774
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by 101@feddit.org to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world

Alt TextThis cartoon has four panels. All the panels show a gritty commercial doorway – the kind that’s recessed a few feet into the building – on a city sidewalk. There’s litter and graffiti here.

There are two characters in the comic strip. The first character is a homeless man sleeping in the doorway, wearing a zip-up sweatshirt over a t-shirt and a dull red knit cap, and with a full beard. The other character is a muscular-looking cop dressed in a police uniform and carrying a baton. In defiance of tradition, he is cleanshaven. I’ll call these two characters KNITCAP and COP.

PANEL 1

Knitcap, covered by a brown blanket and with his head pillowed on some rolled-up clothes, is lying in a doorway, apparently asleep. The cop is using his baton to poke knitcap in the side. The cop has a somewhat sadistic grin.

COP: Hey, you! Get up! We’ve outlawed sleeping in public! You’re not allowed anymore!

PANEL 2

Knitcap is sitting up, rubbing sleep out of his eyes with one hand. He speaks calmly. The cop watches, smirking, arms akimbo.

KNITCAP: In that case, I guess I’ll sleep in a hotel tonight.

PANEL 3

A close-up of Knitcap. He’s stroking his chin with a hand, as if thinking through his options.

KNITCAP: Or should I sleep in my townhouse instead? Or my Hamptons place? I’ll call my butler and ask what he thinks!

PANEL 4

Knitcap, grinning, is now holding a hand next to his face, thumb and pinky finger extended, pretending it’s a phone as he talks. The cop is glaring and slapping his baton against his palm.

KNITCAP: Smithers? Smithers old boy! My super fun street sleeping holiday is done. Which of my mansions shall I sleep in tonight.

COP (thought): Next step: Outlaw sarcasm.

Source.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Cities in the US have always been able to police sleeping in public spaces GIVEN there was an alternative (e.g. a non-full shelter) where people could go to instead. What changed with the new US supreme court ruling is that they are now allowed to do this regardless of weather or not there is any alternatives.

Cities always had this right the Supreme Court just upheld it.

How narcissistic do you have to be to think that the person you witnessed wanted to be there?

I never stated that.

Homelessness is out of control on the west-coast of the US (and elsewhere) but fines and jail time aren't going to make these people magically stop existing.

I don’t see homeless encampments out in the open by highways in other parts of the country. Yes there are homeless, but it is on a whole other level on the West Coast.

Side note: Multiple studies have shown that homelessness is directly correlated to housing affordability. If you want to help fight homelessness, support building more affordable housing (which usually equates to denser housing).

Cool idea sounds like something you should fight for in your community.

[-] MoondropLight@thelemmy.club 2 points 2 months ago

This is about human rights vs. city spending

When someone posts about how unpleasant it is to see other humans sleeping/eating/pooping and concludes from that cities should be able to stop them (or throw them in jail) to make themselves feel better; the implication is that these people have alternatives and are just being rude or lazy.

I'm pointing out that many of these people are stuck and have no alternative. By appealing this case to the supreme court, Grants Pass (an city) was admitting that these people had no alternative and they still wanted to punish them.

The one basic rule that was upheld by the ninth circuit was that cities must first give them an alternative. If they have no alternatives, then it is cruel and unusual punishment. I don't know how anyone can argue that it is not cruel to throw someone in jail for sleeping in their car (one of the plaintiffs was sleeping in her car) when they have no where else to go. People need to sleep: it is not a choice.

Additionally, large homeless encampments in other parts of the country has two main drivers:

  1. In many cities, the majority of the homeless population is sheltered (there's enough shelter beds). e.g. NYC
  2. In other parts of the country (e.g. not any of the cities you mentioned) housing is more affordable, often because the population centers aren't as large (see Wyoming)
[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 2 months ago

Where are these magical places that provide enough beds? I'm not doubting you, I just haven't ever heard of any.

[-] MoondropLight@thelemmy.club 1 points 2 months ago

NYC is a classic example of a US city where homelessness is less visible because they provide shelters and other public services. That is NOT to say that homelessness isn't an issue there, it 100% is. Its just that it looks different than in, say, Seattle.

Europe (in general, though it varies) also has a large percentage of it's homeless population sheltered.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
774 points (94.9% liked)

Comic Strips

12583 readers
499 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS