Arrested for praying

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then why did the citizen make a point to complain that she might be [gasp, shudder] praying?

Possibly because they were helping her to get arrested so it could be filmed and they could have a fundraiser and draw attention to their cause. 

[Calm]

If it was about the right to pray for the souls being harmed at the clinic for her, why didn’t she do it a half a block down the street? 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if the public protest was not the purpose of her hanging around in a restricted zone enough to get arrested, I wonder why there was a faith ministry there to film her arrest. 

Maybe to see if people would stoop so low as to complain about or arrest someone who was silently praying. 
 

Was it against the law to take pictures there? If it was, were the people shooting the video arrested? 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Possibly because they were helping her to get arrested so it could be filmed and they could have a fundraiser and draw attention to their cause. 

Do you know that for a fact, or is this conjecture?

[Calm]

Quote

She was later charged with breaking a Public Space Protection Order, said by Birmingham City Council to have been introduced to ensure "people visiting and working there have clear access without fear of confrontation". Vaughan-Spruce will appear at Birmingham Magistrates' Court on February 2 next year.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/isabel-vaughan-spruce-45-charged-25794626.amp

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it was about the right to pray for the souls being harmed at the clinic for her, why didn’t she do it a half a block down the street? 

I don’t know. Do we have laws now dictating where people can stand when they silently pray? 
 

I don’t have to approve of a person’s choice of location to recognize when her human rights are being violated. 

[Calm]

Anyone who doesn’t think her purpose there was to get arrested so it could be taken to court should check out her FB page. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know. Do we have laws now dictating where people can stand when they silently pray? 
 

I don’t have to approve of a person’s choice of location to recognize when her human rights are being violated. 

The law is no behaviour that would cause a person to feel fear of a possible confrontation within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. 
 

If she was there to protest the denial of the right to protest, she should have been honest and willing to take the consequences for it. Instead they want to play games with the law, so they can get it dismissed Imo.

We believe in being subject to governments, do we not? And in being honest. This was a planned,  filmed protest which she lied about, denying she was protesting. I would have at least admired her commitment if she was upfront about what she was doing. Instead they are playing games to invalidate the law. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/isabel-vaughan-spruce-45-charged-25794626.amp

So it wasn’t about praying then. Or is this a trumped up charge to cover up the fact that she was harassed because people didn’t like it that she was praying? Again, why did the praying even come up in the complaint or the arrest if this is all about her inhibiting public access or intimidating visitors or whatever?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

The law is no behaviour that would cause a person to feel fear of a possible confrontation within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. 

So standing there and saying a silent prayer in one’s own mind is tantamount to causing a person to feel fear?  That’s quite a stretch. 
 

As Charles D*i*c*kens might put it, there could be no greater testament to one’s belief in the efficacy of prayer than these people having this poor woman arrested because they are afraid she might be silently praying. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

If she is legally allowed to be there while reciting her grocery list in her head, but not allowed to be there if she is reciting a prayer in her head, then the only difference between legal and illegal is based entirely on what's going on inside her head.

That the goverent can thus criminalize thought is a rather scary prospect. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know. Do we have laws now dictating where people can stand when they silently pray? 

Well I linked upthread to a church arrest for hand holding and BYU calls the police if someone uses the wrong color of flashlight on y mountain. So your outrage does appear to be very selective. 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

The law is no behaviour that would cause a person to feel fear of a possible confrontation within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. 
 

If she was there to protest the denial of the right to protest, she should have been honest and willing to take the consequences for it. Instead they want to play games with the law, so they can get it dismissed Imo.

We believe in being subject to governments, do we not? And in being honest. This was a planned,  filmed protest which she lied about, denying she was protesting. I would have at least admired her commitment if she was upfront about what she was doing. Instead they are playing games to invalidate the law. 

Maybe the law is unjust in the first place. Isn’t that what protest is for? To challenge and maybe bring public exposure/attention to unjust laws?

And pardon, I’m just now learning about this.  Are you saying she is a Latter-day Saint and that the Articles of Faith are thus binding on her?

Edited December 24, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well I linked upthread to a church arrest for hand holding and BYU calls the police if someone uses the wrong color of flashlight on y mountain. So your outrage does appear to be very selective. 

So she wasn’t just standing there silently praying, then. She was making out with somebody on private property contrary to the expressed wishes of the property owner. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

If she is legally allowed to be there while reciting her grocery list in her head, but not allowed to be there if she is reciting a prayer in her head, then the only difference between legal and illegal is based entirely on what's going on inside her head.

That the goverent can thus criminalize thought is a rather scary prospect. 

Yes. #thoughtcrime. See George Orwell. 
 

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

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

"Officer, I am sorry I was going 140 mph but in my defense, I was praying."

 

 

 

What was she doing in addition to praying that was the functional equivalent of reckless driving?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

is this a trumped up charge to cover up the fact that she was harassed because people didn’t like it that she was praying?

Seriously?  When it has her that arranged to have someone there to record the arrest?

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What was she doing in addition to praying that was the functional equivalent of reckless driving?

Standing in a restricted area.  A very small restricted area that she could easily avoid and likely has to go out of her way to get to. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Isn’t that what protest is for? To challenge and maybe bring public exposure/attention to unjust laws?

Then admit she was protesting and don’t lie about it, so she can play the victim, having her cake and eating it too. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

If she is legally allowed to be there while reciting her grocery list in her head, but not allowed to be there if she is reciting a prayer in her head, then the only difference between legal and illegal is based entirely on what's going on inside her head.

 

If someone feared a confrontation from her behaviour while reciting a grocery list, she could have been arrested by law. 
 

In this day and age with the history of attacks on abortion clinics, just standing around doing anything could trigger fear in someone working at or visiting an abortion clinic. 
 

My guess is she and her videographer and legal team chose praying to ramp up the sympathy. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

In the video smac posted it sounds like this wasn’t the first time she was there.  The police stated that there were allegations that she was there multiple days that they wanted to question her about.  

Any info on the camera crew?  Were they there with her on those days as well?   If I had to guess, they were hiding out in a parked car down the street waiting for the police to arrive, at which point they jumped out and started filming.  It became clear at that point this was more than just about praying (nobody prays with a camera man waiting for the police to show up, without ulterior motives) but was a protest - which is illegal in that protected zone.

She was arrested on suspicion of violating the public space protection order. They wanted to question her further about the multiple days that she was there.  Was she charged?  I don’t know how she wouldn’t be after this video and set-up made her intentions clear.

The first day, nobody cared or called the police.  The second day, nobody called.  We don’t know how many days it took before the police were called but the allegation was that she was there “other days”.  Creepy.  I would find that incredibly intimidating and concerning if I worked there, especially given the history of threats, violence, and intimidation against such workers.  

This was a set-up.  A clear protest. 

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

Standing in a restricted area.  A very small restricted area that she could easily avoid and likely has to go out of her way to get to. 

Ah yes. The functional equivalent of reckless driving, posing a threat to life and limb. 
 

How fortunate that such a menace was taken off the streets in good time. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

If she is legally allowed to be there while reciting her grocery list in her head, but not allowed to be there if she is reciting a prayer in her head, then the only difference between legal and illegal is based entirely on what's going on inside her head.

That the goverent can thus criminalize thought is a rather scary prospect. 

How many people intentionally drive out of their way to stand in front of an abortion clinic (she admitted that is why she was there) over multiple days, with a camera man waiting for the police to arrive so they can upload it to go viral but are only there to “recite a grocery list” in her head, or to even just “pray” without ulterior motives of viral and digital protest?

This isn’t about what she was doing in her head, it is about her suspected violation of the public space protection order.  

Edited December 24, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ah yes. The functional equivalent of reckless driving, posing a threat to life and limb. 
 

How fortunate that such a menace was taken off the streets in good time. 

The law does not state she has to be reckless. The law states her behaviour needs to cause fear. Refusing to move from the immediate vicinity after hanging out there for multiple days and after being requested to do so is a reasonable cause of fear for someone who is a target of death and bomb threats. 
 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If she was just praying in her mind, how did they know she was praying?

It's in the video.  The name of the woman is Isabel Vaughan-Spruce:

• Officer: What are you here for today?
• Vaughan-Spruce: Physically, I'm just standing here.
• Officer: Okay.  Why here of all places?  I know you don't live nearby.
• Vaughan-Spruce: That this is an abortion center.
• Officer: Okay.  That's why you're here.  Is you standing here part of the protest?
• Vaughan-Spruce: No.  I'm not protesting.
• Officer: Are you praying?
• Vaughan-Spruce: I might be praying in my head.
• Officer: I'll ask you once more.  Will you voluntarily come with us now to the police station for me to ask you some questions about today and other days where there are allegations that you've broken the public space protection order?
• Vaughan-Spruce: If I've got a choice, then no.  
• Officer: Okay.  Then you're under arrest on suspicion of failing to comply with the public spaces protection order, which is in the anti-social behavior...

Thanks,

-Smac