It’s free speech it’s lawful it’s his rights to be able to do so no matter who likes it or don’t he has the right to free speech obviously not here in the United States is it me or the United States is starting to look like North Korea? Where recording and freedom of speech is now a issue
I tried listening for that, but didn't catch it. But even so, wrong. The law is the law. It's there, period, and says what it says. It doesn't become interpretable just because people complain about something.
Please change the title. The officer was respectful and willing to listen and assist. Imagine if he saw this title. You are accusing him of willfully breaking the law, which is an unfair accusation. He can hardly choose to unilaterally go against the Supreme Court solely on the basis of a law to which he was previously ignorant.
A local police officer attempted to obstruct free speech rights by citing a vague AZ Statute. We responded with another AZ Statute that the police officers are unwilling to uphold. It appears that the cops won't actually obey and uphold the law with respect to what was happening only 50-feet away and while they are on duty.
Yeah, sorry, but the title is blisteringly accurate. If a police offer doesn’t want to said to not be upholding the law, then they need to uphold the law.
@@bmlsb I'm as pro life as the next person, however what you did by citing the law that supposedly makes abortion illegal was basically a tu quoque. It doesn't matter what other people are doing. What matters right now is what were you doing. You were on a (presumed) megaphone causing a disturbance. As far as the law you quoted goes, I don't have the statute number, so I'm just going off of what you quoted, but it seems to me that the law only pertains to forcing a miscarriage. I would like to see the statute verbatim before I go any further.
@@judahmac1799 Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13. Criminal Code § 13-3603. Definition; 1 punishment A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.
He's Telling them that their freedom of speech may have to be lawfully restricted based on the amount of people that complain. He's not upholding the law. He's appealing to people's personal feelings.
I must admit, this has been by far the best and educational and communication between two sides. You can tell he is educated unlike 99% of the others that make the web. Congrats to both sides
Jonny Welch it not about them disobeying the law. It is about this officer not understanding the scope of his authority. He had no right to even approach these men.
Cat_ Puncher it’s not clickbait, the officer clearly refuses to acknowledge state law, so much so that he defended the murder of babies using federal law
For those confused about the title. The protestor quoted Arizona state law that declares abortion illegal directly to the LEO. On hearing and acknowledging the law, said LEO did NOT choose to enforce Arizona state law by entering the abortuary and shutting down their infanticide operation. This is how the LEO willfully did not uphold the law.
There are children being murdered when this cop trying to have " educated " and " fair " conversation you idiots ! Are you christians ? Are you suggesting Jesus not turning around tables !! Jesus needed some collage education ? Or he needed to see a psychologist? Dumb fucks keep playing with words and trying to be polite before your head be choped off by Satan ! Not much left retards ! Thank you Jake preaching the gospel!
@@Jl2man yes u cant expect that that's why Jesus, even to this day , owes an apology to hypocrites for being SO disrespectful! Come on Jesus ! Why did u do that ! Speak slow !! U r God for heaven sake ! People might call u stupid!
@@am1089 When you say "Are you suggesting Jesus not turning around tables" well, you can't exactly march in and torch abortion clinics. should we do something, yes, but it sounds as what you're suggesting is the incorrect form of Jesus' righteous anger. Look at the context of why Jesus was felt the obligation to flip over the tables. the context was in a temple, or as we can refer to in presently as a church. so, why did he flip the tables? because in church the people where trying to change the holy place into a capitalistic area. If you are going to further comment I would ask that you would expand on your claim. I also never said a thing about Jesus owing an apology, and I would appropriate it if you refrained from slanderous tactics.
Why was this the title of the video? That cop was very open and understanding. I like that he was willing to know more and look into Arizona State Law!
A local police officer attempted to obstruct free speech rights by citing a vague AZ Statute. We responded with another AZ Statute that the police officers are unwilling to uphold. It appears that the cops won't actually obey and uphold the law with respect to what was happening only 50-feet away and while they are on duty.
@@bmlsb You are telling a falsehood. The law you cite says absolutely nothing about "abortion" at all. Please repent, and work as Jesus would work to save innocent lives. God bless you!
@@statutesofthelord my response was to Jordan Draper comment "Why was this the title of the video" what I gave was in the description what the video was about, i wasn't giving the law...here is the law Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13. Criminal Code § 13-3603. Definition; 1 punishment is A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.
He was bullshitting and basically said 30 seconds later that Federal law trumped state law and that he wasn't willing to take a stand for dead babies. As the guy was trying to explain, it's not him going to court that is going to change this shit, it's cops arresting people for killing babies that's going to stop it. If a woman knew she'd be charged with murder for killing her kid I bet abortions would go down, sure you'd have illegal back alley abortions, but who the fuck cares? Like I care if someone kills their kid in a sterile environment.
I’m going to step into line with lots of other commenting on this content. This officer was incredibly respectful, approached the situation very well, and legitimately offered his approach for why he is confronting them. I am impressed with every aspect of the video, except for the title. It needs to be changed as it is promoting a fallacy and therefore causing sin to propagate.
Except he has evidence of a clear crime happening in that building and he is doing nothing.... He won't enforce A.R.S 13-3603. It's like if a drug dealer had a business with a sign in the front stating he sells drugs and the cops just saying "well it needs to be established in a courtroom".
Respectfully, it is the truth. We're not exactly sure why you have a problem with it. We have limited characters to express what happened at the abortion clinic. Can you give us an example of how you would describe a police officer not upholding the law against abortion in AZ? You'll need to do it with about 5-words so that people will be able to understand what they video is about and can see the full description in suggested video lists. Please give us an example of what you would write. Thank you!
@@ApologiaStudios "Officer doesn't uphold the law." Or: "Officer learns about the law." With your current title, I was waiting to see if he would reject your argument presented in the video. Instead, he was taking it under consideration and didn't seem aware of your position (you noted this in the description). Saying "won't" can imply he was willfully dismissing your argument. Appreciate your work. Thank you for doing it.
This was probably one of the most respectful officers I’ve ever heard confront someone about free speech. Open minded and polite. This 13 minute clip doesn’t show the whole story...email exchange, etc.
@@ApologiaStudios I would definitely agree with @Mattchew2232 . When I saw the title, I was expecting an argument on the lines of many of your other experiences with cops and women outside of the abortion clinic. The title here, it seems, does not give the due justice to the officer who handled the disagreement respecfully and even offered to be present at further events. I would also say that "Officer learns about the law" is a much more appropriate title. Thank you for sharing this video with us!
Love you guys. Please keep it up. Its crazy that when it comes to the murder of a child people are like "can you not be so loud". Nobody would say that if it was their already born child about to be killed. I honestly think many of us dont really see how there is a murder about to take place. I pray God helps us, we need it.
It's not about who can end an argument, a debate or discussion. It's about showing and carefully demonstrating to law enforcement about both God's and the Arizona state's law.
@@wwfera00 I absolutely agree, by "ending the argument" I wasn't implying doing so in a disrespectful or childish manner... Jeff Durbin does it extremely well and he is insanely well spoken and only goes by facts, laws & God's words.
I think the title is due to the fact that when the police are called due to high volume they respond but when they are informed that God's law and state law is violated by abortion practiced daily they ask you to email them and ignore the fact that murder is taking place. I don't think the title is meant to insult this officer but rather CONVICT him and all other officers and law enforcement organizations that choose to remain ignorant of the blatant disregard for the law of the land and more importantly the law of God.
Wouldn't matter. They'll find another excuse. They hate Jesus & they will hate those who will follow Him too... Its only going to get worst, as in the days of Noah
I love the fact the officer stated he was only wanting to maintain peace and explained that he DID NOT SHOW UP IN UNIFORM because he DIDN'T WANT TO INTIMIDATE.
The cop's demeanor is not the issue. He can be as nice as he wants, but that's not the issue. The issue is were they within the law. In another video, another activist, I guess Pastor Jeff tells cops about the law describing what level of sound was lawful and what level of sound was not lawful, measured in decibels. If they are at or below the decibel level allowed by law, then they were acting lawfully and whether the people in the abortion "clinic" were disturbed by it is irrelevant. What is "disturbing " is subjective. (I dont know if that law about the decibel level is still in effect or not at the time this video was made)
I’m a reformed believer and a police officer, and I can say, unequivocally: this cop truly embodies the mind of a philosopher of the law, not just an officer of the law. He’s well-spoken, respectful, calm, and humbled himself by using his authority for a dialogue, rather than confrontation. I don’t believe the title is representative of this interaction. This cop truly understands his role as law enforcement in America more than most. I understand the frustration of allowing the murder of the unborn. I, too, believe it to be sin and evil, and y’all’s ministry is truly encouraging. However, villainizing the police, especially this one, doesn’t push any awareness of the corruption and hypocrisy of the laws they choose to enforce or allow to happen. For example: in my state, there is a state code that states it is a misdemeanor crime to cohabitate with a partner you’re not married to. Yet, most of the domestic disputes I go to involve cohabiting couples. No officer I’ve ever met, to include myself, has ever arrested someone for it. It’s a crime that is ignored. Am I corrupt by not enforcing it? I’m not trying to compare cohabitation to the murder of the unborn, but we need to analyze current trends within criminal activity and what law enforcement is proactively looking to deter and arrest people for, and attack THAT as Christians, not blame the cops for it. Shed light on the abortion code you cited to state officials. Then, it will trickle down to law enforcement. Overall, this cop did a phenomenal job given the situation he was in. Multiple complaints about you all (though most unfounded), and he came over to just have a conversation. A true example of a good cop out there.
God bless this ministry. In terms of the upheaval over the video title, I address those offended. Was the officer upholding the clear statute of the law, or was he not upholding the clear statute of the law? True, he may simply not be aware of the law, he may change his actions in the future towards the law, his superiors may obstruct him from upholding that law, etc. He was also calm and respectful. But the fact remains, the officer *did not* uphold the statute under the law. The title is perfectly accurate and descriptive of what took place.
Alex: The statute cited by this video's creator says absolutely nothing at all regarding abortion. It only mentions "miscarriage". So this video's creator is not being truthful.
@@statutesofthelord Oh no, it does. 13-3603 'A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.' Abortion falls directly into the category of miscarriage. And this statute describes precisely what Planned Parenthood is doing to children. I mean no ill will; I just wanted to clarify what Arizona law states. Have a good one!
@@statutesofthelord Incorrect. Your statement made the assertion that the video's creator was being untruthful. So the issue is, is Planned Parenthood breaking Arizona law? Is Planned Parenthood providing supplies and administering medicine, drugs and substances to pregnant women and employing instruments and other means with the intent to miscarry pregnancies?... Yes... So is Planned Parenthood breaking the law?... Yes... The video's creator is being perfectly truthful. In regards to the semantics of your second point, the statute *does* refer to abortion, as abortion utilizes the administration of medicine, drugs and substances to pregnant women, as well as employs instruments and other means with the intent of procuring the miscarriage of women. Again, this is exactly what Planned Parenthood is doing. But as you seem to want to avoid the meanings of the words, there's really no way of carrying on an honest conversion. You seem to correlate the appearance of the word "abortion" with the only means of describing the murder of an unborn child. What you're failing to grasp is that a person, or legal document, may use an array of language or alternate vocabulary in order to convey a point. In fact, particularly in legal documents (or say in a series of state statutes) it would be wise and extremely important to give a description and/or definition of a particular illegal activity or act, as opposed to simply stating a word. Let's read and listen to each other honestly and fairly, just as we would others to read our words and listen to us honestly and fairly.
Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. That's what they tell you when they give you a ticket for breaking a law you didn't know about. Yet it's an excuse for them when proven wrong about a law?
Arbitrary is by definition, opinion based, and believing anything to be true from a book written at a time when everyone thought magic is real, is as opinion based as possible, these are your religious opinions and nothing more. When the first person comes up with 1 thing that gives any validity to any of the Bible, then you could start to call it true objectivity. It is your opinion that snakes and donkeys talked, that’s not my opinion, and the delusions of the masses never constitute objectivity unless you can show anything more than your own wishful thinking. If we both agree the sun is hot, then we objectively agree because we both feel the heat, if 1 person does not agree that your book is worth what you say it’s worth, then your opinion is arbitrary. There is nothing objective about that book, it’s got more ridiculous contradictions than any one human can even produce, so if you insist that book is objective then I encourage you to learn the definitions of words before using them, but then again, your right in line with most Christians I know. In the end we only have facts and beliefs and if you can show facts in that book and you feel this strongly, then I’d say keep looking, you could be the first one ever to show it.
@@quantumrobin4627 is that objectively true? If so where do you get objective truth? From your own arbitrary opinion or reasoning, ok got it. Thank you for the viciously circular line of reasoning which is fallacious. I'll stick with the virtuous circular reasoning, which is reasoning from an outside source, the Christian God of the Bible, who provides us revelation to know something to be true and certain to any degree. But more importantly, provide forgiveness of sins through Jesus. Repent and turn to Christ for forgiveness and life. God bless.
TheOpenAirTruth Forget it, I can have a circular presup argument with anyone with any belief. I can believe in the spaghetti monster and use the same philosophical questions and be as valid as yours. If there were credible evidences and not this word salad run around that you are forced to have with non believers then we would not be having this conversation. Not sure why you object to anything circular...that is what religion hinges on, you literally believe in magic, and why? Because the Bible says so. Why is the Bible correct- because the Bible tells me so...I believe in science....why? Because it uses thousands and thousands of objective, falsifiable evidences, drawn from every branch of science, pointing to the same conclusion.
@@quantumrobin4627 I already finished the conversation in my first response to you and for you. Your response shows you didn't understand it. Feel free to re-read it, and study it. Every claim is circular, but thank you for conceding you have to deposit a deity to have any truth. Thank you, and may God bless you with repentance.
TheOpenAirTruth Conceding a deity? Wow! I’m not surprised you would project your need for deity onto everyone else. I don’t need a deity to experience life, but I understand you why you want to. Sad no less. May your book bless you.🙏🏻
File a Lawsuit against the city, you guys have enough resources. You should not let yourselves be bullied like that. The law is on your side, let the courts handle it.
@Last Call who cares? It’s just a few bags of space dust in a careless universe with no moral oughts. To “break balls” or “impose nonsense” or insult people is perfectly fine.
I support everything you're doing. You're right about those babies dying. I think the title is a bit unfair. The officer was simply responding to a complaint. He was open, honest, and respectful with y'all about that. He was even honest about not knowing about the particular statute that you quoted. I think it is quite unfair that you're expecting him to just go take down this clinic based on the word of a couple of citizens. The logical thing for him to do, which we have no idea if he actually did it, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, he would go look at the statute to assess the situation. Then he would act accordingly.
David Probus, the title is totally fair. He’s more than happy to take a noise complaint that wouldn’t stand up to legal scrutiny seriously but when someone specifically quotes state law dictating that abortion is unlawful, he waffles about nothing in particular because he’s not willing to take a law he’s “not familiar with” seriously.
statutesofthelord I’m going to be as level with you as I can without being snide or disrespectful: That’s an incredibly weak excuse and I honestly pray that you never attempt to offer legal counsel or evaluate counsel that you or others receive by yourself if that’s your actual response to this sort of thing.
Cops are paid to stop actual crime, not babysit the public who cant initiate civil discourse with each other. We all pay taxes, some of us know better than to use henchmen to handle adult interaction. But ya know, parents back in the day and their sad grown up offspring now....
I can't deny the officer was polite, but part of being a officer of the law consists in letting the complainer know that that are wasting officers' time to be used in dealing with actual problematic situations. Imagine having a business and people call the police in you for stupid reasons. It would not be fair to waste your time explaining the officers how you are not doing anything wrong or debunking the accussations. Law should work in favor of everyone, and not accomodate only snowflakes who get offended by anything.
He quoted the statue, and told the cop that the abortionist were in violation of the law, and he refused to do anything about it. He made all kinds of excuses not to do anything, but had his own agenda to stop the bullhorn use.
Murder is murder, but for some reason when it comes to the unborn, all of a sudden the standard changes. If someone were doing to animals what is done to the unborn no one would care how loud someone is speaking.
@ time stamp 1.33 Craig said: "... it is also the amount of complaints that someone gets..." // What is the threshold that triggers police intervention to "keep the peace"? Is it three complaints? Five, ten? Would it be X percent of people present? How can that element of your "overall assessment" be anything but capricious and arbitrary, eh Craig?
The statute the video creator cited doesn't mention "abortion" at all. It is only regarding "miscarriage". Let's pray this video creator will repent, and resolve to tell only the truth in the future.
Easy solution: Don't use the bullhorn. You can still stand there and preach. I'm all in with protecting unborn babies; abortion is murder! But, I don't think using a bullhorn and being loud or challenging police officers about the law on the street is going to be the way it works. Your arguments, though valid, and I agree with them, need to be presented in a courtroom. (I know that's a lot of work and $, so it's prohibitive.) But, an officer only enforces the law, he can't change or challenge them; he can only enforce them. That's his/her job, and the only job he can do. The argument you have is for the courtroom. So keep doing what you're doing, but without the bullhorn. Don't antagonize the law on the street; that just makes you look like a nuisance instead of accomplishing your goal, which is to save unborn babies. God bless.
Nancy EL All that matters is, is he breaking the law or not? If the bullhorn is not breaking the law than this cop is wasting everyone time. For all we know, this cop could support abortion and is using his authority to silence this peaceful protest.
I was also an 18 year old unwed pregnant girl txt Italian Catholic family. I could not have an abortion either. My family disowned me for a season. I had a miscarriage, then had my wonderful son.
We need more people standing for children that are currently alive instead of fighting a law that may never change now matter how much you pray and believe in magic, do Christians care about the children in abusive situations now or do you all just love disrupting the public, professing love for fetuses, and not working ? Apparently you Christians find it easier to try to intervene in these women’s lives once they get to the clinic. How about starting with women that aren’t yet pregnant, is that not “glorious” enough for you pricks? Are you all so blind you don’t know that Evangelical woman still have more abortions than almost any other group, yet here you are, oblivious, narcissistic and under the veil “we are more moral”, yet you can’t show that’s even true.
Nancy EL, they use the bull horn because it is legal for them to use it. And of course everyone should be informed and always challenge police officers when their words and actions do not line up with the law; it is our responsibility as citizens. Officers cannot be allowed to just make it up as they go, it will always lead to tyranny.
To everyone complaining about the title of the video, the title is in reference to the fact that abortion is illegal in the state of AZ according to the statute the man cited, however, the officer doesn't uphold that statute, and therefore, he is not upholding the law.
I'm seeing people mention the title being unfair or click bait. Honestly, the statute is EXTREMELY clear. This legitimately sounds like the conversations Apologia has with Mormons (I can relate to this btw) in which the clear presentation of truth goes over their head.
Sure they can give you a warning if you are speeding. But if the speed limit is 45 and you are going 44, you can't be ticketed for speeding just because someone complains about the color of your car....
The cop was actually very good at how he communicated. Just curious, did you guys push the issue further? I mean if it is the law surely if you took them to court they would rule in your favor. Curious as to an update. Same with the other confrontation with that annoying female supervisor, any update there, you were supposed to sue. How did it turn out?
Everyone can learn from this video..... a fair cop.....respectful protesters...... America is a land of fairness if only we could be like these guys in the video.
A local police officer attempted to obstruct free speech rights by citing a vague AZ Statute. We responded with another AZ Statute that the police officers are unwilling to uphold. It appears that the cops won't actually obey and uphold the law with respect to what was happening only 50-feet away and while they are on duty.
bmlsb69 this title should really go to the other video where Jeff is arguing with the woman police officer. Now she was not obeying the law. But this officer was respectful and didn’t try to shut anyone down.
@@aloe83 I'm sure in his heart he thought he was lawfully polite, to politely shut down their 1st amendment speaking on the streets about the murder of innocent children...I agree with you
I like Jeff Durbin, but I don't agree with the title of this video. That officer was respectful and calmed all the time. And was willing to learn. I liked that officer.
The title may be wrong, but why would a cop still come ask people to stop doing something legal? If people complain, the police need to tell those whiners that everyone has the right to speak. If someone wants to measure the decibel level and report that it’s too high then that’s understandable. But if no law is broken then why even talk to those people? Too many cops are not following the law.
A local police officer attempted to obstruct free speech rights by citing a vague AZ Statute. We responded with another AZ Statute that the police officers are unwilling to uphold. It appears that the cops won't actually obey and uphold the law with respect to what was happening only 50-feet away and while they are on duty.
bmlsb69 Oh I watched it all, has no bearings on my comment tho......can’t you just pray away the cop? Or pray away the abortions? Or at least stop evangelicals Christians from having abortions? The law is the law, and your religion hinges on the suspension of physics (magic), so cant you magic away all your problems? Of course I realize magic isn’t real but the question stands.
@@quantumrobin4627 God created man with free will, God is not the cosmic bellboy.....but I assume you don't belief in God, and believe the scientific impossibility of nothing creating everything, and that you have no free will, just complex chemical reaction that evolved from a rock, that exploded Into existence from nothing, for no reason...
1. He is an officer of the law. 2. He was on duty. 3. Babies were being dismembered 50-feet away (where's your concern for justice on their behalf?) 4. He was approaching us about a vague AZ Statute (clearly he wants to uphold the Statutes). 5. Having heard about the current Statute against abortion he refused (while on duty and with little humans being murdered 50-feet away) to do anything about it. Respectfully, you seem to have more compassion and attempts at understanding for the officer who is ignoring the murder of children than you do for the children being dismembered. They deserve your intervention. Not an officer who refuses to obey and uphold the law.
@@ApologiaStudios I have been following you guys for a couple years now and as an Orthodox Christian, I admire all the work you have done. Your sincerity and humility is admirable. With all due respect, I certainly value the abortion of babies over the feelings of an officer but being I'm trying to be impartial here. The officer made it clear that he is trying not to acknowledge his personal convictions as it pertains to the resolution of your case. He made a cogent argument for reducing the volume of your speech (which I happen to agree with every word to the point of death). He did not attempt to revoke your ability to address the apparent injustices, he merely laid out a justification for balancing complaints with freedom of speech. Seems reasonable to me. I would have a very different opinion had he asked you to leave or dispense with the right to amplified speech. Ostensibly, that wasn't remotely the case.
@@ApologiaStudios You are claiming this man *will not* uphold justice. But if I were to approach him and say that there's a statute that says "u cannot wear red on the 2nd wednsday of the month" is he to randomly act upon it without looking into that? He was willing to learn more. So that is why your title is disingenuous. It gives people the idea that he simply didn't want to do so while he clearly made an effort to be educated and possibly even do something with this. Regardless if these babies deserve justice, with this title it's almost close to bearing false witness against him.
Wait this title is misleading. Cop won't upload the law? Sounds like he did a pretty good job of explaining his situation, and he was willing to understand and learn.
I have to say, I found the content of the video interesting and informative, but you guys have a big problem with the title of your videos. It’s clickbait. Using words and phrases like “shocking” and “most amazing incredible ever!!”. You may not intend it but it rubs me as dishonest. Let the content and good preaching of the Gospel bring you viewers, not labeling videos in a “shocking” manner....
Why do some of you have a problem with the title. He's not upholding the law. They sited the law and he didn't know it and therefore he won't uphold the law, he should be "checking it out" like now and uphold the law.
This title is perfect. Cops are sworn to uphold the constitutional rights yet when they are told of an actual crime they act like they don’t see it. Same if their superiors violated any of your rights also they would never step in to stop any other cop. We see this all the time.
It doesn’t matter how many people are disturbed by it. If it’s not illegal, then it’s not illegal. Period. More people being disturbed by it doesn’t make it more against the law.
Most honest and real police officer I have seen. Seem like a really cool guy. That aside, I wonder if the police would stop a pride March or feminist gathering if I filed a complaint about noise lvl. I highly doubt it!
Hey friends, awesome job remaining respectful IN this video. I have to agree with what a lot of people already said about changing the title, though. I have been binge-watching Apologia Studios videos since I discovered you guys about 2-3 hours ago and am considering supporting this ministry. Although it's 1 video title in a sea of God-glorifying truth, it does give me pause.
Technically the officer must carry a calibrated decibel meter . If your within the decibel level , the complaints have no standing under the law . An arbitrary guess with no actual meter as to the decibel level has no bearing . I suggest you carry your own decibel meter to insure your within legal limitations as well as copies of the state and city law/ordinance in order to produce to educate . Law supercede all personal subjective perspective. Officers are required to enforce the existing law , not subjectivity interpret .This would help to educate the ones that complain to understand your doing everything in compliance with the law .
For all you people complaining about the title, they're talking about what they read to the cop that anyone who helps a woman have a miscarriage with physical or chemical means is unlawful and open to persecution and the cop isn't doing anything about that. I know I didn't word it as it is on video but good enough for you to get the point.
Ditto what Mattchew said... this is the textbook definition of a cordial, respectful conversation on both sides. I'm sure Apologia Church's newest member, DrOakley1689, would see that title and ask about "even scales"... I hope every cop I meet acts like this one.
Do they make blow horns that don't go above the legal decibel level? How about carrying a decibel meter with you and measure your level and the surrounding areas decibel level. I'm certain their are certain vehicles that pass by that far exceed your decibel level and no one seems to harass or talk to those drivers about what they are doing on an ongoing basis.
My thought exactly. And noone would intervene or stop a pride march or almost any other public "noise creating" event, due to a few complaints. The complaints here are 100% not about noise, but about the message that is being preached.
What is it with Apologia and its habit of borderline dishonest labeling of videos clearly to gain attention, clicks, likes, a "Persecution" badge or whatever. Are yall about truth or not??? The officer clearly was clueless about the law and showed an interest in following up and the label makes it seem as if this officer knew the law and refused to follow it.
Sounds to me like youv got an issue with the message. This was a very minute case of clickbate, the title and thumb nail wasnt misleading for the most part and the content is entertaining. Also perhaps you should reseach and buy a book on grammer
that cop is a master of the lenguage. straight knows how te build terms and sentences with spelling “ im saying he is a which cuz he casts spells that sentence u tu a term in jail phuck’ these’ fonetik’ ass’ sword i mean words.
You're losing credibility with this title. The officer was respectful, reasonable, lawful, and even asked you to email him the law you cited. He has to address complaints and he did it more reasonable than almost any officer you'd fast. PLEASE CHANGE THE TITLE!
“Loud,” is a relative term. There must be some objective standard such as a decibel level measured on a calibrated meter. Simply because there’s complaints from people who doesn’t like the message, doesn’t put one in violation of the law.
This cop should have never approached them until he had probable cause that a crime had been committed. A complaint by a citizen is not probable cause. The purpose of this police interaction was to intimidate and interrupt , albeit temporarily, the lawful speech. All subjective laws like disorderly conduct need to be repealed immediately. Here’s a tip for people, when a cop is being nice, reasonable and even kind, it’s because he’s trying to keep you talking while he tries to get you to admit to a crime so he can arrest you. The good cops, would have never approached these people in the first place. Free speech is under assault.
I would have to agree with the majority here, this officer is being more than kind and respectful. He's being helpful and informative - seems to be offering help even. The title is hostile and seems to attack him. How about "Officer offers his ear"? I'm usually on the side of defending Apologia but I've gotta call it like I see it. Unless the officer was playing to the camera and didn't fulfill his obligation to help.
Article VI: Clause II of the US Constitution ratified 1791. It states that no State can impead upon the God given Rights therein with predudice. This is a Constutional Republic, not a Democracy.
He was respectful but one thing I didn't agree with is. The law can be interpreted. But if they're going to enforce the law and the Supreme Court, The State of Az and Tempe agreed the law passed was based on decibel, not on opinion. So if they want them to comply they should show up with the instrument to measure it. Funny when the state wants to use the Federal Law to support their stance they will use it. But when it comes to immigration they want to ignore it.
I agree with your stance re abortion, but as others have stated the title is disrespectful to the officer who was more than fair and willing to listen to you.
@@BokaLokaToka , something can be legal but not tasteful or tactful. There are many ways to go about this that could render better results than being irritating. I myself am all about spreading the word, but I can't stand preachers in a public area with a bullhorn..... it's not necessary and drives people away.
I would disagree with you if it is legal for them to be that loud. The reason why I say that is because different standards shouldn’t be applied to different people. If it is too loud, then the law should be changed so that it can be applied equally to everyone.
Ever notice how if the cop wants to arrest you and isn't sure about the statute they'll just arrest you and tell you the courts will decide. But if they don't want to enforce a law they'll say they need to get clarification on the law and won't make an arrest? Man, talk about a double standard.
If speech can be shut down with simply a high volume of complaints, then there is no free speech, only the heckler’s veto.
If he was upholding the law he would leave them to their free speech.
Exactly!!!
Cop is still hassling and intimidating
So many Police everywhere are intentionally ignorant of the law and constitution.....
These cops are not always the sharpest tools in the shed.
It’s free speech it’s lawful it’s his rights to be able to do so no matter who likes it or don’t he has the right to free speech obviously not here in the United States is it me or the United States is starting to look like North Korea? Where recording and freedom of speech is now a issue
Never fails to make me laugh. Your standing next to a noisy road with a lot of traffic, but your being to loud. Give me a break.
Did he just say that the law is up to interpretation if enough people complain?
Yes, he did.
such bullshi$
He also said he sort of upholds the constitution 🤔
I tried listening for that, but didn't catch it.
But even so, wrong.
The law is the law. It's there, period, and says what it says.
It doesn't become interpretable just because people complain about something.
Please change the title. The officer was respectful and willing to listen and assist. Imagine if he saw this title. You are accusing him of willfully breaking the law, which is an unfair accusation. He can hardly choose to unilaterally go against the Supreme Court solely on the basis of a law to which he was previously ignorant.
Eureka Hope it’s murder, plain and simple, he will be accountable to God. The kings of the earth are to obey God.
A local police officer attempted to obstruct free speech rights by citing a vague AZ Statute. We responded with another AZ Statute that the police officers are unwilling to uphold. It appears that the cops won't actually obey and uphold the law with respect to what was happening only 50-feet away and while they are on duty.
Yeah, sorry, but the title is blisteringly accurate. If a police offer doesn’t want to said to not be upholding the law, then they need to uphold the law.
@@bmlsb I'm as pro life as the next person, however what you did by citing the law that supposedly makes abortion illegal was basically a tu quoque. It doesn't matter what other people are doing. What matters right now is what were you doing. You were on a (presumed) megaphone causing a disturbance. As far as the law you quoted goes, I don't have the statute number, so I'm just going off of what you quoted, but it seems to me that the law only pertains to forcing a miscarriage. I would like to see the statute verbatim before I go any further.
@@judahmac1799
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13. Criminal Code § 13-3603. Definition; 1 punishment
A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.
Cop worried about the noise but not worried about protecting life
He's Telling them that their freedom of speech may have to be lawfully restricted based on the amount of people that complain. He's not upholding the law. He's appealing to people's personal feelings.
I must admit, this has been by far the best and educational and communication between two sides. You can tell he is educated unlike 99% of the others that make the web. Congrats to both sides
I love Apologia church, but man what is with you guys and police. That’s as polite and informative as one can be.
Jonny Welch it not about them disobeying the law. It is about this officer not understanding the scope of his authority. He had no right to even approach these men.
Come on guys. Enough of the clickbait titles. Thanks for preaching the Gospel.
The title is correct, he not obeying his Oath to uphold the law.
Cat_ Puncher it’s not clickbait, the officer clearly refuses to acknowledge state law, so much so that he defended the murder of babies using federal law
For those confused about the title. The protestor quoted Arizona state law that declares abortion illegal directly to the LEO. On hearing and acknowledging the law, said LEO did NOT choose to enforce Arizona state law by entering the abortuary and shutting down their infanticide operation. This is how the LEO willfully did not uphold the law.
I love this officer he is really trying to be fair.
Nah, hes struggling to make up junk that sounds official and legal. Number of complaints my ass. Decibel reading is the only way and he knows it
There are children being murdered when this cop trying to have " educated " and " fair " conversation you idiots ! Are you christians ? Are you suggesting Jesus not turning around tables !! Jesus needed some collage education ? Or he needed to see a psychologist?
Dumb fucks keep playing with words and trying to be polite before your head be choped off by Satan ! Not much left retards !
Thank you Jake preaching the gospel!
Way to represent a slow to speak attitude. You can't expect non-believers to have the attitude and mindset that Christians have. @@am1089
@@Jl2man yes u cant expect that that's why Jesus, even to this day , owes an apology to hypocrites for being SO disrespectful! Come on Jesus ! Why did u do that ! Speak slow !! U r God for heaven sake ! People might call u stupid!
@@am1089 When you say "Are you suggesting Jesus not turning around tables" well, you can't exactly march in and torch abortion clinics. should we do something, yes, but it sounds as what you're suggesting is the incorrect form of Jesus' righteous anger. Look at the context of why Jesus was felt the obligation to flip over the tables. the context was in a temple, or as we can refer to in presently as a church. so, why did he flip the tables? because in church the people where trying to change the holy place into a capitalistic area. If you are going to further comment I would ask that you would expand on your claim. I also never said a thing about Jesus owing an apology, and I would appropriate it if you refrained from slanderous tactics.
What the heck... That officer sure did like to hear himself talk.
I agree...he wants to convince them that he has the right to shut them down by his interpretive rendering of the law.
And they wonder why people throw bricks at them...
Video title...? Hmmmm, doesn't seem correct to me. Great content though!
Why was this the title of the video? That cop was very open and understanding. I like that he was willing to know more and look into Arizona State Law!
A local police officer attempted to obstruct free speech rights by citing a vague AZ Statute. We responded with another AZ Statute that the police officers are unwilling to uphold. It appears that the cops won't actually obey and uphold the law with respect to what was happening only 50-feet away and while they are on duty.
He almost said he agrees with them but then stopped and said he believes in their constitutional rights.
@@bmlsb You are telling a falsehood. The law you cite says absolutely nothing about "abortion" at all. Please repent, and work as Jesus would work to save innocent lives. God bless you!
@@statutesofthelord my response was to Jordan Draper comment "Why was this the title of the video" what I gave was in the description what the video was about, i wasn't giving the law...here is the law
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13. Criminal Code § 13-3603. Definition; 1 punishment
is A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.
He was bullshitting and basically said 30 seconds later that Federal law trumped state law and that he wasn't willing to take a stand for dead babies. As the guy was trying to explain, it's not him going to court that is going to change this shit, it's cops arresting people for killing babies that's going to stop it. If a woman knew she'd be charged with murder for killing her kid I bet abortions would go down, sure you'd have illegal back alley abortions, but who the fuck cares? Like I care if someone kills their kid in a sterile environment.
I’m going to step into line with lots of other commenting on this content. This officer was incredibly respectful, approached the situation very well, and legitimately offered his approach for why he is confronting them. I am impressed with every aspect of the video, except for the title. It needs to be changed as it is promoting a fallacy and therefore causing sin to propagate.
Except he has evidence of a clear crime happening in that building and he is doing nothing....
He won't enforce A.R.S 13-3603.
It's like if a drug dealer had a business with a sign in the front stating he sells drugs and the cops just saying "well it needs to be established in a courtroom".
Everything was great about this video except for the title.
Mattchew2232 right! I felt like it was click bait or something
Respectfully, it is the truth. We're not exactly sure why you have a problem with it. We have limited characters to express what happened at the abortion clinic.
Can you give us an example of how you would describe a police officer not upholding the law against abortion in AZ? You'll need to do it with about 5-words so that people will be able to understand what they video is about and can see the full description in suggested video lists. Please give us an example of what you would write. Thank you!
@@ApologiaStudios "Officer doesn't uphold the law."
Or:
"Officer learns about the law."
With your current title, I was waiting to see if he would reject your argument presented in the video. Instead, he was taking it under consideration and didn't seem aware of your position (you noted this in the description). Saying "won't" can imply he was willfully dismissing your argument.
Appreciate your work. Thank you for doing it.
This was probably one of the most respectful officers I’ve ever heard confront someone about free speech. Open minded and polite. This 13 minute clip doesn’t show the whole story...email exchange, etc.
@@ApologiaStudios I would definitely agree with @Mattchew2232 . When I saw the title, I was expecting an argument on the lines of many of your other experiences with cops and women outside of the abortion clinic. The title here, it seems, does not give the due justice to the officer who handled the disagreement respecfully and even offered to be present at further events.
I would also say that "Officer learns about the law" is a much more appropriate title.
Thank you for sharing this video with us!
Love you guys. Please keep it up. Its crazy that when it comes to the murder of a child people are like "can you not be so loud". Nobody would say that if it was their already born child about to be killed. I honestly think many of us dont really see how there is a murder about to take place. I pray God helps us, we need it.
Jeff Durbin would've ended the argument in 3 minutes
Exactly!
It's not about who can end an argument, a debate or discussion. It's about showing and carefully demonstrating to law enforcement about both God's and the Arizona state's law.
Smoooooch!!!💋
Only get better by doing it. It's great to see everyone chipping in! After all it can't just be one man doing everything.
@@wwfera00 I absolutely agree, by "ending the argument" I wasn't implying doing so in a disrespectful or childish manner... Jeff Durbin does it extremely well and he is insanely well spoken and only goes by facts, laws & God's words.
I think the title is due to the fact that when the police are called due to high volume they respond but when they are informed that God's law and state law is violated by abortion practiced daily they ask you to email them and ignore the fact that murder is taking place.
I don't think the title is meant to insult this officer but rather CONVICT him and all other officers and law enforcement organizations that choose to remain ignorant of the blatant disregard for the law of the land and more importantly the law of God.
Why not carry a calibrated Sound Meter/ Decibel Meter
Wouldn't matter. They'll find another excuse. They hate Jesus & they will hate those who will follow Him too... Its only going to get worst, as in the days of Noah
I love the fact the officer stated he was only wanting to maintain peace and explained that he DID NOT SHOW UP IN UNIFORM because he DIDN'T WANT TO INTIMIDATE.
God bless this officer! I like his respectfulness and good character. Let's pray that he will be led to Life in Christ Jesus.
Amen 🙏
The cop's demeanor is not the issue. He can be as nice as he wants, but that's not the issue. The issue is were they within the law. In another video, another activist, I guess Pastor Jeff tells cops about the law describing what level of sound was lawful and what level of sound was not lawful, measured in decibels. If they are at or below the decibel level allowed by law, then they were acting lawfully and whether the people in the abortion "clinic" were disturbed by it is irrelevant. What is "disturbing " is subjective. (I dont know if that law about the decibel level is still in effect or not at the time this video was made)
I’m a reformed believer and a police officer, and I can say, unequivocally: this cop truly embodies the mind of a philosopher of the law, not just an officer of the law. He’s well-spoken, respectful, calm, and humbled himself by using his authority for a dialogue, rather than confrontation. I don’t believe the title is representative of this interaction. This cop truly understands his role as law enforcement in America more than most. I understand the frustration of allowing the murder of the unborn. I, too, believe it to be sin and evil, and y’all’s ministry is truly encouraging. However, villainizing the police, especially this one, doesn’t push any awareness of the corruption and hypocrisy of the laws they choose to enforce or allow to happen.
For example: in my state, there is a state code that states it is a misdemeanor crime to cohabitate with a partner you’re not married to. Yet, most of the domestic disputes I go to involve cohabiting couples. No officer I’ve ever met, to include myself, has ever arrested someone for it. It’s a crime that is ignored. Am I corrupt by not enforcing it? I’m not trying to compare cohabitation to the murder of the unborn, but we need to analyze current trends within criminal activity and what law enforcement is proactively looking to deter and arrest people for, and attack THAT as Christians, not blame the cops for it. Shed light on the abortion code you cited to state officials. Then, it will trickle down to law enforcement.
Overall, this cop did a phenomenal job given the situation he was in. Multiple complaints about you all (though most unfounded), and he came over to just have a conversation. A true example of a good cop out there.
I agree the cop didn't do anything wrong. He did job. Professional and articulate
God bless this ministry. In terms of the upheaval over the video title, I address those offended. Was the officer upholding the clear statute of the law, or was he not upholding the clear statute of the law? True, he may simply not be aware of the law, he may change his actions in the future towards the law, his superiors may obstruct him from upholding that law, etc. He was also calm and respectful. But the fact remains, the officer *did not* uphold the statute under the law. The title is perfectly accurate and descriptive of what took place.
Alex: The statute cited by this video's creator says absolutely nothing at all regarding abortion. It only mentions "miscarriage". So this video's creator is not being truthful.
@@statutesofthelord Oh no, it does.
13-3603 'A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.'
Abortion falls directly into the category of miscarriage. And this statute describes precisely what Planned Parenthood is doing to children. I mean no ill will; I just wanted to clarify what Arizona law states. Have a good one!
@@alexmoore7755 You've just upheld my statement, that this statute doesn't refer to "abortion" at all.
@@statutesofthelord Incorrect. Your statement made the assertion that the video's creator was being untruthful. So the issue is, is Planned Parenthood breaking Arizona law? Is Planned Parenthood providing supplies and administering medicine, drugs and substances to pregnant women and employing instruments and other means with the intent to miscarry pregnancies?... Yes... So is Planned Parenthood breaking the law?... Yes...
The video's creator is being perfectly truthful.
In regards to the semantics of your second point, the statute *does* refer to abortion, as abortion utilizes the administration of medicine, drugs and substances to pregnant women, as well as employs instruments and other means with the intent of procuring the miscarriage of women. Again, this is exactly what Planned Parenthood is doing.
But as you seem to want to avoid the meanings of the words, there's really no way of carrying on an honest conversion. You seem to correlate the appearance of the word "abortion" with the only means of describing the murder of an unborn child. What you're failing to grasp is that a person, or legal document, may use an array of language or alternate vocabulary in order to convey a point. In fact, particularly in legal documents (or say in a series of state statutes) it would be wise and extremely important to give a description and/or definition of a particular illegal activity or act, as opposed to simply stating a word. Let's read and listen to each other honestly and fairly, just as we would others to read our words and listen to us honestly and fairly.
Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. That's what they tell you when they give you a ticket for breaking a law you didn't know about. Yet it's an excuse for them when proven wrong about a law?
Yes.. we need objective laws.. not subjective and arbitrary laws.
Arbitrary is by definition, opinion based, and believing anything to be true from a book written at a time when everyone thought magic is real, is as opinion based as possible, these are your religious opinions and nothing more. When the first person comes up with 1 thing that gives any validity to any of the Bible, then you could start to call it true objectivity. It is your opinion that snakes and donkeys talked, that’s not my opinion, and the delusions of the masses never constitute objectivity unless you can show anything more than your own wishful thinking. If we both agree the sun is hot, then we objectively agree because we both feel the heat, if 1 person does not agree that your book is worth what you say it’s worth, then your opinion is arbitrary. There is nothing objective about that book, it’s got more ridiculous contradictions than any one human can even produce, so if you insist that book is objective then I encourage you to learn the definitions of words before using them, but then again, your right in line with most Christians I know. In the end we only have facts and beliefs and if you can show facts in that book and you feel this strongly, then I’d say keep looking, you could be the first one ever to show it.
@@quantumrobin4627 is that objectively true? If so where do you get objective truth? From your own arbitrary opinion or reasoning, ok got it. Thank you for the viciously circular line of reasoning which is fallacious.
I'll stick with the virtuous circular reasoning, which is reasoning from an outside source, the Christian God of the Bible, who provides us revelation to know something to be true and certain to any degree. But more importantly, provide forgiveness of sins through Jesus.
Repent and turn to Christ for forgiveness and life.
God bless.
TheOpenAirTruth Forget it, I can have a circular presup argument with anyone with any belief. I can believe in the spaghetti monster and use the same philosophical questions and be as valid as yours. If there were credible evidences and not this word salad run around that you are forced to have with non believers then we would not be having this conversation. Not sure why you object to anything circular...that is what religion hinges on, you literally believe in magic, and why? Because the Bible says so. Why is the Bible correct- because the Bible tells me so...I believe in science....why? Because it uses thousands and thousands of objective, falsifiable evidences, drawn from every branch of science, pointing to the same conclusion.
@@quantumrobin4627 I already finished the conversation in my first response to you and for you. Your response shows you didn't understand it. Feel free to re-read it, and study it. Every claim is circular, but thank you for conceding you have to deposit a deity to have any truth. Thank you, and may God bless you with repentance.
TheOpenAirTruth Conceding a deity? Wow! I’m not surprised you would project your need for deity onto everyone else. I don’t need a deity to experience life, but I understand you why you want to. Sad no less. May your book bless you.🙏🏻
File a Lawsuit against the city, you guys have enough resources.
You should not let yourselves be bullied like that.
The law is on your side, let the courts handle it.
@Last Call who cares? It’s just a few bags of space dust in a careless universe with no moral oughts. To “break balls” or “impose nonsense” or insult people is perfectly fine.
I support everything you're doing. You're right about those babies dying. I think the title is a bit unfair. The officer was simply responding to a complaint. He was open, honest, and respectful with y'all about that. He was even honest about not knowing about the particular statute that you quoted. I think it is quite unfair that you're expecting him to just go take down this clinic based on the word of a couple of citizens. The logical thing for him to do, which we have no idea if he actually did it, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, he would go look at the statute to assess the situation. Then he would act accordingly.
David Probus, the title is totally fair. He’s more than happy to take a noise complaint that wouldn’t stand up to legal scrutiny seriously but when someone specifically quotes state law dictating that abortion is unlawful, he waffles about nothing in particular because he’s not willing to take a law he’s “not familiar with” seriously.
@@samglover2246 The title is not truthful, as the law cited says absolutely nothing about "abortion".
statutesofthelord I’m going to be as level with you as I can without being snide or disrespectful: That’s an incredibly weak excuse and I honestly pray that you never attempt to offer legal counsel or evaluate counsel that you or others receive by yourself if that’s your actual response to this sort of thing.
Cops are paid to stop actual crime, not babysit the public who cant initiate civil discourse with each other. We all pay taxes, some of us know better than to use henchmen to handle adult interaction. But ya know, parents back in the day and their sad grown up offspring now....
I can't deny the officer was polite, but part of being a officer of the law consists in letting the complainer know that that are wasting officers' time to be used in dealing with actual problematic situations. Imagine having a business and people call the police in you for stupid reasons. It would not be fair to waste your time explaining the officers how you are not doing anything wrong or debunking the accussations. Law should work in favor of everyone, and not accomodate only snowflakes who get offended by anything.
Conversation with Cop outside Abortion mill.
He quoted the statue, and told the cop that the abortionist were in violation of the law, and he refused to do anything about it.
He made all kinds of excuses not to do anything, but had his own agenda to stop the bullhorn use.
This officer was very respectful. He didn't say he wouldn't uphold the law.
Murder is murder, but for some reason when it comes to the unborn, all of a sudden the standard changes. If someone were doing to animals what is done to the unborn no one would care how loud someone is speaking.
Can you post his response to the email about that statute?
@ time stamp 1.33 Craig said: "... it is also the amount of complaints that someone gets..." // What is the threshold that triggers police intervention to "keep the peace"? Is it three complaints? Five, ten? Would it be X percent of people present? How can that element of your "overall assessment" be anything but capricious and arbitrary, eh Craig?
So polite when they obstruct your freedom!
Obvious this cop doesn’t know the law in protecting the state rights of the unborn.... perhaps he can something from this encounter.
The statute the video creator cited doesn't mention "abortion" at all. It is only regarding "miscarriage". Let's pray this video creator will repent, and resolve to tell only the truth in the future.
Easy solution: Don't use the bullhorn. You can still stand there and preach. I'm all in with protecting unborn babies; abortion is murder! But, I don't think using a bullhorn and being loud or challenging police officers about the law on the street is going to be the way it works. Your arguments, though valid, and I agree with them, need to be presented in a courtroom. (I know that's a lot of work and $, so it's prohibitive.) But, an officer only enforces the law, he can't change or challenge them; he can only enforce them. That's his/her job, and the only job he can do. The argument you have is for the courtroom. So keep doing what you're doing, but without the bullhorn. Don't antagonize the law on the street; that just makes you look like a nuisance instead of accomplishing your goal, which is to save unborn babies. God bless.
Nancy EL All that matters is, is he breaking the law or not? If the bullhorn is not breaking the law than this cop is wasting everyone time. For all we know, this cop could support abortion and is using his authority to silence this peaceful protest.
I was also an 18 year old unwed pregnant girl txt Italian Catholic family. I could not have an abortion either. My family disowned me for a season. I had a miscarriage, then had my wonderful son.
We need more people standing for children that are currently alive instead of fighting a law that may never change now matter how much you pray and believe in magic, do Christians care about the children in abusive situations now or do you all just love disrupting the public, professing love for fetuses, and not working ? Apparently you Christians find it easier to try to intervene in these women’s lives once they get to the clinic. How about starting with women that aren’t yet pregnant, is that not “glorious” enough for you pricks? Are you all so blind you don’t know that Evangelical woman still have more abortions than almost any other group, yet here you are, oblivious, narcissistic and under the veil “we are more moral”, yet you can’t show that’s even true.
Nancy EL, they use the bull horn because it is legal for them to use it. And of course everyone should be informed and always challenge police officers when their words and actions do not line up with the law; it is our responsibility as citizens. Officers cannot be allowed to just make it up as they go, it will always lead to tyranny.
The traffic is rather loud. I can see no reason to restrict the bullhorn as long as it isn't louder than the traffic.
Video title seems kind of disrespectful to a cop that was trying to be reasonable, humble yourself and change the title name.
Agreed.
What a good honest cop! This is how it should work.
That was the most respectful cop ever! I would be interested to hear his personal opinion off duty.
To everyone complaining about the title of the video, the title is in reference to the fact that abortion is illegal in the state of AZ according to the statute the man cited, however, the officer doesn't uphold that statute, and therefore, he is not upholding the law.
I'm seeing people mention the title being unfair or click bait.
Honestly, the statute is EXTREMELY clear. This legitimately sounds like the conversations Apologia has with Mormons (I can relate to this btw) in which the clear presentation of truth goes over their head.
Sure they can give you a warning if you are speeding. But if the speed limit is 45 and you are going 44, you can't be ticketed for speeding just because someone complains about the color of your car....
The cop couldn't have been more respectful.
The cop was actually very good at how he communicated. Just curious, did you guys push the issue further? I mean if it is the law surely if you took them to court they would rule in your favor. Curious as to an update. Same with the other confrontation with that annoying female supervisor, any update there, you were supposed to sue. How did it turn out?
Everyone can learn from this video..... a fair cop.....respectful protesters...... America is a land of fairness if only we could be like these guys in the video.
Kind of a misleading title but it was a great video
A local police officer attempted to obstruct free speech rights by citing a vague AZ Statute. We responded with another AZ Statute that the police officers are unwilling to uphold. It appears that the cops won't actually obey and uphold the law with respect to what was happening only 50-feet away and while they are on duty.
bmlsb69 this title should really go to the other video where Jeff is arguing with the woman police officer. Now she was not obeying the law. But this officer was respectful and didn’t try to shut anyone down.
@@aloe83 he did attempt to obstruct free speech rights by politely citing a vague AZ Statute
bmlsb69 I’m sure he citied that statute thinking it applied to the situation. It’s not like he was out trying to ruins anyone day.
@@aloe83 I'm sure in his heart he thought he was lawfully polite, to politely shut down their 1st amendment speaking on the streets about the murder of innocent children...I agree with you
I like Jeff Durbin, but I don't agree with the title of this video. That officer was respectful and calmed all the time. And was willing to learn. I liked that officer.
The title may be wrong, but why would a cop still come ask people to stop doing something legal? If people complain, the police need to tell those whiners that everyone has the right to speak. If someone wants to measure the decibel level and report that it’s too high then that’s understandable. But if no law is broken then why even talk to those people?
Too many cops are not following the law.
Most eloquent officer I've ever seen.
Your video title is rude
A local police officer attempted to obstruct free speech rights by citing a vague AZ Statute. We responded with another AZ Statute that the police officers are unwilling to uphold. It appears that the cops won't actually obey and uphold the law with respect to what was happening only 50-feet away and while they are on duty.
bmlsb69 I don’t understand what the big deal is....can’t you just pray away the gay...I mean cop?
@@quantumrobin4627 the cop being there wasn't the problem, you should try to pay attention.
bmlsb69 Oh I watched it all, has no bearings on my comment tho......can’t you just pray away the cop? Or pray away the abortions? Or at least stop evangelicals Christians from having abortions? The law is the law, and your religion hinges on the suspension of physics (magic), so cant you magic away all your problems? Of course I realize magic isn’t real but the question stands.
@@quantumrobin4627 God created man with free will, God is not the cosmic bellboy.....but I assume you don't belief in God, and believe the scientific impossibility of nothing creating everything, and that you have no free will, just complex chemical reaction that evolved from a rock, that exploded Into existence from nothing, for no reason...
This is an unfair and unjust title. Plain and simple.
1. He is an officer of the law.
2. He was on duty.
3. Babies were being dismembered 50-feet away (where's your concern for justice on their behalf?)
4. He was approaching us about a vague AZ Statute (clearly he wants to uphold the Statutes).
5. Having heard about the current Statute against abortion he refused (while on duty and with little humans being murdered 50-feet away) to do anything about it.
Respectfully, you seem to have more compassion and attempts at understanding for the officer who is ignoring the murder of children than you do for the children being dismembered. They deserve your intervention. Not an officer who refuses to obey and uphold the law.
@@ApologiaStudios I have been following you guys for a couple years now and as an Orthodox Christian, I admire all the work you have done. Your sincerity and humility is admirable. With all due respect, I certainly value the abortion of babies over the feelings of an officer but being I'm trying to be impartial here. The officer made it clear that he is trying not to acknowledge his personal convictions as it pertains to the resolution of your case. He made a cogent argument for reducing the volume of your speech (which I happen to agree with every word to the point of death). He did not attempt to revoke your ability to address the apparent injustices, he merely laid out a justification for balancing complaints with freedom of speech. Seems reasonable to me. I would have a very different opinion had he asked you to leave or dispense with the right to amplified speech. Ostensibly, that wasn't remotely the case.
@@ApologiaStudios You are claiming this man *will not* uphold justice. But if I were to approach him and say that there's a statute that says "u cannot wear red on the 2nd wednsday of the month" is he to randomly act upon it without looking into that? He was willing to learn more. So that is why your title is disingenuous. It gives people the idea that he simply didn't want to do so while he clearly made an effort to be educated and possibly even do something with this. Regardless if these babies deserve justice, with this title it's almost close to bearing false witness against him.
Wait this title is misleading. Cop won't upload the law? Sounds like he did a pretty good job of explaining his situation, and he was willing to understand and learn.
He's a Liar, an order follower and an Oath breaker.
I have to say, I found the content of the video interesting and informative, but you guys have a big problem with the title of your videos. It’s clickbait. Using words and phrases like “shocking” and “most amazing incredible ever!!”. You may not intend it but it rubs me as dishonest. Let the content and good preaching of the Gospel bring you viewers, not labeling videos in a “shocking” manner....
Why do some of you have a problem with the title. He's not upholding the law. They sited the law and he didn't know it and therefore he won't uphold the law, he should be "checking it out" like now and uphold the law.
This title is perfect. Cops are sworn to uphold the constitutional rights yet when they are told of an actual crime they act like they don’t see it. Same if their superiors violated any of your rights also they would never step in to stop any other cop. We see this all the time.
It doesn’t matter how many people are disturbed by it. If it’s not illegal, then it’s not illegal. Period. More people being disturbed by it doesn’t make it more against the law.
Most honest and real police officer I have seen. Seem like a really cool guy. That aside, I wonder if the police would stop a pride March or feminist gathering if I filed a complaint about noise lvl. I highly doubt it!
Ahhh, but they still needed back up. Must always intimidate.
Hey friends, awesome job remaining respectful IN this video. I have to agree with what a lot of people already said about changing the title, though. I have been binge-watching Apologia Studios videos since I discovered you guys about 2-3 hours ago and am considering supporting this ministry. Although it's 1 video title in a sea of God-glorifying truth, it does give me pause.
Technically the officer must carry a calibrated decibel meter . If your within the decibel level , the complaints have no standing under the law . An arbitrary guess with no actual meter as to the decibel level has no bearing .
I suggest you carry your own decibel meter to insure your within legal limitations as well as copies of the state and city law/ordinance in order to produce to educate .
Law supercede all personal subjective perspective.
Officers are required to enforce the existing law , not subjectivity interpret .This would help to educate the ones that complain to understand your doing everything in compliance with the law .
For all you people complaining about the title, they're talking about what they read to the cop that anyone who helps a woman have a miscarriage with physical or chemical means is unlawful and open to persecution and the cop isn't doing anything about that. I know I didn't word it as it is on video but good enough for you to get the point.
Legal has no bound in Common Law and is bound by it, neither the two should intertwined with each other
This cop likes the sound of his own voice too much
Ditto what Mattchew said... this is the textbook definition of a cordial, respectful conversation on both sides. I'm sure Apologia Church's newest member, DrOakley1689, would see that title and ask about "even scales"... I hope every cop I meet acts like this one.
The calm, before the storm (troopers).
Officer was reasonable and professional. Protestors as well. Having seen your previous videos, THIS LEO, is to be commended. LEOS TAKE NOTE.
This is a great video but could the title be changed while still maintaining what was wished to communicate please?
Just because he was speaking nicely, lets not forget his intentions were to stop free speech.
The cop loved the sound of his own voice. He went on a bit and all this nonsense about number of complaints etc. Complete red herrings.
Proud of everyone in this video! Way to go guys
I wonder how this officer interacts with the Antifa types? Would love to see THAT.
You could have also cited a need for amplification due to the circumstances, given the added noise of cars speeding by....
Do they make blow horns that don't go above the legal decibel level? How about carrying a decibel meter with you and measure your level and the surrounding areas decibel level. I'm certain their are certain vehicles that pass by that far exceed your decibel level and no one seems to harass or talk to those drivers about what they are doing on an ongoing basis.
My thought exactly. And noone would intervene or stop a pride march or almost any other public "noise creating" event, due to a few complaints. The complaints here are 100% not about noise, but about the message that is being preached.
What is it with Apologia and its habit of borderline dishonest labeling of videos clearly to gain attention, clicks, likes, a "Persecution" badge or whatever. Are yall about truth or not??? The officer clearly was clueless about the law and showed an interest in following up and the label makes it seem as if this officer knew the law and refused to follow it.
Sounds to me like youv got an issue with the message. This was a very minute case of clickbate, the title and thumb nail wasnt misleading for the most part and the content is entertaining. Also perhaps you should reseach and buy a book on grammer
that cop is a master of the lenguage. straight knows how te build terms and sentences with spelling “ im saying he is a which cuz he casts spells that sentence u tu a term in jail phuck’ these’ fonetik’ ass’ sword i mean words.
Double Speak. He is wrong, and the law is clear.
Always blessed by these videos
You're losing credibility with this title. The officer was respectful, reasonable, lawful, and even asked you to email him the law you cited. He has to address complaints and he did it more reasonable than almost any officer you'd fast. PLEASE CHANGE THE TITLE!
“Loud,” is a relative term. There must be some objective standard such as a decibel level measured on a calibrated meter. Simply because there’s complaints from people who doesn’t like the message, doesn’t put one in violation of the law.
This cop should have never approached them until he had probable cause that a crime had been committed. A complaint by a citizen is not probable cause. The purpose of this police interaction was to intimidate and interrupt , albeit temporarily, the lawful speech. All subjective laws like disorderly conduct need to be repealed immediately. Here’s a tip for people, when a cop is being nice, reasonable and even kind, it’s because he’s trying to keep you talking while he tries to get you to admit to a crime so he can arrest you. The good cops, would have never approached these people in the first place. Free speech is under assault.
I had trouble hearing the officer over the traffic.
You have a *CALIBRATED NOISE METER???*
I would have to agree with the majority here, this officer is being more than kind and respectful. He's being helpful and informative - seems to be offering help even. The title is hostile and seems to attack him. How about "Officer offers his ear"? I'm usually on the side of defending Apologia but I've gotta call it like I see it. Unless the officer was playing to the camera and didn't fulfill his obligation to help.
Without some form of sound measurement his observations mean nothing in court!
Article VI: Clause II of the US Constitution ratified 1791.
It states that no State can impead upon the God given Rights therein with predudice.
This is a Constutional Republic, not a Democracy.
He was respectful but one thing I didn't agree with is. The law can be interpreted. But if they're going to enforce the law and the Supreme Court, The State of Az and Tempe agreed the law passed was based on decibel, not on opinion. So if they want them to comply they should show up with the instrument to measure it.
Funny when the state wants to use the Federal Law to support their stance they will use it. But when it comes to immigration they want to ignore it.
I agree with your stance re abortion, but as others have stated the title is disrespectful to the officer who was more than fair and willing to listen to you.
Love you guy's but I agree with the cop, you don't have to be so loud.
But was it legal?
@@BokaLokaToka , something can be legal but not tasteful or tactful. There are many ways to go about this that could render better results than being irritating.
I myself am all about spreading the word, but I can't stand preachers in a public area with a bullhorn..... it's not necessary and drives people away.
I would disagree with you if it is legal for them to be that loud. The reason why I say that is because different standards shouldn’t be applied to different people. If it is too loud, then the law should be changed so that it can be applied equally to everyone.
@@brando3342 , did it change anything? They could just go to their senator or hire a lawyer,but chose a bullhorn instead........
@@gregcarlson8438 I agree with you on the legalities of it, just don't see the point of the bullhorn.
At least this was an agreeable conversation.
Did that officer ever get back to you about 13-3? Would love an update on his interpretation of the law
He said it best he sort of upholds the constitution
He's dancing around the truth! 🙄😉😊🤗🌹💞😂
Ever notice how if the cop wants to arrest you and isn't sure about the statute they'll just arrest you and tell you the courts will decide. But if they don't want to enforce a law they'll say they need to get clarification on the law and won't make an arrest? Man, talk about a double standard.
The volume of speech ? The content of speech.
I think the officer really tried to be respectful, and was not taking sides. I don't think anyone could have handled it better.
He could have brought a decimeter or kept his opinion to himself
A decent open official AMAZING
What makes them think this is even a cop? Doesn’t look like a cop at all.
Please change the video title. This police officer isn't mean he's just doing his job. Other police officers need to learn from him.