A seventy-one year old census worker was killed by a pack of dogs near Nashville, Indiana when she went to follow up on not receiving the owner's census report. What a tragedy. I know there will be arguments on both sides on this one. The land was posted with No trespassing signs and Beware of Dogs signs but she apparently didn't heed them. The training the census workers receive says to never put themselves in danger when doing their work and I wonder why she went forward anyway and got out of her car. But I can't help but feel that this was so unneccessary just to get some data for the government. What a sad event.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), June 15, 2000

Answers

That is so sad....I am against all of the invasiveness the census has begun, but what a terrible thing to have happen. I thought it was a joke when I first saw the name of the thread........

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), June 15, 2000.

You're right Colleen, very unneccessary. The dogs did their jobs and will be killed for it. The census worker died doing her job. I can't believe that it was that important to get the data from that place. Very sad and very pointless. Gerbil

-- Gerbil (ima_gerbil@hotmail.com), June 15, 2000.

??? It was the dogs' job to kill somebody?

-- Les (lvaughn@suntransformer.com), June 15, 2000.

I hope someone can remember my prayer that no one be killed in order to conduct this "worthless" census. Some of God's greatest wisdom is in unanswered prayers ! My frail understanding of God's will shows today. I could never revel in the death or injury of someone. My regrets to the families involved. Yes, an attack dog on posted properties is there to defend and is a tool ! A legal tool, that operated within his designed parameters. The fact that the tool worked to perfection is second nature to anger. My utmost regret is the fact that this coward of a government sends it's frail, aged, and weak to do it's dirty work. I hope the blame falls directly on the United States Senate, whom I feel should be charged with conspiricy to commit murder in this case. They should be sentenced harsher for conducting this illegal census under the direct threat of violence against the people. May God have mercy on the woman who died and the many more that will, as we correct this abomination that has seen fit to become our master.

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webv.net), June 15, 2000.

Our news said that 12 dogs were rounded up on this property, they weren't protecting anything, they were just the normal gang of dogs owned by the crazy man at the end of the road who doesn't take reposibility for his animals. I am sure non were spayed or neutered let alone fed. And if the gal hadn't died from the bites, I am sure the dogs hadn't had their rabies shots either... Also something that we have been talking about here is, rurally in Texas, folks were asked in neighborhoods, and paid handsomely I might add, to do the census checks on those with questions or who hadn't sent it in yet. In our neighborhood a local 20 year old came around, which is really important when you have this type of a job to do, and have to ask qustions of folks who don't trust the government. She also was already aware of who not to bother going to, who had horrible dogs, and the normal lunatics :), concidering her and her family have lived here all there lives. Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), June 15, 2000.

This story has been all over our local newscasts (Indianapolis) and the latest I heard was that there had been previous complaints of "packs" of wild dogs roaming this area. This will make prosecution of the homeowner more difficult as the authorities have to prove that these dogs were owned by him. It is a very gruesome story as the dogs not only killed a 70 year old woman, they also began feeding on her. Ugh!! I think that is how the authorities were able to find the dogs. It will be interesting to watch how this case unfolds in the weeks and months ahead.

-- Sandy (tripletreefarm@hotmail.com), June 16, 2000.

This is not meant in any way to make light of this, but if that census worker had been exercising her Constitutional right to bear arms, perhaps this would not have happened.

I just don't think that if the place was marked with No Trespassing and Beware of Dog signs that there should be any legal recourse against the person whose land she trespassed on. Perhaps a civil suit against the Census Bureau if they led her to believe that these warnings were not to be observed in her position.

That's how I see the law on this. Other views?

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), June 16, 2000.

Irrespective of the issue of what the government "needs to know", I would have to say that in this day and age of information transmission, the fact that any human being should have to make a personal visit to get data is beyond archaic. The fact that aged women should have to accept work like that is nearly barbaric. The fact that dogs are running around free to kill is so incredibly irresponsible that I am beyond speech. For utter shame! My $.02.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), June 16, 2000.

I remember the first full auto gun I ever got to fire. I was 13 and my father altered a 30 caliper carbine for a man in his church. Why ? Because the gentleman raised Appalousa horses and a pack of dogs had killed 2 of their fouls. He had ask my father to pray for the deliverence of other fouls--he had tried to poison them and shoot them but they were growing in numbers by the day. He quessed they numbered 30 or more. So my father gave him a full auto M1 (converted to M14) with a 50 round clip. This solved the problem within a week. Now I have no idea what has happened, I haven't seen this news. I only know that you are allowed to protect your property with attack dogs if properly posted. I know attack dogs will kill. I kow wild dogs or strays do revert to the wolf they came from and run in packs. I also know that woman shouldn't have ignored the signs(if that was the case) ! If the dogs were wild than I'll call it an act of God. I firmly believe the major fault should be landed on the Census and te Senate for sending her into harms way ! Now she is a statistic and that is so sad. I wish it would have been a Senator, than we could have presented him with a Purple Heart for wounds sustained while conducting acts of stupidity !

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), June 16, 2000.

Hey folks, the census is called for in the Constitution and by Federal Law! She was not trespassing! No person who is carrying out Federal Law is trespassing and the census is definitely not illegal! Dogs that will kill are illegal if they are not kept under control. Census workers make an effort to get the job done in spite of all obstacles. She obviously must not have felt she was in danger or else she would not have gotten out of the car. What bothers me is why so many people feel like they are rulers of their own kingdom that no one may enter without their permission. We are all part of a society in which we have set rules (laws) to be obeyed by all members. Somehow some of us have gotten the idea that we are answerable to no government authority on our little kingdoms. If you don't like the laws or our government, work to change them but you do not have the option of choosing which laws you will obey and which you won't.

-- Linda Zoldoske (zoldoske@ionet.net), June 19, 2000.

Colleen

Sorry but I have to disagree with you. MY land is MY kingdom and no one has the right to enter without my permission! I follow the laws of this country but I will NOT give up the freedom of deciding who can and can not enter my property. I'm sorry about the elderly woman who was the victim of this tragedy but I agree with Joel, the goverment has to carry the blame as much as anyone else on this one. She was an unknowing pawn of a maglinant government that wants too much control of our lives. I realize that the census in itself may appear harmless but the less our "caring" government knows about me and mine the better I feel.

-- Jim Tanner (Tanner_jim@hotmail.com), June 19, 2000.

Jim, the census is set up by Constitution and by law to determine the allocation of representatives per state. Why you think that is an invasion of your privacy I have no idea. Maybe it's those additional questions, approved by Congress by the way, which are set up to help local, state and federal governments in their governance. The government is not interested in how much you make or how many bathrooms you have; the government is interested in the average income of all Americans, average income of your state and of your district. It is also interested in how America has changed over the years and what is the average-sized house. Statistics gathered by the Census Bureau are available to everyone and are used by economists, local, state and yes, your national government. Information about you, yourself, will not be released for 72 years and then, if any of your descendents are interested in genealogy, they will be delighted to see your census information. I don't think that any in our society recognize any person and his property to be above the law - no fiefdoms allowed in the U.S. You cannot expect to keep off your property those who have the authority to carry out national, state and local laws. Also, if you don't have the mineral rights to your land, you might be unpleasantly surprised to find that you can't keep off those to whom the owners of those mineral rights wish to lease them either. It seems to me that there is a lot of anti-government sentiment based on ignorance rather than fact and in addition to this, a lot of those who bash the government, turn immediately to the government when they want or need help.

-- Linda Zoldoske (zoldoske@ionet.net), June 19, 2000.

Say Linda, do you think that Geo. Washington had any interest whatsoever in the mental health of an individual and what time he leaves for work? Much less what mode of transport he uses to get there? The census (lower case is intentional!) is mandated by the Constitution and I would happily answer the question of how many people reside at my residence. Beyond that they have ZERO right to ask anything else and I do not care one whit that a future descendent of mine may not be able to find out how many toilets I had in my house nor what vehicle I drove to work! The census is NOT even entitled to inquire as to the names of the persons residing in a home.

The reasons for that are to be found by reading the letters and the history of our Founding Fathers and seeing the oppresion they were against and seeing those same oppressions manifesting themselves in our day to day lives today.

I would completely disagree with you on the anti-government sentiments being based on ignorance. I see the inverse as being much more true. I am not against governance, I am against totalinarianism and socialism and serfhood.

The people that are "extra-legal" in this country are the very ones that the Constitution was designed to limit....do you remember hearing ...."That depends on what your definition of 'is' is...." If that doesn't smack of total disregard for the operating parameters of a society and the acceptance of an established language as a mode of INTELLIGIBLE discourse, I don't know what does. I double dog dare YOU to try and get away with that statement in a court of law...which by the way are NOT Constitutional courts anymore. Still I bet that if anyone here said that the contempt fees would be unpayable, well, not with the help of your friend the Tax Payer. I think maybe the new motto should be, "With Taxation, All Things are Possible". what do ya think, Ohio?

I guess you hit a nerve Linda.Just call my response Patriotic Reflex and count me as uncounted, because....this is not my government.

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), June 19, 2000.

I truly do not understand your position, Doreen. What do you mean, "this is not my government"? I can tell you the law Congress passed on the Census, Title 13, but I don't think that's the problem. What makes you think you can choose among the laws as to which you obey and which you do not? That's not said in sarcasm but in true puzzlement. Just like people, no government is perfect. So what is it about the American government that makes you say it isn't 'your' government?

-- Linda Zoldoske (zoldoske@ionet.net), June 19, 2000.

Linda

First off, yes, I do own my mineral rights to my land. I would not have bought it without them. Second, When I have the right to vote for Congressmen and Senators for all the States then I'll listen to what they have to say. As long as I have no control over someone from Vermont,New York, or where ever I beleive that I should not have to put up with them passing laws that control my life. (Yes Joel, I'm a firm believer in State's rights to self rule.) The Federal Government does not have the right to come on "MY" land without my permission just as Joe Smith from down the the road does not have this right. I don't need some politician whom I can not vote for or against telling me anything. 3, I have never asked nor will I ever ask for anything from the Government. I have saved and invested my money to care for me and my wife for retirement so they can keep the pittance that they call Social Security because I don't want it nor do I need it. Just because "our" bloated and corrupt Government has said that something is the law does not make it right therefore I will not accept it as such.

As far as being concerned about invasion of my privacy, I feel that this is different for each individual. If you feel comfortable telling big brother everything they want to know, be my guest. Just don't expect everyone else to share your views. I don't expect you to beleive as I do and frankly couldn't care less if you do or not but that is my God given right which I fought to defend and will not give up for anyone regardless of their title.

So am I anti Government? To point yes, do I pick and choose which laws I will follow? Yes. What gives me this right? I do.

Sorry about the rant but until our Government stops sending young men and women to kill and die for oil supplies, stops killing men women and children because they don't fit into the mainstream of society (Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.) I will not accept the limitations that they say I must live by.

-- Jim Tanner (tanner_jim@hotmail.com), June 20, 2000.

What roads are you guys driving on?

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), June 20, 2000.

Sheepish, they are our roads.

Amen, Jim.

Linda, I just lost all of the stuff that I wrote and man is that frustrating!

Reasons that this is not my government are as follows... The "lawmakers" do not even know half of the legislation they pass into law. Go and read any bill and try to judge for yourself if you can see the ramifications of the propositions of the bill on existant laws and the mandates of the Constitution, which is suppossed to be the law of the land.

The Federal Government is suppossed to follow the Constitution and enact no laws which are unconstitutional. Thay can indeed go on your property because they passed the Buck Act in the 60's which took away all of our property and said that it was their property. Does that sound Constitutionally correct?

"Lex est Rex" is suppossed to be the framework under which we operate.Meaning that we are all equal inder the law. I don't believe that I am above the law. The "lawmakers" believe that they are above the law. Clinton is the most shining example of that arrogance, but there are a myriad of others. Barbara Boxer admitted to "misapprpriating" in excess of $100,000.00 when she was a Representative. Instead of jail time, she receives a promotion to Senator! Remember that the $100,000.00 is your money Californians. If I took 100K from my employer I would be in jail for a very long time, and rightfully so!

The Census does have the right to ask questions of the populace under title 13, however, I seriously doubt if there are 10 representatives that read all of the questions the census wanted to ask their employers.

You really should go and look at the bills that are before Congress. There is so much that is extraneous to the title of the bill that it will make your head spin! If they can't even read the bill in it's entirety, it should never be passed as law. Many of these bills are 500 pages or more, and with the reflexives, there is no way they could pass more than one law per year if they read them and discussed the Constitutionality of the legislation. You try, and then see if you believe they even know what they are passing.

If the Federal and State governments decide that they can act within the framework of the Constitution, then they will get the answer from me to the census. As for the Census compiling statistical information, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where it provides for the enumeration of the populace and average time of departure to work. Do you?

Just because they made it a law doesn't mean that it is right nor does it mean that it is Constitutionally valid. If they can hold themselves to the law of the land, I will follow their laws. As it stands, they as our employees are so out of line that the vast majority needs to be fired. The only one I would keep is Ron Paul.

Linda, do you really think the people here who are speaking out against the invasiveness of the present government are ignorant of the law? Or is it that you just want to see everyone complying and not making a fuss?

"A little revolution every now and then is a good thing." T. Jefferson

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), June 20, 2000.

It's not that I want to see everybody complying and making a fuss, but I don't know, I really like this forum, but it bothers me that when someone isn't pro-gun and anti-government that individual is almost universally shouted down--and I've seen it on more than one occasion during more than one discussion. I would never share how I feel about the govt/guns/prayer in schools just because I don't want to open myself up to judgmental comments. It's sad that this woman died needlessly, period.

-- Betsy (sassyweitzel@yahoo.com), June 20, 2000.

Betsy, There's a bunch of us who post a lot on this forum but there's a ton of folk out there who for whatever reason just lurk. I suspect that those folk don't contribute for some of the reasons you mention about being "shouted down". From emails I have received privately, I kind of think that there's more moderate perspectives on the part of most forum readers. It would be great to hear from all of them on the forum, too!

I benefit from reading all points of view. Why would I want to just read those that I agree with? While validation is always nice, I would never learn anything new! But one must always view with a critical eye, and keep the b.s. detector turned on...

I got burned out on the religion and political posts (didn't see any movement of positions.....most folk are pretty entrenched and the commentary seemed more appropriately conveyed via private email). However, I kinda missed some of it, so I have been lurking again.

I would love to hear your point of view! You may get some vehement replies, but that doesn't mean that they are more valid than yours, and you may even have a lot of non-publishing folk cheering you on!Or heavens, someone may even post something that agrees with you! :)

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), June 20, 2000.

I am a constitutionalist. I believe in the constitution. Someone earlier said something about scratching their head. Well I am scratching my head about one thing. How can a governemnt be set up under a very strict set of guidelines, which make it illegal to exceed them. And when they are exceeded, thus breaking the law, the people who they are designed to protect just plain don't care. You see I do not pick and choose which laws I will obey. In fact, I am extremely law abiding. The problem I have is that in obeying laws that are in and of themselves illegal am I not furthering the problem? Am I not an accessory to the crime? Perhaps the lack of understanding of this "anti-government" position lies in the fact that the writer does not understand their position under the law as it was at the time the Constitution was written. Perhaps we would all do well to study our Constitution and look at the way each and every one of those laws have been cicumvented, and otherwise trampled upon. The problem is not that I am anti-government. The problem is the government is anti-democratic republic. The Government is anti- constitution.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), June 20, 2000.

Thanks for your encouragement, Sheepish.

The Constitution was designed to change with a changing country-- something which makes it unique among other similar founding documents. I can't say that the government is always on the level--far from it. And of course there are instances in which new laws are found to be "unconstitutional"--which automatically puts the law in serious jeopardy. I do not mean to defend the system but if you're going to attack it, attack it accurately. The Constitution is a living document; its designers intended it to be changed. How they intended it to change is another story.

-- Betsy (sassyweitzel@yahoo.com), June 20, 2000.

That's a good point, Betsy. It is a living document in more ways than just one that is to grow and be flexible. It was also intended to maintain it's original integrity as part of it's essential self. Just like you can't change who your parents are no matter how much you might want to. That is my predominate problem with the political aspects of at least the past 50 years. They are bastardizing the Constitution.

Also as a living document, I strongly believe that they are choking the life out of it.

Betsy, in particular and everyone in general, I don't mean to attack anyone on their opinions and I really don't think that I do. When I strongly disagree, I try to point out why it is that I disagree. Everyone has a right to express their thoughts and it is really helpful if they can explain their reasons for their thoughts. If there is substantiation based on historical facts when discussing governmental things especially, that gives more credence to your line of reasoning than saying something like "That's what I think, so there."

So keep up the discussions and don't be afraid to voice your opinions, just be able to defend them , and perhaps we can all learn more.

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), June 20, 2000.

O.k. guys, back to the original point. I have a friend, who was hired by the Census, to train people that were going from house to house. After I read that article in the paper, I called him, just to see, what he had to say about it. He said that the very foremost thing, that they taught people, was: If there is a No Trespassing sign, then do not go there.Same for signs warning about dogs. He couldn't understand, why on earth that lady would have gone on. My guess is, the paper said she was a local, and she must have thought, that it would be o.k., because she was from around there. By the way, my friend is not what you would condider a goverment person, or mainstream by any means. And yes I do have a No Trespassing sign at my house, after you come up a 1/4 mile driveway, not because I mind people coming, but because the house is in front of the barn and pasture, and I don't want people going back there, and get hurt, when they try something stupid like pet the sheep, without knowing, that a ram can send ypu flying. The Census people by the way, respected this, and left the papers at my door. Karin

-- karin morey (wind_crest@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

if there were no trespassing signs and beware of dog signs, the old woman should not have got out of her car! the dogs were protecting their property. i hope no one would ever kill my dogs for protecting my home from someone they did not know and was not welcome the

-- dawn weger (chowhuahua@aol.com), June 21, 2000.

I believe everyone has a right to speak ! I have only twice popped a cork at someone in here and we handled the matter in private e-mails to mutual satisfaction--right Craig ? Vickii and I disagree on any point just for the sake of disagreement. If I said I liked the United States she would be a Russian just for spite, that's just Vickii. Everyone knows how a feel on this issue so I won't repeat myself. Everytime I have found someone who supports the present government-- I usually find someone in a 250,000.00 dollar home that is either retired or has their fingers deep in some scam job and is raping the public on their own. Yes, the Constitution is a changing document and the only words about change in it say--when the present government becomes unbearable than do like we (the men who wrote it) did--OVERTHROW THE TYRANT !

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), June 21, 2000.

I AM SORRY FOR THE OLD LADY AND HER FAMILY, BUT...... I JUST CAN'T HELP WONDERING HOW SHE GOT TO LIVE THAT LONG IF SHE DIDN'T KNOW BETTER THAN TO RESPECT WARNING SIGNS. OUT HERE IN PECOS NM, PEOPLE HAVE A PROTOCAL FOR APPROCHING HOMES. THEY HONK THE HORN. IF NO ONE COMES OUT TO GREET THEM THEY GO AWAY. EVERYONE HAS DOGS, I HAVE A DOG, AND A GUN, MY YARD IS COMPLETLY FENCED IN. THE CENSES GUY WHO CAME AROUND HAD THE GOOD SENSE TO STAY OUTSIDE OF MY GATE. WE TALKED OVER THE FENCE. I HOPE NO MORE PEOPLE ARE NEEDLESSLY HURT.

-- TINA SHROUT (CLIA88@NEWMEXICO.COM), June 22, 2000.

Well, I'm neither of those things, Joel--not to say that I support the present government. But like Doreen said, when assertions are supported by facts and not just "so there" or "you're stupid," that's different. That's discussion. And I'm all in favor of dissent. No growth w/o it.

-- Betsy (sassyweitzel@yahoo.com), June 22, 2000.

One of the great things about this forum is the discussions that take place with different views being stated. I have zero trust in this government as well as no respect. I am a peacful person and go out of my way to avoid conflict but there are lines that I have drawn that I will not allow people to cross and one of them is my right to privacy. As I stated earlier if people have views that are different than mine, that is wonderful, if we all agreed on everything then life would be so boring that it wouldn't be worth much. I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person and will defend anyone's right to disagree with me but I also ask the same from them.

From the short time that I have found this forum I have learned a great deal and have pondered on several issues that hit close to home for me. I may not be able to quote title and verse from the bill of rights and the constitution but I do have an understanding of both. If my stand on this government and the bloated creature that it has becomes offends anyone they have to realize that these are my beliefs and I will stand by them. One of the greatest tragedies that has happened in this country is the erosion of personal freedom and responsiblities. If someone wants me to show respect for the government then give us a government that deserves respect not the mockery that we have had to endure for the last 20 years.

I know, another rambiling rant but this is a subject that is very important to us as a nation and as free people because if give up even a fraction of these freedoms we come one step closer to losing them all.

Jim Tanner

-- Jim Tanner (tanner_jim@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.

Joel, it is not about supporting the present government, and why is it I am the one who disagres with you, or am argueing for arguements sake? I support rational minds who want to change the present government within the laws and rights we all have. Militant ideals are fine in a forum like this, but you can't even be taken seriously in the mainstream. It is their game that we are trying to change and their rules that we have to change it with. As for the rest, I am sitting here in jeans and a sweaty tank top, just like the rest of you. Husband and I have worked long and hard for our house, land and business, we sacrificed and sweated for what we have. We pay our taxes and play the games to keep what we have, but I vote and am vocal about change at the local level. It is in the end, you and your family against the world, I just can't say this enough, where were all of these militants at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Freemans? You will be alone when the fight starts and dead when it is over. I for one will be very sorry. Vicki McGaugh

-- Vicki McGaugh (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.

Latest update: The couple who owned the property (and allegedly the dogs) have been charged with criminal recklessness. Maximum jail time four to five years. The Brown County prosecutor stated that Criminal Recklessness was the toughest charge he could bring which he could also prove in court.

-- Sandy (tripletreefarm@hotmail.com), June 24, 2000.