A homeless person shooting a frothing chud for pepper spraying their tent is self-defense.
Homelessness is illegal in the US.
Because the state mandates people have housing right?
There's a job guarantee at least, right...There's plenty of
slave laboremployment opportunities in prison!
It always puts a smile on my face when I see Amerikans cry pig tears whenever a billionaire in China or Vietnam gets jailed for corruption.
: “Corruption is punishable!?!? Why do those poor browns hate FREEDOM so much!?!?”
never have I felt more deeply the truth of the "scratch a liberal" quote than reading reactions to this on west coast subreddits
"broken clocks" from "I care about the homeless but..." libs everywhere
welcome to the resistance, Justice Thomas
Push down wages and drive up inflation.
Lock people out of basic housing.
Criminalize homelessness.
Cheap source of labor.
Profit!
The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy
just perfect double speak
Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like “occupy[ing] a campsite” on public property “for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live.” Grants Pass Municipal Code Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protes on the lawn of a municipal building.
just literally and unironically that_Anatole_France_quote.jpg
The quote for those wondering:
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.
What a slapt in the face to working class people, for they are the only ones who are forced to do these things.
Worth noting: shelters aren’t really an option, except for the people who want us out of sight.
Every day history continues to punish the 5-4 podcast for their optimism.
Politicians: “homelessness? Just genocide them all, lol!”
Also politicians: “we need to do everything in our power to raise property values! Muh invoosent must go to the moooooon!”
They know what they’re doing. They just want as many poor people dead as possible, they unironically want to live in a world with only billionaires.
but among the billionaires one must rise to the top to become... TRILLIONAIRE, thus relegating the others to mere peasant status
A world of only billionaires would deprive them of their power. I think it's more likely that, to keep the beast moving as the carrot withers into nothing, they need to get a scarier stick.
Nah, we make them money. What they want is a working class that is subservient and afraid to rise up against them.
They've already succeeded in that and now they're just adding assurances.
What the fuck do they mean homeless people aren't protected from cruel and unusual punishments?
they overdramatazing little bit, but you can now fine homeless people for sleeping in public spaces (despite absence of shelters), which is straight to jail process if stretched a little bit in time
Supreme Court... declares homeless people not protected from cruel and unusual punishment
As far as I can tell, this is a pretty significant misrepresentation of the ruling.
Johnson v. Grants Pass is a court case originally filed in 2018 that determined it is cruel and unusual punishment to arrest or ticket people for sleeping outside when they have no other safe place to go. The case started in Grants Pass, Oregon when the city began issuing tickets to people sleeping in public, even when there were not enough safe, accessible shelter beds.
The ruling from a lower court was that ticketing people for sleeping outside when they have no access to shelter constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, which the federal constitution prohibits. It looks like the Supreme Court decided took the opposite stance: that ticketing homeless people when there's no shelter available is not cruel and unusual punishment.
This is nowhere near a blanket ruling that "homeless people are not protected from cruel and unusual punishment." A comparison would be if a lower court said exposed toilets in jails constituted cruel and unusual punishment and the Supreme Court reversed. That's not saying prisoners can now be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment of any kind. It's saying that specific practice -- providing only exposed toilets in jail cells -- is not within the definition of cruel and unusual punishment.
This is obviously a bad ruling, but it is not anywhere near as bad as the headline claims. I don't think we do ourselves any favors overstating the severity of issues -- it's The Boy Who Cried Wolf, and the situation is bad enough that the actual facts are all we need.
It's actually overturning the court's own ruling from 2019, not a lower court's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Boise
look, how are we supposed to tell NIMBYs that all homeless people are criminals if we don't criminalize homelessness?
In a 6-3 decision
