E93: Solving Homelessness, Newsom’s COVID Regrets, and Parole Board Changes w/ Sheriff John McGinness

Look at homelessness, for example.

The easy pushback against people who want to impose consequences on people who live, I think, a lawless and unsafe and unhealthy lifestyle is that that represents a lack of compassion.

Well, I believe just the opposite to be true.

I see zero compassion embodied in allowing our fellow human beings to live on the streets, to be living in their own filth, and to be, frankly, in a position where they are logically and foreseeably going to begin to get the wrath of the public.

Because I think there was a greater sense of compassion toward people who were living that lifestyle, but it has transitioned to the point of frustration,

And

I'll go so far as to say in some cases actual disdain for people who are living that lifestyle because they're destroying the lives of others and taking liberties away from other people.

So if you look at, I think, from a more whole perspective, say, wait a minute, what can we do better here? And is it really, truly compassionate to allow people to live that lifestyle? It's not.

So why don't we impose consequences on them? With a bit of a carrot and a stick, that's why we were so happy to support Prop 36.

I lament the fact that it has not been properly funded, but it has still provided some benefit.

But the idea is, and historically in my time, there was virtually no homelessness because as law enforcement personnel would see people on the street living that lifestyle, it would represent the first standard in enforcement action, which is reasonable suspicion.

Is it reasonable to suspect that a person who is living on the street, violating law, various local ordinances with regard to camping, perhaps having conversations with themselves, engaging in other behavior that's unusual, maybe even aberrant.

Is it reasonable for an officer to suspect that there's something out of play there, then detain them? get more information, maybe at that point conduct a lawful, per Terry versus Ohio, a lawful pat-down search of that person to see if they're carrying a dangerous weapon.

Sure.

At which point dangerous drugs could be discovered.

Enforcement action was taken.

And the typical order of business on that would be they would be charged with felony possession of dangerous drugs, maybe being under the influence of those drugs if sufficient evidence could be collected.

They'd go to court and they'd have a chance to stipulate to their guilt but go to drug court where they had supervised, court supervised treatment.

And that was very, very effective.

So if you think back to the time before Proposition 47 was

passed.

That was 2014, I believe.

2014.

And before that, really, truly, there was virtually no homelessness.

There were places in this particular area where you'd have people living on the river that was kind of, there were vagabonds, some called them hobos.

Look at homelessness, for example.

The easy pushback against people who want to impose consequences on people who live, I think, a lawless and unsafe and unhealthy lifestyle is that that represents a lack of compassion.

Well, I believe just the opposite to be true.

I see zero compassion embodied in allowing our fellow human beings to live on the streets, to be living in their own filth, and to be, frankly, in a position where they are logically and foreseeably going to begin to get the wrath of the public.

Because I think there was a greater sense of compassion toward people who were living that lifestyle, but it has transitioned to the point of frustration,

And

I'll go so far as to say in some cases actual disdain for people who are living that lifestyle because they're destroying the lives of others and taking liberties away from other people.

So if you look at, I think, from a more whole perspective, say, wait a minute, what can we do better here? And is it really, truly compassionate to allow people to live that lifestyle? It's not.

So why don't we impose consequences on them? With a bit of a carrot and a stick, that's why we were so happy to support Prop 36.

I lament the fact that it has not been properly funded, but it has still provided some benefit.

But the idea is, and historically in my time, there was virtually no homelessness because as law enforcement personnel would see people on the street living that lifestyle, it would represent the first standard in enforcement action, which is reasonable suspicion.

Is it reasonable to suspect that a person who is living on the street, violating law, various local ordinances with regard to camping, perhaps having conversations with themselves, engaging in other behavior that's unusual, maybe even aberrant.

Is it reasonable for an officer to suspect that there's something out of play there, then detain them? get more information, maybe at that point conduct a lawful, per Terry versus Ohio, a lawful pat-down search of that person to see if they're carrying a dangerous weapon.

Sure.

At which point dangerous drugs could be discovered.

Enforcement action was taken.

And the typical order of business on that would be they would be charged with felony possession of dangerous drugs, maybe being under the influence of those drugs if sufficient evidence could be collected.

They'd go to court and they'd have a chance to stipulate to their guilt but go to drug court where they had supervised, court supervised treatment.

And that was very, very effective.

So if you think back to the time before Proposition 47 was

passed.

That was 2014, I believe.

2014.

And before that, really, truly, there was virtually no homelessness.

There were places in this particular area where you'd have people living on the river that was kind of, there were vagabonds, some called them hobos.