4 ms·

Something can be illegal even if cops are not resting everyone who does it. That's the worse situation in fact, when it becomes the sole discretion of individua

Something can be illegal even if cops are not resting everyone who does it. That's the worse situation in fact, when it becomes the sole discretion of individual police officers who to punish.

_heimdall 2y ago
I totally agree. My point, though, was that being poor isn't illegal. The ruling keeps the jurisdictions for camping in public at the city level, it isn't specific to why someone is camping or broadly about being poor. If cops have to stop enforcing it the laws will eventually be overturned. If cops do enforce it courts and jails will back up, eventually the law would either be dropped or more support would be built out to help those in need. That's not to say I like the law. I would much prefer it didn't pass, and in general I disagree with a legal system that is focused on punishing citizens rather than helping them.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  The point is though that, at least in some jurisdictions, being so poor that you can't afford a house is now effectively illegal. Sure, the same law prevents the rich from camping outside, but that is irrelevant. The relevant thing is that there is no legal way to be homeless in those jurisdictions. And note that cops don't have to actually arrest people in order to enforce those laws. They can simply prevent them from sleeping, endlessly.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    We can agree, though, that the ruling doesn't make being poor illegal though? Right? I get that you are saying functionally its illegal to be poor, but that isn't actually what the ruling covered. At least in my opinion, that extrapolation really muddies the water when it isn't necessary. The fact that we have so many homeless people and that courts ruled cities are allowed to ban people from camping outside regardless of situation is bad enough.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      No, I think it's important to keep pointing out what this decision was really about. They didn't hear a case about camping outside at night, they explicitly heard a case about making it illegal to be homeless in a jurisdiction. All of the most relevant arguments related specifically to homeless people. The effect on homeless people is not some unintended consequence of the original law or of the SC's decision. It was explicitly what the whole case was about: homeless people complained that a law forbidding them from sleeping outside in a municipality was effectively punishing them for being homeless, and a federal judge agreed. The SC also agreed, but found that this doesn't violate their constitutional rights, so that it is constitutionally allowed to punish them for being homeless. This is an exact illustration of the famous satirical quote about the law being equal to all, equally punishing the rich and the poor for sleeping under bridges. Only this time it's not satire, it's the explicit decision of the SC.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        You and I clearly read completely different court opinions here. I see a case where a local government made it illegal to sleep outside and a supreme court decision that says this is within local governments' jurisdiction and doesn't violate any federal laws. It specifically doesn't make being poor illegal, though obviously it will greatly impact the homeless. Its a huge leap you're making to claim that the law or the ruling makes being poor illegal, and I don't see that claim supported by either the new law or the ruling. I get that you strongly disagree with it and find the law to be immoral, and I totally agree with that. But personal emotion doesn't change the words written down and misrepresenting the law doesn't do anyone any good. The law sucks, but it doesn't make being poor illegal. Plenty of people who are poor still have a roof over their heads, and there are homeless people who sleep in shelters rather than on the streets. If neither of those are illegal then the law couldn't have made being poor illegal. You don't need to make the leap to misrepresenting the law to point out how terrible it is. The law as written is garbage.
        tsimionescu 2y ago
        You're again ignoring the fact that the law was before the Supreme Court specifically because it makes it illegal to be homeless. And the Supreme Court agreed with that, but found that it is not a problem.
nxm 2y ago
It's up to elected district attorneys.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Which part are you referring to? District attorneys aren't cops and they don't pass laws. At best a DA is an elected official deciding whether or not to enforce a law on the books.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  The DAs decide whether to pursue a specific case, but it's the police department that starts the case, not the DA. The DA is not out there patrolling the streets finding people in violation and deciding whether to call the cops. The cops patrol, find a person they don't like, take them to the station, and then the DA can decide whether to charge them with a crime or not.

Something can be illegal even if cops are not resting everyone who does it. That's the worse situation in fact, when it becomes the sole discretion of individual police officers who to punish.

_heimdall 2y ago

I totally agree. My point, though, was that being poor isn't illegal. The ruling keeps the jurisdictions for camping in public at the city level, it isn't specific to why someone is camping or broadly about being poor. If cops have to stop enforcing it the laws will eventually be overturned. If cops do enforce it courts and jails will back up, eventually the law would either be dropped or more support would be built out to help those in need. That's not to say I like the law. I would much prefer it didn't pass, and in general I disagree with a legal system that is focused on punishing citizens rather than helping them.

tsimionescu 2y ago
The point is though that, at least in some jurisdictions, being so poor that you can't afford a house is now effectively illegal. Sure, the same law prevents the rich from camping outside, but that is irrelevant. The relevant thing is that there is no legal way to be homeless in those jurisdictions. And note that cops don't have to actually arrest people in order to enforce those laws. They can simply prevent them from sleeping, endlessly.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  We can agree, though, that the ruling doesn't make being poor illegal though? Right? I get that you are saying functionally its illegal to be poor, but that isn't actually what the ruling covered. At least in my opinion, that extrapolation really muddies the water when it isn't necessary. The fact that we have so many homeless people and that courts ruled cities are allowed to ban people from camping outside regardless of situation is bad enough.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    No, I think it's important to keep pointing out what this decision was really about. They didn't hear a case about camping outside at night, they explicitly heard a case about making it illegal to be homeless in a jurisdiction. All of the most relevant arguments related specifically to homeless people. The effect on homeless people is not some unintended consequence of the original law or of the SC's decision. It was explicitly what the whole case was about: homeless people complained that a law forbidding them from sleeping outside in a municipality was effectively punishing them for being homeless, and a federal judge agreed. The SC also agreed, but found that this doesn't violate their constitutional rights, so that it is constitutionally allowed to punish them for being homeless. This is an exact illustration of the famous satirical quote about the law being equal to all, equally punishing the rich and the poor for sleeping under bridges. Only this time it's not satire, it's the explicit decision of the SC.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      You and I clearly read completely different court opinions here. I see a case where a local government made it illegal to sleep outside and a supreme court decision that says this is within local governments' jurisdiction and doesn't violate any federal laws. It specifically doesn't make being poor illegal, though obviously it will greatly impact the homeless. Its a huge leap you're making to claim that the law or the ruling makes being poor illegal, and I don't see that claim supported by either the new law or the ruling. I get that you strongly disagree with it and find the law to be immoral, and I totally agree with that. But personal emotion doesn't change the words written down and misrepresenting the law doesn't do anyone any good. The law sucks, but it doesn't make being poor illegal. Plenty of people who are poor still have a roof over their heads, and there are homeless people who sleep in shelters rather than on the streets. If neither of those are illegal then the law couldn't have made being poor illegal. You don't need to make the leap to misrepresenting the law to point out how terrible it is. The law as written is garbage.
      - tsimionescu 2y ago
        You're again ignoring the fact that the law was before the Supreme Court specifically because it makes it illegal to be homeless. And the Supreme Court agreed with that, but found that it is not a problem.

nxm 2y ago

It's up to elected district attorneys.

_heimdall 2y ago
Which part are you referring to? District attorneys aren't cops and they don't pass laws. At best a DA is an elected official deciding whether or not to enforce a law on the books.
tsimionescu 2y ago
The DAs decide whether to pursue a specific case, but it's the police department that starts the case, not the DA. The DA is not out there patrolling the streets finding people in violation and deciding whether to call the cops. The cops patrol, find a person they don't like, take them to the station, and then the DA can decide whether to charge them with a crime or not.