The comment session was for an entirely unrelated issue.

> Heider explained that she waited until the public comment period for a different issue, filled out a form to talk, and then got up to deliver a written statement about Flock cameras.

It wasn't that the council disagreed with what Heider said, it's that what she was talking about was unrelated to the meeting.

▲

xboxnolifes an hour ago | parent [-]

It was unrelated because the entire session about flock was skipped.

▲

Manuel_D 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

That doesn't make make it permissible to hijack other meetings. The point remains, she was not removed for simply voicing opposition to Flock cameras. The was arrested and removed for trying to derail an unrelated meeting.

Someone going on the stand to rant about abortion during a meeting on sidewalk codes would similarly get removed.

▲

Matl 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Translation: Those in power are allowed to execute 'illegal' chess moves, (skipping the Flock discussion), but the public can't do the same to try and discuss things that officials want to avoid discussing.

▲

JKCalhoun 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

And arrested?

I doubt you are pro-Flock, perhaps you don't like civil disobedience?

	▲	dekhn 32 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Many of us on this thread have experience with city councils and are anti-Flock and pro-civil disobedience. We're arguing with you from a point of praticality related to city business meetings. Practicing civil disobedience at a city council meeting is fraught with peril- for example, you're preventing other people from having their topics discussed/voted on. From my perspective, if your goal is to make actual change, getting arrested at a city council meeting speaking on the wrong topic is not a particularly effective method.
	▲	Manuel_D 37 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The point of civil disobedience is to be arrested. That's the goal of civil disobedience.