@noahroad6577 yeah not much has changed. Still living in a storage pod and working. Stacking cash though. Haven't been into making videos at all. Not feeling it. How are you doing?
@@onrybuzzard I’m doing well, still in my apartment, making my health a priority. I think I’m a better version of myself this year over last year. I’m happy to see that you are looking healthy yourself. I’m glad things have held up for you down there. I assume Freyja is doing well. Hope you stay in touch. One of these days (if all is well with health) I will likely go back to doing some stealth camping, but I figure why not stay where I am and keep training and staying healthy for as long as I can. I’m taking advantage of the opportunity to do that while I can.
@gravedigga314 eh... not really anything going on over here. Just working. Still living outside just not into making videos. Hope you and the family are good.
“SINCE THE 2015 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT FINDING HEIGHTENED PROTECTIONS FOR FREE SPEECH, EVERY CASE BROUGHT AGAINST PANHANDLING ORDINANCES HAS FOUND THEM UNCONSTITUTIONAL” ACLU. By targeting a particular type of speech-soliciting donations-these laws are content-based and are presumptively unconstitutional. See Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 163-64 (2015). In fact, since Reed, every court to have considered laws that on their face target panhandling or soliciting donations has found them to be content-based and unconstitutional. E.g., Rodgers v. Bryant, 942 F.3d 451, 454, 457 (8th Cir. 2019) (enjoining as an underinclusive content-based restriction a state law making it a crime to linger “for the purpose of asking for anything as charity or a gift”); Norton v. City of Springfield, 806 F.3d 411, 413 (7th Cir. 2015) (concluding that anti-panhandling ordinance violated the Constitution); Mass. Coal. for the Homeless v. City of Fall River, 158 N.E.3d 856, 859, 867 (Mass. 2020) (striking down state law criminalizing signaling a vehicle “for the purpose of soliciting any alms, contribution or subscription or of selling any merchandise” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Champion v. Commonwealth, 520 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Ky. 2017) (striking down law prohibiting begging or soliciting).
THE SUPREME COURT IN REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT (2015) HELD THAT A LEGISLATIVE RESTRICTION OF SPEECH ON SIGNS IS CONTENT-BASED, AND THUS, COURTS MUST REVIEW ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER STRICT SCRUTINY. The decision had a substantial impact on how courts treat constitutional challenges to panhandling laws; indeed, they have been consistently struck down as unconstitutional content-based speech restrictions.
Guess this department is overstaffed!!! Maybe there are no REAL crimes in this town. Maybe this department needs to be defunded and money used where it is needed because obviously there not enough crime here for officers to be tasked with something so medial!!!! They sure "HELPED" this poor man that is down on his luck!!!!
They're not trying to investigate a crime, they're not trying to fight crime, they are trying to fabricate a crime. What is their goal? To protect and serve? Or to do the bidding of some local business people?
Thanks. If you know anything about my channel, I had just spent 5 and half months hiking from Maine to Niagara Falls to Tennessee. I had my dog with me the entire journey and knew that I would be arrested because they were not going to get my ID. I was not going to risk it. If I lived there and didn't have my dog I would have gladly taken the risk. All good. It was my first time filming a situation like that and I will get better.
Making up bullshit to get their way, whether legal or not. We need to take the management of cops away from cops managing themselves. Dispatch needs to be disassociated from law enforcement ranks and have superiority over them to include disciplinary actions. A separate disassociated entity must also conduct all investigations into law enforcement activities with full transparency.
