Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

postalley.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 126 posts

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#51

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

celticninja wrote: post #24
disgrunt wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As they should. This is judiciary overreach.

Yes let's leave these people in horrific environments and situations because we can. I can't believe that when common morality is so absent,that when it is so bad it has to be legally mandated, there are still people who think that leaving them to rot is ok. You are probably not a Christian, but you have a large Christian population and that they allow this to happen just highlights the hypocrisy of the entire idea o…

The actual meaning of the US is "what you can get away with" and "well I got mine." Compassion is what people do when they wanna get elected.

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#52

Post by bifrost »

tomnipotent wrote: post #47
bifrost wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not caused by lack of housing, the people on the street are incapable of supporting themselves much less maintaining a dwelling - have you ever been here? Our homeless are mostly drug-seeking tourists who are from elsewhere. The Reagan canard is also just that; The Supreme court ruling sought by the ACLU during the Carter administration is why people are out on the street, the govt can't legally commit people lik…

Maybe do some research. https://www.pacificresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/H... "Roughly 34 percent of the homeless in San Francisco are homeless due to direct economic factors, such as evictions and job losses. Another 12 percent became homeless when they lost the safety net of family or friends." "About 15 percent are due to drug addiction or substance abuse."

I've spoken with several people working directly with the homeless, 95% of the people on the street are not from SF, most of them are told to say they're from SF so they can get services. There are tons of fake/stilted reports from special interest groups, they're trying to feed the "Homeless Industrial Complex" which has been growing rapidly since 2003.

The City has even had to sue other counties for dumping: https://www.ktvn.com/story/30191022/nevada-san-francisco-rea...

Its very well known that SF has drug tourists, its so obvious if you're on the streets here...

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#54

Post by crooked-v »

temp8964 wrote: post #44
sologoub wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Generally speaking, courts have ruled that individual residents do not have a right to demand aid from their government. However, there is one important exception: when the government was an active, willing, and knowing participant in creating the conditions that lead to the need for aid. This is known as the “state-created-danger” doctrine. Judge Carter invokes this as the primary justification for his sweeping or…

> when the government was an active, willing, and knowing participant in creating the conditions that lead to the need for aid. This is known as the “state-created-danger” doctrine. The state-created-danger doctrine does not mean any of those [1,2]. The law is about direct physical harm by the inaction of individual officers, not any vague policy implications. This judge's interpretation of the law is as crazy as his…

> direct physical harm by individual officers

No, it's not. Your own links directly contradict that; see, for example, the second paper and page 10 (not an officer of the law, not direct physical harm) and page 18 (officers of the law but no direct harm of any kind).

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#55

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #48

How about we deregulate zoning so housing can become affordable?

And remove rent controls. Also they should establish vagrancy laws. Guess how many people wouldn't bother living in CA then? South Park has already covered this topic.

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#56

Post by bifrost »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #39
olliej wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What on earth? In SF homelessness is caused by the lack of housing. Mental illness is courtesy the Reagan era dismantling of mental health services in CA, and is over-represented for sure. However, the driving factor for homelessness in SF, is the fact that there is no where for people to live. Thats part of why eviction is so stupidly hard in SF. Once you become homeless it is functionally impossible to get out.

Reagan hasn't been Governor of California for 45 years. Why haven't they fixed it since then?

Because its illegal to commit someone to an institution who hasn't comitted a crime.

San Francisco is trying a new approach but has only managed to get ONE person into conservatorship in the last 2 years because of all the roadblocks put up by a group called "The Coalition on Homelessness".

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/conservatorship-off-to-a-slo...

To give you an idea, you have to be 5150'ed (aka put on a psychiatric health hold) 8 times in order to receive inpatient treatment. 8 times. If you told someone they'd have to try to kill themselves 8 times before they got help, they'd probably call you nuts.

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#57

Post by temp8964 »

crooked-v wrote: post #54
temp8964 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when the government was an active, willing, and knowing participant in creating the conditions that lead to the need for aid. This is known as the “state-created-danger” doctrine. The state-created-danger doctrine does not mean any of those [1,2]. The law is about direct physical harm by the inaction of individual officers, not any vague policy implications. This judge's interpretation of the law is as crazy as his…

> direct physical harm by individual officers No, it's not. Your own links directly contradict that; see, for example, the second paper and page 10 (not an officer of the law, not direct physical harm) and page 18 (officers of the law but no direct harm of any kind).

I didn't want to mean the harm was directly caused by the officer. Updated the language.

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#58

Post by PeterWhittaker »

giantg2 wrote: post #49
PeterWhittaker wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is a common law country: legal judgments are one of the three pillars of common law, along with legs&regs and common practice (things that have always been that have been neither established nor prohibited by either of the other two pillars). IANAL. IANAA, but I have lived all my life in a common law country, FWIW.

If you say that in court you will be called a Sovereign Citizen and told to shut up (ask me how I know...). Even though we are a common law country, the judicial rulings are supposed to be based on statute, regulations, case law, and customs. It seems this ruling takes it further than that. It seems the only basis is the government caused harm doctrine and the application in this case seems contrary to other cases/is…

I have my popcorn ready to watch the appeals process and policy discussions this should engender. I expect that much of the ruling will be struck down, but cannot help but think that the state-caused-danger has legs.

Ultimately, my guess is that a superior court will set the judgement aside while upholding some elements as correct, then direct the city and county to address those specific elements deemed to have merit.

The end result would be legislative change in the context of elements deemed valid.

Or perhaps I am overly optimistic....

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#59

Post by lupire »

temp8964 wrote: post #16
troydavis wrote: post #2

Before commenting, please read the entire article, not just the headline or first paragraph. The interesting part is the details of the decision and next steps. Whatever one’s views on how to address homelessness, this decision is interesting. The article links to the full decision as well.

Read through and it seems to be a crazy plan for me. The judge appears to be extremely ideology driven and a believer of the critical race theory to his core. It is also laughable to think a judge has a grand plan to solve a societal issue. So a judge appointed himself to be the supreme planner of the city? The idea that a judge thinks himself can solve the homeless problem with a big plan is by itself pathetic.

Are you claiming the government of Los Angeles has not discriminated on the basis of race?

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#60

Post by crooked-v »

giantg2 wrote: post #50
crooked-v wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a lot of that also comes down to bad timing: the system was designed for a mostly-agrarian population with a relatively small urban class and inherent logistical limitations on maximum population density, and then the Industrial Revolution came along and upended literally everyone's expectations about how population centers, the economy, wealth distribution, etc would continue to work for the foreseeable future…

It's seems that just about any system of government has issues with citizen/subject contentment or efficiency once becomes large and diverse. I agree that representation is lacking. I can't get an intelligent response from my reps, if I even get a response at all.

You may be interested to hear that those limits in the House of Representatives are actually entirely artificial because of a measure passed in 1929 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule), and that there's an ongoing effort to increase the number so that each more closely reflects their constituents (https://twitter.com/uncapthehouse).
Post reply on HN