Oral Arguments – Lawsuit Pending McDonough Vs. Garcia et. al. (City of Homestead)

36 thoughts on “Oral Arguments – Lawsuit Pending McDonough Vs. Garcia et. al. (City of Homestead)”

1. As a man I would strongly object to not be allowed to adjust my private parts. How can that cause alarm and be disorderly?

2. If everyone is allowed time to speak, he can say whatever he wants, however he wants. It shouldn't be up to public officials to decide what is and isn't "disruptive" speech. It's either free speech or it isn't.

3. 24:12 “That’s neither here nor there”??? Really? It absolutely is! If no one was bothered by his words, then he was not disruptive. But this lawyer wants to brush that inconvenient truth aside.

4. This lawyer really needs to look at my comments

5. So the crotch grab cant be seen by the judge isnt on video but since the accused thinks someone could construe it to hav happened the judge wants to act like it did happen ? Who are these people

6. What does a letter do for communication imagine if some of the greatest political speeches for freedom you've ever heard were not spoken by the person but posted at a meeting for people to read. Words not spoken with the spirt of the man fighting for freedom have far less power. They would likely lose or never receive the letter

7. All he did was call a dumbass a dumbass.It's his right and and he's probably right.

8. THIS IS WHERE AND WHEN WE NEED DELETE LAWZ….. WE ALL KNOW CITY OFFICIALS USE GANG MEMBERS TO DO THEIR BIDDING

9. It did serve a governmental purpose its silenced people speaking out against their corruption and criminal activity.

10. We're all fooling ourselves and bouncing around the actual facts and realization that the government had no right or action to treat this individual the way they did in summary these government individuals and council members made some bad decisions and tried to restrict an individual arbitrarily without giving him a process to achieve his goals ignoring the fact that he does have goals and what his goals are completely ignoring the fact that he may have goals to better the community… And addressing his concerns ignoring his concerns could very much prompt him to become disruptive at times… Acting as dictators could also preemptively force him to become disruptive at times in the council members definition of disruptive which is not been outlined which is not been determined where that line is and who decides it…

11. So who was the complained for disorderly? Because the police CAN'T BE THE COMPLAINANT

12. Who gives a fuck if he was cursing everytime we are allowed to use curse words redressing greivences w our government it's been upheld many times

13. So government gets the benefit of the doubt in all cases but citizens people that employ the government don't get the benefit of the doubt… Doesn't that sound one sided and possibly violating some rights hmm

14. The right to redress your government would be what is denied? Is it not?????

15. I'm thinking Sergeant right had prior knowledge and prior discontent with the citizen speaking possibly even pushed upon him by council members cannot that not be considered as a possibility

16. Does it really matter The crutch grab and the bird are synonymous together do them at the same time it doesn't matter it means the same a gesture of discontent for actions against him

17. I wish the judges could see these comments

18. Spin it however you want it is still and will remain as a gesture of discontent with someone that you are perceiving as a adversary

19. No it is not a difference between crotch grabbing and giving the bird because of its intent The intention is the same…. As a gesture of discontent… How a government official reacts to it is a whole different thing which is the reason why we are here..

20. Awesome video. It’s crazy they will kick someone out over something so minor and then act like he is a criminal

21. There you go The judge just said it you went straight to the nuclear option which is what most police officers have been trained to do… So was this police officer given directives prior to the meeting that if this individual said specific and certain things that he would be removed that would be considered prior restraint and it would also be considered conspiracy against an individual under the color of law…

22. Defining specific types of behavior would probably be helpful what is the behavior that the government does not like speaking and arguing the point of decorum in a public speaking setting

23. Burn it ALL down already.

24. Again where is the line that you cross that makes you disruptive that is the entire argument where is the line that makes you disruptive and who gets to decide what that line is

25. Again I will repeat this and this is the basis of it all where is the line that becomes disruptive and who decides that line when it gets crossed I would argue that it is a fine line for police officers or agents of the state or council members to make the decision that you are now becoming disruptive based off of arbitrary words thoughts… I would say and I would suggest that the line that would have to be crossed would have to be the same as it is in a outside public sphere amongst everyone else if you're screaming and yelling throwing stuff and cursing at people that would be considered disruptive however if you're in this type of setting and you are articulate and speaking with fervor and discontent against the council against the government then you should be protected to do so The line gets crossed when you start making threats against people actual physical threats that's the line… Aside from that it must be protected

26. I am looking forward to the event and the trial and case law that narrows the conditions of the cause of trespass. Trespass is used as a blanket excuse by everyone from director to janitor to deny a citizen absent of crime from access his government services.

    Interesting. Was the crotch grab a life and death in the moment call that warranted the arrest? Is the court setting precedence that going forward a crotch grab is arrest-worthy? What if its a woman that does it?

27. Even if he did grab his crotch, we are allowed to address our grievances to our Gov in any manner other than violence.

28. Anyone have the names of these judges? I heard them but I'm not rewatching this whole thing for them

29. This guy just wants a win so badly it's disgusting. He knows better but he still says dumb shit repeatedly to try and make this an issue when there is none. "Oh no he MAY have grabbed his crotch"..At least they seem to see through it

30. What constitutes disruption and who makes that determination where is the line that gets crossed that is the argument

31. What are the odds that sergeant Wright is one of those cops who should not be working as a cop as he is related to another officer.

32. The city got butthurt by citizens calling their illegal actions and the corruption. That city council should all be in prison and the trash chief. He got butthurt and illegally charged trespassing.

33. The courts description of the event if true would amount to threats and would be a different charge since it would be an actual crime involving a direct claim with the ability to effectuate harm, theft, or violence against another. The argument that there is a lesser variation of this called "public disturbance" is laughable and makes an actual crime with objective parameters a subjective matter at the opinion and discretion of a low IQ human "Jordan Vs New London" bequeathed with the position of Law enforcement to handle matters of violence under their "training" to enforce LAW whether garnered by the legislation or judicial system making claim to rule on the constitutionality of legislative rules. Was this not Marbury Vs Madison when the judicial system told the legislative branch no you can not legislate this law since in truth it was contrary to the constitution. However, no where in the constitution did it give the supreme court the power to determine the constitutional relevance of a law created by the legislative. This was a power to be held by the people, and the standing to make claim against said rule was every human being's

34. The muted response from the crowd is not "a sad commentary on where we are today" it is probably the most important element of this case. I is an indication indication of the level of disturbance, of the public, and the obvious lack of incitement. Public Disturbance by the use of words that incited a violent or dangerous response. In that one sentence, they just accidentally tripped over the heart of this entire case and didn't even notice it. The crowd (public) was neither disturbed, nor incited to violence or other dangerous behavior. Case closed. But they just breeze past that with fake righteous indignation. Jesus!

35. Isn't it so sad that the city knows the district Court will side with them even though the city and the court know that the appellate court will never let the conviction stand just so they can cost the person more and more money hoping that they don't have the means to fight it and the city gets their way no matter what it cost the taxpayers

36. In my state, school districts can trespass you from all school district property under different rules than other public entities. So the unpublished case he cites might mean nothing depending on the laws in that state.

Comments are closed.