Arrested for praying

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She literally had a camera crew standing by… Listen, I’ve got the bridge I can give you for cheap. It’s in Brooklyn. 

Maybe it was a documentary crew doing a documentary about people punching Nazis and they accidentally caught this on camera? It could be true. Hard to know for sure.

[rodheadlee]

On 12/23/2022 at 5:09 PM, CA Steve said:

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

 

 

 

I stop praying at 120 miles an hour. 2 mi per minute is fast enough for me, there are too many cars on the road now. At least here in California. 

[Damien the Leper]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To quote a very recent post from Calm, “Why are you making this about me?  How absurd.”

Come now, Scott. Address the bolded portion. It's not about you but about your willful inability to deal with the full issues.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I stop praying at 120 miles an hour. 2 mi per minute is fast enough for me, there are too many cars on the road now. At least here in California. 

Due to relativity praying at high speed is actually praying less.

[sunstoned]

On 12/23/2022 at 6:02 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

If the only thing the person was doing was praying silently, I wouldn’t be bothered by it, nor would I consider it trespassing. So your tu quoque fallacy fails. 

She was in a restricted zone, protesting.  This is the reason she was arrested.

Edited December 25, 2022 by sunstoned

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

She was in a restricted zone, protesting.  This is the reason she was arrested.

I think you will find that the headlines about this situation disrespectfully disagree because it wouldn’t work as well as click-bait if it were factual.

[provoman]

On 12/23/2022 at 5:43 PM, The Nehor said:

This was an attempt to intimidate people going to a clinic and using the "I am not actually touching you" playground defense.

I doubt you will find praying on her arrest paperwork. She violated a law by going into an area that is protected from any possibility of harassment due to a history of rampant harassment.

She wasn't arrested for praying. That is ridiculous spin. Basically if you aren't going into or leaving the clinic you don't go into those zones. She was there to protest and possibly to intimidate and is now using the "I didn't actually touch you" defense. Plus the Bible tells people not to pray in order to be seen so this is kind of wrong on a religious level too.

Mostly peaceful protest?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Mostly peaceful protest?

These "protests" are often much less about protesting and instead are about harassment. The protestors attempt to recast the harassment as "helping" but this kind of pretending and creatively reinterpreting what their actions might appear to be to a third party and not what they appear to be to the emotionally vulnerable people being "helped" is why these zones were created. It is an elaborate charade where the aggressor attempts to masquerade as a victim. It is not like a general protest of something going on in society. It is a very individualized form of coercion targeting specific people. Usually vulnerable people. It is very cowardly and why I am not surprised they use playground "I'm not actually touching you" tactics.

In many ways I have greater respect for someone who just tries to firebomb the clinic. At least they aren't two-faced morally immature nitwits equivocating about their convictions. That being said the greater respect is still respect at the "needs an electron microscope to see" level and I find both detestable.

I don't understand how anyone respects these moral lightweights. If I woke up tomorrow convinced abortion was equivalent to murder and was set on doing something about it I wouldn't target the vulnerable who couldn't change the law if they wanted to. That is repulsive and cowardly. It is punching down. It is just fodder for propaganda. I would target the powerful behind making abortion legal and anyone making scratch off of it. Make them a hiss and a byword. Make those seeking abortions into victims of those people and you have a winning message. This approach is just sad and pathetic and turns away anyone undecided or open to change that has any strong moral convictions.

[provoman]

 

Just read the ordinance in question, which prohibits prayer in a designated area.

No one is prohibit from being with the zone; however prayer is prohibited. 

The restricted area appears have a hundred or so homes;

 

The PSPO prohibits restricted activity "anywhere in the restricted area"

 

Does this mean no prayer within your own home/religious building within the restricted area?

 

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, provoman said:

Does this mean no prayer within your own home/religious building within the restricted area?

 

If it does, the law needs rewriting big time.

Can you link to the full ordinance please?

Had to look up on google to see where it was on the map, if anyone else is wondering, it is the larger building on the corner of the three way intersection in the middlish of the map.

Edited December 25, 2022 by Calm

[provoman]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it does, the law needs rewriting big time.

Can you link to the full ordinance please?

Had to look up on google to see where it was on the map, if anyone else is wondering, it is the larger building on the corner of the three way intersection in the middlish of the map.

At bottom of the page

 

https://www.birminghambeheard.org.uk/place/robert-clinic-pspo-consultation/

[Vanguard]

Wow. Nice sleuthing to ge the order! As I suspected the lady did not commit any of the listed offenses as I am sure private, silent prayer does not fall under the purview of the order. ; )

[Calm]

I thought it was a rather larger area than needed until I read some of the complaints:
 

“The stress and anxiety the campaign causes to local residents, on a daily basis, is profound. We walk past them; we hear their chanting/praying; our children question their presence; we see them disseminating information to locals (including teenage schoolchildren); and most disturbingly, we see them disseminating information to the patients of the Clinic, at times pushing it on them. The presence of the protestors is seriously affecting the mental health of so many local residents

a. "The impact of their presence on our community is palpable. There have been arguments in the street between protestors and residents and even just people walking past. As a community we do not want them here and I personally do not want to open my curtains or front door to them for 80 days a year! 80 days of feeling negative and angry, 80 days of worrying aboutthe poor women using the clinic, 80 days of having to stop myself from walking over and shouting at them. They are part of some massive global organisation; they aren’t part of our community and they have no right to upset so many of us by protesting about something which is totally legal in this country! I just want them gone and our street corner to be safe for everyone". (local resident)

b. "I have lived by the clinic for the past 11 years. Every time the protestors are there, I become really anxious. As a Christian it angers me that they use their religion to imply they are there to support women to make better choices. This is not only judgmental but untrue. They force leaflets on them and chat in their faces. When I pass by night they lurk in the dark in largegroups. By day they appear to wear the brightest clothing so as to draw more attention to themselves. At the weekend they stand outside the clinic as families, often with children my children's age. This causes me great upset. We don't question or judge the people who need to access the clinic - it is none of our business. I know the decision to have an abortion is not an easy one and the women deserve to access the services without feeling judged.”  (local resident)

c. The protestors are intimidating and approaching women, women who have made their choice and who are entitled to have an abortion in privacy and with dignity and without being harassed by a stranger. I have seen the protestors approach women as they get out of their cars, I have seen them force leaflets into their hands as they walk into the clinic and I have seen them approach school girls on their way to and from school

d. Their chanting is so loud that it can be heard from inside residents' houses, offices and their gardens, above the noise of traffic.  

e. we can hear the commotion from our garden. Every day we are exposed to a constant drip drip drip of people praying, conflict and arguments.  This is constant and is having a detrimental effect on my peace of mind and mental health." (local resident)

i. "I could leave my curtains closed, not open my front door and not sit in my lounge – then I wouldn’t have to see them, but why should I have to do that to protect my mental health! My lounge is a lovely, sunny haven – and yet for 80 days a year I can’t sit in there without feeling miserable and helpless. They are there every day – even on weekends when the clinic is closed."

f. "Absent the protestors, the Clinic is otherwise a discrete provision.  My children were none thewiser – it looks like a house.  It is a source of great anxiety to me that I have to explain or lie to my children. They are 6 and 8." (localresident)

g. "…… I work at the girls’ school, have children there, and at the local primary school. I am very concerned by the protestors regularly engaging and sharing disturbing leaflets withlocal school children. They draw attention to themselves by increasing the volume of their prayer in what feels like an aggressive/confrontational way as people walk past. I know that my own children and some of my pupils (aged 11-18) have felt intimidated by their persistent presence on the route to the school." (local resident)”

Edited December 26, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

It makes sense why prayer was banned in the area.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Wow. Nice sleuthing to ge the order! As I suspected the lady did not commit any of the listed offenses as I am sure private, silent prayer does not fall under the purview of the order. ; )

It could.  The order is open ended

”Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling…”

[Vanguard]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

It could.  The order is open ended

”Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling…”

Again, what demonstraby illegal behaviour was she engaging in? It strains the conscience to argue that one's thoughts are now under the purview of the local constable. Don't you have an issue with that? For that matter, she said she "might" be praying silently. How does one get to the bottom of that? Yikes.

It earlier stipulates any ACT of behavior before specifying prayer. How are one's thoughts now an act?

Edited December 26, 2022 by Vanguard

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Again, what demonstraby illegal behaviour was she engaging in? It strains the conscience to argue that one's thoughts are now under the purview of the local constable. Don't you have an issue with that? For that matter, she said she "might" be praying silently. How does one get to the bottom of that? Yikes.

It earlier stipulates any ACT of behavior before specifying prayer. How are one's thoughts now an act?

Was she charged for praying, first of all?  That is not why she was arrested, according to the video. If she wasn’t actually charged for praying, then this is a straw-man.  She was not arrested for the thoughts in her head (that is the smoke and mirrors in all of this) but for her suspicious and unusual behavior which targeted an abortion clinic over a several day period before she was finally reported to police, who also agreed based upon their best judgment that her behavior was “suspicious” of violating the order and wanted to question her further about her being there.  Seems entirely reasonable given the circumstances, person, behavior, camera, and context of the clinic - admitting that she was targeting that specific, out-of-the-way location to literally “take a stand”.

You agreed earlier that if a group of people were “just standing there” and not saying or doing anything else, that could be considered a form of statement or protest.    I am entirely unsure why it must be a group before it could be perceived by police as a statement, and why not an individual and President of a pro-life activist group specifically targeting an abortion clinic to “take a stand” in front of said clinic day, after day…potentially until someone stops her.    

That seems like an arbitrary rule that you just made up.  What if she was there 5 days? 7? 10? 30?  50??  Seriously, where is the cut-off, Vanguard, before it could be reasonably judged as “suspicious” by police?  This ultimately becomes a judgment call by local law enforcement, and I find their judgment to arrest her on suspicion for further questioning entirely reasonable given the circumstances.  I think you would be hard pressed to find a judge who would disagree given the history of protest and harassment of that location and given her person and very unusual behavior in targeting an abortion clinic to stand in front of over multiple days.

Now, if they actually charged her because she was “praying”, I agree with you that she might have a case.  But as far as the actual arrest goes (which wasn’t for praying as far as I could tell), they seem to have done everything right and under the law and under reasonable suspicion.

If you agree (which you already have) that more than 1 person “standing there” can be an act of protest, aka “act of approval or disapproval” (which is illegal in that zone), then you stand on really, really, runny jello/floppy ground if you also suggest an individual couldn’t do the same over a period of time/days.  They’re just “standing there” after all!  No statement could possibly be made or picked up by the media who find out she is the President of a pro-life activist group just standing in front of an abortion clinic, and in a protected no protest zone, day, after day, after day….  One would have to be out-of-their mind to think it is reasonable to conclude that such behavior is suspicious coming from such a person!     I mean, what could she possibly be trying to say by her presence over many days?  No media group or independent would ever pick that up - because there simply is no story there, right?

Edited December 26, 2022 by pogi

[provoman]

3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Again, what demonstraby illegal behaviour was she engaging in? It strains the conscience to argue that one's thoughts are now under the purview of the local constable. Don't you have an issue with that? For that matter, she said she "might" be praying silently. How does one get to the bottom of that? Yikes.

It earlier stipulates any ACT of behavior before specifying prayer. How are one's thoughts now an act?

Officer: Are you praying

Person: might be in my head

Officer: we want you to come to the station about your conduct

Person: No

Officer: you are under arrest.

It seems pretty clear that the only suspicion the Officer had was her admitting about prayer in her head.

I articles I read, she claims she was shown pictures of herself and asked if she was praying in those moments.

As a condition of bail, she is prohibited from praying outside the restricted zone.

It seems clear to me she was charged with "praying". 

[pogi]

8 hours ago, provoman said:

Officer: Are you praying

Person: might be in my head

Officer: we want you to come to the station about your conduct

Person: No

Officer: you are under arrest.

It seems pretty clear that the only suspicion the Officer had was her admitting about prayer in her head.

I articles I read, she claims she was shown pictures of herself and asked if she was praying in those moments.

As a condition of bail, she is prohibited from praying outside the restricted zone.

It seems clear to me she was charged with "praying". 

Wow, that version is not deceptive at all!  Amazing what one sees when smoke and mirrors are placed before their eyes to see what they want to see.  It is remarkable how easy it is to distract the eyes on what one wants people to see, especially when they really want to see it.

Your narrative above reminds me of the end result of the telephone game, but with really manipulative people (this lady and her organized conspirators of deception, and the media) in the middle.

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

• 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: …this is an abortion center.
• Officer: Okay.  That's why you're here.  Is you standing here part of a protest?
• Vaughan-Spruce: No.  I'm not protesting.
• Officer: Are you praying?
• Vaughan-Spruce: I might be praying in my head.

[Note, no arrest immediately following this line of questioning, no arrest for what she’s “maybe” thinking in her head, but they want to question her suspicious behavior over several days and regarding specific allegations of violating the order (no mention of prayer)]

• 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... 

She was not arrested “for praying”, but “on suspicion of failing to comply with the public spaces protection order” (no mention of prayer), and to question her further about “allegations” and to find out more about her suspicious behavior there over multiple days.
 
To not take her in under suspicion given the unusual behavior over several DAYS, complaints and allegations, and given her testimony that she was specifically targeting the out of the way clinic with her unusual behavior, would have been negligent on the part of the police!  At the bare minimum, some kind of statement/protest?  Praying out loud on other days (hard to tell from”pictures”)?  Something more sinister? they had no idea what it was exactly that was going on - but reasonably suspicious for sure, and questions about praying don’t seem out of line.

She never admitted to praying, so to assume that is why she was arrested is unreasonable given what the police actually said.  Again, was she ever charged with praying, or are y’all going to blindly continue their deception in the name of prayer (weaponizing it without cause) without the facts?  Was she ever charged with anything?

To make this arrest about “prayer” specifically is to completely ignore and distort what the police actually said.   Thanks, and to all a good night.

Edited December 26, 2022 by pogi

[provoman]

Pogi, the only suspicion was her "praying". 

Being present it not a violation of the PSPO.  So nothing suspicious there. But it was not until after admitting she might have prayed was she asked to voluntarily; then forcibly after refusing. 

Her suspicious conduct was "might have prayed"

Edited December 26, 2022 by provoman

[pogi]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

It seems clear to me she was charged with "praying". 

If so, then I agree that she has a case.  That would be a ridiculous and unreasonable reason to arrest her when there were other extremely legitimate and valid reasons that they actually mentioned in the arrest.

You have given me more than enough reason to question “what seems clear” to you.  Show me the reference.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Pogi, the only suspicion was her "praying". 

Being present it not a violation of the PSPO.  So nothing suspicious there. But it was not until after admitting she might have prayed was she asked to voluntarily; then forcibly after refusing. 

Her suspicious conduct was "might have prayed"

Nope.  There were “allegations” that she violated the order over multiple days that they wanted to question her about.  Most likely surrounding his VERY FIRST QUESTION to her - “Is your standing here part of a protest”?  Hello!  Bingo! Winter-winner-winner!!!  His very FIRST suspicion, and possibly part of the “allegations” (since that is what he asked first) is that her standing there over 3 days is part of a protest.  

Don’t take her denial as good reason for him to dismiss his natural, obvious, reasonable, and good instinct/suspicion that she is protesting.  No cop is that stupid to believe the suspect every time they deny violating the law.

Lots of things to question her further about with a little more information, “if this is not a protest, why does it appear to be an organized effort with an ambushing camera-man (strange for private prayer) from a pro- life (not religious freedom) organization with a media angle?”   “Wait, you are the President of a pro-life activist group…?  

This all would have been so much more believable that this was actually about prayer and religious liberty if they were from religious liberty organizations and not pro-life organizations targeting their efforts in front of an abortion clinic for crying out loud!  Seems a reasonable suspicion to me - call me crazy for suggesting that “praying” was not “the only” suspicion the police had about this organized effort from pro-life activists when they arrested her!  They knew who she was and where she lived.  The clinic likely knew exactly who she was and what she was doing there, and reported that to the police, aka the “allegations”.

Don’t believe for a second that she was only questioned further about “prayer”,  that is all they intentionally “mirror” back to you, leaving the rest of the context of questioning and charges (as far as I can tell - since nobody can bring it forward) hidden.

They arrested her on reasonable suspicion - not on how “truthfully” she answered his questions.  It is entirely unreasonable to assume that he is arresting her based solely on how she answered his questions.  That’s nonsense.

Edited December 26, 2022 by pogi

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Pogi, the only suspicion was her "praying". 

Being present it not a violation of the PSPO.  So nothing suspicious there. But it was not until after admitting she might have prayed was she asked to voluntarily; then forcibly after refusing. 

Her suspicious conduct was "might have prayed"

Wrong. That is what the badly written news articles say (because it makes for good propaganda) but it is simply not true.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, provoman said:

 

Just read the ordinance in question, which prohibits prayer in a designated area.

No one is prohibit from being with the zone; however prayer is prohibited. 

The restricted area appears have a hundred or so homes;

 

The PSPO prohibits restricted activity "anywhere in the restricted area"

 

Does this mean no prayer within your own home/religious building within the restricted area?

 

Nope, read the definitions. It covers it only when the prayer is a form of protest for or against the clinic.

It is clear the law is written to get a collection of intimidating jerks out of the area and the locals are pretty much all for it. Trying to make them victims of the ordinance they themselves want is disingenuous.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Again, what demonstraby illegal behaviour was she engaging in? It strains the conscience to argue that one's thoughts are now under the purview of the local constable. Don't you have an issue with that? For that matter, she said she "might" be praying silently. How does one get to the bottom of that? Yikes.

It earlier stipulates any ACT of behavior before specifying prayer. How are one's thoughts now an act?

It doesn’t say just public prayer, it says “prayer”, technically silent prayer qualifies as breaking the law…and standing around an abortion clinic day after day is most likely going to be judged as an act or attempted act of disapproval.

I already said the law had problems the way it is written multiple times..  Do I have to repeat myself each time I post?

And the use of “might” points out one of its weaknesses.

They need to change the law to no loitering, but .I can see why that might be an issue in the middle of the neighborhood.  What they really need is some good lawyers writing it up such that the neighborhood and their friends can hang out and play on the streets, but unless one is using the local businesses, one needs to pass in through.