Priest Speaks Out and Gets Kicked Out

[The Grand Nudger]

They actually do that every couple of weeks. They don't need any sort of process, that tent city is illegal..lol. It's just the only place they can set up camp without getting the heat called down immediately at this point. It gets pretty crowded under there. That clip looked to be a super slow day for SPPD and the tent city. Honestly, word of wisdom to anyone thinking of visiting the bay area. Don't fuck around with the cops, they'll shoot you 40 some odd times for flashing a hoagie roll. As somebody who grew up in the state I don't even bat an eye when news stories like these come out of the Sunshine. The gap between fantastically wealthy and miserably poor is never so apparent as when you have a tent city in a town literally surrounded by million dollar beach houses. The cops should be more accurately described as security gaurds for the owners of those properties, and the public officials are pretty much their employees, exclusively.

[Jackalope]

They actually do that every couple of weeks. They don't need any sort of process, that tent city is illegal..lol.

Sure, I get that. I don't dispute for a second that it's illegal, and that under that law, the police have the power to evict squatters and arrest those that won't comply.

What I was getting at is that without due process, this seems to be a clear 4th Amendment violation in that they're being deprived of of their property. Of course, none of them could afford a lawyer to pursue a civil rights case, so I guess they're just fucked.

That's one fucked up way to deal with homelessness.

[Perhaps]

They actually do that every couple of weeks. They don't need any sort of process, that tent city is illegal..lol.

Sure, I get that. I don't dispute for a second that it's illegal, and that under that law, the police have the power to evict squatters and arrest those that won't comply.

What I was getting at is that without due process, this seems to be a clear 4th Amendment violation in that they're being deprived of of their property. Of course, none of them could afford a lawyer to pursue a civil rights case, so I guess they're just fucked.

That's one fucked up way to deal with homelessness.

I'm not sure in what sense your meaning property, but I'm assuming you mean items that they own such as the tents being destroyed. They made the 'choice' (I know they had no where else to go, but taking a legal standpoint) to loiter or trespass (whichever they're being convicted of) on the property which they placed their tents on. Thus, they lost their right to their property by imposing on someone else's.

I think a case could be made for the unethical conduct the law or act enforces, however. Homelessness is a slippery slope, legally. In most cases, the one who owns the property (land) has the right, whether that owner is the state or an individual.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep, they lost their rights to what little property they had by infringing upon the city's right to dictate that no one set up a tent under that highway. The city then sent armed men to enforce their rights. Nevermind that these are residents of the city who have nowhere else to go, and that the city fails to provide any alternative to jail whilst simultaneously enacting laws that prevent them from sleeping anywhere but jail. Invoking the proper application of a bad law as an explanation for abuse by city government carried out by armed city employees doesn't work for me.

[Perhaps]

I'm interested. How would you propose to deal with the issue of homelessness? Provided that it is a much larger issue than we are making it, but let's just start with the issue of people being without a home and wondering the streets. How would you fix this issue?

[Jackalope]

I'm not sure in what sense your meaning property, but I'm assuming you mean items that they own such as the tents being destroyed. They made the 'choice' (I know they had no where else to go, but taking a legal standpoint) to loiter or trespass (whichever they're being convicted of) on the property which they placed their tents on. Thus, they lost their right to their property by imposing on someone else's.

I don't buy the logic here, and if there's precedent in case law that overrides 4th Amendment protections, I'd love to see a reference.

For sake of argument, let's assume that the lot in question is public property (i.e. owned by the city, which I believe is the case here). So what you're saying is that another party who causes his personally owned possessions to be located upon the city's real property unlawfully then summarily forfeits all right to said personal property?

Using that same logic, it would seem perfectly legal for the city to summarily crush unlawfully parked cars without so much as a hearing, should they be insane enough to want to do so.

Impounding personal property pending a hearing to determine the disposition of said property is what's supposed to happen for government to lawfully deprive someone of their personal property.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm interested. How would you propose to deal with the issue of homelessness? Provided that it is a much larger issue than we are making it, but let's just start with the issue of people being without a home and wondering the streets. How would you fix this issue?

I wish I had some idea as to how to deal with homelessness. I truly do, even if only in St. Pete. I don't have any answers there or I'd probably be out campaigning for my idea. What I can say is that police officers taking a knife to a homeless persons tent sitting on city property is no way to deal with the situation. Writing laws that criminalize homelessness (however carefully written as to avoid being blatantly obvious) isn't any way to deal with the situation. They had the city govt ground to a standstill for awhile, one of them was smart enough to call it a protest. The city got around that as well (though I can't remember how). The point is that the city of St. Pete (and Pensacola as well, it seems) is not trying to deal with the situation at all. They're trying to drive homeless people out of the city. These people are residents, mind you, the city government is supposed to be accountable to them, in theory, it is supposed to be working with their best interests in mind as residents of the city. St. Pete's govt also shouted down anyone who would dare to speak up against such a thing (not that there were a lot of people speaking up honestly, beachfront condos with a tent city in the middle on a six or seven mile wide peninsula..) I can't be more blunt than that.

The people who spoke out against this tent city the loudest did not own the property that it was on. They owned expensive homes on the periphery. The idea of a tent city, and the sheer number of homeless people we had wandering around an area they thought they would buy dirt cheap and redevelop (it was destitute) was too much for them to handle. They feared for their pockets books, and they had friends in govt (some of them didn't need friends, because they were the government officials in this case).

[Perhaps]

I don't buy the logic here, and if there's precedent in case law that overrides 4th Amendment protections, I'd love to see a reference.

For sake of argument, let's assume that the lot in question is public property (i.e. owned by the city, which I believe is the case here). So what you're saying is that another party who causes his personally owned possessions to be located upon the city's real property unlawfully then summarily forfeits all right to said personal property?

Using that same logic, it would seem perfectly legal (should they choose to) for the city to summarily crush unlawfully parked cars without so much as a hearing, should they be insane enough to want to do so.

Impounding personal property pending a hearing to determine the disposition of said property is what's supposed to happen for government to lawfully deprive someone of their personal property.

Interesting. Well the law enforcement officers had the right to seize the tents based on the plain view doctrine. Your point about needing to go through a case before deciding the disposition is valid, unless the specific Florida law (which I can't seem to pin point) states otherwise.

Federal Law (constitution) trumps State Law if both are found to be incompatible due to Article VI, however I'm sure the Florida law didn't blatantly contradict or neglect the 4th amendment. Lawyers and law makers have a special ability of rewording things to get what they want in the end.

I'm going to keep looking for what the actual Florida law is in this case, but if you find it before I do, please let me know the link.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a collection of city ordinances actually (the state government knows better than to get themselves involved in this shit, maybe a state rep would do something, but homeless people aren't notorious for voting...so, fat chance on that). They had been told to leave ever since they set up the tent city and it's existed on that site for about as long as I can remember. If they went anywhere else they'd be put in jail. Trespassing and setting up a house on a residents private property (repeatedly, and for years) is cut and dry illegal, The city has to tip-toe, until it doesn't. Public property was their best bet. Real estate, not law, is what this was all about in St. Pete. I'd be willing to assume the same forces (and some of the same people) are at play in Pensacola.

[Jackalope]

Interesting. Well the law enforcement officers had the right to seize the tents based on the plain view doctrine.

I don't dispute this at all. Seize [i.e. impound, pending due process], yes. Intentionally destroy, no.

Lawyers and law makers have a special ability of rewording things to get what they want in the end.

No dispute on this either - even when the plain wording and intent of the constitutional is crystal clear. Would the law enabling this police behavior (assuming it's lawful to begin with) withstand a constitutional challenge? Maybe. I don't know.

What I believe is that the 4th Amendment was written with the intent of preventing these kinds of abuses - summarily depriving a citizen who is suspected of a crime of their property. If such a law did pass constitutional muster, I'd call it a perversion of justice.

As a reminder, these people have been convicted of nothing, and are presumed innocent - even if it seems obvious that they're in violation of the law.