A few nights ago I listened to a call-in radio show about what is going on in Humboldt County right now; people are signing petitions to get the local police to remove the "transients," as if they are garbage instead of people. I know that homelessness is a problem, but I know forcing people who have nowhere to go to just go away is hardly the solution.
A local transient known as Coffee Jim was given a warning to not loiter. He was told that he better not be found there again. Exactly 24 hours later he was arrested, for "loitering" in a completely different part of town, sitting under a tree in the lawn of a local church. He was not drinking or drunk, he was not under the influence of any drugs, he did not have any illegal substances on his person. He was sitting under a tree. And he was arrested for it.
Another woman had a similar experience, someone who was born here, who has family here, who has never lived anywhere else, has been arrested repeatedly because she is supposed to leave. She doesn't have anywhere else to go. Does anybody bother to help her find a place to be? It seems that they just tell her to disappear. A bystander said she overheard the woman quietly asking the arresting officers how was she supposed to just disappear? "Do you know how hard that is?" she asked them.
This just makes me sad. The hour-long program featured many of the local transients, who told their stories a bit, as well as other locals who know these folks, and it was a really human experience. These are people. Signing petitions to have them removed from the area is not the solution to the homelessness problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So many items in the news are making me cry lately. This is one of them.
People aren't trash, you're right. Have you heard of any organizations or people who are trying to help?
There are organizations trying to help, but homelessness is really prevalent around here, as well as some people don't want to live in a house - they call themselves houseless. I have some opinions about all of this, but I won't go into them here. I just think what the police are doing is wrong. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.
As a matter of fact, I read in the North Coast Journal yesterday that a well known political figure in Southern Humboldt was stopped while on a walk with his son by several police and his identification and proof of residence was DEMANDED OF HIM. He was detained because he refused to show his ID, knowing he has every right to walk down the street without showing identification. He was very upset, and I think local cops acting like that, without the legal authority to do so, is going to get them into trouble, especially when they bother the wrong person. (The news reporter made a comment along the lines of they should be in trouble simply for not knowing who this man was.) I don't think this public figure is going to let this one drop. It'll be interesting to see where this all goes.
Interesting. Is this public figure a minority?
I don't think the police should be in trouble for not knowing who he was, as I don't think politicians should get special treatment. It is a good thing in the end that this happened to him, I would think, since he is someone who can do something about it.
I don't actually know who he is, LOL. I took the news reporter's comment to mean that he was a very public figure and that someone in a police officer's position should be semi- up on current events, i.e. seen his picture around town, on the news, in the newspaper. I didn't think of it how you put it, but I agree with you that politicians should not get special treatment.
On a sort of related theme, I overhead in the post office that the governor (that would be the Governator, Mr. Shwarzenegger) does not receive a salary for being the governor. I don't know if that is true or not, but if it is, wow. I'm surprised.
Oh, and I agree with you that it was a good thing to have happen to a person who might actually be able to do something about it. I sort of got the impression for the newspaper that he is doing just that. It remains to be seen...
I meant "from the newspaper" not "for the newspaper" obviously.
Post a Comment