The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (San Diego, Pasadena: removal, union, violence)

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You know what I have said, and it's not what you are suggesting. The privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement. That means that you cannot force people to move from where they are, or stay in a particular place unless they are:

• Breaking a law, i.e trespassing
• Have been convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison or jail
• Are detained for 72 hour psychiatric evaluation or have been committed to a mental health facility by a judge

That's not my idea, the founding fathers decided it should be that way, so quit trying to turn it into something else. The idea of rounding up all the homeless and busing them all off to detention centers is laughable, and illegal.

Regarding LA vs Malibu or Beverly Hills, different jurisdictions have different ways of managing the homeless. Maybe you could do some research and find out what the difference are, then tell us ok? As I've said a dozen times, generally speaking a homeless person can be arrested for camping in a public space if a) it is prohibited by municipal or county code -or- b) the person can be offered shelter space within a reasonable distance from where they are and they refuse it.

I didn't dream that up, I didn't write the law - I'm just telling you what it is because after 2638 posts in this there are still people suggesting illegal and or extrajudicial solutions to homelessnessness and I do not suffer fools gladly.

This is a gross distortion of what the founders intended and our common law. The founders considered vagrants to be criminals. Public drunkenness and habitual drunkenness were crimes then. Vaguely related is squatters on open land, occupying it openly and notoriously, after a period of time, they could become rightful owners. Even then if they were habitual drunkards, no courts would grant such equitable relief to squatters on someone’s land absent a showing of no longer being a criminal. One could never come to the court as a known criminal and expect equity if one were not respectable. This is certainly not the case in a city. Regressives like to lie. Regressives chipped away at each crime to turn us into Calcutta; vagrancy, public intoxication, trespassing, camping on public land...on and on to “ decriminalize” being a bum.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Da tovarish, Kapitalist made de homeless because beeg price rent. Kapitalist lie and nyot tell truth (pravda). Spread truth of Strong state, everyone get what need.

Well, at least I’ll give you an ‘lol’ for this ... and a ‘heh’

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

I’ll tell you what. Kasich was cucked. The nation and state can no longer afford to elect cucks because the nation is at a dangerous point.

“Kasich was cucked”? Explain?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

This is a gross distortion of what the founders intended and our common law. The founders considered vagrants to be criminals. Public drunkedness and habitual drunkenness were crimes then. Vaguely related is squatters on open land, occupying it openly and notoriously, after a period of time, they could become rightful owners. Even then if they were habitual drunks, no courts would grant such equitable relief to squatters on someone’s land absent a showing of no longer being a criminal. One could never come to the court as a known criminal and expect equity if one were not respectable. This is certainly not the case in a city. Regressives like to lie. Regressives chipped away at each crime to turn us into Calcutta; vagrancy, public intoxication, trespassing, camping on public land...on and on to “ decriminalize” being a bum.

Back it up with something other than your 'interpretation', I'll be right here waiting...

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Back it up with something other than your 'interpretation', I'll be right here waiting...

Here is an excerpt from the ACLU (advocacy group):

HISTORY OF CRIMINALIZATION
The US and Oregon have a long a history of
punishing the poor and unhoused. It began with
vagrancy laws aimed at criminalizing loitering,
roaming, idleness, unemployment, begging and
sleeping outdoors. While some laws have been
repealed, the fundamental approach has not
changed.

Cities have since taken on additional strategies,
such as targeting street-level misdemeanors,
that implicitly and explicitly call for the
harassment and removal of houseless people.
Local governments have used outdated state
statutes to supplement their own anti-homeless
laws or to target specific conduct. This legacy of
abusive policy provides the foundation for the
laws we see today.

https://aclu-or.org/sites/default/fi..._web_final.pdf

For decades, regressives have been going after these laws. NOW WE ARE CALCUTTA. Just as you intended.

[Finper]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You know what I have said, and it's not what you are suggesting. The privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement. That means that you cannot force people to move from where they are, or stay in a particular place unless they are:

• Breaking a law, i.e trespassing
• Have been convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison or jail
• Are detained for 72 hour psychiatric evaluation or have been committed to a mental health facility by a judge

That's not my idea, the founding fathers decided it should be that way, so quit trying to turn it into something else. The idea of rounding up all the homeless and busing them all off to detention centers is laughable, and illegal.

Regarding LA vs Malibu or Beverly Hills, different jurisdictions have different ways of managing the homeless. Maybe you could do some research and find out what the difference are, then tell us ok? As I've said a dozen times, generally speaking a homeless person can be arrested for camping in a public space if a) it is prohibited by municipal or county code -or- b) the person can be offered shelter space within a reasonable distance from where they are and they refuse it.

I didn't dream that up, I didn't write the law - I'm just telling you what it is because after 2638 posts in this there are still people suggesting illegal and or extrajudicial solutions to homelessnessness and I do not suffer fools gladly.

Huh, pretty sure there were only insane asylums in 1776 and no such thing as 72 hour psych evals.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Yep jm, here we go again..your justification for locking up all homeless people or at least exiling them from LA is the fact that some of them commit crimes. Ok, fair enough but if you really want to reduce crime then we need to lock up ALL males at 16 and not release them until they are 25 because they commit the majority of all crimes in the US.

So you dont think there were ANY warning signs that this guy was a threat to himself or others ? We know what happened . The advocates and authorities saw the signs but turned the other way . Just like with these school killers .

It’s different than ALL males 16-25 .

The mentally ill homeless are much more likely to commit these random senseless acts of violence it’s just a fact .

[CA4Now]

"Santa Ana has been overburdened with huge amounts of the homeless," Jorge Garcia, assistant to the city manager in Santa Ana, added. “But regardless of what the other cities do, we’re not going to shy away from these people…. Ultimately, we hope to operate shelters in a way that’s dignified. We understand that some individuals may have mental illness or PTSD that doesn’t allow them to be in tight, closed spaces.”

Two locations in Santa Ana are under consideration for “low barrier or no barrier” shelters, according to Garcia, citing operations where “any person with any background could be accepted” — in contrast to referral-based systems.

Anaheim officials are reviewing three sites, two of which would house up to 125 beds total and a third that belongs to a private property owner who..."

3 O.C. cities propose shelters to help serve growing homeless problem

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by TCROX

Really? you mean that wasn't you here ALL DAY yesterday typing, typing, typing?? Great story..about you again...

The funeral was also only about 5 minutes in duration. At a veteran’s cemetery. Military honor guard. Rifle salute. Short eulogy by a chaplain. Folded flag for his one attending son. Nice. Worth a couple hours driving even for such a short service. These veterans burial ceremonies are ongoing at vet cemeteries all over the country and open to the public to attend and show support and respect. Maybe you’d like to go see one or a couple? Might do you some good.

Originally Posted by TCROX

Your story was lame. This story is real and not about you
https://www.dailynews.com/2018/06/16...hoots-suspect/

The story of course wasn’t about me at all, was it ... it was offered as an example of how veteran services are avoided by some vets, though readily available. Thousands and thousands of homeless vets too angry, or fearful, or addicted to behaviors they can’t come to face in programs that require certain kinds of specific pre-compliance. Sad.

But, somehow my contribution doesn’t meet your level of sophisticated approval ... unlike your own submission here of yet another vilification of the homeless by association with this nasty crime.

So, stories of benefits availablity and refusal are immaterial to understanding the problem. But stories to excite fear:

- even though the reality is that the homeless commit violent crime at a lower rate than the general, housed population

- and the majority of violent crime by homeless is committed against other homeless

- and that, in fact, violent crime is committed against the homeless by the general population far more often than the other way around

... are de rigeur and purposeful?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by jm1982

So you dont think there were ANY warning signs that this guy was a threat to himself or others ? We know what happened . The advocates and authorities saw the signs but turned the other way . Just like with these school killers .

It’s different than ALL males 16-25 .

The mentally ill homeless are much more likely to commit these random senseless acts of violence it’s just a fact .

They may be, jm ... would like to see your verified sourcing, though ... in context to overall violent crime stats of the homeless vs general housed populations. And then fill is in on how the mentally ill homeless could be monitered at large ... as compared with, oh say, how much easier it would be if they were evaluated, culled and housed in designed programs.

Do you understand anything whatsoever about why the homeless - crazy or others - commit any of the crimes they do given the circumstances in which they wallow to survive? ... and what happens to their rate of crime when they are housed out of the street pressures?

Your posts are often like a textbook confirmation of the need and validation for housing first programs. Keep ‘em coming jm!

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Back it up with something other than your 'interpretation', I'll be right here waiting...

It was provided for you ma'am.