Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
13
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Why has no one stopped and considered the validity of this video? Its almost April 1st people... Plus why has there been no mention on a national news station? I mean come on people...

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Hearshotkid93 View Post
    Why has no one stopped and considered the validity of this video? Its almost April 1st people... Plus why has there been no mention on a national news station? I mean come on people...
    Almost.

    April 1 doesn't carry with it a +- 1 week. April 1 is April 1. March 30 is not April 1. April 2 is not April 1.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by krunksmash View Post
    removing the poles and taking them away IS illegal. to be allowed to do this takes a city council ruling. MAJOR LAWSUIT INC!!!

    ---------- Post added 2011-03-28 at 08:09 AM ----------



    the pole was 60 years old.
    16 like in sixteen like in s.i.x.t.e.e.n.

    sixteen

    teen.......
    six teen
    ENGLISH ISNT MY MAIN SPEC
    YOU NOW BREATH CONSCIOUSLY

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Rgarner46 View Post
    Does no one notice this is in a development away from main roads? This means several things to begin with. These roads are considered private roads in some instances. Meaning that no they are not city property. This may not be true in this case but it is something to think about. Also the basketball hoop being in that particular spot for x amount of time does matter. After 20 years of being present notoriously clearly and continously* without interruption means you then own the piece of land. So if said house owners lived there for more then 20 years and that hoop had been there the entire time and never taken down during, well they own that piece of land now. Granted the city will do what they want and the only thing you can do is boot whoever out of office, but rights were infringed upon. If said person lived in a development in which the streets are considered private. All you would have to do is look to their stops signs and if the stop sign is in a state where stickers dignify city or county placed stop signs as opposed to private (most are) then if the closest stop sign between them and a main road does not have one. Chances are you are on a private road way. So yes their rights were infringed upon. Now if it is not and it is a city street, that street is a dead end so the rules are a little different there as well. Even so for different states and counties and cities. So no one can no for certain if his rights were infringed upon unless you are a lawyer familiar with their city code and so on and so forth.
    To add I found this when trying to find more information on the story.

    Last fall, DelDOT sent letters to at least eight residents in the Radnor Green and Ashbourne Hills subdivisions saying their street-side basketball hoops violated the state’s Clear Zone law, which prohibits hoops, trees, shrubs and other objects from being within seven feet of the pavement's edge in subdivisions.
    Source: http://www.delawareonline.com/articl...ends-them-away

    Not in any way trying to take a side one way or the other, just trying to add information.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Viros View Post
    Almost.

    April 1 doesn't carry with it a +- 1 week. April 1 is April 1. March 30 is not April 1. April 2 is not April 1.
    And? Joke ahead of time so on April first you say "Oh haha we got you guys good!"... Happens all the time. Why is the city going to listen to ONE person that obviously has some problems if this story is true? None of this makes sense at all.

  6. #46
    Moderator Wilderness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    3,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Rgarner46 View Post
    After 20 years of being present notoriously clearly and continously* without interruption means you then own the piece of land. So if said house owners lived there for more then 20 years and that hoop had been there the entire time and never taken down during, well they own that piece of land now.
    That in no way has anything to do with this. Putting up a basketball hoop and having it up for 20 years does not give you that land at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rgarner46 View Post
    So yes their rights were infringed upon. Now if it is not and it is a city street, that street is a dead end so the rules are a little different there as well. Even so for different states and counties and cities. So no one can no for certain if his rights were infringed upon unless you are a lawyer familiar with their city code and so on and so forth.
    I like how you admit that we can't know if his rights were infringed upon since none of us know the specific laws and regulations for that area ... right after you claim their rights were infringed upon.

    Also, I just re-read the title of this thread ... wtf does the first amendment have to do with any of this? And really, removing a basketball hoop, even if it were not done legally (which we cannot know), is not a gross violation of anything.
    Raids & Dungeons Mod | <Despotism> 14/14H (10-man); 14/14H (25-man); 2 Days/Week US-Greymane <> Recruiting for Mythic

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Hearshotkid93 View Post
    And? Joke ahead of time so on April first you say "Oh haha we got you guys good!"... Happens all the time. Why is the city going to listen to ONE person that obviously has some problems if this story is true? None of this makes sense at all.
    Yeah because you could get a bunch of adults (read: people who don't really care about April 1) and rent out a bulldozer and buy a bunch of hoops and shoot this as a prank. Sure you could do it with a lot of money to pay everyone, but even if it is a prank, it's not even that funny if it turned out to be fake.

    I'm pretty sure it's not an April Fool's joke.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Simca View Post
    If 60 years is long enough that the law doesn't matter, where do you draw that line? At a year? 2 years?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations
    This is what draws the line.
    Pyrotix Destruction Warlock
    stalk and kill 6/8 Heroic 25 man apply today

  9. #49
    The nature strip next to the curb is council property.

  10. #50
    Moderator Wilderness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    3,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Arganis View Post
    She's a police officer, it's part of her job to act professional in delicate situations. Not instigate hostilities with cripples by resorting to unnecessary threats in hopes of using force to resolve the situation. You can tell she would have been all too happy to drag his ass to jail if he'd made the wrong move. That's what's disgusting.
    I don't know that she's a police officer. But yes, it was her job to act professionally and she fell a little short of that although she wasn't that out of line. You are crazy if you don't think those people weren't in the wrong as well. They were not being reasonable, were threatening to climb up on the pole and stay there, etc. The threat of being arrested for their actions was not out of line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Assassin1344 View Post
    And what is the statue of limitations on a law like this? Also, the last thing in that entry is about continuing violations, which this would seem to qualify as.
    Raids & Dungeons Mod | <Despotism> 14/14H (10-man); 14/14H (25-man); 2 Days/Week US-Greymane <> Recruiting for Mythic

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilderness81 View Post
    Also, I just re-read the title of this thread ... wtf does the first amendment have to do with any of this? And really, removing a basketball hoop, even if it were not done legally (which we cannot know), is not a gross violation of anything.
    At the end of the video where the confrontation has become more escalated the man is being told to go inside his house and essentially to stop talking, at which point he yells and says that it's his first amendment right to freedom of speech.

    Also when looking for more information on this story a lot of the comments and actually write ups were saying that though the removal of the basketball hoop is the main issue, the fact that officials are telling this man he doesn't have access to his first amendment right.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilderness81 View Post
    I don't know that she's a police officer. But yes, it was her job to act professionally and she fell a little short of that although she wasn't that out of line. You are crazy if you don't think those people weren't in the wrong as well. They were not being reasonable, were threatening to climb up on the pole and stay there, etc. The threat of being arrested for their actions was not out of line.



    And what is the statue of limitations on a law like this? Also, the last thing in that entry is about continuing violations, which this would seem to qualify as.
    I don't think this counts as continuing violations... which, on the page is described as:

    "In tort law, if a defendant commits a series of illegal acts against another person, or, in criminal law, if someone commits a continuing crime (like molesting a child over a long period of time, which can be charged as a single offense), the period of limitation begins to run from the last act in the series."

    Having a pole up for 60 years is not a series of actions, it is one "offense" that wasn't dealt with in the first place.

  13. #53
    Herald of the Titans Arganis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ruhenheim
    Posts
    2,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilderness81 View Post
    Also, I just re-read the title of this thread ... wtf does the first amendment have to do with any of this? And really, removing a basketball hoop, even if it were not done legally (which we cannot know), is not a gross violation of anything.
    I'm pretty sure this video is viral because of how unprofessional the police officer was and not because some meaningless basketball hoops were removed from the curb in the middle of nowhere. 1st amendment obviously refers to the way the guys was treated over this matter. Thought I'll admit it's kind of irrelevant.

    The way this situation handled is wrong in every way and a gross mis-allocation of resources.

  14. #54
    Field Marshal Chodokal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Conditional View Post
    Anyone up for a revolution?
    I sure am lets go on twitter and assemble an army of our own.
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
    -Albert Einstein

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilderness81 View Post
    I don't know that she's a police officer. But yes, it was her job to act professionally and she fell a little short of that although she wasn't that out of line. You are crazy if you don't think those people weren't in the wrong as well. They were not being reasonable, were threatening to climb up on the pole and stay there, etc. The threat of being arrested for their actions was not out of line.



    And what is the statue of limitations on a law like this? Also, the last thing in that entry is about continuing violations, which this would seem to qualify as.
    It supports the city's POV. If it was in fact in violation of a law it would be continuously breaking the law and thus the amount of time it was there does not matter.
    Last edited by Assassin1344; 2011-03-28 at 02:41 PM.
    Pyrotix Destruction Warlock
    stalk and kill 6/8 Heroic 25 man apply today

  16. #56
    Police Officers are allowed to lie to you under any circumstance. Whether it be during an investigation, in order to get a confession, or even to subdue a situation that may get out of hand. She had every right to do so in this case. I'm not going to justify the actions of the city workers, I'm sure there was already an appeal made against the city to take down the pole, however it must have been passed. The Police Officer wasn't going to shut her mouth and just let the home owners jump on the pole again (that would lead to a waste of time to just arrest someone) and she also didn't want the inconvenience of towing the car away just to get to the pole (more time spent for a job so simple).

    The facts are that Police Officers can lie to you whenever they please, unless in a court room under oath. How do you think Officers get suspects to finally come clean? Don't you always see prior to a confession an Officer claiming that they will get them lesser chargers in the matter if they confess now rather than later? Officers have nothing to due with that sentencing. A confession to a crime is a confession. Officers will do what they want to get you to confess to gather information.

    Nothing was done wrong in the video. Some of you that get shocked and say that its unlawful need to realize that its really not. There won't be a lawsuit involved for the lie she told. For all we know, they may be crushing the poles as they enter whatever facility they bring it to. The home owners probably can't even pick it up. Its all said to calm the individual down.

  17. #57
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    21,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrianth View Post
    The only thing wrong with this video is the fact that she said that it could left on the driveway but then refused to do so.
    I'm pretty darn sure, especially after watching it again to double check, that it was clearly stated that the city workers were leaving the poles on some owner's driveways as a courtesy. In other words, as a kind gesture they were not expected or in any way required to do.

    It's hardly surprising that when someone's giving you grief for doing your job, enforcing city by-laws, that you're not likely to extend to them any courtesies like that.


    And no, the "60 years" thing doesn't matter. It's against city by-laws, and the only reason you got to keep it for that long is because the city didn't bother to enforce it unless there was a complaint. They got a complaint, they enforced it. This isn't all that complicated.


    Also, I'm pretty sure the blonde lady you see isn't a police officer; she's not in uniform. She's probably a civil servant from the by-law office, who has police officers with her who'd be doing the arresting she's talking about.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I'm pretty darn sure, especially after watching it again to double check, that it was clearly stated that the city workers were leaving the poles on some owner's driveways as a courtesy. In other words, as a kind gesture they were not expected or in any way required to do.

    It's hardly surprising that when someone's giving you grief for doing your job, enforcing city by-laws, that you're not likely to extend to them any courtesies like that.


    And no, the "60 years" thing doesn't matter. It's against city by-laws, and the only reason you got to keep it for that long is because the city didn't bother to enforce it unless there was a complaint. They got a complaint, they enforced it. This isn't all that complicated.
    Did you not watch the video and hear the conversation? Are we not watching the same video? First he asked if they would leave the pole on his property, they said yes. This was before he started screaming at her. Then when they pulled the pole out they started driving away with it, and that's when he started screaming.

    She lied to him. Unprofessional.

  19. #59
    Moderator Wilderness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    3,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Viros View Post
    Did you not watch the video and hear the conversation? Are we not watching the same video? First he asked if they would leave the pole on his property, they said yes. This was before he started screaming at her. Then when they pulled the pole out they started driving away with it, and that's when he started screaming.

    She lied to him. Unprofessional.
    That's true, she did say they could keep it and then said they had to pick it up. The law doesn't say they can keep it right there though, that does seem to be a courtesy that they were extending which they then revoked. That couple was not acting very well either and brought much of that down on themselves. They had been warned about it, they had a chance to remove it themselves, then the lady climbs up on the pole and refuses to come down, then later on when they come back she threatens to do it again. What goes around comes around. You can't act like a spoiled child and expect people to treat you like an adult.
    Raids & Dungeons Mod | <Despotism> 14/14H (10-man); 14/14H (25-man); 2 Days/Week US-Greymane <> Recruiting for Mythic

  20. #60
    You guys need to take up soccer - simple, 2 sweatshirts/jackets/backpacks on the ground anywhere you want em and you have yourselves a perfectly functioning goal which no little hitler law enforcer acting on the spitefullness of an inbred twerp can come & bust your ass over. What a crock though, i'm sure those hoops were doing no harm to anyone and if anything should be encouraged given the current world climate of obesity & physical activity issues and even worse lying to the guys face. Hope he takes them to court, wins & sues the ass off the prat who started the whole thing off with a spienless anonymous complaint!
    Koodledrum - Balnazzar EU - 85 Priest - Retired.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •