I think you're saying that because you imagine the only alternative is for the police to come in and beat the homeless man up. But simply accepting it, or state violence aren't the only two options.
If we don't make better governance possible, we make Flock inevitable.
Fortunately, at least for now, "Governance" doesn't involve the state coming in to do anything to someone who's not breaking the law. Homeless people have enough problems, they don't need the police to harass them and shoo them away constantly (even without violence).
Just because much of the public think of the homeless as an eyesore that they don't want to see, and they make them briefly face uncomfortable realities, doesn't justify blanketing cities with cops and cameras.
Flock is simply the public saying we don't trust the government in being able to keep us safe, so lets hire AI to do it.
"shooing them away constantly" is also not the only option, but the bare point is the sidewalk has a purpose and it isn't housing. If the government can't enforce that, what else can it not enforce? The unhoused person needs better options and incentives and there are people far more qualified than me to tell us what they are, but they all agree the street is about the worst place for them.
The public isn't saying anything of the sort. Police are buying them or cities. It's justified by telling us it makes us safer, but it's not. Let's be honest, if you have a license plate number, the alpr system probably isn't that useful. Criminals steal cars and license plates. Immigrants and activists don't.
This is your bubble. The mayor of my city had a video up with the Police chief with a Flock camera between them talking about how this will help with the "recent traffic crime wave".
Meanwhile the police say (and act) that they aren't legally required to protect you [1].
The public is screaming for solutions, today you'll scream back at Flock, tomorrow there will be another "solution".
If we don't make better governance possible, we make Flock inevitable.