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

81–90 of 126 posts

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

#81

Post by tomnipotent »

bifrost wrote: post #78
tomnipotent wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've spoken with several people working directly with the homeless And somehow this makes you an expert or informed on the matter? > 95% of the people on the street are not from SF This is likely the case for every metro in the world. And? > well known that SF has drug tourists Facts and research, please. You seem keen to peddle the homeless as drug-addled perpetrators stereotype.

Yes, speaking with experts makes one informed. Even the Mayor of SF has talked about how SF has drug tourists and how they need to be prevented from receiving services. You don't seem to be very informed about SF.

Every single public service is abused by some percentage of people using it. So? The mayor holding a press conference or speaking to the press to score points doesn't make it any more credible than the Reagan's bullshit about drugs in the 80s.

I'm not interested in the incredibly small percentage of people exploiting the system that isn't helping them in the first place, but the large percentage of homeless - transient or long term - that need services but are fought every part of the way by ignorance like this.

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

#82

Post by pseudo0 »

This interpretation of "state created danger" seems remarkably overbroad. By this logic, you could tie just about any danger back to the state with a similar degree of proximity. Take someone hit by a drunk driver, for example. The government repealed Prohibition, regulates and licenses alcohol production and sale, and is fully aware of the risks of drivers abusing alcohol (DUI laws, PSAs, etc). That sure sounds like an active, willing, and knowing participant in creating the conditions of the danger. Can the victim of a DUI therefore successfully sue the government?

I'd fully expect this to get quickly overturned on appeal.

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

#83

Post by bifrost »

tomnipotent wrote: post #81
bifrost wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, speaking with experts makes one informed. Even the Mayor of SF has talked about how SF has drug tourists and how they need to be prevented from receiving services. You don't seem to be very informed about SF.

Every single public service is abused by some percentage of people using it. So? The mayor holding a press conference or speaking to the press to score points doesn't make it any more credible than the Reagan's bullshit about drugs in the 80s. I'm not interested in the incredibly small percentage of people exploiting the system that isn't helping them in the first place, but the large percentage of homeless - transie…

Its not an incredibly small number of people exploiting the system, its 95% of people in this system.

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

#84

Post by tomnipotent »

bifrost wrote: post #83
tomnipotent wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single public service is abused by some percentage of people using it. So? The mayor holding a press conference or speaking to the press to score points doesn't make it any more credible than the Reagan's bullshit about drugs in the 80s. I'm not interested in the incredibly small percentage of people exploiting the system that isn't helping them in the first place, but the large percentage of homeless - transie…

Its not an incredibly small number of people exploiting the system, its 95% of people in this system.

> its 95% of people in this system

Pulling numbers out of thin air doesn't make them true.

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

#85

Post by giantg2 »

PeterWhittaker wrote: post #58
giantg2 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 meri…

Yeah, the courts generally say that you have to accommodate or remedy whatever the general request or grievance. They generally do not write/rewrite policy. That's supposed be for the executive and legislative branch to come up with.

It should be interesting to watch. My guess is we won't hear the final result for a few years... as usual.

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

#86

Post by soledades »

pseudo0 wrote: post #82

This interpretation of "state created danger" seems remarkably overbroad. By this logic, you could tie just about any danger back to the state with a similar degree of proximity. Take someone hit by a drunk driver, for example. The government repealed Prohibition, regulates and licenses alcohol production and sale, and is fully aware of the risks of drivers abusing alcohol (DUI laws, PSAs, etc). That sure sounds like…

This is somewhat begging the question, which is, at its core: “is the gov’t directly responsible for the humanitarian crisis at Skid Row.”

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

#87

Post by bifrost »

tomnipotent wrote: post #84
bifrost wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not an incredibly small number of people exploiting the system, its 95% of people in this system.

> its 95% of people in this system Pulling numbers out of thin air doesn't make them true.

That number came from an expert.

They also asserted that if our local DA actually did something about dealing on the streets we'd lose that same number of homeless people and they'd return to wherever they came from before SF, or go to Oakland. SF has turned itself into an "attractive nuisance" due to our unchecked open air drug markets.

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

#88

Post by giantg2 »

bifrost wrote: post #76
giantg2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a block or two is not correct, especially when you correct for population growth and the policy that started shipping them in from other parts of the city. Can you show me population statistics for skid row and overall city homeless compared to the rest of the city/state/country over time? I don't doubt that opioids have contributed, but alcohol and other legal drugs are a major problem too. If this ruling is…

I'm from SF, I know exactly where "skid row" was, and I also worked there for about a decade. Nobody was shipped in from other parts of the city either unless you count people moving from other counties to where meth/heroin/fentanyl was easily available. You can count the number of people on the street, maybe 1 in 15 has an alcoholic beverage, the rest are smoking meth/fenty/heroin. SF's problems are all about drugs.

Oh, when they say Skid Row, they mean the 50 block one in LA (the most famous one). Maybe SF is different.

It seems alcohol is still the most abused substance in the homeless population. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29852450/

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

#89

Post by swiley »

bifrost wrote: post #12
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opioids are at most a companion to the homeless epidemic. If we're on the subject of compassion, millions who are no longer able to acquire effective pain relief could use some.

In SF our homelessness is driven by drug abuse and the lack of ability to put addicts and the mentally ill into conservatorship, its well documented. > If we're on the subject of compassion, millions who are no longer able to acquire effective pain relief could use some. Could you clarify what you mean by that?

As someone looking at you guys from across the continent: at least part of your problem appears to come from a refusal to build dense housing which would allow people making something nearer average wage to sleep indoors.

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

#90

Post by PeterWhittaker »

giantg2 wrote: post #70
insert_coin wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US was a common law country, then created the constitution based on that common law and now it is a constitutional republic. The constitution is the pillar now not "common law".

I think he means they accept common law doctrines as part of the law. For example, malicious prosecution is not a statute (in some states) but can still be prosecuted (I forget if they handle it civilly or criminally) under common law doctrine.

Essentially.

The constitution is the floor the stool sits on, and it supports common law both implicitly (cf, e.g., [1]), and explicitly (cf the 7th Amendment).

[1] https://constitutionalism.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/common-la...

Post reply on HN