So now the way to get greenlights is to just write an inflammatory headline that has nothing to do with the article?

Somehow, 2 bags of trash outside a dumpster with your company trash in them would seem to be littering.

And I saw no mention whatsoever of city council being exempt.

real shaman: And I saw no mention whatsoever of city council being exempt.

The point of subby's headline was that the Constitution provides a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. By shifting the burden of proof (of innocence) onto the defendant, the City council has violated this Right.

I'd say this ordinance will last about 15 minutes.

FredaDeStilleto: real shaman: And I saw no mention whatsoever of city council being exempt.

The point of subby's headline was that the Constitution provides a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. By shifting the burden of proof (of innocence) onto the defendant, the City council has violated this Right.

I'd say this ordinance will last about 15 minutes.

and I say that people like you, troublemakers always "quoting the Constitution", need to be taken away to labor camps.

We can't be a truly free society without crushing laws.

mr_bunny: We can't be a truly free society without crushing laws.

If the trash were crushed, it probably wouldn't be so much of a problem.

WeAreTheGoldfarbs: mr_bunny: We can't be a truly free society without crushing laws.

If the trash were crushed, it probably wouldn't be so much of a problem.

If you burn it the ashes take up even less space.

FredaDeStilleto: a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

and the ordinance says finding 2 bags of your company's trash outside a dumpster constitutes guilt.

this trashes the Constitution? do you really think a jury trial is needed for this?

real shaman: So now the way to get greenlights is to just write an inflammatory headline that has nothing to do with the article?

Somehow, 2 bags of trash outside a dumpster with your company trash in them would seem to be littering.

And I saw no mention whatsoever of city council being exempt.

Maybe you missed the first sentence of the article.
"A new ordinance unanimously approved Tuesday by the Norman City Council will require residents to prove, in a court of law, they did not litter, rather than having the city attempt to prove they did."

You may not be aware of this, but in the US Constitution, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Under this law, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Therefore, this law is unconstitutional.

And as far as city council members being exempt, do you really expect the city to fine itself for littering?

You FAIL sir.

real shaman: and the ordinance says finding 2 bags of your company's trash outside a dumpster constitutes guilt.

this trashes the Constitution?

Mmmmmmmm.... mandated guilt. Sooooooo wrong.

do you really think a jury trial is needed for this?

Its your Constitutional right... why not.

real shaman: FredaDeStilleto: a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

and the ordinance says finding 2 bags of your company's trash outside a dumpster constitutes guilt.

this trashes the Constitution? do you really think a jury trial is needed for this?

FTFA:
The ordinance creates a "rebuttable presumption" that an individual or business is littering if two or more items at one location bear a common address or company name "in a form which tends to identify the latest owner of the items."

You throw some papers with your name and info on them away in a public trash reciptical.
Some bum scavenger later takes that trash, rummages through it then leaves the rest in a pile on the sidewalk. Your documents are near the top of the pile. You are now guilty of littering. Pay your $750 fine, or try fighting it in court, where you are already presumed guilty and will remain so until you can prove the trash was not yours. Which it clearly is... look, it even has your name on it.


You FAIL again sir.
Good day to you

FTFA - Business owners on Campus Corner asked city officials to help them find a solution to the overflow of trash surrounding shared dumpsters on Campus Corner, he said.

Here is a suggestion - Try emptying the dumpsters more often

Dinki: Here is a suggestion - Try emptying the dumpsters more often

How would that get them more $750 fines then?

real shaman: and the ordinance says finding 2 bags of your company's trash outside a dumpster constitutes guilt.

this trashes the Constitution? do you really think a jury trial is needed for this?

The ordinance is a problem because it short circuits investigation, prosecution and right to defense to reach the conclusion. Court proceedings constitute guilt or innocence, not the appearance of potential evidence.

It's just a poorly written law.

Good thing McDonald's has deep pockets to pay for all those hamburger wrappers blowing around in the wind.

/drtfa
//wouldn't surprise me though. Too many petty tyrants in positions of power these days

Dinki: FTFA - Business owners on Campus Corner asked city officials to help them find a solution to the overflow of trash surrounding shared dumpsters on Campus Corner, he said.

Here is a suggestion - Try emptying the dumpsters more often

Ye who tops it off, drops it off.

Wouldn't this make as much since as trying to prove a negative in a debate?

Define last owner. If I drop some trash off on your lawn who actually owns it? If I drop some cash off on your lawn who actually owns it? Slippery slopes are fun.

Well, that'll hold up in court!

Arlo Guthrie approves of this thread.

If I were a vengeful person, I'd just go around to some office park with a business I hated and take two of their garbage bags out of the dumpster and toss 'em on the ground.

What's this "Constitution" everyone keeps raving about? Is that like the PATRIOT Act?

If the silly reporter wouldn't have used the phrase about having to prove innocence, this wouldn't be an issue with anyone. I RTFA; it doesn't seem like a big deal.

The reporter said one thing, the law says something completely different.

the courts may try to make the issue about civil violations, there by circumventing the constitution. they do it with traffic violations all the time.

ohhh, mr_bunny.... I reallly hope you are being sarcastic.

Anyone made to pay $50 and pick up the garbage in the snow yet?

/likes to play with the pencils on the bench

DigitalCoffee: Anyone made to pay $50 and pick up the garbage in the snow yet?

/likes to play with the pencils on the bench

came for the Arlo Guthrie reference, now leaving satisfied.

approves

If litter is still my property, then emptying the dumpsters would be theft, right?

IANAL... The article states that persons can be brought up on charges if two or more bags can be tied to a common address for that person. Which I read to mean they're not just going to say "You did it"... they're going to have evidence that you did it and will be able to fine you unless you can disprove this evidence (e.g. your landlord might have been dumping the trash).

tonesskin: If the silly reporter wouldn't have used the phrase about having to prove innocence, this wouldn't be an issue with anyone. I RTFA; it doesn't seem like a big deal.

The reporter said one thing, the law says something completely different.

Yes it would. The presumption of guilt and burden of proof on the accused is never a good thing.

People who dump illegally usually have the foresight not to include items that could identify them.

Santo Ralfo: approves

Obie came in with the twenty seven eight-by-ten
colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back
of each one, sat down.

Man came in said, "All rise." We all stood up,
and Obie stood up with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he
sat down, we sat down.

Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the
twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows
and a paragraph on the back of each one...

and looked at the seeing eye dog.

And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry,
'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American
blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the
judge wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each
one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.

/I lol'd

It will be interesting to see how well this holds up the first time someone appeals a conviction. Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. I don't think a city council has the power to overrule that.

This reminds me of the time I bought a house and found out I had defaulted on a Discover card after filing bankruptcy according to the wonderful folks at TRW. Long story short, I have never had a Discover card nor filed for bankruptcy but it was up to me to prove I never did (and a letter from Discover saying they had no record of me ever being a card holder was not sufficient proof).

To this day I still have this on my records and the people at TRW was never able to tell me exactly how I would go about proving this, but it was still my problem.

I still don't know how you go about proving a negative /shrug.

OK, kids, I'm about to get on the road and drive across six states, but in the meantime here's a fun activity to pass the time. Read through the entire US Constitution (full text is here), and yell "BINGO" when you find the bit where it promises you'll be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I realize I'm going to be away for a little while on this drive, but I'm pretty sure y'all will still be looking when I check in.

/Now, if instead you want to say this violates the right to a jury trial in criminal proceedings, maybe you've got a case.
//Of course, that depends on whether littering charges are criminal proceedings or not.
///Wishes people would actually read the Constitution more.
////If you're still reading, try to take a guess at what Kurt Gödel mentioned in his immigration hearing.
//And then if you're still bored, read the Constitution of Alabama, including all (currently) 798 amendments. Especially the dead farm animals amendment. And the missing one -- Amendment 693.

Fellows: Yes it would. The presumption of guilt and burden of proof on the accused is never a good thing.

It isn't. Just because the reporter says it is doesn't make it so. They have made it illegal for two bags of trash (from the same place) to be outside of a dumpster and to charge the previous owner of that. That's the law. The burden of proof IS on the city.

Um, the litter law is not written in the consitutition last I checked.

Subby is a douche.

When did George W Bush get elected mayor of Norman Oklahoma?

DigitalCoffee: Anyone made to pay $50 and pick up the garbage in the snow yet?

/likes to play with the pencils on the bench

Yes, Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie. I left those two or more items that bear a common address or company name in a form which tends to identify the latest owner of the items under that big pile of garbage.

This is no different than those presumed guilty DUI laws.

That's because it would never make it to the constitution because it goes directly against the constitution.

Innocent until proven guilty. That's the foundation of the justice system. This law steps on that, and so I'm in agreement that it won't last one good trial.

The Constitution is blatantly ignored anyway, even on the basic issues-- right to bear arms, freedom of speech, illegal search, etc....

Why start paying attention to the Constitution now?

tonesskin: It isn't. Just because the reporter says it is doesn't make it so. They have made it illegal for two bags of trash (from the same place) to be outside of a dumpster and to charge the previous owner of that. That's the law. The burden of proof IS on the city.

That's just if two bags of trash are found and assuming sufficient identifiable information is found within one of those bags.

If you look at it from other situations which will occur, in a large-scale dumping site (i.e., a dozen or so bags outside a trash big) they will charge the first identifiable owner they can find with dumping all the rubbish under the presumed guilt that they dumped all the bags.

It will then be up to the accused to prove their innocence in connection with all the trash.

The city only has the burden of proof for two bags, after that they swap that to the accused - which should never be allowed.

Coffin V. United States (1895)... 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments... it has already been stated, but this ordinance will be nullified after its first court challenge.

/Stupid.

This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans.

Aardvark Inc.: Arlo Guthrie approves of this thread.

Just so long as you don't hide any envelopes under the garbage, you should be okay.

FredaDeStilleto: I'd say this ordinance will last about 15 minutes.

You've obviously never been accused of possession of large quantities of drugs in Michigan.

FTFA: "The ordinance creates a "rebuttable presumption" that an individual or business is littering if two or more items at one location bear a common address or company name "in a form which tends to identify the latest owner of the items."

Ah said "Yessir Officer Obie Ah cannot tell a lie...Ah put that envelope under that garbidge."

tonesskin: Fellows: Yes it would. The presumption of guilt and burden of proof on the accused is never a good thing.

It isn't. Just because the reporter says it is doesn't make it so. They have made it illegal for two bags of trash (from the same place) to be outside of a dumpster and to charge the previous owner of that. That's the law. The burden of proof IS on the city.

I gotta agree with tonesskin on this one. It just sounds like if they find your trash, they'll charge you. 'Course thats just what it sounds like to me, I'll be waiting to see how it is applied.

Whether this is right or not, Campus Corner is getting pretty damn dirty, always has been and is getting worse, and something needed to be done.

/live in Norman
//don't Edmond my Norman
///Norman.

Fellows: tonesskin: It isn't. Just because the reporter says it is doesn't make it so. They have made it illegal for two bags of trash (from the same place) to be outside of a dumpster and to charge the previous owner of that. That's the law. The burden of proof IS on the city.

That's just if two bags of trash are found and assuming sufficient identifiable information is found within one of those bags.

If you look at it from other situations which will occur, in a large-scale dumping site (i.e., a dozen or so bags outside a trash big) they will charge the first identifiable owner they can find with dumping all the rubbish under the presumed guilt that they dumped all the bags.

It will then be up to the accused to prove their innocence in connection with all the trash.

The city only has the burden of proof for two bags, after that they swap that to the accused - which should never be allowed.

Good point, you're probably right.