homeless people making the sidewalk their home? (Burbank: real estate, crimes)

[cmarlin20]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, which provide that the government cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Here's a pretty good explanation of the court's position on involuntary confinement: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu...context=elders

I don't see a need to amend the US constitution, why you believe it needs to be amended?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by cmarlin20

I don't see a need to amend the US constitution, why you believe it needs to be amended?

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. Where/when did I say we should amend the constitution?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Derpistan

There are state and federal matching funds (3 to 1). The cost to LA city taxpayers is 1.2 billion, total raised is 3.6 billion. The cost of each unit is estimated at $350,000.

That's too much, it will never pass. It's stupid of them to even try. They should have looked at cheaper options.

[cmarlin20]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

No, you can't restrict people's freedom in America based on homelessness alone. Nor on mental illness - unless they are an imminent threat to themselves or others. Don't like it? Change the Constitution.

I quoted Tulemutt, 2sleepy replied, I then quoted 2sleepy

I don't see a constitutional prohibition of restricting a person's freedom, please explain where it is found.

Each person has due process and rights for involuntary psychiatric treatment.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by cmarlin20

I don't see a constitutional prohibition of restricting a person's freedom, please explain where it is found.

Each person has due process and rights for involuntary psychiatric treatment.

So you are saying it's legal to lock someone up without due process as long as you don't treat them against their will

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by cmarlin20

I quoted Tulemutt, 2sleepy replied, I then quoted 2sleepy

I don't see a constitutional prohibition of restricting a person's freedom, please explain where it is found.

Each person has due process and rights for involuntary psychiatric treatment.

Yes, in the state of FL (as I posted earlier) someone can be locked up and held for 3 days against their will based on someone saying they're mentally ill or a danger to themselves or others, without merit.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

So you are saying it's legal to lock someone up without due process as long as you don't treat them against their will

Seems some people think the answer to everything is lock them up.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

Yes, in the state of FL (as I posted earlier) someone can be locked up and held for 3 days against their will based on someone saying they're mentally ill or a danger to themselves or others, without merit. .

They have the same thing in California, it's a 72 hour psychiatric hold but we have had several people on City-Data suggesting that it's a great idea to lock up the homeless in mental hospitals, apparently forever...

Originally Posted by seain dublin

Seems some people think the answer to everything is lock them up.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

Yep unfortunately they do and it surprises me how many of them lack the ability to understand what a slippery slope it is once we start denying people basic rights. Sort of speaks to the state of the educational system in the US during the past 20 or 30 years doesn't it?

[SandyCo]

Before you all get on your high horses about institutionalizing the mentally ill, my mother was paranoid schizophrenic in addition to being an alcoholic. She belonged in a locked nursing facility, because she didn't have the capacity to care for herself. She and her POS boyfriend would sit around and get drunk together. The last time I visited her unannounced (because I hadn't been able to get hold of her by phone), the place was a pig stye, there were dirty dishes all over the kitchen, the floor was filthy, and my mother was wearing a ratty old bathrobe over a pair of underwear, smoking like a chimney, with her lips all puffy from the alcohol. I had legal conservatorship over her for a year, and at the end of that year, I refused to renew it. I was afraid that I would be held liable, but there was nothing I could do. There were NO beds available in the locked nursing facilities where she should have been placed. This was back in the mid-80s. Nothing has improved; it has only gotten worse. (And for anyone who would argue that I should have been taking care of her, I was working full time, married, and had a two-year-old daughter. My mother lived twenty miles away, and my daughter needed me more. It was just that simple.)

Like it or not, severely mentally ill people need to be locked up. They're too sick to understand that they're sick. The alternative to institutionalizing them is this lovely revolving door we have now of homelessness, crime, jail, release. It's not working, period.

To anyone saying that I want to "trample on basic rights": Until you've dealt with mental illness up close, you have no idea what it's like, and how difficult it is to convince someone to get treatment or to stay on medication. It's a losing battle most of the time, and I don't blame anyone who gives up on an unstable, resistant family member.

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

They have the same thing in California, it's a 72 hour psychiatric hold but we have had several people on City-Data suggesting that it's a great idea to lock up the homeless in mental hospitals, apparently forever...


Yep unfortunately they do and it surprises me how many of them lack the ability to understand what a slippery slope it is once we start denying people basic rights. Sort of speaks to the state of the educational system in the US during the past 20 or 30 years doesn't it?

I wasn't aware we had it in CA, I wonder though if there aren't stricter guidelines. Seriously, in FL you can call 911 on someone say they threatened you or are acting crazy, and unless you get a cop who has a some knowledge on mental illness and has some critical thinking, off the person goes.

As I said it has been used to get someone out of the way for a few days to clean out items in the house, and bank accounts in divorces as just one example.

Originally Posted by SandyCo

Before you all get on your high horses about institutionalizing the mentally ill, my mother was paranoid schizophrenic in addition to being an alcoholic. She belonged in a locked nursing facility, because she didn't have the capacity to care for herself. She and her POS boyfriend would sit around and get drunk together. The last time I visited her unannounced (because I hadn't been able to get hold of her by phone), the place was a pig stye, there were dirty dishes all over the kitchen, the floor was filthy, and my mother was wearing a ratty old bathrobe over a pair of underwear, smoking like a chimney, with her lips all puffy from the alcohol. I had legal conservatorship over her for a year, and at the end of that year, I refused to renew it. I was afraid that I would be held liable, but there was nothing I could do. There were NO beds available in the locked nursing facilities where she should have been placed. This was back in the mid-80s. Nothing has improved; it has only gotten worse. (And for anyone who would argue that I should have been taking care of her, I was working full time, married, and had a two-year-old daughter. My mother lived twenty miles away, and my daughter needed me more. It was just that simple.)

Like it or not, severely mentally ill people need to be locked up. They're too sick to understand that they're sick. The alternative to institutionalizing them is this lovely revolving door we have now of homelessness, crime, jail, release. It's not working, period.

To anyone saying that I want to "trample on basic rights": Until you've dealt with mental illness up close, you have no idea what it's like, and how difficult it is to convince someone to get treatment or to stay on medication. It's a losing battle most of the time, and I don't blame anyone who gives up on an unstable, resistant family member.

Your background is very sad, which is probably why and somewhat understandable why you feel the way you do.

However who determines who is mentally ill? What are the guidelines? Is someone taking Prozac for mild depression mentally ill? Someone who has emotional breakdown due to personal stress, such as someone who lost a child? Where do you draw the line?

I know someone who was put on anxiety medicine and got emotional over something major, a family member said "are you off your meds".....I guess if they don't walk around like a zombie 24/7 and show any emotion over a major situation that anyone would get emotional over, they're now labeled "nuts".

See how that goes?

You don't seem to get that. We're already going down a slippery slope in this country on many issues.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

I wasn't aware we had it in CA, I wonder though if there aren't stricter guidelines. Seriously, in FL you can call 911 on someone say they threatened you or are acting crazy, and unless you get a cop who has a some knowledge on mental illness and has some critical thinking, off the person goes. As I said it has been used to get someone out of the way for a few days to clean out items in the house, and bank accounts in divorces as just one example.

The requirements for a 5150 hold are pretty strict and in most cases the person isn't detained at all, they are evaluated by a physician and if they have been seen in the ER before they put them back on their meds and discharge them the same day. Here's a good resource on the requirements for a 5150 hold. Even if they keep a person for the entire 71 hours, it's difficult to get a court order for continued confinement in a mental hospital and a patient advocate is provided to speak in court for the detained person.