This 78-Year-Old Woman Was Arrested for Feeding the Poor
Norma Thornton of Bullhead City, Arizona, is suing for the right to help people in need.

One hundred and twenty days in jail, $1,431 in fines and fees, and up to two years of probation. These are the possible punishments a 78-year-old woman recently stared down for feeding the poor.
On March 8, 2022, police arrested Norma Thornton of Bullhead City, Arizona, for violating a city ordinance that criminalizes sharing food in a public park if that sharing is specifically motivated by charity. A former restauranteur, Thornton has spent her retirement years making hot food and doling it out to people in need. But that mission became significantly harder after the cops caught wind of it and broke up her criminal enterprise at the picnic tables in the park.
"I'm not making a big impact. It's not that much," she says in a recent video filmed about her case. "But at least some people have enough food to survive."
Before taking Thornton into custody, an officer can be heard on his body camera footage saying that the impending arrest was going to be "a PR nightmare." He was not wrong. The local press made Thornton's story a front page one, ultimately prompting the government to drop the charges but with the caveat that it would move to jail her should she have the audacity to reinvigorate the project.
So Thornton is suing, alleging the ordinance violates her right to equal protection, her right to due process, and her privileges and immunities of citizenship. She is not seeking financial damages but rather the right to continue giving out food to those who are hungry.
"It violates her fundamental right to assist people who she encounters in need," says Suranjan Sen, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, who is representing Thornton. "From the very beginning of this country, through the Underground Railroad to the Great Depression and beyond…this country grew and prospered because of people working to help each other out in private acts of charity."
Bullhead City's ordinance does have some exceptions. And it's those very exceptions that may render it unconstitutional. You may share food in the park, so long as it's not with the needy: Passing around food among friends is legal, for example, but it crosses over into unacceptable territory when it is given to those who cannot otherwise afford it. In practice, homeless people have been targeted by the cops for giving food to each other, because the metric by which police enforce the law is by keeping an eye out for folks who appear to be poor. Should a homeless person pass as otherwise, then it's likely he or she would be able to circumvent criminal enforcement.
This makes sense when considering the spirit of the law, which was passed to incentivize the unhoused to go to a shelter as opposed to seeking help from good Samaritans. But such attempts fail to consider the limitations of the state. As the Institute for Justice notes, Bullhead City's largest shelter has a whopping 46 beds, which are often all taken, and which precludes any remaining people from eating breakfast and dinner there; only lunch is available to those not living at the shelter. In effect, the law assumes that the government is capable of addressing this problem without any partnership with the public it claims to serve. (It's also worth noting that "the unhoused in Bullhead City tend to sleep in the desert," not in the park where Norma distributed food, according to the Institute for Justice.)
The government said that Thornton may continue her operation with a permit. Putting aside the absurdity inherent to that—why should someone need a license to help people?—carrying on with her efforts will not be as easy as they make it seem. She must seek that permit 5–60 days in advance, and the terms limit her charity to one two-hour "event" per month. It is also prohibitively expensive. "She spends half of her monthly income buying food for this to share with people," says Sen. "She doesn't have hundreds of dollars to put down every time she wants to share food. She doesn't have the money to get $1,000,000 in liability insurance coverage every time she wants to share food."
Bullhead City is not the first place to try solving homelessness by criminalizing it. A year ago to the day, I covered the case of Joshua Rohrer, a homeless veteran who was arrested and jailed in Gastonia, North Carolina, for panhandling. (His service dog was tased in the process; the animal was later hit by a car and died.) Such attempts at banning begging and charitable giving are plentiful. A Massachusetts' panhandling ban was deemed unconstitutional in 2020 after the state's highest court questioned its lopsidedness: How can it be legal to ask for money if it goes toward a ticket for a show, for example, but illegal if it goes to help someone without means?
That's not unlike the dilemma faced by Thornton, who wouldn't have been arrested that day had she been sharing food with a wealthier bunch. "We're seeking to establish that you cannot target people for criminal treatment specifically because they perform an act with a charitable motivation," says Sen. "This is a form of illegitimate discrimination."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
On March 8, 2022, police arrested Norma Thornton of Bullhead City, Arizona, for violating a city ordinance that criminalizes sharing food in a public park if that sharing is specifically motivated by charity.
So how far does this go? If a Bullhead City public official is lying in the street bleeding, can I render aid out of charity?
Use CREATIVITY to thwart the power pigs!!!
You see, your Government Almighty SAYS that it Loves Us All, but then, bends over backwards for some of the richer humanoids who say that the starving dirt-poor humanoids are like wild beasts, who will be attracted to free food, like crazy, lazy varmints, and crap all over the free-food-dispensing stations, AND their neighbors! So feeding the homeless is usually against the Compassionate Laws of Government! Private humanoids can’t feed the poor! Only the Loving Government, and Their Truly Selfless Servants may do that! To these hypocrites, I say, ‘You’re busted! I’m disgusted! You can’t be trusted!’
“Part of the Wisdom of the Smart People is to be CREATIVE, though, when thwarting the hypocrites! Do not heedlessly seek needless confrontation! Certainly NOT for its own sake, which will quickly become virtue-signaling self-righteousness! Seek the Middle Ways of seeking Kind Ends, by ANY Kind Means! In this case, what this means is, find your middle-class or even rich benefactors… They are Out There… If you build it, they will come… And explain to them, if challenged, that it is NEVER against the laws, so far at least, to dump your unwanted trash in a public trash can!
“Tell them, if asked, that you took your unwanted fresh sandwiches, wrapped them in clean wrappers, and then suddenly decided to dump them in a public trash can. Maybe you randomly decided to proclaim loudly to hungry passers-by, ‘Oh my! Ooops! Oh, what a FOOL am I!!! I’ve made me WAAAY too many delicious, freshly made and cleanly wrapped sandwiches, and me and my homies, friends, fiends, and family? We can NEVER, EVER eat them all, before they spoil! So I guess that I have NO choice, then, but to dump them, in a responsible manner, right here! And I sure hope that no sub-animal homeless humanoids will go dumpster-diving after me, and risk contaminating themselves, while knowing fully well that their government would rather have them STARVE, than to eat my suspected-subversive, submersible submarine sandwiches !”
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (vdr-02) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link————————————–>>> http://Www.TopCityPay.Com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
?? ?????? ???? $??? ? ????? ??????? ???? ????. ? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??. ????, ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ????. ???? ?? ???? ? ??.
??? ???? ????.????…….>>> Topcitypay
Nope. Verboten. Don't even call 911. Make 'em crawl to a payphone. And don't you DARE give them a quarter to use it with!
We had a similar case here in St. Louis.
https://www.courthousenews.com/panel-rules-against-church-leaders-who-gave-bologna-sandwiches-to-homeless/
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this article... http://www.Profit97.com
?? ?????? ???? $??? ? ????? ??????? ???? ????. ? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??. ????, ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ????. ???? ?? ???? ? ??.
??? ???? ????.????…….>>> Topcitypay
I don’t know where the idea started that police have to arrest everyone suspected of violating an ordinance as the first step in the process. As far as I know the option of serving people with a “cease and desist” order is always available for non-violent crimes or situations not involving immediate public safety concerns. If the response to a complaint had simply gone to the prosecutor’s office and the prosecutor had simply investigated the situation and made a decision, it would not have become a “PR nightmare” and due process would have been served. That way if there is some doubt about whether the ordinance is constitutional, appeals could have been pursued in a much less dramatic way. America has strayed so far from the rational by now that I don’t see any way to pull back from the looming crisis we are now facing.
If anything, couldn't they just write her a fucking ticket? The police do have other methods of interaction besides bullets and handcuffs available to them.
In Spokane, we currently have a problem with a homeless encampment calling itself ‘Camp Hope’ which encompasses one square block of land owned but the EA State DOT. At first, people were ok with it. However, when the homeless are concentrated in a particular place, property crime, sexual assaults, and other violent crimes skyrocket.
Camp Hope is no exception. It is a bad neighbor and a nightmare for everyone around it. The City of Spokane is now working to remove these people because of ongoing unrelenting problems. People might call it NIMBYism, but who should have to put up with that? A large number of these people, willingly live off the rest of,us and have no interest I doing anything other than subsisting off public money, and committing crimes with the endless amount of free time at their disposal. With little to no accountability for their actions.
It’s nice that this lady wants to help people, but I suspect that there was a tangible impetus for the city’s actions.
Easy bust.
The low hanging fruit gets picked first.
Her heart is in the right place, but in the long run, she isn’t doing anything that will help the homeless get off the street. If fact, it might be hindering it.
Should she decide for herself if this is true, or not? Or should Government Almighty decide for her, instead?
She's trying to feed them, not get them off the street. Unless she's burning down homeless shelters, getting them off the street is not her problem.
Neither is feeding them.
So what's your proposal to "help the homeless get off the street"? As the article already points out, the city has a proposal (a single shelter) that is failing rather catastrophically.
It's called moving the goalposts and making a strawman argument. His name should be "retarded fallacy boy."
Ideas!
I generally agree with the details here as I understand it, though the longer diatribe about homelessness I have more issues with. Now's not the place for that though. I want to highlight this aside describing a different case in NC:
(His service dog was tased in the process; the animal was later hit by a car and died.)
I actually laughed at this sentence. Not because of the poor dog, but just the weird juxtaposition here of a seemingly unrelated event with a bad police action. Such a weird chunk of writing.
Okay, I got it. The dog was sent off by the cops when the man was arrested and got hit by a car when wandering the streets. That makes more sense to me.
I was reading it more like, "my grandfather was spit upon as a child for being an Italian; last year he got hit by a car and died."
Did they not have any bullets left to shoot the dog?
A GOOD Boy Scout is always prepared!
A GOOD cop always saves a few bullets for shooting your dogs!
Isn't the whole purpose of municipal taxation of residences to confiscate homes and MAKE people homeless? When was the last time you saw repeal or a cap on such taxes on a ballot?
You mean property tax changes? I don't know. I'd have to look, it probably changes often enough up and down in many counties in the US.
I think Arizona did a thing on ending property taxes on people over a certain age whose home is worth less than X. I think it's called our homesteading law.
Nope, I'm wrong. Homesteading Exemption in Arizona has to do with shielding some amount of value of one's property from confiscation due to suits brought against a person.
So, I don't know. Property tax is low in Arizona on average, so it tends to not get that much attention. I do have some concerns about what you named though about one never fully owning their own land due to property taxes due.
Arizona has a proposition this year to cap property taxes for certain classes of people.
Kicking old people and cripples out on the street is never a good look.
20 days in jail? Amateur. The abortion protestors are facing 11 years.
"Hang Mike Pence!"
If the Trumpanzees gone apeshit had had their way, Mike Pence would have gotten "capital punishment" for NOT blessing Der TrumpfenFuhrer as THE TrumptatorShit Commandeered Commander-Emperor for Eternal LIFE!!!
JesseAZ, what is your take on this case? I don't know why Bullhead City was worried about this lady sharing her food for charitable purposes based on religious beliefs. What was the problem here? Was Bullhead City worried about liability from food poisoning?
It's clearly a way to discourage homeless people from congregating in parks.
I should not have written “clearly” but that’s most likely what it was. The discussion in the article about how police tend to only apply to homeless reinforces this. When you see most of these public conduct laws, like this, jaywalking, public drinking, standing at interstate offramps, they're usually laws built to deal with public homelessness.
If you're interested in reading, this article seems to cover Reed Vs. City of Gilbert which is what basically disallowed anti-panhandling laws in the US:
https://columbialawreview.org/content/panhandling-regulation-after-reed-v-town-of-gilbert/
It's a hard question. Binion cites what appears to be a related case that was remanded under the Gilbert decision, but he probably should just cite this case as the major ruling. This didn't get a lot of attention, but has caused a big shift in local laws since its release.
Dallas busted hippies for "incitement to litter." Handing out leaflets asking Dallasites to NOT lynch, murder or oppress blacks--3 blocks from Dealy Plaza the week RFK was gunned down was, de facto and de jure, exactly that.
Pigeons are so discouraged by feeding them poison. The looters passed a 1908 law empowering politicians to order bureaucrats to add methanol to alcohol so as to blind and kill all who do not pay the sumptuary excise on ethanol. So why not order the lady to hand out cyanide Kool-Ade as the Christian thing to do?
Bullhead city is a fucked up city of other city rejects whose population changes immensely during summer for travel. Mobile homes are the norm. The government there is fucked up because the year round government loves abusing the part time residents.
I disagree with this law in general where feeding the homeless doesn’t impede business or private residences. I’d be somewhat against it in neighborhood parks supported by local taxes as well as it removes a resource of the community. There are parks even in Tucson residents don't go to because of violence and drug users from the homeless.
But bullhead city is a fucked up place in general. Bunch of geriatric power hungry assholes that make your 70 year old HOA president seem sane.
I should add these services should be done in conjunction with property owners to isolate and take responsibility for the damages of the congregation of homeless that do add costs both to damages and risks.
There are parks even in Tucson residents don’t go to because of violence and drug users from the homeless.
We used to have “Homeless Park” which was either Armory Park or the one at Stone and Speedway. Now, there’s so many you really do have to specify. All around downtown and near the U mostly.
And interesting thing about the Stone/Speedway park was that it used to not be so bad until the Occupy Wallstreet protests. There were a long contingent of people who stayed there for months (despite Tucson not actually having any financial institutions of note), but slowly they got replaced with homeless people and at some point when the protest finally died the park was filled with homeless.
There’s something there that’s interesting.
Edit: Apparently it is called "Anza Park" I never knew that despite living near it for years, and having driven past it probably thousands of times.
The last time I was in Tucson, I gassed up at the Circle K at 6th and Speedway (two blocks from Anza Park). A most-vulnerable rode up on a bicycle and asked me if I was interested in buying the weed-whacker that he was carrying across his handlebars. I rather suspect that both bicycle and weed-whacker had recently been liberated from an unlocked shed or unfenced backyard.
Friends who live in West University tell me that this sort of thing is routine. One has to lock everything up, or it'll vanish, presumably to be turned into cash for the purchase of fortified wine.
The people who do the homeless-feeding don't have to deal with this, of course. They drive down from the Foothills, spend a couple of hours ladling soup and basking in their moral superiority, then drive back to their gated communities; then, when the residents of the feeding-station's neighborhood complain, condemn them as racists and bigots.
Large retiree community, like snowbirds? = The government there is fucked up because the year round government loves abusing the part time residents.
Read my post about the current situation in Spokane I posted above. That’s pretty illustrative of why they’re probably trying to stop her. Given Reason’s one sided half ass reporting, it’s hard to be sure.
So, a tangent. I'm about to finish a book called Down And Out in Paris and London. It's striking to me to see that Orwell was a fucking hipster as a youngster, and that hipsters then are basically the same as hipsters now. Mostly though I'm struck by his stories of being homeless in London and the other impoverished people he meets.
I'm really struck by how it's the same as we see now in a lot of ways, you have extremely down and out people with problems, you have addicts, you have people who seemingly just don't mind their lot that much, ya see a lot.
It makes me wonder how one actually deals with the problem of homelessness. One thing we can do is the deregulatory stuff that Reason talks about, bring back slums basically. Allow more people to create these places that charge 10 bucks a night for a bed in a room with 30 other dudes. This obviously will have problems as well, but that solution worked for a long time.
That, at best though, solves the question of "homelessness" in the banal way of making sure people have a place to sleep at night. I'm unsure that it moves us much towards a larger underlying question of what do we do with those living this marginal existence? This is a problem we're seeing a lot in the US as many cities are flooded by tramps without a whole lot to do, and the trouble they cause. Putting them indoors at night solves some problems, but does not solve many. And we see that this often leads to a situation where cities that offer the most amenities get rewarded by getting flooded with homeless.
I don't really have an answer to this though. It's a hard question, and I think it's one with solutions only on the margins. Because I do think there is some hard percentage of people who simply do not care and are happy to be unemployed and homeless if no home is available, and unemployed and homed if one is given to them.
Finally, someone who reads! Next try some Jacob Riis, concluding that the only solution is added violent coercion and taxation by the Political State. These may sound bad, but when the motives are altruistic, they're not--according to Riis and his admirer Teedy Rosenfeld.
"It makes me wonder how one actually deals with the problem of homelessness."
But not whether that is actually the real problem here at all? Homelessness is generally a symptom of much bigger problems, and if you deal with those, homelessness stops being a problem in the same way.
Almost all involuntarily homeless people have mental health problems that prevent them dealing with the processes involved in keeping them housed. It is a failure of process rather than anything else.
Yes, and by handing out free food and tents, you enable their homelessness.
why should someone need a license to help people?
Think of the JOBS!
I bet she could pretty easily find a neutral place to do her charity work.
Very few public parks were built and maintained to provide a shanty town for mentally ill drug abusers.
It is not unreasonable for municipalities to want to ensure that public spaces are safe and clean.
It seems more humane to pass regulations that discourage people turning parks into homeless encampments than go back to the old method of rousting bums and escorting them to the town line.
Why didn't she feed them in the privacy of her home?
That would definitely solve the issue of her doing it in public.
She was handing out food? Not cyanide or fentanyl? I can see how God's Own Prohibitionists would get violently worked up over that. To blatantly compete with Chick-Fil-A, actually cutting prices, ghasp! She's lucky not to have been shot, tased to death or have her throat knelt on for an hour or so.
I's surprised she didn't get the death penalty for such a crime.
I think that it's perfectly reasonable that someone 'feeding the poor' could create a public nuisance. And no, having your heart in the right place does not make you an exception to the law. I volunteer at a food pantry, and we help feed hungry people. We do it in a way that increases order in society. People who decide to do good on their own often end up causing more problems than they solve. Like the women who feed feral cats, or the people who feed ducks at a pond, and end up polluting the water. The hunger of people living on the street is a greater problem than can be solved by 'I'll be nice today.'
I doubt she had any illusions about single-handedly solving the homeless problem as so many in the comments have argued.
She just wanted to make a few peoples' day less crappy.
Don't you understand that doing it in a way that "increases order in society" is more important than feeding people???
Governments want no interference with their ability to control poor people by feeding and starving them.
Typical Reason article; no mention of (D) or (R), no mention of skin color.
Typical Wikipedia, nice long article on the city, no mention of (D) or (R), nice census breakdown of race though, totaling 120.3%.
I would think that by now cities would have figured out to arrest these do-gooders for public nuisance based on the actual response to the charity, rather than just on charity alone.
Oh, wait. Giving food to the hungry may not actually create a public nuisance.
Come on, Reason. The only issue here is private actions vs. government compulsion
(and money; we can't forget those lovely fees for living your life)
Some things happen in an unimaginable way
All we have to do is reconsider the things that hinder helping others