Man arrested for reading the Holy Bible in public

reply to post by ArrowsNV

A closer look at the Penal Code Section 602.1(b) may, at first glance, cause even more outrage for those such as Monk who are upset by the case. According to section c-1 of the law, the “preachers” would seem to have been okay if they were from a union:

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are
permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.

But according to Lt. Michael Soubirous of the San Gorgonio Pass CHP Station, which oversees the Hemet area, the men were arrested because they didn’t have a permit.

“The whole thing is, when you go to the DMV, you are not allowed to do any other business,” Soubirous told the Banning-Beaumont Patch. He said a permit is required on state property for anything other than the intended business.

“We would have granted them a permit to go out and preach,” Soubirous explained. “There is a mechanism to be allowed to protest…We don‘t inhibit people’s right to free speech–we regulate it.”

www.theblaze.com...

reply to post by NOTurTypical


How very selfish of you.
People go to the DMV not because they WANT to, but because they need to do business with them due to state/federal mandates. People go to a church when they want to hear the message being perpetuated by this lunatic. Church is a choice, the DMV is not. The bible thumper had no right to do what he was doing without a permit, and was very rude when politely asked to cease, thus he was arrested. Pretty simple, really.

You're arguing a moot point.
Fact is, he broke the law, and was arrested. Very easy to understand.

Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by ArrowsNV

 

A closer look at the Penal Code Section 602.1(b) may, at first glance, cause even more outrage for those such as Monk who are upset by the case. According to section c-1 of the law, the “preachers” would seem to have been okay if they were from a union:

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are
permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.

But according to Lt. Michael Soubirous of the San Gorgonio Pass CHP Station, which oversees the Hemet area, the men were arrested because they didn’t have a permit.

“The whole thing is, when you go to the DMV, you are not allowed to do any other business,” Soubirous told the Banning-Beaumont Patch. He said a permit is required on state property for anything other than the intended business.

“We would have granted them a permit to go out and preach,” Soubirous explained. “There is a mechanism to be allowed to protest…We don‘t inhibit people’s right to free speech–we regulate it.”

www.theblaze.com...

You missed this part of Penal Code 602.1:

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are
permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.
(2) Any person on the premises who is engaging in activities
protected by the California Constitution or the United States
Constitution.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to supersede the
application of any other law.

Love how that next sentence in the law was left out of the article.

It's been proven time and time again that Evangelicalism is constitutionally protected free speech. He is not impeding their business. He is not threatening them, he is simply reading from the bible.

Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

How very selfish of you.
People go to the DMV not because they WANT to, but because they need to do business with them due to state/federal mandates. People go to a church when they want to hear the message being perpetuated by this lunatic. Church is a choice, the DMV is not. The bible thumper had no right to do what he was doing without a permit, and was very rude when politely asked to cease, thus he was arrested. Pretty simple, really.

You're arguing a moot point.
Fact is, he broke the law, and was arrested. Very easy to understand.

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

What you don't seem to understand is that although you may need to go to the DMV to drive, the Government still considers driving a privilege and not a necessity to every day life.

You fail to see that he did not break the law in any way. He did not need a permit as he was simply reading the bible aloud and evangelicalising, which as was stated before is constitutionally protected free speech. And he got arrested for using his 1st Amendment rights

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by ArrowsNV

 

A closer look at the Penal Code Section 602.1(b) may, at first glance, cause even more outrage for those such as Monk who are upset by the case. According to section c-1 of the law, the “preachers” would seem to have been okay if they were from a union:

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are
permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.

But according to Lt. Michael Soubirous of the San Gorgonio Pass CHP Station, which oversees the Hemet area, the men were arrested because they didn’t have a permit.

“The whole thing is, when you go to the DMV, you are not allowed to do any other business,” Soubirous told the Banning-Beaumont Patch. He said a permit is required on state property for anything other than the intended business.

“We would have granted them a permit to go out and preach,” Soubirous explained. “There is a mechanism to be allowed to protest…We don‘t inhibit people’s right to free speech–we regulate it.”

www.theblaze.com...

You missed this part of Penal Code 602.1:

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are
permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.
(2) Any person on the premises who is engaging in activities
protected by the California Constitution or the United States
Constitution.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to supersede the
application of any other law.

Love how that next sentence in the law was left out of the article.

It's been proven time and time again that Evangelicalism is constitutionally protected free speech. He is not impeding their business. He is not threatening them, he is simply reading from the bible.

Only it did not violate the constitution. He is free to practice his religion. He could have very easily gotten a permit for preaching on state property (which the DMV is). Here is a comment I read on another website.

I spoke to a church member, I think it was a Cavalry Chapel member, but of a different particular Cavalry Chapel than the group in the video. The other Cavalry Chapels appear to be concerned with the activities of the preacher in the video. The concern is that, with the screaming and yelling and generally making themselves look like crazy people, the group in the video is turning people away from the Lord. To put it another way, a non-church-going person would look at these people and think ‘these are the kind of people I’ll meet if I go to church? No way- I’m staying home.’

I called Hemet PD to ask if I would be okay to preach on the sidewalk instead of on DMV property. Hemet PD said the California DMV is state property and their police services come from the California Highway Patrol (CHP).

I called CHP and had a nice chat that basically boiled down to this: It had nothing to do with preaching. The people in the video knew they had to have a permit to do anything on state property and they chose not to get a permit. They had been told on multiple previous occasions that they could continue to preach if they moved back onto the sidewalk.

Would You Like To Know More?

The CHP officer said I was the 63rd call he’d fielded about this incident.

In the year prior to this video, another church group (Faith Chapel of San Jacinto) had applied for and received a 3-day permit to preach on DMV property.

You can get a permit to preach on DMV property, but your activity can not be disruptive to the customers standing in line. On previous occasions when the group in the video did this at the DMV the group was screaming and yelling at the people in line.

The CHP officer didn’t know whether or not city rules (Hemet in this case) would require a permit to preach on the sidewalk, but the sidewalk would be in the jurisdiction of the city police.

Here’s an article the Press Enterprise did about the incident: www.pe.com...

The article references the officer arriving and abruptly handcuffing the preacher when the preacher refused to leave. I read the article after talking to the CHP officer, but the officer I talked to mentioned the reason the preacher was arrested so quickly was that the arresting officer and the preacher had encountered each other before and both already knew the routine.

creationrevolution.com...

A person's comment on a website is not law.

You don't seem to get it so I'll keep digging up more precedents for you...

The cases dealing with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions set forth several conditions to their validity. Such restrictions and their enforcement cannot be based on the content of the speech thereby restricted. A compelling governmental interest unrelated to speech must be served by the restriction.
Davenport v. City of Alexandria, Virginia, 683 F. 2d. 853

scholar.google.com...

Just because it's state property doesn't give them the right to tell him to GTFO just for speaking. Had be been actually disrupting the flow of traffic in and out of the DMV it might be a different story, but he is at a decent 'stand-off' distance to prevent that. And in the video you see people walk right by him many times with no issues.

Also if he was shouting or being loud, it doesn't matter. He's on State property, where he technically doesn't need a permit to preach (although they want him to think so), Cities may pass noise ordinance laws but if you look at (Saia v. New York, 334 US 558 - Supreme Court 1948) you'll see that the Supreme Court ruled: that an ordinance which prohibited the use of sound amplification devices except with permission of the Chief of Police was unconstitutional on its face because it established a previous restraint on the right of free speech in violation of the First Amendment.

The present ordinance would be a dangerous weapon if it were allowed to get a hold on our public life. Noise can be regulated by regulating decibels. The hours and place of public discussion can be controlled. But to allow the police to bar the use of loud-speakers because their use can be abused is like barring radio receivers because they too make a noise. The police need not be given the power to deny a man the use of his radio in order to protect a neighbor against sleepless nights. The same is true here.

scholar.google.com...

Originally posted by ArrowsNV
A person's comment on a website is not law.

You don't seem to get it so I'll keep digging up more precedents for you...

The cases dealing with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions set forth several conditions to their validity. Such restrictions and their enforcement cannot be based on the content of the speech thereby restricted. A compelling governmental interest unrelated to speech must be served by the restriction.
Davenport v. City of Alexandria, Virginia, 683 F. 2d. 853

scholar.google.com...

Thank you for the condescending tone but you may want to make a little more sense. He was not asked to stop because of what he was preaching. He was asked to stop the simple act of preaching without a permit (which is still required no matter how many times you try to weasel your way around it.) This is why he was arrested.

Just because it's state property doesn't give them the right to tell him to GTFO just for speaking.

He didn't have to GTFO, he just had to quit preaching where a permit is needed, and which he was a constant nuisance. It is not like this was the first time he pulled this crap. He had fair warnings. They knew they were asking for trouble. Why do you think the camera was there recording, and there was 'selective' editing?

Had be been actually disrupting the flow of traffic in and out of the DMV it might be a different story, but he is at a decent 'stand-off' distance to prevent that. And in the video you see people walk right by him many times with no issues.

edit on 4/7/2012 by ArrowsNV because: (no reason given)

He still went about in a disruptive manner. No one is going to want to hear that at the DMV. Like has been said, that is what church is for.

He was arrested. You are talking like you are trying to prevent his arrest from happening.
It's over with. He broke the law, and will pay the consequences.

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by ArrowsNV
A person's comment on a website is not law.

You don't seem to get it so I'll keep digging up more precedents for you...

The cases dealing with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions set forth several conditions to their validity. Such restrictions and their enforcement cannot be based on the content of the speech thereby restricted. A compelling governmental interest unrelated to speech must be served by the restriction.
Davenport v. City of Alexandria, Virginia, 683 F. 2d. 853

scholar.google.com...

Thank you for the condescending tone but you may want to make a little more sense. He was not asked to stop because of what he was preaching. He was asked to stop the simple act of preaching without a permit (which is still required no matter how many times you try to weasel your way around it.) This is why he was arrested.

Just because it's state property doesn't give them the right to tell him to GTFO just for speaking.

He didn't have to GTFO, he just had to quit preaching where a permit is needed, and which he was a constant nuisance. It is not like this was the first time he pulled this crap. He had fair warnings.

Had be been actually disrupting the flow of traffic in and out of the DMV it might be a different story, but he is at a decent 'stand-off' distance to prevent that. And in the video you see people walk right by him many times with no issues.

edit on 4/7/2012 by ArrowsNV because: (no reason given)

He still went about in a disruptive manner. No one is going to want to hear that at the DMV. Like has been said, that is what church is for.

He was arrested. You are talking like you are trying to prevent his arrest from happening.
It's over with. He broke the law, and will pay the consequences.

No you don't seem to understand.

California Penal Code Section 602.1 specifically states that you do not need a permit to exercise your right to free speech

Lets break it down shall we?

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:

Got it? Ok now here's the section that applies to this preacher.

(2) Any person on the premises who is engaging in activities
protected by the California Constitution or the United States
Constitution.

Therefore he did not need a permit.

Yes, I know he was already arrested. But people like you don't seem to understand that he was arrested in violation of his Constitutional rights...

No matter how many times you say he needs a permit it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't actually need one.

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by ArrowsNV
A person's comment on a website is not law.

You don't seem to get it so I'll keep digging up more precedents for you...

The cases dealing with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions set forth several conditions to their validity. Such restrictions and their enforcement cannot be based on the content of the speech thereby restricted. A compelling governmental interest unrelated to speech must be served by the restriction.
Davenport v. City of Alexandria, Virginia, 683 F. 2d. 853

scholar.google.com...

Thank you for the condescending tone but you may want to make a little more sense. He was not asked to stop because of what he was preaching. He was asked to stop the simple act of preaching without a permit (which is still required no matter how many times you try to weasel your way around it.) This is why he was arrested.

Just because it's state property doesn't give them the right to tell him to GTFO just for speaking.

He didn't have to GTFO, he just had to quit preaching where a permit is needed, and which he was a constant nuisance. It is not like this was the first time he pulled this crap. He had fair warnings.

Had be been actually disrupting the flow of traffic in and out of the DMV it might be a different story, but he is at a decent 'stand-off' distance to prevent that. And in the video you see people walk right by him many times with no issues.

edit on 4/7/2012 by ArrowsNV because: (no reason given)

He still went about in a disruptive manner. No one is going to want to hear that at the DMV. Like has been said, that is what church is for.

He was arrested. You are talking like you are trying to prevent his arrest from happening.
It's over with. He broke the law, and will pay the consequences.

No you don't seem to understand.

California Penal Code Section 602.1 specifically states that you do not need a permit to exercise your right to free speech

Lets break it down shall we?

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:

Got it? Ok now here's the section that applies to this preacher.

(2) Any person on the premises who is engaging in activities
protected by the California Constitution or the United States
Constitution.

Therefore he did not need a permit.

Yes, I know he was already arrested. But people like you don't seem to understand that he was arrested in violation of his Constitutional rights...

No matter how many times you say he needs a permit it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't actually need one.

Here, read this

www.firstamendmentschools.org...

No one is prohibiting his right to practice his religion, but they are allowed to regulate where he is able to preach about it.

Originally posted by wildtimes
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?

Look wild, I really in no way shape of form mean offense to you by saying this. What is the definition of "captive"? What do you read when you Google " criminal confinement"? I've worked security at several places in my day. I'm full trained as to what it is and what is illegal and what isn't.

What is the definition of captive? What about criminal confinement?

Originally posted by paradox

Here, read this

www.firstamendmentschools.org...

No one is prohibiting his right to practice his religion, but they are allowed to regulate where he is able to preach about it.

Here, re-read this part my post up the page, I already covered the Sherbert test.

The cases dealing with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions set forth several conditions to their validity. Such restrictions and their enforcement cannot be based on the content of the speech thereby restricted. A compelling governmental interest unrelated to speech must be served by the restriction.
Davenport v. City of Alexandria, Virginia, 683 F. 2d. 853

If he was not blocking the flow of traffic/business in and out of the DMV, which he was not. Then where is the 'compelling governmental interest' other than the fact that someone probably complained to the manager inside the DMV that the guy was annoying (just taking a guess there, maybe the security guard took the initiative, who knows).

But as I've shown with legal precedents in my previous posts, 'being annoying' was not a valid enough reason to arrest that man. Being annoying is not illegal. Nor does he need a permit according to CPC 602.1(c)(2).



I've found nowhere in the US or State law that says they are allowed to 'regulate where' a person is allowed to exercise his 1st Amendment right whilst in a public space.

Originally posted by ArrowsNV
The cases dealing with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions set forth several conditions to their validity. Such restrictions and their enforcement cannot be based on the content of the speech thereby restricted. A compelling governmental interest unrelated to speech must be served by the restriction.
Davenport v. City of Alexandria, Virginia, 683 F. 2d. 853

The Supreme Court, however, curtailed the application of the Sherbert test in the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith. In that case, the Court held that a burden on free exercise no longer had to be justified by a compelling state interest if the burden was an unintended result of laws that are generally applicable.3

I've found nowhere in the US or State law that says they are allowed to 'regulate where' a person is allowed to exercise his 1st Amendment right whilst in a public space.

edit on 4/7/2012 by ArrowsNV because: (no reason given)

It's the same as this example:

After Smith, only laws (or government actions) that (1) were intended to prohibit the free exercise of religion, or (2) violated other constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, were subject to the compelling interest test. For example, a state could not pass a law stating that Native Americans are prohibited from using peyote, but it could accomplish the same result by prohibiting the use of peyote by everyone.

It's not that difficult. He broke a law. Simple.

Consuming Peyote is not the same as preaching in public.

Peyote is a Schedule I drug.

The Bible is not a drug.

What law exactly did he break?

Because it wasn't CPC 602.1 that they arrested him on. He wasn't in violation of that.

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

Because it wasn't CPC 602.1 that they arrested him on. He wasn't in violation of that.

Of not getting a permit to preach on state property.

reply to post by paradox

You're arguing a moot point.
Fact is, he broke the law, and was arrested. Very easy to understand.

What law did he break exactly?

His arrest charges were dropped when it was shown no such penal code existed for "preaching to a captive audience" which was what the CHP officer stated on camera and originally filed with the court, then the arresting officer filed charges of "impeding an open business with threats of intimidation under Penal Code Section 602.1(b)". Then when shown on March 29th the video evidence those charges were changed by the DA to "trespassing" because neither was the business open at the time the defendant was preaching and he made no threatening gestures to anyone.

Why do you think the officer didn't read him his miranda rights, nor would he tell his bodyguard what Penal Code violation he was being arrested for???

WHAT LAW DID HE BREAK??? There is no such thing as "trespassing" in this case and the DA is desperately grasping at straws hoping something sticks to avoid a federal lawsuit for violation of this man's civil rights.

You are completely uninformed.

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

Because it wasn't CPC 602.1 that they arrested him on. He wasn't in violation of that.

Of not getting a permit to preach on state property.

Go look at CPC 602.1(c)(2)

He didn't need one.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It was already posted.

Penal Code Section 602.1(b) states

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are
permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.

He is not part of a union, therefore he would need to be permitted (receive a permit) by the state, to conduct his preaching on DMV property. Other churches before him have done it. He was blatantly causing trouble, breaking the law, and being a public nuisance.

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

Because it wasn't CPC 602.1 that they arrested him on. He wasn't in violation of that.

Of not getting a permit to preach on state property.

The DA dropped the CPC 602.1(b) charges prior to the man's March 29th arraignment when he viewed the video evidence and saw that A: the business was not open, and B: the preacher did not threaten anyone.

There are no charges filed for a failure to acquire a "permit to preach on state property". The only straw left in the DA's bag right now is "trespassing". He's doing anything he can because a lawsuit has been filed in federal court against the DA and the CHP officer for violating the man's civil rights.

Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It was already posted.

Penal Code Section 602.1(b) states

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are
permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.

He is not part of a union, therefore he would need to be permitted (receive a permit) by the state, to conduct his preaching on DMV property. Other churches before him have done it. He was blatantly causing trouble, breaking the law, and being a public nuisance.

You don't seem to get that there are subsections to laws. And every time you post that little bit you leave out subsection 2

Here is the full text of the law with the parts you're missing bolded so you can see them

(a) Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful
business or occupation carried on by the owner or agent of a business
establishment open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating
those attempting to carry on business, or their customers, and who
refuses to leave the premises of the business establishment after
being requested to leave by the owner or the owner's agent, or by a
peace officer acting at the request of the owner or owner's agent, is
guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail
for up to 90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars
($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
(b) Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful
business carried on by the employees of a public agency open to the
public, by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on
business, or those persons there to transact business with the public
agency, and who refuses to leave the premises of the public agency
after being requested to leave by the office manager or a supervisor
of the public agency, or by a peace officer acting at the request of
the office manager or a supervisor of the public agency, is guilty of
a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to
90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by
both that imprisonment and fine.
(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are
permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.
(2) Any person on the premises who is engaging in activities
protected by the California Constitution or the United States
Constitution.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to supersede the
application of any other law.

Stop leaving out Subsection 2 so you can be 'right'.

The quoted law from the website you quoted earlier IS NOT the full text of the law. They cut it off right before the subsection that exonerates this man from any supposed wrongdoing

Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It was already posted.

Penal Code Section 602.1(b) states

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are
permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.

He is not part of a union, therefore he would need to be permitted (receive a permit) by the state, to conduct his preaching on DMV property. Other churches before him have done it. He was blatantly causing trouble, breaking the law, and being a public nuisance.

Umm, the DA dropped the CPC 602.1(b) charges before the defendant's March 29th arraignment. Don't you think the DA in the case knows the California law somewhat better than you do?

Next.

reply to post by ArrowsNV

You don't seem to get that there are subsections to laws. And every time you post that little bit you leave out subsection 2

Here is the full text of the law with the parts you're missing bolded so you can see them.

Sorry...

And the DA already dropped those charges.