Posted on 10/30/2020 7:49:17 AM PDT by nhsteve
Why can’t people sue these sanctuary cities for the same reason.
“I think they have a damn good case, and I hope they [revail.”
When the city actively accomodated them, the city cemented their ownership of the situation.
Up until the 1960s, many states had laws specifically making cities responsible for property damage caused by rioting and looting. The legal logic (like in this present case) was that by its direct action and inaction, city governments allowed such crimes against property to occur, and thus it was a form of government taking property without due compensation.
These laws gradually disappeared, as Democrats/Leftists took control of US city governments across the country.
The legal logic and precedent for such cases therefore have quite a long history
Moreover, bringing back such laws would be a great conservative campaign platform for state and local candidates.
“The city will argue that it was acting in the public’s interest for safety. A taking is a steep hill to climb especially considering that the property owners were not permanently denied use of their property.”
If they were interested in safety they would have stopped it from happening. They would have cleaned it out with authority after it happened.
At the least, they are liable for that period of time. And now those businesses and their properties are likely permanently impaired.
I’m guessing this will go the way of the suits that attempt to hold municipalities liable for the actions of illegals they allow to remain under their jurisdictions.
Yup-Possibly the ONLY good to come out of that whole thing is that voters will finally grow up about casting ballots.
Is any of that destruction, loss of business, incredible cost for rehabilitating the areas, or other BS worth ‘free stuff’ ?
Hardly.
Those ‘voters’ handed themselves a gargantuan bill for what was done. I certainly hope that the rest of LAW ABIDING America does NOT have to pay for their ignorance!
Couldn’t agree more. 8>)
Sounds correct, and agree with the suggest as well. 8>)
>>Still, writes Somin: “If the plaintiffs’ account of events is largely accurate, it reveals terrible behavior by city officials (as well as by the CHOP activists). That is deeply troubling even if the city cannot be held legally liable under the Takings Clause.”<<
This brought to mind the question if any of the troublemakers (aka “activists”) have been sued civilly for losses. Even if they ain’t got a dime, plaintiffs can score the victory and hound them wherever they work until the judgement is satisfied. They might also be a chance to reach through to the deep pocketed funding (soros).
Just wondering if anyone heard anything or what the FReeper legal eagles out there say.
Does anyone know what happened to the safes, ATMs and bank vaults that remained within occupied “Chaz”. Always wondered how much cash they stuffed in those backpacks when they walked out unmolested.
People complain about the lack of justice in California. And you never hear about the illegal manure in the, so called, Emerald City, because California gets the ink. (We don’t have Hollywood up here)
There are going to be two problems with the case. It can be run, but it won’t accomplish anything.
First:
In most cases, sign theft is a misdemeanor, and the penalty is a fine and potentially up to a year in jail. But if you steal lots of signs, that can cross the line into felony theft that will put you in state prison for up to six years, as well as leaving you paying fines and restitution. But normally, offense is a Class A misdemeanor, which can put you in county jail for up to one year and/or a fine up to $2,500 if anything is done. But if they do, great! Who did it? And what evidence does anyone have they did? Good luck on that one.
Secondly:
When the police, fire people, or medical assistance people tried to go into the areas, they were met with violent crowds and threats by the hundreds so it wasn’t exactly a case of ignoring, it was a case of figuring out if the situation was worth life threatening for the public service people for some signs. They can make more of those.
Chop was a war zone that the city police couldn’t possibly handle. There are no training scenarios to handle city takeovers. That would have been the use of the National Guard, who Trump even offered to pay for, to control. And it would have, also, been the use of force that was going to kill some of these morons. Seattle didn’t want that, either, as the allowance of the chop was not for that reason. It was an unofficial political tool and a official series of public crimes, not insurrection.
So the cops were told to keep it contained until they could safely break it down. No one was in active combat. And it all went away in time with few being injured or killed.
Do I think it should have been done that way? No. Police work is called enforcement for a reason. But I’m not in charge. Do I think the city and state should be held accountable for using the political tool this way? Yes. But the tool hasn’t been defined as such and there is nothing but hearsay to do so.
So it will be tossed with the next judge as the decisions made, stupid as they were, were in the best interest by the law and had nothing to do with financial loss, just keeping from more lives being lost. And that’s the way they think in King County and any small piece of the rest of the state that provides the votes to keep these whimpering morons in power. You can’t fight city hall when city hall makes the decisions on the fight.
rwood
The court system in Washington State is so blatantly crooked, very hard to get justice here.
The business owners need to bribe the judges—time to play dirty!
“Seems like they have a case but then, do they?”
______________________________________
Though not a lawyer....I would think they should actually win the court case.
The mayor actually encouraged the taking over of the area because she didn’t send in anyone to break it up. She literally encouraged it.
So if, say, there was another “autonomous zone” and a sniper from outside started picking off politicians as they entered the zone. There wouldn’t be any controlling legal authority, would there?
bookmark
Yep!
Speak for your own side of the state — I know and respect several of the judiciary here in southeastern WA — not corrupt and highly principled and honorable.
Interesting theory. When there is no law enforcement, there is no law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.