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  
•       •       •

5633 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 11:56 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-21 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 23 of 123 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report