Piss on the floor-the owner gets arrested:the inmates have overtaken the asylum

[Weirddave]

What is this “wet himself” or “wet pants”. Read the article again. It sure sounds to me like <i>this guy took out his dick and pissed all over the store.</i>

You blame the victim crowd are just too much, you know that? Maybe you’ll get lucky and it’ll turn out there was a health inspector present who could then shut this guy down for having an unsanitary resturant because there is piss all over. That would sure teach him, wouldn’t it? If I own a store, and cops are there, and a guy starts pissing all over everything and they don’t <b>immediately</b> take him down and arrest him, there’s going to be legal action all right, but it’ll be me suing the Police Dept. for not doing their job, and if they didn’t, you can be damn sure I would.

[JKilez]

@catsix

By leaving the bum in his establishment to piss all over the place?

When they do not have to subdue an enraged and threatening owner, they may have a greater focus.

[Hazel]

@Bryan Ekers

I have to agree, here. The cops can’t let one person assault another in their presence. They were right to pounce, stopping the conflict with overwhelming force before something really bad could happen, i.e. the homeless guy bites the store owner, or pulls a weapon, or otherwise raises the stakes and gets ambulances involved.

But once the cops arrived, why did the business owner need to try to keep the guy away from his chair? Why didn’t the cops move the urine-soaked guy out of the coffeeshop immediately upon their arrival? Even if they believed that they needed to talk to everyone involved and sort things out, why not either do so outside or simply grab the guy and tell him, no, you can’t mess up this chair, now stay on your feet while we sort this out? It should have been possible to instantly grasp the essential fact: business owner’s property (the chair) will be damaged if no one intervenes.

[JKilez]

@Weirddave

What is this “wet himself” or “wet pants”. Read the article again. It sure sounds to me like this guy took out his dick and pissed all over the store.

Well, that is somewhat nebulous. At the beginning of article, it states that the man was soaked in urine. Later, when relating the events that led up the arrests, it states that man came in and just starting urinating on the floor and made a trail to the men’s room.

Given that he is described as being soaked in urine and that he was making his way to the men’s room, it would indicate that the man just started relieving himself in his pants en route.

@Weirddave

You blame the victim crowd are just too much, you know that?

It is not the “blame the victim” crowd. It is just “just because you were wronged does not give you carte blanche to be an asshole” crowd.

[catsix]

Bodily removing someone who is pissing all over your coffee shop is not ‘being an asshole’.

Shit, I’d probably applaud AND tip the guy for removing the pisser.

[Lissa]

@catsix

I am going to notice someone in the establishment who reeks of piss, who has just pissed on the floor, and who is currently trying to infest a chair with piss, and you know what? I’d never go back to that coffee shop again.

Unless you’ve eaten a lot of asparagus, fresh piss usually does not stink so badly that you could smell it across a room, especially with the rich, powerful scent of cofee in the air. I’d suggest seeing a doctor if it does.

I’d much rather see that the owner has respect for the cleanliness of his establishment and his paying customers enough to escort out someone who is pissing on the floor.

Well, it doesn’t sound like cleanliness was his top priority, because I don’t see in the article where he immediately set to work on cleaning the puddles from the floor, or ordered another employee to do so.

When the cops are wrong, you have to do shit yourself.

The law doesn’t see it that way. I can’t execute someone I believe guilty of murder just because the state can’t/won’t do it themselves. I can’t seize property from people who owe me, nor can I incarcerate someone in my attic. Citizens cannot go about dispensing “justice” as they see fit, or the system totally breaks down into anarchy. Do you really want to trust the judgement of your neighbor in that fashion?

God save us from vigilante “justice.” The law exists for a reason. If you don’t like the law, take it up with your congressman. Otherwise, be fully prepared to pay the consequences for breaking it.

So next time he wo’t call the cops, he’ll just throw the pissing bum out.

And then the bum will sue him, and we’ll have another outrage tale to debate. You’ve got to let the cops do their job in these sorts of cases. Apparently the homeless man was taken in, because the article mentioned he was facing charges.

If the owner had just behaved himself for a while, the situation would have been resovled much more quickly, and without unduly alarming any customers.

[JKilez]

@catsix

Bodily removing someone who is pissing all over your coffee shop is not ‘being an asshole’.

Actually what I was going for was “impudent asshole”. Regardless, I agree with you completely; but that is not what happened here.

The owner called in the police to address the situation, did not care for their initial response, and consequently usurped their authority by taking action himself in defiance of their direction. In his zeal to confront his nascent nemesis, who quite likely was goading him by his mere presence, the owner demonstrated a base disrespect for the authority figures whom he solicited to assist in peacefully resolving the circumstance. He was belligerent and assertive enough that he had to be forcefully subdued before the officers could respond to the original issue. That is why he was charged with obstruction.

This was not a crisis situation. There was no immediate risk of irreparable harm that would warrant the actions of the owner. He just did not like the way things were going and acted like an impudent asshole by deciding that he did not have listen to the cops if they were not doing or saying what he want wanted.

[Weirddave]

@JKilez

Actually what I was going for was “impudent asshole”. Regardless, I agree with you completely; but that is not what happened here.

The owner called in the police to address the situation, did not care for their initial response, and consequently usurped their authority by taking action himself in defiance of their direction. In his zeal to confront his nascent nemesis, who quite likely was goading him by his mere presence, the owner demonstrated a base disrespect for the authority figures whom he solicited to assist in peacefully resolving the circumstance. He was belligerent and assertive enough that he had to be forcefully subdued before the officers could respond to the original issue. That is why he was charged with obstruction.

This was not a crisis situation. There was no immediate risk of irreparable harm that would warrant the actions of the owner. He just did not like the way things were going and acted like an impudent asshole by deciding that he did not have listen to the cops if they were not doing or saying what he want wanted.

I like big words too. Using them here does not change you position one wit, or impress us. Cops get respect simply by being cops, but I am not going to give them a blow job when they are not doing their job. The urinator should have been arrested before any of this became an issue.

[Liberal]

@JKilez

This was not a crisis situation. There was no immediate risk of irreparable harm that would warrant the actions of the owner. He just did not like the way things were going and acted like an impudent asshole by deciding that he did not have listen to the cops if they were not doing or saying what he want wanted.

Why the hell shouldn’t they do what he wanted. He owns the place. They aren’t referees or magistrates. They don’t have jurisdiction over his ownership. He was a longtime law abiding citizen — a productive and respected member of the community — who was attempting to evict a vagrant who was vandalizing his property right before their eyes. They exist to serve him, not the other way around. At least, that’s how it ought to be.

[Contrapuntal]

@JKilez

Do not confuse a newspaper column with news.

DO not confuse a factual column with an opinion piece.

There was no attempt to be fair and balanced here, nor was that the intent.

I will ask you again how, short of mind reading, you ascertain intent.

The writer implied that he had a previous relationship with the store owner and was providing a forum for his voice to be heard.(Bolding mine)

Where?
.

From the story is states: “[the owner] grabbed the officer in front of him”. I would say that is being physical. Since it goes on to state “At that point, DuCharme says, he became the focus of the officers in his store,” it would appear that the grabbing was aggressive enough to alarm the cops and not just a minor nudge.

You are selectively qouting. He was falling and reached out to support himself. I ask you again. If I stumble and grab you to keep from hitting the groun does that constitute assault?

What response do you want? The police has been there previously that day and had routed the vagrants as requested–why would they ignore a request at this point?

I do not see where they ignored a request of the owner. They observed the owner identify a tresspasser three times and failed to remove him. They were not doing their job.

Just because the cops do not immediately back up the fiat of a belligerent shop owner does not mean that they are going to do nothing. His issue was that they were not acting quick enough.

A fiat is a decree. The owner made a request. Three times. The owner was not belligerent. He did nothing until the pisser attempted to sit down. This is not an issue of the cops not acting quickly enough, but rather not acting at all.

[Contrapuntal]

[QUOTE=Lissa]

The question here is whether the owner’s use of force was justified. His property was not permenantly damaged by being soaked in urine.

His use of force was justified because he wanted the guy out of his sore and nothing else was working.

This man obviously has serious mental health problems, and needs help. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely he’ll get it.

That may well be true but it has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

No. It’s the owner’s fault for forcefully grabbing the man (and a cop). He had no legitimate reason to do so, especially after the cops apparently tried to stop him.

Where do you see that he forcefully grabbed the man after the cops tried to stop him?

This was an incredibly kind thing to do. I think he was very nice for doing so. However, just because someone used to do something nice, it doesn’t excuse current bad behavior.

I was not trying to excuse his behavior. I was pointing out that the depiction of the owner as a some jerk who is spoiling foir a fight is unfair.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to think that the cops would have said something like that. “Hey! Dude, let him go!” or “Stop that!” or even “Hey, hands off!” would have been a perfectly natural statement for the officers to make.

It may be perfectly reasonable to think that. it is not at all reasonable to argue it, however.

Do you think they just got up silently and jumped into the fray to resuce the homeless man?

There was no fray until they jumped in.

Okay, how about “forcibly grabbing”?

Is there any other way to grab?

Amusing. Had I made definite statments, you would have pounced on me for making assertions I could not have backed up.

Atually there is another tack you might take between making shit up and making assertions that you cannot back up. You might try making assertions you can back up.

[JKilez]

@Weirddave

I like big words too. Using them here does not change you position one wit, or impress us.

Nor should they. I apologize for ungainliness of my last post–it is rather embarrassing. I am glad that I could not fit “bellicose” in there as that would truly have been overboard.

[ralph124c]

Is “pissing your pants” protected under the 1st Amendment? Is this a free speech issue?

[Lissa]

@trandallt

His use of force was justified because he wanted the guy out of his sore and nothing else was working.

JKilez said it well: “The owner called in the police to address the situation, did not care for their initial response, and consequently usurped their authority by taking action himself in defiance of their direction.”

As I said, the cops did arrest the homeless man. Apparently they just weren’t doing it fast enough to suit the owner.

Where do you see that he forcefully grabbed the man after the cops tried to stop him?

Well, the 'officers didn’t like it and got in the way" indicating that the owner was trying to grab the homeless man after the officers had stood between them-- that they were trying to stop him. Then he grabs the officer-- probably to either push him out of the way, or out of anger that someone was trying to keep him from getting to the homeless man.

Yeah, I don’t buy the “tripping” story one bit. Officers are not stupid nor evil. If that had truly been the case, you never would have heard about it because the officer would have helped the owner regain his balance and went on with his business.

I was not trying to excuse his behavior. I was pointing out that the depiction of the owner as a some jerk who is spoiling foir a fight is unfair.

And I’m not saying the guy is a jerk. Hell, I think I’d be spoiling for a fight myself in the same situation. I think he was just a man who lost his temper after admittedly extreme prvocation. However, losing one’s temper is not an excuse.

It may be perfectly reasonable to think that. it is not at all reasonable to argue it, however.

Whatever. I’m going to go out on a limb here, and argue that the officers were wearing pants, too, but since the story does not specifically mention that, it’s all just wild speculation on my part.

There was no fray until they jumped in.

You don’t think the homeless man was struggling? That he was allowing himself to be led out as peacefully as a lamb? Of course there was a fray. I sincerely doubt that the officers rushed to intervene if the homeless man had meekly been ushered out the door.

Is there any other way to grab?

The owner seems to be making an argument for a lost-my-balance grab, but apparently the officers didn’t buy it any more than I do.

Atually there is another tack you might take between making shit up and making assertions that you cannot back up. You might try making assertions you can back up.

Oh, okay, I understand . . . what about your assertion that the customers could smell the piss all over the resturant? Or that there even WERE customers in there at the time? There’s some saying that I vaguely remember hearing about casting stones . . .

[Liberal]

@Lissa

JKilez said it well: “The owner called in the police to address the situation, did not care for their initial response, and consequently usurped their authority by taking action himself in defiance of their direction.”

I already debunked that.

As I said, the cops did arrest the homeless man. Apparently they just weren’t doing it fast enough to suit the owner.

Who the hell is serving whom? It is the owner’s place. The cops were called to help the owner secure his property. You act like they dropped by to collect the protection money and their client got all uppity.

[Lissa]

@Liberal

I already debunked that.

Where? I just went back through, and I didn’t see any debunking. How can it be debunked? The facts are relatively simple: owner gets pissed, goes for homeless man, cops intervene, owner grabs cops, then gets slammed on counter.

Who the hell is serving whom? It is the owner’s place. The cops were called to help the owner secure his property. You act like they dropped by to collect the protection money and their client got all uppity.

Yes, the cops are there to serve the public, but that doesn’t mean you can order them around, or demand that they enforce your dictates. They are there to ensure public safety, not act as your bouncer, especially when they probably want to keep the homeless man in sight, out of fear he may take off if put out of the shop.

[Liberal]

@Lissa

Where? I just went back through, and I didn’t see any debunking. How can it be debunked? The facts are relatively simple: owner gets pissed, goes for homeless man, cops intervene, owner grabs cops, then gets slammed on counter.

Homeless man? Why the hell do you describe him as “homeless man”. Why not “man with nose”? Or “American man”? Or “drunk son of a bitch blithering wanker who pulls out his dick and sprays piss all over the place man”? The cops should not be intervening; they should be assisting. The owner grabs under the arms, the cops each grab a leg.

Yes, the cops are there to serve the public, but that doesn’t mean you can order them around, or demand that they enforce your dictates. They are there to ensure public safety, not act as your bouncer, especially when they probably want to keep the homeless man in sight, out of fear he may take off if put out of the shop.

Your dictates? It’s your fucking property. Their dictates are from the law — laws like not pissing on other people’s furniture. They should have left one man behind to take the report while the other hauled the pisser off to jail.

[JKilez]

@Liberal

Why the hell shouldn’t they do what he wanted. He owns the place. They aren’t referees or magistrates. They don’t have jurisdiction over his ownership. He was a longtime law abiding citizen — a productive and respected member of the community — who was attempting to evict a vagrant who was vandalizing his property right before their eyes. They exist to serve him, not the other way around. At least, that’s how it ought to be.

The police exist to serve the public and enforce the laws, not obey the will of a particular individual. They do act as referees to diffuse volatile situations. It is difficult to discern the facts when the parties involved are at each other’s throats. It appears that they were doing that in this case. They had been there previously and dispersed the homeless. The result of their last visit was that they arrested the vagrant despite the interference of the owner. It looks like they were doing their job.

There is no indication whatsoever that the officers would treat this gentleman unfairly. He is a productive and respected member of the community, after all, and they had responded to his previous request without any issue. There was no motivation for them to arrest this guy without provocation. Nevertheless, the police determined that he was exacerbating the situation and he was arrested for obstruction.

Given that he was arrested, the owner does have a motivation to portray the circumstances to his benefit. He still faces trial. It was his voice and his view that dominated the column. Wrapping his unfortunate personal dilemma in the context of a bad vagrant situation that just about everyone can get behind is a standard tactic to enlist sympathy.

Hey, I feel for the guy. I really do. Dealing with homeless people who are interfering with your business can be extremely frustrating. Having someone piss in your store really takes the cake. It does not excuse unlawful behavior, though.

I would be behind him 100% if he forcefully ejected the vagrant. As long as he was not harming the guy or causing pain he is within his rights. If he ejected the vagrant and then proceeded to beat him so that he would not return, that would be another matter.

Most likely, the owner called the police as wanted a peaceful resolution and desired criminal charges placed against the vagrant. Attempting to force someone out who does not want to leave can be difficult without a bouncer, and can lead to retaliation. He did the right thing. When the police came they witnessed behavior on the part of the owner that was aggravating the situation. He was interfering with their ability to bring a peaceful resolution and had to be subdued. How do we know this in the absence of any statements from the officers involved? Because he was arrested for obstruction! That indicates that the perception of the officers at the time differed from the events as portrayed by the owner.

Just because the owner has the right to oust his patron does not give him the right to ignore the law or the people whose job it is to enforce it.

[Liberal]

@JKilez

The police exist to serve the public and enforce the laws, not obey the will of a particular individual.

Actually, they exist to protect the State, but that’s another debate. Singling out the owner as an exacerbator while thugs hang around outside his door, and one inside has ruined his furniture and his business for the day is the most myopic extreme-leftist hand-wringing mea-culpa oh-my-god-we’re-all-to-blame hooey I have ever heard.

[Contrapuntal]

[QUOTE=Lissa]

JKilez said it well: “The owner called in the police to address the situation, did not care for their initial response, and consequently usurped their authority by taking action himself in defiance of their direction.”

Where in the article (not in your imagination, but in the article)does it state that the owner took action in defiance of the cop’s direction?

As I said, the cops did arrest the homeless man. Apparently they just weren’t doing it fast enough to suit the owner.

I’ll keep saying this until you get it. The pisser had been asked three times to leave. He was in the wrong for not complying with those requests. After each of these requests it was the duty of the police to escort him out. Nevertheless, the owner did nothing until the pisser tried to sit down on his furniture. The owner then grabbed him so he could escort him outside. There is no indication that things were not happening fast enough. The owner was trying to prevent further contamination to his place of business.

Well, the 'officers didn’t like it and got in the way" indicating that the owner was trying to grab the homeless man after the officers had stood between them-- that they were trying to stop him. Then he grabs the officer-- probably to either push him out of the way, or out of anger that someone was trying to keep him from getting to the homeless man.

This is the sequence of events. Pisser attempts to sit down. Owner grabs pisser. Cops intervene. Contrast this with your version. Cops intervene. Owner grabs pisser. Does this even make sense, or is your imagination playing tricks on you again?

Yeah, I don’t buy the “tripping” story one bit. Officers are not stupid nor evil. If that had truly been the case, you never would have heard about it because the officer would have helped the owner regain his balance and went on with his business.

Some officers are stupid and/or evil. Are you suggestiong that all cops are smart and all cops are good? Are you suggesting that police never make wrongful arrests? Are you suggesting that cops never use excessive force? Why has your imagination, so wondrously fertile before, abandoned you now?

And I’m not saying the guy is a jerk. Hell, I think I’d be spoiling for a fight myself in the same situation. I think he was just a man who lost his temper after admittedly extreme prvocation. However, losing one’s temper is not an excuse.

If extreme provocation is not an excuse for loss of temper then what, praytell, is?

Whatever. I’m going to go out on a limb here, and argue that the officers were wearing pants, too, but since the story does not specifically mention that, it’s all just wild speculation on my part.

Now this is just juvenile. I don’t know why but I expected better of you. Let me give you a hint. If the officers had not been wearing pants it would have been REALLY BIG NEWS. Why? Because one almost never sees police naked from the waist down. And I only say almost because I am suspicious of propsitions that include the word “never.”

Y

ou don’t think the homeless man was struggling? That he was allowing himself to be led out as peacefully as a lamb? Of course there was a fray. I sincerely doubt that the officers rushed to intervene if the homeless man had meekly been ushered out the door.

If one is constrained, as I am, by the facts as presented in the article, the assumption is that the cops intervened as soon as the owner put his hands on the pisser.

The owner seems to be making an argument for a lost-my-balance grab, but apparently the officers didn’t buy it any more than I do.

This does not make them right. In fact, if I squint my eyes and hold my mouth just right I can imagine them being wrong.

Oh, okay, I understand . . . what about your assertion that the customers could smell the piss all over the resturant?

Show me where I asserted that customers could “smell piss all over the restaurant”, or retract the statement please.

Or that there even WERE customers in there at the time? There’s some saying that I vaguely remember hearing about casting stones . . .

It was expressly stated in the article that customers were “coming and going”. I used my imagination to interpret that as coming into the establishment.