Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,843,743 times
Reputation: 670
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by karfar
What do you mean they didn't belong there? They had every right to be there, they're human beings you know.
no, they didn't have the right to be there. if some guy was standing in my front yard, he doesn't have the right to be there. I can ask him to leave. if he does not, I, or the authorities can and will use force.
no, they didn't have the right to be there. if some guy was standing in my front yard, he doesn't have the right to be there. I can ask him to leave. if he does not, I, or the authorities can and will use force.
It's a religious area. Yes as a matter of fact, they CAN stand there.
it's called trespassing, and in some states, it can get your head blown off.
In msot municipalites, the building owner owns te asidewalk in front of his establihsment to the curb. They are responsible for that portion of sidewalk's upkeep, including trash, snow removal, repair's, etc.
A sidewalk is a "puiblic space", ie privately owned but open to the public.
The incident which sparked these protests occured on just such a type of property, a sidewalk, a "public space".
The property owner may indeed demand that a person remove themselves from the public space, and even have them arrested if they do not. However, there is no "trespassing" where a public space is concerned, until and unless one gets a restraining order against a specific person.
Your continued fixation on "trespassing" simply just does not apply to this particular situation, or public spaces in general.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,843,743 times
Reputation: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
In msot municipalites, the building owner owns te asidewalk in front of his establihsment to the curb. They are responsible for that portion of sidewalk's upkeep, including trash, snow removal, repair's, etc.
A sidewalk is a "puiblic space", ie privately owned but open to the public.
The incident which sparked these protests occured on just such a type of property, a sidewalk, a "public space".
The property owner may indeed demand that a person remove themselves from the public space, and even have them arrested if they do not. However, there is no "trespassing" where a public space is concerned, until and unless one gets a restraining order against a specific person.
Your continued fixation on "trespassing" simply just does not apply to this particular situation, or public spaces in general.
well that's up to the court to decide whether or not they were trespassing.
enough said. you have no respect for property rights. an extremist point of view. nuff said.
I have respect for property rights.. but that is the law.. government can and does take property with purpose through eminent domain...
We're not talking about a piece of property that is a family dwelling..
it is an institution in the center of a city that owns entire blocks and the pedestrian corridors between those city blocks... that are blatently open to the general public..
if they don't want two guys kissing.. or any other activity that is above and beyond the law of the land.. then they need to post their rules for everyone to be aware.. and certain rights of way need to be examined so that it doesnt appear to be a city street.. when in fact it is private property...
Who is the extremist here?? I'm only going off of what the LAW is and what applies to private property... you can dislike it all you want.. but these are realities when it comes to YOUR private property.. it totally depends on what kind of property it is.. where it's located.. etc..If you fail to realize that or think that's garbage.. sorry.. but you're sounding like you have no idea about the realities out there are......
so tout property rights all you want... fact of the matter is.. the church owns a piece of property in the middle of the city that shouldn't have been allowed for them to own in the first place.. examples like this should prove cause for the city to in fact compensate the church properly for the land.. and take it back so that citizens passing through the city don't have to forfeit their civil liberties just to get home or to work or from the train station...
we're not talking about the city block itself.. we're talking about the corridor between two city blocks.. and city blocks in salt lake city are the size of 4 regular city blocks of any other city..
It would be like microsoft moving into your city buying up 8 city blocks AND the street between them all...
streets should not be allowed to be controlled like that...and the city should step in.. and would have every right in doing it...
well that's up to the court to decide whether or not they were trespassing.
It is a public space.
No one can trespass on a public space without a restraining order involved.
Think on your comments the next time you "trespass" into a resturant, or "trespass" down the sidewalk in front of a store in your downtown.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
