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

91–100 of 126 posts

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

#91

Post by tomnipotent »

bifrost wrote: post #87
tomnipotent wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> That number came from an expert.

I'm sure it did, and it's not just completely made up with absolutely no corroborating evidence to back it up.

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

#92

Post by celticninja »

giantg2 wrote: post #31
celticninja wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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 of the United States." I'm interested... what is the entire idea of the US?

[flagged]

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

#93

Post by Turing_Machine »

bifrost wrote: post #56
Turing_Machine wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 psychi…

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

I'm still not seeing what that do with "Reagan".

If it's a law he instituted, that law could be changed back, yes?

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

#94

Post by Turing_Machine »

lupire wrote: post #64
Turing_Machine wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Federalist Papers give a really good overview. Note that they spent many years analyzing the failure modes of previous republics, and attempting to design a system resistant to those failure modes. I mean, we're still on our first republic (at least at the moment), while France is on its fifth, so obviously they did something right.

Second. Articles of Confederation were the first. Third if you count the Civil War and Reconstruction.

I might grant the Articles of Confederation for the sake of argument.

The Civil War failed, so that one doesn't count. The post-Civl War United States continued to operate under the same Constitution. There were some new amendments, certainly, but it wasn't scrapped and rewritten from scratch, and the overall form of the government of the United States remained the same.

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

#95

Post by SnowProblem »

celticninja wrote: post #92
giantg2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 of the United States." I'm interested... what is the entire idea of the US?

[flagged]

The parts of the US with the highest rates of homelessness tend to be the least Christian, and vice versa. Make of that what you will. https://i.ibb.co/KVpHXPF/datamap.png

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

#96

Post by pseudo0 »

soledades wrote: post #86
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.”

It was intended as more of a proof by contradiction. If we assume that the judge is correct in assessing this as a state created danger, then this standard would also apply to a wide variety of dangers that the government is also involved with, which have never been classified as such.

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

#97

Post by dragonwriter »

disgrunt wrote: post #30
celticninja wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Judges aren't kings. In the United States there is a separation of powers for a reason. Skid Row is a failure of the executive and legislative branches in California. California voters have perpetuated this failure by continually re-electing them.

> Judges aren't kings.

Neither are executives and legislators at any level.

> In the United States there is a separation of powers for a reason.

Yes, and the reason is to mitigate failure in any one branch.

> Skid Row is a failure of the executive and legislative branches in California.

More particularly, it's a failure of the executive and legislative branches in LA. But it's, among other things, a failure of them to obey the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution, which is remediable by federal judicial intervention.

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

#98

Post by dragonwriter »

adamsvystun wrote: post #11

> Carter ordered the City and County to provide offers of shelter within 90 days to all unaccompanied women and children in Skid Row; within 120 days shelter for all families there; and within 180 days shelter for everyone there. Further, he required them to offer housing and treatment services to all individuals within Skid Row who are in need of services from the Department of Mental Health or the Department of Pub…

> Does the judge have the power to order such things?

The actual order is linked and has fairly extensive citations of precedent on that point, but, generally, yes, the federal courts have fairly extensive power to order equitable relief, even on a preliminary basis, where it finds actual (or, for preliminary orders, probable) Constitutional violations (and in some other cases, as well.)

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

#99

Post by dragonwriter »

insert_coin wrote: post #34
tremon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you could quote the next paragraph as well: > 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 order

Doesn't that also apply to every problem in society?

No, there are extensive factual findings in the order (based on evidence presented in the hearings so far in this case) as to how the particular harms at issue in this case were deliberately and knowingly sought by the government, both the deliberate racial discrimination and the freezing of it's consequences through the deliberate “containment” strategy in skid row.

Most social problems aren't the clearly demonstrable product of deliberate government choice of the harm in this way.

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

#100

Post by dragonwriter »

temp8964 wrote: post #69
lupire wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you claiming all the racial disparities in outcomes are caused by the government discrimination?

All the disparities don’t need to be caused by racial discrimination for it to be unlawful discrimination on race.
Post reply on HN