In Florida, goodwill means handcuffs.

[skip0110]

Apparently, feeding the homeless is now a crime in Florida. So it's okay to feed the pidgeons, but not help out your fellow man? Some things I just dont get. This is the height of stupidity. Health hazard my a**.

 

[Squid]

Soo dumb.... Its like saying they dont deserve to live and should all die.

 

[Klostrophobic]

Edit: They were arrested for trespassing.

In Florida, trespassing means handcuffs.

 

[Recury]

Yeah, and I believe you need a permit to panhandle in Orlando. We Floridians arent exactly known for our common sense.

 

[AP1]

Where is a chainsaw when you need it to kill those stupid people making a stupid law? It's a free country!!

 

[Solid Lifters]

No, it's not a free country.

I think not feeding the homeless is a good law. It forces them to seek out proper help. We can't force them to do anything, but we can slow down or stop them from receiving free food in atempt to help them. Do you want to give the homeless the ability just to walk around any place they want? I don't. They need to be looked after, for our, and their safety.

Plus, the food givin out to the homeless is usually food from leftovers from parties, weddings, food that is about to go bad, etc...and this stuff usually is not good to eat. It ends up making the homeless very sick, and then they end up in the hospital which we have to pay for. Plus, some people actually poison the homeless as some sort of prank, or way to get them out of a particular area or town.

I say, not feeding the homeless is a good law. I hope you don't think I'm a monster, I have sad feelings for these people. Though, I wish we can provide better care, better mental hospitals, treatment centers, there is really nothing more we can do for them.

 

[skip0110]

Originally posted by Solid Lifters
Do you want to give the homeless the ability just to walk around any place they want? I don't. They need to be looked after, for our, and their safety.

Just because somebody is homeless does not mean that they are a mental case. They do not need to be "looked after," necessarily. They should be free to wander around parks and walk sidewalks just like everybody else.

Plus, the food givin out to the homeless is usually food from leftovers from parties, weddings, food that is about to go bad, etc...and this stuff usually is not good to eat. It ends up making the homeless very sick, and then they end up in the hospital which we have to pay for. Plus, some people actually poison the homeless as some sort of prank, or way to get them out of a particular area or town.

In the article, the students were giving out food in a very orgainzed fasion. But regardless of this, I think that the homeless should be free to make their own decision about what they think is "acceptable" food to accept from a stranger, just as I am. (Granted, their standards might be a little...okay a lot...lower than mine...) If they are willing to take the risk of accepting food from a stranger, that is their choice.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Originally posted by skip0110
Just because somebody is homeless does not mean that they are a mental case. They do not need to be "looked after," necessarily. They should be free to wander around parks and walk sidewalks just like everybody else.
In the article, the students were giving out food in a very orgainzed fasion. But regardless of this, I think that the homeless should be free to make their own decision about what they think is "acceptable" food to accept from a stranger, just as I am. (Granted, their standards might be a little...okay a lot...lower than mine...) If they are willing to take the risk of accepting food from a stranger, that is their choice.

You're wrong. They need to be looked after. Even the ones that "seem" normal. I did not mention "mental case" anywhere in my post, so why do you think I mean only who are mentally ill or deficient? A lot of homeless people are drunks and drug addicts, or people with serious illnesses who can't find, or maintain, work.

I think letting the homeless to be "free" is both cruel and stupid. I bet I can get at least one homeless person to drink my urine, and w ould that be "his/her choice"?

 

[Shannon]

...trespassing in the last two weeks at the public park.

How is it trespassing exactly when it's a public place? A park at that.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Originally posted by Shannon
How is it trespassing exactly when it's a public place? A park at that.

The police tell them to leave, and when or if they don't, they get either a ticket, or arrested.

 

[boombexus]

After reading that article, I'm going to side with the police on this one and say that they acted accordingly.

These students are trying to push the law as far as they can.

I think that is what these students actual intentions were. They had prior warnings of the laws they were violating.

If these students actually wanted to help the homeless, why didn't they take their efforts to an established place that already feeds so many of the homeless and needy? The Salvation Army Shelter that was mentioned, and others like it, are already in place to provide for the homeless and the homeless people out there know that.

The students could have reached so many more people in need by helping out, donating thier time, efforts and food, in a well known shelter, than in a park where they fed a mere 20 of the countless homeless.
If they really wanted to help, the students could have reached hundreds of homeless by going to an established shelter.

That is why I think the above quote holds true. The students are only trying to push the limits of the law and using the needy as a right to do so.

 

[///M-Spec]

It states very clearly in the story the students were arrested because they failed to obtain a permit for the activities and did not cease their activities after repeated warnings.

This is a no-brainer. The law doesn't state they couldn't feed homeless people. The law simply said they needed a permit for that kind of activity first.

An outdoor concert. A farmer's market. A arts and crafts festival. All these activities typical held in parks require a permit first, so the city can take proper steps to ensure public safety.

What, do people suddenly think that doing charity work means you're exempt from the rules?


M

 

[Recury]

If I were a right-winger, I would be pissed that you basically need to ask permission of the government (by getting a permit) to feed someone. STAY OUT OF OUR LIVES BIG GOVERNMENT, etc.

 

[pimp racer]

Cant feed the homeless.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by Recury
If I were a right-winger, I would be pissed that you basically need to ask permission of the government (by getting a permit) to feed someone. STAY OUT OF OUR LIVES BIG GOVERNMENT, etc.

The type of right wingers you describe have much, much bigger fish to fry than piddly little disputes like this that amount to nothing.


M

 

[Darin]

Originally posted by skip0110
Apparently, feeding the homeless is now a crime in Florida. So it's okay to feed the pidgeons, but not help out your fellow man? Some things I just dont get. This is the height of stupidity. Health hazard my a**.

Interesting. Now I see why the homeless stay near wal-mart. And people ignore...

 

[Pupik]

In Florida, you need a permit to move a tree, fer cryin' out lowd!

Basically, serving food in public always requires a permit. Lawyers are too happy to oblige a bum who's eaten bad food that they've been offered for free. When I worked at Publix, we had to throw out hundreds of dollars of perfectly good food; it was absolutely against the law to offer it for free unless you worked there. Once the food left the premises, taking was indeed, a crime.

Priorities are just a tad screwed up in some parts of the U.S. of Litigation.

 

[miata13B]

Originally posted by Recury
Yeah, and I believe you need a permit to panhandle in Orlando. We Floridians arent exactly known for our common sense.

Yes actually you do and all the bums downtown, I always ask for thier permits. . .