Bad news for downtown

[wtburnette]

IC 35-45-10-2
"Harassment" defined

Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "harassment" means conduct
directed toward a victim that includes but is not limited to repeated
or continuing impermissible contact that would cause a reasonable
person to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim
to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include statutorily
or constitutionally protected activity, such as lawful picketing
pursuant to labor disputes or lawful employer-related activities
pursuant to labor disputes.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

IC 35-45-10-3
"Impermissible contact" defined

Sec. 3. As used in this chapter, "impermissible contact" includes
but is not limited to knowingly or intentionally following or pursuing
the victim.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

IC 35-45-10-4
"Victim" defined

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "victim" means a person who is the
object of stalking.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

IC 35-45-10-5
Criminal stalking

Sec. 5. (a) A person who stalks another person commits stalking,
a Level 6 felony.

I would think that whether it falls into the IC or not, if I'm accosted on every other street corner from some bum asking for a handout, I would consider that being harassed. That may not fit a legal definition, but would definitely be how I would feel. Whether or not you feel people have the right to not have to deal with panhandlers, others definitely feel differently. I'm just glad that I work remote for now instead of having to go downtown every day for work. Due to the City allowing panhandling, I won't be going into the City any more than I have to now. I also can't wait to move out of Marion County because of this type of thing.

 

[Lex Concord]

Don't think I have heard of that right before. Is it a federal right? State? Maybe a local county city thing?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Rights do not originate with governments of any level. They are innate to human existence, else, they are not rights but privileges.

One of the few appropriate roles of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

People have a right not to be harassed (the first clue are all of the laws against harassment in nearly every jurisdiction in this country - the government attempting to do its job).

People have a right to free speech. Again, the First Amendment does not grant this right, it was erected as a protection for it.

The discussion here is around what activity falls within, or exceeds the limits of such protections.

We certainly have disagreement here but, in my mind, understanding the nature of rights as I have described just above are the table stakes.

 

[Lex Concord]

There's quite a bit here, so I'll respond in-line while doing my best not to butcher the formatting.

I agree with you, solutions need to be found.

Here is the problem, though:

I disagree that compassion and empathy are the problem. Actions people take based on those sentiments will have differing results.

This is, for the most part, simply not true in America. People feel they need to give money to these people, because life is all a big crapshoot, and we all "roll out numbers" then stand back and see what we get. And, you know the drill...the people on the sidewalk just rolled bad numbers. So, I need to pay him, because if I had simply rolled different numbers, I would be sitting right there and I am no different than him (*Note: did you notice that it's always a "him?")

I'm glad you said for the most part. It's that outlier that, personally, gives me pause and moves me to empathy.

There undoubtedly is an element of chance in our lives, but it's certainly not a craps table. That said, chance happens. If someone is homeless because they got T-boned by a drunk driver while driving their kid to work (teaching them the appropriate path of responsibility) and the medical bills bankrupted them, what did they do wrong? Live paycheck to paycheck? Possibly. Agreed, that should be avoided, but I did that far longer than I needed to before I got my head on straight. Hence the empathy... i.e. "damn, that could have been me had lightning struck before I wised up and came in out of the rain."

Sociology shows us this is simply not true. If you stay in school and out of drugs and trouble with the law, get a job, and get married and stay married, you almost certainly don't end up there, unless you're mentally ill.

Now, I know not everybody can do these things.

Our parents are one of the biggest rolls of the dice when we come into this world. Not everyone has a good pair. If you did, congratulations. I also understand that, certain behaviors, normalized by full immersion from an early age make them harder to escape. They can be escaped, often by will alone but, still, I can empathize.

But let's focus on the real root cause: someone is either mentally ill, or they are making a string of bad choices. If we know that bad choices are a primary root cause, does giving someone $20 make them make better choices? Or does it just make _you_ feel better to be the object of gratitude?

Personally, in my years working downtown, I haven't given a total of $20 dollars across the board. I mostly ignore them out of the same concerns you and others have stated above. I once gave a guy a dollar, because I believed his story at the time. I gave another guy a ticket for a free meal from a restaurant right across the street. He didn't accost me, I saw him sitting across the street with a sign and crossed the street to hand it to him. Just a feeling, maybe off. With regard to homelessness, I give my time and money to Wheeler Mission. They are far better equipped to get to know these folks and actually help them find ways to move beyond their current situation.

We need to get back to proper institutional mental health care in this country. Not giving someone a prescription for antidepressants and sending them out to pee on the sidewalk. We do not want the horrors of a century ago; but most of the worst of those were in facilities designed for people with severe cerebral palsy and other maladies who could not function on any kind of level, something which was more prevalent in the time before birth control. Today we are dealing with more individuals who are higher-functioning, just not able to be totally on their own.

We are in agreement here. I hate taxes in general, with a few exceptions. Actually helping those who cannot help themselves, and don't have the family with the ability to help them is one of those exceptions.

Also, I wish they would limit their actions to peeing on the sidewalk.

The ACLU has acted vigorously in the courts to make any kind of institutionalization highly problematic and controversial, and simultaneously, the pharmaceutical industry invented a class of drugs (antidepressants) which was seen as a one-size-fits-all substitute for institutional care for all mentally and emotionally disturbed people.

The result has been school shooters, and the streets of California (and soon to be _your_ city) filled with sidewalks teeming with tents and raving lunatics. That is not the place for them.

And if you're giving these people $20, you are sustaining them there. Ask yourself: Am I really solving the problem? Or do I just want the emotional lift of being the object of gratitude today?

I think that, for the most part, you and I are in agreement regarding the issue of homelessness and/or panhandlers.

Legitimately, those who sell a BS story and collect a plumber's salary without paying income taxes are, at a minimum, guilty of fraud and tax evasion.

The point of my earlier post was that, regardless of what got them into their current situation (even if they are full of ), they are human beings and have as much right to be on the public sidewalk as anyone else, as well as the right to talk to other human beings on the street, even without invitation, so long as they do not violate any laws. If their request for money is no more intrusive than you or I asking someone for the time -- yes, in the age when everyone has a clock, a calculator, GPS, phone, financial app, ad infinitum on the equivalent of a 1970s minicomputer in their pocket, I date myself -- that right should not be infringed.

This law is a band-aid on a nicked artery; things might briefly look better to the casual observer, but the root issue remains and will likely continue to get worse. It's an attempt to sweep the problem under the rug (well, away from the storefronts).

 

[johny5]

I would think that would depend on how often you're asked.

Disagree - it also depends on how one is asked. I've been aggressively approached by panhandlers on a few occasions (raised voices, cursing, waving arms, blocking the sidewalk). I've also witnessed, abusive, expletive-laced shouting by panhandlers when they were told 'no'.

I can't be the only one who has seen this...

 

[2A_Tom]

I have a good friend that intentionally carries a dollar in his pocket, and gives it to ANYONE that asks. if he id driving he will give it to the guy/gal holding a sign at the exit ramp. if he is walking he will give it to a panhandler.

Above his tithes and offerings,this is his way of giving alms. I have not reached this level of Christianity.

When I visited in run down areas, I bought many meals, but refused cash to beggars.

 

[gregkl]

Disagree - it also depends on how one is asked. I've been aggressively approached by panhandlers on a few occasions (raised voices, cursing, waving arms, blocking the sidewalk). I've also witnessed, abusive, expletive-laced shouting by panhandlers when they were told 'no'.

I can't be the only one who has seen this...

You are not. I was walking to lunch one day with a coworker when one did just that. Came at us with expletive-laced shouting, threatening to scratch my coworkers car and blocking the sidewalk.

I kept a close eye on this guy while my coworker called 911. He left when he heard my coworker describing him to the dispatcher.

ironic thing was, we were in front of the fire station within shouting distance of the police station.

 

[wtburnette]

Disagree - it also depends on how one is asked. I've been aggressively approached by panhandlers on a few occasions (raised voices, cursing, waving arms, blocking the sidewalk). I've also witnessed, abusive, expletive-laced shouting by panhandlers when they were told 'no'.

I can't be the only one who has seen this...

I haven't come across it here in Indy, but came across it many times while stationed at Ft. Stewart in the late 80's. Going anywhere in Hinesville, the town outside the base, you would see aggressive panhandlers. I once gave a pocketful of change to one to get him to go away and instead he started loudly berating me for not giving him more and I had to walk away from the fast food place I was trying to get to in order to get away from him. This is one reason I don't condone panhandling, as what we have now can easily lead to that. If you don't believe that, look to the many places in WA and CA where this is quite common, among other things. What we need to do is prevent this type of thing now, before it gets worse and more out of hand. It won't happen though, not in Marion County.

 

[BugI02]

There's quite a bit here, so I'll respond in-line while doing my best not to butcher the formatting.

I disagree that compassion and empathy are the problem. Actions people take based on those sentiments will have differing results.

I'm glad you said for the most part. It's that outlier that, personally, gives me pause and moves me to empathy.

There undoubtedly is an element of chance in our lives, but it's certainly not a craps table. That said, chance happens. If someone is homeless because they got T-boned by a drunk driver while driving their kid to work (teaching them the appropriate path of responsibility) and the medical bills bankrupted them, what did they do wrong? Live paycheck to paycheck? Possibly. Agreed, that should be avoided, but I did that far longer than I needed to before I got my head on straight. Hence the empathy... i.e. "damn, that could have been me had lightning struck before I wised up and came in out of the rain."

Our parents are one of the biggest rolls of the dice when we come into this world. Not everyone has a good pair. If you did, congratulations. I also understand that, certain behaviors, normalized by full immersion from an early age make them harder to escape. They can be escaped, often by will alone but, still, I can empathize.

Personally, in my years working downtown, I haven't given a total of $20 dollars across the board. I mostly ignore them out of the same concerns you and others have stated above. I once gave a guy a dollar, because I believed his story at the time. I gave another guy a ticket for a free meal from a restaurant right across the street. He didn't accost me, I saw him sitting across the street with a sign and crossed the street to hand it to him. Just a feeling, maybe off. With regard to homelessness, I give my time and money to Wheeler Mission. They are far better equipped to get to know these folks and actually help them find ways to move beyond their current situation.

We are in agreement here. I hate taxes in general, with a few exceptions. Actually helping those who cannot help themselves, and don't have the family with the ability to help them is one of those exceptions.
Also, I wish they would limit their actions to peeing on the sidewalk.

I think that, for the most part, you and I are in agreement regarding the issue of homelessness and/or panhandlers.

Legitimately, those who sell a BS story and collect a plumber's salary without paying income taxes are, at a minimum, guilty of fraud and tax evasion.

The point of my earlier post was that, regardless of what got them into their current situation (even if they are full of ), they are human beings and have as much right to be on the public sidewalk as anyone else, as well as the right to talk to other human beings on the street, even without invitation, so long as they do not violate any laws. If their request for money is no more intrusive than you or I asking someone for the time -- yes, in the age when everyone has a clock, a calculator, GPS, phone, financial app, ad infinitum on the equivalent of a 1970s minicomputer in their pocket, I date myself -- that right should not be infringed.

This law is a band-aid on a nicked artery; things might briefly look better to the casual observer, but the root issue remains and will likely continue to get worse. It's an attempt to sweep the problem under the rug (well, away from the storefronts).

I applaud the idea of working through a charitable organization to make it less likely your contribution goes to scammers. IMO, though, elementary SA says minimize interaction with sketchy strangers and keep moving; whether they're asking for a light or a dollar, and never ever take out your wallet

On street donations also risk putting even the most deserving into moral hazard. One way columbus successfully fought panhandling was to accept monetary donations to a joint faith/city run help organization for which you would be given chits for a hot meal and other help that you could give out instead. It was quite shocking how many street people apparently weren't actually that hungry, based on their responses to being offered a voucher

I recently had occasion to be at a suburban mall twice in two weeks. The first time, I encountered a woman telling the sad story of how she was trying to get to sick family but ran out of gas money and was wondering if I could help. Since I was at a mall that was nowhere near where a traveler passing through Columbus would end up if they just got off the freeway, I was skeptical and declined

Two weeks later, when I returned to pick up what I had ordered, the same woman telling the same story was in the same lot asking for money. I did not ask her if she saw her family and had run low on funds on the way home, coincidently at the same spot. These experiences harden the heart and war against the impulse to help our fellow man

 

[Lost Californian]

Rights do not originate with governments of any level. They are innate to human existence, else, they are not rights but privileges.

One of the few appropriate roles of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

People have a right not to be harassed (the first clue are all of the laws against harassment in nearly every jurisdiction in this country - the government attempting to do its job).

People have a right to free speech. Again, the First Amendment does not grant this right, it was erected as a protection for it.

The discussion here is around what activity falls within, or exceeds the limits of such protections.

We certainly have disagreement here but, in my mind, understanding the nature of rights as I have described just above are the table stakes.

I can support your words. It was just, in these times, somebody starts squawking about "rights" I question what they really mean, and want. And just as the .gov is to shield rights, it is the individual who is responsible for defending themselves.

Thanks for your time to reply.

 

[wtburnette]

I applaud the idea of working through a charitable organization to make it less likely your contribution goes to scammers. IMO, though, elementary SA says minimize interaction with sketchy strangers and keep moving; whether they're asking for a light or a dollar, and never ever take out your wallet

On street donations also risk putting even the most deserving into moral hazard. One way columbus successfully fought panhandling was to accept monetary donations to a joint faith/city run help organization for which you would be given chits for a hot meal and other help that you could give out instead. It was quite shocking how many street people apparently weren't actually that hungry, based on their responses to being offered a voucher

I recently had occasion to be at a suburban mall twice in two weeks. The first time, I encountered a woman telling the sad story of how she was trying to get to sick family but ran out of gas money and was wondering if I could help. Since I was at a mall that was nowhere near where a traveler passing through Columbus would end up if they just got off the freeway, I was skeptical and declined

Two weeks later, when I returned to pick up what I had ordered, the same woman telling the same story was in the same lot asking for money. I did not ask her if she saw her family and had run low on funds on the way home, coincidently at the same spot. These experiences harden the heart and war against the impulse to help our fellow man

I had the exact thing happen a few years ago in the parking lot of a restaurant on the East side of Indy. I never go to the East side, but a buddy of mine insisted we eat there. As soon as I got out of my car I was accosted by a woman with the exact same sob story as in your story. Just as she got her story out and I was getting ready to tell her sorry, but no dice, an IMPD cruiser pulled up and the officer started demanding the lady leave the area. She left and he drove off without either saying another word to me, but my assumption was that she was known in the area for her scam.