Police in Michigan say a startling discovery was made on the roof of a Michigan grocery store: A woman was living inside the store sign for roughly a year.
How about the definition of “cruelty”? The law itself is unjust. It’s bananas to me that someone can be criminalized for seeking shelter in good faith. She wasn’t destroying that area or stealing (except some electricity). She needed shelter. I learned in kindergarten that we need food, water, and shelter. Didn’t you learn those as needs? If not, maybe you really are the ignorant one.
It’s not “kind” to simply not enforce a cruel law. It’s just not being as cruel as they could be. Just because they could’ve abused their power more and didn’t, doesn’t make them good. It just makes them less shit.
My work had people squatting under the awnings at at night. We let them as long as they didn’t make a mess and left while we were open. I gave them coffee sometimes. They could have just ignored the situation or told her she couldn’t have the extension cord. Like genuinely, as a real human to human interaction, that’s what they should’ve done.
If she’d been a squirrel or some pigeons, they would’ve probably left her alone. Because we can understand that animals need shelter.
Did you know there are programs and help for people like her? A place where she can stay safely. A place where she’s not ON A ROOF LIVING IN A SIGN which is certainly unsafe and if she were to get hurt, guess who’s on the hook for that? Yeah, the business. Cruel would be putting her ass in jail and fining her.
People always say “there’s a program,” but actually kook in her city for programs - what are they? Are they shelters? Or real housing? We usually DON’T have those programs, which is why people end up living behind signs
Okay, take another 5 second search and look into why homeless women (and men) do not like staying in showers. Look up the rates of rape and sexual assault in shelters. Shelters are not safe alternatives. Her sign was much safer.
How about the definition of “cruelty”? The law itself is unjust. It’s bananas to me that someone can be criminalized for seeking shelter in good faith. She wasn’t destroying that area or stealing (except some electricity). She needed shelter. I learned in kindergarten that we need food, water, and shelter. Didn’t you learn those as needs? If not, maybe you really are the ignorant one.
It’s not “kind” to simply not enforce a cruel law. It’s just not being as cruel as they could be. Just because they could’ve abused their power more and didn’t, doesn’t make them good. It just makes them less shit.
My work had people squatting under the awnings at at night. We let them as long as they didn’t make a mess and left while we were open. I gave them coffee sometimes. They could have just ignored the situation or told her she couldn’t have the extension cord. Like genuinely, as a real human to human interaction, that’s what they should’ve done.
If she’d been a squirrel or some pigeons, they would’ve probably left her alone. Because we can understand that animals need shelter.
Did you know there are programs and help for people like her? A place where she can stay safely. A place where she’s not ON A ROOF LIVING IN A SIGN which is certainly unsafe and if she were to get hurt, guess who’s on the hook for that? Yeah, the business. Cruel would be putting her ass in jail and fining her.
People always say “there’s a program,” but actually kook in her city for programs - what are they? Are they shelters? Or real housing? We usually DON’T have those programs, which is why people end up living behind signs
Taking about 4.6 seconds, a search resulted in multiple homeless shelters in her city.
Okay, take another 5 second search and look into why homeless women (and men) do not like staying in showers. Look up the rates of rape and sexual assault in shelters. Shelters are not safe alternatives. Her sign was much safer.
Get over yourself.
No.