Pages

Monday, February 06, 2006

TreeMan

It’s déjà vu all over again. Cindy Sheehan wears a tee shirt to the State of the Union Address that notes the number of dead soldiers killed in the Iraq war and gets roughly escorted from the gallery and arrested. A senator’s wife (I believe) is also wearing a tee shirt that says “Support the Troops.” She’s escorted from the House but not arrested.

Equal rights under law? Free speech for me but not for thee? And your freedom to speak depends on what you want to say? Well, perish the thought.

Back in 2005, during the groundbreaking for the Hideous Los Osos Sewer at the Tri-W site on Los Osos Valley Road, a whole bunch of people showed up. TV cameras were there. Officials were there with shovels for a little ceremonial digging. Citizens were there carrying signs, signs in equal measure both for and against the sewer, both for and against the recall. There was booooooing. BOOOOOOOOO! And hissing. And snarky comments and snide asides and catcalls. Sheriff officers were there. People were milling all over the Tri W site and spilling onto the roadway (very dangerous as the traffic was whizzing by, as it usually does, at a high rate of speed.)

It was a potentially scary public gathering because tempers were running high. But nobody threw a dirt clod, everyone minded (sort of) their manners. And not a single person was arrested and hauled away for “suspicion of trespass,” even though almost everyone at the site was, indeed, trespassing all over the place.

Except for activist Joey Racano, who was sitting some distance away up in the (now cut down) eucalyptus trees holding a big sign that said, “Recall before Tree Fall.” He alone was asked by the sheriff to come down from the tree and go away. He refused until the ceremony was over, and when he climbed down he was arrested for “suspicion of trespassing.”

Interestingly, to my knowledge, none of the other people carrying signs saying “Recall before Tree Fall” and trespassing all over the place on the ground were asked to leave the site. Just Joey. Which begs a question: Is there a county ordinance that forbids the climbing of trees on CSD property? If so, then parents who take their kids to the nearby park had better be warned: Don’t let your kids clamber over any of the trees there else they be escorted to the pokey as criminal lawbreakers!

Or, maybe the “trespass” law is selective? As in, You can trespass so long as you’re verbally supportive of whoever’s putting on the ceremony you’re attending. If you’re opposed to whatever the sponsoring agency is, then you’re a criminal trespasser. If that’s the operational rule in this case, then at least ½ of all the people attending that ground-breaking were criminal trespassers. Yet only Joey got arrested?

So, back we go to the tree. There had to be something about tree-sitting that was the crime. Couldn’t have been the signs, as a whole bunch of ground-standers were carrying signs. Or catcalling, since on the ground lots of people were catcalling, some of them a mere arm’s length away from the Sheriff.

Nope. Had to be the tree.

Well, Joe’s going to be in court today. The CSD Board members who pressed charges have been recalled. The new Board tried to have the charges dropped, but, according to Joey, the SLO DA refused. So, now it’s up to the judge to tell this community:

Was it the TREE?

15 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

I tend to agree that the trespass charges were a bit off the wall but...

Should the determination of whether a crime has been committed be based on who is the formal "head" of a dysfunctional family. I would think that these matters are probably best left in the hands of the DA.

It might be best to make my point in the context of an example. What if a family is robbed by a man who is caught and charges are then filed because the husband/father says the family was robbed and the police verified that a robbery did occur and this individual was the guilty party. If, later, the husband happens to die an untimely death and it is found out that the robber moves into the master bedroom with the widow ... would the widow's expressed desire to drop the charges really surprise anyone? Shouldn't it be the police and DA who get to decide whether charges are dropped?

Again, I believe that charges against Joey were a bit silly, but nonetheless, it shouldn't be up to the CSD whether to press charges or not.

Anonymous said...

They should drop the charges against Joey. The system is totally biased against activists (oh - I mean "troublemakers")and everyone knows it. Geez. Nice article, Ann. By the way, I am not Joey. Everytime I post something here that is in support of him or his activities, people start saying that I must be Joey. Face it, he's got some supporters here. Or did you miss the recall election? :)

Anonymous said...

Seems that he got arrested because he was by himself. If there were 30 other people sitting on the branches with him would he still have been arrested? Like traffic on the grapevine, where a single car doing 85 gets pulled over and ticketed but a group of 10 cars doing 90 just have to slow down a bit and get away with it. Or maybe the Sheriff was just irritated becasue Joey didn't get down when he was asked to, so it's an attitude thing. The sheriff's authority has been compromised. It doesn't sound like it will stick. It's another shameful waste of resources.

Mike Green said...

Joey, I was happy to shake your hand and say "thanks" today,
Yes, I think you may be half a bubble off sometimes, but I would defend your right to say what you want. where you want. The DA serves nobody by charging you!
If there is one thing Los Osoans can count on, its bad county government.

Mike Green said...

As for sharkey and the "example"
What good are laws if they are not enforced by people? I mean human beings here, not automatons with laywer slide rules. At every stage of this game with Mr. Racano there was the certanty of a human decision that was influenced by the perceptions and experiences of the observer. Granted if there is clearly a possibility of a law being broken, and it has a negative effect on another person
By all means look into it.

Who did Joey hurt?

Anonymous said...

Sharky, once again you don't get it. Your example comparing Joey's tree climb to "robbery" is hardly accurate.

And you comment "police verified that a robbery did occur and this individual was the guilty party" is a whole other story... we'll leave that for another time.

But back to you comparison... what if the "robber" had been an invited guest of the man's wife, and was enjoying a cup of coffee and a chat with the wife. While the husband tried to watch tv he couldn't help but be interrupted by the man's conversation, and in particular the subject matter, which he disagreed with.

So the husband called police and said there was an intruder that was robbing his family. The police quickly arrive and arrest the man after "verify(ing) that a robbery did occur and this individual was the guilty party".

That comparison is much much more accurate and I'm sure everyone can see what the outcome of that case should be.

That's all for now Sharky... I'll let you get back to manipulating and spinning.

Mike Green said...

I am certain that the tree will be called as the first witness.
WHAT?
The witness was murdered?
By who??

Call the Sherif!!

Shark Inlet said...

Good question, Mike.

Who did Joey hurt? No one.

The only thing that seems "wrong" to me about his actions is that he didn't immediately get down from the tree when asked by the law enforcement people.

Presumably no charges would have been filed had the DA seen no harm in Joey's actions whether the previous CSD asked for charges or not. At least that is how it should be.


To our anonymous friend who seems to miss the point with some regularity ...

You maybe skipped the part where I wrote that I diagree with the charges in the first place.

You seem to think that I am comparing Joey to someone in my story. I am not. I was just trying to make the point that should be people with legal understanding and status with the court who determine whether charges ought to be filed or not rather than others with less understanding of the law, including the "victim" of whatever crime it is.

Your counter-example shows my point very clearly.


Manipulating and spinning ... I guess that giving one's opinion is considered manipulating nowadays. Sad.

If we're gonna play that way, let me know the rules so I can understand. I can see that accusing the current board is viewed as manipulating. Would accusing the previous board be viewed as manipulating, or is this game one sided? Should I accuse Lisa of manipulating and spinning when she discusses issues in public or is that off limits.

Just let me know and I'll follow the rules. Until then I'll simply present my point of view.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure there's cause to write the guy up and prosecute. However, I simply do not want to spend one dime of taxes on prosecuting the guy and giving him any more celebrity than he already has.

DA discretion should prevail. Unfortunately, if the DA drops it, the guy will flail about like he's won the lottery. If the DA continues, the guy will flail about like he's the 2nd coming.

They just should have helped him out of the tree like they do a cat/dog, which is pretty analogous to his usefulness.

Shark Inlet said...

Glad that you've finally got a name ... but because it is a bit long, I'll refer to you as "what the hell".

what the hell...

I don't see why it is so difficult for you to figure this out.

I think it was silly to arrest Joey and I think it is silly to prosecute him.

However, I am not in charge. Furthermore, the CSD isn't in charge of this issue either. Various legal representatives of the people are in charge.

If Joey was in the tree was illegal in the mind of the cops, they have the right to ask him to get down. If, in retrospect, it appears that his actions were not illegal, the DA would presumably not file charges or the charges would be dropped.

If the police think there is a legitimate reason for thinking your shirt color is an issue, I would be surprised. If you remember, the US Supreme's affirmed that a T-shirt which said "Fuck the War" was acceptable political speech, I hardly think that any reasonable cop would view your color choice as an issue.

Presumable you think that the original charge of trespassing was out of line. That is not so obvious to me. Perhaps someone from the CSD asked him to be removed from the tree. This would be a legitimate request for many reasons, not the least of which is if Joey had fallen out of the tree, he could sue the CSD for damages. (That I would also think silly, but remember the McDonalds coffee lawsuit.) One key point here is that if Joey had gotten down when the police had asked he likely would not have been charged. It was his refusal to follow orders that got him in trouble.

Let's return to you and your pink shirt. If the police have any legitimate reason for asking you to remove it and you refuse, you could easily be arrested. Thats sort of how the game is played, you see. If there is no legitimate reason for them to ask you to remove the shirt, they ask, you refuse and you are then arrested, you can sue them for violating your rights.

Sort of like checks and balances.

Thoughts?

Shark Inlet said...

what the hell...

You are right. Well educated police who know the law will save us money and lots of unnecessary hassle.

I know of few of the details over Cindy's arrest. If it was not warrented she is welcome to sue.

It sounds like you are being argumentative here just because you like arguing with me. I don't get it. What's up?

Churadogs said...

I'm still laughing over the tree being called as a witness only to find out, the tree's. . . . gasp!

DEAD!

Was it a chain saw in the library?Lurpsilid (sp?) in the drawingroom? Miss Scarlet in the hall?

CALL THE CSI!

Mike Green said...

I wonder if the Sheriff took 28 8X10 glossy photos with pictures and arrows?
Where is a blind judge when you need them?

Shark Inlet said...

Mike, you're forgetting the paragraph on the back of each one.

Joey,

From your description of what happened it looks like you're being railroaded.

Perhaps there are some missing details here, but it does seem sort of a waste of time to me.

Mike Green said...

Famous AND immune from the draft!
Good Job Joey!