Case of Arrested Street Preacher Who Told Police to "Repent" [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Case of Arrested Street Preacher Who Told Police to "Repent"


NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-01-2012, 16:11
Summary:

Two street preachers were preaching in a public park. Law enforcement told them to turn off their amplifier. They complied. One preacher, Jesse Boyd, then said to the officers, “Shame on you officers, this is the USA, not the Soviet Union.” Boyd also told the officers to "repent."

Boyd was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. The D.A. dismissed the charges.

The Rutherford Institute has written a letter (see article) demanding that the town revise its noise ordinance and train its officers in the first amendment. They are also seeking $13,000 for the preachers and $2,000 in legal fees.

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/rutherford_institute_defends_street_preacher_arrested_for_urging_nc_police

High-Gear
08-01-2012, 16:54
He was using a bull horn to be heard over the din of the 4th of july celebration, then continued yelling at the officers. I'm thinking if he was interupting another program, a concert, or the like, a disorderly conduct charge was warranted. You have freedom of speech, as long as that speech does not intrude onother's rights.

If this were a case of a muslim "preaching" during a concert in the park I bet it would be a different story.


**** I looked it up, and it appears he was asked to stop during the fireworks and music display, however he chose to argue and then yell at officers as they walked away. His actions were disturbing the other people in the park preventing them from enjoying the program.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-01-2012, 18:43
Video of the man preaching in the park:

Preaching in Holly Ridge, NC prior to Arrest - YouTube




Video of Boyd telling officers to repent and then his arrest. Also shows officer telling the videographer to turn off camera. The officer tells videographer to produce ID:

Arrested in Holly Ridge, NC - YouTube

Syclone538
08-02-2012, 10:30
It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

The Rutherford Institute seems pretty good, I've been watching their youtube videos for a long time.

fowl intent
08-02-2012, 15:43
What an jerk. Should have been arrested

Syclone538
08-02-2012, 20:50
What an jerk. Should have been arrested

For what?

IhRedrider
08-02-2012, 21:55
For what?

Because he has a different opinion than others. Just like the reason there needs to be legal action taken against Chik-fil-a.
If we allow this kind of behavior to continue, how is the general population going to be controlled by those in power? It's for the children.

ImpeachObama
08-02-2012, 23:07
If your watching a fireworks event, I doubt you would want to listen to this guy preaching. It kind of breaks the mood of the event. Prior to that, I see no problem.

Syclone538
08-03-2012, 00:00
You're right, I wouldn't want to listen to him, but that doesn't mean I have the right violate his rights.

teumessian_fox
08-03-2012, 00:54
You're right, I wouldn't want to listen to him, but that doesn't mean I have the right violate his rights.

Obeying lawful directives has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Get a clue.

If I decide to set up a PA system outside your bedroom window and blast a political ideology till the wee hours of the morning, you still going to defend it as "freedom of speech?"

The guy broke the law and refused to obey lawful orders. He should have been arrested. Doesn't matter what his "message" was.

Animal Mother
08-03-2012, 03:21
Obeying lawful directives has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Get a clue. If the government representative is attempting to prevent protected speech, it isn't a lawful directive.

If I decide to set up a PA system outside your bedroom window and blast a political ideology till the wee hours of the morning, you still going to defend it as "freedom of speech?" This wasn't outside someone's window, it was in a public park.

The guy broke the law and refused to obey lawful orders. He should have been arrested. Doesn't matter what his "message" was.Neither of those things is true, as the District Attorney demonstrated by dismissing the charges.

NMG26
08-03-2012, 03:50
Because he has a different opinion than others. Just like the reason there needs to be legal action taken against Chik-fil-a.
If we allow this kind of behavior to continue, how is the general population going to be controlled by those in power? It's for the children.

So it is ok to tell other peoples kids that they are going to hell?

Scaring children is ok? How far can one go with what you can say in public? Profanity..........is that illegal? If I think telling children that they are going to hell is profane, does that matter?

Forcing an agenda on people in a public area seems to get pretty close to rights violation. I must listen to your BS?

No, you can leave, or put earplugs in.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4611061_laws-against-profanity.html

Brucev
08-03-2012, 07:15
If the government representative is attempting to prevent protected speech, it isn't a lawful directive.
This wasn't outside someone's window, it was in a public park.
Neither of those things is true, as the District Attorney demonstrated by dismissing the charges.

On most occasions we do not agree. This is not one of those occasions.

High-Gear
08-03-2012, 07:32
If your watching a fireworks event, I doubt you would want to listen to this guy preaching. It kind of breaks the mood of the event. Prior to that, I see no problem.

Prior to that, they didn't mess with him.

Animal mother,

Can you use a bull horn, or yell and disrupt a concert in a park? Does the first amendment give me the right to force my opinion on others at the cost of their right to enjoy the program?

Also, the DA dismissing a case dies not mean it did not have legal merit. I file disposition forms daily while I'm on light duty, and really good cases are dropped for silly reasons. Our DA is two years behind, and he will dismiss cases with confessions because the dollar ammount is too low to warrant a prosecution. Thus guy surely didn't want the political heat.

Syclone538
08-03-2012, 08:51
Obeying lawful directives has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Get a clue.

If I decide to set up a PA system outside your bedroom window and blast a political ideology till the wee hours of the morning, you still going to defend it as "freedom of speech?"

The guy broke the law and refused to obey lawful orders. He should have been arrested. Doesn't matter what his "message" was.

Nothing about this story has led me to believe he was trespassing.

He stopped using the amp when asked to, so what law, and what lawful orders?

Woofie
08-03-2012, 10:09
If the government representative is attempting to prevent protected speech, it isn't a lawful directive.
This wasn't outside someone's window, it was in a public park.
Neither of those things is true, as the District Attorney demonstrated by dismissing the charges.

The municipality can make restrictions on speech, and if he was disrupting a public event then a disorderly conduct charge is definitely applicable. He had already committed the crime and police asked him to stop.

He chose to exercise his 1st amendment rights after the police had already decided to politely ask him to quiet down rather than writing him a summons. He has no one to blame but himself.

The DA is a political animal and it is at least as likely that the charges were dismissed as a politcal decision as it is they were dismissed for being a bad charge. I have a feeling that if this had been a "God Hates the Troops" wacko the DA wouldn't have dropped it.

Syclone538
08-03-2012, 13:47
So it is ok to tell other peoples kids that they are going to hell?
...

As long as you allow your children to have contact with that person, yes.

...
Scaring children is ok?
...

In some cases, without question. In other cases, well, it depends. I think generally yes, and that parents have a responsibility to explain that you can't believe everything anyone says.

...
How far can one go with what you can say in public? Profanity..........is that illegal?
...

If it were up to me, pretty far, and it shouldn't be.

...
If I think telling children that they are going to hell is profane, does that matter?
...

Then protect your children from that, by not taking them anywhere you might meet anyone that might disagree with you.

...
Forcing an agenda on people in a public area seems to get pretty close to rights violation. I must listen to your BS?

No, you can leave, or put earplugs in.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4611061_laws-against-profanity.html

He turned off the mic/amp when asked, and people seem to be enjoying the event all around him.

NMG26
08-03-2012, 15:28
Then protect your children from that, by not taking them anywhere you might meet anyone that might disagree with you.



He turned off the mic/amp when asked, and people seem to be enjoying the event all around him.


“If police officers can prevent people from speaking in public parks simply because the speech is perceived as annoying, then the First Amendment has no meaning,” said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute. “Jesse Boyd got it right. It is a great shame for any government agent to be so ignorant of the Constitution, especially the First Amendment, that he not only infringes on a citizen’s rights but does so on the birthday of our nation.”

Maybe that cop learned some much needed humility.

Wonder what it will take for the preacher?

Kingarthurhk
08-03-2012, 18:00
Maybe that cop learned some much needed humility.

Wonder what it will take for the preacher?

You noticed that too? It seemed as if he was intentionally inviting trouble. Where they screwed up is failing to present ID. In most states that is an arrestable offense. They also screwed up in not presenting their identification on a biblical principle:

Mark 12:13-17, "
<sup class="versenum">13 </sup>Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians <sup class="crossreference" value='(I (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-24687I))'></sup> to Jesus to catch him <sup class="crossreference" value='(J (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-24687J))'></sup> in his words. <sup class="versenum">14 </sup>They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax<sup class="footnote" value='[b (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-24688b)]'>[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24688b)]</sup> to Caesar or not? <sup class="versenum">15 </sup>Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” <sup class="versenum">16 </sup>They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.

<sup class="versenum">17 </sup>Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” <sup class="crossreference" value='(K (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-24691K))'></sup>
And they were amazed at him."

Also:

Romans 13:1-7, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, <sup class="crossreference" value='(A (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28268A))'></sup> for there is no authority except that which God has established. <sup class="crossreference" value='(B (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28268B))'></sup> The authorities that exist have been established by God. <sup class="versenum">2 </sup>Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, <sup class="crossreference" value='(C (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28269C))'></sup> and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. <sup class="versenum">3 </sup>For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. <sup class="crossreference" value='(D (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28270D))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">4 </sup>For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. <sup class="crossreference" value='(E (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28271E))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">5 </sup>Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. <sup class="crossreference" value='(F (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28272F))'></sup>
<sup class="versenum">6 </sup>This is also why you pay taxes, <sup class="crossreference" value='(G (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28273G))'></sup> for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; <sup class="crossreference" value='(H (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28274H))'></sup> if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

The preacher might want to examine his own motives.

Kingarthurhk
08-03-2012, 18:00
Maybe that cop learned some much needed humility.

Wonder what it will take for the preacher?

You noticed that too? It seemed as if he was intentionally inviting trouble. Where they screwed up is failing to present ID. In most states that is an arrestable offense. They also screwed up in not presenting their identification on a biblical principle:

Mark 12:13-17, "
<sup class="versenum">13 </sup>Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians <sup class="crossreference" value='(I (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-24687I))'></sup> to Jesus to catch him <sup class="crossreference" value='(J (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-24687J))'></sup> in his words. <sup class="versenum">14 </sup>They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax<sup class="footnote" value='[b (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-24688b)]'>[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24688b)]</sup> to Caesar or not? <sup class="versenum">15 </sup>Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” <sup class="versenum">16 </sup>They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.

<sup class="versenum">17 </sup>Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” <sup class="crossreference" value='(K (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-24691K))'></sup>
And they were amazed at him."

Also:

Romans 13:1-7, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, <sup class="crossreference" value='(A (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28268A))'></sup> for there is no authority except that which God has established. <sup class="crossreference" value='(B (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28268B))'></sup> The authorities that exist have been established by God. <sup class="versenum">2 </sup>Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, <sup class="crossreference" value='(C (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28269C))'></sup> and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. <sup class="versenum">3 </sup>For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. <sup class="crossreference" value='(D (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28270D))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">4 </sup>For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. <sup class="crossreference" value='(E (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28271E))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">5 </sup>Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. <sup class="crossreference" value='(F (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28272F))'></sup>
<sup class="versenum">6 </sup>This is also why you pay taxes, <sup class="crossreference" value='(G (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28273G))'></sup> for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; <sup class="crossreference" value='(H (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28274H))'></sup> if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

The preacher might want to examine his own motives.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-03-2012, 19:21
This was the dropped charge:

14‑288.4. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Disorderly conduct is a public disturbance intentionally caused by any person who does any of the following:

(2) Makes or uses any utterance, gesture, display or abusive language which is intended and plainly likely to provoke violent retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace.

Animal Mother
08-03-2012, 22:18
Can you use a bull horn, or yell and disrupt a concert in a park? My position would be that it would depend on the specific situation. In this instance, the speaker certainly may have been annoying but it does not appear he was being disruptive.
Does the first amendment give me the right to force my opinion on others at the cost of their right to enjoy the program? It does give you the right to force your opinion on others in a public space, if they choose to remain in the area. For years there were preachers who would show up at the fountain that's at the center of ASU's campus pretty much every day to tell us all we were going to hell, etc, etc. Again, their speech was unquestionably annoying (not to mention boringly repetitive) but it was also protected.
Also, the DA dismissing a case dies not mean it did not have legal merit. It does mean the preacher didn't commit a crime.
I file disposition forms daily while I'm on light duty, and really good cases are dropped for silly reasons. Our DA is two years behind, and he will dismiss cases with confessions because the dollar ammount is too low to warrant a prosecution. Thus guy surely didn't want the political heat.Regardless of that reality, from the facts available in this instance, it appears the DA made a correct decision.

Should offending or bothering other people be grounds for being arrested?

Animal Mother
08-03-2012, 22:25
The municipality can make restrictions on speech, and if he was disrupting a public event then a disorderly conduct charge is definitely applicable. It doesn't appear that it was disrupting the event though, just that he was standing there being irritating.
He had already committed the crime and police asked him to stop. He hadn't committed a crime though.
He chose to exercise his 1st amendment rights after the police had already decided to politely ask him to quiet down rather than writing him a summons. He has no one to blame but himself. If he was arrested for exercising his first amendment rights, he has the cops to blame. The police politely asking you to quiet down doesn't terminate first amendment rights any more than the police politely asking you to give them your firearms terminates your second amendment rights.
The DA is a political animal and it is at least as likely that the charges were dismissed as a politcal decision as it is they were dismissed for being a bad charge. I have a feeling that if this had been a "God Hates the Troops" wacko the DA wouldn't have dropped it. It's also entirely possible that the DA realized he had no case.

I'm not particularly eager to defend this guy, because he was being annoying and the attempt to equate this incident with the Soviet Union is just another example of that, but his rights deserve the same defense as anyone else.

Animal Mother
08-03-2012, 22:26
Forcing an agenda on people in a public area seems to get pretty close to rights violation. I must listen to your BS?Should "He offended/upset me" be a justification for arresting someone?

Syclone538
08-03-2012, 23:26
I'm glad that this is not a theist vs atheist issue, but an authoritarian vs libertarian issue.

See sig \/

Woofie
08-03-2012, 23:30
It doesn't appear that it was disrupting the event though, just that he was standing there being irritating.
He hadn't committed a crime though.
If he was arrested for exercising his first amendment rights, he has the cops to blame. The police politely asking you to quiet down doesn't terminate first amendment rights any more than the police politely asking you to give them your firearms terminates your second amendment rights.
It's also entirely possible that the DA realized he had no case.

I'm not particularly eager to defend this guy, because he was being annoying and the attempt to equate this incident with the Soviet Union is just another example of that, but his rights deserve the same defense as anyone else.

If the disorderly conduct was a legit charge, then the crime had already been committed. His exercise of free speech is what prompted the police to arrest him for the previous crime after they gave him the chance to quiet down.

Similar to when a cop pulls over someone for speeding and was planning to give a warning, but the driver decides to exercise his first amendment rights in an obnoxious way and earns himself the speeding ticket.

I can see why the DA would drop the case even if it was a legitimate charge. If it were me, I'd drop charges, too. Too risky to chase after someone preaching in the park when you have an election to look out for.

Animal Mother
08-03-2012, 23:58
If the disorderly conduct was a legit charge, then the crime had already been committed. His exercise of free speech is what prompted the police to arrest him for the previous crime after they gave him the chance to quiet down. I don't disagree, but that initial "if" is a big one especially in light of the definition of the charge that's been posted.
Similar to when a cop pulls over someone for speeding and was planning to give a warning, but the driver decides to exercise his first amendment rights in an obnoxious way and earns himself the speeding ticket.

I can see why the DA would drop the case even if it was a legitimate charge. If it were me, I'd drop charges, too. Too risky to chase after someone preaching in the park when you have an election to look out for. Again, no disagreement, assuming the initial charge was justified.

NMG26
08-04-2012, 05:47
Should "He offended/upset me" be a justification for arresting someone?

All depends. Why have a "disturbing the peace" charge If it is not an enforceable offence?

Animal Mother
08-04-2012, 06:37
All depends. Why have a "disturbing the peace" charge If it is not an enforceable offence?Disturbing the peace isn't the same as upsetting someone. If my behavior is intended to annoy or disturb without carrying a substantive message, it is much more likely to be disturbing the peace than if I am attempting to convey such a message, even if the message itself is disturbing to some individuals. Take the NSPA's planned march through Skokie, Illinois as an example.