8 ms·

CBS had a report on this[0] that is illuminating: >Gwin has lived in San Francisco for 45 years. He said this confrontation was the result of multiple attempts

by alexb_ 4y ago

CBS had a report on this[0] that is illuminating: >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-hosed-down-san-francisco-arrest-warrant-collier-gwin/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/homeless-woman-hos...

John23832 4y ago
All of those things can be true, but then his ire should be with the police and the city management which have let SF (and larger California) descend into an unmanaged mess. 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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- alexb_ 4y ago
  At what point does camping outside of your business and preventing people from coming in count as financial violence? If having complaints with the police and city management is as effective as yelling into the sky, how is that a solution? Put yourself in the shoes of the business owner - what would you have done in this situation?
  - John23832 4y ago
    It doesn't. Homeless people aren't committing financial violence. You can think homelessness causes a blight on the community, it doesn't look good, or whatever. To try to say homeless people are commit financial violence by not having homes is something that I'm not going to entertain. 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.
    - vdqtp3 4y ago
      > When you decide to take things into your own hands and break the law doing so, there are consequences. Sucks to be him. Only if you're in the out-group. This woman is breaking the law constantly.
      - John23832 4y ago
        And you let the law handle the breaking of the law. Otherwise, why do you care about the law to begin with?
    - alexb_ 4y ago
      >To try to say homeless people are commit financial violence by not having homes is something that I'm not going to entertain. 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.
  - dTal 4y ago
    "Financial violence" is a hell of a rhetorical turn. You don't get to redefine "violence" into anything you don't like, and you don't get to assault someone just because you think they're costing your business money. That's not a road we want to go down, as a society.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      > You don't get to redefine "violence" into anything you don't like How is the term "financial violence" any worse about that than, e.g., "structural violence"?
      - mrcrumb1 4y ago
        Structural violence arguably causes death and bodily injury at a large scale. Surely you can see the difference there.
        pseudo0 4y ago
        Financial crimes absolutely can cause death and bodily injury on a large scale. Madoff's ponzi scheme caused multiple suicides, for example, including Thierry Magon de La Villehuchet, and Charles Murphy. Then there are the thousands of people who suddenly could not afford healthcare, or lost their home.
        whynaut 4y ago
        and poverty doesn't?
    - voakbasda 4y ago
      I had my entire life savings stolen by an ex-fiancée. My entire life was turned upside down, and every aspect of my life made public in the courts. I say that I was financially raped, because the experience gave me PTSD and worse. 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.
  - csb6 4y ago
    How is spraying a woman with a water hose a solution? It certainly isn’t going to improve his store’s public image or help the woman get help. Business owners are not entitled to taking out their frustrations on homeless people.
    - idopmstuff 4y ago
      He's not just taking out his frustrations about his general life problems on random homeless people; he's trying to get one specific homeless person who is actively causing problems for his business while repeatedly breaking the law to stop. He's also only doing so after having attempted to use more legal and appropriate interventions repeatedly, only to be blown off by the people in government who are responsible for resolving this kind of situation to totally ignore him.
      - brenschluss 4y ago
        All of what you're saying is true, but it doesn't make assault okay.
        idopmstuff 4y ago
        I'll repeat what I've posted in response to other folks here: What is a better thing that he is practically able to do that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?
- idopmstuff 4y ago
  I'm sure he has plenty of ire towards those people, but that doesn't solve anything. 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?
  - John23832 4y ago
    >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). 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?
    - idopmstuff 4y ago
      > Not spraying a homeless person with water is the solution to the current issues he's caused. 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?
- s9w 4y ago
  [dead]
- everforward 4y ago
  > All of those things can be true, but then his ire should be with the police and the city management which have let SF (and larger California) descend into an unmanaged mess. 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.
  - John23832 4y ago
    > 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"? 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.
- KRAKRISMOTT 4y ago
  I am sure if the homeless people did the spraying, the SFPD won't bat an eye.
- laserdancepony 4y ago
  I wish for you to experience the terror the store owned endured and report your findings afterwards. Will be an interesting read, for sure.
tshaddox 4y ago
Thankfully “being understandably frustrated with someone” is not a defense for misdemeanor battery.
whatatita 4y ago
Later in the linked article Gwin is quoted as saying he's sorry for what he did and it ws the result of a harsh reaction in the heat of the moment. He seems genuinely apologetic. 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.

by alexb_ 4y ago

John23832 4y ago

All of those things can be true, but then his ire should be with the police and the city management which have let SF (and larger California) descend into an unmanaged mess. 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.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
alexb_ 4y ago
At what point does camping outside of your business and preventing people from coming in count as financial violence? If having complaints with the police and city management is as effective as yelling into the sky, how is that a solution? Put yourself in the shoes of the business owner - what would you have done in this situation?
- John23832 4y ago
  It doesn't. Homeless people aren't committing financial violence. You can think homelessness causes a blight on the community, it doesn't look good, or whatever. To try to say homeless people are commit financial violence by not having homes is something that I'm not going to entertain. 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.
  - vdqtp3 4y ago
    > When you decide to take things into your own hands and break the law doing so, there are consequences. Sucks to be him. Only if you're in the out-group. This woman is breaking the law constantly.
    - John23832 4y ago
      And you let the law handle the breaking of the law. Otherwise, why do you care about the law to begin with?
  - alexb_ 4y ago
    >To try to say homeless people are commit financial violence by not having homes is something that I'm not going to entertain. 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.
- dTal 4y ago
  "Financial violence" is a hell of a rhetorical turn. You don't get to redefine "violence" into anything you don't like, and you don't get to assault someone just because you think they're costing your business money. That's not a road we want to go down, as a society.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > You don't get to redefine "violence" into anything you don't like How is the term "financial violence" any worse about that than, e.g., "structural violence"?
    - mrcrumb1 4y ago
      Structural violence arguably causes death and bodily injury at a large scale. Surely you can see the difference there.
      - pseudo0 4y ago
        Financial crimes absolutely can cause death and bodily injury on a large scale. Madoff's ponzi scheme caused multiple suicides, for example, including Thierry Magon de La Villehuchet, and Charles Murphy. Then there are the thousands of people who suddenly could not afford healthcare, or lost their home.
      - whynaut 4y ago
        and poverty doesn't?
  - voakbasda 4y ago
    I had my entire life savings stolen by an ex-fiancée. My entire life was turned upside down, and every aspect of my life made public in the courts. I say that I was financially raped, because the experience gave me PTSD and worse. 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.
- csb6 4y ago
  How is spraying a woman with a water hose a solution? It certainly isn’t going to improve his store’s public image or help the woman get help. Business owners are not entitled to taking out their frustrations on homeless people.
  - idopmstuff 4y ago
    He's not just taking out his frustrations about his general life problems on random homeless people; he's trying to get one specific homeless person who is actively causing problems for his business while repeatedly breaking the law to stop. He's also only doing so after having attempted to use more legal and appropriate interventions repeatedly, only to be blown off by the people in government who are responsible for resolving this kind of situation to totally ignore him.
    - brenschluss 4y ago
      All of what you're saying is true, but it doesn't make assault okay.
      - idopmstuff 4y ago
        I'll repeat what I've posted in response to other folks here: What is a better thing that he is practically able to do that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?
idopmstuff 4y ago
I'm sure he has plenty of ire towards those people, but that doesn't solve anything. 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?
- John23832 4y ago
  >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). 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?
  - idopmstuff 4y ago
    > Not spraying a homeless person with water is the solution to the current issues he's caused. 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?
s9w 4y ago
[dead]
everforward 4y ago
> All of those things can be true, but then his ire should be with the police and the city management which have let SF (and larger California) descend into an unmanaged mess. 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.
- John23832 4y ago
  > 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"? 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.
KRAKRISMOTT 4y ago
I am sure if the homeless people did the spraying, the SFPD won't bat an eye.
laserdancepony 4y ago
I wish for you to experience the terror the store owned endured and report your findings afterwards. Will be an interesting read, for sure.

tshaddox 4y ago

Thankfully “being understandably frustrated with someone” is not a defense for misdemeanor battery.

whatatita 4y ago

Later in the linked article Gwin is quoted as saying he's sorry for what he did and it ws the result of a harsh reaction in the heat of the moment. He seems genuinely apologetic. 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.