• gregorum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -19
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Looks like you answered your own question

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      82 months ago

      I think we are misunderstanding each other. Are you are confusing city ordinances with legal charges? And, if so, they don’t even call out the city ordinances that were all cited, just that there are ordinances about unlawful camping.

      The article doesn’t mention how many, which ones, and what charges can be levied against someone who violated those ordinances.

      • gregorum
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -7
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’m not confused. The article is pretty clear: they haven’t been charged yet (as of the article’s writing), and the lawyer was speculating on what they might be charged with. You even quoted the relevant part.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          52 months ago

          I regret engaging with this believing you were trying to be constructive. This is now a closed loop in which, within 3 messages, you claim to know what the charges are, and then you admit the charges are still in speculation. Have a nice day.

          • gregorum
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -5
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            The answer to your question was in the article, and you even quoted it yourself. If anyone engaged here in bad faith, it was you. You even proved it By quoting the answer when you asked the question.

            If you stick your hand in a blender and it gets mutilated, you don’t blame the blender you blame yourself for sticking your hand in a blender.

            If you believed something different was going to happen, that is 100% on you.