• 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!

Homeowner Jailed for Hosting Bible Study

It isn't about ZONING at all. It is about getting someone they don't like.

NO ONE has "sprinkler heads" in their house. That's all just BS.
Actually, some cities are requiring them now for new home construction. It's still pretty rare, though.
 
They turned him away when he turned himself it. I think his 'jail time' then should start now.

The city counsel election hasn't happened yet.

The police, code enforcement and fire marshall mass raided his house twice writing him 7 more citations?

I hope the guy wins. Those petty good-ole-boy-rich-white-people controlling city hall need some ex gangbanger religious zealot giving them hell on city council.

The unanswered question is what relative of who at city hall lives on that block. That'd tell the whole true story.

I hope this guy gets his "house" repossesed for being such a dick. i hope he loses every penny he has in court tryign to get it back!
Nah I don't actually hope for all I'mnot that vindictive. But it is appearing less and less likely that this guy is a victim and more and more liek he is a jerk who refuses to obey the law. he coudl have created his "church" and followed all the regulations but he seems more interested in scamming the system than in god.
 
I hope this guy gets his "house" repossesed for being such a dick. i hope he loses every penny he has in court tryign to get it back!
Nah I don't actually hope for all I'mnot that vindictive. But it is appearing less and less likely that this guy is a victim and more and more liek he is a jerk who refuses to obey the law. he coudl have created his "church" and followed all the regulations but he seems more interested in scamming the system than in god.

Since he now claims that he isn't operating a church, I think that he should have to pay the back taxes that should have been assessed from 2008 to the present.
 
I agree fines should have been enough, Only this guy ignored the fines and refused to comply. When dealing with reasonable people reasonable methods usually work. This guy was not trying to be reasonable. How many times do they fine someone who refuses to pay or change his ways before you take it to another level? What would that level be?
That is a reasonable question. I suppose the next step should be to tell he he cannot use the room for meetings until it has been confirmed that he meets the building codes through a follow-up inspection. If he violates that direction (I assume there is an authority to do so under the government's safety interest) then he would be jailed for something more serious than building code violations.
 
I agree, in principle, but this sounds like the guy pushed them to an extreme solution. What are they supposed to do in an extreme situation like this? Was the city supposed to be like a wimpy ineffective parent and say "Don't do that.", ad nauseum?

Now that I have learned more about the details than the original article said, I have come to the conclusion that... at least in this case... the city was more patient and lenient than they needed to be.
You make good comments. I think the next step should have been a legal direction to not use the building until the code violations had been made compliant. Then if he violated that he would be fined and spend time in jail for something more serious than building code violations.

Do you really want a city to be able to put you in jail if you have building code violations? I do not. That is way too much power to give a city for these kinds of violations.
 
I was on the fence at first but this guy clearly is trying to be a jerk and disobeying/disrespecing every rule and everyone
I don't think your sprinkler analogy holds.
Here is a better example:
Guy opens a daycare in his home, without proper permits/zoning. Refuses to build a fence around home to keep kids in, refuses to have guardrail on balcony to keep kids from fallign/getting injured. Refuses to add a 2nd entrance to said daycare to avoid problems from fire etc. I could go on. Town cites him repeatedly, fines him, brings him to court. He refuses to follow the law or pay fines. What should the town do? Again not sure if jail was best option but I can't think of anything else other than repossesing his house that would have any effect on him.
Uh, do these mythical children have mythical parents?

Are you really for a city having the authority to jail you for building code violations?
 
I hope this guy gets his "house" repossesed for being such a dick. i hope he loses every penny he has in court tryign to get it back!
Nah I don't actually hope for all I'mnot that vindictive. But it is appearing less and less likely that this guy is a victim and more and more liek he is a jerk who refuses to obey the law. he coudl have created his "church" and followed all the regulations but he seems more interested in scamming the system than in god.
Okay so are you leaning toward putting people into city jails if they are jerks?

If he needs jail time shouldn't it be for something more serious that building code violations?
 
More information from the city of Phoenix
Official Site of the City of Phoenix - Fact Sheet Regarding the Michael Salman Case

The Michael Salman court case is about building safety. Building and safety codes are in-place to protect the safety and welfare of all of our residents. Some of the relevant facts in this case include:

A house of worship is allowed in any zoning district in the City of Phoenix
The case is about the building that is used for regular assembly does not meet construction and fire code requirements for assembly
All houses of worship in the City of Phoenix must conform to the same codes

Mr. Salman had regular gatherings of up to 80 people. He held services twice a week and collected a tithe at the services. The building that he held services in had a dais and chairs were aligned in a pew formation. He held himself out as a being a church through the media (Harvest Christian Church) and claimed a church status for tax exemption purposes on his property.

Due to the regular, reoccurring high vehicular traffic in this quiet residential neighborhood, neighbors repeatedly complained about the public assembly occurring on his property. Because of the multiple, reoccurring complaints, the City investigated the activity and discovered numerous building code violations primarily related to fire safety standards. Once apprised of these violations, the City could be held liable for not enforcing safety code requirements in the event anyone was injured on the premises. Prior to commencement of prosecution, Mr. Salman was asked, repeatedly, to comply with the safety codes of the City. He chose to ignore these requests for voluntary compliance prior to the commencement of any proceedings.

Below is a summary of the case from the City's Law Department, including quotes from the relevant court judgments.
 
That is a reasonable question. I suppose the next step should be to tell he he cannot use the room for meetings until it has been confirmed that he meets the building codes through a follow-up inspection. If he violates that direction (I assume there is an authority to do so under the government's safety interest) then he would be jailed for something more serious than building code violations.

I assume he was told after each violation that he had to stop yet he didn't. Yes that's an assumption on my part Yes we don't have the whole story but Like I said before it seems like he was willfully disregarding the city codes. Your scenario is still putting him in jail for violating regulations and in fact it may have happened similar to that, I don't know. It is possible that given the whole story I would find the town at fault, and as I said I'm not sure jail would be best option but it seems that the town tried but he refused to be reasonable.
 
Okay so are you leaning toward putting people into city jails if they are jerks?

If he needs jail time shouldn't it be for something more serious that building code violations?

No I am not saying peopel should be jailed for being jerks I said this guy was being a jerk because it seems he was willfully disregarding the city codes and pissing off his neighbors and REFUSING TO OBEY THE LAW. What would you do with someone who refuses to obey the law? How many violations would he have to recieve before they go something stronger?
 
I guess you're resorting to ad homs because even you realize that your argument has been pwned by me

What argument did you raise? I didn't see one. You're not the only person who likes to ridicule low income people.
 
No I am not saying peopel should be jailed for being jerks I said this guy was being a jerk because it seems he was willfully disregarding the city codes and pissing off his neighbors and REFUSING TO OBEY THE LAW. What would you do with someone who refuses to obey the law? How many violations would he have to recieve before they go something stronger?


Like I've said, the government wouldn't tolerate a law breaker like MLK Jr who not only refused to obey the law but openly called for people to violate laws en mass. White people probably hated him more than that hate this guy, but back then government to weak to stop law breakers who refuse to comply with local laws. Local officers should have written every marcher violating ordinances against public gatherings without a permit a separate ticket for each and every block they walked, plus a ticket each for every jaywalking for every block, and a ticket for impeding traffic for every block, and a ticket for disobeying officers for every block, and a ticket for disorderly conduct for every block. At least 40 to 60 tickets each, so they could then order them to stay within the own community and report all their activities for years as a condition of probation.

WE MUST NOT TOLERATE PEOPLE VIOLATING LOCAL ORDINANCES! Especially zoning ordinances that say how many people you can allow in your home and why you allow them. Permission to go into someone else's home should require a permit and prior government permission anyway.

Its like that malcontent Rosa Parks breaking local ordinances. The city only wrote her ONE ticket. What whimps! They should have written at least 30 or 50. That's the way to deal with law breakers who violate local ordinances. LAW BREAKERS REFUSING TO FOLLOW LOCAL ORDINANCES MUST BE STOPPED, PUNISHED, MONITORED AND CONTROLLED!!!

Besides, no one wants to live around anyone who has a shack in his backyard. That's really bad for property values and maintaining real estate property values of LAND a person OWNS is the most fundamental of all human and civil rights bare none.
 
Last edited:
Like I've said, the government wouldn't tolerate a law breaker like MLK Jr who not only refused to obey the law but openly called for people to violate laws en mass. White people probably hated him more than that hate this guy, but back then government to weak to stop law breakers who refuse to comply with local laws. Local officers should have written every marcher violating ordinances against public gatherings without a permit a separate ticket for each and every block they walked, plus a ticket each for every jaywalking for every block, and a ticket for impeding traffic for every block, and a ticket for disobeying officers for every block, and a ticket for disorderly conduct for every block. At least 40 to 60 tickets each, so they could then order them to stay within the own community and report all their activities for years as a condition of probation.

WE MUST NOT TOLERATE PEOPLE VIOLATING LOCAL ORDINANCES! Especially zoning ordinances that say how many people you can allow in your home and why you allow them. Permission to go into someone else's home should require a permit and prior government permission anyway.

Its like that malcontent Rosa Parks breaking local ordinances. The city only wrote her ONE ticket. What whimps! They should have written at least 30 or 50. That's the way to deal with law breakers who violate local ordinances. LAW BREAKERS REFUSING TO FOLLOW LOCAL ORDINANCES MUST BE STOPPED, PUNISHED, MONITORED AND CONTROLLED!!!

Besides, no one wants to live around anyone who has a shack in his backyard. That's really bad for property values and maintaining real estate property values of LAND a person OWNS is the most fundamental of all human and civil rights bare none.

Not only is it dishonest to compare this idiot to MLK, but MLK wasn't fined when he broke the law; He was thrown in jail
 
Like I've said, the government wouldn't tolerate a law breaker like MLK Jr who not only refused to obey the law but openly called for people to violate laws en mass. White people probably hated him more than that hate this guy, but back then government to weak to stop law breakers who refuse to comply with local laws. Local officers should have written every marcher violating ordinances against public gatherings without a permit a separate ticket for each and every block they walked, plus a ticket each for every jaywalking for every block, and a ticket for impeding traffic for every block, and a ticket for disobeying officers for every block, and a ticket for disorderly conduct for every block. At least 40 to 60 tickets each, so they could then order them to stay within the own community and report all their activities for years as a condition of probation.

WE MUST NOT TOLERATE PEOPLE VIOLATING LOCAL ORDINANCES! Especially zoning ordinances that say how many people you can allow in your home and why you allow them. Permission to go into someone else's home should require a permit and prior government permission anyway.

Its like that malcontent Rosa Parks breaking local ordinances. The city only wrote her ONE ticket. What whimps! They should have written at least 30 or 50. That's the way to deal with law breakers who violate local ordinances. LAW BREAKERS REFUSING TO FOLLOW LOCAL ORDINANCES MUST BE STOPPED, PUNISHED, MONITORED AND CONTROLLED!!!

Besides, no one wants to live around anyone who has a shack in his backyard. That's really bad for property values and maintaining real estate property values of LAND a person OWNS is the most fundamental of all human and civil rights bare none.


Building codes nor zoning laws in this case are not unConstitutional.
 
How many sprinkler heads and handcap parking signs and stalls do you have at your house?

Or where Obama went to House political parties when he campaigned?

Everyone without sprinkler head fire suppression systems and handicap parking places and signs may never have people over to their house, and if they do they MUST be arrested for endangering guests and violating the the rights of the handicapped.

Do YOU have the necessary size power-out exit signs at your house or apartment? If not, when do you plan to correct this criminal neglect and activity? Or are you committed to gross criminal conduct?

Sent to jail for not having sprinkler heads in his house for Bible studies. Sicko middle class white people hate-others immorality and government oppression.

I don't really think that is what the American Revolution was about....

"King George, for refusing to create and enforce residential anti-fire safety standards and necessary prison space for violators and other inaction of a weak King, we hereby declare our independence so we may self impose 1,000,000,000 pages of behavior regulations by 1,000,000 goverment officials including in the privacy of people's homes for the common good."

Yes, that's what it was about.

Joko, I'm reading your posts and seriously wondering if you post and drink or do drugs at the same time. It's a stretch to connect much of anything you've posted to the OP. You are not making much sense.
 
Awesome. Is this just for building code violations? Or is it for any administrative issue?

A number of people on this site have posted many resources and links that IF you would take the time to read and compare would give you a much clearer picture of the issue. You want to argue bits and pieces and argue about what you don't understand. Go back and read the links provided and find out for yourself if it is just for building code violations. Stop expecting people to do the work for you.
 
Like I've said, the government wouldn't tolerate a law breaker like MLK Jr who not only refused to obey the law but openly called for people to violate laws en mass. White people probably hated him more than that hate this guy, but back then government to weak to stop law breakers who refuse to comply with local laws. Local officers should have written every marcher violating ordinances against public gatherings without a permit a separate ticket for each and every block they walked, plus a ticket each for every jaywalking for every block, and a ticket for impeding traffic for every block, and a ticket for disobeying officers for every block, and a ticket for disorderly conduct for every block. At least 40 to 60 tickets each, so they could then order them to stay within the own community and report all their activities for years as a condition of probation.

WE MUST NOT TOLERATE PEOPLE VIOLATING LOCAL ORDINANCES! Especially zoning ordinances that say how many people you can allow in your home and why you allow them. Permission to go into someone else's home should require a permit and prior government permission anyway.

Its like that malcontent Rosa Parks breaking local ordinances. The city only wrote her ONE ticket. What whimps! They should have written at least 30 or 50. That's the way to deal with law breakers who violate local ordinances. LAW BREAKERS REFUSING TO FOLLOW LOCAL ORDINANCES MUST BE STOPPED, PUNISHED, MONITORED AND CONTROLLED!!!

Besides, no one wants to live around anyone who has a shack in his backyard. That's really bad for property values and maintaining real estate property values of LAND a person OWNS is the most fundamental of all human and civil rights bare none.

This is not a civil rights protest. This is a case of a guy willfully disobeying the law, not to advance civil rights but because he just can't be bothered. Having some peopel use a different water fountain, sit at the backof the bus or not be allowed in certain schools based on "race" is not comparable with a guy who refuses to have a building that is built in a safe manner to house the 50 + people he has there on a regular basis. I suppose bar owners shoudl be allowed to flaunt the laws, have 1 fire exit, allow 2x the amount of people in the building, not install sprinklers etc...
To compare this guy to MLK or Rosa Parks is ridiculous and an insult to them.
 
Like I've said, the government wouldn't tolerate a law breaker like MLK Jr who not only refused to obey the law but openly called for people to violate laws en mass. White people probably hated him more than that hate this guy, but back then government to weak to stop law breakers who refuse to comply with local laws. Local officers should have written every marcher violating ordinances against public gatherings without a permit a separate ticket for each and every block they walked, plus a ticket each for every jaywalking for every block, and a ticket for impeding traffic for every block, and a ticket for disobeying officers for every block, and a ticket for disorderly conduct for every block. At least 40 to 60 tickets each, so they could then order them to stay within the own community and report all their activities for years as a condition of probation.

WE MUST NOT TOLERATE PEOPLE VIOLATING LOCAL ORDINANCES! Especially zoning ordinances that say how many people you can allow in your home and why you allow them. Permission to go into someone else's home should require a permit and prior government permission anyway.

Its like that malcontent Rosa Parks breaking local ordinances. The city only wrote her ONE ticket. What whimps! They should have written at least 30 or 50. That's the way to deal with law breakers who violate local ordinances. LAW BREAKERS REFUSING TO FOLLOW LOCAL ORDINANCES MUST BE STOPPED, PUNISHED, MONITORED AND CONTROLLED!!!

Besides, no one wants to live around anyone who has a shack in his backyard. That's really bad for property values and maintaining real estate property values of LAND a person OWNS is the most fundamental of all human and civil rights bare none.

You are just spouting irrelevant drivel now, aren't you? There is not a single valid parallel to be drawn between this guy, who has every right and opportunity to run his church provided he obeys safety regs, and MLK, Rosa Parks or any other part of the civil rights movement. Just what civil rights issue do you believe he is protesting? And can you back that up with prima facie evidence? There is no infringement on his right to run his own church, just not at that property. Were he to own a cemetery plot, a lighthouse or a boat-yard, if it isn't zoned for public use he can't use it as a church.

What was your position on the Ground Zero mosque issue?
 
Back
Top Bottom