Camping on the street

[avanti]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

If you're sitting in your vehicle with the engine running, it's still a violation.

How about at a red light? Appears to meet the definition of "parking".

Frankly, if all you say is true, it looks like just poorly-concieved and/or drafted legislation. Sometimes this kind of thing arises from legislative incompetence. Sometimes it is done deliberately in order to empower Rosco P Coltraine to do whatever he feels like.

NYC regulations are FAR more complex than this, but they are nuanced and the complexity reflects a lot of accumulated practical wisdom.

[booster]

I think a lot of this discussion has moved very heavily into police behavior, which is certainly involved, but not the original focus of starting the discussion, from my point of view. Rules and regulations have also been brought up, and are very important in all of this, simply because it can change an entire scenario from being harassed by police or residents (if it is legal to be camping on the street), to you being in violation of the law and any intervention by police being totally justified. In either case, disregarding the very rare, IMO, bad cop or crazy camper, accidents and misunderstandings can happen that neither party saw coming, with bad results for all involved.

We don't see as much of it here on the Class b forum, I think, but there are many, many, websites, other rv forums, etc that are very focused on how to "stealth" camp, and intentionally violate laws and ordinances. Some of the Utube videos that were linked showed folks that had what appeared to be no respect for local rules they thought shouldn't apply them, and had signs all over letting the police know they did not intend to be cooperative. IMO, those folks hurt all campers reputations.

While many of the local ordinances do seem to be extreme, it is also possible they wound up that way because of people who were constantly pushing the reasonable limits of the definition of camping so that the ordinances just decided to call it stopping or parking a big vehicle, to get rid of the wiggling room. As was mentioned, there are so many different rules, there is no real way to know unless you ask everywhere you go, but the laws all also will normally read that it is your responsibility to know the laws, and ignorance is not an excuse.

For us, we would stay in a Walmart, Cabellas, or other place that allows it with permission, or rest stops that say it is OK. We wouldn't try to hide in plain sight in a residential, or even business area, unless we knew it was legal there. Never would we ever go on private property, like a closed business or farm edge, like we read about some folks doing. It is part because we don't want to get a late night police visit, and partially so we don't interfere with the people who live in the area all the time.

I totally understand the desire to have a debadged class b for aesthetic reasons, but if it is so you can intentionally get away with violating the law, that is different, and likely a good way to make sure the laws and enforcement get stricter. I also don't understand the statement that "it is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission", but that is another story.

Bottom line concerning the fatal encounter posted initially, which has been mentioned by several folks. If the guy wasn't camped illegally, the event wouldn't have happened, and any discussion of bad police behavior or bad camper behavior would not be an issue. At that point it doesn't matter if it was intentional or an accident, as it wouldn't have happened. I do believe that there is always a chance of something like this happening, be it from bad behavior or accident, when there is this kind of relatively high risk encounter, and it could happen to anyone that puts themselves it that position. That was the point of the original posting.

[InterBlog]

Originally Posted by avanti

How about at a red light? Appears to meet the definition of "parking".

Frankly, if all you say is true, it looks like just poorly-concieved and/or drafted legislation. Sometimes this kind of thing arises from legislative incompetence. Sometimes it is done deliberately in order to empower Rosco P Coltraine to do whatever he feels like.

NYC regulations are FAR more complex than this, but they are nuanced and the complexity reflects a lot of accumulated practical wisdom.

I agree that the ordinance is poorly written, but it's a reflection of Houston's unique approach to self-regulation. Houston is nationally famous for having no zoning, which the mainstream news media often interprets superficially and reports erroneously as "anything goes". In fact, Houston's method of regulation is largely based on behavior rather than the spatiality. For the most part, anyone can build or do anything anywhere, BUT, on the condition that the resulting behavior conforms to ordinances. The noise ordinance is another example. Technically someone could plop an industrial plant in the middle of a residential neighborhood if they really wanted to, but they'd have to go through so much trouble to get a Certificate of Occupancy and to meet the noise ordinance that it would hardly be worth their effort.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

I agree that the ordinance is poorly written, but it's a reflection of Houston's unique approach to self-regulation. Houston is nationally famous for having no zoning, which the mainstream news media often interprets superficially and reports erroneously as "anything goes". In fact, Houston's method of regulation is largely based on behavior rather than the spatiality.

Having been an out-of-state plaintiff in a Houston "give-'em-a-fair-trial-before-we-hang-'em" court in which the sitting judge was under indictment at the time... I can attest that it is in fact a "unique" approach to self-regulation.

In any OTHER state BUT the Republic of Texas, for someone to be guilty under the ordinance as written in the posts above, the State would have to prove that the vehicle fit the definition by being over 8' tall, even for a parking ticket. The "over 8' tall" requirement is specific, and proving that would, of necessity, include some sort of accurate measurement of the height of the vehicle backed up with some kind of physical evidence... a measurement by the officer and a photo as evidence would be even better. Absent that... likely the court would dismiss the citation as there's nothing to corroborate the officer's testimony, and the officer can't articulate exactly how tall the vehicle is. AND it's up to the State to prove that allegation, not the owner of the vehicle to prove it's NOT in violation.

That said, of course, it doesn't take an expert witness to estimate speed, and the court may agree that an officer can estimate height, but I'd still think that you could get the citation dismissed without any corroborating evidence... again... in states other than the Republic of Texas. In my experience though, in Huston, if the courts aren't inconsistent, they're nothing.

[InterBlog]

I tend not to lie. If someone asks me how tall my vehicle is, I say "between 9 and 10 feet" (we never did re-measure it after adding vaulted solar panels). So I'm pooched if they nail me on that one. I couldn't walk into Court and with a straight face claim that I don't fit the definition of large vehicle.

[mojoman]

My vehicle is still has commercial plates, thinking to change to RV to save on the high fees CA charges and insurance costs. Does having commercial plates give you more flexibility in parking?

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

I tend not to lie. If someone asks me how tall my vehicle is, I say "between 9 and 10 feet" (we never did re-measure it after adding vaulted solar panels). So I'm pooched if they nail me on that one. I couldn't walk into Court and with a straight face claim that I don't fit the definition of large vehicle.

You don't have to lie. Actually you don't have to say a thing, except to show up and say "prove your allegation." It's up to the State to prove that it IS over 8' feet tall. My point is that likely the State did (and does) a sloppy job with enforcement. It may be a small point, but it's part of the corpus of the section, and one that's incumbent upon them to prove for the case to move forward.

Granted, if they have the make and model of van, perhaps merely a brochure listing its height would be sufficient. Or, as I said, a measurement and a photo... but they have to present some kind of corroborating evidence proving the allegation; and it'd be pretty unlikely that would happen.

[avanti]

The problem is that the arresting officer and the local magistrate are probably drinking buddies, so the actual law and rules of evidence have little relevance. You often have to move up to the first level of appeal before you will get any kind of a fair shake. The bad news is that there is a second trip to the courthouse and often a non-refundable fee involved. The good news is that there is a good chance that the officer won't show up, in which case you win.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by avanti

The problem is that the arresting officer and the local magistrate are probably drinking buddies, so the actual law and rules of evidence have little relevance. You often have to move up to the first level of appeal before you will get any kind of a fair shake. The bad news is that there is a second trip to the courthouse and often a non-refundable fee involved. The good news is that there is a good chance that the officer won't show up, in which case you win.

Boy, that's not the case anywhere I've ever worked... but I s'pose anything's possible especially in the Republic of Tejas. (I'm sorry, but my Texas experiences have been SO negative, I just have nothing positive to say about the state.) And you're right, there's always a 50-50 chance that the copper just won't bother getting out of bed for a parking ticket court date.

[avanti]

I was once a defense witness in a very high profile patent infringement case in which a patent troll was trying to fleece a big tech company. I had to travel to Tyler Texas in order to do so. The standard procedure is to incorporate your fake company there, so your case will be under the jurisdiction of that particular federal court, and because local juries don't like big west coast tech companies. This appears to be the major industry in Tyler. It was extremely obvious that the federal judge and the good-old-boy-from-central-casting attorney for the plaintiff had worked together before.

[booster]

Here is the latest release of information from a couple of days ago.

Man fatally shot in RV in Vadnais Height had disarmed deputy - StarTribune.com

[BBQ]

Originally Posted by booster

Here is the latest release of information from a couple of days ago.

Man fatally shot in RV in Vadnais Height had disarmed deputy - StarTribune.com

he disarmed the deputy?


Without a bodycam, it is the police's word against the dead man's words.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by BBQ

he disarmed the deputy?


Without a bodycam, it is the police's word against the dead man's words.

Really? So... despite the facts as stated in the articles, if I understand your perspective, four experienced, veteran officers decide to harass some guy because he lives in a motorhome and then, apparently when they don't like what he's saying or doing, off him for no reason at all? And you don't believe the reported results of the subsequent investigation? Am I correct in my assessment?

If so, what a frightening, Orwellian world view don't you think? Wow.

[BBQ]

Originally Posted by hepcat

Really?

:

if I understand your perspective, four experienced, veteran officers decide to harass some guy

::

Wow.

That's neither what I said, nor my words.

What I said is narrowly defined and very specific to a small sentence in my quote.


Don't twist things to your purpose,

or extrapolant your fantasy as everybody's thoughts.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by BBQ

That's neither what I said, nor my words.

What I said is narrowly defined and very specific to a small sentence in my quote.


Don't twist things to your purpose,

or extrapolant your fantasy as everybody's thoughts.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your post then. Could you perhaps expand on your earlier post to explain what you meant, 'cause what I wrote is what I took away from it.

[BBQ]

Originally Posted by hepcat

Sorry if I misinterpreted your post then. Could you perhaps expand on your earlier post to explain what you meant, 'cause what I wrote is what I took away from it.

You have a vivid imagination.

The narrowly defined reference in my post involved only ONE 4 words sentence.

You can take anything away you like.

[SiennaGuy]

A cop who was a friend of mine once told me that people go into police work for one of two reasons. Either they're into being protective or they're into power. I've been privileged to have had protective cops as friends.

As more and more police departments get more and more militarized, IMHO, they tend to attract recruits who are into power. Those folks who saw themselves as neighborhood cops walking a beat and knowing all the locals, probably are not going to be attracted to departments that boast of tanks and military weapons. Unfortunately, these protective folks may choose other careers, to the profession's loss.

Yes, the bad guys have also become militarized, and the cops have to deal with that. Still, a core skill that an officer should have is to be able to properly size up a situation. If a cop can't properly judge a situation with an illegally parked vehicle and determines that the only way to handle it is with deadly force instead of a ticket, then they should probably find a different kind of job. If a department hires a cop who was fired from another department for excessive force, then the problem becomes systemic.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by SiennaGuy

If a cop can't properly judge a situation with an illegally parked vehicle and determines that the only way to handle it is with deadly force instead of a ticket, then they should probably find a different kind of job.

This was not a case where "deadly force was used instead of writing a ticket." In this case, Sienna, it's being reported that the man in the van refused to comply with the direction of officers, tazers were deployed without effect, and the man fought with an officer and took the officer's handgun... and was subsequently shot by other officers.

Unfortunately, incidents where suspects try to disarm an officer will likely not end well for them, as in this case. What happened was that the suspect, for whatever reason, made some really bad decisions forcing the cops to make some really unpleasant ones.

[booster]

I don't think anyone can make any real decisions on what happened, at least not yet, and maybe never. The big deal will be if the forensics back up the police story or not. We always hear the "he reached for my gun", or "he was reaching into xxxx for what I thought was a gun", which sometimes proves out and sometimes not. With no alternate description other than the police one, it will be a tough one for the agency, I am sure, as they are certainly going to be getting a lot of heat about how 4 officers can't subdue one guy without killing him. Not saying it wasn't justified, but just that it will be a hard sell just because of the 4 on 1. We have had a couple of high profile police killing episodes here in last couple of years, so all the jurisdictions are probably dreading all the publicity about another one.

But again, this isn't about what happened in the van as much as what happened in the van needn't of happened at all, if there wasn't street camping.

[hepcat]

These things are fluid once the contact is made. According to the news report, it quickly changed from a distraught man in a motorhome failing to comply with orders of officers to an armed suspect vs. three armed cops... a VERY different situation.

And yes, the forensics will likely tell the tale. And you have to take each incident on its own merit... the public wants to lump them all together and claim that they're related; and it just ain't so. It's the public's willingness to come to immediate judgement without being burdened by fact that concerns me.

And you're right... the investigation will tell what happened; except for those folks who think every cop is crooked, badge-heavy, and does the job to line their pockets and assuage their sadistic tendencies. Those folks will believe any investigation that exonerates the cops was crooked too.

It's sad that so many have lost the ability to look at evidence objectively.