Discuss. There's a couple spots where the video has been cut. I'd be curious to know if anything was going on during that time, but I assume it was just to shorten the video, as the guy was probably there for a bit of time before the police officer showed up. There's doesn't seem to be any indication that the man was violent, obnoxious, or obscene.

A couple other points:

1) Was he ever read his rights or provided with a clear understanding of what law he was breaking? As far as I can tell, he was not. (I watched very carefully from the time the police officer walked up to the time he drove away, and there's no cuts in the video at that point. How long do the police have after telling someone they're under arrest to read them their rights? The one time I was arrested like 5 years ago, I was read my rights while still standing outside on the streets as they were searching me, but is that not standard? Or is this police officer violating the man's rights by neglecting this?)

2) I kind of detected a bit of a homosexual vibe from the officer. Did that play a role? (In that this may have been a personal vendetta for the police officer if he's felt persecuted in the past by "religious kooks" for being gay.) I get the vibe that this may be going on. Assuming it is for the sake of argument, do you think a heterosexual, more conservative officer might have taken the time to talk to the gentlemen and explain why they were not allowed to do what they were doing and then send them on their way, instead of making a huge deal out of it?

3) Exactly what were they doing that was illegal? The other two gentlemen that were with him asked the officer this, and he responded by asking if they wanted to be arrested too. Ultimately they were charged with "impeding an open business" which (mind you, not knowing the specifics of the law) doesn't seem to have any correlation to what they were doing, in that they were not in any way hindering people from going into the DMV or interfering with the DMV's operations. This seems like a "Well crap, they're already arrested. We'd better charge them with something to justify the arrest" copout.

Technically that counts as disturbing the peace and then refusing to leave government property but I think arresting the dude was probably a bit too far.

Oh and as I understand it you only need to have your rights read before you're actually interrogated.

true, because he wasn't.

1. Yes he was read his rights when he was being put into the cruiser. (around 3:40) He was also given a clear description of the problem. He was asked to leave I assume multiple times if they called the cops in. The officer also mentioned it's a captive audience and their video even points out it's in front of a DMV line.

2. What? He didnt show up in a ford focus! And to answer your question, he didn't make a huge deal out of it, he was doing his job. This is one of the stupidest things you've ever said.

3. See point 1.

"You can preach on a street corner, you can preach on your own property, but you cannot preach here." Hey, fair enough.

As far as one of your statements in #3 goes, (and part of #2 as well) the police officer was wise not to engage them. I have no doubt that he would have been more than happy to sit him down and explain in the police station, but not in front of an audience and in front of the camera, because he knew they were trying to play to the audience. Nip the posturing in the bud by refusing to engage them in it in front of an audience. I have no doubt he would have been more than willing to privately sit them down and explain things to them had they been genuinely interested in the legalese.

and I agree with mb; he certainly didn't make a big deal about it. He came in, calmly explained why he was arresting the man, and, as I mentioned above, it seems like the church people were the ones trying to make a scene and the officer refused to indulge them.

All that being said, "impeding an open business" seems like a silly charge, though I don't know the verbage of the law. I would have gone with "disturbing the peace" but I'm a layman; I haven't studied law.

This is the dumbest thing you have ever said. WTF is wrong with you?

You really are mentally retarded.

holy ****

llibja - not to derail this, or maybe in an active attempt to derail this, I never noticed your sig before. Awesome.

They were told to go away and they didn't. The guy reading the bible didn't even bother to listen to the guy who said they couldn't do that there, which was pretty stupid. Apparently, they weren't allowed to preach in that particular place. I don't see the problem.

Why were they filming this anyway? Hm?

This is the best thing you have ever posted. Well remembered, my good man.

In this case I think it's the church that's blowing the thing out of proportion. I spent a fair amount of time doing something almost similar and with that came a lot of warnings to leave the property, which can lead to being escorted or arrested if not heeded. In this case the evangelists ignored the warnings to leave, likely prompted by the audience feeling harassed.
It's presentation in the video is rather extreme, though because it's cut we don't know if the police or security officers made any attempt to escort them off the premise. Though considering the officer isn't already standing there when he arrests the man it leads me to believe no serious attempt had been made yet. Of course that could have caused a bigger scene which is why they just picked them up the way they did.

And concerning the video itself, some people love to feel persecuted. We have a group of guys go to a place where we hear the audience laughing and goading. They persevere and are arrested because they are preaching the word of God. I can understand the preacher saying "Look at what America has become!" if they had come into his church and cuffed him, though in this case, they harassed a captive audience and ignored the law and got their comeuppance. And all the while think it's because of what they were preaching.

There was a homeless man in Columbus who'd always scream scripture at everyone who walked past. He'd stand in front of the state house and blast every single person who walked by. He got arrested all the time for it, but would always come back. They'd just make him spend the night in jail and then let him loose again.

Also the title of this thread should be "while reading from scripture"

then clearly that homeless man was doing it to get a warm bed to sleep in

This is right. The idea of police reading arrestees their rights immediately after arrest is mostly an invention of television police dramas.

The man was arrested under California Penal Code 602.1, which looks like it was written specifically to cover activities like this or at least similar to it. The only question is whether he was actually "obstructing or intimidating... those persons there to transact business with the public agency." Obviously it's not as though he's threatening anyone with violence or physically blocking them from entering. But it wouldn't be surprising if some of the people in line were so uncomfortable with having scripture shouted at them that they would prefer to leave. Consequently, I'm not all that troubled by this arrest.

That's because you're a communist heathen, MacFarlane.

If you are asked to leave a property, and you refuse to do so, it is trespassing. It doesn't matter if you're reading scripture outloud, reading a Tom Clancy novel, doing parkour, or drawing on the sidewalk with chalk.

HELP IS ON THE WAY

That guy?

oh

On a related note, when I was attending OSU I would see this kind of thing on campus occasionally and I don't think they ever got arrested or even asked to leave, guess it was allowed. It didn't bother anyone, if you didn't care to listen you just kept on walking.

I think that's where the "captive audience thing" came in. On a street, you can just walk away, but these people had to be there to get their business done. That's why the officer said "you can preach on the street corner, but you can't preach here."

That's a big part of it. Also, college campuses are traditionally considered open forums for public expression, especially for students. The DMV, not so much.

Yeah the DMV (Or BMV here) isn't really a good place for that, you're already pissed you have to be there, then you got some ******* outside yelling at everyone.

Honestly, I don't care to read anything other than the title, but I can pretty much guarantee "Man read from scripture, then arrested for unrelated reasons" is what really happened.

as much as i defend religion, i really have no sympathy for people who do this and do not stop when asked to.

I don't post here tooo often anymore, but this was one of those things I had to reply just to say.....


Whut

Sarn's a closet homosexual. That's why he bought a BMW. To cover up the fact that he really wants a Ford Focus.

Gotta leave, no time to read the whole thread - but if it hasn't been mentioned yet:


Miranda applies to custodial interrogation, so as long as they're given prior to custodial interrogation, there's no issue with time. If he's not being questioned about the crime with which he's being charged while also in custody, there is no need for a Miranda warning.

You guys suck.

Hey, Sarns the one that said it!

So I'm guessing you drive a focus then?

K, so I didn't know the laws behind this, which is why I posted. Was curious to get some insight from people with a different perspective from me. I still don't think the officer acted very profesional at all, but I'm not saying there was no legal precedent. I just didnt know if there was. I still think his charge seems like a copout.

As for the homosexual aspect, look at the way the officer moves his hands, and listen to how he talks. Also this takes place in an area where homosexuality is fairly prominent. If not homosexual, hes at least pretty efeminent. Maybe I'm making something out of nothing, but I could easily imagine a situation where he is homosexual and where because of this, hed been wrongly persecuted in the past by religious fanatics. From there its not much of a step to imagine him having a predisposition to bitterness against organized religion, and allowing that to influence his decision to arrest them, as opposed to escorting them away and explaining to rhem why they cant preach there. But i only brought that up because I was curious if anyone else got that impression or thoight it might be plausible.

(Sorry for the typos, im posting from my cellphone.)

You seriously base the claim that he's a homosexual off of the way he moves and talks? I think we're reading a little too much into stereotypes here.

This is the most bizarrely and openly homophobic thing I've seen in a long time, and I live in Alberta.

Look, not that I consider it relevant but the cop did exhibit some mannerisms that might cause someone to stereotypically determine he was gay. Whatever. I'm not saying it's relevant or particularly fair to then muse upon whether or not he's a *** that has been traumatized by some bible thumper. Again, whatever. I don't think it's legitimate to arrest the man because he was preaching to a "captive audience" on "government property" For Christ's sake, practically the entire country is government property. And, really, the issue is he was offending a captive audience? They're lined up to go in the DMV. They are perfectly prepared to be an offended captive audience.

Other than that, this incident is dumb and this thread is even dumber.

Doesn't look homosexual to me. Doesn't really look heterosexual either. You know what he looks like? He looks like a cop. Maybe a librul, maybe an athiest, maybe even a godless commie, but I'm not getting a homosexual vibe here.

-If he was standing there singing "the song that never ends" to a captive audience, he'd be arrested too.

Bolded for emphasis. You're judging a man based on the way he's moving his hands and then you accuse him of arresting someone because clearly he probably hates religion? Sounds like you're projecting your own biases.

Also: Would you even be arguing this if he wasn't reading the scripture? What the **** does it matter if he's homosexual or not. He's a person and deserves to be treated like a person. You're what's wrong with this country.

Nailed it.

Oh hey, I missed this post. Well said!