Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Man arrested for publicly reading from Scripture.
12345678
Man arrested for publicly reading from Scripture.
2011-04-30, 12:35 AM #81
Yup. Not much of an issue to it, really.
And he wasn't just proselytizing, he was yelling at people stuck in a line who had to deal with him bugging them. That's illegal.

-Also, Alan, no you don't need your rights read to you before you can be arrested, you need them read to before you can be questioned by the police.
2011-04-30, 12:45 AM #82
Originally posted by Wookie06:
Very many here seem to feel it is important to be tolerant of various groups. But not with regards to this guy. No, he's proselytizing on "government property". Arrest the son of a *****!


Provide any evidence that this man's speech was punished because of its content (rather than because of time, place and manner) or GTFO.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2011-04-30, 6:03 AM #83
this was the only thing i could think of

2011-04-30, 6:10 AM #84
Originally posted by Alan:
If he wasn't read his rights, then he was detained, not arrested. There have been times where I've been detained, driven to the booking, and then read my rights. Detainment can also be indefinite.


Incorrect, my good man. It is quite possible (and legal) to arrest someone and not read Miranda. Been there, done that.
woot!
2011-04-30, 8:49 AM #85
Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
Provide any evidence that this man's speech was punished because of its content (rather than because of time, place and manner) or GTFO.


Wow. You are proof positive of what it wildly wrong with our legal system and the state of legal education (at least where you're receiving it). I presume you believe that had a person been standing there reading Harry Potter aloud, there would have been an equal reaction but we can just set that, the main point of your troll post, aside. I would rather you provide an argument that supports your implied point of view that because of the time (morning), place (a parking lot on public property), and manner (calmly reading aloud) he should have been arrested regardless of content.

This ought to be good.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2011-04-30, 8:53 AM #86
Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
Provide any evidence that this man's speech was punished because of its content (rather than because of time, place and manner) or GTFO.


Yeah, doesn't he even quickly say in the video (someone posted this on first page) something about "you can go over there and preach, but you can't do it here".
From sugarless: "You can preach on a street corner, you can preach on your own property, but you cannot preach here."

He's clearly just following the law in regards to where you can do this kind of thing...

And Wookie, people get arrested for this stuff because of the appearance of it. Some people might view this as the government endorsing his actions or his readings. Don't get me wrong, I think most people would just ignore him. But some people view inaction as endorsement. And I bet there WOULD actually be a response if someone was just reading Harry Potter outside, from people (idiots) who think Harry Potter is evil. Regardless, it's just safer for them to move these people than to let them stay there.

Also, one could argue that his readings could be insulting, if he was calling people sinners, saying they will burn in hell, all on government property. Again, it's just safer for the government to move these people, and overall makes things better for other people. You are decreasing the chance of one jackass getting pissed at what that preacher was saying and starting something a lot bigger. All he had to do was move across the street, the cop told him.
"His Will Was Set, And Only Death Would Break It"

"None knows what the new day shall bring him"
2011-04-30, 9:02 AM #87
And that's the beauty of using Harry Potter as the example. You end up pointing out that the same thing might happen because of the content. I want to here Michael's eloquent argument that content has nothing to do with this.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2011-04-30, 9:07 AM #88
No, it wasn't the content that is the problem. It's people that are the problem. We know that people take some of this **** seriously, and some end up doing hurtful things in the name of it. This is pre-emptive regardless of content, because anyone can be offended by ANYTHING.
"His Will Was Set, And Only Death Would Break It"

"None knows what the new day shall bring him"
2011-04-30, 9:16 AM #89
Originally posted by Wookie06:
Wow. You are proof positive of what it wildly wrong with our legal system and the state of legal education (at least where you're receiving it).


Y'know, I know the Dunning-Kruger effect has become a cliché on this forum, but when someone like you purports to be able to judge the quality of legal education, that really is the ultimate example.

Quote:
I would rather you provide an argument that supports your implied point of view that because of the time (morning), place (a parking lot on public property), and manner (calmly reading aloud) he should have been arrested regardless of content.


He was annoying people who had no real option to leave. That would be true whether he was reading the Bible or Harry Potter or a shopping list. That's exactly why we have the captive audience doctrine.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2011-04-30, 11:48 AM #90
Alright, Wookie, let's have a moment of illustrative learning.

You're at the DMV, looking to get your license renewed, and will be here for a good long time because it's criminally understaffed.
Suddenly, you see me climb up on a soap box and open a book:

Quote:

Call me Ishmael. Some years ago--never mind how long precisely--having
little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on
shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of
the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating
the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth;
whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find
myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up
the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get
such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to
prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically
knocking people's hats off--then, I account it high time to get to sea
as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a
philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly
take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew
it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very
nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.

There now is your insular city of the Manhattoes, belted round by
wharves as Indian isles by coral reefs--commerce surrounds it with
her surf. Right and left, the streets take you waterward. Its extreme
downtown is the battery, where that noble mole is washed by waves, and
cooled by breezes, which a few hours previous were out of sight of land.
Look at the crowds of water-gazers there.

Circumambulate the city of a dreamy Sabbath afternoon. Go from Corlears
Hook to Coenties Slip, and from thence, by Whitehall, northward. What
do you see?--Posted like silent sentinels all around the town, stand
thousands upon thousands of mortal men fixed in ocean reveries. Some
leaning against the spiles; some seated upon the pier-heads; some
looking over the bulwarks of ships from China; some high aloft in the
rigging, as if striving to get a still better seaward peep. But these
are all landsmen; of week days pent up in lath and plaster--tied to
counters, nailed to benches, clinched to desks. How then is this? Are
the green fields gone? What do they here?

But look! here come more crowds, pacing straight for the water, and
seemingly bound for a dive. Strange! Nothing will content them but the
extremest limit of the land; loitering under the shady lee of yonder
warehouses will not suffice. No. They must get just as nigh the water
as they possibly can without falling in. And there they stand--miles of
them--leagues. Inlanders all, they come from lanes and alleys, streets
and avenues--north, east, south, and west. Yet here they all unite.
Tell me, does the magnetic virtue of the needles of the compasses of all
those ships attract them thither?

Once more. Say you are in the country; in some high land of lakes. Take
almost any path you please, and ten to one it carries you down in a
dale, and leaves you there by a pool in the stream. There is magic
in it. Let the most absent-minded of men be plunged in his deepest
reveries--stand that man on his legs, set his feet a-going, and he will
infallibly lead you to water, if water there be in all that region.
Should you ever be athirst in the great American desert, try this
experiment, if your caravan happen to be supplied with a metaphysical
professor. Yes, as every one knows, meditation and water are wedded for
ever.

But here is an artist. He desires to paint you the dreamiest, shadiest,
quietest, most enchanting bit of romantic landscape in all the valley of
the Saco. What is the chief element he employs? There stand his trees,
each with a hollow trunk, as if a hermit and a crucifix were within; and
here sleeps his meadow, and there sleep his cattle; and up from yonder
cottage goes a sleepy smoke. Deep into distant woodlands winds a
mazy way, reaching to overlapping spurs of mountains bathed in their
hill-side blue. But though the picture lies thus tranced, and though
this pine-tree shakes down its sighs like leaves upon this shepherd's
head, yet all were vain, unless the shepherd's eye were fixed upon the
magic stream before him. Go visit the Prairies in June, when for scores
on scores of miles you wade knee-deep among Tiger-lilies--what is the
one charm wanting?--Water--there is not a drop of water there! Were
Niagara but a cataract of sand, would you travel your thousand miles to
see it? Why did the poor poet of Tennessee, upon suddenly receiving two
handfuls of silver, deliberate whether to buy him a coat, which he sadly
needed, or invest his money in a pedestrian trip to Rockaway Beach? Why
is almost every robust healthy boy with a robust healthy soul in him, at
some time or other crazy to go to sea? Why upon your first voyage as a
passenger, did you yourself feel such a mystical vibration, when first
told that you and your ship were now out of sight of land? Why did the
old Persians hold the sea holy? Why did the Greeks give it a separate
deity, and own brother of Jove? Surely all this is not without meaning.
And still deeper the meaning of that story of Narcissus, who because
he could not grasp the tormenting, mild image he saw in the fountain,
plunged into it and was drowned. But that same image, we ourselves see
in all rivers and oceans. It is the image of the ungraspable phantom of
life; and this is the key to it all.

How far into that do you think I'd get before someone dialed 911?

-Hell, at least Moby Dick's good literature. If I had to stand in line at the DMV and listen to the bible being read, then it had better be Revelation or I'm gonna throw a shoe at someone.
2011-04-30, 11:54 AM #91
Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
Y'know, I know the Dunning-Kruger effect has become a cliché on this forum, but when someone like you purports to be able to judge the quality of legal education, that really is the ultimate example.


It's plain enough to see that you have no problem dismissing constitutional rights simply because you have learned of a "legal" precedent. The fact that you will need to apply those precedents when (and if) you practice is one thing. I wouldn't expect you to try to turn every case into a challenge at the Supreme Court but the fact that you can't even appreciate how things such as this are a gross violation of the first amendment leads me to believe there is a serious problem with legal education. And when you consider that people far more educated than you grossly misinterpret the constitution while sitting on the bench, it would appear that I have precedent.

Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
He was annoying people who had no real option to leave. That would be true whether he was reading the Bible or Harry Potter or a shopping list. That's exactly why we have the captive audience doctrine.


In that case I suppose a fair case could be made to arrest the president.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2011-04-30, 12:05 PM #92
Originally posted by Wookie06:
It's plain enough to see that you have no problem dismissing constitutional rights simply because you have learned of a "legal" precedent.


Can you please explain why this is a violation of constitutional rights?
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2011-04-30, 12:08 PM #93
Why don't we just skip that and you make your case against the argument you already presume I'll make?
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2011-04-30, 12:09 PM #94
No dice. Put up or shut up.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2011-04-30, 12:30 PM #95
This is scary.
>>untie shoes
2011-04-30, 12:31 PM #96
There is just absolutely no way Wookie isn't simply trolling.
Why do you all encourage it?
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2011-04-30, 12:33 PM #97
Well, I'm watching the NFL Draft, and I need something to do between picks.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2011-04-30, 12:35 PM #98
I want to know what MacFarlane has against Von Miller.
>>untie shoes
2011-04-30, 12:37 PM #99
He's a great player, but he's a bad fit for the defense. Especially since they're planning to play him at strong-side linebacker. He belongs on a team that runs the 3-4. I wanted Marcell Dareus or Patrick Peterson.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2011-04-30, 12:39 PM #100
Wookie06 and Sarn_Cadrill: both awful people. Coincidence, or Tea Party?
2011-04-30, 12:46 PM #101
Originally posted by Wookie06:
It's plain enough to see that you have no problem dismissing constitutional rights simply because you have learned of a "legal" precedent. The fact that you will need to apply those precedents when (and if) you practice is one thing. I wouldn't expect you to try to turn every case into a challenge at the Supreme Court but the fact that you can't even appreciate how things such as this are a gross violation of the first amendment leads me to believe there is a serious problem with legal education. And when you consider that people far more educated than you grossly misinterpret the constitution while sitting on the bench, it would appear that I have precedent.



In that case I suppose a fair case could be made to arrest the president.


So the constitution allows you to preach, read, do speeches, etc on government property to a captive audience?

If you want to prove that it was the context that got the man arrested, then I challenge you to go that same spot and read Hamlet to the people there. If you get arrested after being asked not to leave, then you were wrong. If nobody present does nothing, even after you've finished it, then you were right.
2011-04-30, 4:42 PM #102
The fact is that if you're asked to leave and refuse, (and he was asked to leave, and he did refuse) the police will be called. I don't care who you are.

Also, when the president gives speeches, the people watching and listening have chosen to do so. I'm very confused by that statement, Wookie.

Also, please tell me how this is a violation of your constitutional rights?
Fincham: Where are you going?
Me: I have no idea
Fincham: I meant where are you sitting. This wasn't an existential question.
2011-04-30, 7:26 PM #103
I think we need to scientifically test the accuracy of Sarn's gaydar.
My favorite JKDF2 h4x:
EAH XMAS v2
MANIPULATOR GUN
EAH SMOOTH SNIPER
2011-04-30, 8:07 PM #104
Know what I noticed guyz! That cop puts the preacher in his backseat. That obviously means the cop was going to have sex with him, because people always have sex in the backseats of cars.
My blawgh.
2011-04-30, 11:08 PM #105
Yeah, no.

If the cop was gay, he would have made the preacher bend over face-first on the hood of the car.
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2011-04-30, 11:27 PM #106
Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
or shut up.


I appreciate it.

Originally posted by sugarless:
Also, when the president gives speeches, the people watching and listening have chosen to do so. I'm very confused by that statement, Wookie.


You're not half as confused by that statement as Wookie is by the "captive audience" concept generally. I mean, come on, look at this:

Originally posted by Wookie06:
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.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2011-04-30, 11:30 PM #107
It's a joke.
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2011-05-01, 2:59 AM #108
Yeah I was gonna laugh at it, but then I remembered it was Wookie's joke :cool:
He said to them: "You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment." - Gospel of Thomas
2011-05-01, 11:54 AM #109
Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
I appreciate it.


Sorry. I've been busy and I'm on my way to Home Depot now. You'll have to continue to wait longer. And I love how someone above said I'm trolling. Oh, it was Deadman, right? Funny how when I actually find it important to talk about the actual issues rather than the alleged homosexuality of the cop I'm the troll.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2011-05-01, 12:23 PM #110
I just looked up the penal code referenced. This seems entirely cut and dry to me. He was intimidating those attempting to go about business at the DMV (eg going off about the wrath of his god), was asked to leave and refused, so an officer was called.

Quote:
California Penal Code Section 602.1

Legal Research Home > California Laws > Penal Code > California Penal Code Section 602.1

(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.
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
2011-05-01, 1:59 PM #111
Originally posted by Dormouse:
I just looked up the penal code referenced.

And how far into that code do you think one could read before they'd be arrested?

-Pretty sure I'd get to about "owner's agent" before 911 would be called.
2011-05-01, 2:35 PM #112
Originally posted by Jarl:
And how far into that code do you think one could read before they'd be arrested?

-Pretty sure I'd get to about "owner's agent" before 911 would be called.


I'm not sure what you're point is, can you elucidate some? I just found it very interesting that in the youtube video the church actually showed the penal code reference that he got arrested for and then were like wtfworld, when it was mapped to their actions and consequences explicitly.

Edit: Though upon consideration, if some guy showed up with two lackies and just started reading the California penal code as I was queuing at the DMV, I'd be a bit freaked out to be honest.
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
2011-05-01, 2:51 PM #113
Originally posted by Dormouse:
I'm not sure what you're point is, can you elucidate some?


oh, i hear Jarl can elucidate on the penal code a lot! like several gallons at once!
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2011-05-01, 8:52 PM #114
Originally posted by Dormouse:
Edit: Though upon consideration, if some guy showed up with two lackies and just started reading the California penal code as I was queuing at the DMV, I'd be a bit freaked out to be honest.

That's pretty much my point. It doesn't matter what he went there to read, the mere fact he's spouting gibberish at all those people is reason enough to arrest him.

-The fact it's the bible is neither an inciting nor a mitigating factor.
2011-05-01, 10:11 PM #115
That penal code is irrelevant to the issue. He did none of those things reading the bible aloud.

So let's at least agree that the man was on public property reading scripture. Let's further agree that he wasn't distracting from the conduct of any business. Let's probably not all agree on the fact that the people standing outside the DMV weren't a "captive audience", they could have removed themselves to their car or whatever until the doors were opened.

Although Michael's interpretation of the First Amendment differs from the actual text of the First Amendment I'll go ahead and use his. He believes that it applies to governments lower than federal. Considering that the man's speech and religious practice was not injurious to others, the government should have no authority to restrict his speech. I guess Michael believes that people have an equal constitutional protection against being annoyed.

By the way, my comment about arresting the president was a play on Michael's absurd statement that the man should have been arrested because he was annoying people that have no reasonable ability to leave. Well, the president annoys many that have no reasonable ability to leave the country.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2011-05-01, 10:29 PM #116
Lumpenprole.
2011-05-02, 5:35 AM #117
Originally posted by Wookie06:
That penal code is irrelevant to the issue. He did none of those things reading the bible aloud.

So let's at least agree that the man was on public property reading scripture. Let's further agree that he wasn't distracting from the conduct of any business. Let's probably not all agree on the fact that the people standing outside the DMV weren't a "captive audience", they could have removed themselves to their car or whatever until the doors were opened.


How have you gotten this far into the thread without actually knowing what it's about? Did you read any of the articles or watch the video? If so, I'm not sure how you can say "he did none of those things reading the bible aloud". He was asked repeatedly to leave while reading the bible aloud, and he was arrested while reading the bible aloud. That's two out of three items that you cannot argue. The third, interestingly led me to another article:

http://banning-beaumont.patch.com/articles/hemet-church-members-sue-chp-over-bible-reading-arrest-at-dmv
Which was especially interesting for this quote from the officer:
Quote:
"The whole thing is, when you go to the DMV, you are not allowed to do any other business," Soubirous said. He said the men did not have a permit to speak there, which 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 said. "There is a mechanism to be allowed to protest...We don't inhibit people's right to free speech--we regulate it."

Soubirous said he believes the group was aware of the permitting process, and that CHP officers had had prior contact with them.

He added that the same principles apply to a DMV office as do at the State Capitol building, which is also under the jurisdiction of CHP.


Edit: Also as Jarl illustrated below, it had nothing to do with reading the Bible. It was using state property as a forum of any kind without a permit.
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
2011-05-02, 5:59 AM #118
How can you take a man seriously who says "We don't inhibit people's right to free speech--we regulate it."

Disgusting.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Lassev: I guess there was something captivating in savagery, because I liked it.
2011-05-02, 6:05 AM #119
Because only idiots think that free speech actually means you can just go wherever you want to and say whatever you want to.
>>untie shoes
2011-05-02, 6:11 AM #120
Here's the bottom line.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't see anything in there that regulates "where" you can have freedom of speech. And, in fact, the wording to me implies that it should be unconstitutional to even make a law limiting places where people can speak or requiring permits. Let's look at the phrase "abridging the freedom of speech" and more specifically, the word "abridging". Here's the dictionary definition that applies:
(the first one has to do with shortening the printed word, N/A)
2.
to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3.
to deprive; cut off.

"to reduce or lessen in... scope, authority, etc; diminish; curtail..."

Limiting the locations where one can speak, is lessening the scope of their freedom. Requiring a permit to allow someone to speak is taking away their authority. How can anyone *not* think this law is unconstitutional?
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Lassev: I guess there was something captivating in savagery, because I liked it.
12345678

↑ Up to the top!