3 ms·

> If your complaints aren't heard by the police and city management, you sue the police and city management. Straight forward. You think suing the police and c

> If your complaints aren't heard by the police and city management, you sue the police and city management. Straight forward. 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?

John23832 4y ago
>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. 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.
- idopmstuff 4y ago
  > You are not entitled to microwave solutions. 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?
  - John23832 4y ago
    You're right. However only law enforcement has the standing to enforce the law. Sue the city. Make the law act. Again, he cannot spray her with water. He is then breaking the law.
    - idopmstuff 4y ago
      She is screaming obscenities outside his store and behaving in a law that clearly breaks the law. Why does she get a pass on breaking the law in a way that harms other, but he doesn't?
      - John23832 4y ago
        She should not. Which is why the police should act. If the police do not act, you spur the city to get the police to act. Sue the city. 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.
        idopmstuff 4y ago
        > You're fishing for a justification for this man to assault a homeless person because he didn't want them there. 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).
- voakbasda 4y ago
  This incident shows the breakdown of a civil process. The law was being broken. The law did nothing. NOTHING! 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.

John23832 4y ago

>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. 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.

idopmstuff 4y ago
> You are not entitled to microwave solutions. 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?
- John23832 4y ago
  You're right. However only law enforcement has the standing to enforce the law. Sue the city. Make the law act. Again, he cannot spray her with water. He is then breaking the law.
  - idopmstuff 4y ago
    She is screaming obscenities outside his store and behaving in a law that clearly breaks the law. Why does she get a pass on breaking the law in a way that harms other, but he doesn't?
    - John23832 4y ago
      She should not. Which is why the police should act. If the police do not act, you spur the city to get the police to act. Sue the city. 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.
      - idopmstuff 4y ago
        > You're fishing for a justification for this man to assault a homeless person because he didn't want them there. 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).
voakbasda 4y ago
This incident shows the breakdown of a civil process. The law was being broken. The law did nothing. NOTHING! 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.