• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

TheDemSocialist said:
Oh the Media and coverage of protests... Remember the WTO protests in 1999? Started off all peaceful, huge amount of people peaceful protesting and no news coverage. Then what happened a loose band of anarchists came started breaking ****, THEN the media came and covered it, but of course they covered it as everyone there as violent anarchists who just like to break ****.
Point being is that the media doesnt cover people power movements because they are "important", because they perseeve that as dry and a tip to the corporate media power struggle. They will only cover it if there is some "bang" affect going on for them.
Click to expand...
If it bleeds, it leads.

Then perhaps the Dr. Phil junkies will pay attention. [shudder]
 
Thrilla said:
let's not confuse partisan hyperbole and ideological yammering as critical thought.... it insult critical thinkers when you do so.
Click to expand...
An astute observation, and I do credit you for the critical analysis of your own posts. Well done :thumbs:
 
Thrilla said:
go do your art on your own property then... stop doing art on other people's property.

I see you as a common thief, stealing value from other people's property though your immature, and illegal, activities.
Click to expand...

Ok cool... You want to have a graffiti debate now on the Occupy Oakland thread? Ok have at it...
 
Caine said:
If someone graffitis up a sign where it cannot be read, and then someone who doesn't already know that rule at the intersection goes through it and causes a crash................................
Click to expand...
I could read the sign just fine
 
LaMidRighter said:
That's all I've been talking about. I don't have any names but there have been reports of obstruction, rape, fighting, blocking traffic, camping, public urination, public defication, littering, people are creating fire hazards. These are all documented incidences.
Click to expand...
Ok, assuming these reports are correct, I have no reason to believe they aren't. However your claim was to endangering others, I took that to mean people who aren't protesting, mea culpa. As such it seems you are suggesting that affirming the need for government to protect people from activities they themselves choose to be in... interesting... By extending this argument... since hunting accidents happen local law enforcement should bar people from hunting, Skydivers from skydiving, and people from driving on the road as all of these are activities that people willingly choose to do yet are inherently dangerous to one extent or another.

Still waiting for someone to point to what right of others these people are violating.
 
Josie said:
All because the crowd chose to not obey the law and throw things at policemen. You should be angry at the protesters, not the people who were trying to restore order.
Click to expand...
The people "trying to restore order" were the ones who created the situation for chaos to occur.
 
Thrilla said:
no, he isn't.. he's in fair condition making a full recovery.
Click to expand...
Needing brain surgery and partial loss of speech is a far cry from full recovery. Admittedly his condition was improved from critical.
 
Thrilla said:
wit is not a viable alternative for critical thought... keep that in mind, arrogant one.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not, but it is arguably a precursor, and it sure smoked your wagon
smokin.gif


Note how adults -- liberals (the music professionals) and conservatives (the military professionals) -- co-exist in harmony in the real world:


 
Caine said:
Yes, because if National News didn't report it..... It didn't happen :roll:

Hint/Tip: All sexual assault crimes are not national news.
Click to expand...

Considering the current high profile of OWS and the sensationalist nature of the media, I just can't see this not making the national news if it was indeed credible.

But I'm going to find another example because it may very well be a true story and continuing to question it is not appropriate.
 
Swit said:
Needing brain surgery and partial loss of speech is a far cry from full recovery. Admittedly his condition was improved from critical.
Click to expand...

i'm just relaying what his doctors are saying.....and they are saying he will make a full recovery.

his brain swelling is being watched... if it doesn't subside, he might need a craniectomy to alleviate the pressure.
 
Thrilla said:
i'm just relaying what his doctors are saying.....and they are saying he will make a full recovery.

his brain swelling is being watched... if it doesn't subside, he might need a craniectomy to alleviate the pressure.
Click to expand...
Think his health insurance will cover that?

Or is liberalism a pre-existing condition?
 
Karl said:
Think his health insurance will cover that?

Or is liberalism a pre-existing condition?
Click to expand...

I don't know if he has insurance or not.... or if he is a liberal or not.

...so it's a lil tough to answer your questions.
 
VanceMack said:
Ack...my bad...liberals hate the military when a republican is president. As long as it is a democrat starting wars...its alllll gooood baby. Hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Bull crap! Liberals don't cut Democrats any slack on foreign policy. That's why liberals are particularly happy that the OWS is providing liberal positions to primary the the centrist, Obama, since all the other presidential candidates are more pro-war than Obama, excepting the libertarian, Ron Paul.
 
Swit said:
Ok, assuming these reports are correct, I have no reason to believe they aren't. However your claim was to endangering others, I took that to mean people who aren't protesting, mea culpa. As such it seems you are suggesting that affirming the need for government to protect people from activities they themselves choose to be in... interesting... By extending this argument... since hunting accidents happen local law enforcement should bar people from hunting, Skydivers from skydiving, and people from driving on the road as all of these are activities that people willingly choose to do yet are inherently dangerous to one extent or another.

Still waiting for someone to point to what right of others these people are violating.
Click to expand...
You are kinda reading a little too far into it. I don't care what the protesters do to each other, what I don't want them doing is infringing on the rights of others who have to be in that area because of non-protest factors such as living there or working in the area or owning property. It's not okay to subject them to the dangers of human waste, to risk their safety by committing acts which could erupt in violence or endangering them by accidentally(giving the benefit of the doubt) setting property on fire. They cannot endanger innocents who have not chosen to participate.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You are kinda reading a little too far into it. I don't care what the protesters do to each other, what I don't want them doing is infringing on the rights of others who have to be in that area because of non-protest factors such as living there or working in the area or owning property. It's not okay to subject them to the dangers of human waste, to risk their safety by committing acts which could erupt in violence or endangering them by accidentally(giving the benefit of the doubt) setting property on fire. They cannot endanger innocents who have not chosen to participate.
Click to expand...

OK then I did in fact understand your statement correctly the first time.

How have they endangered non-protesters? Dangers of human waste? I don't even know what that means, in any event I have heard of no one throwing turds at anyone. While deification in a park might be odorous, unsightly, and just down-right disgusting it most definitely is not endangering anyone. committing acts which could erupt in violence.... the only violence that has erupted is after the police took action against them, up until that point they were peacefully squatting in a public park with little to no incident, The only incidents you have cited appear to be against other occupiers and by your own admission that is not what you are referring to. I have heard of no reports of protesters accosting passers by. Setting property on fire..... I haven't heard of that happening either. You would really have to provide more than just speculation in order for your point to be valid. As a matter of fact anyone could accidentally set any property on fire at any time, to claim they are more apt to accidentally set a fire is just not a logically sound argument.

Still waiting for you to show me a specific right of non-protesters' that the occupiers are infringing upon.
 
Swit said:
OK then I did in fact understand your statement correctly the first time.

How have they endangered non-protesters? Dangers of human waste? I don't even know what that means, in any event I have heard of no one throwing turds at anyone. While deification in a park might be odorous, unsightly, and just down-right disgusting it most definitely is not endangering anyone.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree on that, human feces contains pretty much everything your body does which includes diseases that one may be an asymptomatic carrier for, some of the worst communicable diseases are spread through fecal matter, urine not as much but a miniscule probablility. The odor is attrocious but that is the least of problems. Just because it is left in a pile doesn't mean it can't be tracked around by animal or human transit and it does attract vermin and pestulent insects.
committing acts which could erupt in violence.... the only violence that has erupted is after the police took action against them,
Click to expand...
I disagree, assualting the police will erupt in violence, furthermore there have been reports of unrest within the protests, I've seen enough bar fights in my younger days to know that little fights turn into big incidences pretty quickly.
up until that point they were peacefully squatting in a public park with little to no incident, The only incidents you have cited appear to be against other occupiers and by your own admission that is not what you are referring to.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing, what I care about isn't what the law provides for. Squatting is a serious matter, but if there is enough internal problems eventually the police will be called on for a resolution, while I personally don't care what they do the laws are pretty clear. Thus the police come end and try to end the situation, when they do this it is unwise to fight them, thus resisting and endangerment.
I have heard of no reports of protesters accosting passers by.
Click to expand...
Nor have I, but in other cities there were some calling for taking the protest to wealthy household properties, which is accostment and not cool.
Setting property on fire..... I haven't heard of that happening either.
Click to expand...
I want to say that I heard passing reports on television and radio about trashcan fires, not sure though it sounds right.
You would really have to provide more than just speculation in order for your point to be valid. As a matter of fact anyone could accidentally set any property on fire at any time, to claim they are more apt to accidentally set a fire is just not a logically sound argument.
Click to expand...
Think about it, risk is a numbers game, all it takes is a slipup with a lit cigarette, joint, or trash can too close to something flamable. Speculation or no there is logic behind that and it is the logic an insurer or law enforcement official would use.
Still waiting for you to show me a specific right of non-protesters' that the occupiers are infringing upon.
Click to expand...
They have blocked roads in some cities, people have a right to transit so that's one. If they are in fact endangering property that is another, etc.
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
I have to disagree on that, human feces contains pretty much everything your body does which includes diseases that one may be an asymptomatic carrier for, some of the worst communicable diseases are spread through fecal matter, urine not as much but a miniscule probablility. The odor is attrocious but that is the least of problems. Just because it is left in a pile doesn't mean it can't be tracked around by animal or human transit and it does attract vermin and pestulent insects.
Click to expand...
To me this argument is a bit of a stretch. These people are not hobo's, drunkards, and crack heads, they are mostly citizens like you or I. The point being is that the vast majority of them enjoy and most likely adhere to sanitary conditions and while there is no denying that public defecation has most likely occurred it seems to me you are vastly over estimating the magnitude of the situation. Besides, an easy remedy would be to have port-o-potties placed nearby which many other camps and cities around the country have already done. Besides just being a more sound decision it is most likely more cost effective as well. Eviction is not the only solution.

LaMidRighter said:
I disagree, assaulting the police will erupt in violence, furthermore there have been reports of unrest within the protests, I've seen enough bar fights in my younger days to know that little fights turn into big incidences pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you misunderstood what I said... there was no violence until the city took action, no police officers were assaulted until after the eviction took place. In other words violence only ensued after the protesters property was destroyed and the perception that their constitutionally protected rights were being infringed upon. Had that action never taken place then no violence would have been present. Furthermore, by this mentality you just made the argument that bars should not be allowed to operate, concerts held, or any other event that contains a multitude of people some of whom may or may not be consuming alcohol. Aside from some relatively specific laws (Conspiracy to commit murder or Conspiracy to commit treason as examples) laws are typically not applied proactively. I.E. this might happen so we are going to detain you in violation of law x which technically has not occurred yet, and even the two examples I cited must contain, as a matter of law, in order to be prosecuted, "an act of furtherance" which dictates that the accused party attempted and intended to carry out the "plan". This argument of yours just suggests if it might happen we have the right to attempt to prevent it even though we have no evidence it will definitely happen.

LaMidRighter said:
Here's the thing, what I care about isn't what the law provides for. Squatting is a serious matter, but if there is enough internal problems eventually the police will be called on for a resolution, while I personally don't care what they do the laws are pretty clear. Thus the police come end and try to end the situation, when they do this it is unwise to fight them, thus resisting and endangerment.
Click to expand...
Fine until such actions occur then the police should not get involved. These "reports" people are throwing around apparently weren't even serious enough for the mayor to invoke them as a primary reason for eviction which tends to make me think these are not as serious to the general welfare as some here would like us to believe. I have yet to read any sort of report that states in any manner that "Due to serious internal problems inside the camp we are forced to send in the police to forcibly remove the protesters" or its like. In fact, all I can find are vague second-hand references stating some variation of "officials have stated the reason for the eviction is sanitary and safety issues". If there were specific egregious crimes taking place I am sure they would have gotten in front of the cameras and layed them out for us. Either before hand or retrospect yet they have not.

LaMidRighter said:
Nor have I, but in other cities there were some calling for taking the protest to wealthy household properties, which is accostment and not cool.
Click to expand...
Well, I think our definition of accost may differ, but that aside I get the gist, yet as long as they don't trespass I fail to see the legal authority for preventing people from going where they will. That being said if taken to court there are numerous precedence in a situation such as this(people protesting on or near private property with an absence of a public forum) where the court has determined that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are appropriate and thus ruled against such protests.

LaMidRighter said:
I want to say that I heard passing reports on television and radio about trashcan fires, not sure though it sounds right.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that trashcan fires have and are occurring, and although I personally see this as a minimal risk, it is a valid argument in my mind. It is also easily remedied without the need for eviction.

LaMidRighter said:
Think about it, risk is a numbers game, all it takes is a slipup with a lit cigarette, joint, or trash can too close to something flamable. Speculation or no there is logic behind that and it is the logic an insurer or law enforcement official would use.
Click to expand...
Risk is a numbers game, I agree. But in this situation, it doesn't occur to me that the risk of a cigarette fire in the camp is any more likely to occur than in an alley or any other place in the city. The only pictures of the camp being strewn with garbage, that I have seen, was after the police evicted them. A lot of these people are over-zealous about the environment and the majority of functioning camps I have see have little to no rubbish issues. As far as the trashcan fire issue the cans can be removed in lieu of a dumpster (further reducing costs) or just ensuring they are not near a flammable source. Eviction is not the only solution to this issue.

LaMidRighter said:
They have blocked roads in some cities, people have a right to transit so that's one. If they are in fact endangering property that is another, etc.
Click to expand...
Not to be argumentative but people do not have "a right to transit" or even a right to not have their property endangered. Although if you can get a constitutional amendment for these things I would definitely support these, as such neither of these is enumerated in the constitution. Of course you can invoke the ninth amendment but that simply leads to the ridiculous situation where you say people have the right to transit even though its not enumerated and I retort that well then people have the right to camp even though it isn't either. I will say this though, there is a vast selection of case law that supports your claim regarding issues such as these but it comes under the guise of judicial review of proper, time, place, and manner restrictions on the first amendment. And that is exactly how this situation should be handled.... by judicial review. As a matter of fact the U.S. District Court of Northern Ohio is hearing the occupiers case even now, and believes that the case holds enough merits as to have actually ordered an injunction prohibiting Cleveland from taking disciplinary actions against occupy protesters for fear that the city may in fact be infringing upon constitutionally protected freedoms held by the citizens. What I believe is supremely telling is that no one has petitioned the court for a judicial review of whether reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions be placed on these protests proactively. If they thought they would have a slam dunk case my impression is that they would have done so by now, the fact that no city has leads me to believe that city officials think that the courts very likely may not decide in their favor.
 
Last edited:
Swit said:
To me this argument is a bit of a stretch. These people are not hobo's, drunkards, and crack heads, they are mostly citizens like you or I. The point being is that the vast majority of them enjoy and most likely adhere to sanitary conditions and while there is no denying that public defecation has most likely occurred it seems to me you are vastly over estimating the magnitude of the situation. Besides, an easy remedy would be to have port-o-potties placed nearby which many other camps and cities around the country have already done. Besides just being a more sound decision it is most likely more cost effective as well. Eviction is not the only solution.
Click to expand...
People can be upstanding and clean and still have very nasty things going on, that's just medical reality. Assuming most of these people are in fact upstanding which I highly doubt they have been exposed in some cases to three plus weeks of living out in the open which is a great way to pick up new diseases.


Perhaps you misunderstood what I said... there was no violence until the city took action, no police officers were assaulted until after the eviction took place. In other words violence only ensued after the protesters property was destroyed and the perception that their constitutionally protected rights were being infringed upon. Had that action never taken place then no violence would have been present. Furthermore, by this mentality you just made the argument that bars should not be allowed to operate, concerts held, or any other event that contains a multitude of people some of whom may or may not be consuming alcohol. Aside from some relatively specific laws (Conspiracy to commit murder or Conspiracy to commit treason as examples) laws are typically not applied proactively. I.E. this might happen so we are going to detain you in violation of law x which technically has not occurred yet, and even the two examples I cited must contain, as a matter of law, in order to be prosecuted, "an act of furtherance" which dictates that the accused party attempted and intended to carry out the "plan". This argument of yours just suggests if it might happen we have the right to attempt to prevent it even though we have no evidence it will definitely happen.
Click to expand...
I may have misunderstood, I dunno. My point stands though that the violence was not initiated by the police, they were called to do the job of restoring order and the protesters made bad choices. It's not like the police just came in and started kicking ass, warnings were issued and based on laws.


Fine until such actions occur then the police should not get involved. These "reports" people are throwing around apparently weren't even serious enough for the mayor to invoke them as a primary reason for eviction which tends to make me think these are not as serious to the general welfare as some here would like us to believe. I have yet to read any sort of report that states in any manner that "Due to serious internal problems inside the camp we are forced to send in the police to forcibly remove the protesters" or its like. In fact, all I can find are vague second-hand references stating some variation of "officials have stated the reason for the eviction is sanitary and safety issues". If there were specific egregious crimes taking place I am sure they would have gotten in front of the cameras and layed them out for us. Either before hand or retrospect yet they have not.
Click to expand...
Apparently the city and police were of the opinions that there were enough flagrant violations of law to clear the area, they had the legal right and authority to do so.

Well, I think our definition of accost may differ, but that aside I get the gist, yet as long as they don't trespass I fail to see the legal authority for preventing people from going where they will. That being said if taken to court there are numerous precedence in a situation such as this(people protesting on or near private property with an absence of a public forum) where the court has determined that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are appropriate and thus ruled against such protests.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget that illegal camping is a form of trespass, it is squatting and ordinances do prevent it for the reasons I have spelled out.
I have no doubt that trashcan fires have and are occurring, and although I personally see this as a minimal risk, it is a valid argument in my mind. It is also easily remedied without the need for eviction.
Click to expand...
I take uncontrolled fire seriously, over the last couple of winters my city and New Orleans lost some very valuable historical buildings because of "keep warm" fires started near or within that got out of control.
 
Last edited:
Swit said:
Risk is a numbers game, I agree. But in this situation, it doesn't occur to me that the risk of a cigarette fire in the camp is any more likely to occur than in an alley or any other place in the city. The only pictures of the camp being strewn with garbage, that I have seen, was after the police evicted them. A lot of these people are over-zealous about the environment and the majority of functioning camps I have see have little to no rubbish issues. As far as the trashcan fire issue the cans can be removed in lieu of a dumpster (further reducing costs) or just ensuring they are not near a flammable source. Eviction is not the only solution to this issue.
Click to expand...
Again though, with that sheer number you are guaranteed to have idiots amongst them, not everyone is a well adjusted individual or has common sense.


Not to be argumentative but people do not have "a right to transit" or even a right to not have their property endangered. Although if you can get a constitutional amendment for these things I would definitely support these, as such neither of these is enumerated in the constitution.
Click to expand...
Correct, but there is an implied right to commerce within the ninth, transit is required to fullfill commerce so therefore it is a violation of the right of commerce to stop someone from engaging in their job. As well there is a property rights clause within the fourth and fifth amendments respectively, to destroy or risk my property is to violate my rights.
Of course you can invoke the ninth amendment but that simply leads to the ridiculous situation where you say people have the right to transit even though its not enumerated and I retort that well then people have the right to camp even though it isn't either.
Click to expand...
People can camp all they want, but not on city/state/private property.
I will say this though, there is a vast selection of case law that supports your claim regarding issues such as these but it comes under the guise of judicial review of proper, time, place, and manner restrictions on the first amendment. And that is exactly how this situation should be handled.... by judicial review.
Click to expand...
I agree, but it should not be court shopped as many of these issues tend to be.
As a matter of fact the U.S. District Court of Northern Ohio is hearing the occupiers case even now, and believes that the case holds enough merits as to have actually ordered an injunction prohibiting Cleveland from taking disciplinary actions against occupy protesters for fear that the city may in fact be infringing upon constitutionally protected freedoms held by the citizens. What I believe is supremely telling is that no one has petitioned the court for a judicial review of whether reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions be placed on these protests proactively. If they thought they would have a slam dunk case my impression is that they would have done so by now, the fact that no city has leads me to believe that city officials think that the courts very likely may not decide in their favor.
Click to expand...
Even though I am not a fan of appeals to the court for the reasons of judicial prejudices it's the best way to solve these issues. I just hope the courts render proper decisions and not some of the contorted crap that fed courts are famous for.
 
LaMidRighter said:
People can be upstanding and clean and still have very nasty things going on, that's just medical reality. Assuming most of these people are in fact upstanding which I highly doubt they have been exposed in some cases to three plus weeks of living out in the open which is a great way to pick up new diseases.
Click to expand...
While yes there is truth to the argument that "If you go out in public with others present, the opportunity to pick up a communicable disease does in fact exit" This does not appear to me to be any different than it would be in an office building or other work area.... both of which have made news in the past of spreading communicable diseases due to the close proximity of those that were infected, in fact there have been one or two cases in the last decade here in Chicago where entire highrises were labeled "sick buildings". The argument you made first was that human fecal matter would be the catalyst, i just haven't seen any evidence to support this claim. Also, having served in the infantry in the Marine Corps and having had extended training operations I can attest to 6+ week training operations where once (in Alaska) we literally had to defecate in our MRE bags (The plastic bags our field rations came in) and keep them either in our pack, cargo pockets or shelters until we could deposit them in an appropriate supply vehicle. Without getting into too much detail the rationale for this was the Alaskan Forest service was worried about the chemicals and preservative contained in the food negatively effecting local wildlife. I guess what I am saying is that having lived out of doors on numerous occasions with at least one that relatively closely relates a situation where multitudes of people had to live near their own waste for extended periods of time with no ill effects. I would also like point out that at Zucotti park in New York they have been there not for 3 but 7 weeks so far with none of the effects you are describing.

LaMidRighter said:
I may have misunderstood, I dunno. My point stands though that the violence was not initiated by the police, they were called to do the job of restoring order and the protesters made bad choices. It's not like the police just came in and started kicking ass, warnings were issued and based on laws.
Click to expand...
And it appears that many believe the police did in fact initiate the violence. Just because the police were called to do a job, does not necessarily means they did it non-violently, and the pictures of the park post-eviction don't seem to show a soft-handed eviction process on behalf of the police. More to the point the 85 arrests that took place have been reported to be for "unlawful assembly" and "illegal lodging". I tried to find assault, resisting, etc. which might be construed as violence from protesters toward police during the eviction but wasn't able to find any numbers or even general reference. This leads me to believe there is strong evidence to suggest the eviction process was more forceful and physical than not. Not to mention that aggressively arousing people from slumber can often times result unpredictable and unintended behavior on behalf of he who is awoken due to the general confusion this creates. I would also like to point out that arrests are reported to have been started "shortly before" 5:00 am and largely completed by 5:05 am. Lest just say, for the sake of argument "shortly before is 4:45. 20 minutes to wake and arrest 85 people? Seems like a blitz to me.


LaMidRighter said:
Apparently the city and police were of the opinions that there were enough flagrant violations of law to clear the area, they had the legal right and authority to do so.
Click to expand...
I agree, apparently they did think that. However, thinking you have the legal "right and authority" to do something does not equate to actually having it. Keep in mind the protesters believed they had the legal "right and authority" to be there and exercise their first amendment right and you disagree, as do a great many people. There appear to be enough people on both sides of the fence to warrant a judicial review at this point in time, and I would espouse that the fact that at least one U.S. District court is willing to even hear the case, I believe, lends credibility to my assertion. In summary, if their own district court (they would have to file suit), would determine that their Constitutionally Protected Rights were violated, then the actions taken by the city and local law enforcement will have been found to be lacking in both the right to do so as they had no legal authority.

LaMidRighter said:
Let's not forget that illegal camping is a form of trespass, it is squatting and ordinances do prevent it for the reasons I have spelled out.
Click to expand...
Correct, however since this situation has sprung into the public dialog, said camping cannot be determined to be illegal until such time as a court governing the area determines that reasonable time, place and manner restrictions be applied.

LaMidRighter said:
I take uncontrolled fire seriously, over the last couple of winters my city and New Orleans lost some very valuable historical buildings because of "keep warm" fires started near or within that got out of control.
Click to expand...
I agree uncontrolled fire is a serious issue, I already agreed with you that some solution needs to be put in place. I would argue that a controlled fire can easily become uncontrolled, and that a trashcan fire is a prime example of a at risk controlled fire that could very easily become uncontrolled. I would also argue that if one was some how able to determine the total number of trashcans fire which went out of control and damaged property as a proportion of the Total number of trashcan fires, that the percentage of risk is EXTREMELY minimal. I do however admit that trying to come up with this data would be virtually impossible. In general this is a situation which can be corrected by means other than eviction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom