I wonder if many cops know the difference between friendly policing and aggressive policing, eg walking up to innocent members of the public and forcing unwanted information on them?
Is AGGRESSIVE "consensual encounters" (intimidation) a violation of City Ordinance? It's the gun toting mirror shaded thugs dressed for the invasion of Poland who need to go to the VA psych ward.
Statutes against "aggressive panhandling" are just as bogus as statutes against panhandling. Free speech is free speech, whether it involves asking for money or not. Harassment or violence already have laws prohibiting them. If a panhandler breaks a law against harassment or violence, then they commit a crime. But "aggressive panhandling" statutes, depending on the wording, are either unconstitutional, or redundant. In most cases, they are unconstitutional.
@@DVincentW then everyone is guilty lol, by the way, inland panhandles exist. the edge of a state sticking out is called a panhandle. they can be found in places like texas, oklahoma, florida, nebraska, to name a few.
When a citizen feels obligated to explain a law to a cop, it is bewildering. Especially a city ordinance, which typically violates a First Amendment Right. City attorneys should be help responsible, as they should know better than to check the validity of the ordinance. Shame on them.
The COPS should already know that an ordinance does not supersede the Constitution. They should be arresting those responsible for crafting ordinances that violate rights under 18 USC sec 241. If the cops enforce them, they're in violation of section 242.
It sounded like Jeff was the first one to say the word panhandling. Then he asked if panhandling is illegal here and they answered aggressive panhandling is.
Stunning that this nonsense comment gets fifty thumbs-up. These cops are fine. Save your outrage for the pieces of shit. There are plenty of them out there.
I think they came in a little hot but they were quick to calm down and just have a conversation. They could do a little better but they did pretty good.
...or panhandling. He's not a panhandler. He DOES solicit goodwill and awareness for our homeless vets, and provides a free education in Constitutional rights
Why would it bother a cop if somebody comes out to audit them? Whether the auditor is 'expecting' any particular response or not, the response should be the same. "Hey, how ya doing? We got a call, so we came out to see what's actually going on. You need help? No? You're just exercising basic civil rights? Okay, bye." It's not even the auditor wasting that 2 minutes of cop time, it's the ignorant caller.
@@TheGRAYSvarietySHOW although I do not know the definition used in the ordinance the way I see it things like following someone to their vehicle insisting that they check the ash trey ect... Unwanted touching is assault obviously stalking and harassing while fundraising are illegal on there own.
They wanted an out as soon as you said "a homeless person should be able to stand here and ask for help" as they both knew deep down they'd arrest a homeless person doing that if City Hall employees told them to.
What proof do you have that that’s what “they knew deep down”? I didn’t catch anything that would lead me to believe you’re correct in your presupposition.
@brkbeat junkie empathy is understood. Some just lack motivation by such. It may be a presumption but one we hope all understands rather than presume we're all the monster within.
@@brkbtjunkie The change in demeanor when he noticed he was being recorded? His voice pitch change? The 2nd cops twitching finger? Asking if he needs 'help' so they can get you in their custody/you give up your rights, and the rabbit hole towards a ruined life goes from there.
@@brkbtjunkie I guess you don't take much notice of body language. Even with sunglasses you could see them avoiding eye contact. Maybe you're a bit of a swine?
These guys were very typical examples of the arrogance that is so pervasive in law enforcement. They just have to talk down to people and feel like they're right and they know more than someone else even when they're dead wrong and don't know a damn thing.
Notice how he repeated his question, do you know the difference___? Because when you don't answer a cop the way they want you to, they repeat the question. I have seen arrest made because the cop gets angry over this.
@@Blue-hf7xt absolutely. It's their ego and narcissism running wild. They have to be listened to and understood, but they can't listen and understand; they have to twist things to make themselves appear right, justified, important, and powerful while making others feel and appear stupid, wrong, and beneath them; they can't think freely or grasp other ideas, positions or nuance and must force the topic/ situation/conversation to fit within the confines of the tiny parameters of their predetermined intent and objectives. They're essentially robots made of flesh and bone who can only operate on a very limited and specifically designed program. The psychological makeup of these people is not that of a healthy, normal person who gets along well with society; it's really the opposite, and they choose these types of people on purpose then make them even worse through very developed training. It's no accident that most cops are the way they are; it's by design through centuries of study and program development. The one's who aren't completely antisocial violent robots are the outliers who've slipped through the cracks of the system.
@@Blue-hf7xt Do they know the difference? They probably have an opinion or an interpretation, but no one can know because it's too (unconstitutionally) vague.
Two points. First, the adjective “aggressive” needs to have a legal definition codified in an ordinance or criminal code to be enforceable as it is a subjective term. Second, if a cop suggests “you’re trying to get a reaction”, the logical response might be, “Will you react differently if you believe that is my goal than you would if you didn’t know?” Thank you, Jeff, for taking the risks to protect our rights. 👍👍👍
Jeff is so nice. These guys were condescending and aggressive with their communication. Tried to dominate the conversation like jerks. Props to Jeff for being patient
do you even know the meaning of the word 'aggressive" apparently not. I'm surprised the cops even bothered to talk to this Jeff ...waste of their valuable time
I didn't notice at first. That explains why baseball cap cop was being tortured by constitution explanation. 🚔😡 Look how squirrelly he's acting. Constitution acid ate him up 🥵
"Aggressive" can be attached to lots of things that would make something illegal. To attach it to panhandling is to leave it up to the feelings police. Thank you doing this Jeff, it's important to me and my family.
It was painfully obvious that they didn't like what you were doing, and would have gladly put you in handcuffs if they could've come up with a single shred of evidence to do so.
I didnt see any evidence of that, they offered help. they weren't overly confrontational, they didn't ask him to leave. honestly they didn't even attempt to I'D him. I mean I hate aggressive policing, but this isnt it.
@@stuffbenlikesThey didn’t because they knew he was auditing. Remember they asked if he was recording? Anyway doesn’t matter they didn’t violate his rights like you said. It just proves recording police is our best defense.
All your assumptions about what they would or wouldn't do doesn't matter. In this case they follow the law and that is what they should be judge on in this incident and all others
Every cop will try to enforce panhandling ordinances just to please their boss, even though they know those ordinances are unconstitutional. That’s why it’s important to know the Constitution and your rights.
A cop will enforce these ordinances because it gets them performance expectation points which in turn gets them extra duty which in turn gets them moneyA cop will enforce these ordinances because it gets them performance expectation points which in turn gets them extra duty which in turn gets them money And lots of it
Almost a perfect response . Although it left me wondering had you not had the camera would they have tried to run you off ? I think they would have quoted the city ordinance and pushed it had you not quoted state and Supreme Court rulings . But at least they backed down when they realised you knew your rights and that’s a win . Thank you Jeff your dedication and fortitude is amazing .
I would love to hear Jeff ask them if they need help. Turn it right back on them with whatever issues law enforcement typically have. Ask them if they know the difference between honoring their oath or being tyrants
I not only love what you are doing, but I love the way you are doing it. I really appreciate your work as a civil rights investigator. Keep up the great work, and thank you for standing up for the rights of the people. God bless the homeless vets!
Brother, don't be naive. This guy only cares about provoking the cops in that town into a law$uit. That and youtube hits. He doesn't give a shit about people's rights or the constitution. This guy (like all of the other auditors) makes his living by suing people
Amazing that a citizen who is not panhandling gets accused of performing this activity in just about every community he visits. Cops will claim that panhandling is a crime, when it is not. Another great job by Jeff.
First cop did a 360 when he asked him if he was recording and his whole attitude changed. But the first cop still was an idiot of the law. I guarantee if Jeff wasn’t recording, he would’ve been arrested.
Hey we watched the same videos lol. I thought he should have put the hidden compartments back as well. not sure what happened with the copy and paste into honor your oath though :)
Just read a few definitions in statutes for what "aggressive panhandling" actually is. In some statues, merely carrying a sign is considered to be "aggressive panhandling."
@@larryforeman7157 It would be if that term were the entire law, but the law in question clearly DEFINES what constitutes aggressive panhandling, thus eliminating the vagueness.
Atta boy Jeff.. remind the officers rule statutes ordinances are not law they are policy. Thanks for your continued work may God continue to bless your path
God bless the homeless vets. I'm a vet, came close to homeless but thankfully got help just at the right time. Still struggling but social security is coming soon and that will help a lot.
@@mrwilson7617 I appreciate that Mr Wilson but I'm ok, I only have a few months to go to draw my regular retirement SS so everything is fine. I do think our government should take better care of it's vets not for myself but for all those less fortunate vets that haven't had a helping hand. There is a very thin line between being dirt poor but getting a little help and completely homeless.
You are aware that most of these panhandlers who claim to be homeless vets are neither right? You also know damn well that vets who suffer material difficulties including homelessness do so for the same reasons anybody else does.
How delightfully ironic that a cop of all people is telling you that it's illegal for you to follow people around asking them the same question even after they tell you no. That's all they do all day long.
And they need to train the call handlers, when someone call about things like this they should be able to tell them it's free speech, the waste of money is unbelievable
"Aggressive panhandling" is an awful charge because it pairs a legal activity with an illegal activity like assault or harassment. However, in most cases the assault or harassment would never be charged if not paired with the plea for funds. So, in practice the aggressive panhandling charge is due to the panhandling and not the aggression.
having been aggressively panhandled, I can tell you that it exceeds the definition of free speech and should be illegal. I agree it has the potential to be misapplied, but I have no problems with it being held to a slightly different standard of "aggression" than what would typically be defined as harassment/assault. nobody is getting charged with harassment for following somebody down a block after an interaction, its a bit different when somebody is standing there intending to follow everyone down the block unless they are given funds under the guise that its free speech.
If the aggression isn't illegal, neither is the panhandling. It's the compulsion of elected officials to "do something" that gives us this stuff. Makes already illegal stuff illegal-er. Second Delray officer was looking for a collar when he said it's "aggressive" if you ask twice. That's clearly as unconstitutional as outlawing asking once.
It is completely a unnecessary charge- if the aggressive behavior is unlawful, there is no reason to couple it with another act, unless an amplifying factor such as being armed. If the aggressive act is lawful, then it can't be made unlawful by coupling it with another lawful act such as charitable appeal. It's just a way to stack charges of harassment + aggressive pan handleing.
Gang blue line flag makes me nauseous. You are looking to NOT get a reaction. Whenever I hear a cop say "You are looking to get a reaction", it is the same mentality of the wife abuser or rapist blaming the victim.
LEO #2 was having great difficulty relinquishing his perceived authority. He couldn't remain calm for 1 second...he was doing the authoritarian junkie twist.
Jeff, you explained our rights so well to them. I don’t think they knew before meeting you that ordinances can be unconstitutional. It was really good to see them listening and investigating before passing judgment. But I think they only did that because you explained it so calmly, clearly and logically.
Jeff you explained it perfectly but those cops couldn’t comprehend it. They talked policy and you quoted Florida and US Constitutional Rights of Free Speech includes panhandling. Good Luck traveling to the Keys lol
This channel is the best. Total respect to jeff. I'm from the UK. If the police are wrong and say trespass or worst arrest jeff. What happens is the station or building bombarded with calls. 1000s upon 1000s watch yr vidio.
Great job Jeff. Officer Perez was ready to take you to the ground and lock you up, all his movements indicated that. After you where straight up with them he realized he didn't want to loose his job today. Keep up the great work.
Jeff as nice and cordial as you are that cop that wouldn't shut up just didn't get it. Because you know the laws he didn't push it. Even after you said you weren't panhandling he kept lettin you know where you could "get help". U see he would've easily violated a persons rights if they didn't know them. As usual Jeff I look forward to your content!!
Wild to me that many people in this comments don't see this. Haven't they witnessed enough violations to see the patterns? All I can think is that unfortunately some people must learn the hard way in life, it has to personally affect them to really sink in.
@@FreakMeat74 the PIG noticed that Jeff was video tapping him so he was in somewhat his best behavior. They can't help themsleves tho. When they have such a low IQ their mouths open independent of their pea brains. Want to watch some real TRASH at work then pull up Videos of East Cleveland Police indicted. Brings me such joy.
THE FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL RECENTLY OVERTURNED THE CONVICTION OF A LEE COUNTY MAN CONVICTED OF VIOLATING AN ANTI-PANHANDLING ORDINANCE ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF FORT MYERS. In Watrous v. State, a police officer arrested the defendant, whom the officer described as “actively begging” for money at a bus station. Prosecutors subsequently charged the defendant with violating the city code, which provides, “No person may ask, beg or solicit alms in any public transportation vehicle, or at any bus stop.” The Second District said the anti-panhandling ordinance was clearly a “content-based regulation of protected speech in a traditional public forum.
It's happening, one cop at a time!!! This is the 3rd video this week (2nd one today) where cops did their jobs, were civil & their egos didn't dictate their actions. You guys are doing it!! Thank you Jeff, and all of the other front line warriors out there protecting our freedom 💖💜❣
love what you do Jeff keep up the good work God bless the homeless vets. my brother Charles Taylor Vietnam vet keep him in your prayers please. he very well taken care of just health issues
It never fails to amaze me in viewing the reaction of some officials to Jeff's presence. It's beyond belief how limited their thinking extends. Sad, actually.
Blue arm Road pirate was a hairs whisker away from putting on his “aggressive manhandling” gloves… subdued once again by Jeff’s cool, calm, and most of all high intellectual charisma… nice Cha Jeff!
Nicely done as usual Jeff. My wife is going to Lake Panasoffkee next week to bring her parents back north for the summer. Maybe she’ll see you at city hall. 😂 keep up the good work we enjoy your videos
Great audit for our rights. Crazy how this one compares to the Georgia audit when you were arrested. On that arrest I’m supporting you 100%. Thank you for holding them accountable. They know they messed up and holding that charge hoping you accept a lesser charge.
Sorry, I’m not sold on these cops being the good guys they made themselves out to be, the first one recognized pretty quickly Jeff was recording, and I can’t help but wonder if a homeless person who didn’t have a phone, and wasn’t recording, would have received the same treament🤷♂️
I'd like to see "aggressive" panhandling challenged in court. Agressive can be a very subjective term or are the elements of being aggressive spelled out and defined in a sub section somewhere. When there are no cameras watching and the person making the charitable request for funds is dirty tattered and homeless the lies about being "aggressive will spill forth and be furthered documented by lying police in their reports and testimony. Even though these two cops seemed to treat Jeff with respect it was mostly due to them recognizing he was filming and testing. notice the second cops "aggressive" posture and comment about only doing this to get a reaction. No, actually doing this hoping not to get a reaction. Responding to a call on Jeff is policing on training wheels, if cops can't get this right how can we expect them to get anything right?
"Aggressive panhandling" is a term recently introduced by law enforcement. It is plausible that this may become a new approach for detaining individuals, as it provides a specific classification for behavior deemed overly assertive or disruptive while soliciting donations or assistance. This development could potentially impact how panhandling cases are addressed in the future. For instance, if law enforcement receives a report that an individual has been engaging in aggressive panhandling, this could potentially lead to their arrest and subsequent incarceration. This approach may indicate a shift in the way such cases are handled and underscores the potential consequences of this newly-defined behavior. Moving forward, it appears that law enforcement may categorize any form of panhandling as "aggressive panhandling," regardless of the specific behavior exhibited. This change in approach could result in stricter enforcement and increased consequences for those engaging in panhandling activities. It is essential to remain informed about local regulations and policies to understand the potential implications of this shift in perspective. It is possible that the Supreme Court may eventually become involved in addressing the issue of panhandling, particularly if concerns arise regarding the potential abuse or misapplication of related regulations. Judicial intervention could result in the clarification or revision of existing laws, ensuring that the rights and liberties of individuals are protected and that regulations are enforced in a fair and appropriate manner. First Amendment Auditors, prepare for an enduring journey. As the debate surrounding panhandling and its relation to the First Amendment intensifies, your role in monitoring and documenting potential violations of constitutional rights becomes increasingly crucial. This long-term commitment to preserving civil liberties will likely require resilience and vigilance, as you navigate the complexities of the legal landscape and contribute to the ongoing discourse on free speech and expression.
I'd like to see "aggressive" panhandling challenged in court. Agressive can be a very subjective term or are the elements of being aggressive spelled out and defined in a sub section somewhere. When there are no cameras watching and the person making the charitable request for funds is dirty tattered and homeless the lies about being "aggressive will spill forth and be furthered documented by lying police in their reports and testimony. Even though these two cops seemed to treat Jeff with respect it was mostly due to them recognizing he was filming and testing. notice the second cops "aggressive" posture and comment about only doing this to get a reaction. No, actually doing this hoping not to get a reaction. Responding to a call on Jeff is policing on training wheels, if cops can't get this right how can we expect them to get anything right?
There needs to be a directive any time a decision is handed down from a Supreme Court, either state or federal. If they issue a ruling saying a law is unconstitutional, they need to issue a directive that all places that have that law must rescind them..and give them a deadline to do it. Then if a cop arrests you for panhandling, tell them to find the law. It won't exist, or they'll see it was rescinded.
Do you know the difference between policing and aggressive policing? I didn’t think so… Why are they trying to verse him on something he wasn’t doing? Why would it stop there, why don’t they try and verse him on domestic abuse, or bank robbery, or bestiality? I don’t understand the point they are trying to make.
God Bless the homeless vets! The officers actually tried to be helpful, maybe change is on the horizon, Shame on the Delray Beach city hall for calling the police!
I wonder if there is another way to gather names/badge numbers? The moment you say it out loud they seem to figure out what you are actually doing. They may be suspicious of it beforehand, but when you say or ask for their name, that usually gives it away. Even though they were not overly aggressive before that point, they became much less aggressive the moment you said their names
Yes, so true, should consider reserving that question for the end of the conversation. If it goes south and you're arrested their ID will be on their reports.
@@rsmith3062 yes, but it is important to show viewers that it is within your right to request it, and their response to that question is important. But its just the way it is asked that tips them off maybe. Like, maybe if he said "I'll tell you my name if you tell me yours." I don't know. It's so tough to do this work. I really appreciate that he attempts this at all.
@@AllYouWantAndMore I agree, it takes a special person to put themselves out there to do this important work. I, myself, do not have the temperment for it, in short order I would become sarcastic, rude and vulgar. I'd just be another asshole that doesn't know how to handle themselves.
3/9/23 - City Hall - Delray Beach, Florida. An HonorYourOath Civil Rights Investigation.
I wonder if many cops know the difference between friendly policing and aggressive policing, eg walking up to innocent members of the public and forcing unwanted information on them?
I'm really glad they were good cops and not tyrants.
Heck yes.
Is AGGRESSIVE "consensual encounters" (intimidation) a violation of City Ordinance?
It's the gun toting mirror shaded thugs dressed for the invasion of Poland who need to go to the VA psych ward.
Statutes against "aggressive panhandling" are just as bogus as statutes against panhandling. Free speech is free speech, whether it involves asking for money or not. Harassment or violence already have laws prohibiting them. If a panhandler breaks a law against harassment or violence, then they commit a crime. But "aggressive panhandling" statutes, depending on the wording, are either unconstitutional, or redundant. In most cases, they are unconstitutional.
Remember when you're rich, asking for money is fundraising and when your poor it's panhandling.
Erase "panhandle" from the dictionary, or
See: Charitable contributions, Fundraising 📖📚
Great comparison, Chile!
@@raytorres2685 but what about coastal areas called panhandles?
Nicely but
@@DVincentW then everyone is guilty lol, by the way, inland panhandles exist. the edge of a state sticking out is called a panhandle. they can be found in places like texas, oklahoma, florida, nebraska, to name a few.
"You cannot outlaw compassion between human beings." -Jeff Gray
When a citizen feels obligated to explain a law to a cop, it is bewildering. Especially a city ordinance, which typically violates a First Amendment Right. City attorneys should be help responsible, as they should know better than to check the validity of the ordinance. Shame on them.
Its all about money , If you don't know or they think you can not stand for your right they will immediately ticket you its all about money.
The COPS should already know that an ordinance does not supersede the Constitution.
They should be arresting those responsible for crafting ordinances that violate rights under 18 USC sec 241.
If the cops enforce them, they're in violation of section 242.
...HELD RESPONSIBLE...
For every ordinance that is not valid The city managers and attorneys should lose a year's salary.
@@cognitiveawareness6589 attorney should be fired immediately.
They pass illegal ordinances because they know the victims of their illegal actions will not be challenged. This is why Jeff is so important.
Good point! Mandates are the same... just words on paper.
I'm surprised your comment doesn't have more likes, because you are spot on! That's exactly what it is.
Most Pandhandling ordinances were written many years ago. Ignorance keeps them enforced.
I believe you meant "they (the cops) will not be challenged by their victims"
Even when cops think they are trying to be nice, they are still condescending jerks.
no such thing as a nice cop, don't trust nice cops, they turn on you. It's a ploy to self incriminate yourself.
Even the nazi secret police in the movies said please when demanding papers....
Yep. They automatically assumed Jeff was a bum.
Especially when they treat their own family just like they do the public.
@@joeblow2069 Jeff purposefully dresses a specific way to look like he's hard up. Helps the facade
They TRIED to scare you with the “aggressive panhandling” without you being aggressive.
It sounded like Jeff was the first one to say the word panhandling. Then he asked if panhandling is illegal here and they answered aggressive panhandling is.
They didn’t try to scare him with anything. Maybe watch with an adult to help explain what’s going on.
Stunning that this nonsense comment gets fifty thumbs-up.
These cops are fine. Save your outrage for the pieces of shit. There are plenty of them out there.
I think they came in a little hot but they were quick to calm down and just have a conversation. They could do a little better but they did pretty good.
...or panhandling. He's not a panhandler. He DOES solicit goodwill and awareness for our homeless vets, and provides a free education in Constitutional rights
"Trying to get a reaction" is what a bad-cop always say, don't fall for the passive-aggressive cops 'niceness'. Those p*nks are not your friends.
Just like their buy and bust operations
Here is the reaction btw.
@Don't Shoot RUclips always rides my ass for my harsh comments, just a week ago, they took my ability to comment for 24 hours, lol! 24 hours, HTG.
@@biscoito1r right?! Stupid cop falls for it.
@@notozknows.
Try:
AlTeRnAtInG caps and lowercase
A-l-t-r-n-a-t-n-g letters an dashes
Subst*tut*on of a letter with *
What powerful words we should all take away from this conversation "it shouldn't be illegal to ask for help"
What I took away was ...it is not illegal. At least that's what these cops said.
It's immoral for it to be illegal to ask for help.
Why would it bother a cop if somebody comes out to audit them? Whether the auditor is 'expecting' any particular response or not, the response should be the same.
"Hey, how ya doing? We got a call, so we came out to see what's actually going on. You need help? No? You're just exercising basic civil rights? Okay, bye." It's not even the auditor wasting that 2 minutes of cop time, it's the ignorant caller.
That's true, it's normally the city officials who are wasting law enforcements time and resources, not the auditor.
It should be that simple but for reasons unknown to me it remains complicated
Corrupt people don't like transparency or accountability.
And the police who drag it on for 15 min. trying to get ID.
"My camera does not control how YOU CHOSE TO RESPOND TO ME."
The citizenry NEEDS to be more concerned about aggressive policing than aggressive panhandling
I wonder what their response would be if you wore a suit and held a sign that said, "God bless the police"?
180 Degree Turn-Around
Might be an experiment to think about!!
Citizen of the Year Award! Front page of the local newspaper!
Considering many or most of the police officers are vets. It shouldn't matter.
TheBrookian
They'd know it was a lie.
I love how when they said aggressive panhandling is illegal, he immediately challenged that, a true patriot.
I assume by aggressive they mean laying hands on folks, unwanted touching, stalking and harassing, how exactly it is defined would be of note ..
I've been waiting for Jeff to ask cops for money for awhile... And he did not disappoint a true patriot indeed. 🇺🇸
@@TheGRAYSvarietySHOW although I do not know the definition used in the ordinance the way I see it things like following someone to their vehicle insisting that they check the ash trey ect... Unwanted touching is assault obviously stalking and harassing while fundraising are illegal on there own.
He didn’t challenge aggressive panhandling.
It's a pleasure when I see Jeff teaching officers the law and them realizing he does know the law very well and still respects his rights.
Brother, he doesn't give a shit about anyone's rights or the constitution. He's looking to provoke a lawsuit. It's the money he's after
@@ghettodaddy1438 found the bootlicker
@@ghettodaddy1438 Pretty sure he makes more of the RUclips videos than the lawsuits
Who knows for sure. 250K hits on youtube will only get you $120.00@@theveryhighminister867
@@ghettodaddy1438 If cops didn't break the law, it wouldn't work.
Police department and politicians sent out letters asking for money every year, it’s called FUNDRAISING, different word for panhandling…
Excellent point 👍
They wanted an out as soon as you said "a homeless person should be able to stand here and ask for help" as they both knew deep down they'd arrest a homeless person doing that if City Hall employees told them to.
Yeah, we didn't just forgive the nazis for "following orders" either. The blueline goons must go.
What proof do you have that that’s what “they knew deep down”? I didn’t catch anything that would lead me to believe you’re correct in your presupposition.
@brkbeat junkie empathy is understood. Some just lack motivation by such.
It may be a presumption but one we hope all understands rather than presume we're all the monster within.
@@brkbtjunkie The change in demeanor when he noticed he was being recorded? His voice pitch change? The 2nd cops twitching finger? Asking if he needs 'help' so they can get you in their custody/you give up your rights, and the rabbit hole towards a ruined life goes from there.
@@brkbtjunkie I guess you don't take much notice of body language. Even with sunglasses you could see them avoiding eye contact. Maybe you're a bit of a swine?
Any city police department in the Florida area that has not heard of Jeff Gray, has to have been living under a rock.
Same with Michael Taylor, aka, The Armed Fisherman
These guys were very typical examples of the arrogance that is so pervasive in law enforcement. They just have to talk down to people and feel like they're right and they know more than someone else even when they're dead wrong and don't know a damn thing.
Notice how he repeated his question, do you know the difference___? Because when you don't answer a cop the way they want you to, they repeat the question. I have seen arrest made because the cop gets angry over this.
@@Blue-hf7xt absolutely. It's their ego and narcissism running wild. They have to be listened to and understood, but they can't listen and understand; they have to twist things to make themselves appear right, justified, important, and powerful while making others feel and appear stupid, wrong, and beneath them; they can't think freely or grasp other ideas, positions or nuance and must force the topic/ situation/conversation to fit within the confines of the tiny parameters of their predetermined intent and objectives. They're essentially robots made of flesh and bone who can only operate on a very limited and specifically designed program. The psychological makeup of these people is not that of a healthy, normal person who gets along well with society; it's really the opposite, and they choose these types of people on purpose then make them even worse through very developed training. It's no accident that most cops are the way they are; it's by design through centuries of study and program development. The one's who aren't completely antisocial violent robots are the outliers who've slipped through the cracks of the system.
@@Blue-hf7xt Do they know the difference? They probably have an opinion or an interpretation, but no one can know because it's too (unconstitutionally) vague.
@@larryforeman7157 exactly vague means they give the cop thugs freedom to abuse it and free for all for the aggressive level.
@@Blue-hf7xt BINGO
Two points. First, the adjective “aggressive” needs to have a legal definition codified in an ordinance or criminal code to be enforceable as it is a subjective term. Second, if a cop suggests “you’re trying to get a reaction”, the logical response might be, “Will you react differently if you believe that is my goal than you would if you didn’t know?” Thank you, Jeff, for taking the risks to protect our rights. 👍👍👍
I agree. In legal terms, it unconstitutionally vague." I wish Jeff had asked them what it means.
You ask too much. Members of the supreme court can't define a woman
Honor your Oath and Aggressive should Never be used together.
That's Not how Jeff gets down.
RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!
He "gets down" by provoking the cops and then suing them, because he's too lazy to go to work like the rest of us...
@@ghettodaddy1438 he has a 9 to 5 job, officer.
Yeah, suing municipalities which are funded by the taxpayers@@fjb960
cops thugs should be told, hey being aggressive to citizens is Not Right.
Jeff is so nice. These guys were condescending and aggressive with their communication. Tried to dominate the conversation like jerks. Props to Jeff for being patient
Watch his older videos. He was pretty colorful back then. Lol
@@M70ACARRY I'm familiar
@Carlos Spicyweiner lol nice name, they did not violate his rights, but their attitudes were definitely less than optimal in the beginning
do you even know the meaning of the word 'aggressive" apparently not. I'm surprised the cops even bothered to talk to this Jeff ...waste of their valuable time
Both of the officers should remove the gang blue line flag on their vests.
I looked at it, but I couldn't tell . Thanks for pointing this out. Write to the police chief about it.
That “flag” should be removed from everything, everywhere!
I didn't notice at first. That explains why baseball cap cop was being tortured by constitution explanation. 🚔😡
Look how squirrelly he's acting.
Constitution acid ate him up 🥵
They're not even wearing blue line flags LOL its the American flag
@@ambera8216 I just watched it on my TV. Yes, you are right, there is no blue line. IT is one of those Black US flags. I don't like those ones either.
"Aggressive" can be attached to lots of things that would make something illegal. To attach it to panhandling is to leave it up to the feelings police. Thank you doing this Jeff, it's important to me and my family.
It was painfully obvious that they didn't like what you were doing, and would have gladly put you in handcuffs if they could've come up with a single shred of evidence to do so.
But they didn't, so good on them.
I didnt see any evidence of that, they offered help. they weren't overly confrontational, they didn't ask him to leave. honestly they didn't even attempt to I'D him. I mean I hate aggressive policing, but this isnt it.
They didn’t because they know he’s recording.
@@stuffbenlikesThey didn’t because they knew he was auditing. Remember they asked if he was recording? Anyway doesn’t matter they didn’t violate his rights like you said. It just proves recording police is our best defense.
All your assumptions about what they would or wouldn't do doesn't matter. In this case they follow the law and that is what they should be judge on in this incident and all others
Veteran to Veteran. GOD BLESS YOU JEFF. 🐝
Every cop will try to enforce panhandling ordinances just to please their boss, even though they know those ordinances are unconstitutional. That’s why it’s important to know the Constitution and your rights.
how many times have you heard a cop use the word 'constitutional'?
@@Blue-hf7xtnone
A cop will enforce these ordinances because it gets them performance expectation points which in turn gets them extra duty which in turn gets them moneyA cop will enforce these ordinances because it gets them performance expectation points which in turn gets them extra duty which in turn gets them money And lots of it
@@cognitiveawareness6589 it helps them justify their paychecks
@@shadowbeast2276 that is a bingo
Almost a perfect response . Although it left me wondering had you not had the camera would they have tried to run you off ? I think they would have quoted the city ordinance and pushed it had you not quoted state and Supreme Court rulings . But at least they backed down when they realised you knew your rights and that’s a win . Thank you Jeff your dedication and fortitude is amazing .
Those two definitely weren't the sharpest tools in the shed!!!
I would love to hear Jeff ask them if they need help. Turn it right back on them with whatever issues law enforcement typically have. Ask them if they know the difference between honoring their oath or being tyrants
God bless the homeless vets and Jeff Gray...❤
Jeff is a gentleman and knows his rights. He is a great teacher.
I not only love what you are doing, but I love the way you are doing it. I really appreciate your work as a civil rights investigator. Keep up the great work, and thank you for standing up for the rights of the people. God bless the homeless vets!
Brother, don't be naive. This guy only cares about provoking the cops in that town into a law$uit. That and youtube hits. He doesn't give a shit about people's rights or the constitution. This guy (like all of the other auditors) makes his living by suing people
THIS.
R.
Amazing that a citizen who is not panhandling gets accused of performing this activity in just about every community he visits. Cops will claim that panhandling is a crime, when it is not. Another great job by Jeff.
First cop did a 360 when he asked him if he was recording and his whole attitude changed. But the first cop still was an idiot of the law. I guarantee if Jeff wasn’t recording, he would’ve been arrested.
Or beaten to a pulp.
That's why he does "hidden cameras" in many videos. So the cops aren't aware they are being recorded.
It's a 180
Hey we watched the same videos lol. I thought he should have put the hidden compartments back as well. not sure what happened with the copy and paste into honor your oath though :)
@Carlos Spicyweiner obviously, you didn’t see the same video I saw. I know how to read body language. But that’s your opinion.
That seemed like 2 pretty good officers. Glad that they honored their oaths, and went about their ways
Never heard the supreme Court refer to "aggressive" first amendment activities 😂
The term is obviously unconstitutionally vague.
Just read a few definitions in statutes for what "aggressive panhandling" actually is. In some statues, merely carrying a sign is considered to be "aggressive panhandling."
we have *calm* rights....not aggressive ones.
I have. There's literally dozens of such cases. You've never been to law school, have you?
@@larryforeman7157
It would be if that term were the entire law, but the law in question clearly DEFINES what constitutes aggressive panhandling, thus eliminating the vagueness.
Good bless the homeless vets and Jeff Gray
Atta boy Jeff.. remind the officers rule statutes ordinances are not law they are policy. Thanks for your continued work may God continue to bless your path
God bless the homeless vets. I'm a vet, came close to homeless but thankfully got help just at the right time. Still struggling but social security is coming soon and that will help a lot.
SSI is available if qualified
@@mrwilson7617 I appreciate that Mr Wilson but I'm ok, I only have a few months to go to draw my regular retirement SS so everything is fine. I do think our government should take better care of it's vets not for myself but for all those less fortunate vets that haven't had a helping hand. There is a very thin line between being dirt poor but getting a little help and completely homeless.
Pray for a God source of income vs government.
It is there, many blessing coming your way.
You are aware that most of these panhandlers who claim to be homeless vets are neither right?
You also know damn well that vets who suffer material difficulties including homelessness do so for the same reasons anybody else does.
TONY HOOVER. THANKS FOR YOUR SERVICE,BLESS YOU!
How delightfully ironic that a cop of all people is telling you that it's illegal for you to follow people around asking them the same question even after they tell you no. That's all they do all day long.
They wanted you to be wrong soooo bad. Great job.
If they had sensed any weakness this likely would have gone fairly different.
And they need to train the call handlers, when someone call about things like this they should be able to tell them it's free speech, the waste of money is unbelievable
"Aggressive panhandling" is an awful charge because it pairs a legal activity with an illegal activity like assault or harassment. However, in most cases the assault or harassment would never be charged if not paired with the plea for funds. So, in practice the aggressive panhandling charge is due to the panhandling and not the aggression.
having been aggressively panhandled, I can tell you that it exceeds the definition of free speech and should be illegal. I agree it has the potential to be misapplied, but I have no problems with it being held to a slightly different standard of "aggression" than what would typically be defined as harassment/assault. nobody is getting charged with harassment for following somebody down a block after an interaction, its a bit different when somebody is standing there intending to follow everyone down the block unless they are given funds under the guise that its free speech.
It's a way cops can arrest a citizen for something legal.
If the aggression isn't illegal, neither is the panhandling. It's the compulsion of elected officials to "do something" that gives us this stuff. Makes already illegal stuff illegal-er. Second Delray officer was looking for a collar when he said it's "aggressive" if you ask twice. That's clearly as unconstitutional as outlawing asking once.
@@Blue-hf7xt true.
It is completely a unnecessary charge- if the aggressive behavior is unlawful, there is no reason to couple it with another act, unless an amplifying factor such as being armed. If the aggressive act is lawful, then it can't be made unlawful by coupling it with another lawful act such as charitable appeal. It's just a way to stack charges of harassment + aggressive pan handleing.
You should try the "God bless the homeless vets" sign at the steps of the Supreme Court of Florida! If you ever get the chance, the SCOTUS!!!
I think it would be VERY interesting to see if they practice the case law they enacted
As always, Sir, a fantastic job of teaching public servants what a servants heart is truly like.
At least they offered to get you any help that you might have needed. That’s a lot better than most of the cops you encounter.
Gang blue line flag makes me nauseous. You are looking to NOT get a reaction. Whenever I hear a cop say "You are looking to get a reaction", it is the same mentality of the wife abuser or rapist blaming the victim.
Jeff said, "unfortunately" took the bait, got hooked, got SCHOOLED, & put in check. Released 🎣 back, lesson learned.
LEO #2 was having great difficulty relinquishing his perceived authority. He couldn't remain calm for 1 second...he was doing the authoritarian junkie twist.
I have an idea when a cop ask you if you need some help have 2 signs and say yeah, go stand over there and hold this sign
Jeff, you explained our rights so well to them. I don’t think they knew before meeting you that ordinances can be unconstitutional. It was really good to see them listening and investigating before passing judgment. But I think they only did that because you explained it so calmly, clearly and logically.
Jeff you explained it perfectly but those cops couldn’t comprehend it. They talked policy and you quoted Florida and US Constitutional Rights of Free Speech includes panhandling. Good Luck traveling to the Keys lol
If I am EVER in Florida, I would love to go meet Jeff. Living in Communist Canada, it's kinda tuff to get down there.
Thanks Jeff for all that you do !
This channel is the best. Total respect to jeff. I'm from the UK. If the police are wrong and say trespass or worst arrest jeff. What happens is the station or building bombarded with calls. 1000s upon 1000s watch yr vidio.
God bless the homeless vets.
🥈
Great job Jeff. Officer Perez was ready to take you to the ground and lock you up, all his movements indicated that. After you where straight up with them he realized he didn't want to loose his job today. Keep up the great work.
I wonder if they ask every homeless person if they need help!!! I bet they don't
Santa panhandles every year outside a store that rounds up(panhandling) down the road from the fireman panhandling with his boot out.
Another good point 👍
Yes, and the firemen shaking their boot at you seems a bit aggressive to me.
WE THE PEOPLE ARE HERE AND WE ARE WATCHING 💪...STAY STRONG PATRIOTS.🇺🇸
Jeff as nice and cordial as you are that cop that wouldn't shut up just didn't get it. Because you know the laws he didn't push it. Even after you said you weren't panhandling he kept lettin you know where you could "get help". U see he would've easily violated a persons rights if they didn't know them. As usual Jeff I look forward to your content!!
Wild to me that many people in this comments don't see this. Haven't they witnessed enough violations to see the patterns? All I can think is that unfortunately some people must learn the hard way in life, it has to personally affect them to really sink in.
@@FreakMeat74 the PIG noticed that Jeff was video tapping him so he was in somewhat his best behavior. They can't help themsleves tho. When they have such a low IQ their mouths open independent of their pea brains. Want to watch some real TRASH at work then pull up Videos of East Cleveland Police indicted. Brings me such joy.
So what if his sign said God bless the brave heroes of the thin blue line or God bless Ron Desantis? I bet they would react differently.
Watching from the uk 🇬🇧 👍👍👍👍
THE FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL RECENTLY OVERTURNED THE CONVICTION OF A LEE COUNTY MAN CONVICTED OF VIOLATING AN ANTI-PANHANDLING ORDINANCE ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF FORT MYERS. In Watrous v. State, a police officer arrested the defendant, whom the officer described as “actively begging” for money at a bus station. Prosecutors subsequently charged the defendant with violating the city code, which provides, “No person may ask, beg or solicit alms in any public transportation vehicle, or at any bus stop.” The Second District said the anti-panhandling ordinance was clearly a “content-based regulation of protected speech in a traditional public forum.
I love the way you turned around the panhandling conversation. Nicely done.
God bless you jeff, am proud of your work
It's happening, one cop at a time!!! This is the 3rd video this week (2nd one today) where cops did their jobs, were civil & their egos didn't dictate their actions. You guys are doing it!! Thank you Jeff, and all of the other front line warriors out there protecting our freedom 💖💜❣
It will never end.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Thank you Jeff!
🥉
Panhandling and being aggressive towards people are two separate activities. An ordinance that conflates the two causes confusion.
love what you do Jeff keep up the good work God bless the homeless vets. my brother Charles Taylor Vietnam vet keep him in your prayers please. he very well taken care of just health issues
I like the good encounters. Makes me think there is hope for all of us. Thank you Jeff.
Great work as always Jeff
🥇
It never fails to amaze me in viewing the reaction of some officials to Jeff's presence. It's beyond belief how limited their thinking extends. Sad, actually.
Blue arm Road pirate was a hairs whisker away from putting on his “aggressive manhandling” gloves… subdued once again by Jeff’s cool, calm, and most of all high intellectual charisma… nice Cha Jeff!
Thank you Jeff! Long time follower! May you and your family continue to be blessed! 😊🙏🙏🙏😊
When you asked for help and the cop straight up said no was disturbing
When will we learn that we cannot police away desperation. Backing what you do Jeff. Thanks brother
Thanks Jeff. Love our Vets...Love our Constitution....Love the channel. God Bless You.
I'm so excited that you're finally in Delray beach. You need to be on Atlantic Ave on a Friday night
I liked how you kept the camera on the cop with the hat , he kind of was a little aggressive, well done Jeff
Nicely done as usual Jeff. My wife is going to Lake Panasoffkee next week to bring her parents back north for the summer. Maybe she’ll see you at city hall. 😂 keep up the good work we enjoy your videos
Wow, two rational cops behaving professionally. Kudos to them.
This was a great video. Thank you.
Great audit for our rights. Crazy how this one compares to the Georgia audit when you were arrested. On that arrest I’m supporting you 100%. Thank you for holding them accountable. They know they messed up and holding that charge hoping you accept a lesser charge.
This is the true defense of democracy. This is honorable and courageous. Jeff, I honestly believe you are an American hero.
Sorry, I’m not sold on these cops being the good guys they made themselves out to be, the first one recognized pretty quickly Jeff was recording, and I can’t help but wonder if a homeless person who didn’t have a phone, and wasn’t recording, would have received the same treament🤷♂️
They knew they had to behave themselves 📸 🚔😨😰
I agree whole-heartedly with your comment.
I'd like to see "aggressive" panhandling challenged in court. Agressive can be a very subjective term or are the elements of being aggressive spelled out and defined in a sub section somewhere. When there are no cameras watching and the person making the charitable request for funds is dirty tattered and homeless the lies about being "aggressive will spill forth and be furthered documented by lying police in their reports and testimony. Even though these two cops seemed to treat Jeff with respect it was mostly due to them recognizing he was filming and testing. notice the second cops "aggressive" posture and comment about only doing this to get a reaction. No, actually doing this hoping not to get a reaction. Responding to a call on Jeff is policing on training wheels, if cops can't get this right how can we expect them to get anything right?
@@rsmith3062 Agree, that second cop was agitated, and I believe he would have created a problem if the other cop hadn't been there.
Of course not.
wait for it....I knew they would ask for ID
They knew what they were walking into, so while they pass I can't really say they did well. They knew you were an "auditor" when they approached.
Another outstanding audit from Jeff.
Show'em who's boss jeff👍
"Detox!" made me laugh! Thanks.
I'm glad my hometown treated you right Jeff! Keep up the great work!
"Aggressive panhandling" is a term recently introduced by law enforcement. It is plausible that this may become a new approach for detaining individuals, as it provides a specific classification for behavior deemed overly assertive or disruptive while soliciting donations or assistance. This development could potentially impact how panhandling cases are addressed in the future.
For instance, if law enforcement receives a report that an individual has been engaging in aggressive panhandling, this could potentially lead to their arrest and subsequent incarceration. This approach may indicate a shift in the way such cases are handled and underscores the potential consequences of this newly-defined behavior.
Moving forward, it appears that law enforcement may categorize any form of panhandling as "aggressive panhandling," regardless of the specific behavior exhibited. This change in approach could result in stricter enforcement and increased consequences for those engaging in panhandling activities. It is essential to remain informed about local regulations and policies to understand the potential implications of this shift in perspective.
It is possible that the Supreme Court may eventually become involved in addressing the issue of panhandling, particularly if concerns arise regarding the potential abuse or misapplication of related regulations. Judicial intervention could result in the clarification or revision of existing laws, ensuring that the rights and liberties of individuals are protected and that regulations are enforced in a fair and appropriate manner.
First Amendment Auditors, prepare for an enduring journey. As the debate surrounding panhandling and its relation to the First Amendment intensifies, your role in monitoring and documenting potential violations of constitutional rights becomes increasingly crucial. This long-term commitment to preserving civil liberties will likely require resilience and vigilance, as you navigate the complexities of the legal landscape and contribute to the ongoing discourse on free speech and expression.
I'd like to see "aggressive" panhandling challenged in court. Agressive can be a very subjective term or are the elements of being aggressive spelled out and defined in a sub section somewhere. When there are no cameras watching and the person making the charitable request for funds is dirty tattered and homeless the lies about being "aggressive will spill forth and be furthered documented by lying police in their reports and testimony. Even though these two cops seemed to treat Jeff with respect it was mostly due to them recognizing he was filming and testing. notice the second cops "aggressive" posture and comment about only doing this to get a reaction. No, actually doing this hoping not to get a reaction. Responding to a call on Jeff is policing on training wheels, if cops can't get this right how can we expect them to get anything right?
There needs to be a directive any time a decision is handed down from a Supreme Court, either state or federal. If they issue a ruling saying a law is unconstitutional, they need to issue a directive that all places that have that law must rescind them..and give them a deadline to do it. Then if a cop arrests you for panhandling, tell them to find the law. It won't exist, or they'll see it was rescinded.
I thought that was going the wrong way but surprise it went ok. God bless the homeless vets
199k here you go almost 200k how amazing Jeff. Keep it up.
P.S. God bless the homeless vets. You, your family and your fans. ❤
Do you know the difference between policing and aggressive policing? I didn’t think so… Why are they trying to verse him on something he wasn’t doing? Why would it stop there, why don’t they try and verse him on domestic abuse, or bank robbery, or bestiality? I don’t understand the point they are trying to make.
The supreme court got it right! Panhandling is protected free speech, because you can't take away someone's right to ask for help.
God Bless the homeless vets! The officers actually tried to be helpful, maybe change is on the horizon, Shame on the Delray Beach city hall for calling the police!
Thin blue line desecration 🇺🇲
Jeff Gray (Grey??). The grandaddy of Auditing.
The 1st & still the BEST! Many auditors could take lessons from Jeff!
I wonder if there is another way to gather names/badge numbers? The moment you say it out loud they seem to figure out what you are actually doing. They may be suspicious of it beforehand, but when you say or ask for their name, that usually gives it away. Even though they were not overly aggressive before that point, they became much less aggressive the moment you said their names
Yes, so true, should consider reserving that question for the end of the conversation. If it goes south and you're arrested their ID will be on their reports.
@@rsmith3062 yes, but it is important to show viewers that it is within your right to request it, and their response to that question is important. But its just the way it is asked that tips them off maybe. Like, maybe if he said "I'll tell you my name if you tell me yours." I don't know. It's so tough to do this work. I really appreciate that he attempts this at all.
@@AllYouWantAndMore I agree, it takes a special person to put themselves out there to do this important work. I, myself, do not have the temperment for it, in short order I would become sarcastic, rude and vulgar. I'd just be another asshole that doesn't know how to handle themselves.