The U.S. in an insane moment - Man in Florida on trial for FEEDING HOM

[M.Dancer]

He hasn t fallen up the stairs yet? Hasn't yet run his face into your fist? There is always hope.

Yeah that might happen, but he goes to court in January and I would prefer not to be the case after his....

[Guest American Woman]

If you can find it on the web, it must be true.

Yep. Must be. At least as true as what you find on the web.

[M.Dancer]

Yep. Must be. At least as true as what you find on the web.

No, my cites are always truer.....

[Drea]

Canada has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the developed world.

Because 80% of the "homeless" are there by choice. Certainly not ALL of them are mentally handicapped.

I am not a Doctor. No sense getting nasty about it AW. geez.

I believe people need to take responsibility for themselves. In Canada all the help is free. There are no excuses.

The US has less homelessness because your country doesn't cater to them. I beleive your cities have anti loitering laws do they not?

Scotty... I guess there is a first time for everyting.

[M.Dancer]

Because 80% of the "homeless" are there by choice. Certainly not ALL of them are mentally handicapped.

I am not a Doctor. No sense getting nasty about it AW. geez.

I believe people need to take responsibility for themselves. In Canada all the help is free. There are no excuses.

The US has less homelessness because your country doesn't cater to them. I beleive your cities have anti loitering laws do they not?

Scotty... I guess there is a first time for everyting.

The stat used in that post are off by..something like 180,000 individuals.....I mean, if the homelss could count, they could get jobs, right?

[Guest American Woman]

Because 80% of the "homeless" are there by choice. Certainly not ALL of them are mentally handicapped.

I am not a Doctor. No sense getting nasty about it AW. geez.

I believe people need to take responsibility for themselves. In Canada all the help is free. There are no excuses.

The US has less homelessness because your country doesn't cater to them. I beleive your cities have anti loitering laws do they not?

Scotty... I guess there is a first time for everyting.

Nasty? How is calling you on a 'diagnosis' that you aren't qualified to make "nasty?"

I happen to think it's "nasty" to dismiss addictions as an illness and figured the best way to make that point would be to question your judgement to make such a call.

I'd appreciate a link to support your claim that 80% of the homeless on there by choice. But for the record, some people are more able to "take responsiblity for themselves" than others, and addicts, by the very nature of addiction, fall into the latter catagory. Furthermore, there are way too many homeless children, and they, too, are unable to "take responsiblity for themselves."

As for our "loitering laws," yes, a lot of places do have them, but as I already pointed out, so does Canada.

---------

About the law in question here. I happen to agree with it. Public parks are supported by taxpayers and provided as a safe, secure place for families and children to enjoy. But here's the thing. The law does not state that it's against the law to feed the homeless, just to do so in great numbers; sounds as if there must be a ratio of those doing the feeding to those being fed. Sounds reasonable enough to me. Sounds as if that would be in everyone's best interest. The fact of the matter is, ordinary citizens have rights too.

[ScottSA]

Furthermore, there are way too many homeless children, and they, too, are unable to "take responsiblity for themselves."

In one of the cities with a proportionately huge number of homeless, and after living in Winnipeg for well over a decade, I have yet to see a "homeless child" in Canada. I'm sure they exist, but I'm equally sure they are either 'homeless' because they ran away from home, or miniscule in number.

Edited October 12, 2007 by ScottSA

[M.Dancer]

I'd appreciate a link to support your claim that 80% of the homeless on there by choice.

I would guess that number is off by a factor of 4

The range given for homeles by choice is something like 6% (low) to 20% ........

The percentage may be inflated because some homeless are either afraind to stay in shelters or because shelters won't indulge their nasty habits.

[Drea]

I suppose people think we ought to simply feed, clothe, educate, employ and house anyone who has a drug problem.

People are addicted to cigs, why is the gov't paying their way? Why are they any different than any other person who CHOOSES to use drugs?

Yes, AM, your comment was nasty. "You a DOCTOR or sumpthin!?" was meant as an insult.

I am not a doctor, I am just a person who is tired of paying to support the drug habits/shelter/food/etc. of people who are too lazy/addicted/too whatever to help themselves.

Once again, help is free. Utterly free. All one must be willing to do is be willing to quit the drugs.

200,000 homeless. How many are drug addicted? How many are seniors? How many are mentally handicapped?

We should protect our seniors and our mentally handicapped but the drug addicted don't. They deserve (and should get) treatment, not sympathy.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, AM, your comment was nasty. "You a DOCTOR or sumpthin!?" was meant as an insult.

I am not a doctor, I am just a person who is tired of paying to support the drug habits/shelter/food/etc. of people who are too lazy/addicted/too whatever to help themselves.

And your comment that anyone who doesn't agree with your diagnosis is a "bleeding heart liberal" was meant as an insult.

I'm not a "bleeding heart liberal," I am just a person who realizes that addictions are an illness; and as such, addicts are not in the position, by the very nature of their illness, to "help themselves."

But bottom line: if you don't want insulting responses, then don't make insulting posts. I treat posts with the respect (or lack thereof) that they warrant.

Edited October 12, 2007 by American Woman

[shavluk]

I was a homeless child at 16.

Lived in a 1964 Galaxy 500 Ford behind my high-school.

Ate MacDonald's everyday for months so I know its harmless.

Over a long stretch of time its very many different people in the homeless scene.

They come they go.

What we all really all need and deserve ,, seeing as we are the richest on the planet and pay so much tax ,, is 24 hour a day staffed community centers with medical clinics attached to them and themselves attached to old folks homes with palliative care and those again attached to the local day care unit all based on the population size in the surrounding area and then all peoples lives can improve especially for the ones who are only passing through like I was and only needing a telephone Number or fax # or even just computer access to get a job (people have no clue no many cant get a job(a decent job) with out things like we take for granted,,a shower ,clean cloths a resume!!))

and the hard core drug or insane types can still be given blankets and human kindness once in a while as they still stumble through their lives.

No one needs to die by themselves any more certainly not in our cities and not with the tax's we pay now.

Lets just stop buying guns for a bit.

[jefferiah]

a job(a decent job) with out things like we take for granted,,a shower ,clean cloths a resume!!))

and the hard core drug or insane types can still be given blankets and human kindness once in a while as they still stumble through their lives

I agree here. Particularly if it is someone's own personal choice to feed them. I have been a pedestrian for most of my life, so I know all about bums, and I've talked to several. Some of them are pretty out there, some of them are rude, but alot of them I have found are pretty agreeable. If someone wants to give em a meal I see nothing wrong with that.

But I have met some pretty loud and uncouth sorts as well. Particularly once when I was hitch-hiking years ago.

This fellow picked me up and a few miles down the road he picked up another hiker....in his 50s or 60s with a bottle of rum in his back pocket. The guy got in the back seat and started mumble singing "I hear the train a-comin, its rollin round the bend......" Then the driver let us out on a rural highway together and the guy kept hassling me and yelling at me for some money. Anyways. long story, but it was not fun for me.

I remembered his name, and about a year later I saw in a local newspaper he was in court for hassling an old lady who had picked him up in a drunken state. He yelled profanities at the judge as well.

So yeah , there are some bad cases, but still I don't see why it should be illegal to give someone some food.

Edited October 13, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

... there are some bad cases, but still I don't see why it should be illegal to give someone some food.

Looking into the Orlando law a bit more, it's the number of homeless being fed in one area at any given time that's an issue. I know it sounds harsh, but I do support the law. Public parks are supposed to be 'safe havens' for families, children. I wouldn't be comfortable taking my family to the park for a picnic only to have a hundred homeless people milling around right next to me. That's not the kind of experience I go to the park for, and as I said, ordinary citizens have rights too, especially since it's their tax money that is going towards maintaining the parks.

Furthermore, some of the homeless are alcoholics, drug addicts, mentally ill. So I wouldn't feel comfortable sending my child to play at a park where hundreds of homeless are gathered.

The number is set at 25 at one time. More than that and you need a permit. So it's not "illegal to give someone food," there are just restrictions on numbers in public parks, and I don't find that unreasonable.

Edited October 13, 2007 by American Woman

[jefferiah]

The number is set at 25 at one time. More than that and you need a permit. So it's not "illegal to give someone food," there are just restrictions on numbers in public parks, and I don't find that unreasonable.

Well then.....no disagreement with that. I didn't even bother to do any research on the incident. Good work, AM. I think it would have been nice to give him a fair warning at first (though for all I know they may have), even though they are not required to. But even at that I do not know if I'd support putting him on trial over the matter. That's quite a step further, isn't it? I'd still need more details. But that seems like a waste to me.

Edited October 13, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

Well then.....no disagreement with that. I didn't even bother to do any research on the incident. Good work, AM. I think it would have been nice to give him a fair warning at first (though for all I know they may have), even though they are not required to. But even at that I do not know if I'd support putting him on trial over the matter. That's quite a step further, isn't it? I'd still need more details. But that seems like a waste to me.

He knew the law. The title of the article linked in the first post in the thread says:

Group Intentionally Violating City Ordinance During "Ladle Fest"

From what I understand, he's only charged with a misdemeanor. If he pled guilty, that would be the end of it, I'm sure; but he's pleading not guilty.

[M.Dancer]

.

200,000 homeless. How many are drug addicted? How many are seniors? How many are mentally handicapped?

What country are you refering to? There are nowhere near 200K homelss in Canada, not 100K , not 50k........

[Drea]

American Woman wrote:

"There are more homeless in Canada per capita than in the U.S. Canada has one of the highest per capita rates of homelessness of any developed nation in the world. We have about 200,000 homeless. The U.S., with a population nine times the size of us has 750,000."

So the figure comes from a poster you are in agreement with... not from me. I do not believe there are that many homeless in Canada.

Of course, very few would be homeless by choice in Winterpeg, brrrrr... but in Vancouver, where it's liveably warm all year we have lots.

One case comes to mind... a year or so ago a community newspaper did a story on a 17 year old living on the streets. She said she had no parents, no where to go, no where to live.

Well, her grandmother wrote a letter to the editor... she had a warm nice home with grandma. The kid just didn't want to follow grandma's rules. A runaway. Homeless by choice. Why should we taxpayers pay for her shelter/food/etc. when she has a perfectly good home to go to?

I suspect there are many such as this case (amoung the young homeless).

I apologize for calling you a bleeding heart AW. In Canada people are always whining about not getting handouts. When really what they need is a hand UP. Which would be forced rehab for addicts and care and housing for mentally handicapped and seniors.

Welfare is not meant to be forever. It is meant to help out during a lean period. This is certainly not a "lean" period -- there are plenty of unskilled labour/service type jobs available. There is no excuse for a person not to working. Like I said, the addict should get treatment, the handicapped should get help; but if a person refuses the help we should not have to twist ourselves in knots trying to figure out what they "need".

[geoffrey]

I suspect there are many such as this case (amoung the young homeless).

I'm willing to wager that the vast majority of the young homeless are just those that couldn't follow the house rules. No reason to give them anything.

[shavluk]

*******Which would be forced rehab for addicts*******

hahahhahhahahhahahhahahhahhahhahahahhahhahahhahahhahahahhahhahhahahahahhhahahaaa

aaaaa

ok PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS PROCESS and PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT FORCED REHAB IS ,HOW IT WORKS, AND WHAT ITS SUCCESS RATE IS OR MORE IMPORTANTLY ISN"T?

hahhahhahahahahahaha

Yes lots are on the street because they wont follow the rules at home ,,

Like take your cloths off and come here.

Like I will be coming to see you again tonight

Like go get the bat I beat you with last night.

Some of you live in such fantasy worlds of white bread and sugar crumbs all cosy like,,,,hahhahhaha

8 Americans get off for beating a black boy who dies the next day because they disbelieved he was ill

sad part is I like the jury watched it all on the video of it,,some one took,,,,bizarro world we live in when they all got off as my eyes are definitely better than those 12 Americans

go ahead and tell us the way it is out there Mr expert

Edited October 13, 2007 by shavluk

[Drea]

Forced rehab -- a person gets sent to a facility far far from the city. They are fed, clothed, educated and given the opportunity to build their self esteem through work and accomplishment.

If a child is having trouble at home all he/she need do is call social services. They will be there in an instant to take the child away. Or call them yourself if you see abuse. Most kids (even little ones) today know how to use the system "I'll call social services on you if you don't let me do such and such or if you punish me for such and such! I will and then you will lose me forever!"

There are, of course, cases of abuse, but not every child (teenager) on the streets is there because their parents were abusers. If a teen is on the streets, he/she needs to get in care immediately. They do not need an apt on their own, they need much more than that. I would've been happier than hell if (when I ran away for 2 weeks at age 15) to have the govt' rent me an apt and give me money. I would have thought it the greatest thing in the world. Never mind that I would probably have never gone to college or.... for pete sake I was 15 and still needed my parents even though I, as a sassy 15 yo did not think so.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Drea

[shavluk]

Sorry but that's called support not rehab.

The point being there is no rehab only support.

You could call anyone you wanted when I was on the street ,still meant nothing!

Some here think they give out magic solutions or other medicine to stop kids from drug abuse like alcohol mostly.