Unbelievable video: Jackson, MS, police stand by as vandals steal pro-life signs
This is UNBELIEVABLE. I wouldn’t believe it if I didn’t see it.
Yesterday, police in Jackson, Mississippi, stood idly by as vandals systematically stole signs right in front of them that had been erected by pro-life group Created Equal.
As the following video shows, police first acknowledged Created Equal had the constitutional right to hold a protest on a public sidewalk in Jackson, as corroborated by their city attorney.
The protest was held both in front of and across the street from Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only abortion clinic remaining in Mississippi.
Incredibly, the owner of one of the businesses in front of which Created Equal had erected its display began taking signs with the help of two accomplices – while the police stood by and watched!
Over the course of 20 minutes Mike Peters (pictured left), owner and developer of Fondren Corner, a four-story complex of private residences, offices, and restaurants, and two other men slowly removed nine sandwich boards, for a total of 18 signs, and took them inside his building.
Eight police officers witnessed the theft, one who stood right in front of Peters (photo above), but did nothing.
“They told me they had to wait for their commander,” Mark Harrington, Executive Director of Created Equal, said in a phone interview. “But I told them that was ridiculous. Would they wait for permission to arrest if they saw someone stealing from Wal-Mart?”
[youtube]http://youtu.be/Jy-i2MxiO5Q[/youtube]
An hour after the theft the commander showed up, went in and spoke with Peters, and the signs were returned.
Created Equal is pressing charges against Peters and are considering filing a lawsuit against the city.
Coincidentally, Life Legal Defense Fund is dropping a lawsuit against the Jackson Police Department within the next few days for harassment and false arrests of pro-lifers.
After pro-life activists sued Jackson police in 2006, the city signed a consent decree agreeing officers would no longer interfere with the free speech rights of pro-life advocates.
But as soon as the Court’s jurisdiction over the decree expired, Jackson police resumed their anti-life ways, as evidenced yesterday.
Created Equal has already had quite a summer, and it has only begun. On June 9 it made national news after an abortion proponent attacked another of its protests.
Created Equal is currently in the midst of its annual “Summer Justice Ride,” a nine-day national bus tour from July 12-20 that this year is retracing the route of the original Freedom Riders of the 1960s.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
They need to follow through with a lawsuit against the city. People of Jackson what an embarrassment to have your police stand by and watch as a theft occurs.
Abortion Distortion.
“Would they wait for permission to arrest if they saw someone stealing from Wal-Mart?”
You can’t blame they guy for not wanting all that stuff in front of his business.
Try it in front of Walmart, and see how far you get.
Not surprised…when a PP nurse in Fort Collins, CO purposely drove up onto the sidewalk and hit me with her car from behind, the police wouldn’t even take a report. One of the Knights was there and challenged the cop on this…the cop said it was my word against hers, so he wouldn’t even take a report.
“Coincidentally, Life Legal Defense Fund is dropping a lawsuit against the Jackson Police Department within the next few days for harassment and false arrests of pro-lifers.”
Did you mean to say “dropping”? Dropping means the lawsuit is ending. From the context I think you meant to say that a new lawsuit is beginning.
My guess is Mr. Peters has a bit of money and sway in the area and local police somewhat cater to him. If not, that is the message the police are sending.
Would the police have stood by if Mr. Peters had hit someone? What if a prolifer got into Mr. Peters car and started taking stuff out of it or walked into his business and took items? Would they have been stopped? To not stop a crime in progress is a terrible precedent to set in my opinion.
One officer has a little smirk on his face as if he sees it all as funny. Shameful.
“Try it in front of Walmart, and see how far you get.”
If it is on a public sidewalk, it is not against the law.
Sue the pants off of them.
Policemen look at public protests and pickets as a nuisance and a disturbing of the peace. They do not put themselves out to protect and defend protestors from nuisance levels of interference.
In Madison, our Vigil For Life has a police liaison…. an officer who is our advocate and advisor in all matters concerning the local police. We sit down with police before the vigil and discuss the rules and practices of peaceful presence on the sidewalks. For example, Madison does not permit sandwich boards and free-standing signs, but we can carry or wear signs.
We talk through some likely scenarios about how Planned Parenthood and members of the public might behave, and how pro-lifers and police should react to maintain safety and peace.
This dialogue before the vigil creates a trusting relationship with local police. We have not had any trouble. We are comforted when they drive by on patrol. We are not offended when a cop steps out and asks a prayer warrior a few questions to verify that the lady on the sidewalk knows the rules and is abiding by them.
For all we know, Planned Parenthood may have made a nuisance complaint against us. The cop was dropping by to check it out, and left without giving PP any satisfaction.
We had an unruly anarchist threatening our vigil last year, and police were quick to respond and assist.
============================
Police officers are part of the public whose hearts we seek to turn. Suing them for being slow to respond may not be the best way to win hearts and public sympathy. I recommend that the pro-lifers in Jackson should invite the police to a dialogue. Bring a warm-hearted and friendly pro-life lawyer along.
Our local PD recently sent officers to the site of a protest by the Westboro Baptists. This is standard practice, a way of keeping the peace.
A friend of mine on the force told me, “We may completely disagree with the protesters’ message, but it is our job to protect everyone there.”
Looks like Jackson PD don’t have the same philosophy in practice. At least not when it comes to pro-life free speech. :(
Everything in your post is great, Del! What would happen if someone set down their purse or wallet during a protest and someone else came and took it and the police witnessed it?
Stealing is stealing. The police could have peacefully told the man he needed to stop taking property. When he refused, the police could have, as gently as possible, handcuffed him and taken him away for stealing. Otherwise, it reeks of favoritism in my opinion. As I stated, what would happen if someone walked into Mr. Peters business and started taking things?
I am all for taking the high road but I’m not sure why this guy is above the law.
Meanwhile, crime is going on around the city, and the policy are tied up with a bunch of children fighting over signs and running after each other trying to get each other in trouble for it.
Taze them all, bring them out to a field and let them all slug it out and be done with it.
My goodness…
“crime is going on around the city”
LOL. Last I knew, stealing is still a crime. Start fighting to legalize it though, Ex-RINO.
If I were a cop with no particular relationship with the protesting parties, I would not be too quick to deal with the “stealing.”
For one thing, the perp did not intend to keep or destroy the signs. He just didn’t want them on the sidewalk in front of his business. While the sidewalks are “public” space, they are in front of his store. He has a natural right (if not a legal right) to object to anything on the sidewalk that impairs his livelihood. He was moving signs off of the sidewalk in front of his store.
So I do not, in principle, object to the beat cop who decides to wait for a supervisor to make some decision. It is possible that the store owner called the police department, and orders came over the radio that the beat cop should not intervene until the super arrived. No reason to escalate the situation.
Since pro-lifers have lawsuits against the Jackson police over past encounters, we should not expect them to be excited about coming to our rescue.
I hope that pro-lifers do not antagonize their police any more over this.
Taze people that are victims of crime? Encourage victims of crime to slug it out with perps?
What do we need police for?
My goodness the proabort groupies are out in force today. . .
“For one thing, the perp did not intend to keep or destroy the signs. He just didn’t want them on the sidewalk in front of his business.”
Not sure where we are given this info, Del. Did I miss it?
“Since pro-lifers have lawsuits against the Jackson police over past encounters, we should not expect them to be excited about coming to our rescue.”
For real? I thought police were sworn and paid to uphold the law regardless of their feelings or history about anything.
Nope prax – not sympathizing with the pro-choice crowd. My issue are these tattle tale protests that seem more out to win you-tube prizes. I don’t think they understand the enemies in this battle.
Hi Prax,
Good point. Lawsuit or not police don’t just randomly decide where and when to enforce the law.
And yes, stealing is stealing. If I decide to take someone’s sign, I am stealing, just as much as if I grabbed someone’s purse or wallet and ran.
Frankly Del your comments surprise me,
This was stealing, period. Yes the signs were returned, after the police commander ordered it, but it was stealing none the less. Its like someone saying, well I returned Del’s wallet when the police commander told me, so what’s the problem?
The sidewalk is public. We have freedom of speech. That doesn’t mean I always like what people say. I may think people in animal skins demonstrating in front of a fur store look absurd, and the owner may consider them disruptive, that does not give him/her the right to steal anything from them.
The fact Peters doesn’t like demonstrating in front of his business doesn’t mean squat and I suspect that is what the commander told him. Strikers do this all the time in an attempt to hurt business and win support for their cause.
Also, it is not up to you, me or the public to make the police like us. They have a job they are sworn to do.
Maybe the cop was under orders to wait for a supervisor, why I don’t know. Perhaps Peters has some important friends. But I hope if someone steals your car the police officer doesn’t stand there waiting for his supervisor’s approval to intervene because the thief has important friends.
Peters should also be advised that “confiscating” i.e. stealing someone’s property is being confrontational and can result in serious injury, especially if people don’t like you “confiscating” their property. Personally I would have some serious concerns about criminal charges or a lawsuit if someone is injured.
I hope Peters was advised, for his own good, that playing cop can get one in a lot of trouble.
John,
“You can’t blame the guy for not wanting all that stuff in front of his business”.
It doesn’t mean squat what he wants. Its a public sidewalk and Peters does not have the right to steal someone else’s property.
“Try it in front of Wal-Mart and see how far you get”.
The same rules apply to Wal-Mart if its a public sidewalk.
If its private property then its another matter. I would strongly advise you let the police handle it.
Option for Future Theft: CITIZEN’S ARREST. Find out what the proper protocols are for making a CITIZEN’S ARREST. Having the VIDEO documentation as EVIDENCE is efficacious. And wise.
Ex-GOP says: July 18, 2014 at 2:21 pm
“Meanwhile, crime is going on around the city, and the policy are tied up with a bunch of children fighting over signs and running after each other trying to get each other in trouble for it.
Taze them all, bring them out to a field and let them all slug it out and be done with it.”
^ ^
Well this is it. Get a big stadium, and put the whiners – the whole lot of them – in it, along with a car in the center. Let the battle begin. The last person standing gets the car.
When they start it, it blows up.
EGV and Bubba How,
What you do is respect the law and what the police should do is enforce it.
Also, the fact you don’t like what people are doing does not give you the right to “confiscate”, i.e. steal.
We have freedom of speech in this country and sidewalks are public. Live with it.
Sorry Mary – a bunch of babies –
8 POLICE OFFICERS!
8
The taxpayers down there should be miffed that their money is going to well dress, well armed baby sitters.
“a bunch of babies”
Don’t like the photos on the signs/billboards, don’t look.
Sorry Prax – I agree with Del here – if I’m a store owner next to them, I’m angry about a bunch of kids squabbling in front of my business, running around with video cameras and trying to get each other in trouble.
Uh no EGV,
The police acknowledged the group had a right to demonstrate.
They were violating no laws.
Now, if they were violating the law, then that was a matter for the police to handle, not Peters.
Peters violated the law by stealing their signs.
We have freedom of speech and public sidewalks EGV. Live with it.
EGV,
If you’re miffed then you call the police and let them handle it. You don’t take it upon yourself to take someone’s property. I would also suggest you avoid confrontations. Its a great way to get yourself injured, dead, or in a lot of legal trouble.
Hi Prax,
Exactly.
I think people dressed in animal skins and carrying signs in front of a fur store are a bunch of morons. However, its a public sidewalk and we have freedom of speech.
No one is forcing me to read their signs or look at them. As a business owner I have no right to take their signs. If they engage in any illegal activity, its a matter for the police to handle.
Mary –
Maybe you’re just a lawyer happy, police happy individual. Donald Sterling is that way too.
I long for the day when people talked to each other and acted like adults.
EGV,
No, I understand there are laws. I also understand that not liking what people say does not give me the right to steal their property.
“For example, Madison does not permit sandwich boards and free-standing signs, but we can carry or wear signs.”
Good rule – should be the case everywhere.
Mary –
The babyish behavior I’m talking about is the grilling of the police to confirm that they don’t care, while making sure they videotape every second in hopes of either filing some lawsuit, or glorifying themselves with that they went through.
It’s lame.
A. Deal with a bunch of bleating, wailing, lawsuit-happy people clogging up the sidewalk and interfering with others who are trying to make a living.
B. Sit in a nice doughnut shop.
I would choose “B,” I can tell you that.
Jasper –
Amen. I’ll buy!
Jackson Municipal Ordinance 110-61:
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to place goods, wares, merchandise, fruits, vegetables, boxes, barrels, containers, dispensers, signs, basketball goals or any obstruction of any kind in or upon any street, avenue, alley or sidewalk within the city.
(b) It shall likewise be unlawful for any person in charge of or occupying any property to permit goods, wares, merchandise, boxes, barrels, containers, dispenser, signs, basketball goals or other obstructions to remain on the street, alley, avenue or sidewalk adjoining the property or building in his charges or control, whether the same was placed thereon by such person or not.
It sounds like Mr. Peters was legally obliged to remove the signs.
EGV,
1. The demonstrators were engaging in legal activity
2. Their signs were stolen while police stood by and did nothing.
3. If what the demonstrators were doing was illegal, it was up to the police to take whatever steps necessary to remove them. It was not up to the civilians to take the law into their own hands.
Now, I’ve looked at the video twice and this is what I see. You may not like what’s going on, you may not like the people involved. You may think its lame. Its irrelevant.
These people have rights and they were violated while the police did nothing.
Sit in a nice doughnut shop.
:P
There was a hilarious cartoon a couple decades ago, in the Montreal newspaper, satirical of the police – it included a cop car where the logo on the door of the car was a bulldog and then also a doughnut with a bite taken out if it.
It’s common sense that the business owner isn’t going to want the sidewalk clogged in front of his place, even if the protesters are technically, legally allowed to be there.
As far as freestanding signs and posterboards, I would think that past a point, the police would not allow the blocking of a sidewalk, legal protest or not.
LisaC,
Uh no, it was the responsibility of the police to determine what was legal or illegal and take action, not Mr. Peters.
Doug,
Yes a lot of things are common sense, mainly that you don’t take the law into your own hands. You may end up being injured or facing legal action. People have rights whether you agree with them or not.
The police were there. If there was any illegal activity, it was up to the police to address it.
“It shall likewise be unlawful for any person in charge of or occupying any property to permit goods, wares, merchandise, boxes, barrels, containers, dispenser, signs, basketball goals or other obstructions to remain on the street, alley, avenue or sidewalk adjoining the property or building in his charges or control, whether the same was placed thereon by such person or not.
It sounds like Mr. Peters was legally obliged to remove the signs.”
Sounds like the police should have helped him get the signs out of there.
Get that stuff outtta there and let the police get back to their real job.
No Thor,
The police should have done it themselves. It was their responsibility, not Peters’.
They did not do so because the demonstrators were doing nothing illegal.
As for why they had to wait for their commander, maybe Mr.Peters’ brother in law is the chief of police.
Jared,
Live with the fact that we have freedom of speech and public sidewalks.
“After pro-life activists sued Jackson police in 2006, the city signed a consent decree agreeing officers would no longer interfere with the free speech rights of pro-life advocates.”
Were the pro-life folks made aware they could not bring signs? I would think this would have been discussed and written down in 2006 if that were the case. What does the consent decree entail?
The ordinance reads that the sidewalk cannot be obstructed. Was there an area of the sidewalk where the entire passage was blocked? Could people still pass comfortably without bumping into each other or into the signs? From what I can see in the video, those sidewalks are plenty wide and no person’s path was in the least bit obstructed.
Hi Prax,
The point is the police were there, so if the demonstrators were doing anything even remotely illegal then why didn’t they act? You’d think they would jump at the opportunity.
As long as the signs are not larger, higher, etc., than what the local laws allow, then okay – as long as the protesters keep them on their own property, rather than messing things up for the townspeople, merchants, etc.
Uh no, it was the responsibility of the police to determine what was legal or illegal and take action, not Mr. Peters.
Well, if the law says that it’s illegal for a business owner to fail to remove signs placed on the sidewalk in front of his building–and the law does say that–then no, it’s not the police’s responsibility to tell him to remove signs placed on the sidewalk in front of his building. Nor is it their job to help him remove the signs. Their job is to cite him if he fails to remove signs placed on the sidewalk in front of his building, although presumably they have the latitude to decide whether or not it is appropriate to do so.
It is apparently also not their job to explain municipal ordinances to people filming themselves histrionically wailing about the police failing to stop someone from complying with municipal ordinances.
I look forward to seeing this site do what a real journalistic site would do: verify my information and then update the original post.
The poor guy is fairly old, so give him a break – let him work at his own pace to get rid of the signs.
As for abortion, my sister had a miscarriage, and it was a mutant, so she was glad to be done. If she had known, she would have chosen to have an abortion earlier.
” if the demonstrators were doing anything even remotely illegal then why didn’t they act? You’d think they would jump at the opportunity.”
The business owner was complying with the town ordinance, so things were probably not so bad, in the eyes of the cops.
Why take any additional action, especially when 90% of the people there were probably just itching to start videotaping things, in the hopes of scamming money out of the town?
More than once, I’ve seen pro-lifers put up their signs, then go sit in the nearest tavern for the rest of the day. Maybe the cops were waiting for later – get ’em for DUI if they were driving.
LisaC,
Since the police can’t be everywhere all the time yes there are laws to cover these types of situations and you may be cited for not removing certain signs. However there were 8 police officers there. They had the responsibility to make certain laws were being upheld. Did they order the demonstrators to remove the signs? Did they tell them they were illegal? At the beginning of the tape there’s every indication this is a legal demonstration. At that time the police should certainly have made it plain what the law is concerning signs and their placement or intervened in anything that was illegally placed.
Police do have the responsibility to explain municipal ordinances and should have done so from the beginning. I saw little histrionics, just people asking why their signs were being stolen.
Otis,
Not the point. If the demonstrators were in violation of the law, the police had an obligation to act. There were 8 of them standing around. Do we know for certain the signs were illegally placed? If they were then why didn’t the police immediately order their removal?
Apparently, all was well as long as the signs were removed. The police probably did not care all that much as long as that was satisfied. If the protesters have a history of lawsuits against the police department, then very likely the police were being extra careful not to give them any more ammunition for that.
Christy, your ableism is disgusting. As a disabled woman, and as a sister of a severely disabled woman, I cannot tell you how sick people and comments like yours make me feel. Refering to disabled people as mutants and being glad that we die in utero is hate speech.
Koenraad,
At the start of the tape the police and PL’s are making every effort to be cordial and cooperative. If there was a city ordinance concerning sign placement the police had a responsibility to inform the PLs. when they saw they had signs. If the PLs violated the law, knowingly or unknowingly, the police had the responsibility to order them to move the signs or have them confiscated. End of story. There would have been no incident and nothing to record.
Koenraad,
For some reason my response to you went into moderation. In case it doesn’t reappear, I’ll retype what I wrote.
At the start of the demonstration, every effort was made by PL people and the police to be cordial and cooperative. If there was a city ordinance concerning signs, the police had an obligation to inform the PL people. If PL people violated the ordinance, either knowingly or unknowingly, then the police, there were 8 of them, had a responsibility to inform the PL people the signs were illegal and must be moved or they will confiscated. End of story. No incident, no videotaping.
The ordinance reads that the sidewalk cannot be obstructed. Was there an area of the sidewalk where the entire passage was blocked?
No, the ordinance reads that signs, boxes, barrels, and other things cannot be placed on the sidewalk. A sign left on the sidewalk is an obstruction, regardless of whether or not the sidewalk is completely obstructed. I have no idea whether the protesters were read the ordinances or not–my guess is that as far as the law is concerned, people are responsible for educating themselves about the law rather than assuming that they can do whatever they want as long as no one has told them otherwise. The point is that there is evidence to indicate that all the hysteria about sign “stealing” may be unfounded.
I saw little histrionics
Then you weren’t watching the same video that I was.
the police were there, so if the demonstrators were doing anything even remotely illegal then why didn’t they act?
Maybe they thought that it was funnier to watch the demonstrators running around squawking and filming each other.
An ancient Christian historian–I can’t remember who–recorded a highly amusing story about some Christians who were seeking martyrdom presenting themselves to the Roman governor and demanding to be executed. He told them that they should go find a cliff or some rope if they wanted to die–he wasn’t going to do it.
As it was with ancient Christians, so it is with modern pro-lifers. Some of them may genuinely be persecuted, but a lot of them are just comically trolling for attention.
“a bunch of bleating, wailing, lawsuit-happy people clogging up the sidewalk”
“histrionically wailing”
“a bunch of children fighting over signs and running after each other trying to get each other in trouble for it.”
“then go sit in the nearest tavern for the rest of the day.”
“running around squawking”
Now those quotes above are some real down-to-earth honest and true journalism examples, y’all. Those darn prolifers don’t care about human life and freedoms. They just a bunch of crying sue-happy drunks.
It would be funny if it weren’t all so sad. . .
Rebecca, I’ve worked with disabled folks and the comments by Christy make me feel sick too. Proabort true colors.
LisaC
At the beginning of the video, the police and Pl people make every effort to be cordial and cooperative. At this time the officer, seeing they had signs, could have explained the city ordinance to them. In fact, at any time any of the 8 officers could have done so. In case you didn’t know, it is the police officer’s job to inform you that you are in violation of a city ordinance.
Now, if the PL people were knowingly or unknowingly violating a city ordinance, the police, there were 8 of them, had a responsibility to inform them they must remove their signs or they will be confiscated. End of story. No incident and nothing to record.
It sounds to me like the police were derelict in their responsibilities. Standing by doing nothing while PL people allegedly violated a law the police didn’t see fit to inform them of or enforce.
testing
Everyone, some of my comments have gone into moderation and may reappear. I’m testing before I try again.
LisaC,
At the beginning of the video the police and PL people make every effort to be cordial and cooperative. At this time the police officer, seeing they had signs, could have explained the city ordinance to them. In fact any number of the 8 officers standing around could have as well. In case you didn’t know it is the police officer’s responsibility to inform you if you are in violation of a city ordinance.
Now if the PL people, either knowingly or unknowingly, violated the ordinance the police had the responsibility to inform them that they must either remove the signs or they will be confiscated. End of story. No incident and no video.
It would seem the police if anything were derelict in their duty if they neither informed the PL people of the ordinance and then didn’t enforce it either.
Prax,
Do you know who I write to to get my comments out of moderation? Thanks.
I’m gonna go sit in a tavern and see what happens….
Mary, you been bein’ a bad girl? :P
Doug,
Nah, this has happened before! Just out of the blue. Maddening as all heck. :)
BTW Doug,
Have one on me, or two or three. :)
Nonsense, Rebecca. You too, Praxedes.
No offense was meant, and I was not talking about “disabled people.” Genetic mutations *do* occur, sometimes lethal – this is what I was talking about.
LisaC,
At the beginning of the video, the police and PL people make every effort to be cordial and cooperative. If there were any city ordinances concerning signs the PL people were expected to obey, then the police had the responsibility to inform them. Contrary to what you may think, police are obligated to inform people of city ordinances.
Moderator, please take me out of moderation! Thank you.
Hi Mary, you have 4.5 more hours in the penalty box.
I didn’t even see what Mary did….
Sorry folks for all the repetition. I kept trying and tesing and I kept going into moderation. I thought they were deleted. Just pick the best repetition and go with it! :)
Hi Moderator,
Thank you!
Hi Wayne,
Sometimes you just end up going into moderation, its happened before and to a few other posters as well. In fact it was another poster who told me how to get out after it happened to him, and he’s one of our best posters.
Suddenly someone is saying you can’t see their response because they’ve gone into moderation. I couldn’t see what they said that would have been a problem either.
I agree Mary. The police should not have to wait for their chief to inform folks of ordinances on the books.
The behavior on the part of the police make them appear incompetent at the least and unfeeling and vindictive at the worst. The officer smirking appears unprofessional and arrogant, and I don’t care what side he might have been smirking at.
“No offense was meant”
Said like a true bully after she is called out on her bullying. Play nice or go home.
Mary/Prax –
I would encourage you two to write a letter to the police and let them know how poorly they handled the situation. I’m sure they’d love to hear it.
Yawn
Unsubscribing to this one – thanks folks!
In fact it was another poster who told me how to get out after it happened to him, and he’s one of our best posters.
Yah, you just bribe the referee, eh? Good to see you back in full action, Mary. I thought we were gonna have to have a huge “Free Mary!” campaign.
I think the police will or have already seen this thread, Ex.
Any mature professional worth their weight welcomes constructive criticism and freedom of speech.
You sure seem to get bored here often. Have you ever considered leaving permanently? It might just not be your thing.
EGV,
I don’t think the police need Prax and me to point out the obvious.
Hi Doug,
LOL. Aren’t you a dear. I know you’d personally lead the charge.
Anyway my friend, I hope you had a great time at the tavern last nite and had a couple on me!
Kudos to LisaC for finding the relevent code and posting it.
” It shall be unlawful for any person to place goods, wares, merchandise, fruits, vegetables, boxes, barrels, containers, dispensers, signs, basketball goals or any obstruction of any kind in or upon any street, avenue, alley or sidewalk within the city.”
Who saw that one coming? :P
And no surprise, then, that the store owner was actually supposed to be getting rid of the obstructions.
Praxedes says: July 20, 2014 at 10:40 am
Any mature professional worth their weight welcomes constructive criticism and freedom of speech.
The police are human, too, and there apparently is a history of pro-lifers suing the Jackson police…?
I doubt that most police officers know every bit of the municipal code, section and sub-section, by heart. I also doubt that they are expected to.
Seems to me that here, the pro-lifers are being like that punk kid who taunts you, then gets just close enough to the teacher that he knows you can’t get him back, or get him, period. “Nyah nyah nyah, you can’t get me… I’ll get you in trouble. I’ll sue you….”
In this case, the authority figure(s), the police, like the teacher, are supposed to keep things fairly calm. Yet now it’s not only that we have the disagreement about the sidewalk obstructions (whether or not the store owner, in practice, was really expected to clear the obstructions). Now, we also have the fact that in the past, the police have been sued.
This is like the teacher having gotten into trouble because the little punk kid got his parents riled up about the teacher, and they complained to the principal. Without any even half-decent evidence of any meaningful wrongdoing, the school has to take such stuff seriously, and there is no real way the teacher can “win,” here.
Maybe the teacher will slightly turn away, and let the little punk get his just desserts. Maybe the police – again, regardless of the applicable ordinance – can’t help smiling a little when they see the storeowner getting the stuff out of the way.
The police probably knew that it would all blow over in the end, and meanwhile, let the pro-lifers wave all their little toys around in the air, trying to “get something” on somebody, so they can sue and complain and whine and moan….
Who, really, would not smile a bit, in their place?
Dear The Andersons,
Not one of the EIGHT officers knew about a municipal code that is related to the subject of a lawsuit in 2006? Maybe some training is in order.
Do The Andersons support legal abortion? Does the business owner that removed the signs?
Looks as if the prolifers struck a big nerve in this town. Don’t talk about the big white elephant in Mayberry and we’ll all go about remaining ignorant about the innocents being slaughtered.
Andersons,
If the PL people were in fact in violation of the law, it was the responsibility of one of the eight police officers standing there to inform them and to enforce the law by ordering them to remove the signs the moment they were illegally placed. That is the police officer’s responsibility. Now, if the police are not present, of course the store owner will have to act. However police were present, they had plenty of time to advise the PL people they were in violation, and to enforce the law by ordering the signs removed the moment they were set there. Or better yet, just telling the PL people where signs cannot be placed.
Now for your information, police officers are sworn to uphold the law, not stand around and smirk and entertain themselves while people allegedly violate it. They are not like teachers who have to keep things fairly calm. They are officers of the law responsible for upholding it. Also police are not supposed to pick and choose what laws they will enforce and when they’ll enforce them.
Let’s hope the police in your area take their jobs a little more seriously, though obviously it doesn’t matter to you.
“or any obstruction of any kind”
The Andersons, The way you read it means even humans on the sidewalk are obstructions. I read ‘obstruction’ to mean that an item(s) is not allowed if people are not able to safely and freely move on the sidewalk. This was obviously not the case here.
“can’t help smiling”
if he can’t help smiling what else can he not control?
Five-Star thread, would read again.
The Andersons – great post. It’s easy to complain about the police, and were the local laws different, I think pro-lifers would still be complaining, just in a different manner, i.e. “the law is on our side,” as I am sure the assumption was when this topic was formulated.
The police are not robots, and the whole thing was quite calm, overall. Whether the law favored the store owner, or the protesters, there was no immediate threat that required the police to do more than they did – it was not like the store owner was taking the signs out back and burning them at that instant.
The police probably knew that it would all blow over in the end, and meanwhile, let the pro-lifers wave all their little toys around in the air, trying to “get something” on somebody, so they can sue and complain and whine and moan….
Who, really, would not smile a bit, in their place?
Exactly.
Caleb,
Something just doesn’t seem to register with you folks. The police had a job to do and were derelict in not doing so.
Now, let’s hope that should you need a police officer to do his/her job, he/she will do more than just “smile a bit”.
I would also think Mr.Peters should be a tad irate as well. Why should he have to enforce a city ordinance while 8 police officers stand around and smirk?
Praxedes says: July 20, 2014 at 1:33 pm
“or any obstruction of any kind”
“The Andersons, The way you read it means even humans on the sidewalk are obstructions. I read ‘obstruction’ to mean that an item(s) is not allowed if people are not able to safely and freely move on the sidewalk. This was obviously not the case here.”
No, I didn’t think that at all. It does specifically say “signs” and “any obstruction of any kind,” so the sandwich boards have to go. I didn’t think of people being obstructions, but if enough people were really blocking things, then I imagine the police see it that way too.
Mary says: July 20, 2014 at 1:43 pm
Something just doesn’t seem to register with you folks. The police had a job to do and were derelict in not doing so.
By that logic, all police everywhere are “derelict” because not every single instance of jaywalking, littering, etc., results in arrests, citations, etc.
In the real world, the police did just fine here. Look – this thread began with “Unbelievable video…” and accusations of theft.
One simply has to laugh – given what LisaC found and presented. Nobody got hurt, and Caleb is correct – the police are not robots, and they maintained the peace. Yet still, pro-lifers are engaging in hyperbole and exaggeration, albeit now in a different direction, due to the fact that the law does not support their original contention.
In the real world, things happen all the time that could be dealt with by the police in a harsher manner, but it is routine for traffic stops to result in only one citation, when several could be written; for people to get off with warnings, rather than being arrested, etc. Beat cops and “cops on the street” could, in theory, clog the judicial system with much higher numbers of infractions, but the system is not designed for such (and is over-burdened, as things are now, anyway).
If Mr. Peters didn’t seem irate enough, perhaps it’s because he knows when to just shrug his shoulders or smile a bit himself.
Uh no folks,
The police saw an ordinance that was allegedly being violated and did nothing. They had plenty of time to act, there were 8 of them standing around doing nothing, so there is no excuse.
Peters could have simply returned the signs to the PL people, telling them they were in violation of an ordinance and he is required to remove the signs, or turn them over to police. I would think legally that would be the safest course of action. I question what right he had to take them and keep them and why police had to get their commander to retrieve them.
The fact is that police are officers of the law who are responsible for upholding the law. These officers did not. Now you may find it trivial and amusing, I find it a violation of their oath as police officers.
As for Mr.Peters, I have no idea if he was irate, though I assume the man pays taxes and has a right to expect that police will do the job he pays them to do.
Like I said Andersons, I can only hope you live in a community where police take their jobs seriously. You wouldn’t want them to consider something trivial and amusing that you take very seriously.
Ex-GOP says:
July 18, 2014 at 2:21 pm
“Meanwhile, crime is going on around the city, and the policy are tied up with a bunch of children fighting over signs and running after each other trying to get each other in trouble for it.
Taze them all, bring them out to a field and let them all slug it out and be done with it.
My goodness…”
(I know that quote is well back in time, in this thread…)
That’s right on, and that was even before we knew that the law was on the side of the guy taking the signs away.
Jacqueline,
Mr.Peters had the option of either returning the signs to the PL people and informing they were violating the ordinance, or he could have turned them over to the police, none of whom were doing much of anything anyway.
The whole incident could have been avoided had the police done their job. Also, I question what right Peters had to take the signs and keep them since the owners of the signs were standing right there and the police were also present. The police had to send for their commander to retrieve them?
Jacqueline,
“…the law was on the side of the guy taking the signs away”
To a point. Let’s say you step out of your front door and notice a bicycle sprawled across the public sidewalk. You know your community has strict ordinances against this type of thing so you immediately move the bike. Yes the law is on your side.
What do you do?
Likely you look for the owner so as to return the bike to him/her and if you see him/her you advise him/her that leaving their bike like that is a violation of a city ordinance, as well as dangerous. Or if the owner is not around, you put the bike on your lawn hoping it will be retrieved.
If time passes and no one retrieves the bike, you likely will call police as they may be able to trace the owner.
Or, you decide to take the bike and put it in your garage and only return it when the police pressure you to.
That’s called stealing.
“then I imagine the police see it that way too.”
Folks in that town have to imagine the way the police see it? Are you who are defending the actions of the police from that town? Do the police decide on an individual basis how they see things? This should not be about sides at all. It should be about what the law is.
If the owner of the store put racks of clothing out to sell, would the police stand by if someone other than the owner started removing the items and putting them in their car?
Like you said, Mary. Why are the cops having a citizen take the law into his own hands? Dangerous precedent to be setting; how will anything else hold water in the future? Very dysfunctional department.
Is the police department so upset with past dealings with prolifers that they are unable to move on and do their jobs professionally? My gut feeling is that a few big wigs run the show in this town and the police follow THEIR orders.
“but if enough people were really blocking things,”
So enough people would have to be blocking things before they are removed but signs that aren’t blocking anything can’t be there at all? This is not logical. People seem to be reading whatever they want into the ordinance.
The Andersons, you didn’t answer my question: Do you support legal abortion?
Jacqueline agrees with tazing citizens that disagree with each other and encourages them to physically fight it out. The nazis encouraged garbage like this all the time. Blood lust.
“One simply has to laugh – given what LisaC found and presented. Nobody got hurt, and Caleb is correct – the police are not robots, and they maintained the peace. Yet still, pro-lifers are engaging in hyperbole and exaggeration, albeit now in a different direction, due to the fact that the law does not support their original contention.”
The Andersons, entirely correct. :)
This thread went semi-hysterical from the get-go, and after LisaC demonstrated that there was no basis for it, as stated, a few pro-lifers went hysterical in another direction.
Talk of “stealing,” and “danger,” and before you know it, Godwin settles things (as if we didn’t know already). “Nazis….”
Lulz.
Whiners gonna whine, no matter what. When they get shown up, they gonna whine in another direction.
The truth is that the police did fine, nobody got hurt and all is well in the end. Heck, there is more supposed “danger” right on this thread. :P
Christy, the fact that your sister was happy that her unborn child died is interesting, did she even want the baby at all? Most people who find out that they have a lethal prenatal diagnosis are devastated and grieve. They aren’t happy at the death of their child.
The fact that you see nothing wrong with referring to disabled fetuses as mutants just shows how ableist you are, check your able-bodied privilege. How would you like to be bullied and called a mutant like my little sister was? You are promoting those attitudes with your post.
“The truth is that the police did fine, nobody got hurt and all is well in the end.”
The truth is that not everyone agrees that the police did fine. Might makes right in your world though, eh, Mark?
The truth is that the slaughter continues in your town. The preborn are not just hurt, they are killed. Killers gonna kill. Enablers are gonna enable.
Turn the other way and sing louder, proaborts.
You are okay with preborn children being killed in your town. Hiding the pictures of aborted children doesn’t change the fact that they are being killed. In front of and right across the street from folks who want to bury their heads in the sand.
Truth is, those defending the poor behavior of this police force support the killing of humans. Pro-lifers don’t need an ordinance to understand killing humans is wrong.
You support killing preborn humans. Own it.
Godwin told us there would be days like this.
Mark,
Yes LisaC found the ordinance but that does not justify Peters taking someone else’s property and not returning it to the owners who are standing right there, or turning it over to the police. That’s called stealing. It also does not justify police being derelict in their responsibilities.
No Mark, the truth is if the police had carried out their responsibilities, there would not have been a problem.
Mary, nobody ended up without their property, and all is well. The police don’t have to write up every little thing, as The Andersons aptly dealt with, i.e.:
“In the real world, things happen all the time that could be dealt with by the police in a harsher manner, but it is routine for traffic stops to result in only one citation, when several could be written; for people to get off with warnings, rather than being arrested, etc. Beat cops and “cops on the street” could, in theory, clog the judicial system with much higher numbers of infractions, but the system is not designed for such (and is over-burdened, as things are now, anyway).”
“The police don’t have to write up every little thing”
Eight officers for a little thing?
Mark,
The property was eventually returned, until then it was stolen. The police called their commander to retrieve it. Why they had to do that I don’t know. When he first removed the signs, Peters should have turned the signs over to the owners or the police, he did neither.
You can dance around this all you want and make all the excuses you want, but 8 police officers stood around and did nothing. They did not advise the PL people about illegal sign placement nor did they order them to remove the signs. They said nothing when Peters walked off with the signs. That was stealing. As I said this whole situation could have been easily avoided had the police done their job from the onset.
Now if you find this acceptable behavior for police fine, but you may not if someone is walking off with your property while police just stand around and “smile a bit”.
“but you may not if someone is walking off with your property while police just stand around and “smile a bit”.”
Right. I notice none of the ‘borts answered my question, “If the owner of the store put racks of clothing out to sell, would the police stand by if someone other than the owner started removing the items and putting them in their car?”
Seems like the authorities in this community serve the agenda that the elites have decided they will serve rather than the law. Sad.
Hi Prax,
I don’t know why people have trouble grasping some very basic concepts.
1. The police have a job to do and are required to do it, however “trivial” one might consider the situation.
2. Stealing is stealing is stealing. You walk off with someone’s property, that is stealing.
Good points about the cops not writing up everything. Good grief, that would a horrible world. And – if this was a case of the cops not writing up pro-life protesters, then there would be pro-lifers here chortling to high heaven about it.
In the real world, the way this deal turned out is pretty darn good. The cops and 99% of everybody else know that.
Very good comments by Del, way back at roughly posts #8 and #13. Whoa, anybody in a Fibonacci mood? :P
Yo, Mary.
“The police have a job to do and are required to do it, however “trivial” one might consider the situation.”
Okay – the law is no signs on the sidewalk. So lock up the protesters, take away their little video toys, and let’s get on with things.
“let’s get on with things.”
The way things turned out, Jackson is way more aware of the slaughtering and incompetence going on then they were before. Poor behavior on the part of ‘professionals’ who are sworn to serve and protect tends to spread in small areas.
Now others who may have stopped and dropped a dime or two in your town are made aware of how they may be treated as well and avoid your town like the plague. You’re driving tourists away. To say nothing of local prolifers not patronizing Fondren Corners.
There are plenty of overly-aggressive cops in the world….
I live on the west side of Jackson, not far from Metrocenter Mall. We are fine – we have a large current and historical presence as far as southern literature, many museums, the zoo, planetarium, gardens, etc.
Reading this thread, it looks like only a couple pro-lifers are trying to create a bunch of false drama about this situation. What do you want – for the police to start cracking some pro-life skulls? For southern police to use some restraint is a good thing, trust me.
Jared says: July 19, 2014 at 3:24 pm
“As long as the signs are not larger, higher, etc., than what the local laws allow, then okay – as long as the protesters keep them on their own property, rather than messing things up for the townspeople, merchants, etc.”
Right – that satisfies the laws and should satisfy everybody. Let the police stay on more important duties.
Rebecca,
I did not say my sister “was happy.” The pregnancy was wanted. It was only after she found out that the fetus/baby had a lethal deficiency/mutation that she was glad it was over. If she had known about it earlier, she would have ended the pregnancy earlier. Most people would. If birth control could have prevented that pregnancy, she would have used it. There too, most people would, don’t you agree?
I didn’t say that all disabled fetuses are mutants. It would be cruel and hurtful for your sister to be called any name that related to her condition, maybe any name at all. I’m not promoting that or anything else.
The fact remains that for my sister, there was never going to be any child there that would have feelings, etc. A lethal mutation was present – that’s why I said “mutant,” there, and the pregnancy ended in miscarriage.
Hi Jennie, A couple of prolifers? Do you see how many likes this site has? Do you realize some folks here don’t even do FB but read Jill daily?
Your police should have communicated the ordinance. As is, they told the prolifers they had a right to be there but did not tell them their signs needed to stay in the car. They stood by silently and said nothing and smirked. I personally don’t believe the officers weren’t aware of the ordinance and it’s my guess they probably all were aware of it and were ordered to keep quiet about it. They had it in for prolifers because of the past in my opinion. They had every opportunity to tell the thief to leave the signs and/or to tell the prolifers to put them away. They did neither.
The police caused the drama and enabled and escalated the situation. The businessman obviously knew about the ordinance (which is not written with clear language btw) and he said zip about it either. Arrogant.
Regarding bashing skulls, if you haven’t noticed, it is the proaborts here who brought up using violence and locking up people. Someone walking away, right in front of the police, with your property, is not causing drama? Why don’t you answer the question about people walking off with the business owners property? Would that be okay?
The video and ensuing thread leaves a big black mark on Jackson. I know folks who travel through that area, and you can be assured I will tell them to drive right on through from now on taking their money with them.
Nice matters.
Jackson ms has an ordinance you cannot place temorary signs on public property. the protesters should have been arrested for breaking the law. these people must not have jobs or anything to do abortion is legal in ms so if you really want to do something about it get with congress and the local government stop trying to intimidate people for doing something legal. im not for abortion or a lot of other legal things but im glad the signs got taken down. so get a life no pun intended…whats next protesting strip clubs liquor stores casinos and nightclubs just because YOU believe its wrong its legal do something productive like getting the law changed not hurting local businesses with your childish signs no pun intended the clinic did not touch your signs the surrounding businesses did they are tired of losing business because of this btw do the protesters even contribute to society outside of breaking the law themselves? they never seem to be at work so do they even pay taxes? or are they protesting working pa
And The local businesses pay taxes, provide services, and PAY RENT. the protesters provide nothing nothing at all Standing in front of some random business with signs outside of maybe intimidating what the hell is the point again to waste your time and hurt the local economy .Go do something productive
I keep seeing posts that the police did not tell the protesters the signs were illegal Maybe they also forgot to tell the people taking the signs were illegal if thats the case can i shoot someone and say the cops did not tell me its illegal??????
And the black mark gets bigger. . .
Now those quotes above are some real down-to-earth honest and true journalism examples, y’all
Oh, I don’t claim to practice journalism. Jill Stanek claims to practice journalism, which is even funnier than the woman on the video yowling “We need the police! Someone’s taking a sign!!!!
In case you didn’t know, it is the police officer’s job to inform you that you are in violation of a city ordinance.
I really don’t know what the pertinent laws are in this instance, but I am very impressed by how quickly you went from being unaware of the city’s municipal code to being an expert on its contents.
Now, if the PL people were knowingly or unknowingly violating a city ordinance, the police, there were 8 of them, had a responsibility to inform them they must remove their signs or they will be confiscated.
Do you seriously believe that if you violate a city ordinance like not feeding a meter, the police’s only two options are telling you to move your car or confiscating it? Really? Because there actually are two other options–writing you a ticket, or cutting you some slack and letting it go. Which appears to be what the police were doing here.
Why should he have to enforce a city ordinance while 8 police officers stand around and smirk?
Perhaps they were smiling cordially. However, I think that in spite of your expertise on the city ordinances, you may be misinterpreting them. If the law said only that people cannot leave signs on the sidewalk, then it could be said that Mr. Peters was having to enforce the ordinance. Since the law also says that business owners must pick up signs, though, he was merely obeying the ordinance.
That’s called stealing.
It’s called stealing by you. That doesn’t mean that it actually is stealing. Here in the US–apparently unbeknownst to you and the self-styled journalist who wrote the original post–we have a principle called “presumption of innocence,” which means that a person is not judged guilty of a crime until s/he has been found guilty in a court of law. That is why real journalists–unlike the self-styled journalist who wrote the original post–say that “So and so allegedly stole a sign.” That way, the journalist does not have to post a correction if it is established that what the person did is not legally defined as stealing.
I realize that only a journalist who feels a professional obligation to be accurate would have to post a correction. People who are opportunistically feeding a narrative to an uncritical audience wouldn’t bother.
Right. I notice none of the ‘borts answered my question, “If the owner of the store put racks of clothing out to sell, would the police stand by if someone other than the owner started removing the items and putting them in their car?”
What does that have to do with anything? The statute makes the business owner responsible for removing stuff on the sidewalk, not random other people. But, let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine that you see a headline blaring “Video shows pro-lifer stealing medical equipment!” and when you click on the video, you see a pro-life business owner steadfastly clutching a package labelled “Big Box o’Precious Baby Killin’ Tools” while abortionists dance comically around filming each other demanding that the pro-lifer stop stealing their stuff. Later, it emerges that an abortionist put the box on the ground, and the pro-life business owner, knowing that he was legally responsible for keeping the sidewalk clear, picks up the box to save the abortionist from being sued if someone stumbles over the box. Then, the pro-lifer refuses to give the box o’baby killin’ tools back until advised by the police on the appropriate course of action. Would you call that stealing? I think not.
People seem to be reading whatever they want into the ordinance.
If by “people” you mean “Praxades.” I’m reading the plain language of the text, which clearly refers to objects placed on sidewalks.
I question what right he had to take them
The right he had to take them appears to have been established by Jackson Municipal Ordinance 110-61, which enjoins someone in charge of a property to remove objects left on public sidewalks in front of his establishment.
Peters could have simply returned the signs to the PL people, telling them they were in violation of an ordinance and he is required to remove the signs, or turn them over to police.
Could you please cite the statute that says that he is required to either return the signs or hand them over to the police? It’s not in the ordinance I cited. I doubt that the police particularly want business owners to hand over every piece of junk that they pick up off the sidewalk, and perhaps Mr. Peters did not want to return them because he was charitably protecting the pro-lifers from their own folly by leaving themselves open to lawsuits from visually-impaired people who might stumble over their ordinance-breaking signs, even if the police were choosing to do the pro-lifers a solid by not citing them.
Let me set it straight for you folks, Charlene, dumb, get a job, what’s wrong with you, John, and Jennie, and Doug
The police have a responsibility to enforce the law. At the very beginning they could have advised the PL people where signs cannot be placed. End of story. After all there were eight officers, I assume some of them knew of the law. BTW, the PL people do have the legal right to demonstrate, as objectionable as you find it, and made every effort to be cordial and cooperative with the police, even shaking hands.
Once the signs were illegally placed, it was the responsibility of the police, again there were 8 of them, to immediately tell the PL people to move the signs or they would be confiscated. End of story.
You see, the police doing their job would have prevented this whole situation.
Now, beause the police didn’t do their job, Mr. Peters is removing the signs. He should have either turned the signs over to the rightful owners, or the police. Instead he walks off with and keeps them. That’s called stealing.
The police should also be concerned that this is a confrontational situation, taking people’s property can cause tempers to flare and fights to erupt, so again they should immediately intervene and do their job. Instead they stand around smirking.
Now I hope you better understand how the police were derelict in their responsibilities and the problems this ended up creating. Thankfully no one was hurt and the signs were returned when the commander showed up. Why it took the commander to retrieve stolen property is beyond me.
Mods, please take me out of moderation!!
Do you think the police knew what the ordinance was, LisaC?
Maybe all of them should have to answer that in a court of law.
I personally want officers to inform people if they see that they are unintentionally breaking an ordinance. Otherwise it is just game playing, picking sides, immaturity and fueling fires.
You know I believe in that protect and serve thing.
Accountability for all.
Pro-life demonstrators have no less of a right to be there than the abortion clinic does. If business owners are that concerned about losing customers, they should support closing the clinic. Pro-life demonstrations would not be necessary if it wasn’t there.
Great comment Lisa C. However Navi what are you talking about? The clinic pays rent and taxes running a legal business. Protesters are just there and businesses are losing money because of protesters not because of other businesses. Necessary??? what makes protests necessary some opinion of yours does not validate the term necessary
“It shall likewise be unlawful for any person in charge of or occupying any property to permit . . .”
I bet the two guys that were helping Peters take the signs away are not in charge of and do not own the building. They were breaking the ordinance by helping Peters take property that did not belong to them. Taking property that does not belong to you is stealing. The ordinance reads only the owner can remove items.
Poor Mary! The site must not be working right for you… : (
‘Tain’t fair.
The cops don’t have to tell people the law. Not knowing the law is no excuse, whether or not a cop “could” have told them.
Did the cops know the law, there? Originally I thought probably not. As The Andersons said, probably not “section and sub-section, by heart.”
But then I was thinking that if there has been trouble with protesters in the past, and especially if (ahem) lawsuits are involved, then the cops have a higher likelihood of being in this same situation before, and lawsuits would tend to fix things in their minds, perhaps along with supervisors reminding them of the laws and “to be careful out there” and stay out of trouble.
In any case, it seems pretty silly for pro-life posters to be raising cain about the whole deal, since pro-life protesters got off easy.
Navi: Pro-life demonstrators have no less of a right to be there than the abortion clinic does.
Yeah, but not when they put those signs up.
Jared is right: ““As long as the signs are not larger, higher, etc., than what the local laws allow, then okay – as long as the protesters keep them on their own property, rather than messing things up for the townspeople, merchants, etc.”
P.S. FREE MARY !!
The ordinance reads only the owner can remove items.
No, it doesn’t. It reads that the person in charge of a property may not permit items to remain on the sidewalk. Nothing in that precludes the owner having other people assist him or even do it instead of him.
Do you think the police knew what the ordinance was, LisaC?
Quite probably. However, I would note that everyone who is wailing and gnashing their teeth about the police’s supposed dereliction of their duties appears to be ignoring the assertion in Jill’s original post that city officials and pro-lifers reached an agreement that “officers would no longer interfere with the free speech rights of pro-life advocates.” Now, I understand why someone would disregard any unsubstantiated claims that Jill makes, and I respect you for doing so. Still, it is possible that she is, in this instance, accurately reporting the facts. If so, then it would indicate that the city had agreed to give pro-lifers a pass on the sign ordinance. Ergo, no dereliction of duty, unless y’all are claiming that for some reason pro-lifers sued to force the city to neglect their responsibilities.
Nevertheless, an ordinance requiring business owners to remove signs in front of their buildings is an ordinance that pertains to the business owner, not to pro-lifers, and I doubt that anyone involved in the agreement even thought to stipulate that the police would enforce a suspension of all city ordinances whenever a pro-lifer was involved. And so it seems to me that the most likely explanation here is that the police were told to call a commander if any issues about a pro-life protest were raised rather than handling it on the ground.
And I know it’s very fun and dramatic to shout STEALING STEALING STEALING at every opportunity, but as we hear on the tape, Mr. Peters told the pro-lifers where he was taking the signs, and the tape (which may or may not reveal the whole truth) shows that the signs remained in plain view through an open door throughout the contretemps. That is, actually, not the same thing as someone running off with someone else’s wallet. I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all for the business owner to wait for police to advise when a dispute arose on what to do with items that he had legitimately removed from the sidewalk.
Incidentally, for all we know, the police did explain the whole deal to Created Equal and they chose to post the video anyway.
Contretemps
Good word, Lisa. :)
I’m surprised this thread is still going hot and heavy. :P
“Nothing in that precludes the owner having other people assist him or even do it instead of him.”
Funny how you can read further into an ordinance than I can. I read that the signs must be obstructing the sidewalk which they were not. But, according to you, I was wrong when I read further into the ordinance and you were right. Now you read further into the ordinance and again I am wrong and you are right. Basically, you are always right. Am I right? Or wrong?
Maybe Peters could have had the police assist him in taking the signs away. Maybe he could have had his assistants burn the signs. There is nothing in the ordinance that says he or his assistants or the police couldn’t burn the signs, is there?
“for all we know, the police did explain the whole deal to Created Equal”
So you think eight police officers explained the ordinance to Created Equal and told them they needed to remove their signs and Created Equal ignored police orders and instead chose to leave their signs there to be taken? Am I understanding you correctly?
“Mr. Peters told the pro-lifers where he was taking the signs”
So if I told you I was taking your property against your will into my place of business that would be okay?
This just keeps getting better.
Incidentally, who do you think would be able to give out accurate numbers of the different races that live in Jackson? Would those people also be able to tell us what the races of the children being aborted are at Jackson Women’s Health Organization? I know it’s fun and dramatic to think you are all for diversity and equality.
Uh Doug,
The police have the responsibility to tell you what the law is and that you are breaking the law, as well as to intercede when you do.
It shall be unlawful for any person to place goods, wares, merchandise, fruits, vegetables, boxes, barrels, containers, dispensers, signs, basketball goals or any obstruction of any kind in or upon any street, avenue, alley or sidewalk within the city.
I think that “any obstruction of any kind” covers things not specifically mentioned by name.
If there was a minimum amount of obstruction that would be necessary for the ordinance to take effect, it would have been mentioned – nothing else makes sense.
Basically, they are saying, “Don’t put **** in these spaces in our city.”
Mary, welcome back to the Land of the Non-Moderated.
If the cops are arresting you or citing you, then I agree that they should be telling you the law and how you broke it – what the charges are.
That was not the case here, however. The protesters got off easy, and the cops don’t have to tell them what the law is.
LisaC, 4:44PM
Your arguments are bordering on the ridiculous.
Let’s use your arguments to make an analogy.
You are walking in front of my business, you have your arms full of packages, and you don’t realize you dropped your purse on the sidewalk in front of my business. Its a large purse and its obstructing the sidewalk and we live and die by ordinances, right?
So I could pick up your purse, call out to you that
you dropped it and return it to you, or I could turn it into the police, but why should they be bothered with all the clutter I pick up in front of my store? So I decide instead to keep it. After all, the ordinance doesn’t say I must return it, only remove it. Also, you might drop the purse again and create an obstacle to an elderly or disabled person. I am very civic minded.
Now let’s say you happen to see me taking your purse and you very rightfully demand it back. I continue to walk away with your purse. You also ask a couple of passing police officers for help. They respond by smirking and obviously enjoying the whole situation, also they don’t lift a finger to help you.
Your reaction LisaC? Also, what would you accuse me of being? Maybe a thief?
Now you read further into the ordinance and again I am wrong and you are right.
I’m not reading into the ordinance: I’m reading the plain text of the ordinance and I know what the verb “to permit” means. Which one of us is right would have to be established by an independent authority on the code. But perhaps you could give another example of a sentence in which “So-and-so shall not permit something to happen” means “So-and-so must prevent something from happening personally and without assistance.”
There is nothing in the ordinance that says he or his assistants or the police couldn’t burn the signs, is there?
Not in that particular ordinance, no. Whether or not he could burn the signs would depend on what else the city ordinances say about disposition of items left on public property and open flames within city limits. I believe that Mary is the resident expert on all things contained with the Jackson municipal code.
So you think eight police officers explained the ordinance to Created Equal and told them they needed to remove their signs and Created Equal ignored police orders and instead chose to leave their signs there to be taken? Am I understanding you correctly?
No, I was unclear. I meant that for all we know the police commander explained the ordinances to Created Equal when he arrived and they still chose to post a video claiming that they were the victims of theft.
So if I told you I was taking your property against your will into my place of business that would be okay?
What does that have to do with anything? Stealing is defined by what the law says, not by what I feel.
Incidentally, who do you think would be able to give out accurate numbers of the different races that live in Jackson?
Census Bureau, I imagine.
Would those people also be able to tell us what the races of the children being aborted are at Jackson Women’s Health Organization?
You might try to find out whether Mississippi has any laws regarding reporting that data. It wouldn’t hurt you to learn how to find information when I’m not around to do it for you.
The police have the responsibility to tell you what the law is and that you are breaking the law, as well as to intercede when you do.
So you’re still not lending any credence to Jill’s claims about an agreement between the city and pro-lifers, then. Good for you!
Not quite Doug,
The police have a responsibility to intervene when there is a violation of the law. When the PL people illegally put up the signs, the police had a responsibility to immediately tell them to move the signs, or they would be confiscated. Had they done that we likely wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Also Doug, when Peters began removing the signs, a confrontational situation was created. When someone is walking off with your property, tempers may flare and fists may fly. Again the police had a responsibility to intervene and did not.
Had the police done their job Doug, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
LisaC,
You’re not serious right? An agreement between police and PL people does not mean laws can be violated or that police should not intervene when the law is broken.
“the cops don’t have to tell them what the law is.”
but the law also doesn’t say the police can’t tell the prolifers about the ordinance. The police choosing not to fill all parties in is what makes them look like cads.
Protect and serve.
The police have a responsibility to intervene when there is a violation of the law.
Mary, oh, so now that you’ve been in Moderation, you’re a “jailhouse lawyer”? :P
In the real world, the police don’t have to “intervene” on every little thing. There is no way they could, in the first place, nor can the court system accommodate any such thing.
I also don’t know what all the cops knew about the local laws – once again, they are not going to have it all memorized, section and sub-section. This is pretty low-grade infraction-type stuff we are talking about here, and I doubt there is any intent to be locking people up, or issuing large fines, etc., with respect to the law, here.
Did tempers really flare? Did fists fly? Hey, if they did, then I imagine the cops would have stepped in. How it worked out, though, is that all was well, and the protesters got off really easy. How is this grounds for complaint on your part?
Had the police done their job Doug, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Well good grief, what did you want to have happen? You want the cops to lock up those protesters, since they were in violation of the law?
Doug,
Hardly a jailhouse lawyer. I consider that a no brainer.
I didn’t say they have to intervene in every little thing, but there were 8 cops standing around, certainly one or two of them knew the ordinances. You expect the PL people to and not the cops?
Any one of the officers could have walked up and ordered the signs removed the second they went up. End of story.
Thankfully there was no violence. But confrontational situations have the potential for violence. You can NOT predict how people will react or what can happen. Police and self defense experts give this advice for a reason: Never get into confrontations. Always call the police. Yes I have personally heard those words spoken.
No I don’t want the protestors locked up. I want the police to do their job.
Hardly a jailhouse lawyer.
Oh come on, Girl! I thought that was pretty funny. :P
No, I don’t expect the protesters to know that local ordinance. Hey – it was a big surprise to me, in the course of this thread. Who woulda thought?
As far as the potential for violence, all those cops were right there, and this was not any type of big deal at all…
Yeah, the cops could have ordered the signs removed, but the shop owner was doin’ it… No prob.
In the end, those pro-lifers got off without any charges. SO why all this angst about “what should have been.”
Look, if it had been a pro-choice group, I know darn well this thread would be full of pro-lifers howling to high heaven, demanding that the cops lock them up for at least the rest of their lives. After all, they were in “violation of the law,” and “the cops should do their job.”
Meanwhile, it’s not pro-choicers, it’s pro-lifers, and I don’t see anybody yelling and screaming for them to be penalized…. Holy Crow – they totally got off…. No need to be all bummed out.
John: LOL, isn’t it nice to know MS and MA share something in common?
Doug,
I thought it was funny too.
Your second sentence. say what?
Yeah all the cops were there, but someone could still have gotten decked or a fight could have broken out. Its not like the police were doing anything.
The store owner shouldn’t have to remove the signs. That was the police officers’ responsibility. That created a potentially dangerous situation.
Come on Doug don’t start complaining about if this had been a PC group. This whole situation could have been easily avoided.
They got of? What crime did they commit?
Mary, my second sentence, “No, I don’t expect the protesters to know that local ordinance.” Until LisaC found the actual statutes, I figured the protesters were not breaking any law.
I’ve already said that originally I didn’t think the cops would know that, at least not by heart, but if it’s come up before, i.e. there have been prior lawsuits, then they’ve probably been drilled on it.
Either way, I thought the protesters were in the right, until Lisa quoted the applicable law.
I gotta say I think the police were fine. If pro-life protesters have sued those cops before, then it’s human nature that they are going to be extra-careful. Somebody else mentioned overly-aggressive cops, and that point is well-taken. If the protesters were not in the wrong, and the cops “did something to them,” then the screams would be shrill indeed, calling for the cops to face all sorts of heinous charges.
Now that it’s demonstrated that the protesters were in the wrong, you and Praxedes are still complaining.
Oh come on….
How much BS can a cop face in one hour? Look at 30 years, 2000 hours per year (and of course most cops would end up working more than that).
I wouldn’t want to be a cop. The pay is not all that much, and the job goes from boredom to potentially fatal danger to cases like this, where in your eyes the cops can just about do no right. Look, the pro-lifers got off, and if the situation was reversed, you’d be raising hell. Holy Moly…
The clinic pays rent and taxes running a legal business. Protesters are just there and businesses are losing money because of protesters not because of other businesses.
And the protestors would not be there if it weren’t for the presence of a certain business. Your right to use a public sidewalk to engage in constitutionally protected conduct has nothing to do with whether you pay taxes or rent. One could perhaps argue that it should (most of the politicians in my city evidently do not understand what the free rider problem is). But that would implicate other demonstrators as well, such as NOW’s “phr33 birth control pl0x” protestors outside of Hobby Lobby. They can’t be doing any favours to Hobby Lobby’s neighbours.
Necessary??? what makes protests necessary some opinion of yours does not validate the term necessary
It’s no less valid than terms like “whiners”, “not productive”, “bleating, wailing, lawsuit-happy people”, and the like that have been thrown around by mudslingers on this thread.
Yeah, but not when they put those signs up.
I was addressing the people who seem to be arguing that abortion victim photographs should not be shown at all because they might hurt business owners. I’m not questioning the law prohibiting temporary signs and other obstructions on sidewalks.
“where in your eyes the cops can just about do no right”
Baloney. I was taught to respect authority, especially police, and do in the majority of instances. In this case, the police have not earned my respect unless there is more to the story than I don’t know about. If the police knew what the ordinance was, and said nothing, they were the problem. From what I see, the police led the prolifers to believe everything was kosher.
It appears it’s not just the slaughtering of innocents that stinks in Jackson. That’s just the most outrageous and sad issue — and it’s legal.
A community that supports and/or looks the other way when little ones are being killed is apt to be filled with more dysfunction than the average community I suppose.
“and if the situation was reversed, you’d be raising hell.”
Baloney again.
You are walking in front of my business, you have your arms full of packages, and you don’t realize you dropped your purse on the sidewalk in front of my business…[etc]
No analogy. The ordinance specifically identifies things placed on the sidewalk as things to be removed, not things dropped on the sidewalk. Also, while one might reasonably argue that a handbag is not an obstruction as defined in the statute, one cannot say the same thing about signs, which are explicitly mentioned in the ordinance.
the police had a responsibility to immediately tell them to move the signs, or they would be confiscated.
Mary, those are really not the only two options, I promise. The police can also give out citations for breaking ordinances. I imagine that there may be constitutional issues with confiscating property that is not contraband or the subject of a statute permitting deprivation of property without due process (as, for example, federal laws seizing vehicles used to transport drugs even if the owner is unaware that they are being used for that purpose.)
an agreement between police and PL people does not mean laws can be violated or that police should not intervene when the law is broken.
Was yesterday really the first time you learned that police have some discretion over whether they enforce every single ordinance or not?
Yeah all the cops were there, but someone could still have gotten decked or a fight could have broken out.
In which case the police presumably would have done something. I really don’t get all this “The police must be held responsible for all the imaginary fights in my head before they happen.” I mean, many people who support clinic buffer laws do so because it would prevent fights breaking out, and I doubt you support them.
The store owner shouldn’t have to remove the signs. That was the police officers’ responsibility. That created a potentially dangerous situation.
Repeating this ad nauseam does not make it true. The statute does say it is the owner’s responsibility. The statute does not say it is the police officers’ responsibility (see my speculation above RE seizure of property and due process). Presumably a city sanitation crew on its rounds could have collected and trashed the signs as litter, but isn’t it better that the signs weren’t tossed in a garbage truck?
unless there is more to the story than I don’t know about.
Yes, this is the key issue. To really understand what was going on, we would need to
a) see the full unedited tape and learn what Created Equal was told when the signs were returned
b) know whether the police had instructions to call for a higher-ranked officer if a dispute broke out, and
c) know whether or not the police/pro-lifers agreement that Jill alluded to really exists, and if so, what it says.
So far you all seem to be assuming that Jill’s unsubstantiated “agreement with police” claim has no value, and I certainly don’t want to deter you from that eminently reasonable position.
Maybe Created Equal was told about the ordinance when the signs were returned. So what?
By that time, an hour had went by where people thought their property was being stolen while other people who are paid to protect and serve stood by, did nothing and smirked. I have no doubt the chief knew about the ordinance and it would have taken ten seconds to radio his officers about it and tell them to inform the prolifers the signs needed to be held or taken down.
Let’s pretend the situation was reversed:
Let’s say some abortion supporters had a few tables sitting out in front of the abortion business that held information, coupons, Tshirts, whatever, and the proaborts were unaware of the ordinance.
Along come three prolifers who know about the ordinance but say nothing and systematically take the tables and other items and load them up into their vehicles (imagine the prolifers telling the proaborts that they are putting the items in their personal vehicles). Pretend EIGHT officers are standing by who do nothing, say they are waiting for their chief and smirk. Pretend one of those officers had earlier told the proaborts they had a right to do what they were doing but left out the part where he tells them they can’t have the tables on the sidewalk.
I would have felt no different if the police and Peters had behaved in the same way towards the proaborts in the pretend situation.
This is instigating on the part of the police and the business owner. If a fight had broken out, I suppose the police would have been given credit for breaking it up in spite of the fact that they instigated the situation in the first place! I have seen similar egging-on behavior in schools and believe similar behavior goes on in our prison systems. Treat people like garbage and then wonder why sometimes they snap.
Kudos to the prolifers who remained calm while their personal property was carried away and shame on the police and business owner who instigated the problem; they should seriously consider whether the abortion clinic is in the best interest of their town (it certainly isn’t for their preborn).
Hi Doug,
Well if the cops don’t know the ordinance you can’t fault the protestors, right? I’m sure you agree its the officers’ responsibility to know the ordinance and enforce it.
If the police didn’t know the ordinance then they would have viewed Mr. Peters as stealing, right?
Doug, if people have sued the cops or not is irrelevant. They have a job they are sworn to do and personal bias doesn’t excuse their not doing it. I may be repulsed by that child molester I have to take care of, and I have had to care for some pretty revolting human beings, but its no excuse not to do my job.
If the demonstrators were in the wrong, the police had a responsibility to act, and did not. The protestors may not have known of the ordinance, just as you and I cannot know every city ordinance. However if I violate one, I expect the police will intervene.
Hi Prax,
Outstanding post and analogy.
Thanks Mary. This has been an interesting thread.
I never even thought about how can anyone expect citizens to be held accountable for knowing an ordinance if the police don’t even know it?
And if the police did know it and refused to tell citizens it, they are egging on the situation.
Either way, the police and business owner were the heels in this situation.
I hope Jackson decides abortion is harming their community. I looked into what their community offers, and they have a lot going for them. If they got rid of their abortion mill and started helping women/girls in crisis, heck, I’d stop in for a visit.
LisaC,
Well one could argue your purse was “placed on the sidewalk”. Does the ordinance say anything about items dropped, abandoned, or lost? I’m the business owner and I think that good sized handbag is an obstruction, and a risk to my elderly and disabled customers.
Absolutely the police can give citations, and then order the signs removed. More likely they will just give the PL people the opportunity to remove them, and citations and confiscation will be the very last resort. Too much hassle and paper work. Whatever the course of action, the signs must be removed, either peacefully or by confiscation.
No that wasn’t the first time. If the ordinance wasn’t going to be relevant, then Mr. Peters should not have been allowed to remove the signs. You either enforce an ordinance or you don’t.
LisaC, confrontations, however “trivial” are situations where tempers can flare and fists can fly.
You avoid confrontations for the simple reason you NEVER know what people will do, or how violent or deadly someone may get. You’d be surprised the people who think following someone is benign and can be safely done. I tell them what they are doing is confrontational and potentially dangerous. This was a confrontational situation. People could have been injured. Again the police should have intervened. In fact it would not have come to this if they did their job to begin with.
The owner’s responsibility, to a point. Again, if police witness a violation it is THEIR responsibility to act. As far as I’m concerned Mr. Peters and others were put at risk while police stood around and smirked.
BTW LisaC, you failed to answer my question. Would you consider me a thief for walking off with your purse when I could have easily return it to you or handed it over to the police?
BTW LisaC and Doug,
Concerning confrontations, someone can be lying on the ground with a fractured skull before police even know something happened. I’ve seen brain death from a few seconds of a boot stomping someone’s head, over some trivial matter.
Take confrontations, however “benign”, very, very seriously. You never know how people will react or what they will do.
Praxedes: Baloney. I was taught to respect authority, especially police, and do in the majority of instances. In this case, the police have not earned my respect unless there is more to the story than I don’t know about. If the police knew what the ordinance was, and said nothing, they were the problem. From what I see, the police led the prolifers to believe everything was kosher.
Without us being there and having seen the whole deal play out in its entirety, there will always be stuff we don’t know about; we have a very incomplete feel for the whole thing.
There has been exaggeration, hype, hyperbole, etc., going on through this whole thread. In the end, it’s not a big deal.
—–
Doug: “and if the situation was reversed, you’d be raising hell.”
Praxedes: Baloney again.
No it’s not. We started out with “Unbelieveable” and “stealing,” etc., and we didn’t end up with that. The pro-lifers got off without penalty, no?
If it was pro-choicers who got off, there would be calls for the death penalty (so to speak), and – as was the case when this thread started – there would be a lot more pro-lifers than just you and Mary, pounding their fists and stomping their feet, demanding “justice.”
I can hear the moans and lamentations now…
Hi Prax,
You’re welcome.
To me its just a colossol no brainer. Police know the law, police enforce the law. Police don’t stand around and smirk while the law is being violated.
Mary: Concerning confrontations, someone can be lying on the ground with a fractured skull before police even know something happened. I’ve seen brain death from a few seconds of a boot stomping someone’s head. Take confrontations, however “benign”, very, very seriously.
Sure, Mary, that can happen, but when it happens in seconds like that, the cops can’t necessarily intervene in time, anyway, regardless of how seriously they were taking things.
In any case, you are bringing up hypotheticals that are not germane to the actual deal, here.
This deal was very calm, and it’s only human nature to smile a little – just picture the old dude calmly taking the signs inside, surely eliciting at least some very funny looks from other people – and you’re a cop and people are pointing videocameras at you, and these are people who’ve sued your department before. Who wouldn’t smile and shake their head a bit? This would be the same if it had been a pro-choice protest.
—–
Well if the cops don’t know the ordinance you can’t fault the protestors, right?
No. “Ignorance is no excuse under the law.” That’s gonna be the case whether or not the cops are even there.
In this specific case, there is no huge crime at work, no matter what – this would be true whether the protesters were allowed to have placed the signs or not.
When this thread started, I did think the protesters were within their rights, and didn’t think the whole thing was a big deal.
Now, we know differently, and it’s still not a big deal.
—–
I’m sure you agree it’s the officers’ responsibility to know the ordinance and enforce it.
Obviously, to an extent, yes. I don’t know how big the whole “book of ordinances” is, or if it’s reasonable to expect the cops to know it all, and if it is, then how much “chapter and verse” recall they should have.
No matter what, “enforcing it” does not have to mean locking people up or bashing with their night sticks. The Jackson cops did just fine.
—–
If the police didn’t know the ordinance then they would have viewed Mr. Peters as stealing, right?
That’s taking things to a ridiculous extreme. Regardless of the ordinance, they were gonna get their signs back. Meanwhile, the cops maintained calm and were calm themselves – nobody got their head stomped.
—–
Doug, if people have sued the cops or not is irrelevant. They have a job they are sworn to do and personal bias doesn’t excuse their not doing it. I may be repulsed by that child molester I have to take care of, and I have had to care for some pretty revolting human beings, but its no excuse not to do my job. If the demonstrators were in the wrong, the police had a responsibility to act, and did not. The protestors may not have known of the ordinance, just as you and I cannot know every city ordinance. However if I violate one, I expect the police will intervene.
The cops did their job just fine. They are not going to write up every single offense – no sensible person says they should. In this case, things came out fine, and there’s nothing to indicate they wouldn’t have even if the ordinance was different.
The cops having been sued before is massively relevent. I doubt the Jackson cops would talk to us, but it would be interesting to see what they have to say. I wish one of them would post, here.
Southern police, matters of civil unrest, people with polarized opinions, lawsuits in the past – if you want to speak of “what if’s” and hypotheticals, then let’s look at it from the cops’ point of view.
There is massive historical precedent that indicates the cops should take it easy. The lawsuits would double and triple that. If anything, I’d think their supervisor would tell them to have a very “hands off” attitude.
Mary: Police don’t stand around and smirk while the law is being violated.
Doesn’t matter whether they were smiling or not.
Mary, what do you wish happened here – that the protesters got locked up for violating the law?
Doug,
You’re missing the point. Confrontational situations should be prevented, not allowed, by the police. You cannot predict how a confrontational situation will turn out however “benign”,”calm”, or even “amusing” you might think it is. BTW, that is the advice of police officers and self defense experts, not something I’m making up.
Oh, so citizens can’t be ignorant of the law and cops can??
Tell me Doug, do you know every ordinance on the books? Even if the PL people knowingly violated the law, the police had only to walk up and order the posters removed. End of story.
Concerning Mr.Peters. Now the police don’t know the ordinance, right? That’s why they’re not doing their job. So they see Mr.Peters steal signs. They don’t know he can legally remove them so they should stop his theft, right?Can’t have it both ways Doug.
I never said the police had to lock anyone up or bash heads. Just do their freaking job and order the signs removed the minute they went up. End of story.
Doug, I honestly don’t know what doesn’t register with you here. Have police never advised you that you are in violation of a law? I bet every time you’ve been pulled over.
Yes I’ve had police point out to me that I was violating an ordinance. That’s their job. I obeyed their order. End of story.
How much more easy to understand can this be? At the beginning of the tape the PL people make every effort to be cordial and cooperative. They put up their signs. The signs are illegally placed. They may or may not know this. Any one of the 8 officers could have, and had the responsibility, to walk up to the PL people and tell them the signs must be moved and why. End of story.
I’ve already told you before what I wanted done. The police walk up to the PL people, advise them they are in violation of the law, they must immediately remove their posters. End of story.
Just to jump in on this thread regarding the moderation issue…
Any time you need to reach a moderator for a “stuck” comment (by the way, I have no clue why any of Mary’s comments got held up in moderation – most of the time it’s a mystery), the BEST way to do so is to go to the home page sidebar under “Team” where you will find the emails of every moderator on this site.
Often, the moderators do receive automatic site emails when a comment is held for moderation, but not always. So an email to the “Team” helps. Thanks, everyone! Carry on.
Thank you Kel.
The police have an obligation to protect the rights of the citizens. The officer in the video clearly said in the video that he just spoke with the City Attorney and that the group had the right to be there on the sidewalk. Even if the officers felt that it was not a violation of criminal law they need to maintain the status quo in a civil dispute. The officers should have told the man to stop what he was doing and that if he wanted to remove the signs he would have to obtain a court order to do so. I do commend the pro-life protesters for their restraint in the face of their 1st Amendment Rights being violated directly in front of the police.
No Don, the man was actually complying with the law.
The police did keep things civil.
This entire thing has been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill all along, and it even went beyond that with the silly “stealing” stuff.
Minor incidents don’t require EIGHT officers.
One positive that has come out of this situation, is that more attention has been drawn to the children that are being killed than would have otherwise.
I disagree that people taking other people’s property is civil behavior but then again I don’t think a civil society kills it’s youngest citizens either.
Keep up the good work prolifers! Keep us up-to-date please.
I watched the video, and at the end it says, “stay tuned,” and that they were filing charges.
Are they going to give us an update, admitting that they were the ones breaking the law, not Mr. Peters? Maybe, but I’d say probably not. The whole thing is hilarious, the way it turned out.
8 officers – perhaps as Mary says, they were taking care, as they could not predict exactly what type of confrontation might occur. If a given group is lawsuit-happy, then all the more reason to be careful.
No Megan,
Police didn’t keep things civil, they didn’t do their job.
I don’t think someone walking off with another’s property is keeping things civil.
John,
This whole situation is absurd and could have been easily avoided. If an ordinance is being violated, one of 8 officers should have stepped in and ordered the signs removed. Why would Peters have any more right to remove the signs than they would?
From the start every effort is made by the PL people to be courteous and cooperative with police, even shaking hands. I think if they had told the PL people of the sign restrictions, there would have been no issue, thus no incident.
BTW John its the officers’ responsibility to prevent a confrontation, not stand and watch it and then intervene if things get out of hand.
Mary, good post from you.
You’re missing the point. Confrontational situations should be prevented, not allowed, by the police. You cannot predict how a confrontational situation will turn out however “benign”,”calm”, or even “amusing” you might think it is. BTW, that is the advice of police officers and self defense experts, not something I’m making up.
The obvious thing to say is that they should not have brought those signs in the first place. Jared has it right:
“As long as the signs are not larger, higher, etc., than what the local laws allow, then okay – as long as the protesters keep them on their own property, rather than messing things up for the townspeople, merchants, etc.”
However – I do agree with you. Even in this low-key deal, it’s impossible to know what would happen, and it would have been better for the cops to tell the protesters to take the signs away, rather than have Mr. Peters doing it.
—–
Oh, so citizens can’t be ignorant of the law and cops can??
I’m saying that it does not matter whether or not the citizens know the law, as far as that if an offense has taken place, then “not knowing” is not an excuse. And really – the same for the cops – them not knowing would not excuse the offenders, although obviously – if charges were made – it would be at a later time, i.e. it would take somebody else than those specific cops to realize that a law had been broken.
—–
Tell me Doug, do you know every ordinance on the books?
:: laughing… :: O’ course not, Mary. I don’t even think the cops should be required to, if the total number of ordinances is very great. Now, if the cops are arresting people, citing people, etc, then of course they should be telling the people what’s going on, and what they did wrong.
—–
Even if the PL people knowingly violated the law, the police had only to walk up and order the posters removed. End of story.
Here I will give you a 100% “Yes, I agree.” :)
We are picking one moment in time, and ignoring other factors at work, but yes – that would have been better than letting Mr. Peters take them.
—–
Concerning Mr.Peters. Now the police don’t know the ordinance, right? That’s why they’re not doing their job. So they see Mr.Peters steal signs. They don’t know he can legally remove them so they should stop his theft, right?Can’t have it both ways Doug. I never said the police had to lock anyone up or bash heads. Just do their freaking job and order the signs removed the minute they went up. End of story.
Whoa, Mary – we don’t know that the police didn’t know the ordinance. We can speculate about a vast number of things here….
I don’t think we can be too hard on the cops. The peace was maintained, and that’s the main thing. Above, you advocate having the protesters told by the cops that they should remove the signs themselves. You don’t want the protesters locked up. You are picking and choosing, there. You want the cops to do things differently, to do more than they did in some respects, but you also don’t want them to go beyond a point in “doing their job.” Not any huge deal, I don’t think, but we can look at the entire situation that way.
I am saying that while they could indeed have done things differently, and “better” in at least one way, they still were fine overall. Peace was kept, nobody got hurt, and in the end it’s really just a funny story. We don’t know everything affecting the cops that day.
The protesters were remarkably calm, I think. So was Mr. Peters – I didn’t even see him say anything at all.
—–
Doug, I honestly don’t know what doesn’t register with you here.
Mary, I am agreeing with you about some things, as above. But to pick one point in the timeline, and to say “the cops weren’t doing their job” just because, with hindsight, we can postulate a different, better course of action for them, is to be pretty harsh. Somebody else could say, “The cops should have done their job and locked those protesters up!’
This is within the overall peaceful context and low-key events that occurred. I don’t think the protesters should be charged with anything, and I also don’t think the cops should be accused of much wrongdoing, here.
—–
Have police never advised you that you are in violation of a law?
Lawdy lawdy, you know it…
I bet every time you’ve been pulled over. Yes I’ve had police point out to me that I was violating an ordinance. That’s their job. I obeyed their order. End of story.
Probably 80 or 90 times. ;) Roughly 70 of those times I got a ticket, and the cops were certainly well-practiced at the procedure. The specific code violated was written on the ticket, as well.
Not getting as many tickets any more – I might actually have a 3-year clean record, at this time…
—–
How much more easy to understand can this be? At the beginning of the tape the PL people make every effort to be cordial and cooperative. They put up their signs. The signs are illegally placed. They may or may not know this. Any one of the 8 officers could have, and had the responsibility, to walk up to the PL people and tell them the signs must be moved and why. End of story.
As above, to pick that one point in time, then I agree that the best thing would have been for the cops to tell them that, just as you say.
Doug,
I’m really tired of repeating this but I’ll give it one more shot.
The problem wasn’t bringing the signs, they had a right to.
If there was a problem with the placement of the signs, it was the responsibility of the police to tell the PL people and order them removed. We don’t know if the PL people knew the law, either way the police had the authority to act and should have. Had they done so, no incident, end of story.
Confrontations are potentially very dangerous however “benign” or “comical” we may find them. Police should not tolerate these situations and should have quickly intervened. If they had done their job the potentially dangerous confrontational situation never would have occurred. I’ve seen smashed heads and dislocated jaws from “benign” confrontations. I take this advice from police and self defense experts very seriously.
Being hard on the cops? Well if you find it acceptable that police don’t intervene when a law is being violated and don’t stop a confrontational situation, and instead just stand around and smirk, fine with me. We’ll just have to agree to disagree Doug. Definitely not my idea of police officers taking their responsibilities seriously.
Hi Doug,
Traffic violations? My family and I got out of a few tickets thanks to my brother being a cop.
Now why do you think I could give you such a great argument?
I think it’s pretty funny that not only am I the sole person on the board who did not dismiss Jill’s “lawsuit settlement” story outright, but I’m also in the minority in that I think the police weren’t wrong to conclude that the Created Equal people weren’t going to explode into head-stomping, jaw-breaking rage. I stand corrected–pro-lifers should be presumed at all times to be violent powderkegs.
LisaC,
Confrontational situations are potentially dangerous.
Police should not conclude that either side of a situation may not overreact, especially when personal property is being stolen. Certainly supporters of Mr.Peters or Mr. Peters himself could also react violently.
Police should make every effort to prevent confrontational situations, mainly by doing their job.
Under the ordinance the man did not have the right to remove the items. The intent of the ordinance is not to have the shop keeper interfere with another person. The ship keeper isnt allowing in this case.Allowing would mean that the shop keeper was having another do it for him or he requested them to do it. For example a soda vendor cant come on his behalf and set up signs. An individual has no authority to enforce an ordinance and in some cases even the police can not enforce an ordinace. An example of an ordinance a poluce officer cant enforce would be property code enforcement. The bottom line is the ordinance spells out who can enforce a given ordinance. As far as the effect of the signs on the business, the US Supreme Ct has already ruled that the effect is secondary to the free speech rights of the protestors.
Mary,
I do agree that for us, with hindsight, to “stop time” at that one instant, then it would have been better for the cops to tell the protesters to take the signs out of there, versus having Mr. Peters do it.
Even there, we are going with very limited knowledge – would be different if we’d been there and witnessed the whole deal.
Isn’t it almost always the case that upon review, one could say, “Well, this could have been done better, and that could have been potentially a problem,”?
The problem wasn’t bringing the signs, they had a right to.
I think the “sandwich” signs are made to be placed on the ground, pavement, etc., and so they really didn’t have a right to use those.
The cops really were not just “standing around and smirking.” Yeah, the one guy smiled at least once, and as I’ve said before, I think that’s only natural. For all the ‘drama’ that people have tried to whip up about this, right from the get go, i.e. “UNBELIEVABLE” and “stealing,” etc., the whole thing was remarkably calm, and, in the fullness of time I can only see this fading into the past as a funny sidenote.
LisaC: I think it’s pretty funny that not only am I the sole person on the board who did not dismiss Jill’s “lawsuit settlement” story outright, but I’m also in the minority in that I think the police weren’t wrong to conclude that the Created Equal people weren’t going to explode into head-stomping, jaw-breaking rage. I stand corrected–pro-lifers should be presumed at all times to be violent powderkegs.
Lisa, I don’t even know what you mean about the lawsuit, but viewing the video, it is obvious that the protesters and Mr. Peters were very calm.
I realize that we are just seeing what the given cameras recorded, and of that, what the video-composers chose to give us, but it seems unearthly calm to me; I was really surprised.
Well Doug,
We do agree on many things, mainly this whole situation would not have occurred had the police done their job. People unknowingly violate ordinances as I’m sure you and I have done many times.
Don Knowles points out that Peters had no right to remove the signs. Interesting. Point is Peters could have returned them to their rightful owners or given them to the police. He had no right to stash them away somewhere. If your vehicle is illegally parked in front of my business, I don’t have the right to take your keys and move it, and then refuse to return it to you. I ask that either you move it or the police remove it. I would think this applies to anyone’s property.
In hindsight I view the police behavior as unprofessional.
Don: As far as the effect of the signs on the business, the US Supreme Ct has already ruled that the effect is secondary to the free speech rights of the protestors.
Don, it’s not “either-or.”
How about this? –The protesters have the right “to be there,” so let them walk around and carry signs. Just don’t be putting stuff down on the ground.
Mary: We do agree on many things, mainly this whole situation would not have occurred had the police done their job.
“This whole situation” was not a big deal. Yeah, the cops could have changed certain things. The protesters could have ensured that the situation didn’t occur – just don’t bring those signs in the first place.
People unknowingly violate ordinances as I’m sure you and I have done many times.
Yeah, and I’ve done it many times, knowingly, too. :P
—–
Don Knowles points out that Peters had no right to remove the signs. Interesting. Point is Peters could have returned them to their rightful owners or given them to the police. He had no right to stash them away somewhere.
Reading the ordinance itself, I think ol’Peters was just fine.
It shall likewise be unlawful for any person in charge of or occupying any property to permit goods, wares, merchandise, boxes, barrels, containers, dispenser, signs, basketball goals or other obstructions to remain on the street, alley, avenue or sidewalk adjoining the property or building in his charges or control, whether the same was placed thereon by such person or not.
Don may be correct about the intent of the law, although given the wording, I really question that. Either way, no sane court is gonna penalize Mr. Peters, since he can quote the law and paraphrase it, i.e. “The law says the stuff is not supposed to be there, and I’m supposed to remove it, regardless of who put it there.”
He obviously did not intend to take the signs and destroy them or never give them back.
—–
If your vehicle is illegally parked in front of my business, I don’t have the right to take your keys and move it, and then refuse to return it to you. I ask that either you move it or the police remove it. I would think this applies to anyone’s property.
Mr. Peters didn’t refuse to return the signs. A police commander talked to him, and then they got the signs back.
You may not have the right to move the car, but if the owner gets the car back, and you only moved it onto the next block, say, if that was a legal parking area, then “Grand Theft Auto” shouldn’t really apply, IMO.
There is also the question of the circumstances, i.e. if there was a demonstrable need for the car to get out of there, beyond being merely illegally parked, then that too will be taken into account. It also seems a bit ridiculous to assume that you “would take my keys” rather than just me moving the car. Yet I suppose in all the real-world situations, that has come up.
I imagine that in this real-world situation, the cops were told to do very little, i.e. “We’ve been sued by these people before; as long as things stay cool, just hang back and don’t give them any excuse to make trouble for us.”
The protesters could have ensured that the situation didn’t occur – just don’t bring those signs in the first place.
Isn’t the group’s sole purpose for existing to bring those signs to various places?
I don’t even know what you mean about the lawsuit
Jill alleges in the original post:
After pro-life activists sued Jackson police in 2006, the city signed a consent decree agreeing officers would no longer interfere with the free speech rights of pro-life advocates.
That may mean that the city agreed not to enforce sign ordinances for pro-lifers, but obviously, there might not be any truth at all in it.
it is obvious that the protesters and Mr. Peters were very calm.
That’s what I thought, but about half the posts in this thread insist that there was imminent danger of head-smashing. So I guess I was wrong.
LisaC: Isn’t the group’s sole purpose for existing to bring those signs to various places?
Not specifically; they are really just anti-legal abortion, and want to make all or almost all abortions illegal. In this case, they can still try do that (protest, etc.), they just need to leave the certain type of sign at home.
—–
“After pro-life activists sued Jackson police in 2006, the city signed a consent decree agreeing officers would no longer interfere with the free speech rights of pro-life advocates.
But as soon as the Court’s jurisdiction over the decree expired, Jackson police resumed their anti-life ways, as evidenced yesterday.”
Lisa: That may mean that the city agreed not to enforce sign ordinances for pro-lifers, but obviously, there might not be any truth at all in it.
Yeah, it’s a question. It seems to me that the thing may have simply expired.
—–
about half the posts in this thread insist that there was imminent danger of head-smashing.
It’s pretty obvious that it wasn’t “imminent.” :P However, it can’t accurately be said that it was impossible, either. For that matter, satellite debris could have fallen out of the sky and affected the situation too.
Doug,
Signs are not the problem, its the placement of them.
It doesn’t matter what Peters planned to do with the signs, he took them instead of returning them to their owners or the police.
Peters didn’t refuse to return the signs? Then why was the police commander called? Why did it take a police commander to get the signs back? Can’t the police order the return?
Yes I’m sure “grand theft auto” wouldn’t apply, but if I take the vehicle and refuse to return the keys, or the car until a police commander tells me to? Might that be considered theft?
Let’s say the keys were left in the car, a police officer told me I’d be surprised how often that happens. Car theft occurs all the time so people apparently know how to move cars with or without the keys, or the owner’s permission.
Its ridiculous to suggest I just wouldn’t have you move it? I agree. Its no less ridiculous to suggest that Mr.Peters couldn’t just give the signs to the owners, or the police.
The police have been sued? Sorry Doug, no excuse for the police not to do their job.
LisaC
Isn’t this groups sole purpose for existing to bring those signs to various places?- Do you have a problem with free speech?
Police can enforce ordinances and not interfere with free speech rights.
Doug and LisaC,
On the “headbashing” let me make this simple for you. Anytime there is a confrontational situation you cannot predict how people will react. Understand? They may react irrationally and violently over something fairly trivial. They may not. Police and self defense experts advise you do not get into such situations for this very reason. We cannot always know what people will do. We have heard of “road rage” where people get killed. An example of confrontations going awry over something fairly minor, like a fender bender.
I didn’t say violence was imminent, I said in any confrontational situation, however minor or amusing you think it is, there is a risk. Someone getting knocked to the sidewalk can easily result in a skull fracture. If there is a confrontational situation going on, police should immediately intervene.
What did I see in tonite’s paper? A teenage girl got her skull fractured by a flying brick and another boy needed his ear sutured after being pistol whipped with a pellet gun.
The reason for the melee? According to police, “a difference of opinion”.
Goodness, who would ever think that people can get so violent over something so trivial as a difference of opinion?
The City of Jackson police department had this well in hand. Yes, “anything can happen,” but it is obvious in the video that things are under control. That there were as many officers on the scene as there were is testament to the fact that the police were ready to respond, come what may.
Watch the video, and you can see that the police are deliberately being baited. There are people that are just dying for something to be done, on camera, that could be grounds for a lawsuit. Pathetic. It’s also a great distraction for law enforcement to have to contend with this, and here the group had a history of past lawsuits.
In the above discussion, some people are complaining about the number of officers on the scene, as if it’s ‘wrong’ to have so many there. Others complain that the police “should have done more.” It makes no sense. Hey – anybody can be a Monday morning quarterback and try to find fault.
You can bet the responding police officers were told to try and be non-confrontational, to verify with supervisors before actions were taken, and in general to “lay off.” We have a very litigious society, and it’s a sad commentary that so many people are lawsuit-happy, but that is the reality that many public service entities are faced with, today.
Jackson, Mississippi was in the 15 most dangerous US cities, not along ago. Police officers face boredom, moments of terror, anything and everything from the populace they deal with, for not much in salary. We don’t need people trying to make trouble for us under false pretenses.
Update from a real news organization: http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2014/07/18/mississippi-abortion-clinic-protest-dispute/12825875/
“Watch the video, and you can see that the police are deliberately being baited. There are people that are just dying for something to be done, on camera, that could be grounds for a lawsuit.”
I agree to disagree with this statement. How is asking officers questions baiting them?
ANC,
As a police officer(?), you should be well aware that police advise that we NEVER get into confrontations, that these are situations the police should be called upon to handle. As a police officer you should be well aware that confrontations have the potential to become violent and deadly. You should agree then that police should not stand by and allow a confrontational situation. Ready to respond come what may? So if someone lands on the sidewalk and cracks their skull, police are ready to respond. How reassuring.
All I see are the PL people telling the police their signs are being stolen. Please address the point Praxedes raises.
I have no problem with the number of officers present, only that they didn’t enforce the law.
I made it about 7 comments down before I got absolutely fed up with the amount of ignorance I was hearing… First, I would like to point out that I don’t have a side, as to whether I’m pro-life or pro choice. I haven’t given the time that it needs, to choose a side, I do have an opinion on it but I’m not going to get into that.
I would just like to say that this is no longer about who’s on what side… This isn’t about parties or sides or titles… At this moment, this is about what is just and logical. Now I’m not going sit here and say that it was any one persons fault… Truth is, in this case, it was everyone’s fault. Period.
Why do I say that? Well let’s look at the protestors first. Something seems off about them, and when I say that I’m referring to their overly passive attitude about the entire situation and the cameras they had with them. As said in a previous comment I do believe, someone claimed that “they were looking for a lawsuit.” This is a very possible argument.
Now I’m not familiar with how buying and selling land works, so I don’t know if that sidewalk was owned by the old man that was taking the signs. But I would assume that the sidewalk there “in front” of his business was public property. With that said, we can safely come to the agreement that you have a right to be on public property along with freedom of speech.
To take a step back here, I want to point out something someone said in a previous comment near the top. If there WERE protestors in front of Walmart, they (employees or manager) WOULD NOT, (at least I hope) walk outside and start packing up signs that aren’t theirs… They would step outside and tell the protestors that they need to move to a different location. As far as that goes I believe the area around Walmart (parking lot) technically isn’t considered public property anyways. I could be wrong.
So there you have it. Instead of the older man walking out front and taking their signs away to store in his basement without a single warning. He could have instead walked out, told the protestors that he doesn’t appreciate them being there (for whatever reason) and then could have politely asked them to move to a different location. However he didn’t, escalating the situation more than need be.
As far as the cops go, they could have done several things to stop the situation from escalating. First they could have asked the older man what the issue was. With knew information they could have solved both problems in a compromise. Regardless they should have stopped the man from taking their signs and told the protestors to just move out of the area taking their signs with them. That way both parties are at peace. However they stood idly by, doing nothing to aid to the situation. Back to the protestors for a minute. If this was the case and the cops weren’t going to do anything about it, THEY (protestors) should have done something about it themselves. I strongly believe that the cops aren’t here to hold your hand, HOWEVER, if they ignore your situation or signal for aid then YOU should have the RIGHT to take action. Whether or not that’s actually stated in our rights somewhere or not I have no idea but it should be.
So in conclusion, the protestors seemed as if they were looking for trouble to begin with. The old man could have removed the protestors peacefully (if that didn’t work, he could have called the cops as a disturbance of peace or something, and if THAT didn’t work then he could have taken the situation into his own hands.) And finally the cops should have acted as role models like they need to be and compromised the situation so that everyone is happy or at least at ease. Defusing the situation before it escalates. So regardless what anyone believes in this situation, whether the cops are anti pro life or with it or whatever, the entire situation could have been handled in a better manner. Things need to be handled logically and reasonably, with emotion removed from the equation. (not in all cases though).
Thank you for reading, I apoligize if it was to long but I’m getting fed up with the amount of ignorance I hear.
“Well let’s look at the protestors first. Something seems off about them, and when I say that I’m referring to their overly passive attitude about the entire situation and the cameras they had with them. As said in a previous comment I do believe, someone claimed that “they were looking for a lawsuit.” This is a very possible argument.”
LoL – the whole thing is a set-up. In the video, we are also seeing just what they want us to.
“If this was the case and the cops weren’t going to do anything about it, THEY (protestors) should have done something about it themselves. I strongly believe that the “cops aren’t here to hold your hand, HOWEVER, if they ignore your situation or signal for aid then YOU should have the RIGHT to take action.”
You would have loved that right, Triscuit? You who hasn’t taken the time to think about whether you are prolife or a proabort yet find yourself here discussing the issue. Hilarious.
You proaborts would have loved for the prolifers to become violent. Then y’all could have scream, “See how they are? See how violent they are?” But the thing is, proaborts support violence. Proaborts support a mom killing her child which is very violent. Proaborts support people getting rich off of killing children. View this proaborts, including you proabort police: herestheblood.com and then Own It.
Eight officers ignoring the situation speaks for itself. And proaborts supporting police ignoring the situation speaks for itself.
Jackson residents who defend their sworn, paid officers ignoring pertinent questions, smirking and standing by while a blatant crime is being committed need to take a good long look in the mirror.
Because the next folks these guys might ignore, smirk at, and directly cause to become a victim of a crime could be you and those you love. It’s worth thinking about.
Del, July 18, 2014 at 12:18 pm
“Policemen look at public protests and pickets as a nuisance and a disturbing of the peace. They do not put themselves out to protect and defend protestors from nuisance levels of interference.”
Exactly. The police walk a tight-rope, and there will always be people complaining that they did too much, while others complain they didn’t do enough.
Second-guessing the police about how many officers were too few or too many is pointless. Write to the Jackson Police Department and tell them you think they didn’t need that many officers on-scene. Give them a good laugh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ex-GOP, July 19, 2014 at 1:41 pm
“The babyish behavior I’m talking about is the grilling of the police to confirm that they don’t care, while making sure they videotape every second in hopes of either filing some lawsuit, or glorifying themselves with that they went through.
It’s lame.”
There is a good lesson here. The police have all they have to contend with, anyway, and now there are also people waving cameras in their faces, hoping to trip them up somehow.
The confrontation didn’t get physical (did it even get verbal?), and despite all the passive-aggressive “cinematographers,” the police maintained order, nobody got hurt, and everybody went home safe at the end of the day.
Speaking of ignorance, Triscuit:
With that said, we can safely come to the agreement that you have a right to be on public property along with freedom of speech.
As I noted above, city ordinances say that signs may not be placed on public sidewalks, and owners of businesses are responsible for removing signs from the sidewalk in front of their businesses. So yes, the protesters had the right to be on public property, and yes, the business owner had the right to remove signs that they put down in contravention of city ordinances.
He could have instead walked out, told the protestors that he doesn’t appreciate them being there (for whatever reason) and then could have politely asked them to move to a different location. However he didn’t, escalating the situation more than need be.
Actually, Triscuit, we have no way of knowing whether or not Mr. Peters politely asked the protesters to leave. The only documentation we have of the incident is the edited video circulated by Created Equal. They had no reason to film a polite encounter with the business owner, and even if they did, they would derive no benefit from including it on the released video. Don’t assume that anything that is not on film never happened. It smacks of ignorance.
All I see are the PL people telling the police their signs are being stolen. Please address the point Praxedes raises.
I know that nothing I say here will make any difference whatsoever, and yet, I’m going to give it one more try. Terrible time management skills.
Mary, IIRC, you claim to be an ER nurse. Imagine that someone comes to the ER saying that he pulled a back muscle and needs Oxycontin immediately. The ER decides to contact his regular physician first because they don’t want to prescribe that medication to a drug abuser. So the patient begins filming himself wandering through the ER moaning, “I’m in agony. I need a doctor. My back is in agony. Help! Help! I need a doctor! I’m in agony. I just want you to know that I am still in agony. Are you just going to stand there and ignore my agony? You know I’m in agony. Are you just going to ignore my agony? I just want to confirm that you are ignoring my agony. Do you know that I’m in agony? I don’t know how you can just leave me in agony.”
Obviously this imaginary patient doesn’t think that he will get his meds any faster if he says “agony” enough. He’s just trying to bug someone into giving a verbal response which he will then use to sue the hospital for knowingly ignoring his agony. Let’s not pretend that he was having a real emergency while the hospital ignored him, or pretend that that the fact that a hospital tried to cover its ass with a junkie in the ER is evidence that the hospital would not treat a real emergency like an emergency.
Police can enforce ordinances and not interfere with free speech rights.
I found the lawsuit filed against the city yesterday. It alludes repeatedly to the previous agreement that Jill references, indicating that pro-lifers claimed that sign ordinances were being enforced only against pro-lifers and implying that the police had agreed not to do that anymore (also, pro-lifers complained about confiscated signs not being returned, so I was wrong to think that confiscating property was legally problematic). But unless that agreement explicitly nullified the ordinance requiring business owners to maintain the sidewalks, Mr. Peters still had the right to remove the signs. Hence, presumably, the police’s decision to wait for a commander.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/234899187/Life-Legal-Defense-Foundation-Lawsuit-Against-City-of-Jackson-MS-Police-Dept-in-US-District-Court
Why can’t we all just get along?
Jared says:
July 19, 2014 at 3:24 pm
“As long as the signs are not larger, higher, etc., than what the local laws allow, then okay – as long as the protesters keep them on their own property, rather than messing things up for the townspeople, merchants, etc.”
^ ^
This.
Leave the unlawful signs at home. People can protest, walk around, carry signs, have a high old time, etc. Concentrate more on that, rather than the massively-overblown pretend drama.
Rodney Kong: Why can’t we all just get along?
Rodney :P :)
Is King your dad, and Donkey your brother?
Wow. I finally just got through the filed lawsuit.
This police department really just needs to learn to get along. Eek.
Praying for justice for these harassed prolifers. Enough is enough.
LisaC,
Your analogy is rather absurd but I will address it nonetheless.
First of all the patient can’t videotape in the ER because of HIPPA. There’s a possibility a patient would be filmed. Big HIPPA violation. We would call security as he is a serious risk to staff and patients. Also, we couldn’t just dispense meds on demand. He would have to be admitted and evaluated by the ER doc or his own doctor, who have the option to refuse to prescribe for him.
The police had been selective when enforcing sign laws? Well then PL people had a legitimate complaint. Signs laws should be fairly enforced no matter who you are. So yes police could have enforced the ordinance, but made certain they were always fair and showed no favoritism.
Speaking of Mr. Peters, you never answered my question as to whether you would consider me a thief if I walked off with your purse.
Marcia,
The police are called on to do a lot of things they don’t like. Its their job and they can’t pick and choose.
Nothing struck terror in my brother more than responding to a domestic violence call. The first and only time he pulled his gun and came closer to killing someone than he ever wanted to be. Then there was the other time when he spotted an angry spouse sitting at the window with a loaded shotgun, just waiting for the police.
But it was his job and he did it.
We would call security as he is a serious risk to staff and patients.
That sounds very confrontational. I hope he doesn’t start stomping people’s heads.
Also, we couldn’t just dispense meds on demand. He would have to be admitted and evaluated by the ER doc or his own doctor
It sounds almost as if you’re saying that professionals should make reasoned decisions after due consideration or even consultation with more knowledgeable colleagues, rather than at the demand of members of the public. But having read your other comments on this thread, I know that cannot possibly be what you mean.
Speaking of Mr. Peters, you never answered my question as to whether you would consider me a thief if I walked off with your purse.
I did, actually. And I notice you never answered my question about whether it was stealing if a prolife business owner waited for police advisement before acceding to an abortionist’s demands that the pro-lifer return the box of baby killin’ tools that an abortionist had unlawfully placed on the sidewalk in front of the prolifer’s business.
No LisaC,
Our security understood that their responsibility was to intervene in confrontational situations and prevent any injury to either party. When necessary to call law enforcement, they did the same.
Absolutely I think professionals should make reasoned decisions. That includes police.
Please refresh my memory. Would you consider me a thief?
As for your hypothetical question. If anything was placed on the sidewalk in front of my business or my home, I would make every attempt to return it to the rightful owner, or turn it over to police. I wouldn’t want to be charged with theft for taking it upon myself to “confiscate” i.e. steal it.
My brother was a cop and teaches criminal justice LisaC, he’s taught me a lot. Mainly that theft is theft and the law is the law, whatever my personal feelings.
“Then there was the other time when he spotted an angry spouse sitting at the window with a loaded shotgun”
Someone said earlier that they wouldn’t want the job of police officer and I agree that I wouldn’t want it either. They have to wear a lot of hats and are oftentimes in danger. There are an awful lot of people that totally disrespect and wish harm on police.
In spite of what I have said about the JPD, I want police to know that I appreciate and thank them for choosing to do such difficult work. Police have helped me out a time or two and have rightly held me accountable a time or two as well. They are all human and come with their own histories and values.
From what I have read and seen, the JPD does seem to have it in for the prolifers for whatever reasons; I’m guessing pressure from higher ups is part of it. I hope and pray for the safety of the officers.
Mary: Nothing struck terror in my brother more than responding to a domestic violence call. The first and only time he pulled his gun and came closer to killing someone than he ever wanted to be. Then there was the other time when he spotted an angry spouse sitting at the window with a loaded shotgun, just waiting for the police.
Mary, no doubt about that…
I had a fairly close one three years ago. I was in my office – a little drywalled room on the second floor of a big, old industrial building. Sitting at my desk, computer set up, probably playing games or arguing my head off on message boards.
It was a weekend day, and unbeknownst to me, there had been a break-in in another firm’s office, which was on the ground floor. The cops had been called, and 3 or 4 showed up; this is in a small city of ~25,000 people.
I had left my office door ajar; in the summer it sticks a little, and so I don’t close it all the way when I’m inside. Sitting at my desk, the door is on my left, and the door starts opening up, slowly….
I figured it was a co-worker, messing around, trying to scare me. So, I whirled around to the right, spinning my chair and going around 270 degrees, then throwing my hands out toward the door. Guys have tried to sneak in on me before…
Police officer, mid-20s, gun extended. It scared the heck out of us both, and to his massive credit, he didn’t shoot. I saw him jerk in fright, then again as he focused on my hands, for a split-second not knowing what was going on. Then he relaxed just a little, huge rush of relief coming over him, given the situation.
Whew. I still think about that.
Good grief Doug,
Especially considering he sounds like a rookie, you should really count your blessings. My brother came within centimeters of taking a bullet from one.
Nothing against rookies of course, we all have to start at the beginning, but my brother has told me a combination of a lot of testosterone, authority,inexperience, and a gun can be a very dangerous one, and he speaks from experience, having himself looked foolish on more than one occasion.
Also, even experienced officers can exercise bad judgment. My brother had just finished his business in the department bathroom stall, and as always had flung his holster either over the flush or on the door. He also also carelessly not secured his gun from firing, and you guessed it. As he was reaching for his gun it went off with a deafening loud bang.
Of course several officers came running since suicide in the john stall is not uncommon. So my brother is standing in the john stall(I hope his pants were up) when its suddenly flooded with all these cops who were immensely relieved he was alive.
My brother could have rec’d a reprimand but was given a reprieve. I guess they figured the shock and several days of ringing ears was enough punishment.
As a sidenote, they were interrogating a prisoner in the next room and I’m sure the poor man quickly found religion and confessed.
Luckily the bullet imbedded in the floor. Contrary to popular misconception, randomly fired bullets don’t disintegrate, they have to go somewhere. Hopefully its not through your front window.
Anyway Doug, I’m very thankful you’re alive and with us! Whatever our differences, I always consider you a good friend.
Advice to everyone, always make sure the police can see your hands, even during a routine traffic stop. That’s probably what saved Doug’s life.
Please refresh my memory.
I said that your scenario was not analogous to the one at hand.
My brother was a cop and teaches criminal justice
Moscow or Beijing?
LisaC,
Doesn’t address the question. If I walked off with your personal property, in this case your purse, would you consider me a thief? Yes or no.
Nope, in a major American city. In fact a few police chiefs you may have heard of were his students.
As he was reaching for his gun it went off with a deafening loud bang.
Of course several officers came running since suicide in the john stall is not uncommon. So my brother is standing in the john stall(I hope his pants were up) when its suddenly flooded with all these cops who were immensely relieved he was alive.
My brother could have rec’d a reprimand but was given a reprieve. I guess they figured the shock and several days of ringing ears was enough punishment. As a sidenote, they were interrogating a prisoner in the next room and I’m sure the poor man quickly found religion and confessed.
Hahhhahahaaa!
Mary, it must be tough – even through long periods of boredom, relative calm, etc., there is always that chance that an officer will have to act fast, with little if any room for error.
You’re right that I was very lucky. Strange days…
These pro-lifers are social terrorists. I’m glad the JPD let the owner of the business take the signs down. They are too graphic for displaying in public. I hope I never see them. I would pull my car over and throw the signs in the street myself. The crazy thing is that these pro-lifers are actually violating the civil rights of everyone who is forced to see these images but for some reason they think that only their civil rights matter. They should go back to wherever they are from and do that sh!t in their own town….not in my town!
Julie j,
Like it or not we have something in this country called free speech, which means I don’t always like what I hear or see.
I remember when those marching for civil rights and against the Vietnam War were loathed and reviled as “communist conspirators”. We always have some name or another for those we don’t like or who bring some unpleasant fact into our lives.
But then no one is forced to read signs, right? No one is forced to look at them. Also, I would strongly advise you never take anyone’s signs. That could get you in trouble, just as if someone walked up and took a sign you were holding.
[…] Created Equal recently had to endure one abortion proponent’s vulgarity and vandalism and another’s theft (the latter right under the noses of complicit […]
If I walked off with your personal property, in this case your purse, would you consider me a thief? Yes or no.
This remains irrelevant to the question. The pro-lifers did not accidentally drop the signs, and he did not “walk off” with them. He walked 100 ft and put them down.
The pro-lifers purposefully and deliberately placed their signs where they had no legal right to put them, and where Mr. Peters had both the legal right and the obligation to remove them. Mr. Peters moved the signs, told the protesters where he was going to put them, and left them in plain view of the police and the protesters the whole time. He did not destroy or abscond with them. Any rational person can infer from those actions that he intended to let the police decide what to do with the signs, not to make away with them.
I know it’s not in my power to make you comprehend this, but since you’re giving advice so freely, here’s my advice to you: If a friend ever tells you that her handbag was stolen and now she’s out $200, has lost her iPhone, had to cancel her credit cards and get a new driver’s licence, don’t tell her, “That’s exactly like the time that some pro-lifers illegally set up some signs on the sidewalk and had to wait an hour to get them back!”
In fact a few police chiefs you may have heard of were his students.
If they learned from him what you apparently did, I’ve most likely heard of them because they’re in the news for encouraging their departments to trump up charges when they can’t arrest someone for committing a real crime.
Finally, it’s hard to imagine that anyone here thinks that the Created Equal people actually believed their signs were being stolen, given that they had three or four people filming rather than picking up the signs. But apparently there’s a lot of suspension of belief when it comes to the pro-life media.
LisaC,
Well the ordinance doesn’t specify if its deliberate or accidental, so that’s beside the point. I’m to remove the obstruction and I do. But instead of returning it to you I place it in plain sight and the police know just where it is, and so do you. I don’t destroy or abscond with your purse. Any rational person will understand I plan to let the police decide what to do with your purse.
I’m sure you are nonetheless upset, and tell the police several times I’ve stolen, oh excuse me, confiscated your purse and you actually expect them to take action and retrieve it. They just stand there and smirk and find your situation very amusing.
Finally a commander arrives and demands I return the purse. Now why one of the officers couldn’t have ordered me from the start to return your purse and prevented a lot of hassle is beyond me. Also there were people filming this incident so you must not really have been taking this very seriously.
Theft is theft. Whether its a sign, your purse, a piece of jewelry, or your car. I hope its in my power to make you comprehend that.
LOL. When it comes to my brother you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Well the ordinance doesn’t specify if its deliberate or accidental
The verb “to place” indicates deliberate action.
Also there were people filming this incident so you must not really have been taking this very seriously.
Well, if I unlawfully placed a dozen handbags on the sidewalk and then stood there filming myself squawking as they were slooowly taken two at a time, and at no point did I lift a finger to forestall the theft of as-yet uncollected handbags by picking them up myself, I would not expect people to think I was serious about anything other than recording a YouTube video.
If the police needed to call a commander when the fuss started, they should have told the protesters that immediately. I have no reason to doubt that they did, but have no evidence one way or the other. It would not be appropriate for the police to smirk at the protesters for an hour. The video doesn’t show that they did. It shows one officer smiling for approximately a second, and the video was edited to cut out what he was saying or who he was talking to before smiling. Elsewhere he is shown with the same expression he had when speaking to the protesters at the beginning of the tape. The other officers are not smiling.
When it comes to my brother you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I’m certainly happy to believe that he shouldn’t be judged based on the legal commentary you’re giving here.
The Created Equal people just look more and more buffoonish every time I watch the video.
LisaC,
“To place” can indeed have any meaning you want. It should be specific about lost or dropped like you say it should be specific about returning the item.
I’m not talking about unlawfully placing a dozen handbags, I’m talking about the right to expect your personal property will be returned to you and another not having the right to take it. Whether or not you forestall it yourself, especially if police are present, is beside the point. Also if police are present, it is their responsibility to prevent the theft.
The point is the police could have prevented this whole situation by doing their job and ordering the signs removed. End of story.
As for my brother LisaC, you should really sit in on one of his classes. A very fascinating and informative experience.
He’s changed my thinking on a lot of things, and you would really learn a lot.
The signs never should have been there in the first place.
It was a nuisance for the police, and an attempted set-up by the people taking videos.
Jared,
If the signs were illegally placed, then the police should have ordered their removal. End of story.
No different than police telling you that you must move your car because of a parking or standing ordinance violation.
I’m not talking about unlawfully placing a dozen handbags, I’m talking about the right to expect your personal property will be returned to you and another not having the right to take it.
And finally, we have reached why dropping a handbag is not analogous to unlawfully setting up a dozen signs.
The point is the police could have prevented this whole situation by doing their job and ordering the signs removed.
Which apparently they could not do without being sued by pro-lifers. So I guess in the end, the responsibility for all this rests on the shoulders of lawsuit-happy pro-lifers.
LisaC,
You miss the point. The ordinance said an obstruction. I determined your purse was an obstruction, especially after one of my visually impaired customers tripped over it.
Doesn’t wash. They can enforce an ordinance and not restrict free speech.
Jared says: July 27, 2014 at 1:37 am
“The signs never should have been there in the first place.
It was a nuisance for the police, and an attempted set-up by the people taking videos.”
This is the salient point. Ten days ago, Del noted: “Policemen look at public protests and pickets as a nuisance and a disturbing of the peace.”
And these were not just “protesters,” these were people with a history of trying to draw the police and others into situations where they possibly could be sued. The police in Jackson were bending over backwards to be comparatively nice to them, in the first place, considering…
Latest update: Created Equal has released more video showing the police telling them repeatedly that signs cannot be placed on the sidewalk, but instead must be held.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=created+equal+full+video+police&FORM=VIRE2#view=detail&mid=7DCE8E648
Yup. Here it is. Mixed messages being sent all over the place. Some people in the area can put their signs on the ground, some can’t. It’s okay to hold the sign on your feet. It’s not okay to hold the sign on your feet. It can remain on the ground but not block the whole sidewalk. It can’t remain on the ground. The ordinance is online but the police don’t have hard copies of it. Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Very blatant harassment. Of one group.
Get it together JPD. And protect and serve ALL humans including the preborn. Abortion is a smear on your community.
LisaC says:
July 31, 2014 at 11:06 am
“Latest update: Created Equal has released more video showing the police telling them repeatedly that signs cannot be placed on the sidewalk, but instead must be held.”
Yes – this is the only kind of thing that makes sense. Obviously, the police already had done their job (and more than done their job), and were burdended with passive-aggressive lawsuit-happy clowns looking to make trouble.
Any similar action by a pro-choice group would be greeted with screaming, hysterical cries “for their heads,” here.
Let’s be real – these “created equal” punks need to be taught a lesson.
Okay, so now we know that the video was not really being truthful, from the beginning.
Well, it was obviously slanted, anyway – and many of us saw that right off. It was a set-up, and the police showed remarkable restraint, considering. Such attempted abuse of our legal system should be harsh. Should they really “be taaught a lesson”? Honestly, would it even help? There will always be people that are looking to game the system….
“Let’s be real – these “created equal” punks need to be taught a lesson.”
All scammers deserve to be taught a lesson. A real one.