ExpertLaw.com Forums

False Arrest for Standing in a Median

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst Previous 1 2 3 4 ... Next LastLast
  • 11-18-2017, 05:16 PM
    Highwayman
    Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median
    Quote:

    Quoting zoinbergs
    View Post
    And so, this led me to look up the definition of "street" -- which can be found in their Municipal Code Section 7-7-1:

    Street means the entire width between the property boundary lines of every way
    publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of
    vehicular travel and includes, without limitation, alleys or the entire width of every way
    declared to be a public highway by any law
    .

    Now you just have to check every law for definitions of "public highway". It may very well be considered to be a public highway.
  • 11-18-2017, 08:05 PM
    zoinbergs
    Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median
    Quote:

    Quoting Highwayman
    View Post
    Now you just have to check every law for definitions of "public highway". It may very well be considered to be a public highway.

    Interesting, and thank you for the dialogue.

    The question now comes to mind, how does one define "the entire width" for a private street, without referring to property boundaries? But I do agree that perhaps now there is some sort of definition out there that can help clarify such.

    I'll have to ask, I'm guessing, the DOT or something like that, if the private drives in question are "declared to be a public highway."

    After a brief search, I did find the C.R.S. definition of a highway...

    Colorado Revised Statutes § 42-1-102(43):

    "Highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel or the entire width of every way declared to be a public highway by any law of this state.

    Colorado Revisted Statues § 43-1-203(1):

    "Highway" includes bridges on the roadway and culverts, sluices, drains, ditches, waterways, embankments, retaining walls, trees, shrubs, and fences along or upon the same and within the right-of-way, and any subsurface support acquired in accordance with section 43-1-209.

    ...though it is identical to the already mentioned Boulder city definition of street. So I guess that leads me back to sniffing up the trail of, like I said, who declares what is a public highway, and if said private streets have been declared as such. I did find a Boulder local roads map, which did not include said 29th Street private drives, and a snow removal map I found that reflected the same. I wonder if the DOT is indeed who I can talk to, to see if they have a list of "declared public highways" -- anybody happen to know off-hand what department / organization I might be able to refer to next?

    BTW, there are a couple of other private drives I have been picked up on, like on the "median" at the entrance to the Safeway near 104th and Federal (in Federal Heights) and in the right turn lane "sidewalk" at the entrance to the Walmart at the 9400 block of Sheridan (in Westminster) that are definitely not through streets in any way, of which I can only imagine are then, less likely to be considered or declared "public highways," that I can only imagine the police have even less arguable probable cause to pick somebody up on. But I guess I'll have to do more research on them as well.

    Actually, here's a really good question I've been meaning to ask. There is an actual median that my brother was picked up on in Fort Collins, at the intersection of Research Blvd and Shields. The officer didn't have the correct statute whatsoever (and had erroneously cited something relating to needing to cross the street, which we both looked up later, wasn't even in the code he thought it was either). He never referred to the city's median statute, and had eventually apologized for "impeding" on my brothers day after confirming that he was mistaken on the original statute. So my question is, if my brother really was in violation of an ordinance to which a knowledgeable officer could have picked him up legally on, but this particular officer didn't know that ordinance, did the officer lack arguable probable cause for the arrest, or is he not liable simply because there was still a legitimate crime to which my brother was in violation of anyways, despite the cop not officially getting him on it? I think I read somewhere that if a legitimate crime still otherwise existed *somewhere* in the arrest process, during an arrest, that the probable cause for the arrest still exists too. I could be totally mistaken though, it was a long time ago that I read it, to which I'll have to look up and see if I can find said case law again...
  • 11-18-2017, 09:38 PM
    Taxing Matters
    Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median
    I assume the Boulder police simply cited you for the ordinance violation. I think that even if the police lacked probable cause for the citation that you would get nothing for suing for the 14th amendment violation. (Not 4th Amendment, which applies only to the federal government. The protection of the 4th Amendment is made applicable to the states and local governments by the 14th amendment.) That’s because you have suffered no legally recognized damages from it. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that absent actual damages all you would get from the violation (which would be brought in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) is $1, i.e. a symbolic win. As it would cost you more than that to sue, it is not worthwhile. Nor does Colorado law provide you any damages beyond your actual damages, either.
  • 11-19-2017, 10:21 AM
    jk
    Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median
    If you are on private property the owner can have you removed (referring to your Wal-Mart and Safeway drive situstions).

    If you were still with the public right of way, the local ordinances or state laws still apply
  • 11-19-2017, 11:53 AM
    zoinbergs
    Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median
    Quote:

    Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    I assume the Boulder police simply cited you for the ordinance violation. I think that even if the police lacked probable cause for the citation that you would get nothing for suing for the 14th amendment violation. (Not 4th Amendment, which applies only to the federal government. The protection of the 4th Amendment is made applicable to the states and local governments by the 14th amendment.) That’s because you have suffered no legally recognized damages from it. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that absent actual damages all you would get from the violation (which would be brought in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) is $1, i.e. a symbolic win. As it would cost you more than that to sue, it is not worthwhile. Nor does Colorado law provide you any damages beyond your actual damages, either.

    Oh boy, I am hesitant to agree with you that no other damages could be sought. After simply googling "damages in a 42 USC" I clicked on the first two links. Perhaps you are mistaken?

    9.1 Damages | Federal Practice Manual For Legal Aid Attorneys

    Litigating Damages And Attorney Fees In Section 1983 Litigation: Capitalizing On The Law

    According to the latter link:

    A plaintiff successfully pressing a section 1983 claim may recover a broad range of both compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory damages may include costs of medical care and supplies, lost wages (i.e., back pay and lost future earnings), physical pain and suffering, emotional pain and suffering, and disability / loss of normal life. Where liability is found, but compensatory damages cannot be proven, the jury will be instructed to return a nominal damage award (typically one dollar). Although a trivial sum, even a nominal damage award may open the door for an award of punitive damages or attorney fees. Courts have rejected the availability of presumed damages unless traditional damages are difficult to prove. In addition, a court may reduce compensatory damages where the plaintiff only offers generalized evidence of emotional pain and suffering, not rising to a level that is commensurate with the amount awarded by the jury. While section 1983 damages are based on common law concepts, they are not dependent on the law of the forum state.

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    If you are on private property the owner can have you removed (referring to your Wal-Mart and Safeway drive situstions).

    Wow, thanks man, I never knew such things! I guess because I can safely assume just like you now that nobody wants me out there, that I should just go "get a job" or something to that effect?

    I apologize if that came across as harsh, but I don't need people "getting down on their knees" to school me on such elementary crap. You think I haven't heard that before? Of course private property owners can have me removed if they don't want me out there.

    But hey, try this thought on for size, that a lot of private property owners *don't* care that I'm loitering / panhandling / canvassing on their property. Has that ever occurred to you? And just so you know, regarding the two properties in question, they don't care, and have historically not cared, that people do such things on their property.

    Thanks for providing such deep wisdom on the subject though!
  • 11-19-2017, 12:38 PM
    jk
    Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median
    So if you’re on private property tell the cops to get lost. Don’t be surprised if when asked if they mind Walmart will state they do.

    if you’re on public property you’re subject to the laws at hand.

    So whats your problem and purpose here? You don’t appear to want responses but merely garner a response so you can try to impress those here. Here’s some news; you’re not impressing anybody.
  • 11-19-2017, 03:35 PM
    zoinbergs
    Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median
    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    So whats your problem and purpose here? You don’t appear to want responses but merely garner a response so you can try to impress those here. Here’s some news; you’re not impressing anybody.

    Well, I've been systematically shafted by internal affairs on these issues, as I can only imagine they don't want to hold their own police to any sort of fire, and like I said I am trying to get to a 42 USC court but have been unable to make it there in the mean time -- so it should be obvious that I am simply trying to confirm my findings on a LEGAL FORUM (gee, what a concept) where I can, dare I say, get a second opinion, and maybe even find that attorney to which I seek help from.

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    So if you’re on private property tell the cops to get lost. Don’t be surprised if when asked if they mind Walmart will state they do.

    Maybe the point I'm trying to make is that I HAVE TOLD THE COPS TO GET LOST, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, OFFERING PURE AND UNADULTERATED, EXCULPATORY FACT TO THEIR FACES, and have been SYSTEMATICALLY shafted by them, and falsely arrested by them, and thrown in jail by them, and had police reports falsified by them, and had their internal affairs stick up for them, etc. etc. etc. You speak as though we live in a perfect world, where cops *always* listen to people on the streets, and leave people alone, and don't kidnap them, and don't violate their human rights, and don't downright human traffic them. Perhaps I started these threads to INFORM THE GENERAL PUBLIC that there may potentially be *actual* rich against the poor crimes against humanity going on, right underneath their noses, and that they (dare I say, you) need to get off their precious pedestals and stop automatically believing that cops are always good, and that the system is working, and that the people to which they pick up are just a bunch of bad guys.

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    if you’re on public property you’re subject to the laws at hand.

    To which I say, if you're a police officer, YOU'RE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE LAND.

    Have you, like, ever, even once, just one time, tried on the thought that perhaps the reason why we have such a high crime rate in this country, is not simply because of a bunch of criminals committing crimes, but that there are, dare I say, SYSTEMIC RACIAL PROBLEMS PLAGUING OUR SYSTEM that directly involve downright genocidal, racist, bigoted, and usually rich, capitalist, police / DAs / judges / etc. that all seem to think, as I have now seen first hand them say, "that if all the homeless / transients / etc. could just get a job and a place" that those crime rates and respective jail populations would then go down?

    It downright disgusts me the astounding racism that is going on in our country right now. And evidently right under our noses too.

    Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith coundn't have said it better, exposing said racism right away (and that he's more part of the problem than the solution). He kinda touches on relating "the job and the place" (or lack thereof) to the problem of his overcrowded jails in this article...

    Larimer Sheriff Smith Cites Homeless Transients Jail Capacity Woes

    And then, going back, talks about needing to identify "the root cause" of homeless / transient behavior in this article...

    Sheriff Smith We Must Address Root Cause Transients

    ...without so much as a BLINK OF THE EYE, that the root cause of homelessness / transientness, may actually be, OH I DON'T KNOW, a totally racist and overly-privileged society thinking they can LABEL a group of people as homeless / transient / undesirable / fill in whatever super racist, genocidalist, eugenics type of identifer here that you must use so that you can STOP THE BLAME FROM DIRECTING BACK AT YOOOOOOOOOOOOOU.

    Ultimately, this racist / genocidalist type of mentality I believe is what is causing our country to fall into the same rut like that of Nazi Germany. Everybody seems to want to treat poor / black / alleged criminals / defendants / undesirables / second class citizens as GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, and not INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. And even if people are found to actually be *guilty* of a crime, just because they did it, I have a hard time believing that they *truly* knew what they were doing was wrong -- much like you or I would know it is wrong -- otherwise THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! So this fake holding every criminal to this fake fire, is I believe a fake attempted ego collapse being committed by every cop / DA / judge / jury / etc. when we should be SERIOUSLY looking into the real reasons why these people have done what they did, namely how did they arrive at such an incorrect world view -- was it their parents, the school system, their friends, the government? Because nobody seriously goes out and just commits a crime willy nilly. I think it comes down to MEDICAL NEGLECT and an INFORMATION DEFICIENCY that we are not addressing because it would make us all feel yucky that we are the ones who actually failed an otherwise innocent person, and that we are the ones who are now victim shaming them in order to get out of our own crimes of failing them, and that it is US who are in the wrong, in the first place, and that WE JUST NEED TO START OWNING UP TO THAT.

    Case in point, I got convicted as a young adult of several kleptomania related crimes, and the DA and everybody literally duped me into pleaded guilty to those crimes, and even to ones I didn't even commit, all because I didn't know any better, I just needed to have my ego collapsed correctly and it was not, and sure enough, the DA didn't want to look backwards in his investigation to simply find out that I had a child abusing father who I had stolen from multiple times while being a minor, who failed to punish me on every level, failed to collapse my ego that what I was doing was wrong, and that in the end, I got PUNISHED totally unnecessarily, and now my record tarnished for life, all because I just needed to learn a simple lesson that other children got to learn when they were younger, but I have to be labeled a failure for the rest of my life because I learned later. Sadly, nobody figured out that it was a simple case of kleptomania that I was suffering from, and so even while on probation after committing my crimes, I still stole, from my next job, and the one after that, until I *FINALLY* realized what was going on, and had to literally teach myself that what I was doing was wrong, WITHOUT ANY HELP WHATSOEVER FROM A SINGLE SOUL AROUND ME. My parents didn't help me (they still don't think kleptomania exists) the DA didn't help me, my probation officer didn't help me, nobody helped me identify such a simple, MEDICAL BASED information deficiency that I had within me, and so instead, I got LYNCHED, and now I continue to get LYNCHED as I continue to have my record held against me, completely unfairly, by everybody, even though I am totally, and completely, NOT a kleptomaniac anymore, not in the least.

    Moral of the story is, if we *actually* put down the pitch forks, if we actually loosen the nooses, we might start to realize that this country is just a massive kangaroo court that needs to EDUCATE ITSELF ON ITS RACISM, and STOP DOING IT, and instead start looking INWARDS if it wants to actually begin to fix its bad stats like the high crime and jail population rates that we currently have.

    So far, based on all the posts you have offered, jk, you seem to be on the side of the racists. I don't like making such accusations, but you have literally done or said NOTHING that resembles holding that business owner who put up that fence illegally to any sort of fire FOR STEALING PUBLIC LAND, or to the cops for picking people up without a lick of lawful justification. You only seem to be doing EXACTLY WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE is doing that I have caught now -- all of you attempting to rationalize and outright deny the whole situation away entirely. Just because you think "I shouldn't be out there" or that "I'm a troll" or that "I'm baiting the cops" or that "I'm pulling their chains" or that (fill in whatever else rationalization you see fit so that you don't have to start looking BACKWARDS instead of forwards) it won't help you get any closer to figuring out what is really going on, and that YOU might be the problem, and not the criminals / transients / defendants / undesirables / etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

    Sorry for the rant. Just food for thought. You asked, I told. In my opinion, it should be considered totally illegal and HATE SPEECH to use the words homeless or transient. It is a way to dehumanize people so that we can subjugate their rights. People need to step down off of their privileged high horses, and GET REAL. People are people are people are people.
  • 11-19-2017, 04:46 PM
    jk
    Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median
    What do you have to do with internal affairs? Internal affairs is exactly what it sounds like it is: a department to investigate and deal with affairs within the police department internally. You arent going to find out what the result of an IA investigation is for the most part. You aren’t going to find out what or if there is any punishment doled out.

    As to getting to a federal court; have you checked the phone book or internet? I’m sure they’re listed.

    Did ya ever think you’re incorrect regarding your exculpatory facts? Regardless, the place to argue anything is in court, not along side the road.

    While i wont deny there are “dirty cops” and unlawful arrests, for the most part the court systems are not crooked.

    Quote:

    without so much as a BLINK OF THE EYE, that the root cause of homelessness / transientness, may actually be, OH I DON'T KNOW, a totally racist and overly-privileged society thinking they can LABEL a group of people as homeless / transient / undesirable / fill in whatever super racist,
    now you’ve become laughable. Most homeless people in my city choose to be homeless. We enjoy a very low rate of unemployment. Jobs are available to almost anybody. I know places that specifically hire felons due to the obvious problems they face with many employers. Most homeless in my area aren’t willing to put in the effort to go to work every day and deal with regular bills. Their solution is to live as they can; on the street, homeless shelters, grifting. If that is what the choose, that’s fine but don’t expect me to feel bad and give them any of my hard earned money. I work 60 hours/week so I can have what I have. They can live within their means just like I do.
    Quote:

    And even if people are found to actually be *guilty* of a crime, just because they did it, I have a hard time believing that they *truly* knew what they were doing was wrong --

    say what? Most laws are based on common standards of decency and common sense. You don’t injure others. You don’t take from others. It’s hard to argue those committing a crime don’t know they are doing something wrong.

    Quote:

    In my opinion, it should be considered totally illegal and HATE SPEECH to use the words homeless or transient.
    you have a problem with factual terms that are not demeaning or judgmental? You have again proven you have no understanding of the law such as why hate crimes are considered to be hate crimes or you’re just intentionally being obtuse.


    Quote:

    . I don't like making such accusations, but you have literally done or said NOTHING that resembles holding that business owner who put up that fence illegally to any sort of fire FOR STEALING PUBLIC LAND,

    and now it comes full circle. You have no idea what you are talking about. You don’t know who actually owns the land in question but you also refuse to accept that both private owners and public governments have the right to restrict access to lands under their control. Until you accept that any further conversation is useless.

    Have a great day. Stop breaking the law and you won’t have this sort of problem and hopefully it will help you stop sounding like a lunatic.

  • 11-19-2017, 05:14 PM
    Mark47n
    Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median
    If you are as verbose, dismissive and argumentative with the police in The Peoples Republic of Boulder (PRB) as you are here then you should count yourself lucky they don't just haul you a bit up the canyon and drown you in Boulder Creek. There are some nice deep holes and fast water up there.

    You DO sound like one of the typical trustafarian's that I used to run into up in Boulder and Ft. Collins, though. Always convinced that someone is tromping all over your rights and completely neglecting anyone else's in the process.

    My advice to you is to step off. a ledge, preferably, there are plenty to be found in that region with nice long drops.
  • 11-19-2017, 11:00 PM
    zoinbergs
    Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median
    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    What do you have to do with internal affairs? Internal affairs is exactly what it sounds like it is: a department to investigate and deal with affairs within the police department internally. You arent going to find out what the result of an IA investigation is for the most part. You aren’t going to find out what or if there is any punishment doled out.

    Wrong. Internal affairs policies CLEARLY state that they must also investigate criminal, statutory allegations that their police officers may have committed. So, with that being said, any time I witnessed a crime (submitting ACTUALLY VERIFIABLE false documents for recording, for instance, as well as ACTUALLY lying against bodycam footage, as well as committing ACTUAL perjury in court) I expected those allegations to be honestly and fairly investigated. And you know what they tried to pull when I reported such things? They either "ratified" that what I was reporting was not illegal behavior, or they did exactly what you just advocated in your post, and tried to pull that they are "only responsible for investigating policy violations committed by their officers." You want an ugly example? The whole Denver Internal Affairs, and even their internal affairs (the Office Of The Independent Monitor) and even the Denver DA too, all decided, likely because of an image problem, that they would rather "ratify" that Denver University security guards have Terry-like reasonable suspicion powers to detain for investigations within their own property, than take my complaint seriously. I kid you not. The facts were clearly laid out, to which nobody even disputed. One night security guards impersonated cops and detained my brother and I, and ran our names without cops present, whereby they fooled us into thinking they were cops, and had even said they were cops when we first asked them, whereby we only find out after the fact that they were in fact not cops, to which we immediately reported the impersonation and false imprisonment charges to the local Denver police, to which, you guessed it, we got shafted all the way up the chains, and have yet (it's on our list of things to do) report to the next highest level up, the only level left to go, the Denver mayor's office, that everybody below him just gave security guards police powers to detain, and won't do anything about whatsoever.

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    As to getting to a federal court; have you checked the phone book or internet? I’m sure they’re listed.

    Wow, have you not read any of my previous posts? Easier said than done. And I don't want to go it alone. And I have a BUNCH of these cases that I got backed up on. And I can't get help from attorneys without having the evidence / police reports / affidavits / etc. laid out first for them to work with. I don't think you understand how "witness tampered" I am. Between my brother and I, we got backed up on OVER TWO DOZEN false imprisonments over the last two years, which if you pile that on top of being homeless, and defamed by everybody and their mothers, we don't have many resources to work with in the first place. We have a statute of limitations of two years that we can still make most of our filings within. But your picture perfect world that YOU may be living in, others don't have such a luxury of living in, and have to work with what they've got, which in our cases, is VERY little. And I have a serious stomach condition that all but disables me, so I don't have much time in my day that I can spend on both getting resources to survive, and then getting resources to file lawsuits with. Time and money are tight, and if I knew of a better route / better tools / better resources to work with, you better believe I would have been taking advantage of them by now!

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    Did ya ever think you’re incorrect regarding your exculpatory facts? Regardless, the place to argue anything is in court, not along side the road.

    Yeah, not EVERYTHING must always *automatically* end up in court. There is plenty of case law out there that does explain your rationale, that an officer need not conduct a "mini trial" in the streets, once he has arguable probable cause, but there is also plenty of case law out there that explains how officers totally and completely lacked arguable probable in the streets because of how they had attempted to ignore plainly exculpatory, non-controversial facts in the streets - facts that are THEIR JOB to collect fairly and appropriately first, before sending something to court. And a lot times, my brother and I aren't even laying out exculpatory "facts" for the cops to weigh for or against in their probable cause determinations, we are usually informing them of ENTIRELY MISSING ELEMENTS TO THEIR CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS, like for instance the complete lack of being informed FIRST by a business owner before being issued a valid trespassing citation by the cop. (Yeah, this has actually happened. The cop arrested my brother for trespassing without even figuring out if he was not wanted on the property first). The courts have been VERY CLEAR to rule that an officer completely lacks arguable probable if he doesn't even establish what are called "essential" or "critical" elements of an offense. Otherwise, in your world, cops would have free reign to pick up anybody on anything, and could never be wrong, could never be held to any fire, whatsoever, period, nada, zip, zilch, zero! Like I've said before, the bar for probable cause is not THE FLOOR.

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    While i wont deny there are “dirty cops” and unlawful arrests, for the most part the court systems are not crooked.

    I have met DAs and judges and cops and juries and public defenders that have all proven to be absolutely retarded, on dozens of levels, that I would have to for the most part disagree with you. They have all proven in my experience to systematically deny defendants rights, treat them as guilty until proven innocent, not accept their innocence when they prove it, not respect basic rules of law like hearsay, pretend that certain things weren't said, rubber stamping plainly conclusory warrants that lack critical elements to an offense, etc. etc. etc. etc. I have determined that most of the problem lies in a type of yuppie racket / mafia / gang / etc. that nobody (looks like you too) want to admit exists, or perhaps, don't even have access to discovering, because you guys are all stuck seeing the picture from the outside, without the necessary tools / experience / etc. to see it from the inside (like I have been able to). Ultimately, I believe you are all suffering from a form of "statistics fraud" that you certainly won't be able to get out of, because you're stuck on the inside of!

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    now you’ve become laughable. Most homeless people in my city choose to be homeless. We enjoy a very low rate of unemployment. Jobs are available to almost anybody. I know places that specifically hire felons due to the obvious problems they face with many employers. Most homeless in my area aren’t willing to put in the effort to go to work every day and deal with regular bills. Their solution is to live as they can; on the street, homeless shelters, grifting. If that is what the choose, that’s fine but don’t expect me to feel bad and give them any of my hard earned money. I work 60 hours/week so I can have what I have. They can live within their means just like I do.

    Ahh, the age old argument that "they chose." Yep, they sure did. Because everybody "chooses" to be on the streets. Great way to rationalize an entire group of people that may very well be suffering because of all sorts of things like unequal opportunity, rising costs of living, TORTS committed against them in their past to which they struggle to bounce back from, etc. etc. etc. With all this opportunity around us, all these jobs available, let's just blame the homeless for their own, fully informed bad decisions, and not go up to them and talk to them and figure out what makes them tick, why they "choose" what they do, etc. etc. etc. How many "homeless" people have you spoken to that you claim "choose" to be homeless? Or are you gathering your statistics from a ten foot pole? How do you know that they are indeed *simply* not willing to "put in the effort to go to work every day" (and are otherwise fully capable human beings) and they are not otherwise severely mentally ill people with lack of motivation type of syndromes caused by a life of pain and suffering and unequal opportunity etc. etc. etc. You seem to be pretty far separated from them, as I see many out there, especially with your self admitted 60 hour work weeks. I highly doubt you have collected enough fair and balanced statistics in order to safely start bunching all your city's homeless / transients into one big bucket called "LAZY."

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    say what? Most laws are based on common standards of decency and common sense. You don’t injure others. You don’t take from others. It’s hard to argue those committing a crime don’t know they are doing something wrong.

    Right, because people just do things that they absolutely know are wrong. Just like me and my kleptomania back in the day. Because people aren't mentally ill, or have been taught the wrong things, or have other psychological problems that cause them to rationalize away their behavior. Tell me something, think of a crime, say, killing your neighbor's dog. You know that's wrong, right? Now tell me that you simply "choose" to not go outside and kill your neighbor's dog, right now. I don't think that's a simple "choice" now is it. If you *truly* know that something is wrong to do, you can't, and won't do it. The opposite is true, I believe, for anybody who commits a crime. Sure, they may think that it's *okay* to do something that *society* has deemed wrong, to which they are aware that society demonizes, but I don't think they truly *know* that it is wrong, like how you and I know that it is wrong -- OTHERWISE THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! According to you, I *knew* it was wrong to steal back in the day, but I still did it. How is that even logically possible? But now I don't steal. Why so? What changed? Today, I won't -- I say can't -- steal, because I TRULY know that it is wrong to do. Or maybe I now *care* that it is wrong to do. Or maybe I just learned what tools are necessary to not try and rationalize away such behavior. Go ahead, keep thinking that you could easily kill your neighbor's dog, but that you somehow "choose" not to because you know that it is wrong. I don't think that you are "choosing" not to do it. I think that you have a *more perfect knowledge* that it is wrong, and that YOU WON'T / CAN'T DO SOMETHING THAT YOU TRULY KNOW IS WRONG. So, stop holding people who haven't figured such things out to such an impossible fire. Most (if not all?) people who break the law don't need to be PUNISHED for it, they need to be HELPED for it. They need to be REHABILITATED for it. They just need some serious lesson teaching and a correct ego collapse on the subject. They need somebody to HELP them obtain a more correct world view on the subject. They DO NOT need somebody to ostracize, victim shame, and straight up DEMONIZE them for it.

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    you have a problem with factual terms that are not demeaning or judgmental? You have again proven you have no understanding of the law such as why hate crimes are considered to be hate crimes or you’re just intentionally being obtuse.

    Okay, let's define what an actual "hate crime" is. According to the FBI's website, a hate crime is defined as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity."

    Now let's look at what Eric Holsapple did (the property manager talked about in my other thread who put up a fence near, but not on, his property, to which he did so without first obtaining a permit to do). He committed:

    1) criminal offense (namely, a 23-84 violation of the city's municipal code, which is a classic misdemeanor), and

    2) against a person (namely in that case, a group of people, the homeless), to which

    3) was motivated in whole or in part by his bias against that group of people.

    Here's the complete email chain I obtained between him and the City Of Fort Collins, if you'd like to read it:

    Hate Crime Email Chain Between Eric Holsapple And The City Of Fort Collins


    Now you may not think that "homeless people" are a protected status of people, but I dare argue that it now is, or has at least now become one, by how people have started stealing land in the name of unlawfully removing said people from said land. So you tell me, jk, is what Eric Holsapple did, NOT A HATE CRIME? Be honest now. I want to know your answer.

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    and now it comes full circle. You have no idea what you are talking about. You don’t know who actually owns the land in question but you also refuse to accept that both private owners and public governments have the right to restrict access to lands under their control. Until you accept that any further conversation is useless.

    Sure, for the 29th Street Mall private drives specifically in question, I don't know *precisely* if they have been declared "public highways" for the purposes enforcing their municipal median code against, but I do know that they are private properties, with signs on them that say "private street, no city maintenance," and that other cops have totally and already given the a-okay for me to be on, and so, I at least have a sneaking suspicion that they are *not* public highways for the purposes of anti-median enforcement. And I have a VERY strong suspicion that the other FIVE private properties that I have been picked up on, claiming that those were all public properties outright, are almost certainly NOT "public highways" whatsoever, to which I have an even stronger suspicion that cops should know their jurisdiction about, in order to not pick people up on with some sort of anti-median ordinance. BTW, so you know, I call in all the time to their police dispatches (including Boulder's) and visit their city zoning, GIS, and city manager's offices (like, a sting, if you will) posing as an anti-abortionist from a church looking to hold a sign on their private drives, of which I always get friendly and consistent answers from them all telling me that I have every right to do, and that they and their police "would never touch me" for doing. So again, nobody wants to admit that there may exist a full subjugation of people (the homeless) now treated as full on second-class citizens, that nobody seems to care about upholding the rights of.

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    Have a great day. Stop breaking the law and you won’t have this sort of problem and hopefully it will help you stop sounding like a lunatic.

    Oh man, are you serious? What "laws" have I broken? Do you see me convicted of ANYTHING yet? What a stretch of the imagination. Just because you think "the cops had probable cause" -- now I'm breaking the law? So far I have 1) jumped a fence from a right of way into a right of way, and have had said trespassing charges dropped because I was charged with trespassing into private property when in fact I was in public property, and 2) held a sign on private property that is difficult to argue is public property for the purposes of enforcing "no median on streets" municipal code ordinances against.

    If I turn out to be right on the 29th Street Mall private drives not being considered "public highways" are you then willing to admit that your cops are kidnapping homeless people from perfectly legitimate locations without a lick of lawful justification? It seems like you would just love to keep thinking that it is I who is in the wrong, so that you don't have to hold your cops to the fire. Tell me, jk, and let's be honest, should the cops that night have held Eric Holsapple responsible for violating a 23-84 municipal code misdemeanor violation, or will you continue to forever look the other way on that one?
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst Previous 1 2 3 4 ... Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved