Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Calm down, tulemutt, I never really made any claims about kids attacking the homeless. You might be right about this. You linked me some 100 page report, which relies on piles of data which I don't have access to, but I have no reason to think it's not accurate. Yes, I am aware the homeless are in a lot of danger, both from other homeless people and housed people, usually young males, who want to torment them. Happy now? Note that this still doesn't entitle anyone to draw conclusions about what happened to the USC students.
What I objected to originally was this claim that 69 percent of San Francisco's homeless were from the city, which was based on a survey of the homeless and flies against everything I had seen before. That's what I thought was bogus.
I'm not saying any of these studies are "fake news", just that they aren't gospel, and one has the right to ask hard questions about studies that give counterintuitive results. It doesn't mean they're automatically wrong, it just means you can question them and try to get to the bottom of the situation.
Whatever makes you think I’m not calm? I am amused.
Anyway, yes, now we are getting somewhere, maybe.
I don’t know what “piles of data” are relied on that you don’t have access to. The report has pages after pages of the specific assault references, including links in each case to accessible data if you feel the need to question police reports.
And I certainly am not anyone who “drew conclusions” about what happened to the USC students. I confronted Exitus for his assumption ... and I did so by drawing multiple scenarios and linking the report to support the alternatives to be considered over his assumption.
So, as I said before, if you feel jumping to assumed conclusions is wrong: don’t attack me ... attack Exitus. But you have a burr in your saddle about me personally, so you jumped my direction without considering carefully what I was doing.
Now, with regard to SF’s 69% local homeless ... I supplied data ... if you have a problem with what I supplied from a highly credible source, it is incumbent on you to find data to disprove it - beyond your gut feeling and YouTube segments. Facts are that SF’s local numbers are shown as on the low end of what is typically found in other cities and other studies. In other words, my point that the homeless are not a highly mobile sub-population is supported by many studies of many types from many sources that all draw similar conclusions ... thus, the likelihood that the SF count is an outlier is exceedingly low. You want to refute that ... back up your gut feeling. Gut feelings are worth wondering about. But they don’t substitute for actual fact-finding.
If you want to question results and call them “counterintuitive” knock yourself out ... that’s what scientific inquiry is all about. Go for it. Back it up with something besides YouTube interviews. That dog don’t hunt.
Whatever makes you think I’m not calm? I am amused.
Anyway, yes, now we are getting somewhere, maybe.
I don’t know what “piles of data” are relied on that you don’t have access to. The report has pages after pages of the specific assault references, including links in each case to accessible data if you feel the need to question police reports.
And I certainly am not anyone who “drew conclusions” about what happened to the USC students. I confronted Exitus for his assumption ... and I did so by drawing multiple scenarios and linking the report to support the alternatives to be considered over his assumption.
So, as I said before, if you feel jumping to assumed conclusions is wrong: don’t attack me ... attack Exitus. But you have a burr in your saddle about me personally, so you jumped my direction without considering carefully what I was doing.
Now, with regard to SF’s 69% local homeless ... I supplied data ... if you have a problem with what I supplied from a highly credible source, it is incumbent on you to find data to disprove it - beyond your gut feeling and YouTube segments. Facts are that SF’s local numbers are shown as on the low end of what is typically found in other cities and other studies. In other words, my point that the homeless are not a highly mobile sub-population is supported by many studies of many types from many sources that all draw similar conclusions ... thus, the likelihood that the SF count is an outlier is exceedingly low. You want to refute that ... back up your gut feeling. Gut feelings are worth wondering about. But they don’t substitute for actual fact-finding.
If you want to question results and call them “counterintuitive” knock yourself out ... that’s what scientific inquiry is all about. Go for it. Back it up with something besides YouTube interviews. That dog don’t hunt.
You know perfectly well that SF is not like other cities, in that there are more homeless people there (per capita) and that it is perceived as a draw for homeless people across the US. The 69 percent figure would be more believable if it came from say Omaha, than it does for SF.
Look, you are clearly passionate about homelessness, and I don't wish to argue these issues endlessly. You've made your points, I've made mine, and I'm done (for now).
I'm of average height, and I do a regular routine of shoulder presses, upright rows, bicep curls, and hammer curls. I'm not a huge guy, but I'm not small either.
Now then, consider that, and also that over the past ten years, the only people with whom I've come close to having a physical altercation have been mentally deranged homeless people. In fact, just last year I was followed by a short time along Wilshire Blvd. by a homeless guy armed with a metal bar who was apparently upset about my making eye contact with him. And then there was the guy who called me an epithet in a Ralph's parking lot for no reason other than trying to provoke me into a fight -- luckily for him there were video cameras in the parking lot and my car's license plate was easily visible, so I had too much to lose by engaging him while this filthy bum had nothing to lose as he wasn't a stakeholder in society so it's just fun and games, standing there and harassing people. And then there was the bum who started yelling at me and accused me of trying to steal his shoes. Yeah, seriously.
And all of this happened just within the past one and a half years.
So then, my problem is that there is a disproportionately high degree of erratic behavior from homeless people. And consider the many people who are smaller than me and not as fit, and females, and older people, etc., and what they probably go through, being terrorized by these street freaks. I don't care where they go, as long as it's far away and I never have to interact with them. Put them on Moon Base Alpha, send them in a rocket ship into Cygnus X-1, euthanize them -- I don't care anymore, because quite frankly, I've had it. Period.
You sure seem to have a lot of problems with homeless people, sounds like you stare at them with a hateful look and that gets their attention.
Base on your many posts, you view them as subhuman, well they're human and people pick up on something staring at them with a sneer on their face and glaring at someone.
Not saying it's not possible to have a mentally deranged person for no reason accost someone, but you sure have a lot of exchanges.
Maybe just ignore them instead of staring at them like they're something stuck to your shoe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
Interestingly, I have lived in close proximity to lots and lots of homeless for years and years. I have never ever, not once, been shouted at or harassed or hustled in any way whatsoever. Never. Not even by completely delusional psychos. In fact, I have many times, literally, had ravers stop and look at me and just say “hello” in near normal voice and then return to their show.
I am now into my 70’s. I remain, as I always have been, thin, of ordinary height, wiry, and fit due to the lifestyle I live. No flab. But certainly not a tough bull of a guy that would strike fear in a nut case on the street.
I believe your story. And I honestly suspect the difference between us is an air and attitude. I don’t look like a pushover ... but neither do I act arrogant or repulsed by anyone. I appear as I am: everyday ordinary, blue-collar, friendly, quick with a smile and a joke or quip. I drive an old van, not a BMW. I wear open sandals and jeans, or sweats and t-shirts ... not yachty Gucci loafers and Dockers.
All that said, I know perfectly well who lives on the streets. I am never off guard for a second. I just don’t wear it like a challange or a judgement. I suspect by the type of posts you make, that you do broadcast in person the same attitude you write with.
Now, are the mental case homeless who prowl the streets often disgusting and potentially problematical? You bet. And you can see them well before any need to engage. So don’t. Pretty damn simple really.
I don't either, I used to work in the Hollywood area on Vine closer to Melrose, they're all over the place. Never had any problems, some asked for money, I would from time to time buy them a meal, but even if you ignored them no problems.
Some people look for trouble, and trouble finds them.
See, like you I look at these people and think what the hell went so wrong for this to happen, and pity them, not hate them.
Location: West Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes
13,583 posts, read 15,672,061 times
Reputation: 14049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
Your “intended conveyance” is a complete fail, Exitus.
You assume the “bum’s” guilt ... while assuming the “victim’s” innocence ... based on, well, lousy, faulty analysis.
This is not to say the opposite (the “bum” is innocent) is the case either.
I presented three scenarios to consider:
a.) the homeless guy launched an attack unprovoked as a lone assailant against the overwhelming odds of a group of inebriated young college student friends
b.) the homeless guy was goaded into the fight (in which he was the superior hand)
c.) the homeless guy was attacked without provocation and defended himself superiorly.
Since the article quotes the college buddies as saying they argued with the homeless guy, and that a fight ensued (you can go reread that if you need to of course), the greatest bet would be on selection “b”, no? But it is as yet unknown. I guarantee you the investigation was not concluded with the victims’ statement of innocence. The likelihood of a lone assailant attacking unprovoked against the overwhelming odds of a group of inebriated young college student friends is so low in police experience, and given historical data on such attacks, that the investigators and court will be skeptical.
As an example, lack of defensive wounds mean little. Attacks can be too sudden for defensive reaction ... or, conversely, the injured party’s own hands could have been completely offensively engaged, entangled grabbing hair or clothing, for example.
Point being: until the investigation is complete, you really have no justification for calling for vigilantism ... or characterizing the homeless broadly as deranged animals, as you do. You are engaging in textbook fear-mongering and vilification. This kind of broadcasting of opinion is a known contributor inciting violence against the homeless ... which, in turn leads to reactive fear on the part of the homeless toward the housed population. You are, simply put, making things worse. For all parties.
And you wonder why homeless people sometimes harass you “for no reason”? Lol. You reek of subliminal indicators.
That poor college kid has permanent scarring, and I find no reason to believe he provoked the attack by messing with the bum's belongings or calling him names. I've never been harassed by college kids, but I've encountered bums who are very aggressive and have implied they'd use a weapon to assault me.
Location: West Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes
13,583 posts, read 15,672,061 times
Reputation: 14049
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1982
Yeah I was thinking the same thing . The mother in the photo looked well dressed and not homeless .
Why are the family members getting millions for someone they wrote off ? Doesn’t seem to make much sense.
She’s such a great mother she never taught her son you don’t reach for an officer’s gun .
That poor college kid has permanent scarring, and I find no reason to believe he provoked the attack by messing with the bum's belongings or calling him names. I've never been harassed by college kids, but I've encountered bums who are very aggressive and have implied they'd use a weapon to assault me.
You have yourself a nice day, sir.
Right, because it's not possible that a bunch of drunk young guys decided to pick on someone who is homeless? Never happens right?
It's on the news all the time, awhile back some young guys were setting homeless people on fire as they slept up in Ventura.
Now maybe this homeless guy did start it, but just the fact that you can't even think that drunk college guys would start something shows how slanted you are.
I read the article they said they were sober, highly doubtful from a night of bar hopping when no one was driving.
Read the article. Looked at the picture of the “poor college kid”. No idea how you discern he “wouldn’t hurt a fly” ... but ...
So here’s a multiple choice question for you all:
a) a lone 29-year-old homeless guy sees a “group of young college guys who have been out drinking” and says to himself! “Whoa! Perfect! I think this would be a perfect time for me to pull out my piece of broken picture frame and attack overwhelming odds for entertainment! Love it! What could go wrong?”
b) a group of young college guys who have been out fueling up on booze see a homeless guy and start kicking around his stuff and taunting him - until he snaps as says “‘Ef it! If I’m going to get attacked and my stuff kicked around, somebody’s going down with me!”
c) a group of young college guys who have been out fueling up with booze see a homeless guy and start taunting him and kicking him until he grabs a broken piece of picture frame and starts swinging wildly in self-defense ...
Read my post # 3547 as to the profile of the typical people who attack the homeless, sometimes murdering them, before making your selection. You have 1 minute to read and circle your choice.
I found their story a "stretch" when they said they were sober, yeah right, after a night of bar hopping, no one of them were driving(which is good), they were drunk.
I always think of Bernard Goetz, I grew up in NY and was on the same subway line but not that train that day it happened. He looked like an easy mark and was ganged up on by some young guys, well they found out they made a mistake.
And agree, that "kid" wasn't some little nerdy looking guy like a young Woody Allen.
The ones who attack homeless people are for the most part in their teens and 20s.
Location: West Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes
13,583 posts, read 15,672,061 times
Reputation: 14049
Quote:
Originally Posted by seain dublin
Right, because it's not possible that a bunch of drunk young guys decided to pick on someone who is homeless? Never happens right?
It's on the news all the time, awhile back some young guys were setting homeless people on fire as they slept up in Ventura.
Now maybe this homeless guy did start it, but just the fact that you can't even think that drunk college guys would start something shows how slanted you are.
I read the article they said they were sober, highly doubtful from a night of bar hopping when no one was driving.
Odd -- I often watch the news and don't hear about homeless people getting attacked "all the time".
BTW, have you any evidence that the kids started the altercation? I have not seen any, but I have seen evidence that one of them was brutally assaulted.
You know perfectly well that SF is not like other cities, in that there are more homeless people there (per capita) and that it is perceived as a draw for homeless people across the US. The 69 percent figure would be more believable if it came from say Omaha, than it does for SF.
Look, you are clearly passionate about homelessness, and I don't wish to argue these issues endlessly. You've made your points, I've made mine, and I'm done (for now).
SF ranks 4th per capita at this time, behind: Washington, D.C.; Boston; and NYC ... and only very slightly higher than L.A. (at 5th) ... So no, it does not have more per capita than other cities. More than some, but not the worst. By the way, Seattle is racing to beat all if their rate of increasing homeless continues. Where do you think all those new homeless people are coming from? It’s entirely local. The rate of real estate cost rise higher than anywhere in the nation right now. Not the highest cost ... the fastest rate of increase.
That poor college kid has permanent scarring, and I find no reason to believe he provoked the attack by messing with the bum's belongings or calling him names. I've never been harassed by college kids, but I've encountered bums who are very aggressive and have implied they'd use a weapon to assault me.
You have yourself a nice day, sir.
He has permanent scarring because he can’t fight for sour owl sh*t apparently ...
I’ve never been harrassed by college kids OR homeless. People just don’t harrass me. I’m not the harrassable type apparently. Look inside yourself, brotherman.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
