DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Is Homlessness A Crime?

Faith leaders deliver letter asking Gov. Lee to veto bill criminalizing homelessness

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WSMV) - As the cost of housing in Tennessee rises, lawmakers have passed a bill making it illegal for homeless people to sleep outside on public property.

Some ministers wrote Gov. Bill Lee a letter, demanding he veto the bill instead of signing it into law. Some people said the measure unfairly targets the homeless.

“In Franklin, too often our jails have been used as the homeless shelter since we don’t have one and this is just going to make it worse,” Franklin Community Church pastor Kevin Riggs said.

On Monday, he and other Tennessee ministers took their concerns about House Bill 0978 to the state house by praying outside of Lee’s office and writing him a letter signed by nearly 300 people and organizations.

“We are called as people of faith to care for our neighbors, to love our neighbors, and this bill is not that,” Rev. Emily Haynes said.

If Lee signs the bill into law, camping on public property would be a felony. It could land you a $3,000 fine and up to six years in prison.

“By making it a crime, you’re not solving the situation at all,” Riggs said. “You are putting an extra burden on police, who have better things to do than to arrest people who are asleep on a park bench.”

“I know one thing. Jail is not going to be a good foot start into a new life OK,” Katy Rogers said. “They are overcrowded and all that sort of thing, so what they need is affordable housing.”

Rogers said she wants to see lawmakers work alongside the community to help reduce homelessness. She lives in affordable housing and said Nashville needs more of it.

“I could not have changed my life in any way, shape or form after my long journey back to Nashville. I could not have done it without housing,” Rogers said. “Every day I’m so grateful when I put my key into my door.”

Here’s a section of the letter the faith leaders delivered to Lee on Monday:

“We are called by God to ‘love our neighbors’ (Mark 12:31), to ‘defend the rights of the poor’ (Proverbs 31:9), and to ‘do justice and love mercy’ (Micah 6:8). SB1610/HB978, however, tramples on the rights of the poor and further entrenches people in unjust cycles of criminalization and poverty. [...] Isaiah 58:7 calls us to ‘provide the poor wanderer with shelter,’ but no district in Tennessee currently has sufficient and accessible housing and shelter beds for those in need [...] Governor Lee, we are asking you to not turn away from our neighbors in need. Poverty is not a criminal issue–it’s an economic one. Instead of trying to address homelessness with handcuffs, we must bolster our state-wide homeless outreach services and ensure that everyone has adequate pathways into housing.”

Riggs led a prayer lamenting that the state has chosen to criminalize the homeless over dealing with the issue of affordable housing, one of the main causes of homelessness.

“Please God, we ask you to open up Governor Lee’s eyes and heart,” Riggs prayed, “We pray that Your Spirit would lead him to make the right decision and to veto this oppressive law. As the prophet Isaiah said, ‘woe to those who make oppressive laws.’ And this is highly oppressive, to criminalize people who have no place to go, who are homeless, without helping those who are without homes. So, we are calling on Governor Lee to follow You and follow Your Word.”

Rev Lindsey Krinks, Co-founder and Director of Education at Open Table Nashville also called on Lee to live up to his campaign promises of criminal justice reform. She believes that this legislation turns struggling residents into criminals.

https://www.wsmv.com/2022/04/25/fai...jBcPb7bQEMEyRAUZBPImSRUIbWbcGb0-1dQp0ZEQ

I would highly doubt even for those who may consider this should be a crime, that making it a felony offense and a maximum 6 years in prison seems crazy.

The word "could" is the key word in that statement.

Once you consider that and know exactly what that means, then it might not be as bad sounding as the article makes.

I don't have a problem with government authority regulating where homeless people can live any more than having authority over zoning laws. There needs to be some sensible regulation.

So it being a felony is okay for you? No, that's not an accusation, it's a question. It's sad I have to explain that and not saying it's you but some people on this board don't seem to understand how a question mark works. And I do agree that 6 years in the maximum sentence, but should prison time such as that even be an option for being homeless?

Like I said, it depends on the parameters of what "could" means in the article.

I guess what I am saying is I doubt people are going to be arrested and sent to trial and prison the first time they are cited. My guess is it might take dozens of warnings and citations along with blatant unruly behavior before it got to that point.

Is it right to be a low level felony...why not? Just because they are homeless doesn't give them the right to set up camp anywhere they want and ignore laws. I know around here the only ones being arrested are the aggressive panhandlers. The city also has areas where people can set up camp over by the community kitchen. Most all cities have areas for these folks, knowing they have to go somewhere.

Like I said, lets see how it plays out on the enforcement end before we get all worked up. I think it is aimed at the aggressive homeless who try to shake down passers-by time and time and time again.

Have you read the text of the law or are you relying on the news media to explain it to you? If you haven't read the text of the law then you should.

If that law really does make unauthorized camping in "all" public places a felony, that only leaves private property for a homeless person to sleep. If they really start enforcing this, I'd risk the misdemeanor trespassing charge by crashing on private property vs catching a felony.

First I'm looking at the fact that it's even considered a felony offense. Secondly I'm looking at the maximum penalty a judge has at his discretion. Neither of which seem appropriate for a non violent offense.

So no, you haven't.

I have no idea what the hell you are trying to argue here. It will be a felony of signed by the governor should a prosecutor choose to pursue it. The maximum penalty will be six years in prison. Those two things alone are inexcusable. As with any law a local prosecutor can choose to pursue these charges or not. How many sources would you like to show you this is what the law says? Or are you just going to post "nuh uh" over and over again?

You read a, likely, biased article and got outraged over it without actually reading the source material. You don't know what the bill really says, but it is bad.

Does the bill describe a primary or secondary offense? At what point are penalties escalated? Are there mitigating factors? Is there jurisdictional issues?

Don't let the media tell you what to think about something, go understand it.

And no, I am not saying the bill is good, but I am not willing to get outraged over something without reading source material. Know what the text of the bill says removes the reporting bias.

Let me ask you, how many offenses for homelessness do you think it would take to justify being convicted of a felony and serving prison time? At what point would you justify considering sleeping in a park mitigating factors to elevate this offense to a felony? In case you missed it, I'm not outraged. But at the same time I fully understand that at no point, no matter how many times you do it, convicting someone of a felony and or them doing prison time for continuing to sleep in a park is a moronic law. If you think there is something contained in the law to justify those actions have at it.

There are already laws on the books to cover these offenses. Where violence may be concerned, there are already laws on the books to cover those crimes. In case you didn't notice, all I've done is point out basic facts contained in the article. If the gov. signs this bill, you can be convicted of a felony for sleeping on any public grounds. The maximum penalty for that felony is up to 6 years in prison. You can try to shift away from the facts by citing the rest of the article if you wish. But that doesn't change that those are ridiculous potential penalties for a non violent infraction.

Oh, no. Not again!

Actually I have read the bill. It's very short and sweet which is unusual. You see, the bill is a disguise. It tries to paint the picture that all they're trying to do is some harmless minor misdemeanor update to the law. But one must look at the language change to see what it actually does.

Here is a link to the bill itself.

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/112/Bill/SB1610.pdf

This is on page two of the bill.....

SECTION 3. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-14-414(d)(1), is amended by
deleting the language "on property owned by the state" and substituting instead the language
"on public property".


The devil is in the details.

Yet, when it comes to guns, you favor more and more laws.

Could you explain these laws I favor that aren't already on the books? Are you talking about ghost guns? A method any person with a felony conviction can easily purchase a gun that can not be traced? Is that what you're talking about? Because there are no laws on the books that cover such a loop hole. I'm for anyone buying a gun to undergo a background check. For that to happen the loopholes to undermine that from happening I agree with.

Was there anything else?

And yet you couldn't answer a simple question with a simple answer.

Does the bill make it unlawful to be homeless?

I just explained that to you. Did you comprehend it or do you actually need further explanation?

Sounds to me that it does not make it unlawful to be homeless, just unlawful to sleep if you are homeless.

Nobody wants a bunch of people sleeping on the sidewalks. If you are going to make a law like this you should come up with an alternative place for them to go. Heck, even if you don't pass this law, we should be looking at an alternative for these unfortunate people. There just are not enough shelters to accommodate the numbers of homeless people out there

I watched this video a little while back and found it quite interesting

There are already laws about that. Thanks.

Really? What laws required a background check to purchase a ghost gun?

What Are Ghost Guns?

Ghost guns are unregulated firearms that anyone — including minors and prohibited purchasers — can buy and build without a background check.

https://www.bradyunited.org/fact-sheets/what-are-ghost-guns

You mentioned felons. In most cases, felons can't own a gun. There a laws about that.

Then you twist to minors and prohibited purchasers. Still laws about that. You see, what you are describing is illegal. Period.

Thanks.

I think most cities have designated places. I know we have several here in town.

They do, but not nearly enough

You question my comprehension of something instead of a simple answer.
Does
The
Bill
Make
HOMELESSNESS
Illegal?

Yeah, didn't think so, but the title of this thread seems to indicate you think it does.

Maybe you need to work on your own comprehension skills.

I don't know if there is or isn't. That would be the logical next step if there isn't. In the mean time, I don't have a problem in regulating where people can set up camp and can't, and in the end have the enforcement ability to do something about it for those who continually ignore the rules, which is what this is aimed at.

Just from my experience, it is the same people being run off time after time.

American society doesn't care for the indigent and I find that ironic af. Think about it, our entire economic system is designed to create winners and losers. These people, that have nothing, have been made almost invisible by the powers that be, to intentionally hide the downside of capitalism. They are the economic losers. And now that we have divvied up all the land in the world, they expect us to allow them 'free' space to live? UNTHINKABLE! smh.

If Americans had half a brain we would be lining up in droves to fight for a social safety net. I have never met anyone who planned to be homeless, that's all I'll say.

So in other words there are no background check requirements that help safeguard against criminals easily acquiring guns when purchasing a ghost gun. It's an obvious loophole to circumvent background checks just as I said it was. Thanks.

Yes it certainly does. The fact you don't understand that isn't my problem.

Whoops! I thought this thread was about the homeless, not the gun nuts.

Well you know how they are. One of them jumped into it anyway.

j/c...

If you want some answers to homelessness, just look at Seattle and do the exact opposite. A great documentary that looks at the prevalent causes and even provides some solutions.

With a strong social safety net, you could all but eliminate the problem. Mental health, physical health, education, clothing, food, and shelter should all be guaranteed rights in America. Hardship and disaster can strike anyone at any time. Like I said, nobody I know ever asked to be homeless and on the streets. Even criminals, junkies, and the mentally ill deserve basic protections for thing essential for survival. That's also a big part of why it hasn't been solved. The possibility that this can happen to YOU, keeps you plugged into the machine as a cog on the wheel.

BTW - this social safety net would be entirely possible on less than the same budget we spend on the military after it is in place.

Bloated defense budget passes easily but Congress fights over safety net programs

Congress is more interested in preparing for an unlikely war with China than helping Americans at home.

Joe Biden once famously said “Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.” Over the past week, Congress has depressingly proved the president was on to something.

Though Democrats are tying themselves in knots over a 10-year $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package -- and Republicans are uniformly opposing it -- on Sept. 23, the House of Representatives, with little rancor or controversy, passed a $768 billion package of goodies for the Pentagon.

Assuming the defense budget doesn’t go down (and it rarely does), over 10 years that would mean almost $8 trillion to the Pentagon. That would be more than double the cost of Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda, which has been billed as a historic expansion of America’s social safety net.

Even in 2021, as Congress is considering historic pieces of progressive legislation, Washington still values defense dollars -- for wars that America shouldn’t and likely won’t fight -- over prioritizing the needs of the American people.

This is a bipartisan problem. The House defense bill, which includes close to $25 billion more than Biden had initially requested for Pentagon, had the support of 181 Democrats. And an amendment by Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., to cut the Department of Defense budget by 10 percent lost by a margin of 86-332.

Weeks after America ended its 20-year-war in Afghanistan in humiliation -- at a cost of more than $2.3 trillion -- both parties can’t seem to funnel more money into Pentagon coffers quickly enough.

How those funds are being spent -- and on what defense systems -- should in of itself be a scandal.

The House bill would, for example, authorize the purchase of 85 F-35 fighters, an aircraft so plagued with cost overruns and operational problems that the current chairman of House Armed Service Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., calls it a “rathole.” The plane is estimated to cost more than $1.5 trillion over its lifetime and was previously labeled by the Pentagon official responsible for the acquisition of weapons systems, “acquisition malpractice.”

The House bill would also allow for the purchase of 24 F-15 EX jets for the Air Force, double the number requested by the Pentagon, an institution that is not exactly known for parsimony when asking Congress for money.

William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Program Center for International Policy, points out another multibillion-dollar boondoggle in the House bill: “a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), known in Pentagon-ese as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD).” ICBMs are particularly dangerous because, as Hartung notes, “The president would have only a matter of minutes to launch them in a crisis, increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war based on a false alarm.” The Biden administration increased the budget for the weapons system from $1.4 billion to $2.6 billion and it’s estimated that the GBSD will cost at least $264 billion over its lifetime.

All this spending is apparently worth it, says Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Armed Service Committee, because the bill is "laser-focused on preparing our military to prevail in a conflict with China."

Putting aside the fact that the chances of a U.S. conflict with China are highly unlikely, what does spending $768 billion to prevent against a slim possibility say about America’s priorities as a nation?

Is preparing for war with China more important than the $200 billion that would be invested, as part of the budget reconciliation package, in creating a universal preschool program that would benefit more than 5 million American children and save the average American family $13,000 a year?

Is building a new weapon that actually increases the chances of an accidental nuclear exchange of greater national benefit than making the United States the last wealthy country on earth to create a national paid medical leave program?

What about making community college tuition-free for two years? Or extending the child tax credit? Or ensuring that no low-income or middle-class American family spends more than 7 percent of their income on child care? Or reducing prescription drug prices and cutting the costs of health care for ordinary Americans?

Above all, is confronting a nation that doesn’t threaten the American people -- or building a new generation of ground-based nukes -- of greater importance than preparing the United States for the consequences of deadlier hurricanes, punishing heat waves and the extreme weather events associated with global warming?

If one were to ask the American people which they prefer, there likely wouldn’t be much of a debate. A new poll out this week from the Eurasia Group Foundation shows that “twice as many Americans want to decrease the defense budget as increase it.” The main reason Americans hold this view is that they want to see the money redirected to domestic priorities.

In short, they want the nation’s budget to reflect its values.

Eighteen months into a pandemic that has killed 700,000 Americans -- or 1 out of every 476 of our fellow citizens -- one might imagine that the nation’s leaders would be laser-like focused on strengthening the country’s defenses at home, rather than remaining fixated on overseas security threats that are unlikely to ever materialize. Indeed, one might even conclude that the entire way we think about national security should change -- to take into account the domestic challenges that put American’s in harm’s way and undermine our quality of life.

Washington, however, seems intent on preparing for the wrong fight.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/bloat...congress-fights-over-safety-net-n1280568

So if one owns a house and sleeps on public property that is not an issue but if one is homeless they will get arrested?

It
does
not
make
homelessness
a
crime.


You and your dramatics to have something to be indignant about.

Yet again I must ask if English is your first language? Maybe you're missing something in the translation.

Is Homlessness A Crime? <=-- THREAD TITLE

The bill does not make it a crime to be homeless. This is simple logic, your thread title was an emotional question because you disagree with the bill. Try a better thread title next time.

Again, so you understand, it doesn't make homelessness a crime.

The changing of the wording in the bill does in fact make it a crime. I'm sorry there isn't a two letter word which I can use to explain it to you like I had to do in the watson thread.

See if I can get you to understand this, I'll try to use small common words for you.

The bill does not even mention the word "homeless" much less make it a crime in any way.

Camping on public property on the other hand, which is an ENTIRELY different concept. If you can't see the difference you are again being obtuse.

How many working people do you know that sleep in public parks during prohibited hours? Sometimes things involve thinking.

It may not say homeless but it is certainly targeting them. Who else camps on public property?
I am assuming you are republican - you may not admit it but you think like them.
The problem with republicans is that they are concrete thinkers. They can't read between the lines.