Arrested for praying

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, provoman said:

Ok, lets examine that.

The PSPO only refers to protesting for or against abortion.

If she was there to protest the PSPO itself, she did not violate the PSPO.

And since only protesting for or against abortion is prohibited she was falsely arrested.

She’s a member of an antiabortion group protesting abortion outside an abortion clinic. It’s not rocket science. 
 

To put the shoe on a different foot, you’d have me believe that the rainbow y people all happened to just show up at the y and happen to have the corresponding flashlight colors to make a rainbow. 
 

“Rainbow on the Y!? No officer. I just have a blue flashlight and was enjoying my evening hike. I’m being questioned for having a flashlight!!!”

Edited December 27, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[provoman]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That is a load of b*ll s*** and undermines everything else she says. She was there to publicly protest against what she sees as an unduly restrictive public order. 

 

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She’s a member of an antiabortion group protesting abortion outside an abortion clinic. It’s not rocket science. 
To put the shoe on a different foot, you’d have me believe that the rainbow y people all happened to just show up at the y and happen to have the corresponding flashlight colors to make a rainbow. 

“Rainbow on the Y!? No officer. I just have a blue flashlight and was enjoying my evening hike.”

If, as you posted, "She was there to publicly protest against what she sees as an unduly restrictive public order."; then she did not violate the PSPO.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

If, as you posted, "She was there to publicly protest against what she sees as an unduly restrictive public order."; then she did not violate the PSPO.

She’s protesting abortion and making a statement against what she views as an unduly restrictive public order then. Same difference. 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Not to mention the ambushing camera man (not from a religious liberty group, but from a pro-life group). 

Just how is it you are permitted to assume details to support your position; but others here are not permitted to assume details to support their position?

You accuse others of spreading falsehood, essentially because "the police said so". 

She is on video stating what she was doing, are you spreading falsehood about her, despite her stated reason for being there?

Now, if we make reasonable assumptions, then no one should accused of spreading falsehoods

[provoman]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She’s protesting abortion and making a statement against what she views as an unduly restrictive public order then. Same difference. 

No it is not.

Two distinct issues; one is prohibited by the PSPO, the other is not.

[JAHS]

41 minutes ago, provoman said:

Ok, lets examine that.

The PSPO only refers to protesting for or against abortion.

If she was there to protest the PSPO itself, she did not violate the PSPO.

And since only protesting for or against abortion is prohibited she was falsely arrested.

Actually it's not just for the act of protesting abortion. Look it up.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Was this observer a member of Vaughan-Spruce’s organization? 

Dunno.  I wasn't there.

FWIW, there is often something of a contrived or "performative" element to legal "test" cases.

The circumstances which precipitated Lawrence v. Texas were, apparently, staged.  

Plessy v. Ferguson arose when "a civil rights group called the Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) ... dedicated to repealing the Separate Car Act ... persuaded Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race ... to participate in an orchestrated test case to challenge the Act."

The Scopes Monkey Trial was one big publicity stunt. 

Griswold v. Connecticut arose when "the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut (PPLC) decided to challenge" the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873 (prohibiting medicines intended as contraceptives) arose when Estelle Griswold (who had served on the PPLC as Executive Director) "and Dr. Buxton (PPLC medical volunteer), opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut, 'thus directly challeng[ing] the state law.'"

District of Columbia v. Heller had its origins in 2002:

Quote

In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III, for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.^[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black.

Brown v. Board of Education, a class-action lawsuit, was orchestrated from the get go:

Quote

The suit called for the school district to reverse its policy of racial segregation. The Topeka Board of Education operated separate elementary schools due to a 1879 Kansas law, which permitted (but did not require) districts to maintain separate elementary school facilities for black and white students in 12 communities with populations over 15,000. The plaintiffs had been recruited by the leadership of the Topeka NAACP. Notable among the Topeka NAACP leaders were the chairman McKinley Burnett; Charles Scott, one of three serving as legal counsel for the chapter; and Lucinda Todd.
...
The named African-American plaintiff, Oliver Brown, was a parent, a welder in the shops of the Santa Fe Railroad, as well as an assistant pastor at his local church.^[14] He was convinced to join the lawsuit by a childhood friend, Charles Scott. Brown's daughter Linda Carol Brown, a third grader, had to walk six blocks to her school bus stop to ride to Monroe Elementary, her segregated black school one mile (1.6 km) away, while Sumner Elementary, a white school, was seven blocks from her house.^[15][16]

As directed by the NAACP leadership, the parents each attempted to enroll their children in the closest neighborhood school in the fall of 1951. They were each refused enrollment and redirected to the segregated schools.

The case "Oliver Brown et al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas" was named after Oliver Brown as a legal strategy to have a man at the head of the roster. The lawyers, and the National Chapter of the NAACP, also felt that having Mr. Brown at the head of the roster would be better received by the U.S. Supreme Court justices. 

Tinker v. Des Moines?  Staged activism:

Quote

In 1965, five students in Des Moines, Iowa, decided to wear black armbands to school in protest of American involvement in the Vietnam War and supporting the Christmas Truce that was called for by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Among the students were John F. Tinker (15 years old), his siblings Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old), Hope Tinker (11 years old), and Paul Tinker (8 years old), along with their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old). The students wore the armbands to several schools in the Des Moines Independent Community School District (North High School for John, Roosevelt High School for Christopher, Warren Harding Junior High School for Mary Beth, elementary school for Hope and Paul).

The Tinker family had been involved in civil rights activism before the student protest. The Tinker children's mother, Lorena, was a leader of the Peace Organization in Des Moines.^[1] Christopher Eckhardt and John Tinker attended a protest the previous month against the Vietnam War in Washington, D.C.^[2] The principals of the Des Moines schools learned of the plan and met before the incident occurred on December 16 to create a policy that stated that school children wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately. Students violating the policy would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with it. The participants decided to violate this policy. Hope and Paul Tinker were not in violation of the policy, since the policy was not applicable to elementary schools, and were not punished.^[1] No violence or disruption was proven to have occurred due to the students wearing the armbands.^[2] Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt were suspended from school for wearing the armbands on December 16 and John Tinker was suspended for doing the same on the following day.
...
A suit was filed after the Iowa Civil Liberties Union approached the Tinker family, and the ACLU agreed to help with the lawsuit.

Roe v. Wade?  The lawyers were running the show:

Quote

Sarah Weddington recruited Linda Coffee to help her with abortion litigation. Their first plaintiffs were a married couple; they joined after the woman heard Coffee give a speech.^[51] The intended suit would state abortions were medically necessary for the woman. The woman had a neurochemical disorder and it was considered medically necessary that she not give birth or raise children, yet they did not want to abstain from sex, and contraception might fail.^[51] The attorneys were concerned about standing since the woman was not pregnant. Weddington later wrote that they "needed to find a pregnant Texas woman who wanted an abortion and would be willing to be a plaintiff."^[52] They also wanted to increase the likelihood that the panel selection would help them win in court. They wanted to present their case to a three-judge panel which included a judge they thought would be sympathetic,^[52] which was a possibility only by filing a case in Dallas.^[53] If either of the two cases they filed in Dallas were assigned favorably, they intended to ask for the other one to be consolidated with it.^[52]

 

At first, Weddington was unsuccessful in finding a suitable pregnant woman.^[54][55] In June 1969, 21-year-old Norma McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child.^[56][57] Ordinarily, lawyers are not allowed to directly solicit clients without any prior relationship, but McCorvey's situation qualified for an exception in the no solicitation rule which allows lawyers to solicit new clients for public interest cases.^[58] According to a sworn statement made in 2003, McCorvey asked if she had what was needed to be part of Weddington and Coffee's lawsuit. She recounted being told, "Yes. You're white. You're young, pregnant, and you want an abortion."^[59][60] Both McCorvey's whiteness and her lower social class were crucial factors in the attorneys' choice to have her as their plaintiff.^[61]

McCorvey recounted that the lawyers asked if she thought abortion should be legal. McCorvey said she did not know. Weddington told her, "It's just a piece of tissue. You just missed your period." This convinced McCorvey that abortion should be legal.^[62] She agreed to let them represent her under the impression that she would be able to eventually get a legal abortion.^[63] She smoked an illegal drug and drank wine so she would not have to think about her pregnancy.^[64] McCorvey gave birth to a daughter at Dallas Osteopathic Hospital on June 2, 1970; the baby, Shelley Lynn Thornton, was adopted by a couple in Texas.^[65]

And so on.

I think some "staged" or performative lawsuits are unhelpful insofar as they waste public resources, or else address trivial matters, or are a vanity project, and so on.  However, there are times when a law, if it is to be challenged, must must be broken in order for a legal controversy to arise, which in turn creates the court's jurisdiction, allows the parties to file suit, etc.  And it is not uncommon for the breaking of the law to have a performative aspect (such as to garner publicity).

Some of you seem to be implying that Vaughan-Spruce's legal grievance is not legitimate because she deliberately violated the PSPO, was intending to provoke an arrest, etc.  I think that's unclear at this point.  But even if she did intentionally violate the PSPO with the intent of challenging its legality, I see nothing wrong with that.  I suspect none of you have disparaged Gandhi's Salt March, or the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Greensboro sit-ins, and so on.  I suspect some of you even approved of the BLM/Antifa riots/protests which involved both threatened and actualized violence.

So Gandhi can march to the sea, the Women's Political Council can organize a bus boycott, the Greensboro Four can stage "sit-ins" at Woolworth's, lawyers can recruit a poor white woman for an abortion lawsuit, the NAACP can select and vet preferred plaintiffs to challenge Plessy, and so on.  But Vaughan-Spruce cannot stand across from an abortion clinic and pray in her mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I was not there to protest.

That is a load of b*ll s***

I don't think so.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

and undermines everything else she says.

Well, no.  I think what she meant was "I was not there to protest in a way that contravenes the PSPO."  She may well have been trying to comply with the law by praying silently instead of demonstratively.

But even if she were there to "protest," what's wrong with that?

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She was there to publicly protest against what she sees as an unduly restrictive public order. 

She says she wasn't.  Why should I give your hostile third-party looky-loo say-so over her first-person statement?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

"I was arrested outside an abortion center in Birmingham for silently praying."

Round and round we go.

I'm not sure what you mean.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

We all saw your video Ms. Vaugh-Spruce and know that isn't true.  

Actually, we don't know that.

Since when is thinking thoughts while standing on a public street a "protest"?

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Here is what she was arrested for, and it wasn't "for silently praying". 

Apparently yes, it was "for silently praying."

She was not trespassing. 

Her mere presence on the street was not a violation of the PSPO.

Again: "ADF said authorities confronted the woman after receiving complaints from an observer who suspected that Vaughan-Spruce was praying silently in her mind."

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

Full context, to clear and shatter the smoke and mirrors:

What do you mean by "smoke and mirrors?"

3 hours ago, pogi said:

If one of those counts includes "silent praying", then why doesn't she just make it public?  

If the police documents specify the conduct which precipitated her arrest, why don't they just make it public?

Is it because they cannot allege that she was violating the PSPO by standing on a street?

And did you notice that they only arrested her after she told them that she "might be" praying in her mind?

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Enough with the smoke and mirrors and show us the proof Ms. Vaughn-Spruce, and all others repeating her claims as facts without evidence.

Again, I don't understand what you mean by "smoke and mirrors."

Also, you are asking for "proof" of . . . what?

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Clearly she is trying to control the narrative,

I think she is trying to have here voice heard.  And I applaud her for that.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

but it doesn't match the narrative of the police at all. 

Speaking of "facts without evidence"...

And since when is "the narrative of the police" taken as the etched-in-stone truth?

I am genuinely surprised at the hostility in evidence in this thread against this woman.  At present I am inclined to think that she was there deliberately, but not to violate the PSPO, but rather to comply with it while also praying in her mind.

But even if she did intend to provoke a confrontation about the law, she did so nonviolently.  So what's the problem?  

I can't help but wonder if this is one of those whose-ox-is-being-gored kind of things.  I am curious as to the overlap between A) the people in this thread who are outright angry and vituperative against a woman who did nothing more than stand on a street and pray in her mind, and B) the people in this thread who are pro-abortion / pro-choice.

I am also curious by what principles you measure nonviolent civil disobedience.  In your view, when is it okay and when is it not okay?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 27, 2022 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

FWIW, there is often something of a contrived or "performative" element to legal "test" cases.

And I have no issues with that whatsoever. Just be honest about it (not you - her). 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

For those who have not read the link provoman provided, I would encourage you to do so for more details, such as the below. This is a neighborhood that is mostly homes with a few small businesses embedded. Apparently without the protests the Clinic was quite discreet. 

With the protests though…heavy protesting (relative to a small neighborhood) for 40 days twice a year with smaller protests the rest of the year. If you read the complaints earlier you know that residents could not only see the disruption, they would be hearing the loud chanting and prayers even in their homes. This had gone on for 9 years at another clinic before this one was targeted. The approval of the various aspects of the PSPO was between 80 and 90% among the neighborhood.  The committee exploring a possible PSPO also consulted with the protest group.  She was past the 6 week deadline for challenging the PSPO. 

I think reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions are appropriate.

I question whether such restrictions are in place in this instance, given that all she was doing was standing on a public street.  

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Any of the neighbors seeing the same woman standing day after day outside the clinic would know she was there to protest.

"Protest" = "standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more"?

To be sure, there are instances where someone's presence in a particular place can be reasonably construed as menacing or threatening.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

The woman in the OP did not have a billy club, nor was she gesticulating or menacing or saying anything out loud.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

The police asked her why she was there and she was at least straightforward about being there for the abortion clinic.

"At least?"

14 hours ago, Calm said:

With that history, her action of showing up day after day would read as a silent protest to anyone, imo.

Here are the guidelines for BSPOs:

Quote

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides a broad legal framework within which PSPOs can be implemented.

Orders can be introduced in a specific public area where the local authority is satisfied on reasonable grounds that certain conditions have been met. The first test concerns the nature of the anti-social behaviour, requiring that:

• activities that have taken place have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, or it is likely that activities will take place and that they will have a detrimental effect

• the effect or likely effect of these activities:
◦ is, or is likely to be, persistent or continuing in nature
◦ is, or is likely to be, unreasonable
◦ justifies the restrictions being imposed. 
...
As a minimum, each PSPO must set out:

• what the detrimental activities are
• what is being prohibited and/or required, including any exemptions
• the area covered
• the consequences for breach
• the period for which it has effect. 

Here's an image of the public warning:

• "Protesting, namely engaging in an act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means.  This includes but is not limited to graphic,  verbal or written means, prayer or counseling."
• "Holding vigils where members audibly pray, recite scripture, genuflect, sprinkle holy water, on the ground or cross themselves if they perceive a service-users is passing by."
• "Remaining in the Safe zone, when asked to leave by a Police Officer..."

"Portesting ... by any means" seems extraordinarily expansive, and therefore problematic.

Similarly, giving police carte blanche authority to tell a private citizen to leave also seems fairly problematic.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Standing there and refusing to leave isn’t much different in my view than chaining oneself to a gate or fence and daring the police to drag you off.

What is unethical or problematic about "standing there and refusing to leave?"  I really don't understand your position here.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

And then whining about being treated to the standard procedure of being searched for contraband and weapons for the safety of both police and herself and any other prisoners…if she was so mortified about being treated that way all she had to do was agree to go down to the station on her own.

I think the concern is that she was searched incident to arrest despite not having done anything notably violative of the BSPO.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

She had to have known what was coming

Wow.  I'm really surprised to hear you say that.  Truly.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

and since she had been involved in a lot of protests over the years, had likely experienced the same procedure in the past, a procedure that has saved lives because police do it to everyone.

I don't think she was objecting to the search per se, but rather to the search being incident to an arrest despite her not having notably violated the BSPO.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

She is acting like she deserves special treatment as a victim when it was her choice to knowingly violated the restricted area and refuse to cooperate with the police.

She "knowingly violated the restricted area?"  How so?

And what does "refuse to cooperate with the police" mean in this context?  If the police invite you to speak with them, and you decline, can you be accused of "refus{ing} to cooperate with the police?"  Do we really want to cede that much control to the State?

14 hours ago, Calm said:

If she hadn’t played victim, but been up front about testing the law, I could admire her. Doing the ‘poor, little old me’ after years of harassing residents in their own homes,

Evidence, please, that she has been "harassing residents in their own homes."

14 hours ago, Calm said:

being willing to humiliate the employees and clients of the clinic for what she wants does not create any sympathy in me.

I'm fine with you not admiring or sympathizing with her.  But I am quite surprised at the contempt and hostility being directed at this woman, who at best did nothing wrong, and who at worst engaged in a very mild form of nonviolent civil disobedience.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

She wants her own freedom of movement and privacy when she is on public property

Yes.  That's one of the nice things about public property.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

while refusing to allow the residents the same in their own homes. 

Evidence, please that she has refused to allow residents "freedom of movement and privacy" while "in their own homes."

14 hours ago, Calm said:

I would put more faith in her claim that she was against harassment, etc if her actions weren’t in direct response to the PSPO that was created to keep a group known for such behaviour out of the area.

Is there ever a time when you might approve of an act of nonviolent civil disobedience?  If so, what parameters would you use?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Snodgrassian]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Dunno.  I wasn't there.

FWIW, there is often something of a contrived or "performative" element to legal "test" cases.

The circumstances which precipitated Lawrence v. Texas were, apparently, staged.  

Plessy v. Ferguson arose when "a civil rights group called the Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) ... dedicated to repealing the Separate Car Act ... persuaded Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race ... to participate in an orchestrated test case to challenge the Act."

The Scopes Monkey Trial was one big publicity stunt. 

Griswold v. Connecticut arose when "the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut (PPLC) decided to challenge" the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873 (prohibiting medicines intended as contraceptives) arose when Estelle Griswold (who had served on the PPLC as Executive Director) "and Dr. Buxton (PPLC medical volunteer), opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut, 'thus directly challeng[ing] the state law.'"

District of Columbia v. Heller had its origins in 2002:

Brown v. Board of Education, a class-action lawsuit, was orchestrated from the get go:

Tinker v. Des Moines?  Staged activism:

Roe v. Wade?  The lawyers were running the show:

And so on.

I think some "staged" or performative lawsuits are unhelpful insofar as they waste public resources, or else address trivial matters, or are a vanity project, and so on.  However, there are times when a law, if it is to be challenged, must must be broken in order for a legal controversy to arise, which in turn creates the court's jurisdiction, allows the parties to file suit, etc.  And it is not uncommon for the breaking of the law to have a performative aspect (such as to garner publicity).

Some of you seem to be implying that Vaughan-Spruce's legal grievance is not legitimate because she deliberately violated the PSPO, was intending to provoke an arrest, etc.  I think that's unclear at this point.  But even if she did intentionally violate the PSPO with the intent of challenging its legality, I see nothing wrong with that.  I suspect none of you have disparaged Gandhi's Salt March, or the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Greensboro sit-ins, and so on.  I suspect some of you even approved of the BLM/Antifa riots/protests which involved both threatened and actualized violence.

So Gandhi can march to the sea, the Women's Political Council can organize a bus boycott, the Greensboro Four can stage "sit-ins" at Woolworth's, lawyers can recruit a poor white woman for an abortion lawsuit, the NAACP can select and vet preferred plaintiffs to challenge Plessy, and so on.  But Vaughan-Spruce cannot stand across from an abortion clinic and pray in her mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

I have no problem if people want to participate in acts of civil disobedience, but they should not cry foul when they are arrested if they are in violation of the law

People were arrested for violating the law during the Salt March, the Montgomery Bus Boycott was only illegal because the leaders and carpool drivers were in violation "for conspiring to interfere with a business under a 1921 ordinance. Rather than wait to be arrested, they turned themselves in as an act of defiance." For the Greensboro sit-ins, were any laws broken? were there any arrests? 

Vaughan-Spruce can do as she pleases, but must face the consequences. She has the platform to make her point. So she better make it, and needs to be honest about what she is fighting for. 

I admire passionate people, especially those who are willing to really make a stand. I just don't side with her on this current issue. I don't think the law she is protesting is government overreach, but that is just my opinion. 

I am against all forms of violent protests, but that is easy for me to say. I am not scared when confronted by police, but I have family members who are. My bro-in-law has been pulled over multiple times on his street, where he owns a beautiful house, because he was "driving while black." No arrests, no severe questioning, but it is embarrassing to him and his family. He and my sister are nervous for their children. If I was a woman in Iran, would I maybe more inclined to support violent protests? Maybe, but who knows. Violence tends to not be one sided in all of these instances, it is much more complex than most of us on this board can truly comprehend. 

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

FWIW, there is often something of a contrived or "performative" element to legal "test" cases.

And I have no issues with that whatsoever. Just be honest about it (not you - her). 

She was apparently arrested because she was "honest."  She told the police she was A) at that particular place (across the street from an abortion center) because of the abortion center, and B) that she "might be praying in {her} mind," and then they arrested her.

As for her being upset at being arrested for standing in a public space and doing nothing violative of the BSPO, she seems pretty sincere about that.  And I don't blame her.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 hours ago, provoman said:

What are the four counts? Specifically, what acts had she committed that would permit the police to arrest on "suspicion" of breeching the PSPO? What was the specific act(s), that constituted the breech?   

If you do not know, you do not have a reasonable basis for labeling something a "false claim"

 

She had been in the zone making a public statement by her very presence as a very well known anti abortionist for three days previously and the day of the arrest.

The police were aware of who she was, she has been leading the 40 Days For Life in Birmingham after all and likely was one of the persons consulted about the PSPO prior to its activation, and there is the “previous form” of her protesting over the years, all likely to inform public understanding of her intent. The neighbors and anyone working at the clinic, like a security guard also likely knew who she was as they would have seen her with her using prayer as a protest tool group many times in the past and therefore would have immediately understood her presence there as a protest against abortion. 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Calm

[Snodgrassian]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But even if she were there to "protest," what's wrong with that?

Protesting is prohibited in that zone. The police approached her because the was reason to believe that she was there in protest. 

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She was apparently arrested because she was "honest."  She told the police she was A) at that particular place (across the street from an abortion center) because of the abortion center, and B) that she "might be praying in {her} mind," and then they arrested her.

As for her being upset at being arrested for standing in a public space and doing nothing violative of the BSPO, she seems pretty sincere about that.  And I don't blame her.  

Thanks,

-Smac

No, she wasn’t honest. She said to the media she was praying. She said to the police she might have been, leaving room for reasonable doubt.  She said she wasn’t there to protest. Given her history and who she was and the purpose of her group’s use of prayer in protests (chanting prayers) to combat abortion, that is a lie as well Imo.

She was just honest enough to be arrested so that she would get her standing to challenge the law (which she could have done legally within the 6 weeks after it was activated, but without the fanfare an arrest causes AND the great fundraising opportunity it is providing her).  She was not honest enough to fully commit and announce to the police “yes, I was praying” which only makes sense if she is hoping to beat the charge as well as challenge the law. 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions are appropriate.

I question whether such restrictions are in place in this instance, given that all she was doing was standing on a public street.  

"Protest" = "standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more"?

To be sure, there are instances where someone's presence in a particular place can be reasonably construed as menacing or threatening.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

The woman in the OP did not have a billy club, nor was she gesticulating or menacing or saying anything out loud.

"At least?"

Here are the guidelines for BSPOs:

Here's an image of the public warning:

• "Protesting, namely engaging in an act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means.  This includes but is not limited to graphic,  verbal or written means, prayer or counseling."
• "Holding vigils where members audibly pray, recite scripture, genuflect, sprinkle holy water, on the ground or cross themselves if they perceive a service-users is passing by."
• "Remaining in the Safe zone, when asked to leave by a Police Officer..."

"Portesting ... by any means" seems extraordinarily expansive, and therefore problematic.

Similarly, giving police carte blanche authority to tell a private citizen to leave also seems fairly problematic.

What is unethical or problematic about "standing there and refusing to leave?"  I really don't understand your position here.

I think the concern is that she was searched incident to arrest despite not having done anything notably violative of the BSPO.

Wow.  I'm really surprised to hear you say that.  Truly.

I don't think she was objecting to the search per se, but rather to the search being incident to an arrest despite her not having notably violated the BSPO.

She "knowingly violated the restricted area?"  How so?

And what does "refuse to cooperate with the police" mean in this context?  If the police invite you to speak with them, and you decline, can you be accused of "refus{ing} to cooperate with the police?"  Do we really want to cede that much control to the State?

Evidence, please, that she has been "harassing residents in their own homes."

I'm fine with you not admiring or sympathizing with her.  But I am quite surprised at the contempt and hostility being directed at this woman, who at best did nothing wrong, and who at worst engaged in a very mild form of nonviolent civil disobedience.

Yes.  That's one of the nice things about public property.

Evidence, please that she has refused to allow residents "freedom of movement and privacy" while "in their own homes."

Is there ever a time when you might approve of an act of nonviolent civil disobedience?  If so, what parameters would you use?

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you even reading my posts?  You frustrate me, smac, because half the time your questions are answered in my previous posts or even later in the post you are quoting.  But you don’t pay attention and want me to repeat myself or answer your false conclusions you get because you didn’t pay attention to what I have been saying in multiple posts (missing one comment is expected). I am not going to pull out what question I am choosing to answer because if you aren’t going to make an effort, why should I?

She was the leader of the Birmingham group of 40 Days For Life.  Their acts are what got the PSPO put in place.  I have posted residents’ descriptions of their protest behaviour.  Even if she personally did not participate in the chanting and confrontations, she was in charge of the group and directed others to act on those ways.

I don’t think it should be illegal to refuse to cooperate (help)  with the police as long as you don’t actively obstruct (hurt, say by lying or destroying evidence) the investigation.

She was getting put into a police car under arrest, searching anyone is I believe standard procedure for safety reasons.  If someone at the jail grabs a hair clip that was left in her hair and stabs someone with it, she is not going to be blamed for not removing it, the police are.  It makes sense they remove anything that could be used by anyone to harm themselves or another.

I have said multiple times I would have admired her if she had been honest and fully committed to her cause by being willing to take the consequences of challenging the law by admitting to the police she had been praying. Her using weasel words with the police “I am not protesting” and “might have been praying” while pushing the “I was only praying” agenda with the media to make herself into a victim to drive up sympathy and donations, having her cake and eating to too is what I dislike in her actions, as opposed to if she been full out committed to her act of civil disobedience. 
 

I have no problem with people who are willing to deal with the crap that comes with civil disobedience. Those who try dishonestly or by using other people to do the deed to avoid all of the unpleasantness attached themselves are the ones I think of as taking advantage of other people.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

Just now, Snodgrassian said:

I have no problem if people want to participate in acts of civil disobedience, but they should not cry foul when they are arrested if they are in violation of the law

Yes, they should.  If the law is unjust, then one of the primary purposes of civil disobedience is to demonstrate that.

Just now, Snodgrassian said:

People were arrested for violating the law during the Salt March,

Yes.  And there is nothing wrong to protesting the wrongfulness of such arrests.  Again, the woman in the OP was not violent, nor menacing.

Just now, Snodgrassian said:

the Montgomery Bus Boycott was only illegal because the leaders and carpool drivers were in violation "for conspiring to interfere with a business under a 1921 ordinance. Rather than wait to be arrested, they turned themselves in as an act of defiance."

"Only illegal because..."

But still illegal.

The conduct of the woman in the OP "was only illegal" because the BSPO - so broadly worded you could drive a mack truck through it - gave the police essentially carte blanche to arrest her not because of what she was doing, but because of what she admitted to thinking.

Standing on a public street, without more, cannot be reasonably construed as "protesting."

Just now, Snodgrassian said:

For the Greensboro sit-ins, were any laws broken?

In 1960?  In South Carolina?  Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  When "Jim Crow" laws authorizing segregation were still in force?

Um, yes.  Black folks weren't allowed to do outrageous things like order a cup of coffee and a donut with cream on the side.  See here:

Quote

The sit-in movement destroyed a number of myths and stereotypes about Southern Blacks that white segregationists had commonly used to support the Jim Crow system. For example, with widespread and spontaneous demonstrations across the South, it became clear to observers that Southern Blacks were not content with Jim Crow segregation. 
...
The sit-in movement produced a new sense of pride and power for African Americans. By rising up on their own and achieving substantial success protesting against segregation in the society in which they lived, Blacks realized that they could change their communities with local coordinated action. For many white Southerners, the sit-in movement demonstrated Blacks’ dissatisfaction with the status quo and showed that economic harm could come to white-owned businesses unless they desegregated peacefully. The sit-in movement proved the inevitability of the end of the Jim Crow system. 

If Isabel Vaughan-Spruce had been arrested for SOAPSWBB ("Standing on a Public Street While Being Black"), I don't think anyone would be ripping her for protesting such an arrest.

Instead, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was apparently arrested for SOAPSWPSIHHANE ("Standing on a Public Street While Praying Silently in Her Head and Nothing Else"), so she's . . . fair game?

Just now, Snodgrassian said:

were there any arrests? 

Why does that matter?  Woolworth's had a corporate policy of racial segregation, which was allowed under Jim Crow laws.

Was Vaughan-Spruce violent or nonviolent in her behavior?

Just now, Snodgrassian said:

Vaughan-Spruce can do as she pleases, but must face the consequences.

Yes.  There were "consequences" meted out during Gandhi's Salt March, which the protesters knew about.  From the 1981 film:

As a bystander, would you have objected to the Salt March?  Blamed the protesters?  Told them "You had it coming.  You can do as you please, but you must face the consequence."?

Or would it perhaps be more appropriate to object to the State action and the unfairness of the law?

Just now, Snodgrassian said:

She has the platform to make her point. So she better make it, and needs to be honest about what she is fighting for. 

She was apparently arrested because she was "honest."  She told the police she was A) at that particular place (across the street from an abortion center) because of the abortion center, and B) that she "might be praying in {her} mind," and then they arrested her.

As for her being upset at being arrested for standing in a public space and doing nothing violative of the BSPO, she seems pretty sincere about that.  And I don't blame her.  

Just now, Snodgrassian said:

I admire passionate people, especially those who are willing to really make a stand. I just don't side with her on this current issue. I don't think the law she is protesting is government overreach, but that is just my opinion. 

Okay.  I think it can be important to oppose governmental overreach while it is in its ascendancy, as it becomes considerably more difficult to oppose when it is firmly entrenched.

I am grateful that we have the First Amendment in the United States.

Just now, Snodgrassian said:

I am against all forms of violent protests, but that is easy for me to say.

She wasn't being violent, though.  At all.  Not even a smidge.

And not only that, the BSPO goes far beyond penalizing violence.

Just now, Snodgrassian said:

I am not scared when confronted by police, but I have family members who are. My bro-in-law has been pulled over multiple times on his street, where he owns a beautiful house, because he was "driving while black."

So what's the equivalent for Vaughan-Spruce?  My offering above (she was arrested for SOAPSWPSIHHANE ("Standing on a Public Street While Praying Silently in Her Head and Nothing Else")) doesn't quite roll glibly off the tongue.   

Just now, Snodgrassian said:

No arrests, no severe questioning, but it is embarrassing to him and his family.

Yes.  Unequal treatment under the law can have that effect.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Are you even reading my posts?  You frustrate me, smac, because half the time your questions are answered in my previous posts or even later in the post you are quoting. 
 

I have said multiple times I would have admired her if she had been honest and fully committed to her cause by being willing to take the consequences of challenging the law by admitting to the police she had been praying. Her using weasel words with the police “I am not protesting” and “might have been praying”

First, if and when the State can come to criminalize "protesting" when it is in the form of standing on a public street and doing nothing, then we are in big trouble.

Second, there is nothing "weaselly" about denying that she was protesting.  Until and unless "protesting" is defined so broadly as to become absurd and capricious.

Third, she was considerably more candid than she needed to be.  She didn't need to tell the police what she was thinking.  She did.  And you fault her for it.

Fourth, I continue to be surprised at the hostility engendered by this story.

1 minute ago, Calm said:

while pushing the “I was only praying” agenda

I don't understand what this means.

1 minute ago, Calm said:

with the media to make herself into a victim to drive up sympathy and donations,

Did the Greensboro Four "make {themselves} into victim{s}?"  Nope.   They already were victims, and were protesting against the laws that facilitated that. 

And they protested in ways that garnered public attention - and sympathy - for their position.  Were they wrong to do that?

As for "donations," were there any people who donated to the Civil Rights Movement in response to, say, media coverage of Bull Connor's attack dogs and water cannons, or of the Greensboro sit-ins, etc.?  If so, were such donations wrong?

1 minute ago, Calm said:

having her cake and eating to too is what I dislike her, not if she been full out committed to her act of civil disobedience. 

I don't understand this.  How is she "having her cack and eating it too?"  Is she not allowed to speak against a law she believes to be unjust?  

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I have no problem with people who are willing to deal with the crap that comes with civil disobedience.

Then why not Vaughan-Spruce?

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Those who try dishonestly or by using other people to do the deed to avoid all of the unpleasantness attached themselves are the ones I think of as taking advantage of other people.

Again, there is an element of "performativeness" in many acts of civil disobedience.  The act is supposed to garner media and public attention, it's supposed to highlight controversy.

If she was honestly attempting to comply with the law (by abstaining from any demonstrative behaviors), then protesting the arrest seems quite reasonable.

Alternatively, if she was intending to violate the law by testing its boundaries (by standing and praying in her mind, and then telling the police why she was standing there and what she was doing in her mind), then protesting the arrest is also quite reasonable.

If she was arrested for an actual or inchoate thought crime, then I think she did just fine.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

She was apparently arrested because she was "honest."  She told the police she was A) at that particular place (across the street from an abortion center) because of the abortion center, and B) that she "might be praying in {her} mind," and then they arrested her.

As for her being upset at being arrested for standing in a public space and doing nothing violative of the BSPO, she seems pretty sincere about that.  And I don't blame her.  

No, she wasn’t honest. She said to the media she was praying.  She said to the police she might have been, leaving room for reasonable doubt.

Oh, brother.  You're veering into "offender for a word" territory here.

She had no obligation to tell the police what she was thinking.  She did so anyway, which I thought was pretty gutsy (the less "honest" thing would have been for her to deny that she was praying in her mind - it's not like the police could have tested her denial).  That she hedged her bets by including the word "might" means . . . nothing of import IMO.  Perhaps she was scared in the moment.  Perhaps she was unsure.  Perhaps the heat of the moment got to her.  

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

She said she wasn’t there to protest.

Again: I think what she meant was "I was not there to protest in a way that contravenes the PSPO."  She may well have been trying to comply with the law by praying silently instead of demonstratively.

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given her history and who she was and the purpose of her group’s use of prayer to combat abortion, that is a lie as well Imo.

I'm not quite yet in a place where I'm okay with the State re-defining terms ("protest," for example) in A) hugely expansive ways which B) enlarge the power and reach of the State at B) the expense of the rights of the individual.

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

She was just honest enough to be arrested so that she would get her standing to challenge the law (which she could have done legally within the 6 weeks after it was activated, but without the fanfare an arrest causes AND the great fundraising opportunity it is providing her).  

I really don't understand this.  Did you not read my post here?  "Test" cases often have a "performative" element, which may involve the actual breaking of a law so as to give the individual standing to contest it.

-Smac

Edited December 27, 2022 by smac97

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Since when is thinking thoughts while standing on a public street a "protest"?

If you want to make this about her thoughts, provide the evidence.  Unless you have proof that she was arrested and convicted for her thoughts, lets not just assume. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Apparently yes, it was "for silently praying."

CFR.  Provide the reference that she was arrested for praying (I have seen the video, it is not there) or please stop spreading your suspicion as facts. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And did you notice that they only arrested her after she told them that she "might be" praying in her mind?

Actually, I was careful to  note that they didn't immediately arrest her after that.  Next, they invited her to voluntarily go down to answer questions about "accusations" and to find out what she was doing there for the last several days.  Clearly, there was more than her non-confession that they wanted to talk to her about.    If they had enough to arrest her because of her answer to the prayer question, they wouldn't have invited her to voluntarily go with them.  They would have just arrested her "for praying".

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I don't understand what you mean by "smoke and mirrors."

Again, google it.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think she is trying to have here voice heard.  

Now you are getting it!  Yes she was indeed, and in a restricted zone of all places.  Her intent was not to be silent. Not with the camera.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And since when is "the narrative of the police" taken as the etched-in-stone truth?

I am talking about the actual narrative of the video of why she was arrested.  Their primary suspicion was protest.  Why do people ignore that fact?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am genuinely surprised at the hostility in evidence in this thread against this woman.  At present I am inclined to think that she was there deliberately, but not to violate the PSPO, but rather to comply with it while also praying in her mind.

Then why not just admit to the police that she was praying in her mind, if that is what she was actually doing and it is not illegal?  Why bring a camera-man if she was there only to obey the law and pray???   Why is she being two-faced here with one story to the police and one story to the public?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

But even if she did intend to provoke a confrontation about the law, she did so nonviolently.  So what's the problem?  

It is illegal to protest there, even non-violently.  That is the problem.  The problem is that everyone is trying to make this about prayer when it seems clear that she is using a sacred principle as a weapon and deception.  She never once admitted to praying.  So, why not just admit it if she REALLY was only there to pray?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am curious as to the overlap between A) the people in this thread who are outright angry and vituperative against a woman who did nothing more than stand on a street and pray in her mind, and B) the people in this thread who are pro-abortion / pro-choice.

You know where I stand on the issue of abortion.  I have always firmly been on the side of pro-life.  This is about dishonesty for me.  This lady is not being forthright.  We all know what she is about. 

Have you never heard off "silent protest".   It is a thing.  

Do you honestly believe the police could not reasonably suspect her of protesting?  4th day, with no signs of stopping until someone stops her.  On what day do the police become negligent of their duties by not suspecting a silent protest?

Who she is matters.  What she does matters.  Her history matters.  The fact that it was an organized and pre-planned effort matters. The fact that they were both from pro-life organizations and not religious liberty organizations matters.  The fact that she specifically targeted an abortion clinic matters.  The fact that she was charged with 4 counts matters.  The fact that she was there multiple days with no signs of stopping without first getting a video of a police confrontation matters.   All reasonable grounds to suspect a planned and organized protest.   How can you not at least acknowledge that it could reasonably appear that way to police?

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But I am quite surprised at the contempt and hostility being directed at this woman,

Stop mindreading, I dislike her tactics in this case and some of the other tactics she uses (chanting and confrontation in a residential area), I admire her willingness to devote her life to her cause. 

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Protesting is prohibited in that zone.

Yes.  And the "time, place and manner" restrictions on the State regulation of otherwise lawful behavior seem to be flabby-to-nonexistent.

39 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

The police approached her because the was reason to believe that she was there in protest. 

What was that "reason to believe?"  

Also, I'm not comfortable with the State re-defining the term "protest" to include "standing quietly on a public street and thinking a thought the State dislikes, and nothing else."  By that point the term is defined so broadly as to become absurd and capricious.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She’s protesting abortion and making a statement against what she views as an unduly restrictive public order then. Same difference. 

I agree, not sure if the law will though. Technicalities are not uncommon in it. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

Just how is it you are permitted to assume details to support your position; but others here are not permitted to assume details to support their position?

You accuse others of spreading falsehood, essentially because "the police said so". 

She is on video stating what she was doing, are you spreading falsehood about her, despite her stated reason for being there?

Now, if we make reasonable assumptions, then no one should accused of spreading falsehoods

What was her stated reason for being there?  I didn't hear anything she admitted to.  The only thing I heard her admit to is that she was specifically targeting the abortion clinic.  

I am not assuming anything about the camera man - that all happened.  We know who he was and who he worked for (a pro-life activist group).  What "falsehoods" am I spreading?