Arrested for praying

[provoman]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why isn’t the suspicion in your view she is doing a silent protest?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_protest

Can prayer be a form of protest at times in your view?

In view of ONLY the video of her arrest, she makes no statement as what she might have been praying about. Was she praying The Lord's Prayer, a private prayer about personal health issue, or a prayer the God would send lighting to destroy the clinic because abortion is wrong & is the "abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel"

If she stated her prayer was because abortion is wrong & is the "abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel"; I believe that would classify as a protest within the context of the PSPO.

In the added context of the video wherein she discussed the specific people she prayed for, no I do not think she was protesting as defined and prohibited in the PSPO.

[Calm]

oops, asked too fast, ignore

Edited December 28, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

you don't do what?

I don't state my opinion as fact.   Nothin you have in bold is stating an opinion as fact.  She was standing for "something".  That is undeniable as she admitted to targeting the clinic.  What was she standing for?  She was either standing to pray (weird given the context, or to protest (makes more sense).  We also know what she stands for (in general).  That is all factual. 

3 hours ago, provoman said:

Context does matter. And the context is, when question on the sidewalk she denied protesting - in the context of the PSPO.  

She denied protesting, therefore the police should dismiss all evidence suggesting otherwise and believer her?  If police believed every suspect who denied violating the law, where would that get us?  Her denial doesn't give me context as to why the police arrested her.

3 hours ago, provoman said:

With the context of the PSPO, when asked if she was praying she responded "might be in my head". 

"Might be in my head" is not a confession of anything.

3 hours ago, provoman said:

Within the context of the PSPO, the officer stated she was under arrest for violation of the PSPO. 

Yep.  

Within the PSPO protesting is also against the law.

3 hours ago, provoman said:

Within the context of the PSPO, the suspicion is her prayer, as prayer for or against abortion or for or against abortion services is prohibited.

The primary suspicion was protest.  Why are you ignoring that fact.  They suspected that she was protesting given what they knew about her and how many days she had been there, and for targeting an abortion clinic.  Her denial I am sure did little to dissuade them of their primary suspicion. 

3 hours ago, provoman said:

So taken in context, she was arrested on the suspicion that she prayed for or against abortion or for or against abortion services.

That was also a suspicion.  But without her testimony, they didn't really have any grounds to arrest her for that reason.  They had plenty of grounds to arrest her for suspicion of silent protest.

3 hours ago, provoman said:

Will you continue to claim an opinion based on context is a falsehood while your opinion based on context is not a falsehood?

You didn't state your opinion as an opinion.  You stated it as fact.  "She was arrested for praying".  "That was the only suspicion"  "she was charged with praying"  etc. 

3 hours ago, provoman said:

(In a different video, made after the arrest, she states she was praying for specific people.)

Did she state this to the police?  If not, why not?

 

 

 

 

[provoman]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't state my opinion as fact.   Nothin you have in bold is stating an opinion as fact.  She was standing for "something".  That is undeniable as she admitted to targeting the clinic.  What was she standing for?  She was either standing to pray (weird given the context, or to protest (makes more sense).  We also know what she stands for (in general).  That is all factual. 

She denied protesting, therefore the police should dismiss all evidence suggesting otherwise and believer her?  If police believed every suspect who denied violating the law, where would that get us?  Her denial doesn't give me context as to why the police arrested her.

"Might be in my head" is not a confession of anything.

Yep.  

Within the PSPO protesting is also against the law.

The primary suspicion was protest.  Why are you ignoring that fact.  They suspected that she was protesting given what they knew about her and how many days she had been there, and for targeting an abortion clinic.  Her denial I am sure did little to dissuade them of their primary suspicion. 

That was also a suspicion.  But without her testimony, they didn't really have any grounds to arrest her for that reason.  They had plenty of grounds to arrest her for suspicion of silent protest.

You didn't state your opinion as an opinion.  You stated it as fact.  "She was arrested for praying".  "That was the only suspicion"  "she was charged with praying"  etc. 

Did she state this to the police?  If not, why not?

 

 

 

 

Just about everything you wrote is you presenting your opinion as fact. Spin it however you want, in my opinion, you are clearly holding others to a standard you are unwilling to follow.

But let us go over the facts again.

She was standing in a specific place.

The PSPO DOES NOT prohibit standing nor being in the restricted area.

She was asked if she was protesting.

She said no.

She was asked if she was praying.

She said she might be praying in her mind.

She was asked if she would go to the station and discuss her conduct that day and days prior.

She declined.

She was arrested on suspicion of violating the PSPO.

The only apparent basis for that suspicion was her admitting to praying.

She later releases a video wherein she states that she was questioned by police specifically about praying.

She is now charge with four counts.

Again, it sure seems quite obvious what she was arrested for; and that is my opinion based on the facts. And you are now politely asked to cease with your maligning of myself based on my point of view of the facts.

Important facts your appear to ignore.

Protesting IS NOT strictly prohibited within the restricted area. Why are you asserting a falsehood, that it is?

The PSPO prohibits protesting for or against abortion or abortion services. (Someone could protest in that very spot demanding that all references to Oliver Cromwell be erased from English history)

Prayer IS NOT strictly prohibited in the restricted zone. Prayer for or against abortion is prohibited.

Standing in the restricted area, even in front of the clinic IS NOT protesting by definition in the PSPO. Why are you asserting a falsehood that standing in that specific spot is restricted.

Since standing without protesting is not prohibited. And standing in front of the clinic with out protesting is not prohibited, what act(s) did she commit that could be considered suspicious of protesting as defined in the PSPO?

All signs point to praying as act giving rise to the suspicion.

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by provoman

[pogi]

11 hours ago, provoman said:

The only apparent basis for that suspicion was her admitting to praying.

 Fact:  She never "admitted" to praying as you falsely claim here as fact.  

Fact: The primary suspicion was protesting, which you ignore. 

Fact: There were at least 2 suspicions the police had when they arrested her, not "only...praying". 

11 hours ago, provoman said:

She later releases a video wherein she states that she was questioned by police specifically about praying.

I have good reason to believe they also questioned her about protesting, given her history, camera man, and actions over a 4 day period.  Why doesn't she release what the 4 counts were?

11 hours ago, provoman said:

She is now charge with four counts.

4 counts of...praying?  I don't think so. 

11 hours ago, provoman said:

Important facts your appear to ignore.

Protesting IS NOT strictly prohibited within the restricted area. Why are you asserting a falsehood, that it is?

The PSPO prohibits protesting for or against abortion or abortion services. (Someone could protest in that very spot demanding that all references to Oliver Cromwell be erased from English history)

Fact: she admitted to targeting the clinic.  It is reasonable to suspect her of protesting "for or against" said clinic for that reason.  Police don't need proof, they need reasonable suspicion...and they had it in bucket loads.  Also, she is a pro-life activist with a long history of protest.  Also, she and her organization and their activities are partly to blame for the order in the first place.  Fact: the police knew all that in advance.   They knew who she was, where she lived, etc. 

11 hours ago, provoman said:

She did not admit to protesting, that is a fact; why are you spreading falsehood that she admitted to protesting?

CFR.  Where did I ever say she "admitted to protesting"?  What I said is that the police wouldn't be doing their job if they took all suspects at their word.  I have always and only acknowledge that she denied protesting. 

11 hours ago, provoman said:

Prayer IS NOT strictly prohibited in the restricted zone. Prayer for or against abortion is prohibited.

Never said otherwise.  Straw-man.

11 hours ago, provoman said:

Standing in the restricted area, even in front of the clinic IS NOT protesting by definition in the PSPO. Why are you asserting a falsehood that standing in that specific spot is restricted.

CFR that the PSPO specifically states that silent protesting for/against the clinic is not restricted, or that the police should not reasonably suspect silent protest over a period of several days, and with evidence that it was targeted and organized with other anti-abortion activists.

11 hours ago, provoman said:

Since standing without protesting is not prohibited. And standing in front of the clinic with out protesting is not prohibited, what act(s) did she commit that could be considered suspicious of protesting as defined in the PSPO?

She was suspected of protesting, and reasonably so.   No one just stands in front of an abortion clinic, because it is an abortion clinic, for multiple days in a row, with no signs of stopping until she gets her video footage, without being suspected of protest.  Sorry.  Even if she really wasn't there to protest, the suspicion is reasonable.  Why can't you at least acknowledge that?  Her history of activism, the fact that she and her organization were the catalyst for the order, the fact that it was organized with a camera man/activist against abortion.  It all points to reasonable suspicion of protest (even if there is some other purpose to her being there - there were grounds to arrest her on reasonable suspicion).  

11 hours ago, provoman said:

All signs point to praying as act giving rise to the suspicion.

Thanks for your opinion.

Edited December 28, 2022 by pogi

[Snodgrassian]

On 12/27/2022 at 4:43 PM, smac97 said:

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

Who said she was violent or menacing? Though the presence of someone can be viewed as menacing to one person and not the other. She is known for her views on abortion, so some people may find her presence to be menacing. 

On 12/27/2022 at 4:43 PM, smac97 said:

"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."

doesn't this rebuttal provide the reason why she was taken to the police station? The police had reasonable belief that she was violating the zoning law. She showed up, intentionally, to stand in front of the abortion clinic, for 4 days. 

Hypothetical that I would appreciate your knowledge of the law on. Let's say I was walking down the street and the police approach me and say that I match the description of the suspect for armed robbery. They ask me if I am in fact the person who held up the gas station in question. My response is "maybe I am, I may own a firearm and I may have pointed it at the clerk." Would that give the Police enough to take me to the station for questioning? 

On 12/27/2022 at 4:43 PM, smac97 said:

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:

Yes, I know something about the the situation, but were there arrests in Greensboro? I know as the movement grew, there were people arrested for trespassing and disorderly conduct in other places. 

 

On 12/27/2022 at 4:43 PM, smac97 said:

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?

You keep returning to this. Is praying allowed in that restricted zone, yes or no? Is silently protesting allowed in that zone, yes or no?

I just read this: 

The woman in the video, Isabel Vaughan Spruce, was not arrested for silently praying. 

“She was arrested for breaking a temporary Public Space Protection Order on four separate occasions which were used to ban protests outside of an abortion clinic due to safety concerns.” 

Ms Spruce was charged with breaching an exclusion zone and “four counts of failing to comply with a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO)”, according to West Midlands police. 

On 12/27/2022 at 4:43 PM, smac97 said:

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?

I hope I would have been brave enough to walk with them. I am against all forms of violence. I wish no violence on Isabel. IMHO, she should have been arrested, now the citizens are aware of the limits (or lack there of) of the law. These discussions are invaluable, it gives all of us a chance to really think about the world around us and have our views challenged. 

On 12/27/2022 at 4:43 PM, smac97 said:

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.  

The arresting officers did find her in violation of the PSPO. I admire her dedication to a cause she believes in, hope that her situation does require a review of the zoning law IF she was only arrested for praying silently. But for me, It is hard to decouple her behavior from a form of protest (silent). 

On 12/27/2022 at 4:43 PM, smac97 said:

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

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

my remarks about violence were not directed to her, they were in response to your post about some on this board being ok with BLM/ANTIFA protests. 

On 12/27/2022 at 4:43 PM, smac97 said:

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.   

I do think you should coin the phrase why you have the chance, it sounds like a neighborhood in NYC. My original comment was me stating, in response to violent protests, that it is hard for me to know if I would ever be for violent protests. I don't know what it is like to live as a black person in America. I don't know what it is like to fear the police, but over the past few years, I have been tangentially exposed to issues that invoke feelings in others that help me better understand where they are coming from. 

 

On 12/27/2022 at 5:06 PM, smac97 said:

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.

I would view it the same as a sit in. It is a form of silent protest. She is an identified activist who has a history in that neighborhood. She has no other reason to be there, and even stated that she was there because of the clinic. 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Snodgrassian
typos

[provoman]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

 Fact:  She never "admitted" to praying as you falsely claim here as fact.  

Fact: The primary suspicion was protesting, which you ignore. 

Fact: There were at least 2 suspicions the police had when they arrested her, not "only...praying". 

I have good reason to believe they also questioned her about protesting, given her history, camera man, and actions over a 4 day period.  Why doesn't she release what the 4 counts were?

4 counts of...praying?  I don't think so. 

Fact: she admitted to targeting the clinic.  It is reasonable to suspect her of protesting "for or against" said clinic for that reason.  Police don't need proof, they need reasonable suspicion...and they had it in bucket loads.  Also, she is a pro-life activist with a long history of protest.  Also, she and her organization and their activities are partly to blame for the order in the first place.  Fact: the police knew all that in advance.   They knew who she was, where she lived, etc. 

CFR.  Where did I ever say she "admitted to protesting"?  What I said is that the police wouldn't be doing their job if they took all suspects at their word.  I have always and only acknowledge that she denied protesting. 

Never said otherwise.  Straw-man.

CFR that the PSPO specifically states that silent protesting for/against the clinic is not restricted, or that the police should not reasonably suspect silent protest over a period of several days, and with evidence that it was targeted and organized with other anti-abortion activists.

She was suspected of protesting, and reasonably so.   No one just stands in front of an abortion clinic, because it is an abortion clinic, for multiple days in a row, with no signs of stopping until she gets her video footage, without being suspected of protest.  Sorry.  Even if she really wasn't there to protest, the suspicion is reasonable.  Why can't you at least acknowledge that?  Her history of activism, the fact that she and her organization were the catalyst for the order, the fact that it was organized with a camera man/activist against abortion.  It all points to reasonable suspicion of protest (even if there is some other purpose to her being there - there were grounds to arrest her on reasonable suspicion).  

Thanks for your opinion.

on mobile right now, edited out the part about did not admit to protesting, sorry about that. will address other issues later

[provoman]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

 Fact:  She never "admitted" to praying as you falsely claim here as fact.  

Fact: The primary suspicion was protesting, which you ignore. 

Fact: There were at least 2 suspicions the police had when they arrested her, not "only...praying". 

I have good reason to believe they also questioned her about protesting, given her history, camera man, and actions over a 4 day period.  Why doesn't she release what the 4 counts were?

4 counts of...praying?  I don't think so. 

Fact: she admitted to targeting the clinic.  It is reasonable to suspect her of protesting "for or against" said clinic for that reason.  Police don't need proof, they need reasonable suspicion...and they had it in bucket loads.  Also, she is a pro-life activist with a long history of protest.  Also, she and her organization and their activities are partly to blame for the order in the first place.  Fact: the police knew all that in advance.   They knew who she was, where she lived, etc. 

CFR.  Where did I ever say she "admitted to protesting"?  What I said is that the police wouldn't be doing their job if they took all suspects at their word.  I have always and only acknowledge that she denied protesting. 

Never said otherwise.  Straw-man.

CFR that the PSPO specifically states that silent protesting for/against the clinic is not restricted, or that the police should not reasonably suspect silent protest over a period of several days, and with evidence that it was targeted and organized with other anti-abortion activists.

She was suspected of protesting, and reasonably so.   No one just stands in front of an abortion clinic, because it is an abortion clinic, for multiple days in a row, with no signs of stopping until she gets her video footage, without being suspected of protest.  Sorry.  Even if she really wasn't there to protest, the suspicion is reasonable.  Why can't you at least acknowledge that?  Her history of activism, the fact that she and her organization were the catalyst for the order, the fact that it was organized with a camera man/activist against abortion.  It all points to reasonable suspicion of protest (even if there is some other purpose to her being there - there were grounds to arrest her on reasonable suspicion).  

Thanks for your opinion.

You have repeatedly posted that protesting within the restricted area is prohibited. You made a general statement about a specific topic; I pointed out your apparent false assertion about protesting.

As for the first CFR, it has been addressed.

As for the second, I have not discussed silent protest, I addressed standing within a particle designated area. So I do not believe that your CFR about silent protests aligns with my posts.

In this you have claimed that the police knew the person arrested - her employment, her conduct pre-PSPO, etc. If she was "known", they should have arrested her on the spot.  The specific location where she was standing is not relevant. Yet the police did not arrest her right away.

Based on what you have posted she is known, suspicion would arise if she stood anywhere in the restricted area; essential for purposes of enforcement anywhere in the restricted area, is standing in front of the clinic.

Presumably they asked her once to go to the station. Presumably she declined. If her presence alone was the basis for for suspicion, she should have been arrested when she first decline.

But the police continued questioning. Why are you in this spot? Are you protesting? Are you praying?

If suspicion arose the moment she mentioned it was an abortion clinic, why did the police continue?

It is not unreasonable to presume that the police understood that a person being present in the restricted area was insufficient basis for suspicion.

The police asked specific questions "Are you protesting?" "Are you praying". But if we accept your theory, suspicion was established before any questioning, or at the moment she mentioned the clinic.

It is also not unreasonable for the police to characterize her arrest as suspicion for violating the PSPO, rather than making a more accurate statement of "she was suspected of praying while standing in front of an abortion clinic, in her own words she said 'might have been praying in my mind'. It would have been irresponsible of the Officers to not have arrested given her statement, and coupled with she being a known anti-abortion activist"  (I do not think either of would expect a Western society to admit "thought" is a crime)

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by provoman

[pogi]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

As for the second, I have not discussed silent protest, I addressed standing within a particle designated area. So I do not believe that your CFR about silent protests aligns with my posts.

So you think that on the 4th day, there is still no reasonable grounds for suspicion of silent protest?   The question that everyone has ignored, and I’d appreciate you answering is this - on what day does such a suspicion become reasonable?  

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

So you think that on the 4th day, there is still no reasonable grounds for suspicion of silent protest?   The question that everyone has ignored, and I’d appreciate you answering is this - on what day does such a suspicion become reasonable?  

I assume it is on the 7th day but only when they blow the shofar.

[provoman]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

So you think that on the 4th day, there is still no reasonable grounds for suspicion of silent protest?   The question that everyone has ignored, and I’d appreciate you answering is this - on what day does such a suspicion become reasonable?  

I do not think any amount of days. What matters most to me is not straining the law and shoehorning an act to make someone an offender.  It is all to easy to appeal to emotion, than it is to appeal to unemotional consideration of a law. 

 

Edit: I do not think the police should have completely ignored her, but I think the police could have gone about in such a way that does not make them look like they abuse their authority.

 

I recommend this wiki entry about the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham; The New Yorker article mentioned therein is detailed.  If there ever was an innocent person put to death by the State, based on emotionally driven outrage, while ignoring established science, and a blind insatiable lust for vengeance, it is his case. 

Edited December 29, 2022 by provoman

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, provoman said:

Edit: I do not think the police should have completely ignored her, but I think the police could have gone about in such a way that does not make them look like they abuse their authority.

 

They were quite polite to her and asked her to come to the station willingly to answer some questions. They didn't arrest her until after she refused to come with them. Sounds like they used correct procedures within their authority.

[pogi]

6 hours ago, provoman said:

I do not think any amount of days. What matters most to me is not straining the law and shoehorning an act to make someone an offender.  It is all to easy to appeal to emotion, than it is to appeal to unemotional consideration of a law. 

I asked, “on which day does a suspicion [of silent protest] become reasonable?”  It sounds like you are talking about the arrest, I am talking about reasonable suspicion independent of any arrest. 

please answer the question.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by pogi

[provoman]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I didn’t ask about arrest.  I asked, “on which day does a suspicion [of silent protest] become reasonable?”

please answer the question.

“Edit: I do not think the police should have completely ignored her, but I think the police could have gone about in such a way that does not make them look like they abuse their authority.”

Why should the police intervene if she wasn’t doing anything unlawful (according to you), and they had no good reason to suspect anything?

 

Policing is not "all or nothing". 

Approaching the person, let's the curtain twitcher know that they were heard.

Approaching the person, let's the person know that "we have an eye on you, so don't be cheeky".

In my opinion, many in policing struggle with "presumption of innocence". Every contact with the public does not have to hostile from the outset by police - I doubt ACAB was created because of all the friendly non-violent encounters initiated by police.

I believe that when police strain to make someone an offender, it is a detriment to profession and to the community.

Do you recall the Oakland charcoal BBQ incident? The people using a charcoal were told by police they were in violation of the law, the police did not issue citations, rather allowed the violators to pack up and leave. KTVU in Oakland published an article about the police logs for the incident.

Or do you recall an incident when police were called about kids sledding in streets? And the police showed, then started sledding too?

There are numerous incidents wherein police show and see the "crime", and in their discretion choose a community based approached.

In the case in Birmingham, the police witnessed a person standing, and I suppose some busy report "it looks like they are praying".  Rather than actually witnessing a crime, the police strained to  make a the person an offender.

From what I understand, did interact with anyone or speak to anyone while standing there.  An "either Valjean or Javert" approach to policing, is how fascists gain and retain power. And when the last law is down, and the fascist turned 'round on you, where would you hide.

(I am not surprised that there are people in the UK offended by a person standing in a specific spot; police in UK have arrested people for speaking ill of the King)

 

 

EDIT: Based what was known at the time, and provided nothing changed - she stands in a spot after hours, keeps to herself, remains silent while standing there; then there is no amount of days that I think "reasonable suspicion" arises that the person is violating the PSPO.

Edited December 29, 2022 by provoman

[provoman]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

They were quite polite to her and asked her to come to the station willingly to answer some questions. They didn't arrest her until after she refused to come with them. Sounds like they used correct procedures within their authority.

Is policing in the UK a binary approach?  Are police in Britain permitted perform their duties with "discretion"?

I suspect the police had other options than totalitarianism. 

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, provoman said:

Policing is not "all or nothing". 

Approaching the person, let's the curtain twitcher know that they were heard.

Approaching the person, let's the person know that "we have an eye on you, so don't be cheeky".

In my opinion, many in policing struggle with "presumption of innocence". Every contact with the public does not have to hostile from the outset by police - I doubt ACAB was created because of all the friendly non-violent encounters initiated by police.

I believe that when police strain to make someone an offender, it is a detriment to profession and to the community.

Do you recall the Oakland charcoal BBQ incident? The people using a charcoal were told by police they were in violation of the law, the police did not issue citations, rather allowed the violators to pack up and leave. KTVU in Oakland published an article about the police logs for the incident.

Or do you recall an incident when police were called about kids sledding in streets? And the police showed, then started sledding too?

There are numerous incidents wherein police show and see the "crime", and in their discretion choose a community based approached.

In the case in Birmingham, the police witnessed a person standing, and I suppose some busy report "it looks like they are praying".  Rather than actually witnessing a crime, the police strained to  make a the person an offender.

From what I understand, did interact with anyone or speak to anyone while standing there.  An "either Valjean or Javert" approach to policing, is how fascists gain and retain power. And when the last law is down, and the fascist turned 'round on you, where would you hide.

(I am not surprised that there are people in the UK offended by a person standing in a specific spot; police in UK have arrested people for speaking ill of the King)

 

 

EDIT: Based what was known at the time, and provided nothing changed - she stands in a spot after hours, keeps to herself, remains silent while standing there; then there is no amount of days that I think "reasonable suspicion" arises that the person is violating the PSPO.

I noted that you are dodging the question, and continue to make this about arresting.  I am talking about reasonable suspicion (get arrest out of your head for a minute please) of protest.  Was it reasonable of the police to suspect silent protest?

Will you please answer the question, or are we done here?

Edited December 29, 2022 by pogi

[provoman]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

I noted that you are dodging the question, and continue to make this about arresting.  I am talking about reasonable suspicion (get arrest out of your head for a minute please) of protest.  Was it reasonable of the police to suspect silent protest?

Will you please answer the question, or are we done here?

You quoted my comment, that has an edit, wherein I believe I addressed the specific question

[pogi]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

You quoted my comment, that has an edit, wherein I believe I addressed the specific question

Sorry, I missed that.  

Do you think that silent protesting is not against the PSPO, or do you think that silent protesting is not really a thing?  

Under what circumstances do you think that silent protesting could be reasonably suspected?  After all, silent protesting is everything you described above "stands in a spot, keeps to herself, remains silent while standing there"... 

How could a police reasonably distinguish "just standing there" from "silent protest".  Do you think number of days should be considered?  Do you think relevant history should be considered? Do you think targeting the clinic should be considered?  Do you think it being a coordinated effort and collaboration with a camera man should be considered?  What should be considered, in your mind, and what makes it reasonable to suspect? 

I have to admit that I am terribly confused however.  You seem to want it both ways.  If the police have zero reason to suspect silent protest or any violation of the PSPO, why do you suggest that they should have intervened?  For what reason?  If she wasn't in violation of the law, and there is no grounds for even a reasonable suspicion, why are you suggesting that the police should have intervened at all?  On what grounds, and for what reason? 

Edited December 29, 2022 by pogi

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

Policing is not "all or nothing". 

Approaching the person, let's the curtain twitcher know that they were heard.

Approaching the person, let's the person know that "we have an eye on you, so don't be cheeky".

In my opinion, many in policing struggle with "presumption of innocence". Every contact with the public does not have to hostile from the outset by police - I doubt ACAB was created because of all the friendly non-violent encounters initiated by police.

I believe that when police strain to make someone an offender, it is a detriment to profession and to the community.

Do you recall the Oakland charcoal BBQ incident? The people using a charcoal were told by police they were in violation of the law, the police did not issue citations, rather allowed the violators to pack up and leave. KTVU in Oakland published an article about the police logs for the incident.

Or do you recall an incident when police were called about kids sledding in streets? And the police showed, then started sledding too?

There are numerous incidents wherein police show and see the "crime", and in their discretion choose a community based approached.

In the case in Birmingham, the police witnessed a person standing, and I suppose some busy report "it looks like they are praying".  Rather than actually witnessing a crime, the police strained to  make a the person an offender.

From what I understand, did interact with anyone or speak to anyone while standing there.  An "either Valjean or Javert" approach to policing, is how fascists gain and retain power. And when the last law is down, and the fascist turned 'round on you, where would you hide.

(I am not surprised that there are people in the UK offended by a person standing in a specific spot; police in UK have arrested people for speaking ill of the King)

 

 

EDIT: Based what was known at the time, and provided nothing changed - she stands in a spot after hours, keeps to herself, remains silent while standing there; then there is no amount of days that I think "reasonable suspicion" arises that the person is violating the PSPO.

What if they were male and a POC dressed in baggy pants and a hoody? I don’t think they would even be given two days of standing in the same restricted area. Maybe opinions are clouded because she was a white “Christian” woman. 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Peacefully

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

Is policing in the UK a binary approach?  Are police in Britain permitted perform their duties with "discretion"?

I suspect the police had other options than totalitarianism. 

Apparently not. Also since they were being recorded they probably didn't want to do anything that would show they were not doing their duty correctly.
What you want is a decision and change that would have to come from higher up. Those officers were not abusing the authority they had.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, provoman said:

I suspect the police had other options than totalitarianism. 

Totalitarianisms?  Serious???  This is getting kind of ridiculous how far you are willing to turn the blind eye to any reasonable suspicion of silent protest while stretching the actions of the police beyond recognition and into outlandish realms of totalitarianism. 

This is verging into crazy extremist conspiracy type thinking.  Polar vision syndrome.

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

They were quite polite to her and asked her to come to the station willingly to answer some questions. They didn't arrest her until after she refused to come with them. Sounds like they used correct procedures within their authority.

I agree. I didn’t see them handcuff her that I recall, just a search which I think absolutely needs to be done for everyone.  It is no different than the airport, except given the even greater risk of why they are arresting people (it is believed they broke the law, often intentionally) it’s needed for everyone.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Apparently not. Also since they were being recorded they probably didn't want to do anything that would show they were not doing their duty correctly.
What you want is a decision and change that would have to come from higher up. Those officers were not abusing the authority they had.

It looked and sounded like right on “by the book” to me, even the men stepping away and not watching closely during the search by the female officer.

[smac97]

On 12/27/2022 at 9:25 PM, provoman said:

Just about everything you wrote is you presenting your opinion as fact. Spin it however you want, in my opinion, you are clearly holding others to a standard you are unwilling to follow.

But let us go over the facts again.

She was standing in a specific place.

The PSPO DOES NOT prohibit standing nor being in the restricted area.

She was asked if she was protesting.

She said no.

She was asked if she was praying.

She said she might be praying in her mind.

She was asked if she would go to the station and discuss her conduct that day and days prior.

She declined.

She was arrested on suspicion of violating the PSPO.

The only apparent basis for that suspicion was her admitting to praying.

She later releases a video wherein she states that she was questioned by police specifically about praying.

She is now charge with four counts.

Again, it sure seems quite obvious what she was arrested for; and that is my opinion based on the facts. And you are now politely asked to cease with your maligning of myself based on my point of view of the facts.

Important facts your appear to ignore.

Protesting IS NOT strictly prohibited within the restricted area. Why are you asserting a falsehood, that it is?

The PSPO prohibits protesting for or against abortion or abortion services. (Someone could protest in that very spot demanding that all references to Oliver Cromwell be erased from English history)

Prayer IS NOT strictly prohibited in the restricted zone. Prayer for or against abortion is prohibited.

Standing in the restricted area, even in front of the clinic IS NOT protesting by definition in the PSPO. Why are you asserting a falsehood that standing in that specific spot is restricted.

Since standing without protesting is not prohibited. And standing in front of the clinic with out protesting is not prohibited, what act(s) did she commit that could be considered suspicious of protesting as defined in the PSPO?

All signs point to praying as act giving rise to the suspicion.

All signs point to . . . a thoughtcrime.  She was not arrested for what she was doing, but what she admitted that she "might" have been thinking (that is, saying a prayer).

Standing on a public street, without more, is not a crime.  The actionable "more" behaviors are laid out in the PSPO, which is very broadly worded.  The police officer apparently construed the PSPO as prohibiting unspoken, in-her-mind praying.  If so, I find that quite troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

All signs point to . . . a thoughtcrime.  She was not arrested for what she was doing, but what she admitted that she "might" have been thinking (that is, saying a prayer).

Standing on a public street, without more, is not a crime.  The actionable "more" behaviors are laid out in the PSPO, which is very broadly worded.  The police officer apparently construed the PSPO as prohibiting unspoken, in-her-mind praying.  If so, I find that quite troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nope, all signs point to a serial harasser deliberately trying to get arrested so that people would write a lot of articles about how she was arrested for praying and thoughtcriming.

Mission Success! Why are people treating her as a victim? She got everything she wanted.