Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Illegal LA trailer park oozes with feces and urine, making neighbors sick: authorities
New York Post ^ | July 18, 2023 | Marjorie Hernandez

Posted on 07/20/2023 6:24:33 AM PDT by Bon of Babble

An illegal collection of 25 camper vans parked on a suburban California street has been oozing human feces and urine onto neighbors’ property, which they claim has been making them sick.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last
To: Bon of Babble

Cholera anyone?


41 posted on 07/20/2023 7:38:00 AM PDT by rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rey

No phone no pool no pets


42 posted on 07/20/2023 7:38:41 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer” )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior

The problem that we’ve had in LA - and SF - is that the port-a-potties are taken over prostitutes to ply their trade - that and the homeless won’t use them.

I suspect it’s just too much effort to walk over to one when one is high on fentanyl - easier to relieve oneself right on the sidewalk.


43 posted on 07/20/2023 7:45:38 AM PDT by Bon of Babble (What did Socialists use before Candles?..... Electricity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rey

No phone, no pool, no pets
I ain’t got no cigarettes


44 posted on 07/20/2023 7:47:42 AM PDT by Lazamataz (The firearms I own today, are the firearms I will die with. How I die will be up to them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

“The only solution is to enforce vagrancy laws, clean up the streets, and send hardcore homeless to some kind of local government detention”

Cleaning up the streets you can do, but the Supreme Court is not going to allow you to arrest people just for “vagrancy” or send them to detention camps. It’s not constitutional.

You can get around that maybe by charging them with other offenses, because they probably commit plenty of legitimate ones, like drug offenses, or “aggressive panhandling”, theft, etc, but you can’t just say, basically, “you exist and I don’t like looking at you, go to jail”.


45 posted on 07/20/2023 8:04:57 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Cleaning up the streets you can do, but the Supreme Court is not going to allow you to arrest people just for “vagrancy” or send them to detention camps. It’s not constitutional.

SCOTUS has ruled against police have broad discretion to arrest people for "vagrancy" if it merely involves them walking down the street, or standing on street-corners, etc...

what about pitching tents or sleeping on public property? Urinating in public? leaving trash and waste? using or selling drugs?

46 posted on 07/20/2023 8:09:14 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Bon of Babble

Democrats need a large permanent underclass at all times. If they can’t create more, they import more. Usually both.


47 posted on 07/20/2023 8:14:13 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bon of Babble

Selective enforcement.

If I put up a mailbox without the proper approvals, SWAT would be at my door.


48 posted on 07/20/2023 8:15:24 AM PDT by Mr.Unique (My boss wants me to sign up for a 401K. No way I'm running that far! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

“what about pitching tents or sleeping on public property?”

Well, courts have ruled that you cannot be arrested simply for sleeping or camping on public property. I don’t think that particular issue has worked its way all the way up the Supreme Court yet, but lower courts have definitely ruled that way.

“Urinating in public? leaving trash and waste? using or selling drugs?”

Those are crimes, and you could probably arrest 99% of the homeless for those, but they are also misdemeanors, except for the drug offenses. You won’t be able to send people to a camp, or detain them on some high bail awaiting trial for a misdemeanor. Some of those things won’t even carry a criminal penalty so I doubt you can even arrest someone for say, littering.


49 posted on 07/20/2023 8:39:41 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Bon of Babble

Looks more like Mexico City every day...


50 posted on 07/20/2023 8:51:36 AM PDT by Thunder 6 (Panzer raus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass

“Looks like a fire hazard.”

It is a fired hazard. Should a fire start in one of those trailers the others are going to burn as well. They are so close together that getting fire fighting equipment into there to fight the fire would be impossible. People will be trapped and die. I can’t imagine what all the electrical hookups look like.


51 posted on 07/20/2023 9:08:10 AM PDT by nomorelurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Well, courts have ruled that you cannot be arrested simply for sleeping or camping on public property.

SCOTUS has ruled against the vagueness of earlier vagrancy laws, which gave extremely broad latitude to cops for arresting someone. Their particular point was that laws, and charges, must be specific.

The notion that SCOTUS would allow people to camp, urinate, squat, etc... on public property as a 4th or 14th amendment right is nonsense. Look into case law on this.

For example, we all know Rudy Guiliani cleaned up NY City using exactly this tactic - people were arrested for specific crimes of urinating in public, vandalism, breaking NY housing and health codes, drugs, etc...

And that's exactly why places like SF and Portland have the problems they do - they have woke, "soros" DA's, who refuse to enforce the law and apply appropriate penalties.

52 posted on 07/20/2023 9:45:23 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

“The notion that SCOTUS would allow people to camp, urinate, squat, etc... on public property as a 4th or 14th amendment right is nonsense.”

I did not say that SCOTUS allowed it, did I? In fact I specifically said they had not ruled on that particular question, did I not? But lower courts have. Which way the SCOTUS would rule on it if it came before them is something that you might think you can predict, but they might not go the way you expect, so I’ll wait to see how that plays out.

Also, mixing in things (like public urination, which everyone agrees is a crime) is just muddying the waters. The only real contested issue is whether they can be arrested simply for sleeping on public property.

“For example, we all know Rudy Guiliani cleaned up NY City using exactly this tactic - people were arrested for specific crimes of urinating in public, vandalism, breaking NY housing and health codes, drugs, etc... “

Ah yes, but I think if you look into that, you’ll find that while he used those laws as a pretense for arrest, he didn’t actually prosecute people for “vagrancy”, since that would invite a legal challenge to the vagrancy laws and then they would likely be struck down. Same thing when Chicago was using “loitering” laws to get gang bangers off the corner. They might use the loitering law as a basis for a stop, a search, and even an arrest, but they would not prosecute on the loitering charge so that the law which they knew was of questionable legality would be preserved.

“And that’s exactly why places like SF and Portland have the problems they do - they have woke, “soros” DA’s, who refuse to enforce the law and apply appropriate penalties.”

Well, there you have it. If they can solve the problem using the existing laws and existing penalties, then there’s no need to try to arrest people for simple vagrancy, or to send them to detention camps, and therefore no need to take actions that courts are likely to find unconstitutional. Just use the existing strategy that already works instead of one that probably won’t.


53 posted on 07/20/2023 10:02:42 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
I did not say that SCOTUS allowed it, did I?

YES, you did. In you Post#45

54 posted on 07/20/2023 10:13:37 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

Well, post #45 was one of your posts, not one of mine. But if you’re talking about the part of my post that you quoted in my post, I did not say that the SCOTUS had already ruled on it. I said:

“the Supreme Court is not going to allow you to arrest people just for “vagrancy” or send them to detention camps”

Which is not the same as saying they have already ruled on it. But I think it’s a pretty darn certain speculation as to how they would rule if the case came up before them. If you think you could get a ruling from SCOTUS that says, basically, “a law making it illegal to be homeless is constitutional”, then I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed.


55 posted on 07/20/2023 10:32:54 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Bon of Babble

Call it “Hillary Clinton Trailer Park” and then everything will be just fine.


56 posted on 07/20/2023 10:53:48 AM PDT by Clay Moore (My pistol identifies as a cordless hole punch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bon of Babble
In California, you have NIMBY types so they are not going to allow new construction of residences to be built.

So guess what? People will build slims instead. It's what third world have been doing since forever.

We used to be more advanced. We'll find the land. Then develop it. People will be able to afford to live in the residences on the land. But due to left wing politics in California, that's impossible.

57 posted on 07/20/2023 10:57:32 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

*slums


58 posted on 07/20/2023 10:57:53 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Bon of Babble

Bidenville.


59 posted on 07/20/2023 11:29:14 AM PDT by Allegra (Stop the Zeepers from Censoring FReepers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson