Shoot-out ends in death of cop,suspect

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | BY FRANK MAIN, FRAN SPIELMAN AND ANDREW HERRMANN STAFF REPORTERS

[r9etb]

I am beginning to truly believe that all our constitutional rights are going down the drain due to...fools like you spouting the PROPERTY VALUES right...which does not exist.

Hm. So you're basically suggesting that my house will sell for the same price regardless of what kind of neighborhood it's in. After all, the prospective buyers will pay no attention to anything beyond my property lines.... (Yeah, right.)

And that I have no legitimate recourse to ensure the quality of life in my neighborhood?

And that I have no right to complain if Joe next door decides to turn his house into a brothel, and the guy across the street to open a biker bar?

You're apparently pretending that being a member of a community does not involve a trade of property rights against community interests. Both sets of concerns are legitimate.

[harpseal]

That's o.k. in a rural setting where you can't see the next neighbor down the street, or can't see the house from the street. Let his place rot and fall down for all I care. But in a normal urban/suburban setting he is adversely affecting the property values of all of his neighbors. He does NOT have a right to do that!

At just what level of urbanization does a person's right to peacefully enjoy his/her own property end? Do neighbors have a right to demand a specific color to the house? Do they have a right to selection of art work on the front of the house? Do they have a right to prohibit signs advocating something? All of these issues may "affect" their property values. So might fences and a number of other things such as a car in a state of disrepair a number of visitors at strange hours. Visitors of another race, religion or ethnic group etc may also adversely affect property values. for that matter ongoing contruction could adversely affect property values or a brood of children next door might affect your property values. I read nowhere of anyone offering him compensation for this state taking of his property rights. This is America with some clearly stated rights in our Bill of Rights and in most state constitutions. Unless or until I see some justification for such a housing court clearly stated as a limit to propeerty rights in one of the documents definig the powers of the state or federal government I submit this was and is a total travesty.

[Loopy]

Seems to me that they asked him nicely a few times and he refused. They had apparently valid authority to arrest him. When he refused they apparently had the authority to forcibly arrest him. So this isn't some renegade cop busting down the door unannounced in the middle of the night. It's someone who did his job correctly and was shot for his trouble.

[arm958]

So letting one's own place go to sh*t should be a jailable offense?

His contempt for his neighbors, for city codes, and for court orders led to the arrest warrant. Didn't you read the article?

[bdub]

I'm sorry but the Police were complete MORONS in how they handled this. So Sad

[bdub]

That sounds like a better idea then what happened

[harpseal]

And that I have no right to complain if Joe next door decides to turn his house into a brothel, and the guy across the street to open a biker bar?

Clearly you have a right to complain but you may or may not have a right to have the state take action against these people. If prostitution is illegal in your state then the state may enforce that law. If, however, Joe next door's wife and daughters decide they wish to entertain a number of gentlemen in their beds without charging the effect on you is the same but they have done nothing wrong. Likewise the regulation of commerce may well be within the purview of the state but if a member of an outlaw motorcycle club purchases the home accross the street and has his outlaw cronnies visting often there is nothing you could or should be able to do about it. Likewise if he wishes to paint swastika's on his own front door, errect a flagpole or a cross in his front yard you will without some very specific deed restrictions be SOL. I note that in order to be enforceable in civil courts these deed resrictions must be within state policy thus even though a deed restriction may mandate occupation only by caucaisons that would be unenforceable.

[spodefly]

No one was trying to open a biker bar or a brothel ... the old man's house needed some paint and repairs, but he was living alone and not causing any degradation to the quality of life in the neighborhood by bringing in an unwelcome element. According to you, the quality of upkeep on someones house is enough to have the courts and police involved. Apparently, compassion and understanding are not a part of your community.

[wideawake]

So, the city was mad at him for not keeping up his property the way they wanted him to.

That kind of negates the whole concept of private property.

They didn't like his rotting porch, so they figured they'd smash in his door with a sledgehammer to make his property more presentable? Sorry, no sale.

[Tennessee_Bob]

That sounds like a better idea then what happened

Yep. Guess maybe we ought to just have the cops ignore every instance where someone ignores court orders and subpoenas.

[Tennessee_Bob]

So, the city was mad at him for not keeping up his property the way they wanted him to.

Read it and spin it the way you want - I couldn't stop you from doing it anyways. Seems to me they were probably also upset about the court hearings and subpoenas he missed as well. As far as the concept of private property, should we also consider the concept of social responsibility - i.e., maintaining your house and property within certain health and safety standards?

Nah, forget that.

[Hard Case]

I read the article, what is all boils down to is that his place had gone to sh*t and he wanted to be left alone. Better that all people like this are rounded up and exterminated. BTW, my grass is a little long, I'm probably breaking some code somewhere. Maybe the government will come save my neighbors too. You know, Marxism has no provision for private property either.

[spodefly]

Bob, the point for me is the courts and the police should never have been involved in this. As I said in another post, we have become so inured to the vagaries of the state that we just accept that someone not submitting to the will of the state must be doing something wrong.

The old man should have been left alone to live out his life.

"Find out what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.'' -- Frederick Douglass

[Rudder]

"But he (the oficer) did what the warrant said. He knew the situation could turn deadly. He was always prepared."

Obviously not.

Some common sense would have saved the man his own life...next time, maybe.

Oops, there'll be no next time.

[Kenny Bunk]

Howl away. You are on the money. Where are all those chairwarming triple-A social workers who are supposed to handle problems with older dingbats.

You start breaking down doors, sooner or later you're gonna get double-tapped. Lots of luck to buyer Cruz, that property is now the property of the government. I have no doubt that some friend of Carol Mosely-Brown will pick it up for $400 at a very private auction.

[arm958]

BTW, my grass is a little long, I'm probably breaking some code somewhere

A couple of years ago one of my neighbors anonymously reported me because I had a small utility trailer parked beside my garage, behind a bush. In our neighborhood, the covenants and restrictions forbid RV's and trailers to be parked outside. When the neighborhood association representative knocked on my door to let me know I was in violation, I politely thanked him for bringing it to my attention and cussed under my breath as I moved the trailer into the garage. I didn't kill him.

[wideawake]

You are a first class idiot.

Insults are the most graceless way of admitting you've lost an argument. Don't worry, I don't consider your assessment of my intellectual acumen to have much value. No offense is taken.

The old man let his placed go to sh*t,

Which is his prerogative. Perhaps he did not have enough money to fix the damage, and decided that he, at the age of 77, would have more to gain by keeping his money rather than paying for repairs which he would only be able to enjoy for a few years anyway.

wouldn't take GENEROUS offers of help from anyone,

There is such a thing as pride. Some people when they're down on their luck refuse to take handouts from anyone. The welfare mentality had not yet eroded his sense of self-worth.

And, according to Mr. Cruz, he was mulling an offer for his property.

pissed off his neighbors,

I wonder if his neighbors had done anything to anger him. I also wonder why his property was their business.

and then pulled out a gun

He owned a gun, as is his Constitutional right, and he drew it in defense of his own home. That's the essence of liberty.

and murdered a cop

He apparently killed the policeman in self-defense. If someone came through my door with a sledgehammer, badge or not, I would defend myself, my home and my family.

who was woing his job well!

Apparently he was doing his job as well as you spell. He smashed through an elderly man's door with a sledgehammer, when a city locksmith could have gotten in much less violently and provokingly. He also entered a potentially dangerous scene without using his bulletproof vest. If he had wanted to minimize the danger, he could have waited until the old man called for a delivery, pretended to be the deliveryman and taken the old man into custody while he was distracted. Bail bondsmen do that sort of thing all the time. If that was doing his job well, I wonder at what point you would consider anything any policeman ever does to be done poorly.

I'm glad the bastard is dead,

I'm amazed that you would take joy in the death of a confused and lonely old man. That says quite a bit about you as a person.

but I morn for the cop and his four children.

I feel sorry for both men, killed for no reason because some bureaucrat couldn't let well enough alone.

You are a disgrace.

I merely advocated one thing: the Godgiven right of property. The right of a man to be secure in his own home on his own property, despite what his neighbors say or some pencil-pushing bureaucrat with his hand in my pocket says. Standing up for freedom is hardly disgraceful.

Why exactly did you join this forum? It certainly wasn't to engage anyone in a rational debate.

[thatsnotnice]

That kind of negates the whole concept of private property.

I’ve got news for you, in a lot of places you cannot store more than 5 gallons of fuel in your garage, cannot unilaterally add a second storey to your home, cannot park a vehicle in your front yard, cannot raise chickens in your backyard, cannot raise goats in your back yard, cannot have more than 3 dogs, cannot have more than 3 rabbits, cannot have ham radio towers, cannot have any vehicles visible from the street that remain unmoved for more than 72 hours, cannot have weeds higher than 18 inches or a yard that is untended for more than one month, there are other things I haven’t mentioned and probably a bunch I don’t even know about.

Anyway, if you think that just because you shell out an obscene amount of dollars for a property that you can do whatever you want with it, you are mistaken.

[wideawake]

Let's put it this way, Tennessee_Bob: if someone tells how, when and under what conditions you are allowed to use something (in this case land and a house) then you don't own it. It is owned by whoever has the power to control it.

In this case it was the government, and the government was expropriating Mr. Wolk's property.

You're talking about spin? Let's talk hard facts.

Why do you believe the government has the power to seize someone's property? At what point does that power begin? When the paint on your house begins to peel? When your porch loses a few boards? When your lawn becomes overgrown? When one window is broken? What is the standard? And who makes the decision to seize someone's property?

[arm958]

Apparently he was doing his job as well as you spell.

I spell quite well. Ever hear of a typo? I stand by everything I said. The old man murdered a cop who was doing his job. The old man had nothing but contempt for the law and his fellow citizens. Our democracy and the rule of law will not stand if we overlook such contempt.