PDA

View Full Version : Michigan Police Arrest Christians for Talking To Muslims



BadUglyMagic
30th June 10, 11:07 AM
Michigan police arrest Christians for talking to Muslims

June 25th, 2010, Ellis County Press



Four Christians were arrested and jailed for talking to Muslims about Jesus, by order of police chief Ronald Haddad of Dearborn Michigan, who defended the arrests one week after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered those same police to let Christian evangelist George Saieg preach openly at a Muslim festival there.

"We didn't distribute literature, or preach anything," said one of the four jailed
evangelists. "We spoke only to those people who first approached us, we talked only about Jesus' love...and within minutes we were handcuffed and jailed." But Haddad was unrepentant. "We did make four arrests for disorderly conduct," Haddad told Worldnet Daily. "They did cause a stir" [with their free speech about Jesus].

Is talking quietly about Jesus now disorderly, just because some Muslims get angry?

"Allah Akbar!" shouted two Muslims as the Christians were taken away in handcuffs, by police who also seized the Christians' video camera evidence and refused to return video footage of the arrests.

Live video is now on YouTube of another group of three evangelists being detained by the same police the very next day, because they distributed the Gospel of John on a public sidewalk outside the Muslim festival. This new video got 15,000 hits in 3 days, after the police told those being held that city policy states Christian literature is not allowed within 5 city blocks of the Muslim festival, creating a "banned-Bible zone" in violation of the First Amendment.

"The police are enforcing Sharia law in America," said one of the four arrested Christians, explaining that Muslim Sharia law is not just about putting Burkas on women, but also prohibits anyone from talking to Muslims about Jesus, and prevents listeners from escaping Islam by converting to any other religion.

Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), defends the Christians from the ministry called Acts 17, saying: "Contrary to the comments made by [corrupt Dearborn] Police Chief Ron Haddad, our Constitution does not allow police to ban the right
of free speech just because there are some hecklers. Not all police officers approve of the way their department treated these Christians."

---------------------------


Is this very common in Michigan? Does anyone else have any other information on how the chritsians were behaving?

It seems to be a blatant case of civil rights violations. Go police chief Haddad!

EvilSteve
30th June 10, 11:09 AM
...and once again our civil rights will be restricted because someone just HAD to be a dick about shit.

BadUglyMagic
30th June 10, 11:21 AM
The right to distribute the material has a pretty good grounding in case law. I wonder if the christian proseltyizers became violent or did something else.

Seizing cameras and refusing to return video woould also seem to be state crimes beyond the civil rights violations.

Does anyone know if Cheif Haddad is muslim?

DerAuslander108
30th June 10, 11:25 AM
Oh this is gonna be good...

WarPhalange
30th June 10, 11:29 AM
This is the most retarded thing I've ever read.

FriendlyFire
30th June 10, 11:30 AM
This is absurd, I am sure when they take it to higher courts the police chief will be punished, hopefully fired.

EvilSteve
30th June 10, 11:51 AM
Well one would certainly hope so, given that it is well within their rights to distribute those materials and it's certainly fucked to be confiscating people's possessions for just proselytizing.

...but just for context, those same people would probably lose their shit if Muslims did the same thing a Christian revival. Also, who EXACTLY did they think they were going to convert? All those Michigan Muslims who just didn't know Christianity existed? It's cool if you want to welcome people into your religion, but if they didn't ask, keep your gods to yourself.

BadUglyMagic
30th June 10, 12:07 PM
I wonder about the religious orientation and/or affiliation of the arresting officers.


In the case of seizing the video equipment and refusing (possibly because destroyed?) to return the equipment and the videos, it would seem to be destruction of evidence.


NL: Wait, aren't all monotheistic religions about peace, love, harmony and the rule of law??

Kein Haar
30th June 10, 02:30 PM
Sharia law is awesome.

Seriously, try it.

Aphid Jones
30th June 10, 03:39 PM
It's cool if you want to welcome people into your religion, but if they didn't ask, keep your gods to yourself.



"We didn't distribute literature, or preach anything," said one of the four jailed
evangelists. "We spoke only to those people who first approached us..."

BadUglyMagic
30th June 10, 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikki Longlegs
It's cool if you want to welcome people into your religion, but if they didn't ask, keep your gods to yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BadUglyMagic
"We didn't distribute literature, or preach anything," said one of the four jailed evangelists. "We spoke only to those people who first approached us..."



Are you going anywhere with the quotes? Any commentary? General observations on this violation of constitutional civil right?

Feryk
30th June 10, 03:47 PM
Hell, I hate evangelists as much as the next guy, but this seems stupid.

jubei33
30th June 10, 04:07 PM
this week on glenn beck: glenn beck talks about our conversion to sharia law and suddenly equates it to nazi germany.

put money on this$

Ajamil
30th June 10, 05:32 PM
Who knew the Muslim conversion of the US would start in Michigan? McClaw, I feel you have a constitutional duty to protest this violation of our rights by preaching to Muslims and Christians alike about the love of Odin.

In proper form, of course.
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7097/odina.jpg

HappyOldGuy
30th June 10, 08:14 PM
The law on this one isn't even vaguely debatable. The cops got no leg to stand on.

But they don't really need one. They can pretty much arrest the folks and hold em till the event is over no matter how flimsy the cover is. And then apologize afterwards.

jkdbuck76
30th June 10, 09:02 PM
HOG, can the cops get into trouble for this?

HappyOldGuy
30th June 10, 09:14 PM
HOG, can the cops get into trouble for this?

I'm extrapolating off of what I've seen and know about behavior at demonstrations and the like, but AFAIK, not really, no. Definitely not if there was a local statute they were enforcing, which it sounds like there was.

BadUglyMagic
30th June 10, 10:39 PM
I was thinking along the lines of contempt of court for Chief Haddad at a minimum. Theft of property and destruction of evidence and possible obstruction of justice.

Just for fun, I would add kidnapping and false imprisonment. They were detained and held in violation of several civil rights and a court order.

The arrests (imo) as civil rights violations would be federal charges.

HappyOldGuy
30th June 10, 11:03 PM
You're delusional. There is no contempt of court. The court order was specific, and they can argue that they didn't violate it. Cops siezing property as evidence is not theft.

Again, cops arrest people for charges that they know can't stick all the time in order to control situations.

Xioxou
1st July 10, 06:21 AM
OH MAH GAWD THEY BE BURNIN' THE CONSTITUTION! IT'S MAH RIGHT TO SAY AND DO AS I PLEASE! THIS HERE'S 'MERICA!

*cough*

The U.S. constitution states that government (and in particular Congress) may not create laws which infringe on "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The courts have stated that the content of what ever free speech may not be infringed, but the time, place and manner CAN be.

That is why you'll find "Free speech zones" around various events such ad the National Conventions for the Republican and Democratic parties, PRIDE festivals, etc. but within the venue, you may not participate or hand out materials if the organizers don't want you to.

So, clearly, they can't stop you from being cry babies, but they can tell you to go home and do your crying there.

P.S. Ellis County Press? Really? Why don't you just go ahead and copy every post over from Stormfront while you're at it.

Vieux Normand
1st July 10, 07:27 AM
...cops arrest people for charges that they know can't stick all the time in order to control situations.

This was much in evidence in Toronto over last weekend. After the G20 security fence was built on one side of a main street to keep out protesters, the police claimed the authority to demand ID from anyone within five metres of the fence (I mean five meters on the outside of the perimeter). Those passerby who refused were arrested on the spot, any goods--bags of groceries, for instance--were confiscated, and the suspects were carted off to detention. Only when the scummit was over did the popochief admit there was no legal provision for such action.

The popos also decided to seal a sizable crowd of people into a small area of a mixed commercial-residential street, blocks away from the perimeter, on the suspicion that there might be anarchists present. The residents (again, many of whom were returning from work, shopping or other such suspect activities) were corralled in the middle of the street in question and left there in the pouring rain. Apparently, the aforementioned anarchists could hide among them, which--according to the cheef--made all of them guilty of a "breach of the peace".

So...just so you know: in Toronto, if some perp escapes from prison and is suspected of being somewhere on your street, be sure not to be outside, or--because he might hide behind you or something--you'd be breaching the peace and subject to arrest.

BadUglyMagic
1st July 10, 07:51 AM
You're delusional. There is no contempt of court. The court order was specific, and they can argue that they didn't violate it. Cops siezing property as evidence is not theft.

Again, cops arrest people for charges that they know can't stick all the time in order to control situations.


Prove I'm delusional.


Please link to the court order for specifics. Generally, Violation of a court order is at least contempt. If as a chief of police you order line officers to violate it, I would think you could be held in contempt.

Evidence of what? Harrassment by the police?

Spade: The Real Snake
1st July 10, 02:18 PM
I first read this as "Michigan Police Arrest Toby Christiansen For Taking Muslims"

Odacon
1st July 10, 02:48 PM
I first read this as "Michigan Police Arrest Toby Christiansen For Taking Muslims"

Well it is something he'd do if give the chance.

HappyOldGuy
1st July 10, 08:30 PM
Prove I'm delusional.


Please link to the court order for specifics. Generally, Violation of a court order is at least contempt. If as a chief of police you order line officers to violate it, I would think you could be held in contempt.



Okay.

http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/CityofDearbornOrder--grantingTROJune172010.pdf



Therefore, the motion for an injunction pending appeal is GRANTED as follows. The relief
granted hereby pertains only to the Festival to be held June 18, 19, and 20, 2010, after which this
order will be deemed to have expired. During the hours that the Festival is open to the public on
June 18, 19, and 20, 2010, Saieg shall be permitted to distribute his religious literature in the streets
contained within the area referred to as the “outer perimeter” or “buffer zone.” This order leaves
undisturbed the ability of the defendants to prohibit Saieg from distributing his religious literature within the Festival itself.

It wasn't Saieq,
It wasn't just pamphleteering. (They were engaged in verbal arguments)
It's not at all clear that it was within the "buffer zone."

That's two clear exceptions, and a third that any lawyer could make with his eyes closed.

If you read the whole opinion, you will understand that it is perfectly legal to limit pamphleteering and prosletyzing in public spaces. It's always a balancing test, and cops routinely use the limitations imposed on protesters to get them to disperse.

BadUglyMagic
1st July 10, 08:37 PM
Thank you for presenting information I had previously asked about.



Where is the proof I am delusional?

HappyOldGuy
1st July 10, 09:13 PM
Where is the proof I am delusional?

You believe that this is some sort of huge deal rather being a standard daily occurrence abuse of power with a slightly amusing role reversal.

That demonstrates a disconnect from the real world.

ergo delusional.

nihilist
1st July 10, 10:20 PM
Peeps should be able to have a terrorist party without having to be inconvenienced by the bothersome blather of crusaders.

nihilist
1st July 10, 10:23 PM
Also: sQiNYtkwuyw

BadUglyMagic
1st July 10, 11:35 PM
You believe that this is some sort of huge deal rather being a standard daily occurrence abuse of power with a slightly amusing role reversal.

That demonstrates a disconnect from the real world.

ergo delusional.


Your beliefs about my beliefs and the context within you place them prove you are delusional. Other than that you seem okay.


I believe that that the constitution and its amendments apply equally to all citizens and those with a legally supported entry and residence. Because we all know that someday, we will all join hands around the campfire and sing Kumbaya and life will exist in a harmonic melody of mutual love and understanding.

nihilist
1st July 10, 11:41 PM
No, No we won't.

resolve
3rd July 10, 10:31 PM
Well one would certainly hope so, given that it is well within their rights to distribute those materials and it's certainly fucked to be confiscating people's possessions for just proselytizing.

...but just for context, those same people would probably lose their shit if Muslims did the same thing a Christian revival. Also, who EXACTLY did they think they were going to convert? All those Michigan Muslims who just didn't know Christianity existed? It's cool if you want to welcome people into your religion, but if they didn't ask, keep your gods to yourself.


I just wrote a 3 page reply to this but the board ate it. I'm not going to rewrite it.

All I'm going to say is you must not hang out with or know many christians in this context, do you?

SFGOON
4th July 10, 02:30 PM
The very worst thing the police could have done is just walked away, and let nature take it's course.

True fact: Cops only need to be about half-sure a person did a naughty to cuff 'em and stuff 'em. The courts get to sort out the rest.

The evangelists were being assholes and trying to catalyze an incident. They were martyred for three hours at least. Kind of like when St. Peter was in prison.

Unlike St. Peter, evangelicals will be surprised when they wake up in hell.

resolve
4th July 10, 03:01 PM
They could have been acting on God's call or they could have simply noticed a host of people from another faith and thought to themselves: "Hey, this is a pretty substantial group of people who don't know Christ. I bet if I just went in there and talked with a few there MIGHT be SOMEONE who MIGHT be interested in learning about Jesus. One soul saved from hell and experience the love of Christ, or given the chance, that alone would be worth it..."

You never know. I wrote that so you could have a little insight into a christian's thought processes.

Now the real argument here is that under current United States law... as long as they do so peacably and without trying to disrupt the event itself... they have every right to do so.

Those muslims have a right to do so as well in christian churches (and some have, and other religions as well). To my knowledge not one person has been removed unless they broke the above mentioned rule about not disrupting the event. Someone coming into a church service and shouting "YOUR GOD IS FALSE!" or likewise would simply be asked to leave by a deacon or usher or someone then if they continued the police would be called in. The only time I've seen someone forcibly removed from a church service was when some pagan guy came in and was shouting over the preacher, standing in the middle of the aisles, and then started screaming when he was asked to leave by the preacher. Of course with churches property laws also come into effect and a church can simply ask you to leave regardless of anything (ex: maybe that church is a bunch of a-holes and simply don't like you?). But I'm trying to get you thinking about general gatherings and conventions/meetings. Things of that nature such as the event where the OP happened.

SFGOON
4th July 10, 03:38 PM
I'm more than familiar with the sanctimonious thought processes of evangelicals. They have this annoying habit of confusing their own ego for the voice of God. Typical of a sect which eschews mysticism.

Guess God called them right into that jail cell, innit?

You a fuckin' lawyer or something resolve? 'Cuz me, I've completed police academy and I know a thing or two about civil rights, constitutional law, and criminal procedures.

resolve
4th July 10, 04:33 PM
I'm more than familiar with the sanctimonious thought processes of evangelicals. They have this annoying habit of confusing their own ego for the voice of God. Typical of a sect which eschews mysticism.

All denominations of christianity encourage an active relationship with God. Or at least they should. It's biblical. God speaks to His followers.


Guess God called them right into that jail cell, innit?

God's will and the free will of man often don't mesh. This is a larger and much broader subject I can talk about in a different thread though if you would like. I don't wanna derail this thread too much. S'Why I'm trying to keep replies smallish and to the point for once in my online forum'ing.


You a fuckin' lawyer or something resolve? 'Cuz me, I've completed police academy and I know a thing or two about civil rights, constitutional law, and criminal procedures.

No I am not a lawyer. I'm glad you completed academy. I wish you would do something with it though (not trying to be mean with that bud, honestly). Police still get the law wrong too. But whatever, if I'm wrong, I'd be happy if you'd correct me and show me how I'm wrong. I was mostly responding to how crass you were on the subject and how you were saying "the very worst thing the police could have done is just walked away, and let nature take it's course." I like how you just automatically assume something violent and criminal would've happened with that statement.

Ajamil
4th July 10, 04:47 PM
Preaching is not for the benefit of those preached to. Krishna will open their ears or harden their hearts according to His and their desires. We preach to purify ourselves. Anyone who actually listens is a gift given to you.

Then again, the people who shout you down and beat you up are also gifts from God, but He's a strange fellow.

SFGOON
4th July 10, 05:23 PM
All denominations of christianity encourage an active relationship with God. Or at least they should. It's biblical. God speaks to His followers.

God speaks to everyone. Even reductionist atheists epiphenomenalists. That being said, those who believe they've happened upon the one organization for which God retains an open line of communication are much more apt to be listening to, abiding by, and worshiping their own sense of spiritual importance.


God's will and the free will of man often don't mesh.

Like when God works through everyone and everything, and certain zealots want God to work only through them? Yeah, I hate when that happens, too.

But, good news. You can always build an idol in your heart. A puppet God. And you can make it "tell" you whatever you want.


This is a larger and much broader subject I can talk about in a different thread though if you would like. I don't wanna derail this thread too much. S'Why I'm trying to keep replies smallish and to the point for once in my online forum'ing.

Well, that's one ship that's already sailed.


No I am not a lawyer. I'm glad you completed academy. I wish you would do something with it though (not trying to be mean with that bud, honestly).

OOOOHHH YOU MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!
(I've got some interesting plans with law enforcement coming up, as an aside. Much more secret than even my steroid project, though.)


Police still get the law wrong too. But whatever, if I'm wrong, I'd be happy if you'd correct me and show me how I'm wrong. I was mostly responding to how crass you were on the subject and how you were saying "the very worst thing the police could have done is just walked away, and let nature take it's course." I like how you just automatically assume something violent and criminal would've happened with that statement.

If the cops had left, there would have been nothing to protect those :biblethumper: guys from :israel7va: you see. Arresting them was likely for their own safety.

Also, deliberately trying to piss off a crowd of people is against the law, (inciting to riot,) and if the officers perceive that this is their intention, they are allowed to make a physical arrest - more so for the safety of everyone than to get a conviction.

With Westboro Baptist church, the officers often do not because, well, they're all lawyers and lawsuits are the #1 source of income for them.

Free speech is not protected when it's used as a vehicle to incite violence.

BadUglyMagic
4th July 10, 11:26 PM
If the cops had left, there would have been nothing to protect those :biblethumper: guys from :israel7va: you see. Arresting them was likely for their own safety.

Also, deliberately trying to piss off a crowd of people is against the law, (inciting to riot,) and if the officers perceive that this is their intention, they are allowed to make a physical arrest - more so for the safety of everyone than to get a conviction.


Free speech is not protected when it's used as a vehicle to incite violence.


It would have been better to see if the relgion of peace really is. Besides, the world needs new martyrs:f-off:


Are you saying that if a person is preaching religion x from a street corner (or other publicly available area) and some people involved with religion y decide her words are blasphemous and become violent that a) the preacher is commiting a criminal act, and b) loses her civil right because others object to her exercising it?

Is the last sentence equating proselytizing with inciting violence or fighting words?

HappyOldGuy
4th July 10, 11:34 PM
He's saying that cops are more concerned with order than law.

SFGOON
5th July 10, 12:06 AM
He's saying that cops are more concerned with order than law.

More like cops use law as a toolbox to promote order and public safety.

The fundies were stirring shit, they may have been violating a law - probably.

So, they go in handcuffs - a buh bye! for like four hours.

HappyOldGuy
5th July 10, 12:11 AM
There is not a snowballs chance in hell they were violating the law. Incitement requires an explicit call to a specific violent act. There is no level of simple douchebaggery that qualifies.

But as I said earlier. It gets em off the streets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

SFGOON
5th July 10, 12:40 AM
l they were violating the law. Incitement requires a simple douchebaggery.

It gets em off the streets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

Consider that fixed.

Got one more for you. Of course, this is my state, but it works within the confines of the constitution;

RCW 9A.84.030
Disorderly conduct.

(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person:


(a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault;

(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority;


(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority; or


(d)(i) Intentionally engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct or makes unreasonable noise, within five hundred feet of:

(A) The location where a funeral or burial is being performed;

(B) A funeral home during the viewing of a deceased person;

(C) A funeral procession, if the person described in this subsection (1)(d) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or

(D) A building in which a funeral or memorial service is being conducted; and

(ii) Knows that the activity adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

(2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.

HappyOldGuy
5th July 10, 12:42 AM
What abusive language? What lawful assembly?

Fighting words statutes are constitutional, but they pretty much require personally directed obscenity. AFAIK the court has never upheld any political speech as being sufficient. And religious speech adds a double constitutional burden.

SFGOON
5th July 10, 12:52 AM
(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority.

C'mon, lawyer! You're gonna get disbarred if you keep this shit up!

Read the law, man!

SFGOON
5th July 10, 12:57 AM
Allow me to clarify further:

That particular law, disorderly conduct, is found under the "riot" section of the RCW. It applies to actions affecting groups of particular individuals.

"Harassment" is the "fightin' words" law in Washington, when one particular individual threatens another particular individual, and the second particular individual feels threatened, and the second particular individual is as "reasonable" particular individual.

SFGOON
5th July 10, 01:00 AM
Do you understand the difference, you particular individual?

HappyOldGuy
5th July 10, 01:21 AM
They were preaching on a public street. That's not disturbing any assembly.

SFGOON
5th July 10, 01:25 AM
Yes it is.

HappyOldGuy
5th July 10, 01:28 AM
Yes it is.

Really?

Sure about that are we? (http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/496/case.html)

SFGOON
5th July 10, 01:32 AM
Quite sure. You can commit a rape on a public street too, and that's a crime as well.

HappyOldGuy
5th July 10, 01:38 AM
Goon you aren't this stupid. There is a law against rape. There is no law against preaching. Nor could such a law be upheld in a court if you passed one. The supreme court opinion I just posted affirmed that people have a constitutional right to practice free speech in any public space. There are exceptions, including fighting words, incitement, and obscenity. However none of those are present here.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've been arrested/tried on shit like this quite a few times. I know the boundaries.

nihilist
5th July 10, 01:49 AM
Pretty much anything a Christian says to a Moslem constitutes fighting words, incitement and obscenity.

SFGOON
5th July 10, 03:19 AM
It's incitement, HOG. And further, the officer only has to be %50 certain it's incitement to cuff 'em and stuff 'em. Will they get convicted, oh no!

Did they get cuffed and stuffed? OH YEAH!

I've cuffed and stuffed like, fifteen people. I oughta know when you can and can't do it.

Feryk
5th July 10, 04:03 PM
I've cuffed and stuffed like, fifteen people. I oughta know when you can and can't do it.

Yep.

SFGOON
5th July 10, 05:01 PM
Do you want to go to jail, Feryk?

BECAUSE YOU'RE BEGGING FOR IT!!

Feryk
5th July 10, 05:28 PM
Do you want to go to jail, Feryk?

BECAUSE YOU'RE BEGGING FOR IT!!


If you were pissed enough at me to act, we both know I'd never make it to a jail cell.

Besides all that, how do you know I wasn't backing you up? I just agreed with you for chrissakes.

resolve
5th July 10, 06:59 PM
He's saying that cops are more concerned with order than law.


More like cops use law as a toolbox to promote order and public safety.


You can take your nanny-state and shove it.

SFGOON
5th July 10, 07:45 PM
You can take your civil disorder and blow it out your ass.

HappyOldGuy
5th July 10, 08:33 PM
Careful, that can land you a sex crime beef in some states.

SFGOON
5th July 10, 08:57 PM
Then just don't do it in the South. Not that big of a deal.

Kein Haar
6th July 10, 07:08 AM
You can take your nanny-state and shove it.

This has as little to do with the state as one can possibly get given that agents thereof are involved.