Thread

Woman Arrested, Dragged Away After Speaking About Flock at City Council Meeting

218 points · 261 comments · latexr

p_j_w · 1790179654 · focus · HN ↗
>The cop said, “You’re under arrest,” grabbed her arms, and pulled her out of the room. “I can do this all night. I get paid by the hour,” the cop added.
Two sentences showing precisely why no one can trust the police. Not only are they completely unaccountable, but they will trample your first amendment rights and do so with smug amusement in full public view. These are the kinds of people we're supposed to be happy to give massive surveillance power to?
1. paulddraper · 1790181252 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
  1. pixl97 · 1790181411 · focus · HN ↗
    Looking at the the wrong way, what the citizenship in mass should be doing is surrounding the meeting with torches and making said council fear for their lives.
    paulddraper · 1790181545 · focus · HN ↗
    Imminent threats of violence are not covered by the First Amendment.
    Peaceful gatherings are covered.
    G0lg0thvn · 1790181769 · focus · HN ↗
    Middle fingers are and imminent threat of violence now?
    scottyah · 1790182006 · focus · HN ↗
    If you read the thread, you might be able to parse out what the user you responded to is commenting on...
    > what the citizenship in mass should be doing is surrounding the meeting with torches and making said council fear for their lives
    pesus · 1790182065 · focus · HN ↗
    Please engage in good faith and write comments that contribute, rather than taking away, from the conversation.
    dekhn · 1790183898 · focus · HN ↗
    Please engage in good faith and write comments that contribute, rather than taking away, from the conversation. [ the above comment was modified to copy mine; this is not good faith ]
    scottyah · 1790206820 · focus · HN ↗
    Not sure I understand this, are you supporting the purposeful derailment and baiting? How is quoting a post taking away from the conversation?
    Aurornis · 1790182227 · focus · HN ↗
    Violent threats only sound like a good idea if you can only imagine them being used by people you agree with.
    A society that let small mobs carrying torches dictate your laws would not be good for you, me, or anyone other than the most violent vocal minority.
    cucumber3732842 · 1790182386 · focus · HN ↗
    >Violent threats only sound like a good idea if you can only imagine them being used by people you agree with.
    You mean like how they used the "you can't speak on an issue because we've decided we're not talking about that" rule to have this lady hauled off?
    gruez · 1790182927 · focus · HN ↗
    >You mean like how they used the "you can't speak on an issue because we've decided we're not talking about that" rule to have this lady hauled off?
    It's not open Q&A. There's nothing preventing them from speaking on their preferred issue online, or even outside. Otherwise public meetings quickly devolve into anarchy. If a specific time was allocated to talk about speed limits, do you think it's fair game for TERFs to use that time to complain about gendered bathrooms?
    That's not to say the mayor/council is in the right either, but we also can't have "if you think the debate was shut down too early you can do whatever you want".
    cucumber3732842 · 1790186426 · focus · HN ↗
    >It's not open Q&A. There's nothing preventing them from speaking on their preferred issue online, or even outside. Otherwise public meetings quickly devolve into anarchy. If a specific time was allocated to talk about speed limits, do you think it's fair game for TERFs to use that time to complain about gendered bathrooms?
    Bring on the TERFs. Better it be a dumpster fire that get's DOS'd from time to time than people not be allowed to speak their minds.
    [deleted] · 1790182869 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    ashkankiani · 1790183653 · focus · HN ↗
    You might want to look at how a small mob orchaestrated by and comprised of Bush's campaign flooded voting offices to stop a recount, as part of a successful effort to steal the election from Gore <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
    They didn't even need torches to subvert democracy. I think a majority of Americans are under the misconception that they live in a civilized democracy, and that they have been for a while. But if you look under the covers (or if you're a minority), or just learn history, then you'll find that it's not.
    jst1fthsdys · 1790183786 · focus · HN ↗
    >A society that let small mobs carrying torches dictate your laws would not be good for you, me, or anyone other than the most violent vocal minority.
    We talking about the oligarchs here or?
    terminalbraid · 1790184136 · focus · HN ↗
    You might be shocked to learn how "society" has been forged over history.
    joquarky · 1790202459 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't that how this country was founded?
    elzbardico · 1790182272 · focus · HN ↗
    And please make Bastille Day from Rush to be the soundtrack for this.
    cucumber3732842 · 1790182316 · focus · HN ↗
    Gather up a dozen friends, dress like Indians and throw the politician in the harbor. Yes I know I'm mixing and matching historical references, that's the point. Have one guy dressed as Elizabeth Warren, another guy like the redskins mascot and a third guy as Abu from the Simpsons like they didn't understand the assignment. The point is to maximize the meme-ability of it so that you get a court of public opinion trial and not the usual kangaroo court trial that people who thumb their nose at government get.
    dekhn · 1790182344 · focus · HN ↗
    Threaten elected officials with violence to achieve political aims? That seems counterproductive.
    jst1fthsdys · 1790183699 · focus · HN ↗
    Voting seems counterproductive too. Time for a change.
  2. [deleted] · 1790181973 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  3. cge · 1790186264 · focus · HN ↗
    If the attendee's description is true and the video is not missing context, then that doesn't appear to be what happened. Interpreting her description and the video, during the public comment period for an unrelated topic, she went through the usual process for giving a public comment, started her completely off-topic written statement, then was arrested during it a few seconds after two attempts by the council to interrupt her, during which she was flipping off the council.
    If she was within her allotted time for a comment that was completely off-topic but otherwise complied with the public comment process, and her flipping off the council was, as she claims, only after it was clear that she was going to be interrupted by the police, then that does seem different than actually interrupting the discussion or refusing to leave.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.