San Francisco art gallery owner arrested after spraying water on homeless person
cnn.com
cnn.com
>Gwin has lived in San Francisco for 45 years. He said this confrontation was the result of multiple attempts to get the woman help, after he spent days cleaning up her mess and letting her sleep in his doorway. He added that she often knocks over trash cans, and her behavior has scared off his clients.
>Gwin said he and other business owners in the area have called SFPD and social services more than two dozen times in the last two weeks.
>"I said she needs psychiatric help," Gwin said. "You can tell, she's pulling her hair, she's screaming, she's talking in tongues, you can't understand anything she says, she's throwing food everywhere."
>Gwin said on Monday, he'd had enough.
[0]https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/homeless-woman-hos...
That doesn't give you the right to spray anyone with water. Bad behavior by one party (short of violence) does not excuse bad behavior by another.
There is no "they had it coming" enshrined in law.
Put yourself in the shoes of the business owner - what would you have done in this situation?
If your complaints aren't heard by the police and city management, you sue the police and city management. Straight forward. If PG&E cut off his lights, or refused to provide the necessary maintenance, would he go throw a rock through the window at the PG&E office? No, he would go through civilized channels.
The only reason he felt like he COULD spray her with water was because she was homeless. He thought he could do it, it would force her to move, and that nobody would care about a soaking wet homeless person. In society we have civilized channels to handle these types of situations, as difficult/annoying/longwinded as they may be.
We do this so that we don't descend into lawlessness. The same reason why the police and management should ACTUALLY be tackling the lawless homelessness are the same reasons that they should not allow him to spray homeless people with water without recourse.
When you decide to take things into your own hands and break the law doing so, there are consequences. Sucks to be him.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that because the guy would refuse to leave and would physically block people from coming into the store.
I don't think you actually read any of the CBS article I linked given the insane assumptions you are immediately making that this person who you have never met is instantly in the wrong, with some of those assumptions being very obviously shown wrong in the article.
And on what grounds would you sue the police? That they aren't doing enough? Police do not legally have an obligation to protect anyone, or do anything for that matter. Also good luck suing the police when you have no money because you literally cannot get someone who is caring away customers to leave.
The headline images shows the homeless person sitting beside a trashcan and a tree. That's blocking the door?
> I don't think you actually read any of the CBS article I linked given the insane assumptions you are immediately making that this person who you have never met is instantly in the wrong, with some of those assumptions being very obviously shown wrong in the article.
Please tell me what I've gotten wrong as outlined in the article, and also the insane assumption I have made.
< And on what grounds would you sue the police? That they aren't doing enough? Police do not legally have an obligation to protect anyone, or do anything for that matter. Also good luck suing the police when you have no money because you literally cannot get someone who is caring away customers to leave.
You can sue for damages with explanation in Civil court.
>Gwin has lived in San Francisco for 45 years. He said this confrontation was the result of multiple attempts to get the woman help, after he spent days cleaning up her mess and letting her sleep in his doorway. He added that she often knocks over trash cans, and her behavior has scared off his clients.
>Gwin said he and other business owners in the area have called SFPD and social services more than two dozen times in the last two weeks.
This person had:
- frequently made messes (i'm guessing defecating) outside of the business
- slept in the doorway of the business
- knocks over trash cans
- scares off clients
- had the cops and social services called on them multiple times with absolutely no action
I'll also reiterate my second comment that you responded to: He needs to sue the city.
That list is no justification for assault.
You think suing the police and city management are straightforward? That is an expensive and likely years-long process. If your problem is that you're losing a significant amount of business every day because of the presence of this woman, who is clearly breaking laws on a regular basis, then the reality is that a lawsuit against a city is likely to end in you going bankrupt before it even reaches a verdict.
How is that a straightforward solution? How is it any kind of a solution?
> We do this so that we don't descend into lawlessness.
If this guy is suffering serious harm because a woman is repeatedly breaking the law, why do you say his actions caused us to descend into lawlesness? Weren't we already there?
I never said it was something that you could do in an afternoon, in fact I outlined how these process can be meandering. They are however the CORRECT and CIVILIZE process to have grievances heard. You are not entitled to microwave solutions.
> If this guy is suffering serious harm because a woman is repeatedly breaking the law, why do you say his actions caused us to descend into lawlesness? Weren't we already there?
He was not suffering any serious harm when he decided to spray her with water while she sat by a trashcan and and a tree. Be real.
And at any rate he is not entitled to spraying anyone with water. Hence the charges.
No one is entitled to stand outside of someone's business screaming obscenities, but that's what this woman is doing. If people should be arrested and prosecuted for engaging in illegal behavior that they're not entitled to engage in, she should be arrested and charged, correct?
Sue the city. Make the law act.
Again, he cannot spray her with water. He is then breaking the law.
Why does she get a pass on breaking the law in a way that harms other, but he doesn't?
You're fishing for a justification for this man to assault a homeless person because he didn't want them there. There isn't one. The same sanctity of law that should spur the police to stop her from causing a disturbance is the same that should charge him for assault.
I would slightly disagree with that - it's not just because he didn't want the homeless person there, it's because the homeless person was breaking the law in ways that directly harmed his business. I think there's a meaningful difference between the case of just not wanting someone to be somewhere vs. actually being harmed by that person, and this is the latter case.
> The same sanctity of law that should spur the police to stop her from causing a disturbance is the same that should charge him for assault.
This is true in theory, but we know in this case that the sanctity of law you're referring to doesn't exist, because if it did the police would have stopped her. Why should he do anything based on a principle that is demonstrable nonexistent, particular when it's nonexistent in the one case that he really, really needs to rely on it?
Everybody's saying nobody should be harmed, which is true in theory, but he is being harmed. Even though everyone purports to be against harm, their proposed answers are all that he should allow himself to continue being harmed (that includes any suggestion that he should sue - given the nature of the legal system, trying to resolve this with a lawsuit guarantees that he will continue to suffer harm for years).
You're absolutely right.
The man should deplete his wealth hiring lawyers to navigate the byzantine rules of dysfunctional city bureaucracy. He should dedicate his life to this goal on top of his full-time work.
After a few years, some statements will be made and nothing will happen. But at least he took the high road to nowhere.
If I were on the jury, I would nullify any guilt against this person. He had no other option in the face of an APATHETIC and INEFFECTIVE government.
Only if you're in the out-group. This woman is breaking the law constantly.
How is the term "financial violence" any worse about that than, e.g., "structural violence"?
This person sure has hell experienced what I would term financial violence. His business was being assaulted regularly. His government let it happen.
Honestly, he should have sprayed down the town police and politicians. They utterly failed both the woman and the business owner in this case.
What is a better thing that he is practically able to do that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?
Lots of folks saying that his actions are inexcusable, but nobody's provided anything even remotely resembling a solution to them (as you have not here).
If this guy is going to end up losing his business because of this woman, and he has already exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue, what should he do? What you're proposing is that he just lose his business. Obviously being sprayed with water is bad, but is that worse than losing a business that you've invested years of your life and large amounts of money in? If not, what is your better solution here? What would you have done if you were him?
Not spraying a homeless person with water is the solution to the current issues he's caused. Suing the city for damages is the solution to homelessness.
> If this guy is going to end up losing his business because of this woman, and he has already exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue, what should he do? What you're proposing is that he just lose his business. Obviously being sprayed with water is bad, but is that worse than losing a business that you've invested years of your life and large amounts of money in? If not, what is your better solution here? What would you have done if you were him?
If he has not sued the city for damages, he has not "exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue".
He's not losing his business.
I would have sued the city. You don't get to assault people because you want to. What if he decided he wanted to use a hammer instead of water? Are you "oh well his business" then?
You're clearly avoiding answering the actual question. The question is what is the solution to the issues that the homeless person is causing.
> If he has not sued the city for damages, he has not "exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue".
You know this costs thousands and thousands of dollars, plus it takes years, right?
If he doesn't have thousands of dollars and years to wait, what is the appropriate solution?
I'm not. The answer is that there is no legitimate immediate response. You need to invoke the city into action. Which is why I reiterated that he needs to sue.
His spraying of a homeless person who is not actively harming him has no justification. Full stop.
> You know this costs thousands and thousands of dollars, plus it takes years, right? If he doesn't have thousands of dollars and years to wait, what is the appropriate solution?
Again, we are not entitled to microwave solutions. That's not how the world works. When you fall into that mental trap you do something stupid, like spraying homeless people with water, and that lands you in legal trouble.
If he needs to get a loan to sue, he needs to get a loan. If he needs to find coplaintifs to split costs with, then he needs to find coplaintifs (this is probably the appropriate route give how pervasive homelessness is in the city). He can sell his business and move away (which famously happened to the city of Detroit's tax base). Or he does not thing and deals with it. In short he needs to determine what the cost of this problem are to him, and what he is willing to do to have it fix.
The idea that there can be no problems or that any problems must have simple costless solutions is a modern fallacy.
If he doesn't have the money to sue, how will he get a loan? A lawsuit against the city is not something a bank will lend against, so he'd have to be able to fully collateralize that loan.
> He can sell his business and move away
Based on the constraints you're giving, this is the only actual solution you've provided. But this is a solution that is incredibly harmful to him - you're suggesting that he should change his entire life to resolve this.
Being sprayed with water is clearly harmful, but stress and financial problems are also harmful - these are things that cause physical harm and take time off a person's life. You're basically saying that there should be absolutely no limit on the amount of financial, emotional, and long-term physical harm he should suffer, as long as no immediate physical harm is done. Why should he have to endure what is a clearly greater amount of harm than he inflicted in an attempt to solve the problem? Is there no line? Are you okay with someone ending up bankrupt and homeless in a situation like this, as long as nobody touches them?
He owns a business which has value.
> Based on the constraints you're giving, this is the only actual solution you've provided.
It's not, he can work a lawsuit through the courts.
> Being sprayed with water is clearly harmful, but stress and financial problems are also harmful - these are things that cause physical harm and take time off a person's life. You're basically saying that there should be absolutely no limit on the amount of financial, emotional, and long-term physical harm he should suffer, as long as no immediate physical harm is done. Why should he have to endure what is a clearly greater amount of harm than he inflicted in an attempt to solve the problem? Is there no line? Are you okay with someone ending up bankrupt and homeless in a situation like this, as long as nobody touches them?
This is nonsense and ignores everything I've previously said.
I've been homeless, in SF. It's exceedingly easy to not ruffle any feathers when doing so, perhaps the easiest there of anywhere else I've been. This woman was going out of her way to be a menace to civil society and got what she deserved. The idea that "getting wet" is some high crime against a class of people who quite literally eat, drink, and sleep in the rain is laughable.
Before you shower me with 'oh the humanity of it all' responses, have you been homeless? If you had, you'd likely agree with me (as many homeless people do). These bums give hobos a bad name, the fewer of them the better. Celebrate ethical homelessness, chastise whatever this is.
You seem to be really badgering the idea "wait for the State to intervene, they'll do the Right Thing". I'll give an anecdote to counter that. The one person who really wronged me in all my time as a hobo was a State Official. He decided I had spent too long where I was (<24 hours) and in order to get me to leave he took my only pair of boots, broke my only lamp, and for good measure stole my binoculars too. That's a wrong I would not wish upon anyone, even the bums. Do you have any idea how much harder shit is when you have no shoes? Every store you go in will ask you to leave. As your feet grow dirtier their insistence grows stronger.
Fuck that guy. I was soaking wet for unrelated reasons the night prior to that (among many, many others), the collective discomfort of all those soaking hours doesn't hold a candle to what that State Official did to me.
For the homeless especially, but also everyone else (besides billionaires perhaps): the State isn't your friend; their solutions won't help you; you want a problem solved: solve it yourself.
Not commit misdemeanor battery.
It is very, very easy to say that someone shouldn't do something. Everyone gets that he shouldn't spray her with a hose.
What is a better thing that he is practically able to do that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?
For what exactly? I’m not proposing a solution for all societal problems or even all of his, of course.
> Everyone gets that he shouldn't spray her with a hose.
It doesn’t seem like you get that, given your next sentence:
> What is a better thing that he is practically able to do that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?
Literally not spraying her with a hose is a better thing to do than spraying her with a hose. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
For the specific situation we're talking about - come on now, I think that's pretty apparent.
> Literally not spray her with a hose is a better thing to do than spraying her with a hose. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
You're ignoring the second half of the question, which I'll repeat here: "that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?"
If the goal is to stop her from doing the things that she is doing, then you're incorrect. Not spraying her with a hose has absolutely no chance of resolving the issue. Spraying her with a hose does have a chance of resolving the issue. It's not a happy or positive solution, and you can debate the ethics of it all you want, but as a way to get her to leave him and his business alone, it is clearly better than doing nothing.
Sure, in an abstract, philosophical way that will get 0 steps closer to an actual solution. Is your expectation that he's going to launch some massive, expensive political campaign on the grounds of "I can't get this homeless woman to stop vandalizing my business"?
This wasn't the ideal outcome, but I would call it a measured response to the woman's refusal to stop and the government's refusal to intervene. She annoys him by vandalizing the business, he annoys her by getting her wet. Everyone involved probably deserves a small fine as a slap on the wrist and a reminder that this isn't how this was supposed to go.
I can't fathom how this rises to the level of misdemeanor battery and requires an arrest. It's a garden hose, children play in them all the time, the threat posed is basically non-existent. It's a nuisance for sure, but so is playing music too loud and we don't arrest anyone for that.
> That doesn't give you the right to spray anyone with water. Bad behavior by one party (short of violence) does not excuse bad behavior by another.
Philosophically, but not practically, I believe it does. The social contract effectively stipulates that the government gets a monopoly on violence in exchange for maintaining the peace. If the government fails to maintain the peace, they have failed to honor the social contract and have lost their monopoly on violence. That doesn't permit using unreasonable force, but in this case I think Mr Gwin used the smallest amount of force necessary to preserve his property rights.
Uh yes. That's how you motivate your government to act.
> She annoys him by vandalizing the business, he annoys her by getting her wet.
That's one interesting way to phrase assault.
> I can't fathom how this rises to the level of misdemeanor battery.
Then you should read the battery statute.
> It's a garden hose, children play in them all the time, the threat posed is basically non-existent.
Kids play in dirt all the time. If I throw dirt in your face, that's assault.
> Philosophically, but not practically, I believe it does. The social contract effectively stipulates that the government gets a monopoly on violence in exchange for maintaining the peace. If the government fails to maintain the peace, they have failed to honor the social contract and have lost their monopoly on violence. That doesn't permit using unreasonable force, but in this case I think Mr Gwin used the smallest amount of force necessary to preserve his property rights.
None of that matters. You're given a criminal record by the Superior Court of California, not by Immanuel Kant.
Touching a person against their will is battery.
Sounds like you dont like the long established legal definitions of these terms but I recommend not breaking these laws or you will go to jail too.
That's how you get your government to change laws. They're supposed to be enforcing the existing laws as a matter of course. No one should have to launch a political campaign to receive the protections afforded to them under the existing laws.
> Then you should read the battery statute.
Believe me, I have. It's good for a laugh when I'm having a bad day. Preschools treat toddlers more like adults than that battery statute does. Even the toddlers are expected to be able to work out their issues without involving the state.
> Kids play in dirt all the time. If I throw dirt in your face, that's assault.
Then I suppose we should have a lot more children in jail, shouldn't we? If that's the line you want to take then go ahead, but the logical outcome is absurd.
> None of that matters. You're given a criminal record by the Superior Court of California, not by Immanuel Kant.
Sure, and a bunch of countries give people criminal records for being gay. Doesn't make it right, or not stupid. California is welcome to enforce those laws, and the rest of us are welcome to laugh at California for being such a nanny state they can't even tolerate the use of a garden hose in anger. Won't somebody think of the plants!
Ah yes, the man who checks notes sprays people with water in anger and is being held responsible is being persecuted like gay people.
I’d also love to know where you live. The definition of battery is pretty similar in all 50 states. Use of force against another. Not sure that makes California a “nanny state” (there are many other reason that California sucks though).
Where I live, it would be a fine if the person were found guilty. My state does allow the use of reasonable, non-deadly force to prevent the commission of property crimes (which vandalism and trespass would fall under, and likely some other applicable laws).
In order for jail time to even be a possibility, some form of bodily harm would have to occur or be threatened, or they were a repeat offender.
My state deserves derision for entirely separate reasons, but I think their laws around this particular facet are reasonable.
You'd take a different tune if it were you being sprayed. And fortunately for you, in that case, the law would be thoroughly on your side (depending on where you lived). Assault, in most places, is broadly defined as "unwanted physical contact". It's about personal sovereignty, regardless of risk of bodily harm.
Other forms of assault include throwing your drink at someone, spitting on them, or pantsing them. I hope we can agree that these things 1) are largely without risk of bodily harm, and 2) deeply intrusive and absolutely worthy of prosecution.
I promise you I wouldn't. My neighbor's sprinklers hit me not infrequently (they hit parts of the sidewalk). I've had a drink thrown on me in anger. It is absolutely not intrusive or worthy of prosecution. It's annoying, but there's no permanent harm other than a bit of resentment that it happened.
None of it even comes close to the line of being worth having armed men show up to lock the other person in a cell. That whole process is deeply intrusive and violates personal sovereignty to a far higher level than getting wet ever could.
I think we may just fundamentally disagree on the level to which the government should interfere in interpersonal issues. My view is that anything that lacks some form of permanent harm (be it bodily, financial or emotional) doesn't require the government's involvement. Two adults quibbling and annoying each other doesn't rise to that level. Someone throwing a drink, or spraying a hose, or playing a song the other person really hates just doesn't meet that bar and doesn't require sending anyone to jail. It's a silly use of government time and resources, and it feels like a waste of my tax dollars.
He did not set out to hurt her. He probably passed by a dozen objects far more capable of causing harm than a hose. Pens, staplers, frames for art, a statue, hell even his fists are all more harmful. I struggle to think of something that causes less harm than tap-pressure water. I would say he explicitly set out trying not to cause any harm, or he would've reached for a more obvious and harmful option.
Neither of us knows what his state of mind was, but I don't see anything outright implying contempt. Doing something bad to someone doesn't require contempt, it can be a practical means to an end. Based on him calling social services, I would say he didn't have contempt, he just realized the government wasn't going to help and took it into his owns. Similar to managers when they have to fire someone; doing so doesn't imply or require contempt, it's just a means to an end.
Well he did, it's the only reason he was arrested.
How would you feel about a stranger purposely and repeatedly drenching your sick grandmother or elderly immuno-vulnerable mother with a water hose in the middle of winter?
Will be an interesting read, for sure.
That doesn't justify his behavior of course, but it goes a long way to understanding the situation better; he tried to help and lashed out in frustration when it didn't work.
The real focus should be on the total failure of the city (and the US in general) to deal with the rise in homelessness.
This seems to be case here.
Unless cities start enforcing laws and bringing order, you are probably going to see more instances of this type of thing.
I can't imagine ever spraying someone down. That is beyond f'cked up. In my mind, there is zero excuse he could come up with to justify his actions. I don't care what she did or did not do to deserve that in his head. This guy deserves whatever he has coming to him from a legal perspective.
Who cares that you are driving a home and living in a car when the outside shuns your success.
That's sad and frustrating.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33209948 (Oct 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32922335 (Sept 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010834 (April 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27927198 (July 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27089584 (May 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26857484 (April 2021)
I think of this episode of American Greed
https://www.cnbc.com/2010/02/08/American-Greed:-The-Black-Wi...
about two elderly women who killed homeless men to collect life insurance. They were quite shocked to discover that the state of California would pay for a homicide detective to investigate the case of somebody who the state treated like dirt when they were alive.