11–20 of 291 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's now, effectively, illegal to just exist as a homeless person. Sleeping in your car? Jail. Sleeping under a bridge? Jail. Sleeping on a park bench? Jail. Sleeping in the woods? Jail.
3 of those things are simply trespassing.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
Dumb decision, but we really just gotta build more homes mainly. A good overview of why this is the best solution to homelessness: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/everything-you-think-you-know-...
The real issue should have been intent, but the litigants and lower courts didn’t base the case on lack of capacity to comply / lack of mens rea / etc. They wanted a precedent allowing for urban camping even if you’re not homeless.
> Under the city's laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
Dumb decision, but we really just gotta build more homes mainly. A good overview of why this is the best solution to homelessness: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/everything-you-think-you-know-...
Why is it a dumb decision?
Good!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's now, effectively, illegal to just exist as a homeless person. Sleeping in your car? Jail. Sleeping under a bridge? Jail. Sleeping on a park bench? Jail. Sleeping in the woods? Jail.
3 of those things are simply trespassing.