Housing protest leads to takeover of duplex
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Housing protest leads to takeover of duplex
Only in San Francisco:
A group of homeless people and housing activists took over a privately owned Mission District duplex on Sunday in what served as the climax of a protest designed to promote use of San Francisco's vacant buildings as shelters for the needy.
But the owner of the property - who was targeted over his eviction of a tenant - said the demonstration was nothing more than breaking and entering.
"It's not actually vacant. I use it for my own personal uses," Ara Tehlirian of Daly City said in an interview, adding that he was in contact with the San Francisco Police Department. "I know nothing other than my property was apparently broken into."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0kMPySmaA
But the owner of the property - who was targeted over his eviction of a tenant - said the demonstration was nothing more than breaking and entering.
"It's not actually vacant. I use it for my own personal uses," Ara Tehlirian of Daly City said in an interview, adding that he was in contact with the San Francisco Police Department. "I know nothing other than my property was apparently broken into."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0kMPySmaA
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 22,776
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
Heard about this on the news last night. What a building owner does with his own unoccupied building is his/her choice! Just because he/she doesn't appear to be using it to your standards, doesn't mean you get to decide how it is use! Yeah, it'd be nice if he let it be used for a shelter, but its still his friggin' building!
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Castle Law.
California (California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197 [3]. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."
California (California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197 [3]. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Castle Law.
California (California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197 [3]. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."
California (California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197 [3]. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."
"C'mon!...Let's kick down the door & squat!!!"
"Pop...pop...pop...pop..."
I don't need more cowbell dammit!
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,203
From: Equally as important as Walter
Car Info: E82
Its not really funny at all that jobless, non-tax paying leeches think they can do what they want with property belonging to a tax-paying employed citizen just becuase it is not being used to their standard.
If I were the property owner I would demand that SFPD arrest and prosecute each and every one of them or I would stop paying taxes to the city of San Francisco since I would not be recieving the services those taxes are supposed to provide.
If I were the property owner I would demand that SFPD arrest and prosecute each and every one of them or I would stop paying taxes to the city of San Francisco since I would not be recieving the services those taxes are supposed to provide.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JourdanWithaU
NorCal Classifieds
11
Jul 28, 2014 05:23 PM
HellaDumb
Teh Politics Forum
9
Nov 15, 2004 02:58 PM
Nick Koan
Latest i-Club Reviews, Features, and Articles
1
Aug 2, 2004 05:03 PM