Skip to comments.Miami homeless removed against their will
Posted on 09/09/2017 5:47:12 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Miami's estimated 1,100 homeless people a stark choice: Come willingly to a storm shelter, or be held against their will for a mental health evaluation.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Or how about
Miami’s Mentally Ill Rescued From Harm
Should be the latter anyway. Need services, treatment, and homes.
Doesn’t matter. Still wrong.
Having had more than my fair share of exposure to the homeless I can say we aren’t dealing with “normal” people. The ones I have run across are disturbed and living in their own reality. They can’t be relied on to do something that is in their interest or they probably wouldn’t be homeless. When I was a kid and up until the end of the Carter administration you seldom saw homeless people because they were mostly institutionalized. Then, there was an ALCU lawsuit that set them all free at once. Most were handed a bottle of anti-psychotic medication, which they promptly threw away, and turned out onto the street. The death rate, initially, was very high.
No it isn’t. If I had a child living on the streets in Miami, I would be very thankful for this. And I bet there are still some vague vagrancy laws on the books that they can fall back on.
“Then, there was an ALCU lawsuit that set them all free at once.”.....
Yes, THE ACLU were the ones who should have been held accountable for the issue of homeless mentally ill people.
When Florida gets hit by the pending storm(s), one thing, having rounded up the homeless, will turn out to be a “twofer”, rid their bastions of homeless and save the lives of untold MANY. Win/win all around? Not so fast, P\the problem then becomes who has the task of dealing with the homeless somewhere else?
Miami have 3 words to sum why this is being done:
Katrina. New Orleans.
It does not want to be accuse of letting people die.
“Yes, THE ACLU were the ones who should have been held accountable for the issue of homeless mentally ill people.”
I don’t think anyone can be held accountable for other people’s mental states. And, I guarantee, as soon as the storm is over they will be released. In Florida, the only way to hold somebody who is not charged with a crime is to Baker Act them. Legal authorities do not frequently use the Baker Act because the law established a mandate, but not who would pay for it.
It's a tough call. Do you want emergency services expended on people who don't have the capacity, physical or mental, to get out of the storm? The problem is over-reach. I fear the gov could use this to lock up dissidents.
Just as they can check themselves out of mental health facilities against the family's will, b/c they're adults after all and the state can't hold them.
Apparently, if somebody declines to do what the government tells them is good for them ..... then that person is obviously mentally ill.
What about the mentally ill Media running around South Florida like so many Chicken Littles?
Makes me think of G. Gordon Liddy's book, "When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country". And also...
First they used the Baker Act and came for the bums.
Then they used the Baker Act and came for the ...fill in the blank.
Unfortunately, there are many mentally ill Americans without the services to care for them. Closing down inpatient mental facilities has done them great harm.
“Closing down inpatient mental facilities has done them great harm.”
This is one more fallout of government over-regulation.
The problem of why medical and mental care is so expensive is a huge one ranging from lawsuits to rent-seeking lobbying to ultra-expensive regulations for certifying medications. Unfortunately, it’s such a huge problem with so many “stakeholders” that untying the knot will probably not happen in our lifetimes.
Locking people up against their will because you say that’s what’s good for them. Who gets to determine what’s good for me? Or my child?? The government?? What happens when it’s “good for me” or in my best interests to belong to a certain political party? This is an overreach that really puts us on a slippery slope. It’s a complicated & tough issue, but it’s pretty clear how this could go.
Perfectly legal.....declared state of emergency in effect.
All the sane homeless are already in shelters, and probably among the first ones there. The only ones still out are mentally off in one way or another.
The city is also afraid of lawsuits. Let a few of the homeless die in the storm, and the same ACLU will be out in force, filing suit against the city, followed by members of the tort bar, representing “relatives” of the victims. Yep, the same folks who disowned their homeless kin years before, now outraged at their death—and looking for a check.
No one wants to see flooded streets full of dead homeless people floating by. What might that do for tourism
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.