Not spraying a homeless person with water is the solution to the current issues he's caused. Suing the city for damages is the solution to homelessness.
> If this guy is going to end up losing his business because of this woman, and he has already exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue, what should he do? What you're proposing is that he just lose his business. Obviously being sprayed with water is bad, but is that worse than losing a business that you've invested years of your life and large amounts of money in? If not, what is your better solution here? What would you have done if you were him?
If he has not sued the city for damages, he has not "exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue".
He's not losing his business.
I would have sued the city. You don't get to assault people because you want to. What if he decided he wanted to use a hammer instead of water? Are you "oh well his business" then?
You're clearly avoiding answering the actual question. The question is what is the solution to the issues that the homeless person is causing.
> If he has not sued the city for damages, he has not "exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue".
You know this costs thousands and thousands of dollars, plus it takes years, right?
If he doesn't have thousands of dollars and years to wait, what is the appropriate solution?
I'm not. The answer is that there is no legitimate immediate response. You need to invoke the city into action. Which is why I reiterated that he needs to sue.
His spraying of a homeless person who is not actively harming him has no justification. Full stop.
> You know this costs thousands and thousands of dollars, plus it takes years, right? If he doesn't have thousands of dollars and years to wait, what is the appropriate solution?
Again, we are not entitled to microwave solutions. That's not how the world works. When you fall into that mental trap you do something stupid, like spraying homeless people with water, and that lands you in legal trouble.
If he needs to get a loan to sue, he needs to get a loan. If he needs to find coplaintifs to split costs with, then he needs to find coplaintifs (this is probably the appropriate route give how pervasive homelessness is in the city). He can sell his business and move away (which famously happened to the city of Detroit's tax base). Or he does not thing and deals with it. In short he needs to determine what the cost of this problem are to him, and what he is willing to do to have it fix.
The idea that there can be no problems or that any problems must have simple costless solutions is a modern fallacy.
If he doesn't have the money to sue, how will he get a loan? A lawsuit against the city is not something a bank will lend against, so he'd have to be able to fully collateralize that loan.
> He can sell his business and move away
Based on the constraints you're giving, this is the only actual solution you've provided. But this is a solution that is incredibly harmful to him - you're suggesting that he should change his entire life to resolve this.
Being sprayed with water is clearly harmful, but stress and financial problems are also harmful - these are things that cause physical harm and take time off a person's life. You're basically saying that there should be absolutely no limit on the amount of financial, emotional, and long-term physical harm he should suffer, as long as no immediate physical harm is done. Why should he have to endure what is a clearly greater amount of harm than he inflicted in an attempt to solve the problem? Is there no line? Are you okay with someone ending up bankrupt and homeless in a situation like this, as long as nobody touches them?
He owns a business which has value.
> Based on the constraints you're giving, this is the only actual solution you've provided.
It's not, he can work a lawsuit through the courts.
> Being sprayed with water is clearly harmful, but stress and financial problems are also harmful - these are things that cause physical harm and take time off a person's life. You're basically saying that there should be absolutely no limit on the amount of financial, emotional, and long-term physical harm he should suffer, as long as no immediate physical harm is done. Why should he have to endure what is a clearly greater amount of harm than he inflicted in an attempt to solve the problem? Is there no line? Are you okay with someone ending up bankrupt and homeless in a situation like this, as long as nobody touches them?
This is nonsense and ignores everything I've previously said.
I've been homeless, in SF. It's exceedingly easy to not ruffle any feathers when doing so, perhaps the easiest there of anywhere else I've been. This woman was going out of her way to be a menace to civil society and got what she deserved. The idea that "getting wet" is some high crime against a class of people who quite literally eat, drink, and sleep in the rain is laughable.
Before you shower me with 'oh the humanity of it all' responses, have you been homeless? If you had, you'd likely agree with me (as many homeless people do). These bums give hobos a bad name, the fewer of them the better. Celebrate ethical homelessness, chastise whatever this is.
You seem to be really badgering the idea "wait for the State to intervene, they'll do the Right Thing". I'll give an anecdote to counter that. The one person who really wronged me in all my time as a hobo was a State Official. He decided I had spent too long where I was (<24 hours) and in order to get me to leave he took my only pair of boots, broke my only lamp, and for good measure stole my binoculars too. That's a wrong I would not wish upon anyone, even the bums. Do you have any idea how much harder shit is when you have no shoes? Every store you go in will ask you to leave. As your feet grow dirtier their insistence grows stronger.
Fuck that guy. I was soaking wet for unrelated reasons the night prior to that (among many, many others), the collective discomfort of all those soaking hours doesn't hold a candle to what that State Official did to me.
For the homeless especially, but also everyone else (besides billionaires perhaps): the State isn't your friend; their solutions won't help you; you want a problem solved: solve it yourself.
Not commit misdemeanor battery.
It is very, very easy to say that someone shouldn't do something. Everyone gets that he shouldn't spray her with a hose.
What is a better thing that he is practically able to do that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?
For what exactly? I’m not proposing a solution for all societal problems or even all of his, of course.
> Everyone gets that he shouldn't spray her with a hose.
It doesn’t seem like you get that, given your next sentence:
> What is a better thing that he is practically able to do that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?
Literally not spray her with a hose is a better thing to do than spraying her with a hose. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
For the specific situation we're talking about - come on now, I think that's pretty apparent.
> Literally not spray her with a hose is a better thing to do than spraying her with a hose. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
You're ignoring the second half of the question, which I'll repeat here: "that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?"
If the goal is to stop her from doing the things that she is doing, then you're incorrect. Not spraying her with a hose has absolutely no chance of resolving the issue. Spraying her with a hose does have a chance of resolving the issue. It's not a happy or positive solution, and you can debate the ethics of it all you want, but as a way to get her to leave him and his business alone, it is clearly better than doing nothing.
Lots of folks saying that his actions are inexcusable, but nobody's provided anything even remotely resembling a solution to them (as you have not here).
If this guy is going to end up losing his business because of this woman, and he has already exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue, what should he do? What you're proposing is that he just lose his business. Obviously being sprayed with water is bad, but is that worse than losing a business that you've invested years of your life and large amounts of money in? If not, what is your better solution here? What would you have done if you were him?