Arrested for stealing electric? Really??

[SmokeyParkCop]

This is a similar case, but in a different state.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/20091436/2012/11/14/city-under-fire-after-arresting-homeless-man-for-charging-cell-phone-in-park

The case was thrown out by a judge and the police department is facing charges for false arrest.

http://www.mysuncoast.com/news/local/sarasota-pd-faces-three-lawsuits-for-false-arrest/article_f3a3ae66-2bac-11e3-8cb1-001a4bcf6878.html

 

[justalayman]

why did the judge throw it out? Was it that it was not actually a crime or the judge was of the mind of that he felt the crime was de minimus and as such, simply chose to not continue the prosecution?


Nobody in either link ever said what the guy did wasn't illegal. They are simply making an issue of the de minimus value of the theft, just like in the car charging issue.

If there were no other reasons to charge the car charger guy than he plugged in his car for a few minutes, I suspect it would not have been filed. He was not allowed on the grounds of the school without permission; he didn't have that permission. He attempted to subtly suggest the cop would be responsible for some damage on car chargers guy's car when the damage was pre-existing. In simple terms; he was a self righteous ass and deserved what he got. Karma can be a bitch.

 

[cbg]

Again, you are getting public property and private property mixed up.

I'm not the one getting them mixed up, pal. But you go right ahead. Attempt to validate your theories by making personal use of something that belongs to another entity without asking for permission. Let us know how it works out for you when you tell the judge that it didn't say it was private; therefore permission to use it is assumed and you were within your rights.

Don't call anyone here for bail money.

 

[SmokeyParkCop]

I'm not the one getting them mixed up, pal. But you go right ahead. Attempt to validate your theories by making personal use of something that belongs to another entity without asking for permission. Let us know how it works out for you when you tell the judge that it didn't say it was private; therefore permission to use it is assumed and you were within your rights.

Don't call anyone here for bail money.

Did you see the related legal history i posted?

 

[quincy]

This is a similar case, but in a different state.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/20091436/2012/11/14/city-under-fire-after-arresting-homeless-man-for-charging-cell-phone-in-park

The case was thrown out by a judge and the police department is facing charges for false arrest.

http://www.mysuncoast.com/news/local/sarasota-pd-faces-three-lawsuits-for-false-arrest/article_f3a3ae66-2bac-11e3-8cb1-001a4bcf6878.html

The Kersey case is not really all that similar, Smokey. But your concerted effort to find something to support your contention that publicly accessible outlets are always free for the public to use is, at least, somewhat admirable.

The major issue in Sarasota is that the police have been (unfairly) targeting the homeless with arrests, and this is why the ACLU got involved. It has been said of Sarasota that they have two sets of laws - one for the rich and one for the poor.

In Sarasota, for example, there are places where electric car owners (ie, generally the wealthy) can charge their electric vehicles for free. They have been given permission by the City to use these electrical outlets at no cost. There has been no such permission granted the homeless (or others), however, who regularly have been using the electrical outlets in Gillepsie Park to recharge their cell phones and electric wheelchairs.

Without permission, the City is saying that using the publicly accessible outlets in the Park is stealing electricity from the City (albeit a minimal amount, certainly a lot less than what is given away for free to the electric car owners). The police in Sarasota had several times advised the homeless in the Park to use the electrical outlets in the homeless shelters if they needed to recharge their phones. Darren Kersey charged his phone in the Park anyway and it was for theft of utilities that Darren Kersey was arrested.

Had there not been several arrests of the homeless in the days surrounding Kersey's arrest (including a battering by the police of a homeless man who was chalking a sidewalk), and several incidents involving the police and the homeless in the past in Sarasota, the "theft of utilities" arrest may have gone unnoticed. Kersey did not have the $500 required for his release, so he spent the night in jail.

Andrea Mogensen of the ACLU, a long-time advocate for the indigent and homeless, filed suit in October against the City, for false arrest, on behalf of three of the homeless men targeted - one arrested for disorderly conduct, one arrested for sidewalk chalking, and one on behalf of Kersey (the police, as a note, were never charged with a battering crime in the sidewalk chalking incident).

I am not sure how Kersey's use of an outlet in a Sarasota park to charge his cell phone applies to an electric car owner in Georgia. Do you have anything else to provide us, Smokey, that may actually apply in some way to the unauthorized use of a school's outdoor electrical outlet to recharge an electric vehicle?

 

[cbg]

You mean the case in a different state with a different set of circumstances that doesn't apply to this situation?

 

[SmokeyParkCop]

So you saying that a case in which a judge found that it was NOT illegal to use a public outlet to charge privately owned property when a patron of that public property was doing it, isn't related to this case of a person using a public outlet to charge privately owned property while he was a patron of that property??

Am i missing something? Have you guys posted ANYTHING to dispute this? I swear i feel like i'm the only sane person responding to this thread.....OR, you guys are just arguing to be argumentative.

 

[quincy]

So you saying that a case in which a judge found that it was NOT illegal to use a public outlet to charge privately owned property when a patron of that public property was doing it, isn't related to this case of a person using a public outlet to charge privately owned property while he was a patron of that property??

Am i missing something? Have you guys posted ANYTHING to dispute this? I swear i feel like i'm the only sane person responding to this thread.....OR, you guys are just arguing to be argumentative.

Yes, you are missing a lot, Smokey.

The judge said nothing about the homeless man being "a patron" of the park or that it was legal to use any accessible outlet. Have you actually read anything about this, or are you parroting what you have read on other forums (picking whatever you find that sounds as if it may be accurate)?

And, again, what does an incident in Sarasota have to do with realfilm's concern in this thread? Who exactly is arguing for the sake of arguing? This seems to be an unattractive trait of yours alone.

 

[SmokeyParkCop]

The only hard evidence we have now is what i have posted, the same exact incident, using public utilities, to charge an electronic device, but in a different state. That case was thrown out and the police are being charged with false arrest because of it. (i'm working on finding the judges response or any actual trial documents)

If you have a case of someone being convicted of using a public toilet, a public water fountain or a public outlet, i would be interested and may change my mind about this.

But right now the only thing we have to base our legal advice on IS the legal case in Florida and that was clearly an indication that it is not illegal to do this.

Please, lets keep this legal advice forum, just that, legal advice. The opinions that disagree with legal history should be kept at a minimum.

 

[quincy]

The only hard evidence we have now is what i have posted, the same exact incident, using public utilities, to charge an electronic device, but in a different state. That case was thrown out and the police are being charged with false arrest because of it.

If you have a case of someone being convicted of using a public toilet, a public water fountain or a public outlet, i would be interested and may change my mind about this.

But right now the only thing we have to base our legal advice on IS the legal case in Florida and that was clearly an indication that it is not illegal to do this.

Wrong. Nice try, though. Do a bit more researching, Smokey.

 

[quincy]

Please, lets keep this legal advice forum, just that, legal advice. The opinions that disagree with legal history should be kept at a minimum.

Fine. Then it is time for you to say goodbye.

 

[cbg]

If you are seriously comparing the use of a facility which is put there expressly for the use of the public, with the use of a facility that is put there for the use of the owning entity, and assuming that they are the same, I can understand why the legalities in this situation might be too complex for you to understand.

 

[SmokeyParkCop]

If you are seriously comparing the use of a facility which is put there expressly for the use of the public, with the use of a facility that is put there for the use of the owning entity, and assuming that they are the same, I can understand why the legalities in this situation might be too complex for you to understand.

It's a pretty baseless assumption you are making that these outlets, left open, available and provided within a close distance of a public parking lot are not for public use of patrons of the school. I think you should read about the Florida case, VERY VERY Similar!

 

[BL]

Oh, you have legal history on this type of case to contribute? Please! Post it!

Hey smoky , I've been reading some of your replies on other threads/subjects .

The other ones I have read that you have contributed to are reasonable .

Why are you hung up on being oppositional on this subject?

Fact is , if there is a charge and arrest for a minimal crime ,often times an attorney can convince the court to dismiss ," In the interest of justice " .

Doesn't mean the charges/arrest weren't justified and no crime was committed.

Your comparison to a public park rather than a school's ground is insufficient .

Why not stick to what this thread starter was all about and the story behind it.

You want to get into a debate and have NOT cited any laws to back up your assertions .

I could go on ,but I won't.

 

[davew128]

Has something changed and all of a sudden they pay for them and NOT us through taxes?

Yes. It's called the law. Something you clearly know nothing about.