posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:01 PM
Originally posted by wascurious
According to the "defense" the man intruded and constructed something on property that was not his IN PART DUE TO THE DURATION WHICH IT SAT
Yes...so what's your point?
What do you think they were waiting for with your plan that you grabbed out of thin air.
Who the hell knows. Have you ever seen a full set of documents for a city plan? I know my mid-sized town of 250,000 people in Wisconsin frequently
has two or three proposals of where to stick new government buildings. One of them in particular come to mind in which a road near my parents house
was finally cut in between 1999-2001 as was originally planned...in 1948. The project remained part of the future growth plan but went unfunded for
over sixty years.
Admittedly, I'm speculating that there is actually a monetary reason why a city government would be upset with a concerned citizen who doesn't want
to live in an undocumented landfill and has enough personal and civic pride to take care of his city...but maybe that's giving them too much credit.
Never underestimate the ability of people to be wholly incapable of discerning between "mistakes" and "mistakes that actually matter".
Whatever helps you all justify trespassing. I am collecting addresses now and I hate the color of all your homes
Well...there is one big difference here. Namely, that he was "trespassing" upon property which he himself and his fellow citizens in part, bought
and paid for and is thus a part-owner thereof according to common law. An analogy could be found with intellectual property such as recorded media.
Any video, audio, recording made by the Federal, State, or municipal government is normally released under the Creative Commons. Therefore, it's
perfectly legal and royalty-free to take footage of something like those old "duck and cover" propaganda films from the 1950's and use them in your
own documentary or YouTube video. Because the public already purchased the media, it's considered "fair use" so long as you are not using it to
infringe upon the rights of another individual or group.
For example, just because I could use that footage in my own documentary...that doesn't mean that I could necessarily air it on an outdoor screen in
a residential neighborhood w/ 2000 watts of Dolby 5.1 blaring the audio at 3am on a Tuesday.
My question would be...whose rights did this guy infringe upon by being one of the few citizens left in the country who is still ashamed to live in a
sewer? Are any local community members seriously upset because their "right to live in f^cking scrapyard" has been violated? Doesn't the city
itself mandate that homes are maintained, lest they should be condemned? If none of your neighbors cut their grass..sooner or later the city will
come by and do it for them and send them a bill, right?
Am I getting this right and you feel that the city has the legal right to impose these things on individuals, but individuals don't even the legal
right to take care of their communities with THEIR OWN MONEY when their government fails to do so? Talk about simultaneously supporting "big
government" whilst also working to strip the members of a community from holding their government responsible.