Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

When you decide to go to law school, you can take a course on equitable relief. After that, you will understand, that they haven't "lost." The case is still PENDING. Personally, I hope they do lose. It will be great for the city. However, they have clearly been winning all across the country, see, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, etc...

 

Read more carefully.  (One would have thought you would have learned THAT in law school.)  They lost on the argument and they lost on the issues before the Court in the matter you cited.

 

Reading more carefully also would have allowed you to avoid making the original misstatement that Pottinger had anything to do with immutable status.

 

Being more honest would allow you to admit your error.

 

Again, being homeless is not, never has been, and never will be, an immutable status. One does not have to have graduated from law school to understand this basic fact.

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you would have known the difference between a TRO and Trial? I guess not. As a brief history, the ACLU filed suit and asked for a TRO pending trial. Which is customary. Surprisingly the TRO was denied (that's why it made the news). However, the Trial is still pending. This is very basic civics. You file a lawsuit and then then you have a trail. Not sure what's so difficult about that? The ACLU COULD very well end up wining at trial. In fact they have a pretty good track record of winning. And even if they lose at the trial level, they WILL appeal. They also have a very good track record at appeals. Again, look at all the homeless camps across the country. You think the mayors of all of those cities haven't tried to eliminate them? Of course! But they keep losing the legal battle against the ACLU (see the immutable status argument). Again, I hope the City of Houston ends up making permanent legal victories against the ACLU, but that remains to be seen. We will have to wait and see.

 

If you would like to read more about status crimes, then I encourage to look at the Supreme Court case Robinson v. California. This is very basic criminal law, but essentially every crime requires two things, a voluntary act (actus reus) and intent (mens rea). The winning argument (which I don't agree with) has been that homeless people have not satisfied both the elements above. That is to say, they are immutably homeless at the time of the offense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

I thought you would have known the difference between a TRO and Trial? I guess not. As a brief history, the ACLU filed suit and asked for a TRO pending trial. Which is customary. Surprisingly the TRO was denied (that's why it made the news). However, the Trial is still pending. This is very basic civics. You file a lawsuit and then then you have a trail. Not sure what's so difficult about that? The ACLU COULD very well end up wining at trial. In fact they have a pretty good track record of winning. And even if they lose at the trial level, they WILL appeal. They also have a very good track record at appeals. Again, look at all the homeless camps across the country. You think the mayors of all of those cities haven't tried to eliminate them? Of course! But they keep losing the legal battle against the ACLU (see the immutable status argument). Again, I hope the City of Houston ends up making permanent legal victories against the ACLU, but that remains to be seen. We will have to wait and see.

 

If you would like to read more about status crimes, then I encourage to look at the Supreme Court case Robinson v. California. This is very basic criminal law, but essentially every crime requires two things, a voluntary act (actus reus) and intent (mens rea). The winning argument (which I don't agree with) has been that homeless people have not satisfied both the elements above. That is to say, they are immutably homeless at the time of the offense. 

 

ROFL   Immutable at the time...  That's a good one!

 

And the dishonesty continues.   It's what we've come to expect from you.

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure whats so funny? All the elements of the crime have to be met And be met simultaneously. Again pretty basic crim law 101. Act + intent at the same time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good LA Times article from today discussing all the legal rulings they have to navigate in SoCal to try to be compliant with the 9th circuit. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-los-angeles-homeless-camping-sidewalks-lawsuits-20190613-story.html

 

Meanwhile over in NYC, this is the new pilot program they are implementing in their fight against homeless panhandlers on the subway. https://nypost.com/2019/06/13/de-blasio-announces-program-to-get-unruly-homeless-riders-into-shelters/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...