4 ms·

>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

>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?
- John23832 4y ago
  > You're clearly avoiding answering the actual question. The question is what is the solution to the issues that the homeless person is causing. 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.
  - idopmstuff 4y ago
    > If he needs to get a loan to sue, he needs to get a loan. 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?
    - John23832 4y ago
      > 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 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.
  - jakear 4y ago
    The idea that spraying someone with water is some sort of crime against humanity is a modern fallacy. 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.
ss108 4y ago
Is there any precedent for the success of such lawsuits?

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?

John23832 4y ago
> You're clearly avoiding answering the actual question. The question is what is the solution to the issues that the homeless person is causing. 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.
- idopmstuff 4y ago
  > If he needs to get a loan to sue, he needs to get a loan. 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?
  - John23832 4y ago
    > 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 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.
- jakear 4y ago
  The idea that spraying someone with water is some sort of crime against humanity is a modern fallacy. 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.

ss108 4y ago

Is there any precedent for the success of such lawsuits?