Most people look at the ruling and go “Hurr durr, Supreme court makes it illegal to be homeless” and that’s not what it’s about.
What Grants Pass wanted to do, and Oregon at large, really, also wants, is the ability to arrest people who are refusing help. The “Chronic Homeless”.
Most homeless people are BEGGING for help and eagerly accept it when offered. What this ruling is seeking to deal with are the inveterate homeless.
You’re homeless and your intent is to drag down the community you’re camped in? Yeah, fuck you. You don’t have the right to do drugs, throw around trash, and make other citizens unsafe.
Oregon is going to start getting better next month when drugs are re-legalized. No more fentanyl folding in public.
You’re homeless and your intent is to drag down the community you’re camped in?
And where is the evidence this is a widespread problem? Wouldn’t it be easier to simply criminalize whatever else these homeless do and not just sleeping outside?
You argument is exactly that of the wife beater beating the wife for making him hurt her… You argue we should not criminalize the beating, but the wife causing it
Jesus, read any of the links I’ve already put in this thread. There are streets in Portland that are un-navigable thanks to the homeless camps and they are magnets for drugs, arson, and other crimes impacting the city at large.
Again, not the point. The argument is whether or not criminalizing homelessness is a solution
It is not and the only reason you seem to push for it is that you just don’t care about the homeless, you just want to see the problem go away however possible
This doesn’t really have anything to do with the Supreme Court. Oregon law now effectively echos the Martin v. Boise 9th circuit decision that the Supreme Court overturned. Martin v. Boise is more narrow than people here seem to think. It only applied to situations where there were not enough shelter beds to accommodate the number of homeless people in a city. It was always the case that if there was room and a person would not accept, an anti-camping ordinance could be enforced.
deleted by creator
Most people look at the ruling and go “Hurr durr, Supreme court makes it illegal to be homeless” and that’s not what it’s about.
What Grants Pass wanted to do, and Oregon at large, really, also wants, is the ability to arrest people who are refusing help. The “Chronic Homeless”.
Most homeless people are BEGGING for help and eagerly accept it when offered. What this ruling is seeking to deal with are the inveterate homeless.
You’re homeless and your intent is to drag down the community you’re camped in? Yeah, fuck you. You don’t have the right to do drugs, throw around trash, and make other citizens unsafe.
Oregon is going to start getting better next month when drugs are re-legalized. No more fentanyl folding in public.
And where is the evidence this is a widespread problem? Wouldn’t it be easier to simply criminalize whatever else these homeless do and not just sleeping outside?
You argument is exactly that of the wife beater beating the wife for making him hurt her… You argue we should not criminalize the beating, but the wife causing it
Jesus, read any of the links I’ve already put in this thread. There are streets in Portland that are un-navigable thanks to the homeless camps and they are magnets for drugs, arson, and other crimes impacting the city at large.
I did. They are all whining about how non homeless people suffer the smell. Nothing about the causes of homelessness or any solution
Again “why did the wife make the husband beat her?” Poor him
The smell, and the drugs, and the thefts, and arson…
Oh poor you, that’s not excuse to end the homeless party though, they seem to be having so much fun, right?
Yeah… fun…
https://www.wweek.com/news/2023/03/15/data-shows-fires-at-homeless-camps-remained-a-large-portion-of-portland-blazes-last-year/
“There were 1,959 of what the fire bureau calls “homeless-related fires” last year, 41% of all fires in the city.”
Again, not the point. The argument is whether or not criminalizing homelessness is a solution
It is not and the only reason you seem to push for it is that you just don’t care about the homeless, you just want to see the problem go away however possible
deleted by creator
This doesn’t really have anything to do with the Supreme Court. Oregon law now effectively echos the Martin v. Boise 9th circuit decision that the Supreme Court overturned. Martin v. Boise is more narrow than people here seem to think. It only applied to situations where there were not enough shelter beds to accommodate the number of homeless people in a city. It was always the case that if there was room and a person would not accept, an anti-camping ordinance could be enforced.