Man arrested for reading the Holy Bible in public

reply to post by wildtimes

People on here get annoying , yeah. I'm sure there are plenty of members who think I'm annoying.

Don't trip on that fact sister, if you've never annoyed anyone you've never stood for anything important to you.

Or as I always say: "I'm not running for office, I don't need the votes."

reply to post by ArrowsNV

Do police follow your gut when they arrest people? I'd love to see that trial.

I imagine this:




But to anyone who knows anything about Law it's grounds for a mistrial, that duck is a goose!

reply to post by DelayedChristmas

I don't see the heart in this approach.

Bro, none of us Christians, that I'm aware of, are arguing that this person's approach was showing love or a good method to witness to people. I've said a few times myself it's not at all.

We're just defending his rights under the constitution to do so.

reply to post by wildtimes

there was no one in that park who had to stand there and listen to them because they needed to be in that 'line'....

"Want" and "need" are not the same things. And in Indiana drivers licenses are valid for 5 years, and license plates are renewed every year at the same time of year, the same month. Here we go by birth month. If they waited till the last second their laziness and procrastination isn't grounds for any excuse. No one in that line was forced to stay and listen if they were offended, it's not a captive audience.

The example I gave of one would be if a preacher stood in front of an inmate's cell and did the same thing to the inmate in the cell. That would be illegal.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes

 

there was no one in that park who had to stand there and listen to them because they needed to be in that 'line'....

"Want" and "need" are not the same things. And in Indiana drivers licenses are valid for 5 years, and license plates are renewed every year at the same time of year, the same month. Here we go by birth month. If they waited till the last second their laziness and procrastination isn't grounds for any excuse. No one in that line was forced to stay and listen if they were offended, it's not a captive audience.

The example I gave of one would be if a preacher stood in front of an inmate's cell and did the same thing to the inmate in the cell. That would be illegal.

That and the Government doesn't consider driving a basic 'need'. It is defined as a privilege, or in other words a 'want'.

"No one in that line was forced to stay and listen if they were offended, it's not a captive audience."

Could not have put it better myself.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DelayedChristmas

 

I don't see the heart in this approach.

Bro, none of us Christians, that I'm aware of, are arguing that this person's approach was showing love or a good method to witness to people. I've said a few times myself it's not at all.

We're just defending his rights under the constitution to do so.

Also could not have put it better myself.

If 'SmellyPants' is still reading this, he should take a look at that quote.

You want to know why I was, as you put it: "crying", about this issue? Not because of the religious aspect, no, not completely. I was making a big stink about it because this man's constitutional rights were violated. And if you had actually paid attention and read my posts you would have seen that.

Hence all the legal references and big confusing words that seemed to bother you.

Also, can't say I didn't warn him about being (sorry mods, it's necessary in this case) a complete asshole. Yes it may fly on other forums, but not on ATS. We like to be at least a little bit more civilized when we debate and have these rules that apply to your manner of speaking to others. If it's hateful and vulgar, it's not welcome here.

Originally posted by Pelvi
Guys... Just admit your not going to look at this any other way..

And don't tell me your just here to protect his rights -.-... I'm not blind.. I've been arguing with you since page 5..

I doubt you and your cross avatar would have been fighting for WBC.. You'd be more likely calling them scum right now..

Or if someone was reading the Satanic bible you'd be spewing bible verses about the devil right now..

I mean forreal guys, it's an uphill battle.

An uphill battle trying to prove why the cop who arrested him for doing nothing illegal is wrong?

The other guy may have a cross as a background, but in the last 5 pages please show me where I once said I was religious.

I'm making a huge fuss about this for a few reasons:
1)The cop illegally arrested a man for doing something completely within his rights.
2)I'm studying to be a defense lawyer and these kinds of things are why I am doing so. I feel it's good practice looking up case law and whatnot.
and
3) I enjoy debating anyway, its more fun than playing a crappy video game filled with a bunch of sniveling preteens

reply to post by ArrowsNV


So you are proving me right? as in you're not going to take a step back and look at this any other way?

The guy went there to start trouble man.. It's blatantly obvious.

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes

 

there was no one in that park who had to stand there and listen to them because they needed to be in that 'line'....

"Want" and "need" are not the same things. And in Indiana drivers licenses are valid for 5 years, and license plates are renewed every year at the same time of year, the same month. Here we go by birth month. If they waited till the last second their laziness and procrastination isn't grounds for any excuse. No one in that line was forced to stay and listen if they were offended, it's not a captive audience.

The example I gave of one would be if a preacher stood in front of an inmate's cell and did the same thing to the inmate in the cell. That would be illegal.

That and the Government doesn't consider driving a basic 'need'. It is defined as a privilege, or in other words a 'want'.

"No one in that line was forced to stay and listen if they were offended, it's not a captive audience."

Could not have put it better myself.

You're correct, I never considered that fact. That's why people who have been arrested on suspicion of a DUI or DWI get their license revoked. And cannot claim the need to go to work as an exemption. (I know from experience)

Outstanding yourself.

Originally posted by Pelvi
Guys... Just admit your not going to look at this any other way..

Pot meet kettle. You're 100% correct, I won't. I will defend anyone's civil rights until people like you come and take them away at gunpoint. Even the people I do not share ideologies with.

Liberties are that important to me.

And don't tell me your just here to protect his rights -.-... I'm not blind.. I've been arguing with you since page 5..

I've been saying the same thing since page 1.

I doubt you and your cross avatar would have been fighting for WBC.. You'd be more likely calling them scum right now..

I already have several times, you aren't 'blind' remember? And my avatar cannot argue anything, it's an image, that's the "fallacy of reification".

Or if someone was reading the Satanic bible you'd be spewing bible verses about the devil right now..

I already argued for the right of the Satanist to read verses from the Necromonacon. Get that eye prescription checked or stop lying to us!

I mean forreal guys, it's an uphill battle.

For you only, the SCOTUS has already settled this matter consistently for over 200 years.

That's called "Judicial Precedent".

Originally posted by Pelvi
reply to post by ArrowsNV

 

So you are proving me right? as in you're not going to take a step back and look at this any other way?

The guy went there to start trouble man.. It's blatantly obvious.

No, he went there to preach the bible.

It's what some people who're Christian/Catholic/etc do. It's called Evangelicalism, which is protected by the 1st Amendment.

The cop still arrested him without the legal right to do so, proving my point.

Religion is still a fairy tale and this guy was preaching to a captive audience before business hours. A permit is required there to do what he's doing. I'm sure all those lovely people would be more than glad to go to church if they felt like having story time/hearing religious fearmongering. Too bad, so sad.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DelayedChristmas

 

You simply don't get it. If a person is free to leave of their own volition and choice its not in any way shape or form a "captive" audience. Losing a place in line is a matter of convenience. No one was forcing the people to stay in line by coercion or force.

They all were free to leave anytime they chose to do so.

How are they free to leave?

If they drove get in their car and drive away. If they rode a bike get on that bike and drive away. If they walked, walk away.

Simple as that.

They were doing business not loittering at the mall. I don'believe anyone could be this naive -- your'e trolling right?

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DelayedChristmas

 

You simply don't get it. If a person is free to leave of their own volition and choice its not in any way shape or form a "captive" audience. Losing a place in line is a matter of convenience. No one was forcing the people to stay in line by coercion or force.

They all were free to leave anytime they chose to do so.

How are they free to leave?

If they drove get in their car and drive away. If they rode a bike get on that bike and drive away. If they walked, walk away.

Simple as that.

They were doing business not loittering at the mall. I don'believe anyone could be this naive -- your'e trolling right?

Not true, they were NOT doing business, they were waiting in line to do business, but they were not actively doing business. If I am waiting in line to ride an amusement park roller coaster I am not riding the roller coaster itself. They didn't want to exercise their right to leave as a matter of convenience for them. That's not a "captive audience". And we do not violate a person's civil rights as a matter of convenience for us.

I'm not trolling at all, you are. Not at all. I figured after 10 straight pages of saying what I'm doing it would be obvious.

1. Defending the rights granted to us all by our forefathers under the US Constitution.
2. Defending the rights for those whom I do not share the same ideologies or religious freedoms with.
3. Refusing to defend the methodology of this man's evangelism.
4. Informing people what the SCOTUS has consistently ruled in regards to this.


Are you still confused?

Originally posted by paradox
Religion is still a fairy tale and this guy was preaching to a captive audience before business hours. A permit is required there to do what he's doing. I'm sure all those lovely people would be more than glad to go to church if they felt like having story time/hearing religious fearmongering. Too bad, so sad.

Please show how they were a captive audience and were either forced to stay in line by the Bible thumper (criminal confinement) or were not permitted to leave by an authority of the law (arrest) if they didn't like the message being spoken.

It's been 10 pages now and we're still waiting for that to be shown. Those people stayed in line only because they chose to, and we cannot see the line in the video and do not know if anyone was offended and left the line.

Prove those things, ..go.

I'm just curious as to why he was having it filmed. Why bring a cameraman and video tape everything?
Not staged? I think they knew they were breaking the law due to the "captive audience" thing, and knew what would happen. I think this guy had been down this road before. Looks like attention-seeking to me.
Just saying.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

If they waited till the last second their laziness and procrastination isn't grounds for any excuse. No one in that line was forced to stay and listen if they were offended, it's not a captive audience.

Okay, NuT, let's take it away from the DMV...suppose it was a football stadium....and people were tailgating (like they do), and some guy comes into the middle of all the BBQs and games of catch and beer-drinking, say, oh, an hour and a half from game time yet.

These people paid lots of money for their tickets, they have a tradition of going to tailgate with their friends; it's a party - a reunion - a major event that they've planned for months....

Now this guy shows up and starts preaching.
Not a captive audience?

Originally posted by paradox
Religion is still a fairy tale and this guy was preaching to a captive audience before business hours. A permit is required there to do what he's doing. I'm sure all those lovely people would be more than glad to go to church if they felt like having story time/hearing religious fearmongering. Too bad, so sad.

edit on 4-7-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)

Believe what you want, I'm not questioning that. All I've been trying to bring people to realize is that he wasn't doing anything wrong, annoying sure, but wrong no.

Show me the text of the law that says he requires a permit. I'd love to see it.

I think I finally understand; the only time ATS users give a damn about when cops arrest people illegally is if it involves some conspiracy they're interested in.

If it was someone on that sidewalk preaching about how the Govt is wasting your money, or about the Illuminati, or how 9/11 was a False Flag, or something along those lines, then they would be in an uproar. But because it's someone preaching religion they side with the piggies because they find it "annoying". Which apparently is illegal , although I've yet to find any law or precedent that says anything even close to that.


And yet AGAIN because you people can't seem to read it every time I post it. Here is the LEGAL PRECEDENT that says ANNOYING OR DISTURBING PEOPLE WITH YOUR SPEECH IN PUBLIC IS NOT ILLEGAL

The constitutionally protected exercise of free expression frequently causes a disturbance, for the very purpose of the First Amendment is to stimulate the creation and communication of new, and therefore often controversial ideas. The prohibition against conduct that tends to disturb another would literally make it a crime to deliver an unpopular speech that resulted in a "disturbance." Such a restriction is a clearly invalid restriction of constitutionally protected free expression. Landry v. Daley, supra, at 971.

And here is the effing docket if you want to read it yourselves.

scholar.google.com...

Originally posted by BellaSabre
I'm just curious as to why he was having it filmed. Why bring a cameraman and video tape everything?
Not staged? I think they knew they were breaking the law due to the "captive audience" thing, and knew what would happen. I think this guy had been down this road before. Looks like attention-seeking to me.
Just saying.

They were having it filmed because people from Cavalry Chapel film everything they do for publicity and so their followers can watch it. They've been doing it since the internet was fast enough to allow streaming video.

calvarychapel.com...

Also, the audience wasn't chained to the building, they could leave anytime he got too annoying for them to bear. And like was said earlier, driving is a privilege, not a right. They want their license/registration/etc, then they have to earn it. If that means putting up with listening to a guy preach about his religion a decent 20-30 ft from the entrance of the building, then fine. It's not like he's holding you down, shoving rusty nails under your fingernails while he reads verse after verse. He's standing a good distance away, not passing anything out (although if he did he'd still be in the right), not being violent, not forcing people who walk by to stop and listen, I fail to see where he is breaking the law.


It's that man's right to be evangelical about his religion and I wouldn't give a damn if I was in that line, that's what headphones are for. Play a game on your phone, or call a friend while in line, there's a bunch of stuff you could do to tune him out. Or you could leave for a few hours and go do something else and come back when he'll probably be gone. If he's not come back the next day.

Again, if anyone of you can produce a link to a statute or court docket that basically says "annoying other people with your speech in a public space is illegal and punishable by law", I will shut the F up and leave this thread.