Er… you do know the difference between public and private property, right? And that public property is for all people, and not just the ones with money? The city has fenced off the area where poor people used to shelter, and given the key to the BIAs. the Business Improvement Areas, which are lobby groups representing business interests. The message is: public space belongs to business, not to the public. I happen to disagree with that, and I’ve gone to jail to prove it.
Agreed that public property is for everyone. Goverment is the way that “everyone” decides how to use public property. You decided to substitute your own desires for the desires of everyone. How is that different than what you allege the government did (ie, giving the keys to private interests)? You basically just want the government to give the keys to you instead of the BIAs.
Actually, public property is pretty much there for the public to decide what to do with it. If the public want something roped off from everybody, it will ever be so. Such as I’m aware, being poor or homeless isn’t a protected class of people. Not because they’re poor or lack the ability to gain political clout, simply because their circumstances are of their own devising (in most cases) and is reversible.
My point was that you claimed that there was no crime because there was no net difference between their lock and your lock. From your perspective, one cannot trespass onto “public” property (more properly called city, state, or government property, actually) because it is “public”. One can deface/damage and steal anything on that property as well (you were planning to cut a lock and steal it). Because you were going to replace said lock with another lock, there would be no net crime, so the defacing, stealing, and trespassing were non-issues. Hence why I suggested that if I came to your house, and broke open and stole your lock, but replaced it with a lock of my choosing, letting you and yours retain disposition of the key to that lock of my choosing(though you’d have no proof about whether I retained a key of my own or would give it out elsewhere), then there would be no crime, based on your standards.
I see. From the responses I’m seeing here, I think I understand. You believe the State represents my interests (so I should shut up and stop complaining), that people are poor because they’re lazy and stupid, and that I somehow derive personal benefit from being criminally prosecuted and forced to bend over and grab my ankles so some screw can look up my asshole.
It’s not that you have failed to understand what we’re doing, or why we’re doing it, but that you are sociopathic, overprivileged pricks. Please allow me to say, with all my heart, ESADIAF.
All I’m saying is that you, personally, are not “Public” all by yourself. We are ALL “Public”. You do not get to make unilateral decisions for things that are partially MY property without going through proper channels. Since it is partially MY property, as I am part of “Public”, and I am part of the majority that thinks that trespassing, stealing, and defacing should not happen to something that is part of our property, then you should take it up with the electorate (or “Public”), and not take matters into your own hands. Vigilantism is against the law as well, after all. I understand you being upset over what was done. It sounds bogus to me as well. However, committing crimes is probably not the best way to handle the problem. It certainly makes me, and a lot of other members of “Public”, automatically wish to reject whatever premise or action you are sanctioning solely to refuse to reward a criminal for his (or her) crimes.
I will add that I think organized civil disobedience, protesting, lobbying, and letter-writing campaigns, for examples, are a much better route to go than sneaking somewhere to commit crimes.
That’s utter malarkey. Your obvious intent was to replace the lock to deny entry to others. If your intent was to make the facility open to everyone, there would’ve been no planned replacement of the lock.
Don’t call me a liar without reason. It’s insulting, it’s annoying, and all it does it get up my nose. How the hell do you know what our strategy was? Were you at the planning meetings? Did you help us draft our press releases? As it happens, this event occured the day before May Day. May Day is when the OPU has its one yearly public event, usually some form of rally coupled with a direct action. This year the plan was to throw dozens of copies of the key out into the crowd and hand copies of the key to the police and the city in front of the crowd and the media.
I’m certainly no expert on the law in your jurisdiction.
But it seems pretty straightforward to me that the facts you related, if believed by a jury, would be legally sufficient for them to convict you. Whether such a trial would be politically unpalatable or a poor use of limited prosecutorial resources, I will defer to your judgment – evidently you were on to something, as the charges were in fact dropped. But it’s not at all clear to me that your actions were self-evidently legal – to the contrary.
If “THE PUBLIC” says that poor people shouldn’t be allowed to gather in public places – and in fact, city council is on record as saying exactly that – then “THE PUBLIC” is wrong and I have no moral compunction against acting against “THE PUBLIC’s” interest. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. The fact that the middle class majority can vote themselves whatever politicians promise to torture the poor doesn’t make it right or moral or just.
Do you think I was acting alone? I agreed to take the risk, but I am spokesperson for an organization with a sizable number of members – and our organization is also part of a larger union with thousands of members, who also hold our values and goals.
You apparently aren’t aware that we have done just that. We have a lawsuit pending in Superior Court, but it takes literally years for it to wend its way through the bureaucracy. I have done hundreds of media interviews and several live debates on television and radio with representatives of the business interests. We have written letters, held rallies, issued press releases, organized petitions, done everything legally possible. In the mean time, people I care about are dying because the shelters are full and the city fences off every spot where a homeless person can stay warm in the winter – in a city where temperatures regularly drop to -35 C in the winter. Their actions are not just wrong, they’re criminal. What do you do when the police, the city, and courts all collude to break the law? Cutting a lock is pretty fucking small potatoes compared to the evil we’re fighting.
So because you (as a group) don’t agree with what the majority wants (or thinks it wants, because it is uninformed), you (as a group) can commit crimes with impunity? How is fencing public property, or limiting access, criminal? There’s a law that says that public places can’t be fenced off? And the police, the city, and the courts are all breaking this law? Really? Just because people are cheering for for a vigilante doesn’t mean he’s not breaking the law. It also doesn’t mean the vigilante is doing the RIGHT thing.
In this case, I’d say the RIGHT thing is to gasp help out at the shelters, donate to foodbanks, create new shelters, and maybe even let some of these people you love sleep on or in YOUR (singular, not collective you) property. Why are you letting loved ones stay out on the streets homeless? Oh, and let the wheels of our pitiful democracy turn.
Maybe helping improve some of our state mental hospitals, or even increasing awareness in your area would be a good plan, too. See, some of the problem arose when the state mental institutions decided to mainstream/release borderline cases. Some happened when long-term care facilities and nursing homes shut down. Some happened when funding was cut for the social programs that you seem to approve of, for example public shelters. Some happened because places that weren’t considered safe (i.e. under crumbling bridges or even inside derelict buildings) have been condemned or locked off, but not purchased and/or repaired. Perhaps instead of sneaking around committing crimes, you could consider solving the problems in a real, long-term fashion, while maybe fixing the reasons that things have gone the way they have gone. Shore up the infrastructure, repair the derelict buildings, actually make a difference… it’s easier to sneak around, spout political dogma, talk about how “criminal” non-unlawful acts are, and attend meetings, I’m sure.
Well, that’s just me being silly, I suppose. The point remains, cutting off a lock doesn’t do anything for anyone but you and your political cronies. The day you hand out keys everywhere, the locks would be changed again. You were planning on cutting the lock every night, and having keys made and distributed every day, right? At least being prepared to, since the city is likely to correct the issue post-haste? Or was this a “we’re so cool” empty gesture that won’t do anything except make sure the beloved homeless can’t climb or sneak around the fence in secret because the cops are patrolling the area quite often looking for YOU?
I’m glad that you feel comfortable enough in our pitiful law-full society to disagree with that which doesn’t go your way. I even agree with you on the severity of this particular broad issue (the homeless should be assisted). I just don’t like your methods. And yes, you will find me working with Habitat for Humanity, giving to charities, and helping at the local food bank. I’m not just spouting dogma, complaining on the internet, and committing useless crimes for public relations. I am also not saying that spouting, complaining, and committing are all you do.
Blow it out your ear. In the first place, I didn’t call you a liar. I said your stated reason was malarkey. On the face of it it is. Too bad you’re immune to reason and reality.
Glad to hear it. And since this is the Pit, I’ll happily oblige you and call you a liar this time with reason: You are a liar.
There’s this nifty thing called evidence. The evidence you provided in this thread shows what your strategy was.
Of course not. I prefer not to associate with common thugs. Oh, and I don’t associate with liars either.
If I had, I would’ve been honest in the statements and, of course, that wouldn’t’ve fit in with your little hissy fit/tantrum against society. The “press release” would then have been discarded by your so-called leaders.
How munificent of you. Dozens of keys! Wait a moment. Dozens? Did you say dozens? Is the population of your area merely in the dozens? If it exceeds that by even one person, then you again provide evidence against your stated “strategy,” Liar.
No. The state represents everyone. It just so happens that the majority of people disagree with you, and since this isn’t an important question, you lose.
Your little friends are free to go be homeless right outside of the fence, or anywhere else. They can have their poverty wherever they’d like, except my house, most people’s houses, and other places the body of the public don’t wish them to be. Or, they can get jobs, work a little bit and rent somewhere.
Stupid, stupid sheeple… They HAVE jobs, silly; they’re union panhandlep0giopwegopieredfvohjesusmuahahaha DAMMIT sorry… I’ve tried to type that 7 times and it keeps coming out like that, then I wet myself laughing…
Seriously though, I appreciate anyone that gives a thought for the homeless, but using them as props for political theatre is cynical at best. Forget about storming the Bastille and smiting the bourgeoisie, maybe the thought and effort that goes into playing Madame Laforge would be better spent at a different level.
Identify the problems that perpetuate homelessness and attack them. Take the long view, and try to eliminate homelessness in the next generation. I know there are critical needs right now, but they will always be there and will never go away if the long-term issues aren’t addressed. There are social resources that are dedicated to the day-to-day triage, and I’m sure they’re under-funded and overworked, but no one - no one is looking down the road. Life sure as hell isn’t getting any easier for anyone these days, homeless or not, but now is the time to set the course to make real change in the years to come.
You’re missing the point, The_Raven. Your suggested course of action would require more than an annual burst of activity.
The fish rots from the head, as they say, so my thinking is: “Why not cut off the head?”
Which law were they all breaking?
The underpass in question is a block from the seat of national government and in a heavily-trafficked area. The underpass has not been totally blocked off, but the portion of it where the homeless used to shelter has been fenced off with wrought iron fencing. The underpass area has for some time been the site of aggressive panhandling and open drug and alcohol use, and people’s reluctance to use it because they do not choose to be harassed for money in a dark underground pass with no police presence has forced them to walk aboveground and negotiate a busy intersection. The fence is a small part of a program to create an area that is more accessible to all the public, including the non-homeless public, by increasing lighting and police presence. Especially considering that this is in a heavily-touristed area directly downtown, the whole thing is pretty, you know, small potatoes.
Hrm, that’s some union. The breaks are phenomenal!
Well, Smash has delusions of adequacy; this I can’t help him with. I don’t really see how cutting a lock really helped the homeless people at all. I donate time, money and supplies to various charities in the area which deal helping ameliorate their lot. I suppose though that since I do so in an orderly fashion with others who are organized to such a like cause that my efforts are fruitless. After all, we only manage to get them food, clothing and shelter. I suppose cutting a lock on a fence is far more helpful; sadly, being part of the man I guess I was too caught up in the party line to see what is obvious.
You mean like education? It’s the silver bullet.
Let’s get back to the OP.
How do we know the cop didn’t have his fly unzipped?
I think the safest thing to do is that the public should treat the cops like they treat us.
They are all up to no good, unless we can be absolutely sure of their intentions.