-----Original Message-----
From: Ditmas Park-Flatbush Patch <noreply@patch.com>
To: add1dda <add1dda@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 17, 2019 6:29 a.m.
Subject: Toddler Found Dead In Brooklyn Apartment, Cops Say
From: Ditmas Park-Flatbush Patch <noreply@patch.com>
To: add1dda <add1dda@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 17, 2019 6:29 a.m.
Subject: Toddler Found Dead In Brooklyn Apartment, Cops Say
|
For Sale 
Other 
1 comment:
That's quite the story directly underneath this one in the Post."8 people missing in 10 days".
An assortment of black teens and elderly blacks (mostly),I gathered from the headline that this would be unusual--but then I thought,not really.Kids run away,older folks have dementia and wander off.The inference that these disappearances have nefarious undertones may be presumptive.What's the normal amount of missing?It's not reported.In the GR area,it seems there are one or two alerts every day or a few days a week.Which reminds me of this little publicized SCOTUS decision:
(NYTIMES)WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would not hear a closely watched case on whether cities can make it a crime for homeless people to sleep outdoors.
The case was brought by six people in Boise, Idaho, who said a pair of local laws violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. One prohibited “camping” in streets, parks and other public property. The other prohibited “lodging or sleeping” in any place, whether public or private, without the owner’s permission.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled for the plaintiffs and struck down the laws, saying the Constitution does not allow prosecuting people for sleeping outdoors if there is no shelter available.
The Supreme Court typically understands the Eighth Amendment to address acceptable punishments rather than what conduct can be made criminal. But in 1962, it struck down a California law that made being a drug addict a crime on Eighth Amendment grounds.
Relying on that decision and quoting from an earlier Ninth Circuit ruling, Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the panel, said “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the state from punishing an involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one’s status or being.”
“As long as there is no option of sleeping indoors,” Judge Berzon wrote, “the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.”
GRA:So the burden of taking care of homeless people falls on cities--amazing---AND the taxpayers of said cities.You either build them shelters or let them build their own huts and tents on city streets and parks--along with the accompanying urine and fecal material that will be deposited.
The Supreme Court says,"involuntary acts or conditions that are unavoidable are not criminal."
By that general standard,wouldn't most crime fall under that category?
"I'm a drug addict--I need my drugs--so I robs a bank--or I killed someone for their money,so I could shoot up."
What's the difference between a drug addict and a homeless person?Not much,in most cases.Many homeless are mentally ill.If the motive is survival,can only people above the poverty line be charged with crimes?
Who is responsible for their actions and who isn't--is what the Supreme Court is determining--and although homeless are immune from being criminally charged in this specific area--for now,what about later?Will other crimes be exempted?It's a very socialist ruling,imho.
--GRA
Post a Comment