I agree 100%. The occupancy law discriminates against people based on their relationship status, not their behavior. It's clearly unconstitutional, and that has been the judicial ruling in all the states where it has been adjudicated. I'm surprised the city attorney, Tom Carr, hasn't advised city council to enact new ordinances that will accomplish what citizens want - reasonable noise levels, yards that aren't trashed, no dogs barking loudly for long periods, etc.
But wait - We have those laws on the books already. OK. Enforce them! Problem solved.
Having more diversity in the views of the speakers sounds like a great idea. I'd like to see some of the liberal policy wonks eliminated. They spout the usual politically correct liberal talking points, but most don't have a strong foundational value system. Let's hear from more radical voices - people from the Black Lives Matter movement, and the Occupy Movement, Indigenous People's Rights activists, and Palestinian speakers. I'll even be happy to have these voices "balanced" with people from the Tea Party, and other conservative movements. Anything but the usual bunch of liberals! Aside from a few exceptional speakers, I stopped attending the CWA because most of the speakers never say anything I haven't heard many times before.
And another thing - Do we really want to have a law on the books that illegally legislates against lifestyle choices, and can so easily be gamed? How can it be gamed? Simple: The unrelated renters say they're related - my grandmother was the sister of my housemate's grandfather. Thus we're cousins. And if that doesn't work, just register for a civil union with a housemate. Voila, problem solved.
Come on city council, think about what people don't like about their neighbors: noise, filth, etc, and enforce these ordinances. Leave lifestyles out of the equation!
Before the city council initiates a stepped-up enforcement of this ordinance it should research the court cases that have gone to other states' supreme courts (e.g. NY State.) These courts have found that laws that discriminate on the basis of relationship status are unconstitutional. This ordinance would allow a family of two parents, a grandparent, and seven children to occupy a dwelling, and still have room for two renters, while four single people would be illegal. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Do your homework, city attorney Tom Carr!
I agree fully, Paul. What would have happened if a neighbor shot the kid with the hammer standing on a railing 15 feet above? Answer: The neighbor would have been indicted for manslaughter. The kid posed no threat to the cop, and there was no reasonable basis that the cop should have feared for his life. The problem with this case and so many like it around the country is that the DA, who works every day with the police force, is biased in its favor. DA's want to maintain good working relations with the police, and almost never bring charges against cops. It's time we stop treating cops differently than we treat other citizens. We need special prosecutors in all cases of citizens killed by the police.
This is exactly the kind of short-sighted thinking I've come to expect from Polis. So, think for a minute what his proposal will accomplish: In an effort to keep a particular college campus safe, he would have a student expelled who more likely than not did not commit an assault. This student, in Polis' own scenario, would then apply for admission at another college. Assuming he is accepted, this second college is now endangered by his presence. So what has this actually accomplished?: (1) The first college may or may not be more safe, no one can know, (2) the second college may or may not be less safe, no one can know, and (3) the expelled student has had his life turned upside-down, most likely for no reason. Thank, Jared!
The problem in this instance, and far too many others like it, is police culture and training. The argument that the cop feared for his life is specious. A normal person fearing for her life in this situation would simply back up a few feet so that if the kid jumped he wouldn't land on you. And to argue that someone holding a hammer deserves to be shot because a thrown hammer could be deadly, well, so could a thrown rock or tire iron. or any other object with a little weight. Do we want to live in a society where we allow cops to kill people for holding a heavy object?
Here's an article that describes how police in the US kill people at 70 times the rate of police in other developed countries. 70 TIMES! Last year 1100 people were killed by cops in the US, while cops in England killed one person. The US has about six times the population in England, so an equivalent figure here would be six killed.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citi...
Now, a valid argument can be made that there are far more guns in the hands of US citizens than there are in the hands of those in other countries. But that can't be said for hammers.
I agree fully, Wendy. This was not only a tragedy, it was criminal. Unfortunately, as is so typical in cases like this, the cop will not be charged. Any civilian doing the killing would be charged with manslaughter at least.
As you might have noticed, Wendy, from the two letters you read on this matter, the cops and their supporters are monitoring the media. They'll be all over this letter with ridiculous comments for you and down arrows for me.
Well said, Professor Emiteris Mayer! The only people who can consider these ads inflammatory are people who don't believe in facts. Fact: US taxpayers provide the Israeli government well over $3B annually in aid, most of it military aid. Fact: The weapons that this aid provides are used to kill Palestinians - over 2200 in the recent Gaza invasion. Fact: The UN reported that at least 67% of the Palestinian deaths in Gaza were civilians, while less than 10% of the Israeli deaths were civilians. These are the facts the Denver bus ads conveyed.
To be opposed to the ads one has to be opposed to facts or opposed to free speech or opposed to both. There's no getting around that fact.
What the writer refers to as profiling would more accurately be called stereotyping. The problem with stereotyping is that is is wrong far more than it is right. Who would like to be an innocent member of a stereotyped class made to suffer for the actions of others. Blacks in NYC were being unfairly targeted for stop and frisk searches for years. Imagine how you would feel if you had your day disrupted with this.
It's not everyday you'll see me quoting the so called Anti-Defamation League, but even it opposes this odious practice: "The use of race, ethnicity, or any such criterion as a sole basis for criminal suspicion in making traffic stops undermines public trust in law enforcement, widens the gulf that exists between white and minority perceptions of fairness, is a violation of the motorist’s civil rights and stands in conflict with the core values of law enforcement."
http://archive.adl.org/civil_rights/letter-to-ric...
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Joint