58 votes

Police Restrain Hundreds of People Begging For Food As Officials Opt To Throw It In the Trash

This is truly sick.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
deacon's picture

oh, i totally agree

but they should have fulfilled their function
and just keep the peace,crowd control,whatever
they were not there to stop a crime,so they could have
just kept the people civil,that is after all their only function
what would have made the difference in my mind and change my opinion,would be if they were called there by the owners to stop them looters,the store owners actually say it was for the crowd that showed up
but that is not the case,them people had the right to be there
and they had broken no laws..yet,so they cannot bring up the thought crime(they thought a crime might take place,so they showed in force)
they certainly couldn't say it was a premeditated crime either
as there was no crime to take place.

setting your expectations to high,can cause depression

Keeping them civil.....

....would have resulted in "Police Arrest Hungry People Trying To Stay Alive".

I believe by the time it was outside, it was the banks property.

deacon's picture

lol, i see your point

and you very well could be right about it being the banks property
my opinion was based on the fact it was still the store owners

setting your expectations to high,can cause depression

.....and distribute it?

Distribute it to the dump?

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

So where did you see the

So where did you see the police handling the food?

deacon's picture


the cops didn't have the authority to be there in the first place
the owners said they put it out so the people could take it
so that would mean,the owners didn't call the cops
the cops showed up just to keep the peace

setting your expectations to high,can cause depression

Where did it say the owners

Where did it say the owners put it there for anyone to take?

deacon's picture

at .57 seconds

in,the reporter says "they planned to give it to the crowd"
"they" i assume would mean the store owners who put it out front
for the crowds to take

setting your expectations to high,can cause depression

I believe....

....by the time it was put out there it was the banks property.

You're missing the point

and diverting the conversation to property rights. These people needed the food. Why not just give it to them if it's all going to the dump anyway?

Because that would have been the right thing to do. There's a reason why this story gets coverage.

Stay on target, Sir.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

I agree that the people

I agree that the people should have been given the food but that is not your, mine nor the Sheriffs call. It is the call of the foods owner. How am I diverting away from property rights? Do you agree that you have the right to dispose of your property in the manner you choose? If your going to throw something in the trash, does law enforcement have the right to take it and give it to another because they could make better use of it?

Please site.....

On the video "where the OWNER directs anyone to throw it away."

When one looses a house does the gov burn it down? When one can't pay for a car does the gov just take it to the dump? The answer is, no (not yet anyway).

The owner is the bank.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

Please cite where the owner

Please cite where the owner (bank) said give it to the people.

That's my point.....

But once again, no one directed it to be taken to the dump either.

If someone can't pay for a house they bought should the gov just destroy it? There are other options.

But just to lay perfectly good things to waste is not one of them.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

It wasn't the sheriff

It wasn't the sheriff throwing it in the trash. I wonder who it was. Hmmmm, I am willing to bet it was people hired by the foods owner, the bank most likely.

You're forgetting that the police were blocking the people

from accessing the food. This isn't paperwork, bill stubs, personal info, etc. that could possibly be used to commit a crime - it's food. The other commenter was succinctly correct when saying, giving the food to the people was the "right thing to do." And also when saying you're "missing the point." This isn't a 'police rights' to distribute the food issue; it's a feed the poor, hungry people with food the owner doesn't want and is throwing away issue. The piglice had no right to be involved and should all be reprimanded.

Do you seriously.....

.....think that if the police stepped out of the way, several of the people there would have taken charge and made sure it was redistributed fairly?

And the other couple hundred people would go along with that?

Hmmm... obviously the food's

Hmmm... obviously the food's owner (bank) hired people to throw it away. Those very people could have been directed to distribute the food as if it were a food bank.

The bank has a right to do whatever it wants with its property, and we all have a right to determine that they are insensitive a-holes.

Yeah, did you happen to notice how much food there was?

I'm not going to say or think that every person would've got the same amount of food split evenly, but I bet everyone would've got at the least a decent amount. We won't find out what would've happened because the stupid piglice didn't let any of those people have any of the food. Forget being suspended without pay, they should be suspended without food.


...because when IPhones go on sale folks are downright civil. Since it's not a life or death situation to have IPhones, they line up and are as civil as can be.


comparing Apple's to oranges ;)!

ps. usually everyone gets an iphone.
some irony - i'm typing this on a 5.

Well then.....

...if "usually everyone gets an iphone", then I don't see the need to allow them to steal this food from the owner.


You could've posted a way better tit(-for-tat) than that.

The food wasn't going to be stolen; the owner threw it away and didn't want it. Ownership relinquished. Obviously the piglice had the problem with the enemies, ahem, the poor people. And obviously you knew I meant everyone with money to buy an iphone, lined up for an iphone, usually get an iphone.

" the owner threw it away and

" the owner threw it away and didn't want it. " Assumption

"Ownership relinquished." Assumption

"Obviously the piglice had the problem with the enemies" Assumption

As for the iphone....

...they usually run over other people, not caring who they injure.

The owner?

Who is the owner? At the point it was in the parking lot it was the banks property. Who are you to decide what is done with it?

How can PI's legally go through one's trash

and take personal papers and effects considered "garbage?" Maybe the difference has to do with collection by DPW (public) workers vs. private carters? It's still senseless! (Also the example below re offering bottled water in the heat!)


Those people would just have had to sign something saying they were taking the food - or laundry detergent or shoelaces - at their own risk. As reported in Natural News re Sedgewick: "Patrons purchasing food for home consumption may enter into private agreements with those producers or processors of local foods to waive any liability for the consumption of that food. Producers or processors of local foods shall be exempt from licensure and inspection requirements for that food as long as those agreements are in effect." Imagine that-buyer and seller can agree to cut out the lawyers. That's almost un-American, isn't it? http://www.naturalnews.com/039633_Sedgwick_food_freedom_fede...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Just as disgusting as this

Just as disgusting as this story from last year.:

Phoenix Woman Ordered to Not Give Out Water in 112 Degree Heat Because She Lacked a Permit

Not even close....

....one was willing to give out, where this one said pitch it.

looks like we've found a new

looks like we've found a new replacement for the broken window fallacy: now, it's called wasting food fallacy. look at all the jobs that are being created by preventing "bad" people from eating food!