NationStates Jolt Archive

A couple of guys were sentenced to 6 months in jail for tresspassing stemming from an incident where they took some vegetables from a dumpster. First of all I think it's obscene that anyone in a first world country should have to eat out of the trash. You would think the biggest economy in the world would be big enough to make sure people had clean food. Secondly the fact that a Colorado judge would imprison people for taking unwanted food so they could eat is Dickensian in it's cruelty.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RAINBOW_FAMILY_JAIL?SITE=FLTAM

This is actually good for the guys. Now instead of digging out of trash, they simply get three square meals a day from the government!

Les Miserables by Victor Hugo? Remember how that turned out.

Les Miserables by Victor Hugo? Remember how that turned out.

Christ, yes. Everyone started singing...

This is why I think more protests would be useful - not ordinary protests where a large amount of people complain about something, but peaceful protests that annoy the authorities enough to make them act like responsible citizens (for example, a large protest that prevents judges from getting into the court's carpark by physically blocking the interest with too many people to run over).

It's a strange world when you get less time for assault than for taking someone's rubbish.
Look at this:
"We didn't have any intention of committing a crime or doing anything wrong," Charle told the Steamboat Pilot & Today newspaper. "We had just come in town and we were prepared to buy groceries from a store but everything was closed."
So I assume they can afford food? I don't see any self-respecting person with money (even if the stores are all closed) eating rubbish out of a dumpster.

Do you know how much people that eat from dumpters disturbs a community? Of course not, you do live in the "First world", you haven't see mass dumpsterfeasts.

Of course they should be imprisoned. Each time I see one of those guys ripping the plastic bags to eat garbage and then leave all the crap spread all around the street I get mad. The city collectors do not pick that kind of trash, they just pick the closed bags, so you end with garbage to the neck, street rabid dogs everywhere, and plus you have to pick everything again if you want the street free of the parfume. In my neighbourhood they regularly get beaten for doing that over and over again.

A couple of guys were sentenced to 6 months in jail for tresspassing stemming from an incident where they took some vegetables from a dumpster. First of all I think it's obscene that anyone in a first world country should have to eat out of the trash.

Hey, a lot of students I know do it. Sometimes they throw out good stuff.

It's a strange world when you get less time for assault than for taking someone's rubbish.
Look at this:

So I assume they can afford food? I don't see any self-respecting person with money (even if the stores are all closed) eating rubbish out of a dumpster.

Looks like at least two people were prepared to do so.

They haven't been prosecuted or sentenced because they ate food out of a dumpster, but because in order to obtain this food, they trespassed on private land. If the dumpster was on public land, then there would have been no problem. As it was on private land, how could they (legally - not practicaly) be sure that the food was being disposed of.
If someone leaves some food on a table in their yard, they have a right to assume that no one is allowed to wander into their yard and eat the food. Now a dumpster is not a table, but legally the situation is the same.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted;11641049]You would think the biggest economy in the world would be big enough to make sure people had clean food. Secondly the fact that a Colorado judge would imprison people for taking unwanted food so they could eat is Dickensian in it's cruelty.


First point agreed. However, these guys were attending a Rainbow Family gathering. I doubt that they were your typical homeless person who had no opportunities to find food.

Second point. The original charge was burglary. That means that they entered a structure to do the deed, not just stole food from a garbage can stored in the open. In my opinion, if you enter a building without permission, you raise the stakes. Judges also take into consideration a person's past criminal history. If the judge hit them for 6 months, I doubt that this is their first run-in (or second, or third for that matter) with the law. I guess we'll never know I'm right though:-)

Who cares if we catch him? Let him live a nice long life living in a cave with no heat, except that provided by a camp fire, no air conditioning, no TV, a heap of old rags as a bed, and the company of goat-fucking terrorists.

I'll be nice and comfortable in a modern city with bars, clubs, television, movies, and all the comforts of western society at my disposal. So who's winning and who's losing?

Those are Drunk Commies Deleted's words from another post

Looks like the US has some people in the first category as well. Don't start posts generalising how poor the muslims are and then contradict it with one about Americans eating out of the garbage. Someone might just be in a warm cave, sitting by his fire and laughing at that.

Who cares if we catch him? Let him live a nice long life living in a cave with no heat, except that provided by a camp fire, no air conditioning, no TV, a heap of old rags as a bed, and the company of goat-fucking terrorists.

I'll be nice and comfortable in a modern city with bars, clubs, television, movies, and all the comforts of western society at my disposal. So who's winning and who's losing?

Those are Drunk Commies Deleted's words from another post

Looks like the US has some people in the first category as well. Don't start posts generalising how poor the muslims are and then contradict it with one about Americans eating out of the garbage. Someone might just be in a warm cave, sitting by his fire and laughing at that.
Well, whether it's a cave with a fire or a cave with no fire, I reckon you're pretty poor either way. Whilst it probably is a silly generalisation, he's mocking the terrorists, not Muslims. All mocking of terrorists is fine in my book.

They haven't been prosecuted or sentenced because they ate food out of a dumpster, but because in order to obtain this food, they trespassed on private land.

Since when do you go to jail for trespassing either? I certainly have never heard of it.

they trespassed on private land

not in any worthwhile sense, even if you support the concept.

So I assume they can afford food? I don't see any self-respecting person with money (even if the stores are all closed) eating rubbish out of a dumpster.

I've done it. Many, many times. What is it that strikes you as so strange about it? Food in a dumpster or a bin doesn't suddenly become dirty or poison (excluding them stores which intentional pour bleach over their discarded produce) as soon as it enters the receptacle. Very often the food is still in date, and still in unbroken wrappers or, in the case of things like bread, bagged up cleanly.

First of all I think it's obscene that anyone in a first world country should have to eat out of the trash.

Not just a case of 'should', a reasonable amount do so out of choice.

These guys are not poor. They were on their way to the Rainbow People gathering and apparently got hungry after all the stores were closed. Granted, six months for dumpster-diving seems a bit harsh, but it's not like they're oppressed people being further oppressed by the Man. You could probably work out the conversation that happened by playing any early Cheech and Chong album ... "Didn't you bring any food, man?" "No, man, I thought you were bringing the food, man."

btw, this story is an execellent example of what is wrong with both the justice system as a whole and the concept of plea bargains.

it's not like they're oppressed people being further oppressed by the Man.

except for the whole 'getting locked up' thing. oh, an being pressured (and really, tricked) into accepting undeserved punishment due to the threat of even greater punishment by the armed enforcers of 'the man'.

except for the whole 'getting locked up' thing. oh, an being pressured (and really, tricked) into accepting undeserved punishment due to the threat of even greater punishment by the armed enforcers of 'the man'.

Stop being such a bed-wetting liberal. It only works out as about a day behind bars for each centimetre of cucumber that they stole.

They haven't been prosecuted or sentenced because they ate food out of a dumpster, but because in order to obtain this food, they trespassed on private land. If the dumpster was on public land, then there would have been no problem. As it was on private land, how could they (legally - not practicaly) be sure that the food was being disposed of.
If someone leaves some food on a table in their yard, they have a right to assume that no one is allowed to wander into their yard and eat the food. Now a dumpster is not a table, but legally the situation is the same.

They got charged with theft and trespassing, and chose trespassing cos it's only a misdemeanor, not a crime. As far as I'm concerned, anything in a shop bin is up for grabs. 6 months for trespassing? Sounds like the prosecution got them on something, and just put them away.

Oh, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freegan. I know these guys weren't freegans, but just for info.

As far as I'm concerned, anything in a shop bin is up for grabs.

i'm pretty sure the law actually agrees - cops don't need a warrant to go through your trash, etc

i'm pretty sure the law actually agrees - cops don't need a warrant to go through your trash, etc

In the UK anything placed in a rubbish bin remains your property until it is collected by the Council services, and as such taking items from bins is considered theft. You can even be held responsible for littering if an item you placed in a rubbish bin later escapes its containment and falls to the ground.

In the UK anything placed in a rubbish bin remains your property until it is collected by the Council services, and as such taking items from bins is considered theft. You can even be held responsible for littering if an item you placed in a rubbish bin later escapes its containment and falls to the ground.

weird. so over there they don't have roving bands of people driving around collecting discarded furniture to fix up and resell?

In the UK anything placed in a rubbish bin remains your property until it is collected by the Council services, and as such taking items from bins is considered theft. You can even be held responsible for littering if an item you placed in a rubbish bin later escapes its containment and falls to the ground.

That is ridiculous. Once you place your garbage on the curb you have given up your right for it to be private or your own property, whatever.

weird. so over there they don't have roving bands of people driving around collecting discarded furniture to fix up and resell?

People still collect from the rubbish, but it is technically illegal.

That is ridiculous. Once you place your garbage on the curb you have given up your right for it to be private or your own property, whatever.

Would you also consider that you are no longer legally responsible for it?

Would you also consider that you are no longer legally responsible for it?

You are supposed to dispose of your garbage properly to begin with. If you do it wrongly or you place dangerous items in it then you have to be responsible. But at the same time you are saying that you are ridding of the "property" by placing it outside by the street for disposal so the police have every right to search it with no warrant.

People still collect from the rubbish, but it is technically illegal.

ah, that sort of situation

I read a story recently in a book named Indefensible. The book was written by a New York public defender and is kind of a "day in the life" and is full of stories of cases he has actually seen or participated in.

He described standing in line to get into the criminal courthouse in the Bronx and watching the following unfold:

A woman who appeared to be homeless or at the very least very poor (wearing numerous dirty layers of old clothing with the pockets stuffed full of belongings) stood in line for several hours to get into the courthouse. When she got to the front, she was asked by security to remove all belongings from her pockets so they could be searched. She did so willingly. Among her belongings was a single sandwich wrapped in Saran wrap. The court officers told her that food is not allowed in the courthouse and that she could not bring it in. She explained that it was the only food she had - that she couldn't just throw it away. She begged them to let her keep it - promising that she wouldn't eat in in the courthouse. They refused. She begged them to let her stash it somewhere near the entrance so that she could get it back after. They refused. She agreed to throw it away, but they had apparently gotten fed up and told her to leave. She reiterated that she would throw it away - that she had to make her court date. The court officer called for other officers to give her her belongings and escort her out - all of her belongings, that is, except for the sandwich, which he threw away. A bystander who went to retrieve it from the trash (presumably a good Samaritan planning on returning the sandwich to the woman) was threatened with arrest if she actually pulled the sandwich out of the trash. The homeless woman most likely missed her court date, as she now had no food and I highly doubt she wanted to stand in line for another several hours just to get in.


These guys may have simply waited until the stores closed and been unable to get food they could afford, but those who can't afford it are quite often not treated nicely by the justice system. In Atlanta, GA, a law against panhandling (even just holding a sign) inside the city was passed. This means that it is now illegal for someone to even ask for food or money if they need it. And what do they get? A fine! As if someone who can't afford food could pay a fine. :confused:

If you do it wrongly or you place dangerous items in it then you have to be responsible.

So you would no longer own the material, but be legally responsible for it?

So you would no longer own the material, but be legally responsible for it?

I believe there are laws against the illegal disposal of items. Besides I believe that with garbage you still own it before it is picked up but since you are planning on getting rid of it then you have no expectation of privacy. So searching it is ok. Plenty of criminals who get caught with their crap tossed in the trash. Idiots. :)

Besides I believe that with garbage you still own it before it is picked up but since you are planning on getting rid of it then you have no expectation of privacy.

Incor-wrong:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/data/us/486/35.html

Acting on information indicating that respondent Greenwood might be engaged in narcotics trafficking, police twice obtained from his regular trash collector garbage bags left on the curb in front of his house. On the basis of items in the bags which were indicative of narcotics use, the police obtained warrants to search the house, discovered controlled substances during the searches, and arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. Finding that probable cause to search the house would not have existed without the evidence obtained from the trash searches, the State Superior Court dismissed the charges under People v. Krivda, 5 Cal. 3d 357, 486 P.2d 1262, which held that warrantless trash searches violate the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution.

This is actually good for the guys. Now instead of digging out of trash, they simply get three square meals a day from the government!

And the government thoughtfuly threw in free assrape from their cellmates who have commited actual crimes!

Incor-wrong:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/data/us/486/35.html

Seems there is always disagreement on case law.

http://www.politechbot.com/2005/08/05/montana-supreme-court/

The judge may not like it but agrees that it can be done.

You could probably work out the conversation that happened by playing any early Cheech and Chong album ... "Didn't you bring any food, man?" "No, man, I thought you were bringing the food, man."
Hahahaha! Great :p

As for the OP - it clearly says that they weren't jailed for grabbing food from a dumbster - they were jailed because they trespassed. No matter the reason, trespassing is illegal and thus punishable.
Whether six months in jail are the right decision is another matter.

Hahahaha! Great :p

As for the OP - it clearly says that they weren't jailed for grabbing food from a dumbster - they were jailed because they trespassed. No matter the reason, trespassing is illegal and thus punishable.
Whether six months in jail are the right decision is another matter.

No, they got a plea bargain which reduced their charges down to a misdemeanor trespassing charge. They were originally charged with a felony burglary and, had they decided to go to trial, that's what they would have been charged with (and possibly jailed for).

They are in jail for taking food out of a dumpster. The specific charge to which they pled guilty was a way to stage down the crime to something that wouldn't leave them with a felony conviction.

No, they got a plea bargain which reduced their charges down to a misdemeanor trespassing charge. They were originally charged with a felony burglary and, had they decided to go to trial, that's what they would have been charged with (and possibly jailed for).

They are in jail for taking food out of a dumpster. The specific charge to which they pled guilty was a way to stage down the crime to something that wouldn't leave them with a felony conviction.
Ooookay. Well, I ain't no lawyer :p

Here's a little link (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4830158,00.html) to a story about the Rainbow Gathering our felonious divers were heading toward. The Park Service didn't think much of them at all, though you'll note the more positive statement from the county representative.

Wow 6 months for trespassing is really stiff. The most I ever did was overnight in jail and a 35 dollar fine for trespassing on a dangerous part of the California Aquaduct to fish. (mostly because the person I was with had been run off and warned away from there thrice already) In my defense we did catch some nice 5-15 pound catfish and 3-10 pound stripers there. It was probably worth the night in jail and 35 dollars in retrospect.

I guess these mountain towns want you to remember the experience. Seems to me that all I did was pay a fine, too, on my trespassing bust. The cop took great glee in holding up in court the bright orange "no trespassing" sign we'd walked past. To this day I am so glad we didn't decide that clothes were optional on that little swim. :rolleyes:

I guess these mountain towns want you to remember the experience. Seems to me that all I did was pay a fine, too, on my trespassing bust. The cop took great glee in holding up in court the bright orange "no trespassing" sign we'd walked past. To this day I am so glad we didn't decide that clothes were optional on that little swim. :rolleyes:

LOL I can imagine the grin happy cop holding up your clothes in his other hand in court like a trophy!

LOL I can imagine the grin happy cop holding up your clothes in his other hand in court like a trophy!

An even better reason, though I don't think that they get to keep your clothes if you're caught skinny-dipping. At least, not in New Jersey. I wonder which carries the bigger fine, trespassing or public nudity? (Of course, it being me, I probably would have been given an award for rural beautification. :p )

This is an abuse of power on the part of the judge. I hope these fellows have a case they can pursue in court. Perhaps they should be chatting with the ACLU at the very least.

I'd feel like a Goddamn fool in that judges' shoes. What's he think this is, 1956 - not 2006?

Les Miserables by Victor Hugo? Remember how that turned out.

Wonder if the judge's name was Javert?

Just imagine what they would've gotten if they'd taken a dump in the dumpster instead?

I've dived for food many times. Usually to save money, but sometimes just because I was out late (eg walking home) and nothing decent was open. Even right now, I'd rather take a greengrocer's over-ripe discards than McEat ... but that's me.
You can also get decent clothes, functional cellphones, small change ... and even more valuable things, like antiques or working appliances which you could sell.
Of course there's a downside. Some people fear their privacy being invaded, and cut up nasty, and sometimes you get home covered in baby shit.

However, I've got nothing but contempt for those losers who drag stuff out of the skip to search it and strew it all about. Before long there's a lock on that dumpster and no more freebies for anyone. Bastards.

In this case though it's trespass. "Theft" is ridiculous, as is six months jail.

Iam from steamboat. there was a bit of this kind of thing that went on this summer among other things. i think that 6 months is a little stiff but the stores here dont take kindly to tresspassing. i know for fact that the dumsters are contained in a covered enclosed area that is locked on the stores property, so wather or not the contents of the dumpsters are up for grabs these two guys did tresspass. the fact that they desided to steal from sweet pea was majorly dumb on their part, that particular store is really more of a small farmers market that sells local produce and homemade bread and honey and BBQ sause and such, they never just leave veggies in the trash b/c they went bad they will sell anything befor it gets to the point where it has to be thrown away, if they dont sell it is becaues it is brused or they got it and it was unfit to eat...meaning even if it is/was in the trash you would never want to eat it.