Police charge 90-year-old man, 2 pastors with feeding homeless

[mrjarrell]

More political hatred of the poor and homeless and now we have the agents of the state arresting people for exercising their 1st Amendment Rights. I would say that these people should be ashamed of themselves, but they have no shame.

Police charge 90-year-old man, 2 pastors with feeding homeless | News - Home

Outrage: 90 Year-Old Man Arrested for Feeding Homeless, Faces 60 Days in Jail | MRCTV

 

[pudly]

Two words: jury nullification.

 

[gunsisgood]

Sometimes the police need to just pick up their ball and go home.

 

[rambone]

This is the kind of blind obedience that it takes to fill concentration camps. If they'd come after you for acts of charity, they sure as hell would come after your guns and freedoms.

 

[Fletch]

Somebody voted for this. Yay democracy!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

On whose property did he do this?

 

[poptab]

Hey guys the law is the law.

 

[Fletch]

Hey guys the law is the law.

Yeah, play stupid games, win stupid prizes, right?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If he won once, shouldn't there be an injunction against the City?

Hmmm, something is off here.

 

[T.Lex]

If he won once, shouldn't there be an injunction against the City?

Hmmm, something is off here.

Dude. Local ordinance. Just about anything can happen when a local legislature gets some great idea or other. All I had to read was:

the first such cases made by the city after the a new ordinance effectively banning public food sharings took effect Friday.

Here:
Fort Lauderdale Latest City to Restrict Feeding Homeless - NBC News

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approved restrictions overnight on churches and other charitable organizations that feed the homeless, becoming the latest city to impose limits on meals offered by private groups in public places.
The regulations require groups handing out food to homeless to be at least 500 feet away from residential properties. They limit feeding sites for homeless to one in any given city block, and prevent feeding sites from being within 500 feet of each other.



It's the fourth law Fort Lauderdale has passed this year concerning the homeless, according to the Sun Sentinel. The others ban the homeless from asking for money at busy intersections, and make it illegal to sleep and store belongings on public property.

Public health and safety, baybee.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Public health and safety, baybee.

Yeah, yeah, but he prevailed on First Amendment grounds.

Methinks a federal judge will cast a critical eye on the City here.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This is interesting. Now INGO believes there should be no laws prohibiting people practicing their religious beliefs?

I'm offering my truck and tractor to assist whomever wants to move 10 Commandment monuments back to their court house lawns.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, yeah, but he prevailed on First Amendment grounds.

Methinks a federal judge will cast a critical eye on the City here.

Without any research, I suspect that ordinance was more... direct.

This one has nothing to do with homelessness. It has everything to do with protecting residential people. Residential people have rights too. You know, the rights to live in places 500 ft away from people handing out food to people without residences. I'm sure that's in the constitution someplace.

It is a simple time/place/manner restriction. Totally content neutral. City isn't saying you CAN'T give people food, just that you can't do it around certain places. Heck, the city doesn't care WHY you're giving out food. You can give out food anywhere other than within 500 feet of a residence. Or 500 feet of anyone else giving out food.

After all, if it works for drugs and guns, it should be a magic number for food, too.

(If it isn't clear, I'm not advocating, just predicting the contours of the arguments defending this ordinance.)

 

[mrjarrell]

This is interesting. Now INGO believes there should be no laws prohibiting people practicing their religious beliefs?

I'm offering my truck and tractor to assist whomever wants to move 10 Commandment monuments back to their court house lawns.

Two totally different things.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Two totally different things.

Yeah right. If he gets to practice his religious beliefs on public property with impunity, so do I.

 

[T.Lex]

Technically speaking, feeding the hungry is not religious (unless you're passing out the host, I guess). The motivation to feed the hungry may be religious, but that doesn't mean the act is. Plenty of secular restaurants feed hungry people (for money) all the time.

That's what the city will probably say.

 

[mrjarrell]

Promoting versus practicing are two different things and putting your religious icons on display on government property has already been addressed by the courts. Numerous times. There's a big difference between the two. Public property and government property aren't necessarily the same.

 

[indiucky]

Promoting versus practicing are two different things and putting your religious icons on display on government property has already been addressed by the courts.

So have drug laws yet folks still complain about them...So I am assuming the next time someone breathlessly states "finally someone gets it" when another state legalizes a drug all someone has to say to destroy the argument is...It's illegal...It was already addressed by the courts(numerous times)....Gay Marriage was defined by a couple of thousand years of Law and Tradition as a marriage between a man and a woman so I guess that's already been addressed by history and law (numerous times)and no need to bring that up again huh???

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Personally, I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, you have folks, with charity in their hearts, doing what they think they need to do to help out folks they think they need helping. On the other hand, they appear to be creating a public nuisance in a public park and I'm guessing from the writings--they're not obtaining permits (following the law) nor cleaning up the mess that gets left behind.

Then there's the issue and conundrum of how comfortable to you make people in their poverty? How much help do you provide before it becomes enabling? I believe it is a sin to not help somebody who needs it but doesn't want it. I also believe it's a sin to help somebody that requires it because they don't want to lift themselves out of needing it. I'm guessing the residents of this city have decided that these sorts of events tend to lean towards the latter.

 

[HoughMade]

People are just protecting their property values, right? Isn't that a good enough reason to keep churches from feeding hungry people?

I would be ashamed to live in a city that thought that this was a proper exercise of power.