Is it legal for a person to beg on freeway ramps in Michigan?
Behind the Blue Line — Michigan State Police Trooper Duane Zook takes your law enforcement questions
Question: Is begging legal on freeway ramps?
Answer: Webster’s Third International Dictionary states “begging” is to entreat earnestly, implore, or supplicate. It often occurs for the purpose of securing a material benefit, generally a gift, donation or charitable donation. When done in the context of a public place, it is known as “panhandling.”
Under Michigan Law, “begging” is illegal and falls under the “disorderly person” law (MCL 750.167) when a person is found begging in a public place. This includes freeway ramps.
This article is not meant to stereotype the homeless population. It is for information, based on my law enforcement experiences.
On Dec. 28, 2007, I was called to the Ann Arbor-Saline park-and-ride lot to investigate the death of a suspected homeless man who had been exposed to the cold of winter for some time. I say “suspected homeless” because during the course of my investigation, I learned the man had a home, a place to stay. The man also had a job working at a local mechanic shop in Ann Arbor.
Time and time again prior to this man’s death, I would see him “working the ramp” at Ann Arbor-Saline Road. I would wave to him, pass him by and leave him be, thinking he was legitimately homeless. I chose not to take any enforcement action or shoo him away from the ramp. Only after investigating this man’s death, I realized I was naïve.
From that day forward, I made it a point to make contact with every panhandler working freeway ramps. Since 2008, I have learned the stories of 18 panhandlers working the ramps. All but one, I found, has a substance abuse addiction, mainly heroin. And only two are legitimately homeless. One man in particular has full medical insurance, receives Social Security benefits and has a Michigan Bridge card, yet he’s working the ramp because the majority of his money is going to heroin use.
So how much money do they make by working the ramps? Over the past two years, I have learned of the subculture involved in working the ramp. There are high-dollar and low-dollar ramps, along with seniority. On a high-dollar ramp on a good day, some of the people working the ramp make $120 to $200. Those working the low-end ramps may only receive $20 to $40. Ramps where the bus lines run, from Rawsonville Road in Ypsilanti Township to Jackson Road in Ann Arbor, are typically worked.
I have arrested several people working the ramps, not just for being on the ramp, but for having outstanding warrants for their arrest. Each person whom I have had contact with has been offered some type of literature for substance abuse treatment, family counseling, or mental health services. To this date, only one out of the 18 has made the choice to help herself out and go to a treatment program.
For information on how to obtain help for substance abuse, contact Washtenaw County Health Services Access at (800) 440-7548.
Do you have a question you want answered? Every Tuesday, I'll post the answers to your questions here. Send me a question by e-mail at ypsilantipost@gmail.com.
Comments
MissyB
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.
Malorie, dear, you have clearly missed the kind officer's point. Please do not belittle him because of your misunderstanding. He is in no way, shape, or form attacking the homeless. He's telling you that almost 90% of the panhandlers he's dealt with are NOT homeless! They HAVE homes! They HAVE resources available to them. They are attempting to supplement their incomes in order to support illegal drug habits. Now, if you have a problem with Trooper Zook alerting folks to that information, then I guess you have a right to criticize him.
genetracy
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 7 p.m.
Yep, Trooper Zook has nothing better to do that risk his career and prefessional reputation by fabricating stories about panhandlers and the homelss in a newspaper article. If these people are not addicts or have mental health issues, then why does not Atticus and some of you other bleeding hearts take one of these people home and let them live in your home as a "foster adult". Let them help with the chores and babysit your kids. They can pitch in with their daily earnings for the household expenses. You won't have to worry about hiding your alcohol, precriptions, or medicinal marijuana becuase afterall, they are just people "down on their luck" and "needing a break", right?
jcj
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 7:12 p.m.
Very good point! Trooper Zook has nothing to gain with this article except the telling of what he has actually witnessed with no malice.
jcj
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 5:56 p.m.
atticus Well I choose to take the word of an officer concerning his experiences as opposed to your"opinion"! He did give numbers indicating what he had encountered. Can you tell me with your vast experience, what percentage of ramp panhandlers are homeless? And you discount so readily the experiences of numerous individuals that have recounted 1st hand what they observed. You are quick to mention you do judge. What you should say is you don't judge panhandlers but you have no problem judging police officers or individuals that have tried to help these ramp panhandlers. Your attitude of not admitting there is a problem with these panhandlers does more harm than officer Zook could have done if he tried. The next time I encounter one you can rest assured I will pass them by in your honor!
jcj
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 5:57 p.m.
Meant to say you say you do not judge
engGEEK1988
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 4:20 p.m.
Well, if it is illegal, why don't the police arrest them and get them off the ramps instead of a friendly wave and a smile? It is a disgrace to our community to have to welcome visitors with a panhandler begging as soon as they exit the freeway.
Ateam
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 3:47 p.m.
Read the article again. He states that at first he waved and smiled. When he learned of the deception of being homeless he made it a point to do something about it. He has arrested several of them. The problem is that even though Trp. Zook does his part, the prosecution/legal options are not tough enough to put a stop to it. They will be right back out there suckering people out of their money.
Bill Wilson
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.
A local talk show host in Maryland, Chris Core, related an interesting story along these lines. It seems that it was summer, and he had occasion to be stopped at an unusually long red light. While waiting, he noticed a man standing there with a sign "HOMELESS AND BROKE - PLEASE HELP". So, thinking he'd help the guy out, he gestured for the guy to come over to the car. While reaching in his wallet, his cell phone rang... at least, that's what he initially thought. After he began to take the phone from his pocket, he realized that it wasn't his phone ringing, it was the homeless man's cell phone. Core said he decided not to give the man any money, to quote: "My teenage daughter had been bugging my wife and I for a cell phone, and I told her that we just couldn't afford it. If that homeless man can afford his own cell phone, he doesn't need my money.
Dave
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 6:21 a.m.
I grow tired of seeing these people at the end of the ramps and I get even more uncomfortable when I am sitting at a red light next to them. The truth of the matter is...if we stop giving these people money they will go away. I seriously doubt these people file with the IRS for the money they are given. Why they all come to a state with a declining population, high unemployment, and horrible weather is beyond me. I always love to see Santa Claus at the end of Ann Arbor-Saline rd ramp from 94 and then I head over to Panera and he is talking on his cell phone and drinking a cup of coffee from Panera...not a cheap one from the gas station.
nunya
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 1:59 a.m.
Great article. Trooper Zook points out that he takes the time to get to know these people that work the ramps. I am sure that is more than anyone commenting has ever bothered to do. For those commenting that they work with the homeless, how so? Every organization I know of that helps the homeless always supports the notion that giving money to panhandlers is not the way to help them. We often wish to think the best of people. We also often wish to think of ourselves as helpful to others. Handing out money to a stranger at the end of a freeway ramp does not satisfy your do-gooder quota. Next time maybe just hand them the drugs, they will really appreciate the extra effort you made and the time it saved them from having to go buy it. No, instead, get mad at those panhandlers because they are the ones making it harder for those homeless that are in real need of help. Don't get mad at the Trooper, he is just telling it like it is.
jcj
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 1:39 a.m.
@genetracy "Society is so unfair. Everyone who owns a house should be forced to move out and a homeless person moved in at the expense of the homeowner." It so happens that there are homeless out there that had homes and for a variety of reasons have lost them. I personally know some that lost their homes only because they were addicts of some kind. I also know some that lost their homes because they could not control their own spending. I know some that have always worked hard but were not as fortunate enough to have jobs that were as good as some of us so they were always struggling and then lost the job they had. Through no fault of their own I might add! But for you to infer that anyone that has a home is somehow responsible for any that may have lost their home is beyond ridiculous! I suspect you may be someone that has never owned a home. And therefore find it easier to make such a suggestion. I agree society can be unfair. But life is neither fair or unfair. It is life. I consider myself very fortunate to have had a good job until I retired. That does not make me better or worse than anybody. But it does make me fortunate. And I do feel I have a responsibility to help those less fortunate, but there is a limit to what I can do for some.
jcj
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 3:19 a.m.
BTW I meant to say defend them. I have no way of knowing if this is a male or female.
jcj
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 3:17 a.m.
The cop out. Instead of defending your position resort to labeling someone. It so happens I have donated my time and money in another country volunteering. So it that respect I was "helping from a distance" A long distance from my family. Please explain where I am wrong. And what is you rational for thinking that "Everyone who owns a house should be forced to move out and a homeless person moved in at the expense of the homeowner." You did not bother to mention if you have ever owned a home. I have had more than one family member loose their home. But I certainly never expected that you should give them yours! If there are others that have posted here that think "Everyone who owns a house should be forced to move out and a homeless person moved in at the expense of the homeowner." Please by all means come to the rescue of this valiant person! And defend her.
genetracy
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 2:11 a.m.
Helping from a distance, you sound Republican.
genetracy
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 1:23 a.m.
Society is so unfair. Everyone who owns a house should be forced to move out and a homeless person moved in at the expense of the homeowner.
snoopdog
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 11:53 p.m.
I have commented over the past several years to my wife about the number of beggers you see along the freeway exits. I jokingly told my wife that I will not shave for about a week and then put on some old clothes and pan-handle at one of those exits. Now that I see how much money they make ( and tax free) I need to give it more serious consideration. Bringing along my two year old would probably really rake in the cash ? Just kidding of course but this story confirmed what I thought all along. Good Day
djm12652
Sun, Mar 20, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
Snoop...bringing the munchkin would increase donations, but might just get ya in trouble with the Mrs. but...now the pooch in the pic...next best thing.
ironyinthesky2
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 7 p.m.
Roadman is right on. Give to organizations that feed the homeless. If you have time, volunteer at a shelter or soup kitchen.
pseudo
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 6:48 p.m.
ok "Level of addition" - its not a math test - "Level of Addiction".
pseudo
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 6:28 p.m.
I am reading the article and comments and shaking my head. First: we have a relative TON of resources(shelter, mental health care, addiction treatment, physical health care, social workers, housing, meals, showers, mail services, connections to limited state and federal aid for housing etc) in this county for those who are truly homeless (relative to other counties and states, not enough for the need). We have an organization specifically targeted at reaching out to our homeless population and connecting them with those resources (<a href="http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/port)" rel='nofollow'>http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/port)</a>. They do a fantastic job and should get a little more attention for their efforts and results. Second: There are limitations: if someone is actively drinking or using or they can't handle being around other people, it is much more difficult to get them situated but there is still help out there. If someone at at the ramp begging, you can't make ANY assumptions as to their homelessness, level of addition, employment status, their education level, veteran's status or, frankly, there level of need. Strike up a conversation and find out. I did - they can pull in a few hundred dollars in a day or two, and they tend to rotate around so people don't get used to there faces. It is their "job" to get you to give them money. If you have a difficult time with wanting to give these people something - get some small denomination gift certificates for a sandwich or a drink. Give those and see the reaction. Btw...determining ahead of time how much money you want to toss out your car window is a good idea because that is what you are going at the ramps. I now refuse to donate to the wind. Your money can go to help the homeless by a quick donation to PORT (Project OutReach) or St. Andrews Breakfast Program or the Delonis Shelter or any of the other wonderful organizations we have here and you know it used specifically for the homeless here.
kmgeb2000
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 6:16 p.m.
"How can you frighten a man whose hunger is not only in his own cramped stomach but in the wretched bellies of his children? You can't scare him - he has known a fear beyond every other. – (Steinbeck-Grapes of Wrath-chapter 19)
Roadman
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 6:04 p.m.
There is a considerable body of law cases and published scholarly erudition as to whether or not criminalizing begging as a form of disorderly conduct violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Although I agree that these beggars are often addicts and giving to them feeds the addiction and harms society, there have been many civil libertarians that have taken up the cause of beggars asa constitutional imperative and have pressed their cases in the federal court system.
iCraig
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 6 p.m.
Good one Glimmertwin, my son and I watched the same gentleman run (without his cane) across the street behind Speedway to the Liquor store. Curious (since I hand him a dollar on occasion) we turned around and parked in the lot. He came out, twisted the top of his Jim Beam bag, and casually walked back across the street. I told my son as a lesson to be very careful of who you trust. The next day he was right back out there with the sign, cane, and look of an indigent.
loves_fall
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 6 p.m.
I support the organizations that help those in need, but I don't give to individual people. I don't see how enabling addiction actually helps anything.
Roadman
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:50 p.m.
Good article. I work in downtown Detroit where "professional panhandlers" stay in front of the same building for years and are rumored to live very well - not homeless. I would suggest giving donations to the Salvation Army, Capuchin Soup Kitchen and well-recognized charities to assist the truly needy in our society.
Cash
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:46 p.m.
Rather than assume that people not agreeing with your interpretation didn't read the article,stop and think that perhaps people have different viewpoints based on their own life experiences...with an addict in the family, or in Atticus' case working with the homeless. These situations can and will make you read this article differently. When you live through something really painful with someone you love, or work with people who are truly homeless and you can see that there are others issues to consider...mental illness being a HUGE part of the puzzle. There are several different takes from this article as you read in the posts. So don't be so fast to assume that someone who doesn't agree with you didn't read...they may well be coming from a different place based on life experiences, than you are.
tim
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.
Try to keep a free micky dee meal coupon in your wallet and hand it out to panhandlers --- I never have found one who'll take it. I know I should have a giving heart ( and I do ) so I try to find other ways to help. If you give drug money to an addict-- your being nice but not compassionate.
Barb
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.
A McDonald's meal coupon? I'd think you were trying to kill me.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:35 p.m.
Have you ever considered the possibilty that they may be trying to get a tube of toothpaste? or that they may be thinking far enough ahead that they are trying sock away some money so they can buy breakfast in the morning, a tent, or a warm pair of sock...Or do you simply assume, that they dont want your coupon because they're a bunch of druggies.
Cash
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:33 p.m.
Funny, I give them a pack of cookies and they take them and thank me..and often start eating them. Even addicts eat, you know.
leaguebus
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 4:21 p.m.
Very enlightening article. I never give money to panhandlers. What I do is offer to buy them a meal. Take them into Jimmy Johns and pay for what they order. That way, I do not feed their addictions. By the way, only 10 % of my offers are accepted. By the way Marjorie, I can think for myself.
Snarf Oscar Boondoggle
Thu, Mar 17, 2011 : 4:27 a.m.
good for you leaguebus ... i;ve been doing the same for a couple decades .. about the same percentage of 'takers' .... and those who let me buy them a meal eate with me at the same table.
jcj
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 10:12 p.m.
"Maybe the other 90% have already eaten, and are thinking far enough ahead to buy a meal at a later date. " Yea and maybe they are saving for bus fair to a rehab facility! There are some people that are naive and there are some people that don't really believe what they themselves say, they are just to stubborn to admit they are not always right.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 7:39 p.m.
Or maybe they are afraid to get in a car with a stranger with "good intentions".
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:37 p.m.
Maybe the other 90% have already eaten, and are thinking far enought ahead to buy a meal at a later date. Kudos on offering to buy them food though. You seem to be a kind thoughtful person in that respect.
TaxPayer
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 4:19 p.m.
I read a similar article online last year. The article suggested to offer food instead of money. Then you are truly feeding the hungry and not an addiction. Keep McDonalds money or some protein bars in your car as a terrific alternative.
actionjackson
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 4:14 p.m.
Malorie, I see no intent in this article that all homeless are addicted or have become homeless due to their addiction. What I read was that the majority of the panhandlers on freeway ramps are drug addicts, some with active warrants on them. As far as free rehab services, they are plentiful. Any number of NA, AA, or any of the number of whatever Anonymous programs charge no fees and are readily available to anyone. I do not believe that becoming homeless is a lead in to addiction. If anything the first thing most people would want or need would be food and shelter. Fortunately Ann Arbor has a tremendous support for these most important areas.
JSA
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.
No, it is not legal and should not be. The issue in the article is begging/panhandling. Doing this on a freeway ramp is illegal it is also potentially dangerous to the panhandler and motorist.
timjbd
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:49 p.m.
These anecdotal accounts presented in isolation actually do a real disservice to a growing percentage of Americans already suffering enough. Homeless in Sacremento (Harper's Magazine): <a href="http://harpers.org/archive/2011/03/0083334" rel='nofollow'>http://harpers.org/archive/2011/03/0083334</a> Mentally Ill in America (Al Jazeera English TV): <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS0Shqk3eQE" rel='nofollow'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS0Shqk3eQE</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sZmh4pCII8" rel='nofollow'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sZmh4pCII8</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2kWNsl-wG8" rel='nofollow'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2kWNsl-wG8</a>
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.
Malorie wrote: "This is probably one of the most destructive local news articles I have ever read. For shame! Regardless of your intentions, this article DOES stereotype the homeless" This is true only if one does not read the article. If one actually bothers reading the article, Trooper Zook makes clear that, in his experience, these people are not homeless. Note to Malorie: panhandling and homelessness are not the same thing and oftentimes are unrelated. Good Night and Good Luck
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:46 p.m.
JCJ, there is some truth to your point. However, I think that if someone chooses to believe or not believe a panhandler, thats their own personal decision to make. If you choose to give or not give, the decision is yours. The problem I have with this article is that it sends the message that by spreading goodwill, you are in fact hurting the people you are trying to help. And I believe it's attempting to legitimize meaness, and distain for people who are down on their luck.
jcj
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:16 p.m.
atticus Somebody told me that this article was constructive in that it will help make people aware that things are not always as they look. For example JUST because someone has a sign standing near a ramp that says homeless it does not mean they are homeless! Just as every time someone comes up to me in a parking lot and says their car broke down and they Only need $5 to have enough to get it fixed. Does not necessarily mean it is true. At least that's what I heard so it must be true!
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:15 p.m.
As stated before Murrows ghost, there is no definition in this article as to what constitutes "legitimate homlessness". Also, this article is based on the oppinion and experiences of one police officers, without any other data being put forward on homelessness, panhandling, or even the living situations of people who have been arrested for panhandling. In other words it's one persons words, with absolutly nothing to back it up! And for people to go around making assumptions, and denying people goodwill or care base on one persons word, without any data to back it up, is very dangerous.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 4:18 p.m.
Quote from the article: "From that day forward, I made it a point to make contact with every panhandler working freeway ramps. Since 2008, I have learned the stories of 18 panhandlers working the ramps. All but one, I found, has a substance abuse addiction, mainly heroin. And only two are legitimately homeless" Emphasis: ONLY 2 of 18 were legitimately homeless. Anyone who reads "homelessness" into this article on panhandling at freeway exit ramps, whether or not they are an advocate for the homeless, is either using the article to serve their own agenda or they simply are not reading the article carefully enough. Good Night and Good Luck
grye
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 4:09 p.m.
For once I agree with you Ghost. Too much reading between the lines and not merely focusing on the written words.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.
While it's true that panhandling and homelessness are not the same thing...They oftentimes ARE related. And this article IS destructive...in that upon reading it, someone might deny help to someone who truly is in need, based on the words of a State Police officer, without considering anybody elses input on the matter.
timjbd
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:56 p.m.
"Note to Malorie: panhandling and homelessness are not the same thing and oftentimes are unrelated." This is a legitimate point. However, the tone of the article conflates the two. It leaves one with the impression that a high percentage of real homeless people are merely scammers.
glimmertwin
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
I find this interesting. I always noticed this old man all "hunched over" holding a sign on the ramp at Rawsonville. However, when he is "off-duty", I see him practically dancing down the street. I believe there is also teams, because they switch at pre-determined times. Without another being visible, I will notice them both walking towards each other changing places. Their view of each other would have been blocked by the overpass.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:27 p.m.
The assertion that the majority of panhandlers have homes, is so far from reality, that I can believe any free thinking person could believe it. But I guess whatever officer friendly says, is automatically accepted as the gosphel truth, without giving it a second thought or thinking for one's self.
djm12652
Sun, Mar 20, 2011 : 5:20 p.m.
....but then again, I take the comments here, stated as fact, as mainly unfounded....on that we both agree...
grye
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:09 p.m.
Potential for $200 per day, 365 days in a year. That's $73k per year, tax free. Hey, not a bad career choice. Might have to think more about a career change.
grye
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 4:07 p.m.
Just using the numbers provided. Who knows, with a little marketing strategy, I could possibly double that.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.
Just shows how Naive you are to believe the statistics that have been presented.
godsbreath64
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 2:47 p.m.
I am not sure I am in agreement with this author. Nevertheless, I have said for years to anyone who will listen that if one pans out their view from these panhandler's spot, they will always find their alcohol in plain view.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
I happen to work with the homeless, and know for a fact that alot of these people ARE homeless. Perhaps Trooper Zook has come across some unique cases in his experiences, and is now perpetuating the steryotype(that has been around for years) that these people all have jobs, houses, and drive new cars. In my experience, many of these people live in tent cities, and under overpasses. I for one, always try to give these people a buck or two if I can spare it. Some will spend it on food, toothpaste, bus fare, or a book of stamps. Others will spend it on tobacco or alcohol. I dont judge.
djacks24
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 8:49 p.m.
The best example I've seen is a customer at McD's walked out a bag with a beverage and gave it to a homeless/begger/panhandler/whatever standing out on Whitaker road begging. This is the best way to support them if you feel you must. This way you know the money is going towards something they may NEED and we aren't supporting their dealers or bringing more drug dealers and crack houses in our neighborhoods.
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:59 p.m.
I tend to believe trooper Zook over somebody's unsubstantiated account. For all I know you live in Chicago and are a panhandler yourself.
voter
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:21 p.m.
Atticus "Have you ever considered the possibility that the trooper is selectively choosing the experiences that hes sharing with us, in order to support his own personal beliefs?" Maybe your doing the same. You have not said anything nice about police in any of your posts so we see where your bias lies.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:07 p.m.
voter, the police are allowed to lie during the course of their job. Also police are perfectly capable of lying to support their own personal or political beliefs. And in my experience working with the homeless, alot of what Trooper Zook is saying does not match what I've experienced. And know I've not interview the exact same people that the trooper has, but I have spoken to many homeless people, and many people who panhandle. Have you ever considered the possibility that the trooper is selectively choosing the experiences that hes sharing with us, in order to support his own personal beliefs?
voter
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 4:28 p.m.
Maybe through his interviews with them they told him they were heroin junkies. Did you intervew these people? He said he spoke to the people. We shouldn't believe Trooper Zook's "State police sponsered propaganda" but your much more credible.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:32 p.m.
John, I've heard many police officers exaggerate, and overstate the truth. If you have never been mistreated by the police or treated unfairly because of the way you look, then you have lived a sheltered life and have not seen enough of this world to form a credible oppinion in this matter.
John of Saline
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.
According to Atticus, 18 experiences by a policeman should be shot out the window because...well, it's propaganda, you see! Actually, you just don't want to hear reality. Remember the tent city that was evicted for trespassing a while back? The leader of that one turned out to have been tossed for behavior problems from shelters. Yeah, if you can't behave well enough to stay in a shelter, maybe you need to work on your behavior/addiction and not complain about being "marginalized" or whatever. You had shelter and you blew it.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 2:57 p.m.
I cant believe that you believe that State police sponsered propaganda Eyehearta2. This is nothing more than a heartless attempt to make people feel good about not helping their fellow human being. How the heck would Zook know if 90% of these people are herion junkies? Does he roll up their sleeves on the side of the road? or does he just assume it?
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.
...and it appears in all but one case, they spend it on heroin.
Top Cat
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 1:04 p.m.
What irks me is that they all claim to be "veterans". The assumption being that they have done something for me and therefore I'm obligated to do something for them.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:50 p.m.
"So you would deny a hungry homeless vet a meal because you believe they might be lying about their situation, John of Saline?" One of he points of the book ("Stolen Valor" is meticulously researched, and I have personal knowledge of one of the most egregious stories told in the book) is that Vietnam Vets as a group, have a lower rate of homelessness and drug addiction than society at-large (the book is JUST about Vietnam vets--no other group). So, yes, when virtually every panhandler one sees with a sign claims to be a vet, there is a good chance that that person never wore the uniform--EVER. Want to give 'em an handout anyway? Fine. Just know that they are, in all likelihood, making it up. Good Night and Good Luck
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:25 p.m.
So you would deny a hungry homeless vet a meal because you believe they might be lying about their situation, John of Saline?
John of Saline
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.
Look up "Stolen Valor" on the internet. Sadly, it's very common for non-veterans to claim they are for any number of reasons. Courts are calling it free speech, so there's now an incentive to lie!
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 1:23 p.m.
How do you know they are not. The sad truth is that we have many homeless veterans in this country.
rouzer
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 12:53 p.m.
I didn't sense a negative or stereotypic slant in Trooper Zook's article at all. He has taken the time to talk to the people he has seen panhandling and offered them alternatives and help for their addictions. If anything, this article highlights that most of the stereotypic "homeless" are not homeless at all. Cash's point is well-taken - many of these folks may have relatives they could live with if they began treatment for their addictions. However, having had some recent experience with addiction in the family, I can say that the treatments offered in Wash. Cty. are woefully inadequate in number of spaces available and, at least in one case, quality of treatment. The one that the courts offer in lieu of jail time has become a joke. I don't know what has happened to this once highly thought of program, but it's not well-run now.
Cash
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:50 p.m.
John, that's such an odd statement. No one is more of a leftie than i am....and I love those ads. And I've not heard anyone make fun of them. Remember some pretty famous righties have turned out to be addicts.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:39 p.m.
Are you implying that "lefties" want our country to become a nation of heroin junkies?
John of Saline
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:20 p.m.
People, especially lefties, constantly make fun of "don't do drugs, kids!" messages (sometimes working to actively undermine them, other times just mocking them). Well, there's a good reason for them. You can't become an addict if you don't take the first hit. Not rocket science.
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 12:48 p.m.
"And only two are legitimately homeless. " Is anybody actually reading the article? Yes, homeless is not panhandlers. The point is, don't support the panhandlers, thinking you are helping the homeless. In reality, you are buying herion. Support the local efforts. Here is a list: <a href="http://www.arborweb.com/cg/t0114.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.arborweb.com/cg/t0114.html</a>
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:40 p.m.
ERM: Sorry I blew up like that.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.
@Eyeheart; Come on!! Really?? I thought you would have learned by now that the A2.com discussion boards serve as places for people to vent, whether or not they have read the article about which they are venting, whether or not they have any facts whatsoever to support their opinion. Yup, pretty clear that this article is not about the homeless. But one would have to actually READ the article to find that out. Good Night and Good Luck
janeqdoe
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.
Kudos for reading the article and getting the sense of it.
Cash
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 12:35 p.m.
While I'll keep my opinions about the article as written to myself, I think for me this highlights the POWER of addiction. Really, think about it. If you had a home, insurance etc...would you want to stand outside all day dirty and smelly to collect $20-$30? Only an addict would do that. I suspect most of us already know some of these folks are addicted. And I think I've seen at least 18 people panhandling on the streets moving through downtown. ...so freeway ramp panhandlers are not the majority that I see. "Legitimately" homeless? I'm not sure what that means but I'm guessing that means they have a relative somewhere in the area. But I'll bet that relative got fed up with the addiction a long time ago. A good article on this subject would be one that offers true workable solutions. Remember when we point our finger at someone, even an addict, three are pointing right back at us. As a society what is our solution? I sure don't have one, but one thing for sure, handing an addict a brochure isn't going to get them clean.
DBH
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 4:23 p.m.
Atticus, according to my research, Trooper Zook was 26 at the time of his investigation, and he had been a member of the MI State Police for 3 years. For how long he had been a homicide detective (and, as far as I know, he never has been one), I don't know. I do not think all deaths are investigated by homicide detectives if they are not suspicious deaths, but perhaps you know something about this I don't. Regardless, I take Trooper Zook at his word that an investigation was done, and that investigation showed the man to have a home at the time of his death. The circumstances of his death certainly would lead one to an assumption that he was homeless (as the above link indicates, and as Trooper Zook states in today's column) but, apparently, the investigation showed otherwise. We know his body was found at a makeshift shelter; we do not know (at least, I don't claim to know, do you?) that he lived there, or that he was even sleeping there (as you state) at the time of his death or at any other time. You can assume he lived there, but it seems to me it is only an assumption. Unless you actually know what the results of the investigation of this man showed, your assumption of his homelessness is speculation only.
voter
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 4:22 p.m.
Atticus wrote: Again DBH, since Trooper Zook claims to have investigated this mans death, my question is how long did Zook work as a homicide detective? Also DBH, I don't know what trooper Zooks criteria for homelessness is, or how he comes to the conclusion as to weather or not a person has a home. When someone is sleeping underneath an overpass in the middle of January, I find it hard to believe Zook's assertion that this person had a home. Where was this classified as a Homicide? This is a simple death investigation and I beleive Trooper Zook knows more them Atticus assumes? Zook might have the ME report that lists cause of death. May have found a house this guy lived in not just looked at his drivers license and said wow he has home. You don't need to be a homicide detective to locate residence for a person.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:06 p.m.
Again DBH, since Trooper Zook claims to have investigated this mans death, my question is how long did Zook work as a homicide detective? Also DBH, I don't know what trooper Zooks criteria for homelessness is, or how he comes to the conclusion as to weather or not a person has a home. When someone is sleeping underneath an overpass in the middle of January, I find it hard to believe Zook's assertion that this person had a home.
DBH
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.
Atticus, if you are referring to this article (or a derivative of it), <a href="http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/12/frozen_body_believed_to_be_tha.html," rel='nofollow'>http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/12/frozen_body_believed_to_be_tha.html,</a> then, yes, when found, "investigators believe the body is most likely that of an indigent homeless man who had frozen to death." According to Trooper Zook's subsequent investigation, though (according to today's article), the man was determined to have a home. I can see how you might have been misled, as the initial characterization of the man was based on the circumstances in which his body was found, later found to be a mischaracterization. I think your assumption that the man actually was homeless, while possibly true (as I know nothing myself as true or false in this particular case), is not warranted given the statement by Trooper Zook that he investigated the circumstances further and found that the man did, in fact, have a home. I think making this the default assumption, rather than the opposite, is the most reasonable approach.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 2:38 p.m.
DBH, I hate to sound like a broken record, but I do work with the homeless in this area. And my experiences differ greatly from what Trooper Zook claims. Also, since Trooper Zook claims to have investigated this mans death, my question is how long did Zook work as a homicide detective? Also, from what I read in the paper 3 years ago, this man was homeless. Maybe Zooks definition of having a home differs from mine. Maybe Trooper Zook assumes that anybody with a home mailing address on their license, is automatically determined to have a home... I don't know what trooper Zooks criteria for homelessness is, or how he comes to the conclusion as to weather or not a person has a home. But I can tell you that the majority of the homeless I work with Do panhandle.
DBH
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 2:20 p.m.
Atticus, I think my assumption that the man actually had a home was reasonable and the default conclusion because Trooper Zook, who investigated the man and his death, stated that "I learned the man had a home..." Seems pretty clear to me. And although I did not address the Bridge Card, I will do so as you brought it up. Your three criteria, in the way that you have listed them, leave the impression that all 3 criteria have to be met in order for someone to obtain a Bridge Card. As I am sure you know, that is not the case. ANY of the 3 criteria may qualify someone for a Bridge Card, not all 3. Therefore, someone may qualify for a Bridge Card and not be homeless.
jcj
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.
"one thing for sure, handing an addict a brochure isn't going to get them clean." Agreed but neither is handing them a $20 bill!
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 1:32 p.m.
DBH, I'm not so sure that this person did have a home. He may have had a home address on his license, but thats no guarentee that he had a home... And if you know anything about the Bridge Card, you'll find out that you are not entitled to a Bridge Card unless you are: A) Homeless B) have children living with you C) are working but are living below the poverty line.
DBH
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
I, for one, did not have a problem with the phrase, "legitimately homeless." Unless I am mistaken, that would mean someone who did not have a place to stay for shelter. Someone NOT "legitimately homeless," conversely, would be someone who DID have a place to stay, either a place of their own (such as the "homeless" man found dead in the Ann Arbor-Saline park-and-ride lot and who actually had a home) or a place of a friend, relative or other benefactor. While "handing an addict a brochure" may have a low success rate of getting them clean, I would not discount it entirely. After all, Trooper Zook states that it did lead to one woman going to a treatment program. Statistically, maybe not a crowning achievement but, if it did lead to this woman getting clean, very likely a crowning achievement in her life. Let's not discount small successes.
M.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.
This is probably one of the most destructive local news articles I have ever read. For shame! Regardless of your intentions, this article DOES stereotype the homeless and it only gives fuel to the people who are not sympathetic to homelessness. The homeless you see panhandling are only a very small FRACTION of the homeless and homeless families in the area, referred to as the VISIBLE homeless. Addiction can cause homelessness no doubt, but people need to know that many instances of substance abuse start only after becoming homeless as a means of "coping" with having nowhere to live and nobody to turn to. It's especially shameful to suggest that a pamphlet with rehab information will be a savior. Are these some new, FREE, rehab services I've never heard about? "Homeless people are not homeless because they are mentally ill or addicted to drugs. They are homeless because they have nowhere to live." - Sociologist Elliot Liebow
djm12652
Sun, Mar 20, 2011 : 5:01 p.m.
Malorie....I saw no sterotyping in this article...just a State Trooper serving our area giving us a glimpse into his experience.
Ryan
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 5:53 a.m.
Shame on Malorie and Atticus for interpreting this article as being "destructive" and a "smear". Trooper Zook was merely pointing out HIS experience. If someone is simpleminded enough to extrapolate that out to the entire homeless population that is of no fault of his own. How anyone can find this article "destructive" is beyond me. I think Malorie needs to take a chill pill. The truth is that drug addicts and mental ill persons should be in homes or psychiatric wards. They should not be wandering the streets. There is a poor chap who hangs out neer Fleetwood who clearly is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Why is he on the street?
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:52 p.m.
jcj, I didn't see any data put forth in this article. If you think the word of one police officer constitutes data, then maybe you should look into the definition of data. Thats the problem, people hear the words and oppinion of one person, and consider it the god spoken truth. Data is the compalation of information. Not the words and oppinion of one person, as you seem to think.
jcj
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 5:10 p.m.
atticus How arrogant and misinformed to think that you are the only person in the free world that thinks for them self! At least "officer friendly offered some real data and not just an opinion!
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:22 p.m.
grye, I would not assume that all speeders were Drug trafficers. Nor would I assume that all drug traffikers speed. Now lets stop comparing apples to oranges, and spewing worn out analogies... The point I was trying to make is that In my experience, many homeless have Zero form of income. And many do panhandle for basic survival. And the assertion that the majority of panhandlers have homes, is so far from reality, that I can believe any free thinking person could believe it. But I guess whatever officer friendly says, is automatically accepted as the gosphel truth, without giving it a second thought or think for one's self.
grye
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.
Atticus: if this article woud be about drug traffickers and it identified that they are usually speeding on the highway, would you then associate all speeders with drug trafficking? This article is about panhandling, not the plight of the homeless in general.
jcj
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.
Not sure how that last paragraph got included! The perils of copy and paste I guess.
jcj
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.
atticus "jcj, there are many different causes of homelesness." I do not dispute that. I was simply pointing out that many loose their homes after becoming addicted to alcohol or drugs. To offer s different reason than that of Malorie who said "many instances of substance abuse start only after becoming homeless". And I do not dispute that. I should have made it clear that I was referring to the ramp panhandlers that often carry signs saying they are "homeless" while in fact most of those individuals are probably not homeless. So while I still say it is naive to hand over a $20 bill to a ramp panhandler that claims to be homeless. I did not intend to say that if you give time or money or food to those who are in need you are anything but a compassionate individual. "But if someone comes to me and tells me they're hungry, I dont question them. I try to feed them if I can." I don't believe that you hand over money to everyone that says they are hungry. I suspect you at some level make a judgment in each particular case. I dont have the ablity to look at a homeless person and tell you what caused their situation. But if someone comes to me and tells me they're hungry, I dont question them. I try to feed them if I can.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 2:10 p.m.
janeqdoe, this is a smear article plain and simple...And it's targeting societies most vulnerable people. The article includes every cliche in the book including the old " I used to think I was helping these people, but then realized I was killing them by giving" and " These people have jobs, homes, and cars, and are simply a band of herion junkies". As I stated earlier, I've worked with the homeless, and know many of them who do panhandle for food and neccessities.
janeqdoe
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.
This article isn't about homelessness! It is an article about P-A-N-H-A-N-D-L-I-N-G. The two words are not interchangable. They mean different things. He is pointing out that PANHANDLERS want you to believe they are homeless and hungry, when in most cases they aren't! Professional panhandlers have perfected the art of looking pathethic and down-trodden because they know it plays on peoples emotions (like guilt), and they are likely to get more money. It is fraud and deception and those who fall for are being conned.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 1:47 p.m.
jcj, there are many different causes of homelesness. I dont have the ablity to look at a homeless person and tell you what caused their situation. But if someone comes to me and tells me they're hungry, I dont question them. I try to feed them if I can. You may call people who give money to the homeless "naive" for giving money to someone who says they're homeless... I call them kind and wonderful.
jcj
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.
"The homeless you see panhandling are only a very small FRACTION of the homeless and homeless families in the area, referred to as the VISIBLE homeless" And drunk drivers are only a FRACTION of the drivers on the road! Should we ignore them because people need to know that many instances of drunk driving start only as a means of "coping" with having no job and nobody to turn to? There are many people that find themselves homeless after doing all they could to stay afloat. But there are many that lost their homes because they started drinking or doing drugs while they had a good job and a home. And this is not conjecture on my part. I have seen it happen to relatives. If this article keeps naive people from contributing to a persons addiction I say GREAT! "It's especially shameful to suggest that a pamphlet with rehab information will be a savior." And I think it is "shameful" to castigate someone for simply bringing to light a form of deception that is all to common with people with drug or alcohol additions!
Matt Cooper
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 1:03 p.m.
Apparantly you didn't read the article, Mallory. Trooper Zook clearly states: "This article is not meant to stereotype the homeless population. It is for information, based on my law enforcement experiences."
grye
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 12:40 p.m.
Trooper Zook was only answering the question that was asked; is panhandling illegal. As part of his response, he was able to relay a personal experience that the panhandler, whether homeless or not, was driven to panhandling to support another personal issue. Instead of ignoring the individuals breaking the law, he checked to see if there were any outstanding warrants, and if so, took the individual into custody. The individual will receive counseling during incarceration to help with the issue. Never once did the trooper identify all homeless individuals with those panhandling to support drug addictions.
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.
Shocking. Who would have suspected? (sarcasm off) Thank you for confirming with data pretty much what we thought all along.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 11:58 a.m.
I suppose one could say its better they beg on a ramp than steal from others to feed their addiction.
WalkingJoe
Tue, Mar 15, 2011 : 11:49 a.m.
Thanks for the interesting column Trooper Zook. The information you gave put a different light on the people panhandling on the ramps for me. While I haven't given money to many of these folks I often wondered what the reasons behind them being there where, now I have some idea.