This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
By Marisa Kendall | CalMatters
Homeless residents of some of California’s biggest cities increasingly are facing criminal penalties for the actions they take to survive on the street, according to a first-of-its-kind CalMatters analysis of data throughout the state.
Saturday marks the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson, which upended California’s homelessness strategy by allowing cities to enforce blanket bans on camping — even if no shelter beds are available. Immediately after the decision, unhoused Californians and the people who help them reported seeing an increase in enforcement. But CalMatters’ reporting, gleaned from more than 100 public records requests, appears to be the first statewide effort to quantify that increase.
CalMatters analyzed data on arrests and citations for camping and other homelessness-related offenses for 2024, comparing the six months before the June 28 Supreme Court decision to the six months after. We found increases in cities throughout the state, even in those where local leaders said they didn’t change their policy as a result of Grants Pass.
Here are some of the places with the most significant increases, according to police data:
- In San Francisco, then-mayor London Breed promised to be “very aggressive” in moving encampments following the Grants Pass decision. She delivered: Arrests and citations for illegal lodging increased from 71 in the six months before the ruling to 427 in the six months after — a 500% increase.
- Even though Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass spoke out against the Grants Pass decision, calling it “disappointing” and vowing to lead with housing instead of enforcement, homelessness-related arrests increased 68% after the ruling.
- Citations and arrests doubled in San Diego, which also doubled the size of its police teams that respond to homelessness.
- In Sacramento, the number of citations and arrests nearly tripled – from 96 in the six months before Grants Pass, to 283 in the six months after. From January through May 2025, Sacramento police had already issued 844 citations and arrests, suggesting enforcement continues to trend upward.
- Stockton issued just 14 homelessness-related citations in the six months before the Grants Pass decision. In the six months after the ruling came out, that number jumped to 213.
- It wasn’t just big cities that saw more enforcement: Citations and arrests increased by more than two-thirds in Ukiah, on the North Coast, and more than doubled in Merced, in the San Joaquin Valley.
The ruling, which found that the city of Grants Pass, Oregon did not violate the constitution by banning encampments throughout the city when no shelter was available, accelerated a shift toward a pro-enforcement approach to homelessness. Buoyed by voters fed up with large encampments near their homes, Gov. Gavin Newsom used the opportunity to urge cities to ramp up enforcement and pass anti-camping ordinances.
The people making the case for enforcement argue it’s a type of “tough love” that’s sometimes necessary to get people off the street. If someone refuses multiple offers of help, the threat of arrest might make them finally say yes, said San Diego Police Department Capt. Steve Shebloski.
“I hope nobody has to go to jail, and I hope everybody takes services,” he said. “I just dont think that’s the reality of where we’re at with certain individuals.”
The type of help police can offer varies widely by city and situation. In San Diego, the Homeless Outreach Team, which includes police officers as well as social workers and mental health professionals, is supposed to offer shelter before issuing citations or making arrests. Between May 2024 and May 2025, that team made 357 placements into housing or shelter, Shebloski said. People refused help 2,471 times, he said. And they accepted another form of services 3,578 times, from a referral to a treatment program, to a ride to an appointment, to a new toothbrush. The department does not track how many people wanted shelter but couldn’t get it.
In Stockton, police take a more hands-off approach: They hand out flyers with six phone numbers people can call to reach homeless shelters and other organizations.
But shelter beds aren’t always available. Last year, California had more than 187,000 unhoused residents, and fewer than 76,000 year-round shelter and transitional housing beds, according to data compiled by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Doctors, academics and social workers who work with people on the street often say arrests make it harder for unhoused people to get back on their feet. When someone living outside gets a citation, they often miss their court date — they might lose the ticket or simply forget the date amidst the chaos of life on the street — which leads the court to issue a warrant for their arrest. People with active warrants can’t qualify for many housing and treatment programs.
In many situations, people cited or arrested for homelessness-related crimes are never charged, or the charges are quickly dismissed. But the threat of an arrest can be just as disruptive as the arrest itself. People leave their campsites to avoid getting taken to jail, and in so doing, lose touch with the outreach workers trying to connect them with housing and other services.
“In a weird way, it undermines the housing process to such an extent that you end up working for homelessness and against the people who are experiencing homelessness,” said Brett Feldman, director of street medicine at USC.
Some leaders are pushing back against the enforcement mindset. This week, two Democratic Congress members introduced the “Housing Not Handcuffs Act,” which would prohibit federal agencies from punishing people for living outside if they have no other option.
Grants Pass made no difference, say cities where arrests and citations spiked
In the year since the Grants Pass decision, at least 50 cities and three counties in California passed new ordinances targeting homeless encampments, according to a recent analysis by UC Berkeley Law students and faculty. Some ban camping only in specific areas, such as near schools, waterways or levees, while others ban camping throughout the entire city. Some cities, such as Fresno, made camping a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and $1,000 in fines.
Even cities that didn’t pass ordinances started cracking down on encampments with new vigor, using old rules.
To quantify that crackdown, CalMatters filed more than 100 public records requests to police departments, sheriff’s offices, prosecutors and city and county governments for data on arrests, citations, charges filed and encampment removals. Those requests span a sample of about 35 large and small cities and counties throughout California. When requesting law enforcement data, CalMatters asked each agency to provide a list of the ordinances it uses to address homeless camps. In some cities that included ordinances that specifically prohibit encampments, but it could also include rules that ban sitting or lying on the sidewalk, impeding the right of way, storing belongings on public property and violating city park rules.
Los Angeles Councilmember Nithya Raman said she was surprised to see the data showing arrests related to homelessness increased 68% in her city, jumping from 920 in the six months before Grants Pass, to 1,549 in the six months after. Not all of those arrests led to someone being taken to jail. Some were what is called “noncustodial arrests,” where the person is released on site.There were no policy changes in how the city dealt with encampments after the Supreme Court ruling, Raman said. But the city continues to expand its list of “sensitive locations,” such as near schools, where it bans encampments, she said.
“One of the city’s top priorities is to reduce unsheltered homelessness and bring people indoors and off the streets,” Raman said. “Our urgency to do that did not come from the Grants Pass decision in any way, shape or form. We were already focused on that.”
Mayor Bass’ office did not respond to requests for comment.
But Feldman, who provides medical care in encampments on the streets of Los Angeles, said he saw a noticeable change after the Supreme Court ruling. Suddenly, the areas where his team used to regularly find people were empty. That was a problem, because only about 5% of the team’s patients have reliable cell phones. If medics can’t find their patients, they can’t give them important follow-up care — such as their monthly antipsychotic injection or medicine to treat opioid addiction. As a result, their patients get sicker.
“It was really tough for a few months,” Feldman said, though he believes enforcement has gone back down to pre-Grants Pass levels in recent months. That’s because most people have moved out of the heavily enforced areas (such as around schools) and re-settled in places that escape police notice, he said.
The data CalMatters obtained from the Los Angeles Police Department does not include 2025 information.
San Diego similarly did not pass a new camping ban after Grants Pass. Its “unsafe camping” ordinance passed in 2023, and police also enforce older rules that prohibit encroaching on the public right of way. Shebloski says Grants Pass hasn’t changed anything in San Diego, despite the correlated increase in enforcement — 524 arrests and citations in the six months before Grants Pass, and 1,045 in the six months after. That’s because the police department added officers to its Neighborhood Police Division and Homeless Outreach Team, under the direction of its new police chief — which coincidentally lined up with Grants Pass, he said.
“I can tell you there’s absolutely zero operational direction that, ‘Grants Pass is now passed, go out there and write tickets,’” he said.
Outreach workers struggle to find clients
Beverly Harding, 58, has been on the streets for about 10 years. For the last year of that time, she was sleeping in a makeshift tent she pitched in various places along X Street in Sacramento, by attaching tarps to the shopping cart that held her food.
She still cries sometimes when recounting her run-ins with police, who she says have confiscated treasured items, including a necklace that held her mother’s ashes. An arrest last fall was particularly traumatic. A friend’s dog had bitten her wrist a few days before, and she’d gone to the hospital for treatment, she said. When the officers grabbed her injured wrist and handcuffed her, Harding said she almost passed out from the pain. She said she still gets shooting pains through her damaged wrist.
“They don’t understand,” Harding said. “It’s not camping. It’s surviving. And if you don’t have a home, where else are you going to try to survive? Anywhere you can.”
These days, the authorities are moving unhoused people around Sacramento on a daily basis, said Joe Smith. He’s the director of residential services for homeless services nonprofit Hope Cooperative and board chair for the county’s continuum of care, which coordinates the area’s response to homelessness. Because of that movement, Smith said, people are seeking out hidden spots to sleep, away from the gaze of law enforcement.
That’s making it harder for outreach workers, who have housing and other services to offer, to find their homeless clients. Smith saw that first-hand last fall. An unhoused man finally got a spot in Smith’s Hope Landing housing program after years of trying to get off the streets, but no one could find him. The program pushed his move-in date back three times, in hopes that someone would be able to track him down.
The client eventually resurfaced and Smith was able to get him into housing earlier this month. It was just in time: A few more days, and the client would have lost the spot and had to start the entire process over. Even so, the delay meant he needlessly spent about six extra months on the street.
Smith, who was homeless himself between 2005 and 2011, said he’s “deeply concerned” the increase in enforcement is making other people lose out on housing opportunities.
“How devastating is that?” he asked. “Surviving outside becomes a lifestyle for you, and your ticket out comes up and nobody can find you. What a shame that is.”
A missing tent doesn’t mean someone has found housing
Shortly after the Grants Pass decision, then-Mayor Breed vowed to crack down on homeless encampments. What difference did the 500% increase in arrests and citations make in the city?
The number of tents and structures on San Francisco’s streets dipped to 222 in March — the lowest it’s been since the city began counting regularly in April 2019. That’s down from 360 in April 2024.
But just because someone has ditched their tent doesn’t mean they are off the street.
“Most people are just sleeping on cardboard or on the street and moving every night,” said Chris Herring, a UCLA professor of sociology who researches homelessness in San Francisco and beyond.
In Stockton, the city launched a “take back our parks” campaign to crack down on encampments after Grants Pass. Around the same time, the police department was recovering from a COVID-19 pandemic-era staffing shortage and increased its staffing in the departments that typically respond to homeless encampments.
Police issued hardly any citations for violating park rules (including camping, drinking and lighting fires in a public park) or obstructing sidewalks in the six months before the Grants Pass ruling. In the six months after, police cited people for those offenses 213 times.
Police give a 72-hour warning before they clear an encampment, said Officer David Scott, public information officer for the Stockton Police Department. If people don’t move after those 72 hours are up, officers may cite them. In rare cases, if someone is being combative, police may make an arrest instead, he said.
Police also hand out flyers with phone numbers people can call for housing, shelter beds, showers, meals and other resources.
“We’re always going to be out there,” Scott said. “We want to provide those resources and help to those individuals that are vulnerable. And we’re going to continue the efforts in that area. But at the end of the day, we’ve got to make sure that our city is safe and as clean as we can get it.”
The flyers list numbers for six service providers (including one that’s listed twice). But there’s no guarantee any will be able to help with whatever the homeless person calling needs. St. Mary’s Community Services, one of the providers listed, had two-dozen beds available across its men’s, women’s and recuperative care programs as of June 25. A week before, it had just 11. None were available for families.
Police have no way of tracking whether anyone calling St. Mary’s or the other providers gets help, or whether they just move a few blocks down the road and start the cycle over again.
And for some people, police interactions don’t stop just because they’ve moved indoors.
After living on the streets for about a decade, Harding recently moved into a community of tiny homes for homeless residents in Sacramento, where case workers are supposed to help her find permanent housing.
Shortly after, Harding and her boyfriend were hanging out in front of a nearby laundromat, using the Wi-Fi. She was downloading music onto her phone, and he was downloading games. Harding said they had a thin blanket over them, because it was cold.
An officer showed up and told them camping wasn’t allowed there, and they had to move, Harding said.
“I said, ‘Excuse me. I’m not camping. I live next door.’”
Aaron Schrank and Lisa Halverstadt contributed to this story.
Also Read
- One of the Biggest Night Markets in the US Returns to Southern California
- Magnitude 3.3 Earthquake Rattles Near Rio Dell Area
- Prolonged Heat Wave to Peak This Week Across Southern California, Raising Risk of Heat-Related Illness
- AI images scandalized a California elementary school. Now the state is pushing new safeguards
- Vehicle Shears Off Fire Hydrant in Solvang; Crews Quickly Stop Water
And STONER – as to your forced encampment and rehabilitation of all the homeless, what is your solution for those who are simply homeless and not drug addicts or mentally ill? We still forcing them into camps where “they can’t leave” (your words)?
How do you force someone to rehabilitate when they are simply poor and have no support system?
What’s the plan for them? Herd them all up with the others and detain them? How do you know when they’ve been “rehabilitated?”
Maybe now you and Alex see where I was coming from?
Illegal “camping” has led to so many fires, and many folks are getting their home insurance cancelled. We live in such a dangerous area for fires even without this added risk. Throw in the pollution of our environment, including our watersheds, with all the garbage and toxic junk left behind and this is a no brainer.
BASIC – believe or not, I agree with this. Problem is, how to deal with it? We can’t just “ban it all” and think it will go away. Are we going to arrest every person and put them in jail? Where? They’re already too crowded. Fine them? LOL! And then what do we do with their possessions? We can’t just take them all and dispose of everything they own.
Like most of society’s problems, homelessness is far from simple.
“You just can’t ban it all”?? Huh? Why not? Sure you can. Enforce laws. The alternative is chaos and anarchy, a free for all – which has become a very liberal play lately. Ain’t workin’.
You know, for such a short post you made an impressively large number of mistakes. First, it looks like you only read half the sentence, dude. “You can’t just ban it all and think it will go away”, was the statement, and it’s just a simple fact any adult should know. Second, problems don’t disappear just because you make a law against it, and sitting on the sidelines whining “just enforce the law!” is pathetically simple minded. Which law? Who is the enforcer? What is the punishment? Does the homeless person now have a home when you punish them? If not, then what really changed? Third, no the alternative is not chaos and anarchy. That’s just YOU engaging in simplistic b&w thinking while the real world is in color. Fourth, anarchy has nothing to do with liberal social goals, but that’s definitely beyond your ken.
BASIC doesn’t know how to read.
How about instead of jail, they can be homeless together in communities they can’t leave. Not a punishment but remove their right to the public right of way, which they contribute nothing towards and often detriment.
It sounds harsh but forced relocation and rehabilitation could help these people better than any social programs tried before. The ones who can be rehabilitated get help with housing and jobs, and pay a small percent of earnings to permanently care for the ones who can’t be rehabilitated.
Take the burden off the tax payer. There are enough of the homeless that aren’t too far gone to help get back in their feet, but free housing with a loosely enforced “no drugs” policy is not that help.
SBTONER – “forced relocation” is the same as ethnic cleansing. Let’s just stop right there.
Yeah no, it’s really not. Please sensibly explain your claim there. Try to shy away from insults, generalizations about me or my political party, and just explain how exactly “forced relocation is the same as ethnic cleansing” – where are you getting the ethnic part from?
You always try to make any conversation something it’s not and it’s honestly such a tired and desperate tactic.
Look up “concetration camp” and get back to us.
STONER – I didn’t say it IS ethnic cleansing, I said it’s the same. Same idea, while it’s not an “ethnic” group, rounding up like individuals and forcing them to leave an area they are entitled and legally allowed to be in and then force them to all reside in a camp where they are, as you said, “can’t leave,” is the same thing as ethnic cleansing. Yes.
“ethnic cleansing, the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups. ” — https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethnic-cleansing
It is the same idea, but slightly different motivation.
Why do you instantly think I’m going to insult you? Get over yourself. You said an awful thing and I explained why it’s awful.
Now try to defend forcing a particular group of people into a camp where they cannot leave is anything but horrific?
STONER – really, call it what you want, but you can’t honestly believe it’s either moral or legal to force people into camps.
Absolutely stunning that you’re confused about this. And no, I didn’t insult your precious, sensitive thoughts, I called them what they are – barbaric.
Come on. Detaining and relocating homeless people without due process would be illegal and unconstitutional but it would not be ethnic cleansing. That’s a ridiculous statement–“homeless” is not an ethnicity, religion or national background.
ALEX – read my comments again. I didn’t say it is, I said it’s the same idea. Forcing a like group of people from their homes (or streets if you will) and removing them from society. Aside from the ethnicity aspect, it’s very similar. Well, you can read the comment again for yourself if you still don’t get it.
Oh, I get it. Ethnic cleansing means that you target a single group of people based on their ethnicity and then you forcibly remove them from the places that they live and force them out of their homeland with the intent of erasing them totally and with the intent that they never return.
That’s ethnic cleansing.
This is not what you see people proposing in regards to the homeless population. It’s typically a proposal to force them off the streets into facilities here they can get sober, kick their drug habits, treat mental illness and get them training so that they can re-integrate with society in a more healthy, safe and productive fashion.
Of course that violates the civil rights on the books. But to try and claim it’s the same as “ethnic cleansing” is an insult to the millions of people who have actually been ethnically cleansed. It debases and robs the word of its meaning. Not even close to “the same idea”.
Cool, you’re entitled to your own opinion.
Nah, I gave you facts.
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself dude.
So, according to “facts,” ehat would toy consider moving an entire population of people out of theirt homeland and forcing them into another country against theor will so a billionaire toddler and a war crimibal could build hotels? Just curious.
I’m sorry, I literally don’t understand this. Can you please re-phrase/re-write it?
And, yeah, I gave you facts. Ethnic cleansing is nothing like what is being discussed in regards to homeless people. You haven’t made the case otherwise at all, you haven’t responded with any substance.
My bad, trying to type a comment on a long thread on the phone is damn near impossible due to the margins squeezing it down to one letter per line.
Any way, point is, you come in here a lot to tell people they’re wrong about things like genocide and ethnic cleansing, but I’m just trying to get an idea of what you do think it is and when it’s appropriate to use the term.
You can call it what you want, but rounding up a certain group of people and forcing them to leave their homes/homeland to be pushed into a foreign/distant place they’re not allowed to return from is well…. call it whatever you want, but I think it’s pretty damn close to what the purpose of ethnic cleansing is: removing a certain type of person.
Yes, homelessness is not an ethnicity and these proposed forced relocation camps are not really the same as wiping out an entire group, but the underlying hate, cruelty and discrimination that would justify such actions against certain types of people is just as evil as that behind the motivation to erase/remove entire ethnicities from a given area.
Surprising this has outraged you so deeply it seems.
What’s worse is how many people seem to be OK with this often repeated “plan” around here.
Thanks for the clarification. First, I’m not outraged, I don’ know why you would think that, but rest assured, it’s not the case.
Second, you’ve made some claims that are entirely unfounded–you’ve said that:
“You can call it what you want, but rounding up a certain group of people and forcing them to leave their homes/homeland to be pushed into a foreign/distant place they’re not allowed to return from is well…. call it whatever you want, but I think it’s pretty damn close to what the purpose of ethnic cleansing is: removing a certain type of person.”
Can you cite to any source, no matter how fringe or nutty, where any person has suggested forcibly relocating homeless people without the possibility of ever returning?
No. I don’t think so.
What you’ve described is simply not something that people are proposing.
I already stated my view on this, i.e., people are talking about temporarily relocating homeless people to get them treatment, services, training, to break the cycle that keeps them homeless.
That is not any kind of cleansing because it creates a path for return.
If children were out on the street with mental illness and drug addicted parents keeping them there and putting them in danger you’d have no trouble with those kids being removed from the parents’ care.
As well, adults who are a danger to themselves are often restrained without their consent.
This is not much of a leap and if it creates a path to a life of self respect, safety and productivity, so to call it ethnic cleansing is not only entirely false but an absolute travesty.
You’re just triggered by me in some ways so you don’t respond rationally.
ALEX – “Can you cite to any source, no matter how fringe or nutty, where any person has suggested forcibly relocating homeless people without the possibility of ever returning?”
Read the first comment by SBSTONER. You know, the one I was responding to….
“instead of jail, they can be homeless together in communities they can’t leave.” ……. yeah, that one.
As for you defending forced rehab/detention, people who are a danger to themselves and others should absolutely be forcibly restrained….. and they are, legally. I’m talking about these camps that SBTONER and the other MAGA loonies here repeatedly suggest as a solution.
I mean really, go back and read the exchange again. Not sure where you got the idea I was talking about some actual plans.
“You’re just triggered by me in some ways so you don’t respond rationally.”
LOL get over yourself, dude.
I don’t know, you cite me “coming here a lot to tell people they’re wrong about genocide and ethnic cleansing”, and you claim that I’m “outraged” and you consistently fail to respond to points of substance and instead move the argument around. You seem triggered, if I’m wrong, that’s great.
Beyond that, sure there are some MAGA wackos out there who would probably be okay with rounding homeless people up and executing them. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
But even the people local loonies that you cite don’t seem to have espoused a permanent forced relocation with no path to reintegration. You know–actual “cleansing”.
So again, I’ll return to this–you said, and I quote:
“SBTONER – “forced relocation” is the same as ethnic cleansing. Let’s just stop right there.”
No, it is not. You failed to ask the follow up questions of SBStoner which would justify your claim.
SBStoner went on to say that:
“The ones who can be rehabilitated get help with housing and jobs, and pay a small percent of earnings to permanently care for the ones who can’t be rehabilitated.”
Agree or disagree with this idea as you might, in no universe is this “ethnic cleansing” or “The same as ethnic cleansing”.
You made a big over the top statement. You were wrong. It happens, you want to double down on it fine, but that will never make it true.
ALEX – we can all see who’s triggered here. Give it a rest bro. Saying forcing homeless people into camps “WHERE THEY CAN’T LEAVE” is like ethnic cleansing is clearly hyperbolic and was meant to point out the barbaric nature of the comment. It was clear to all but you and the issuer of that awful statement. That I “failed to ask follow up questions” of a cruel and inhumane person is absurd. Yet you can’t let it go.
So you can get some sleep tonight, I’m sorry I made it sound like it’s just as bad as ethnic cleansing. There. Done.
You can’t let it go, whatever makes you feel good about yourself, get over yourself, so you can get come sleep tonight.
Yep, not triggered at all.
Ethnic cleansing and genocide are literally the worst crimes that human beings commit. Taking away from the horrible nature of those crimes by claiming that far less horrific things are “the same” does a disservice to the victims. Glad you got that figured out.
Yet here you still are…. 🤣
Yes we are.
They’re not “their streets” though. They are literally inhabiting land that everyone else pays to upkeep, and trashing it, making it u pleasant and unsafe for everyone else.
We don’t need them, they need us and they need to be locked up and forced to be rehabbed and the one that can’t be rehabbed need to be institutionalized, which they should be anyways in their mental state.
There’s definitely a mental state involved here, but it’s all yours.
STONER – “need to be locked up” for what crime?
How many more prisons and camps do you want to build? We’re already overflowing our prisons with non-violent and minor offenders and now we’re going to double the number of otherwise law abiding, non-criminal undocumented immigrants in these camps. You want to add another camp for innocent people to be forced into?
Maybe you should spend some time in North Korea or 1930s Germany? If you don’t like someone, just lock em up, right? Crimes? Nah, even peaceful, tax paying, people go to the camps for you. Sick.
“Sounds harsh”. Uh, more like barbaric and dystopian. You think we can just force people into some kind of “community” (truly sick euphemism) that “they can’t leave.” Shows how much you value personal freedom. Also shows how little you understand about funding if you think setting up and maintaining forced relocation camps won’t be paid for by our taxes.
If you really don’t want to see homeless people, you should probably move someplace colder or hotter than Santa Barbara and the west coast of North America.
👍🏼
Those with no brains think everything is a no brainer.
Ah yes, let’s let them live anywhere and everywhere, set fires, destroy property, amd pollute the environment. Very smart!
Total non-sequitur, but typical of BI Guy.
Arrests are often the only thing keeping some of these folks alive. Yes, this is true.
Not the vast majority, so save your fascist tidbits for later.
I have no control over anyone else who is upset by the truth. At least that’s something that should be of interest to those who do not live in denial.
1) You must be thinking of the Andy Griffith show now, right? Where the town jail humanely holds the colorful characters down on their luck?
2) “Yes, this is true.” Are you talking to yourself in your own comment? I mean, wtafd?
Possibly you mean the show ‘Matlock’ where Andy Griffin was the “star” of that show. Never saw a complete episode, but please enlighten us on the jail that they had on that show. As far as “true,” well, we know how that goes in some cases. LOL!
For someone whose life is television-based, and who seems to be trying to channel Don Knotts, you sure whiffed on this one.
Are you ok? Because your IQ seems to decrease with every post.
https://www.yadkinvalleync.com/attractions/mayberry-courthouse/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCUNIA6Kdow
You’ve advocated sexual assault as a legitimate “tool of resistance”, so your IQ in fact seems to be deficient.
Where did anyone suggest that?
MarcelK did.
Must’ve missed that
Of course I didn’t. And even if I had, it would be an ad hominem non sequitur to my response to BeesKnees. Alex just hates me because, like you, I’ve called him out on his dishonest support of a genocidal state.
Oh, I’m sure you did. And it was probably during the same exchange in which I said I supported genocide.
You get where this is going, right?
And no, I don’t hate you.
Of course I didn’t. And even if I had, it would be an ad hominem non sequitur to my response to BeezKneez. Alex just hates me because, like you, I’ve called him out on his dishonest support of a genocidal state.
My comment wasn’t about my IQ, so your comment and its absurd allegation is irrelevant, you very dishonest person.