By NR Staff • 

Police address chronic trespassers

Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here. Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

troy prouty

How will that work, because it seems to me that you would need to post a no trespass sign which includes everyone and yet need customers. Unless you mean to have them when they aren't open for business. If a person is a problem, you could still get an order of restraint to keep them from so many feet within a business.

troy*

NoThanks

"The agreements give police permission to act on behalf of a manager or owner in a trespass situation, even if the responsible party is not present and cannot be reached. If an officer observes someone on private property when the business is closed, or is alerted to an incident by someone other than the manager or owner during operating hours, he can address the problem on the spot providing an agreement is in place."

-MT

Seems like a simple proactive straight forward enough approach to dealing with a problem.

-MT

There used to be a time when small town businessmen gave the keys to their doors to the local beat cop. It would be nice if people could get back to that level of trust again.

troy prouty

I'm assuming this was put into place, because downtown got rid of an illegal ordiance to ban certain individuals from the downtown area.

troy*

troy prouty

Also is are we referring to no tresspass - signs? Posted, or are we talking abou a No tresspass order? There is a difference, and yet this seems to have none of that in the article, other than when a business is closed, it allows officers the right to investigate. It seems they already have that right to some degree if they believe a crime is happening. they can even break windows (which they have done to enter).

It seems to me a sign posted for no tresspassing could be confusing to a place open to the public thus allow officers to act in ways that I or even the ACLU might find in violation of civil law, because it does not distinguish who or what is allowed or not on any property, just the fact that they are there. An on the other hand defines certain individuals already and both parties are notified and the law has clear boundaries regarding it. Any situation called into police on behalf of the state of unwanted individuals are already subject to law enforcement being called and followed up on.

troy*

sbagwell

I think you are over-analyzing this.
Under the law, trespassing charges can only be pressed by the owner of the property or his officially designated representative. By getting those parties' signatures on a former agreement in advance, the cops have the authority to act on their behalf even if they are not present and cannot be immediately reached.
This has nothing to do with signs. During daytime hours, it has to do with a junior clerk having problems leading him to call the cops and the cops now having the authority to enforce trespass ordinances on the spot, without having to get an owner or manager to sign off.
It's really as simple as that. I don't see it's anything to get all that excited about. The police are simply reaching out to the business community to offer some streamlining enabling them to work together more smoothly and effectively.

Merchants hate to eject customers. This is reserved for their rare occasions when someone is raising a serious ruckus requiring action, and allowing that action to proceed a little more expeditiously.

Steve Bagwell, Managing Editor

troy prouty

except police brutality is on an increase nation wide according to the dept of justice.

troy*

troy prouty

Judge Dredd ring a bell.?

My problem is monopoly, yes we need to give officers the power to do their job, but we do not need to give them the power to do someone elses.

troy*

sbagwell

Then you don't sign the agreement. You say thanks but no thanks and go on your way.
No police state about it. It's 100 percent voluntary. They are just making the offer for those who choose to accept.
Free country, free will. You say yes or you say no.
Steve

troy prouty

What causes inequality?

Don't you find it interesting that for example if I pay for food at McDonalds and they short me and refuse to give me what I paid for, I can't call the police or I will be arrested, but if I steal food from McDonalds, I risk the chance of being arrested or at least citated and nobody that called the police on their end risk beign arrested?

Oppresion has many forms within our society, probably the biggest and least spoken is wealth and capital. to be fair McDonalds usually has a pretty good policy and will take the hit (if it is there) , why others might not. But my point is when you have lots of wealth you can get away with things, you can buy power, pay the police, understand you can take adevantage of people that can't afford to fight in court ... Smith VS Golf Course ring a bell?...If America falls, it will certainly be because ogf inequality of wealth through oppression like these things. you can have all the freedom you want, if you are able to pay for it.

troy*

Seabiscuit

How did we get from a proactive approach with expedited community service when someone is causing a problem on private property, property that does not belong to them, to police brutality, corruption and a movie?

If you have evidence of police brutality or corruption in McMinnville or Yamhill County I suggest you get the hard facts and evidence to Steve so he can put an article together that will sell papers and possibly get him a Pulitzer.

Perhaps Steve should do an article on the "Occupy" movement (lack of movement?) and then perhaps this conversation could take off in a proper forum.

In the mean time, the police are taking a proactive approach trying to help the community. If a person doesn't want to be arrested for trespassing, they shouldn't go onto someone else's property and make a big enough nuisance of themselves that the cops are called. Seems like a pretty simple concept to me.


troy prouty

posted "Seems like a pretty simple concept to me.
"

then you are an idiot, because it isn't.

troy*

troy prouty

For example

"expedited community service "

where did you get this?

Community service isn't serviced to those that can afford to pay for it? or maybe it is and that is the problem, I guess that is my point. There is nothing equal about something offered to only those that can afford it, compared to those that can't. But since you decided to chime in (weakly I might add).. Let's look at other problems that may not be related (consider it an education).. Speaking of education.. wealth distribution probably has the biggest effect on it, since most lowed education is funded with local bonds. Schools that are rich have better results then schools in poor areas. college is obvious - have money go.. don't have money don't.. Let's look at convictions - take measure 11. Public defender... 3 times more likely to be convicted of a measure 11 offense then a private lawyer.. Must pay to have money eh?... I could go on.. but I seriously doubt you are smart enough to grasp thw whole picture. you might to stick to coloring books I guess.

troy*

troy prouty

posted "police brutality or corruption in McMinnville or Yamhill County "

O"r you can call 503-224-2647 and ask for a lawyer. wink..

troy*

Seabiscuit

You are absolutely right Troy. It is very difficult to carry on a conversation at your level, so I'll just stick to my coloring book.

troy prouty

Let's just say that Dred Scott Vs Sandford still exist, just on a different scale.

troy*

-MT

Obviously, individuals have a right to defend their property, I don't see how Dred Scott applies here. I'm think'n what we have here is more of a 'Where the Buffalo Roam' issue.

Dred Vs Scott was not about any perceived ( much less codified) right to 'Free Graze'

-MT

Should read: Dred Scott was not about... .

troy prouty

my point is that officers are paid by taxes that apply a rule of equality within the community they serve. Here they offer services to business they don't offer to others (if my understanding is correct).. Thus equality is gone. Of course my other point of Dred Scott was the fact we have changed from skin color (slave) to a set of different standards for the wealthy and corporations (business), thus creating a socially accepted rule of limited constitutional rights to some and unlimited for others.

As you know Dred Scott was upheld that slaves did not have constiutional rights.

One could possibly make the case everyone has limits and rights now, it's just some are enforced and some aren't. But either way there is seperation there and growing because 10% owns 80% of all wealth (yet I prefer using the word assets) in our country.. This means that 90% own only 20%, so most people are probably paying interest that ends up in the hands of that 10%, or have nothing to show for their investments (Walmart) cheap junk that loses value the moment you walk out the store.. AND of course.. it is more likely a combo of both.

What this creates of course is political and social dominence in one form or another, that is why it is acceptable to most people what the police here are doing in this instance and yet (I doubtthe police seriously thought about it to see it, because it has become so socially acceptable).. Where does it stop if companies and business are allowed to own the world, the police, the government and even you and me to a point, through "special policies and rules"?

troy*

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS