News   Aug 30, 2024
 3.2K     2 
News   Aug 30, 2024
 3K     1 
News   Aug 30, 2024
 673     0 

Another Admiral Beez rant against panhandlers

No, but he certainly shouldn't be surprised taunts lead to escalation of some kind. From a contrarian argument, what really did he expect when taunting someone, exactly? That he can hurl abuse and the other party will remain inert?

Yes, he would have been shocked that it escalated. If it was at all reasonable that it could have escalated to murder, either him or the panhandler would have stopped it. This simply does not happen in our society. Well, until now...
 
No, but he certainly shouldn't be surprised taunts lead to escalation of some kind. From a contrarian argument, what really did he expect when taunting someone, exactly? That he can hurl abuse and the other party will remain inert?


really it does not matter....

It was a crazy panhandler asking for money who murdered him and it shows the panhandlers are getting much more violent...
 
Lordmandeep, come on. That's ridiculous. This happened once. It does not show anything about panhandlers as a group. Does Robert Pickton show that violence is increasing among farmers?
 
Lordmandeep, come on. That's ridiculous. This happened once. It does not show anything about panhandlers as a group. Does Robert Pickton show that violence is increasing among farmers?


of course it does. i don't know about you but i also don't trust anyone driving a ford bronco.
 
That's why Ford decided to get away from that fugitive-from-justice connotation of the Bronco and replaced it with their new model...the Escape.
 
The behaviour of a few of the "Squeegee persons" can be quite intimidating to drivers, particularly to females. Whether they are homelessor not, this form of panhandling is especially undesirable. It's evident even from a brief encounter that some of them have mental issues. It's not the same as those who quietly sitting on a sidewalk with a cup in fromt of them, which few people find intimidating and which does not bother me.

Alvin, I regret that you seem to show so little compassion for the man who was (allegedly) killed by a panhandler recently on Queen Street, or his family. I don't know (and suggest that you don't know, unless you have some inside source) what words exactly were exchanged on the street that day, but if a rude retort was actually directed at these street people, it does not justify any assault, much less a fatal one. I'm sure that the persons allegedly involved in this incident had heard their share of rude comments before, and if they had any maturity at all, or even any basic "street smarts", they would simply shrug it off and move on.
 
have you not been yelled at or even followed by these people...

Most just sit on the side of the sidewalk and ask for change and act very politely..


However many still act in a very aggressive manner and really being approached by these people who yell and scream at you is intimidating for me and many of my friends. I can't imagine how it feels for women...

Its a safety and security issue and a quality of life issue.


Your a damn bleeding heart idealist who bleeds his heart out for the wrong people.

Your the type of person who would charge the man who shot someone for breaking into their house and endangering their family then the person who broke into a house.
 
^ I'd charge that man...no one breaks into houses to harm people and the punishment for theft in this country is not execution.
 
i agree with that, if the man is just stealing really.



but if the man lets say attacks the people in that house, i think any measure to protect yourself is acceptable.

People do break into houses rarely i must say to just attack people.



Its a very confusing and controversial issue really but i think we really can't debate it unless we are faced with such a situation first hand.

If someone did break into my house and if i was threatened i would attack...


Anyways back to the issue, why doesn't NYC have so many panhandlers?? (just more curiosity sake)
 
Lordmandeep, is it me that you're calling the damned bleeding heart idealist this time? I live downtown (at the Squeegee Corner of lore, no less) and deal with homeless people/panhandlers every day. I haven't been harassed, yelled at, or followed in a very long time. I simply respond every time with a polite but firm "Sorry." I completely understand that it is intimidating for a lot of people, and I support legislation protecting the public from highly agressive forms of solicitation, and I support proactive approaches to place homeless people into decent housing (that doesn't not include prison). Pointing out that it is a logical fallacy to claim that violence is rising among a large group simply based on one extremely isolated incident does not make me a damned bleeding heart idealist or anything else.

If someone threatens you with deadly force, you can legitimately respond with equally deadly force. Someone breaking into your house and making you feel "threatened" does not justify killing them, unless they were attacking you or someone else, using force that could be reasonably assumed to be deadly. The whole Criminal Code section on self-defence is based on proportionality. You are allowed to use as much force as necessary to defend yourself or your home, but no more. In no case would defending your home require killing someone. Note that this doesn't mean that I think breaking in to houses is okay. It just doesn't justify vigilante executions.
 
Alvin, I regret that you seem to show so little compassion for the man who was (allegedly) killed by a panhandler recently on Queen Street, or his family. I don't know (and suggest that you don't know, unless you have some inside source) what words exactly were exchanged on the street that day, but if a rude retort was actually directed at these street people, it does not justify any assault, much less a fatal one. I'm sure that the persons allegedly involved in this incident had heard their share of rude comments before, and if they had any maturity at all, or even any basic "street smarts", they would simply shrug it off and move on.

Nothing ever justifies assault or murder. As to the individuals involved in this incident - obviously, they are the ones paying the price for their lack of street smarts, in the form of being suspects in a manslaughter case. That said, if the individual who got killed did make a rude and insulting remark, that is still a wrong - not a wrong that justifies any kind of bodily harm, but still one nonetheless. If one should raise the issue of compassion...that's already a failure to start off with.

As to the matter of maturity - clearly, neither side had much claim to that, with deadly results. Another reason why I prefer to see this as a case of youth crime - hotheadedness, over the top violence, etc.

AoD
 
People that are home invaded are almost invariably "asking for it" with drug and weapon stashes, and how many balcony rapists have there been? I guess a half dozen instances in the past few decades of breaking in to harm people to the degree that deadly force is warranted counts as "plenty" to you, but to reasonable people, the threat can be statistically - safely - reduced to zero.
 
beez, you have too many fears man. you ever stop to think the toll fear its self is taking on you?
 
Considering the amount of lawbreaking going on when it comes to speed limit violations, when was the last time laws around that issue is consistently enforced? You tell me.
I'd say speed limit violations are consistently enforced, as in rarely, but consistently nonetheless. Though,if you're speeding excessively, 50 kph over or more, I'd like to think they're going to get you.

So the logic is that since enforcement on speeding seems to be lax, that enforcement on roadside solicitation should also be lax? If this is the accepted logic, then perhaps we need to change the Highway Traffic Act to reflect realities, so make the speed limit 120 kph on the highways, disregard roadside solicitation unless it's at highway exits, etc?

IMO, there is only one way to rid the city of panhandling all together, and that's through eliminating the need to panhandle. First, increase welfare rates to a level that makes affordable housing and public transit affordable; second, build more rent-geared-to-income, co-operative and other affordable housing for these folks throughout the city, specifically avoiding the downtown area (that area's got its share); third, rebuild the mental-health and addicition services to get mentally ill and addicts off the streets and into housing or institutions (only when necessary); forth, tell the nation that Toronto is looking after its own, but that destitute folks from other provinces or cities can not easily be accomondated (otherwise the nation's poor will flock to these new Toronto services); fifth, build more homeless and transitional shelters throughout the city, so that everyone on the street has somewhere to go (ensuring that any lack of quality is addressed, so that no one is scared to go there); sixth, change OHIP, Welfare, etc. so that you don't need a home address to claim services; seventh, outlaw sleeping on sidewalks or overnight in public parks, and enforce laws prohibiting roadside solicitation; eighth, prohibit panhandling outside businesses, bank machines, theatres.

There is it. The Admiral's cure for panhandling. Deal with the causes, eliminate the need for the behaviour, and now you've got a good position from which to push for a stop of panhandling, since no one would have any excuse for doing it. I'd gladly accept a 5% or more increase in my provincial and municipal taxes to make this happen. See, I've got a heart too, I'm not all evil, crush the poor, etc...:)
 

Back
Top