Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are rules for counter protests, he was arrested for that.

Charges were dropped so the crazies don’t show up in their town.

He wasn’t violating any counter protest rules. He was arrested for disorderly conduct, and the charges were dropped because he wasn’t disorderly.


Do you have a source to back up the claims in your post?

I assumed that pp was just expressing their opinion.

No I was explaining how the law works.

Coos and courts work under different rules. A cop only needs reasonable suspicion… courts need reasonable doubt… society needs neither.

Reasonable suspicion is used in determining the legality of a police officer's decision to perform a search.

This man didn’t need to be searched. He was arrested for disorderly conduct and the charges were dropped because he was not conducting himself in a disorderly manner.

You don’t know how the law works and need to quit pushing and broadcasting misinformation on the internet.

No it doesn’t have anything to do with searching.

Reasonable suspicion means that any reasonable person would suspect that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed or was going to be committed very soon.


This is why vigil antes need not conduct police business they, like you, don’t understand the law.

Reasonable suspicion is what law enforcement officers (idk where you are getting the term “reasonable person” from, it’s quite obvious you are making it up) must have to detain a person they suspect of either committing a crime or previously committing a crime.

This man was not detained, genius. He was arrested for committing disorderly conduct. After he was arrested, the charge was dropped because the prosecuting attorney where he lived saw the body can and knew the man wasn’t acting disorderly.

He was 1st detained then arrested.

The cop had reasonable suspicion that he was disorderly interfering. The DA chose not to charge him.

Very normal day for a cop. Cops don’t need beyond a reasonable doubt to arrest.

Cops arrest, DA’s decide to charge of not. Criminal justice 101.

That is how the justice system works.

Did you watch the video? He was not detained, he was immediately arrested and put in handcuffs within one minute of arriving.

You are posting legal word salad garbage and should be ignored by reasonable people.

Cops often handcuff people who are nit arrested “for the safety of all”. It prevents coos from misconstruing a move by the perp and shooting them. Perp also don’t know you can’t do things like put your hand in your pocket when detained or you might get shot.

You act like a cop making and arrest and a DA not charging is unusual.. it’s actually more usual than an arrest being charged.

That’s why coos and courts don’t like each other. Cops catch court let them go, cops catch courts let them go

Cops only handcuff people they are arresting.

There are other situations where police and other law enforcement officers can legally handcuff people even when they aren’t being placed under arrest.

For officer safety: Law enforcement officers typically have fairly broad leeway to place someone in handcuffs during an interaction if they believe that it’s necessary to protect themselves from harm.

When a search warrant is being executed

At any time while a person is in custody: This can include times when a person is being moved from one place to another – like from the courthouse to jail and back or from one part of the jail to another. If a person is considered dangerous, they may have to spend their trial handcuffed.

This man wasn’t warned he was being disorderly before being placed under arrest for disorderly conduct.

He was not detained under suspicion of committing a crime and then arrested at a later date. He was arrested immediately, within a minute or two.

I didn’t read past the bolded because UOU HAVD NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

That one statement negates everything else you wrote wrote.

If you're going to go to a Pride event and shout anti-gay bigotry (from the Bible or otherwise), you must have an insanely crazy sense of entitlement.

It's like going to a Black History Month celebration, and shouting white supremacy propaganda.

Or going to an Eid or Hanukkah celebration and reading Bible verses.

On what entitled planet does one think they should suffer no repercussions for any of these?

No decent Christian would agree that this is what Jesus would do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Preaching at a Pride event. Was it anti LGBTQ?

Even if it was, that's not reason for arrest. That's not illegal.

the article is just bare-bones, but it said he was across the street and quoted a bible verse. I don't see how that can be very "disruptive."

The man clearly meant to provoke the people who were attending a permitted event. The officer was trying to prevent an incident. However, you can’t arrest someone in anticipation of something that *might* happen.

We know....you have to be hurt, hit, knifed, shot, raped, murdered, etc. Then thoughts, prayers, arrest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Preaching at a Pride event. Was it anti LGBTQ?

Even if it was, that's not reason for arrest. That's not illegal.

If he was spouting hate speech, then yes it could have been illegal. Yes, many religious texts contain hate speech, especially when used in the context of a Pride celebration and meant to be intimidating to others.

Quoting Bible verses publicly is not hate speech.

Hate speech is contextual. You can say what you want in your own home. You cannot say what you want, or read what you want, when you want publicly, particularly in the context of what else is going on around you. And while not all of the Bible is hateful, there is most certainly some hateful speech contained in the Bible (and within parts of many/most other religious texts).

The man wasn’t arrested for hate speech. He wasn’t engaged in hate speech.

You are not a fan of our Constitution, and are making up weird rules that don’t apply to this case or any case.

Oh heavens. Do you seriously not know that "Freedom of Speech" isn't limitless? Are you still in elementary school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are rules for counter protests, he was arrested for that.

Charges were dropped so the crazies don’t show up in their town.

He wasn’t violating any counter protest rules. He was arrested for disorderly conduct, and the charges were dropped because he wasn’t disorderly.


Do you have a source to back up the claims in your post?

I assumed that pp was just expressing their opinion.

No I was explaining how the law works.

Coos and courts work under different rules. A cop only needs reasonable suspicion… courts need reasonable doubt… society needs neither.

Reasonable suspicion is used in determining the legality of a police officer's decision to perform a search.

This man didn’t need to be searched. He was arrested for disorderly conduct and the charges were dropped because he was not conducting himself in a disorderly manner.

You don’t know how the law works and need to quit pushing and broadcasting misinformation on the internet.

No it doesn’t have anything to do with searching.

Reasonable suspicion means that any reasonable person would suspect that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed or was going to be committed very soon.


This is why vigil antes need not conduct police business they, like you, don’t understand the law.

Reasonable suspicion is what law enforcement officers (idk where you are getting the term “reasonable person” from, it’s quite obvious you are making it up) must have to detain a person they suspect of either committing a crime or previously committing a crime.

This man was not detained, genius. He was arrested for committing disorderly conduct. After he was arrested, the charge was dropped because the prosecuting attorney where he lived saw the body can and knew the man wasn’t acting disorderly.

He was 1st detained then arrested.

The cop had reasonable suspicion that he was disorderly interfering. The DA chose not to charge him.

Very normal day for a cop. Cops don’t need beyond a reasonable doubt to arrest.

Cops arrest, DA’s decide to charge of not. Criminal justice 101.

That is how the justice system works.

Did you watch the video? He was not detained, he was immediately arrested and put in handcuffs within one minute of arriving.

You are posting legal word salad garbage and should be ignored by reasonable people.

Cops often handcuff people who are nit arrested “for the safety of all”. It prevents coos from misconstruing a move by the perp and shooting them. Perp also don’t know you can’t do things like put your hand in your pocket when detained or you might get shot.

You act like a cop making and arrest and a DA not charging is unusual.. it’s actually more usual than an arrest being charged.

That’s why coos and courts don’t like each other. Cops catch court let them go, cops catch courts let them go

This man wasn’t let go by a court. His charges were dismissed because they wouldn’t hold up in a court case. The prosecutor in charge of bringing cases to court knew that and dropped the charges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Preaching at a Pride event. Was it anti LGBTQ?

Even if it was, that's not reason for arrest. That's not illegal.

If he was spouting hate speech, then yes it could have been illegal. Yes, many religious texts contain hate speech, especially when used in the context of a Pride celebration and meant to be intimidating to others.

Quoting Bible verses publicly is not hate speech.

Hate speech is contextual. You can say what you want in your own home. You cannot say what you want, or read what you want, when you want publicly, particularly in the context of what else is going on around you. And while not all of the Bible is hateful, there is most certainly some hateful speech contained in the Bible (and within parts of many/most other religious texts).

The man wasn’t arrested for hate speech. He wasn’t engaged in hate speech.

You are not a fan of our Constitution, and are making up weird rules that don’t apply to this case or any case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are rules for counter protests, he was arrested for that.

Charges were dropped so the crazies don’t show up in their town.

He wasn’t violating any counter protest rules. He was arrested for disorderly conduct, and the charges were dropped because he wasn’t disorderly.


Do you have a source to back up the claims in your post?

I assumed that pp was just expressing their opinion.

No I was explaining how the law works.

Coos and courts work under different rules. A cop only needs reasonable suspicion… courts need reasonable doubt… society needs neither.

Reasonable suspicion is used in determining the legality of a police officer's decision to perform a search.

This man didn’t need to be searched. He was arrested for disorderly conduct and the charges were dropped because he was not conducting himself in a disorderly manner.

You don’t know how the law works and need to quit pushing and broadcasting misinformation on the internet.

No it doesn’t have anything to do with searching.

Reasonable suspicion means that any reasonable person would suspect that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed or was going to be committed very soon.


This is why vigil antes need not conduct police business they, like you, don’t understand the law.

Reasonable suspicion is what law enforcement officers (idk where you are getting the term “reasonable person” from, it’s quite obvious you are making it up) must have to detain a person they suspect of either committing a crime or previously committing a crime.

This man was not detained, genius. He was arrested for committing disorderly conduct. After he was arrested, the charge was dropped because the prosecuting attorney where he lived saw the body can and knew the man wasn’t acting disorderly.

He was 1st detained then arrested.

The cop had reasonable suspicion that he was disorderly interfering. The DA chose not to charge him.

Very normal day for a cop. Cops don’t need beyond a reasonable doubt to arrest.

Cops arrest, DA’s decide to charge of not. Criminal justice 101.

That is how the justice system works.

Did you watch the video? He was not detained, he was immediately arrested and put in handcuffs within one minute of arriving.

You are posting legal word salad garbage and should be ignored by reasonable people.

Cops often handcuff people who are nit arrested “for the safety of all”. It prevents coos from misconstruing a move by the perp and shooting them. Perp also don’t know you can’t do things like put your hand in your pocket when detained or you might get shot.

You act like a cop making and arrest and a DA not charging is unusual.. it’s actually more usual than an arrest being charged.

That’s why coos and courts don’t like each other. Cops catch court let them go, cops catch courts let them go

Cops only handcuff people they are arresting.

There are other situations where police and other law enforcement officers can legally handcuff people even when they aren’t being placed under arrest.

For officer safety: Law enforcement officers typically have fairly broad leeway to place someone in handcuffs during an interaction if they believe that it’s necessary to protect themselves from harm.

When a search warrant is being executed

At any time while a person is in custody: This can include times when a person is being moved from one place to another – like from the courthouse to jail and back or from one part of the jail to another. If a person is considered dangerous, they may have to spend their trial handcuffed.

This man wasn’t warned he was being disorderly before being placed under arrest for disorderly conduct.

He was not detained under suspicion of committing a crime and then arrested at a later date. He was arrested immediately, within a minute or two.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Preaching at a Pride event. Was it anti LGBTQ?

Even if it was, that's not reason for arrest. That's not illegal.

If he was spouting hate speech, then yes it could have been illegal. Yes, many religious texts contain hate speech, especially when used in the context of a Pride celebration and meant to be intimidating to others.

Quoting Bible verses publicly is not hate speech.

Hate speech is contextual. You can say what you want in your own home. You cannot say what you want, or read what you want, when you want publicly, particularly in the context of what else is going on around you. And while not all of the Bible is hateful, there is most certainly some hateful speech contained in the Bible (and within parts of many/most other religious texts).

§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.


§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.
§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=55&sctn=3&subsctn=0&mobile_choice=suppress

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are rules for counter protests, he was arrested for that.

Charges were dropped so the crazies don’t show up in their town.

He wasn’t violating any counter protest rules. He was arrested for disorderly conduct, and the charges were dropped because he wasn’t disorderly.


Do you have a source to back up the claims in your post?

I assumed that pp was just expressing their opinion.

No I was explaining how the law works.

Coos and courts work under different rules. A cop only needs reasonable suspicion… courts need reasonable doubt… society needs neither.

Reasonable suspicion is used in determining the legality of a police officer's decision to perform a search.

This man didn’t need to be searched. He was arrested for disorderly conduct and the charges were dropped because he was not conducting himself in a disorderly manner.

You don’t know how the law works and need to quit pushing and broadcasting misinformation on the internet.

No it doesn’t have anything to do with searching.

Reasonable suspicion means that any reasonable person would suspect that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed or was going to be committed very soon.


This is why vigil antes need not conduct police business they, like you, don’t understand the law.

Reasonable suspicion is what law enforcement officers (idk where you are getting the term “reasonable person” from, it’s quite obvious you are making it up) must have to detain a person they suspect of either committing a crime or previously committing a crime.

This man was not detained, genius. He was arrested for committing disorderly conduct. After he was arrested, the charge was dropped because the prosecuting attorney where he lived saw the body can and knew the man wasn’t acting disorderly.

He was 1st detained then arrested.

The cop had reasonable suspicion that he was disorderly interfering. The DA chose not to charge him.

Very normal day for a cop. Cops don’t need beyond a reasonable doubt to arrest.

Cops arrest, DA’s decide to charge of not. Criminal justice 101.

That is how the justice system works.

Did you watch the video? He was not detained, he was immediately arrested and put in handcuffs within one minute of arriving.

You are posting legal word salad garbage and should be ignored by reasonable people.

Cops often handcuff people who are nit arrested “for the safety of all”. It prevents coos from misconstruing a move by the perp and shooting them. Perp also don’t know you can’t do things like put your hand in your pocket when detained or you might get shot.

You act like a cop making and arrest and a DA not charging is unusual.. it’s actually more usual than an arrest being charged.

That’s why coos and courts don’t like each other. Cops catch court let them go, cops catch courts let them go

Anonymous wrote:He wasn’t complying with an order for the police. Lots of people get shot for that.

Yeah, but usually not if they’re white.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Preaching at a Pride event. Was it anti LGBTQ?

Even if it was, that's not reason for arrest. That's not illegal.

If he was spouting hate speech, then yes it could have been illegal. Yes, many religious texts contain hate speech, especially when used in the context of a Pride celebration and meant to be intimidating to others.

Quoting Bible verses publicly is not hate speech.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Preaching at a Pride event. Was it anti LGBTQ?

Even if it was, that's not reason for arrest. That's not illegal.

If he was spouting hate speech, then yes it could have been illegal. Yes, many religious texts contain hate speech, especially when used in the context of a Pride celebration and meant to be intimidating to others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He wasn’t complying with an order for the police. Lots of people get shot for that.

It is beyond dispute that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to express religious views in public. What’s more, for the street preacher, oral speech is specifically shielded by the First Amendment.

The cop was beyond wrong.

There are also laws against counter protests and blocking a sidewalk without a permit.

Freedom of religion has guardrails. There was a reasonable suspicion that he broke those guard rails.

Some towns/cities have ordinances requiring permits for activities such as street preaching or counter protest; some have noise ordinances.

No where have either of these issues been mentioned as a factor in the arrest of this man.

The DA said he was arrested for disorderly conduct and subsequently dropped the charge against the man after reviewing body cam video.

Of course that is what he said.

The guy did not comply with a lawful order. He was legally arrested and the DA decided not to press charges.

Happens all the time.

The cop was not giving a “lawful order.”

An order is generally lawful provided that it is for police purposes and would NOT render you liable to any criminal, civil or disciplinary action.

The order the cop gave was strikingly and clearly in direct opposition to the First Amendment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He wasn’t complying with an order for the police. Lots of people get shot for that.

It is beyond dispute that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to express religious views in public. What’s more, for the street preacher, oral speech is specifically shielded by the First Amendment.

The cop was beyond wrong.

There are also laws against counter protests and blocking a sidewalk without a permit.

Freedom of religion has guardrails. There was a reasonable suspicion that he broke those guard rails.

Some towns/cities have ordinances requiring permits for activities such as street preaching or counter protest; some have noise ordinances.

No where have either of these issues been mentioned as a factor in the arrest of this man.

The DA said he was arrested for disorderly conduct and subsequently dropped the charge against the man after reviewing body cam video.

Of course that is what he said.

The guy did not comply with a lawful order. He was legally arrested and the DA decided not to press charges.

Happens all the time.