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 123
    More: Asinine, college town, speeches, felony, public comment, Line-item veto  
•       •       •

5656 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 11:56 AM (1 year 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 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
 
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 »
Advertisement
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