If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox 17 Grand Rapids)   Go over the alloted speaking time limit at your township board meeting? You bet that's a felony   (fox17online.com) divider line 123
    More: Asinine, college town, speeches, felony, public comment, Line-item veto  
•       •       •

5628 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 11:56 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-21 08:17:34 AM
SIT DOWN AND DO AS YOU'RE TOLD CITIZEN!
 
2014-03-21 08:50:11 AM
"Bridgeport Township Manager Rose Licht said Adams was escorted out of meetings two other times in the past but was not arrested.
On March 4, Adams 'was asked to wrap it up by the township supervisor, and he refused and continued to talk over him,' Licht said. 'Several times the supervisor asked him to take a seat, and he refused and the police department asked him to have a seat and took him out of the building.'
The issues between Adams and the township have been going on for several years, Licht said, regarding vacant land he owns in Bridgeport Township and compliance with township ordinances.
'It's a longtime dispute,' she said, adding, 'If he would have wrapped it up, he would have been fine.'"

Better article here.

All you really need to know about this situation is how everyone else at the meeting is looking down and is completely okay with him being arrested.
 
2014-03-21 09:30:56 AM

ginandbacon: All you really need to know about this situation is how everyone else at the meeting is looking down and is completely okay with him being arrested


Yeah, it must really suck when someone besides you has a beef with the powers that be.
 
2014-03-21 11:51:22 AM
The incident was caught on camera and has been viewed thousands of times.

And?
 
2014-03-21 11:53:15 AM
It's like the worst humblebrag ever
 
2014-03-21 12:01:24 PM
I once watched someone get escorted out of a City Council meeting by the police, shouting "this is the end of democracy".

If you want to protest, protest. Go outside and pull up a megaphone. Not being able to talk as much as you'd like in the air conditioned building with the fancy cameras streamed at city expense doesn't make you a martyr.
 
2014-03-21 12:03:01 PM
No, he wasn't charged with a felony for that, Subby:

Mark Adams was charged Friday, March 14 with a felony resisting and obstructing police and a disturbing the peace misdemeanor.

But really, disturbing the peace should've been a stretch to charge him with. But it seems this is an ongoing problem with this guy so maybe they're putting their foot down.
 
2014-03-21 12:04:11 PM
Mark Adams was charged Friday, March 14 with a felony resisting and obstructing police and a disturbing the peace misdemeanor.

Are the submittard and the reporter related?
 
2014-03-21 12:04:15 PM
So people should be allowed to disrupt meetings with no consequences? Really?

"Freedom of speech" means you're not going to be penalized for saying your say, but that does *not* mean you get to - literally - monopolize the floor.
 
2014-03-21 12:05:21 PM
The 1st Amendment does not guarantee you a microphone and an audience.
 
2014-03-21 12:05:31 PM
The guy is presumably delighted with this, and the cops are idiots. Way to turn a town counsel meeting into an international pulpit bolstered by readily defensible motives.
 
2014-03-21 12:05:42 PM

ginandbacon: All you really need to know about this situation is how everyone else at the meeting is looking down and is completely okay with him being arrested.


Suspected it might be something like that.

lockers: The incident was caught on camera and has been viewed thousands of times.

And?


Amen
 
2014-03-21 12:05:54 PM
Sit down and shut the fark up...

I hate attention wanting bastards like this.
Nothing productive was ever accomplished by someone being an asshole...especially in public.
Do the proper paperwork, file your grievances...if it doesn't work, live with it. If you can't, farkin move.
But don't bore the world with your problems just because someone gives you a podium for a few minutes.
 
2014-03-21 12:06:30 PM

jesdynf: I once watched someone get escorted out of a City Council meeting by the police, shouting "this is the end of democracy".

If you want to protest, protest. Go outside and pull up a megaphone. Not being able to talk as much as you'd like in the air conditioned building with the fancy cameras streamed at city expense doesn't make you a martyr.


I have had to sit through a couple CC meetings and the resident loonies are the most annoying things in the world. They would ramble on for three days if no one stopped them. But they deserve their allotted time just like anyone else. This guy abused that on multiple occasions and that's that as far as I'm concerned.
 
2014-03-21 12:07:43 PM
lockers

The incident was caught on camera and has been viewed thousands of times.

And?


Came here to say this.  Fox News is always a risky click.
 
2014-03-21 12:07:58 PM
No, he was arrested and charged with resisting and obstructing police, and disturbing the peace.  Going over the time limit was just him being an asshole.
 
2014-03-21 12:08:17 PM
I'm all for having him forcibly removed from the meeting. The guy was plainly disrupting the meeting and not following basic parliamentary procedure.

That said, arresting him on the spot and then charging him with resisting is a huge dick move, and a massive overstep on the part of the local cops. What the hell happened to chucking a guy in the drunk tank for the night and being done with it? Everyone goes home not a felon.
 
2014-03-21 12:08:59 PM

ginandbacon: "Bridgeport Township Manager Rose Licht said Adams was escorted out of meetings two other times in the past but was not arrested.
On March 4, Adams 'was asked to wrap it up by the township supervisor, and he refused and continued to talk over him,' Licht said. 'Several times the supervisor asked him to take a seat, and he refused and the police department asked him to have a seat and took him out of the building.'
The issues between Adams and the township have been going on for several years, Licht said, regarding vacant land he owns in Bridgeport Township and compliance with township ordinances.
'It's a longtime dispute,' she said, adding, 'If he would have wrapped it up, he would have been fine.'"

Better article here.

All you really need to know about this situation is how everyone else at the meeting is looking down and is completely okay with him being arrested.


So this is just another wacko who's upset that there are things like zoning laws and anti-blight enforcement.  The very image of a stereotypical "old man yells at cloud" type.

I was going to say "Tea Partier", but I don't want to get all partisan here.
 
2014-03-21 12:09:05 PM
FTFA, submitter: "felony resisting and obstructing police and a disturbing the peace misdemeanor"

Now, those may not have been justified, technically, but neither of them are "arrested for going over the allotted time limit"

There's a time limit for a reason. Some people are unreasonable, bitter assholes who would, if you let them, take hours to air every single imagined grievance and nobody else would get to speak. People like this love a captive audience and some of them have to be dragged away from the podium to get them to shut the fark up and let someone else talk.
 
2014-03-21 12:10:04 PM

give me doughnuts: The 1st Amendment does not guarantee you a microphone and an audience.


This is not a private event held on private property by private citizens,  This is a public meeting so yes he does have a right to be there.
 
2014-03-21 12:10:25 PM

stratagos: So people should be allowed to disrupt meetings with no consequences? Really?

"Freedom of speech" means you're not going to be penalized for saying your say, but that does *not* mean you get to - literally - monopolize the floor.


And yet, the fillibuster is a perfectly legal and acceptable means of indeffinitely delaying just about any debate in order to avoid action being taken.

I still don't understand how the hell that is allowed.  Allowed with enthusiasm, even.
 
2014-03-21 12:12:37 PM
Shackle him up. I would normally fall on the side of the right of the citizen to be heard, but it's very obvious that if given the chance, this guy would talk till the cows come home. He's not trying to address the council, he's trying to disrupt the meeting.
 
2014-03-21 12:12:38 PM

Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk: I'm all for having him forcibly removed from the meeting. The guy was plainly disrupting the meeting and not following basic parliamentary procedure.

That said, arresting him on the spot and then charging him with resisting is a huge dick move, and a massive overstep on the part of the local cops. What the hell happened to chucking a guy in the drunk tank for the night and being done with it? Everyone goes home not a felon.


He's done this multiple times before. There's a difference between being put in the drunk tank once with no charges and spending every day there. I think the cops are probably fed up with dragging him out of meetings.
 
2014-03-21 12:12:45 PM
Mark Adams was charged Friday, March 14 with a felony resisting and obstructing police and a disturbing the peace misdemeanor.

Get your shiat together, submitter. It was in the SECOND sentence.

Though public comment guidelines are clearly laid out and posted on the building where the meeting was held, Adams says his rights were violated.
"Freedom of speech doesn't have a time limitation, there's no time limitation when you talk about our constitutional freedoms," he said.


Well, it DOES when you're not the only person in the community who wants to speak. They set these rules up to give everybody a chance, and even if you're the only asshole in the room at the time, they have to be enforced uniformly, or people start whining about 'playing favorites' and shiat like that.
 
GBB
2014-03-21 12:13:45 PM

studebaker hoch: lockers

The incident was caught on camera and has been viewed thousands of times.

And?

Came here to say this.  Fox News is always a risky click.


Yeah, this one plays to their base: crotchety people that have a minor grievance to which they want every resource devoted to, but also smaller government with no taxes, and they are oppressed for their views, just ignore the fact that they blatantly disobey the rules of the system.
 
2014-03-21 12:13:54 PM
I used to go to town meetings a lot before I became so jaded with the world.

There's always that one guy who just won't shut up, wants to bring up every perceived slight against him for the last 40 years, and makes no differentiation between a school board issue and a roads planning issue.

"Yeah, thanks Larry, we're discussing a new fire truck here, we don't want to hear about how you were denied a permit for a greenhouse in 1968... again."
 
2014-03-21 12:14:49 PM
"Freedom of speech doesn't have a time limitation, there's no time limitation when you talk about our constitutional freedoms," he said.

He must be the area man in that Onion article.
 
2014-03-21 12:15:40 PM
Isn't it usually the sergeant at arms' job to remove people from a meeting?
 
GBB
2014-03-21 12:16:56 PM

Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk: I'm all for having him forcibly removed from the meeting. The guy was plainly disrupting the meeting and not following basic parliamentary procedure.

That said, arresting him on the spot and then charging him with resisting is a huge dick move, and a massive overstep on the part of the local cops. What the hell happened to chucking a guy in the drunk tank for the night and being done with it? Everyone goes home not a felon.


Because people like this don't understand what the real consequences of their actions are.  If the cops try to be nice and let him off with a warning, it's interpreted as being silenced by the cops for doing nothing wrong.  "See, they didn't even charge me with anything!?"  So they charged him for something to prove that he didn't do nothing wrong.
 
2014-03-21 12:17:21 PM

Warlordtrooper: give me doughnuts: The 1st Amendment does not guarantee you a microphone and an audience.

This is not a private event held on private property by private citizens,  This is a public meeting so yes he does have a right to be there.


None of which relates to what I posted, or to the event in question.
 
2014-03-21 12:17:39 PM
Though public comment guidelines are clearly laid out and posted on the building where the meeting was held, Adams says his rights were violated.
"Freedom of speech doesn't have a time limitation, there's no time limitation when you talk about our constitutional freedoms," he said.


Okay, see, this is where this attention whoring ass-cheese loses any sympathy.  Freedom of speech does not guarantee you an audience and respect for your opinions, nor does it give you the right to take over a legitimate government function.

Sounds like this dumbass needs a swift kick in the nuts.  Assuming he has any.
 
2014-03-21 12:17:52 PM

Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk: That said, arresting him on the spot and then charging him with resisting is a huge dick move, and a massive overstep on the part of the local cops.


Yeah, that wasn't really "resisting". I've seen people do far worse and never get charged. All they really needed to do was boot him, but they announced he was under arrest almost immediately, giving a little credence to his claim of premeditation. He still needs to learn how to be a functioning member of a society, people like that are why I've gone to a single city council meeting ever, but that wasn't resisting or obstructing compared to a lot of what we see. If nothing else, those cops were WAY too eager to arrest someone.
 
2014-03-21 12:18:52 PM
You have freedom of speech. We have the freedom to make you go express it somewhere else. You get to say what you like, but we are not obliged to provide a venue or a megaphone.
 
2014-03-21 12:18:58 PM
I've been in city council and county commission meetings when douchebags like this decide their whack-a-doo agendas should take priority over everyone else.  They will stand up at the podium and go on and on and on and on and on, even though there are time limits for speaking at these meetings. The time limits are there because of idiots like this who will make these meetings go for hours while they spout their conspiracy theories.  There are also plenty of other avenues for these morons to get their points across.
 
2014-03-21 12:20:11 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: SIT DOWN AND DO AS YOU'RE TOLD CITIZEN!


Oh STFU, Anson. You have as little knowledge of what's happening here as I do of the workings of your town's Park and Rec.

The felony charge is for resisting and obstructing an officer; the speaking too long at the meeting is only a misdemeanor beef (disturbing the peace) that they finally pulled out because he's already been escorted out of two meetings for similar shenanigans.

This has been gathering steam for a while. Mark Adams has a track record of senseless complaints going back years, featuring claims of being oppressed by citations for zoning violations, junk removal, and similar infractions. (Local coverage from the Saginaw Snooze for anyone who's interested, and more video here.

(In there is the best misuse of Martin Niemoller's quote ever: "You came for my barbecue grill, you came for my bird feeder.")

He's beefing to a township board about acts of state and county government, because they're supposed to do what, exactly? They're supposed to just let business grind to a halt because of this paranoid slob?
 
2014-03-21 12:20:57 PM

ginandbacon: All you really need to know about this situation is how everyone else at the meeting is looking down and is completely okay with him being arrested.


Well what are they supposed to do?  Start yelling, "Hey, don't arrest that loco asshole!"  Who would ever express such a sentiment?
 
2014-03-21 12:21:34 PM
" Mark Adams was charged Friday, March 14 with a felony resisting and obstructing police and a disturbing the peace misdemeanor."

Resisting Arrest shouldn't be a crime anymore.  They use it as an excuse to beat you and then charge you with "making" them hit you.

Honestly, he was being escorted out.  Being pulled out while you don't want to go is just NOT an actual crime.  Calling it obstruction and then using that to say, "Now we're arresting you" to justify FELONY charges is obscene.  He overran his comment time by a few minutes.  Maybe he's a weird little jerk, that doesn't mean you should have carte blanche to just wreak havoc on his life.

Cut his mic and push him out if he still won't go.  There's no reason to target him for severe potentially life-altering consequences just because he wouldn't leave at what you deem the proper moment.  This kind of "escalation-to-damage" tactic on the part of authorities has no place in a real society.  Letting this guy be inconvenient for 3 minutes while you shooed him out is fine, there's no reason too go, "I'm out of patience, I'm going to take you to jail and see that you get hit with potentially crippling criminal penalties." for someone who's just being a vocal dick.

If your job is to enforce the law, potentially with violence, in my book your patience better be absolutely farking infinite.  You shouldn't be resorting to this other crap unless someone is a clear threat.
 
2014-03-21 12:21:34 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: ginandbacon: All you really need to know about this situation is how everyone else at the meeting is looking down and is completely okay with him being arrested

Yeah, it must really suck when someone besides you has a beef with the powers that be.


Everybody is given a set time limit. This allows people to speak at busy meetings, and everyone to get a chance to talk. These rules can't be arbitrarily enforced. If you have 3 minutes to talk, you get it done in 3 minutes. He went over that 3 mins by an extra 4, repeatedly ignoring the rules. If this guy wants to function in a societal group, there are some rules that have to be followed so that the entire society can function and everybody can exercise their rights, not just the motormouth who has a "list".
 
2014-03-21 12:21:56 PM
Please, please, please watch the second video.  I wish they would have tasered him.
 
2014-03-21 12:22:09 PM

durbnpoisn: stratagos: So people should be allowed to disrupt meetings with no consequences? Really?

"Freedom of speech" means you're not going to be penalized for saying your say, but that does *not* mean you get to - literally - monopolize the floor.

And yet, the fillibuster is a perfectly legal and acceptable means of indeffinitely delaying just about any debate in order to avoid action being taken.

I still don't understand how the hell that is allowed.  Allowed with enthusiasm, even.


Because the Constitution says the Senate and the House shall set their own rules. That's it, done.
 
2014-03-21 12:22:59 PM
www.laserfiche.com
 
2014-03-21 12:23:00 PM

Warlordtrooper: give me doughnuts: The 1st Amendment does not guarantee you a microphone and an audience.

This is not a private event held on private property by private citizens,  This is a public meeting so yes he does have a right to be there.

Try and stand in the public gallery at the US Senate and insist on being allowed to speak on any subject at any length. When they kick your ass out, take it to the Supreme Court and demand you'd First Amendment protections.

Let us know how that turns out, because if what you've written has any basis in Law, you will definitely win,

Clue: you won't win.
 
2014-03-21 12:24:10 PM

Warlordtrooper: give me doughnuts: The 1st Amendment does not guarantee you a microphone and an audience.

This is not a private event held on private property by private citizens,  This is a public meeting so yes he does have a right to be there.


Time, place, manner.
 
2014-03-21 12:24:26 PM

durbnpoisn: stratagos: So people should be allowed to disrupt meetings with no consequences? Really?

"Freedom of speech" means you're not going to be penalized for saying your say, but that does *not* mean you get to - literally - monopolize the floor.

And yet, the fillibuster is a perfectly legal and acceptable means of indeffinitely delaying just about any debate in order to avoid action being taken.

I still don't understand how the hell that is allowed.  Allowed with enthusiasm, even.


You pretty much need to be elected to the governing body you are addressing to filibuster.
 
2014-03-21 12:26:02 PM
What I can't go to a town hall and waist everyones time on whatever flies out my ass?
 
2014-03-21 12:26:20 PM

Super_pope: " Mark Adams was charged Friday, March 14 with a felony resisting and obstructing police and a disturbing the peace misdemeanor."

Resisting Arrest shouldn't be a crime anymore.  They use it as an excuse to beat you and then charge you with "making" them hit you.

Honestly, he was being escorted out.  Being pulled out while you don't want to go is just NOT an actual crime.  Calling it obstruction and then using that to say, "Now we're arresting you" to justify FELONY charges is obscene.  He overran his comment time by a few minutes.  Maybe he's a weird little jerk, that doesn't mean you should have carte blanche to just wreak havoc on his life.

Cut his mic and push him out if he still won't go.  There's no reason to target him for severe potentially life-altering consequences just because he wouldn't leave at what you deem the proper moment.  This kind of "escalation-to-damage" tactic on the part of authorities has no place in a real society.  Letting this guy be inconvenient for 3 minutes while you shooed him out is fine, there's no reason too go, "I'm out of patience, I'm going to take you to jail and see that you get hit with potentially crippling criminal penalties." for someone who's just being a vocal dick.

If your job is to enforce the law, potentially with violence, in my book your patience better be absolutely farking infinite.  You shouldn't be resorting to this other crap unless someone is a clear threat.


If this was the first time it happened - I might be more inclined to agree with you.
 
2014-03-21 12:28:26 PM
Also, I have to say....the cops were more than decent to him.  Like far better than I would have expected.
 
2014-03-21 12:28:55 PM

Warlordtrooper: give me doughnuts: The 1st Amendment does not guarantee you a microphone and an audience.

This is not a private event held on private property by private citizens,  This is a public meeting so yes he does have a right to be there.


Which he had during public comment. When he was asked to yield the floor he refused. When he wouldn't leave, police tried to make him leave. When he fought them, he was charged with a crime.
 
TWX
2014-03-21 12:29:33 PM
It's funny that he thought the public meeting actually meant something.  By the time the official public meeting happens the decision is written in entirety and the meeting exists to formally recognize the decision.  I've seen it happen in places that matter like legislatures and school boards, and places where it doesn't matter, like social clubs.

Even in states with open-meeting laws, generally the participants know who's on their side of a proposal and they've already hashed out the framework, all that's left to fill in is perhaps some of the details, and generally they know if it's going to go anywhere or not.

Public comment at the meeting for something being decided at that meeting is not likely to sway that particular decision unless it's smoking-gun evidence of something that will come back to bite the participants, and they'll probably just table the issue until the next meeting rather than voting on it, giving themselves time to analyze the fallout that the decision could bring or to attempt to spin the situation to make the smoking-gun less detrimental.

If you want to make comment that matters without becoming a lobbyist then you have to find out what you can about agendas of the planning stages, before the final yay/nay vote is scheduled, and to make your comment then.  It's even fairly likely that they'll even want public comment in the early stages; looks better for them if they're seen participating with their constituents.

I observed a school board's decisions over a couple of years try to close two schools.  One school was simply suffering from particularly low enrollment, but had decent academic performance and the parents were VERY involved in things, and when the initial comment period started the parents and community got that closure stopped cold.  They ended up putting a special-education program in to fill the empty rooms, and since this campus situated is at the boundary of two other school districts they opened the school and the special-ed program to open-enrollment to draw kids from out-of-area.

The other school was physically in disrepair and the test scores were abysmal, so the board decided to close the school, and since the parents were very much not involved, they didn't even begin to muster complaints until the day of the school board's decision.  After the decision was made when it became clear what a hardship it would be to the parents to not have the community resources of that school they tried to fight it, but between the building issues and the low test scores they were ignored.  The kids were assigned to different schools and the building was razed.  The parents complained how it was so unfair, but they had 90 days to make their opinions known to a publicly-disclosed scenario with signs posted in two languages at the campus itself, and they did not avail themselves of this opportunity.
 
2014-03-21 12:30:07 PM
Oh man - the video is golden.  'Call 911!  Call 911!  Tell them what is happening!'
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report