[dev-da0]

The Ninth Circuit effectively struck down Venice's enforcement of giving tickets to people whom appeared to be living in their vehicles. That case is why Palo Alto backed off on its towing and ticketing campaign. LA hates homeless people more so than Silicon Valley.

But it's part of larger issue of subtle, shameful discrimination based on economics and status akin but different how African Americans were treated in the 1950's South. The homeless and poor need a Civil Rights movement. Even if it won't change attitudes of snobs and bigots, there is room for additional protections and tighter limits on police harassment. (There should be federal protections to providing food for the poor because it is illegal to feed the homeless in parts of Florida. In other parts of Florida, it is also illegal to use blankets or any other materials to protect yourself from the elements. Basically, these laws make it illegal for some people to be alive, and those types of laws have no place in America.)

[steve19]

Where do you personally draw the line between harassment and police enforcing the law?

For example, if homeless folks cannot procreate without having sex in public locations, such as behind a bush in a public park, and we accept that banning procreation is unjust, does banning public sexual acts count as an unjust law?

[dev-da0]

Actually, since this is a pseudonym, I've had sex in public a several times and never had a problem. In fact, it was in one of (Saratoga, Los Gatos, Los Altos) wealthy communities of mostly residences that have little real crime, and locations were even suggested by the police (no they weren't filming). We even asked what they would do, they indicated there would generally not be a ticket unless it were somehow indecent (visible to others) and they just make sure it is consensual. It might've been the luxury sportscar at the time or the hot girl might've had something to do with police being extra helpful. (Btw the hot girl broached the questions, hilariously.)

It would be different, for say two shabby-looking folks going at it in Venice, CA in front of a street during the daytime. But a hot couple, at night, in some remote location in a safe area isn't going to raise eyebrows, especially if no one notices. It just goes to show there are layers of socioeconomic biases, plus not all homeless people are given feedback, care or are aware of what's considered acceptable by others.

Perhaps the core issue is should necessary biological functions (and common, strongly desired needs that others are able to fulfill) be disproportionally criminalized based on socioeconomic and other biases? (For most men, sex is a strong motivating drive... which is why the Netherlands includes it in public benefits.). There might be a "time and a place," but people whom have nothing need equal access to water, food, sanitation and whatever else can be afforded to make their lives a little more comfortable. (A society is judged on how it treats...)

[amateurpolymath]

Procreation is not needed for survival.