NationStates Jolt Archive

Doesn't it figure that right after the City of Atlanta enacts a no-panhandling ordinance, one of the very first arrests would be a victim of Katrina? I guess he hadn't heard about the $2,000 debit cards.


Evacuee Arrested for Panhandling in Ga.

ATLANTA — A man who fled Louisiana with his family to escape Hurricane Katrina was arrested for asking motorists for money in this city where banning panhandling has been a hotly debated issue.

...

"I asked the cop, 'You can't feel my pain?'" said Scott, who added that another officer gave him $7 as he was taken to jail.



At least he wasn't at the airport. That might have earned him a body slam onto the pavement. But that's a different story...We are friendly in Atlanta, aren't we?

... douchebags.

You're kidding, right? If panhandling wasn't legal last night, why would it be legal now? Why should Atlanta allow its streets to be filled with people who would rather whine about their problems and ask for money than fix them?

It's funny in a way, because panhandlers are basically being arrested for doing what politicians have been doing for years.

You're kidding, right? If panhandling wasn't legal last night, why would it be legal now? Why should Atlanta allow its streets to be filled with people who would rather whine about their problems and ask for money than fix them?

It's funny in a way, because panhandlers are basically being arrested for doing what politicians have been doing for years.

Wouldn't, as a Libertarian, you be in opposition to laws that ban panhandling? I mean if it is his choice to be on a public street and ask for money, who is the government to say he can't? And anyone that gave him money would be doing it of their own free will, so I don't see the problem.

Wouldn't, as a Libertarian, you be in opposition to laws that ban panhandling?
I'm not a libertarian, I'm an Objectivist. I vote libertarian because I endorse many aspects of their platform, while I don't embrace it fully.

I mean if it is his choice to be on a public street and ask for money, who is the government to say he can't? And anyone that gave him money would be doing it of their own free will, so I don't see the problem.
I don't like it because it's a moral double standard. You're free to give of your own free will of course, but where I work, for example, there are tons of them roaming the street and since they've been here for years, everyone knows who they are and most of us have stopped giving them money since it's obvious they aren't actually doing anything with it. Basically, in order to panhandle in this city you have to walk around and lie through your teeth at complete strangers. Deception generally muddies free will. I don't think people on the streets would be so generous if homeless folks asked them for crack money, which is what your pocket change generally ends up being.

I had one guy tell me last week that his car was out of gas and that my $3 would be enough to get him home safely. Since he actually looked like a dude that had a car [and because he was "from Akron," which is where I lived for some time] I obliged to see what would happen. 10 minutes later the idiot was back at the same corner--within eyeshot of me-- hitting up a group of college students.

Try buying a sandwich for a bum sometimes and notice the look on his face. Most of them won't know what to think: they just want your pocket change for drugs. Poor people in this country don't go hungry like they do in others.

Besides, panhandlers are put up with for the most part anyway; the law against it is more or less a technicality if they start to become abusive or disruptive. Think of panhandling laws as noise ordinances: a cop is just as likely to simply drive by one if no one has complained about it.

Reading over my post I seem to make the assumption that the majority of homeless people are crack addicts, a favored tactic of the conservative right. While I understand that many are in genuine need of aid [especially in the aftermath of this storm], the tactics depoyed by poor people in the past to acquire free money has probably jaded our public and their police officers to their true purpose. For all I know, this guy was panhandling for a legitimate purpose, but I'm certain they all say that.

Still, I doubt they'll be able to even hold them all if they decided to crack down on this. And yes, I know not all homeless people do drugs, but having an uncomfortable familiarity with the poorest section of my last city, I'm here to tell you that the people who take to the streets for money are, in fact, drug addicts. People who really do have families and weighty responsibilities tend to be trying to do something to meet said responsibilities.

I'm not a libertarian, I'm an Objectivist. I vote libertarian because I endorse many aspects of their platform, while I don't embrace it fully.


I don't like it because it's a moral double standard. You're free to give of your own free will of course, but where I work, for example, there are tons of them roaming the street and since they've been here for years, everyone knows who they are and most of us have stopped giving them money since it's obvious they aren't actually doing anything with it. Basically, in order to panhandle in this city you have to walk around and lie through your teeth at complete strangers. Deception generally muddies free will. I don't think people on the streets would be so generous if homeless folks asked them for crack money, which is what your pocket change generally ends up being.

I had one guy tell me last week that his car was out of gas and that my $3 would be enough to get him home safely. Since he actually looked like a dude that had a car [and because he was "from Akron," which is where I lived for some time] I obliged to see what would happen. 10 minutes later the idiot was back at the same corner--within eyeshot of me-- hitting up a group of college students.

Try buying a sandwich for a bum sometimes and notice the look on his face. Most of them won't know what to think: they just want your pocket change for drugs. Poor people in this country don't go hungry like they do in others.

Besides, panhandlers are put up with for the most part anyway; the law against it is more or less a technicality if they start to become abusive or disruptive. Think of panhandling laws as noise ordinances: a cop is just as likely to simply drive by one if no one has complained about it.

You don't neccisarily have to lie. All you really need to do is just ask people passing by for change. There are people who lie of course, and then use the cash for drugs, but I don't know the statisitics on drug addiction among beggars so I can't say whether that's what most of them do.

The law just seems unneccisary, and as laws go, unjust. In a capitalist society people, if they need help are generally supposed to rely on the charity of others, and this law just puts up another roadblock between that charity and those who may need it. Even if many may just be con artists or drug addicts, there are people, like the guy in that story, who do need that charity quite badly.

I give change to people who ask, or have a cup out or something. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that money is going to help him.

*roll eyes*

The really funny part is that, under the new law, you can sit there with a sign asking for money. You just can't verbally ask. W. T. F? Seriously.

*roll eyes*

The really funny part is that, under the new law, you can sit there with a sign asking for money. You just can't verbally ask. W. T. F? Seriously.
You have no idea how hotly this was debated. The result is probably one of the worst laws the City of Atlanta has ever enacted.

*roll eyes*

The really funny part is that, under the new law, you can sit there with a sign asking for money. You just can't verbally ask. W. T. F? Seriously.
If they're sitting quietly out of the way with a sign, it doesn't bother me. Most of them, however, run up to you, get under foot, beg obnoxiously, etc. Some are more laid back, but then they are generally going for a con, so they aren't really good either.
However, someone sitting out of the way with a sign, that can be ignored easily if you're not interested, and if you want to give your money away you can find them easily.

You have no idea how hotly this was debated. The result is probably one of the worst laws the City of Atlanta has ever enacted.

Actually, considering that I do pay attention to local news, I have a good idea how hotly it was debated - and how idiotic the whole idea is.

So how long as this law been on the books?

So how long as this law been on the books?
Maybe a month? Maybe two? I didn't link (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/Katrina_Vignettes.html) the AJC article because you need to register to read it. There isn't much more, though.

Actually, considering that I do pay attention to local news, I have a good idea how hotly it was debated - and how idiotic the whole idea is.
Didn't know you were local.

So how long as this law been on the books?

Less than a month.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/632/08-23-2005/1a6b0006fbd4ec90.html

Looks like our (I don't actually live in Atlanta proper, but I still consider it my city LOL) mayor signed it in on 8-22.

Didn't know you were local.

Well, sort of local anyways. As the dumb commercial says, I'm an OTP person. LOL

Hmmm, apparently, according to the AJC, this guy wasn't arrested under the new law at all. He was near Lenox Mall, not downtown. And he was soliciting in a roadway - something that is illegal no matter where you are.

*shrug* It's still a stupid law, but apparently it doesn't have anything at all to do with this guy's case.

You don't neccisarily have to lie. All you really need to do is just ask people passing by for change.
You have to lie if you want the money. Do you think I'd have given that guy $3 if he told me he'd use the cash for a sack of crack? Would any of us?

I doubt it. Those who are genuinely concerned for the poor should either give them food (not money) on the streets or donate to a program that actually puts the money to legitimate use. Donating pocket change likely has little effect on getting folks off the streets.

There are people who lie of course, and then use the cash for drugs, but I don't know the statisitics on drug addiction among beggars so I can't say whether that's what most of them do.
I must say I am genuinely releived that you didn't choose to ask "what's the other side of this double standard?" Which, to be honest, was the tactic I expected.

At any rate, I've lived with these people and I'm here to tell you it's all about the drugs. People aren't drug addicts because they're poor, most of them are poor because they're drug addicts. Statistics don't mean shit because it's perfectly possible to say one thing and then do something completely different. When poor people start admitting that they're using their handout money to support their habits, that money will slowly begin to disappear. They're smarter than you might think: I've seen some of them manage a degree of shrewdness seldom reproduced by their economic superiors.

The law just seems unneccisary, and as laws go, unjust. In a capitalist society people, if they need help are generally supposed to rely on the charity of others, and this law just puts up another roadblock between that charity and those who may need it.
Bullshit. Salvation Army and the United Way, to name a pair of examples, will contribute more to solving this problem than any amount of on-the-street handouts ever will.

I'll take this opportunity to invoke a ridiculously generalistic equation to demonstrate my point: Pocket change = Drugs, Private charitable donations = food and shelter. The real question here is what you'd rather perpetuate. Of course, the above is hardly true in every conceivable sense, but it's about as accurate a generalization as "people have two arms and two legs."

Even if many may just be con artists or drug addicts, there are people, like the guy in that story, who do need that charity quite badly.
And they're getting it. I believe the amount of charitable donations in this country is rapidly approaching $400 million. Thousands and thousands of people are volunteering their time to rebuild New Orleans: they're arriving by the busload every day to pass out water, food, and supplies to the people who need them.

I give change to people who ask, or have a cup out or something. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that money is going to help him.
That's your perogative, but it's definately not mine. If I wanted to waste my pocket change, I'd spot weld the sons of bitches onto my garage floor.

You have to lie if you want the money. Do you think I'd have given that guy $3 if he told me he'd use the cash for a sack of crack? Would any of us?

I doubt it. Those who are genuinely concerned for the poor should either give them food (not money) on the streets or donate to a program that actually puts the money to legitimate use. Donating pocket change likely has little effect on getting folks off the streets.


I must say I am genuinely releived that you didn't choose to ask "what's the other side of this double standard?" Which, to be honest, was the tactic I expected.

At any rate, I've lived with these people and I'm here to tell you it's all about the drugs. People aren't drug addicts because they're poor, most of them are poor because they're drug addicts. Statistics don't mean shit because it's perfectly possible to say one thing and then do something completely different. When poor people start admitting that they're using their handout money to support their habits, that money will slowly begin to disappear. They're smarter than you might think: I've seen some of them manage a degree of shrewdness seldom reproduced by their economic superiors.


Bullshit. Salvation Army and the United Way, to name a pair of examples, will contribute more to solving this problem than any amount of on-the-street handouts ever will.

I'll take this opportunity to invoke a ridiculously generalistic equation to demonstrate my point: Pocket change = Drugs, Private charitable donations = food and shelter. The real question here is what you'd rather perpetuate. Of course, the above is hardly true in every conceivable sense, but it's about as accurate a generalization as "people have two arms and two legs."


And they're getting it. I believe the amount of charitable donations in this country is rapidly approaching $400 million. Thousands and thousands of people are volunteering their time to rebuild New Orleans: they're arriving by the busload every day to pass out water, food, and supplies to the people who need them.


That's your perogative, but it's definately not mine. If I wanted to waste my pocket change, I'd spot weld the sons of bitches onto my garage floor.

I agree completely. The last time I was in Omaha I was approached by a homeless man who hit me up for some change for some food. I offered to take him across the street to a fast food joint and buy him something to eat. Know what his response was? "Fuck you then!"

"This bum came up to me the other day and asked me for a dollar. Buddy, the very idea that i am going to hand out the hard earned money my parents send to me every month...NOT HAPPENING"

A Hicks quote for every occasion :)

Hey, he gets three hots and a cot. Nothing wrong with that.

I agree completely. The last time I was in Omaha I was approached by a homeless man who hit me up for some change for some food. I offered to take him across the street to a fast food joint and buy him something to eat. Know what his response was? "Fuck you then!"
Sadly, this is not an isolated phenomenon. I've actually run into a few who did use the money for food, by the same token. When I was in NYC with some friends during my junior year in High School, I gave a [presumably] homeless man some cash for showing us around [we wanted to know where the headshops were]. Much to my astonishment he crossed the street, bought food with it, and came back. I liked that guy.

What never ceases to amaze me is that there are actually people out there who think it's morally justified for a significant portion of my work day to be put to use for people that choose not to act as this fellow did. You can give these people all the money in the world, but they'll never be productive with it until they decide to be.

Sadly, this is not an isolated phenomenon. I've actually run into a few who did use the money for food, by the same token. When I was in NYC with some friends during my junior year in High School, I gave a [presumably] homeless man some cash for showing us around [we wanted to know where the headshops were]. Much to my astonishment he crossed the street, bought food with it, and came back. I liked that guy.

What never ceases to amaze me is that there are actually people out there who think it's morally justified for a significant portion of my work day to be put to use for people that choose not to act as this fellow did. You can give these people all the money in the world, but they'll never be productive with it until they decide to be.

The only homeless person I've given money to had a sign that read "I'm not going to lie - it's for beer." Have to appreciate honesty.

Yeah, I've seen those. I give money to them too.