Citizens! It turns out that loving the river may be right after all -- i.e., any signs posted by the river stating “No Trespassing according to LAMC 41.22" might be on the wrong side of the law. Rough rephrasing: vagrancy and vandalism are not okay down by the river, but fishing, skipping stones and wandering are dandy because the aforesaid activities are not "loitering" as defined in LAMC 41.22.

Nature Trumps reports that a judge has thrown out the "loitering" ticket issued to a guy who was fishing.

According to Nature Trumps:

The courts have now ruled twice that walkers, fishermen, stoneskippers, duckfeeders, and so on are not vagrants, by definition, and thus those activities are not prohibited by LAMC 41.22.

If LAMC 41.22 has any legal bearing on what goes on in the River, and that’s questionable given the overlapping jurisdictions (city, county, state, federal) and lack of governing authority, it is to do with what’s been called the “spirit and intent” of the law, which is to outlaw vagrancy and vandalism in the area.

And now the other questions: Does vagrancy means homelessness? And if loitering isn't walking or fishing, then what is it? Can you only sit on one spot for so many minutes before you have to move your bottom and then resettle?

For some nice video views of the river, see "Medea" on Nature Trumps.