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

Only if they're black.

Why wasn’t Trump charged for holding the Bible (allegedly upside down) while peaceful protesters were shot at with rubber bullets? Remember that?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you believe the man's speech fell outside first amendment protections, or that it could have, then give us your argument. Otherwise, maybe you should go back to school and learn about the burden of proof an what constitutes a valid argument.

Many atheists would be against this arrest, as I am. The constitution protects all of our rights.

Even intolerant bigots who use their holy book to express their desire to repress the rights of others.

And the right of neo-nazis to march. Etc.

‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’
-Best attributed to Voltaire

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Care to point to a city or town where a "counter protest" specifically requires a permit?

Almost ever city/town has laws against interfering with business, events, pedestrian and traffic without a protest.

Btw this was not a protest so the dude arrested wasn’t a counter protester he was impeding an event not a protest.

A street preacher busted last week for shouting Bible verses across from a Pride-flag-raising in Pennsylvania has had the disorderly conduct charges against him dropped.

Reading Police Chief Richard Tornielli told WFMZ that Atkins was taken into custody because he was being disruptive to the event and disorderly — not because of what he was saying.

The Berks County District Attorney’s Office said that after reviewing videos of the incident, the charges of disorderly conduct against Atkins were withdrawn Wednesday.

“After review of the video of the incident, including body-worn cameras, and a review of the case law, we did not believe we could prove a criminal case of disorderly conduct,” the office said in a statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Care to point to a city or town where a "counter protest" specifically requires a permit?

Almost ever city/town has laws against interfering with business, events, pedestrian and traffic without a protest.

Btw this was not a protest so the dude arrested wasn’t a counter protester he was impeding an event not a protest.

You are making stuff up.

The news says he was arrested for disorderly conduct. He was not arrested for “impeding an event.”

That’s the second time you posted the same false information. Why do you keep lying?

I think because they are in favor of free speech as long as it's speech they agree with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Care to point to a city or town where a "counter protest" specifically requires a permit?

Almost ever city/town has laws against interfering with business, events, pedestrian and traffic without a protest.

Btw this was not a protest so the dude arrested wasn’t a counter protester he was impeding an event not a protest.

You are making stuff up.

The news says he was arrested for disorderly conduct. He was not arrested for “impeding an event.”

That’s the second time you posted the same false information. Why do you keep lying?

Correction without a permit *

Anonymous wrote:

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

Care to point to a city or town where a "counter protest" specifically requires a permit?

Almost ever city/town has laws against interfering with business, events, pedestrian and traffic without a protest.

Btw this was not a protest so the dude arrested wasn’t a counter protester he was impeding an event not a protest.

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.

Right. I wonder what his purpose was to be preaching right then and there.

That's totally rediculous.

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

Care to point to a city or town where a "counter protest" specifically requires a permit?

Anonymous wrote:
If he was spouting hate speech, then yes it could have been illegal.

"Hate speech" is not illegal anywhere in the US.

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.

You only have to listen to his own recording of the incident to hear him referring to the event as a "satan cess pit" and worse.

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

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.

Do you know how many murder cases don’t go to trial because the evidence doesn’t stand up in court, but the person is fully guilty. His charges were dismissed because the DA wants to be elected at some point in his life and he doesn’t want us to come back to him.