Man Arrested for Feeding the Homeless

Seriously. What happened to investigating murders, rapings, and thefts? And to think that they went undercover to catch this guy. Friggin' ridiculous.

 

Ridiculous. Absolutely, positively ridiculous. That's like suing the person who saved your life, because they had to crush your car to get you out alive. As if the car is more important.

 

It is illegal to be homeless, I dont see why it would be legal to feed them. /sarcasm


btw, I hope that stew the cops took keeps until trial.

 

This has happened before. A mother is careless enough to lock her Baby and her keys in her car on a hot day, she may have been on the phone or something but either way it's her fault. She's screaming to the sky for someone to help her, before her child of less then a year dies, someone comes and smashes rear window and saves the baby, no celebration because the man damaged the womans car, he is sued for damages.

 

Which has always seemed the epitome of gall to me, SH. I saw on the news the other day that a a woman saved a coworker from her burning car or something after an accident. But because she pulled her coworker the wrong way and saved her life, the coworker became paraplegic.

So of course the coworker she decided to sue the woman for damages....and sadly? Because California repealed the so-called Good Samaritan law, there could actually be a case against her: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/local/me-good-samaritan19

So now what? We let people die and watch them die because we don't want to be in trouble if we save their lives?

How is that logical?

 

It's not, don't try to slap that label on it, sometimes things are genuinely broken, in cases like this I suppose the best thing to do is not to think about it and do the right thing anyways, and deal with the consequences for doing the right thing when they come... Or you can try to change the way things work, but whens the last time someone in America has done that?

 

It's so frustrating and sad, that's all. And I wish we didn't live in a world where people could sue for their own mistakes (criminals tripping and breaking their arm in the house they're burglarizing...and suing the homeowners; spilling hot coffee on oneself and suing the cup manufacturer/restaurant; suing a dry cleaner in excess of $10 million dollars for losing one's pants...) the list nearly endless and it all comes down to greed or misplaced entitlement.

 

Like I said, sometimes things are broken.

You're innocent till proven guilty if you are guilty, and you're guilty till proven innocent if you're innocent.

 

This disgust me. It makes me feel like going up there and feeding every person I see. So as long as they have a home it's ok to give out free food to them? We can have a "free donuts for cops day" at the crispy creme. But the people who are on the streets and really need food shouldn't get anything?

 

Who decided that was a good law? Why was it necessary? Someone please enlighten me.

And who decided it was a good use of the officers' time? I mean, come on! Stupid, stupid, stupid...

 

And people wonder why the world is so selfish and pathetic.

God people what happened to being thankful?

 

There is more to that story. If you listen, he was feeding a large group without a permit in a city-owned park. Although the ordinance as it reads is pretty disgusting, I would imagine a large park of his arrest was the no permit in a city-owned park.

 

True, but undercover cops? I mean, they weren't hiding or a threat to the public... it's overkill on a stupid law! Grr...

 

Still that is frankly a pathic reason to arrest someone.

One day the masses will wake up and look for help and it won't come because of people suing at a drop a hat.

 

Too bad you guys don't live in a democracy, or you could just vote that law out. I mean, who is this representative of?? I will refrain from answering that question or I'll say something nasty.

 

It's representative of the rich who don't want their park disturbed by those nasty looking homeless guys...who cares if they need to eat.

 

It was a rhetorical question, but your answers are correct. The entitled rich.

 

the title looks like a zoo incident