Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Asinine, college town, speeches, felony, public comment, Line-item veto  
•       •       •

5732 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 11:56 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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!'
 
2014-03-21 12:33:56 PM  

Rawhead Rex: 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.


Literally everything important in all of human history was accomplished exactly by someone being an asshole. You couldn't be more wrong!
 
2014-03-21 12:37:30 PM  

Mikey1969: 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.


Yeah. Video is linked in the article. Where's the "resisting"? When he reached to pick up his papers as they were escorting him out? When he tried to move his arm to avoid being pushed into the door post?
 
2014-03-21 12:39:44 PM  

LibertyHiller: and more video here.


"Yup this is going on the internet tonight...that's what he wanted."

That cracked me up.

trappedspirit: 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?


LOL
 
2014-03-21 12:42:10 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: If this was the first time it happened - I might be more inclined to agree with you.


Gotta disagree with you - he didn't kill anyone, didn't rape anyone, didn't rob anyone, he just annoyed some people.  Now he's (potentially) labelled as a felon for the rest of his life, with all the little joys that come with that. (for starters, voting and employment are both curtailed when you have a felony under your belt)

/All that, for annoying some people.
//FFS
 
2014-03-21 12:46:22 PM  

Theaetetus: Mikey1969: 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.

Yeah. Video is linked in the article. Where's the "resisting"? When he reached to pick up his papers as they were escorting him out? When he tried to move his arm to avoid being pushed into the door post?


If a cop says you are under arrest and grabs your wrist and you pull away so you can gather up your belongs.....you've resisted arrest.  It's not convenient - but that's how being arrested works.  You are "NOW" under arrest, not 'Okay, get your stuff and when you are ready, we'll arrest you'.

If you watch the full video, he did resist arrest, more than once.  The most undeniable is when he uses his foot to stop the car door from being closed on him.  He, pretty clearly, tries to break the first officer's hold on his wrist at the beginning of it all and later when they are downstairs and about to go outside.
 
2014-03-21 12:46:36 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: 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.


On the other hand, what's the harm?  So they lose a few minutes (or even hours) while crazy dude spouts some nonsense.  Big whoop.  Is it really worth someone getting a felony conviction over?  Most cranks are going to run out of steam eventually, but if you try to STOP them from speaking they'll only get more and more frantic about it.  Pop the old ear buds in, crank up some Floyd, and let Mr. Crazy have his open-mic hour.

I mean, how petty is that?  "Wah wah wah!  He's wasting my precious time! I'm important!  I'm a township supervisor!"  Buncha whiny babies.
 
2014-03-21 12:50:46 PM  

Tran Forsythe: Fark_Guy_Rob: If this was the first time it happened - I might be more inclined to agree with you.

Gotta disagree with you - he didn't kill anyone, didn't rape anyone, didn't rob anyone, he just annoyed some people.  Now he's (potentially) labelled as a felon for the rest of his life, with all the little joys that come with that. (for starters, voting and employment are both curtailed when you have a felony under your belt)

/All that, for annoying some people.
//FFS


Annoying people is the disturbing the peace thing.  The serious trouble he is facing is from resisting arrest.
 
2014-03-21 12:53:08 PM  

BSABSVR: 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.


Did you watch the same video we did?
 
2014-03-21 12:55:26 PM  

tillerman35: Smelly Pirate Hooker: 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.

On the other hand, what's the harm?  So they lose a few minutes (or even hours) while crazy dude spouts some nonsense.  Big whoop.  Is it really worth someone getting a felony conviction over?  Most cranks are going to run out of steam eventually, but if you try to STOP them from speaking they'll only get more and more frantic about it.  Pop the old ear buds in, crank up some Floyd, and let Mr. Crazy have his open-mic hour.

I mean, how petty is that?  "Wah wah wah!  He's wasting my precious time! I'm important!  I'm a township supervisor!"  Buncha whiny babies.


You think small-city council/board meetings should routinely run 8 hours or more?  That's not just wasting one guy's time, it's wasting everyone's time.  And it detracts or outright prevents people who have reasonable concerns or comments to offer from speaking (because they can't spend that kind of time waiting around for Joe From The Edge of Town to spend two hours ranting about how "The Man" is making him remove the rotting garbage pile from his front yard and furthermore, chemtrails and HAARP).
 
2014-03-21 12:56:55 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.


As long as he follows the rules of order. Once you abuse thar, you lost the privilege. And as for people saying he should have jbeen just escorted out and not arrested, clearly hlthey had done and hat on multiple occasions before and he didn't get it. It was time to up the punishment.
 
2014-03-21 12:57:00 PM  

LibertyHiller: The felony charge is for resisting and obstructing an officer


Holy farking shiat that was some serious resisting right there. He's lucky he didn't get the ever loving shiat kicked out of him!

*eyeroll*

Mikey1969: Everybody is given a set time limit. This allows people to speak at busy meetings, and everyone to get a chance to talk


Yeah yeah yeah...elected public officials are too busy to sit all night long listening to the people they rule!
 
2014-03-21 12:59:44 PM  

tillerman35: Smelly Pirate Hooker: 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.

On the other hand, what's the harm?  So they lose a few minutes (or even hours) while crazy dude spouts some nonsense.  Big whoop.  Is it really worth someone getting a felony conviction over?  Most cranks are going to run out of steam eventually, but if you try to STOP them from speaking they'll only get more and more frantic about it.  Pop the old ear buds in, crank up some Floyd, and let Mr. Crazy have his open-mic hour.

I mean, how petty is that?  "Wah wah wah!  He's wasting my precious time! I'm important!  I'm a township supervisor!"  Buncha whiny babies.


That's not how it works. The rules are set one way for everybody. They don't rewrite them on the spot for special cases. If they made a special concession for him, then the next meeting it's 2 other people and him, and the next meeting, there are 10 people. Pretty soon, one person takes the whole meeting, and nobody else gets to speak.
 
2014-03-21 12:59:51 PM  
I've attended several council meetings and watched some on TV. I am amazed that nutjobs own so much property.
 
2014-03-21 01:00:50 PM  

Tran Forsythe: Fark_Guy_Rob: If this was the first time it happened - I might be more inclined to agree with you.

Gotta disagree with you - he didn't kill anyone, didn't rape anyone, didn't rob anyone, he just annoyed some people.  Now he's (potentially) labelled as a felon for the rest of his life, with all the little joys that come with that. (for starters, voting and employment are both curtailed when you have a felony under your belt)

/All that, for annoying some people.
//FFS


This is why there is a trial, he can argue his case against being a felon there.  Disorderly conduct is a crime.  And, if this guy came back locked and loaded, you would have whined about why this guy hasn't been arrested before.

Want to argue first amendment?  Ok, he's trampling the first amendment rights of other citizens.  If you give this guy a pulpit for his whacky diatribes for hours on end, some poor schmuck who is there just to get the council to approve their bathroom addition isn't heard.
 
2014-03-21 01:00:57 PM  

tillerman35: I mean, how petty is that?  "Wah wah wah!  He's wasting my precious time! I'm important!  I'm a township supervisor!"  Buncha whiny babies.


The compromise that works for everybody but these shiatheels is that they can talk for some number of minutes about a topic relevant to the discussion.

They need more time they can go be crazy on YouTube. The local wingnut outrage of the week is that the City Council stopped streaming the general public comments -- if you want to talk about something not on the agenda, it happens after they stop the stream and turn the cameras off. The fact that they're not getting their communications handout, on my dime, is like a Hitler whose fists are also tiny Hitlers.
 
2014-03-21 01:01:29 PM  

tillerman35: On the other hand, what's the harm?  So they lose a few minutes (or even hours) while crazy dude spouts some nonsense.  Big whoop.


Sure, who cares if nothing ever gets done because some blowhard is monopolizing the floor at every opportunity?  It's not like anyone else's time has value, right?
 
2014-03-21 01:03:57 PM  

Theaetetus: Mikey1969: 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.

Yeah. Video is linked in the article. Where's the "resisting"? When he reached to pick up his papers as they were escorting him out? When he tried to move his arm to avoid being pushed into the door post?


At 0:59 - The cop says 'You are now under arrest' and he's turning and pulling away.
At 1:10 - When he pushes his arm to the other side of the doorway to prevent his exit.

Something happens after that off-camera...

At 1:30 - When he is trying to recover his glasses.
At 3:55 - When he doesn't want to leave because he needs his coat.
At 4:30 - When he is trying to grab his cell phone while the cops say 'Stop pulling'
At 4:49 - When he wants to keep talking to his buddy and uses his foot to stop the door from closing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resisting_arrest
"...physically struggling to get out from being restrained (handcuffed or put into the police vehicle)"


Under arrest means exactly that.  You have been 'seized' by the police.  Go directly to jail.  You can fight the charges, plead innocent, have your day in court, but you can't resist *at all*.
 
2014-03-21 01:05:49 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Annoying people is the disturbing the peace thing. The serious trouble he is facing is from resisting arrest.


My point, really, is that this being deserving of a "resisting arrest" felony is a parallel to peeing in an alley being deserving of a "public indecency" and an ancillary "sex offender" charge.  Either way, The Law is being enforced, not Justice.
 
2014-03-21 01:10:46 PM  
I watched the video. All he was doing was wasting time.
 
2014-03-21 01:12:13 PM  

Watubi: And, if this guy came back locked and loaded, you would have whined about why this guy hasn't been arrested before.


Everyone point and laugh at the fearmonger.
 
2014-03-21 01:12:28 PM  

Watubi: This is why there is a trial, he can argue his case against being a felon there. Disorderly conduct is a crime. And, if this guy came back locked and loaded, you would have whined about why this guy hasn't been arrested before.


Uh, no, then I would have said that he should go to jail.  Please don't put words in my mouth - I can embarrass myself plenty on my own. ;)

Want to argue first amendment? Ok, he's trampling the first amendment rights of other citizens. If you give this guy a pulpit for his whacky diatribes for hours on end, some poor schmuck who is there just to get the council to approve their bathroom addition isn't heard.

I'm actually arguing for a rational response to an obviously irrational man - as others have said, above, if he's abusing the privilege then cut his mic, escort him out, or get him for disturbing the peace and chuck him in the drunk tank overnight.  Resisting the arrest is what's getting my knickers in a twist.
 
2014-03-21 01:14:16 PM  
On the plus side, his new Star Wars script is spectacular.
 
2014-03-21 01:17:25 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: If this was the first time it happened - I might be more inclined to agree with you.


Oh well if he was annoying more than once that's all the justification you need to ruin his life isn't it?
 
2014-03-21 01:19:45 PM  

Tran Forsythe: Fark_Guy_Rob: Annoying people is the disturbing the peace thing. The serious trouble he is facing is from resisting arrest.

My point, really, is that this being deserving of a "resisting arrest" felony is a parallel to peeing in an alley being deserving of a "public indecency" and an ancillary "sex offender" charge.  Either way, The Law is being enforced, not Justice.


The thing is - he has been *charged* with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace.  Nothing has been enforced.  He could be found innocent, he could plead no contest to lesser charge (at least, from watching TV, I think he can).

The law in Michigan just says it carries a maximum of 2 years and/or a fine of not more than $2,000.  It doesn't have a minimum.  So, at least presumably, he will get his day in court where a judge/jury will get to watch the video, hear testimony and make a judgement.

It seems like this would be a pretty 'minor' case of resisting.

But we won't know what actually happens to him until after the case is concluded.  I think the charges are appropriate.
 
2014-03-21 01:25:57 PM  

Tran Forsythe: Fark_Guy_Rob: If this was the first time it happened - I might be more inclined to agree with you.

Gotta disagree with you - he didn't kill anyone, didn't rape anyone, didn't rob anyone, he just annoyed some people.  Now he's (potentially) labelled as a felon for the rest of his life, with all the little joys that come with that. (for starters, voting and employment are both curtailed when you have a felony under your belt)

/All that, for annoying some people.
//FFS


Really? You don't think the next move is "Okay we will drop the felony charges and just charge you with the disturbing the peace THIS time, but br warned next time you get charged with the felonies"? It's all about upping the risk and making him aware of it.
 
kth
2014-03-21 01:28:33 PM  
I'm often a committee chair for a local philanthropic organization. At the beginning of the year, I tell them that meetings will be an hour, no longer. I donate $10 to the organization for every minute I go over. And then keep the meeting on topic. Socialize all you want after we're done.

Don't waste my time, and I won't waste yours.
 
2014-03-21 01:33:18 PM  

tillerman35: Smelly Pirate Hooker: 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.

On the other hand, what's the harm?  So they lose a few minutes (or even hours) while crazy dude spouts some nonsense.  Big whoop.  Is it really worth someone getting a felony conviction over?  Most cranks are going to run out of steam eventually, but if you try to STOP them from speaking they'll only get more and more frantic about it.  Pop the old ear buds in, crank up some Floyd, and let Mr. Crazy have his open-mic hour.

I mean, how petty is that?  "Wah wah wah!  He's wasting my precious time! I'm important!  I'm a township supervisor!"  Buncha whiny babies.


He is not wasting just "my time" but that of everyone, council member and citizen, there at the meating and following the rules. He is NOT special. He does not get a pass, because then everyone does and you potentially have 12 hour long meeting. He knew he was wrong. He knew he had rules to follow like everyone else. He chose to ignore it and he alone is responsiblr for his punishment.
 
2014-03-21 01:34:19 PM  

thefatbasturd: Really? You don't think the next move is "Okay we will drop the felony charges and just charge you with the disturbing the peace THIS time, but br warned next time you get charged with the felonies"? It's all about upping the risk and making him aware of it.


Well obviously he has nothing to fear.

This macho, pounding your chest, "I'm going to teach you a lesson," shiat is a cancer on the LEO community, plain and simple.  It breeds corrupt sickening organizations like clockwork.  You couldn't ask for a finer way to build a worse cop.
 
2014-03-21 01:38:54 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: The thing is - he has been *charged* with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace. Nothing has been enforced. He could be found innocent, he could plead no contest to lesser charge (at least, from watching TV, I think he can).

The law in Michigan just says it carries a maximum of 2 years and/or a fine of not more than $2,000. It doesn't have a minimum. So, at least presumably, he will get his day in court where a judge/jury will get to watch the video, hear testimony and make a judgement.

It seems like this would be a pretty 'minor' case of resisting.

But we won't know what actually happens to him until after the case is concluded. I think the charges are appropriate.


Hrm... problem is, a "minor felony" doesn't really exist.  A felony is never a slap on the wrist, this is the category where the serious crimes lie.  In most cases, even being charged with a felony leaves a permanent mark on any background checks run on you.

For example, it's perfectly legal for employers to ask if you've ever been charged with a felony, and disqualify you as a result.  (yes, he's an old coot who's unlikely to be employed again, but the point still stands that this is excessive)  It can even have an effect on your ability to rent an apartment.

All this, for annoying some people. :P
 
2014-03-21 01:40:44 PM  

Super_pope: Fark_Guy_Rob: If this was the first time it happened - I might be more inclined to agree with you.

Oh well if he was annoying more than once that's all the justification you need to ruin his life isn't it?


No, being annoying isn't a crime.  If it were, my time on Fark would have landed me on Death Row.  My point is that the article and the news report are making this sound like a one-off thing where some guy talked too long and was arrested.

Have you watched the full video?  Honestly, give it a go if you haven't.

He flat out says 'And I think, looking at all the police here, we know what your intent is'.  I don't know if his list of grievances are valid or not, but his behavior wasn't.  His actions go beyond annoying and (to me, IANAL) he was disturbing the peace.

If someone is breaking a law, yes, I support police responding appropriately.

His entire life wasn't ruined for being annoying.  He was permitted to be annoying, for four minutes and on multiple previous occasions.  When he refused to sit down and yield the mic, he crossed into disturbing the peace.

A disturbing the peace conviction will not ruin someone's life.

He continued to resist arrest.  We went from 'Annoying' -> 'Disturbing the peace' -> 'Resisting Arrest'.  Those are all things I believe he did, from the video footage.  He has been arrested and charged with, those things.

His life hasn't been ruined.  He isn't facing life in prison.  He is facing a maximum of two years in prison.  He has not been sentenced, we have no idea what will come from it, or how his life will be affected.
 
2014-03-21 01:43:30 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LibertyHiller: The felony charge is for resisting and obstructing an officer

Holy farking shiat that was some serious resisting right there. He's lucky he didn't get the ever loving shiat kicked out of him!

*eyeroll*


Oh, so you're moving the goalpost to "he wasn't resisting"? What a surprise.
 
2014-03-21 01:44:23 PM  

thefatbasturd: Really? You don't think the next move is "Okay we will drop the felony charges and just charge you with the disturbing the peace THIS time, but br warned next time you get charged with the felonies"? It's all about upping the risk and making him aware of it.


You're speaking of him as if he's a hardened criminal - he's an old coot with a list of dubious grievances.  He runs at the mouth.  That's not deserving of a "Kick his a$$!" response.
 
2014-03-21 01:44:33 PM  

Tran Forsythe: Hrm... problem is, a "minor felony" doesn't really exist.  A felony is never a slap on the wrist, this is the category where the serious crimes lie.  In most cases, even being charged with a felony leaves a permanent mark on any background checks run on you.

For example, it's perfectly legal for employers to ask if you've ever been charged with a felony, and disqualify you as a result.  (yes, he's an old coot who's unlikely to be employed again, but the point still stands that this is excessive)  It can even have an effect on your ability to rent an apartment.

All this, for annoying some people. :P


Sure sure, but they aren't really going to hurt him.  Just intimidate him with threats of jail/ruin.  This is how all good peace officers handle people who are too feeble to justify beating to death with a club while screaming, "STOP RESISTING."
 
2014-03-21 01:45:03 PM  

Tran Forsythe: Fark_Guy_Rob: The thing is - he has been *charged* with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace. Nothing has been enforced. He could be found innocent, he could plead no contest to lesser charge (at least, from watching TV, I think he can).

The law in Michigan just says it carries a maximum of 2 years and/or a fine of not more than $2,000. It doesn't have a minimum. So, at least presumably, he will get his day in court where a judge/jury will get to watch the video, hear testimony and make a judgement.

It seems like this would be a pretty 'minor' case of resisting.

But we won't know what actually happens to him until after the case is concluded. I think the charges are appropriate.

Hrm... problem is, a "minor felony" doesn't really exist.  A felony is never a slap on the wrist, this is the category where the serious crimes lie.  In most cases, even being charged with a felony leaves a permanent mark on any background checks run on you.

For example, it's perfectly legal for employers to ask if you've ever been charged with a felony, and disqualify you as a result.  (yes, he's an old coot who's unlikely to be employed again, but the point still stands that this is excessive)  It can even have an effect on your ability to rent an apartment.

All this, for annoying some people. :P


I mean minor with regard to all incidents of resisting arrest.  The law states the maximum punishment, it doesn't state a minimum.  I only meant that *I* would guess he would be further away from the maximum that most.  If he is convicted of a felony, yes, that would become part of his criminal record.  And yes, that might cause problems for him down the road.

But this wasn't for annoying some people.  Disturbing the peace, arguably, was about annoying some people.  The resisting arrest charge was for resisting arrest.  He could have annoyed people until the cop said 'You are now under arrest' and he could have gone with the cops.  And he'd only be facing disturbing the peace.
 
2014-03-21 01:48:13 PM  

LibertyHiller: Oh, so you're moving the goalpost to "he wasn't resisting"?


You call THAT resisting?
 
2014-03-21 01:49:43 PM  

Super_pope: thefatbasturd: Really? You don't think the next move is "Okay we will drop the felony charges and just charge you with the disturbing the peace THIS time, but br warned next time you get charged with the felonies"? It's all about upping the risk and making him aware of it.

Well obviously he has nothing to fear.

This macho, pounding your chest, "I'm going to teach you a lesson," shiat is a cancer on the LEO community, plain and simple.  It breeds corrupt sickening organizations like clockwork.  You couldn't ask for a finer way to build a worse cop.


The cops don't decide the charges.  The prosecution does.

In my opinion, the cops were more than accommodating.  They were cool to his buddy with the camera.  They put on his glasses for him.  They answered his questions.  They were taking his stuff with them so he wouldn't lose it.  They asked him where he wanted his cell phone, on him or with his friend.  And, while they did mention the word taser, they didn't actually taser or beat the guy.
 
2014-03-21 01:56:55 PM  

tillerman35: Smelly Pirate Hooker: 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.

On the other hand, what's the harm?  So they lose a few minutes (or even hours) while crazy dude spouts some nonsense.  Big whoop.  Is it really worth someone getting a felony conviction over?  Most cranks are going to run out of steam eventually, but if you try to STOP them from speaking they'll only get more and more frantic about it.  Pop the old ear buds in, crank up some Floyd, and let Mr. Crazy have his open-mic hour.

I mean, how petty is that?  "Wah wah wah!  He's wasting my precious time! I'm important!  I'm a township supervisor!"  Buncha whiny babies.


You really have no idea how these meetings work, do you? They are held about once a month and in the evening. The city has a legal responsibility to present the public with actions they are deciding on. They also have a legal responsibility to allow residents to present testimony on those actions. They often start at 5 or six to allow people to attend after work (don't forget the councilors also work during the day) and can go on until 9 or 10 in some cases. People are also allowed to present written testimony if they are not able to attend or if they can't get their full testimony in under the allotted time.

Then everyone goes home.

Unless some crank is allowed to get up and rant on and on about something that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the issue at hand, in this case whether the city should purchase another fire truck.

Then they are all stuck there.

So they enforce the time limit and if someone chooses to abuse it, they are removed. If someone abuses it repeatedly and resists the officers who are trying to remove him, then he will face charges. I believe people can be handed a restraining order to keep them from attending if there is a clear pattern of refusing to abide by the rules and resisting attempts to remove them. I would have to look that up though.

The citizen still has many avenues to petition for redress. None of this is a burden.
 
2014-03-21 01:57:32 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I mean minor with regard to all incidents of resisting arrest. The law states the maximum punishment, it doesn't state a minimum. I only meant that *I* would guess he would be further away from the maximum that most. If he is convicted of a felony, yes, that would become part of his criminal record. And yes, that might cause problems for him down the road.


But that's part of it... even if the charges are dismissed, a really serious serious criminal charge will still sit on his background check.  He's stuck with a "Resisting arrest" felony, until he dies, for being obstreperous.  No helping grandkids with co-signing their apartment leases for him, among other things.

But this wasn't for annoying some people. Disturbing the peace, arguably, was about annoying some people. The resisting arrest charge was for resisting arrest. He could have annoyed people until the cop said 'You are now under arrest' and he could have gone with the cops. And he'd only be facing disturbing the peace.

Sure, but "resisting arrest" is entirely down to the officer's judgement call - and he didn't slug the cop, he was a pain in the butt.  He was a pain in the butt to the council.  He was a pain in the butt to the cops.  He's not a criminal, he's an old coot.
 
2014-03-21 01:59:21 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: The cops don't decide the charges. The prosecution does.


Small correction: The cops decide the initial charges.  The prosecution tweaks them.
 
2014-03-21 02:04:29 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: The cops don't decide the charges.  The prosecution does.

In my opinion, the cops were more than accommodating.  They were cool to his buddy with the camera.  They put on his glasses for him.  They answered his questions.  They were taking his stuff with them so he wouldn't lose it.  They asked him where he wanted his cell phone, on him or with his friend.  And, while they did mention the word taser, they didn't actually taser or beat the guy.


Well that's something isn't it?

The point is they either set out to "get" him for something that amounts to literally nothing, or to badly scare him into not doing it again.  This could effectively discourage his behavior, or it might be a push in the wrong direction.

At the end of the day, they've taken someone who deserved a ticket and created a situation that could very possibly have severe and lasting consequences on his life.  Not because he was doing anything especially wrong, (we all agree he was being a minor douche) but because he offended by being non-compliant.  He didn't run or attack anyone, his offense here is twofold.

1.) Being a jerk
2.) Not stopping when cops started trying to make him

At the end of the day a maximum of two years is a LOT to face for being rude and then stubborn about it.
 
2014-03-21 02:10:50 PM  

tillerman35: Smelly Pirate Hooker: 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.

On the other hand, what's the harm?  So they lose a few minutes (or even hours) while crazy dude spouts some nonsense.  Big whoop.  Is it really worth someone getting a felony conviction over?  Most cranks are going to run out of steam eventually, but if you try to STOP them from speaking they'll only get more and more frantic about it.  Pop the old ear buds in, crank up some Floyd, and let Mr. Crazy have his open-mic hour.

I mean, how petty is that?  "Wah wah wah!  He's wasting my precious time! I'm important!  I'm a township supervisor!"  Buncha whiny babies.


You are an idiot and have never had to sit through these meetings.  Trust me, I had to go to hundreds as part of a previous job.  You don't just "kick back and crank up some Floyd" when the nut jobs come to air their many grievances.  You would be there for many hours and it would happen again and again.  There's a reason why they have time limits and there's a reason why they haul people out. The rest of us actually have jobs to do and places to be.  In short, we have better things to do then listen to the local nut go on about how much his life sucks and how his rights have been infringed upon.

Does the guy deserve a felony charge?  That's more debatable.  I've seen plenty where they just haul the guy out and tell him he can't come back until the next meeting.  Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
2014-03-21 02:20:10 PM  

Big_Doofus: tillerman35: Smelly Pirate Hooker: 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.

On the other hand, what's the harm?  So they lose a few minutes (or even hours) while crazy dude spouts some nonsense.  Big whoop.  Is it really worth someone getting a felony conviction over?  Most cranks are going to run out of steam eventually, but if you try to STOP them from speaking they'll only get more and more frantic about it.  Pop the old ear buds in, crank up some Floyd, and let Mr. Crazy have his open-mic hour.

I mean, how petty is that?  "Wah wah wah!  He's wasting my precious time! I'm important!  I'm a township supervisor!"  Buncha whiny babies.

You are an idiot and have never had to sit through these meetings.  Trust me, I had to go to hundreds as part of a previous job.  You don't just "kick back and crank up some Floyd" when the nut jobs come to air their many grievances.  You would be there for many hours and it would happen again and again.  There's a reason why they have time limits and there's a reason why they haul people out. The rest of us actually have jobs to do and places to be.  In short, we have better things to do then listen to the local nut go on about how much his life sucks and how his rights have been infringed upon.

Does the guy deserve a felony charge?  That's more debatable.  I've seen plenty where they just haul the guy out and tell him he can't come back until the next meeting.  Lather, rinse, repeat.


Don't forget about the poor stenographer who actually has to pay attention the whole time.
 
2014-03-21 02:31:30 PM  

SumJackass07: Isn't it usually the sergeant at arms' job to remove people from a meeting?


No, it's this guy's job
komischewelt.files.wordpress.com

You don't want to find out where the glow rod goes.
 
2014-03-21 02:35:23 PM  

Tran Forsythe: Fark_Guy_Rob: I mean minor with regard to all incidents of resisting arrest. The law states the maximum punishment, it doesn't state a minimum. I only meant that *I* would guess he would be further away from the maximum that most. If he is convicted of a felony, yes, that would become part of his criminal record. And yes, that might cause problems for him down the road.

But that's part of it... even if the charges are dismissed, a really serious serious criminal charge will still sit on his background check.  He's stuck with a "Resisting arrest" felony, until he dies, for being obstreperous.  No helping grandkids with co-signing their apartment leases for him, among other things.

But this wasn't for annoying some people. Disturbing the peace, arguably, was about annoying some people. The resisting arrest charge was for resisting arrest. He could have annoyed people until the cop said 'You are now under arrest' and he could have gone with the cops. And he'd only be facing disturbing the peace.

Sure, but "resisting arrest" is entirely down to the officer's judgement call - and he didn't slug the cop, he was a pain in the butt.  He was a pain in the butt to the council.  He was a pain in the butt to the cops.  He's not a criminal, he's an old coot.


The cops have judgement in deciding whether or not to arrest someone.  But that's about it.  They aren't lawyers and it'll be the city's legal folk that decide what charges they'll face, as far as I know.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I might be wrong; but there is a legal process to have an arrest removed from your record, provided you are not convicted (http://www.transcend.net/library/proseLitigant/ClearArrest.pdf )

The guy is 59 and probably doesn't give two farks about his record, but if he is found innocent, there is a process (and, as far as legal processes go, it seems pretty easy).

An arrest does hurt your credit.  But it hurts it for a good reason.  People who get arrested tend to be far more likely to not repay loans than the non-arrested population.  By 59, he's probably established enough that it isn't a problem, I've rented apartments all over the US and overseas without them ever running a credit check.  Maybe he couldn't co-sign a fancy penthouse apartment, but that's life.  Credit scores are all about assessing risk.

Still, it hardly seems fair to blame the cops for doing their job because, as a result, the person they arrest might have consequences.
 
2014-03-21 02:36:32 PM  

Tran Forsythe: Fark_Guy_Rob: The cops don't decide the charges. The prosecution does.

Small correction: The cops decide the initial charges.  The prosecution tweaks them.


Sorry - thank you for that.
 
2014-03-21 02:40:03 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LibertyHiller: Oh, so you're moving the goalpost to "he wasn't resisting"?

You call THAT resisting?


Yes.

As has been mentioned, there are many instances of resistance in his actions. Did he take a swing at an officer, try to run away, flail about on the floor kicking? No. After being clearly told "you are now under arrest" more than once, did he put up resistance to being escorted from the room, to being handcuffed, and to being placed in the police car? Yes. I'm not sure that the statute carves out an exce
 
2014-03-21 02:41:31 PM  
ption for "just a little bit" of resistance.
 
2014-03-21 02:46:27 PM  

lizyrd: Yes


Ohyouhavegottobeshiattingme.
 
2014-03-21 02:48:29 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.


Apparently he's a chronic orator.  ceilingcatiswatchingyoupontificate.jpg ?
 
2014-03-21 03:07:45 PM  

Wellon Dowd: 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?


To The Escape Zeppelin!: 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.


Otis liked the drunk tank!
i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-21 03:11:13 PM  

Tran Forsythe: thefatbasturd: Really? You don't think the next move is "Okay we will drop the felony charges and just charge you with the disturbing the peace THIS time, but br warned next time you get charged with the felonies"? It's all about upping the risk and making him aware of it.

You're speaking of him as if he's a hardened criminal - he's an old coot with a list of dubious grievances.  He runs at the mouth.  That's not deserving of a "Kick his a$$!" response.


No. I am speaking of him as what he is: a repeat offender of the offense of "public asshole" who would not listen when on multiple occasions he was asked to follow the rules everyone else has to follow. He didn't. He was given the courtesy of being escorted out multiple times WITHOUT charges which could have been filed on other occasions. He didn't listen. He keeps doing it. So now they let him know there WILL be consequences for further instances and punish him with the relatively minor misdemeanor offense to n let him know they are serious. So when he does it again (and you can bet money he will) his "ruined life" is all on him. It's called personal responsibility and accountability and it's a GOOD thing.
 
2014-03-21 03:13:21 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: The cops have judgement in deciding whether or not to arrest someone. But that's about it. They aren't lawyers and it'll be the city's legal folk that decide what charges they'll face, as far as I know.


Kinda my point - he's a chronic PITA, and was rightfully arrested for disturbing the peace, and that should have been the end of it.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I might be wrong; but there is a legal process to have an arrest removed from your record, provided you are not convicted (http://www.transcend.net/library/proseLitigant/ClearArrest.pdf )

The guy is 59 and probably doesn't give two farks about his record, but if he is found innocent, there is a process (and, as far as legal processes go, it seems pretty easy).


IANAL also, but that link mentions "criminal episodes"... which from what I'm reading, seems to mean doing the same thing repeatedly.  Being bounced out of meetings in the past, for also being a PITA then, just might qualify. (Only black-and-white definition I could find of "criminal episodes" is here, but it's for Texas so it probably doesn't fit... though I suspect it may be in the same ballpark)

An arrest does hurt your credit. But it hurts it for a good reason. People who get arrested tend to be far more likely to not repay loans than the non-arrested population. By 59, he's probably established enough that it isn't a problem, I've rented apartments all over the US and overseas without them ever running a credit check. Maybe he couldn't co-sign a fancy penthouse apartment, but that's life. Credit scores are all about assessing risk.

Surprisingly, credit checks aren't affected by a criminal record (unless being in jail made you default on a loan, etc), but background checks are.  Background checks and credit checks don't need your approval, though, so for all you know your rental agencies all ran one on you, no?

Still, it hardly seems fair to blame the cops for doing their job because, as a result, the person they arrest might have consequences.

Er... no, I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree with you there.  They're in a position of trust.  Anything they do has greater consequences, and as a result must be held to a higher standard.  I'm not saying they need to be perfect, that'd be insane, but they need to show restraint in the face of Stupid.
 
2014-03-21 03:13:52 PM  
The guys a jerk, and acted like a jerk, but he's also right.
 
2014-03-21 03:17:46 PM  
I think we did watch a different video.

Fark_Guy_Rob:
At 0:59 - The cop says 'You are now under arrest' and he's turning and pulling away.
Nope, he was already turned way when the fat cop said "You are now under arrest, you are now under arrest." He wasn't pulling away - he was already grabbed.

At 1:10 - When he pushes his arm to the other side of the doorway to prevent his exit.
Nope, lead cop was going to take him to the right side of the central post, rear cop was heading for the left side. It was lead cop who had his arm already stretched out.
Calling that resisting is like saying that if two cops pull your arms in different directions and you don't split in half, you're resisting one of them.

Something happens after that off-camera...

At 1:30 - When he is trying to recover his glasses.

... with his voice? He's standing completely still, with his hands behind his back while they cuff him, asking them not to step on his glasses.

At 3:55 - When he doesn't want to leave because he needs his coat.
Again, you seem to think that a handcuffed guy saying "I need my coat" is resisting.

At 4:30 - When he is trying to grab his cell phone while the cops say 'Stop pulling'
The cop in front of him was putting it in his front pocket for him. What are you talking about?

At 4:49 - When he wants to keep talking to his buddy and uses his foot to stop the door from closing.
You mean when they slammed the door on the handcuffed guy's foot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resisting_arrest
"...physically struggling to get out from being restrained (handcuffed or put into the police vehicle)"


And since he never attempted to get out from being restrained or get out of the police vehicle, why exactly are you quoting that?

Under arrest means exactly that.  You have been 'seized' by the police.  Go directly to jail.  You can fight the charges, plead innocent, have your day in court, but you can't resist *at all*.

And he didn't resist *at all*. Simply because a cop shouts "stop resisting" doesn't automatically mean the person is resisting, y'know.
 
2014-03-21 03:18:19 PM  

thefatbasturd: No. I am speaking of him as what he is: a repeat offender of the offense of "public asshole" who would not listen when on multiple occasions he was asked to follow the rules everyone else has to follow. He didn't. He was given the courtesy of being escorted out multiple times WITHOUT charges which could have been filed on other occasions. He didn't listen. He keeps doing it. So now they let him know there WILL be consequences for further instances and punish him with the relatively minor misdemeanor offense to n let him know they are serious. So when he does it again (and you can bet money he will) his "ruined life" is all on him. It's called personal responsibility and accountability and it's a GOOD thing.


Sorry, man, but this isn't a misdemeanor charge - this is a felony charge.  That's taking the nuclear option.  (Seriously)

Kick him out.  File a restraining order.  Heck, keep an officer at the door and prevent him from coming in.  He's not a menace to society, he's a crank.
 
2014-03-21 03:25:25 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: lizyrd: Yes

Ohyouhavegottobeshiattingme.


Man, your freedom fighting gets me rock hard.
 
2014-03-21 03:39:52 PM  
Candy Colored Clown:Man, your freedom fighting gets me rock hard.

What the ever loving fark are you babbling about?
 
2014-03-21 03:42:37 PM  

Tran Forsythe: thefatbasturd: No. I am speaking of him as what he is: a repeat offender of the offense of "public asshole" who would not listen when on multiple occasions he was asked to follow the rules everyone else has to follow. He didn't. He was given the courtesy of being escorted out multiple times WITHOUT charges which could have been filed on other occasions. He didn't listen. He keeps doing it. So now they let him know there WILL be consequences for further instances and punish him with the relatively minor misdemeanor offense to n let him know they are serious. So when he does it again (and you can bet money he will) his "ruined life" is all on him. It's called personal responsibility and accountability and it's a GOOD thing.

Sorry, man, but this isn't a misdemeanor charge - this is a felony charge.  That's taking the nuclear option.  (Seriously)

Kick him out.  File a restraining order.  Heck, keep an officer at the door and prevent him from coming in.  He's not a menace to society, he's a crank.


No. The disturbing the peace is a misdemeanor (try reading the articles It's FUN!). And that is what he will be allowed to plead down too. The felonies are the sword they dangle over his head to say "but NEXT time..."
 
2014-03-21 03:47:18 PM  

Tran Forsythe: thefatbasturd: No. I am speaking of him as what he is: a repeat offender of the offense of "public asshole" who would not listen when on multiple occasions he was asked to follow the rules everyone else has to follow. He didn't. He was given the courtesy of being escorted out multiple times WITHOUT charges which could have been filed on other occasions. He didn't listen. He keeps doing it. So now they let him know there WILL be consequences for further instances and punish him with the relatively minor misdemeanor offense to n let him know they are serious. So when he does it again (and you can bet money he will) his "ruined life" is all on him. It's called personal responsibility and accountability and it's a GOOD thing.

Sorry, man, but this isn't a misdemeanor charge - this is a felony charge.  That's taking the nuclear option.  (Seriously)

Kick him out.  File a restraining order.  Heck, keep an officer at the door and prevent him from coming in.  He's not a menace to society, he's a crank.


And sorry, a restraining order will folliw you know ust as teaciously as an arrest sans conviction.
 
2014-03-21 03:47:39 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Candy Colored Clown:Man, your freedom fighting gets me rock hard.

What the ever loving fark are you babbling about?


Don't break character or I'll go limp.
 
2014-03-21 03:49:50 PM  
Fart sideways while receiving a BJ from Hillary; you betya that is a testicle tazerin'.

/random
//really don't know wtf I was thinking
///side note this herb is really nice.
 
2014-03-21 03:54:12 PM  

thefatbasturd: No. The disturbing the peace is a misdemeanor (try reading the articles It's FUN!). And that is what he will be allowed to plead down too. The felonies are the sword they dangle over his head to say "but NEXT time..."


Dude... I'm not sure if you're trolling, or if you're just really, really bad at trolling.  FTFA: Mark Adams was charged Friday, March 14 with a felony resisting and obstructing police and a disturbing the peace misdemeanor.

He's charged with a felony.  Being charged with a felony goes on your background check.  "Dangling" charges is for TV serials, this is real life.

/Reading is fun!
 
2014-03-21 03:57:19 PM  
awful lot of people in this thread who've never lived in a small town
 
2014-03-21 04:00:02 PM  

thefatbasturd: And sorry, a restraining order will folliw you know ust as teaciously as an arrest sans conviction.


Um, okay, and?  One's an order to keep your distance, with no overt criminal implication because of how easy they are to obtain, and the other says you're a hardened criminal.
 
2014-03-21 04:17:44 PM  

thefatbasturd: No. The disturbing the peace is a misdemeanor (try reading the articles It's FUN!). And that is what he will be allowed to plead down too. The felonies are the sword they dangle over his head to say "but NEXT time..."


"He's a jerk, so we will threaten to do him major irreparable harm if he's a jerk again."

First of all, like I said that's not the way a justice or LEO system should work.  If it even crosses your mind to threaten to use the law to skullfark the life of a mouthy old man, you are absolutely not the kind of person who should be an LEO.

Also like... he will need to hire a lawyer.  If he works he will need to take a fair bit of time off.  This is *juuuuuuuust* squeaks by under the statute, and is really mean spirited and extremely punitive for someone who, at the heart of their actions isn't REALLY doing anything wrong that would justify the response.
 
2014-03-21 05:24:55 PM  
Disturbing the peace?  Sure, ok.  It's an ongoing problem that needs addressing.

Resisting and obstruction?  Complete BS.  Two of the most overused ambiguous catch-all laws out there.
 
2014-03-21 05:28:01 PM  

Tran Forsythe: thefatbasturd: No. The disturbing the peace is a misdemeanor (try reading the articles It's FUN!). And that is what he will be allowed to plead down too. The felonies are the sword they dangle over his head to say "but NEXT time..."

Dude... I'm not sure if you're trolling, or if you're just really, really bad at trolling.  FTFA: Mark Adams was charged Friday, March 14 with a felony resisting and obstructing police and a disturbing the peace misdemeanor.

He's charged with a felony.  Being charged with a felony goes on your background check.  "Dangling" charges is for TV serials, this is real life.

/Reading is fun!


And if you read further in the ecact quote YOU post, you ass-hat, lyou will see that the disturbing the peace is a farking misdemeanor which is what he will plead to. If anyone is trolling or stupid it is YOU if you are actually saying prosecutors don't offer deals to people.

And as I said being just CHARGED with a felony will do no more harm in your hypothetical background check than the suggested restraining order.
 
2014-03-21 05:34:38 PM  
Know how I know you have FARKALL experience with restraining orders? My wife had to get one on an ex-boyfriend when we first started dating. They are a bit more serious than you make them out.
 
2014-03-21 05:50:52 PM  

Super_pope: thefatbasturd: No. The disturbing the peace is a misdemeanor (try reading the articles It's FUN!). And that is what he will be allowed to plead down too. The felonies are the sword they dangle over his head to say "but NEXT time..."

"He's a jerk, so we will threaten to do him major irreparable harm if he's a jerk again."

First of all, like I said that's not the way a justice or LEO system should work.  If it even crosses your mind to threaten to use the law to skullfark the life of a mouthy old man, you are absolutely not the kind of person who should be an LEO.

Also like... he will need to hire a lawyer.  If he works he will need to take a fair bit of time off.  This is *juuuuuuuust* squeaks by under the statute, and is really mean spirited and extremely punitive for someone who, at the heart of their actions isn't REALLY doing anything wrong that would justify the response.


You will forgive me if the fact that someone who repeatedly broke the law, was given numerous "second chances" and ignored the grace he was afforded is now inconvenienced when he used up all the leniency he was given doesn't work up any wharblegarble outrage in me.

And you are just plain wrong about this being a LEO abuse of power trip.. If this had been a first offence this threat of prosecution would be questionable. He has shown repeatedly that "playing nice" with him has zero effect. So any rational thinking person would understand you take it to the next level. It is absolutely the same as when a child continually breaks the same rule you make the timeout/grounding longer each time and let them know that if the pattern continues the penalties will be less and less pleasant.

.
 
2014-03-21 06:26:08 PM  

thefatbasturd: And if you read further in the ecact quote YOU post, you ass-hat, lyou will see that the disturbing the peace is a farking misdemeanor which is what he will plead to. If anyone is trolling or stupid it is YOU if you are actually saying prosecutors don't offer deals to people.

And as I said being just CHARGED with a felony will do no more harm in your hypothetical background check than the suggested restraining order.


*sigh* Try taking it down a notch, please, you started the snarkfest first with your "try reading the articles It's FUN!" comment.  If you can't take it without getting bent out of shape, don't start it.

I'm not saying prosecutors don't use gambits to win cases IRL, my point was that the way they happen on TV are frighteningly flippant vs. the consequences that would happen in real life.

And yes, if you do any Googling you'll see plenty of cases where people were denied employment because of a felony charge (no conviction) on their record.  It's possible to get such a thing expunged, it's true, but it's complicated, expensive, and time-consuming.  All for an old man being a pain in the butt for four extra minutes at a public forum.  That, I don't call justice.

As far as the severity of a restraining order, I'm afraid we aren't going to agree on this, but it's moot either way - getting one requires going through the courts.  It isn't the result of a snap decision by police officers who were confronted with an annoying old codger.
 
2014-03-21 08:56:07 PM  

Tran Forsythe: thefatbasturd: And if you read further in the ecact quote YOU post, you ass-hat, lyou will see that the disturbing the peace is a farking misdemeanor which is what he will plead to. If anyone is trolling or stupid it is YOU if you are actually saying prosecutors don't offer deals to people.

And as I said being just CHARGED with a felony will do no more harm in your hypothetical background check than the suggested restraining order.

*sigh* Try taking it down a notch, please, you started the snarkfest first with your "try reading the articles It's FUN!" comment.  If you can't take it without getting bent out of shape, don't start it.

I'm not saying prosecutors don't use gambits to win cases IRL, my point was that the way they happen on TV are frighteningly flippant vs. the consequences that would happen in real life.

And yes, if you do any Googling you'll see plenty of cases where people were denied employment because of a felony charge (no conviction) on their record.  It's possible to get such a thing expunged, it's true, but it's complicated, expensive, and time-consuming.  All for an old man being a pain in the butt for four extra minutes at a public forum.  That, I don't call justice.

As far as the severity of a restraining order, I'm afraid we aren't going to agree on this, but it's moot either way - getting one requires going through the courts.  It isn't the result of a snap decision by police officers who were confronted with an annoying old codger.


Soooo the gist of this is "I have ZERO personal experience with the subject at hand but even though you do I am right because my Google University Law Degree tells me so." Well that's about typical for FARK. Thanks for playing.
 
2014-03-21 10:24:44 PM  
The only thing I have the slightest problem with here is the guy being charged with a felony, even if its undoutably going to be dropped to a lesser charge. Whatever happened to reserving felony charges for serious crimes?
 
2014-03-21 10:55:55 PM  
They let me go 3 minutes over the 5 minute limit the one time I spoke to my city council. They mayor just politely interrupted me and said I'd gone over 8 minutes, so I apologized and wrapped it up. I was very, very nervous and passionate about opposing a new surveillance/data collection law, and my demeanor caused the plainclothes detective to have a casual chat with me afterward, which I later realized was him assessing whether I might be a dangerous lunatic. Anyway, the council voted unanimously for the thing I was against.
 
Displayed 123 of 123 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report