Arrested for praying

[smac97]

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

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

Yeah, she pretty much did.

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

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

Only if "protesting" = "standing quietly on a public street and thinking a thought the State dislikes, and nothing else."

I find that to be troubling.

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

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

"2 suspicions" of . . . what?  What did she do that was violative of the PSPO?

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

Quote

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,

Okay.  So what?  Are you claiming that she was lying about being "questioned by police specifically about praying"?

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

given her history, camera man, and actions over a 4 day period.  Why doesn't she release what the 4 counts were?

The police could do that same.  

By the way, these sorts of documents are often very vague.

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

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

Four counts violating the PSPO.  

Violating the PSPO by doing . . . what?

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

Fact: she admitted to targeting the clinic. 

CFR, please as to the "targeting the clinic" admission.  Chapter and verse, please.

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

It is reasonable to suspect her of protesting "for or against" said clinic for that reason. 

Again,  only if "protesting" = "standing quietly on a public street and thinking a thought the State dislikes, and nothing else."

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

Police don't need proof, they need reasonable suspicion...and they had it in bucket loads. 

Suspicion of "protesting," right?

"Protesting" by doing . . . what?

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

Also, she is a pro-life activist with a long history of protest. 

Even if true, so what?  How is that relevant to whether she was "protesting" by standing on a public street, and nothing else?

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

Also, she and her organization and their activities are partly to blame for the order in the first place. 

This is you avoiding presenting your opinion as "fact?"

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

Fact: the police knew all that in advance.   They knew who she was, where she lived, etc. 

So what?  

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

CFR.  Where did I ever say she "admitted to protesting"? 

Well, you just claimed that she "she admitted to targeting the clinic."  You even labeled this as a "Fact" (capitalized).

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

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. 

Regarding the PSPO, what is the applicable definition of "protesting"?

Regarding Vaughan-Spruce, what is it that she did that fits within the definitional parameters of "protesting" (re: the PSPO)?

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

CFR that the PSPO specifically states that silent protesting for/against the clinic is not restricted,

So remaining silent is now a crime?  Is that your point?

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

or that the police should not reasonably suspect silent protest over a period of several days,

What is a "silent protest"?

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

and with evidence that it was targeted and organized with other anti-abortion activists.

Again, what did Vaughan-Spruce do that was violative of the PSPO?

AFAICS, she 1) was standing on a public street, but otherwise not engaging in any form of conduct or speech, and 2) she admitted she "might" have been praying in her mind.

Is it your position that standing on a public street, and nothing more, constitutes "protesting?"

Is it your position that the police officer asking her if she was praying, and her answer that she "might" be praying "in {her} head," are not relevant to evaluating the grounds for her arrest?

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

She was suspected of protesting, and reasonably so.   

Why?  What had she done?

Also, this is you not presenting your opinion as "fact," is it?

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

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. 

This is you not presenting your opinion as "fact," is it?

I'm really not understanding your position here.  You seem to be asserting that standing on a public street, and nothing more, constitutes "protesting."  If so, I find that troubling.

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

Even if she really wasn't there to protest, the suspicion is reasonable. 

Why?

I just found this PDF: "Revised code of practice for the exercise by: Police Officers of Statutory Powers of stop and search."

Section 2.2:

Quote

Reasonable grounds for suspicion is the legal test which a police officer must satisfy before they can stop and detain individuals or vehicles to search them under powers such as section 1 of PACE (to find stolen or prohibited articles) and section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (to find controlled drugs).  This test must be applied to the particular circumstances in each case and is in two parts:

(i) Firstly, the officer must have formed a genuine suspicion in their own mind that they will find the object for which the search power being exercised allows them to search (see Annex A, second column, for examples); and

(ii) Secondly, the suspicion that the object will be found must be reasonable. This means that there must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information and/or intelligence which are relevant to the likelihood that the object in question will be found, so that a reasonable person would be entitled to reach the same conclusion based on the same facts and information and/or intelligence. Officers must therefore be able to explain the basis for their suspicion by reference to intelligence or information about, or some specific behaviour by, the person concerned (see paragraphs 3.8(d), 4.6 and 5.5). 

What is the "reasonable" basis for "suspecting" that Vaughan-Spruce, whose conduct amounted to standing on a public street and nothing more, was violating the PSPO?

Section 2.2B:

Quote

Reasonable suspicion can never be supported on the basis of personal factors.  This means that unless the police have information or intelligence which provides a description of a person suspected of carrying an article for which there is a power to stop and search, the following cannot be used, alone or in combination with each other, or in combination with any other factor, as the reason for stopping and searching any individual, including any vehicle which they are driving or are being carried in:

(a) A person’s physical appearance with regard, for example, to any of the ‘relevant protected characteristics’ set out in the Equality Act 2010, section 149, which are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation (see paragraph 1.1 and Note 1A), or the fact that the person is known to have a previous conviction; and

(b) Generalisations or stereotypical images that certain groups or categories of people are more likely to be involved in criminal activity. 

Section 2.6B:

Quote

Reasonable suspicion may also exist without specific information or intelligence and on the basis of the behaviour of a person. For example, if an officer encounters someone on the street at night who is obviously trying to hide something, the officer may (depending on the other surrounding circumstances) base such suspicion on the fact that this kind of behaviour is often linked to stolen or prohibited articles being carried.  An officer who forms the opinion that a person is acting suspiciously or that they appear to be nervous must be able to explain, with reference to specific aspects of the person’s behaviour or conduct which they have observed, why they formed that opinion (see paragraphs 3.8(d) and 5.5). A hunch or instinct which cannot be explained or justified to an objective observer can never amount to reasonable grounds. 

"A hunch or instinct which cannot be explained or justified to an objective observer can never amount to reasonable grounds."

Vaughan-Spruce was standing on a public street, and doing nothing else.  No verbal/expressive speech, no placards or signs.  No gesticulating or other physical movements.

So what was she doing that gave rise to "reasonable grounds" for suspicion that she was "protesting"?

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

Why can't you at least acknowledge that? 

Because the reasonableness has not been established.

On 12/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, pogi said:

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).

What conduct did she engage in which answers the definition of "protesting" prohibited under the PSPO?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, all signs point to a serial harasser deliberately trying to get arrested

I don't think that is so at all.  One of the signs is her say-so, which is that she was not protesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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.

 

What is so scary and disturbing is how blind you are to your postings. You engage in the same conduct you seem so disgusted by.

You are the one standing at the cork board with picture everywhere context strings and push pins, whilst attacking anyone who disagrees with you.....are you sure you aren't the crazy extremist.

I do not think it is reasonable to think or suspect she was engaged in prohibited conduct.

 

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, she pretty much did.

"Maybe" is not a confession.  "I could have just as easily been thinking about something else", is not a confession. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Only if "protesting" = "standing quietly on a public street and thinking a thought the State dislikes, and nothing else."

I find that to be troubling.

Yes, that is exactly what silent protesting consists of. 

Like it or not, that is what silent protest is. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"2 suspicions" of . . . what? 

They questioned her about 2 suspicions.  The primary suspicion was are you protesting?  The second was are you praying?

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What did she do that was violative of the PSPO?

She was arrested on reasonable "suspicion" of violating the PSPO.  I think they suspected protesting - their primary suspicion.  I think they had VERY good reason to suspect silent protesting. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  So what?  Are you claiming that she was lying about being "questioned by police specifically about praying"?

So...I think she is not telling the full truth, but is leading us to believe that this is ONLY about praying. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Violating the PSPO by doing . . . what?

I'm not going to repeat myself 100 times. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please as to the "targeting the clinic" admission.  Chapter and verse, please.

You can't be serious!  Watch  YOUR video.  You know, the part where they asked why she is here of all places and she answers because this is a abortion clinic.  And they respond. "Ok, that is why you are here."  It was not a random, but targeted location.

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again,  only if "protesting" = "standing quietly on a public street and thinking a thought the State dislikes, and nothing else."

Suspicion of "protesting," right?

"Protesting" by doing . . . what?

Look at the context buddy.  Look how it was a coordinated and organized effort within multiple pro-life (not religious liberty) organizations.  Look how many days it took place (4).  Look at her history of pro-life (not religious liberty) activism.  Look at the fact that she targeted an abortion clinic as a pro-life activist.  Look at the fact that she had a media angle.  It all points to something more/other than praying. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Even if true, so what?  How is that relevant to whether she was "protesting" by standing on a public street, and nothing else?

You don't think this context matters when deciding if suspicion is reasonable?  If he was some delusional homeless dude there for 4 days, that history/context is important to take into consideration too.

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is you avoiding presenting your opinion as "fact?"

You aren't following this thread much, are you?

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So what?  

So, smac, that gave them VERY GOOD reason to suspect silent protest.  

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, you just claimed that she "she admitted to targeting the clinic."  You even labeled this as a "Fact" (capitalized).

Quit playing games smac!  Targeting (as in that is the stated reason/purpose of her standing in that specific location - because it is an abortion clinic) the clinic and admitting to protesting are two different things.  

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Regarding the PSPO, what is the applicable definition of "protesting"?

Regarding Vaughan-Spruce, what is it that she did that fits within the definitional parameters of "protesting" (re: the PSPO)?

So remaining silent is now a crime?  Is that your point?

Making a statement for or against the clinic.  Standing silently, as an anti-abortion activist, for 4 days, with the intent to go viral... Speaks LOUD and clear to me.  I think the police got the message too.   

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What is a "silent protest"?

Google it. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, what did Vaughan-Spruce do that was violative of the PSPO?

Silent protesting. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

AFAICS, she 1) was standing on a public street, but otherwise not engaging in any form of conduct or speech, and 2) she admitted she "might" have been praying in her mind.

How can you say that she wasn't participating in silent protest (speech) if you don't even pretend to know what "silent protest" is/means?

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is it your position that standing on a public street, and nothing more, constitutes "protesting?"

It can, yes.  Context needs to be considered.  Again, google "silent protest".  I am not making this up smac. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is it your position that the police officer asking her if she was praying, and her answer that she "might" be praying "in {her} head," are not relevant to evaluating the grounds for her arrest?

IF, it was just in her head, no I don't think that is good grounds for arrest.  

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why?  What had she done?

Also, this is you not presenting your opinion as "fact," is it?

I really hate how much you repeat the same questions.  

No, this is not an example of me stating my opinion as fact.  It is a fact that they suspected her of protesting as evidenced by the question "Is your standing here part of a protest?"  If they didn't suspect it, they wouldn't have asked. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm really not understanding your position here.  You seem to be asserting that standing on a public street, and nothing more, constitutes "protesting."  If so, I find that troubling.

I find your dismissal of the context troubling.  You are ignoring and refusing to acknowledge SO MUCH in that statement.  I find that troubling!

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why?

I just found this PDF: "Revised code of practice for the exercise by: Police Officers of Statutory Powers of stop and search."

Section 2.2:

What is the "reasonable" basis for "suspecting" that Vaughan-Spruce, whose conduct amounted to standing on a public street and nothing more, was violating the PSPO?

Section 2.2B:

Section 2.6B:

So, you think US law applies in the UK?

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"A hunch or instinct which cannot be explained or justified to an objective observer can never amount to reasonable grounds."

Their suspicion could easily be explained and justified to any objective judge, who I think would agree that their suspicion was reasonable for reasons I have mentioned at least 100 times, but for some reason you think is impertinent to consider:

1) She admittedly targeted the abortion clinic.  That is why she was there - because it was an abortion clinic. (That alone is not enough, but it provides context)

2) She is an ardent pro-life activist with a history of protest in that location. (Any judge would see this as pertinent information to consider)

3) It was a coordinated and planned effort with multiple actors (This is not normal behavior if all she was doing was standing there, or praying, with no other ulterior motives)

4) She was there for 4 days with no plans of stopping.  (Highly unusual and suspicions behavior.  Especially given the rest of the context and history)

5) Everything suggests that she would have kept coming back until she was arrested.  That was her purpose.  If she didn't think her behavior was suspicious, why was she so confident that she would be arrested?

6) She had a media angle before she even set foot in front of the clinic.  

7) Silent protest has a history.  I didn't make it up.  People actually do it.  It is a thing.  That is pertinent. 

Now, if she had no history of activism, no history of protesting against abortion clinics, was only there for a few hours (not 4 days), was not specifically targeting the clinic, was not coordinated with other pro-life activists with a video camera, I think that would all be pertinent information to consider also - wouldn't you???  In that case, no I don't think that person just standing there saying nothing would be reasonable grounds to suspect a silent protest.  Given the actual context, on the other hand - yes, very reasonable. 

I am a reasonable person smac, I suspect her BIG TIME.  I am not biased as a pro-choice person either.  I am pro-life.  I still objectively suspect her of ulterior motives. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So what was she doing that gave rise to "reasonable grounds" for suspicion that she was "protesting"?

Because the reasonableness has not been established.

What conduct did she engage in which answers the definition of "protesting" prohibited under the PSPO?

Thanks,

-Smac

See above smac.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think that is so at all.  One of the signs is her say-so, which is that she was not protesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

The serial protestor who runs a protesting organization is outside the location she routinely protests at with a camera crew at the ready. Clearly just out for a stroll right?

I am not sure how anyone can take that scenario and credulously believe this wasn’t an attention-getting stunt tied to the protest.

She lied. People lie all the time. Sometimes the lies are shamefully obvious lies. Like this time.

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm not going to repeat myself 100 times. 

This whole thread  topic seems to be repeating a lot of things. 😐

[Vanguard]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am a reasonable person smac, I suspect her BIG TIME.  I am not biased as a pro-choice person either.  I am pro-life.  I still objectively suspect her of ulterior motives. 

This suspicion seems to be the hinge issue where you are reading into the scenario potential motivations as grounds to arrest her for suspicion of protesting. I did not read in the PSPO where these potential motivations (her stance against abortion, wanting to be arrested, wanting to get air time for her cause, etc) are to be taken under consideration? You are also using the fact that she silently stood there for extended periods of time over several days as sufficient cause to arrest her and yet I do not see that in the PSPO wording (i.e, silently standing for certain durations and/or with a certain frequency) either? Where are you getting this silent protest criteria from in the PSPO?

Edited to add: I am ok with what she has done and don't believe anyone as of yet has any grounds for arresting her though I have no problem with the police questioning her at the site. The community either needs to better hone in on the restrictions in the PSPO or they need to include a no loitering restriction. As it's worded right now, it does not merit taking someone in for silently standing there regardless of who it is and what she might be thinking while standing there.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Vanguard

[provoman]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

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.

I think I can agree with you on that she was a frequent protestor.

I also believe she filed a lawsuit about PSPO and that she could be arrested for silent prayer.

So I agree she got what she "wanted", proof of the  extreme absurdity of the PSPO.

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, provoman said:

I think I can agree with you on that she was a frequent protestor.

I also believe she filed a lawsuit about PSPO and that she could be arrested for silent prayer.

So I agree she got what she "wanted", proof of the  extreme absurdity of the PSPO.

I think the locals who deal with these busybody loons day in and day out see this as a good use of the PSPO and still like it.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

This suspicion seems to be the hinge issue where you are reading into the scenario potential motivations as grounds to arrest her for suspicion of protesting. I did not read in the PSPO where these potential motivations (her stance against abortion, wanting to be arrested, wanting to get air time for her cause, etc) are to be taken under consideration? You are also using the fact that she silently stood there for extended periods of time over several days as sufficient cause to arrest her and yet I do not see that in the PSPO wording (i.e, silently standing for certain durations and/or with a certain frequency) either? Where are you getting this silent protest criteria from in the PSPO? 

Protesting is prohibited in the PSPO.   Is it not?  Silent protesting is one form of protesting, is it not?

All the context and reasons I listed of why silent protest could reasonably be suspected matters.  All of the potential reasons to suspect someone of protest don’t have to be spelled out in the PSPO.  Police have to make judgment calls all of the time based on reasonable suspicion.  If the person disagrees with their judgment, then we have the judicial system for that.  Let the judges decide if the police had grounds for reasonable suspicion.   I have spelled out why I think they did. It seems very reasonable to me.

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, provoman said:

What is so scary and disturbing is how blind you are to your postings. You engage in the same conduct you seem so disgusted by.

How am I being an extremist by suggesting that I think the police had good reason to suspect her of protesting?  I am not throwing around words like “totalitarianism” etc.

42 minutes ago, provoman said:

You are the one standing at the cork board with picture everywhere context strings and push pins, whilst attacking anyone who disagrees with you.....are you sure you aren't the crazy extremist.

I am only attacking extremist views and calling out false claims of “fact”, and expressing my opinion that the police acted within their authority and within the law.  I am also expressing my opinion that it is reasonable to suspect her of protesting. 

42 minutes ago, provoman said:

I do not think it is reasonable to think or suspect she was engaged in prohibited conduct.

The police did.  I do.  Clearly several other otherwise reasonable posters all agree that it was a reasonable suspicion.   let her case be tried before a judge if she thinks she has been wronged or if the police acted outside of their authority and the law.

[provoman]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

Protesting is prohibited in the PSPO.   Is it not?  Silent protesting is one form of protesting, is it not?

All the context and reasons I listed of why silent protest could reasonably be suspected matters.  All of the potential reasons to suspect don’t have to be spelled out in the PSPO.  Police have to make judgment calls all of the time based on reasonable suspicion.  If the person disagrees with their judgment, then we have the judicial system for that.  Let the judges decide if the police had grounds for reasonable suspicion.   I have spelled out why I think they did. It seems very reasonable to me.

 

I think the court will agree with you.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

I think I can agree with you on that she was a frequent protestor.

I also believe she filed a lawsuit about PSPO and that she could be arrested for silent prayer.

So I agree she got what she "wanted", proof of the  extreme absurdity of the PSPO.

A thought experiment:

Vaughan-Spruce and another person are both standing in the same location (where Vaughan-Spruce was arrested), both doing nothing except standing there.  

By the reasoning of some folks here, Vaughan-Spruce could be arrested for violating the PSPO, whereas the other person could avoid arrest.  The difference?  The other person denied silently praying (while Vaughan-Spruce admits it).

In short, the difference between the two - despite them both engaging in the exact same conduct - is a matter of their respective thoughts.  The disparate treatment of the two under the law is due to Vaughan-Spruce having committed . . . a thoughtcrime.

I find that troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Protesting is prohibited in the PSPO.   Is it not?  Silent protesting is one form of protesting, is it not?

So . . . a thoughtcrime.  Vaughan-Spruce was arrested for a thoughtcrime.  Do you agree?

1 hour ago, pogi said:

All the context and reasons I listed of why silent protest could reasonably be suspected matters.  

Do you have any concern about ceding power to the State to criminalize thought?

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

I think the court will agree with you.

I have to say, I am very surprised at this response after the following comments:

Quote

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?  

Quote

Even if the restricted zone was ONLY the public street and public sidewalk, the PSPO does not restrict presence in the designated restricted area for only entering/leaving the clinic.

Quote

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

10 hours ago, provoman said:

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.

Quote

I do not think it is reasonable to think or suspect she was engaged in prohibited conduct.

Why do you think the courts would side with the police if you think the police were being totalitarian?  Do you think the courts are equally totalitarian?  If there is no grounds for reasonable suspicion, why do you think the courts will find their suspicion reasonable?  Is the entire system just unreasonable?  Or, do you think there is some conspiracy between the police and the judicial system?  I am confused. 

Have you changed your mind?

Edited December 30, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So . . . a thoughtcrime.  Vaughan-Spruce was arrested for a thoughtcrime.  Do you agree?

No, not at all.  Silent protest is an action, not a thought.  She was arrested on suspicion of violating the PSPO because of her actions over a 4 day period, which specifically targeted this abortion clinic where she has a history of protesting abortion, and because it appeared to be a planned, and coordinated effort with multiple actors and with a media angle.  All of that is objective evidence that can be measured that has nothing to do with her thoughts, which give them reasonable suspicion to arrest her for further investigation.  All of that paints a picture that she was symbolically and quite literally standing-up against the clinic and had intentions of spreading her message on the internet.  That she had something to say by standing there is not really in question.  What she was trying to say by standing there is the question.  That requires a judgment call.  No not-mind reading. But judgment based on all contextual evidence.  She was not arrested for what she was thinking, but for what she was reasonably suspected of saying through her actions. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Do you have any concern about ceding power to the State to criminalize thought?

Yes.  But sometimes law-breakers don't always verbalize their thoughts and intentions.  Police are frequently placed in the position of having to make judgment calls based on the context of the situation and evidence on hand.  Often times, cases boil down to suspected motive of actions/behavior.  The suspect doesn't have to verbalize their motive to be arrested, or even jailed.   It is an imperfect system, but these judgments have to be made because people are not always honest and forthright.  Those judgments are not based on what they are thinking, but are based on objective evidence and context.  Laws should never be created around our thoughts, but around our actions.  Silent protest is an action, not a thought.  There was more than enough reason to suspect the act of silent protest.  

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by pogi

[provoman]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have to say, I am very surprised at this response after the following comments:

Why do you think the courts would side with the police if you think the police were being totalitarian?  Do you think the courts are equally totalitarian?  If there is no grounds for reasonable suspicion, why do you think the courts will find their suspicion reasonable?  Is the entire system just unreasonable?  Or, do you think there is some conspiracy between the police and the judicial system?  I am confused. 

Have you changed your mind?

As someone posted early on, what she was doing is akin to "I am not touching you".  

By my understanding, she "protested" at the Clinic prior to the PSPO. I think it is fair to say she acted within the bounds of the law during those protests. Post PSPO, I do not see a reason why she now turn violating the law; but, I could see her following the exact letter of the law and using that to the "advantage" of the cause. I am not familiar with British law, so maybe there is some tidbit from the Magna Cater or something from the days of Cromwell that says you are can be convicted if the Court thinks it was a setup - that is just me speculating (perhaps I am biased at a genetic level, my Ancestors arrived in the Western Hemisphere on the May Flower, not worst family history when it comes to interaction with the UK)

 

Something like in the USA where the "1st aggressor" does not get the benefit of "self defence"

Edited December 30, 2022 by provoman

[Calm]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

I think it is fair to say she acted within the bounds of the law during those protests

Why?  Abortion protestors have been known to be arrested and it sounds from the complaints about the protestor group she was with that they might have been breaking ‘disturbing the peace’ laws given the disturbances in the neighborhood described and therefore she could have been one of those breaking the laws if it happened..

I might look into that later, but should try to sleep now as I have grandma duties in the morning.

[Calm]

I had to look just a bit:

Quote

Passers-by were appalled by the protest and became involved. Four afternoons in one week the police were called (not by us) and had to ask people to disperse."

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-34641228

Many examples that do not appear to break the law…after all it isn’t illegal in most cases to follow a woman to her car feeling her she’s a murderer, etc and recording the registration….though one group is known for taking pictures without permission of those entering and leaving clinics and even going inside to film.  That could be illegal, especially if put online.  Whether or not illegal, I find much of it immoral.

https://www.bpas.org/media/2072/acp-review-appendix-4-online-consultation-response.pdf

Edited December 30, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

A thought experiment:

Vaughan-Spruce and another person are both standing in the same location (where Vaughan-Spruce was arrested), both doing nothing except standing there.  

I'll play with your "thought experiment":

One is specifically targeting the clinic.  It is a coordinated and pre-planned event with the intent to go viral, for one.  One is armed with a video camera crew.  One has been there for 4 days with no intent to stop until they are arrested.  One has a history of protesting against this clinic in the past.  One is the President of well known pro-life activist group in the community, coordinating this effort with another pro-life activist group. 

The other is not specifically targeting the clinic, but was out for a jog and stopped for a long rest in front of the clinic.  The other is not coordinated and planned with any organization.  The other has no video camera crew.  The other has no intention of returning day after day, until they are arrested.  The other has no history of protest against this clinic.   The other is not an activist. 

You only focus on the fact that they were both "standing there" and ignore the rest of the pertinent context, and it is blinding your judgment. 

When the police show up, they see these two people standing there apparently doing the same thing.  After further investigation and identification/context/history, one is let go and the other is arrested. 

Why was the one arrested and the other let go?  Because of context, smac.  Context which gave police reasonable suspicion that the first was doing more than just standing there, but was staging a silent protest.  While the other was only standing there with no other ulterior motives/message.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

By the reasoning of some folks here, Vaughan-Spruce could be arrested for violating the PSPO, whereas the other person could avoid arrest.  The difference?  The other person denied silently praying (while Vaughan-Spruce admits it).

Nope.  Even if they were never asked about praying, the one could still be arrested and the other let go based on reasonable suspicion of silent protest.  P.S. "Maybe" is not an admission.  "I could have just as easily been thinking about something else" is not an admission.  Please stop repeating the falsehood that she admitted to praying. 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

In short, the difference between the two - despite them both engaging in the exact same conduct - is a matter of their respective thoughts.  The disparate treatment of the two under the law is due to Vaughan-Spruce having committed . . . a thoughtcrime.

They are not engaged in the same conduct.  One is engaged in silent protest, the other is engaged in resting.  They can appear the same on the surface, but context points to very different actions.  It has nothing to do with their thoughts.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I find that troubling.

I find your unwillingness to acknowledge the context and how that could lead to reasonable suspicion of silent protest troubling. 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by pogi

[california boy]

It is clear to me that some people think that religion is a get out of jail free card.

[provoman]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Why?  Abortion protestors have been known to be arrested and it sounds from the complaints about the protestor group she was with that they might have been breaking ‘disturbing the peace’ laws given the disturbances in the neighborhood described and therefore she could have been one of those breaking the laws if it happened..

I might look into that later, but should try to sleep now as I have grandma duties in the morning.

I will rephrase,

"I am unaware of whether or she has been convicted for protests at that clinic prior to the PSPO. Supposing that she has not, then I do not think she set out to violate the PSPO."

 

As for her statement to the police "might" have prayed. I would say that "might" as commonly understood in modern "Colonials" english, means "probably" or "it is possible". And if "might" means probably or possible, then there might be a basis for suspicion of a violation of the PSPO. (So I do not think it is false to say she admitted; but I do understand the concern)

Edited December 30, 2022 by provoman

[provoman]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is clear to me that some people think that religion is a get out of jail free card.

Why would you say that? Even in the US there are "time, manner, place" restrictions. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is clear to me that some people think that religion is a get out of jail free card.

Not clear at all. The issue (for those of us dismayed by the application of the law here) is that the thoughts in her head were criminalized. I don't care two figs that those thoughts happened to be religious and I would be equally appalled if the criminalized thoughts were "good vibes" or "vague musings" or "wool gathering day dreams."

I could support a general ban on prayer behaviors (kneeling, vocalizations, etc) in the vicinity of an abortion clinic. I could support a general ban on loitering in the vicinity of an abortion clinic. 

Religion is not the issue here. The intrusion of the state into one's thoughts is.

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, provoman said:

Why would you say that? Even in the US there are "time, manner, place" restrictions. 

Well evidently if you are breaking the law for protesting in a non protest area at an abortion clinic for 4 days and have a camera crew spring into action when the police come, if you say you were praying, then it makes it ok for some people.