Charity/Philanthropy

Three Arrested for Attempting to Feed the Homeless in Orlando; Face Up to 60 Days in Jail

|

The feeders, not the homeless

So, no unauthorized debris-clearing in tornado-stricken Minneapolis, and no unpermitted homeless-feeding in Orlando:

Members of Orlando Food Not Bombs were arrested Wednesday when police said they violated a city ordinance by feeding the homeless in Lake Eola Park.

Jessica Cross, 24, Benjamin Markeson, 49, and Jonathan "Keith" McHenry, 54, were arrested at 6:10 p.m. on a charge of violating the ordinance restricting group feedings in public parks. […]

The penalty for violating Orlando's ordinance is 60 days in jail, a $500 fine or both.

Thanks to reader Andrew Klein for the tip.

NEXT: The Right To Be a Jerk

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, duh – if you feed them, they just keep coming back.

  2. I thought the law was not to feed the homeless after midnight.

    1. No. It says you can’t feed them if they are planning to go swimming in less than an hour.

      1. And in Florida, where any homeless person can walk to the beach in an hour or less, we’re talking about a serious epidemic of cramps.

        1. Most of Lake Eola Park consists of Lake Eola, though you are not supposed to swim in it.

          1. And that no-swimming restriction has had no effect on the crampidemic. Which is why we have to go after food now.

        2. Instead of giving them food, just give them all fishing poles. Teach a man to fish and all that shit.

    2. If you feed the homeless after midnight, they turn into scary homeless.

  3. Didn’t those hippies see the sign about not feeding animals? 😉

    Seriously, instead of Food Not Bombs why not start a Bomb Factory and hire homeless people? Call it Food for Bombs.

    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

  4. And not get them wet. That’s why they smell.

  5. If you want to feed the homeless, do the sanitary thing and confine them to a feedlot.

    1. Fuck all of you.

  6. So, um, they’d arrest Jesus?

    1. Jesus would be considered a domestic terrorist. I know he’d be on the no-fly list.

      1. That’s exactly what the Romans thought.

        1. Should’ve just let the guy off with a warning.

          1. Think they (Romans) wanted to. But the shrill socons of the time would not be satiated.

      2. Crucifiction = enhanced interrogation techniques

    2. Seriously? Jesus would be sooooo busted, and that’s if he wasn’t appropriated for medical research immediately following his virgin-birth.

      1. He’d have trouble convincing people he’s the son of god today. Where his long-form birth certificate?

        1. He’d just have to update the miracles.

          “Watch, brothers and sisters, as I convince Comcast that they fucked up my bill, verily.”

          “For my next miracle, I’ll be restoring adherence to The United States Constitution.” And as he raised his arms in benediction, the US Code was transformed from a million volumes into just two.

          1. One would truly have to be the son of God to accomplish either of those.

            1. I took my time crafting those miracles, hoping they would be miraculous enough. Tossed the idea about multiplying two iPhones.

              1. You left out practical fusion.

                1. Do you really think it’d be tougher to develop practical fusion than it would to get Comcast to admit they fucked up?

                  1. The third miracle.

                    1. I’d rather see him cure teh AIDS. Two reasons: it’d piss off the fundies since a big chunk of people it’d help would be “undesirables” in their eyes. Second, if he developed practical fusion, government agents would confiscate it’s production and dole it out to public trusts and it would end up just as fucked as SoCal Edison.

                  2. easier. Give me ten years of a libertarian science fund and I’ll have fusion. Comcast will still be around then.

          2. Oooh, were the two etched into stone tablets? That would be pretty sweet.

            Also, if he transformed the constitution into a literal living constitution, that would go and beat the shit out of anyone that violated it or tried to play word games to get around it, that would be pretty cool too.

            1. if he transformed the constitution into a literal living constitution, that would go and beat the shit out of anyone that violated it or tried to play word games to get around it, that would be pretty cool too.

              It’s Official: your Modern Jesus does better miracles than mine.

            2. With this spiffy ratio decidendi.

              1. Uh, this one.

          3. He’d just have to update the miracles.

            Epi: A personality
            Sugarfee: A functioning spleen and Tourette’s medication.
            Tulpa: a soul.
            Rather: Lap-band Surgery
            Warty: Penis Reduction Surgery. Hey, having an 18 inch penis isn’t all that it is cracked up to be.
            Sarcasmic: A girlfriend.
            Me: Waking up to these eye:

            https://reason.com/assets/db/f3…..bf.new.jpg

            …sigh…..

            1. “Epi: A personality”

              Curmudgeon constitutes as a personality.

            2. John: Moderation

    3. Those weren’t homeless, they were outdoor adventurers.

    4. By recklessly copying fish and bread, he violated the intellectual property of bakers and fishermen and threatened their ability to make a profit on their labor.

  7. “”on a charge of violating the ordinance restricting group feedings in public parks. “”

    So how big of a picnic does it take to have a group feeding?

    1. My first thought exactly

      1. i am pretty sure they wouldn’t use this law against a little league team feeding, for example…

        1. They would if they fed little leaguers twice a week.

        2. So the intent of the law is discriminatory? Uh oh.

          1. no, the application of it was.

  8. Sorry, I meant to say “Bombs for Food.” The smelly, filthy vagrants make Bombs and then we feed the bastards.

    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

    1. Thanks for the Firefly flashback.

  9. My organization, Monocles Not Bombs, doesn’t have these kinds of problems.

    1. So you think, but be sure to consult your counsel about your slave labor. Feeding them may be a crime at your Central Florida facility.

      1. Feed my slave labor? Puh-leeze. If they didn’t starve to death, I wouldn’t be able to use their ground-up bones for the glass; then no eco-friendly “Made From Recycled Goods” label.

        The monocle factory is in Saipan. Made-In-USA goodness with none of the pesky regulations. God bless Ralph Reed!

        1. I see you’ve been well-advised. Some business owners are not so wise.

          1. I always wanted to set up a whip factory on Saipan, solely for the purpose of selling the whips to various factories (including my own) to use for whipping their sweat-shop labor. I think the workers would appreciate the delicious irony.

            1. Workers live for irony.

              1. Indeed, they do.

                1. Is that back when the Nazis invented the corporation and capitalism? And McDonald’s?

                  1. With seed money from the Koch brothers, of course.

                    1. Naturally.

                    2. With seed money from the Koch brothers, of course.

                      Kotchtopus II: Tentacles In Time

                    3. lol

                      That could be a Sci-Fi Channel movie.

                    4. That could be a Sci-Fi Channel movie.

                      Could? I’m preparing a treatment as we speak.

                    5. Too late–it’s in the can and airs next week.

                    6. It better have Lorenzo Lamas in it.

    2. My organization is gonna be called Movers Not Guns. And at MNG, we will aim to build the best goalpost movers the world has seen by initially employing the homeless and then paying them whatever the state-designated minimum wage is. Once advised by my mentor, Mr. Trumka, I will also hire whoever the DoL tells me to, regardless of qualification and I will pass out the various union literatures in their mass orientation.

      To be fair, I will consult various government and labor organizations to help me set the price for my goalpost movers, which I’ll call the MaxTon.

      Phase II will be setting up a strawman/scarecrow factory. Unfortunately, I’m having trouble at the moment acquiring the necessary stuffing, as I am still in the process of getting my government overlords partners to force farmers to sell at prices I have fixed so I can meet my labor costs. Hopefully, I’ll have donated enough to a few elected officials to get a bill presented next session.

      Yesiree, here at MNG Industries, we’re doing right by the working man.

  10. Question: according to the law, what happens when a homeless mother feeds her homeless children? If homeless people can feed other homeless people, then why didn’t these scruffy hippies just claim homeless status?

    1. …then only outlaws will lease homes.

    2. As long as she doesn’t feed them as a group.

      1. Or more than twice a year….

  11. I imagine this is the sort of thing that makes the Chinese chuckle. Sure, they have re-education camps. But we have a judiciary that has sucked executive cock so thoroughly that the judiciary has allowed for the criminalization of the act of being humane. I the bet the 11th circuit didn’t even tear up when the uvula was smashed against the back of their throats.

  12. Police waited until everyone was served to make the arrests

    I wonder if they would wait for a rapist to finish before they arrested him.

    1. This kind of makes me think that these cops weren’t all that interested in enforcing the ordinance. Cops were probably called by some retired new york asshat who drive a BMW and doesn’t like smelly people.

      1. They mayor is probably a retired NY asshat.

  13. McHenry wants to stay in jail and let the legal process take its course, Coleman said.

    I’d admire this guy. Fuck yeah. If these stupid cocks are going to enforce an inhumane ordinance, let it cost them. If I was the judge, I’d dismiss the case and order the prosecutor 40 hours of feeding the homeless.

    1. If I were the judge, I’d dismiss the case and order the prosecutor fed to the homeless.

      1. If I were the judge, I’d invite some homeless to the courtroom, feed them, then dismiss the case.

          1. Allow me to second that this. As soon as I stop laughing.

        1. +100

      2. If I were the judge, I’d make sure to only use a silent model of penis pump in the courtroom, and then I’d sentence all the homeless to six months in a workhouse.

        1. The silent models suck.

        2. Warty, I hear that DARPA is working on a nuclear powered industrial strength one.

          1. Algore approves

            1. ALGOL disapproves.

    2. I admire the guy as well. He needs to demand a jury trial and make sure there are about 50 people outside the courtroom handing out literature on jury nullification the day the case is having the jury seated.

      That’ll teach the judge to do his fucking job.

      1. Wasn’t it a judge in Orlando that tried to prevent free speech, too?

        1. aka jury tampering.

      2. So you’re advocating handing out JN fliers as a method of altering a specific jury verdict? That’s pretty much the definition of jury tampering.

        1. No its isn’t. Jury tampering is presenting evidence to jurors that hasn’t been admitted in the case, threatening jurors with harm, etc. Reminding jurors of their rights is not jury tampering except in the mind of someone who doesn’t want jurors to be reminded of their rights because being reminded of their rights means they may not decide the way you want them to.

          1. Not yet it isn’t. But soon. Very, very soon.

            We also need to get rid of that stupid ordinance that says you can’t charge someone for something that wasn’t illegal at the time they actually did it. The will of the peepuls needs to be implemented quickly and completely.

        2. No, dumbass. I’m proposing handing out jury nullification fliers at the courthouse to every person entering on a day that coincides with a case where the law should be nullified by the jury.

          Is it not smart to get your point across to your target audience? It’s the same reason they advertise fleshlights in Hustler and not in Tiger Beat.

        3. How is it tampering? Remember, the only bar on jury nullification is for a party in a case to mention it to the jury. The act of nullification is, really, still accepted as a right of jurors. Just can’t tell them about it during a trial.

          1. Can some posters in the legal profession explain to me why it is illegal to bring up jury nullification during a trial?

            1. ‘Cause the courts say so. They don’t want to instruct the juries to ignore the law, because they may tend to do so. I think the idea is that they want to prevent juries from casually tossing out the law, assuming that they’ll do so, anyway, if something is really unfair.

              On the flip side, jury nullification as a right is fully protected. It has to be, and not just for philosophical reasons. If the jury is the ultimate trier of fact, the court has no business second-guessing its decision-making, provided that nothing blatantly improper has occurred (like bribery). Rejecting unfair laws is also considered appropriate for juries.

              1. That’s only a de facto allowance; you could just as easily say jurors have a legal right to acquit someone if they like their hairdo.

                1. you could just as easily say jurors have a legal right to acquit someone if they like their hairdo.

                  You presume they don’t?

                  Juries do fucked-up things for no apparent reason whatsoever.

                  Remember, O.J. was found not guilty.

                  1. O.J. was found innocent because the cops tried to frame a guilty man.

                    1. “Innocent” or “Not Guilty”?

                    2. wrong on two counts. he wasn’t found innocent. he was found “not guilty” and yes, those are not the same. been over this ad nauseum.

                      two, the cops tried to do no such thing. they did a half-decent investigation (made some mistakes certainly). the prosecution, otoh, was pretty poorly done

              2. Kinda stupid that during jury instructions, a judge deliberately leaves out an option available to the jury.

              3. We’ll get right on that.

          2. The act of nullification is, really, still accepted as a right of jurors.

            You sure about that? Haven’t there been some instructions to the jury that pretty much foreclose the possibility of nullification?

            I mean, obviously it’s de facto tolerated because you can’t do anything to a juror because of the way they vote, but is it still officially sanctioned?

            1. There’s a decent amount of caselaw confirming that the right exists. And, of course, there’s just as much saying that judges can’t instruct the jury about nullification, nor can parties raise it during trial.

              1. I dont get it. When else should the average-person-cum-juror be learning about JN? Seems like getting selected for jury duty is most people’s only experience with the justice system.

                I guess we’re supposed to be reading about it during the same time where we study all of the nations laws to be sure we’re never caught being ignorant of the law. Oh shit, that reminds me, I’m still only on Volume 1. 665 volumes left.

            2. i’ve seen discussions on this at both scotusblog and volokh.com , two sites with lots of smart legal types.

              it’s entirely legal. iow, if a juror were to publically admit after a trial that he voted to acquit because of jury nullification reasons, he would not be admitting to a violation of any law

              1. It is perfectly legal. There’s a weird, people-are-too-dumb-to-be-trusted logic in not allowing nullification to be mentioned in court, but I think the idea is to prevent casual use of nullification.

                Incidentally, a lot of people think nullification was discredited during all the Jim Crow crap. It may have been, but not really fairly so. The real problem was in jury selection.

                1. ProL: explain.

                  Nullification abuse only requires one juror, and I’m pretty sure the Jim Crow South had a high enough ratio of potential abusers in the jury pool to practically guarantee one in every jury.

              2. If a juror said he voted to acquit because his Rice Krispies tasted really good that morning, would he be admitting to violation of a law?

    3. Yeppers. +1 to leftist activists in this case.

    4. If I were the judge, I’d tell McHenry to invite the homeless to his house for a meal next time.

      Oh wait, he doesn’t want to attract homeless people to his property? Well now you know how the rest of the public feels about their park.

      1. The homeless belong on private railroad property.

        If I were the judge, I’d outlaw public parks anyway.

      2. I’m sorry, I didn’t know it was a “well fed only” public park.

        1. I never said homeless should be banned from the park.

          1. Right. You just said they shouldn’t be allowed to assemble as they wish while in the park. Oh, we get the difference. It doesn’t change the fact that you’re an asshole on this issue.

            1. I never said that either. Keep trying.

              1. No?

                Tulpa|6.3.11 @ 6:00PM|#|show direct|ignore
                The park is public property, not the property of FNB. The rest of the public has a right to use the park without being accosted by the beggars they’re attracting.

                Where in the story does it say they were doing anything other than staying amongst their own? Or are you concerned with the fear caused by the bum convention?

        2. And you are so obviously not a property owner. A homeless feeding operation in a public park can plunge your property value to shit in nothing flat.

          1. I am a property owner. And foreclosures can also plunge the local value. So should I advocate for the state to intervene to stop foreclosures?

            I hate to go “All True Scotsmen…” here, but are you sure you’re a libertarian? Property value is a risk you take when you purchase it. Do you favor city laws regarding lawn maint.?

            1. I hate to go “All True Scotsmen…”

              Then, don’t. Stick to the issue at hand.

              1. I did in my initial sentence, which you ignored. Do you believe that property values should be protected by state action? If not, then I misread your post. If so, please explain your logic.

              2. Since you brought up the question of property values, I think the question about lawn maintenance laws is a fair one. Is maintaining property values a legitimate cause to ban otherwise moral and praiseworthy actions?

                1. On the subject of property values and homless people: which drops your values more, homeless digging for meals in trashcans or homeless getting fed in an organized, non-feral, fashion?

                  1. which drops your values more, homeless digging for meals in trashcans or homeless getting fed in an organized, non-feral, fashion?

                    In my experience it isn’t how they feed, it’s whether they flock or not that affects the values. One or two feral humans vehemently protecting their dumpster from other feral humans is better than colonial feral human dumpster-feeding.

                    1. colonial feral human dumpster-feeding

                      Which sounds pretty horrific, but don’t FNB’s actions help prevent such a thing?

                      They’re getting the homeless out of private trash receptacles, swarms or otherwise.

                    2. but don’t FNB’s actions help prevent such a thing?

                      I wasn’t implying any horror, I thought colonial implied cooperative. I was trying to say that two fiercely protective bums beats a group of 50 cooperative ones in regards to their effect on property values

                    3. In other words, ask a farmer. What’s worse, 2 crows or 100 pigeons?

                    4. Which sounds pretty horrific, but don’t FNB’s actions help prevent such a thing?

                      In a large urban area, probably not. There are plenty of shelters that feed people who need it. Feeding them in the park is just a convenience (and a chance for FNB to show off).

                    5. Feeding them in the park is just a convenience (and a chance for FNB to show off).

                      True. But I don’t see why showing off is an arrestable offense.

                      we all know the reason Orlando is doing this – they’re afraid a tourist might get a look at what the rest of Orlando really is outside of Disney.

                      It’s a law of nature: if you attract tourists you attract bums. At some point every adult figures this out – eventually those adults curtail their tourism; either because of the filthy bums or because of the filthy government.

                2. LOL

          2. I have no objections to churches or other community organizations doing this on their own property, even if its near my property.

            I believe that parks should be privatized. Which I didn’t previously, but this discussion has forced me to that inescapable conclusion. Cheers.

            Other fanciful, tangential issues? N/A

            1. So, as long as people jump through the appropriate hoops to obtain the proper facilities, it’s all-cools.

              What if I do it at my house? I mean, it’s my property, but I don’t have any of the Official Charity papers.

            2. I have no objections to churches or other community organizations anyonedoing this on their own property, even if its near my property.

              My positive mention of churches (etc) did not exclude other private activities.

              You clear on that now, Poindexter?

              1. Yes, ty. (look, explicitly mentioning only churches and organization invited that question, Dextpointer.)

              2. and for the record, I agree with your point that feeding the homeless isn’t actually a purpose/function of the park, but as public property, declaring officially sanctioned functions for it would be pretty muddy.

                Ok, no shooting-off guns in the park, legitimate safety concern.

                How about frisbee? I took a frisbee to the temple one time, and that bitch hurt.

                And then there’s having a cookout, which is fine if all the people you invited live in a paid-for-dwelling, or even if they’re just sleeping on someone couch. Start inviting the homeless, a portion of whom probably already live in the park anyway and it’s wrong…sorry, I’m not seeing a valid Public Interest justification for that.

                1. Oh, and here’s the solution for FNB: just invite lots of friends AND the homeless.

                2. and of course few things are MORE associated with parks than picnics.

                  or picuhnics, booboo!

                3. I took a frisbee to the temple one time, and that bitch hurt.

                  Nothing like what it could have been, Boychick.

                4. How about frisbee? I took a frisbee to the temple one time, and that bitch hurt.

                  I bet your rabbi was pissed.

            3. I’m wondering why you’re now claiming that the property value question is fanciful and tangential (tangenital?), when you’re the one who brought it up to begin with.

              1. tangenital

                Is that like getting a sexchange to a gender besides male or female?

                1. tangenital

                  Instead of a tanning booth it’s a tanning glory hole.

                  1. Thanks Invis, that makes way more sense. Now, to go look up local tanning salons…

                    1. Yeah, I wouldn’t do that if I were you. While tanning beds are relatively safe, when used in moderation, the genitals are among the most susceptible areas on the body to various skin cancers. This is doe to the fact that they are typically covered with hair since the dawn of man and have adapted to the point where there is very little pigment in that skin.

                      That’s why I always wear a sock over my dick and balls when I tan.

          3. And you are so obviously not a property owner.

            My first condo was half a block from a park. When I looked for a house I said to myself “half a MILE from a park this time.”

            Live and learn. Beats insisting other people pay for your naiivete.

            1. fwiw, realtors are generally clueless about neighborhood quality . cops are not.

              before you buy any house, good idea to ask the local cop(s) about the neighborhood etc.

              1. Screw that.

                The best way to gauge neighborhood quality is to go to the local fast food joints on nights and weekends for a couple weeks in the summer and scope out the clientele.

              2. That’s actually a good tip. I’m moving the the Space Coast region of Florida in a couple months, and I would really like to know as much about the various neighborhoods as possible.

                1. ask a local cop or even better see if you can do a ridealong in the general area of where you want to buy. nobody sees (over a period of time) more about a neighborhood than the cops who police it.

                  my realtor wanted to sell me a house he truly thought was awesome. what he didn’t realize was it was pretty close to a “dirtbag” apartment that I wouldn’t want to be within walking, spitting, or average travel distance of a .40 S&W round from

                  1. ask a local cop or even better see if you can do a ridealong in the general area of where you want to buy.

                    And what do cops frequent? Fast food and doughnut shops. And why do they frequent them? Out of necessity. Easier to do it by yourself.

                    1. cops frequent places where people
                      1) call 911

                      they deal with people either being victimized or victimizing others.

                      they know where the dirtbags live, and where they prey upon others.

                      they can tell you if this neighborhood is such a place

                      they also respond to noise and other nuisance complaints.

                      quality of life matters to me. i prefer living next to people who aren’t scumbags, spouse beaters, running a dope house, or who have kids that routinely vandalize and steal etc.

                  2. ask a local cop or even better see if you can do a ridealong in the general area of where you want to buy.

                    Actually I was thinking of asking to help with a SWAT raid in the area. Good way to make the neighbors afraid to let their dogs or kids poop on my lawn.

                    1. if they are doing SWAT raids in that area… reconsider the neighborhood.

      3. here’s a hint. the park belongs to ALL of the public. that includes… wait for it… the homeless…

        fwiw, many local neighborhoods etc. have private parks. that, obviously- is different. my HOA has a pretty nice gated access private park btw.

        but in a public park? homeless have just as much right to be there as anybody else.

        1. Dunphy, I would like to go on a ride along with you. Of course, unless you live in Indiana. The only thing I want to do in Indiana is shit in people’s lawns.

          1. I’m in WA.

        2. here’s a hint. the park belongs to ALL of the public. that includes… wait for it… the homeless…

          fwiw, many local neighborhoods etc. have private parks. that, obviously- is different. my HOA has a pretty nice gated access private park btw.

          but in a public park? homeless have just as much right to be there as anybody else.

          But this is a tired disproven myth that people still hold onto. The “public”, in truth, refers to the most vocal constituents of the local officials. Those not persistent in their demands or freely giving of contributions to the officials are ignored.

    5. Orlando is trying to avoid having panhandlers hanging around the main downtown park. This may not be the best way to go about that, but they have been known to intimidate people in the downtown area.

  14. Externalities, how do they work?

  15. This is how fifty year olds get 24 year old chicks to hang out.

    24 year old chicks with hairy legs, but still…

    1. At least the leg hair isn’t wirey yet, and it’s a damn-sight-better than varicose veins.

    2. That’s right. They did not say what these 3 dudes were feeding the 24 year old homeless chicks.

  16. The park is public property, not the property of FNB. The rest of the public has a right to use the park without being accosted by the beggars they’re attracting.

    1. Then do something about the beggars who accost the public, when they do so. Since the homeless are not subhuman or noncitizens (last I checked), they also have a right to the park.

      1. I take it you wouldn’t be averse to having someone setting up a homeless feeder on the sidewalk in front of your home, and having to call the police every time a beggar harrasses you while you’re attempting to enter or leave the property.

        1. That would be the trash dumpster in the alley by my garage from the restaurant two doors down. Therefore, it already happens.

          A polite “FUCK YOU!” is all a beggar needs to stop harassing you.

          1. Presumably they’re not feeding them dumpster food… and you had better luck with beggars than I have if you think telling them to fuck off is sufficient to get rid of them.

            Once I invited a beggar to come with me to the convenience store across the street where I would buy him a microwaveable hamburger or something. “I don’t eat that shit” was his response.

            They’re not after food — they’re after cigs and alcohol (or maybe harder stuff even).

            1. Or maybe he just didn’t want to cram that disgusting processed shit down his colon. Just because he is homeless, doesn’t mean he is stupid.

              Oh, and fuck you.

              /jsubd

              1. I had no idea I was dealing with a connosieur beggar. Maybe I should invite him to Mitchell’s next time — perhaps he would approve of the swordfish?

                1. I am God.

                2. I had no idea I was dealing with a connosieur beggar.

                  Connoisseur, or someone who knows that shitfood = gonna be hungry again sooner.

            2. What wonderful blanket statements you make.

              While it’s true that the chronically homeless almost always have substance abuse/mental problems, there are also many transitionally homeless people who will take a meal. I know, because I’ve given them some, and they were grateful for it.

              Also, your comments apparently showing your disgust that gross people would dare to show themselves on public property are extremely disconcerting from someone who, supposedly as a libertarian, would advocate for charity over welfare. In fact, it sounds downright elitist, limo-liberal.

              And where I live, there are rights to passage on public sidewalks abutting private property, but rules about setting up shop for any purpose there, so your example wouldn’t hold. But no, I would not mind one bit if I was at the park and someone was doing a good deed such as feeding the homeless. I’d be disappointed in anyone displaying such a snobbish attitude.

              1. And where I live, there are rights to passage on public sidewalks abutting private property, but rules about setting up shop for any purpose there, so your example wouldn’t hold.

                But shouldn’t you be protesting against that rule as you’re protesting against Orlando’s rule against setting up shop in parks? What is different about a sidewalk from a park?

                1. What is different about a sidewalk from a park?

                  You’re grasping. A park is DESIGNED to be a gathering place, a sidewalk is not.

                  1. Parks are designed as gathering spaces? I’m not sure I accept that premise. There are plenty of areas of parkland I’ve been to where large gatherings would be contrary to the purpose of the park.

                    1. There are plenty of areas of parkland I’ve been to where large gatherings would be contrary to the purpose of the park.

                      So what? THIS park obviously can handle large gatherings because the city admits it with its permitting process.

                    2. Parks are designed as gathering spaces?

                      Unless it’s specifically built to another purpose (i.e. frisbee-golf park, etc) it’s absurd to act surprised that public parks are used as places for…well, the public…to gather. It’s called “public”, and it’s a huge open space, usually with picnic tables. Often families will have birthday parties or “gatherings” at them.

                      But then, you already knew that.

                  2. Another reason to privatize parks.

                2. What is different about a sidewalk from a park?

                  One is for passage, and the other is specifically for gathering. Of course, there shouldn’t be public spaces at all, anyway.

                  You’re really reaching for straws if you think it’s analogous to compare sidewalks running through private property with public spaces set aside for the act of public gathering.

                  1. I’ve walked through parks on my way to work, and gathered on sidewalks…so I don’t see that distinction.

                    1. Grats. So just like the comment last night about how YOU don’t see talking about killing someone as “blowing off steam”, therefore it should be illegal, we’re back to some aspect of the world being defined as you personally feel it should be.

                      Tulpa doesn’t see the distinction, therefore, the distinction must not exist. Clearly sidewalks about about 3-feet wide because they were made for large gatherings, and clearly the huge open expanses of parks, with tables, etc., are not intended for such a purpose. Clearly since cars can kill people, that is part of what they were designed to do. I don’t draw the distinction that just because a car can both 1) kill someone, and 2) transport them, that it is specifically made for one of those purposes, and not the other.

                    2. Today, the role of Tulpa evidently will be played by MNG. Arguing for argument’s sake?

                    3. No, my honor has been insulted. Too often, I’m afraid; now there must be (non-coercive) consequences.

            3. So rather than go after the harassing homeless, you prefer a blanket law that fucks over the well-behaved homeless, too.

              At least we know you’re not a friend of liberty.

            4. You don’t have to not have someone approach you on a public street asking for something.

              1. You don’t have a right to not have someone approach you on a public street asking for something.

                Yes we do, it’s part of the Right To Healthcare. Duh.

                1. “Yes we do, it’s part of the Right To Healthcare. Duh.”

                  The right to healthcare doesn’t involve asking for anything (Asking involves acknowledging the askees right to refuse)

                  1. That’s why i never ask homless to get out of my way, I run right through them.

                    1. If you’re not gonna take no for an answer, it’s telling, not asking. Even if couched as a question for the sake of courtesy.

        2. Actually, no. I am not a spineless NIMBY fuck.

          1. Good for you. Not sure what not wanting to be harassed has to do with being spineless, but OK.

        3. a homeless feeder doesn’t sound very sporting. at least Ice T got a head start in Surviving The Game.

          1. Agreed. I always like to stalk-hunt my homeless. Not only is it more fun, they tend to sweat out more of the crack and liquor that way. Makes for palatable sausage (never make steaks, your average homeless is far too stringy).

            1. What about fajitas?

              1. I wouldn’t recomend it. But if you must, please remember to first soak your homeless in a mixture of milk and beer.

                1. But if you must, please remember to first soak your homeless in a mixture of milk and beer.

                  Like I’m some sort of fajita noob. Thx though.

            2. Now I know where that abomination they call tri-tip comes from.

        4. having to call the police every time a beggar harrasses you while you’re attempting to enter or leave the property.

          Really? Couldn’t they slap you with a “wasting police resources” fine or something? Or, i dunno, just slap you. (I’d vote for the latter.)

          1. if you are constantly harassed by a guy as you enter or leave the property, get an anti-harassment order.

            duh

    2. seriously? if and when somebody is harassed, then they can be dealt with. this law is odious.

      fwiw, one of the most popular things to do in parks is eating. ever heard of a picnic?

    3. I’m not sure about the park, but I worked in downtown Orlando for a while, and walked past numerous homeless men everyday on my lunch break. None of them ever asked (or accosted) me for a single thing. There was one friendly guy in particular who would often stop us to tell us stories about the crazy guy the cops arrested on the bus or a drunk who passed out on Church St and pissed himself, etc. We used to buy him food pretty often, and on several occasions gave it to him directly in front of the police station, or in front of one of the bicycle cops who patrol downtown. None of the cops ever seemed to care in the slightest.

  17. Oh yeah, it needs to be said: these are the kinds of “actual” liberals that Tony doesn’t believe exist, because they help people of their own free will and without coercion.

    He’ll try to claim that the only reason these guys were feeding the homeless is b/c the gov’t made them do it.

    1. FNB advocates plenty of coercion on other issues.

      1. Not familiar with the group, but I’ll look up some info tonight at home. Anything they advocate coercion on, they should be condemned for.

  18. Threadjack: Weiner pulls out of speaking engagement.

  19. The homeless would be eating the wildlife if it weren’t illegal.

  20. An instructive Peter Bagge exploration of this issue from before the cosmo hipsters completely took over Reason.

    1. Wow. It’s like you only read page one.

      1. Page one is the only one relevant to this issue.

        Keep in mind that for all you know, I work in a soup kitchen and contribute money to homeless shelters. My beef isn’t with the homeless in general, most of whom are NOT beggars.

        1. Page one is only a rant about not liking obnoxious bums.

          1. And the clueless do-gooders who feed them. I believe there’s a comparison to leaving out cheese and complaining about mice.

            1. Where mice are inhuman vermin that need to be controlled for our benefit…ooooohhhhhh, I get it now.

              1. Non-human, un-human, but not in-human. Three vastly different concepts. Don’t feel bad, Sullum writes for a living but still doesn’t understand this distinction.

                1. Ok, I get what you’re sayin, Capt. Pedant.

                  Non-human = a dog, a rock, a martian

                  I’m not clear at all on the difference between un- and in- though. Doesn’t that work just like it does for flammable? (bad example, I don’t understand the rules for that one either.)

              2. Where mice are inhuman vermin that need to be controlled for our benefit…ooooohhhhhh, I get it now.

                I didn’t draw the cartoon, man. Take it up with Bagge.

            2. And the clueless do-gooders who feed them. I believe there’s a comparison to leaving out cheese and complaining about mice.

              The biggest piece of (government) cheese is the park!

    2. That might be my favorite Peter Bagge cartoon. Though the one in the new issue is pretty great, too.

    3. Did you read the entire thing?

      Additionally, we’re not defending the homeless. We’re defending the right of people to feed them if they want to, in public space, as long as the food isn’t being paid for with my tax dollars.

  21. a homeless feeder

    Now I understand why you get so much abuse. These are fucking human beings, not cattle.

    1. Uh, “homeless feeder” is pretty purely descriptive. Please address Tulpa’s point about whether you’d want homeless feeding outside your residence.

      Nobody said they weren’t human, just undesireable.

    2. I get abuse because I question the herd mentality here and make arguments instead of calling people names.

      1. No, you get abuse because you are a dickhole who hates liberty when it infringes on your comfort.

        Herd mentality…on here? I see more spirited debate on this blog than just about anywhere else.

        1. I see more spirited debate on this blog than just about anywhere else.

          Largely because of MNG, myself, and the trolls.

          1. Now that’s nonsense. I’ve argued with “good” libertarians here plenty of time. Diversity by itself isn’t that great of a virtue. If it were, we’d aim to be the Youtube comments section.

          2. I would say it is due to all of us being individualistic obnoxious assholes. Herding cats and all.

            1. Fuck you, Banjos, you may be a cat, but not me. Don’t put your bullshit collectivist labels on me.

              1. My cat said this exact same thing to me the other day, well I’m not entirely certain, he might have been saying “I’m hungry, bitch.”

        2. Tulpa|6.3.11 @ 6:36PM|#
          I get abuse because I…make arguments instead of calling people names.

          sloopyinca|6.3.11 @ 6:44PM|#
          No, you get abuse because you are a dickhole.

          1. Without Further Comment…I will chop your quote so it fits my argument.

      2. I did call Matt a cosmo hipster, so maybe I do call people names, sorry. But it’s not my first resort.

      3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        You have some serious sand in your vagina lately, Commodore. Did your Realdoll leave you for the pool boy? Did your pet potbellied pig croak? Did you miss an episode of The Young and The Restless?

  22. Don’t know about this particular Food Not Bombs franchise, but our local FNB group is mostly scruffy smelly anarchists, not hippies. Annoying in their do-good sincerity, but commitedly anti-statist and have pissed off some of the right people.

    1. I used to live near U of R (think Potter’s Pub) and moved further out in the West End years ago (think Rare Old Times) when I lived in the RIC. These guys were just a bunch of do-gooders as far as I can remember. They were basically a roving food bank that was very anti-war preachy but that was about it.

      I do miss that town.

      1. Shit, you lived not far from where I do now.

        We sometimes hit Potter’s Pub to celebrate after law school finals.

        Not familiar with Rare Old Times. I might have to check it out.

        1. Corner of Pump and Patterson.

          Go in there. Order a Guinness for me and pour it out in memory of Martin Creighton…one of the nicest bartenders and friends anyone could ever have. He died about 5 years ago of an aneurysm.

          1. Don’t waste the Guinness, Martin would have hated that. Enjoy it in his memory.

            BTW, Marty doing bass and vocal solo on “In the Ghetto” is one of my happiest ROT moments. So-shal!

            1. Do we know each other?

            2. You’re Jim Guy, aren’t you?

            3. Compromise: what was Martin’s favorite song. Rock that on the jukebox and then do like RichVA suggests.

              Seriously, I think even thugs recognize that pourin-some-to-the-curb is only applicable with cheap-ass beverages. I mean, maybe JayZ would pour some Chrystaal inmemorium, but he’s got that kinda money.

              If I’m paying some exorbitant bar price for beer, I’m sure as hell gonna drink it.

      2. We can hasz Richmond Reason meetup?

        BTW, ROT rocks, in an old-school way.

        1. I built their dartboard setup in there, btw. Used to play league darts out of there for my team, The Cleveland Steamers, before we had to move to Breakers. Goddammit. Another reason to hate central California…no fucking darts leagues.

          1. “built”? Like, you made the dart board/cabinet?

            1. I built the cabinets there. They used to have 5 across the wall where the booths are now and the shuffleboard was further down. That was 10 or so years ago. Andy let me drink for free for like 2 weeks for doing the work…a fair deal, to be sure.

              I built the one at Breakers, too. My crowning achievement.

        2. I’m in Richmond, too. I would be up for meeting a bunch of Reasonoids over some brews. Maybe Katherine would grace our gathering once in a while?

    2. Just out of curiousity, but how do you tell the difference between a “scruffy smelly anarchist” and a “hippie”?

  23. I prefer my homeless to be free range grassfed and then dry aged.

    Although fixing to a corn feeding for the last couple of weeks before… um… “harvesting” works well too.

  24. This is the worst audition for “America Has Talent” ever.

  25. The local FNB people I have met are all self-righteous shitbags who dive dumpsters and serve the dumpstered food to the homeless while lying about its source.

    When questioned on this, the response is that the food is perfectly good (“I eat dumpstered food all the time and I’ve never gotten sick”) and the FNB people know better than the homeless what’s good for them, so the deception is morally justified, because otherwise the homeless might not want to eat it.

    Oh, and it’s all vegan, too.

    1. iirc, these might be the people andrew zimmern met in his episode of bizarre foods in san fran. i know reasonoids are generally against labeling, but i have repeatedly said – i am for govt. mandated food labeling, but always against choice restricting stuff – like transfat bans, happy meal bans (san francisco) etc.

      granted, if i’m eating dumpster food, it would be nice to know

      1. I’m not FOR government-enforced labeling, the market will come up with labeled and unlabeled foods on its own. I can rightly or wrongly assume the stuff with no label came from a dumpster and eat it at my own risk.

        What I AM for is government punishment of fraudulent labeling. If you label it low-fat and it’s 50% fat, it’s fraud. If you make no claims then I can make up my own reason that you didn’t label it.

        Government labels never tell you how much rectum is in your beef jerky for example.

        1. Government labels never tell you how much rectum is in your beef jerky for example.

          Not enough!

          1. Tulpa: he loves the taste of rectum in the morning…

      2. Selling dumpster food as fresh would be fraud, which libertarians generally agree should be illegal.

        Giving it away is a trickier case. Fraud requires some sort of exchange of value following from the deceit, no? In Libertopia, if you get sick from it you probably could sue at least.

        1. Wouldn’t it be more fun to tape them getting the food out of dumpsters and talking crap about homeless people and show it on a big screen while they’re surrounded by homeless? Even if they don’t torn apart Romero style, their discomfort will be good for a laugh.

        2. correct. fraud requires something of pecuniary value in exchange, if i recall the proper language

          good… or ill will doesn’t count

        3. No, at common law fraud does not require any gain or any exchange of financial value. Of course today there are a multitude of specific statutory fraud laws with widely varying requirements. But in general, making a false, material statement that is honestly relied upon by the other party and results in either financial gain to the claimant or harm to the person relying on the claim, is fraud.

          In the present example, if you were to lie about the source of food and the recipient believed you, ate the food and got sick as a result, you’d be guilty of common law fraud even though you received nothing in return.

          1. i was referring to the elements of criminal fraud in my jurisdiction. that’s where there needs to be some sort of gain or attempted gain.

            civilly, there’s a lot more leeway

    2. My boyfriend dragged me to a FNB dinner.

      Honestly, I didn’t see any actual homeless there. Unless by homeless you mean “couch surfing hippie”.

      It was more like a big excuse for a bunch of smelly hippies to eat some vegan dumpstered food and hit on eachother.

  26. Don’t these people realize it’s the GOVERNMENTS job to feed the homeless…?

  27. Fuck That Shit. Period.

  28. A right to ever increasing property values, or to not be asked a question walking around an urban environment don’t fucking exist.

    In the immortal words of Tallahassee: “Nut up, or shut up.” Meaning that if living in an urban environment makes you uncomfortable, then move the fuck out.

    I don’t like about 90% of city living, but I’m not about to start throwing people in jail to make my lily-white ass more comfortable.

    1. The real issue is people cordoning off swaths of public property for their personal or organizational endeavors, in a way that prevents other members of the public from using said property. Same as the food trucks: once you do that, the city or county is your landlord and you abide by their rules.

      1. If I sit in a public park and share my meal with someone less fortunate there ain’t no way you can contort your argument to justify stopping me at the point of a gun.

        1. That’s not what these folks were doing. They were running a “group feeding” according to the article.

          1. So Tulpa, are you saying if I occupy a public space someone else wants to occupy, I should be subject to arrest?

            Does that also go for the kids on the swingsets when other kids are waiting? Or the merry-go-round being used by older kids spinning it too fast for the moms of the little snot-nosed 6 year old bastards?

            Jesus titty-fucking Christ. Public means public, and first come first served at that. If you don’t want people to feed the homeless in a public park, call a bunch of your friends and show up 30 minutes before the organizers do. Otherwise, quit your fucking whining.

            1. You shouldn’t be automatically arrested for occupying the park, but once you occupy it in a way that prevents others from using an area, you give up the freedom to behave as you wish…ie, the city becomes your landlord.

              To a statist, there’s really not much difference because they think the city has the right to force you to behave as they wish regardless of where you are. As a libertarian I don’t think the govt should be able to tell you what to do (beyond not harming others) unless you’re occupying govt property. So you guys should be happy.

          2. So it’s okay to stop 2 people from sharing their food, but not one person?

            Is that what you are saying?

            1. I don’t know how many leaves makes a heap, but I can tell the difference between a heap and a few leaves sitting on the ground.

              1. Are you fucking kidding me?

      2. Same as the food trucks: once you do that, the city or county is your landlord and you abide by their rules.

        Another passive-aggressive attempt to change the subject.

        People have a constitutional right to assembly. If you don’t want the right to apply to public spaces DESIGNED for assembly then try to pass a constitutional amendment that says the right only applies to privately owned spaces. Or better yet don’t build public gathering places to begin with. Otherwise, the city or county has to follow the rules.

        The government purposely creates the legal grey area and bad PR like this is exactly what they deserve for doing so. They could have handled it better but they wanted to flaunt their authority rather than their brains and humanity. As usual.

        1. Again, the 1st amendment wasn’t written with state and local govts in mind; the federal govt that it was written for originally owned very little property that was accessible to the public. An absolute freedom of assembly is going to make rights-of-way and other areas of public property unusable, just as an absolute freedom of speech is going to make the court system unworkable due to rampant perjury and threats, and an absolute freedom of religion is going to allow people to rape and kill so long as they claim it’s part of their religion. By the time the incorporation doctrine was “discovered” the courts had already abandoned a direct interpretation of the Constitution and BoR; otherwise the 1st could not possibly apply to the state legislatures, as none of them are named “Congress”. So you can pick between a literalist interpretation and the incorporation doctrine; not both.

          Enough with the self-righteous invokation of humanity. No way any of the people they were feeding go hungry even if there wasn’t food available in the park. There’s plenty of places on private property that will feed them.

          1. Who cares about the feds in such cases? The state constitutions have bills of rights with freedom of speech and assembly that have been written and/or interpreted more broadly than the federal anwyay.

  29. Honestly, though …

    People who feed the homeless in public parks tend to create a problem. The homeless start congregating there, knowing they can get fed, and it attracts crime. You get junkies coming around, and then you get dealers coming to sell drugs to the junkies, and then pretty soon the park becomes gang territory.

    This happened at a public park in downtown Phoenix near where some friends of mine lived. Last year, some firends of their son was jumped and beaten almost to death by thugs near the park. They broke his jaw and it was wired shut for a month.

    So, yeah, I can see why local residents would have a problem with people feeding the homeless in their neighborhood park.

    1. Perhaps if drugs weren’t criminalized, along with all the asset forfeiture that goes along with it, the junkies wouldn’t congregate in a publicly-owned space. It’s basically the same reason why drug dealers set up shop on street corners. The activity you don’t like is mostly created by another unnecessary, idiotic law.

      1. If drugs weren’t criminalized, there wouldn’t be criminal gangs behind the dealers. So yeah, it would be rendered much less harmful.

        I’m just pointing out why under the circumstances, there are legitimate reasons why people don’t want to attract crowds of homeless people to their area.

      2. I don’t the dissolute lives led by junkies is caused primarily by drugs being illegal. I think that’s caused by those people having poor impulse control to begin with and the drugs not helping that personality issue at all.

        While the drug war is bad, there are acyual problems associated which make it understandable why they were outlawed. Pretending those drug related problems don’t exist will not convince many people that the drug war is not solution to those problems.

        1. Alcohol, nicotine, sugar, fat, and caffeine probably don’t help their personalities either.

          1. Alcohol especially. I don’t think that downplaying or ignoring the problems caused by drug dependence is going to win any converts to anti-drug war side. You are going to have to come up with some alternative to incarceration that deals with drug addiction in a practical way, if you are serious about ending the drubwat

            1. How about the same way we deal with alcohol abuse? ie, making the drug in question totally legal (and thus cheap) and only punishing people who engage in activities that are likely to put others at risk?

    2. This is how it is with a lot of policy matters. Many innocent activities as a side effect encourage noxious activities, and then it’s too hard to thoroughly police the noxious, so they ban the innocent.

      1. sad, but true. it’s the reality of how a lot of this stuff gets passed in the first place

      2. The problem is that effective policing of only the truly noxious, after their noxiousness has been demonstrated, is going to require a far more omnipresent police force than we would feel comfortable with.

        So, the choices are

        (a) have a police officer on every corner,
        (b) tolerate the noxious behavior,
        (c) have slightly overbroad laws to prevent the noxious behavior before it happens.

        1. Only sometimes are the laws just slightly overbroad. Sometimes they’re ridiculously overbroad, as in the case of narcotics and liquor prohibitions.

          Sometimes the problem is one of scale, whereby “noxious” is a consequence of greater numbers or greater amount of something at a particular place & time, where it can’t be said that any individual bit of it by itself is even a little noxious, but the aggregate is. An example is the crowd control situation that is the apparent justif’n in the present case, which then leads to requirements for specific permission from authorities to be at a particular place & time. Such has often been the case with press passes.

          Years ago I heard of a proposal in New York City to put some sort of controls on the ambulances allowed to respond to a given emergency, because they were racing to the scene and thereby causing collisions in traffic. The idea was that if they took turns, then they’d have no incentive to speed to the scene to beat out competitors.

          In another thread here someone brought up the similar system of taxi pick-up at airports, which enormously slows things down by serving everyone one at a time, preventing ostensible chaos but tying up automotive traffic as badly as otherwise along with a loss of efficiency.

          1. Sorry, I got threads mixed up. The crowd control situation I meant was the to-do in Minneapolis regarding storm debris. In this case some would say the presence of even a single bum is noxious. Never mind, however, the fact that it’s just the relocation of the bum from someplace else, probably nearby.

    3. About 50 – 60 people show up per sharing. They are there about 90 minutes. They clean the area up before leaving. We’re not talking hundreds or thousands here.

      So eff the residents. They’re yuppie freaks scared to death of catching homeless themselves.

      1. The land area of Lake Eola Park is not that big (a relatively small strip of green space around the lake) and many people use it as a hiking/jogging trail. There are not many places where this group can hold a “feeding” and not disrupt the activities of everybody else. Also, Orlando has been concerned that downtown has gotten the reputation of being an unpleasant and dangerous place to be, to the detriment of the businesses in the area. It’s more than just some irrational response.

        1. Thanks for the details — I suspected that was the case if someone complained.

        2. Actually, the area of the park they use for the food sharing is away from the “main” area of the park, tucked away in a far corner by itself. And here’s the kicker…this area of the park is DESIGNED for large groups of people to have picnics and the like. Oops. FAIL.

          Next, MJ?

          1. Then it’s possible for the operation in question to get a picnic permit that would allow their gathering, huh? So what’s going on here? Are they discriminated against in the permitting process?

            1. They’re anarchists, in the sense that teenagers who expect their parents to stay out of their room, give them the car keys whenever they want, and prepare three meals a day for them are anarchists. So they probably wouldn’t want to apply for a permit.

              Even if they did, they probably want to do these feedings frequently, so the city would have reason to deny them the permit.

      2. That’s not necessarily true. In the park I mentioned, the homeless basically started camping out there, so they wouldn’t have far to travel to get the food.

  30. Why are these freaks wasting their time feeding the homeless? I thought that was what dumpsters were for?

    1. Why did your mama waste time birthing you? I thought that was what abortions were for.

      Thank you, I’ll be here all week. try the veal!

  31. Left wingers no doubt support the law, only governments should have the right to feed people. If there is competition to their welfare state there is a serious threat of losing lots of votes.

  32. Fucking Gestapo 🙁

  33. They mayor is probably a retired NY asshat.

    Actually, Orlando mayor, Buddy MacKay, is a born and raised Floridian who has long been active in state politics and is a pillar of the Democratic Party establishment. He was governor for a time, filling the last few days of the term of Lawton Chiles’ after Chiles died.

    The only part of your speculation that is accurate is that Buddy MacKay is most certainly an asshat. As others have often pointed out Florida produces some of the grandest asshats in the world.

    What I have not seen mentioned so far is that this law was passed expressly for the purpose of stopping FNB from their activities of feeding the homeless in Lake Eola Park.

    Left wingers no doubt support the law, only governments should have the right to feed people. If there is competition to their welfare state there is a serious threat of losing lots of votes

    I believe a big part of the City Council’s motive in passing this law is that they want the homeless
    herded into shelters, rather than living on the streets. For some reason there is a significant portion of the homeless population that does not like living in shelters.

    Laws like this tend to get support from both conservatives who disapprove of the lifestyle and think the homeless need to be disciplined and liberals who also disapprove of the lifestyle but think the homeless need to be cared for.

    1. and again… who are the villains? the cops? no

      the people WHO WROTE THE FUCKING LAW AND PASSED IT.

      hth

    2. That’s Buddy DYER, asshat. Get a friggin’ life. And try fact-checking sometime.

      I oughta bust you for lying in public….

      1. Whoops, sorry, I guess all asshats look alike.

        Got to remember, everything I say at Hit and Run is either wrong or I’m just lying.

        The correct part is that Buddy Dyer is a born and raised Floridian who has long been active in state politics and is a pillar of the Democratic Party establishment.

        And he is an asshat, of a more spectacular variety than New York could ever produce.

        1. Oh, and thanks for correcting the record.

          I don’t know why, but I just keep getting those asshats mixed up.

        2. One name: Bloomberg.

          I rest my case.

    3. For some reason there is a significant portion of the homeless population that does not like living in shelters.

      Shelters are unpleasant and sometimes dangerous places due to the nature of the population (many mentally ill and/or illegal drug users who need to steal as many pennies as possible). That’s why you don’t want to be homeless.

      Moving said population into a public park doesn’t solve the problem; it only puts anyone who wants to use the park into the same situation the shelter-avoiders were fleeing from.

  34. As the alleged mayor of Orlando, I’m here to tell all of you filthy bastids that we will bust anyone who makes ANT attempt to commit charitable acts in public.

    You have been warned, so blow me.

  35. Wow that is truly pathetic is it not? Hopefully the kangaroo courts will have mercy on them.

    http://www.hide-your-ip.at.tc

  36. “For some reason there is a significant portion of the homeless population that does not like living in shelters.” …Tulpa…(etal)|6.4.11 @ 9:14PM

    I’ve been homeless since 11-94.

    I’ve been on ‘Food-Stamps’ six times and mugged for ‘Food-Stamps’ six times, all by staff (or former staff) of shelters. I stopped using the ‘Food-Stamp’ program over 15 years ago. I can’t think of any good reason to take any valuables into a homeless shelter, particularly ‘entitlement benefits’.

    (Note: I’ve dumped about $3000 in cash in the last decade and a half, mostly to obscure political groups that start with the letter ‘l’, which makes more sense than getting mugged at homeless shelters)

    I frequently get lectured about how I need to solve the problems that led to my homelessness. I’m not sure how to do that. Part of the problem was 10K spent on jury duty ’88 to ’93, having been summoned to jury duty 3 times out-of-county and twice out-of-state. Judging from the comments here at this blog, jury trials are no big deal. I guess jury duty is always easy as long as it’s someone else’s problem. I’ll never recover in my lifetime from the damage from any of those hits on jury duty.

    Anyone want to go to jury duty for Food-Not-Bombs?

    1. […]having been summoned to jury duty 3 times out-of-county and twice out-of-state.

      I have to admit I’ve never heard of such a thing. How’d this come about, exactly?

  37. I have to admit I’ve never heard of such a thing. How’d this come about, exactly? Jake Boone|6.6.11 @ 3:05PM|#

    Exactly? How would I know. Approximately, Mono County to Inyo County, LA County to Inyo County, Riverside County to Inyo County, Reno NV to Inyo Co. CA and Phoenix AZ to Inyo Co. CA.

    I don’t have much to complain about for out-of-county jury duty with the kind of work I was doing at the time, but out-of-state jury duty is different. The last time was in Phoenix. What I got in my mailbox was three letters from the court:
    1) A summons to jury duty
    2) A letter demanding that I show up to court to explain why I didn’t show up for jury duty
    3) A letter explaining that I didn’t show up for court to explain why I didn’t show up to explain why I didn’t show up (failure to appear)

    The original summons had forwarding stamps on it from Bishop CA to Gen. Del. Boise ID to a PMB (private mail box) in Boise ID to Gen. Del. Phoenix AZ to a PMB in Glendale AZ. Under the big wad of forwarding stamps was printed in capital letters:
    POSTMASTER DO NOT FORWARD OUT OF INYO COUNTY

    I wasn’t able to get a driver’s license in AZ. I wasn’t able to get my truck registered in AZ. What I got in AZ was ‘help’ from lawyers to ‘keep me out of jail’. Without a driver’s license or vehicle registration, jail sounds fine to me.

    Some consider a drivers license to be a right, some say privilege and some say a responsibility. I say a driver’s license is a BFH (big fucking hassle) and vehicle registration for me was not a BFH, paying extra for business plates (commercial), but instead an EBFH (extra big fucking hassle).
    If you want exact details, ask the government. I don’t even know what the court cases were about. For all I know, it might have been just silly stuff, like a court case involving Food-not-bombs.

  38. I blame the kids parents. They should have taught their children a valuable lesson about peaceful resistance and the moral imperative of disobeying immoral laws by standing with their kids and telling the cops to go to hell. And then every other parent in the municipality should help their kids set up a lemonade stand. What are the cops gonna do? Arrest all the parents and stick all the kids into foster care? We roll over way too easily. I’ve been splitting my time between the US and Greece for the last several years, and it’s shit like this that makes me want to stay in Greece. They may have big, f-d up government, but at least they don’t try to regulate crap like this.

  39. Oops…commented on the wrong blog post, meant the above for the lemonade stand story! Although this is pretty f’d up, too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.