Conversely, not holding an individual culpable for his actions is the most myopic, extreme-leftist, society-made-him-do-it, there-were-extenuating-circumstances, it-might-hurt-his-self-esteem, is-anyone-really-to-blame dreck I have ever heard.
The vagrant fucked up and was arrested.
The owner fucked up and was arrested.
Mmm, chicken.
That was pretty funny, Lissener! 
What the…!? In what way did the owner fuck up?
If anyone is keeping score, I posted #94 about 3 hours after and in response *to *post #95. (Cue Twilight Zone music)
That’s his story. I imagine the police have a different one. I have my doubts as to his part of the story around here.
Yes, the vagrant should have beem escorted out, yes, the guy wasn’t all that wrong to try and stop the vagrant, but he assaulted a police officer- or so they say. We’ll have to see, won’t we?
(Bolding mine) He wasn’t charged with assaulting a police officer. Nowhere in the article is it suggested he assaulted a police officer. Where are you getting this?
Yea, that confused the hell out of me (admittedly an easy thing to do).
Well, it seems pretty fucking clear to me, despite the oh-so-careful wording of the article: “The officers didn’t like it and got in the way.” What don’t you understand? The officers objected to his actions and tried to intervene by placing themselves between the homeless guy and the owner. Then he grabbed the cop.
Yes, he was. The homeless guy sure looks like an asshole to me.
Since when? They were investigating an incident in which the homeless man was involved. They needed him to stick around. Perhaps if they’d put him out per the owners request, he would have fled. No, it’s better to keep an eye on him.
Which, if the cops weren’t doing themselves, they apparently didn’t want done. The owner called the cops. He turned the situation over to them.
That’s as weak an excuse as, “I tripped.” He was pissed and he wanted the guy out. I doubt if contamination was primary in his mind.
Man, you are really having trouble with his. Owner grabs pisser, cops intervene apparently because the owner wasn’t stopping when they moved to stop him. As the cop said, “Mr. DuCharme was arrested because he decided to deal with the situation himself and physically remove the transient.” The cops tried to stop him from doing so, i.e “getting in the way.”
There was no mention of an on-going investigation in the article, leading me to believe that it’s pretty cut-and-dried that the owner did something worth being arrested for! I know it’s much more fun to imagine these mean, cold-hearted cops pushing around the innocent-as-a-lamb owner of a coffee shop in favor of a scum-of-the-earth pissy homeless man, but I’d lay money that this isn’t the case. Note that the owner himself does not accuse the police of innappropriate behavior.
Legally? Nothing. As my momma always said, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Oh, God! I am so sorry to have dissapointed you! I’ll try better in the future to live up to your expectations because your positive opinion of me means so much.
Uhm, actually the reporter decides what goes in the article and what doesn’t. If he decided not to mention the fact that the officers weren’t wearing pants, guess what? You never would have heard about it! Just like he glosses over the owner’s disobedience to the authorities with the insanely stupid statement that “the cops didn’t like it and got in the way.”
It may come as a surprise to you, but it seems that the reporter might have chosen to leave out some facts in this article! It may even be that the article is slanted and biased! God almighty, imagine that!
Of course. It’s much more fun to be outraged. Get a subscription to Reader’s Digest and you can have this sort of fun every month!
Sorry, it wasn’t you. It was Catsix. I apologize for the mixup.
But you can’t do that! You nailed me for the wild assumption that the cops might have said something along the lines of “Hey! Stop! Let him go!” when he grabbed the homeless guy. We’re not allowed to make resonable guesses. The aticle’s statement that the homeless men made it difficult for customers to come and go is earlier in time than the incident in question. For all you know, the coffee shop had been empty for hours. (Actually, I think the author of the article might have made a point to mention any customers present during the altercation, because it raises the outrage factor to imagine a family with kids watching cops slamming a guy into a counter. I’m using my imaginantion to guess that there weren’t.)
I guess I don’t see why you have a problem with me calling him that, though I imagine I know why: you’re assuming that I’m a rabid, drooling liberal who’s trying to call attention to his plight by referring to him as homeless. If it makes you feel better, go ahead, but the reason I called him that is because of clarity: that’s what I started calling him from the outset, and I don’t see any reason to change it. The words “homeless man” are a convenient descriptor, just as is “pisser” which I’ve also called him.
The owner turned the situation over to the police. If he’s not happy with the speed with which they’re doing their jobs, tough shit. It doesn’t give him the right to take the law into his hown hands. The article carefully avoids saying so, but I have serious doubts that the cops just completely ignored the owner while he was demandng the homeless man leave. I’d bet that they likely told him why they wanted the man to stay put for the time being.
Lissa
I was going to respond to you point by point but I realized that if you honestly believe that, unless it is explicitly stated in a news article concerning police officers in a public setting that they are in fact wearing pants, then we have no reason to believe that they are, you are either jerking my chain or insufficiently familiar with the conventions of reason for us to communicate. I gladly cede you the last word. I would say last words, but I am not convinved that you can string two or more together coherently.
I somewhat confused here: if you call the police, do you give up your legal rights to evict people from the premises? AFAIK, you don’t, there the owner would have been justified in using force to evict the vagrant, assuming the police didn’t invite him in, which is doubtful.
I see you are unfamiliar with the concept of “sarcasm.”
Your sad little insult as to my coherency notwithstanding, I will cede to your wishes and end this discussion.
My last words? “There is none so blind as he who refuses to see.”