>The cop said, “You’re under arrest,” grabbed her arms, and pulled her out of the room. “I can do this all night. I get paid by the hour,” the cop added.<p>Two sentences showing precisely why no one can trust the police. Not only are they completely unaccountable, but they will trample your first amendment rights and do so with smug amusement in full public view. These are the kinds of people we're supposed to be happy to give massive surveillance power to?
As an european guy. Interesting to see things happen from far away. Knowing that crazy country has so much power, makes the near future of the whole world even more scary.
It's not that much different in the most powerful parts of Europe. For instance Germany does this to people who talk about Palestine. So does the UK. Poland does it to people who talk about gay rights. I don't know the equivalent in Spain, France or Italy.
Indeed. Though omnipresent surveillance and restricted speech is an issue in some of Europe too.
On the other hand, I see a lot of HackerNewsers and European geeks utterly angry at laws that forbid (blanket) recording of public places and GDPR which controls what the videos can be used for.<p>Every EU topic here is filled with people wishing for its destruction and dismantling of such privacy protecting laws.
Europeans fear corporations more than government, and in the USA it's generally the opposite. The USA doesn't like when any entity gets too powerful.
Those are likely the same people who want to unconsensually force Flock and other mass surveillance on people. Most well socially adjusted people greatly appreciate those protections.
Sadly, it happens here as well: <a href="https://cybernews.com/news/denmark-arrest-lars-andersen-doxxing/" rel="nofollow">https://cybernews.com/news/denmark-arrest-lars-andersen-doxx...</a> ...
Thankfully we have no voting power in the said country so they don't care what we think as long as we consume and overall behave. Let's see how long this lasts though. It seems as though EU is approaching the finding out stage.
EU is covered in cameras, possibly more than USA
[flagged]
Improved title:<p>Woman Arrested, Dragged Away After Speaking About Flock (YC 17) at City Council Meeting
Her mistake was not dressing up as a supervillain:<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/21/darth-vader-flock-cameras-san-diego" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/21/darth-vader-...</a><p><a href="https://www.404media.co/doctor-doom-thanked-seattle-for-all-the-surveillance-cameras/" rel="nofollow">https://www.404media.co/doctor-doom-thanked-seattle-for-all-...</a>
They really buried the details in this article. The opener leads you to believe she did nothing wrong because she briefly spoke during a public comment period<p>> Mia Heider had never attended a public meeting before when she showed up to the city council meeting in Springfield, Missouri. After briefly speaking at a podium during a public comment period, she was arrested and dragged away in handcuffs.<p>The details are toward the end. The council was trying to discuss a public housing issue and she was trying to use that time slot to bring up Flock.<p>> Later in the evening Mia Heider tried to speak out about Flock during public comments about a housing issue.<p>They cut off the mic and told her it was the wrong topic, she wouldn’t leave the podium, flipped off the council (it’s the photo in the article) and the police hauled her off the podium.<p>There’s a real valid story in here about the city council sending the Flock thing to committee, but the article has been through the clickbait ringer so many times that they’re trying to make it sound like someone got arrested for saying “Flock cameras” during an open comments section, which isn’t true.<p>Given the topic I’m probably going to get downvoted for bringing up facts from the article itself, but I’m really tired of this type of journalism where you can tell they workshopped this and carefully chose which important details to bury at the bottom of the story so it gives a different impression if you only read the headline or skim the first couple paragraphs.
I dunno, Council announces that they are going to be talking about Flock (YC 17), that there will be public comment about Flock (YC 17), sees that a whole lot of people are very angry about Flock (YC 17) and have come to the meeting, and immediately shift the discussion to a committee so they don't have to hear those people angry about Flock (YC 17), I can see why she did what she did. That sure seems like the Council is trying to avoid all of the community anger over Flock (YC 17).<p>If you are going to do something that makes so many people so angry that they are willing to come to a local government meeting, you kinda have to let them talk about it, you know? Otherwise it feels like you're trying to run out the clock on them.
Thanks for bringing up the whole picture. No down-votes from me.
Giving someone the finger is not a crime.
Interrupting a city council meeting, speaking out of turn, refusing to leave, and then devolving into obvious defiance is, however.
Ah I see you are well versed in bureaucratic attack strategies on the first amendment! “We’re not violating your rights, there’s a special first amendment zone you can say all that where we can’t hear!”
Well, she spoke about something 'off topic' during public comments - if that's the same thing as what you described, I'm not so sure.
>during public comments<p>You're conveniently omitting the fact it was public comments <i>for a different issue</i><p>>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.
Because the council canceled comments on the Flock issue that had been scheduled for that day.
He may be omitting that because it seems like a convenient way to not hear comments about an issue by switching to a different issue.
She was not arrested for that.
At least she wasn't tortured and burnt. Yet
Looks like the Mayor won't face reelection 'till 2029 - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Springfield,_Missouri_mayoral_election" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Springfield,_Missouri_may...</a>
Based on reading between the lines and watching the video, here's my sense of what happened:<p>1. Some protestors showed up at a council meeting to complain about flock<p>2. The council moved to disallow discussion of flock cameras<p>3. The protestors started disrupting the meeting, chanting, etc, and were forced to leave/were arrested<p>4. One protestor went to the podium and started talking about flock cameras, was politely interrupted, then had her mic cut. She flipped off the council and was arrested<p>If you oppose flock/this kind of surveillance, fine. But this kind of behavior is not tolerated at council meetings, and it's not a surprise that some of the protestors were arrested.<p>> “Well, I said: ‘Jeff Schrag is a cuck.’ I said: ‘Fuck you Jeff.’ I said: ‘Worthless’ and then, also, the final thing I said was: ‘Jeff Schrag has a tiny, stinky, cock,’” Powell explained. “I just let myself get handcuffed and let them do whatever power trip they wanted to do. Got my ticket and left.”<p>I mean, really?
> 2. The council moved to disallow discussion of flock cameras<p>Not sure why they would do that. Our city council gives people three minutes to talk about what they want. Not sure why this city council wouldn't do that.
A lot pearl clutching going on here
I'm sure people like you making fun of "pearl clutching" would defend other cranks at public meetings, right? Or is it a matter of "I only invoke 'pearl clutching' if I agree with your cause, otherwise they're being uncivil and deserve to be arrested"?
Nah, just call it how I see it.
What's to defend about cranks at public meetings - it's a thing that happens... so what?
Springfield, Missouri about to be sued.
At this point I no longer think the US can say anything about the Chinese. Yes they have a surveillance dystopia and highly entrenched state crony capitalism, but we now have exactly the same thing.
The US was one of the earliest countries to have these things. China, Russia and even Nazi Germany were inspired by the US.
You don't have remotely the same thing. You don't have high-speed trains, housing that populace who don't already own real estate can afford, a government that keeps the tech-oligarchs at a short leash and who mercilessly removes corrupt officials, functional public transit, functional anything public really.
> highly entrenched state crony capitalism<p>If your goal is to rescue the reputation of capitalism, people have found more success just calling Donald Trump a communist.
[flagged]
> Later in the evening Mia Heider tried to speak out about Flock during public comments about a housing issue. Police arrested her while Schrag looked on. “Sorry ma’m,” the mayor said as police led Heider away in handcuffs.<p>I mean, what is the appropriate response to someone refusing follow protocol after giving guidance that there's a different topic at hand now? There was a comment session on Flock cameras, people talked about it, then they moved onto housing. You can't run a public meeting where people get to drag every issue back to their favorite issue uninhibited, it just literally doesn't work. The meeting would run 24/7/365 and still nothing would get done.
Sure makes it awfully convenient to end a comment session when you don't want to hear what's being said. We are approving the budget for the death ray, do we have any objections? You have five hundred microseconds to object. Let the record show there were no objections. Guards, arrest that man for speaking after the time for objections has ended.
The comment session was for an entirely unrelated issue.<p>> 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.<p>It wasn't that the council disagreed with what Heider said, it's that what she was talking about was unrelated to the meeting.
How it works in Seattle is that people are supposed to sign up and talk about things on the agenda for that council meeting but they are not stopped from talking about anything. This is why you'll see people like Alex Tsimerman (look him up) speak nonsense at nearly every council meeting. The councilpeople just ignore those comments and I believe they aren't included in the meeting record since they're off topic.<p>There's other ways to also try and limit the length of public comment, if there's more than say 30 people signed up, reduce public comment from 2 minutes per person to 1 minute. Be aggressive about cutting mics rather than giving everyone 10 extra seconds. For topics that council knows will be contentious and attract a lot of public comment they'll either hold multiple public comment blocks that day or literally just do a marathon session, 4-5 hours of just public comment.<p>Finally, if enough people are frustrated enough about an issue to constantly show up to public comment to talk about it, councilmembers should try meeting with those people at a different forum to at least hear them out to try and diffuse their anger. Council meetings should not be the only other place where residents can talk to their councilmembers.
"The meeting would run 24/7/365…"<p>Maybe: 24/7/52<p>Or: 24/365.25<p>(Always bothers pedantic me.)
As a community leader, it would be to publicly acknowledge that there are concerns, then schedule a town hall meeting for their constituents to discuss those concerns with subject matter experts at a more appropriate time.<p>That's apparently asking too much.
> “Well, I said: ‘Jeff Schrag is a cuck.’ I said: ‘Fuck you Jeff.’ I said: ‘Worthless’ and then, also, the final thing I said was: ‘Jeff Schrag has a tiny, stinky, cock,’” Powell explained.<p>I agree with the point she was trying to make. As a member of the public she should not have been arrested for being verbally abusive. But I'm OK with her being removed for subjecting the people who work there to that abuse. If she had made the same points with something approaching civility I'd be in her corner, as I still am with respect to surveillance.<p>If she were a coworker directing that to me, one of us would be a former employee by the end of the day.
That wasn't the woman (Heider).<p>> “Hello, my name is Miley Heider. I’m a Springfield, Missouri constituent, and I’m here to oppose the usage of ALPR cameras, most commonly made by Flock Safety. These cameras are not just surveillance,” Heider started.<p>> “I’m sorry ma’am,” Springfield Mayor Jeff Schrag said. Her mic was cut. A cop approached her at the podium.<p>> Heider held up both of her middle fingers while continuing to speak: “They are an invasion of our privacy,” she said.<p>Powell was the other person arrested.<p>> Heider was one of two people arrested
A reasonable take. It’s a hot button issue, and arrest is absurd, but these people are embarrassing and actually the most counterproductive way to approach this.<p>You want to know how to turn the masses of normies that could otherwise be persuaded to join you? Send in people like this to behave like this.
1. That wasn't her, it was someone else who was arrested<p>2. These <i>are</i> the "normies":<p>> Mia Heider had never attended a public meeting before when she showed up to the city council meeting in Springfield, Missouri.<p>> Dozens of people showed up to the Springfield City Council Meeting on September 22 with plans to let city leaders know how they felt about the city’s use of automated license plate readers. There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue.
Those were two different people.
I think the notion that she should be arrested because she called some counselor a cuck is a pretty ridiculous take away
This article is terrible. The story is already pretty good (for the anti-flock side), with the the mayor/council was for shutting down debate on flock. The author didn't need to devolve into ragebait territory, obfuscating what happened by jumping forwards and backwards in time between paragraphs.<p>Here's a concise, non-ragebait, chronological version:<p>>Dozens of people showed up to the Springfield City Council Meeting on September 22 with plans to let city leaders know how they felt about the city’s use of automated license plate readers. There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue.<p>>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.<p>>she was arrested and dragged away in handcuffs.<p>>The cop said, “You’re under arrest,” grabbed her arms, and pulled her out of the room. “I can do this all night. I get paid by the hour,” the cop added.<p>>The police officer who arrested her said Heider was being charged with disrupting the peace. He took her into the hallway outside of the meeting and held her in handcuffs for around five minutes before issuing her a ticket and letting her go.