Posted on 08/01/2025 8:21:51 PM PDT by from occupied ga
THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE.
The cops are not your friends. A truth pounded into me by my defense attorney cousin.
“I live in Wake Forest NC and drive to Raleigh all the time. I see people living in the woods, standing in the medians begging with and without dogs and I can assure you, no one is enforcing that stupid statute.”
So a couple of cops actually follow the law, and you disagree with it? This guy broke the law. And it created an unsafe situation. If you don’t like the law, then get with your friends and change it. Otherwise as a good citizen you should follow it and not complain when it is enforced. Factually, you should be complaining that the cops are not doing their job because they haven’t been enforcing it. You’re paying them to.
wy69
“You must be a very cold person.”
And fighting to stay warm. I am one of those that falls into the same situation the vet is. But it doesn’t give me carte blanche to ignore the law especially when it involves the safety of people around me nor argue multiple times with the cops that are carrying out the will of the people creating the confrontation that led to the arrest.
He is now suing the cops for the arrest and some people are calling the law unconstitutional. Well guess who makes the laws. They are either approved by vote of the citizens, just like him, or put in by legislation of the people the citizens voted into office.
But the laws are there so they should either be enforced or changed. Simple. But complaining about the cops enforcing a law doesn’t seem real thoughtful.
wy69
I am a lawyer and this case infuriates me.
I don’t know anyone who “condemns “ disabled vets. But I do know of scores of fakers who get a friendly shrink to affirm that they have PTSD. Or depression. Or anxiety. Or whatever. So they can collect a check from the government. Also drug or alcohol abusers who try to claim that their military service in Guam is connected to their poor choices.
“I am a lawyer and this case infuriates me.”
May I get a more in debt opinion from you? I thought it was pretty cut and dry. People make law, man doesn’t want to follow it, engages police challenging their authority to serve the law, goes to jail. The loss of the dog is part of the reason the law was on the books to begin with. It created a dangerous situation. And by the way it unfolded, and the position of the man in the street as he was walking away from the cops one of the times he was told to leave, it very possibly effected traffic which was not talked about or pictured in the story.
wy69
"May I get a more in debt opinion from you?"
I am no lawyer and dont play one on TV, but, Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) established strict scrutiny as the test for this type of law. To survive strict scrutiny, the government must demonstrate that the law serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, using the least restrictive means.
This ordinance seems to directly violate the 1st amendment as these areas are traditional forums for free speech.
THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS
“Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) established strict scrutiny as the test for this type of law.
Town of Gilbert, the U.S. Supreme Court, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015), unanimously invalidated an ordinance that treated signs differently based on their content. To my knowledge, there is no precedents where the man involved is any different than anyone else. The case you bring up is based upon equality and not freedom to determine the validity of a law he is violating and knew he was. Your case is about making decisions on different signs being allowed. To my knowledge, and without a clearance for a certain type of function to be cleared, no one can just stand in the middle of the street on a medium to wait for someone to give him money. It’s not the same type of litigation.
But look at it this way, it is against the law to panhandle in the city. Then if he isn’t panhandling as he says, then why is he in the middle of the street causing traffic to change the flow while people have to avoid him and his dog? It’s an unsafe condition he is creating and the law says he is not supposed to be there. He has no right to be different because he’s a disabled vet.
wy69
The ordinance treats one type of 1st amendment speech differently from other types of 1st amendment speech. “...that treated signs differently based on their content.” That is the rub. Is it possible that they will overcome that hurdle, maybe. But to me, that seems like a long shot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.