Is it part of the “classical liberal tradition” to equate fellow human beings to trash?
Yes, I read the story and I can understand why the guy wanted the vagrant out of there. He should have just left the police handle it. He called them in and then decided to take matters into his own hands presumably because he was pissed off.
The vagrant attempted to sit next to the police officer, so I am sure that they were well aware of the situation:
What we know is that when that happened he attempted to forcefully eject the vagrant from the store:
After the officers tried to prevent him from doing this, he “grabbed the officer in front of him” allegedly to stop himself from falling. I do not have great faith in this recollection. It is not much of leap to suppose that if he were willing to assault the vagrant in front of the police, that his judgement was clouded and he would be upset at the police for getting in his way. The “tripped over a bag of beans” story is just too convenient and self-serving.
Human beings generally don’t piss on floors.
I dunno about it being a classical liberal tradition, because I’m not a liberal, but from where I am sitting, a man who walks into a business and procedes to urinate all over the floor doesn’t deserve to be treated as anything except trash. (Because of his actions). Grab him by the scruff of the neck and toss him to the curb.
At the moment, i’ve gotta go with the owner of the coffee shop on this one.
He’s done his best to be nice to the homeless in the area, which is more than a lot of business owners do. And then they start interfering with his business which, in the long run, is going to help no-one, because if he goes broke then he goes out of business, his customers can’t buy their coffee and bagels, and they are not around any more to give spare change to the homeless. Should we do more about the homeless problem in our cities? Sure. But i don’t think the burden for this should fall on one coffee shop owner.
Personally, it seems to me that if the cops had done their job properly and removed the homeless guy from the store as soon as they arrived, then there would have been no problem. They didn’t have to be nasty or aggressive. They should have just escorted him to the door, along with the owner, and taken everyone’s story there. If they didn’t do this immediately, they at least should have done it when the guy tried to sit down and the owner told him not to.
And the charge against the owner for assaulting the cop sounds like complete bullshit to me. If i was falling, you can be sure i’d grab instinctively at the closest thing i saw, and if that happened to be a police uniform, then so be it.
One important caveat: I reserve the right to amend my opinion if it turns out that the story happened differently than was reported in the linked story. As Banquet Bear said, the story is little more than an opinion piece. Also, the writer makes clear that he had a pre-existing relationship with the coffee shop owner, even if only as a customer. It wouldn’t be the first time a reporter has compromised his journalistic ethics to root for one side in a debate.
But if it happened as reported, i feel for the owner, and i think the cops could have done their job much better.
They might if they’re mentally disturbed. I feel a little sorry for the homeless man. Pissing yourself in public is embarassing and makes people look upon you in disgust-- not something a “normal” person would want. I seriously doubt that he urinated just to make the store owner angry. There’s probably a lot more to it than that.
Secondly, the cops were sitting right there: that removes any “right” the store owner had to manhandle someone. If a law was being broken or property threatened, the cops should have taken care of it. If they didn’t see it as an issue, that doesn’t give the owner the right to make it one.
Just because someone’s acting inappropriately does not give you the right to do the same. The store owner should have been arrested.
The fact that it was his store means that he’s allowed to decide if a guy who is pissing on the floor is allowed to be in it.
The cops should have done their jobs and removed the trespasser. And pissing on the floor, or in a chair, is property damage.
By God you’re right. That store owner should have looked the homeless man right in the eye and demanded that he donate $2 a week to the United Way! :rolleyes:
Acording to the story as presented, the police were not removing the pissing man. The owner has every right to move to protect his property and limit the damage to said property, using apropriate force. No, he couldn’t shoot him, but taking his arm and leading him out of the store is apropriate force. Bouncers do worse all the time to disorderly people, all within the bounds of the law.
Yes, actually.
It was assault because the cops were present. If he had done the same thing before the cops got there, the cops would probably have taken his side and dismissed any complaints by the pisser. Once the cops got there, they had taken control of the situation. He “went over their head” when HE chose physical removal, when at that point, the cops thought it was their call to make, and not his. He was foolish. Totally understandable, but foolish.
According to the story, there was not much of an issue with the owner until he grabbed the cop. Accident or not, the perception of the police was that he was being physically aggressive towards them and aggravating the situation. They could have addressed the vagrant if they did not have to contend with a hostile business owner.
I agree that he has the right to remove people from his establishment, but he just went overboard.
An analogy is not an equation, O Ignorant One. How 'bout I come by your place and piss on your floor? And maybe shit in the sink while I’m at it? How much of your bleeding heart sympathy will I get?
I don’t.
“Over the years, things changed. Some of the homeless got aggressive. They didn’t want coffee and bagels, but cash.”
Which is fairly typical behavior for mendicants. Give 'em and inch and you end up with downtown Santa Cruz.
They could have addressed the vagrant leaany of the three times he was asked to leave . He was a trespasser and a vandal and the police did nothing. The owner was not hostile to the police, and if they had simply done their job in the first place the physical encounter would never have taken place. To carry Liberal’s example a little further, suppose I had been hanging out in front of your house for years harassing your visitors. One day I come inside and piss all over your floor. You call the police and ask me to leave **three times ** while they stand by and do nothing. Would you then suggest that we all sit down and talk about it?
Meh. I may be a bleeding heart liberal, but the homeless dude coulda gotten a lot worse. Granted, the story’s being spun here (it’s hard to imagine that the cops were just sitting there chit-chatting while the owner was asking the man to leave) but being steered out by your shoulders for peeing on the floor is pretty gentle. The homeless man’s lot in life certainly sucks, and he’s probably mentally disturbed if he would pull a stunt like that, but the guy has a right to steer people out of his place of business if they start urinating on the floor.
I’m perplexed by your use of the phrase “they had taken control of the situation.” Other than simply being there, how exactly did they take control of what was going on?
Surely their presence didn’t deprive the store owner of the right to protect his property. And from the description, he attempted (unsuccessfully) to order the vagrant from his shop, and when that failed and no help was coming from the officers of the law, he used the bare minimum amount of force to attempt to remove the vagrant himself. What more could reasonably be expected of him? Because expecting him to just stand aside while a urine-soaked bum (who’s already pissed on his floor) ruins his furniture is NOT reasonable, IMHO.
Oh, gimme a break. Here he was, trying to get the urine-soaked vagrant out of his store. So he chooses to assault the cop at the same time? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
What are you, the Ghost of Dead Threads Past? Jesus . . .
But, as lissner pointed out, you don’t have the right to go over the heads of the law enforcement personel.
Have you ever had a puppy? They piss all over the place until you get them trained. You simply grab some Lysol or other germ-killing cleaner (not that piss is all that germy anyway) and clean it up. It’s no more damaging than a customer spilling a coffee, really-- just another mess to clean.
Somehow, I doubt the owner took the homeless man gently by the arm, else the cops wouldn’t have felt the need to intervene. Add to that the fact that they were apparently taking a statement from the man-- doesn’t that make it “interfering with official business” to remove him at that point? Then the guy grabs the cop!
Sounds like he got a bum’s rush. No more, no less.
They were taking a statement from the owner, not the pisser.
Apparently to stop himself from doing a face plant.
As evidence of how open and shut this matter is, I would like to point out that I agree with RTFirefly 100%.
I suppose there’s some reason why you chose to answer my question with this load of fetid droppings. Perhaps you’ll explain it it and answer the question at the same time…
You are the one who used the word “equivalent.” Are you suggesting that by saying the man and trash are
you’re not equating them?