Alton Tries to Silence its Citizens

[Charlie T]

Originally Posted by Rusty

It's not the rant, it's when the board asked the chief to remove Clay and Clay refused to get up and leave and he continued to talk.

By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!! His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions and I think the BOS and the Alton PD will have a hard time justifying both the arrest and the decision to call the police and ask for his removal or arrest based upon Mr. Clay's actions that evening prior to his arrest.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Charlie T

By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!! His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions and I think the BOS and the Alton PD will have a hard time justifying both the arrest and the decision to call the police and ask for his removal or arrest based upon Mr. Clay's actions that evening prior to his arrest.

By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!!
That’s true.

His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .
That’s true also.

He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions.
By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!!
That’s true also.


His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .
That’s true also.


He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions.
You’re right again, there was no unlawful “breach of peace” with his rant.

and I think the BOS and the Alton PD will have a hard time justifying both the arrest and the decision to call the police and ask for his removal or arrest based upon Mr. Clay's actions that evening prior to his arrest.

I disagree with that statement. The Alton BOS have all the right in the world to get the police to remove someone who is disrupting there meeting. Therefore when the police chief asked Clay multiple times to leave and he refused, than the chief had no other option but to arrest him.
Whether you believe that Clay’s rant was against the Alton policy has nothing to do with his arrest. Clay didn’t get arrested because of his 2 minute rant, he got arrested after the board voted to shut down public input and continued to talk and disobey the police.

[Charlie T]

Originally Posted by Rusty

By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!!
That’s true.

His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .
That’s true also.

He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions.
By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!!
That’s true also.


His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .
That’s true also.


He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions.
You’re right again, there was no unlawful “breach of peace” with his rant.

and I think the BOS and the Alton PD will have a hard time justifying both the arrest and the decision to call the police and ask for his removal or arrest based upon Mr. Clay's actions that evening prior to his arrest.

I disagree with that statement. The Alton BOS have all the right in the world to get the police to remove someone who is disrupting there meeting. Therefore when the police chief asked Clay multiple times to leave and he refused, than the chief had no other option but to arrest him.
Whether you believe that Clay’s rant was against the Alton policy has nothing to do with his arrest. Clay didn’t get arrested because of his 2 minute rant, he got arrested after the board voted to shut down public input and continued to talk and disobey the police.

The problem I have with your argument Rusty is that Mr. Clay was granted 5 minutes and the BOS, after granting that decided to take it away because they didn't like and/ or agree with what he was saying or ranting. As someone else said this isn't a "police state". If the BOS had let him go on for the 5 minutes and then shut it down all would be fine. They didn't, and in my opinion they violated his rights and broke their own rules. The rules can't and shouldn't change depending on who they are being applied to. Isn't that what the entire Civil Rights movement in the United States was all about? The BOS are acting like a kid on a ball field who are saying "my ball, my rules" and then changing the rules in the middle of the game because they aren't winning.

For the record I don't necessarily agree with what Mr. Clay was saying, I'm just defending his, mine and your US Constitution given right to say it.

CT

[Mr. V]

The BOS and other pols need to wise up and do what a smart wife does to placate and shut up her husband: "You just yes him to death then do as you please."

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Charlie T

The problem I have with your argument Rusty is that Mr. Clay was granted 5 minutes and the BOS, after granting that decided to take it away because they didn't like and/ or agree with what he was saying or ranting. As someone else said this isn't a "police state". If the BOS had let him go on for the 5 minutes and then shut it down all would be fine. They didn't, and in my opinion they violated his rights and broke their own rules. The rules can't and shouldn't change depending on who they are being applied to. Isn't that what the entire Civil Rights movement in the United States was all about? The BOS are acting like a kid on a ball field who are saying "my ball, my rules" and then changing the rules in the middle of the game because they aren't winning.

For the record I don't necessarily agree with what Mr. Clay was saying, I'm just defending his, mine and your US Constitution given right to say it.

CT

I don't disagree with you "Charlie T" and the court/s might take that into consideration.
However the second issue where the police got involved is separate from the BOS not allowing Clay to complete his allowed 5 minutes. Clay probably should have been allowed to finish beating up the selectmen but that will have to be worked out separate from the arrest.
Once the Board Chair turned Clay over to the police chief, the selectmen are (IMO) absolved from what happend after that.

[wifi]

Originally Posted by Rusty

.....Once the Board Chair turned Clay over to the police chief, the selectmen are (IMO) absolved from what happend after that.

By state law, the BOS cannot command the police department to arrest someone. They can ask, and its up to the police department to evaluate the situation and be solely responsible for their action of arrest. So you are right that the PD will have to defend their actions.

Refer to the Belknap Commissioners meeting, where the deputy spoke up and disagreed that there was any disorder and (legally) refused the orders from the chair. This, IMHO, is what should have happened in Alton. In a non life threatening situation, arresting first and figuring it out later is lame.

[tis]

I agree the police should be able to decide what to do. However, I imagine the Selectmen are the policeman's boss and do the hiring and firing. That puts him in a tough spot.

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I don't disagree with you "Charlie T" and the court/s might take that into consideration.

(snip)

Once the Board Chair turned Clay over to the police chief, the selectmen are (IMO) absolved from what happend after that.

One illegal action that brings on another illegal action does not absolve anyone.

For instance: You go down and swear out a complaint against me, cause you don't like me, and the complaint is that I trespassed with a gun on your property. You bring a couple buddies that say the same. (We call you and your buddies the BOS)

The police take the complaint and arrest me for felony trespass.

Later it's found that you filed a false police report and are arrested under perjury.

I sue you and the police for false arrest. Think I'd win only from the police or would you also be held accountable.

This I what is going on here with this case.


ToW

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Tired of Waiting

One illegal action that brings on another illegal action does not absolve anyone.


This I what is going on here with this case.


ToW

As far as I know there hasn't been any determined illegal action by the BoS or the Police Dept.

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by Rusty

As far as I know there hasn't been any determined illegal action by the BoS or the Police Dept.

Never said there was a determined illegal action. I was referring to this statement you made:

"Once the Board Chair turned Clay over to the police chief, the selectmen are (IMO) absolved from what happend after that."

You said in your Humble opinion the BOS is absolved from what happened after they turned the issue over to the police.

The police chief acted on the BOS word without stopping to review what was actually going on and inserted himself into the issue by arresting Clay.

Therefore "if", to be determined, the BOS violated his rights then they will not be absolved of the police action they initiated. They will be complicit to the action.


ToW

[Mr. V]

The police chief acted on the BOS word without stopping to review what was actually going on and inserted himself into the issue by arresting Clay.

Therefore "if", to be determined, the BOS violated his rights then they will not be absolved of the police action they initiated. They will be complicit to the action.

We'll find out soon enough when Clay's lawyer files suit: the heading of the complaint will name the defendants.

Out West where I live we have some real bozos in county positions, whose idiotic actions have literally cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, only some of which is covered by insurance.

A sad state of affairs: JFK called out for "the best and the brightest," and in the end we get the whack jobs.

Ah, politics.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Tired of Waiting

The police chief acted on the BOS word without stopping to review what was actually going on and inserted himself into the issue by arresting Clay.



ToW

Maybe you didn't know it but the Chief was in the audience when this all took place. This is one of the complaints from Clay that there are police present at the BoS meetings.
The chief witnessed the whole thing and from what I see he had no intention of arresting Clay until he refused to stop talking and either sit in the audience or leave the meeting; Clay had those two options that were given by the board chair.

I've seen where some forum member/s have said that Hussey went for the police, however the fact of the matter is that the police were there all the time.

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by Charlie T

For the record I don't necessarily agree with what Mr. Clay was saying, I'm just defending his, mine and your US Constitution given right to say it.

CT

NO, No, No the constitution does not give you ANY rights. It protects our rights!! You are born with these rights and the constitution was written so the Government couldn't take them away from us.

ToW

[Charlie T]

The BOS are acting like a kid on a ball field who are saying "my ball, my rules" and then changing the rules in the middle of the game because they aren't winning.

[tis]

If the Selectmen of any town don't want to listen to the people, they shouldn't run for office. They are elected to work FOR the people, not dictate TO them.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by tis

If the Selectmen of any town don't want to listen to the people, they shouldn't run for office. They are elected to work FOR the people, not dictate TO them.

I agree with this, but the time to weed these people out is election time, problem is most don't pay attention.

[tis]

Originally Posted by ITD

I agree with this, but the time to weed these people out is election time, problem is most don't pay attention.

A truer statement was never made, ITD. Most people don't pay attention. But it is very hard to know how somebody is going to be and what they will do even if you pay attention. I have heard many over the years complain about the way the town is run and they get elected and go right along with the existing people. It is very easy to say they are going to this and that but doing it is something else. When some have run for reelection, I have read or heard what somebody SAYS they are going to do and if you look at their back history, they haven't done that at all. People most often have no idea what they are voting for.