Every time another homeless person is chased by police into inclement weather conditions, this causes an increased physical stress (hypothermia) that weakens the body. Homeless people cannot tolerate a great deal of additional physical stresses beyond their already overburdened share. This chasing into the rain by police is causing a slow death by exposure to elements when forced into conditions that the houseless individual is not prepared for..

In this steady death march of the houseless chased from place to place, the police ensure that the lives of the homeless are considerably shortened. Is that the state's method of punishment for not being able or willing to obtain adequate shelter and/or contribute to the economic system? Are we to believe that people are better off dying a slow death from hypothermia in the rain than being given some help with obtaining housing? Or simply left in peace where they choose to rest? It appears that within the U.S., the public display of harrassment of homeless by the police is a fear tactic to keep all the workers in line, so that they'll continue to work as slaves for the corporations instead of being chased around by police in rainstorms while attempting to obtain shelter..

Since many places in sub/urban regions are claimed as "private property", and it is unsafe to erect a self-made shelter (ie., tarps, tents, etc..) in fringe wooded habitats outside of cities (Even if otherwise safe, the police often locate homeless camps and dismantle/destroy.), just where are homeless people supposed to disappear to for shelter? It appears that the overt harrassment and chasing of homeless is a police state strategy to make the homeless disappear from the Earth at a faster rate that they ordinarily would..

This sort of fascism against homeless populations throughout the U.S. is why i hate the police, and why i would support self defense actions against police brutality. Homeless people have the right to defend themselves by any means neccesary against police state orchestrated genocide..

Once police are removed of their badge, clubs and guns, they'll become human beings on equal footing with regular people real quick. Let's all try to get this fascist cop who chased the homeless into the rain off the police force and into some mental health counseling..

wow. I guess the x-mas spirit ended pretty quickly. When the temperature dips, someone who is wet could actually die. It would be acceptable for officers to kick someone off private property if there were a complaint, but if there were no space to direct them to. Plus, the sidewalk is semi-public. I was just in Seattle, and I was noticing how due to the cold, the homeless are distributed differently. They actually have far more church and shelter beds per capita than Santa Cruz. The business strip I was at had a tight cluster of 20 runaway kids with backpacks etc. and they were at the base of the Safeco tower, and nobody was freaking out and calling the police.
I could brainstorm a variety of parallel examples where someone could be liable for harming someone else, who has a technical rule violation. Let's say you're driving a car on one of the streets without sidewalks and someone is walking in the street. Is it okay to hit them anyway?

It may be pointless to ask--since I fear this post may quickly disappear.

Still, I respectfully request indybay.org local workers clarify why they removed following two posts below.

The posts update the story, provide more information, and are not easily accessible elsewhere. They also provide the names of the offending SCPD officers. Perhaps they were removed in error? If not, can you clarify the specific policy they violate?

Also do you hide posts or simply delete them? If only hidden, how can they be accessed? This would also be useful info for readers and writers.

Thanks, Robert Norse



These are the posts that disappeared in the last eight hours:


Craig Canada's own commentary on the situation.
by Craig Canada (posted by Norse) Sunday Jan 6th, 2008 3:54 PM
Below is the text of Craig's post; the full post is available at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15439


Pergolesi was probably about the last place to close in town, after the power went out. They closed about noon, best I can recall. When the storm was still at it's height.

I made it to the awning of the flower shop on the next block, and resolved to stay there until things cleared up.

I hadn't eaten, and I remember wondering how long it would be before the power was on and I could eat.

I was just finishing a bowl when a someone shouted something from a passing car. They said, "Is that medical" and showed me a badge. I said yes.

They stopped got out, and informed me I was on private property.

They told me it was illegal to smoke in public and to do it in private.

I told them it wasn't.

They ran an ID check on me. I got out my paperwork, but they didn't want to see that.

The whole point was to run me out in the rain.

So I hope you will help me salute these heroes of the storm:

And let's also salute Ryan Koonerty and the City Council and the Downtown Association, who have lead Santa Cruz to surpasse the Old South in downright cruelty and meanness.

"Stormy Weather" Cops IDed
by Robert Norse Monday Jan 7th, 2008 10:58 AM
The officers pictured in Craig's description (on the Sentinel forums) are Sgt. Loran Baker in photo 1, Officer Mike Hedley in photo 2, and Baker in the foreground, Hedley in the background in photo 3, I believe.

I hope to get a longer description of this incident from Craig Canada for a future radio show. Baker and Hedley, of course, are free to reply.



Drawing Lessons from Casual SCPD Cruelty http://www.indybay.org/comment.php?top_id=18470224

If Craig Canada was on private property smoking marijuana (medicinally!), Sgt. Baker and Officer Hedley violated Measure K by stopping Craig to for grasscrime. Measure K makes any police action against an individual using, growing, possessing, selling, or cultivating marijuana on private property the lowest priority. It's hard to imagine that the police didn't have higher priorities in the midst of the worst storm in 2 years.

For those interested in more on Measure K, check out the local story which indybay.org/santacruz buried "beneath the fold" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/14/18461217.php "Crippled Measure K ("Lowest Priority Enforcement Marijuana by SCPD") meets 6 PM today".

My advice to Craig in this situation is to first ask the police officer, "am I free to remain here?" (a variation on the more standard "am I free to go?" but necessary in the midst of a violent rainstorm). If the police officer says no, then Craig would be well-advised to say "then cite me for whatever crime you think I am doing". In fact, the police had no call to cite him for anything.

Though it is true under the Rotkin-Mathews downtown ordinances, it is illegal to sit within 14' of a building on the sidewalk, unless on a public bench, or your own stool or chair. It's conceivable that the owners of the flower shop on whose seats Craig was sitting had given police orders to keep an eye on their property, even to remove trespassers, but doubtful that they meant the police to do so to a disabled elderly man in the midst of a violent rainstorm.

On the same Friday Canada was given the SCPD "homeless? get wet!" treatment, Merryweather Mike, the colorful musician who performs downtown and helps feed people every Tuesday and Wednesday night in front of New Leaf Market, was driven out of the laundromat on the West Side, and evicted from MHCAN HQ up on Soquel Ave.---into the pouring rain.

For two Wednesdays the drum circle in the parking lot behind Logos has been driven away from the Farmer's Market under the equally oppressive 15-minute law (which forbids any loitering in a public parking lot or garage and allows only 15 minutes there, even if you have a car or bike). This police state sickness is spreading.

The story has been reorganized with most of the posts integrated into the main story (and thanks to indybay for doing this). However my last post has apparently not yet made the grade. If it's simply not been integrated into the story, I apologize in advance for my alarm. However, indybay.org/santacruz in the past has not been forthcoming in explaining why it deletes posts.

For those interested the missing post reads:


Drawing Lessons from Casual SCPD Cruelty http://www.indybay.org/comment.php?top_id=18470224

If Craig Canada was on private property smoking marijuana (medicinally!), Sgt. Baker and Officer Hedley violated Measure K by stopping Craig to for grasscrime. Measure K makes any police action against an individual using, growing, possessing, selling, or cultivating marijuana on private property the lowest priority. It's hard to imagine that the police didn't have higher priorities in the midst of the worst storm in 2 years.

For those interested in more on Measure K, check out the local story which indybay.org/santacruz buried "beneath the fold" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/14/18461217.php "Crippled Measure K ("Lowest Priority Enforcement Marijuana by SCPD") meets 6 PM today".

My advice to Craig in this situation is to first ask the police officer, "am I free to remain here?" (a variation on the more standard "am I free to go?" but necessary in the midst of a violent rainstorm). If the police officer says no, then Craig would be well-advised to say "then cite me for whatever crime you think I am doing". In fact, the police had no call to cite him for anything.

Though it is true under the Rotkin-Mathews downtown ordinances, it is illegal to sit within 14' of a building on the sidewalk, unless on a public bench, or your own stool or chair. It's conceivable that the owners of the flower shop on whose seats Craig was sitting had given police orders to keep an eye on their property, even to remove trespassers, but doubtful that they meant the police to do so to a disabled elderly man in the midst of a violent rainstorm.

On the same Friday Canada was given the SCPD "homeless? get wet!" treatment, Merryweather Mike, the colorful musician who performs downtown and helps feed people every Tuesday and Wednesday night in front of New Leaf Market, was driven out of the laundromat on the West Side, and evicted from MHCAN HQ up on Soquel Ave.---into the pouring rain.

For two Wednesdays the drum circle in the parking lot behind Logos has been driven away from the Farmer's Market under the equally oppressive 15-minute law (which forbids any loitering in a public parking lot or garage and allows only 15 minutes there, even if you have a car or bike). This police state sickness is spreading.

wake up, robert. think First next time.

If you're trying to make sense writing for the joy of vicarious association with the villian of santa cruz, then yeah it makes no sense. Anything else in there, Tired of Robert?

So Robert, what have you and Becky done to help Craig find housing here in Santa Cruz? If you are such a champion of his then I am sure you have tried to find him some form of housing, right?

Or, Robert, is it that you and Becky have no intention of helping this elderly disabled man find housing? Is it that you just want to lift the sleeping ban so that people like Craig can continue to sleep on the street? Even during the harsh winter storms, such as we have just seen?

Maybe if you had spent half your time trying to help find these unfortunate people housing rather than fighting for them to continue to sleep on the streets, he would have been in a warm place and out of the rain. He would also have been in a place where the police would not be harassing him.

This man may have been on "private" property, just not HIS private property. I believe that you need to be on your own property, or on a property with the consent of the owner of the property, in order to have the police look the other way.

Also, everyone knows that smoking weed on the street is still illegal. Even if you are a medical patient.

Older? Than other people? You make it sound like the guy is ancient. He's 52. Hardly "older".

1. Using medical marijuana in public ("on the street") is not illegal, but rather protected by SB420 and Proposition 215.

2. If Canada was on private property, Measure K dictates that marijuana enforcement for any purpose (medical or otherwise) should be the lowest priority. What were Baker and Hedley doing harassing Canada for this specifically in the middle of a severe rainstorm?

3. The issue of the right to be poor in public goes beyond finding housing--though that, I agree, is the aspiration of the majority of homeless people. Actually I do my bit in that regard, trying to hook folks up with housing (ask Craig). But Santa Cruz is still in the midst of a housing emergency (real estate profiteering being the big priority here) and at least until there is shelter and housing, criminalizing the poor in public is not only brutal but futile.

4. Police apparently had "protect our empty benches" instructions from the owner of the flower shop (I spoke with him afterwards). Harassing one person on a bench in torrential rain is still rank, abusive, and really bad judgment. Police collusion with merchants in vi basic human rights is one classic definition of fascism.

5. Actually trespass law requires folks be warned by a posted sign, a fence, the owner, or the owner's agent generally, so no, you don't have to be on your own private property. Anyway the sidewalk area, is a public right of way. This was straight harassment. It's kind of sickening to read people defending it (or getting their jollies attacking me around this issue).

6. Being 52 is "older". Being 52 and homeless is no picnic. Particularly in our compassion-challenged Coonerty-minded downtown. Homeless people die significantly earlier than the rest of us, and are subject to four times the rate of assault here in Santa Cruz (according to the former police chief's own figures).


I've received more reports of police ignoring Measure K. Please contact Commissioners Rice, True, and/or Henri of the Measure K Commission to let them know all is not well in Wilsonville [Dick Wilson, our City-Manager-for-Life, is the real organizational power in the Santa Cruz government].

Sleeping Ban ticketing continues merrily along, even though the Armory is stuffed and there's 1500-2000 folks outside with emergency walk-in shelter for less than 160. Please contact HUFF at 423 with Sleeping Ban citations to join the federal lawsuit against the City. Or to volunteer to help.

Perhaps Gwen, Ben,and Gary--assuming they actually are separate individuals--will do their bit to bring Santa Cruz into the 21st Century. You know, along with really liberal cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, and Richmond--who have stopped sleeping ban ticketing. It's a tad embarrassing to be ranked below these four in treatment of the homeless on this issue.

Robert, you may find this hard to believe but I am a MM supporter.

That said, this man was breaking the law under SB420 and Prop 215. You can look it up yourself.

"11362.79. Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances:

(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.

(b) In or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or youth center, unless the medical use occurs within a residence.

The location described in the incident puts him well within 1000 feet of two centers. The Louden Nelson Community Center and the Boys and Girls Club."

There is, however, an out. If you are smoking MM within your own residence near one of these centers. Unfortunately, this does not apply to the gentleman in this situation.

Now, on to part (a). The city is seriously considering making the downtown business district a no-smoking area. If this happens, it will be clear that you cannot smoke in public, even if a MM patient. If you believe that you are allowed to smoke MM in public, please provide the section of SB420 which states this to be the case.

After speaking with Craig, he agrees and I concede that the corner of Cathcart and Cedar is within 1000' of the Louden Nelson Community Center, and/or the Red Church's children facility (both closed, of course, during the rain storm power outage).

Craig added when I asked him about this that the owner of the store apparently came out in the course of the interaction and encouraged the police to move him on.

In so far as Craig was on "private" or "privately leased" public property, the police action was suspect under Measure K as an incident involving marijuana without additional concerns unless the owner specifically called the cops on a "trespass" complaint.

That would have been mighty petty and rather unlikely in a rainstorm.
But I concede it might have been possible

" the police action was suspect under Measure K"

How so?

They didn't take his MM away.
The didn't cite him for anything.
They didn't even ticket him for breaking the 1000 feet portion of SB420.

They just asked him to move along.

By not giving him a ticket, regarding the 1000 foot limit, they obviously showed restraint.