RE: Wireless Security

["Herman Frederick Ebeling, Jr." <hfebelingjr () lycos com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


- -----Original Message-----
From: David Gillett [mailto:gillettdavid () fhda edu]
Sent: Friday, 14 October, 2005 12:20
To: hfebelingjr () lycos com; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Wireless Security


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herman Frederick Ebeling, Jr. [mailto:hfebelingjr () lycos com]
>
>       Your scenario, reminds me of what happened with a
> friend of mine when he was working at either an apartment
> complex/building.  It seems that the owner had gotten a "wild
> hair" and wanted to go into ALL of the units and made the
> statement "this is my property and I want to go in and check
> on them."  Well he went into one where the renter worked
> nights and who obviously was NOT expecting any "company"
> during the day.  Well hearing someone in his apartment he
> grabs his gun, and when confronted by the "intruder" shoots
> him.  Now here's where it gets "fun."  As the EMTs are
> wheeling the landlord out on a gurney, and the cops are
> talking to him, he demands that they arrest the shooter.  And
> (no pun intended) to literally add insult to injury the cops
> tell him, that they can't.  Cause the tenant was within HIS
> rights to shoot the man/landlord. . .

  Owner should have research local landlord/tenant law.  In most
jurisdictions, a lease contract limits the property owner's
rights to enter the leased premises -- I believe ours stipulates
24 hours notice to the tenant except in actual emergencies.

====>   Yep, that he should have, that he should have.  I think that that is (or
should be) true in every situation.  I
mean not even the cops can "just walk" into a person's home without a search
warrant, probable cause, or an actual
emergency.

  Shelter (and its security) is a basic need, right behind air,
water, and food, and in many jurisdictions special rules apply
that don't automatically extend to other sorts of property (and
vice versa).  Building owner was attempting to exercise a property
right that may not extend to leased dwellings where he lives, or
which he may have actually *given up* when entering into the lease
agreement.

====>   And he ended up paying for his mistake, BIG TIME. . .

  If there's really a chance that his case is an exception, he
should consult a lawyer, but the police and the tenant were going
by the normal local situation and such an exception would be rare.

====>   I'd have to agree with ya there.

Herman

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQ0/x+x/i52nbE9vTEQIyZACdESIg2K0JkS4XfgXBpALJk4wrFV8AoMDg
yW3v1kdgwdaACctYvR6O1fvK
=+gXU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----