@@juanmangasmochas1533 Seriously. Ended up here off a short from another meeting where this same guy was cursing at the council, but nobody can explain what the issue is, just that this guy has the right to yell, curse and insult.
@@kilroy2517 yeah, what’s happened is that this guy first lodged a complaint about the police chief purchasing a suit for something like $1,500.00 on the tax payers dime. To cover the expense of the suit, they entered “class A” uniform on the city expense report. After they did that and he questioned the expense, city inspectors started showing up at his business and have done everything they can to close him down. He’s pissed. He’s a tax paying resident and businessman in that town. Now he’s voicing his frustration at a city council meeting. He has every first amendment right to do it. The city council is trying to make it a crime for him to speak freely during his 3 minutes in the public comment part of the meeting. Is he rude, sure. Being rude though is not a crime. Cursing is protected by the 1A. I don’t care for the cursing but I’m gonna stand with the dude and support his 1A right.
@@juanmangasmochas1533 While cursing is our 1A right, government meetings have the right to set a standard of decorum, something that's been established in numerous court cases. It cracks me up that so many people are crying about the decline of our society while at the same time defending the right to curse in public. But I digress... I did see more about this and it's about a $1247 suit purchase. I understand and agree with his anger over that corruption, but it doesn't change my opinion - getting up there, cursing and throwing personal insults, no matter how well deserved, does nothing to change the situation, it's just throwing a temper tantrum. Ben Franklin said "Never confuse motion with action." This is all motion, no action.
@@kilroy2517 while I mostly agree with you, it doesn’t change the fact that our 1A right allows cursing in public and at public officials I. The commission of their duties as established by the Supreme Court.
For those who dont know let me explain. The mayor and the police chief were using the city budget that goes towards thing like city maintenance emergency funds for natural disasters for personal use. The chief bought a 1247$ custom fitted suit using the city budget and when the man seen in the video who was cursing was just about to provide the facts that they were stealing from there city and there city people that when the mayor knowing he would be caught forced him out of the building and the cops on body cam arrested him for free speech under there corrupt police chief orders. That chief is no longer on the board as a police chief and he filed for another city chief position and they turned him down too.
@@Ozzie_YT it on youtube bro just google his town name. And it on chrome as well the chief was fired and he applied for another chief job and they refuses
@@SR25ApexPlayer That's exactly what I did and this was the only video I found. So your guy had evidence of corruption by a city official, and I presume was turned away by the police chief, so he thought the way to pursue this was to do this instead of going to the state police? State Police love busting politicians.
@@SR25ApexPlayer”welp time to move on to the next position of power” I hate that we have parasitic worms like this in our government and theres so manyy
They are being sued at this time. They literally violated Grisham's rights on the spot and the officer may have lost qualified immunity! The mayor did violate their rights and thus, the taxpayer will need to foot the bill!
The title to the video shows bias in this news station. The citizen isn't disrupting when IT IS HIS TURN TO SPEAK. I hope you struggle with advertisements.
@@YummyBaer the question isn't whether he has to. The question is whether it's constitutionally permissible. And it is in fact constitutionally permissible. What is not constitutionally permissible is infringing upon his First Amendment right to speech. And that is exactly what the council did.
City council rules of "decorum" do not take precedence over the Constitution! 1st Amendment guarantees free speech and multiple lawsuits have determined that criticizing or cursing at public officials, even at a city council meeting, is allowed! Their rules are unconstitutional!
The mayors rules do not supersede the constitution, thats the part the mayor and the jackass they interviewed after the story fail to understand. Just because the mayor doesnt like someone's speech or tone or word choice doesnt mean they can just kick out or threaten to arrest someone. It's protected speech, plain and simple. If he cant handle being talked to in that manner than leave the position.
"Caught On Camera! Citizen's Constitutional Rights Blatantly Violated By Corrupt City Council Members" You should fix your title - these guys have an absolutely airtight case and your title seems pretty biased and defamatory.
He came back another day and handed them all lawsuits. He’s(chief) now a felon and they shut that department down. “I took chief Blanchard’s advice when he said stop talking just sue me. So here’s your lawsuits.”
Had a press conference regarding this 7 figure lawsuit, and not one of these cowardice news channels or reporters showed up. They are slanted AF, and might as well register as an arm of the corruption being displayed
Those people were standing against corrupt officials who have never done anything but attempt to make their own lives better while sitting in a public servants seat. This news channel is beyond disgusting if they are going to label that as disruption. KRIS 6 another news that I will never listen or pay any attention to.
These men have an airtight case of Constitutional Rights violations against these council members and the officers that arrested them - seems like a defamation case against this news organization might be in order too...
Are y'all going to report on them getting sued? Or do your actual journalistic duty and report the truth? Like the Supreme Court has ruled on this, and cursing can't be banned. I will help you. "The Supreme Court case that established that cursing or offensive language cannot be banned is Cohen v. California (1971). In this case, Paul Robert Cohen was convicted for wearing a jacket with the words "F*** the Draft" in a courthouse. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cohen, stating that the First Amendment protects the expression of offensive words and that the government cannot prohibit the public display of profanity simply because it is offensive. Justice John Marshall Harlan II, writing for the majority, emphasized that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric" and that the government cannot make principled distinctions in this area of expression. This case set a significant precedent for the protection of free speech, even when it includes offensive language."
Very poor reporting. How about including why this so called expert thinks the rules were violated. Do you just expect people to take his word for it? The city is going to be paying out huge sums of money to settle the lawsuits from this debacle.
@@Carol-fe6nu is it your contention that the rules can also violate the constitution? That the government can silence dissenters? Because that is what happened.
City council members only have the privilege of a peaceful meeting in the event that their administration of the town has not sufficiently angered the population to revoke that peace.
constitution supercedes thier policy. You can have someone sign general guidelines but they don't matter. Thats why the constitution was made to prevent corruption.
United States Supreme Court, 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: The Judges wrote that this nation is founded on the “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issue shall be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." That’s constitutional case law in this nation.
So you’re trying to tell me, that this mayor, at any time, can take away my freedom of speech? They spoke only about the topics required, were not disruptive or aggressive, but instead hurt your feelings. So that’s enough reason to be arrested? Hurt feelings. Gotcha.
@@Texas2AAttorney Have you heard anything more back regarding this matter? I’m shocked at the council members behaviour during this meeting. Thank you for having your friends back
Ok. 1971 and 1964 court cases have set the precedent that foul language is permissible by law. Especially when it is the person legally permitted to speak at a council meeting or judicial hearing as they are not 'disrupting'. They cannot be held in contempt in a meeting. Decorum and decency rules are not constitutionally upheld laws. And just being in the building when the mayor or whoever is making an illegal decree is not a legally binding agreement to said decree.
@@LuisRivera-jl9vx the guy you’re replying to literally is the second guy that spoke at the podium. They violated these men’s rights, watch their footage
A Civil Rights attorney... one that has a pretty good record of smoking the state. The Cohen case alone will grant both of these men a ton of taxpayers' money. Once again, a city council has wasted their citizens' money due to EGO. Congratulations.
A public meeting can not viloate anyones constitutional rights if the public is allowed to speak. They can ask for decorum by its own members but can not arrest a member of the public based on speech, which they tried to do twice, so yes, another lawyer who doesnt know constitutional law.
A lot of people in here quoting the constitution without actually seeming to know what the constitution allows. Freedom of speech does not mean you can hijack a city council meeting to yell insults at people, that's what twitter is for.
They love their rules when they get called out. The Supreme Court has ruled that people can use whatever non-threatening language towards public officials.
Aransas Pass purposely violated their 1A rights to criticize their Gov, but retaliating w/ false charges just provided basis for another lawsuit that the tax payer must pay for in the end. More concerning is the obvious slant by the reporting in this story. Did the editor/author even try to do basic research to give alternative view points, allowing the reader/viewer to objectively make their own judgement? You know, the purpose of an independent press?
You can't havd purity laws apply to laws of the land like (all women must wear a burka) for example. You can do that but it only apply if everyone goes to say the same church or mosque then you can have purity laws. A random Atheist can't just start making purity laws for town council in a diversity, divided town.
The city councilman in Mayors going to lose that lawsuit that's easy money they can't make rules when it comes to the First Amendment don't matter how much you want don't matter if you're the mayor Governor or even president you can't you don't have no say when it comes to the First Amendment that's going to be an easy lawsuit one for that lawyer
He didn't disrupt anything, every word he said every move he made was well within his rights. The city council knew he was right so they kicked him out before he could do any more damage to their corrupt system its a big problem with small tows, i just recently moved out of a small town called Perry and everything about it is corrupt from the city officials to the police department
Funny how the title is "angry citizen disrupts meeting" If you knew what they were talking about and what all just happened in this video, that title would be "citizens have their rights revoked and are silenced"
That guy they asked is stupid its freedom of speach and the guy sued the council. Theres even a short that shows him at another meeting and he has them all served with lawsuits
He was making a point. The ordinance they passed violates an amendment of the bill of rights, great way to load up a head line 😂
What’s the ordinance?
@@juanmangasmochas1533 Seriously. Ended up here off a short from another meeting where this same guy was cursing at the council, but nobody can explain what the issue is, just that this guy has the right to yell, curse and insult.
@@kilroy2517 yeah, what’s happened is that this guy first lodged a complaint about the police chief purchasing a suit for something like $1,500.00 on the tax payers dime. To cover the expense of the suit, they entered “class A” uniform on the city expense report.
After they did that and he questioned the expense, city inspectors started showing up at his business and have done everything they can to close him down.
He’s pissed. He’s a tax paying resident and businessman in that town. Now he’s voicing his frustration at a city council meeting. He has every first amendment right to do it. The city council is trying to make it a crime for him to speak freely during his 3 minutes in the public comment part of the meeting.
Is he rude, sure. Being rude though is not a crime. Cursing is protected by the 1A. I don’t care for the cursing but I’m gonna stand with the dude and support his 1A right.
@@juanmangasmochas1533 While cursing is our 1A right, government meetings have the right to set a standard of decorum, something that's been established in numerous court cases. It cracks me up that so many people are crying about the decline of our society while at the same time defending the right to curse in public. But I digress... I did see more about this and it's about a $1247 suit purchase. I understand and agree with his anger over that corruption, but it doesn't change my opinion - getting up there, cursing and throwing personal insults, no matter how well deserved, does nothing to change the situation, it's just throwing a temper tantrum. Ben Franklin said "Never confuse motion with action." This is all motion, no action.
@@kilroy2517 while I mostly agree with you, it doesn’t change the fact that our 1A right allows cursing in public and at public officials I. The commission of their duties as established by the Supreme Court.
For those who dont know let me explain. The mayor and the police chief were using the city budget that goes towards thing like city maintenance emergency funds for natural disasters for personal use. The chief bought a 1247$ custom fitted suit using the city budget and when the man seen in the video who was cursing was just about to provide the facts that they were stealing from there city and there city people that when the mayor knowing he would be caught forced him out of the building and the cops on body cam arrested him for free speech under there corrupt police chief orders. That chief is no longer on the board as a police chief and he filed for another city chief position and they turned him down too.
I'm not saying what you said is wrong. I couldn't find alot of information about this so could you send me a source so I can look into this myself
@@Ozzie_YT it on youtube bro just google his town name. And it on chrome as well the chief was fired and he applied for another chief job and they refuses
@@SR25ApexPlayer That's exactly what I did and this was the only video I found. So your guy had evidence of corruption by a city official, and I presume was turned away by the police chief, so he thought the way to pursue this was to do this instead of going to the state police? State Police love busting politicians.
@@SR25ApexPlayer”welp time to move on to the next position of power” I hate that we have parasitic worms like this in our government and theres so manyy
How does the public get ahold of receipts like a suit purchase?
We just filed our $5 million lawsuit against the city.
Good on you!
Protect our rights!
✊🏽💯✊🏽
Only $5M. Should be more!
Freedom of speech/expression cannot be lost. No matter the cost.
Any updates?
@@valiantgold442 takes years
The title of the post is wrong. Who disrupted what? I'd urge the counsel to listen and follow the law.
TY
His "rules" of the meeting are unconstitutional. Thus mayor and everyone else on the board need fired and sued for violating their rights!
Facts!
exactly total agreement. The guy at the end of the video needs to examine his conscience. Absolutely terrible use of words and his soul.
They did sue him he brought a lawsuit
How can you "disrupt" a constitutional right? Oh yeah, the city council did.
You can't disrupt when it's your turn to speak
They are being sued at this time. They literally violated Grisham's rights on the spot and the officer may have lost qualified immunity! The mayor did violate their rights and thus, the taxpayer will need to foot the bill!
It's funny how the media cut this video like sushi to fit the "bad citizen" narrative
Precisely 😅
Unconstitutional rules DO NOT APPLY!
The title to the video shows bias in this news station. The citizen isn't disrupting when IT IS HIS TURN TO SPEAK. I hope you struggle with advertisements.
Virtually all news/media owned and operated by the club you ain’t in. The programming runs deep. Divide and conquer
So the guy has to hurl insults and use foul language?
@@YummyBaer the question isn't whether he has to. The question is whether it's constitutionally permissible. And it is in fact constitutionally permissible.
What is not constitutionally permissible is infringing upon his First Amendment right to speech. And that is exactly what the council did.
@@YummyBaeralso the city councils been doing corruption and harassing him
its the governments media so of course theyre going to be evil cowards just like the beaurocrats
The best part of this….the lawyer went back in and said “You kept telling me to sue you, so here’s your lawsuits” as he begins leaving the room.
And 9 days later, they filed criminal charges against the attorney.
@@jamesticknor1134for what hurting the mayors feelings?🤣
@@mjhbeats1605 Correct.
Angry? Mans speaking the facts.
I hope he sues this news station for defamation
City council rules of "decorum" do not take precedence over the Constitution! 1st Amendment guarantees free speech and multiple lawsuits have determined that criticizing or cursing at public officials, even at a city council meeting, is allowed! Their rules are unconstitutional!
The mayors rules do not supersede the constitution, thats the part the mayor and the jackass they interviewed after the story fail to understand. Just because the mayor doesnt like someone's speech or tone or word choice doesnt mean they can just kick out or threaten to arrest someone. It's protected speech, plain and simple. If he cant handle being talked to in that manner than leave the position.
Call it CJ! Is it time to rally?
"Caught On Camera! Citizen's Constitutional Rights Blatantly Violated By Corrupt City Council Members"
You should fix your title - these guys have an absolutely airtight case and your title seems pretty biased and defamatory.
👏🏼
They should sue this news station for defamation
He came back another day and handed them all lawsuits. He’s(chief) now a felon and they shut that department down.
“I took chief Blanchard’s advice when he said stop talking just sue me. So here’s your lawsuits.”
The News is biased?
Watch them get sued, it's called the 1st amendment. 😆 🤣 😂. You slave's
Had a press conference regarding this 7 figure lawsuit, and not one of these cowardice news channels or reporters showed up. They are slanted AF, and might as well register as an arm of the corruption being displayed
I know, I'm surprised as well?
Those people were standing against corrupt officials who have never done anything but attempt to make their own lives better while sitting in a public servants seat. This news channel is beyond disgusting if they are going to label that as disruption. KRIS 6 another news that I will never listen or pay any attention to.
These men have an airtight case of Constitutional Rights violations against these council members and the officers that arrested them - seems like a defamation case against this news organization might be in order too...
Amen. The news has yet to publish the truth or even interview me.
Are y'all going to report on them getting sued? Or do your actual journalistic duty and report the truth? Like the Supreme Court has ruled on this, and cursing can't be banned. I will help you. "The Supreme Court case that established that cursing or offensive language cannot be banned is Cohen v. California (1971). In this case, Paul Robert Cohen was convicted for wearing a jacket with the words "F*** the Draft" in a courthouse. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cohen, stating that the First Amendment protects the expression of offensive words and that the government cannot prohibit the public display of profanity simply because it is offensive.
Justice John Marshall Harlan II, writing for the majority, emphasized that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric" and that the government cannot make principled distinctions in this area of expression. This case set a significant precedent for the protection of free speech, even when it includes offensive language."
Very poor reporting. How about including why this so called expert thinks the rules were violated. Do you just expect people to take his word for it? The city is going to be paying out huge sums of money to settle the lawsuits from this debacle.
Policy and Rules do not trump LAWS!!!
Rules allow a person to be ejected from a meeting. They don't allow arrest
@@Carol-fe6nu is it your contention that the rules can also violate the constitution? That the government can silence dissenters? Because that is what happened.
They were rules not laws so arresting them was unlawful
Stand with me!
City council members only have the privilege of a peaceful meeting in the event that their administration of the town has not sufficiently angered the population to revoke that peace.
You should show the follow up where that lawyer came back later and served them lawsuits
What was the follow up after that?
Aransas pass city council is a joke I hope they get sued
They did
This is not disruption. He is calling out the corrupt government
So even if the council can place restrictions, the first guy may have violated them, but the lawyer did not.
constitution supercedes thier policy. You can have someone sign general guidelines but they don't matter. Thats why the constitution was made to prevent corruption.
Only a court of law or perhaps Congress can hold you in contempt, there's no law against being rude to a mayor.
Redressing the government with your grievances is a protected right.
United States Supreme Court, 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: The Judges wrote that this nation is founded on the “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issue shall be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." That’s constitutional case law in this nation.
They forget they work for US!! You know, “WE THE PEOPLE”!!! We all need to stand up and take our country BACK!
Why are these people representing the law and breaking it at the same time?
"City Council illegally arrests two men, violating their rights." Fixed your headline.
So you’re trying to tell me, that this mayor, at any time, can take away my freedom of speech? They spoke only about the topics required, were not disruptive or aggressive, but instead hurt your feelings. So that’s enough reason to be arrested? Hurt feelings. Gotcha.
Disrupts?
And that’s why he filed a lawsuit. You think a lawyer doesn’t know his rights😂😂😂😂 goofy
They were awarded 300k
His "rule" violates The Law and therefore is null and void. And the police kidnapped him. All on the people's dime.
That old man doesn't know what he's talking about
Need to be a lawsuit against these council members and they need to be removed from office now too
Filed it Monday!
@@Texas2AAttorney Have you heard anything more back regarding this matter? I’m shocked at the council members behaviour during this meeting. Thank you for having your friends back
There's a press conference today regarding this, let's see if you show up and report this one honestly. We will all be watching.
Ok. 1971 and 1964 court cases have set the precedent that foul language is permissible by law. Especially when it is the person legally permitted to speak at a council meeting or judicial hearing as they are not 'disrupting'. They cannot be held in contempt in a meeting. Decorum and decency rules are not constitutionally upheld laws. And just being in the building when the mayor or whoever is making an illegal decree is not a legally binding agreement to said decree.
That attorney obviously isn't a constitutional law attorney. He's 100% wrong.
You obviously didn’t see the entire video
Watch them get sued 😆 🤣 😂.
@@LuisRivera-jl9vx the guy you’re replying to literally is the second guy that spoke at the podium. They violated these men’s rights, watch their footage
@@monkeyman9856 I agree ☝️
A Civil Rights attorney... one that has a pretty good record of smoking the state. The Cohen case alone will grant both of these men a ton of taxpayers' money. Once again, a city council has wasted their citizens' money due to EGO. Congratulations.
A public meeting can not viloate anyones constitutional rights if the public is allowed to speak. They can ask for decorum by its own members but can not arrest a member of the public based on speech, which they tried to do twice, so yes, another lawyer who doesnt know constitutional law.
Your expert is wrong. The rules don’t out weigh the CONSTITUTION
For those who don’t know the lawyer came back with a law suit on the chief
They dont get to allow anyone. We allow them to talk and have a job
A lot of people in here quoting the constitution without actually seeming to know what the constitution allows. Freedom of speech does not mean you can hijack a city council meeting to yell insults at people, that's what twitter is for.
He didnt disrupt.
This is false information. He doesn't get to choose what people say.
The 1st Amendment supercedes city council rules.
When will these tyrants learn
what happened with the lawsuit?
They love their rules when they get called out. The Supreme Court has ruled that people can use whatever non-threatening language towards public officials.
Shame on that city for what it did to this man!
They didn't show the update when he came back and told them they were getting sue and served them with lawsuit papers.
Aransas Pass purposely violated their 1A rights to criticize their Gov, but retaliating w/ false charges just provided basis for another lawsuit that the tax payer must pay for in the end. More concerning is the obvious slant by the reporting in this story. Did the editor/author even try to do basic research to give alternative view points, allowing the reader/viewer to objectively make their own judgement? You know, the purpose of an independent press?
You can't havd purity laws apply to laws of the land like (all women must wear a burka) for example. You can do that but it only apply if everyone goes to say the same church or mosque then you can have purity laws. A random Atheist can't just start making purity laws for town council in a diversity, divided town.
Why are you journalists investigating this corruption?
i find it funny that the version where he comes back and serves all of them with lawsuits is not here.
Its almost as if the news sites that post these videos dont know anything about what even happemed.
That attorney is a joke
The title is wrong. The man trying to speak was disrupted.
Nah, they got sued hard😂 they violated their rights.
You missed the part where he came back and served them lawsuits
He’s not just q citizen he’s also a attorney who served them all lawsuits I wish I can find that part
Y'all should seriously change this headline.
You titled this wrong his rights were violated
Citizen using his 1st admendemnt. Wethee you like it or not. You cant revoke the 1st admendment
He was allotted time, he was not interrupting anything
yeah well guess what that mayor has now been served with a lawsuit so....
The city councilman in Mayors going to lose that lawsuit that's easy money they can't make rules when it comes to the First Amendment don't matter how much you want don't matter if you're the mayor Governor or even president you can't you don't have no say when it comes to the First Amendment that's going to be an easy lawsuit one for that lawyer
He didn't disrupt anything, every word he said every move he made was well within his rights. The city council knew he was right so they kicked him out before he could do any more damage to their corrupt system its a big problem with small tows, i just recently moved out of a small town called Perry and everything about it is corrupt from the city officials to the police department
Don't comply we are the ones in charge not them
Didn’t show the part where they came back with their lawsuits huh?
Rules don't trump constitutional rights.
Come on people ... after the last 4 years ... how much more you going to take?
F the Feds
Who da fk is this so called lawyer whos saying they violated the mayors rules. Some constitutional lawyer he is. He dont even know the constitution
You’re “rules” do not supersede the constitution.
1:29 Okay. So in other words. The City Council violated his rights.
Arrest this cop and mayor
Of course the rest of the video isn't shown where they all get served too.
And now they getting sued. Lets see who was out of Line.
CONSTITUTION !
Simple choice:
Constitutional patriot.
Or UN/WEF Smart city prisoner ( coming real soon if ppl dont wake)
Funny how the title is "angry citizen disrupts meeting"
If you knew what they were talking about and what all just happened in this video, that title would be "citizens have their rights revoked and are silenced"
Didnt he serve yall with lawsuits? Where is that video? Include all the footage, not what supports your story.
This attorney is so stupid of course they violated they’re rights you cant make rules that go against the bill of rights
What happened to the freedom of speech
Has there ever been a follow up ?
That guy they asked is stupid its freedom of speach and the guy sued the council. Theres even a short that shows him at another meeting and he has them all served with lawsuits
"here's the title to the video and a reflection of our IQ"
-this poster
DISAGREE, THEY MAY SPEAK
Watch out KRIS 6 NEWS. If Jason finds out you're working with that city council, you can kiss your subscribers a goodbye.
Council rules go above the constitution i guess, honestly such a stupid take to this situation.
Go follow him Jason followell, they have an active lawsuit against the city
Is he? How ya enjoying the lawsuit he hit ya’s with?🤣🤣🤣