Hacker News Reader

Comment by killdozer | Hacker News Reader

`the sheriff is using their state powers to provide security for a wealthy private citizen` That's the reason though, the police exist to protect the property rights of the wealthy.

View on HN

Security forces always cater to the people who pay them. This is why the police are funded with taxpayer money, rather than donations or direct payments.

It's also why every citizen should be paying at least some tax, not just the wealthy.

The police exist to protect the property rights of everyone!

In theory, but maybe not in practice.

I'm tired of this cynical view. Did they break the law as it is written, yes or no?

It's ambiguous as there's no law on the books which specifically states that stepping over a property corner from public land to public land is illegal. And no state has passed a law on corner crossing one way or the other. Which is the point the article is making. You may be tired of the cynicism but some of us are tired of willful ignorance.

Ah! Ambiguous? So the courts should decide?

> Their trial, set for mid-April, will decide if they trespassed when they passed through that private airspace.

What's the problem here?

The problem is the courts haven't decided thus the sheriff is enforcing a law that doesn't exist, as per the complaint up the thread.

But trespassing laws do exist, as do airspace laws. I agree it’s an over-application of the law, but it’s not a law that doesn’t exist.

Like if I broke into Walmart and road a purple bike around while shooting stuff with a flamethrower, I don’t get to say “but no purple-bike-intrusion-arson-law exists”

If you read the actual article, you'll see that the courts have specifically refrained from creating legal precedent in cases of corner crossing. I would imagine that regardless of the outcome, the court will refrain from setting any sort of useful precedent.

That's not the discussion here. Just because something is a law does not mean it is aligned with the ethics we have chosen as a society. There are thousands of laws written by wealthy people to protect their wealth. This is one of them. Look at the bigger picture.

Do you agree with chopping up land like this so that it is inaccessible to the public? That's the discussion we are having.

And you can be tired of it, and call it cynical, but unfortunately it is actually history. Police were literally created to protect the interests of the wealthy slave owners.

https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/origins-m...

https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2021/12/08/the-history-of-...

The policing crisis we are facing today has a large component that is rooted in police serving the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/20/the-invention-...

The USA has a very dark history that has informed today's society, and I'm delighted we are finally beginning to address this despite the pushback from conservatives who want to keep the status-quo and hide history by controlling textbooks and eliminating or re-writing history education.

Now back to the topic. This lawsuit is very important, and I hope it leads to positive change.

> This lawsuit is very important, and I hope it leads to positive change.

I'm not sure it's very important, how many does it affect? I still do hope for a positive outcome that gives people access to these public lands though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com