Birmingham youth arrested for Pro-Life activism

[sonofourlady]

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

From a pro-life perspective, I have never liked the “graphic photos” because of the possibility that young children would see it and would cause emotional pain. I can accept that it has good for adults as there are reports of adults seeing these photos and changing their views on abortion. However, this story is not about the merits of graphic photos but of basic civil rights. From Walden’s post it quotes one of the city ordinance’s as saying 5 or more people on a public sidewalk. I don’t know how many were there but perhaps in the future, they can do one with 4 and see how the police react.

It is good in this day and age to have camera phones so that these events are recorded for all to see.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

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

That is not a good example. Rape is not a “right” that people argue about. It is not something being promoted by our government. It is not something that those who believe it to be a “right” are doing their best to keep our children ignorant of the details of…while brainwashing them to believe that it is a good thing.

I will state it again. If my children were pro abortion, I would use all means necessary to educate them on exactly what abortion is, and what exactly it does to the unborn child.
Saving one’s soul is not always pretty. It certainly wasn’t pretty for the martyrs. And those pictures certainly aren’t pretty. But salvation is always worth it.

It is not our doing that the realities of abortion are ugly. The pro abortion brought about the realities. All that these pictures are doing is bringing to light the darkness that pro abortion people have tried to get away with for the past 35 years.

Where is your rage at what the pro abortion people lie about constantly…and the secrecy that they try to promote about abortion? Why is your anger aimed at those who promote the truth?

 

[Rleng616]

Okay, I read this story here and in the Birmingham paper online, and here is my take on this.

I can also say unequivocally that if some stranger showed up outside my daughter’s high school, handing out graphic literature and holding signs with pictures of aborted fetuses in front of minor children, I would call the police myself.

 

[maggiemay2u]

colleenann;4816283:

Okay, I read this story here and in the Birmingham paper online, and here is my take on this.

Colleen Ann:

I can appreciate your perspective as a parent. We all want to somewhat shelter our children from the cruelties that exist in the real world.

However, how else would high school students know the reality of what abortion is? That is precisely how schools educate–they show cause and effect.

Drinking & driving - schools show pictures of wrecked cars, killing and maiming; Don’t do illegal drugs-pictures of junkies in alley ways or crackheads in a crack house.

The graphics convey that abortion is the killing of something that is alive. It is a violent death and should be presented as such.
**
How do you soft peddle violent killing? **

Bob

By telling everyone you want to decrease abortions by increasing funding and abolishing restrictions on them.

 

[elts1956]

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

I think parents are responsible for forming the values of their children. Hopefully, young children are taught to respect life from their parents. This can be done very gently and positively without being graphic in the teaching.

One thing we must remember, abortion is a crime that is quite different than any other. In rape there is a victim who can speak for herself and there are civil laws against rape. In murder, a body is quite evident and there are civil laws agains murder. In abortion, the bodies are thrown into the dumpster, or bucket and efforts made to eradicate all evidence of the crime, which is quite easy because the victim cannot speak for her self and no one admits a crime has been committed.

People need to see the results of this crime to believe it exists.

 

[LRThunder]

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

Just FYI

Which goes to show that the potential for abuse of power isn’t limited to one race.

 

[Digitonomy]

I did a news search to see if there was any more discussion about this issue, and lo and behold there was an article from Virginia, and it referenced a YouTube video.

Comparing the footage from that video with the aerial photo of the school I linked to in post #24, it appears that the protesters were indeed on a sidewalk along the street. The sidewalk is on the west side of the building facing the projects across 3rd St. N.

As for the content of the video, I think there were incorrect statements by both the police and the protesters. One protester said that if taxpayers paid for the sidewalk, that they had a right to be there. First off, not all public schools are financially distinct from their municipality. It may well be that in Birmingham, the city is responsible for most of the school budget, so sidewalks at schools may simply be a line item in the city budget, just as neighborhood sidewalks are - so who paid for the sidewalk is a poor test of whether it’s public or not. Second, as previously mentioned, there may be local regulations limiting size or location of demonstrations (sadly, couldn’t find anything online).

The police stated that the sidewalk is school property and not public property, or at least not public property “right now.” That’s silly, there was no real estate transaction where the property was transferred to the school during the previous couple of hours. Rather, it remains public property, but it’s possible that the right of the public to demonstrate there may be limited during certain hours to prevent a disturbance. Whether there is actually any disturbance isn’t at issue, but it would be legitimate to deny a protest permit on that sidewalk during those hours because of the risk of a disturbance. Such a denial could be contested, but these protesters did not have a chance to defend their ability to protest at that location without causing a disturbance - because they never applied for a permit. The police asked them to move across the street - in my opinion there would not be any difference in the legality of a protest on the other side of the road - but the police were hoping to avoid the chore of arresting these protesters, suspecting the problem of an unhappy principal would go away if the protesters weren’t right next to the school, and they could avoid the chore of multiple arrests.

I don’t put much stock in the state loitering law cited by Walden being a legit tool for this particular case - it seems to be directed more specifically at school property, and I think it’s a stretch to rope a public sidewalk into its meaning.

 

[RobHom]

If they were protesting on public property, then the police have no case. The fact that they’re from out of town is irrelevant.

You will find that “School Property” is not considered “public” anymore.

In my hometown in FL…anyone, to include myself, who does not have business at the school, is told once to leave, then arrested for trespassing for failing to leave promptly.

 

[RobHom]

A little further probing the legal issue brought this to the surface:

In my hometown in FL…anyone, to include myself, who does not have business at the school, is told once to leave, then arrested for trespassing for failing to leave promptly. I don’t know if Alabama has this law, but I suspect that they do… The link here explains Florida’s Law, which outlines the “Safety Zone” around a school property that is 500 feet, and the lawful rights of the officials at that school.

law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/810.0975.html

These could be some of the Alabama laws they ran afoul of:

law.onecle.com/alabama/criminal-code/13A-11-1.html (The word SCHOOL appears herein.)

law.onecle.com/alabama/criminal-code/13A-11-7.html

law.onecle.com/alabama/criminal-code/13A-11-9.html (Under “(5)” in that link is the “clincher”.)

(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

It would seem that they neglected to be sure that they actually had a legal right to be on that property…according to that state’s laws. You will probably find that most states have the same laws.

I’ll not judge whether they were right or wrong as to their mission or their goal, though I applaud their effort, but I can afford the judgment that they lacked the discretion to validate their legal right to be on property owned by a government agency in the state of Alabama.

 

[Walden]

I don’t put much stock in the state loitering law cited by Walden being a legit tool for this particular case - it seems to be directed more specifically at school property, and I think it’s a stretch to rope a public sidewalk into its meaning.

I don’t think it’s a stretch at all. The Code section plainly says “in or about” school property. I’m almost positive that the sidewalk beside the school would fall within “about”.

I don’t see the distinction of public sidewalk here. I’m sure all of that land that the school and sidewalk are on is owned by the city of Birmingham. By that logic, the lawn in front of the school is public grass.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

Looks like a great case to establish a president.

 

[Digitonomy]

I don’t think it’s a stretch at all. The Code section plainly says “in or about” school property. I’m almost positive that the sidewalk beside the school would fall within “about”.

If you read the letter of that law, I agree. But it would also mean that if I’m standing at the edge of a friend’s yard that happens to ajoin school property, that I could be arrested for loitering. Regardless of how this law is written, my friend gets to decide who stands on his property, and where. Similarly, while local officials can use the overbroad wording of this law as a club to clear an immediate problem, I don’t think legally it can preempt a person’s rights as to the sidewalk.

Walden:

I don’t see the distinction of public sidewalk here. I’m sure all of that land that the school and sidewalk are on is owned by the city of Birmingham. By that logic, the lawn in front of the school is public grass.

As I clarified above, the actual question of who paid for, and who ultimately owns a sidewalk doesn’t really matter. The issue is that the school, or the local court, or the city roads department, etc. have control over the land as if they are private landowners, while the public retains certain rights that can be exercised on public roads and sidewalks.