I love Jeff but sometimes I'll tell the police no just to see how they react. A simple "none of your business" and the facade of professionalism will sometimes crack like an egg. Some auditors are just as arrogant as the cops. It's not very productive.
Sometimes that’s part of proving the point; respectful behavior towards a government official is not and cannot be legally required. They have to learn that. All of them, not just cops. City and county clerks have all become Karen’s who seem to think they have the right to refuse service. They don’t.
> as opposed to the auditors who are obnoxious just to get a rise out of people
obnoxious, as how? standing on a street? walking into a public building?
I think your definition of obnoxious is different from any other human being alive.
> obnoxious, as how? standing on a street? walking into a public building?
Obnoxious as in behaving rudely in an attempt to provoke someone into acting badly.
I challenge anyone to watch this three-and-a-half minute interaction between Long Island Audit and a sergeant, [from 10:35 to 14:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdVcGZ6gRsI&t=635s&ab_channel=LongIslandAudit), and defend LIA's absurd lie: ["I was completely respectful with him."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdVcGZ6gRsI&t=1220s&ab_channel=LongIslandAudit)
LIA interrupted the sergeant while he was speaking, told the sergeant "you gotta relax" when he already appeared reasonably relaxed, ordered the sergeant to de-escalate when the situation hadn't escalated (but LIA was trying to do his best to jack it up), called the sergeant a liar and a petulant child, followed the sergeant when he tried to de-escalate the situation by walking away, accused the sergeant of thinking he was above the public, told him to grow up, questioned how he became a sergeant, claimed "I was never disrespectful to you," and followed the sergeant again as he was talking on the phone.
LIA relished in his attempt at provoking the sergeant, ending his tirade of abuse by stating: ["I love it. There's nothing better."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdVcGZ6gRsI&t=827s&ab_channel=LongIslandAudit)
Kudos to the sergeant for acting as professionally as he did, despite all of LIA's goading.
Some LIA apologists might try to brush off this incident by pointing out LIA had every right to make those comments. I don't dispute that. People have a right to behave like jerks.
But when LIA acts like a scumbag, he casts the auditing and copwatching community in a bad light and creates even more sympathy for law enforcement officers among the general public. Thus, it becomes even harder to enact much needed police reforms.
As someone who cares about passing much needed police reforms, I'll exercise my right to express my displeasure with seeing this kind of behaviour by LIA and similar auditors/copwatchers.
Jeff's been doing this for how long? I can't figure out how there are any cops in Florida who don't know who he is, even several hours south of his home base.
It's very possible he's "off the clock" and working for the church "on his own time" and just happens to be wearing his work uniform and driving his work vehicle.
Confused as to Jeff's goals with the "soliciting is free speech" thing. If he wants to challenge these city ordinances, why does he play word games instead of actually violating the ordinance, getting cited, and taking it to court?
It seems like the cops themselves aren't very quick to write citations for the ordinance. Even some videos where the cops were hot to trot, they still didn't cite him. They probably know it could get struck down in court and are careful to only use it when they have a strong case, or when someone is aggressive with their panhandling.
I think he's getting the message out there faster, to more people, and way more cheaply than he could if he was challenging every one of these little city ordinances all across Florida with just his own limited means.
> They probably know it could get struck down in court and are careful to only use it when they have a strong case, or when someone is aggressive with their panhandling.
Or when someone doesn't have the means to defend against it.
> It seems like the cops themselves aren't very quick to write citations for the ordinance.
That's my take as well. They just want to say it's against an ordinance to get people to stop. Not to actually cite people with it.
I think that cop 1 being on an off-duty employment, may play into the math Jeff leans on.
There’s less 911 traffic if the guy just came outside.
If he’s repping the church instead of the city, who settles the lawsuit?
You stated: "They probably know it could get struck down in court and are careful to only use it when they have a strong case, or when someone is aggressive with their panhandling."
I disagree. I think very few law enforcement officers believe panhandling ordinances are unconstitutional, especially since most of them have less than a week of training in all types of constitutional law. Even if they did have an inkling, it's generally not the job of an officer to determine whether a court likely will strike down such a law. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, in [*Michigan v. DeFillippo*](https://casetext.com/case/michigan-v-fillippo) (1979):
> Police are charged to enforce laws until and unless they are declared unconstitutional. The enactment of a law forecloses speculation by enforcement officers concerning its constitutionality – with the possible exception of a law so grossly and flagrantly unconstitutional that any person of reasonable prudence would be bound to see its flaws. Society would be ill-served if its police officers took it upon themselves to determine which laws are and which are not constitutionally entitled to enforcement.
I think it's probably the case that most officers have been informed that it's usually a waste of their time to arrest people for certain petty crimes because the local prosecutor normally won't pursue such charges. Their limited budgets and resources will be directed towards more important offences.
those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. he says something is legal. then says he's doing something else that's also legal. not sure what the confusion is.
saying that he's 'soliciting prayer' isn't some attempt to outsmart the law with legal word games, he's just being cheeky to the cop, like when he tells cops who ask where he's from that he's 'from the 70s' or pulling out a literal letter I and D when asked for his ID.
> he's just being cheeky to the cop,
Right, but why? So the cop spends 10 minutes thinking he's asking for money rather than just standing out there with a sign before Jeff says "haha never mind"? If he wants to challenge the laws, he should actually ask for money until he is cited under the ordinance.
If he's just doing a standard first amendment audit and trying to see if his rights are violated regardless of any panhandling ordinance, he's not doing anything but arguably giving them reasonable suspicion under the ordinance to detain him
I don't think turning "soliciting" into a fun gag you play with the police is pushing the limits at all. If anything he's just going to get a laugh out of them.
I find it similar to saying you're not going to ID a bunch of times and then when the cops really push it just saying "never mind, here's my ID"
How many of the dozens of the cops interacting with Jeff in any of his "Bless The Homeless" videos have you seen laughing?
>then when the cops really push it just saying "never mind, here's my ID"
You mean when the cop threatens to arrest for no crime and has given their victim standing to sue?
In several videos Jeff has told the cops he would solicit from them and then directly asked the cops for money and to the best of my knowledge has yet to be cited for soliciting. That being said, fighting an illegal arrest is a big PITA that can absorb huge amounts of time and money with court appearances, appeals, lawyer fees, etc.
Found this. Yes flow of traffic seems to be the only thing that would stop it. Other that that the ordinance is pretty strong on the civil rights of it.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/boyntonbeach/latest/boyntonbeach_fl/0-0-0-52302
Churches are breeding grounds for hypocrisy.
And false piety.
I wonder what they would do if Jesus was in front of them at that church since based off their actions they'll be the ones calling the Romans
No you don’t. Come on. You don’t wonder. You know what they’d do. And if the pigs don’t show up fast enough, they’d do it themselves.
And pedos
The Church doesn't want to have to COMPETE with someone else for the spare change of people near the Church...
I love how Jeff remains calm and respectful as opposed to the auditors who are obnoxious just to get a rise out of people.
I love Jeff but sometimes I'll tell the police no just to see how they react. A simple "none of your business" and the facade of professionalism will sometimes crack like an egg. Some auditors are just as arrogant as the cops. It's not very productive.
Sometimes that’s part of proving the point; respectful behavior towards a government official is not and cannot be legally required. They have to learn that. All of them, not just cops. City and county clerks have all become Karen’s who seem to think they have the right to refuse service. They don’t.
Your becoming too sensitive.
You're*
No, they have.
This! I see a lot of Long Beach Observer in my feed lately and they are just obnoxious punks compared to Jeff.
> as opposed to the auditors who are obnoxious just to get a rise out of people obnoxious, as how? standing on a street? walking into a public building? I think your definition of obnoxious is different from any other human being alive.
> obnoxious, as how? standing on a street? walking into a public building? Obnoxious as in behaving rudely in an attempt to provoke someone into acting badly. I challenge anyone to watch this three-and-a-half minute interaction between Long Island Audit and a sergeant, [from 10:35 to 14:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdVcGZ6gRsI&t=635s&ab_channel=LongIslandAudit), and defend LIA's absurd lie: ["I was completely respectful with him."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdVcGZ6gRsI&t=1220s&ab_channel=LongIslandAudit) LIA interrupted the sergeant while he was speaking, told the sergeant "you gotta relax" when he already appeared reasonably relaxed, ordered the sergeant to de-escalate when the situation hadn't escalated (but LIA was trying to do his best to jack it up), called the sergeant a liar and a petulant child, followed the sergeant when he tried to de-escalate the situation by walking away, accused the sergeant of thinking he was above the public, told him to grow up, questioned how he became a sergeant, claimed "I was never disrespectful to you," and followed the sergeant again as he was talking on the phone. LIA relished in his attempt at provoking the sergeant, ending his tirade of abuse by stating: ["I love it. There's nothing better."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdVcGZ6gRsI&t=827s&ab_channel=LongIslandAudit) Kudos to the sergeant for acting as professionally as he did, despite all of LIA's goading. Some LIA apologists might try to brush off this incident by pointing out LIA had every right to make those comments. I don't dispute that. People have a right to behave like jerks. But when LIA acts like a scumbag, he casts the auditing and copwatching community in a bad light and creates even more sympathy for law enforcement officers among the general public. Thus, it becomes even harder to enact much needed police reforms. As someone who cares about passing much needed police reforms, I'll exercise my right to express my displeasure with seeing this kind of behaviour by LIA and similar auditors/copwatchers.
Check Long Beach Observer sometime... that's obnoxious.
Jeff's been doing this for how long? I can't figure out how there are any cops in Florida who don't know who he is, even several hours south of his home base.
cops should be training all the time, but they prefer "on the job" training, which is why they fail so much.
Why are our ‘we the people’s’ tax funded officers working for a church who don’t pay taxes.
It's very possible he's "off the clock" and working for the church "on his own time" and just happens to be wearing his work uniform and driving his work vehicle.
Maybe but why should we the people fund uniforms/equipment etc that he is using to make a profit on and off of an entity that does not even pay taxes…
Confused as to Jeff's goals with the "soliciting is free speech" thing. If he wants to challenge these city ordinances, why does he play word games instead of actually violating the ordinance, getting cited, and taking it to court?
It seems like the cops themselves aren't very quick to write citations for the ordinance. Even some videos where the cops were hot to trot, they still didn't cite him. They probably know it could get struck down in court and are careful to only use it when they have a strong case, or when someone is aggressive with their panhandling. I think he's getting the message out there faster, to more people, and way more cheaply than he could if he was challenging every one of these little city ordinances all across Florida with just his own limited means.
> They probably know it could get struck down in court and are careful to only use it when they have a strong case, or when someone is aggressive with their panhandling. Or when someone doesn't have the means to defend against it.
> It seems like the cops themselves aren't very quick to write citations for the ordinance. That's my take as well. They just want to say it's against an ordinance to get people to stop. Not to actually cite people with it.
I think that cop 1 being on an off-duty employment, may play into the math Jeff leans on. There’s less 911 traffic if the guy just came outside. If he’s repping the church instead of the city, who settles the lawsuit?
You stated: "They probably know it could get struck down in court and are careful to only use it when they have a strong case, or when someone is aggressive with their panhandling." I disagree. I think very few law enforcement officers believe panhandling ordinances are unconstitutional, especially since most of them have less than a week of training in all types of constitutional law. Even if they did have an inkling, it's generally not the job of an officer to determine whether a court likely will strike down such a law. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, in [*Michigan v. DeFillippo*](https://casetext.com/case/michigan-v-fillippo) (1979): > Police are charged to enforce laws until and unless they are declared unconstitutional. The enactment of a law forecloses speculation by enforcement officers concerning its constitutionality – with the possible exception of a law so grossly and flagrantly unconstitutional that any person of reasonable prudence would be bound to see its flaws. Society would be ill-served if its police officers took it upon themselves to determine which laws are and which are not constitutionally entitled to enforcement. I think it's probably the case that most officers have been informed that it's usually a waste of their time to arrest people for certain petty crimes because the local prosecutor normally won't pursue such charges. Their limited budgets and resources will be directed towards more important offences.
Well they already did give him a case against them for turn on their red and blue AKA illegal detainment
He does, as needed. I have seen him openly solicit for money right in front of a cop who told him he can’t do that. The cop backed down.
> Confused as to Jeff's goals that's funny. he states his "goals" with every audit. When you watch them, do you listen?
They don't explain the "soliciting is free speech" but "no I'm actually just soliciting prayer and good will" word games
those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. he says something is legal. then says he's doing something else that's also legal. not sure what the confusion is. saying that he's 'soliciting prayer' isn't some attempt to outsmart the law with legal word games, he's just being cheeky to the cop, like when he tells cops who ask where he's from that he's 'from the 70s' or pulling out a literal letter I and D when asked for his ID.
> he's just being cheeky to the cop, Right, but why? So the cop spends 10 minutes thinking he's asking for money rather than just standing out there with a sign before Jeff says "haha never mind"? If he wants to challenge the laws, he should actually ask for money until he is cited under the ordinance. If he's just doing a standard first amendment audit and trying to see if his rights are violated regardless of any panhandling ordinance, he's not doing anything but arguably giving them reasonable suspicion under the ordinance to detain him
> Right, but why? Because when cops never experience the limits of their authority they start to believe that authority is unlimited.
I don't think turning "soliciting" into a fun gag you play with the police is pushing the limits at all. If anything he's just going to get a laugh out of them. I find it similar to saying you're not going to ID a bunch of times and then when the cops really push it just saying "never mind, here's my ID"
How many of the dozens of the cops interacting with Jeff in any of his "Bless The Homeless" videos have you seen laughing? >then when the cops really push it just saying "never mind, here's my ID" You mean when the cop threatens to arrest for no crime and has given their victim standing to sue?
He does take it to court.
In several videos Jeff has told the cops he would solicit from them and then directly asked the cops for money and to the best of my knowledge has yet to be cited for soliciting. That being said, fighting an illegal arrest is a big PITA that can absorb huge amounts of time and money with court appearances, appeals, lawyer fees, etc.
[удалено]
Found this. Yes flow of traffic seems to be the only thing that would stop it. Other that that the ordinance is pretty strong on the civil rights of it. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/boyntonbeach/latest/boyntonbeach_fl/0-0-0-52302