The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (crime, camps, place to live)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Matadora

The police are laxed from enforcing laws which is why SF, LA and other cities in CA have so many homeless issues.
I never stated otherwise but a person should be arrested for this type of behavior as well as for setting up living quarters on public land that is not intended for that purpose.
Please explain why you think the government is responsible for providing housing to able bodied people?
So if a person has 100 of cars in on their property with the the VIN # removed you don't think the police can make a case?

You really should stick to subjects that you know something about. The VIN number is a unique identifier that is place in several areas of the car. A good chop shop immediately removes the parts of the vehicle that bear the VIN and dispose of them. Unless the car owner has another way to positively identify their vehicle, i.e. personal property somewhere in the car or something that makes the vehicle unique, without a VIN # it is impossible to prove it's stolen. Same with bicycles.

Originally Posted by Matadora

The police can indeed arrest a person suspected of a felony crime.

Who said otherwise? But stealing a bike worth less than $950 is a misdemeanor.

Originally Posted by Matadora

Glad to see Long Beach cracking down. Long Beach considers bicycle ‘chop shop’ crackdown
The police in SF are up against this mentality when simply trying to enforce laws.
I suppose you see nothing here that warrants the police getting tougher on bike chop shops?
Inside San Francisco's stolen bike warehouse
I never stated otherwise.
LOL ditto!

Your SF Gate article summarized the problem quite well:

"You see a suspicious guy with a bike, you run the serial number and it comes back negative, so what you have is a guy with an expensive bike," Friedman said. "What do you arrest him for? It's the same with the chop shops. If I'm going to take somebody's liberties away, I've got to have proof."

Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You really should stick to subjects that you know something about. The VIN number is a unique identifier that is place in several areas of the car. A good chop shop immediately removes the parts of the vehicle that bear the VIN and dispose of them. Unless the car owner has another way to positively identify their vehicle, i.e. personal property somewhere in the car or something that makes the vehicle unique, without a VIN # it is impossible to prove it's stolen. Same with bicycles.

Moving the goal posts eh?

So you are going to tell me that a person with 100's of cars or car parts with the VIN# missing or altered is nothing suspicious and the police don't need to investigate?

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Who said otherwise?

You

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

But stealing a bike worth less than $950 is a misdemeanor.

Do you wonder why I used the word felony? Because I'm talking about felony theft not misdemeanor theft.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Your SF Gate article summarized the problem quite well:

"You see a suspicious guy with a bike, you run the serial number and it comes back negative, so what you have is a guy with an expensive bike," Friedman said. "What do you arrest him for? It's the same with the chop shops. If I'm going to take somebody's liberties away, I've got to have proof."

A guy on suspicious guy on a bike and the police are worried about running the SN vs. dealing with the suspicious guy on a bike? LOL

A "suspicious guy on a bike" is not the same as a bike chop shop.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Matadora

Moving the goal posts eh?

So you are going to tell me that a person with 100's of cars or car parts with the VIN# missing or altered is nothing suspicious and the police don't need to investigate?
You
Do you wonder why I used the word felony? Because I'm talking about felony theft not misdemeanor theft.
A guy on suspicious guy on a bike and the police are worried about running the SN vs. dealing with the suspicious guy on a bike? LOL

A "suspicious guy on a bike" is not the same as a bike chop shop.

Wow! talk about moving the goalposts! I never said stolen cars shouldn't be investigated. You were not talking about felony theft, you were talking about bicycle thefts and most bicycles are not worth more than $950 and I have no idea what the heck your last sentence is about. Why don't you just stop now, you are starting to look silly.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Wow! talk about moving the goalposts! You were not talking about felony theft, you were talking about bicycle thefts and most bicycles are not worth more than $950 and I have no idea what the heck your last sentence is about.

Please brush up on your reading comprehnsion.

This is what I posted: So if a person has 100's of cars on their property or in storage with the the VIN#'s removed you don't think the police can make a case?

The police can indeed arrest a person suspected of a felony crime.

BART Arrest & Discovery of Bike Chop Shop

Bike Chop shop = more than $950 = felony theft. I stated felony arrest for a reason.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Why don't you just stop now, you are starting to look silly.

Speak for yourself and while you're at it at least answer the questions I've asked instead of trying to move the goalposts as an attempt to deflect from answering.

[Goinback2011]

No one is asking the right questions here.

Why are politicians so intent on protecting drug addicts at the expense of taxpaying citizens and the public good? No matter how much they are receiving in homeless funding it doesn't exceed the increased costs of the mayhem created by having heroin and meth addicts openly shooting up and defecating on the streets. They ban plastic straws, yet give out millions of throw away needles. They decriminalize drug crimes and petty theft crimes committed by addicts. They give out millions of doses of narcan.

Why do politicians need these people alive, on the streets and continuing their addiction?

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

No one is asking the right questions here.

Why are politicians so intent on protecting drug addicts at the expense of taxpaying citizens and the public good? No matter how much they are receiving in homeless funding it doesn't exceed the increased costs of the mayhem created by having heroin and meth addicts openly shooting up and defecating on the streets. They ban plastic straws, yet give out millions of throw away needles. They decriminalize drug crimes and petty theft crimes committed by addicts. They give out millions of doses of narcan.

Why do politicians need these people alive, on the streets and continuing their addiction?

Excellent question.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Why are politicians so intent on protecting drug addicts at the expense of taxpaying citizens and the public good? ?

Please tell us how "politicians are protecting drug addicts at the expense of taxpaying citizens."

Is your homeless population in Pittsburgh being treated differently?

[Finper]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

No one is asking the right questions here.

Why are politicians so intent on protecting drug addicts at the expense of taxpaying citizens and the public good? No matter how much they are receiving in homeless funding it doesn't exceed the increased costs of the mayhem created by having heroin and meth addicts openly shooting up and defecating on the streets. They ban plastic straws, yet give out millions of throw away needles. They decriminalize drug crimes and petty theft crimes committed by addicts. They give out millions of doses of narcan.

Why do politicians need these people alive, on the streets and continuing their addiction?

Good questions!! My guess is money is the root of all evil

[TCROX]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

No one is asking the right questions here.

Why are politicians so intent on protecting drug addicts at the expense of taxpaying citizens and the public good? No matter how much they are receiving in homeless funding it doesn't exceed the increased costs of the mayhem created by having heroin and meth addicts openly shooting up and defecating on the streets. They ban plastic straws, yet give out millions of throw away needles. They decriminalize drug crimes and petty theft crimes committed by addicts. They give out millions of doses of narcan.

Why do politicians need these people alive, on the streets and continuing their addiction?

Finper nailed it again-
Good yet rhetorical question- they are beyond greedy and have no conscience. They have the ability to take and take they do- the more they take, the worse it has gotten.

[CA4Now]

Hope for Home, a year round shelter in Pomona, is profiled in the above L.A. Times article ("L.A. has great weather. So why do more homeless people die of the cold here than in New York?")

Pomona opens doors to its year-round homeless shelter, the first in the region: https://www.dailybulletin.com/2018/1...in-the-region/

How cash-strapped Pomona bit the bullet and came up with a solution for its homeless residents:
https://www.dailybulletin.com/2018/0...ess-residents/