District Attorney Files Felony Charges Against Homeowner for Removing Trees

I would say that there is something to the owner or location of the tree, in fact how could you not? If I vandalize my own car it’s definitely less of a crime than if I vandalize your car, right?

I’m not dodging… I repeatedly keep saying that a homeless person doing the same thing wouldn’t be a felony to me. It’s not a felony no matter who does it!!!

DUKE - the owner of the property being vandalized is completely irrelevant here. You keep dodging what we all know to be true. If a homeless person or gang banger cut down or in some way damaged ANY trees to the tune of over $10,000 EVERYONE here would be screaming bloody murder and demanding Dudley arrest them and "throw the book at them."

Heck, ANDREA SMITH is demanding that homeless people be charged for felonies for accidentally burning a tree. Can you imagine if they WILLFULLY ripped one down?

This is beyond ridiculous. I'm going to go drink by the pool. HYPOCRITES, the lot of you.

That being said I do think it's a bit of false equivalency. While the tree at the edge of your driveway isn't "yours", it is directly in front of your house and you get to deal with (and are responsible) for it's leaves, falling limbs and pipe attacking roots. That definitively in my mind makes it less of a crime then someone vandalizing or cutting down a random tree...which, also though wouldn't be a felony as a first offense.

He’s noted that they have valued the trees over 100k and as such it “has to be a felony”… except that’s a ridiculous number to anyone and everyone with any sense of proportion and logic. And where’s the intellectual dishonesty? You called people out for being “law and order” and then not caring about a tree… while embodying the exact opposite, being against “law and order” except when it involves a tree… at which point you want to go medieval on the guy. Where’s the intellectual honesty on your part again? Conversely though I see a good amount of humour in your hypocrisy.

"over the top bit of charging"

SACJON has noted that numerous times, in part to deflect dishonest strawman arguments ... to no avail.

I find extreme intellectual dishonesty more tragic than humorous, which is why I tend to avoid you. Ta ta.

Or on the obvious flip side Marcel the people turning into passionate o bet the top law and order zealots over a tree. Kind of humorous the nuttiness of both/either extreme… no?

It’s obviously a real spectacular stretch to call the value of these tree/shrubs “over 100k”. And I think the fact that it was in front of their house makes the comparison to gang bangers or homeless a bit tenuous. Again… wrong and illegal and deserving punishment… but just a wild over the top bit of charging.

It's not so much about not reading as about people who pose as being concerned with "law and order" but actually have no respect for the law and only care about whether the outcomes are what they desire. Thus we get "Forget about this crime, what about this thing I don't like?"

It’s emblematic of the problem with current discourse in this country:

I mean how and why would talking with someone you disagree with over the punishment of removing a few trees/shrubs “disgust you”?

Multiple felonies (and their corresponding consequences) are, by definition, punishment… so what are you talking about ?

The extremes on the left and right are the problem. They selectively want to enforce laws (and selectively want to wildly over punish) when it suits their desires…

" Your posts are an example of a zealous passion for punishment with no seemingly no sense of proportion or reality. "

Although it disgusts me to engage with this person in any way, I will note that none of my posts calls for punishing anyone for anything.

Sac - I don’t really like being lumped in with other people whom I dont know and haven’t agreed with. That being said, no, UNEQUIVOCALLY (and from the heart) NO! If a homeless person vandalised a Eugenia tree I would not want them charged with a felony.

The 100k number is insane and escalating it to that is insane. A hefty fine with the original charges was sufficient and justifiable. This is Dudley trying to make a point but to me doing so illogically.

DUKE - vandalism causing damage over $10,000 is a felony. Period. If it's over $400, less than $10K, then it's a wobbler (can go either way).

AGAIN.... if a homeless person or gangster caused more than $10,000 of damage to some trees (no matter who owns them), would you still be here crying foul and demanding that person get some leeway? Honestly, from the heart, would you or others here be saying the same thing? You KNOW you would not.

I appreciate the Inigo Montoya reference, but everything else is nonsense.

You are clearly defending "over the top nutty charges", which deserves to be called out. I floated that there has to be mitigating circumstances for the insanity of the charges, her living on the street would be a (obviously insanely unlikely) example of a humorously evil/wrong mitigating factor...the truth is more likely it just had a ring to it and she liked the sound of big charges (or maybe her left toe tingled and that did it, as she does have a history of some bizarre charges). No one here knows "all of the details", not you, not I, not Sac, not Ms Dudley...but from what we do know it seems nutty to go for felonies. That's a plain and simple (and obvious) truth to someone with any honesty or sense or proportion.

What honesty or proportion have you shown? Your posts are an example of a zealous passion for punishment with no seemingly no sense of proportion or reality. Does the tree cutter have 6 fingers on his right hand or what's the deal...?

"Do you always wildly misquote people?"

It's a paraphrase that captures the implicit content, not an actual quote. No remotely honest person would characterize me as misquoting you or Mr. B.

"Pretty much everyone on here has noted the seemingly over the top nature of the felony charges"

Sure, which is why attacking people here for defending over the top charges and accusing them of being at the nutty extremes fails.

"obviously ms Dudley doesn’t live on this street"

Obviously you floated the idea that she does.

"there seemingly has to be some mitigating factor being used to justify this over the top charging"

See my paraphrase again: "I don't know all the details of how this charge developed so I will [just make stuff up]".

And I do not think that word means what you think it means.

The rhetorical quicksand of those with no intellectual scruples grows tiresome quickly, so I will refrain from further exchange.

Not a felony. Now if they went around doing this repeatedly or you start getting into mature Oaks and/or on other people's property it could obviously reach a felony...but not in this case (or the homeless Paul Bunyun). I also think it's a bit of an apple's to oranges comparison as these trees were in front of the guys house. In your example it's more akin to someone hating a neighbors trees or a tree down their street and cutting them down. I think the fact that it's on (or at least directly in front) of his property lessens the crime. And again...multiple felonies!!! Maybe he's done this before and/or something else is in play, but from what facts I've seen it seems wildly over the top.

DUKE - what if a homeless person chopped them down?

Do you always wildly misquote people?

Pretty much everyone on here has noted the seemingly over the top nature of the felony charges… with some liking it as a deterrent and others horrified at its insanity.

And obviously ms Dudley doesn’t live on this street… but there seemingly has to be some mitigating factor being used to justify this over the top charging.

"I don't know all the details of how this charge developed so I will pretty nuttily suggest that it's because Joyce Dudley lives on the street" -- DM

No, but that doesn’t mean it’s right to charge multiple felonies. I don’t want people stealing, but I’m glad we’re not cutting off their hands for it anymore.

Perhaps there is more to the story (or Ms Dudley lives on this street) as this seems pretty nutty…

"Trees are bad so this was ok." -- B

Eugenia trees are cool.

"Big Brother is wholly deficient if he doesn't know who everyone is, where they are, and what they are doing at all times. It's two systems of justice if we have contact information for homeowners but not for people around a campfire." -- B

Would you rather live in the desert?

Was it the City's property, or was it private property but covered by the City's easement? The City owns the street but usually private property starts at the curb. The City controls what happens on their easement but take no liability when their trees cause your sewer system to back up. They have their cake and eat it too.

They are living but, by the normal use of the word, they are not "beings."

By inference, should tree's on public property be allowed to be removed, or should that also require "full mitigation and approval from the populace"?

"it gets tiring"

Indeed, so please stop doing it (your comments here being clear examples).

COASTWATCH - again, when has a homeless person been caught intentionally starting fires (arson) and let go without charges? You and ANDREA keep harping that homeless people aren't being charged with felonies for burning things down, but poor old rich white guys are getting held accountable. You can say it as much as you want, but until you provide even a scintilla of evidence, it's just an angry lie, nothing more.

ANDREA - calm down. You know you're wrong, it's ok, you're mad about it, fine. BUT, if you are going to continue claiming that homeless arsonists are not being arrested/charged, back it up with some proof. I'm only a "bully" or "aggressive" when I see flat out lies, like yours.

SACJON given your aggressive and inaccurate response seems as if you know it's true and it hits a button for you b/c you realize the hypocrisy and can't defend it so you just get aggressive instead, and bullyish/insulting. Typical tactic I see on here and it gets tiring.

Yes they do know who starts them in many cases and it's negligence at the very least which carries weight but no criminal charges for them or for when they defecate and destroy public taxpayer property.

PIT - right. First you have to catch them though. Also, the warming fires might not be intentional. So, you have to actually catch the person who started it AND determine it was intentional before you can charge them. Not always easy to do. Definitely not as easy as the lazy argument: "(fill in the blank) gets charged, but (fill in the blank with whatever group you hate - immigrants, homeless, etc) never get charged." It's truly an embarrassingly lazy and hateful argument I see over and over here. Just use and adapt the formula to the "evil group" du jour.

If our authorities do not know who is living in these crime riddled tent encampments already, like they certainly track known gang members elsewhere in this city, they are wholly deficient in their task of protecting public safety. They should know exactly who started the fires in each and every camp. And have full documentary evidence on file, just like every other property-owning residents has a public file open to anyone who wants this individual's contact information. One more example of two systems of justice.

Sac, arsonists usually get charged, but those "accidental" campfire starters usually don't, or if they have, I haven't heard about it.

ANDREA SMITH - why do you think they don't? Have they ever caught someone (other than the TV Hill arsonist who is being charged with multiple felonies) and then not charged them with anything? Name one instance where they caught a homeless person starting a fire and then released them with no charges.

Or, are you just making up "facts" to complain?

Technically, they were not well taken care of the owners, as they are city owned trees. They were taken care of by the nearby property owners.