praying in public in Chicago = disordely conduct

[cammerfe]

Not The Same

Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.

Not necessarily. Freedom OF religion means that I can choose my form of religion. Freedom FROM religion could easily be construed as banning any religion in your vicinity. THAT YOU DON'T HAVE.
KS

 

[fossten]

Seems everyone is ignoring this fact:



If he was "standing by the building" praying out loud, he was engaged in "oral protest" and violated the 50 foot rule of the law.

Nobody's "rights" were infringed upon, he's free to pray in public 50 feet or more away from heath care facilities. He was asked to move and he refused. He got what he was asking for, attention and 15 mins of fame. Quit trying to blow this out of proportion, fearmongers.

Once again, the troll shows up and immediately starts calling names. Stay classy, Joanie.

Yeah, arresting somebody when the ordinance doesn't have a jail penalty isn't blowing it out of proportion though, right?

Somebody's thinking with his reptilian brain.

 

[cammerfe]

I'm not Catholic, and don't know a whole lot about 'The Rosary', but I was completely unaware that it had anything to do with reproduction. Unless reproduction, as offered by this organization, is affected by such prayer, it seems to me to be a serious reach to suggest that he was doing anything that could properly be classed as interfering with their operation.

KS

 

[shagdrum]

next time i'll find the sarcasm smiley

So...you can't explain it. got it.

 

[shagdrum]

was he homeless? his church blown up in a terrorist attack?
what was his purpose of picking this particular spot to pray?
don't play stupid.



funny choice of words. he was testing the law. he failed. but there are those who will make a martyr out of anyone.

There are a lot of assumption you are implicitly making in that.

 

[fossten]

what would you suggest, a ticket and leave him there?

You're telling me there aren't any other real criminals in Chicago that he could be out there catching?

 

[cammerfe]

was he homeless? his church blown up in a terrorist attack?
what was his purpose of picking this particular spot to pray?
don't play stupid.

I wasn't aware that anyone needed permission to pray at any particular time or place.

KS

 

[fossten]

by "he" i assume you mean them(the police), and they were called there.
it's not like they left the scene of a murder to field the complaint.

Actually, police have a scrolling list of calls to take. You're telling me they don't have enough crime in Chicago that they had to go arrest this guy instead?

 

[shagdrum]

explain what. that he wasn't arrested for walking on the sidewalk?

So, why was he arrested? The charge given does not warrant an arrest, only a fine.

 

[fossten]

doesn't exactly sound like he was praying FOR the goodwill of the people entering.

I wasn't aware that you got to decide the topic and demeanor of people's prayers.

Did you ever think they might be praying for the goodwill and survival of the babies about to have their brains sucked out?

 

[shagdrum]

well, if he moved 50' away, i'm sure he wouldn't even of been fined.

Dodging already? I thought you could do better then that...

 

[04SCTLS]

once again, where was abortion mentioned?

It was mentioned by him praying in front of a place where abortions are provided.
If it wasn't for that and he was praying for something else ie extending the Bush tax cuts or Gay Marraige or something well he could do that anywhere instead of in front of a clinic.

It falls under the thing speaks for itself.

Of course maybe this is the only way he could figure out how to meet girls

 

[fossten]

where did i say i do?

Me:

I wasn't aware that anyone needed permission to pray at any particular time or place.

You:

doesn't exactly sound like he was praying FOR the goodwill of the people entering.

This was in DIRECT RESPONSE to my comment, thus implying that the content of the prayer matters in context of getting permission. Since you're the only one who said 'praying for the goodwill', it's obvious that you believe you get to decide that.

Are you going to backtrack now, and say that you didn't mean it that way?

so, they're NOT supposed to show for some is what you're implying?

Nope. But thanks for playing "Who's Obtuse Today?"

 

[shagdrum]

It was mentioned by him praying in front of a place where abortions are provided.

He wasn't praying any old prayer. The rosary is a very specific prayer. Does that prayer have anything to do with abortion?

 

[Calabrio]

Charges Dropped Against Man Arrested While Praying Outside Chicago Abortion Clinic
By Diane Macedo
August 04, 2010
FoxNews.com

The city of Chicago has dropped its case against a man who was charged with disorderly conduct for praying outside an abortion clinic.

A clerk at the Cook County Court confirmed Wednesday that the case against Joe Holland -- a 25-year-old graduate student arrested while praying the rosary outside a Planned Parenthood facility -- had been dropped. The case gained widespread attention after it was reported by FoxNews.com on Monday.

“We are pleased that the City of Chicago has dismissed these false and baseless charges against Joe Holland,” his attorney, Thomas More Society Executive Director Peter Breen, told FoxNews.com. “The First Amendment protects prayer on a public sidewalk in Chicago the same as in any other city in the country."

The Chicago Police Department had no comment on Holland's dismissal. Earlier it had contended that Holland violated the city's new "Bubble Zone" ordinance, which prevents people near a health clinic from approaching within eight feet of another person with the intent to speak to them or hand them a leaflet without their consent. It also prevents people from interfering with another person's ability to enter or exit the building.

"According to the report the offender stood within an inch of the victim, prayed out loud at a high volume for over 10 minutes," Chicago police spokesman Roderick Drew told FoxNews.com.

Ultimately, Drew said, Holland was arrested because he "continued to block customer access to the establishment."

Holland denied the allegations, telling FoxNews.com he never stood in front of the door and never moved from where he was seen standing in a YouTube video of the incident, and that if Planned Parenthood had released its security tapes, they would have proven that.

Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Lara Philipps would not comment directly on the dismissal of Holland's case, but she said she hopes patients' "bubble zones" will continue to be protected.

“The Bubble Zone Ordinance is critical to ensuring that those giving and seeking health care can safely enter and leave medical facilities without harassment and intimidation," Philipps told FoxNews.com. "We look forward to continued full enforcement of the Bubble Zone Ordinance for the protection of patients and staff."

The Thomas More Society is also representing David Avignone, another person charged under the new "bubble zone" ordinance, who was arrested a few days after Holland.

Breen said that he hoped the city of Chicago "will cease the suppression of pro-life speech" and called for the dismissal of that case. Avignone is due to appear in court on Aug. 30.

 

[fossten]

no, it was in direct response to cammerfe.(post 39)
appears you're the winner of who's obtuse today.

Yep you're right - that was his comment - but my response to your question still stands. You think you get to decide what people pray about.

 

[shagdrum]

well, good for him. still, a person deserves what happens when you go about testing laws.

What evidence is there that he was "testing laws"? Are you passing off speculation as fact? Again?

 

[cammerfe]

Cheap Shot

no, it was in direct response to cammerfe.(post 39)
appears you're the winner of who's obtuse today.

Foss said the same thing in slightly different words so he has my permission.

And it looks as if the pray-er now has a good case to bring as a Federal suit for false arrest.

KS

 

[fossten]

what would be the reason for the comment

those are the words of the law.

A perfectly rational response to the officer telling him he was afoul of the law, and telling him what the law was. Officer - You're breaking the law. It says X. Citizen: No I'm not, I'm outside X.

where do i mention it's my decision?
yet again trying to imply things that don't exist.

Your response to

I wasn't aware that anyone needed permission to pray at any particular time or place.

was

doesn't exactly sound like he was praying FOR the goodwill of the people entering.

So...either you were just blathering a complete non sequitur in a drunken stupor and/or unable to come up with a response that naturally answered cammerfe's comment

OR

You meant that as a response to his comment about permission...

THUS IMPLYING

that the type of prayer matters vis-a-vis obtaining permission to pray at a particular time or place.

Of course, instead of backpedaling over and over, you can just clear all this up by explaining why you made the 'goodwill' comment and how it fits in context with cammerfe's comment about permission.

 

[fossten]

he would have had to have known the laws words to blather such an idiot response.



sorry. i don't have drunken stupors.
that in no way implies a permission.



i never stated he COULDN"T pray.
he was arrested for harrasing, not praying.
but then i'm supposed to listen to somebody who is a liar?

Your entire argument is moot since charges were dismissed. Now sit back and eat even more crow as his civil lawsuit commences.

 

[foxpaws]

Foss said the same thing in slightly different words so he has my permission.

And it looks as if the pray-er now has a good case to bring as a Federal suit for false arrest.

KS

Probably not - the officers were responding to a complaint - and their interpretation of the law wasn't extremely out of bounds. The DA office then reviewed the case and dropped the charges - correctly. Wrongful arrest charges are very difficult to prove - and in this case - probably the police weren't overstepping the line by enough to support a suit brought by Holland or any anti choice group.

 

[04SCTLS]

Probably not - the officers were responding to a complaint - and their interpretation of the law wasn't extremely out of bounds. The DA office then reviewed the case and dropped the charges - correctly. Wrongful arrest charges are very difficult to prove - and in this case - probably the police weren't overstepping the line by enough to support a suit brought by Holland or any anti choice group.

The public wants cops to be aggressive and the judges to be the ones deciding if the charges are appropriate.

It seems to have worked in this case.

Wrongful arrest?
Cops can kill people mistakenly busting down the wrong door not identifying themselves and juries will let them walk or just get a slap on the wrist.

 

[fossten]

anti choice group.

Pathetic.

 

[foxpaws]

Pathetic.

Accurate...

 

[fossten]

Accurate...

I thought my characterization of your comment was accurate, thank you.

Let me know when the babies start having a choice in PP's abortion mills, by the way. I won't hold my breath.