Arrested for feeding homeless people

[Buffer Overflow]

Oh?  It's dishonest for people to eat the whole fish they catch?

If everyone else has to give away a little bit extra fish to compensate for the one stuffing the whole one down his gullet, yes.

Yet it's honest for thugs to threaten violence if you don't give them a cut of your fish?

I don't disagree with you, but should we pay taxes or not in the first place is beyond the scope of this thread.

And in regards to your last statement, there are not enough jobs for everyone, it is that simple.

Again I don't disagree, let's hope the situation improves.
What I was trying to point out is that it isn't always society's fault for a person being homeless as you claimed in your statement.
Another example: A gambling addict gambles away his possessions and eventually his home, now he's left on the street. Is this society's fault or his?

Every homeless person will have a different tale to tell, sometimes it's their fault for the situation, others it was out of their control.
Either way, it's a sad situation and they need all the support we can give them to get them back on their feet.

[dank]

And in regards to your last statement, there are not enough jobs for everyone, it is that simple.  Regulations constrict the economy to the benefit of the present establishment.

Robotic integration results in a system that values growth of the system without any regard for the well being of humans.  Sorta like a virus, leaching off the life of humanity.

And how could a system as such tolerate sharing?  That devoids the power of the system completely.

Dank - just fuck off...

Open your eyes.

[axxo]

Not sure why a city thinks they need to regulate this man's charity. There seem to be more homeless now than ever in my lifetime. Keeping them out of site isn't going to make them go away.

[Vod]

Not sure why a city thinks they need to regulate this man's charity. There seem to be more homeless now than ever in my lifetime. Keeping them out of site isn't going to make them go away.

If we stop feeding them there will be less homeless than ever in your lifetime.  Survival of the least lazy.   

[CoinCidental]

Not sure why a city thinks they need to regulate this man's charity. There seem to be more homeless now than ever in my lifetime. Keeping them out of site isn't going to make them go away.

If we stop feeding them there will be less homeless than ever in your lifetime.  Survival of the least lazy.   

Until they start helping themselves, muggings and burglary and street crime will all go up if they stop feeding the crazys in any western city

[Swordsoffreedom]

Not sure why a city thinks they need to regulate this man's charity. There seem to be more homeless now than ever in my lifetime. Keeping them out of site isn't going to make them go away.

If we stop feeding them there will be less homeless than ever in your lifetime.  Survival of the least lazy.   

Until they start helping themselves, muggings and burglary and street crime will all go up if they stop feeding the crazys in any western city

True enough,
A lack of social services and support mechanisms for those who need it to get back from there will just result in increased crime rates
Or the American model where people go to jail for being poor in essence and well at least in jail they get their meals
Otherwise they would have been more productive to society if something was there to help them.

[bluemountain]

Not sure why a city thinks they need to regulate this man's charity. There seem to be more homeless now than ever in my lifetime. Keeping them out of site isn't going to make them go away.

If we stop feeding them there will be less homeless than ever in your lifetime.  Survival of the least lazy.   

+1 on this (maybe not less homeless people, but less people who don't have money to eat). If you cut off a person's lifeline then they will find a way to get the money to support themselves which will generally mean to get a job and/or spend less money on frivolous things.

[dank]

Not sure why a city thinks they need to regulate this man's charity. There seem to be more homeless now than ever in my lifetime. Keeping them out of site isn't going to make them go away.

If we stop feeding them there will be less homeless than ever in your lifetime.  Survival of the least lazy.   

More like survival of the greediest.

But even that is an illusion nearing an abrupt end.

[Vod]

Not sure why a city thinks they need to regulate this man's charity. There seem to be more homeless now than ever in my lifetime. Keeping them out of site isn't going to make them go away.

If we stop feeding them there will be less homeless than ever in your lifetime.  Survival of the least lazy.   

More like survival of the greediest.

But even that is an illusion nearing an abrupt end.

You're both greedy and lazy dank.  Six of one, half a dozen of the other.   

[awesome31312]

Notable quotation from Vod's post:

"I can see their point... if you keep feeding the problem, it will never go away."

"He can see their point" meaning he believes the police's actions were justified in arresting someone for feeding the homeless
"If you keep feeding the problem" notice how he refers to the homeless as "the problem", the context here is obviously feeding the homeless
"It will never go away" the homeless man is referred to by the pronoun "it", as if referring to a different species

[Buffer Overflow]

"If you keep feeding the problem" notice how he refers to the homeless as "the problem", the context here is obviously feeding the homeless
"It will never go away" the homeless man is referred to by the pronoun "it", as if referring to a different species

Depends how you read it.
Does "feeding the problem" refer to homelessness or does he mean keep feeding them doesn't really tackle the problem of getting them out of homelessness?
Also he could of been referring to the problem as "it" instead of the man as the "it".

Maybe I read it wrong.

[MelodyRowell]

Notable quotation from Vod's post:

"I can see their point... if you keep feeding the problem, it will never go away."

"He can see their point" meaning he believes the police's actions were justified in arresting someone for feeding the homeless
"If you keep feeding the problem" notice how he refers to the homeless as "the problem", the context here is obviously feeding the homeless
"It will never go away" the homeless man is referred to by the pronoun "it", as if referring to a different species

Regardless of your opinion on if the law is just or not, the police officers were only doing their job. If they see someone breaking the law repeatedly then they must take action and arrest the criminal.

He was referring to the problem being the fact that people are homeless and are a burden to society. If you feed the homeless then they have zero incentive to work and actually contribute to society.

[iCEBREAKER]

Not sure why a city thinks they need to regulate this man's charity.

That man is forcing others to support his charity by using an improper venue and not complying with public health regs.

If he feeds the homeless some bad potato salad and they all get food poisoning, the taxpayers are on the hook for the bills.

When his free food is done being digested, the homeless deposit the resulting fecal matter all over the park, streets, and sidewalks.

The taxpayers who built and maintain the park can't enjoy it when it's full of begging, infected, drug-addled, stinking, dangerous crazy people.

He could work with established soup kitchens, food banks, and shelters.  But that would make too much sense.

He could invite the homeless into his own home, but that wouldn't create the media circus he's attention whoring for.

[maddog0000]

Yeah our justice system is clearly behind in the morals department. I blame the flawed system, Maybe if we had better outlets and funding the homeless would not be a problem. Seems kind of counterproductive to hand out felony's for every small infraction, Felonies that keep people from finding work or homes. Maybe this is the main reason behind our homeless problem?

[awesome31312]

Regardless of your opinion on if the law is just or not, the police officers were only doing their job.

Just doing their jobs.

[iCEBREAKER]

Regardless of your opinion on if the law is just or not, the police officers were only doing their job.

Just doing their jobs.

Nice Godwin!  Because discouraging bums from shitting free food all over a neighborhood park is EXACTLY like the Third Reich.

Thanks for derailing this duplicate thread before it took up any more space.   

[awesome31312]

Regardless of your opinion on if the law is just or not, the police officers were only doing their job.

Just doing their jobs.

Nice Godwin!  Because discouraging bums from shitting free food all over a neighborhood park is EXACTLY like the Third Reich.

Thanks for derailing this duplicate thread before it took up any more space.   

It's not an example of Godwin's law.

There have been several atrocities throughout history which were being justified as people "just doing their jobs"

And yes, refusing someone a basic need, like the right to nutrition, bears striking similarities to the Third Reich, I never said it was exactly like the Third Reich.

The only one derailing the thread by talking about shit is you

[jaysabi]

Regardless of your opinion on if the law is just or not, the police officers were only doing their job. If they see someone breaking the law repeatedly then they must take action and arrest the criminal.

That's not accurate though. The police can use discretion, as in making the determination "it's not the best use of my time to arrest someone who is performing a charitable act." Using the term "criminal" is unwarranted. Technically correct, since it's "against the law," but just because something is against the law doesn't mean the law is appropriate. This is a good example of it not being. But back to discretion and cops using it to opt not to enforce bad laws, the way you know police have discretion is that they don't pull over every motorist going 1 or 2 mph over the speed limit. Those guys are breaking the law as well, ("criminals" is the word you used) but it's clearly not a good use of a cop's time to pull over a motorist who is only going 1 or 2 mph over the speed limit. They DO use discretion not to enforce the law in those cases. The cop could have similarly used his discretion not to enforce a dumb law here.

[jaysabi]

Regardless of your opinion on if the law is just or not, the police officers were only doing their job.

Just doing their jobs.

Nice Godwin!  Because discouraging bums from shitting free food all over a neighborhood park is EXACTLY like the Third Reich.

Thanks for derailing this duplicate thread before it took up any more space.   

It's not an example of Godwin's law.

Whether or not you agree with his overall point, it actually is EXACTLY an example of Godwin's Law. It is a perfect example that proves the rule.

[jaysabi]

I do on occasion go to a drive thru fast food place that is in a complex with a gas station, a large retailer, etc. Homeless people are always hanging out near one specific entrance/exit location in the complex. So, if I feel like it....I order my meal x2 and when I'm leaving give 1 away to of whichever homeless person happens to be there that day. It's not a daily, scheduled or regular thing. I can spend my money how I wish and as far as I know, it's not illegal in Florida to hand a person a bag of food whether you know them or not.

Not all over Florida apparently. This was an ordinance, which means it was passed by a city. I think it was Fort Lauderdale?