[Noisebridge-discuss] Who do we want to exclude? [Drama]

Sat Apr 13 03:22:13 UTC 2013

Oh, and I forgot to mention..

I don't think police brutality is something that is encompassed under the
definition of "justice" either.

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Aly Kaplan <alykaplan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Y
> es.
>
>
> In this sense... people are obstructions in much the same way that they
> are obstructions to justice by filming police.
> The interpretation or willingness of those imposing the law is not always
> synonymous with a dictionary definition, unfortunately.
> The fact that it is used in a way that is NOT synonymous with the
> dictionary definition leads me to believe that at the very least, the
> dictionary definition may not be sufficient to define obstruction.
> Similarly, many laws DO define obstruction very clearly in their contexts.
> (In San Francisco, a vehicle on a sidewalk is considered an "obstruction".)
>
> I realize this doesn't particularly add to the conversation of who to
> exclude, and we've gone off on quite a tangent.
> I simply dislike when others impose something as law when this isn't even
> clearly stated as such.
> (Yes, I do not take the total of your links to mean what you have stated.
> I think you have imposed something onto it.)
>
> The ambiguity in the law is certainly intentional, though!
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Mitchel McAllister <xonimmortal at yahoo.com
> > wrote:
>
>> "People standing on the fire escape are obstructions" are my words. They
>> are also common sense.
>>
>> Here's an experiment. Stand in the doorway between the stairs and the
>> space. Don't move. See how many people can go through the doorway.
>>
>> Now, try this: lock the door to the space, from the inside, as is
>> required by law for doors to a fire escape. See how many people can come in.
>>
>> Even if you maintain (absent common sense) that people standing on the
>> fire escape are not obstructions, they would still be unable to come back
>> into the space if we adhere to the requirement that the door be locked so
>> that people can not enter the space from the fire escape.
>>
>> And yes, re-entering is entering. Re-enter means "to enter again".
>>
>> What I am seeing, far in excess of suggested solutions, is a bunch of
>> people kicking their heels and screaming "you can't make me".
>>
>> Guess what? Throwing tantrums isn't excellent either, unless you accept
>> the expanded and broadened meaning of "whatever one wants to do, regardless
>> of how it affects others".
>>
>>
>> - Reverend Mik McAllister
>> ------------------------------
>> "You can see the summit but you can't reach it
>> Its the last piece of the puzzle but you just can't make it fit
>> Doctor says you're cured but you still feel the pain
>> Aspirations in the clouds but your hopes go down the drain"
>>  - Howard Jones, "No One Is To Blame"
>> ------------------------------
>> Purveyor of Subversive Fiction
>> http://www.prismandink.com
>> http://www.lunatextpublications.com
>>
>> --- On *Fri, 4/12/13, Andrew Byrne <andrew at pachakutech.com>* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Andrew Byrne <andrew at pachakutech.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Who do we want to exclude? [Drama]
>> To: "Mitchel McAllister" <xonimmortal at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: "NoiseBridge Discuss" <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>,
>> "Aly Nb" <alykaplan at gmail.com>
>> Date: Friday, April 12, 2013, 3:18 PM
>>
>>
>> " people standing on the fire escape are obstructions" <-- are those your
>> words, or the law? If the latter, then I would point out a seemingly
>> glaring confound in the law, if the former, your confusion; it would seem
>> the quoted law even makes an example of cases (not ours) where people are
>> often to be found. The only way I can see that line making a lick of sense
>> is if one can legally occupy /only/ Useable Open Spaces, which is not
>> really the domain of the fire code. It's not like it's a designated smoking
>> area or something. -dru
>> On Apr 12, 2013 2:24 PM, "Mitchel McAllister" <xonimmortal at yahoo.com<http://mc/compose?to=xonimmortal@yahoo.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> --- On Fri, 4/12/13, Aly Kaplan <alykaplan at gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=alykaplan@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>> > I'd like to see the law that says this is illegal -- it certainly isn't
>> > according to SF Fire Code.
>> >
>> > However, it is always good to be excellent to your neighbors.It may also
>> > be prohibited on your lease.
>>
>> Retrieved from
>> http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca
>>
>> San Francisco Fire Code 1030.2.1 [Chapter 10 "Means of Egress"]
>>    Fire escapes and related balconies, ladders, landings, and operating
>> devices shall not be obstructed in any manner. No object shall be stored on
>> or attached to a fire escape without the approval of the fire code official.
>>
>> San Francisco Building Inspection Commission (BIC) Codes Sec. 908
>>    All safety devices or equipment provided for in this chapter shall be
>> maintained in good repair at all times. Fire escapes shall be kept clear
>> and unobstructed and be readily accessible at all times. Upon inspection,
>> the property owner, or authorized agent, shall demonstrate to the Director
>> or designated personnel, that all existing fire escapes are fully
>> operational and properly maintained. Upon completion of the inspection, all
>> existing fire escapes shall be secured pursuant to Section 1110.3.1. of the
>> San Francisco Fire Code.
>>
>> San Francisco Planning code Article 1.2 SEC. 135.  USABLE OPEN SPACE FOR
>> DWELLING UNITS AND GROUP HOUSING, R, NC, MIXED USE, C, AND M DISTRICTS.
>>  (f)(3)     Fire Escapes as Usable Open Space. Normal fire escape grating
>> shall not be considered suitable surfacing for usable open space. The steps
>> of a fire escape stairway or ladder, and any space less than six feet deep
>> between such steps and a wall of the building, shall not be credited as
>> usable open space. But the mere potential use of a balcony area for an
>> emergency fire exit by occupants of other dwelling units (or bedrooms in
>> group housing) shall not prevent it from being credited as usable open
>> space on grounds of lack of privacy or usability.
>>
>> People standing on the fire escape are obstructions. Fire escapes are not
>> open space.
>>
>> However, I also noticed that we are in violation because the fire escape
>> door is not locked against people entering from outside, which seems to be
>> the focus of a lot more codes, ordinances, and case law.
>>
>>
>> - Reverend Mik McAllister
>> "You can see the summit but you can't reach it
>> Its the last piece of the puzzle but you just can't make it fit
>> Doctor says you're cured but you still feel the pain
>> Aspirations in the clouds but your hopes go down the drain"
>>  - Howard Jones, "No One Is To Blame"
>> Purveyor of Subversive Fiction
>> http://www.prismandink.com
>> http://www.lunatextpublications.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net<http://mc/compose?to=Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net>
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130412/c1f79c42/attachment-0003.html>