Man arrested for reading the Holy Bible in public

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

THE DA DROPPED THOSE CHARGES ALREADY.

Helloooooooooooo, is this thing on?? *tap* *tap*

I know, but Mr.Paradox doesn't seem to understand how this whole issue works. Just trying to clear things up.

Although it seems like he is stuck with his view that free speech can be curtailed whenever and wherever the Govt sees fit, so whatever. I'm done debating this. I've quoted court dockets, federal & state laws, and he still doesn't get it, so I'm out, can't say I didn't try.


And I wasn't talking about you, I agree with you NuT

reply to post by ArrowsNV

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

And we've already posted how the SCOTUS has ruled on this issue for over 200 years.

But that doesn't seem to matter in the least bit does it?

Why do I feel like I'm trying to herd cats high on PCP covered in Vaseline?

reply to post by ArrowsNV

I know, but Mr.Paradox doesn't seem to understand how this whole issue works. Just trying to clear things up.

I looked at the wrong member's name and thought I was responding to Paradox, I've since edited that post. Sorry council.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Why do I feel like I'm trying to herd cats high on PCP covered in Vaseline?

edit on 7-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Hahahaha that's a new one.

I'd love to see a video of someone actually trying that...


Well I'm off this thread, like I said in my last post, can't say we didn't try. Some people, I guess, just really want this country to be a totalitarian police state.

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Why do I feel like I'm trying to herd cats high on PCP covered in Vaseline?

edit on 7-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Hahahaha that's a new one.

I'd love to see a video of someone actually trying that...


Well I'm off this thread, like I said in my last post, can't say we didn't try. Some people, I guess, just really want this country to be a totalitarian police state.

And isn't it just plain ODD as all damn get out that folks are unanimously DEFENDING COPS on ATS???

Where the heck am I??

reply to post by paradox

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.)

Bull effin S&*@!!!!!

He was arrested for "preaching to a captive audience", watch the video in the OP. Then when in jail when it was discovered that no such California Penal Code existed for that the charges were dropped and the police officer filed new charges that the DA later dropped because they were completely bogus.

Wake up!!

Originally posted by BellaSabre
I'm just curious as to why he was having it filmed. Why bring a cameraman and video tape everything?

Quite often street preachers are assaulted and the video is for evidence in court. Why do you think he had a bodyguard? This man had previously been spit in his face and punched.

That's why he always practices his rights with a bodyguard and video camera at all times. Ask yourself why he had a bodyguard.

They murdered Jesus, we're lucky we sorta have a Bill of Rights protecting us today. imagine if this was China or a Muslim nation. Instead of watching his arrest video we'd be watching his beheading on youtube right now.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

But the person portrayed by mel Gibson in the movie "The Patriot" was a great great great grandfather of mine. Brigadier General Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox".

We are patriots in this family dear.

That's interesting, very cool....
maybe you are that Swamp Fox...reincarnated.....

Geneaology is another of my favorite subjects....The older I get, the more I see how similar traits are passed down through the generations...but that's another topic.
Peace, brother!

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Since when have members here overwhelmingly supported COPS who make illegal arrests on CAMERA???

Okay, but this thread is not about cops...it's about the guy who imposed his read-aloud time to a group of unwilling participants. Perhaps not against the law, but not in very good taste, either.

And I imagine the cops were asked to come by someone....

I just wish you could see the 'imposition' part of it, regardless of the law. But I guess the OP is about his being arrested. He may not have been breaking a 'law', but he was disturbing the peace, and the freedom of the people standing in line who did not care to listen to him.

Is that so impossible to understand?

Freedom of speech is fine; there is a time and place for it. I do understand your points on the Constitution, but that does not make me feel any less that this guy was rude, and he was giving unsolicited advice (and may have appeared to some to be deranged).

Originally posted by wildtimes


Freedom of speech is fine; there is a time and place for it. I do understand your points on the Constitution, but that does not make me feel any less that this guy was rude, and he was giving unsolicited advice (and may have appeared to some to be deranged).

Still doesn't give the cop the right to arrest him.

OP may have been posting this because the preacher got arrested for proselytizing his religion in public, but I'm debating for this man's legal right to do so.

Rude? Maybe to some people
Annoying? Maybe to some people
Illegal? Not in the slightest.


When the SCOTUS rules in favor of someone being arrested because they were being rude or annoying I'll stop bringing it up, but they haven't. In fact they usually defend a persons right to be as annoying or rude as they want as long as that person doesn't impede business, intimidate, or break any laws.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

This man had previously been spit in his face and punched.

That's why he always practices his rights with a bodyguard and video camera at all times. Ask yourself why he had a bodyguard.

Because....wait, wait, don't tell me.....

Because he is aware that people think he is acting like a jerk and is being a nuisance? Jesus did have bodyguards, but he didn't force anyone to listen to him. They came to him, of their own volition, interested in what he had to say. When he felt he was in danger, he left (or kept a low profile).

Socially acceptable behavior is something the evangelists might want to consider. Again, invading someone's ear canals with opinion and rhetoric is in poor taste, and generally unacceptable. He might want to take the hint and find a different outlet.

Was he just trying to provoke someone to punch him or spit at him? That's pretty bizarre behavior.

And in any case, it turns people off....it is that style of preaching that gives them the 'negative image' they have. It doesn't save anyone...it only shows that they are not socially adept. Who would want to sign up with that?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
But the person portrayed by mel Gibson in the movie "The Patriot" was a great great great grandfather of mine. Brigadier General Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox".

Just saw this. Off topic but that's really cool. I remember doing a report on Francis Marion back in the 5th grade.

reply to post by ArrowsNV

In fact they usually defend a persons right to be as annoying or rude as they want as long as that person doesn't impede business, intimidate, or break any laws.

Okay, let's have a look at the gray area here....
"Impeding business" : ...if the people had left (as NuT suggests they had the choice to do), the man would have been impeding business.

"intimidate":....most evangelical street preachers are trying their darnedest to intimidate people by instilling the fear of hell into them. Was this guy? I don't know. I'm speaking only on terms of socially acceptable and effective 'salesmanship'...which is what they're supposed to be, right? Selling their religion to the 'heathens' or those in the 'wrong religion.'

"breaking any laws": we are guaranteed by the Constitution to have freedom of religion...which includes any religion, or lack thereof. For someone to force their religious views on others who did not come asking to hear it is very borderline .... it is ignoring the fact that those people have a right to choose their own place, method, and doctrine, or to choose none at all. That is freedom. Freedom of AND FROM religion.

Anyway, I was a clinical counselor for several years. The way to gain someone's interest, trust, and continued interaction is not by shouting at them when they don't want to hear it.

It's like NAGGING. No one likes to be nagged. No One Likes To Be Nagged. It backfires every time....
For a tiny example here on ATS' religious forums, there is a member who routinely inserts "you smoke, you get cancer" into his treatises on religion, spirituality and truth.

When I read through his posts, which are kinda hard for me to follow anyway, every time I see that phrase, that declaration (which, btw, is not proven to be true...) ...I stop reading. Immediately.

I roll my eyes, and move on. See what I mean? If you want to gain an audience, don't insult them and make them feel inferior, stupid, or damned. That's just really poor salesmanship. These guys (the street preachers) are self-appointed (or perhaps denomination-appointed) 'salvation salesmen'.

Using fear to browbeat people into submission is ... well.....
a very sketchy technique, almost guaranteed to fail.

Instead, offering respect, dignity, helpful approachability, and recognizing the 'client's' or 'seeker's' freedom of personal choice works much, much better. If some guy were behaving that way in front of QuikTrip or the grocery store, I'd say to the manager, "You know there's someone out there preaching, right?" and,
If I discovered accidentally through his ranting while my ears were in the area what 'org' the guy was preaching, I would automatically decide to NEVER step foot anywhere near him or his 'friends'.

Does that make sense? How about just handing out fliers, like the Hari Krishnas used to do?

But, I don't suppose that guy was trying to talk to people like me, who aren't interested. He's looking for the lost sheep, right? I don't know....I just can't wrap my head around the method or the objective. It's lame all the way around, in my opinion.

I'm not saying that he wasn't being rude, and that he wasn't trying to shove religion down other peoples throats or anything that you mentioned (because he was doing just that).

Nor am I saying what he did was the best way, or even a good way to spread his religion, but what he was doing was not illegal in any way and yet he got arrested for it. Which I believe is ridiculously stupid and is how countries go from loving freedom to embracing hatred and tyranny. It's a slow path, but restricting the right to free speech is one of the first steps towards a system that punishes those for simply speaking their mind.

It may also be 'borderline' as you put it, or nagging, or just in general a stupid way to 'attract' followers, (IMO you should let them come to you, instead of trying to shove the bible down their throats) but as I said and demonstrated earlier, he was not in violation of any State or Federal laws by doing so. He could have had a freaking megaphone and he would STILL not be breaking any laws.

I agree with you on those points and what you are saying makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is WHY he was arrested.

The people who can't just learn to "roll 'their' eyes, and move on" are no better than the 'annoying' preacher reading the Bible rather loudly in front of the DMV.

reply to post by ArrowsNV

he was not in violation of any State or Federal laws by doing so. He could have had a freaking megaphone and he would STILL not be breaking any laws.

Okay, then....
we agree on his unsavory behavior, cool....I also understand the argument that he wasn't breaking any laws.
I guess my point is just that....I don't really care that he was arrested, or whether it was right or wrong, although I do understand the point of freedom of speech, and do not want my own freedoms taken either. Please don't misunderstand my point.

If the OP's main concern is just simply about him being arrested wrongfully, then so be it.
I guess I'm off-topic....

I was aiming only to point out that whatever the outcome, his behavior was contrary to social norms and 'publicly accepted behavior', and likely not to recruit many people into his faith.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

But the person portrayed by mel Gibson in the movie "The Patriot" was a great great great grandfather of mine. Brigadier General Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox".

We are patriots in this family dear.

That's interesting, very cool....
maybe you are that Swamp Fox...reincarnated.....

Geneaology is another of my favorite subjects....The older I get, the more I see how similar traits are passed down through the generations...but that's another topic.
Peace, brother!

No, he was noble and honorable, you know my past sins. And you'll have to share the traits thing to me sometime, I'm fiercely patriotic so there may be something to the genes thing. God bless you friend, thank you.

reply to post by wildtimes

Because he is aware that people think he is acting like a jerk and is being a nuisance?

He was, not going to argue there. But that's not legal justification for assault dear. The body guard and the camera were for instances just like this, or as we kids say CYA insurance.

The DA dropped the CPC 602.1(b) charges based upon THAT video evidence.

reply to post by wildtimes

Perhaps not against the law, but not in very good taste, either.

Agreed! But that's NOT grounds for illegal arrests and violation of his civil rights. That's why the jackasses at WBC are allowed to spit their hatred and nonsense at my fallen brothers and sisters funerals. I hate it, but I will defend their constitutional rights to do it. I also have a constitutional right to stand on the other side of the street and protest their protest!!!!

Like I said, where one person's rights begin another person's rights end. That's what civil liberties are all about. And we either stand for them on principle, or deny them for convenience or personal opinion. That's a license for tyranny. That's not the Republic we were given by our forefathers.

Is that so impossible to understand?

It's impossible for me to agree to. The people were free to leave. If it were me in that line I would counter evangelize his methods and un-Christian display of love and compassion and serving others before myself. People come to Christ by you being the hands and feet of Jesus, by showing them His love through you. Not by screaming the law and being a douchebag. Like Paul rebuking Peter to his face in the Galatians account when peter was acting un-Christlike. Peter listened and repented of his error.

There isn't a such thing as a freedom from religion clause to the 1st amendment.

And in any case, it turns people off....it is that style of preaching that gives them the 'negative image' they have. It doesn't save anyone...it only shows that they are not socially adept. Who would want to sign up with that?

I'm not arguing the methodology was right, just his rights to be that douchebag. I've never said his methods or Evangelistic style was good or Christlike.

Don't you remember me fighting publicly with KJV1611 for using the same style here on ATS?

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
But the person portrayed by mel Gibson in the movie "The Patriot" was a great great great grandfather of mine. Brigadier General Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox".

Just saw this. Off topic but that's really cool. I remember doing a report on Francis Marion back in the 5th grade.

You did bro?? I had no idea until about a decade ago when my cousin Chuck did a big research for it in college. Pretty sweet man.

reply to post by wildtimes

It's like NAGGING. No one likes to be nagged. No One Likes To Be Nagged. It backfires every time....

Yes it is, that's why as a Christian it's important to use the "entire council of God' and not single verse theology. The Bible guy should have remembered these verses from the Book of Proverbs:


"A nagging wife is like water going drip-drip-drip on a rainy day. How can you keep her quiet? Have you ever tried to stop the wind or ever tried to hold a handful of oil?"

"Better a meal of vegetables where there is love than a fattened ox with hatred."

"Better to live on the corner of a roof than to share a house with a nagging wife."

"Better to live in a wilderness than with a nagging and hot-tempered wife."