But an easier and cheaper break would simply be to not harass homeless people. Some people prefer to live outdoors and don’t appreciate that the biggest survival challenges tend to be artificially imposed. There are laws which cause (and exist for this purpose) those without fixed residence to be treated like non-citizens. They deliberately create the disenfranchisement which most activists hope to overcome, while the latter do not address the cause.
3 Likes
Legally, the offense of “loitering” was “remaining in a certain place (such as a public street) for no apparent reason.” (This is Black’s Law Dictionary, which goes on to note that most loitering ordinances have been held to be unconstitutionally vague.) So, by old standards, people in line to buy something were different from people just hanging around. Attempts to “fix” loitering laws have often resulted in law against public sleeping or the like, so that difference is mostly gone.
Capitalism need not require assholism to the weak, in fact punishing the poor is an expensive choice which wastes funds and directly contradicts best game theory outcome.
Classist people abuse is fun though, and hurting the weakest among us is an expensive but publicly subsidized form of entertainment for the better off.
7 Likes
Your comment is classist. It implies that because someone is homeless - i.e. too poor to afford a home - that they harass passersby. You imply that the reason homeless people should not be allowed to sleep on the street is that they harass people. This is a stereotype which is used to marginalize an entire group of people. I wish you would not propagate it.
11 Likes
And the worst harassment is to cause a pain in their concience, it is ok to ask the time or directions, but apparently free speech stops at asking for change…
You are only allowed to beg for massive amounts of money and are rich or running for public office.
3 Likes
I didn’t say it should be illegal for homeless people to sleep outside. What I’m saying is that there’s two issues dissuading cops from arresting people camping outside an event (Apple store, concert, convention, etc):
- They know precisely when those people are dispersing and why they’re there, so a loitering charge would be pointless
- Unlike arresting one or two homeless guys, you’d be gang-arresting a hundred or more people for no apparent reason
I wasn’t referring strictly to the homeless. I have no problem with people panhandling or sitting on the sidewalk. But if a person harasses passersby with abusive speech or physical behavior, regardless of whether the harasser is homeless or waiting to buy an Apple phone, they should be asked to leave.
Isn’t it strange how long lines outside retailers were the symbol of scarcity and system failure in US images of the USSR, but are now symbols of prestige, technological advancement, and economic success?
Though I have to say I thought it was a sign of system failure that I had to camp out on the sidewalk to get a Michigan marriage license the one day they were available. And I was concerned the police might hassle us, so we very consciously dressed to not be mistaken for homeless.
14 Likes
Well, someone has to harass the homeless, the mentally ill, and the disabled, or those people might harass someone…
4 Likes
That is the only sensible solution, I don’t want my kids seeing apple users all over the streets.
6 Likes
Fair enough. It’s weird that you brought up the issue of harassing passersby - completely unprompted - in a discussion about homeless people, but I should give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t mean to imply what I thought.
1 Like
Quick anecdote: when I moved to San Francisco, friends/family all warned me about the homeless problem there. And, living in the Tenderloin, there were tons of panhandlers. But they were all peaceful, genial folks who I’d pass out quarters to on the way to the bus, and we’d wave hi in the mornings. One day a new guy was there who demanded a dollar. I had no cash or change, and turned out my pockets to prove it. He got up and started screaming at me, and immediately, all of the panhandlers jumped up and beat him down. They don’t tolerate harassment. At least, these guys didn’t.
5 Likes
NYPD does not allow Apple customers to sleep on the sidewalks. There’s plenty of video out there of threatening customers with arrest for sleeping while waiting for their devices.
6 Likes
Well it is a silly question. One is temporary and less likely to leave poop in the area, and one is not.
The bigger question is why we don’t have better programs in place to help homeless? I can’t recall the numbers, but a significant number of homeless are also mentally ill. It is a bigger problem that just providing a bed somewhere. There are even some who would rather live in the streets than shelters.
3 Likes
Seems to me the elephant in the room is the breakdown of healthcare for mentally ill people. Some people do like to sleep outside, and they should be allowed to do it where they’re not causing issues for everyone else (e.g. sleeping in the street, or in the middle of an extremely busy sidewalk). Treatment and housing should be made available for the people who need it most…oh, no, wait, there’s another F-35 we’ve got to purchase (contracts, dontcha know?). So sorry, homeless people!
5 Likes
Well, if you’re disabled, the healthcare system has been broken too many ways to be fixed at all easily.
I’ve actually got some support, no thanks to the Republicans or Experian who held everything up. My doctor doesn’t take my chronic illness seriously. She does suggest therapy, both for my ptsd from all the violence, and for coping. But I can’t follow through, because there’s nothing local. I would have to make a pain call to schedule an appointment. Pains aren’t accessible with my issues, and she should know that. I would have to take three buses and a train each way. Public transportation here isn’t accessible either with my issues. I don’t know how inaccessible the place would be either, and how much harassment I’d endure, far from home, for my disabilities.
3 Likes
Right, and you also don’t buy phones in stores, but that doesn’t mean some people like to do so.
The other big reason is that a great number of people who buy phones on Day One are resellers paying cash. They know they can run in, pay in cash, and resell for a profit almost immediately if the products are in high demand.
This is another facet of the self-perpetuating problem. Municipalities deliberately avoid offering public toilet facilities, often citing ironically that they don’t want them for homeless people to use. The less one needs them, the more “entitled” one is, and by then one would access such facilities by spending money somewhere.
Sure. I include myself in this category. The state likes people to have fixed addresses because it makes people easier to control, not because it is somehow fundamentally easier or better to live indoors in the same place. Nomadism is not subject to the same persecution in much of the world. What many aren’t aware of is that many of these laws in the US have their origins in racial harassment, for capturing or scaring away Native Americans or black slaves. Requiring a stationary populace is needless, pure Eurocentric bias.
5 Likes
quis rumpere ipsos rumperes? or something like that
That’s interesting. I’d seen the argument made that such a program would be cheaper. I didn’t realize it had been put into practice.
