Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He took his concerns to a school board meeting, and when he exceeded the allotted two minutes for public comments, he was told to stop talking. When he refused, he was arrested. “We went into the police station, went through the booking process, and I sat there like a criminal,” says Baer.
...
Gilford’s acting Police Chief, Lt. James Leach, said he had no choice but to make the arrest. “There were repeated attempts to ask him to stop,” Lt. Leach said. “I asked him to leave. He refused. He said, ‘arrest me or I’m not going to’…so I did.”
Stuff like this bugs me because the headline and the reactions that follow are based on inaccuracies.
He wasn't arrested for protesting. He was arrested because he could not control himself. If they have a two minute rule, and he couldn't shut up - what are they supposed to do, let him run the meeting?
See now, that's the information I was looking for and did not find in the OP's article. I don't see an issue here. He was disrupting the meeting, was warned, and continued. He was arrested because he chose to be so. He had every opportunity to stop disrupting the meeting and chose not to do.
See now, that's the information I was looking for and did not find in the OP's article. I don't see an issue here. He was disrupting the meeting, was warned, and continued. He was arrested because he chose to be so. He had every opportunity to stop disrupting the meeting and chose not to do.
Oh no...he talked approximately additional 30 seconds. send him off to the concentration camp.
Oh no...he talked approximately additional 30 seconds. send him off to the concentration camp.
First, you need to attribute quotes. Second, 30 seconds? Wasn't in either of those articles. Point out to me where it said he only spoke for an additional 30 seconds. Based on the information provided, I think the arrest was justified.
Oh no...he talked approximately additional 30 seconds. send him off to the concentration camp.
Yeppers a police chief no less, attempted to get the guy to leave after being called to the scene by the school board, he attempted more than once to ask the fellow to leave peacefully to which this azzhats response was to perform that well known "Arrest Me" challenge of: "see this chip on my shoulder? I dare ya to knock it off".
The police seeing no other option to enable removal of this, out of control nutjob, arrested his azz.
Yeppers; all of that took an additional 30 seconds in your mind? Okie dokie.
The art of 'failed disproportionate confrontation in an orderly society': A conservative mental disorder.
Putting a time on person speaking, is no different than a special area where it is your 1st amendment right area and no other place....
A individual, should have every right, under the 1st amendment, to filibuster for his cause.
Limiting free speech??? How trivial.
Shut up and sit down, boy!
I understand what you mean - but there has to be some limit in those types of meetings, otherwise they would be counterproductive.
There is no limit on what he could say. And he can also talk with people after the meeting. But a filibuster in that environment would lead to chaos and would be unfair to others who want to speak.
I have been to many New England Town Meetings and when the Moderators asks you to shut up you shut up. To do otherwise is considered Disorderly Conduct and the perpetrator is subject to removal and arrest. The participants of the meeting have more important things to consider than one person's rant.
IMHO - Belter to have the kids reading sex scenes in an assigned book than the unlimited violence and gore in some supposedly mainstream novels.
I understand what you mean - but there has to be some limit in those types of meetings, otherwise they would be counterproductive.
There is no limit on what he could say. And he can also talk with people after the meeting. But a filibuster in that environment would lead to chaos and would be unfair to others who want to speak.
I would understand going completely off topic and the people would remove them, so they could speak. Not the hired gun, police(notice it is never the elected sheriff)
The people run things, not the government, unless you happen to live in an authoritarian society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
