Extra-Duty Police Tussle Costs City $25K

by Melissa Bailey | July 30, 2009 12:45 PM | | Comments (72)

Sandwich%20Board2.jpgJesse Morrell came to New Haven to warn club-goers, fornicators and Darwinists about Judgment Day. After a run-in with city cops, he came away with a more earthly judgment.

Morrell, a street preacher who speaks out against drinking and sex, filed a civil rights suit in 2005 against two city cops who allegedly barred him from giving a sidewalk sermon in downtown New Haven — and yanked the wire from his tape recorder when he tried to document his eviction.

The city agreed last week to settle his case for $25,000, according to Victor Bolden, the city’s corporation counsel. The settlement came as the years-old suit was headed for trial in U.S. District Court.

For those who agreed to settle it, the case raised questions of police training and an apparent conflict of interest with extra-duty cops who work second jobs for nightclubs.

For Morrell, the case won’t bring personal benefit — the $25,000 is going straight to attorney’s fees, he said. But it will open the doors for him to return to New Haven to preach freely in the streets.

Morrell, who’s 24, said he started preaching seven years ago at bus stops at the New Haven Green. He found God after spending his adolescent years as a drug user, drug-seller and two-time felon, he said. Now, with vitriolic fervor, he denounces that life.

He now travels the nation full-time, preaching on college campuses and sidewalks against those who sin against God. He chronicles his journeys on his website and on Youtube.

“Children of the devil!” he declared to a recent crowd at one college campus visit documented on Youtube. (Click on the play arrow to watch.) The crowd had confessed to “premarital sex, and marijuana, and drunkenness, and gangster rap music.” He instructed them to “stop your rebellion against God.”


At other appearances, he wears a sandwich board on his shoulders.

“Warning!” reads the sign. “Judgement Day Is Coming.”

The sign is addressed to: “Fornicators, drunkards, sodomites, pot smokers, gangster rappers, immodest women, Darwinists, gamblers, feminists, socialists, abortionists, pornographers, homosexuals, jihadists, dirty dancers, [and] hypocrites.”

New Haven Sermon “Squelched”

That’s just whom Morrell hoped to reach when he paid a visit to downtown New Haven’s entertainment district on May 16, 2004.

His efforts were thwarted four times by four different cops, according to Morrell’s lawsuit, filed in New Haven’s U.S. District Court. (Click here to read it.)

Here’s what happened, according to Morrell’s suit:

Morrell, who was 19 at the time, stood on that Sunday evening outside an unidentified Irish pub on what he describes as Route 10 (presumably Anna Liffey’s on Whitney Avenue) and started to preach.

John Lalli, a city police officer, approached the preacher and told him he would be arrested “if he did not immediately cease his speech.” Fearing arrest, Morrell packed up his show and looked for another place to preach.

The young preacher settled on what was then Neat Lounge at 124 Temple St. He put a step stool on the ground and prepared to share his thoughts with the club crowd. But before he could start, another cop stepped in — Officer Dave Coppola.

Coppola (pictured) approached “in a very aggressive manner” and “forced Mr. Morrell to halt his speech.” Morrell protested that he was simply trying to “speak about his Christian beliefs.” Morrell advised the cop he was tape-recording their interaction.

Coppola then “abruptly ripped the tape recorder’s wire out of Mr. Morrell’s tape recorder,” and threw Morrell’s step stool in a garbage can, according to the suit. He threatened Morrell with arrest if he didn’t leave the area.

Morrell moved on to a third club, Alchemy, at 239 Crown St. There, an unidentified cop threatened him with arrest if he didn’t stop his speech.

Undeterred, Morrell moved on to a public right of way outside what he describes as “Back Room Café,” presumably in the Temple Square Plaza. There, he claims, another unidentified cop threatened him with arrest if he didn’t stop his speech.

Four times denied, the teenager “gave up any hope” of preaching in New Haven that night.

According to Morrell, cops threatened to arrest him based on state statute 53a-182, which states that disorderly conduct is grounds for arrest. The law is meant for people who engage in a number of delineated behaviors, “with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof.”

Morrell argued that he wasn’t guilty of that offense — he was simply trying to express his religious beliefs in a public space. He claimed that by threatening to arrest him, cops trampled on his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and religious expression and due process of law.

“Mr. Morrell strongly desires to share his religious message on public ways in New Haven, and would do so, but he is chilled and deterred from expressing his message on said public ways in New Haven for fear of arrest,” reads the complaint, filed by attorney Nathan Kellum of the Tennessee-based Alliance Defense Fund.

His suit names Lalli, Coppola, then-Police Chief Francisco Ortiz, and the City of New Haven.

Morrell sought punitive damages for allegedly having his property ripped apart by Coppola — which he claimed amounted to “assault, battery, tortious destruction of private property, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

He also sought compensatory damages and an injunction allowing him to preach his religious beliefs in public areas of New Haven.

Cops’ Reply

A formal response filed in court by Officer Coppola highlights what appears to be a weakness in the city’s defense.

In his response, Coppola admitted seeing Morrell that night. He denied chucking the step stool in a garbage can. He also denied threatening to arrest Morrell.

However, Coppola stopped short of denying the charge that he ripped the wires out of the young man’s tape recorder. Instead, he replied that he is “without knowledge or information” to address the truth of that claim.

For his part, Lalli admitted to encountering Morrell outside an Irish pub, but denied threatening to arrest him.

In their defense, the cops write that their actions either did not violate the plaintiff’s rights, or that it was objectively reasonable to think that their actions were lawful.

The Settlement

The Litigation Settlement Committee voted to settle the case for $25,000 in an emergency meeting on July 22, according to Corporation Counsel Bolden. He said while the city denies any wrongdoing, “we would like to have this matter behind us and move forward.” The city could be responsible for legal fees if it lost the case, he noted. The committee recommended the proposed settlement by a 4-0 vote.

At the meeting, two committee members held up the case as evidence for the need of a change in procedures at the police department.

Hill Alderman Jorge Perez “emphasized that the city must follow-up on training,” according to minutes from the meeting.

The case is the second in two weeks where the city has settled a police misconduct case that raised questions about police training.

Two weeks ago, the city settled a lawsuit filed by Dramese Fair claiming that he was unlawfully strip-searched by three cops during an arrest in 2007. The suit named the city and Lt. Holly Wasilewski, Sgt. Tony Reyes and Officer Dennis O’Connell. (Click here for Bill Kaempffer’s Register story on that case.)

At issue in the Fair case was whether cops were following police department protocol governing strip-searches. Police department rules say that cops don’t need a lieutenant’s permission to do an “underwear check” during a felony arrest, but they do need that permission for a misdemeanor arrest. Cops arrested Fair on misdemeanor charges, but failed to get a sign-off from a lieutenant before checking his underwear for contraband (the supervising officer, Wasilewski, was only a sergeant at the time).

Reached Thursday, police union President Lou Cavaliere said the police department has failed to properly train its officers on that 20-year-old policy governing strip-searches, and that the forms cops are supposed to use to authorize the search don’t even exist. He suggested the police department issue a general order and re-train cops on the policy.

The Fair case cost the city $32,500, according to attorney Bolden.

A Conflict of Interest?

Chief Administrative Officer Rob Smuts, who also sits on the Litigation Settlement Committee, had a different take on the Morrell case.

Reached Wednesday, Smuts said the case raises questions about the practice of extra-duty “hold-downs.” In extra-duty work, cops are acting as uniformed police officers, but hired by a private entity to maintain order at a certain location. Transient work, such as at construction sites, is assigned on a rotating basis. Other shifts are “owned” by certain cops who have a direct relationship with a particular employer — that’s called a “hold-down.”

In Smuts’ point of view, the Morrell case “speaks of the perception of the conflict of interest when officers have hold-downs at places like nightclubs.”

When a cop allegedly shooed a preacher away from a club entrance, “the concern was the perception that the officer was acting on behalf of the nightclub, not in the public interest,” said Smuts.

If the Morrell case came to trial, the city would have had to address that apparent conflict of interest, said Smuts.

Cavaliere defended the practice.

Louis%20Cavalier.jpg“Mr. Smuts ought to mind his own business,” said Cavaliere (pictured). Cops have been allowed to do hold-down jobs for 40 years, he said. Having a steady officer at a place of business is key to building relationships and knowing the terrain, he said.

“It’s no different than an officer working the same job in community policing,” he argued. A cop who routinely works at a club will know the regulars, the staff, the trouble-makers, and how to quickly disperse a crowd that gathers after last call, he said.

The city wants to do away with hold-downs because of a number of civil rights complaints against extra-duty cops, Cavaliere said. He called that faulty logic.

“We get cops sued every day for people doing their jobs,” he said. “This doesn’t mean that cops are corrupt at hold-downs.”

The topic is being hashed out at the bargaining table of police union contract negotiations, which have been ongoing for over a year. The city is pushing to eliminate or limit the use of extra-duty hold-downs, Smuts said.

The mayor, Smuts and labor relations are “causing a big disruption in the labor negotiations because of these bar hold-downs,” replied the union president. “All they’re going to do is create some hostility within my bargaining unit.”

Cavaliere said police union members feel so strongly about upholding the practice that the topic may send the negotiations to binding arbitration. Some cops make an extra $20,000 to $30,000 per year on hold-down gigs at clubs, he said. “They are the only means they can get to supplement their earnings.” He said changing the practice threatens to strip their livelihoods away.

Return Ticket

Reached by email on a visit to Canada, Morrell said he looks forward to the chance to return to New Haven to preach about Judgment Day. The New Haven case was one of two legal fights that left him returning to Connecticut for court dates: In 2007, Morrell filed a similar lawsuit against the city of Hartford; that case is still pending in federal court.

“I am very happy that it is finally over,” he said of the years-long legal battle in New Haven. He said the settlement includes an injunction that prohibits the city from barring him from giving speeches in public.

“I am particularly pleased that we got the injunction that we wanted so that I am protected when I preach about Judgment Day and Jesus Christ on the streets of New Haven,” he said.

He plans to return to Connecticut in the spring.

“I plan on preaching in the downtown club district of New Haven, as well as preach from the city street into the courtyard of Yale University,” he said.







Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: nonbeliever | July 30, 2009 12:55 PM

If you can get arrested for disturbing the peace breaking back into your home - why can't we get a guy who walks around agrily coned ming us to hell. Sure speech is protected, but fire in a movie theater is dangerous and your protected speech shouldn't unduely disturb my right to peace ("hence the disturbing the peace")

Perhaps Yale will confront this wacko more effectively, should he begin accosting students...

Posted by: Bob | July 30, 2009 12:59 PM

"He said the settlement includes an injunction that prohibits the city from barring him from giving speeches in public."

Does this mean he's exempt from state law? He's now allowed to block sidewalks? How about giving speeches at 4am while people are sleeping? And are his anti homosexual speeches are A-OK?

Posted by: Volvo (Darwinist, Fornicator) | July 30, 2009 1:11 PM

Morrell,

Keep it to yourself buddy. Don't let your past and previously life of ill-repute disturb the patrons of this cities establishments. Your preach is equal to a hate crime in my opinion and I commend our city cops in their attempts to disperse you. Had they not succeeded in doing so, I imagine that you would have been roughed up by a 'dirty dancer' as you insulted them on her way by.

Stay in Canada, pal.

Posted by: zak | July 30, 2009 1:11 PM

I don't quite understand why the single thing he left out of his sweet little pinboard costume he has is "pedophiles". I guess it's because its such a common practice in religious communities to molest children... [...]

Pressing your religious opinion on the public is offensive and should not be legal. Keep your moronic ideals to yourself.

Posted by: robn | July 30, 2009 1:21 PM

Darwinists indeed.

If Mr.Morrell creates a public disturbance he should be arrested.

CT General Statutes Sec. 53a-182. Disorderly conduct: Class C misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or (2) by offensive or disorderly conduct, annoys or interferes with another person; or (3) makes unreasonable noise; or (4) without lawful authority, disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or (5) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or (6) congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a reasonable official request or order to disperse.....

Posted by: JOHN | July 30, 2009 1:40 PM

Curious, too, that he also left out "anorthographers" i.e., those who can't spell: it's judgment, not judgement (sic... semper fanaticis).

Smuts was right to say what he said; Cavalieri should get off his high horse, stop being so cavalier (double pun), and think about the legitimate concern that having two bosses could be a problem. Just because it's been done for years doesn't make it right.

Posted by: Mister Jones | July 30, 2009 1:46 PM

What about the guys who preach on Church Street every Saturday afternoon/evening, complete with very loud loudspeakers and videocameras documenting it all?

Posted by: juli | July 30, 2009 1:47 PM

dirty dancers? nobody puts baby in the corner!

Posted by: Jesse Morrell | July 30, 2009 1:56 PM

Good article.

The only thing that wasn't true was, "For Morrell, the case will bring a new source of funds to support his preaching career For Morrell, the case will bring a new source of funds to support his preaching career"

The $25,000 was for attorney fees.

I only get $1 for nominal damages.

That is part of the reason I decided to settle outside of court, because I didn't want to spend the money to fly to CT. This lawsuit has cost me money, because I had to fly to CT for depositions.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | July 30, 2009 2:07 PM

Soap-box orating is a time-honored American tradition, and Mr. Morrell's annoying antics are simply a cost of freedom.

Is he a nuisance? Yes. (just like the nuts who regularly hold forth on Church Street in front of the Variety Store.)

But so what? I like living in a city, and a free country...

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | July 30, 2009 2:10 PM

PS -- I'm generally very sympathetic to New Haven's police officers. However someone ought to send Lou Cavaliere out for sensitivity training. Does he understand what he sounds like to the average taxpayer, when he tells city officials like Roland Lemar and Rob Smuts to shut up, or to "mind your own business"?

Posted by: Jesse Morrell | July 30, 2009 2:12 PM

I wanted to respond to some of the other comments people have posted:

1. I was not blocking any sidewalks. The sidewalks are large and I was standing next to a post.
2. Free speech means that offensive speech is protected. That includes publically condemning the hell deserving sin of homosexuality. This is America, not Canada.
3. You can preach at night time in club districts, because they are commercial areas not residential areas. Besides, the music is always louder than our preaching.
4. If a man is exercising free speech and all he is doing is speaking, this is not a disturbance. If a crowd gathers that is hostile or even violent, he is still not causing a disturbance. The crowd is the one breaking the law and therefore the crowd, not the speaker, should be arrested.

It is so sad that so many America's, even Police, are completely ignorant when it comes to these types of legal issues.

Posted by: dee | July 30, 2009 2:15 PM

John, Judgment can be spelled with or without that "e." Both are acceptable. Look it up.

Posted by: robn | July 30, 2009 2:20 PM

Mr Morrell,

I'm sorry that both you and New Haven lost and the lawyers made money.

You've obviously made a great deal of effort to change your life and want to share that change with other people. Thats OK but maybe consider directing your copious energy toward something manifestly productive and very in keeping with the JC... like volunteering with homeless shelters, soup kitchens, or building houses with Habitat. There's lots of great things you can be doing with your energy...

good luck

Posted by: CP | July 30, 2009 2:40 PM

You liberal bloggers are truly unbelievable. Many of you can't say enough bad things about the club district and bars in general. Just don't remove the drunken clientele with the threat of God. That's worse than the noise, vomit and other unpleasant circumstances that make life in the entertainment district difficult.

I may not agree with his manner of spreading the word, but at least I agree that he has a right to shout from the mountain top, or at least the public sidewalk.

Posted by: what | July 30, 2009 3:12 PM

Are you people daffy? Will you start charging folks a fee for speaking in public? This guy had the right, as we all do, to say what he wants, when he wants to, as long as it is not causing harm.

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | July 30, 2009 3:17 PM

OK-- the guy is probably nuts as all get out. He's preaching to a hostile crowd that doesn't want to hear him-- or only wants to laugh at him. But it is his RIGHT to do so. And don't hand me that "disturbing the peace" bull. On any night, let alone weekends, there is NO peace. If we're going to start arresting everyone making noise downtown we're going to need an arena sized jail.

The involved cops should be forced to pay the judgement personally, unless they are willing to roll on Johnny Boy and admit that they have an order from him to stop anything interfering with suburban children getting smashed.

...

Posted by: ignoranceisbliss | July 30, 2009 4:05 PM

The police unions have way too much influence at the State capitol with no counterbalance from the average taxpayer. That is why you see all of those cops standing around on extra duty time staring into the hole. They never direct traffic; they just stand around getting in the way. They add nothing to the safety of the workers. In most other countries they hire flag men who actually do something to keep workers safe but we have to pay ridiculously high wages to already overpaid police officers. Plus they get the extra duty added to their pension calculations.

I understand that Cavaliere needs to represent his officers but don't take us for fools. In any rational system extra duty officers would not be hired by bars. Let them hire civilian bouncers.

Posted by: Streever | July 30, 2009 4:07 PM

NHI:
I don't think Copeland's comment is in any way appropriate. It's sick to see someone suggesting our police officers should be violentally assaulted.

[Ed: Took that part out. Thanks for the catch.]

(for once?) I agree completely with Trueblue--Lou Cavaliere is way out of line. I know he feels high & mighty in his role with the police unions, but the taxpayers and citizens of New Haven have had it up to here with the police union. It is powerful & escalates costs & has a strangle hold on the city.

Posted by: Ned | July 30, 2009 4:48 PM

"He found God..." Would someone please buy God a gps unit.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | July 30, 2009 4:50 PM

hey, to be clear, I have no problem with the police union. They deserve whatever they get, at least in my book.

I just wonder if Cavaliere knows he's hurting his cause when he tries to bully our public officials into silence. He certainly doesn't come off as fair or reasonable.

Maybe Lou just doesn't care?

Posted by: William Kurtz | July 30, 2009 5:00 PM

It's already been said, but this Darwinist and occasional drunkard (that's all I'm admitting to) thinks Mr. Morrell has the same right as panhandlers, anti-war activists, anti-abortion protestors, and others to engage in free expression on public sidewalks. It's too bad it took a $25,000 judgment to make this clear to the NHPD and their various and sundry private employers.

Posted by: EarlyBird | July 30, 2009 9:13 PM

Everyone needs a hobby.

Posted by: Bro Cope | July 30, 2009 9:39 PM

Robn,

Thats OK but maybe consider directing your copious energy toward something manifestly productive and very in keeping with the JC... like volunteering with homeless shelters, soup kitchens, or building houses with Habitat.

Apparently you have never read the Bible. Jesus never did any of those things you suggest Jesse do to "keep with JC". Know what He did? He preached publically and riled people up. There are 9 times in the Bible where the outcome of Jesus' preaching was that the crowd WANTED TO KILL HIM. Three times they actually tried to kill Him, before they finally succeeded. Jesse is doing exactly what Jesus did and commanded His followers to do.

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | July 30, 2009 10:26 PM

1) I did NOT suggest that cops be assaulted. I suggested that they be judicially SENTENCED to what I consider an appropriate penalty for their totally unAmerican and lawless behavior. If they'd prefer to spend 40 years in solitary I'd accept that.

2) It isn't merely other countries that have flagmen-- nearly every state in this country does not waste money hiring cops to pick their noses for $80+ an hour

3) Cops in this town are arrogant and believe they cannot be held accountable. Billy White was not a "bad apple." He was the tip of the iceberg.

Posted by: Mitch Metzger | July 30, 2009 10:28 PM

Free Speech is messy, noisy, confusing, etc but it is the "pride and joy" of the American Republic which has made us one of the most envied nations in the world. Free Speech rocks! Delight in it guys cause when you don't have it anyomore you'll beg for it to be returned but than too late most likely.

Posted by: JMS | July 31, 2009 12:01 AM

Wow. I just endured (the entire) YouTube clip. If this guy sprouted tentacles with alien heads singing Broadway show tunes he would be no less bizarre to me. I don't practice much of anything... but I have the utmost respect for religion. But this is not religion. This is desperate attention seeking behavior and/or mental illness. These are the obsessive compulsive repetitive self-convincing rantings of a crazy person... masked carefully (to others but more importantly to himself) by an abundant and painfully overt display of apparent "knowledge" and familiarity of Biblical vocabulary words and catch phrases. What a tedious waste of other peoples time, energy and resources. I can't express myself any better then the following YouTube clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY&feature=related

JMS

Posted by: Jack | July 31, 2009 2:25 AM

We should have a public space for this sort of thing, like they have in London. All it would take is a couple of soap boxes. People could exercise their 1st Amendment Rights,and the general public wouldn't have to be harassed and annoyed unless they chose to go there and listen. It really could be quite entertaining listening to the Whack-Jobs on both ends of the social-political spectrum spout-off. And when you got tired of it, you could just walk away.

Posted by: Ned | July 31, 2009 8:14 AM

So why is this guy "crazy" and all other religious people are perfectly normal?

Posted by: Judy | July 31, 2009 8:20 AM

Why give him more publicity???

Posted by: ROBN | July 31, 2009 9:42 AM

BROCOPE,

The JC wanted us to "love one another"...not condemn one another. The arrogance of christian zealots who claim to speak for their diety never fails to amaze me.

Posted by: believe | July 31, 2009 9:49 AM

Mr. Morrel is just excited to have god in his life and that is a wonderful thingfor s person who's had a hard life being a drug addict and for those of you who don't understand the meaning of being a born again saved christian you should not judge anyone with out having been your self in a similar situation. What he is doing is a positive thing, but I would like to clarify one thing as I read all these blogs I notice so much anger and hate and approval of what is happenning in todays world, this is why our city is falling apart we have more young people today walking into clubs sober and walking out alcoholic, drug users, raped, hooked on ectasy etc. Some leave home to go have a food time and they just never return home. So for those of you who are against Morrel your pretty much saying thst it's okay for people to go and become addicts and so on or to just become strippers and put their life in danger every might they go to shoe of their body to some stranger, what if it were your child living this kind of life. WEll I guess you all have alot of thinking to do or better yet why don't you all learn to pray a little more for our city and everyone in it. Believe me prayer is trully powerful!! GOD BLESS..

Posted by: William Kurtz | July 31, 2009 10:21 AM

Believe:

I think there's a little bit of wiggle room between agreeing with everything Mr. Morrell believes and thinking it's "okay for people to go and become addicts and so on or to just become strippers and put their life in danger every might they go to shoe of their body to some stranger."

Posted by: Edward_H | July 31, 2009 10:29 AM

Sounds like this guy just traded one addiction for another.

Posted by: ILoveJesus | July 31, 2009 11:05 AM

Jesse, Jesse, Jesse... Man, what do I say. You definitely have the "right" so shout whatever you want in the open air and there is SOME truth in what you are saying, but I think you must have ripped out half of your Bible. You have a completely distorted view of sin and of Jesus teachings. Fist of all, the ONLY people that Jesus called "children of the Devil" were the religious leaders. NO OTHER person. As a matter of fact, the sinners were the ones He pursued and had the most compassion for, "... it is the sick who need a doctor, not the healthy."

The Good News is that, while we were sinner's Christ died for our sin. Your view of sin is so narrow and perverted, I am confident that you are more a sinner, in your self righteousness, than those you consider eternally condemned. Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? What sin was so terrible in God's eyes that He wiped them off of the face of the earth? Was it fornication, homosexuality, or drunkenness? Let's look at what the Bible says:

"Sodom's sins were pride, laziness, and gluttony, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door." Eze 16:49

Read Isaiah 1. God gives what is arguably the most condemning speech in the Bible to HIS PEOPLE, and HIS definition of repentance is:

"Learn to do good. Seek justice. Help the oppressed. Defend the orphan. Fight for the rights of widows."

"Repentance" does not mean to simply turn from sin, but to turn from sin to holy living... exemplifying Christ's love and compassion for the world.

When I hear you speak all I hear is anger, hate and arrogance. Not love, joy peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self control.

Jesse, you, my friend, are deceived, sinful, and perhaps the one Christ speaks of in Matthew 7 and in Matthew 25.

I appreciate your passion Jesse, and respect the fact that you are not ashamed of what you consider to be the truth. However, half of the truth is not the truth. Your version of the truth is terribly incomplete, distorted, and angry. Please reconsider how you are representing the King of kings. One day you will be held accountable.

Posted by: JOHN | July 31, 2009 12:22 PM

@dee: i'm sorry to have to talk about spelling, but i reserve the right to exercise the right of free speech about my own peculiar issues. (cast not stones to suggest i am trivializing the matter at hand.)

you are right, Dee, it's "judgement," although typically only if you are British and if you spell "color" "colour." God save the Queen and all sinners.


Posted by: Streever | July 31, 2009 12:24 PM

Ellis,

come on.

you said if they don't fork over the money they should be beaten with baseball bats

If you are willing to write something, own it, don't be a liar.

Posted by: Missy Davis | July 31, 2009 12:48 PM

If anyone is interesting in learning more about God without the pressure of attending a church service, visit:

www.lifechurchtv.com

I used to attend this church when I lived in Oklahoma. It's thrilling, contemporary, and it may even impress you hard-to-please liberals.

Before you waste anymore time complaining, embrace your life. You are alive. Celebrate. We are all in this together, let's try to make New Haven a better place.

Even if you choose not to be religious, that's fine, no judgment is made...but please try for an attitude adjustment.
Thanks.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | July 31, 2009 12:48 PM

Incredible. And the New Haven cops let the dozen or so panhandlers throughout the city stake out their territories day after day. And do nothing to move them on.

Posted by: Gabriel Austin | July 31, 2009 12:56 PM

I think it amusing that a state - Connecticut - that was particularly founded to find freedom of religion should now be attempting to suppress expressions of one man's beliefs.

Posted by: John the Athiest | July 31, 2009 12:58 PM

Jesus talked about loud-mouths in public. He was against it. (New American Standard Bible)

Matthew chapter 6 verse 5:"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.

Verse 6: "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Posted by: Bill | July 31, 2009 2:12 PM

It doesn't surprise me that so many liberal are against free speech, or speech that don't like that is.

Posted by: Mister Jones | July 31, 2009 2:44 PM

As a long time free speecher, I'd say that Morrell has a near absolute right to rant on the street, even though he doesn't seem to be reading the same parts of the Bible that I do [right on! ilove jesus--I am one of those so-called godless liberals that spends every Sunday in church]. And while it may make sense for the city to get rid of the case, the whole thing makes me wonder. Why bust this guy in the middle of the nightly drunken nightclub carnival? He's not the only annoying guy downtown!

Posted by: Ken Krayeske | July 31, 2009 3:34 PM

Zak wrote that "Pressing your religious opinion on the public is offensive and should not be legal."

Zak's right not to be offended does not trump Mr. Morrell's right to free speech. Zak, grow a thicker skin or get on a soap box yourself.

Some of the most important court decisions protecting free speech come from religious people seeking to proselytize and being harassed or arrested like Mr. Morrell.

While many may disagree with his statements, his right to speak is unadulterated.

Posted by: Edward_H | July 31, 2009 4:51 PM

Ken Krayeske

Zak's right not to be offended does not trump Mr. Morrell's right to free speech. Zak, grow a thicker skin or get on a soap box yourself.

Actually Zak does not have a "right" to not be offended. Too many people mistakenly belive they have a "right" to go about life without being offended these days.

Posted by: Mrs. D | July 31, 2009 6:19 PM

I love that this guy is so committed to his cause that he is willing to stand on a street corner and withstand ridicule to preach. But, surely, there must be some group willing to take this guy in and use him more effectively? Ross Perot 2012? David Duke (or is he still in prison?)? I've heard him and he's not at all persuasive, mostly just one of those people that you cross the street to avoid. Jesse, I suggest you move to Montana or Texas where you can join some group closely watched by the FBI. Don't worry, if some big bad cop trying to maintain sanity scares you there, even Montana has access to the ACLU

Posted by: Corinne Blackmer | July 31, 2009 6:33 PM

As a lesbian and a gay activist, I welcome Mr. Morell schpieling on about the presumptive "sin" of homosexuality and the "homosexual lifestyle." In my experience, some of the most ardent converts to full acceptance of gay persons has come through listening to the extreme and annoying rants of persons like Mr. Morell. So, thanks for the public service and the free political advocacy!

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | July 31, 2009 7:38 PM

Streeter-- I do own my comment. And the comment contained the word SENTENCE. Furthermore, as you noticed, they could avoid said sentence by paying the settlement.

As to CT being founded for freedom of religion-- read some history. Only Puritans had freedom of religion. Baptists and Quakers (and let's not forget witches) were hanged. Jews were not allowed to worship in public until 1842. CT had a state religion until 1818-- MA had one until 1833.

Finally, no one seems to have really picked up on the real issue. The cops couldn't care less about some street preacher. Unless he's making all the suburban children uncomfortable when all they what to do is get drunk and screw. And Johnny Boy wants them comfortable so they keep flocking in. Then he can say New Haven is a vibrabt town while ignoring the people who actually live here-- who don't matter anyway because they are too stupid to vote for anyone else. Anyone could preach all they wanted on Dixwwell Ave.

Posted by: Anon | July 31, 2009 10:35 PM

The real victim here is not the sinners or those who seek judgment upon them, but the thousands of obese children in this neighborhood who are too scared to cross the road or play outside because of cars driving by at 80 mph. This, not reckless behavior by college students, is truly rebellion against God. The bible is the word of God and has several passages relevant to irresponsible driving (mostly mule carts) -John 7:19 and the entire book of Matthew.

Posted by: JMS | July 31, 2009 11:20 PM

Believe,

"What he is doing is a positive thing"

Nope... I don't buy it. If Mr. Morrell (anyone else find irony in his name?) wanted to actually help cure society of some of it's ills he should become a teacher or social worker or work in any of a number of other readily available areas of positive change that need committed folks to help out. What he has chosen to do instead is stand around and shout at people about his particular brand of redemption. This may be what he personally needs to keep clean and sober but if he was truly committed to effecting positive change in society there are countless far more constructive avenues for him to do so.

Ned,

"So why is this guy "crazy" and all other religious people are perfectly normal?"

I'm right with you I was just being polite. I believe in science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li78U-13pOo&feature=related

JMS

Posted by: Larry Keffer | August 1, 2009 6:42 PM

The most coveted right we have as american citizens is the right to express our ideas and beliefs on public property.

That is why it is a FIRST Amendment right and not a second or third!

When a LAW enforcement officer tells an american citizen he cannot exercise his LEGAL right of FREE speech HE is BREAKING THE LAW and should be punished.

I do not know which is more disturbing, the police vilotating Mr Morrell's civil rights or the people who are commenting on this blog who think the police where correct!

This country has been cursed by God and has all the attributes to include; Pestilance, Natural Disasters, Enemies being raised up against it, Economic collapse, and even the loss of individual freedom of worship.

Wide is the road that leads to destruction and many will go there, but narrow is the way that leads to life and FEW there be that find it.

Mr Morrell is doing a brave and honorable thing that not only helps the other street preachers but also helps you ungrateful sheeple that are led to the slaughter by the propaganda of this world.

You will be without excuse on the Day of Judgment!

REPENT OR PERISH

JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | August 2, 2009 4:30 AM

Hey Larry Keffer
You said this country has been cursed by god and
economic collapse and that the ungrateful sheeple
are being led to slaughter by the propaganda of this world. No it is not the ungrateful sheeple who are being misled,It is the sheeple who follow the propaganda of people like this.

http://www.pulpit-pimps.org/?p=1085

Posted by: robn | August 2, 2009 9:54 AM

LARRY,

If the police arbitrarily sanctioned someone who was making no more noise than others, then they were breaking the law. If the police specifically sanctioned someone who was much louder than bar patrons and disturbing the many people who live in the apartment building 50' away across the street, then they were following the law. Property owners and renters are entitled to peaceable enjoyment. In the latter case, Mr.Morrell could tone it down or do his preaching during daylight hours in a less residential neighborhood.

BTW the greatest curse of this country is hypocrisy and although it runs rampant in wall street and k street, theirs pales in comparison to the hypocrisy emanating from the pulpits of fundamentalists. War in Iraq anyone?

Posted by: Streever | August 2, 2009 1:14 PM

Ellis Copeland:
You tell me the legal precendent for bashing in a cop's head with a baseball as part of a legal sentence & I'll let you off easy--but frankly your comment was sickening & your lack of remorse even more disturbing. Sorry, no respect for sick people who use the anonymity of the internet to express themselves.

Posted by: Steve Ross | August 2, 2009 2:15 PM

Was the listing of DIRTY DANCING on the sandwich board a reference to Johnny Boy's performance outside the UI offices.

Posted by: Jesse Morrell | August 2, 2009 5:35 PM

ROBN,

During that outreach, I had only preached once for a few minutes (maybe only a few seconds). I was not louder than the music coming from the bar. The residential area's could not hear me at all. I was using no amplification. And I was in a commercial area. Then the three other locations where I was threatened with arrest, I didn't preach at all. I asked the Police, "If I preach here, will you arrest me?" They said, "Yes". They can't say I was being too loud, or that I was causing a riot, or anything, because I hadn't even preached yet! Very clearly these Police were in the wrong. They should be trained better on free speech issues.

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | August 2, 2009 7:01 PM

Streeter-- your hypocricy is astounding. At least I don't use some ridiculous handle. I have only suggested an alternative form of capital punishment-- which something tells me you support. Frankly, I oppose capital punishment, except for judges, state's attorneys and cops who violate the public trust given to them.

I have nothing to be remorseful for. Some arrogant and stupid cops cost this city $25000 it can ill afford becsuse of their CRIMINAL and unAmerican conduct. I wish Morrell had taken it to a jury. Were I on such a jury I would have awared him a billion dollars.

If I had to speculate about you I'd guess you are a cop. Your defensiveness suggests I have hit a serious nerve-- and as a cop you know the conclusion to which that leads. All perps think alike. Why don't you arrest a Cathoic priest for no reason?

Your willingness to subject freedom to the worst authoritarianism is the kind of thinking that led "normal" Germans to submit to Hitler. You are a grave threat to America.

Posted by: Ned | August 2, 2009 7:19 PM

Robn,

Good point, r.e. noise. Can we get the police to arrest people driving around town with super loud, obnoxious "music" blaring from their cars?

Posted by: Tracy Bays | August 2, 2009 8:22 PM

There are a lot of negative comments on this mesage board. I think Mr. Morrell was well within his rights to excercise his American Constituitional; rights to Freedom of speech, Freedom of religion, and even Freedom of Press. It is obvious from the information in the article that those police officers were being extremely unlawfull. Police officers don't get to make up their own laws! They are public servants, that MUST enforce the law, and also MUST obey the law. The are not a law onto themselves. It seems the only reasons that anyone would be negative toward Mr. Morrell, is either they are lost sinners, or they are nazi's. Take your pick, both are equally wrong! Bravo Mr.Morrell. Let help keep America free. Bad behaviour of Police must be corrected.

Posted by: William Kurtz | August 2, 2009 10:40 PM

The real crime here is the continued use of the false dichotomy, as in the assertion that anyone opposed to Mr. Morrell's message are "lost sinners, or they are nazi's."

However, as I said before, my personal feelings about Mr. Morrell's 'preaching' are irrelevant, as it seems he was well within his constitutional right to act as he was acting--just as Mr. Copeland and his repellent ideas about corporal and capital punishment are within those bounds as well.

Posted by: Ned | August 3, 2009 7:57 AM

In other news:
This Week In Holy Crimes...

Posted by: ilovejesus | August 3, 2009 8:43 AM

I am with you William Kurtz. Mr. Morrell has the right to exercise free speech in this country, as we all do.

However, the idea that disagreeing with his distorted brand of Christianity is sinful, communist, etc. is just ridiculous.

I am an evangelical Christian and have dedicated my life to Christian missionary service. I strongly disagree with Mr. Morrell's views, approach and all too obvious arrogance and anger. I found his email address and emailed him my comments posted earlier. He has not responded and I assume does not have the desire or Biblical knowledge to engage in a conversation over the meaning of sin and Christian service.

Posted by: robn | August 3, 2009 9:14 AM

WK,

Well put, however, its impossible for any of us to judge the right or wrong because the relative noise levels of Mr Morrell were only evident to him and the arresting officers.

This article really touched a nerve for me because for 8 years, the Bush administration, which was given unflagging support from Mr.Morrels religious community, conducted a war founded upon lies and literally penned up in chain link fence, thousands of war protesters ...the bush era "free-speech" zones were fine with religious fundamentalists so I find this case extremely ironic.

Posted by: William Kurtz | August 3, 2009 9:51 AM

Robn:

Point taken and if Mr. Morrell was breaking the noise ordinance, then he deserved to be told to quiet down. I agree that the free-speech shouldn't need a fenced in 'zone' and can certainly appreciate the irony but at its core, this sounds more to me like private entities (bars and clubs) using public servants with civic authority on private payrolls to protect their own financial interests. I don't think moving along an annoying and inflammatory street preacher is an egregious infringement on the first amendment, but I do think cops-for-hire are a little worrisome.

Posted by: JMS | August 3, 2009 7:37 PM

Ned,

Thanks for the link... bookmarked that site.

JMS

Posted by: ladyfire | August 3, 2009 11:00 PM

Mr.morrell should keep his preaching to himself--If I want to hear preaching then I will go to church.
Mr.Morrell should spend his energy in helping the needy such as the homeless, drug addicts, cancer patients--that is a fantastic way of helping the world to be a better one. But I find it idiotic in preaching outside of clubs or bars for example about fornication... that is something that is not going to change so try to use your time in a more productive way.

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | August 3, 2009 11:25 PM

Mr. Kurtz--

One will always have false dichotomies when dealing with morons. No one is picking up on the fact this is about keeping suburban children happy.

I'm sorry you find me extreme but sometimes extremity is necessary. We live in a time when "extreme circumstances" have become a justification for the complete destruction of our Republic. In 1933/34 Germany could have used some extreme people willing to do what had to be done to prevent Hitler's Hell. ... I'm sure there were one or two Brownshirts who didn't deserve the reputation-- but when they all look alike how do you tell?

Posted by: robn | August 4, 2009 7:31 PM

ELLIS,

Maybe the third reich could have been prevented by something extreme like burning down the Reichstag...oops, scratch that.

Posted by: Ian C | August 9, 2009 1:28 AM

Jesse's Jesus heals on the streets of New Haven.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1098568904866&ref=mf

Posted by: david | August 16, 2009 1:01 PM

Jesse's idolatry,makes a mockery of all his alleged preaching of the Mosaic law - speaking for the believers of New Haven, who know the true gospel, he though is surely welcome - the bringing in of heresies illuminates the reprobate who lust after them , from the elect who will not give ear to them - also when i have been , for preaching , unlawfully restricted or removed from public places my God instructs the honor of those in authority and the turning of the other cheek, but Jesse's idol instructs him otherwise

Posted by: Stopp Planned Parenthood of Connecticut | September 12, 2009 9:24 PM

Let me tell you Jesse your sign made me laugh. It's better than Planned Parenthood of Connecticut in New Haven passing out Valetine Day condom cards to students getting off the bus to Pass their Healthy Teens Act bill.
Did you ever try the easier softer way of sharing and listening to other members at AA meetings?
Please visit the Family Institute of Connecticut's blog spot where pro-life lawyer Peter Wolfgang also posts your story.
Thanks for the reference to the Aliance Defence Fund. God Bless.

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35