“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

Re:“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landma... by temp8964 on Sunday April 25, 2021 @06:15PM (#26937235)

> when the government was an active, willing, and knowing participant in creating the conditions that lead to the need for aid. This is known as the “state-created-danger” doctrine.

The state-created-danger doctrine does not mean any of those [1,2]. The law is about direct physical harm by the inaction of individual officers, not any vague policy implications. This judge's interpretation of the law is as crazy as his ideology.

1 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/legal-doctrine-of-state-cr...

2 https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landma... by crooked-v on Sunday April 25, 2021 @06:39PM (#26937391)

> direct physical harm by individual officers

No, it's not. Your own links directly contradict that; see, for example, the second paper and page 10 (not an officer of the law, not direct physical harm) and page 18 (officers of the law but no direct harm of any kind).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landma... by temp8964 on Sunday April 25, 2021 @06:40PM (#26937406)

I didn't want to mean the harm was directly caused by the officer. Updated the language.

[ Parent | on HN ]