Breakdown In Civil Order

[TV and credit cards]

Homeless people say they will likely return to sites if California clears them under Newsom's order

A day after California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order directing state agencies to start clearing homeless encampments on state land, including lots under freeways, the homeless people living in these encampments are wondering where else they could go.

apnews.com

“You get used to it,” Hernandez said. “I have to rebuild it every time.”

Where else is there to go?

“We have to take what we have, like our bikes or something, and we go over there for them to clean up,” said Guernon, pointing across the street. “I come back, because I don’t know where to go.”

“It’s not a solution. It’s not fair for them,” Covarrubias said. “This just puts more stress on them.”

So all Caltrans is doing is destroying homes and whatever personal possessions the homeless can't mange to carry away with them in the moment. And y'all get a somewhat cleaned up area for awhile. Maybe Newsom is just going through the motions to show people the futility of it all for people who can't get there on their own.
I can see where this would really stress a person out who spends time and effort trying to make their hovel as livable as possible just to have it destroyed.

Gavin Newsom orders state agencies to move homeless people out of camps — but to where?

A month after the U.S. Supreme Court OK'ed a crackdown on homeless camps, Newsom is issuing a statewide call to action.

calmatters.org

Republicans lauded the order. “It’s about damn time!” Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, of San Diego, said in a statement.

What a dick.

 

[TSwizzle]

“You get used to it,” Hernandez said. “I have to rebuild it every time.”

Where else is there to go?

Sounds like a “you problem” Mr Hernandez.

 

[robnisch]

“You get used to it,” Hernandez said. “I have to rebuild it every time.”

Where else is there to go?

Sounds like a “you problem” Mr Hernandez.

And you have never received any support from the society you live in?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People do not feel safe around homeless encampments.

People don't have the right to abuse other people because of the way those other people make them feel.

The threat is real. It's not from everyone but you have no way of knowing which ones are going to be a problem.

That's a justification for abuse of literally ANY subset of humanity:

Some Jews are criminals; Therefore the fear of Jewish crime is real; Therefore we must do something about the Jews.

People don't feel safe around Jews, and the threat is real. It's not all Jews, but you have no way of knowing which ones are going to be a problem.

Welcome to 1930s Germany.

Now replace "Jews" with "homeless", and tell me how the above doesn't become an accurate reproduction of your statements in this thread.

There's no actual threat from being around Jews. There's an actual risk from being around homeless encampments. People are reacting to the actual wrongs that happen.

 

[bilby]

There's no actual threat from being around Jews.

Sure there is, if those Jews are violent criminals.

Of course, it would be absurdly bigoted to suggest that the mere existence of Jewish criminals warrants the persecution of Jews as a class.

Again, I invite you to consider how (or whether) the reasoning changes at all, when we substitute "homeless people" for "Jews".

I should point out that there is also no actual threat from being around homeless people.

Being homeless doesn't make people dangerous, any more than being Jewish made Jeffrey Epstein a sexual predator and pædophile.

 

[TV and credit cards]

People do not feel safe around homeless encampments.

People don't have the right to abuse other people because of the way those other people make them feel.

The threat is real. It's not from everyone but you have no way of knowing which ones are going to be a problem.

That's a justification for abuse of literally ANY subset of humanity:

Some Jews are criminals; Therefore the fear of Jewish crime is real; Therefore we must do something about the Jews.

People don't feel safe around Jews, and the threat is real. It's not all Jews, but you have no way of knowing which ones are going to be a problem.

Welcome to 1930s Germany.

Now replace "Jews" with "homeless", and tell me how the above doesn't become an accurate reproduction of your statements in this thread.

There's no actual threat from being around Jews. There's an actual risk from being around homeless encampments. People are reacting to the actual wrongs that happen.

There is shoplifting and public intoxication. Shoplifting which is probably out of desperation could be solved. Public intoxication well, because they're homeless. They may be no more intoxicated than the next guy who's getting drunk at home.
As far as violence goes, the homeless are more likely to be victims than assailants. There is the fear of the homeless being mentally ill. Severe mental illness rages at about 20% for the homeless versus 5% for the general public and it is these people who are more likely to be preyed upon.

 

[Jarhyn]

People do not feel safe around homeless encampments.

People don't have the right to abuse other people because of the way those other people make them feel.

The threat is real. It's not from everyone but you have no way of knowing which ones are going to be a problem.

That's a justification for abuse of literally ANY subset of humanity:

Some Jews are criminals; Therefore the fear of Jewish crime is real; Therefore we must do something about the Jews.

People don't feel safe around Jews, and the threat is real. It's not all Jews, but you have no way of knowing which ones are going to be a problem.

Welcome to 1930s Germany.

Now replace "Jews" with "homeless", and tell me how the above doesn't become an accurate reproduction of your statements in this thread.

There's no actual threat from being around Jews. There's an actual risk from being around homeless encampments. People are reacting to the actual wrongs that happen.

There is shoplifting and public intoxication. Shoplifting which is probably out of desperation could be solved. Public intoxication well, because they're homeless. They may be no more intoxicated than the next guy who's getting drunk at home.
As far as violence goes, the homeless are more likely to be victims than assailants. There is the fear of the homeless being mentally ill. Severe mental illness rages at about 20% for the homeless versus 5% for the general public and it is these people who are more likely to be preyed upon.

My MiL is way more of a public menace with regards to intoxication, and she does own a home. The bigger issue is that she also owns a car. And then she drinks. And then she gets in that car and she drives places.

For every homeless person who is annoyingly drunk, there are ten or twenty homed people who are dangerously behind the wheel of a car drunk.

WRT illness, people's methods for coping with trauma are fairly predictable, and most involved the development or advancement of some kind of mental illness. Being homeless is traumatic. Losing one's home is traumatic. Only by dealing with the trauma in healthy ways can this be reduced. If we wish to reduce the danger of socially unstable people causing issues, we need to make ways to stabilize their existence rather than kicking them continuously off balance.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Severe mental illness rages at about 20% for the homeless versus 5% for the general public and it is these people who are more likely to be preyed upon.

I don't know what the hell I was trying to write but it ain't "rages".
Ref:

Why experts say some unhoused people are unfairly assumed to be dangerous

While high-profile incidents draw attention, they may create a false impression that homeless people are significantly more dangerous than others, experts say.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Politesse]

Severe mental illness rages at about 20% for the homeless versus 5% for the general public and it is these people who are more likely to be preyed upon.

I don't know what the hell I was trying to write but it ain't "rages".
Ref:

Why experts say some unhoused people are unfairly assumed to be dangerous

While high-profile incidents draw attention, they may create a false impression that homeless people are significantly more dangerous than others, experts say.

abcnews.go.com

Likely, "ranges".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's no actual threat from being around Jews.

Sure there is, if those Jews are violent criminals.

Of course, it would be absurdly bigoted to suggest that the mere existence of Jewish criminals warrants the persecution of Jews as a class.

Again, I invite you to consider how (or whether) the reasoning changes at all, when we substitute "homeless people" for "Jews".

I should point out that there is also no actual threat from being around homeless people.

Being homeless doesn't make people dangerous, any more than being Jewish made Jeffrey Epstein a sexual predator and pædophile.

You have things backwards.

It's not that homeless makes crime, it's that many of the homeless are that way because of things that also cause crime.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's no actual threat from being around Jews. There's an actual risk from being around homeless encampments. People are reacting to the actual wrongs that happen.

There is shoplifting and public intoxication. Shoplifting which is probably out of desperation could be solved. Public intoxication well, because they're homeless. They may be no more intoxicated than the next guy who's getting drunk at home.
As far as violence goes, the homeless are more likely to be victims than assailants. There is the fear of the homeless being mentally ill. Severe mental illness rages at about 20% for the homeless versus 5% for the general public and it is these people who are more likely to be preyed upon.

Just because they're overall more likely to be victims doesn't mean there aren't some of them who are a danger.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My MiL is way more of a public menace with regards to intoxication, and she does own a home. The bigger issue is that she also owns a car. And then she drinks. And then she gets in that car and she drives places.

For every homeless person who is annoyingly drunk, there are ten or twenty homed people who are dangerously behind the wheel of a car drunk.

Yeah, a drunk with a car is a lot more dangerous than a drunk on foot.

The danger is things like meth.

 

[TomC]

Just because they're overall more likely to be victims doesn't mean there aren't some of them who are a danger.

Or that homeless crime victims aren't victims of the homeless criminals.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Severe mental illness rages at about 20% for the homeless versus 5% for the general public and it is these people who are more likely to be preyed upon.

I don't know what the hell I was trying to write but it ain't "rages".
Ref:

Why experts say some unhoused people are unfairly assumed to be dangerous

While high-profile incidents draw attention, they may create a false impression that homeless people are significantly more dangerous than others, experts say.

abcnews.go.com

And note that the article claims the rate is low but then turns around and says there isn't actually any data saying that. And it also has:

A 2022 report from the Associated Press found that, in Los Angeles unhoused people were the suspects in 11% of homicides. The report said they were victims in 23% of homicides. Many of these crimes involved violence between two unhoused people, according to the AP's report. Unhoused people make up 1% of the city's population, the report said.

11x overrepresented?? And since a lot of homicides are felon on felon with no suspect this actually will be a substantial undercount.

Foot meet bullet.

 

[bilby]

You have things backwards.

It's not that homeless makes crime, it's that many of the homeless are that way because of things that also cause crime.

You haven't grasped my objection.

I don't deny or even question the fact that "many of the homeless are that way because of things that also cause crime."

I am merely pointing out that it is deeply immoral and unethical to treat ALL homeless people as criminals because of the actions of MANY homeless people.

ALL <> MANY

MANY <> ALL

Behaving as though the actions and behaviour of MANY justifies the mistreatment of ALL is the hallmark of the worst regimes in history. Collective punishment is vile and unacceptable. Calling for collective punishment is vile and unacceptable.

Attempting to excuse such calls on the grounds that it is difficult to separate the guilty from the innocent, do not make things better; They make things FAR WORSE.

I am left aghast at the failures of your upbringing that allow you to make such claims without apparent shame; And astonished at your inability to see the clear and obvious parallels with other acts of collective punishment from hideous regimes throughout history.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." - Sir William Blackstone

Blackstone's principle has been a widely recognised foundation of English Law, and of its many derivatives, including US law, even before his Commentaries on the Law of England were published in the 1760s, rendering that principle explicit and easily referenced.

The absence of the application of this principle in law is one of the most accurate ways to divide authoritarian societies from those which are free; Failure to apply this principle essentially defines a regime as an authoritarian shit-hole.

Americans talk a LOT about freedom; How is it possible that you are so unaware of this definitive element of freedom, as to discard it so easily?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have things backwards.

It's not that homeless makes crime, it's that many of the homeless are that way because of things that also cause crime.

You haven't grasped my objection.

I don't deny or even question the fact that "many of the homeless are that way because of things that also cause crime."

I am merely pointing out that it is deeply immoral and unethical to treat ALL homeless people as criminals because of the actions of MANY homeless people.

Many things are illegal despite not always being a problem. The lines are drawn at the point where it could become a problem and in practice when people break the "law" but stay within the bounds of safe the cops do nothing. (Just watch a line of cars turning right (or left in your case) on red.)

Or consider lockpicks. Locally there is a rebuttable proposition that they're for malicious use unless you're a locksmith. AFIAK it basically precludes locksport in the state.

ALL <> MANY

MANY <> ALL

Behaving as though the actions and behaviour of MANY justifies the mistreatment of ALL is the hallmark of the worst regimes in history. Collective punishment is vile and unacceptable. Calling for collective punishment is vile and unacceptable.

Attempting to excuse such calls on the grounds that it is difficult to separate the guilty from the innocent, do not make things better; They make things FAR WORSE.

I am left aghast at the failures of your upbringing that allow you to make such claims without apparent shame; And astonished at your inability to see the clear and obvious parallels with other acts of collective punishment from hideous regimes throughout history.

The problem is you live in an idealized world where perfect enforcement of the law against only those who actually are causing a problem is possible. In the real world it often is necessary to draw the lines so as to prohibit some behavior that causes no harm.

If you're homeless but keep off the radar it's unlikely anybody's going to do anything.

 

[bilby]

You have things backwards.

It's not that homeless makes crime, it's that many of the homeless are that way because of things that also cause crime.

You haven't grasped my objection.

I don't deny or even question the fact that "many of the homeless are that way because of things that also cause crime."

I am merely pointing out that it is deeply immoral and unethical to treat ALL homeless people as criminals because of the actions of MANY homeless people.

Many things are illegal despite not always being a problem.

Things? Sure.

Not people.

Homeless people are not "things".

The lines are drawn at the point where it could become a problem and in practice when people break the "law" but stay within the bounds of safe the cops do nothing. (Just watch a line of cars turning right (or left in your case) on red.)

Literally nobody turns left on red here unless it us explicitly permitted and signposted as allowed (which it isn't in my state, they trialled it and decided not to implement it. It's allowed where signposted in NSW); And if they did, the cops would come down on them like a tonne of bricks.

Or consider lockpicks. Locally there is a rebuttable proposition that they're for malicious use unless you're a locksmith. AFIAK it basically precludes locksport in the state.

This has no relevance to the matter at hand - collective punishment of people who have done nothing wrong other than to look a bit like some other people who have broken the law.

ALL <> MANY

MANY <> ALL

Behaving as though the actions and behaviour of MANY justifies the mistreatment of ALL is the hallmark of the worst regimes in history. Collective punishment is vile and unacceptable. Calling for collective punishment is vile and unacceptable.

Attempting to excuse such calls on the grounds that it is difficult to separate the guilty from the innocent, do not make things better; They make things FAR WORSE.

I am left aghast at the failures of your upbringing that allow you to make such claims without apparent shame; And astonished at your inability to see the clear and obvious parallels with other acts of collective punishment from hideous regimes throughout history.

The problem is you live in an idealized world where perfect enforcement of the law against only those who actually are causing a problem is possible.

NO!

The problem is that you are so unthinkingly authoritarian, you can't even see the problem when it has repeatedly been explicitly pointed out to you.

FFS, it is possible, acceptable, and even highly desirable, to allow criminals to get away with comitting crimes, if the only alternative is the punishing of some non-criminals.

Read it again, ten times, and try to grasp what it means, and why it is the cornerstone of liberty:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." - Sir William Blackstone

In the real world it often is necessary to draw the lines so as to prohibit some behavior that causes no harm.

Being homeless is not "behaviour". It is circumstance. Prohibiting behaviours is not like prohibiting peoples.

Collective punishment is immoral and unethical. You must not punish somebody - anybody - for looking a bit like (or being in similar circumstances to) a different person who behaved badly.

If you're homeless but keep off the radar it's unlikely anybody's going to do anything.

If you are a Jew in the Third Reich, but keep well hidden, it is unlikely anybody's going to do anything.

That doesn't make the Third Reich an exemplar of justice and freedom, though.

 

[Politesse]

Homeless people are not "things".

Nor illegal.

 

[scombrid]

Severe mental illness rages at about 20% for the homeless versus 5% for the general public and it is these people who are more likely to be preyed upon.

I don't know what the hell I was trying to write but it ain't "rages".
Ref:

Why experts say some unhoused people are unfairly assumed to be dangerous

While high-profile incidents draw attention, they may create a false impression that homeless people are significantly more dangerous than others, experts say.

abcnews.go.com

My personal story of homed people being more dangerous that the guy living under the bridge follows.

I joined AA a couple of years ago. I never got a DUI or crashed but my last drunk included a 70 mile blackout ramble in the middle of the day in a densely populated area. So FSM and IPU teamed up to protect me and the public from my drunken stupidity. Then her noodley appendage shoved me into a room that smelled of stale cigarettes and burnt coffee. Anyway, the AA room I joined was in the downtown by our house. That put me in contact with a lot of the homeless population in our little city, the same people that occasionally commit petty theft if you leave your car unlocked. Most of them aren’t coming to the room for sobriety. But they come for coffee and cookies and a sink bath. We feed them big dinners for the holidays too. It has been eye opening getting to know them after decades of avoiding and disliking them. Who was more dangerous, wakeNslake asshole alchie with a car and a commute or the guy on the park bench with nothing?

Anyway, they are far less of a threat to our well being than bigger criminals like people committing financial crimes, organized credit card theft rings, etc… They are also less of a threat than drunkie the desperate housewife that might run you over while you are out walking your dog at 6 pm, or the huge number of people smoking weed and popping pills while they drive home from work. Someone passed me while I was excercising along the waterfront at 530 today with a cloud of weed rolling behind their car. WakeNBake is common.

Oh, and since I sort of break anonymity by admitting my membership in AA: If you have an addiction that is problematic then the secular approach to the 12 step programs has been excellent cognitive behavior therapy for me. That’s all for the derail.

 

[Jarhyn]

Severe mental illness rages at about 20% for the homeless versus 5% for the general public and it is these people who are more likely to be preyed upon.

I don't know what the hell I was trying to write but it ain't "rages".
Ref:

Why experts say some unhoused people are unfairly assumed to be dangerous

While high-profile incidents draw attention, they may create a false impression that homeless people are significantly more dangerous than others, experts say.

abcnews.go.com

My personal story of homed people being more dangerous that the guy living under the bridge follows.

I joined AA a couple of years ago. I never got a DUI or crashed but my last drunk included a 70 mile blackout ramble in the middle of the day in a densely populated area. So FSM and IPU teamed up to protect me and the public from my drunken stupidity. Then her noodley appendage shoved me into a room that smelled of stale cigarettes and burnt coffee. Anyway, the AA room I joined was in the downtown by our house. That put me in contact with a lot of the homeless population in our little city, the same people that occasionally commit petty theft if you leave your car unlocked. Most of them aren’t coming to the room for sobriety. But they come for coffee and cookies and a sink bath. We feed them big dinners for the holidays too. It has been eye opening getting to know them after decades of avoiding and disliking them. Who was more dangerous, wakeNslake asshole alchie with a car and a commute or the guy on the park bench with nothing?

Anyway, they are far less of a threat to our well being than bigger criminals like people committing financial crimes, organized credit card theft rings, etc… They are also less of a threat than drunkie the desperate housewife that might run you over while you are out walking your dog at 6 pm, or the huge number of people smoking weed and popping pills while they drive home from work. Someone passed me while I was excercising along the waterfront at 530 today with a cloud of weed rolling behind their car. WakeNBake is common.

Oh, and since I sort of break anonymity by admitting my membership in AA: If you have an addiction that is problematic then the secular approach to the 12 step programs has been excellent cognitive behavior therapy for me. That’s all for the derail.

Yes, for the most part, but I'll note that numerous studies have indicated that weed (on its own) does not contribute to crash culpability.

Mixing it with other intoxicants is very bad, however.