Strand Books Used Sprinklers to Douse Homeless

Hey! Another Montanan. Personally, I think that turning sprinklers on to "discourage" the homeless (which is almost certainly how they justified this little bit of cruelty), is just nasty and mean. They wouldn't get my business if I found out about it.

On a tangent, while I agree with your conclusion, your path there is something else. I must confess your argumentative... tactics (polite word), and logical fallacies just completely irritated me...

Montana
reply to post by GrandHerecy

 

I am splitting hairs?

That is one way to describe it; cherry picking aspects from other posts and slotting them into examples that are not comparable in order to make your "point", is certainly dishonest. Getting on a soap box so you can feel justified in your own crappy behavior is a recipe for bad karma too.

MontanaNo one is talking about private property here except you, so......

You talked about private property quite a bit actually. More than any one else. Go figure. I hope you aren't from Montana actually; you're a giving the rest of us a bad name.

reply to post by kkrattiger


Maybe you should ask yourself why my comment bothers you so much? It's one little word but it got you so upset you had to go to all the trouble of making a point about it. Ask yourself why.

Store owners have no more right to the sidewalk than the homeless person. The ONLY right the business has is unrestricted access. If access is being restricted then call the cops. That is the only recourse available. When they took matters in their own hands they became just as wrong as anyone else who breaks the law.

Although, I am sure that nothing will be done because of this, the temps in NYC in this area, according to wunderground, have gone down to below freezing lately at night. Dousing them with water could kill one of them and it could possibly destroy what little belongings any of these people have.

The homeless people could have a case because, according to the story, they have been sleeping there for years and this is something that is brand new. They could argue it is assault of some sort because someone owns the business and had those sprinklers installed with one of the employees saying that they were installed for just that purpose, again, according to the article. The removal of the signs that were posted when the story broke is a passive admission of guilt in this, imo.

There are better ways to try and deal with this issue instead of potentially killing someone but hey, it's a Senators wife and well, the political class is exempt from the laws we are subject to and hell it's just homeless people right. @@

reply to post by redhorse


Friend, I think you need to read the thread again. I have talked almost exclusively about public property, only mentioning private in reply to someone else.

I am sorry my conversation has bothered you, but like I mentioned to the previous poster ask yourself why.

As for Montanans and giving anyone a bad name I can virtually guarantee I have been here longer than the vast majority of state residents. Born and raised. (And I'm kind of an older guy) The concept of common access to public property is one of the bedrocks of Montana culture. If chasing someone off because a business doesn't like them doesn't make you mad I think you are out of touch with the rest of us.

Montana
reply to post by kkrattiger

 

Maybe you should ask yourself why my comment bothers you so much? It's one little word but it got you so upset you had to go to all the trouble of making a point about it. Ask yourself why.

1. Using a moral soap box as an excuse to be nasty to people. Which... Okay, taking swipes at faceless people on the interwebz when you've had a bad day is something I've done as well... Case in point... Come to think of it. However, everything is a matter of degree... Which brings me to...

2. You are being dishonest, twisting other posters words, and so your arguments don't make any sense (for example: where are you getting "one little word" anyway?). Which is too bad, because it discredits the conclusion, which I happen to agree with.

I thought I said that, but I suppose I can always be clearer, so I spelled it out.

Arguing just to argue might be fun, but doing it in a thread is just distracting, so... I'm not going to derail this thread any further because of your bad day/life/whatever. If you want to continue to be a jerk so that you can feel better feel free to PM me. I'll lock horns. Give both of us something to do without detracting from a valid social point.

reply to post by redhorse


This will be my last post in this thread. This back and forth has totally hi jacked the poor thing.

What good does your "Murica" post do?

This is the post I was referring to. The member complained about one word and I asked him or her to think about why. I asked you to think about it too. If that makes me a jerk, so be it.

Now, please let everyone get back to discussing the issue.

As someone who has lived many years outside of the US in many countries that were much poorer, the homelessness situation in America is a national disgrace. I don't have a solution beyond personally trying to help folks on an individual basis or in small settings like local mission shelters.

The thing I see that stands out here in the US is the widespread attitude that these people are somehow contemptible and unworthy of help. I am not a religious person but the old adage of "how we treat the most vulnerable in our society defines who we are" seems to cut to the chase.

If nothing else, every person in Oregon with email should sending a blunt message to the senator pointing out his wife's behavior and reminding him of his (non)stellar performance in this area.

reply to post by Bassago


The homeless situation is a disgrace in this country. I know that a reasonable portion of the homeless are mentally ill, and that this has gotten worse since many of the state run mental health institutions were closed in the 70's. When that happened many people were simply turned out onto the streets, and while those institutions were never a good solution, absolutely nothing was put in their place. No support for those who needed it and their families. I think that creating a system for that assistance could be a start, and perhaps teaching and encouraging families to help care for those that may be mentally ill could be beneficial. This over time may foster a bit more compassion and less judgment in the society. Overall, we should be taking lessons from other countries in general for a good approach, because ours is obviously not working. In terms of the overall stigma regarding the homeless that seems to be a social affectation in the United States that you spoke of, I don't know where to begin to address that. It seems bone deep.

reply to post by Montana


Look, the state is the one who sets policy for social services that include dealing with the homeless. Granted there are private entities like churches and such that also lend a hand for a price paid for by the state as well. No true venture to help those in need is free and the reach of such is squarely limited in scope of ability to provide.

Until we as a society unite to deal with these eye sores of humanity, you cannot blast a private business for setting their own policy, right or wrong, in the face of a growing economic trend. You want to blame someone for the plight of homelessness? Blame the limitations set forth by the law.

And I said nothing of vigilantism, all i said is that we are often tasked with getting rid of those whom do not belong in or around our establishment due to the constraints of a overworked and under staffed police force who don't view the homeless as a priority. We have that right under the law as again we like most businesses are privately owned. In any respect leaving a homeless guy sleeping in my hallways is bad for business and we tend to lose customers that way. So we deal with the problem in a much faster fashion than the police could.

And guess what, that includes people who are not actively purchasing in the business. SO if you stop to hang out and doodle on your iphone, we tend to send those who have no business there packing as well.

Our methods may not be the same as hosing down the homeless, yet some could argue that the policy set forth could be as equally harsh.

Its business, do i fully agree with it? No. AM I one to change the policy? No. So I help enforce it because without a job I'd be homeless. See what I did there?

Then there's the argument of taxes paid by businesses and their owners, but I'm not too sure you want to go down that road. And unless you actually own a business you have no common frame of reference to be putting down a business for doing what they do whether you agree with it or not.

Well, I have an idea that wouldn't have caused any problems. Place a sign saying that the sidewalks are cleaned via sprinkler system every night. Make no mention of the homeless and everyone would have been happy.

Hey I can understand the business owner being upset by this. But they could have done this in a less noticeable way and without anyone getting doused. A wet sidewalk is not good for sleeping on.

reply to post by Bassago


They may be homeless, but they will have health insurance. You know we have to have priorities here.

reply to post by Bassago


Taken for much more than the comment was worth I imagine. I don't ever group children into that paradigm unless they are runaway teens for no good reason. Even then, children often suffer at the insecurities of their parents and the lack of action on the part of the state.

And of all the homeless I have encountered, 88% of them were homeless by choice due to whatever mental defect, or nasty vice that seemed to be more important than trying to make an honest living or getting help that's available to address their issue.

They know how the game is played and they give the involuntary homeless who is legitimately in need of help a bad stigma that no one wants to address due to the stereotype.

Does that make senator who's his face right? Probably not. Yet I would reserve the right to judge later.

reply to post by elouina


Consider many business will passively try to address the issue for years to no avail. Could it have just been the straw that broke the camels back? Some homeless will get away with much if they know they can and the worse you'll do is yell and scream. Think that will keep them away? Visits by the police? Threatened with jail? HA HA HA HA

Sometimes ya just have to get creative, and I agree, free healthcare that I will have to pay for through my higher premiums.

happinness
Give them a sense of someone caring and they might piss off and leave you alone!!

That's my thoughts on this grim little tale...

hx

It's like feeding cats. Feed them once, and you're stuck with them.

Unless, of course, you feed them something lethal. Some nice poisoned croissants, perhaps, and a bit of arsenic coffee, wait a while, call for disposal, and Bob's your uncle.

reply to post by Bedlam

It's like feeding cats. Feed them once, and you're stuck with them.

Unless, of course, you feed them something lethal. Some nice poisoned croissants, perhaps, and a bit of arsenic coffee, wait a while, call for disposal, and Bob's your uncle.

Don't you think that's a little harsh? Homeless people aren't animals. Well technically all humans are animal but still.

I'll chose to believe you're not really advocating poisoning them to fix the problem.

Bassago
I'll chose to believe you're not really advocating poisoning them to fix the problem.

It's generally quite difficult to get them to crawl into a big "Hav-a-hart" style trap, even if you bait it with Thunderbird and a quarter pounder.

I don't know if anyone's tried something like a big Roach Hotel.

reply to post by Montana


"Store owners have no more right to the sidewalk than homeless people"

Why automatically side against one group who has no more right to the sidewalk than another?

Well, ok- compassion and empathy's "Why". Like I said, it seems a hard problem to solve and the sprinklers may be mean-spirited. Would the homeless rather deal with the sprinklers, or a cop? (if the business were to just call the cops all the time, instead.)



Btw I wasnt complaining about one word in Montana's post: " Murica "; I was just asking what the point of saying that was. I guess it's just like, a catchall meme-type word, that attempts to establish some sort of lofty position(?) in an elitist mocking fake conservative Southerner? accent ( I dunno, that's what it seems like to me) As in, only tea-baggers(?), or old-fashioned Clampett-style bumpkins would think that a business may have a reason for turning sprinklers on homeless people, other than being cold-hearted jerks with no morality.

Apologies. It's of no real consequence!