• #2,481
  • #2,482
<snipped for focus>

And one judge on the appeals court disagreed with the other two judges on the appeals court so it wasn't a slam dunk by any means. And the judges of the appeal court recommended that the prosecution take the case to a grand jury. Which they did. And here we are. Let's see what happens.

I disagree with your characterization. The judge didn't recommend they take it to a GJ. The judge noted the different pathways available. No recommendation was made.

MOO.
 
  • #2,483
  • #2,484
  • #2,485
She was using a blowhorn during the mass.

Now remind me, what did Don Lemon actually do to disrupt the service...?

MOO 🐄
Well he went into the Church and up to the pastor putting a microphone in his face and asking him questions when the Pastor was trying to preach. That is rather disruptive. Made it so he couldn't preach. The woman arrested yesterday did it from outside, DL did it from inside the church.
 
  • #2,486
  • #2,487
Well he went into the Church and up to the pastor putting a microphone in his face and asking him questions when the Pastor was trying to preach.

We all saw on available footage Lemon started to interview people, pastor included, after the service ended due to earlier disruption by the protesters, andthe congregation members were already leaving. If you have a footage showing Lemon trying to interview the pastor during the sermon, I'll gladly see it.
 
  • #2,488
We all saw on available footage Lemon started to interview people, pastor included, after the service ended due to earlier disruption by the protesters, andthe congregation members were already leaving. If you have a footage showing Lemon trying to interview the pastor during the sermon, I'll gladly see it.
IMO that is splitting hairs. The sermon/worship ended prematurely because the protesters interrupted it. So yeah, it was over, but it wasn't meant to be. That doesn't mean Mr. Lemon sat idly by respectfully waiting for service to end. It means he waited for the protesters to interrupt the service and then pounced with his microphone and questions.
 
  • #2,489
That doesn't mean Mr. Lemon sat idly by respectfully waiting for service to end. It means he waited for the protesters to interrupt the service and then pounced with his microphone and questions.

So if he did not disrupt the service, what crime exactly he committed?

ETA.

IMO that is splitting hairs.

IMO saying Lemon tried to interview pastor when said pastor was trying to preach is a distortion of facts. A huge distortion, someone might call a lie.

MOO 🐄
 
  • #2,490
But the protest, Lemon intimated, was a natural consequence of recent events. Minnesotans’ due process had been violated, he said. People were being brutalized. “You have to be willing to go into places and disrupt and make people uncomfortable,” Lemon said, as demonstrators (many also recording) and worshipers circled one another in the confusion. “That is what this country is about.”

Lemon reappeared in the shot to interview an organizer, Nekima Levy Armstrong. Then he found the lead pastor.

“I mean, this is unacceptable,” Parnell said. “It’s shameful.”

“But there are folks who will say,” Lemon told him, as they began speaking over each other, “‘Listen, there’s a Constitution and a First Amendment.’”

“We’re here to worship,” Parnell said. His hand was near Lemon’s midsection, grazing him.

“I’m going to be very respectful,” Lemon said. “Please don’t push me, though.”

Parnell asked Lemon to leave unless he wanted to worship. “I have to take care of my church,” the pastor said.
[snip]
Finding himself alone, Lemon delivered a direct-to-camera recap (They won’t listen to facts”) with the congregant in earshot.

“No, no, no, no,” the man said, re-engaging. “You pose as a journalist, and you ask me questions, and then you start correcting me” — he lifted both hands to scare-quote in heavy winter gloves — “with ‘facts.’”
‘I Am the News’: The Absurd Drama (and High Stakes) of the Don Lemon Affair

He wanted to, planned to, along with the protesters, disrupt service. It is literally from his own mouth (1st BBM)

last BBM, I think this parishioner had it exactly right IMO MOO big fat mooiest of cows.
 
  • #2,491
He wanted to, planned to, along with the protesters, disrupt service. It is literally from his own mouth (1st BBM)

Really? Let me quote him again.

“You have to be willing to go into places and disrupt and make people uncomfortable,”

Point me, kindly please, where does Lemon say there anything about disrupting church services in particular.

Let me remind you that the general idea behind any protest is to disrupt things and make people uncomfortable, to make said people think, or to pressure the governing bodies into change. So where is the evidence Lemon was speaking about disrupting church services?

Where is the evidence he knew anything more than that there will be a protest in a church? Where is the evidence he participated in planning said protest? Where is the evidence he committed any crime of those he is accused of?

Last but not least, as much as the pastor might have been uncomfortable having Lemon on his property, let me bold something now, DON LEMON IS NOT ACCUSED OF TRESPASSING.
 
  • #2,492
IMO that is splitting hairs. The sermon/worship ended prematurely because the protesters interrupted it. So yeah, it was over, but it wasn't meant to be. That doesn't mean Mr. Lemon sat idly by respectfully waiting for service to end. It means he waited for the protesters to interrupt the service and then pounced with his microphone and questions.
So, what is the illegal act? Hairs must be split; we don't convict people because we don't like what they did. We convict because what they did is illegal.

I wonder how many times it has been asked to identify an illegal act of Don Lemon's with the available evidence.

I know how many times it has been answered: zero.

Because Don Lemon did not break the law.

MOO
 
  • #2,493
Really? Let me quote him again.



Point me, kindly please, where does Lemon say there anything about disrupting church services in particular.

Let me remind you that the general idea behind any protest is to disrupt things and make people uncomfortable, to make said people think, or to pressure the governing bodies into change. So where is the evidence Lemon was speaking about disrupting church services?

Where is the evidence he knew anything more than that there will be a protest in a church? Where is the evidence he participated in planning said protest? Where is the evidence he committed any crime of those he is accused of?

Last but not least, as much as the pastor might have been uncomfortable having Lemon on his property, let me bold something now, DON LEMON IS NOT ACCUSED OF TRESPASSING.
He says exactly that about his arrest in this case. HE draws the correlation, not me. that isn't an old quote I have used to discuss this current event. These were his words. About this event. I don't know how to point any more directly than that. when he made that statement it was him directly referencing himself going inside a church with protesters to disrupt and make people uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:
  • #2,494
So, what is the illegal act? Hairs must be split; we don't convict people because we don't like what they did. We convict because what they did is illegal.

I wonder how many times it has been asked to identify an illegal act of Don Lemon's with the available evidence.

I know how many times it has been answered: zero.

Because Don Lemon did not break the law.

MOO
This thread is pages and pages long with many explaining what they believe and apparently the DOJ believe was illegal about that. You choose to interpret his actions and the law differently.

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances & Places of Religious Worship

the same act that prevents right to life protesters from storming clinics that offer abortions and/or reproductive health to women, from disrupting, intimidating clientele or otherwise interfering with the clinic's ability to serve their function.

The act has been identified many times. Just because you disagree with the answer you've been given does not mean you weren't provided one.
 
  • #2,495
These were his words. About this event. I don't know how to point any more directly than that. when he made that statement it was him directly referencing himself going inside a church with protesters to disrupt and make people uncomfortable.

His words, yes. But let me quote that part of the article in full. BBM.

But the protest, Lemon intimated, was a natural consequence of recent events. Minnesotans’ due process had been violated, he said. People were being brutalized. “You have to be willing to go into places and disrupt and make people uncomfortable,” Lemon said, as demonstrators (many also recording) and worshipers circled one another in the confusion. “That is what this country is about.”

He is referencing the protest. Where does he say anything about his own participation in the protest? Point me kindly to these words
He says exactly that about his arrest in this case.

Absolutely not. If you look at the second bolded part you can easily see Don spoke these words in the church, while recording the protest and it's aftermath. It was not about his arrest, but about the protest itself.
 
  • #2,496
His words, yes. But let me quote that part of the article in full. BBM.



He is referencing the protest. Where does he say anything about his own participation in the protest? Point me kindly to these words


Absolutely not. If you look at the second bolded part you can easily see Don spoke these words in the church, while recording the protest and it's aftermath. It was not about his arrest, but about the protest itself.
and those words, will end up hurting his case. MOO. during or after, he describes his own state of mind. Despite that once or twice he said I am just filming this, I am a journalist, he also participated in the meeting before hand, drove to the church covertly without giving away the plan, participated in entering the church and interrupting the service by his presence with cameras and protesters.

Quack quack. That's a duck. Not a journalist. MOO.
 
  • #2,497
That doesn't mean Mr. Lemon sat idly by respectfully waiting for service to end. It means he waited for the protesters to interrupt the service and then pounced with his microphone and questions.

the same act that prevents right to life protesters from storming clinics that offer abortions and/or reproductive health to women, from disrupting, intimidating clientele or otherwise interfering with the clinic's ability to serve their function.

How did Lemon disrupt, intimidated and interfered by (your own words, not mine) waiting for others to disrupt?
 
  • #2,498
We all saw on available footage Lemon started to interview people, pastor included, after the service ended due to earlier disruption by the protesters, andthe congregation members were already leaving. If you have a footage showing Lemon trying to interview the pastor during the sermon, I'll gladly see it.
It was during the scheduled time for the worship service, correct? Is Lemon authorized to declare the services over? Despite the interruption, the Pastor could have cleared the protesters and continued.
 
  • #2,499
It was during the scheduled time for the worship service, correct? Is Lemon authorized to declare the services over? Despite the interruption, the Pastor could have cleared the protesters and continued.
People were already leaving.
 
  • #2,500
This thread is pages and pages long with many explaining what they believe and apparently the DOJ believe was illegal about that. You choose to interpret his actions and the law differently.

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances & Places of Religious Worship

the same act that prevents right to life protesters from storming clinics that offer abortions and/or reproductive health to women, from disrupting, intimidating clientele or otherwise interfering with the clinic's ability to serve their function.

The act has been identified many times. Just because you disagree with the answer you've been given does not mean you weren't provided one.
He predicted that protesters would make people uncomfortable.

Isn't that a little different than making people uncomfortable? I personally don't see him doing that- in my opinion, if the protesters abandoned their plan and just enjoyed the service and went to coffee hour without saying a word, then what? Lemon would have had quieter footage we would have never seen. He planned to go to document the protest. No more, no less. Please, split hairs and tell me what was illegal.

And-is making people uncomfortable automatically interfering with their right to worship/access a clinic? It is perfectly legal to make people uncomfortable with gory pictures and anti-abortion posters as they enter a clinic. There has to be a line between expression and creating discomfort to the point that it prevents access. And whatever that line is, Lemon didn't cross it. He just documented.

If someone came to my church to tell me my pastor has a side gig being an administrator in an agency that just murdered my neighbor, I'd consider it a service that they had informed me. Safe to say, not all worshippers agreed. But not all discomfort is bad, and what is bad is subjective.

Edited to add: A charging documents is not evidence. When prosecutors went to judges with the charges and the evidence, judges said, your evidence does not support your charges.

MOO
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
3,289
Total visitors
3,396

Forum statistics

Threads
646,000
Messages
18,852,156
Members
245,862
Latest member
stoneyscafecito
Top