entered the home as well.
- username123 15y ago
  My take: KNOW your rights. Nothing stinks here. As one of the videos below states: If police is entitled to a search then they will just break in and do a search. If they ASK for consent, and even more, if they threaten, they KNOW that they are not entitled. Keep the door shut and don't given up your rights. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XtBvalUVKU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XtBvalUVKU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7RYH8Py6lY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7RYH8Py6lY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_ckcdtQ95w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_ckcdtQ95w
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

Yes, I would think so. Anyone basically has any right to anything you allow.

by 0x0x0x 15y ago

Yes, I would think so. Anyone basically has any right to anything you allow.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

shabble 15y ago

Going completely off topic, there are, at least in some places, irrevocable rights which cannot be overruled by consent. In the UK, R v Brown[1] "ruled that consent was not a valid legal defence for wounding and actual bodily harm". I believe there is also law (again, varying by jurisdiction and treaty obligations) to prevent a person from consenting to their own slavery. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Indentured_servant#Legal_status https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Indentured_se... seems to cover it briefly, but I can't find a better reference immediately. [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Operation_Spanner https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Operation_Spa...

0x0x0x 15y ago
Sigh. I emphasized "basically" precisely to avoid this discussion.
- dfc 15y ago
  Basically? Saying basically just avoids any real discussion of legal distinctions. When you said "basically" did you also mean to prevent discussion of duress? False pretenses? Fraud?
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    Oh come off it, calm down a bit. He said basically IMO because he meant "of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed". It's an internet forum not rendition of statute. He can't say anything that "prevent"s proper discussion on an open internet forum. If you wanted to discuss informed consent, duress or fraud why not just do that.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      If he wants to make a comment discussing giving away your rights, he should damn well be prepared to discuss it's legality.
      - 0x0x0x 15y ago
        Oh please. Use a little common sense next time you post. Anyone who attends, what sixth grade, knows there are some rights you can't give up and my comment was merely an attempt to avoid some tired lengthy discussion of that. From what we know the "suspect" consented to a search of his apartment. That's the end of at least this part of the story.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        The general population barely knows what rights they have, let alone what rights they cannot give up. It is an important aspect of the conversation.
    - dfc 15y ago
      I'm not sure I understand what you meant by: "of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed". I do not understand the "consent to the further subset..." Part. Its not a sentence construction I am familiar with.
      - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        Sorry that would be my legal training. Perhaps you can attempt to construe the sentence in the spirit it was written (like with badly drafted law ;0), you sound like you're intelligent enough to do that. Commas aren't free you know ...
        dfc 15y ago
        No worries. I was not trying to be a jerk, I really did not understand how the two parts of the sentences worked together.

pyre 15y ago

But this is aggravated by the SFPD's presence. Sounds like things went down like: 1) A group of people show up at his door in plain clothes. 2) Some of them identify as police officers. 3) They ask him about the iPhone 5 and he denies it. 4) They threaten him a bit and then ask him to allow a search of the premises. 5) Since, from his perspective, there are a bunch of police officers threatening the immigration status of his family, he consents. 6) Two people from the group (Apple employees) enter the premises and search for the iPhone. He assumes that they are police because they are all in plain clothes (no way to tell them apart without asking to each each badge). Seems to me like the police used their muscle to strong-arm the guy, but then stopped short of doing the search themselves (because that would be illegal). Since the guy consented to the search, then there may not be anything illegal about the Apple employees performing the search. This whole thing stinks: * Sounds like the ex-police security guy that Apple hired got some of his buddies to use their badges to get him in the door. * The police performed a search without technically performing a search. * The Apple security employees impersonated police officers without technically impersonating police officers. My take: A bunch of police officers (and an ex-cop) were behaving badly on their off-hours and now the SFPD is going to go into CYA-mode. No charges will be brought. Nothing will happen to anyone. Maybe the Apple security guy will get dressed-down by his superiors for being so heavy-handed and causing bad press.

ScottBurson 15y ago
Agreed, it stinks. But I think the real responsibility here lies with the SFPD officers, who deliberately conveyed the false impression that everyone in the group were police. I don't know if there's a law on the books against a police officer representing another person as a police officer, but if not, there damned well should be.
- RexRollman 15y ago
  You're right. The cops knew what they were doing was wrong or else they would have entered the home as well.
username123 15y ago
My take: KNOW your rights. Nothing stinks here. As one of the videos below states: If police is entitled to a search then they will just break in and do a search. If they ASK for consent, and even more, if they threaten, they KNOW that they are not entitled. Keep the door shut and don't given up your rights. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XtBvalUVKU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XtBvalUVKU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7RYH8Py6lY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7RYH8Py6lY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_ckcdtQ95w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_ckcdtQ95w

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]