3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- beaned 4y ago
  When you take an immediate hard stance on defining a water spray as assault, it's hard to take you seriously.
  - ashwagary 4y ago
    A verbal threat is assault. Touching a person against their will is battery. Sounds like you dont like the long established legal definitions of these terms but I recommend not breaking these laws or you will go to jail too.
  - John23832 4y ago
    Well then call the California Penal Code a comedy: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/242/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/242/
  - kbrosnan 4y ago
    They are using the legal definition of assault. The hose is a tool not much different than anything else that would extend your reach.
  - agdasdigonio 4y ago
    This woman has no change of clothes and no place to live. It is the middle of winter. It would be battery to spray her with a hose in the middle of July, but with one night of freezing weather it could be murder.
    - Fatnino 4y ago
      Freezing weather in San Francisco? What parallel universe do you hail from?
      - ashwagary 4y ago
        It was cold enough for the man spraying her to wear 3 layers of clothing while doing it.
meroes 4y ago
It’s acting out on the weakest link in the problem chain. Normal bullying and lashing out. Nothing more or less.
dTal 4y ago
>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. You'd take a different tune if it were you being sprayed. And fortunately for you, in that case, the law would be thoroughly on your side (depending on where you lived). Assault, in most places, is broadly defined as "unwanted physical contact". It's about personal sovereignty, regardless of risk of bodily harm. Other forms of assault include throwing your drink at someone, spitting on them, or pantsing them. I hope we can agree that these things 1) are largely without risk of bodily harm, and 2) deeply intrusive and absolutely worthy of prosecution.
- everforward 4y ago
  > You'd take a different tune if it were you being sprayed. I promise you I wouldn't. My neighbor's sprinklers hit me not infrequently (they hit parts of the sidewalk). I've had a drink thrown on me in anger. It is absolutely not intrusive or worthy of prosecution. It's annoying, but there's no permanent harm other than a bit of resentment that it happened. None of it even comes close to the line of being worth having armed men show up to lock the other person in a cell. That whole process is deeply intrusive and violates personal sovereignty to a far higher level than getting wet ever could. I think we may just fundamentally disagree on the level to which the government should interfere in interpersonal issues. My view is that anything that lacks some form of permanent harm (be it bodily, financial or emotional) doesn't require the government's involvement. Two adults quibbling and annoying each other doesn't rise to that level. Someone throwing a drink, or spraying a hose, or playing a song the other person really hates just doesn't meet that bar and doesn't require sending anyone to jail. It's a silly use of government time and resources, and it feels like a waste of my tax dollars.
  - agdasdigonio 4y ago
    The fact that you compare having a drink thrown on you or getting hit with a sprinkler to this attack shows how little you understand the situation. The water is not the issue. The issue is that this man treated a vulnerable woman with absolute contempt and set out to hurt her. Maybe you don't have enough empathy to understand how that feels, but the rest of us do.

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.

beaned 4y ago
When you take an immediate hard stance on defining a water spray as assault, it's hard to take you seriously.
- ashwagary 4y ago
  A verbal threat is assault. Touching a person against their will is battery. Sounds like you dont like the long established legal definitions of these terms but I recommend not breaking these laws or you will go to jail too.
- John23832 4y ago
  Well then call the California Penal Code a comedy: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/242/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/242/
- kbrosnan 4y ago
  They are using the legal definition of assault. The hose is a tool not much different than anything else that would extend your reach.
- agdasdigonio 4y ago
  This woman has no change of clothes and no place to live. It is the middle of winter. It would be battery to spray her with a hose in the middle of July, but with one night of freezing weather it could be murder.
  - Fatnino 4y ago
    Freezing weather in San Francisco? What parallel universe do you hail from?
    - ashwagary 4y ago
      It was cold enough for the man spraying her to wear 3 layers of clothing while doing it.

meroes 4y ago

It’s acting out on the weakest link in the problem chain. Normal bullying and lashing out. Nothing more or less.

dTal 4y ago

>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. You'd take a different tune if it were you being sprayed. And fortunately for you, in that case, the law would be thoroughly on your side (depending on where you lived). Assault, in most places, is broadly defined as "unwanted physical contact". It's about personal sovereignty, regardless of risk of bodily harm. Other forms of assault include throwing your drink at someone, spitting on them, or pantsing them. I hope we can agree that these things 1) are largely without risk of bodily harm, and 2) deeply intrusive and absolutely worthy of prosecution.

everforward 4y ago
> You'd take a different tune if it were you being sprayed. I promise you I wouldn't. My neighbor's sprinklers hit me not infrequently (they hit parts of the sidewalk). I've had a drink thrown on me in anger. It is absolutely not intrusive or worthy of prosecution. It's annoying, but there's no permanent harm other than a bit of resentment that it happened. None of it even comes close to the line of being worth having armed men show up to lock the other person in a cell. That whole process is deeply intrusive and violates personal sovereignty to a far higher level than getting wet ever could. I think we may just fundamentally disagree on the level to which the government should interfere in interpersonal issues. My view is that anything that lacks some form of permanent harm (be it bodily, financial or emotional) doesn't require the government's involvement. Two adults quibbling and annoying each other doesn't rise to that level. Someone throwing a drink, or spraying a hose, or playing a song the other person really hates just doesn't meet that bar and doesn't require sending anyone to jail. It's a silly use of government time and resources, and it feels like a waste of my tax dollars.
- agdasdigonio 4y ago
  The fact that you compare having a drink thrown on you or getting hit with a sprinkler to this attack shows how little you understand the situation. The water is not the issue. The issue is that this man treated a vulnerable woman with absolute contempt and set out to hurt her. Maybe you don't have enough empathy to understand how that feels, but the rest of us do.