Title: 'They don't give a f*** if I die out here in this cold weather': Denver police forced to defend officers after they were filmed taking blankets from homeless people on a freezing night Source:
Daily Mail Online URL Source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... -blankets-homeless-people.html Published:Dec 17, 2016 Author:Liam Quinn Post Date:2016-12-17 14:23:21 by cranky Keywords:None Views:54719 Comments:129
Footage was widely shared showing homeless people on the street in Denver
A group of officers dragged blankets from people and then carried them away
The videos were published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado
The rights group has called the Denver Police approach in the videos 'cruel'
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock denied what was seen is a 'widespread practice'
The Denver Police Department has been forced to defend its officers after shocking video emerged of cops taking blankets and survival gear from homeless people in the freezing cold.
Footage was widely circulated this week showing as many as nine officers standing over a group of homeless people, pulling blankets off them as they slept and sat on the sidewalk.
In a video published on November 29 shortly after 2:30am, two officers stacked the blankets in piles and then carried them away.
The blankets were taken as 'evidence' the homeless people in the video were committing a crime by violating the city's urban camping ban.
'We are taking your tent and sleeping bag as evidence of a crime,' one of the officers told a homeless man, who the video claims is a veteran.
'It's cold out here, and (the police) are telling me they don't give a f*** about whether I die out here in this cold weather,' the homeless man was heard saying in the footage.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado shared the videos this week, and included a letter to Denver Mayor Michael Hancock and the Denver City Council demanding officers stop taking things from homeless people.
'It is not an inherent crime to sleep outside, and many people right now have no other viable option,' ACLU of Colorado Executive Director Nathan Woodliff-Stanley said.
'Denver’s shelters are simply unable to serve all people in the Denver area experiencing homelessness, even in the short term, much less as a long-term solution.
'Until real solutions become Denver’s priority, the city’s ongoing policing-first approach to homelessness is a cruel waste of funds, curtailing fundamental constitutional rights, causing deep human suffering, and endangering lives.'
Hancock defended his officers, saying it is not a 'widespread practice', and claimed the homeless people were protesters.
'The video clip... was actually three individuals who were protesting and setting up camp in front of city hall,' he said, according to CBS Local.
'And after the police asked them to move, they did not, they were cited and their equipment was taken as evidence.
'But this is not a widespread practice throughout the city and we wanted to make sure that it didn’t go any further and that people understand this is not how we want to operate during these frigid temperatures.'
The Denver Police Department also released a statement, saying it took the equipment from the people in the videos because they were 'illegally camping'.
"The confiscation of the blankets and tents is not a widespread practice of the police department. The reality is we had three individuals who were protesting, were camping out in front of city hall after repeated requests to move along they were cited." - Denver Mayor Michael Hancock
Instead of “waiting for Whitie to explain this”….shouldn’t you tell everyone why you accepted carte blanche this piece of yellow journalism published in England as factual when you have not researched what local news organizations reported on the situation. That would be a wise and objective thing to do….you of course agree, right?
"The confiscation of the blankets and tents is not a widespread practice of the police department. The reality is we had three individuals who were protesting, were camping out in front of city hall after repeated requests to move along they were cited." - Denver Mayor Michael Hancock
Ah so! Then there was no mass sweep by the Denver PD to sadistically remove the blankets and tents from all the homeless people in Denver to have them suffer mass hypothermia and lie frozen in the streets. It is refreshing to find out that only 3 homeless people refused to leave, were then cited and then had their blankets and tents taken as evidence. As usual, the media did not do a follow up report. However, I am confident those 3 individuals did not remain there overnight in the freezing cold but found their way rather quickly to a homeless shelter…ya think so?
Marijuana businesses in Colorado, a state which legalize marijuana recreationally in 2012, reported roughly $1.1 billion in legal sales of medical and recreational marijuana and related products this year through the month of October, according to the latest batch of tax data from the state’s Department of Revenue. Through October, Colorado has collected more than $150 million in taxes from legal marijuana sales.
Where does all that Denver pot tax go?
A Department of Housing and Urban Development report shows that 37 states decreased homelessness last year. Unfortunately, Colorado and the City of Denver showed no decrease. The study showcases the scale in which homelessness has increased in Colorado. Is there are correlation in the rapid increase in the number of homeless in Denver and the legalization of marijuana….the study does not indicate if there was or was not. Perhaps the most surprising is that Colorado experienced the largest increase of any state in veterans homelessness at 24.3 percent.
“In both cases, officers on scene offered services and shelter to those individuals. After they refused the police officers’ assistance, the individuals were advised that they were violating the law and needed to move. After several warnings, during an approximate four-hour period outside of the Denver City and County Building, three protesters chose to remain and were therefore cited. Officers collected items as evidence of the violations."
“In both cases, officers on scene offered services and shelter to those individuals. After they refused the police officers’ assistance, the individuals were advised that they were violating the law and needed to move. After several warnings, during an approximate four-hour period outside of the Denver City and County Building, three protesters chose to remain and were therefore cited. Officers collected items as evidence of the violations."
Sec. 38-86.2. - Unauthorized camping on public or private property prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to camp upon any private property without the express written consent of the property owner or the owner's agent, and only in such locations where camping may be conducted in accordance with any other applicable city law. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to camp upon any public property except in any location where camping has been expressly allowed by the officer or agency having the control, management and supervision of the public property in question. (c) No law enforcement officer shall issue a citation, make an arrest or otherwise enforce this section against any person unless: (1) The officer orally requests or orders the person to refrain from the alleged violation of this section and, if the person fails to comply after receiving the oral request or order, the officer tenders a written request or order to the person warning that if the person fails to comply the person may be cited or arrested for a violation of this section; and (2) The officer attempts to ascertain whether the person is in need of medical or human services assistance, including, but not limited, to mental health treatment, drug or alcohol rehabilitation, or homeless services assistance. If the officer determines that the person may be in need of medical or human services assistance, the officer shall make reasonable efforts to contact and obtain the assistance of a designated human service outreach worker, who in turn shall assess the needs of the person and, if warranted, direct the person to an appropriate provider of medical or human services assistance in lieu of the person being cited or arrested for a violation of this section. If the officer is unable to obtain the assistance of a human services outreach worker, if the human services outreach worker determines that the person is not in need of medical or human services assistance, or if the person refuses to cooperate with the direction of the human services outreach worker, the officer may proceed to cite or arrest the person for a violation of this section so long as the warnings required by paragraph (1) of this subsection have been previously given. (d) For purposes of this section: (1) "Camp" means to reside or dwell temporarily in a place, with shelter. The term "shelter" includes, without limitation, any tent, tarpaulin, lean-to, sleeping bag, bedroll, blankets, or any form of cover or protection from the elements other than clothing. The term "reside or dwell" includes, without limitation, conducting such activities as eating, sleeping, or the storage of personal possessions. (2) "Designated human service outreach worker" shall mean any person designated in writing by the manager of the Denver Department of Human Services to assist law enforcement officers as provided in subsection (c), regardless of whether the person is an employee of the department of human services. (3) "Public property" means, by way of illustration, any street, alley, sidewalk, pedestrian or transit mall, bike path, greenway, or any other structure or area encompassed within the public right-of-way; any park, parkway, mountain park, or other recreation facility; or any other grounds, buildings, or other facilities owned or leased by the city or by any other public owner, regardless of whether such public property is vacant or occupied and actively used for any public purpose.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Yes the government passed that law. But truthfully without any doubt it violates the constitution.
First amendment- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The people protesting were protesting peacefully. It is cold outside and you can't expect them to protest in shorts and a t shirt. There is no limitation on what time of year they are allowed to protest.
Furthermore the police violated their fourth amendment rights. Their tents are their effects.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So I realize courts may decide differetnly. But I don't care what they decide. I can read and I know the truth.
Just because the government doesn't want to be inconvenienced they harrassed these people and violated their rights.
I don't care if you call it camping or not. They were there protesting peacefully. They need tents and blankets to keep warm.
I know you will not agree with me and that is ok.
But I have one question for you. If the situation was the same except they didn't have tents would you have the same opinion?
If the situation was the same except they didn't have tents would you have the same opinion?
I didn't read the whole article, because I quickly realized that it was YELLA. The author attempts to invoke sympathy from the weak liberal populace by painting the arrestees as "homeless" when they were really protesters. THAT'S YELLA.
It's getting difficult to find a truthfull, well written article on this site that doesn't have a fucking agenda behind it. It's almost as bad as CNN.
Ok... I'll answer your question. If they were truly homeless, and I wasn't going to be terminated for insubordination, no, I wouldn't have taken their blankets and tents. I wouldn't have arrested them either. I'd have tried to relocate them in another part of my jurisdiction, that would cause less public complaints. If they were PROTESTERS, with nice warm homes... but the libtarded assholes like to act like anarchist Deckard, I'd have cuffed them up, confiscated their CAMP equipment... in a professional but not so nice fashion.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
If they were PROTESTERS, with nice warm homes... but the libtarded assholes like to act like anarchist Deckard, I'd have cuffed them up, confiscated their CAMP equipment... in a professional but not so nice fashion.
But protesting isn't against the law. It is protected as free speech in the first amendment.
You making that comment is also YELLA. Nobody said protesting is against the law. They were doing more than protesting... they were also illegally CAMPING... acting like an asshole Deckard in the 1st degree.
Protesting doesn't give you special rights to break the law. They can't do it naked, they can't burn shit... and they can't violate local ordnances... just because they are protesting. Let's leave the YELLA out of this discussion if you want to really talk.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Local ordinances do not override the first amendment.
That is probably why the mayor has called for the taking of private property to stop.
Why did they take the tents anyway. Just to harass those people and make their lives harder? The government uses video footage and photographs for evidence all the time. Seems to me that they could have just taken a pic for evidence of their pretend crime of living.
Expecting to NOT get arrested for breaking an ordinance is a handout.
Under the constitution. You have a right to peacefully protest. It doesn't limit what you can bring to the protest. Like something to keep you warm. Which i'm sure the founders understood since they didn't have modern conveniences.
Also they violated the fourth amendment because under the fourth amendment you are allowed to have your effects, papers etc.
A plane reading of the constitution makes this clear. There is no other meaning of the words unless you want to pretend.
Under the constitution. You have a right to peacefully protest. It doesn't limit what you can bring to the protest. Like something to keep you warm. Which i'm sure the founders understood since they didn't have modern conveniences.
allow sneakypete to post or otherwise make comments on LF. I think you are getting the focus of individual liberties, which is the entire idea of the USA and some of our brothers-in-arms.
Local ordinances do not override the first amendment.
There is no constitutional right to CAMPING off your own property. Your suggestion is YELLA, yet again. They can protest without camping.
We had a local ordnance for loud music after a certain hour. When writing a local ordinance ticket didn't work, and I was dispatched BACK for another loud music complaint, I confiscated their music making equipment and speakers, as evidence. I remember my old DA not approving of the taking of the evidence... but he wasn't the person who had to babysit, repeatedly, the assholes. So I paid no mind to his opinion.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
There is not much to be said for a homeless person who is not willing to work. However, if a homeless person in Denver is willing to and wants to work, they can take full advantage of the city of Denver’s new program. According to the site Denverite.com. The Denver Day Works Program offers homeless people day labor work needed by the city. A contractor, Bayaud Enterprises, runs the program for the city. People who sign up can choose to work a half day or full day for at least $12.59 per hour, far better than Colorado's $8.31. That's even better than the proposed $12 an hour minimum wage that appeared on November 8 as a ballot initiative.
There is always a choice in life. A homeless person in Denver can choose to sleep free in a bed in a homeless shelter the Mayor has guaranteed is free and available for him, a homeless person in Denver can also choose work as a day laborer for the city earning at least $12.59 per hour and choose the hours they wish to work….or a homeless person can refuse all of this and try to camp out in front of the Denver City and County Building as a protest, receive citations for illegally camping and have their blanket and tent taken for evidence….as 3 homeless persons did.
If the homeless definitely had no warm place provided for them to sleep and if the homeless had absolutely no opportunity for gainful employment at above the hourly wage scale, then I would be extremely sympathetic to their cause. However, rather than accept the free warm bed and take the job offer….if all a homeless person wants to do is protest that he cannot camp anywhere in the city at anytime he wants to….then I say “fuck ‘em!” If the homeless don’t care to improve their own welfare and comfort….then there is no reason I should care. That is not being cruel….that is just being realistic.
"It sure seems like that is what you were implying."
I never said nor implied that they weren't able to work. Nor did I claim they were poor.
You're the one who brought up Jesus and the poor (and by poor I'm sure Jesus wasn't referring to those below some arbitrary and changing Federal Poverty Level).
Since you cited what Jesus would do I cited 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
Sure there is... voice it. Just don't do it while blocking traffic, pissing in the public park (OWS), while naked, while publicly intoxicated... or even violating the camping laws.
Use common sense, Sneakypete lover
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I agree 100 percent if they protest and block traffic on a street.
They weren't doing that.
I can't logically debate with you if your argument is that the defendants in the case should be able to violate certain laws, but not others, that YOU deem is ok, while protesting. It's an in winnable debate on my part... you've made your own rules to live by.
Your idiology wouldn't hold up as a defense in court.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
"Yes there is. The first amendment and the fourth. And common sense."
Ah. So Denver City Ordnance Sec. 38-86.2 prohibiting unauthorized camping on public or private property was found unconstitutional under the first amendment and the fourth and common sense?
Your idiology wouldn't hold up as a defense in court.
I agree. But I'm just stating the honest opinion that I have after reading the constitution and determining what the words literally mean.
I'm a person who likes things to be right.
If someone says they believe the Bible. Then I expect them to actually believe what it says and not something different.
I love this country and its constitution. I'm not a lawyer but I can read the words and what they mean. It is supposed to be the highest law of the land. So I take it literally. What the words literally mean. It is my expectation that the government should obey it 100 percent and not stray even .001 percent.
If they don't like the constitution because it limits laws they can pass that are non inconsistent with the document. Then change the constitution, and if you can't change it then don't whine that it is to hard. That means more people disagree with you and don't want it changed.
You own the whitehouse lawn... let me know how your Deckard like opinion works when you climb the fence.
You are really surprising me, Stone. I think you might wanna rename this site PAULTARDPOST.COM
You own your school playgrounds.... but you can't camp there. You own your state Forrest... but there are constitutionally tested laws on that too. YOU don't own public land in its entirety... other tax payers own it as well. So when you act like Deckard, and do whatever the fuck you like on public property, YOU VICTIMIZE YOUR PEERS.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The first amendment and the fourth. The City and County of Denver are Congress?
Did you not know that every state in the union has a first amendment and a fourth.
There constituion is even more clear and protects those rights even more.
Section 7. Security of person and property - searches - seizures - warrants. The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place or seize any person or things shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing.
Section 10. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.
(I like that one where they get it right and say the people determine LAW and fact)
Section 24. Right to assemble and petition. The people have the right peaceably to assemble for the common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances, by petition or remonstrance.
Section 28. Rights reserved not disparaged. The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair or disparage others retained by the people.
Both times I've stated that the constitution doesn't protect against camping OFF YOUR PROPERTY. The constitution doesn't protect you from breaking laws while you protest.
Only in your mind it does... that's why you didn't hear me TWICE tell you that... unless this was yet another YELLA attempt at defending ones position.
You truly are surprising me. I'm beginning to see why you keep the agenda trash around.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
That pic you provided looks awful. It looks unpleasant. It looks like a distraction. It looks like an inconvenience. I don't like occupy wallstreet. Don't agree with them.
But they do have a right to protest.
I can see why your side doesn't want to allow this. You have need for things to be tidy and you don't like seeing unpleasant things.
But that isn't a constitutional right and protesting is. Even if it is ugly or for stupid causes.
To: GrandIsland I figured it was purely for entertainment purposes is why you kept them around. I don't agree with legalized drugs. I don't agree most of the time. But Dexter and company are not wrong all of the time.
This has been an interesting conversation.
I also think that you and Dexter agree more then you think you do.
I agree... but his hate for LE in general leaves me with the mindset that if I had a legal reason to kill him, I'd do it with a smile.
That will never change.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I wouldn't like it. But they can protest in front of my house.
Not house. In the street, blocking your driveway access.
But shitting wouldn't be allowed.
Why not? Campers shit in the woods. Occupy Wall Street protesters shit on the lawn of Los Angeles City Hall for weeks on end while they were camping out there.
I wouldn't like it. But they can protest in front of my house. Not house. In the street, blocking your driveway access.
But shitting wouldn't be allowed. Why not? Campers shit in the woods. Occupy Wall Street protesters shit on the lawn of Los Angeles City Hall for weeks on end while they were camping out there.
I'm just being honest with you. I have no problem with them protesting. Not blocking my driveway, that is different.
I've never said they can shit in public sidewalks etc. Arrest them if the do that. I just don't have a problem with people protesting. Even if I disagree with them. They will go away eventually.
That is one of the things that makes our country great. Being able to protest the government and not worried you will end up abused, in jail or dead.
Fucking lazy, drug addled, entitled hippie scumbags.
I had the misfortune of having an assignment downtown for a week while OWK was there. You could smell the stench from three blocks away. They were provided with chemical toilets at public expense, but they were too sorry to walk a few yards to use them.
Look here is my bottom line. There were 3 people there protesting. They weren't harming anyone. Who gives a shit if they sit there in the cold.
Generally, I'd agree. If there wasn't a complaint by the public, I'd patrol by (as long as they weren't being loud, messy and disorderly, and I'd leave them alone. The problem with most of these YELLA articles is this, they don't print the other side. We don't know if there was multiple public complaints filed... Hell, for all we know, the police responded to a domestic in a tent or a drunk and disorderly protester with a passing motorist... we simply don't know the underlying circumstances that caused these officers to enforce written law.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I'm not even really saying you guys approach is totally illegitimate. You guys have legitimate concerns also. It is just my opinion that letting them protest would be better.
It doesn't even matter what any of us think. None of has any say or influence in the situation.
But you can't show a single example. You just did. Colorado has no First Amendment.
Here it is again so you don't have to hunt it above.
Section 10. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.
#109. To: GrandSphincter, A K A Drunk (#88)
(Edited)
I also think that you and Dexter agree more then you think you do.
If you're referring to me, the screen name is Deckard you twit. And for the record, I agree with the fascist pig on absolutely NOTHING, he's a POS.
...his hate for LE in general..
Once again for the learning impaired - I hate the bad corrupt cops, the ones who think that wearing a badge gives them the right to jack up anyone they feel like.
if I had a legal reason to kill him
Oh...aren't you the tough guy - a regular keyboard commando.
But you are just like many other scum sucking pigs - you don't need an excuse to kill someone.
Bring it on assclown.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
We were watching new episodes of The Man in the High Castle where Juliana scribbles a letter and mails it to Frank. The wife says, "Where'd she get the stamp? And the envelope?"
So I had to make up something. For you I say, "Despite their appearance, they're as soft as feathers".
"One of the drivers who appeared on Discovery's horrid "Street Outlaws" show has been arrested and charged with murder for his part in a street racing crash that claimed the lives of two people in Los Angeles."
"According to the L.A. County D.A., Izzy Valenzuela was racing against Michael Gevorgyan on February 25 when one of the drivers lost control. The car careened into a crowd, killing two people and injuring a third."
"Valenzuela, the driver of the Nissan GT-R, is currently in jail, charged with two counts of murder and faces up to 33 years to life in prison. Gevorgyan, who is also in custody, claims he wasn't in the Mustang when it crashed.
F**king coward won't even take personal responsibility. BTW, that "show" is about as real as pro wrestling.
"One of the drivers who appeared on Discovery's horrid "Street Outlaws" show has been arrested and charged with murder for his part in a street racing crash that claimed the lives of two people in Los Angeles."
