• WR5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 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@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 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.

        • WR5@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 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@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 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.