• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Police arrest Florida pastor

Well, there are a number of things here that could still make it amount to an arrest, due to unconstitutional application of Govt force. Some possibilities:

1) The material was being transported in the above manner to help secure the act in the face of an unjustified denial of a permit and fear of govt intervention

2) He was specifically targeted due to his association with the protest (that it wasn't a random traffic stop)

But again, pointing to potential abuses, and why it shouldn't be simply assumed everything was kosher is not the same as stating such things did happen. It's just in high profile cases, where govt officials have a vested interest in curtailing rights, we should be skeptical that such just happened to occur out of pure chance

The Polk City council did not issue the permit to pastor Terry Jones because he did not apply in a timely fashion. Jones wanted to use a public park and if someone wants to do that he/she has to apply for this at least 2 weeks before the event is planned and Jones and his organization Stand Up America Now did not do so. They weren't denied because Polk County did not approve of the protest because of the nature of that protest but the permit was refused because the pastor was too late in putting in the request for the use of the public park.
 
The Polk City council did not issue the permit to pastor Terry Jones because he did not apply in a timely fashion. Jones wanted to use a public park and if someone wants to do that he/she has to apply for this at least 2 weeks before the event is planned and Jones and his organization Stand Up America Now did not do so. They weren't denied because Polk County did not approve of the protest because of the nature of that protest but the permit was refused because the pastor was too late in putting in the request for the use of the public park.

Excuses, excuses, excuses...

Jones could have applied 6 months in advance, in triplicate and it would have been denied.

I still can't stop laughing about the, "illegal transportation of fuel", charge. I haul hazmat for a living. I would LOVE to see the text of the law that he supposedly violated.
 
The Polk City council did not issue the permit to pastor Terry Jones because he did not apply in a timely fashion.

Peter, yes, I am aware of that. But I fail to see how that would address what I wrote.

Jones wanted to use a public park and if someone wants to do that he/she has to apply for this at least 2 weeks before the event is planned and Jones and his organization Stand Up America Now did not do so.

Peter, I am sure you're not familiar with the day to day permitting procedure for this county or how closely the office adheres to these rules in more common situations. And as already stated, one of the common means to try to skirt around constitutional protections is an introduction of overly zealous adherence to rules, regulations, and laws that are not normally applied or exist nowhere else besides on the books.

They weren't denied because Polk County did not approve of the protest because of the nature of that protest but the permit was refused because the pastor was too late in putting in the request for the use of the public park.

Peter, you simply do not have the information available to know this
 
1) it is a peaceful protest

2) Yes, I fully understand that having a large open fire creates circumstances that are different than a general gathering. I never denied this and am unsure how it addresses what I wrote

I was agreeing with you that dirty politics could infringe on people's legal right to protest. But since I have been looking into it a bit more, that is not the case here. Pastor Jones just did not follow the rules for using a public park. He needed to apply for using it on 9/11 at least 2 weeks before that date. The pastor and his organization did not do that and for that reason a permit was denied.

All of that point to extreme stupidity on the part of Jones. He should have applied earlier and then maybe he would have been allowed to have his protest. But I am afraid he might still have been arrested if he was transporting the books in the exact same manner as he was doing now.

Yes, Peter, but I never claimed otherwise ...

And I did not claim that you have claimed otherwise.

Peter, you seem to have an extremely simplistic view of american politics: we have two major political parties in this country, which people of varying political views and backgrounds align with. So someone simply being a republican, or democrat, does not determine where they would stand on this issue

It is not simplistic IMHO when one looks at State and National levels. Sure, in cities/small counties a lot of these kinds of things might work a lot different than on state and national levels, but IMHO, when even the appointment of a sheriff is a political election, it seems impossible to keep party politics out of that completely. But I do agree with you that local politics are not that strictly partisan. For example, 1 of the commissioners is registered as a democrat but still ran in the election as a republican so it might be a bit fluent in local politics.
 
Excuses, excuses, excuses...

Jones could have applied 6 months in advance, in triplicate and it would have been denied.

I still can't stop laughing about the, "illegal transportation of fuel", charge. I haul hazmat for a living. I would LOVE to see the text of the law that he supposedly violated.

316.80 Unlawful conveyance of fuel; obtaining fuel fraudulently.—
(1) It is unlawful for any person to maintain, or possess any conveyance or vehicle that is equipped with, fuel tanks, bladders, drums, or other containers that do not conform to 49 C.F.R. or have not been approved by the United States Department of Transportation for the purpose of hauling, transporting, or conveying motor or diesel fuel over any public highway. Any person who violates any provision of this subsection commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, and, in addition, is subject to the revocation of driver license privileges as provided in s. 322.26.
(2) Any person who violates subsection (1) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if he or she has attempted to or has fraudulently obtained motor or diesel fuel by:
(a) Presenting a credit card or a credit card account number in violation of ss. 817.57-817.685;
(b) Using unauthorized access to any computer network in violation of s. 815.06; or
(c) Using a fraudulently scanned or lost or stolen payment access device, whether credit card or contactless device.
(3) All conveyances or vehicles, fuel tanks, related fuel, and other equipment described in subsection (1) shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture as provided by the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
(4) The law enforcement agency that seizes the motor or diesel fuel under this section shall remove and reclaim, recycle, or dispose of all associated motor or diesel fuel as soon as practicable in a safe and proper manner from the illegal containers.
(5) Upon conviction of the person arrested for the violation of any of the provisions of this section, the judge shall issue an order adjudging and declaring that all fuel tanks and other equipment used in violation of this section shall be forfeited and directing their destruction, with the exception of the conveyance or vehicle.
(6) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall be responsible for:
(a) All reasonable costs incurred by the investigating law enforcement agency, including costs for the towing and storage of the conveyance or vehicle, the removal and disposal of the motor or diesel fuel, and the storage and destruction of all fuel tanks and other equipment described and used in violation of subsection (1); and
(b) Payment for the fuel to the party from whom any associated motor or diesel fuel was fraudulently obtained.
(7) This section does not apply to containers of 8 gallons or less.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Here is that law.

And you stating that he could have applied 6 months in advance and would have been denied is nothing more than opinion, an opinion that will never be proved or disproved because he did not apply 6 months in advance. He applied too late (less than 2 weeks before the protest was due to take place) and thus he was denied a permit.

You cannot complain that you did not get a permit if you (Terry Jones) did not comply with the minimal rules of requesting a permit (and the minimal rule IMHO is applying at least 2 weeks before the event if you know, or should know, that you needed to apply for that permit at least 2 weeks before).

The city cannot be blamed for Jones failure to apply in time, that is all down to Jones and his organization. And you may be right, it could still have been refused due to legal or illegal reasons but the city was not in a position to approve it because it was not applied in time.

And you say you have been in Hazmat. I am a trained logistical clerk and a significant part of my education was the transportation of hazardous materials and I am pretty sure that hauling 2998 kerosine drenched qur'ans in a barbeque smoker does not comply with hazmat transportation rules and regulations.
 
316.80 Unlawful conveyance of fuel; obtaining fuel fraudulently.—
(1) It is unlawful for any person to maintain, or possess any conveyance or vehicle that is equipped with, fuel tanks, bladders, drums, or other containers that do not conform to 49 C.F.R. or have not been approved by the United States Department of Transportation for the purpose of hauling, transporting, or conveying motor or diesel fuel over any public highway. Any person who violates any provision of this subsection commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, and, in addition, is subject to the revocation of driver license privileges as provided in s. 322.26.
(2) Any person who violates subsection (1) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if he or she has attempted to or has fraudulently obtained motor or diesel fuel by:
(a) Presenting a credit card or a credit card account number in violation of ss. 817.57-817.685;
(b) Using unauthorized access to any computer network in violation of s. 815.06; or
(c) Using a fraudulently scanned or lost or stolen payment access device, whether credit card or contactless device.
(3) All conveyances or vehicles, fuel tanks, related fuel, and other equipment described in subsection (1) shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture as provided by the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
(4) The law enforcement agency that seizes the motor or diesel fuel under this section shall remove and reclaim, recycle, or dispose of all associated motor or diesel fuel as soon as practicable in a safe and proper manner from the illegal containers.
(5) Upon conviction of the person arrested for the violation of any of the provisions of this section, the judge shall issue an order adjudging and declaring that all fuel tanks and other equipment used in violation of this section shall be forfeited and directing their destruction, with the exception of the conveyance or vehicle.
(6) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall be responsible for:
(a) All reasonable costs incurred by the investigating law enforcement agency, including costs for the towing and storage of the conveyance or vehicle, the removal and disposal of the motor or diesel fuel, and the storage and destruction of all fuel tanks and other equipment described and used in violation of subsection (1); and
(b) Payment for the fuel to the party from whom any associated motor or diesel fuel was fraudulently obtained.
(7) This section does not apply to containers of 8 gallons or less.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Here is that law.

And you stating that he could have applied 6 months in advance and would have been denied is nothing more than opinion, an opinion that will never be proved or disproved because he did not apply 6 months in advance. He applied too late (less than 2 weeks before the protest was due to take place) and thus he was denied a permit.

You cannot complain that you did not get a permit if you (Terry Jones) did not comply with the minimal rules of requesting a permit (and the minimal rule IMHO is applying at least 2 weeks before the event if you know, or should know, that you needed to apply for that permit at least 2 weeks before).

The city cannot be blamed for Jones failure to apply in time, that is all down to Jones and his organization. And you may be right, it could still have been refused due to legal or illegal reasons but the city was not in a position to approve it because it was not applied in time.

And you say you have been in Hazmat. I am a trained logistical clerk and a significant part of my education was the transportation of hazardous materials and I am pretty sure that hauling 2998 kerosine drenched qur'ans in a barbeque smoker does not comply with hazmat transportation rules and regulations.

It would take a far out interpretation of the law, to reach the conclusion that hauling a load of kerosene soaked books is a violation of this law, the way it reads.

As I pointed out earlier, it would no different than hauling a few bags of accelerant soaked charcoal. A product that doesn't have a UN number, by the way. Without a UN number, a product is non-reportable, which means it doesn't fall under Federal hazmat regulations. Can you provide me with the UN number for kerosene soaked books?
 
Peter, I am sure you're not familiar with the day to day permitting procedure for this county or how closely the office adheres to these rules in more common situations. And as already stated, one of the common means to try to skirt around constitutional protections is an introduction of overly zealous adherence to rules, regulations, and laws that are not normally applied or exist nowhere else besides on the books.

Peter, you simply do not have the information available to know this

I do have that information and I may not be familiar with the day to day permitting procedures of that county but I am pretty sure the county itself is pretty much well aware of that and they wrote this:


Polk County Denies Facility Use Agreement Application From Stand Up America Now
Posted: Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Bartow, Fla. (September 10, 2013) — Polk County Board of County Commissioners denied Stand Up America Now and Dr. Terry Jones’ request to use Loyce E. Harpe Park on September 11, 2013.

In letters sent via email to Stephanie Sapp, representing Stand Up America Now and Jones, the county cited lack of time to adequately review their application, as well as other issues. The county’s policy states that organizations wishing to host events of size in Polk County parks need to contact the Parks and Recreation Section of the Parks and Natural Resources Division at least two week prior to their proposed date.

“The short time period that the county had to review the application made it impossible to work through all of the issues, most importantly public safety precautions,” said Mianne Nelson, Communications Director.


News Release Details
 
I was agreeing with you that dirty politics could infringe on people's legal right to protest. But since I have been looking into it a bit more, that is not the case here. Pastor Jones just did not follow the rules for using a public park. He needed to apply for using it on 9/11 at least 2 weeks before that date. The pastor and his organization did not do that and for that reason a permit was denied.
As before there seems to be some basic point you are failing to understand and I really don't have the interest in covering the same thing over and over again


It is not simplistic IMHO when one looks at State and National levels. Sure, in cities/small counties a lot of these kinds of things might work a lot different than on state and national levels, but IMHO, when even the appointment of a sheriff is a political election, it seems impossible to keep party politics out of that completely. But I do agree with you that local politics are not that strictly partisan. For example, 1 of the commissioners is registered as a democrat but still ran in the election as a republican so it might be a bit fluent in local politics.

Peter, even on the national level things are not so clear cut. Anyone with a working knowledge of american politics knows this
 
I do have that information and I may not be familiar with the day to day permitting procedures of that county but I am pretty sure the county itself is pretty much well aware of that and they wrote this

Peter, being that I specifically cited the use and strict application of rules that are not normally applied, how would this address what I wrote?
 
It would take a far out interpretation of the law, to reach the conclusion that hauling a load of kerosene soaked books is a violation of this law, the way it reads.

As I pointed out earlier, it would no different than hauling a few bags of accelerant soaked charcoal. A product that doesn't have a UN number, by the way. Without a UN number, a product is non-reportable, which means it doesn't fall under Federal hazmat regulations. Can you provide me with the UN number for kerosene soaked books?

I doubt a smoker falls under a "container" that applies with the federal transport code for transporting kerosene and I would assume that kerosene drenched books with all the vapors coming off it do not transport well in a smoker where these vapors can escape quite easily.

As a hazmat transporter, would you transport fuel drenched materials that were highly flammable due to escaping vapors in a barbeque smoker? I would not and I think most hazardous material transporters would never transport something in such an unsafe manner.
 
Peter, being that I specifically cited the use and strict application of rules that are not normally applied, how would this address what I wrote?

You may be right, maybe sometimes these permits will be allowed even if they had been requested less than 2 weeks before the date of that event. But if little Jimmy wants to have a little kids party in the park and his parents request this 11 days before the party was supposed to take place, I can imagine that the city/parks service would allow that to take place. But I would not know this and this will still not change the rules of the permit request.

But this was not a little kids party, this was a protest. A protest in which someone wanted to burn 2998 books, this suddenly comes in a whole different category of "events". The police, fire department, health department, etc. were all involved in this event and in no way would the city/parks authority would be able to review all the issues that arose from the burning of 2998 books that were doused in a flammable liquid. Was the site he wanted to do this safe enough to make sure that no fires would break out in the park. Did the fire department have enough capacity to provide a safe burn, etc. etc.

This was not a normal application and if such a difficult permit is being applied for the city/parks authority must have enough time to make an informed and safe decision and for that reason there is the 2 week rule. Jones and his organization failed to comply with this rule and as their application was far from straightforward the city denied his request for that permit.
 
You may be right, maybe sometimes these permits will be allowed even if they had been requested less than 2 weeks before the date of that event. But if little Jimmy wants to have a little kids party in the park and his parents request this 11 days before the party was supposed to take place, I can imagine that the city/parks service would allow that to take place. But I would not know this and this will still not change the rules of the permit request.

1) Exactly, you have no idea how they condusct day to day business

2) No, if they generally do not adhere to the rule, but specifically apply it such a case as the above, it would be an infringement on his constitutional rights


But this was not a little kids party, this was a protest. A protest in which someone wanted to burn 2998 books, this suddenly comes in a whole different category of "events".

No, it doesn't make a difference. They need to treat all applicants on an equal basis, regardless of politics, race, and religion.


This was not a normal application and if such a difficult permit is being applied for the city/parks authority must have enough time to make an informed and safe decision and for that reason there is the 2 week rule. Jones and his organization failed to comply with this rule and as their application was far from straightforward the city denied his request for that permit.

Again, this is information you are simply not privy too. You have no idea if similar events were held in the past (say a bonfire), how such applications were handled, and under what time frame
 
:ranton:

:soap

What I find curious is that a lot of people think this is a first amendment issue without there being any evidence for it.

They blame the city for not giving a permit, even though we know that Terry Jones only asked for a permit less than 2 weeks until the protest was planned. The city indicates the request must be done 2 weeks in advance, not an insanely long amount of time to make a decision on such a difficult issue. The city is being blamed for not breaking it's own rules about permit requests rather than blaming Jones for not requesting it in time.

Terry Jones then ignores the fact that he does not have a permit for a protest in a public park. He loads all 2998 qur'ans, ignoring the 373 foreign individuals who died that day (even though most of them would have worked in the USA when they were murdered), into a smoker. Douses these books with kerosene, creating a driving fire-bomb. He then dragged this possible explosive device to the intended burning side and then get's arrested for driving that fire-hazard on the open road and who is getting blamed for his lack of common sense? Well, Obama, liberals, people who do not attack muslims, democrats and all people who think what Terry Jones did was something that normal people would get arrested for 7 days of the week.

But when Mr. Jones does something that idiotic and dangerous, endangering people all over Polk county, the only person that is to blame for that is Terry Jones himself.

If he had asked for the permit, sued the city if he would have been denied (just for the moment assuming he indeed fulfilled all the rules and regulations for such a permit) if they had denied his first amendment rights, had transported his books in a safe and responsible way, then nobody would have been able to arrest him or deny him his protest. His big moment in the media spotlight because that is all I think he really cares about.

But no, he broke the law for trying to enter a public park for a protest he did not have a permit for (his own fault) and then transporting a huge number of flammable books over the public roads (for which he was quite rightly arrested).

The issue is not was the government doing something wrong because there is no evidence to suggest that, other than conservatives and libertarians complaining his first amendment rights have been violated, the issue is that Terry Jones did do something wrong and because of that the man is in trouble with authorities.

Now if there later is evidence that the city did things wrong they must be addressed and the city must be punished or exposed for their wrongdoings. But that is not the issue as of yet.

The basic principle of law is that it is innocent until proven otherwise, Terry Jones was arrested and is a suspect of having done something wrong. He is not yet guilty of this, that will have to be decided in a court of law. But while the "Terry Jones has his first amendment rights violated" crowd proclaims Jones innocent (as he according to the legal principles is), there are a lot of them that do not have this "innocent until proven otherwise" mentality when it comes to the Polk county, the sheriff or the government. They have been found guilty until they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are innocent.

And that is not fair. Terry Jones has until now only been arrested and his guilt or innocence will be decided in court. That same principle should go for Polk county, the sheriff and the government. They too must be seen as innocent until proven guilty.

:peace

:rantoff:
 
And that is not fair. Terry Jones has until now only been arrested and his guilt or innocence will be decided in court. That same principle should go for Polk county, the sheriff and the government. They too must be seen as innocent until proven guilty.

I never claimed they did anything wrong. What I did was point out that your dependence on the denied permit and arrest does not indicate that there was no overreach here, like you keep asserting

It's a simple distinction
 
I'm glad that an idiot wasn't allowed to burn thousands of religious texts and by doing so endanger nato soldiers in Afghan. Yes I'm very glad

So, I can have you arrested for being glad he got arrested?
 
:ranton:

:soap

...stuff...
:peace

:rantoff:
I agree with just about everything you've said. Part of the initial resistance to Jones being arrested was that the police arrested Jones and then publicly stated that the reasons why would be announced at a later time. Now arresting someone and then saying you would explain why looks highly suspicious, especially in light of what Jones was trying to do.

The whole slew of idiotic actions Jones allegedly took came later. Yes Jones was very dumb and if he had acted appropriately then we'd be having a different discussion.

However there are some people claiming that Jones should have been arrested just because of the action he was going to take, i.e. burning 2998 Korans. On that point I disagree. A good point all around Peter King.
 
I was agreeing with you that dirty politics could infringe on people's legal right to protest. But since I have been looking into it a bit more, that is not the case here. Pastor Jones just did not follow the rules for using a public park. .....

You may be right or or you may be wrong. None of us knows for sure.

But.....

One can not really tell by looking at the laws, news stories and the results of a public process. Politicans routinely lie and make decisions behind closed doors for reasons hidden from the public. They then take legal actions in public using legitimate grounds for their decisions. This is how they covertly violate our constitution's freedom of expression guarantees (or any other laws that they want to work around] while appearing to do nothing illegal. When this happens, it usually takes a lawsuit and a discovery process to uncover the truth.

When it is a controversial person with an extremely unpopular message with potentially profound consequences, it is most reasonable to expect and assume that the government will try to censor that person*. That is why the courts use a "strict scrutiny" and "compelling governmental interest" test for analyzing these type of cases and laws restricting freedom of expression.

*the fact that many posters on this thread believe that he should be censored is evidence of it being probable.
 
Last edited:
Political statements are often offensive--a tactic you don't mind using--and burning religious texts can be an offensive political statement. Here is a clue--Jews often bury their old books because they believe that destroying printed documents referring to God as a Sacrilege.

A tactic you don't mind using, either.
 
You have a right as an American to get ticked off, just as he has a right to burn his property if he chooses.

An individual burning a book is not censorship. When you're ready to answer my question instead of ignoring it, I will address your posts.

If Bob were to threaten John that if John didn't stop listening to rap music, he would kill someone. John, knowing this, decides to listen to rap music anyway, and Bob, as promised, kills someone.

You really want to blame John in this situation? [/][SIZE]
What if Bob threatened to burn down a Christian church or a Christian house for every Koran that John burned? John, knowing this, decides to burn a few thousand Korans anyway and so Bob, as promised, burns down an entire Christian village. Since John cast the first stone, why wouldn't you blame him?


Curtailing your freedom based on threats is the true sign of a coward.
Oh, so you really do care what Muslims think, eh?

Burning the Koran shows religious intolerance and bigotry. It is the cowards way of curtailing religious freedom.
 
What if Bob threatened to burn down a Christian church or a Christian house for every Koran that John burned? John, knowing this, decides to burn a few thousand Korans anyway and so Bob, as promised, burns down an entire Christian village. Since John cast the first stone, why wouldn't you blame him?


Oh, so you really do care what Muslims think, eh?

Burning the Koran shows religious intolerance and bigotry. It is the cowards way of curtailing religious freedom.

No, Bob would be 100% wrong. John would be burning books that he owned (if it was owned by someone else, he is violating their property and should face charges). If the muslims own the churches and decided to burn their own property down, that is their decision, but I'm willing to bet they do not own the churches.

See, that's not so hard is it?

And no, burning your own property isn't curtailing religious freedom. That is just bat **** crazy.
 
What if Bob threatened to burn down a Christian church or a Christian house for every Koran that John burned? John, knowing this, decides to burn a few thousand Korans anyway and so Bob, as promised, burns down an entire Christian village. Since John cast the first stone, why wouldn't you blame him?

Because he did not burn down anyone's home?
 
Back
Top Bottom