So, It’s Illegal To Feed The Homeless Now…

The Free Thought Project is reporting that Chico & Debbie Jimenez of Daytona Beach Florida have been issued thousands of dollars in misdemeanor citations for the heinous crime of, get this, feeding homeless people. This is not the first time I’ve heard about this kind of thing happening. Get the details on this case from FTP, I just want to talk about the people responsible for now.

It’s really getting beyond the point of saying “What a dumb law” I think. Whether it’s feeding the homeless, lemonade stands, raw milk, or any number of petty innocuous things that today incur threats of violence from the belligerent power hungry madmen who claim dominion over us all, I’m really left wondering how these people manage to look at themselves in the mirror every day.

The Politicians

In order for this lunacy to become law, hundreds of people gathered together in a building somewhere. One of them said something to the effect of “I want to ban feeding the homeless, who’s with me?” and rather than run him out of town, someone cosponsored this idiocy. A vote was taken, and the majority was in favor of it. This then went on to the other house of the legislature, where a similar process took place. Then it was sent to the executive branch, where it was signed into law.

At no point during this process did anyone with the power to do anything to stop it say “Hey you fuckin psychopath, that’s cruel and violent and ridiculous!” like any reasonable person would have. This probably wasn’t even a big deal. It was just the normal everyday hustle for a group of completely unaccountable people with absolutely zero regard for the well being of their fellow man.

The Police


Banned From Feeding The Homeless

Banned From Feeding The Homeless

Keep on telling yourself there’s such a thing as a good cop out there. If the police will use force to stop charitable people from feeding hungry people, then there is literally nothing they will not do for their paychecks and pensions. If the law was to stone gays or hang blacks, that’s exactly what these same police officers would be doing, and when you cried for them to stop you would get the ever familiar “just doing my job” line. If politicians are sewage, then police are the bacteria that feeds on said sewage. 

Whatever “noble intentions” you claimed to have joined the force for, are now completely out the fuckin window pal. You don’t get to violently prevent homeless people from being fed by charitable causes, and call yourself a good person. There just plain isn’t any excuse for this type of behavior.

You forcefully prevent a man from eating, then you go cash your cushy paycheck that was taken from people who don’t want your help, without their consent, then you go home to your soft bed and fuck your wife and tell everybody what a swell guy you are. I don’t fucking think so. The sooner you get yourself a flag draped coffin and a 21 gun salute, the better, you fucking parasite. You are beyond all hope of redemption.

The Politicos

If you look at a problem like this one, and you think the answer is “Vote for the other guy in 2, 4, or 6 years” then you should make toast in the bathtub. It is precisely this kind if irresponsibility that caused this mess in the first place. For over two centuries there have been elections in America, and with every single election, things got worse. If you seriously can’t see passed that, then you really are too stupid to be voting anyway.

If you appreciate the work I do, please consider donating, or advertising here.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

[mc4wp_form id=”7723″]

  • Tony_Voluntary

    Great article as usual.

  • chrischoas123456

    Ohio i don’t think has this law

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Sucks to be them. They were warned that it was against city ordinance a week before.

    • better12than6

      Should it be illegal ThirtyOneBravo?

      • ThirtyOneBravo

        Nope. They should have worked with the city like they were they were advised. Since they choose to ignore that advice and the warning of the police… Let em pay their fines.

        • paendragon

          So to you “A law is legal if a legislator made it!” right?

          • ThirtyOneBravo

            As legal as it gets if you go against the ordinances of the city. Again. They were told how to go about this the correct way but they CHOSE not to follow the law. They deserve the punishment.

            If you think the law’s illegal, get off your ass and run for office.

          • paendragon

            Judges have a right and responsibility to strike down bad laws. Bad laws are those which “pre-emptively” slander and otherwise attack innocent others first. You seem to be a gleefully Submissive masochist, advising everyone else to give up, bend over and Submit like a muslim “because you can’t fight city hall!”

          • ThirtyOneBravo

            Then they need to take it to court (which they are, I believe) and plead case. I can see how this sort of thing can be illegal though. There are no sanitation standards in place in their home kitchen. No health inspections. No accountability.

            Why do you think every single organization that feed the hungry in this manner have commercial kitchens and sanitation standards they must adhere to?

            What happens if one of the beneficiaries gets ill from their food? What about all the public urination and defecation that happens in that park? What about all the drunks?

          • paendragon

            It’s their basic responsibility not to poison people, of course. But, by your logic, why are any citizens allowed to have kitchens in their own homes at all?

            Shouldn’t they be licensed and regularly inspected by government officials all the time, too? Or maybe we should just all have to line up for our designated meals at goverment-run feeding facilities in stead. I mean, if something *could* go wrong, isn’t it the duty of our owners to assume that it *will* go wrong, and so always pre-emptively stop us from acting, accordingly?

            Come to think of it, it’s awfully hard to see what people might be up to in those fuel-inefficient “private homes,” too. Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to just round everyone up and warehouse them in central public facilities? Most people can’t be trusted with personal responsibility!

            So, let’s expand “combatting pre-crime,” which seems to be the main liberal statist (gangster’s) meme, and see just how many things could be made illegal:

            Better get rid of shop and auto mechanics class, then. It is just a way to teach kids how to be criminal woodworkers and repairmen. And computers are just tools to create hackers.

            For Sexual Assault, women must not go out except in the company of their husband or male relative, and must never show cleavage or their legs lest some man will want to rape them… (or how about mandatory gun ownership?)

            So much crime is subsequent to the consumption of alcohol, that we’ll just have to ban that completely.

            People might hurt each other because of their race or religion, so strict separation is in the public interest.

            This is all starting to seem like kinda familiar territory, isn’t it? It’s EXACTLY like Submitting to islam!

            Welcome to SHARIA!


          • ThirtyOneBravo

            “But, by your logic, why are any citizens allowed to have kitchens in their own homes at all?Shouldn’t they be licensed and regularly inspected by government officials all the time, too?”

            Really? What the hell kind of question is that? You don’t feed the general public out of your home kitchen.

            As for the rest… Doesn’t apply to this topic. You’re not raping the general public.

            Or are you?

          • paendragon

            It all applies directly to this topic; let me dummy it down and spell it out for you:

            This is a bad law, because it slanders everyone as guilty untlil never proven innocent, like this:

            “You aren’t allowed to feed homeless people because we know you’ll probably poison them!”

            But that’s just an assumption, because, for all we know, without being able to read if there’s any stated ‘reasoning’ at all behind it, its crafters might have tried to rationalize or justify it in other ways, such as:

            “Because homeless people with fulll bellies aren’t motivated enought to find work to pay for their own homes anyway!”

            …or maybe:

            “Because feeding them just encourages them, and if they starve enough, they’ll just leave our cities and then they won’t be our embarrassing problem to deal with any more!”

            Either way, I wonder if they’ve left any kind of ‘grandfathering’ loophole clauses in it, like:

            “But it’s perfectly OK to feed a member of your OWN immediate family, if they just happen to be homeless!”?

            I kinda doubt it; as fascists don’t think ahead!

            Which leads me to ask: Why do you insisst in dividing people into different “class”(ifications)? Why separate “the general public” and “homeless people” and “family members” at all? My but you sound like a hatefully prejudicial bigot.

            I’m guessing you’re a liberal.


          • ThirtyOneBravo

            It’s a valid law because, in this case, the homeless people are urinating and defecating in the park as well as drinking – as a direct result of these two Samaritans (according to all the news stories I’ve read).

            So while you’re out there enjoying that park would you want to sit in someone’s steaming pile or in a wet spot of fresh urine? I didn’t think so.

            The point is this… They were warned a week before. They chose to ignore it and instead of working with the city they chose the path that’s gonna cost a lot of time and money to resolve. I have no sympathy for them because they chose to right thing in the wrong way.

          • state hater

            I assume that you’re the oink of the same name who regularly trolls Cop Block.

            Would you hang blacks if there was a law that stated that it was illegal to be black and that oinks were required to execute them on sight?

          • ThirtyOneBravo

            How about drivel that’s more appropriate to this day and age?

          • paendragon

            So you’re blaming their source of food for their CHOICE to drink, urinate and defecate in the park?!

            Would you blame the nearby McDonald’s, if they were employed, had homes to go to, and still decided to piss and crap in a park nearby anyway? (Oh, wait – maybe using McD’s as an example was a bad idea in this case, but you know what I meant LOL)!

            Once again, there’s absolutely no logic in your arguments, only the critical thinking logical fallacy known as the “Appeal to Authority,” which is a tautology, not a reason:

            “It’s right because an ‘Authority’ said so!”

            You really do seem to like to have the alibi-excuse to defer your own responsibility to think onto others, in a master/slave sort of way!

            ARE you a cop? Because you sure act like one, in deflecting away from basic logic!

            And that penchant, my friend, only indicates a guilty desire to remain irresponsibly wrong, which only ever really amounts to criminal negligence!


          • ThirtyOneBravo

            No. The city is blaming the homeless people for the urinating, defecating and drinking.

            The rest is strictly your opinion. Seems you’re leaning to a voluntary society… That’s never worked. And yes. I am a police officer.

            As for the McD’s thing, why would they go outside and take a dump when there are restrooms to use inside?

          • paendragon

            No, you said the city is blaming the source of the homeless people’s food for their own choice to drink, urinate and defecate in the park:

            “It’s a valid law because, in this case, the homeless people are urinating and defecating in the park as well as drinking – as a direct result of these two Samaritans (according to all the news stories I’ve read).”

            If the city thinks the fact that they manage to get fed directly enables them to commit their admittedly annoying misdemeanors, why not also assume that it’s also directly linked to their ability to breathe air, too?

            In other words, quit blaming the tools for the human’s chosen free-will intentions! After all, INTENT is what turns a mistake into a crime anyway, right? It’s The Law!

            The McD’s thing was stated because of past personal experience – McD’s is sneaky that way: you get all the way outside, you think you’re safe, when suddenly – WHAM! Ya gotta go when ya gotta go! That stuff goes right through me sometimes like it’s already coming out the back end before the first bite even reaches my mouth! That’s some seriously nasty poisonous shit! But that’s just what I get for eating deep-fried salted fat on a yeasty bun anyway!

          • ThirtyOneBravo

            I didn’t make myself clear enough, I suppose. Long shift today.

            Anyway. This horse is beaten. If they don’t like the ordinance then they should run for city council – or whatever governing body it is that passes ordinances and change it. Till then, it’s a fair law and it’s not like this was just sprung on the two Samaritans. They were told to work with the city (sounds like the city was willing to help in some way), they didn’t. They had plenty of time to deal with it but CHOSE to do it again and now they have a couple grand in fines between them.

            Personally, I think the fines for those who assisted the couple will be dropped.

          • paendragon

            It’s not a fair law because no logically direct link to the CHOICES of some of those people the Samaritans feed, to the fact of their being fed, exists. The city is slandering those who want to be altruistic as somehow “causing” the choices of some of those “homeless” they help to live.
            Might as well blame their parents for feeding them in their earlier years for their choices too.

            Please re-read my reply, above (I’ve added to it).

          • ThirtyOneBravo

            As I said. This horse is dead and beaten so.

            That said. If you or someone else doesn’t like the law, get off your ass and work to change it. Net activism does very little to affect the end result.

            I’m out there holding up my end of the bargain by keeping my community safe and working with the residents.

            Are you?

          • paendragon

            Sure am. I’ve figured out all the basic principles (see above short list) and am quite willing to share, and so to educate the public.

            In general, no force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can (or will) govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT (or will not) govern themselves.

            Under the Golden Rule of Law, which defines all situational morality, which is most simply put as: “Do Not Attack First!” we all have only one right, and one responsibility: Our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack others first. After all, when one chooses to attack first, one self defines as the predatory criminal aggressor, and they as one’s innocent victims; there’s no two ways about it.

            Bear in mind that threats (not if/then warnings) are already (psychological) attacks (aka: bullying, intimidation, harrassment, coercion, duress, extortion; “terrorism”) and all non-defensive attacks are already crimes. Attacking second (or “counter-attacking”) in defense of one’s self &/or of innocent others, is mandatory for true deterrant justice.

            Criminals are those who have chosen to breach this social contract by reneging on their responsibility, and so have lost the right to not be (counter) attacked.

            This means I’m not allowed to do anything either TO you, or FOR you, without getitng your express consent first, unless and until you’ve chosen to break the Golden Rule by attacking me (&/or some innocent others, who ask for my help) first.

            Since even small kids already instinctively know this as the “But Mom! THEY STARTED IT! Rule, there’s really no excuse to not agree to obey it, and it’s this simple basic rule which is what the legality of all sub-sequent laws, rules, and regulations depend for their legality.

            As for politicians: until and unless we eliminate political parties, those salesmen pretendng to be “the government” will destroy the country.

            Politicians don’t represent the people – they only represent their parties. And their parties only represent those who pay them – who happen to be the exact same people for each party.

            So ALL politicians are only treasonous sales-puppets, foisted on us by their corporazi sales-masters. Their real job is to sell us all out by selling off our country to the highest bidders – usually by buying our enemies’ money to fund their own pet projects. The faster the turnover (more sales per minute) the more quick profits, even at low-low fire-sales prices. It’s a race to the bottom.

            There’s a simple solution to all this: simply make it illegal to fund political parties’ ad campaigns. After all, it’s supposedly already illegal to bribe or otherwise influence any politician with money – which is exactly what these loyalty-dividing, interest-conflicting parties them selves do, isn’t it? We’ve got the Internet – each candidate applicant can simply put their platform proposals up online, for free – so why do they need ad money? Who needs debates? Debates only let the most gliberal salesmen talk over each other for heckling points! Just get them to comment on each others’ platforms on their (government-owned-and-monitored) websites. That would force them to co-operate and put it all down in writing, too!

            So, let’s just FIX DEMOCRACY! And here’s how: If we just hold 2 quick, back-to-back elections each time (the first, as usual, to hire the worker’s pool of our Public SERVANTS from our districts, and the second where WE ALL appoint them DIRECTLY to their cabinet portfolio positions) then we eliminate their self-interested conflicts of loyalty-dividing political “parties,” (which always only “party” at our direct expense, anyway,) forever!


          • cory blubaugh

            paendragon…”This horse is beaten.” That’s how a troll cop admits that he either just lost an argument, or that he lacks the mental capacity to converse intelligently on your level, maybe both. Either way, I applaud your solid logic and your refreshing command of the English language. That said… Thirtyonebravo, You are a tool of tyrants and you either don’t even know it or you have been “just doing your job” so long that you have lost all ability to feel human compassion. Get an honest job asshole.

          • paendragon

            So sadly true, isn’t it? Metaphors are the preferred deflection tactics of idolaters (alibi-excuse making criminal negligents) because they are lies which form images they can substitute for actual thinking.

            (Unlike alalogies, which are phrased as “This is LIKE That,” metaphors are lies because they implicitly assert “This IS That!”)

            Seriously: Do you see any dead horses, beaten or not, around here?! Me neither!


          • Kitón LePew

            You just gave my brain an erection

          • paendragon

            Er… glad I could help?


          • etowah

            You do have a point. Perhaps the city should build, or let someone else build, facilities in the park and monitor the park with cameras. Pick up offenders and drive them over to Palm Beach. Just sayin’ there is always a way to fix a problem.

          • Reverend Draco

            I failed to see where the Samaritans were holding guns on the homeless, making them urinate and defecate in the park – could you please point that out?Otherwise, your assumption that they do so as a “direct result” of the Samaritan’s efforts is as much fucking bullshit as most of everything else you’ve posted.
            Are you a ignorant fuckstain on purpose, or is it merely your only gifs?

          • Broseph

            You’re Unbelievably Ignorant

          • Reverend Draco

            Nothing unbelievable about it – he is exactly as ignorant as his Masters’ desire. Unthinking, unfeeling terminal ignorance.

          • Mick Price

            So they “deserve” it because they did something illegal even you admit shouldn’t be. You really don’t understand morality do you? It’s just beyond you that there is something called “right” and “wrong” that isn’t determined by government.

  • efesgirl
  • Tom Tan

    Prohibit feeding the poor, so they become more destitute and dependent on government dole. Then blame and accuse society for not passing enough social welfare laws.

    • ThirtyOneBravo

      Nobody said that feeding the poor is prohibited. But doing it in the manner these two did were against city ordinances. They can still feed the hungry, they just have to do it correctly.

      • JAY

        Listen to your self as you read aloud what you just wrote…… Now slap yourself….. OK now you see how stupid that is…..

      • Jesse Elliott

        IOW, one needs permission to feed another human being. Fuck you, cunt.

        • ThirtyOneBravo

          Another one one of Eyre’s street sheep with his nose up Cantwell’s ass. It’s no wonder the FSP wants nothing to do with him. Maybe you should join Eyre, Bernard, and that walking Chore Boy® in their weekly orgy at Bernard’s “church”.

          • Reverend Draco

            Except that he isn’t wrong.

            On either count.

            Fuck off, bootlicker.

  • paendragon

    Government, (best conceived by Einstein as the largest collectively-owned insurance company) is a great idea if and when it doesn’t compete with (much less pre-empt) private enterprise; it’s OK for the government to buy food to feed the poor, but not to demand that only it is qualified to regulate food growing everywhere, much less to restrict and deny private individuals from growing or stockpiling their own food. Same goes for defending every other need: government can defend the country, but not restrict the citizens’ rights to also own and bear their own arms to defend them selves; government can and should enhance private defense, but never replace it!

  • thats’ some marvelous ranting there. a true word-smith

  • Sam Cru

    Without the government, who will starve poor people to death?

  • etowah

    Tell us what you really think! J/K… I imagine what happened is some law was passed that has nothing at all to do with any of this but after said law was passed several thousand new bureaucrats were hired to form a new Department of BS to administer the law which they quickly perverted into this mess we now have. The new bureaucrats are, of course, protected by a govt employees union and we are screwed. We will either have a state led con-con or a violent revolution, in the not too distant future. I always encourage people to study history BUT from the writings and perspective of history’s losers. Then you will not get propaganda, you will get truth. People had better wise up and be ready.

  • Jesse Elliott

    I lost my shit at “you should make toast in the bathtub.” XD

    • Christopher Cantwell

      I wrote this entire article for the soul purpose of making that joke, glad somebody caught it 😉

  • Grizzly907LA

    I think this is a good idea. I live in DTLA. The vast majority of the homeless here are crack savages that don’t want to pull themselves up. You can’t walk two feet in LA without walking past a rehab, halfway house, or other facility that will help these people get back on the feet. Its their fault for being homeless because they don’t want to stop smoking crack, they don’t want to follow rules, and they want to do things their own way. Rehabs and halfway houses require their residents to stay clean/sober, attend groups, go to 12 step meetings, make their beds etc. Most halfway houses require you to be looking for work, or in school. You can’t just lay up in the dayroom and watch Jerry Springer, Muary Povich, and Judge Judy. The savages don’t want to follow the rules. They choose to be on the streets. Certain organizations enable them to continue their filthy lifestyle by feeding. They would comply with rules and regulations if people stopped feeding them. Here’s a video which talks about that.

  • Kitties nRainbows

    Control freaking over the food supply really shows what these little tyrants are really all about. When the bureaucrat monsters started sending SWAT teams to bust Amish people over milk, it had to set off warning bells for a lot of people.

    People are starting to wake up to the essential sociopathos of what we euphemistically call “government”.

  • Grizzly907LA

    I would urge against feeding the animals. The vast majority of the homeless choose to be homeless because they don’t want to work, follow rules and refuse to get off drugs like crack. Don’t give them money, don’t feed them and instead send them to a homeless shelter or rehab program. You enable them to keep doing what they are doing by feeding them. The national park service warns people not to feed the animals because they will become dependent.

  • Brad

    “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”

    -Ayn Rand