To be clear, COMPANIES do this. Small private landowners like homeowners get absolutely fucked. The fines aren't means tested so what s a slap on the wrist to wal-mart or even a medium sized business could be soul-destroying for a homeowner, plus you will almost always be saddled with the cost of restoring it, as wal-mart was here. Having to replant one or two trees if that's all you did may be annoyingly expensive but absorbable, but depending on what you did restoration could wind up costing as much as your house to restore the same drainage conditions, erosion protections, etc.

>But many locales don’t allow that

Sounds like you should be looking to change that before making private parties take up that burden and risk.

Property rights don't change just because it's a larger company everyone (including me) hates.

Also, like it or not, if even once, a person from this camp causes an incident with a customer in the parking lot, or even just with someone else at the camp, Wal Mart is at legal risk. Fuck even if the company somehow changes its entire corporate tune and decided out of the charity of their hearts to embrace the plight of the homeless, it doesn't stop someone who gets into an issue, even of their own stupidity, from making a case in court that Wal Mart knew and allowed a "hazard" to customers to develop on their property.

Edit: lol I "understand the point" just fine. I'm just actually equipped to function in the real world and don't just live in a fantasy I've crafted in my head like you.

Like literally every other private property dispute the answer is "not this land." I have undeveloped land behind my house. It's still my property. I like having a nice buffer of woods for wildlife that keeps my yard quiet. I too would seek to evict someone living in that space, not the least of which being the fact that once I know they are living there, my choices are either 1) evict them, 2) acknowledge they are living there and quietly allow them to, starting the clock on squatter's rights, or 3) acknowledge they are living there and explicitly allow them to, potentially taking legal responsibility for both their safety and any safety issues they pose to my customers.

While I'm not necessarily on the store's side here, if it was their property they have every right to dictate how it gets used, and they, like anyone else, has the property right to buy adjoining land and use it to improve the quality of use of their current land. When your neighbor moves out you can 100% buy the neighbor's house if you want just to control who lives next to you. You can even, as long as you follow the proper environmental and demolition laws, raze the house and replant trees, and yes you can kick anyone off that land your heart so desires.

Homeless issues aside (personally I'd rather they not do this) , it's reasonable for a business to keep wildland it owns clear to prevent loitering just the same as they could kick them out of the actual parking lot. they probably think it prevents crime and creates a perceived nicer/safer environment for customers. Maybe they're right, maybe they aren't, but it is, objectively, their choice to determine that and do so.

Technically true headline but it gives a misleading impression.

The fact that it cleared homeless camp is not at all connected to the law being broken. They broke the law because the land had environmental protections attached to it.

If a car made since the 90s doesn't have a plate mount on the front that is literally no one's fault but the dogshit manufacturer that is living in the 80s.

This I agree with. Inspections being mandatory is fine but in 2022 I should be able to go to a single website somewhere and book an appointment to get it done. My sticker is overdue right now actually because the last 2 places I took a lunch break to go to weren't doing them. One apparently had a frozen garage door and the other I think had their license to do it taken away but wouldn't admit that so one of the 7 mechanics standing around told me they were shorthanded.

Having a front plate doesn't really inconvenience anyone.

Aesthetically, I would prefer my car not have front plate, or have European style plates that are longer and narrower so they fit in the lines of most cars better, but it doesn't inconvenience me one bit. Every car built in like the last 50 years has front plate mounting points and when you register for the first time they just give you two plates.

No I'm not mistaking anything. And you're just semantically restating the same thing.

As I said....

>the real point here is that he's a multiple offender and didn't have a license for the gun in the first place.

He's not really getting charged with "bringing a loaded gun into an airport" vs being charged for getting caught illegally possessing a firearm. It's not where he had it. It's that he had at all when he wasn't supposed to. If a person who is properly credentialed to carry a firearm walks into logan with it and casually puts it through security like did they're most likely just going to have it confiscated.

The headline is technically accurate but also a bit misleading misleading. Bringing the gun to the airport isn't really what's getting him in trouble. The TSA confiscates weapons all the time to the point that their cringy social media presence memes about it trying to make themselves look like they're actually effective.

For a loaded gun you might still catch charges for it the real point here is that he's a multiple offender and didn't have a license for t he gun in the first place.

I can't think of a single reason why anybody isn't a gambling addict would be actively "excited" about this.

Any variation of "only guilty parties settle" is an unserious take held by naive children easily manipulated by headlines and guiltmongering. It fundamentally requires a level of gullability to let that notion roll around unsupervised in your head.

Companies and people settle all the time, sometimes for very large sums, on the simple math that it's cheaper than fighting, not just in lawyers and legal fees, but in avoiding bad press airtime in front of gullible weirdos like you.

Scared? No. Creeped the fuck out? Sure. You have a very rapey "I'm missing all my teeth and I have a body hidden back at the trailer park" vibes.

ew

You are never, ever, absolutely ever, obligated to tell a police officer anything other than your name (even that is iffy) and that you are asserting your 5th amendment rights to silence and an attorney.

You have to physically comply with breath tests but you absolutely do not have to do a field sobriety test or answer any questions.

It's entirely possible to be against drunk driving and also be against shitty, unproductive methods that violate civil liberties, cause traffic jams, cost absurd amounts of money and have never been able to demonstrate any reduction in drunk driving or drunk driving crashes.

Here's a tip my man... you can have the biggest bootleather licking fetish in the world and you can live your whole life just... not telling anybody about it like you just did.

We absolutely should, but we won't, because the cops have convinced the bootlickers that they need them much as they've convinced them they need military hardware.

Every time anyone even hints at laws disallowing or restricting drug dogs as cause for searches they also threaten to euthanize all the dogs.

if that's how you need to rationalize your inability to read basic human situations, sure, you tell yourself that.

k

k

We're talking about the police here, not a fucking favorite flavor of ice cream my dude. TL;DR on the rest of that tho.

I'm not sure what's funnier, that you're so unmoored from reality that you need someone on reddit to explain to you the reasons why they believe the police are a problem or that you're straw-manning the original post and trying to pretend you aren't.

Damn I wonder what gave it away that I "generally dislike" the police.

And no I don't have any teachers in my family. I know bootlicker instincts are strong but not everyone who criticizes the cops or questions whether we spend enough on education has an insider motive.