A politically incorrect legal system rant

[Ghoste]

I know this is bad but I have to get it off my chest.  I live in a small town, 60,000 people, and there is a bike club in town that is a satellite of that infamous outlaw club that began in California.  Understand, I am not complaining about bikers here but the 1%'ers, the criminal gangs.  Anyway, they have a clubhouse in town that has been a hangout for years and even though I am sure it's all coincidental, there have been a couple of "unexplained" deaths there, the neighborhood is a huge loser magnet with prostitutes, muggings and lot's of crack and meth for the needy.  I'm pretty sure the bikers are in there swapping motorcycle stories and helping one another with baking tips and knitting cool riding scarves and stuff like that.
Anyway, the municipality established an anti-fortification bylaw a few years ago to make it harder for the bike gang to operate.  Like most of those type of clubhouses, it had a huge brick wall around the yard, no windows, steel door, floodlit yard, and video cameras surrounding the property.  Essentially, the bylaw did away with those "security" measures.  Now it's being challenged before the court by a local lawyer who says it's just wrong and means the entire city must take down it's fences and remove locks from doors and windows in order to comply.
I know that's how the legal system operates and I know the lawyer has to eat too, but this kind of stuff just pisses me off.  I know this will get locked or deleted because it's about to spin off into a political/legal argument but I had to vent.  Sorry Troy and mods but thanks all for listening.  rant off 

[TK73]

Heh...

I declare that I was here before the   

nyuk nyuk

[The70RT]

I don't think one lawyer is gonna make a difference............and if SOMEHOW the 1% did win and the bylaw was for all to comply......then as they say - you will have to pry my cold dead fingers...................

[TK73]

I'm thinkin that the changing laws thing is BS, how about having a couple of patrol cars sitting across the street in the evenings/nights??  Maybe a little OT for the cops, good for the economy and all...

[Ghoste]

Yeah, there are a number of options, it's just one of those things that make me mad when I see the poor bike gang being portrayed as the innocent victim when part of the whole 1% thing is the idea that they live outside the law.  The lawyer irks me too, I wonder how he'd feel about his clients lamb-like innocence if they moved in next door to him?
I know though, that is how the system has to work to try and stay fair for all.

[Troy]

Oh, I thought you were arguing for the bike gang.

Would there be crime in that neighborhood whether the gang was there or not? Do the "rich folk" live in gated communities there? When making a law, wouldn't you have to treat the entire town equally? If it's a stupid/useless law then it needs rewritten. If these guys are ok with killing someone do you really believe they'll obey a law that says they need to take down their "fortification"? Abuse of the system works both ways and that's why challenging the law is part of the process. I'm putting up cameras and security now (see my other posts) and there's no way I'd take them down just because the city has a problem on the other side of town.

Troy

[69CoronetRT]

Not to take your main point lightly but I got a chuckle out of this sentence...

I live in a small town, 60,000 people,

. That's far from a small town in my part of the country. That could be the second or third largest city in most midwestern states.

So do you believe a government entity should have free reign over how, when and in what manner citizens assemble peacefully?

As distasteful as it may seem, they do have the same rights to object to unfair treatment and laws as the rest of us do.

[Ghoste]

I understand completely what you're saying but there are no gated communities around here.  As for crime in our little town, that seems to be the epicenter.
Are your cameras to watch for someone breaking in or to know when the police are storming the gates?  I think the city most certainly had these guys in mind when they wrote the law.  If a group of people openly claim to live outside the laws and norms of society, why should that same society be expected to uphold a standard of fairness towards them?
But I do know what you are saying.  It doesn't matter, this still makes me mad.

[Troy]

Let's assume that there's a liquor store or pawn shop a block or two away from this place (there always seems to be one around here in those ares). Should they have to remove their cameras, lights, and bars? Just how often do the police have to storm this place? I completely understand the basis and good intentions for establishing such a law but if the municipality rushed into something without ensuring that it would pass legal muster then shame on them. Rescind the law and make one that is enforceable. If it holds up under fire then what's the issue? That gives the municipality and the police more solid ground to stand on.

To answer your question, the cameras catch anything that moves. Unfortunately, in much the same way, the dogs can't distinguish between bad/good guys when they bust through the door. Considering that I don't expect the police to bust through the door then the argument is that I prepared for the criminal element. However, since neither approach can gauge intent all I can do is be prepared for the action and catch whoever happens to be there.

Troy

[Ghoste]

Actually, no liquor store anywhere near it.  It's Canada so the neighborhood makeup is not that stereotypical.  Think of a rowdy bar in Mayberry and you begin to get the idea.

[Troy]

Oh. You Canadians are weird. No liquor stores in the seedy part of town? Are you trying to start a trend?

Tough to really pinpoint a good solution though. Does the legal challenge have any merit? It sounds like there's already a problem so would striking down the law make it worse or just force a new direction?

Troy

[Ghoste]

The challenge only has merit inasmuch as the Canadian legal system tends to be overly liberal for the wrong groups and reasons very often.  (this was the part where I was afraid my little rant would spiral off into a locked political debate)
Lawmakers and the trial system in this country cling tenaciously to this ideal of being the worlds polite ones.  Send us anybody, we'll hide them out.  I recall once an African warlord who was actively gunning down Canadian troops in an action over there whose nation and time period I forget, and during the little battle over there, the warlords wife and kids were being taken care of as refugees in the Ontario welfare system.  I am all for giving anyone a chance but stuff like that still makes me mad.  There is even a debate at the national level here now to make multiculturalism an official policy.  Why pretend to be a separate state if you are going to officially become a multicultural group inhabiting the same landmass?
Of course, all of this is only my personal opinion and nothing more so it's actually worthless.  I just wanted to vent about a group challenging something that inhibits their gentlemens social club from being able to watch episodes of Oprah and the Ellen show in undisturbed privacy.  I suppose the silver lining is that as long as they have a clubhouse, at least we know where they are?

[Troy]

Well duh. If you were a member of a notorious bike gang you'd need a wall, steel doors, closed and barred windows, a few dogs, AND lots of guns to avoid being caught watching Oprah and/or Ellen. Can you imagine the irreparable damage to their delicate mental psyche from the humiliation? Something must be done!

Yeah, I see your point.

Troy