Thread

1. 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. Manuel_D · 1790179821 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

      1. burkaman · 1790180054 · focus · HN ↗

         There is nothing in the article about exceeding allotted time, and from the video it seems like she had just started speaking.

         1. dekhn · 1790181263 · focus · HN ↗

            The article does have some context:

            """The move passed 5 - 3, the crowd shouted at city leaders, and Schrag ordered citizens to clear the room and shut off cameras recording the event. As people left, police detained and ticketed Noah Powell. Later in the evening Mia Heider tried to speak out about Flock during public comments about a housing issue. Police arrested her while Schrag looked on. “Sorry ma’m,” the mayor said as police led Heider away in handcuffs."""

            Without defending anybody, it is generally disruptive to talk about a topic that is not on the current agenda but opinions differ on whether that can lead to an arrest. If you've ever run one of these council meetings, you'll quickly see there are folks who just want to disrupt the process or make it go very slowly (these things often wrap up after midnight).

            1. text0404 · 1790181673 · focus · HN ↗

               According to TFA, the "folks who just want to disrupt the process" seem to be the city council and the mayor, not their constituents who came to give public comments about something that affects them:

               > The council was set to vote on Jensons’ proposed review on Monday and hear comments from the community. But when the resolution came up during the meeting, Mayor Schrag immediately pushed to send it to a committee and avoid public comment.

               In a democracy, it's generally disruptive to prevent constituents from petitioning for redress of grievances.

               1. dekhn · 1790182168 · focus · HN ↗

                  Is saying the following (different person said this, but was also arrested) a petition for redress of grievances?

                  """“Well, I said: ‘Jeff Schrag is a cuck.’ I said: ‘Fuck you Jeff.’ I said: ‘Worthless’ and then, also, the final thing I said was: ‘Jeff Schrag has a tiny, stinky, cock,’” Powell explained. “I just let myself get handcuffed and let them do whatever power trip they wanted to do. Got my ticket and left.”"""

                  I like democracy and I want people to have their voice heard but city council meetings are about getting business done, and they don't guarantee that every single person will be able to speak at length about their grievances.

                  1. text0404 · 1790182618 · focus · HN ↗

                     > Is saying the following (different person said this, but was also arrested) a petition for redress of grievances?

                     Yes, and it's protected by the first amendment.

                     > they don't guarantee that every single person will be able to speak at length about their grievances.

                     In this case, they didn't let anyone speak at any length about their grievances. Hence this article.

                     1. dekhn · 1790183466 · focus · HN ↗

                        No, insulting a person is not a petition for redress of grievances. To do so, you must actually state a grievance. In this case Powell just wanted to insult the city council.

                        1. text0404 · 1790184137 · focus · HN ↗

                           That's Powell. Heider was also arrested and prevented from petitioning for redress of grievances, going back to my point:

                           > In a democracy, it's generally disruptive to prevent constituents from petitioning for redress of grievances.

                           The real "disruption" here is the fact that the council and the mayor refuse to listen to their constituents, not that some of those constituents are angry about it.

                           1. dekhn · 1790185914 · focus · HN ↗

                              Right- if you read the context of our thread, I started talking about Powell.

                              I think Heider has a much better case, were she to try to sue the city council (which I think is a waste of time if her goal is to prevent Flock cameras), but even then, the laws and cases around people who disrupt city councils are complex, and if the city lost... it would j ust end up costing tax payers more money.

                              Are you sure the intent of the council was to specifically refuse to listen?

                              1. joquarky · 1790201635 · focus · HN ↗

                                 Perhaps they should not block public comments if they don't want to cost taxpayers more money.
            2. burkaman · 1790182986 · focus · HN ↗

               I agree it is disruptive, obviously that was the point, but it is not "depriving the rest of the people of their abilities to comment". Had she been allowed to finish her comment, nobody would have been deprived of anything.

               1. dekhn · 1790186375 · focus · HN ↗

                  Yes, they'd be deprived of time and the ability to comment on their own interests (these meetings often drag past midnight due to excessive comments).

                  1. joquarky · 1790201743 · focus · HN ↗

                     So what? They get paid to be civil servants. I've worked a continuous 40 hours fixing a firewall so the rest of the employees could work. It's part of the job.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.