Christian arrested at Pride Event

[HoosierLife]

So you agree that the idiot yelling bible verses should have been removed?

No lol. As someone else already pointed out, you miss a lot.

I was saying that I can forcibly remove someone from my house under all sorts of laws and statutes and just plain logic.

Jesus is God. They were literally in His house acting the fool.

And He drove them out as such.

 

[XMil]

No lol. As someone else already pointed out, you miss a lot.

I was saying that I can forcibly remove someone from my house under all sorts of laws and statutes and just plain logic.

Jesus is God. They were literally in His house acting the fool.

And He drove them out as such.

Speaking of missing a lot, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[HoosierLife]

Speaking of missing a lot, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

You first.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

So you agree that the idiot yelling bible verses should have been removed?

Irrelevance. @HoosierLife is talking about someone in your house, castle, domain, etc. acting a fool. In this case, the Temple, which was God's house. Jesus being God kicked them out of His house. The issue of this thread was someone on a public sidewalk saying bible verses, even though I don't think that's why he was detained according to the video. This would be the difference of shooting a home invader that broke down your door, vs. shooting a "home invader" jogging down the street.

 

[Denny347]

Well thank the lord we have video.

partial

 

[Ziggidy]

No one is above the law.

 

[Denny347]

There isn't body cam video from the officer in the linked article, but there is bystander video of the incident.

Partial video, partial story

 

[drillsgt]

This is all 100% irrelevant. He was arrested for disorderly conduct, not trespass.

Govt agents on here always rush in to justify the govt's actions.

 

[Denny347]

Ok, lets go another route. I 100% can arrest someone in Indiana for DOC on a public sidewalk based on HOW they are saying it, not based on the content of their speech.
IC 35-45-1-3 Disorderly conduct
Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;

(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or

(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.

(b) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Level 6 felony if it:

(1) adversely affects airport security; and

(2) is committed in an airport (as defined in IC 8-21-1-1) or on the premises of an airport, including in a parking area, a maintenance bay, or an aircraft hangar.

(c) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Level 6 felony if it:

(1) is committed within five hundred (500) feet of:

(A) the location where a burial is being performed;

(B) a funeral procession, if the person described in subsection (a) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or

(C) a building in which:

(i) a funeral or memorial service; or

(ii) the viewing of a deceased person;

is being conducted; and

(2) adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

 

[Denny347]

Govt agents on here always rush in to justify the govt's actions.

LOL...that's fresh. Anti-gov members always rushing to condem . Where did I ever claim I knew they were in the right?

 

[Route 45]

So what? Point is that we are taking this at face value. When does ANYONE here take news articles at face value? Oh right, when it aligns with their belief system. Like I said, they very well may be 100% wrong but more info is needed. Like body cam or a detailed PC. My story was to lay out that a 100% legit arrest could be twisted to sound EXACTLY this article and many here would see it that way, take the story at face value.

Multiple sources indicate that he was arrested for disorderly conduct, not trespass. So again, your "yeah, but what if" notion is irrelevant. Of course they may all be lying, you are free to scour for the PC affidavit to prove me wrong, if it means that much to you.

Seems the DA didn't feel that it was a legit arrest, unless that is also a lie. I don't work with the guy or have access to their files or anything.

Look, I'm the first one to roll my eyes at bucketmouth god-botherers. But public spaces are public spaces. If dildo-waving rainbow warriors have the right, so also does the lake-of-fire bible thumper. Pretty clear from the video, this arrest was for "contempt of cop."

 

[Route 45]

Ok, lets go another route. I 100% can arrest someone in Indiana for DOC on a public sidewalk based on HOW they are saying it, not based on the content of their speech.
IC 35-45-1-3 Disorderly conduct
Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;

(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or

(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.

(b) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Level 6 felony if it:

(1) adversely affects airport security; and

(2) is committed in an airport (as defined in IC 8-21-1-1) or on the premises of an airport, including in a parking area, a maintenance bay, or an aircraft hangar.

(c) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Level 6 felony if it:

(1) is committed within five hundred (500) feet of:

(A) the location where a burial is being performed;

(B) a funeral procession, if the person described in subsection (a) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or

(C) a building in which:

(i) a funeral or memorial service; or

(ii) the viewing of a deceased person;

is being conducted; and

(2) adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

More completely irrelvant information. Reading is in Pennsylvania, not Indiana.

 

[Denny347]

More completely irrelvant information. Reading is in Pennsylvania, not Indiana.

Ah, so the free speech debate is only good for Penn? SCOTUS rulings apply there as well as here. I'm not aware of a 3rd circuit ruling that affects this any more than a 7th here?

DOC in Penn is essentially the same as here.
§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;

(2) makes unreasonable noise;

(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.

(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.

 

[drillsgt]

LOL...that's fresh. Anti-gov members always rushing to condem . Where did I ever claim I knew they were in the right?

If you've watched the news at all in the last 7 or so years especially the condemnation is pretty well deserved.

 

[Route 45]

Ah, so the free speech debate is only good for Penn? SCOTUS rulings apply there as well as here. I'm not aware of a 3rd circuit ruling that affects this any more than a 7th here?

DOC in Penn is essentially the same as here.
§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;

(2) makes unreasonable noise;

(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.

(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.

There's no debate to be had. The DA in Pennsylvania already made the call. But please go on with your "look over here" nonsense.

 

[drillsgt]

Ah, so the free speech debate is only good for Penn? SCOTUS rulings apply there as well as here. I'm not aware of a 3rd circuit ruling that affects this any more than a 7th here?

DOC in Penn is essentially the same as here.
§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;

(2) makes unreasonable noise;

(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.

(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.

At least unlike Indiana they aren't as silly as to throw a potential felony in there.

 

[FNparabellum]

Of course theres no freedom of religion or speech anymore

 

[Denny347]

Multiple sources indicate that he was arrested for disorderly conduct, not trespass. So again, your "yeah, but what if" notion is irrelevant. Of course they may all be lying, you are free to scour for the PC affidavit to prove me wrong, if it means that much to you.

I already addressed that above

Seems the DA didn't feel that it was a legit arrest, unless that is also a lie. I don't work with the guy or have access to their files or anything.

As someone that was the victim of multiple assaults during the riots, only to have the "protesters" released because the prosecutor said there was no PC, they were just "legally protesting", forgive me for putting on my skeptics hat when it comes to DA's decisions to prosecute or not. Politics infects all of this.

Look, I'm the first one to roll my eyes at bucketmouth god-botherers. But public spaces are public spaces. If dildo-waving rainbow warriors have the right, so also does the lake-of-fire bible thumper. Pretty clear from the video, this arrest was for "contempt of cop."

Preachers don't bother me, Rainbow warriors don't bother me. Pro abortion/anti abortion, pro police anti-police, none of them bother me. The content is not what gets you in trouble. The method by which you deliver it CAN.

 

[buckwacker]

Enlighten me.

Enlightening is not really possible with someone who is ok with the sexual mutilation of children. No logic or reason can reach them. Evil controls them.

 

[Route 45]

Politics infects all of this.

Then what is there to discuss? The law matters not.