Land of the free? Police smash family out of van

[Jeff White]

Let me get this straight. Just so I understand. many members here believe that all laws regulating parking, mandating certain standards for residences, regulating signs are unconstitutional.

I'm sure that not a one of you would dare to complain if they decided to live on the public street in front of your house....the same day the appraiser was coming for your home equity loan.....

I suppose the laws that require you to properly dispose of your waste water in a sanitary sewer or septic system are unconstitutional too. If a person wants to flush his toilet into the gutter that's his right, who is the evil state to tell him he can't?

And by God, free speech is free speech...If the gentleman's club on the edge of town wants to put a 30' x 50' sign with 6 million candle power lights on the public right of way in front of your house, that's ok too...free speech and all. Don't think that you own the property to the pavement, the public property usually extends several feet off the pavement on both sides of the road.

While we're at it, lets get rid of zoning laws too. Way too restrictive..If I want to buy up the big lot in the middle of your neighborhood and move my hog farm there, that's my right. It doesn't matter that your job just transferred you across the country and you need to sell your house and it's now worth a third of the payoff on your mortgage...That's just your tough luck....Sucks to be you....

Unfortunately not everyone believes in living in sanitary conditions or shares the same values or has one bit of common sense.

There are plenty of third world **%& holes where people are free to live anyway they want anywhere they want. Of course that freedom may be a big part of why they are called third world **%& holes.

We live in a constitutional republic not anarchy....

Jeff

 

[DKSuddeth]

all ridiculing aside, before the legislature passed a new law to force those occupants living in a van to move, were they breaking the law?

and if not (i'm guessing they weren't since the legislature had to make a new law based solely on this incident) would they not have had some sort of 4th amendment protection.

Would being told you can't live in a van in a parking lot be any different than being told you can't have your house painted flourescent orange?

It seems to me that what alot of people who support the towns actions on this are really more interested in conformity to that particular society than the rights and freedoms of an individual (family) who weren't breaking the law, so the legislature manufactured them in to criminals by creating a new law.

sounds sorta, stalinistic to me.

 

[2TransAms]

The American concept of equality under the law, as embodied by the US Constitution, makes no distinction as to whether a citizen is "normal" or "upstanding." Government's role is to protect all citizens, regardless of how well they fit into the definition du jour of normalcy.

I didn't say it was wrong to be different,and I certainly don't care that they lived in a van with animals. In fact,"to each their own,"I said. My point was that these people obviously gave a big middle finger to whatever township they were in and refused to be reasonable. They got what they had coming. Townships can set whatever parking rules they please. I don't see how these people have a right to consistently violate a city ordinance.

There's signs in my town that say NO LOITERING. I can't hang out there all day and tell the city that it's a free country,I'll stand where I please.I'm pretty sure they'd do something after a while,and I'd deserve whatever it was.

 

[2TransAms]

Would being told you can't live in a van in a parking lot be any different than being told you can't have your house painted flourescent orange?

Do you think every parking lot with a No Overnight Parking sign is unconstitutional? And in the subdivisions I build in,there are several restrictions that could arguably be unconstitutional,such as no mobile homes,no above-ground pools,no chainlink fences,and no overnight parking in the street. Is all of that wrong? And if the city says no parking in the city hall lot,is that wrong? Where do you draw the line? What if they parked in front of your house every night? Would you just suck it up?

 

[Nicky Santoro]

Jeff White
Moderator
Alex,
"Is it your contention that the police should have just refused to do their job?"

It's my contention that some of them are just to eager to do it with "vigor".
Not a problem though. The day is coming soon that that crowd will get "called to account" with vigor.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Do you think every parking lot with a No Overnight Parking sign is unconstitutional? And in the subdivisions I build in,there are several restrictions that could arguably be unconstitutional,such as no mobile homes,no above-ground pools,no chainlink fences,and no overnight parking in the street. Is all of that wrong? And if the city says no parking in the city hall lot,is that wrong? Where do you draw the line? What if they parked in front of your house every night? Would you just suck it up?

you don't see what we're talking about here? We're talking about a government body making laws to remedy an isolated issue. If the parking lot was half full with people living in vans, I could see the reasoning, but for one family who wasn't breaking the law when they started to be turned in to criminals because 'city hall' didn't like their sign covered van? Thats like making a law that makes it illegal for homeless people to be on the street. It doesn't make any sense except to show a body that wants to blind themselves to a certain reality.

 

[buzz_knox]

Seems like there are a lot of knees jerking, as people talk past themselves. Zoning to eliminate a particular type of behavior is as old as zoning itself, and zoning was probably developed for that reason ("we don't like X, so we'll make it prohibited in this area.") We all rely

As for the use of force, we don't know enough about what's going on to really make judgments. Who threw the first punch? Who used the first chemical? Do we really know? If someone were to bust a window where my father was sitting at, I might be tempted to intervene with anything at my disposal. Similarly, if my partner were to get splashed with bleach, I might be tempted to get a bit more . . . brisk in my arrest techniques.

And it also seems that people are missing the real issue.

"We made a way of life. We enjoyed that stuff, going around with the bus and helping people, doing all kinds of things. The bus was destroyed. I (asked the chief) to investigate it and he won't," Wright said.

If true, this is the real problem: intentional refusal on the part of the police chief not to investigate a crime because he didn't like/approve of the person. Not really unheard, and quite typical of the discriminatory treatment that used to run rampant through law enforcement in various areas of the country (and still is in some). And yet, that isn't being discussed.

 

[JohnBT]

"The bus was destroyed." Gee, I wonder if they had homeowner's insurance?

"Land of the free" - Sure, you're free to tick off as many people as you like, but actions have consequences. It is possible to fight city hall, but it's messy.

On a more serious note, where were they going to the bathroom, in the bushes?

JT

 

[ArmedBear]

c_yeagr, do you mean to say that anyone who wants to make a statement deserves to be arrested?

Please tell me you didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

Never been to a protest where people were TRYING to get arrested?

In this city, it takes a LOT to get arrested in that circumstance, because the cops don't want to be "used" in that way by the protesters. As a result, people will try VERY hard, and even complain when they don't get arrested. It's sort of funny, but I feel sorry for the cops in that situation.

 

[ArmedBear]

If the parking lot was half full with people living in vans, I could see the reasoning, but for one family who wasn't breaking the law when they started to be turned in to criminals because 'city hall' didn't like their sign covered van?

Here at the beach, we have a real problem with that, actually. One person "tests the waters" and gets themselves beach- or bayfront property for $500 (the cost of a rusty old van that runs just well enough to get into the lot and leak oil where it will drain into the nearby watersports areas). If no one kicks them out, five more show up. Then 10. And THEN, the town has a real ugly problem because, when the cops show up to inform the people of existing laws that have had lax enforcement because there were few if any violators, the news cameras show up.

Better to make the law when one person or group has shown that there's a reason to make it.

That's the real world.

If these people really wanted to camp out, they could have simply driven past the city limits. They seem to have been washed-up hippies, trying to prove a point.

Oh, and streets and sidewalks belong to taxpayers. We can make rules about how they are used, through elected bodies. I don't always like those rules, but I can't argue that the rules can't exist.

 

[roo_ster]

We live in a constitutional republic not anarchy....

A big "YUP!" to that.

-------------

Quoting Martin Niemoller in response to the rousting of vagrants is just plain silly.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Better to make the law when one person or group has shown that there's a reason to make it.

well, i guess that would make the gun laws ok then, since they were enacted by the abuses of a few.

 

[Shield529]

To Nicky S. who stated "It's my contention that some of them are just to eager to do it with "vigor".
Not a problem though. The day is coming soon that that crowd will get "called to account" with vigor".

and all the other critics;
Stop being Clinton's and arguing how bad, wrong, and illegal it all was and not giving a single solution.
Tell us all this, you are an officer given a lawful warrant, you go to this wanted persons residence to serve this warrant and the situation turns as this one did, then what would you have done. What procedures should the police have used when going to serve this warrant.

 

[ArmedBear]

BTW, if these people were living on property which they rented or bought, there could be a strong argument that their rights were grossly violated.

But they were living on property that belonged to others, namely, the taxpayers of the town.

 

[White Horseradish]

There is an importatnt distinction here. These guys were not living in the van because they wanted beachfront property. They did not park the van there out of carelessness. They were making a statement directed at the government. The government arrested them, even though it's representative(police chief) publicly admitted that this was indeed a statement.

Jeff White, do I really need to explain to you the difference between a bum and a protestor?

If protesting a government action with a sign on your van isn't free speech, then I don't know what is.

 

[White Horseradish]

ArmedBear, sure, they were on public property. Where does it say that you can only criticise the government on your own land?

Their living in the van was in itself a form of protest, no different from a demonstration, and not illegal.

 

[DKSuddeth]

But they were living on property that belonged to others, namely, the taxpayers of the town.

and do we know they weren't taxpayers?

 

[2TransAms]

As far as the city changing the laws,well,that was their last recourse. They didn't do anything illegal there. Sneaky,but constitutionally allowable. Because the new law didn't get rid of their signs and First Amendment rights,it got rid of their van.

 

[DKSuddeth]

do you guys realize that you're making the case for every law made that infringes on our rights?

 

[ArmedBear]

do you guys realize that you're making the case for every law made that infringes on our rights?

Yup.

The case for every law that infringes on my right to kill people who piss me off is the same as the case for a law that infringes on my right to read a book that criticizes the President. And yet, I think that all of us here would strongly support severe criminal penalties for murder, while also supporting complete freedom of the press.

That's why there's a Bill of Rights. It doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law." It does, however, list the sorts of laws that can't be made.

And what one may do on his/her private property is different from what he/she does on property owned by another.

 

[2TransAms]

Do you guys realize that you're making the case for every law made that infringes on our rights?

Do you realize that driving and parking anywhere you please are not rights?I may be wrong,but it seems you're a bit of an anarchist.

Oh yes,and if the police were serving a warrant on anybody anywhere and they got bleach thrown at them,I'd say their actions were justified.

 

[Jeff White]

Nicky Santoro said;

It's my contention that some of them are just to eager to do it with "vigor".
Not a problem though. The day is coming soon that that crowd will get "called to account" with vigor.

Should I take that as a threat?

White Horseradish said;

There is an importatnt distinction here. These guys were not living in the van because they wanted beachfront property. They did not park the van there out of carelessness. They were making a statement directed at the government. The government arrested them, even though it's representative(police chief) publicly admitted that this was indeed a statement.

Jeff White, do I really need to explain to you the difference between a bum and a protestor?

If protesting a government action with a sign on your van isn't free speech, then I don't know what is.

You have a right to free speech. But you have no right to be heard. If what you contend is true then the Free speech zones that have been set up around all presidential appearances and the conventions of the political parties would have been struck down as unconstituional long ago. Yet despite many court challenges they have been found to pass constitutional muster.

So if the council passed an ordinance that stated they had to take their protest elsewhere or be arrested it's perfectly legal.

DKSuddeth said;

do you guys realize that you're making the case for every law made that infringes on our rights?

And do you realize you are making the case for anarchy? There have been laws about what could and could not be done in villages, towns and cities since the first prmitive attempts for men to live together in groups. There has to be some balance between the right of the group and the right of the individual. The founding fathers recognized this when they formed a government.

Jeff

 

[ArmedBear]

Their living in the van was in itself a form of protest, no different from a demonstration, and not illegal.

BS.

If your logic worked in court, then the bulletproof defense for every criminal act would be for the criminal to make some political statement while doing it, and claiming that he just robbed the store, shot the mayor, or raped all those babies, because he needed to call attention to his "cause." If I wanted to steal a car, I'd just make sure to wear an "I hate George Bush and this illegal war in Iraq!" t-shirt, and maybe put a few bumper stickers on the car.

Charles Manson tried to claim that he orchestrated all those murders as a "protest". Did you know that? Didn't work, of course.

Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to park your van wherever you want, any more than it guarantees the right to steal a car or shoot the mayor.

Sadly, some cities, notably San Francisco, have allowed "protesters" to paralyze their downtowns on occasion. But this has been the choice of the cities, not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If living in a van on public property is to be viewed as free speech as a form of protest, then I would like to protest immigration and not pay my electric bill to the city as my free speech. Will any lawyers here support me on this, pro bono, of course...??

Next, I will protest taxes by not paying them as my form of free speech. Somehow, I expect to be in jail by June.

 

[makarova]

Free Speech zones

Jeff, I believe you might be wrong about them being upheld in court. Check out Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. I would post the url, but everytime I leave the Reply to Thread page I lose what I've typed and since I forgot to go there first, hoping you understand(two fingered typist).