- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Texas cop arrests Christians speaking on public sidewalk
Posted on 12/24/25 at 5:04 pm to hogcard1964
Posted on 12/24/25 at 5:04 pm to hogcard1964
quote:Nope. He is waiting patiently for a substantive response:
He's rolling.
quote:Take a position, my friend. Or are you just too cowardly to do so?
Property owner says "please stop making noise on my property and please leave." Virtuous street preacher refuses to stop making noise OR to leave the private property.
How SHOULD things have gone down at that point? Should the property owner been been forced to tolerate the trespass, because "muh preacher?"
This post was edited on 12/24/25 at 5:10 pm
1
Posted on 12/24/25 at 5:13 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Can you direct me to when and where the property owner said "please stop making noise on my property and please leave"?
Posted on 12/24/25 at 5:28 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
No, he says "This is not about public property," yes ... twice.
quote:
Clearly, he understood that the confrontation was taking place ON private property.
And yet, when asked why they were being arrested, the officer didn't say, "Trespassing." Isn't that what you would expect him to say if your theory was correct?
What he said was, "Because I told you twice to back off and you didn't."
None of that language dovetails with what you say this was about.
quote:
Now, do you ever plan to demonstrate that you have cojones, by addressing whether the owner of private property is entitled to bar random individuals from preaching ON his property?
Speaking of which, your language here indicates that either I missed an exchange far upthread or you have me confused with someone else. I haven't knowingly failed to admit anything or been given an opportunity that I am aware of to demonstrate the extent of my cojones up 'till now.
Does someone have the right to trespass someone from preaching (or doing anything else) on someone else's private property? Of course they do.
I just don't think that's what happened here based on what can be seen and heard from the video.
You know some facts that aren't in evidence in the video. Do you KNOW that what you are saying is correct, as in, confirmed from whatever extra sources you consulted to come up with the security guard info, etc.?
If you do, fine, I'm wrong. But again, you haven't used the language that would indicate that so far.
If you don't, then I remain unconvinced by your theory. I'm sure everything you said regarding the CTW, etc., is true. But none of it by itself proves anything.
My theory (again, if you haven't confirmed yours as fact) is that the cops were called by the off duty cop with his little CTW, the two guys knew their rights better than all the cops put together (which is what usually happens), they were on public property, albeit by mere feet, the cops didn't like that they couldn't bully them and make them go away, so they trumped up an "officer safety" charge on them and arrested them. Gave them a command supposedly to protect "officer safety" and when they didn't comply (because there was no basis for the command, which made it unlawful), they arrested them.
That's what the spoken language indicates and that's what the body language indicates. And that's what typically happens in these cases, and the charges almost always get dropped once the body cams are reviewed. It's just police harassment b/c they know the court will go along with anything they say is for "officer safety."
Now. We all know you are Aggie Hank. We all know you claim to not believe in God (when in reality you simply hate God), and so you are going to side with anyone against street preachers.
None of this has anything to do with God or street preaching. If you have factual knowledge that the guys were on private property, then I will admit I was wrong. If not, then like one of your heroes, Matt Dillahunty, "I remain unconvinced."
Posted on 12/24/25 at 6:18 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:The officer was speaking to Black Cap, who was being detained for "interference" vis-a-vis the officer's interaction with (and eventual detention of) Red Cap.
when asked why they were being arrested, the officer didn't say, "Trespassing." Isn't that what you would expect him to say if your theory was correct?
What he said was, "Because I told you twice to back off and you didn't."
No, I would NOT expect the officer to assert that Black Cap (or Red Cap) was being detained for "Trespass," because that would be inconsistent with Texas practice regarding trespass. It would be extraordinarily rare to arrest a trespasser in this situation without first issuing a CTW. 99% of the time, there is no arrest until there is a subsequent violation of that initial CTW.
IOW, the words from the officer are (in substance, if not in exact phrasing) EXACTLY what I would expect from a competent LEO in Texas.
quote:It says right in the DPD press release that the officer was working off-duty, private security and hired by an unidentified "third party." I linked that press release above.
Do you KNOW that what you are saying is correct, as in, confirmed from whatever extra sources you consulted to come up with the security guard info, etc.?
At that location, the most-reasonable employer for private security is the owner of the Cirque Residences. I suppose that a tenant MIGHT have hired private security, but the building owner makes much more sense. Either way, it would be a person with legal standing to preclude a trespass and request a CTW.
The press release also says that the preacher was standing on a "large planter," and those planters certainly appear to be located on the "private property" side of the property line. Yes, they are quite NEAR the property line, but clearly on the "private" side, IMO. This opinion/analysis is supported by the DPD statement that the preacher was broadcasting from private property. The officer would not have had authority to ISSUE a CTW, if Red Cap and Black Cap had not been found on the "private property" side of that line.
To be clear, the preachers were NOT "arrested for officer safety," as you assert. They were briefly DETAINED for officer safety, while the officers decided how to resolve the matter. Would it be perhaps more accurate to say that they were cuffed for convenience? Possibly, but they were definitely NOT "arrested."
Law enforcement eventually decided NOT to arrest the preachers, but instead to issue them citations for the noise violation and the "interference" and also to issue a CTW apiece.
quote:Not at all. For instance, when the officer references his two commands to "back off," he is clearly talking about instructions given to Black Cap, that Black Cap should "back off" while the officer was dealing with Red Cap ... who was apparently the one speaking on the loudspeaker and thus the ultimate recipient of the citation for the noise violation.
(The officers) trumped up an "officer safety" charge on them and arrested them .... That's what the spoken language indicates and that's what the body language indicates.
quote:I agree. It arises from private property rights and from a violation of a municipal noise ordinance. A secular speaker would have been subject to exactly the same potential ramifications.
None of this has anything to do with God or street preaching.
quote:Very small apologies, but this is the typical Christian response to any non-Believer, and it is just childish. "YOU HATE MY BELOVED DEITY!!!" Silliness. I have no reason to "hate" a non-existent, mythological figure ... and that is a perfect description of the Trinitarian God. Sorry.
You claim to not believe in God (when in reality you simply hate God)
This post was edited on 12/24/25 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 12/24/25 at 6:22 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:Apologies. I had Hogcard in mind. He kept demanding additional answers to new questions, while refusing to answer any of MY reciprocal questions. It was rather annoying.
your language here indicates that either I missed an exchange far upthread or you have me confused with someone else. I haven't knowingly failed to admit anything or been given an opportunity that I am aware of to demonstrate the extent of my cojones up 'till now.
In fact, he continues to refuse to answer any of those questions ... continuing to demonstrate a lack of cojones.
My compliments to you for actually making a coherent case in support of your position, even if I disagree with your conclusions. Reasonable adults can DO that.
Frankly, I mistrust cops as much as most sane folks (from which I exclude Dex's pathological hatred of cops), but this just strikes me as a situation in which the cops did NOT overstep and actually behaved reasonably.
Candidly, our exchange is a good exemplar of what this place SHOULD be, and I gave you an upvote. Two people with differing viewpoints comparing notes and exchanging ideas. Again, kudos and have a good evening.
EDIT:
And then we have "OpenYourEyes" and the individual in the next post ITT. Both very good examples of childish behavior.
This post was edited on 12/24/25 at 7:13 pm
Posted on 12/24/25 at 6:40 pm to Dex Morgan
Tungsten slugs are for the cops
Posted on 12/24/25 at 6:58 pm to Dex Morgan
Abbot’s Texas
Posted on 12/24/25 at 7:30 pm to Stonehenge
Dallas PD
Abbot
Anyone want to tell the progressive retard
Abbot
Anyone want to tell the progressive retard
Posted on 12/24/25 at 7:31 pm to roadGator
quote:I just shook my head and moved on.
Anyone want to tell the progressive retard
Posted on 12/24/25 at 7:37 pm to hogcard1964
Anyone ever read Hank and SFP bloviating in the same thread? Just asking. 
Posted on 12/24/25 at 7:53 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
It would be extraordinarily rare to arrest a trespasser in this situation without first issuing a CTW.
You are the one who posted this:
quote:
This cop was working off-duty, as private security for the OWNER of the property, and he issued a CTW banning the perps FROM that private property.
Which is it? Did he or not?
quote:
The officer would not have had authority to ISSUE a CTW, if Red Cap and Black Cap had not been found on the "private property" side of that line.
Yeah, but not necessarily during the course of this interaction. They could have been issued a CTW if they had ever been on the property.
quote:
They were briefly DETAINED for officer safety, while the officers decided how to resolve the matter. Would it be perhaps more accurate to say that they were cuffed for convenience? Possibly, but they were definitely NOT "arrested."
Law enforcement eventually decided NOT to arrest the preachers, but instead to issue them citations for the noise violation and the "interference" and also to issue a CTW apiece.
O.k...for all the difference that makes to what we were discussing. You basically just admitted that I was correct about what I was arguing even if I was wrong about the difference between their detention being detainment v arrest. And all a citation is is a legal action in lieu of arrest. The guys weren't being manhandled by the cops for trespassing on private property. They were being manhandled for "officer safety."
quote:
I have no reason to "hate" a non-existent, mythological figure
That's correct. And yet you cannot talk about a situation like this without the little childish (since you brought that up) digs that betray your real emotions.
This post was edited on 12/24/25 at 7:55 pm
Posted on 12/24/25 at 8:09 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:Are you still under the impression that these guys were arrested? They were NOT. They were briefly detained, issued Citations and CTWs, then released. The two quotes that you list are entirely consistent with one another. The cop issued CTWs to each perp BECAUSE he did not arrest them for trespass. The CTW is a warning that they will be arrested if they EVER return to that private property.quote:You are the one who posted this:
It would be extraordinarily rare to arrest a trespasser in this situation without first issuing a CTW.quote:Which is it? Did he or not?
This cop was working off-duty, as private security for the OWNER of the property, and he issued a CTW banning the perps FROM that private property.
quote:It is the difference between (a) getting a traffic ticket and driving off slightly annoyed and (b) getting stuck in jail for a day or two.
all a citation is is a legal action in lieu of arrest.
quote:I don't know about "manhandling." That was a very calm and respectful detention, including the cuffing. Red Cap was detained (correctly) for continuing to violate the noise ordinance and numerous requests to reduce leave the property and reduce volume, and Black Cap was detained for interfering with an officer trying to do his job.
The guys weren't being manhandled by the cops for trespassing on private property. They were being manhandled for "officer safety."
Could the cops have let the guys stand around while the cops decided what to do with them? Sure, that was in the cops' discretion. Did the cops cuff the guys to make an impression or a point? Probably. Were the cops within their rights to cuff the guys. Certainly. Did the guys deserve the attentions of law enforcement, after they refused to leave private property upon request OR to reduce their volume to a level consistent with local noise ordinances? Absolutely.
quote:The Norse were no less fervent in their belief in Odin and Thor than you are in your belief in the Trinitarian God. I have no compunction about seeing the two myths as being equivalent and make no apologies for it.quote:That's correct. And yet you cannot talk about a situation like this without the little childish (since you brought that up) digs that betray your real emotions.
I have no reason to "hate" a non-existent, mythological figure
This post was edited on 12/24/25 at 9:13 pm
Posted on 12/24/25 at 8:18 pm to Dex Morgan
What exactly does “back off” mean?
To put a stop to your first amendment speech? If so, then why not just be clear and say what you actually mean?
This cop has a pretty obvious authority high going on. IOW, you do what I want you to do or you get arrested, and we’ll figure out the actual charges that we think we can get you on later.
To put a stop to your first amendment speech? If so, then why not just be clear and say what you actually mean?
This cop has a pretty obvious authority high going on. IOW, you do what I want you to do or you get arrested, and we’ll figure out the actual charges that we think we can get you on later.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 8:22 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:The cop was talking to Black Cap, telling him that he needed to "back off" and not interfere in the cop's interaction with Red Cap.
What exactly does “back off” mean?
quote:These guys did not have a First Amendment right to proselytize on someone else's private property. No one has that right.
To put a stop to your first amendment speech?
quote:Most do, to one extent or another.
This cop has a pretty obvious authority high going on.
quote:The cop told them the charges, real time. You see him doing so on the video.
we’ll figure out the actual charges that we think we can get you on later.
This post was edited on 12/24/25 at 8:24 pm
Posted on 12/24/25 at 8:25 pm to Victor R Franko
Posted on 12/24/25 at 8:30 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
RelentlessAnalysis
On brand. I’ll pray for you that you come to know Jesus. You need him badly from what u can tell.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:44 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with ... a peace officer
Now explain to everyone the criminal negligence (an oxymoron by the way) that happened because I saw nothing criminal in the video.
I'll wait
Posted on 12/24/25 at 11:10 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:The trinitarian God makes reality possible. The Norse gods do not.
The Norse were no less fervent in their belief in Odin and Thor than you are in your belief in the Trinitarian God. I have no compunction about seeing the two myths as being equivalent and make no apologies for it.
You need to repent of your rejection of the God of creation. You need to repent of your sins against a holy God. You need to seek forgiveness in Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is the second person of the triune God. Your sins can and will be forgiven if you accept the free offer of salvation through Jesus. Believe and be saved.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News