Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rockpond

New bill to require BYU Police to comply with Utah open records laws

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Article of Faith 12:   We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Just as a side note, I've also thought that a strange statement since it is not qualified. I supposed the qualification is supposed to be inherently known? I'm thinking of the Christian martyrs who allowed themselves to be torn apart by lions rather than follow the Roman law and offer a pinch of incense as an offering to the emperor to acknowledge that he was a god.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

This is what makes me think the lawsuit is about different requirements than the bill:

Quote

In the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee meeting on March 6, BYU counsel Heather Gunnarson and BYU Police Chief Chris Autry offered support for the bill.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900060025/utah-legislature-passes-bill-making-byu-police-subject-to-public-records-laws.html

Why would the BYU counsel support the bill if it ruled against their appeal?

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/13/2019 at 4:45 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Just as a side note, I've also thought that a strange statement since it is not qualified. I supposed the qualification is supposed to be inherently known? I'm thinking of the Christian martyrs who allowed themselves to be torn apart by lions rather than follow the Roman law and offer a pinch of incense as an offering to the emperor to acknowledge that he was a god.

I think one must consider the context in which the statement was written. This and the other 12 Articles of Faith were written to answer the request of a Chicago newspaper editor, John Wentworth, who wanted to know something of the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints. 

When one is communicating with the outside public, it would be imprudent and impolitic indeed to set conditions on one’s intent to obey the law and sustain civil authority, especially when one intends in all but the most extreme circumstances to obey said law and authority. 

As it happens, the Latter-day Saints over the years have indeed been law abiding except for when they exercised civil disobedience in the matter of plural marriage, this because they sincerely believed their First Amendment right to freedom of religion was being violated. Even then, when SCOTUS eventually ruled against them, they accommodated civil authority by renouncing the practice (though not the principle) of plurality if wives. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I

As it happens, the Latter-day Saints over the years have indeed been law abiding except for when they exercised civil disobedience in the matter of plural marriage, this because they sincerely believed their First Amendment right to freedom of religion was being violated. Even then, when SCOTUS eventually ruled against them, they accommodated civil authority by renouncing the practice (though not the principle) of plurality if wives. 

I personally think adherence to polygamy in violation of the law is much bigger that "civil disobedience".   If you are protesting an unjust law you wouldn't lie about it or hide your actions.  If it can't be seen in public civil disobedience would usually require you to announce your actions publicly in order to demonstrate protest vs. simple lawbreaking.  Part of civil disobedience is accepting the punishment for breaking the law as part of the protest process.

I don't think about Warren Jeff's or Winston Blackmore as practicing civil disobedience.  I consider them as blatant law breakers and criminals.  I understand that there are different views on what is or isn't civil disobedience but I don't like the idea of brushing aside polygamy as just a simple form of simple civil protest.

 

 

Edited by sjdawg
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As it happens, the Latter-day Saints over the years have indeed been law abiding except for when they exercised civil disobedience in the matter of plural marriage, this because they sincerely believed their First Amendment right to freedom of religion was being violated. Even then, when SCOTUS eventually ruled against them, they accommodated civil authority by renouncing the practice (though not the principle) of plurality if wives. 

I think it was a pretty clear case of religious freedom being trampled by the government. I wonder, given the recent rulings on gay marriage, if a religious polygamous group will take it to the courts again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Part of civil disobedience is accepting the punishment for breaking the law as part of the protest process.

Very very true.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think one must consider the context in which the statement was written. This and the other 12 Articles of Faith were written to answer the request of a Chicago newspaper editor, John Wentworth, who wanted to know something of the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints. 

When one is communicating with the outside public, it would be imprudent and impolitic indeed to set conditions on one’s intent to obey the law and sustain civil authority, especially when one intends in all but the most extreme circumstances to obey said law and authority. 

As it happens, the Latter-day Saints over the years have indeed been law abiding except for when they exercised civil disobedience in the matter of plural marriage, this because they sincerely believed their First Amendment right to freedom of religion was being violated. Even then, when SCOTUS eventually ruled against them, they accommodated civil authority by renouncing the practice (though not the principle) of plurality if wives. 

Is this current situation with the BYU PD a "most extreme circumstance" in which we ought to disregard mandates of the local government?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 3/15/2019 at 3:17 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I think it was a pretty clear case of religious freedom being trampled by the government. I wonder, given the recent rulings on gay marriage, if a religious polygamous group will take it to the courts again.

That may well happen. However, my personal opinion is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will never again institute plurality of wives. It is a temporary practice that has served its purpose, which, in my view, was to bring about a corpus of believing members in strong family lineages so that the new church was strong enough to thrive and to not to be snuffed out by oppression. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is this current situation with the BYU PD a "most extreme circumstance" in which we ought to disregard mandates of the local government?

Not in my view. I wonder why you think I would believe that. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not in my view. I wonder why you think I would believe that. 

I don’t know that you believe that - thus the question. 

I see BYU’s refusal to comply with GRAMA and the desires of both the department of public safety and the stage legislature to be in violation of the 12th article of faith.  I feel that BYU PD should release all of the records that have been requested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don’t know that you believe that - thus the question. 

I see BYU’s refusal to comply with GRAMA and the desires of both the department of public safety and the stage legislature to be in violation of the 12th article of faith.  I feel that BYU PD should release all of the records that have been requested. 

Must be something that is pretty damning, or on second thought could it be they're protecting something or someone. But I know practically nothing.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don’t know that you believe that - thus the question. 

I see BYU’s refusal to comply with GRAMA and the desires of both the department of public safety and the stage legislature to be in violation of the 12th article of faith.  I feel that BYU PD should release all of the records that have been requested. 

I’ve stayed out of this argument. Find somebody else to hector over it. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve stayed out of this argument. Find somebody else to hector over it. 

Oh... I had brought up the 12th article of faith in context of this issue (the thread topic) and you had commented on that so I thought you were participating.  And I didn’t think asking you a follow up question was hectoring.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Oh... I had brought up the 12th article of faith in context of this issue (the thread topic) and you had commented on that so I thought you were participating.  And I didn’t think asking you a follow up question was hectoring.  

I was specifically addressing the comment by MiserereNobis about the article of faith, providing him with what I thought might be helpful context about the origin of the Articles of Faith. Your anger over BYU-PD procedures holds no interest for me, and I have nothing to say about it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was specifically addressing the comment by MiserereNobis about the article of faith, providing him with what I thought might be helpful context about the origin of the Articles of Faith. Your anger over BYU-PD procedures holds no interest for me, and I have nothing to say about it. 

That’s fine.  But you don’t need to imply that I am hectoring you because I responded to a point you made by relating it to the thread topic. It’s just dialogue which is what the board is all about.  Lately my posts seem to bring out negativity from you.  Feel free to ignore them if that is the case as it is certainly not my intent. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That’s fine.  But you don’t need to imply that I am hectoring you because I responded to a point you made by relating it to the thread topic. It’s just dialogue which is what the board is all about.  Lately my posts seem to bring out negativity from you.  Feel free to ignore them if that is the case as it is certainly not my intent. 

You appeared to be picking a fight with me. That struck me as odd, since I haven’t said word one in this or any other thread about the decertification woes of BYU PD.

MiserereNobis seemed curious about the background of the 12th Article of Faith. I thought he, being a student of history, might be interested in the historical context of the writing of the Articles of Faith. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That’s fine.  But you don’t need to imply that I am hectoring you because I responded to a point you made by relating it to the thread topic. It’s just dialogue which is what the board is all about.  Lately my posts seem to bring out negativity from you.  Feel free to ignore them if that is the case as it is certainly not my intent. 

Scott was just responding to my questions and thoughts about that article of faith. In this context, I don't see him as engaging in the topic as a whole, but just my specific tangential question.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You appeared to be picking a fight with me. That struck me as odd, since I haven’t said word one in this or any other thread about the decertification woes of BYU PD.

MiserereNobis seemed curious about the background of the 12th Article of Faith. I thought he, being a student of history, might be interested in the historical context of the writing of the Articles of Faith. 

I wasn’t picking a fight.  I was asking you a question about the point you were making in the context of the thread’s subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Scott was just responding to my questions and thoughts about that article of faith. In this context, I don't see him as engaging in the topic as a whole, but just my specific tangential question.

I didn’t realize that he was not engaging in the thread topic.  I saw him commenting on the article of faith that I had brought up in the context of the thread so I thought I’d ask him about his thoughts on its application.  I don’t see that as speaking to him in a bullying manner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 2/22/2019 at 12:29 PM, rpn said:

Shouldn't take a statute.   They (any entity using public resources) can't have it both ways.

You must be very young.  Don't worry, you will grow out of it when you become a lawyer.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/15/2019 at 3:48 PM, rockpond said:

I don’t know that you believe that - thus the question. 

I see BYU’s refusal to comply with GRAMA and the desires of both the department of public safety and the stage legislature to be in violation of the 12th article of faith.  I feel that BYU PD should release all of the records that have been requested. 

I do not know to what GRAMA request you are referring; 

but BYU PD had zero obligation under GRAMA to give sltrib what it wanted, refusal of GRAMA is not violation of AoF 12 as no law obliged BYU PD; 

BYU PD had zero obligation to provide CV with the information he requested, refusal of GRAMA is not violation of AoF 12 as no law obliged BYU PD;

BYU PD had zero obligation to provide ryan mcknight with information his group requested, refusal of GRAMA is not violation of AoF 12 as no law obliged BYU PD; 

 I will not speak to BYU PD and DPS because I do not think there enough information upon which to make a informed opinon.

The legislative desire, prior to the recent law, was that BYU PD not be subject to GRAMA. 

The current legislative desire is that BYU PD will be subject to GRAMA from whatever date going forward, to which BYU PD agreed and spoke in favor of the law.

 

So how is it that AoF 12 could be violated when 1) there was no legal obligation, and 2) there is no evidence that the current legal obligation has been violated?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, provoman said:

I do not know to what GRAMA request you are referring; 

but BYU PD had zero obligation under GRAMA to give sltrib what it wanted, refusal of GRAMA is not violation of AoF 12 as no law obliged BYU PD; 

BYU PD had zero obligation to provide CV with the information he requested, refusal of GRAMA is not violation of AoF 12 as no law obliged BYU PD;

BYU PD had zero obligation to provide ryan mcknight with information his group requested, refusal of GRAMA is not violation of AoF 12 as no law obliged BYU PD; 

 I will not speak to BYU PD and DPS because I do not think there enough information upon which to make a informed opinon.

The legislative desire, prior to the recent law, was that BYU PD not be subject to GRAMA. 

The current legislative desire is that BYU PD will be subject to GRAMA from whatever date going forward, to which BYU PD agreed and spoke in favor of the law.

 

So how is it that AoF 12 could be violated when 1) there was no legal obligation, and 2) there is no evidence that the current legal obligation has been violated?

That's a very letter of the law approach.  You are not incorrect.  At this moment they have no legal obligation.  And though they have appealed, they may well be headed toward de-certification.

I'm considering the intent of DPS, state legislature, and the law.  From where I sit, it seems like state and local officials want BYU PD to behave like a normal police department, including the release of records.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/instagram-account-highlights-byu-honor-code-horror-stories-/1898602659

If I were a parent I'd be scared to death to send my child to BYU if these instagrams are real, which it appears they are. This is insane, I feel for every student that goes there that might make a mistake. Because it may follow them the rest of their lives. This isn't Christlike behavior.

https://www.instagram.com/honorcodestories/

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

So I haven’t been following this thread or this argument, and I’m not well acquainted with the pros and cons thereof. But I ran across this article and wondered whether anyone had cited or linked to it:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseretnews.com/article/900057603/byu-police-decertified-by-state-utah.amp

In a nutshell, it states that BYU PD believes the decertification is without merit. Obviously, it intends to vigorously contest the decertification, as it is entitled to do under the law. There is even a link to the formal response from BYU PD. 

Ergo, BYU and it’s police department obviously do not cop to rockpond’s accusation that they are failing to observe the 12th Article of Faith.  

Which was an absurd accusation on its face, anyway. If I feel I have been unjustly accused of a crime, and I mount an earnest legal defense against the charge, it can not be reasonably said that I’m failing to observe the 12th Article of Faith, as availing oneself of due process is certainly consistent with obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Rockpond posted it:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71608-new-bill-to-require-byu-police-to-comply-with-utah-open-records-laws/?do=findComment&comment=1209891968

And partially summarized it as:

Quote
 
So at this point we have the [state] department which regulates the police force AND the state legislature both telling BYU PD that they need to open up their records.

 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...