For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. -- 2 Thessalonians 3:10

I didn't read anywhere in the article that they weren't willing to work.

Pretty arrogant to assume that because someone is poor they are not able to work.

Peacefully protesting is a no no I guess.

It was a set up.

"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.

- Denver Mayor Michael Hancock

FAKE NEWS propaganda from a professional liar, a politician.

Fake News Alert !

"Pretty arrogant to assume that because someone is poor they are not able to work."

It would be arrogant had I said that.

"The bible is replete with sayings about how we should regard and treat the unfortunate ones for some of us may also end up like them."

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

You keep posting facts and you may be banned.

I'll risk it.

“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."

community rabble rouser,

Quit encouraging armed robbery, blanket. Those thieving po-po gangbangers belong in jail, without a blanket!

“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."

the homeless people were protestors

so you can't arrest people in daylight, what is this the vampire squad?

What law did they violate?

It was a local ordnance

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.

There were hundreds of open beds in shelters across the city, and officers offered to take them to shelters. They refused, and continued trespassing.

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?

Illegally camping on the public right-of-way outside of the Denver City and County Building.

There were hundreds of open beds in shelters across the city, and officers offered to take them to shelters. They refused, and continued trespassing.

Read my previous post.

Then admit that you don't really give a shit about the constitution except where you agree with it. Like the second amendment.

Oh well. It doesn't matter what we think they are going to do what they are going to do.

Pretty arrogant to assume that because someone is poor they are not able to work."

It would be arrogant had I said that.

Then what was your point to adding that scripture as a response? It sure seems like that is what you were implying.

Jesus said to help the poor people."

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. -- 2 Thessalonians 3:10

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.

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.

I doubt Jesus was a socialist. We can "help" the poor without enabling them.

I don't think these protesters were looking for handouts. Correct me if I am wrong.

But protesting isn't against the law.

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 don't think these protesters were looking for handouts

Expecting to NOT get arrested for breaking an ordinance is a handout.

and they can't violate local ordnances..

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.

illegally CAMPING... acting like an asshole

Go ahead, arrest this!

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.

allow sneakypete

You must be his "partner". You defend him like he's your lover.

There is no constitutional right to CAMPING off your own property. Your suggestion is YELLA, yet again. They can protest without camping.

There is nothing in the constitution that limits when they can protest.

The founders didn't have hotels with furnaces. They would have had tents and fires to protest long term.

It isn't yellow it is truth.

They did nothing unlawful or immoral. They did something illegal under color of law.

I guess we just disagree. That is ok. We will agree on other issues.

Do your local ordnance is a bag of shit.

Could you fix that so sober people can read it?

There is nothing in the constitution that limits when they can protest.

There's nothing in the constitution that allows them to break the law while they protest either.

They can't stand in the road to protest... and they can't violate other laws, such as unauthorized camping, either.

Your local ordnance is a bag of shit.

You should try that as a defense for violating the local law. Tell me how well it works.

lol

If anyone is not willing to work ...

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.

So there is no liberty to voice an opinion?

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

They can't stand in the road to protest... and they can't violate other laws, such as unauthorized camping, either.

I agree 100 percent if they protest and block traffic on a street.

They weren't doing that.

The legislature let the people down by violating their oaths of office and passing unconstitutional legislation.

Than all the judges who get bribed and are corrupt go along with it.

Screw them all.

Our moral compass is correct. Mine says they were not doing anything immoral. Nothing to harm anyone. What happened to them was wrong.

[crickets]

"There is nothing in the constitution that limits when they can protest."

And there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that protects their right to set up camping tents outside of the Denver City and County Building.

Where is there a right to trespass guaranteed in the Constitution?

[crickets]

Public land is public land.

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

And there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that protects their right to set up camping tents outside of the Denver City and County Building.

Yes there is. The first amendment and the fourth. And common sense.

"Where is there a right to trespass guaranteed in the Constitution?"

I think that falls under the penumbra of dragooning.

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.