> 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 no

> 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).