Birmingham youth arrested for Pro-Life activism

[Dale_M]

Why not let’'s cut to the chase. Bottom line,** What laws did these protesters violate??** From what I can determine**, NONE. **This is the crux of the entire discussion.

Yes, it is. Unfortunately, the police department of Birmingham, Alabama is not releasing information. I tried to find some followup articles, but didn’t have much luck.

I did however, find an article which talks about one of the protesters. Apparently, a few days after the Birmingham protest he was arrested for criminal trespassing at a school in Texas, presumably for another pro-life demonstration.

Coppock came home this week, with his girlfriend, after being arrested again Feb. 19 on charges of criminal trespass at a high school in Rosenburg, Texas.

His friends and family became worried about him after news reports about the arrests surfaced. During an interview this week, he said he felt uneasy after the second arrest.

But Coppock said he plans to continue protesting with the California-based group.

He said one reason he’s fighting against abortion is that a past girlfriend had an abortion when he was 18. She did it without first telling him she was pregnant, he said.

“I am appalled that a third of my generation is gone,” he said. “People who could find the cure for cancer or people who could be the next president are gone because of this horrible thing.”

Coppock attends Mount Hermon Baptist Church near Lake Anna.

fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/022009/02282009/447572

 

[DJgang]

When I read the article, I thought initially that it was the 1950’s and 1960’s again with how the police were treating the protesters. I’m not merely talking about the arrests, but also the attitude “You’re in Alabama now,” “not for non-citizens.”

I bet they would have protected the Klan.

Both of you probably have absolutely NO IDEA that Birmingham’s Police is almost all black men.

Just FYI

 

[Walden]

Why not let’'s cut to the chase. Bottom line,** What laws did these protesters violate??** From what I can determine**, NONE. **This is the crux of the entire discussion.

How about “Failure to obey a lawful police order”?

Look, I’m as Pro-Life as anyone else, but you just can’t mess about on school property these days. High schools are locked down so no-one who isn’t supposed to be there gets in. Police have wide latitude in ensuring the safety of kids in school. These rules are permissible restrictions on free speech.

 

[CatholicCid]

Failure to obey a lawful order would mean the order would have to be lawful. If they were on public property, then they have a 1st Amendment right to be their, speaking about anything from abortion to zebras.

 

[Rleng616]

Failure to obey a lawful order would mean the order would have to be lawful. If they were on public property, then they have a 1st Amendment right to be their, speaking about anything from abortion to zebras.

Amen!!!

 

[Rleng616]

How about “Failure to obey a lawful police order”?

Look, I’m as Pro-Life as anyone else, but you just can’t mess about on school property these days. High schools are locked down so no-one who isn’t supposed to be there gets in. Police have wide latitude in ensuring the safety of kids in school. These rules are permissible restrictions on free speech.

As I understand it, they were not trying to “get in”

In addition, if the pro lifers had a constitutional right to be there, **it was not a lawful police order. **

Bob-Akron OH-USA

i

i

 

[Walden]

As I understand it, they were not trying to “get in”

In addition, if the pro lifers had a constitutional right to be there, **it was not a lawful police order. **

Bob-Akron OH-USA

Of course they weren’t trying to get in (that doesn’t require scare quotes by the way). But the school resource officer didn’t know that.

 

[Walden]

Failure to obey a lawful order would mean the order would have to be lawful. If they were on public property, then they have a 1st Amendment right to be their, speaking about anything from abortion to zebras.

Section 13A-11-6
Failure of disorderly persons to disperse.

(a) A person commits the crime of failure of a disorderly person to disperse if he participates with five or more other persons in a course of disorderly conduct likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, and intentionally refuses or fails to disperse when ordered to do so by a peace officer or other public servant lawfully engaged in executing or enforcing the law.

(b) Failure of a disorderly person to disperse is a Class B misdemeanor.

Section 13A-11-9
Loitering.

(5) Loiters or remains in or about a school, college or university building or grounds after having been told to leave by any authorized official of such school, college or university, and not having any reason or relationship involving custody of or responsibility for a pupil or any other specific, legitimate reason for being there, and not having written permission from a school, college or university administrator; or

*Both of those Alabama Code sections could potentially apply here. And to get arrested, you only need probable cause. Later, it could turn out that they did nothing wrong. The point I’m trying to make here is that your First Amendment rights are not unqualified. Just because we agree with what was being said doesn’t mean they weren’t doing something wrong.
*

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Failure to obey a lawful order would mean the order would have to be lawful. If they were on public property, then they have a 1st Amendment right to be their, speaking about anything from abortion to zebras.

Good response. Besides, public sidewalks are not private property.

 

[Walden]

Good response. Besides, public sidewalks are not private property.

It is precisely the fact that it is public property that police have jurisdiction to make those orders. If it was private property (that they had permission to be on) then it would probably have ended differently.

 

[Rleng616]

Section 13A-11-6

Hi Walden. I enjoy your perspective.

A Police Officer is our first line of defense against anarchy. We cannot pick and choose which laws we want to follow.

Failure of disorderly persons to disperse.

I agree - those are 2 different issues.

Bob

 

[Walden]

I agree - those are 2 different issues.

Bob

By the way, I’m not making judgments on whether they broke the law or not. None of us were there, so we can’t know what really happened.

What might be a “legitimate reason” (language from the code…not scare quotes) to you might be seen differently by the officers at the school.

People can debate in good faith whether or not the arrests were warranted or not. I’m simply trying to give the other side fair play. Life isn’t any fun if people agree with you all the time. I think it’s good to reflect on these issues and not simply condemn the actions of the Birmingham PD without attempting to understand the bigger picture.

I explained above that Birmingham specifically and Alabama in general is definitely NOT a bastion of left-wing ideology. I have a hard time swallowing the suggestion made by other posters that the reason for the arrests was due to the CONTENT of the message rather than the MEANS used to convey it.

 

[CatholicCid]

Section 13A-11-6
Failure of disorderly persons to disperse.

(a) A person commits the crime of failure of a disorderly person to disperse if he participates with five or more other persons in a course of disorderly conduct likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, and intentionally refuses or fails to disperse when ordered to do so by a peace officer or other public servant lawfully engaged in executing or enforcing the law.

The first argument would be that they were not acting in a disorderly manner, meaning that they should not have been ordered to dispersed. Considering there is video footage of the incident, it should be easy for a judge to see who was acting disorderly. Then, we’d have to ask which law, though, were the police officers attempting to enforce?

(b) Failure of a disorderly person to disperse is a Class B misdemeanor.

Section 13A-11-9
Loitering.

(5) Loiters or remains in or about a school, college or university building or grounds after having been told to leave by any authorized official of such school, college or university, and not having any reason or relationship involving custody of or responsibility for a pupil or any other specific, legitimate reason for being there, and not having written permission from a school, college or university administrator; or…

This assumes they were on school grounds, not on a public sidewalk. From what has been posted, it appears that they were on a public sidewalk, meaning loitering would not apply.

Both of those Alabama Code sections could potentially apply here. And to get arrested, you only need probable cause. Later, it could turn out that they did nothing wrong. The point I’m trying to make here is that your First Amendment rights are not unqualified. Just because we agree with what was being said doesn’t mean they weren’t doing something wrong.

And just because the police officers are police officers doesn’t mean that what they did wasn’t wrong.

 

[Rleng616]

By the way, I’m not making judgments on whether they broke the law or not. None of us were there, so we can’t know what really happened.

What might be a “legitimate reason” (language from the code…not scare quotes) to you might be seen differently by the officers at the school.

People can debate in good faith whether or not the arrests were warranted or not. I’m simply trying to give the other side fair play. Life isn’t any fun if people agree with you all the time. I think it’s good to reflect on these issues and not simply condemn the actions of the Birmingham PD without attempting to understand the bigger picture.

I explained above that Birmingham specifically and Alabama in general is definitely NOT a bastion of left-wing ideology. I have a hard time swallowing the suggestion made by other posters that the reason for the arrests was due to the CONTENT of the message rather than the MEANS used to convey it.

Walden - (IMHO) The Birmingham Police were doing their job.

I believe my hippie attitude of the late 1960’s (ALWAYS QUESTION AUTHORITY) flares up now and again.

Peace - May the Holy Spirit guide the actions of us all.

Bob

 

[elts1956]

How about “Failure to obey a lawful police order”?

Look, I’m as Pro-Life as anyone else, but you just can’t mess about on school property these days. High schools are locked down so no-one who isn’t supposed to be there gets in. Police have wide latitude in ensuring the safety of kids in school. These rules are permissible restrictions on free speech.

As far as I know, the Birmingham pro lifers were not IN the building, but on the sidewalk in front of the school. The police are saying they were violating city ordinance for being too near school property. I would like to know the exact specifications of that rule. I hope the kids have a good lawyer.

 

[elts1956]

It is precisely the fact that it is public property that police have jurisdiction to make those orders. If it was private property (that they had permission to be on) then it would probably have ended differently.

But, were they breaking the law? I would hate to walk down a public sidewalk and have a policeman grab me for no reason. Public property belongs to the public. I want to know exactly what the law stated they were said to have broken.

 

[Walden]

But, were they breaking the law? I would hate to walk down a public sidewalk and have a policeman grab me for no reason. Public property belongs to the public. I want to know exactly what the law stated they were said to have broken.

Like I said before, I don’t know what they were doing, but the code sections I posted before about loitering seems to imply that you can run afoul by being “about” school grounds.

My two cents - technically they weren’t breaking the law, but they got too close to the school, were being loud, and refused to move when ordered. All that adds up to getting arrested.

 

[Walden]

Peace - May the Holy Spirit guide the actions of us all.

Bob

AMEN!

 

[CatholicCid]

Like I said before, I don’t know what they were doing, but the code sections I posted before about loitering seems to imply that you can run afoul by being “about” school grounds.

My two cents - technically they weren’t breaking the law, but they got too close to the school, were being loud, and refused to move when ordered. All that adds up to getting arrested.

Will also be interesting if it adds up to a lawsuit.

 

[jspencer]

What is wrong with the transparency of the abortion? If people want the “right to choose”, then they should be educated exactly on what they think is their right to choose.

If someone says “I want the right to choose chocolate ice cream”, don’t they also need to know what chocolate ice cream tastes like?
If they want to say “I want the right to choose murder for my unborn baby”, then shouldn’t they know exactly what the baby looks like before, during and after the murder?

To close our eyes does not make us less liable for the crime being perpetrated.

And I think that these kids have the right to the education on something so very important.
Those pictures are horrible. They are abominable. But they are the truth of what happens in an abortion.
If you don’t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen!!!

So what you are saying is that in order to educate children you would show them graphic pictures of something that is wrong. what if the subject is rape? are you going to show them pictures of women being raped so that they know not to do it? See how ludicrous it sounds when you apply that principle to other crimes?
Prayers for all