Police Abuse

America's Rising Crime Problem: Feeding the Homeless; 90-Year-Old Criminal Arrested for It

|

Whenever a criminal is daring to feed the homeless, America's finest are on it. The latest, out of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, involved collaring a 90-year-old menace to society, as told by TV station KHON-2:

On Sunday, the city charged three people, including two ministers and a 90-year-old homeless advocate, and they could face up to 60-days in jail for their so-called crime.

"I fully believe that I am my brother's keeper. Love they neighbor as thy self," explained Arnold Abbott.

90-year-old Abbott prepares hundreds of meals each week for the homeless in the kitchen of the Sanctuary Church….

He faces possible jail time and a $500 fine for feeding the homeless after he was charged Sunday with violating a new ordinance that virtually outlaws groups from sharing food with the hungry in the city.

"One of police officers came over and said 'Drop that plate right now,' as if I was carrying a weapon," Abbott said.

Also charged was a minister from Coral Springs and Sanctuary Church pastor, Wayne Black.

"We believe very strongly that Jesus taught us that we are to feed his sheep," said Pastor Black.

Reason has alas had way too many occasions to blog about the national law enforcement war against feeding the homeless in this most Christian of nations.

Reason TV on Philadelphia's war on feeding the homeless:

NEXT: CNN Exit Polls Capture Angry Voter Base

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. The homeless are just like pigeons.

  2. What about people’s freedom not to look at bums? How about THAT!

  3. They didn’t pay the vig.

  4. Ordinarily we’re told that we have no freedom of association when money changes hands, because that’s “commerce”.

    Apparently we have no freedom of association even when NO money changes hands, because Fuck You That’s Why.

    1. Come to think of it, the “fines” aren’t “fines”; they’re “taxes”, ’cause no commerce = commerce!
      Damn that Roberts is on TOP of things!

    2. You’re confusing the federal government, which has to justify many if it’s laws under the commerce clause, with state/local which has the Police Power.

      1. The 1st Amendment has been incorporated against the states.

        1. Yes. My point is that you referenced commerce, but that’s only brought up in federal cases as the enumerated power under which government has the power to act. State/local governments don’t need that base for their actions (this, btw, is why I’m not enamored with states rights federalism like some here).

  5. What a fucking awesome country.

  6. Could the law be challenged on 1st amendment freedom of religion grounds? It shouldn’t have to be on religious grounds but this particular group might have that on their side.

  7. What’s the lore? Nothing agin’ the state, nothin’ outside the state…

  8. You know, being the cold and callous bitch that I am, I’m not much for charity work, but there seems to be something wrong with a society that upholds altruistic intentions but also punishes those same tendencies. Wtf?

  9. “I fully believe that I am my brother’s keeper. Love they neighbor as thy self,” explained Arnold Abbott.

    *facepalm*

    Oh shit, if he started spewing the Christfag stuff, it’s all over for him. Progressives HATE that shit.

  10. “One of police officers came over and said ‘Drop that plate right now,’ as if I was carrying a weapon,” Abbott said.

    He feared for his safety.

    1. I think the cop wanted to scarf down the food.

  11. Ah, the city where I work continues to make headlines for all the right reasons. I was wondering when this one would hit H&R.

    Here’s a local report from when the ordinance was passed last week. Basically, the reasoning was FYTW and “IT’S DAH LAW”, and the (excellent) response was a middle finger daring government to enforce this idiotic law.

    This city is a joke, yet it’s not nearly as bad as Miami or West Palm Beach.

  12. You can feed yourself. You can feed friends and family and guests. But suddenly when it’s a hobo you can’t?

    The truth is, that even while most of these ordinances claim to be about health and protecting the homeless, it’s actually about preventing feeding the homeless so they’ll go away. So the end result you see is exactly what is intended.

    Also, fuck you, that’s why.

    1. But suddenly when it’s a hobo you can’t?

      So….no leaving a trail of sandwiches as hobo bait then? HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO FILL THE GAME PARK?!?!!

      1. I think it’s different if you don’t actually hand the food to them yourself. Of course, I have my own interests at heart, wanting to play the most dangerous game, after all.

      2. I see you’ve also seen Surviving the Game.

        1. I try to watch as many Busey movies as possible. He’s so much scarier than any horror movie I could watch.

          1. Did you watch Entourage? He guest starred as himself a bunch of times and scared the shit out of Johnny Drama, it’s hilarious. If you haven’t seen the show, it’s great. Also Bob Saget playing himself is funny as shit.

    2. Imagine if someone tried to give a hobo a read in his car?

    3. Note that the city passed this ordinance and also took money from the city budget to set up a fund to buy homeless people bus tickets out of here if they say they want to leave. Push the problem off on other cities, just get them out of here. And this ordinance will get more of them to get the hell out of here.

      Now that I think of it, you’re right. That’s probably the whole idea.

    4. Is it to make the homeless go away, or is it to keep volunteers fromdoing jobs,that should be done the Certified Government Way (that incidentally employs Union workers)? Cause I camsee it being either or both.

  13. Don’t you see??? If we let just ANYBODY help the disadvantaged, it might catch on. And then there might eventually be hundreds or even thousands of local groups helping the disadvantaged in an efficient, locally focused way. And next people might start questioning why we need big, centrally managed, one-size-fits-all govt. programs.

    1. Exactly so.

      I have often argued that government programs are the opposite of charity, because the aim is to create dependency.

      But, until recently when I saw cases like this, I didn’t think that the aim of the nanny state was to SUPPRESS charity and real compassion for others.

      1. Minr quibble; I don’t think the aim is to foster dependency, because I think the Statists believe all us little people already depend on the State whether we know it or not. I think the motivation is “They don’t have the right certificates,degrees, and blessings. They’ll do it wrong”

  14. Remember “Government is just the name for the things we do together.”

  15. Stupid Godbags and Christfags need to learn their place. Under the boot of Caesar.

  16. there seems to be something wrong with a society that upholds altruistic intentions but also punishes those same tendencies. Wtf?

    Those altruistic bastards are undermining good union jobs.

  17. If I gave someone permission to play badminton in my yard, but they proceeded to set up a table for feeding cheese to rats, attracting them from all over the neighborhood onto my property, I’d be pissed. Wouldn’t you?

    1. Holy shit you’re retarded. That may be the dumbest analogy I’ve seen in a while. Congratulations, you are a moron.

      1. Peter Bagge had the same analogy in one of his commic strips.

        https://reason.com/archives/2007/04/04/bums

        1. Except that Bagge is quoting one of his coworkers, and it’s just as retarded a sentiment when it comes from him. But hey, nice try to appeal to…uh…authority?

          You’re still a moron.

    2. The 1st Amendment says that if you’re the government you can’t stop people from freely associating in your “yard”.

      1. So if I want to play a basketball game across an interstate highway, the government can’t tell me I can’t.

        1. Actually, I don’t think that restricting any public road from the use of pedestrians is all that kosher. And if those pedestrians want to toss a ball back and forth, tough shit if you don’t like it.

          That might slow traffic down, but public spaces are for the public, and not for the convenience of SOME members of the public over and above others, as far as I am concerned.

          The fact that this would make public highways difficult to run really isn’t my concern. Privatize the highway system, if running the highways efficiently requires arbitrary authority.

          1. Thank god you’re nowhere near the levers of power.

            1. Look, the fact that you’ve heavily invested in setting up social systems built around a certain set of assumptions is not really my fucking problem.

              Ultimately you’ll discover that it’s just not possible to maintain any freedom at all without a rigorous definition of public and private space, and without the brutal and unambiguous application of the plain-text principles in the Bill of Rights to all state activity.

              We’ve been trying it your way – with broad public spaces that we kinda-sorta-sometimes administer in accordance with the Constitution, but not when it’s inconvenient to somebody who doesn’t like to see homeless people in the park, or who likes highways to be run a certain way – and it’s slowly spinning us down into an authoritarian shithole. That’s because there’s no other way for it to go. What you want can’t be done.

            2. It’s funny, I was just thinking the same about you.

          2. Nothing wrong with people throwing a ball around on the highway, so long as they understand there may be certain consequences to that action.

            1. Following up, if I want to ride motorcycles with a bunch of my biker buddies (peaceable assembly) across a basketball court in a public partk, while other people want to use it to play basketball, is that OK too?

    3. I thought this Hess ways Tulpa.

  18. Fucking bums.

    And I don’t mean the hobos.

  19. If we let this guy just feed the homeless willynilly, it could encourage people to live on the street just so they can get free food.

    1. I suppose he was running a check to make sure they were in fact homeless? Do they have homeless ID cards?

      Maybe you’ve never lived in a city, but there are entitled assholes who make a good living off of pretending to be homeless and hungry. Not the kind of people I want in my park.

      1. Those people don’t tend to hang out to get free food, because they’re not interested in that, they’re interested in panhandling.

        And even if they are, who gives a shit? You’re giving them food. I don’t see a downside.

        1. Panhandlers don’t have to eat?

          Read the Peter Bagge cartoon.

      2. It’s not “your” park you fucking mongoloid. You can’t have public spaces yet have your personal preferences be the rule in them. If you want that, buy your own property or advocate for not having public spaces. The lion’s share of your stupidity in this is your inability to realize that when you have a public space, it creates lots of problems because you want one thing and someone else wants another and neither of you own it.

        1. It’s not my personal preferences, it’s the preferences of the community. If anybody can do anything they want on public property, soon nobody will be able to do anything they want on public property. It’s like YouTube comments.

          1. There is no such thing as the preferences of the community, you imbecile. There are only individuals, which is why these problems go away when property is privately owned.

            Does being this stupid give you pause at any time during your day, or do you just sail right through each one?

            1. And a lot of other problems arise when there is no public property.

              But back to the point, this article isn’t complaining about there being public property, it’s complaining about people not being allowed to use public property as a food trough.

              1. it’s complaining about people not being allowed to use public property as a food trough particular individual sees fit.

                Fixed that for ya.

      3. there are entitled assholes

        I call them Democrats.

  20. And if you read the actual story, the law only forbids mass feedings on public property. It doesn’t affect your ability to feed people on your own property (and deal with the consequences this brings upon your own land).

    1. I have the right to freely associate with other citizens on public property.

      1. Limited by other people’s rights to use said public property as it was intended to be used.

        A sidewalk isn’t supposed to be a feeding trough.

        1. I don’t see that part of the 1st Amendment.

          1. I don’t see the part that allows the govt to punish death threats either.

            It’s called adapting the ideals to the needs of a real functioning socieity.

            1. You don’t remind me of any previous sockpuppet troll. You must be new.

              You started off well, but you’re getting a bit too over-the-top statist to be believable. You should dial it back a little.

              1. How bout you dial back the ad hominem quotient and then we can talk?

  21. Not the kind of people I want in my park.

    Spoiler Alert:

    IT’S NOT YOUR PARK.

  22. You don’t remind me of any previous sockpuppet troll.

    Not sure if serious.

    1. Is it Tulpa? I mean, that crossed my mind, but sometimes I think every one of our statist trolls is Tulpa, and that just can’t be true.

      1. It doesn’t sound like Tulpa, and Tulpa is remarkably unable to disguise his “voice”, so I doubt it.

  23. I try not to indulge in socktroll witch hunts, but this line of argumentation seems eerily familiar.

    1. Yes, it’s called logical reasoning.

    2. I might be coming around to agreeing with you on that, Brooksie. He might have learned how to disguise his “voice”, but he can’t hide his retarded thought patterns, no matter how hard he tries.

  24. Good one, Merle, but I see nothing but appeals to emotion in your whining.

  25. Wouldn’t it be more efficient and unobjectionable for these people to give people money so they could simply buy food?

    1. Many of the homeless would spend that money on alchohol, cigaretts and other drugs. Seriously. If you give them a meal you know they are getting a meal.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.