Agressive Panhandling

[Kaeto]

Here in the Detroit area calling the police wouldn't do any good, because they won't respond to this kind of call. And the perps know it.

 

[Certaindeaf]

A serial cinderblocker eats good up this way.. joke.. meaning after 40 arrests, he'll get some green bologna.

 

[1911Tuner]

The example she gave was, you walk out of Wal Mart, the panhandler is leaning against your car door and tells you “If you don’t give me money I won’t let you in your car”.

It's more than that. Preventing any person from proceeding, or forcing him/her to go to a location that he or she doesn't want to go is at the least unlawful restraint, and possibly kidnapping, depending on the exact circumstances.

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

re: Having the police put the miscreant in jail, thereby ending the problem.

And how do you propose to accomplish this salubrious end without telling someone about the situation who has the authority to cart said bully off to jail?

I have a cell phone; how about you?

--------------------------------------

I can't believe some of these responses. IMO Lee has nailed it 100%.

I'll agree w/ you not believing some of these responses, including his.

I posed this scenario to my co-workers and their responses were the same as mine. One said he'd tell the bum, "You may end up somewhere in tomorrow's newspaper, but you are still moving".

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

My experience differs - the only time I've ever known of panhandlers posing an annoyance to a store's customers in the parking lot, the management called the local PD instantly upon being informed, and was willing to press the matter all the way to filing trespassing charges after said panhandlers were informed they were not welcome, if they showed up again. Of course, maybe things are different elsewhere in different jurisdictions, but here, businesses that pay local taxes get response to when they ask the local PD for help.

Correct. And here is a fairly simple and permanent solution to the problem you can be a part of, rather as too many here have suggested, be part of the problem:

When you see a crime like this being committed in a business parking lot, you

1. Contact the police on your cell and do your part in seeing that the scofflaw goes to jail.
2. Then contact the store manager in-person and complain to him about the problem, and suggest he contact the local PD and ask for help in solving it.
3. Followup with a letter (both email and snail mail) to the corporate HQ (address found on their web site) describing the problem and solution. Also mention that if you see the problem continue, you (A) won't feel safe to continue shopping there, and (B) will have to contact the local paper with your complaint and how the store failed to take appropriate action. Companies are loath to receive negative publicity and should respond in a positive manner.

Note: Most PDs at least subscribe to the tenets of Community Oriented Policing (COP) and this is a textbook example of a problem that can easily be solved by those tenets.

 

[lostone1413]

I agree Bob. You live in TX I in AZ. Thank God we both live in a free state. A state that you don't have to beg someone just to get in your own car. I'm sure TX is like AZ in the sense that not a week goes by something goes down as self defense that in just about any other state they would be in jail. With the freedom we have in AZ is the reason I hate to see out of state people moving into the state. Most come wanting to make it like the nanny state they came from

 

[nickn10]

I agree Bob. You live in TX I in AZ. Thank God we both live in a free state. A state that you don't have to beg someone just to get in your own car. I'm sure TX is like AZ in the sense that not a week goes by something goes down as self defense that in just about any other state they would be in jail. With the freedom we have in AZ is the reason I hate to see out of state people moving into the state. Most come wanting to make it like the nanny state they came from

AMEN; So far rural Colorado has avoided those nannyists that infect Boulder and parts of Northern Colorado. I believe the Castle Doctrine, in certain situations, also includes your automobile and I think a case can be made to that affect. Thankfully our Sheriff and DA have common sense and side with the law abiding citizen rather than the poor mis-guided criminal.

 

[Fred Fuller]

OK, we've veered off into politics now. I guess that means we've completely settled the ST&T aspects of this thread...

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by lostone1413: I agree Bob. You live in TX I in AZ. Thank God we both live in a free state. A state that you don't have to beg someone just to get in your own car. I'm sure TX is like AZ in the sense that not a week goes by something goes down as self defense that in just about any other state they would be in jail. With the freedom we have in AZ is the reason I hate to see out of state people moving into the state. Most come wanting to make it like the nanny state they came from

I'm not quite sure just what you think it is that Arizona law would permit you to do that you could not do in Colorado, or what it is that you would like to do, but before you decide to resort to the use of a firearm in Arizona, here is something you should study very carefully.

Again, read it very carefully. Do not concern your self too much with what kind of crime the panhandler my be committing if he has not actually threatened you with a weapon. The ultimate question will come down to one of necessity.

Now, to illustrate some of the legal risks, suppose that there are three of them, and during the confrontation, they do start to pummel and overpower you, and you see no alternative to deadly force to prevent yourself from being disarmed. Most of us would assume that a disparity of force would justify your use of a firearm. As a matter of fact, under the law just about anywhere it would--but you could be in a real bind unless the evidence support what you know happened. You could be charged, spend time in jail, impoverished, and tried more than once. Read about this case in Arizona to learn more.

Lee Lapin commented wisely that it is much better to know the law beforehand. I bring up the Larry Hickey case to illustrate how one can get into very serious legal difficulty even if one believes that he or she is fully justified under the law. It will depend a lot on the witnesses.

Suppose you believe that presenting a firearm would be justified; I do not think it would be, and I would not rely on the "Defensive Display" provision in the Arizona law to justify it. For the sake of argument, however, let's say that justification might be successfully argued.

Consider the possibilities: you pull a gun, the panhandler disappears, and someone records the event from the distance on a cell phone and calls the police before you do. You could be in very hot water indeed.

Suppose that you decide to use non deadly force to move the panhandler. Suppose that you are successful, though you might not be. Suppose that there are no legal problems afterward, though there may be. Do you really want to take a chance on being contaminated with the bodily fluids of every person with whom the panhandler has ever shared a needle or engaged in intimate relations?

Do you think that police policy calls for an officer to physically engage the panhandler alone? Why would you even consider doing it?

Most informed people who think about it will likely conclude that the wise person will disengage and let trained professionals acting under indemnity with the proper equipment handle the problem, in Arizona, Colorado, or Texas or anywhere else.

There's no upside, and only downside, to doing anything else.