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.
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.
How is the term "financial violence" any worse about that than, e.g., "structural violence"?
What is a better thing that he is practically able to do that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?