Two experts say "No!" to jail time for two homeless musicians ticketed for sleeping

Thanks to "Thankfully Home/ful" for posting the declarations of Paul Lee and Paul Brindel. The last page of the Lee declaration is missing and will hopefully be added soon.

More info at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/05/29/18599000.php .

shouldn't we attack the shelter for not providing services to all? they are by definition discriminating against people by not accomadating everyone equally

Bye Bye it's time to behave

Of the 60 cites, the overwhelming majority was for sleeping outside, forbidden everywhere in Santa Cruz for those who are homeless. In fact, the judge found the small number of tickets on other subjects the couple was charged with (such as littering, washing their hands in the fountain, trespass) was not sufficiently substantiated to add to the injunction. The only "crime" for which he's increasing the penalties, absurdly enough, is "sleeping" downtown. Without, of course, providing any alternative.

To check out the Sentinel's faulty coverage and the ensuing slew of mostly bigoted commentary, check out
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_12483386 .

Police were seen accosting Anna and Miguel this morning under the Water Str. bridge where they may tried spend the night. Though the two were outside the Judge Burdick's forbidden zone, the broader Sleeping Ban harassment continues--an exercise in futility, brutality, blindness, and arrogance.

A meeting today of the Human Rights Organization had the msot people at any meeting since its founding seven or so years ago. This attack on two homeless musicians is part of the Downtown Association's new anti-homeless laws passed through City Council this January and is part of a broader social "cleansing" which has always been on their twisted agenda.

Planning for protest will continue Monday June 1 4:30 PM on the lawn outside the Red Church at Lincoln and Pacific. For more info call 423-4833.

Robert says "Police were seen accosting Anna and Miguel this morning under the Water Str. bridge where they may tried spend the night. Though the two were outside the Judge Burdick's forbidden zone, the broader Sleeping Ban harassment continues--an exercise in futility, brutality, blindness, and arrogance. "

So the police were doing their job, which is to uphold the laws and ordinances in town set by the local government. I'm always amazed how you blame the police for doing their job, when they are not the ones setting the policies. Futility? You, my dear Robert, are the one who has been losing all your battles lately. Were the couple savagely beaten? Is that why you use the word "brutality"? Lord only knows what you mean by blindness.

May I ask a question, Robert? If you are so invested with this couple at the moment, why don't you let them stay at your place? The longer YOU let them stay outside the longer they will be in trouble. You are certainly getting alot of attention by using their story as a rallying cry. You could return the favor by helping them get off the street. You have the means and ability, no?

The issue is not private charity, but the right of 1500-2000 homeless people in Santa Cruz to sleep legally--not everywhere and anywhere, but somewhere. Criminalizing people who have no legal place to go at for the ultimately involuntary act of sleeping is cruel and unusual punishment. Los Angeles, San Diego, numerous other cities have acknowledged this. When police violate people's rights--however much they regard it as "their job"--it's abusive behavior and needs to be identified as such.

Robert says "The issue is not private charity, but............."

Robert, may I please ask why it is that every time someone asks why you don't spend some of your own considerable wealth with those that could really benefit from it, your answer is always the same? "The issue is not private charity". I would say that the people not benefiting from your largess think it's an issue.

What are you saving it all for? Why not make a difference where you can? Fighting for people's rights is all well and good, but if they are starving to death and dying from lack of sleep during the process, and you have the ability to do something about it, well what are you really accomplishing?

These people bring you alot of notoriety. Why not help them directly in return? It's only fair.

So poor people have no right to sleep at night unless some wealthy good samaritan provides resources and persuades the city council to issue permits?

I don't think so. Rights shouldn't have to wait on the largess of the rich (which I'm not, by the way).

Sleep is a basic human need; the right to do it somewhere--a basic human right.

Sleep deprivation is a form of torture.