United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Cops Shutdown High School Kids Trying to Earn Money by Shoveling Snow
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/co ... ids-earn-money-shoveling-snow/
Published: Jan 28, 2015
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2015-01-29 03:10:32 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 23313
Comments: 77
In America, “Land of Opportunity,” you are free to pursue your dreams of financial freedom, provided you have filled out the proper form and been extorted by the proper bureaucrat. Two teenage boys from Bridgewater, New Jersey are getting a hard does of this statism after their pursuance of financial freedom landed them in hot water with the fuzz. Earlier this week, Matt Molinari and his friend Eric Schnepf, both seniors in High School, were going door-to-door advertising their snow shoveling services in advance of the storm. School was out, and instead of sitting inside and playing XBOX, these two young entrepreneurs felt the fire of enterprise and decided to turn their down time into an actual dime. However, Molinari and Schnepf apparently didn’t realize that in order to make a dime you have to pay a quarter — to the state. When the two boys were out trying to rustle up some business during what they saw as an opportunity, along came the uniformed agents of the state, to put this unapproved business venture out to pasture. “We weren’t looking to break the law. We just didn’t know the law,” Molinari tells Jim Smith on his WCBS 880 radio show. The cops then gave these two kids a lesson in statist economics, which consequently ended their high school snow shoveling business. “They need a permit, unpermitted solicitation is not allowed,” Molinari said, recalling what the police told them. In this particular county, anyone selling goods and services door to door must apply for a license that can cost as much as $450 for permission that is valid for only 180 days; after all freedom ain’t free. “We don’t make the laws but we have to uphold them,” Police Chief Michael Jannone said Tuesday, in true statist fashion, after reading some of the online comments about the incident. The teens’ story quickly started gaining traction in a local Bound Brook Facebook group after a resident witnessed police shaking down Schnepf after going to his door. “Are you kidding me? Our generation does nothing but complain about his generation being lazy and not working for their money,” he wrote on Bound Brook NJ Events‘ page. “Here’s a couple kids who take the time to print up flyers, walk door to door in the snow, and then shovel snow for some spending money. And someone calls the cops and they’re told to stop?” The two teens have, rightfully so, been met with loads of support. After being questioned by reporters and seeing the backlash against them, the Bound Brook police chief did some back peddling and told MyCentralJersey.com they are not cracking down on kids shoveling, but rather that it was a state of emergency and should not have been out. Unfortunately the young entrepreneurial spirit is often stomped into a sad puddle in this land of the ostensibly free. Similar bans around the country have nixed the learning stages of free enterprise by putting an end to practices such as lemonade stands and selling Girl Scouts cookies. In October of 2013, The Free Thought Project reported on the incident in Washington DC in which dozens of cops were dispatched, not because there were armed gunman threatening to kill hostages, or because of a bomb threat, or riot, but because a group of rowdy kids would dare sell lemonade, without a permit.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-14) not displayed.
.
.
.
#15. To: Gatlin (#13)
Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good. ~ Ephesians 4:29 Clean and intelligent language is evidence of a bright and wholesome mind.
When we take your story and weave it into a tale of such devastating truth, that is not drama.
You need to lay off the insults and just debate. You name call way to much.
It isn't a constitutional right to make a sales pitch for your services on someone's front step. Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The State constitutions are the same regarding freedom of speech. A law requiring them to register in order to talk to people is clearly unconstitutional. Because NO law means NO law. The person could put up a no soliciting sign or no trespassing sign. Then they wouldn't be "bothered". The government licensing this is plainly a violation of the first amendment.
The right choice
of words can cognitively and creatively reorient conversations. You need to
think twice about the vocabulary you use if you want prove your point. Too
often, your foul default language and vulgar clichés dominate your attempted
communications. Try investing some deep thought and effort into language
that adds real value.
Why was the officer outside if it was so dangerous? Walking in the snow isn't dangerous. Even if it is deep.
Your laughable contention that "...the thin blue line standing between us and the hordes of criminals waiting to rob us blind, rape our sisters and mothers, or murder us in our beds." is a text book example of a drama queen remark. Cops are not there to protect and serve. I guess you missed the Supreme Court ruling.
Facts versus feelings.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
Oh but this is OK? The big, bad Deckard tosses back a comment worthy of a pimply faced teen rather than a big, tough cop basher. The standard Deckard response when encountering a police officer: "Yes officer, sorry officer, I had no idea officer, please officer" You might want to check out this Vinny character - looks like another multi screen name poster.
Tender tender feelings.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
Just yesterday my truck broke down. I was pushing it by myself. Low and behold a cop came up and helped me push it. He didn't search me. He didn't search my truck. I just said thank you and he went on his way. In fact that reminds me a couple of years ago my truck broke down on a busy intersection. I was going to have to call a tow truck. Another cop came and helped me. He made me sign a waiver and he pushed my car with his police car to a parking lot. Where I fixed it myself and saved a towing bill and a lot of time.
Good question. A resident called the police to report someone with a hoodie was walking across the yards in the neighborhood at night and they suspected it may be a burgular. Also, while it is not listed high among the most dangerous professions, police work is more dangerous than your average profession. I will never argue with the fact that there are time when police officers put their lives on the line….and those who do, deserve our admiration and gratitude.
That doesn't explain why it was dangerous. That just answers why the officer was there.
Vinny has been around for years....I assume it is the same Vinny.
Walking in the snow isn't dangerous. Even if it is deep. Walking around at night across yards with a hoodie on can be dangerous, even if there is no snow….something Trayvon Martin would say, if he were here. You should be careful the way you word this. Deckard could come up and use this as proof that the cops are what is dangerous.
The only answer I could possibley come up with is the Governor had declared a state of emergency and the police officer made that interpretation. Perhaps he was wrong to do so. Maybe the article meant that it was dangerous to be walking around in the night with a hoodie on....and the snow aspect just added. I don't know, I can't give you an answer....I would not see the danger in walking in the snow alone. I don't think that is what the officer was conveying, but of course I am guessing.
I read it again....how?
It would be spin. Just a joke, maybe not a good one.
I never said they were here to protect and serve you. I said: "Your laughable contention that "...the thin blue line standing between us and the hordes of criminals waiting to rob us blind, rape our sisters and mothers, or murder us in our beds." is a text book example of a drama queen remark." They are the "thin blue line"....you can give whatever job description you deem necessary to fit your agenda.
Got it... I have been up since 3:30 preparing for today's activity. It is now approaching 5:30 and I didn't have my joke wit turned on yet. But then, I always realize Deckard tries to spin everything.
Your agenda is to blindly defend ALL cops, no mater how corrupt or sadistic they are. If they violate the constitution, so what?
Spin this badge bunny. 70-Year-Old Veteran Abused and Arrested By Power Tripping Cop for Walking with a Cane Think about that the next time you decide to go for a walk.
That’s simply not true. My agenda is to pursue truth. I do so by pointing out the inconsistencies in the articles you post. This last one you posted was a classic example of yellow journalism. We had a chance to see two different stories about the same incident and examine them side by side. I know that some cops are bad and do bad things. When they do, I want them disciplined or charged if the violated the law. No one should ever violate the Constitution.
The law doesn't discriminate among these various sales pitches. Either everyone pitches or no one pitches on a doorstep.
And steal our Xboxen! : )
All protected political speech. Our society may tolerate all kinds of speech in the public square. But a man's home is his castle and you don't just get to make a sales pitch in his house and be protected by the First Amendment.
I had to look that up...
There can be no law against it. The homeowner merely has to put a no trespassing sign or a no soliciting sign. To communicate to the person said homeowners desire to not be bothered. Some people don't mind. IF that is the case then sending unsolicited mail by the postman would also be unlawful.
In public, yes. Not in their homes and private property. Protected speech ends at your property line.
nolu loves the legal stuff. Maybe he wants to weigh in.
The person can put up a sign. But it isn't against the law to walk across the lawn to ask a question. Once the person makes a sales pitch or starts talking. The homeowner can tell them to leave. It isn't default you can't talk to someone because they live on private property. Remember there can constitutionally be "no law".
thanks for the password fix, stone
You have an elevated notion about the absolutism of free speech. It isn't as absolute as you like to think it is. The law often tolerates regulation at the state or local level when it would forbid the same activity by the feds. States and local government have a certain leeway in regulating speech. You may recall how the pols in both parties have taken to "designated protest areas" for major events like political conventions. So the protesters end up a mile from the convention inside a chain link fence, protesting all they want. And it is tolerated by the courts.
AKA Stone --- The person can put up a sign. But it isn't against the law to walk across the lawn to ask a question. Once the person makes a sales pitch or starts talking. The homeowner can tell them to leave. Yep, without signs or fencing, the property owners in effect give implied consent to enter their property for non criminal purposes. -- See below --- Trespassing is a legal term that can refer to a wide variety of offenses against a person or against property. Trespassing as it relates to real estate law means entering onto land without consent of the landowner. There are both criminal and civil trespass laws. Criminal trespass law is enforced by police, sheriffs, or park rangers. Civil trespass requires that the landowner initiate a private enforcement action in court to collect any damages for which the trespasser may be responsible (regardless of whether a crime has been committed). Intent and Knowledge Requirements Traditionally, for either type of trespass -- criminal or civil -- some level of intent is required. Thus, the trespasser must not simply unwittingly traverse another's land but must knowingly go onto the property without permission. Knowledge may be inferred when the owner tells the trespasser not to go on the land, when the land is fenced, or when a "no trespassing" sign is posted. A trespasser would probably not be prosecuted if the land was open, the trespasser's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property, and the trespasser left immediately on request. Express Consent The landowner may indicate -- verbally or in writing -- permission to enter onto the land. Implied Consent The existence of consent may be implied from the landowner's conduct, from custom, or from the circumstances. Consent may be implied if the landowner was unavailable to give consent, and immediate action is necessary to save a life or prevent a serious injury. - See more at: realestate.findlaw.com/land-use-laws/trespassing- basics.html#sthash.3AnkF3L8.dpuf
It isn't as absolute as you like to think it is No LAW. What does that mean. I'm sure some courts watered down the meeting. But think about what your view means. Under your view all girl scouts should be arrested if they come and try to sell you cookies. You like the Boy Scouts. Well they better not come a=k you to buy some popcorn because that is unlawful according to you. Jail to the boy scouts. Those fund raisers at your kids or great grand kids school. Arrest them all they come ask if you want to buy some candy or snacks. Those pesky charities that come to your home looking for a contribution to help the poor. Chains and shackles for them. Or handcuffs until they have their asses thrown in jail. No my friend. No means no. I think you would agree with me that if someone went to your house and wanted to sell you some crackers. Then you said no you're not interested. Then they should leave and would lawfully be required to leave. You have to tell them first with no trespassing or no soliciting. The government can't speak for everyone and just make it illegal. I don't see what is so complicated or unreasonable about what I said. I don't see anything unlawful or immoral about it either.
Would you agree that both State and Fed govts are limited by our Constitution? The key words are "tolerated by the courts". No such leeway should be tolerated in unconstitutionally regulating away our inalienable rights.
The states somewhat less so than the feds.
Bad law makes for bad cops. The citizens of Bridgewater, New Jersey, like all of New Jersey vote for fascism early and often. If they don't like the law, fire the legislators, but that's easier said than done since NJ and Democrats are synonymous. SOLICITOR Any person, whether a resident of the Township or not, who goes from house to house, from place to place or from street to street, traveling by foot, automotive vehicle or any other type of conveyance, soliciting, taking or attempting to take orders for the sale of merchandise or services of any kind for future performance or delivery, whether or not such individual has, carries or exposes for sale a sample of the merchandise or services, and whether or not he is collecting advance payments on such sales or orders, or who engages in any of the foregoing activities from a stationary location on any street or other public place. The word "solicitor" shall also include the word "canvasser."
Would you agree that both State and Fed govts are limited by our Constitution? That is the contention of many that claim states have such rights, whereas our Constitution clearly says otherwise in Section 1 of the 14th. Do you have any contrary proof?
You seem to wave our Constitution around as if it has any application in one's daily life, or in matters of state. I'd suggest it has been, and continues to be intentional ignored and doesn't pose as much as a speed bump to state, local and federal government. This practice dates back to Lincoln and in hit a zenith with the creation of the FED in 1913.
Comments (56 - 77) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnd you should think of them as the thin blue line standing between us and the hordes of criminals waiting to rob us blind, rape our sisters and mothers, or murder us in our beds.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#16. To: Deckard, Vinny (#10)
Piss off badge bunny
#17. To: Deckard (#15)
Drama Queen
#18. To: Deckard (#10)
Piss off badge bunny
#19. To: TooConservative, Deckard (#2)
High-density areas like NJ have these laws to stop bums from harassing homeowners. Otherwise, they can wander around pestering people any time they want.
#20. To: Deckard, Vinny (#12)
Comment removed by stone
#21. To: Gatlin (#3)
It was the police’s further concern was about them being outside during dangerous conditions.
#22. To: Gatlin (#17)
When we take your story and weave it into a tale of such devastating truth, that is not drama.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#23. To: Gatlin (#3)
The boys were never in “hot water with the fuzz” and they did not get a "hard does of statism."
#24. To: A K A Stone (#18)
You need to lay off the insults and just debate.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#25. To: Deckard (#24)
The standard Deckard response when encountering a police officer: "Yes officer, sorry officer, I had no idea officer, please officer"
#26. To: Deckard (#22)
#27. To: A K A Stone (#21)
Why was the officer outside if it was so dangerous?
Walking in the snow isn't dangerous. Even if it is deep.
Walking around at night across yards with a hoodie on can be dangerous, even if there is no snow….something Trayvon Martin would say, if he were here.
#28. To: Gatlin (#27)
Why was the officer outside if it was so dangerous? Good question. A resident called the police to report someone with a hoodie was walking across the yards in the neighborhood at night and they suspected it may be a burgular.
#29. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, Vinny (#24)
You might want to check out this Vinny character - looks like another multi screen name poster.
#30. To: Gatlin (#27)
Also, while it is not listed high among the most dangerous professions, police work is more dangerous than your average profession. I will never argue with the fact that there are time when police officers put their lives on the line….and those who do, deserve our admiration and gratitude.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#28)
#32. To: A K A Stone (#30)
Deckard could come up and use this as proof that the cops are what is dangerous.
#33. To: Gatlin (#32)
#34. To: Deckard (#22)
Cops are not there to protect and serve.
#35. To: A K A Stone, Deckard (#33)
It would be spin. Just a joke, maybe not a good one.
#36. To: Gatlin (#34)
to fit your agenda.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#37. To: Gatlin (#35)
But then, I always realize Deckard tries to spin everything.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#38. To: Deckard (#36)
(Edited)
to fit your agenda.
Your agenda is to blindly defend ALL cops, no mater how corrupt or sadistic they are.
If they violate the constitution, so what?
#39. To: Deckard (#5)
These were kids trying to earn a few bucks shoveling snow, not Jehovaah's Witnesses.
#40. To: Gatlin (#13)
And you should think of them as the thin blue line standing between us and the hordes of criminals trying to sell us snow shoveling services while actually waiting to rob us blind, rape our sisters and mothers, or murder us in our beds.
#41. To: A K A Stone (#19)
OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
#42. To: TooConservative (#40)
Xboxen
#43. To: TooConservative (#41)
But a man's home is his castle and you don't just get to make a sales pitch in his house and be protected by the First Amendment.
#44. To: A K A Stone (#19)
A law requiring them to register in order to talk to people is clearly unconstitutional.
#45. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan (#43)
#46. To: TooConservative (#44)
Protected speech ends at your property line.
#47. To: A K A Stone (#46)
#48. To: A K A Stone (#46)
#49. To: A K A Stone (#46)
TooConservative ---- Protected speech ends at your property line.
#50. To: TooConservative (#48)
You have an elevated notion about the absolutism of free speech.
#51. To: TooConservative (#48)
You have an elevated notion about the absolutism of free speech. --- It isn't as absolute as you like to think it is. The law often tolerates regulation at the state or local level when it would forbid the same activity by the feds.
States and local government have a certain leeway in regulating speech. You may recall how the pols in both parties have taken to "designated protest areas" for major events like political conventions. So the protesters end up a mile from the convention inside a chain link fence, protesting all they want. And it is tolerated by the courts.
#52. To: tpaine (#51)
Would you agree that both State and Fed govts are limited by our Constitution?
#53. To: All (#0)
Hit me
#54. To: TooConservative (#52)
The states somewhat less so than the feds.
#55. To: tpaine (#54)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]