'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
Published: Dec 17, 2016
Author: Liam Quinn
Post Date: 2016-12-17 14:23:21 by cranky
Views: 65497

  • 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'.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply

#76: Roscoe    To: A K A Stone (#60)

According to me you should only be charged with trespassing if you are on private property not public property paid for by the people.

Occupy Wall Street camp

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-17 22:07:49   Reply   Private Reply

#77: A K A Stone    To: GrandIsland (#75)

You truly are surprising me. I'm beginning to see why you keep the agenda trash around.

I agree with what you call "the agenda trash" sometimes. Yes that is true.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:09:44   Reply   Private Reply

#78: GrandIsland    To: Roscoe (#76)

Occupy Wall Street camp

Fucking lazy, drug addled, entitled hippie scumbags. Like our agenda trash.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-12-17 22:10:46   Reply   Private Reply

#79: GrandIsland    To: A K A Stone (#77)

I agree with what you call "the agenda trash" sometimes. Yes that is true.

I figured it was purely for entertainment purposes is why you kept them around.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-12-17 22:11:57   Reply   Private Reply

#80: Roscoe    To: A K A Stone (#74)

Did you not know that every state in the union has a first amendment and a fourth.

No, they don't.

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-17 22:11:59   Reply   Private Reply

#81: A K A Stone    To: Roscoe (#76)

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.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:12:05   Reply   Private Reply

#82: A K A Stone    To: Roscoe (#80)

No, they don't.

Yes they do. If not prove it.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:12:28   Reply   Private Reply

#83: Roscoe    To: A K A Stone (#81)

But they do have a right to protest.

The street in front of your driveway is public property. Can they camp there and shit in the street?

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-17 22:14:04   Reply   Private Reply

#84: A K A Stone    To: GrandIsland (#79)

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.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:14:39   Reply   Private Reply

#85: Roscoe    To: A K A Stone (#82)

Yes they do.

No, they don't.

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-17 22:14:44   Reply   Private Reply

#86: A K A Stone    To: Roscoe (#83)

The street in front of your driveway is public property. Can they camp there and shit in the street?

I wouldn't like it. But they can protest in front of my house. But shitting wouldn't be allowed.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:15:22   Reply   Private Reply

#87: A K A Stone    To: Roscoe (#85)

No, they don't.

You can repeat yourself all you want to. But you can't show a single example.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:16:02   Reply   Private Reply

#88: GrandIsland    To: A K A Stone (#84)

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.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-12-17 22:16:56   Reply   Private Reply

#89: GrandIsland    To: A K A Stone (#86)

But shitting wouldn't be allowed.

lol

GrandIsland posted on 2016-12-17 22:18:43   Reply   Private Reply

#90: Roscoe    To: A K A Stone (#86)

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.

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-17 22:19:59   Reply   Private Reply

#91: A K A Stone    To: GrandIsland (#88)

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.

That is how I see it.

I have a soft spot for the little guy.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:20:30   Reply   Private Reply

#92: Roscoe    To: A K A Stone (#87)

But you can't show a single example.

You just did. Colorado has no First Amendment.

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-17 22:20:50   Reply   Private Reply

#93: A K A Stone    To: Roscoe (#90)

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.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:23:38   Reply   Private Reply

#94: Roscoe    To: GrandIsland (#78)

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.

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-17 22:24:42   Reply   Private Reply

#95: A K A Stone    To: Roscoe (#92)

You just did. Colorado has no First Amendment.

Actually they do. I already posted it. It might not be called the first amendment. But its wording has the same affect but even stronger.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:24:43   Reply   Private Reply

#96: GrandIsland    To: A K A Stone (#91)

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.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-12-17 22:25:22   Reply   Private Reply

#97: Roscoe    To: A K A Stone (#93)

Not blocking my driveway, that is different.

They were blocking the sidewalk.

If they had been standing there with protest signs, there would have been no problem.

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-17 22:26:29   Reply   Private Reply

#98: A K A Stone    To: GrandIsland (#96)

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.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:27:56   Reply   Private Reply

#99: A K A Stone    To: Roscoe (#97)

They were blocking the sidewalk.

If they had been standing there with protest signs, there would have been no problem.

They have to have a sign to protest? Why not just a sit in like the blacks used to do or words? Or their mere presence?

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:29:08   Reply   Private Reply

#100: GrandIsland    To: A K A Stone (#98)

It doesn't even matter what any of us think. None of has any say or influence in the situation

That is very true. I did enjoy the exchange of opinions.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-12-17 22:29:33   Reply   Private Reply

#101: buckeroo    To: A K A Stone (#93)

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.

Tell that to Bundy. I am confident he will enjoy your sudden empathy.

buckeroo posted on 2016-12-17 22:30:03   Reply   Private Reply

#102: Roscoe    To: A K A Stone (#95)

But its wording has the same affect but even stronger.

Weaker, actually.

"...every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty...

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-17 22:30:06   Reply   Private Reply

#103: A K A Stone    To: Roscoe (#92)

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.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:30:19   Reply   Private Reply

#104: A K A Stone    To: Roscoe (#102)

Weaker, actually.

Perhaps in some respects.

But stronger in other aspects.

Like putting in no law shall be made...

Still pretty much the same just like every other state.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:33:50   Reply   Private Reply

#105: A K A Stone    To: buckeroo (#101)

Tell that to Bundy. I am confident he will enjoy your sudden empathy.

I'm not sure I'm on his side or against him.

Probably for him.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-12-17 22:34:35   Reply   Private Reply

#106: Roscoe    To: A K A Stone (#99)

They have to have a sign to protest?

Well, they could try communicating their message telepathically.

Why not just a sit in like the blacks used to do or words?
The sit ins were on private property. On the other hand, there was protesting (looting, arson, rioting) on the public streets.

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-17 22:36:30   Reply   Private Reply

#107: buckeroo    To: A K A Stone (#105)

[I am] Probably for him.

Sumtymes, you actually profess a great personal perspective that I agree with.

buckeroo posted on 2016-12-18 00:53:38   Reply   Private Reply

#108: goldilucky    To: misterwhite (#20)

What does the Bible say about those violate the city's urban camping ban and camp out in front of city hall?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A20-22&version=KJV

goldilucky posted on 2016-12-18 00:56:28   Reply   Private Reply

#109: Deckard    To: GrandSphincter, A K A Drunk (#88)

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.

Deckard posted on 2016-12-18 01:03:15   Reply   Private Reply

#110: BorisY    To: cranky (#0)

There's
a
human
garbage
bag
walking
around

for
years

where
I
live

strange

very
strange

it
believes
clothes
is
poison

lives
out
of
garbage
cans

Merry
Christmas

love
boris

ps

the
humane
society
takes
better
care
of
cats
dogs
than
what
these
people
are
getting

pss

thanks
to
liberals
the
whole
world
is
one
big
funny
farm
now

BorisY posted on 2016-12-18 01:20:33   Reply   Private Reply

#111: buckeroo    To: BorisY (#110)

I really, really ... tire reading your posts; it wouldn't be so bad about the content but the formatting really sucks.

buckeroo posted on 2016-12-18 02:25:02   Reply   Private Reply

#112: Deckard    To: Gatlin, buckeroo (#73)

He does get drunk every Saturday night ...

Even if true, it still pales by comparison to your daily Sterno binges.

Speaking of Sterno - are you still pining for your man-crush pal yukon?

Deckard posted on 2016-12-18 03:24:06   Reply   Private Reply

#113: misterwhite    To: A K A Stone (#84)

"also think that you and Dexter agree"

Great series. Poor Deb.

misterwhite posted on 2016-12-18 09:59:53   Reply   Private Reply

#114: misterwhite    To: Roscoe (#71)

You're thinking of "dragoning". Riding a fire-spitting dragon. Origin of the term, "drag racing".

misterwhite posted on 2016-12-18 10:47:04   Reply   Private Reply

#115: Roscoe    To: misterwhite (#114)

I wonder how hard those spikes are?

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-18 11:07:27   Reply   Private Reply

#116: misterwhite    To: Roscoe (#115)

"I wonder how hard those spikes are?"

Picky, picky. You're as bad as my wife.

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".

Better?

misterwhite posted on 2016-12-18 11:20:47   Reply   Private Reply

#117: Deckard    To: misterwhite, Roscoe (#114)

Origin of the term, "drag racing".

Speaking of drag racing - I'm guessing you're not a big fans of this show.

Street Outlaws

Too much freedom going on here for you two clowns to fathom.

Deckard posted on 2016-12-18 12:01:35   Reply   Private Reply

#118: misterwhite    To: Deckard (#117)

"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.

misterwhite posted on 2016-12-18 12:22:58   Reply   Private Reply

#119: Deckard    To: misterwhite (#118)

Discovery's horrid "Street Outlaws" show

WTF? "Horrid"?

Wow - talk about your yellow journalism.

The murder charge won't stick - the most he is guilty of is manslaughter.

Deckard posted on 2016-12-18 12:31:00   Reply   Private Reply

#120: Roscoe    To: misterwhite (#116)

For you I say, "Despite their appearance, they're as soft as feathers".

You say that. I thought it was a male dragon.

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-18 13:10:11   Reply   Private Reply

#121: Roscoe    To: misterwhite (#118)

"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."

Deckard is just one epic fail after another.

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-18 13:19:04   Reply   Private Reply

#122: Roscoe    To: Deckard (#119)

the most he is guilty of is manslaughter

You are so pathetic.

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-18 13:33:08   Reply   Private Reply

#123: misterwhite    To: Roscoe (#120)

"You say that. I thought it was a male dragon."

I knew you were headed there you dirty old man, you.

misterwhite posted on 2016-12-18 15:35:10   Reply   Private Reply

#124: BorisY    To: buckeroo (#111)

so
what

love
boris

... homeless_person_laptop[1].img

BorisY posted on 2016-12-18 15:55:52   Reply   Private Reply

#125: Roscoe    To: misterwhite (#123)

I knew you were headed there you dirty old man, you.

And I hadn't even gotten to the selectivity issue yet.

Roscoe posted on 2016-12-18 19:33:48   Reply   Private Reply