GAINESVILLE, Fla. — A university student with a history of taping his own practical jokes was Tasered by campus police and arrested after loudly and repeatedly trying to ask U.S. Sen. John Kerry questions during a campus forum.
Andrew Meyer, 21, spent a night in jail before his release from jail Tuesday morning on his own recognizance. He had no comment when he left. His attorney, Robert Griscti, did not return messages seeking comment.
Videos of the Monday night incident, posted on several Web sites and played repeatedly on television news, show University of Florida police officers pulling Meyer away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.
University spokesman Steve Orlando said Meyer was asked to leave the microphone after his allotted time was up. Meyer can be seen refusing to walk away and getting upset that the microphone was cut off.
As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., can be heard saying, "That's all right, let me answer his question."
Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room. Meyer screams for help and tries to break away from officers with his arms flailing at them, then is forced to the ground and officers order him to stop resisting.
As Kerry tells the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer yells at the officers to release him, crying out, "Don't Tase me, bro," just before he is shocked by the Taser. He is then led from the room, screaming, "What did I do?"
Meyer was arrested on charges of resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, according to Alachua County jail records, but the State Attorney's Office had yet to make the formal charging decision. Police recommended charges of resisting arrest with violence, a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor.........
These university campus police took it upon themselves to arrest and Taser somebody who was asking serious, relevant questions of an elected official.
I've seen people talking about this story in the last day or so making comments about how the kid is being rude. This may be so, but what he was doing is in no way against the law, and is protected activity under our First Amendment. The initial violation the officers moved in on him for was spending too long at the microphone, and it is obvious he was about to let Kerry respond to his first question if they hadn't interrupted him.
Incidents like this further underscore the importance of taking a camera around with you as often as possible.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, he did resist arrest, and he didn't follow instructions. Kudos to Kerry for wanting to answer him. I'm not sure about whether or not he should have been arrested (I'm not going to watch the video right now) but I'm almost certain that tasering was uncalled for and excessive. If he was down on the ground with multiple officers around him and unarmed there is no reason I can think of to taser him.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
You should watch the video (no need to do it right this moment, if you don't have a couple minutes), but you'll get a better understanding of what happened than just from the text.
He had a fairly long and complex original question, and when the officers and Kerry interrupted him in the middle of it, he got a little flustered and took a little longer to recover. He had almost finished his question when they started to take the mic away. If his violation was using the mic too long, it certainly did not warrant his arrest anyway.
If the arrest is unconstitutional, is it any crime to resist? It's kind of a stretch to call it resistance anyway, when the officers did not make it clear to him what was going on and why he was being detained, or even that he was being detained. He had no idea somebody was going to try to arrest him when he asked those questions.. he seemed only to be planning to heckle Kerry a bit.
Frankly, I think he had a very good question, and I would have liked to hear Kerry give a full answer to it.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
1. Even on public property, your speech is subjected to rules, particularly at events. This event had a rule that questions from the audience were to go no longer than 1 minute.
So, with that being the case, here's the order of offenses and according police reaction:
A: Kid rushes to microphone, asks a long, rambling question that goes over time. Response: Organizers shut off his mic.
B: Kid continues filibustering and disrupting the event after his mic is turned off. Response: Police step in, ask the kid to leave.
C: Kid continues to filibuster despite being asked to leave. Response: Police start forcibly ejecting the kid from the event.
D: Kid violently resists being ejected (see the longer video you posted at 0:29, when the kid tries to break away from the police) Response: Police arrest kid for disorderly conduct.
E: Kid violently resists arrest, requiring 5 policemen to restrain him. Response: Police arrest kid for violently resisting arrest, a 3rd degree felony.
F: Kid continues to violently resist, despite 5 officers attempting to restrain him. Response: Police fire a taser.
The only objectionable part might be the tasering, and not because it's a civil rights violation but because it seems like ineffective policing (tasers don't seem to do much to stop mentally ill idiots from struggling when already on the ground.) However, given the kid's behavior and a history in America of mentally ill nutcases attacking major political figures, it seems reasonable for security to err on the side of caution. Particularly because they already thought the kid was about to rush the stage when he sprinted to the mike at the start of the Q&A session.
Maybe he'll have a good insanity defense in court. Seems like a paranoid schizophrenic to me. Thinking the police are going to kill him? Idiocy.
I'm at NYU, and paid close attention to the Minutemen events from last schoolyear. At Columbia, student protesters violently shut down a speaker, and campus security did nothing. At NYU, student protesters tried to shut down a Minuteman forum (the forum consisted of 2 academics and 2 activists, 1 of each from each side. The leftist activist got to give his full speech without disruption, and then shamefully supported the leftist students when they tried to disrupt the Minutemen speaker.) The NYU police did a better job, forcibly ejecting the loudest disrupting students, but not needing to arrest them because they didn't resist being ejected from the hall. Look at the Columbia incident to see what happens when police don't get involved: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnn7wTgoE8
Here's a video showing the full incident starting when the kid begins his question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnAGjmnfqik&mode=related&search= He rambles through to the 1:45 mark, asking more than his 1 allotted question (most events like this have a 1 question rule to prevent people from monopolizing the speaker's time through filibustering). That's why he was asked to leave. It was only when he tried to break free of the police that they arrested him.
Free speech doesn't entail the right to prevent others from speaking with obnoxious behavior. With the possible exception of the Tasering, the UF police did the right thing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I have watched through the 2:00 minute mark or so - about through the first mention of tasing. What is clear is:
1.) He did not have a right to remain on that stage. 2.) The officers had the right to remove him using the level of force they did (again, not speaking of the tasing yet). 3.) He knew he was being arrested (he says "Help! They're arresting me! I didn't do anything.")
As of this point in the video, the kid is a jerk who has committed a crime and deserves to be arrested.
I'll watch the rest later.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I like pork less and less every day.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
A witness has posted that the kid ran to the mike from the back of the line once it became apparent that he wouldn't get a turn to speak. This action, the hysterical tone of his voice, and his continuous refusal to leave seem to justify the police removing him. I don't know if the Tasering was necessary, but one of the officers in the video tells the kid he'll be Tased if he doesn't come with them, so they at least tried other options first.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I think it is reasonable to arrest him, but charging him with a felony is evil.
Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: If he was down on the ground with multiple officers around him and unarmed there is no reason I can think of to taser him.
There is a valid reason. A taser isn't a weapon of last resort like many people seem to believe. If the cops used their superior force to physically make him comply by forcing his hands behind his back so he could be cuffed and dragging him out they is a strong possibility of causing injury. A taser is unpleasant but doesn't cause any injury, or very rarely causes any injury. So they tased him for his own good.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
The first amendment doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want for as long as you want wherever you want.
Otherwise I would come make long, drawn out, overblown political diatribes at all your kids' birthday parties.
And onstage while your kid's performing at the town 4th of July picnic.
This guy is an attention whore, he wanted this, and he would have done whatever it took for it to happen.
Don't feel bad for him.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
He even makes attention whores look bad.
Being able to speak and ask an important politico a question is a very serious occasion that shouldn't be squandered by frivolous attention whoring, asking about impeaching Bush or whether he was in whatever fraternity at Yale are retarded questions. Before going on I'ld ask if I could have a little preamble to welcome the Senator and then proceede briskly to my question which I think would be which candiate would he support for the 2008 elections and what does he think he/she should do about the economy.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I do feel bad for him. If I had the right to taser attention whores, it would be perfectly legal for me to attend a Hollywood party and tase everyone in sight. I'd probably have to bring several taser guns if Paris Hilton were in attendance, as she's developed a large back-log in attentionwhoring and I'd be hard pressed to make up for it with a single taser gun.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I do feel bad for him. If I had the right to taser attention whores, it would be perfectly legal for me to attend a Hollywood party and tase everyone in sight. I'd probably have to bring several taser guns if Paris Hilton were in attendance, as she's developed a large back-log in attentionwhoring and I'd be hard pressed to make up for it with a single taser gun.
For the Hollywood party, something like this might be in order. If you are intent on zapping a critical mass of attention whores.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm amazed at this kid's ability to make exactly what he most desired happen. I'm astonished that the police played their part so well.
Am I particularly outraged at any part of this? Mmm, not really.
And Skull and Bones is way more than some fraternity, though I think plenty of people who weren't in Skull and (is it [cross] bones?) have gotten through the last term without feeling impelled to impeach Bush.
I'm actually glad, when I think about it, that the political environment has not descended to that level of vindictiveness, since impeachment has become merely another way of expressing outrage and not an effective method of interfering with anything.
I don't even think Bush deserves to be impeached.
Oh, crap, am I still editing?
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
All it took was a knowledge of typical police procedures, and the willingness to push it that far.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:The first amendment doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want for as long as you want wherever you want.
Otherwise I would come make long, drawn out, overblown political diatribes at all your kids' birthday parties.
These aren't analagous situations at all. This was an open political talk at a campus. The student was asking the kind of drawn-out and annoying questions that get asked at those kinds of events. It's not like it's the first time that Kerry has been confronted by obnoxious hecklers in a campus audience.
It is the first time one got tasered, though.
Campuses can't have it both ways - defend paying big sums for speakers with strong political stances on the basis of free speech. And then overreact to students exercising their own rights in that same arena.
Be interesting to see how things play out on that campus later this year when Jack Kevorkian is a guest speaker - Kevorkian's fee and the emotions he inspires on both sides of the debate - could make the Kerry event look really really tame.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:The only objectionable part might be the tasering, and not because it's a civil rights violation but because it seems like ineffective policing (tasers don't seem to do much to stop mentally ill idiots from struggling when already on the ground.) However, given the kid's behavior and a history in America of mentally ill nutcases attacking major political figures, it seems reasonable for security to err on the side of caution. Particularly because they already thought the kid was about to rush the stage when he sprinted to the mike at the start of the Q&A session.
Maybe he'll have a good insanity defense in court. Seems like a paranoid schizophrenic to me. Thinking the police are going to kill him? Idiocy.
I hope you aren't implying that people with schizophrenia are idiots, nor that the mentally ill need to be controlled with brute force.
The kid may have been an idiot, or he may have been mentally ill. The two aren't exactly synonymous.
That all just rubbed me entirely the wrong way.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I dunno, sn. When the school says you can have free speech within their predefined boundaries, seems to me that they can. Besides, it wasn't the content of the questions that got the kid in trouble. It was the refusal to follow the rules.
Now, I'm not a big proponent of blind rules following, but this was a fairness rule to give everyone their turn. Nothing wrong with that. Then there was the failure to comply when he was asked to leave. Again, I don't want blind obedience, but when you're already breaking the rules, argueing with the cops is just stupid.
And it's never fair to fight the cops. If you didn't do anything, that's what a lawyer is for. Heck, you should be able to get it sorted out outside when you tell them your side of the story. The cops don't know if you're safe. They have to assume you could be dangerous if you're fighting them. Anything less is placing undue risk on the men and women who've sworn to serve and protect.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Oh yeah. The MALE is BIG & WHITE & OVER-PRIVILEGED, so tasering him for using force against police officers is BAD.
Meanwhile...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This is why in Canada we have the word reasonable explicitly in our Charter, you can have freedom of speech, just not everywhere and not unlimited, if you cant be reasonable in how you use it you dont deserve it.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Several people on this thread (Avidreader, Edgehopper) have said he was asked to leave, before physically attempting to eject him. Edgehopper said:
quote: B: Kid continues filibustering and disrupting the event after his mic is turned off. Response: Police step in, ask the kid to leave.
C: Kid continues to filibuster despite being asked to leave. Response: Police start forcibly ejecting the kid from the event.
If you look at this much clearer opposite angle Youtube video, you can see 2 UF cops right behind Andrew Meyer. The vid starts 20 seconds before Meyer is grabbed. After his mic is cut, they almost immediately grab him and start the bum's rush. I don't see any attempt to ask Meyer to leave, there is no "B" Edgehopper.
After that, there is resisting arrest, but not to the level of requiring the taser IMO.
quote:Originally posted by Selran:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: If he was down on the ground with multiple officers around him and unarmed there is no reason I can think of to taser him.
There is a valid reason. A taser isn't a weapon of last resort like many people seem to believe. If the cops used their superior force to physically make him comply by forcing his hands behind his back so he could be cuffed and dragging him out they is a strong possibility of causing injury. A taser is unpleasant but doesn't cause any injury, or very rarely causes any injury. So they tased him for his own good.
Against an unarmed, heavily out-numbered detainee a taser should be a weapon of last resort. Sadly, it is often not but rather a routine tool of force. As to the assertion that it never causes injury, Amnesty International records more than 230 TASER-related deaths in the US since June 2001. http://www.amnestyusa.org/Our_Issues/Domestic_Human_Rights/page.do?id=1011100&n1=3&n2=850 Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Horse puckeys. A police officer should never have to get into a physical fight with anyone.
Whaddaya think this is? amateur boxing? professional"wrestling"? Real fights are extremely dangerous.
[ September 19, 2007, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This is why in Canada we have the word reasonable explicitly in our Charter...
Oh, yeah. That's an improvement.
Seriously? You think having "reasonable" rights is a good thing?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:This is why in Canada we have the word reasonable explicitly in our Charter...
Oh, yeah. That's an improvement.
Seriously? You think having "reasonable" rights is a good thing?
Tom, just as a reminder, he loves China.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Oh yeah. The MALE is BIG & WHITE & OVER-PRIVILEGED, so tasering him for using force against police officers is BAD.
Similar occurrences with other students, regardless of sex or race, have elicited similar responses (see link to Hatrack discussion above).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
As far as I can see, I'm pretty impressed -- you all seem to have nailed the issue. The whole hullabaloo is over the minor chance that the tasering was 'a little excessive.'
Everything else was what the kid had coming to him.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Good call, Morbo. The acoustics are bad so it's hard to tell for sure, but I didn't see the officers' lips moving. I'm pretty sure talking to the person comes before putting hands on them in the order things are supposed to be done. That could get them in trouble in the inevitable lawsuit.
But I don't feel bad about the tasering. When you tell the cops point blank that if they let you up you're going to walk out of there, you're kind of forcing their hands. Not only did he resist arrest, he blantantly told them he intended to escape custody.
They either had to start putting enough pressure on the kid to do actual damage so they could get the cuffs on him and fight with him once they had them on, or they had to scare him into compliance. It's kind of a scary thought when phrased that way, but they gambled that less harm would come to him. (You usually have to be on drugs or in ill health to die from a taser.)
Is using a taser to put the fear of God in a kid a bad thing? I'd say so. Is hurting him a worse option? I'd say so. Kind of a rock and hard place argument. I think the cops went with the lesser of two evils.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The whole hullabaloo is over the minor chance that the tasering was 'a little excessive.'
I'm not there yet - the tasering might have been hella-excessive, a little excessive, or not excessive.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Kinda weird. Now they are saying he may have done the whole thing as a stunt -- he kept 'asking if there were cameras recording" and would behave and even apologize whenever off-camera.
quote: "As (Meyer) was escorted down stairs (at the University Auditorium) with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again," Mallo wrote.
Like a major attention whore.
And he made sure he had someone video taping him before the incident even started. (but that really isn't all that unusual).
I'm confused by the whole thing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
*turns on crystal ball*
Its a minor incident devoid of any real substance and will promptly leave the public's consciousness within a month. Few will remember it and hardly anybody will mention it a year from now.
*turns off crystal ball*
But hey that's just a prediction.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Being able to speak and ask an important politico a question is a very serious occasion that shouldn't be squandered by frivolous attention whoring, asking about impeaching Bush or whether he was in whatever fraternity at Yale are retarded questions.
I agree that being able to ask questions to politicians is a serious occasion, but I vehemently disagree that asking about impeaching Bush or what fraternity Kerry belongs to is frivolous.
A citizen should be able to ask a politician any question if is is his/her turn to do so. That being said, resisting arrest , and playing the victim once force is used seems very immature and counter productive.
I think the police were right to escort him away, and he would of been a lot smarter to comply with police. Had just asked "a" question and didn't try to "educate" Kerry or the audience with his question-time, then I think either question would be valid.
Don't confuse his inappropriate actions with his questions.
I will wait for the Universities investigation to to determine whether the taser was legitimate or not. I was impressed with the University President's swift action to put the police officers on paid leave while they investigate what the best action the police officers should have taken.
quote:E: Kid violently resists arrest, requiring 5 policemen to restrain him. Response: Police arrest kid for violently resisting arrest, a 3rd degree felony.
F: Kid continues to violently resist, despite 5 officers attempting to restrain him. Response: Police fire a taser.
My first instinct (assuming points E and F are ture, is to think the taser was appropriate, however Universities should be held to a high standard for free speech. Maybe they should of let Kerry deal deal with it, let him ramble for another minute, or just carry him away.
Once he started to resist the officers, I think he waived his rights to just walk out. But why did they initiate the police intervention? Kerry called on him and then Kerry said, "That's all right. Let me answer his question." I think Kerry showed he was in control until the police intervened.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I was impressed with the University President's swift action to put the police officers on paid leave while they investigate what the best action the police officers should have taken.
I could be mistaken but I believe this is standard practice whenever police men utilize force in their duties.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Um, as s tudent at FSU's glamourous sister university, UGA, I must make the following statement:
FSU students wear jean shorts. 'nuff said.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
There was some interesting discussion about this on MSNBC's Countdown last night. The guest was Rachel Maddow, who is probably my favorite "guest pundit" from Air America (Mark Green, by contrast, makes me want to puke quite often. Mostly when he's taking the same side I have on an issue.).
quote:STEWART: On your first watch of this video, did you think, overzealous campus police that went too far or loud-mouth activist looking to make trouble who was dealt with?
MADDOW: Yes. Both of those things.
STEWART: I’m with you on that one.
MADDOW: Yeah. Obviously, you know, police have to worry about people resisting arrest and they have to reduce threats as best they can. I want to give police a lot of leeway in terms of assessing threats and dealing with them as best they can. I don’t think that’s an unusual take on it.
However, this guy is a loud-mouth activist and activists are by definition loud-mouth. And these are campus police. And if anybody should have good training on how to de-escalate a situation that involves a loud-mouth activist, it’s campus police. And I just felt like this shouldn’t have come as such a shock to them. The fact that it escalated to a shock from a taser gun is—I think that’s why it’s getting so much attention today. It’s almost unbelievable.
STEWART: You spent a lot of time on the political scene. You know that passions often flare at political and public events. From your experience, how can police recognize the difference between that and someone who is posing a genuine threat or disturbance? Shouldn’t they be trained?
MADDOW: Yeah, they should be trained. And that’s why being a police officer is a professional job. And you’d hope they’d be able to de-escalate a situation like this more—with more effectiveness.
The thing that struck me is that, yeah, the guy was obviously agitated in his vocal presentation when he was asking those questions. He’d barged to the front of the line. He’d been asking aggressive questions. Knowing that, knowing the guy was very keyed up, you should have training to deal with how to de-escalate a situation like that.
About taser use in general... (Kinda gets to points made by Aspectre and Morbo here):
quote:MADDOW: But there is a broader issue about law enforcement here. As police get less lethal techniques to use against people, what tends to happen is that it widens the net of people against whom—against whom force is used. So when tasers were introduced in the law enforcement community, they said this will reduce the number of people getting shot. It didn’t. It just introduced this whole new group of people who got tasered by police. It widens the net of people subjected to force and at the—not necessarily the free speech issue. It’s the law enforcement issue. But I think it’s important.
[ September 19, 2007, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Wow, that wheelchair case is sad, though to be fair she was armed, so not really analogous at all.
I'm not sure how much the history of mental illness should have played into things. If cops left everyone who was mentally ill alone, well, they'd have a lot more time on their hands, I suspect.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Thank goodness the kid is white and that it wasn't Bush speaking, or we'd have opened one or two other cans of worms.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl:
quote:The only objectionable part might be the tasering, and not because it's a civil rights violation but because it seems like ineffective policing (tasers don't seem to do much to stop mentally ill idiots from struggling when already on the ground.) However, given the kid's behavior and a history in America of mentally ill nutcases attacking major political figures, it seems reasonable for security to err on the side of caution. Particularly because they already thought the kid was about to rush the stage when he sprinted to the mike at the start of the Q&A session.
Maybe he'll have a good insanity defense in court. Seems like a paranoid schizophrenic to me. Thinking the police are going to kill him? Idiocy.
I hope you aren't implying that people with schizophrenia are idiots, nor that the mentally ill need to be controlled with brute force.
The kid may have been an idiot, or he may have been mentally ill. The two aren't exactly synonymous.
That all just rubbed me entirely the wrong way.
I had the same reaction. Those were some pretty ill-considered, insulting references.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
To me, the scariest thing about this is that I've seen at least one newspaper story about the incident that didn't mention Kerry. How can our "reporters" be so lame?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What about Kerry do you think they should mention?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I just saw this via Fark.com.
quote: Before asking his question Monday, Meyer handed a videocamera to Clarissa Jessup, a Santa Fe Community College student who didn't know Meyer, and asked her to record his question. Jessup followed him and wedged herself between police officers to capture his screams after being hit with the Taser. She uploaded it to YouTube that day.
"I couldn't believe the injustice that was happening to him," Jessup said.
My opinion: the police never should have touched or approached him in the first place. It is an injustice that it happened at all. If a questioner in a Q&A situation like this goes long, or off topic, there is, or should be, an arbitrator who cuts them off. To have police right behind him to forcibly stop him from speeking is jumping the gun in the extreme. It doesn't matter if he is a jerk or an attention whore. And all of this is compounded by the fact that Kerry was willing to respond. There was no reason for the police to be involved at all.
That said, once the cops did put a hand on him, he should not have resisted. If he wanted to go with some good ol' fashioned civil disobedience, dead weight would have been the best bet. Once he violently resisted, he shouldn't have been suprised that the cops responded in kind. But still, they shouldn't have touched him at all.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:This is why in Canada we have the word reasonable explicitly in our Charter...
Oh, yeah. That's an improvement.
Seriously? You think having "reasonable" rights is a good thing?
It seems to me that in practice the difference actually hinges more on what our respective courts consider "reasonable" restrictions than anything else:
quote:To make all of this more concrete, let us consider the constitutional protection of free speech in both countries. Canada, like the United States, has a constitutional guarantee of free expression. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression, subject to such reasonable limits as are "demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society". In other words, we have free speech, but the state can limit it in reasonable ways. This may be contrasted with the absolute language of the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, which states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." The words of the Canadian guarantee acknowledge the state's right to limit free speech; the words of the American guarantee forbid the state from doing so.
Of course, we all know that the American Supreme Court has not interpreted the First Amendment literally. American rights, however absolutely stated in the Bill of Rights, are in fact subject to limits imposed by the Courts as they struggle to balance conflicting rights and situate them in a practical working framework. Free speech is no exception. In 1952, Justice Hugo Black, who insisted on reading the First Amendment literally, voted to strike down a states' group libel law, stating that the First Amendment "absolutely forbids such laws without any 'ifs' or 'buts' or 'whereases'." (Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 275 (1952)). But he was in dissent and his view has not prevailed.. It was Mark Twain who said of the United States, only partly in jest, "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and the prudence never to practice either of them."
This said, the explicit recognition that, in a democratic society, limits may be imposed on fundamental freedoms means that free speech is more narrowly conceived in Canada than in the United States, as is evidenced by our respective positions on pornography, hate speech and defamation. While the American right of free speech admits of some limits in the name of reason or practical necessity, the fact remains that what would be counted as a reasonable limit on speech in Canada would often amount to an unreasonable limit in the United States.
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: I hope you aren't implying that people with schizophrenia are idiots, nor that the mentally ill need to be controlled with brute force.
The kid may have been an idiot, or he may have been mentally ill. The two aren't exactly synonymous.
That all just rubbed me entirely the wrong way.
No, I'm not. I'm saying there's a decent chance the kid is both a paranoid schizophrenic and an idiot.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper: No, I'm not. I'm saying there's a decent chance the kid is both a paranoid schizophrenic and an idiot.
Oh! Yeah, I totally get what you're saying. I think we should use the taser on anyone who we assume is mentally ill- even if we have no real evidence upon which to base such a claim nor the expertise in the relevant fields to make such a diagnosis! In fact, I think we should hook all of the mentally ill up to a remote-controlled shock collar just in case they get out of line!
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
That's... not really an improvement, as restatements go.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: My opinion: the police never should have touched or approached him in the first place. It is an injustice that it happened at all. If a questioner in a Q&A situation like this goes long, or off topic, there is, or should be, an arbitrator who cuts them off. To have police right behind him to forcibly stop him from speeking is jumping the gun in the extreme. It doesn't matter if he is a jerk or an attention whore. And all of this is compounded by the fact that Kerry was willing to respond. There was no reason for the police to be involved at all.
Well said. That is what I was working at, but you said it much more succinctly.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
They keep playing the clip for this over and over on CNN.
I think the arrest and tasering went too far (totally not needed at a well-moderated event), but I also think this guy seems to be a self-destructive nitwit.
"On the fence", I guess.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
You have a guy who probably has some reasonable strength to him, and a bit of mass to throw around. He is violently resisting arrest. He is constantly trying to break free of the officers who are trying to arrest him and move--aggressively--in the direction of a current US Senator and former Presidential candidate. Even when you add more officers to the mix, he still tries to break free and move towards Kerry.
Having once been a bouncer, I know how difficult it can be to control a person who really doesn't want to be controlled. Haven't any of you ever watched "COPS"?
I think the campus cops responded properly, and that the TASERing was at the limit (but within the limit) of appropriate responses.
Apparently, the kid is definitely an attention whore, and has proven himself to be an asshole/heckler on his own website:
quote: “Meyer has his own Web site and it contains several "comedy" videos that he appears in. In one, he stands in a street with a sign that says "Harry Dies" after the latest Harry Potter book was released. In another, he acts like a drunk while trying to pick up a woman in a bar.
The site also has what is called a ‘disorganized diatribe’ attributed to Meyer that criticizes the Iraq war, the news media for not covering the conflict enough and the American public for paying too much attention to celebrity news.”
Not that the campus cops knew that then (I will assume). Regardless of his possible "mental" condition(s), Meyer was a large, violent threat to a US Senator, and would not be contolled by authorities. Even if he was going after a Republican, or even Anne Coulter, the cops reacted appropriately (IMHO).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The thing that struck me is that, yeah, the guy was obviously agitated in his vocal presentation when he was asking those questions. He’d barged to the front of the line. He’d been asking aggressive questions. Knowing that, knowing the guy was very keyed up, you should have training to deal with how to de-escalate a situation like that.
This point is extremely significant. I have no idea what kind of training police officers get in de-escalating such situations. It seems quite clear from the videos that the officers not only failed to de-escalate a potentially aggressive situation but that their actions escalated the problem. In my experience, this it is not at all uncommon for the presence of police to escalate a potentially volatile situation and that this is one of the more serious problems in law enforcement.
To be fair, this is not solely a problem with the police. They have an uphill battle because a very large percentage of the population get tense in the presence of the police. And a large number of people instinctively react to the potential "threat" posed by police aggressively.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Look, I don't just mean he was an attention whore because he talked a long time.
This guy makes attention-getting internet videos. He does stuff like go to Harry Potter parties holding up signs with "spoilers" and then uploads them to the internet.
He wanted to see how far he could get things to go if he made a scene.
He found out.
You can't easily "de-escalate" a guy who is basically there to see how far he can push you. The little Johnny Knoxville wanna-be was cruising for a confrontation, and he found one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Under arrest for "inciting a riot"? That's ridiculous, and not just because of the apathy of the crowd.
Granted the guy is beyond ridiculous himself for some of the thing he says like "they're going to try and kill me," he almost sounds like he's on something from his hysteria, and I'm a little surprised they let him into the event without having any ID, though if he really broke in like they are saying, that might have been a problem before he even got to the mic.
Still, overall I too agree with vonk. He shouldn't have been touched to begin with, but the kid acted wrong. You go with the police and prove your innocence, and if attention is really waht you want, you give yourself much better attention by behaving yourself and making the police look even worse in comparison, not by giving them a reason to escalate.
As far as timing goes, I think that went from knocking him down to tasing him way, way too quick. He was down on the ground with the officers restraining him and what, maybe 15 seconds went by before they went right for the stun gun? I know that a taser doesn't leave lasting damage, but hell neither does waterboarding, and they still call that torture. I think the given situation is against international law, though I'm not sure if the US is a signatory of the UN Convention Against Torture, which I guess would be doubtful given our track record.
I think it was handled all wrong, and I think the cops went too far, and I think the kid was not at all blameless in the situation. Kudos to Kerry for at least trying to handle the situation.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
For those that think tasering is something the police do quickly and without thinking about it, my husband tells me it's the opposite. He sees cops that let things go way too long before tasing, because in his words "Tasing someone is a pain in the ***"
It involves hours of paperwork for the cop and they must call rescue units to remove the probes. He says the cops in Birmingham are very reluctant to tase.
So, it's probably a departmental type thing - depending on how the department handles the documentation and procedures of tasing a person will affect how often they use it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: ...neither does waterboarding, and they still call that torture.
As an interesting sidenote, I saw the Mythbusters episode where they examined water torture. In order to cause full panic, the water must be cold and the subject restrained. Without both, no one was freaked out. So, in theory, you could waterboard someone without actually torturing them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd question whether or not that really counts as waterboarding then. If you aren't using the interrogation technique, you're just having a water fight, in which case a SuperSoaker is a terror weapon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was avoiding this thread because I hate how these threads bring out all the "f*** the police" types, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see that no one's screaming about police brutality.
My 2c: The kid got exactly what he deserved - both in the legal and moral sense of the word.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I hope that universities and groups hosting similar events in the next couple years have a better plan for dealing with somebody who goes on too long at the microphone. I don't think there even would have been a problem if the university police hadn't been right behind the guy before he even got a minute into his question, especially because Kerry was going to answer his question.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I don't think there even would have been a problem if the university police hadn't been right behind the guy before he even got a minute into his question
He didn't just go on too long. He also cut in line.
I would have had him removed at that point, and Kerry indulging the linebreaker is insulting to those who waited in line properly.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Thanks, Dag. I didn't realize there was a difference between the two. In that case, I don't see waterboarding as ever humane. If you consent as part of special forces training, that's one thing. Doing it without consent, bad. Just bad.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I just realised, reading this thread again, that a couple of people have labelled this student as schizophrenic or otherwise disturbed. Is this just a mistake in response to "Edgehopper," or is there something else going on that I haven't read about?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The guy acts like a big ol' cup of mental case?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: He even makes attention whores look bad.
Being able to speak and ask an important politico a question is a very serious occasion that shouldn't be squandered by frivolous attention whoring, asking about impeaching Bush or whether he was in whatever fraternity at Yale are retarded questions. Before going on I'ld ask if I could have a little preamble to welcome the Senator and then proceede briskly to my question which I think would be which candiate would he support for the 2008 elections and what does he think he/she should do about the economy.
Question and answer events should allow people with different views of what's important a chance to ask questions. This kid's questions (Why did Kerry concede the election immediately, without looking into allegations of massive voter, disenfranchisement, whether that had anything to do with his membership in the same secret fraternity that Bush was a member of at Yale, and why Kerry hasn't pushed for immediate impeachment) are very relevant. You haven't read Greg Palast's book, have you?
Did Kerry ever offer an answer to any of these questions?
Why do you think these questions are frivolous? In the face of massive voter disenfranchisement in the last two presidential elections, notably occuring in the states that swung the election to Bush, particularly affecting predominantly black precincts, why should Kerry not have to face questions about his immediate concession, after he had vowed to fight to have every vote counted?
Why is knowing what candidate Kerry supports for '08 a better question? His opinion on that means nothing to me, but I would very much like to hear what he has to say about the 2004 elections, in which he was a very relevant player.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
questions to apply to those questions
1. did kerry try to engage the kid in dialogue 2. how much chance did the kid really give before violation of time limits made it impossible to give kerry time to answer 3. did kerry even know the kid jumped in line
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I don't care that Kerry didn't end up answering those questions at the event. I'd like him to answer them now anyway, on their own merit.
This kid was rude to the event hosts and the rest of the audience by cutting to the head of the line, and didn't do a very good job of asking his question. In some ways, I think his behavior comes from a frustration with the events we've seen so much of recently that feature prescreened audience members with prescreened questions.
Using the police to deal with with people like this kid is the wrong approach, and does not help foster free and open debate, which is what is important. Our politicians need to be asked tough questions, and dragging off somebody who doesn't lob a softball is not going to help us hold our politicians accountable for the sorry state of things.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well the matter involves the fact that the cops didn't really become involved until the kid had become a disruption, and that the 'forceful' removal didn't really become involved until he refused to depart at the officer's request, and then the 'assault' didn't really become involved until he went totally kerbo and started trying to break loose of the arresting officers and yelling hysterical things.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
Watching the video, which starts with the end of Kerri’s previous question, this kid begins speaking at the six second mark, and the police interrupt him at the 40 second mark, when he still had about 24 seconds left to speak. True, he hadn’t gotten to the question yet, which Kerri points out, and you know full well he’s going to run over because he tells the campus police, “He’s [Kerri] been talking for two hours, I think I can have two minutes.” It appears that he is completely done speaking at the 1:36 mark. He says that he has one last question, he asks it, and then appears to be completely finished when the police start to drag him out.
At the 2:44 mark, he very clearly says “If you let me go, I’ll walk out of here.” They never let him go. He’s not tasered until the 3:23 mark, and from the time he asks them to let him go, saying that he’ll leave, he seems to offer no more physical resistance (beyond not putting his hands behind his back, and trying to sit up) and the police never let him up, or give him a chance to prove that he was willing to simply leave. Honestly, I think he expected the police to simply let him walk out, and when they didn’t, when they made him roll onto his stomach and slammed him into the ground, when they started bending his arms behind his back and causing pain, he realizes that the police are not going to be reasonable about this whole thing and he starts to get frantic. But he doesn’t completely lose control, again, he just tries to avoid pain and slip out of their grip; he does nothing violent. In the police report, they refer to his resistance not as violent or uncontrolled, but simply as “squirming.” Squirming? They felt threatened enough to use a taser over squirming?
It’s even worse when I look at the clearer video Morbo posted, because his “resisting arrest” consisted of backing away from officers, trying to run after they grab him and carry him up some stairs, and finally, weakly trying to sit up. He never strikes an officer, his “flailing” is much more controlled than I thought at first, as he’s pretty slowly just moving his arms so they can’t grab him.
Don’t even use “It took six officers to restrain him” as an excuse for the tasering. At the level of resistance he showed, six officers was completely unnecessary.
Oh, I just thought of a joke. How many campus officers does it take to restrain someone who spends too long at the mic? Six. One for his left arm, one for his right arm, two for his legs, one to yell in his face and one to fire a taser.
I can see why he refused to leave at first. He had successfully asked his questions, he was done speaking, and was now waiting for an answer. That the police would cart him off at that point seems a bit illogical. Carting him out in the middle of the speech, fine, but after he was done? Why bother?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:this kid begins speaking at the six second mark, and the police interrupt him at the 40 second mark, when he still had about 24 seconds left to speak.
He did not have 24 seconds left to speak. He was 36 seconds over his alloted time, which was 0, because he cut in line.
quote:It’s even worse when I look at the clearer video Morbo posted, because his “resisting arrest” consisted of backing away from officers, trying to run after they grab him and carry him up some stairs, and finally, weakly trying to sit up. He never strikes an officer, his “flailing” is much more controlled than I thought at first, as he’s pretty slowly just moving his arms so they can’t grab him.
You can scare quote "resisting arrest" all you like. He was resisting arrest. Florida law specifically divides resisting an officer into with violence and without violence.
quote:I can see why he refused to leave at first. He had successfully asked his questions, he was done speaking, and was now waiting for an answer. That the police would cart him off at that point seems a bit illogical. Carting him out in the middle of the speech, fine, but after he was done? Why bother?
Because he's proven himself rude and disruptive and he doesn't deserve to stay. Because every time you indulge crap like this kid pulled, it encourages other people to do it.
[ September 21, 2007, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:At the 2:44 mark, he very clearly says “If you let me go, I’ll walk out of here.” They never let him go. He’s not tasered until the 3:23 mark, and from the time he asks them to let him go, saying that he’ll leave, he seems to offer no more physical resistance (beyond not putting his hands behind his back, and trying to sit up) and the police never let him up, or give him a chance to prove that he was willing to simply leave.
Cops are trained not to take a suspect's word at face value, on anything. You don't give people chances to prove they will do what they say if there is the possibility they may harm themselves or others. And an out-of-control,manic-acting person may do harm to himself or to someone else. As Dag has pointed out (repeatedly) he had cut in line and was ignoring the rules of the question and answer session, so had already proven he wasn't likely to abide by what he was told, what reason would the cops have to think he would do what he said he would?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
It bothers me that several people have expressed the sentiment that the guy deserved to be detained and tased because he was a jerk or because he did something rude. Okay, fine, he resisted arrest, so he deserves at least to be handcuffed and questioned. At least. But someone being loudmouthed, or having a website all about themselve, or even cutting in line, should not be an acceptable reason to physically injur them or take away even a part of their freedom. Okay, so you don't like him, he's a jerk and he cut in line. Great, fine. But none of that's illegal. And none of it makes him deserve to be dragged to the ground and tased.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It bothers me that several people have expressed the sentiment that the guy deserved to be detained and tased because he was a jerk or because he did something rude.
Many people have posited that he deserved to be removed, that his refusal to leave warranted arrest, and that if he deserved to be tazed, it was for resisting the removal/arrest.
quote:Okay, so you don't like him, he's a jerk and he cut in line. Great, fine. But none of that's illegal.
Refusing to leave when ordered in this situation IS illegal.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Many people have posited that he deserved to be removed
That's the part I disagree with. He deserved to be asked to move. Maybe he even deserved great disdain. But nothing he did before the officers tried to move him deserved physical or violent intervention. He did not, IMO, deserve to be physically removed. Jerkiness and line cutting do not deserve physical intervention. Violence is the last refuse of the incompetent.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He didn't go when they asked him to. That merits removal.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
They asked him to move. He answered with words. Kerry said it was okay and that he'd answer the question. He was physically and violently removed. To me, that does not follow.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They asked him to move. He answered with words. Kerry said it was okay and that he'd answer the question. He was physically and violently removed. To me, that does not follow.
They asked him to move. He didn't move. Kerry has no power to make his trespassing not be trespassing.
He was not "violently" removed until later in the process. The mere putting hands on the man and guiding him off stage was absolutely proportional to what was going on on the stage.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
Yeh, my point earlier was that if he had zero seconds to speak, they should have removed him immediately, rather than waiting for him to get into the speech, and then waiting until he was done. If they waited that long, why not just let Kerry answer the question?
I really don't think this guy was a threat to anyone.
And for the record, I do think he was being rude, and I don't encourage the behavior, but I am trying to empathize with the guy and figure out what he was thinking, and I don't think he was crazy or a threat.
Notice how, after he's done with the question and they start to drag him off, every word out of his mouth is related to "Are you arresting me? What did I do? What's going on? I'll leave. Don't taser me, bro'." He didn't seem out of touch with reality, he wasn't ignoring the officers and continuing to shout for political change or harass Kerry...
I mean, if they drug him out and he continued yelling at Kerri or damning American's for being ignorant sheep or something, he would have come off as crazy, but he didn't do that. He was totally aware of what was going on.
And Dagonee, the way the situation was handled may also encourage more people to do it, except now instead of attracting loud-mouth hecklers, it will attract activists and protesters. I'm not sure their action helped to prevent future copy cats at all. I feel it would have been better to just let it ride. Some people got a laugh out of it, the kid did no serious harm, and a lot of people thought he looked like an idiot/jerk, all without making the news.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: If they waited that long, why not just let Kerry answer the question?
How did they stop Kerry from answering the question?
quote:And for the record, I do think he was being rude, and I don't encourage the behavior, but I am trying to empathize with the guy and figure out what he was thinking, and I don't think he was crazy or a threat.
What he was thinking was "I am more important than everyone who stood in line to speak, the people who organized the event, and the people in the audience who came to see Kerry, not me."
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
It's kind of awkward to answer a question while the person who asked it is yelling for help and making a big fuss about being forcibly removed. And I'm sure it was even more awkward for Kerry after the tasering.
I agree that the kid's actions were self-centered. If he had wanted Kerry to answer the question, he would have kept his mouth shut, and let the police drag him out, trusting that he'd be able to watch a recording of it later.
I still think the situation was handled inefficiently, and I feel it escalated way too quickly. And yeah, I think if they had just let it ride, things would have turned out better for all involved, and we most likely never would have heard about the incident, unless we were fans of the kid's website.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:At the 2:44 mark, he very clearly says “If you let me go, I’ll walk out of here.” They never let him go.
Yes. He said this. It's also completely irrelevant and no argument against the actions of the cops.
If he thinks that he can just say that after he's escalated it to that point, and then have the cops be compelled/forced to let him go, then he's an idiot.
I'm sure he meant it when he said he'd leave if the cops let him go. Doesn't make him not under arrest anymore. Doesn't change anything.
quote:Don’t even use “It took six officers to restrain him” as an excuse for the tasering. At the level of resistance he showed, six officers was completely unnecessary.
This and many other comments here come off as uneducated both to the specifics of law enforcement and the specifics of the encounter.
I can't comment too much on whether or not the taser was necessary or justified in this instance since I still think myself that it is a little bit fuzzy. It's best to wait for more information.
But I do want to say it is frustrating whenever people say something like "Oh, they had 6 cops there, why the heck do you need a taser?" and use this to judge them as cowards/jerks/The Man.
Handcuffing an adult who wants to resist you is not easy and 5 or 6 people is -- *gasp* -- sometimes not enough! Who are these superhuman mutant crime lords? Where do they come from? That I don't know, but I do know the force it takes to get an adult arm behind a person's back and into cuffs can do some seriously bad things to a shoulder if the arrestee is trying to wrench his arm out of your grasp or otherwise obstruct the process. Using a taser has a huge advantage in this regard and is often better for both parties involved.
Six cops or no. So sayeth those more educated in ENFORCIN' THE LAWL.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: You can't easily "de-escalate" a guy who is basically there to see how far he can push you. The little Johnny Knoxville wanna-be was cruising for a confrontation, and he found one.
Nonsense. I've been to dozens maybe hundreds of similar events. I've acted as Peace Keeper and moderator at such events dozens of times. At almost every political event with a question and answer session, there is at least one guy just like this one who tries to use the question period to make a rant on his favorite conspiracy theory. A good moderator and peace keeping team can nearly always de-escalate such a situation.
Unfortunately, as soon as the police become involved such situations nearly always escalate out of control. When an armed police officer who has been trained to suspect everyone and treat everyone as dangerous grabs hold of your arm, most people feel scared and threatened. For many people, the instinctive response to fear and threats is aggression or panic. Its not a wise response, but at moments like that people don't are likely to react on instinct and adrenaline rather than wisdom. Its one thing to say that he should have gone with the police quietly. It's an entirely different thing to do that when your scared and starting to panic. An awful lot of people who are not mentally ill, react just like this kid did when grabbed by the police.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
My two cents.
I don't believe there was any need to remove the guy. If I were being grabbed at by anyone (police or not) when I hadn't done anything illegal (he hadn't) I would resist too. Dag is saying that he "didn't leave when they asked him to"--but after the cops first asked him to, they let him keep speaking. They ceded that they, in fact, had no right to forcibly lead him away--AND Kerry had agreed to answer his questions. Kerry may not have any power to supercede the orders of the police, but what grounds did the police have in asking him to leave IF KERRY WAS OK WITH HIM STAYING. The organizers cut off his mike because they didn't want to look bad, but it doesn't change the fact that he was merely asking a question in an auditorium. No threat to anyone. And because Kerry was trying to answer him--NOT A DISRUPTION, a dialogue! The police have no grounds to remove him, and their charge of "disturbing the peace" didn't happen until AFTER they wrongfully moved on him. "Inciting a riot" was certainly a nice "safety charge" to tell him at the scene. The fact that this is the first thing they tell him (notice they don't give him ANY reason for the arrest until then), tells me that they had no right to move on him in the first place.
If they had simply not let him speak like they should have ie "I'm sorry, there will be NO more questions", I wouldn't have issue with it--BUT THEY LET HIM SPEAK, which to me, absolves him of these charges that he had no right to be up there in the first place because he cut in line and questioning was over.
Of course, after he "resisted", the police have every right to use all the means they did to detain him, including tasing. The decision to do so was horribly stupid, and they're seeing that now. Regardless of Andrew Meyer's bad judgement in bursting to the front of the line and asking questions, it was much, much worse judgement of the officers who decided to turn to violence--who should be held to a higher standard.
It just bothers me so much that because a police officer decides it's illegal for you to stand where you are, then suddenly you have to comply and come with them or you're RESISTING. That's so backwards to me. If I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't care what an officer says, they have NO right to take me into custody, and I have every right to resist.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:but after the cops first asked him to, they let him keep speaking. They ceded that they, in fact, had no right to forcibly lead him away
That doesn't cede any such thing so I don't know what you are talking about
/also --
"Don't Tase Me Bro" has memed. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:what grounds did the police have in asking him to leave IF KERRY WAS OK WITH HIM STAYING.
Because Kerry wasn't the one who had the right to exclude people from the event. That was delegated to the security for the event - the police.
The guy cut in line. At that point, he should NOT get to benefit. And letting him ask the question is letting him benefit.
quote:It just bothers me so much that because a police officer decides it's illegal for you to stand where you are, then suddenly you have to comply and come with them or you're RESISTING.
It's not like the kid was standing in a public park and the cop came up to him out of the blue. The kid KNEW he was doing something wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dag, Cutting in line is rude, but it is not illegal. Using a question session as a chance to rant is rude, but not illegal. Exceding your alotted time is inconsiderate, but not illegal.
Unless this event was highly unusal, the decision of whether someone should be allowed to "benefit" by asking a question, was the responsibility of the moderator and not the security.
If the moderators felt the young man had unjustly taken the microphone, they could have immediately interupted to inform he had not been recognized to question. If that did not work, they could have turned off that microphone immediately. The fact that the moderator did neither of those things suggests either that the moderator chose to allow the question (which is withing a moderators rights even if someone cuts the lin) or that the moderator was negligent.
I have been a moderator at debates and public forums where this precise thing has happened. I have interrupted guys like this and said, "I'm sorry but, you will need to wait your turn". and then recognized another speaker. I've interrupted ranters and said, "I'm sorry your time is up, do you have a short question?" I've been a peace keeper at such events charged with de-escalating such conflicts. I saw absolutely nothing in any of the videos shown to indicate that this incident couldn't have been resolved non-violently and with relative ease. The kid gave every indication he was finished and ready to leave when the officers grabbed him.
What the police did was I'm certain legal. It was also an example of really poor situation management. The police took a situation which had been non-violent, legal and only mildly offensive and escalated it to a violent criminal offense. That's bad for the police, bad for the kid, and bad for the public.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:The guy cut in line. At that point, he should NOT get to benefit. And letting him ask the question is letting him benefit.
I'm not disagreeing with you here. However, while YOU think he should not get to speak, that was up to the moderator and JOHN KERRY--both of whom ok'ed him. And while the police exercise the RIGHT to do whatever they please (he was drunk in public, inciting a riot, and getting on my nerves--ARREST HIM), our point was that they made the wrong decision here.
quote:That doesn't cede any such thing so I don't know what you are talking about
I'm very sorry that you can't see what I"m talking about. If you ask someone to do something, they don't do it, and you allow them to keep doing it, that's kind of like you making a cession, because you're allowing them to do something you told them not to. They did this twice.
quote:It's not like the kid was standing in a public park and the cop came up to him out of the blue. The kid KNEW he was doing something wrong.
Agreed. I didn't mention the kid. My example was a hypothetical.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, Cutting in line is rude, but it is not illegal. Using a question session as a chance to rant is rude, but not illegal. Exceding your alotted time is inconsiderate, but not illegal.
Not leaving when designated security officers tell you to leave IS illegal.
And telling someone to leave after cutting in line is not only appropriate, it's something I wish they'd do more often. So many potentially interesting events get screwed up by rude jerks like this one that I basically stopped going to them by my fourth year of college.
quote:If the moderators felt the young man had unjustly taken the microphone, they could have immediately interupted to inform he had not been recognized to question. If that did not work, they could have turned off that microphone immediately. The fact that the moderator did neither of those things suggests either that the moderator chose to allow the question (which is withing a moderators rights even if someone cuts the lin) or that the moderator was negligent.
It's manipulative blackmail to make the moderator do this. This is a security problem (not a threatening one, but an unauthorized access one) and should be treated as such.
Do we know that the moderator knew he cut in line? I can't tell from the stories I've read.
quote:The police took a situation which had been non-violent, legal and only mildly offensive and escalated it to a violent criminal offense.
The police did not escalate this to a violent criminal offense.The kid is the one who escalated this to criminal.
Certainly, his escalation was in response to their attempted removal. But they escalated it from a non-violent, legal, and only mildly offensive situation to a non-violent, legal, and only mildly offensive ejection. The kid escalated it to a criminal offense.
quote:Agreed. I didn't mention the kid. My example was a hypothetical.
It seemed to me that you were stating that people who thought this kid should be removed from the stage and that resisting the removal was illegal were also saying "that because a police officer decides it's illegal for you to stand where you are, then suddenly you have to comply and come with them or you're RESISTING."
As long as you're acknowledging that the people who are advocating for this kid's removal are not advocating what you posited, that's fine.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Michael Moore came to my school in Utah and there were two incidents where people had to be removed from the venue. Before Mr. Moore even spoke ground rules for the speech were laid out in that we were informed if we started yelling or disrupting things then school security would escort us off the premises. The first interruption was a guy who stood up reached into his jacket and said he had a gun, Mr. Moore demanded security deal with him and they took him away. A few minutes later two Ralph Nader supporters stood up and started shouting and security also escorted them away. If either of them had not simply gone with security and instead started thrashing about and resisting I would be ok with police using tasers so that other patrons would not not be injured by flailing limbs.
edit: I can see why the police escorted this man from the room, he was not interested in dealing with the police, he was trying to get the entire room behind him. As soon as they tazed him you could immediately hear a woman screaming and cries of police brutality and it seems to me he was resisting until the police utilized that force in order to get the publicity and public reaction he was seeking. If he had been simply hauled off he would have had nothing.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: It just bothers me so much that because a police officer decides it's illegal for you to stand where you are, then suddenly you have to comply and come with them or you're RESISTING. That's so backwards to me. If I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't care what an officer says, they have NO right to take me into custody, and I have every right to resist.
He was being escorted from the building, not taken into custody. He was arrested after he started resisting the officers, which, despite what someone said earlier in this thread, was quite violent.
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: It’s even worse when I look at the clearer video Morbo posted, because his “resisting arrest” consisted of backing away from officers, trying to run after they grab him and carry him up some stairs, and finally, weakly trying to sit up. He never strikes an officer, his “flailing” is much more controlled than I thought at first, as he’s pretty slowly just moving his arms so they can’t grab him.
Look at the part of the video when the officers first try to escort him from the building. You cannot honestly call that controlled flailing.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What the police did was I'm certain legal. It was also an example of really poor situation management. The police took a situation which had been non-violent, legal and only mildly offensive and escalated it to a violent criminal offense. That's bad for the police, bad for the kid, and bad for the public.
The police didn't even do anything violent in the beginning! They became violent after the kid became violent, which was the appropriate thing to do. The time for the kid to leave the building peacefully and free was when the police asked him to do so, not after they had to tackle him to the ground.
That said...
I'm against the use of tasers because there have been cases where tasers have killed their targets. Its rare but one innocent death from a taser outweights any potential gain from their use imo (I believe the same thing about the death penalty).
[ September 23, 2007, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
When you look at the science of police apprehension, tasers when used correctly actually reduce the risk of death in the situations in which they are deployed.
They aren't used just to make things easier for the cops. They're used because they are a way to make certain immobilization needs safer for both parties, the apprehenders and the apprehendees.
You know what the taser has pretty much replaced? The baton. Do you know which one is the more lethal device? The baton.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Thats a good point however did batons cause more deaths than tasers when used properly? I find it hard to believe that a police officer could accidently kill someone with a baton without doing something stupid (like hitting them in the face). Tasers can kill people even when used properly.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Thats a good point however did batons cause more deaths than tasers when used properly? I find it hard to believe that a police officer could accidently kill someone with a baton without doing something stupid (like hitting them in the face). Tasers can kill people even when used properly.
You're aware that an electrical charge designed to be non-lethal can kill someone, but are unable/unwilling to imagine that blunt trauma designed to be non-lethal can kill someone?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Thats a good point however did batons cause more deaths than tasers when used properly?
Police agencies that have given the devices to every officer have seen suspect injuries drop by half and officer injuries drop 70 percent. Taser deaths are widely reported due to the 'controversy' over the device, and you don't get as much attention to how often batons, also when used correctly, were more easily attributable directly to many many many people's deaths. Yes. Collapsible batons kill people easier.
Most of the reported deaths involving tasers are where a tased suspect passes away a few days later and someone makes a legal grab for the 'offending' police department. Nearly every time a taser kills someone, there is a complicating medical issue (such as the suspect being loaded with serious drugs) and the stress of the confrontation in full has killed them. People read that a taser was used in the course of an incident which ended up in the apprehended person's death, and they make the jump from circumstance to correlation to causation to sole causation.
As far as nonlethal takedown options go, stun batons and mace are both technically more lethal than tasers. All non-lethal takedown involves the risk of death. Batons are more lethal. Why the loathing for tasers? Usually, it's because people think that the tasers are pain induction tools, and they use electrocution pain to 'dissuade' or 'torture' people into submission.
Not the case, really -- the science behind tasers is not 'takedown through pain' but rather 'takedown through muscle immobilization.' That's what the electric charges are intended to do and they do it very well. The pain is a side effect of the process.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
An officer wielding a baton has complete control over how hard he swings it, and pretty good control over where it lands. Properly used, a baton will never damage vital organs, ever, let alone induce a heart attack.
You can't say that about a taser.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:An officer wielding a baton has complete control over how hard he swings it, and pretty good control over where it lands.
You've unintentionally made a good argument in favor of the taser, since its use is more mechanically regulated even in chaotic situations. A baton is more unwieldy and must cause more damage to the target and put them at more risk of serious harm since you're trying to immobilize them with blunt trauma.
And since the use of a baton is variable while under the policeman's 'complete control,' there are many situations where in the heat of a takedown the weapon is used too powerfully and grievous injury results. So, you're practically making a totally good case for the taser: its regulated nature reduces the risk of misuse, intentional or unintentional. Taser wins.
quote:Properly used, a baton will never damage vital organs, ever, let alone induce a heart attack.
This would be a nice point if it were true in the least. Unfortunately, it's about as mistaken as it gets. More than one meth-head has had 'proper use' of the baton push their physiological bodies over the brink. A whack to the chest can cause cardiac arrest, easily. Many people have tragically died under easily ascertainable 'proper use' of the baton.
The baton is a cruder device of a bygone era. It is more dangerous. You are at more risk of death and injury if it is the tool used in your forceful apprehension. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:An officer wielding a baton has complete control over how hard he swings it, and pretty good control over where it lands. Properly used, a baton will never damage vital organs, ever, let alone induce a heart attack.
Then "proper use" is unattainable.
An officer swinging a baton at a person who is fighting back cannot keep it from hitting the head all the time. Moreover, blows hard enough to incapacitate can also kill.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Pro- and anti-taser posters have made some good points. I would be interested in seeing study results like Samprimary mentioned.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Originally posted by NotMe:
quote:An officer wielding a baton has complete control over how hard he swings it, and pretty good control over where it lands.
You've unintentionally made a good argument in favor of the taser, since its use is more mechanically regulated even in chaotic situations. A baton is more unwieldy and must cause more damage to the target and put them at more risk of serious harm since you're trying to immobilize them with blunt trauma.
You have definitely not made the case that one blow from a baton must cause more damage than a taser shot. Since there are people who have died from being tased it's certainly not true. And if you include the pain inflicted on the . . . alleged perp (that was a weighty noun choice), most people would say that one blow from a baton causes less damage and/or pain than one taser shot. If you exclude head blows from a baton, I think even more would agree. So I contend that a taser shot has a higher minimum of pain inflicted. If a suspect could have been subdued by hand or by 1 or 2 baton blows, that would be less pain inflicted for the same end result.
Suppose for the sake of argument an average taser shot causes roughly the same pain as 5 average body, arm or leg blows from a baton. There is an obvious PR advantage, if cameras are rolling, to tase someone once rather than beat on them 5 times. Although given the protests and outrage this case has caused, that advantage may be eroding.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The problem with this whole foolishness disappearing is that I've heard the phrase, "Don't Taze me Bro" as a catch phrase on everything from "The O'Rielly Factor" to "NPR"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You have definitely not made the case that one blow from a baton must cause more damage than a taser shot.
One blow from a baton is reliably a much less actionable use of a baton than one discharge of a taser. It is also less reliable.
Keep in mind that we are judging the actionable use of either object in their use as a takedown weapon. The taser takes you down faster and easier and with more assured nonlethality when it is used by police in the place of batons. Hell, police using tasers are less likely to hurt a resisting perp than if they are not using weapons at all.
Also, I think I'll speak sagely on the subject of getting-thine-butt-curbed-by-a-cop: I would rather get tasered than get a full-on bullywhack from a baton. A 'proper use' of a baton can break bones, a common one being the clavicle. Two pin-pricks and 3-8 seconds of shock are vastly preferable and you won't have a mouldering yellow-black bruise (or more) for weeks.
I mean, I just can't understate this. If you think that the baton is the more 'humane' or 'safe' weapon you're just wrong and I'm trying to make this very clear.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And if you include the pain inflicted on the . . . alleged perp (that was a weighty noun choice), most people would say that one blow from a baton causes less damage and/or pain than one taser shot.
Depends. Solar plexus, testicles, knees, elbows, and probably kidneys might very well might deliver more damage even taking pain into account - some of those would be ahead on pain alone.
I think any broken bone would exceed the damage caused by a normal taser shot, and likely most non-lethal taser shots.
The other thing to keep in mind is that tasers also replace the use of firearms. For example, in any situation where the suspect has a knife, I think you are looking at either a firearm use or a baton use that will likely exceed taser damage.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You have still not made the case that a blow from a baton must cause more damage than a taser shot. You would favor a taser shot more than a broken bone? Well, so would I so and would most people. You would favor a taser over a bruise? I would not and so would many others.
I don't think that a baton is a more humane or safe weapon. My point (which was admittedly tossed over in favor of baton vs. taser rhetoric) is that tasers are often used indiscriminately by cops when they are not needed. 4 (or however many were surrounding the suspect) should have been enough to handcuff him with out tasing or batoning. The portrayal of the taser as a "safe" weapon leads to excessive use.
quote: One blow from a baton is reliably a much less actionable use of a baton than one discharge of a taser.
I don't know what this sentence means.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You have still not made the case that a blow from a baton must cause more damage than a taser shot.
Not that anybody has to (it's irrelevant to the fact that police with tasers are safer than police with billyclubs and that takedowns with tasers are safer than police with billyclubs) but generally yes a blunt, intended impact from a baton will cause more damage than a taser.
I'm serious. I'd rather get tasered. A baton whack will hurt for at least a week, especially if it bonks me on the forearm or shoulder. It does more damage. It bruises terribly. It damages muscle and bone. It can shatter wrists or clavicles. How else am I supposed to make this case?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The other thing to keep in mind is that tasers also replace the use of firearms. For example, in any situation where the suspect has a knife, I think you are looking at either a firearm use or a baton use that will likely exceed taser damage.
I have no problem with cops using a taser instead of a gun. That makes sense. Even though there is a risk of death from tasing, it's far less than the 50% risk of dying after being shot by a cop. This study, Cardiovascular Risk and the TASER®: A Review of the Recent Literature ,which I just skimmed, is where I got the 50% stat. It seems like a balanced review.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
The other way to look at it is that tasers look better on the video footage than the baton. There's just no way to hit a guy with a club and not look bad doing it.
From a monetary standpoint, tasers should lead to fewer brutality losses which should decrease taxpayer expenses. Everybody wins.
Well, except the drug addicts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Drug addicts sort of win too, because the rampaging folk like PCP addicts (the ones you see on COPS who just do not go down) are at less risk of a number of associated injuries.
Also, cops are less likely to feel like they are in a situation where they have to escalate to deadly force when they have a more or less ranged takedown weapon as an option.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sooooo the 'don't tase me bro' meme has essentially hijacked all of the discussion over this subject nearly everywhere. I'm actually kind of totally sad.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: It’s even worse when I look at the clearer video Morbo posted, because his “resisting arrest” consisted of backing away from officers, trying to run after they grab him and carry him up some stairs, and finally, weakly trying to sit up. He never strikes an officer, his “flailing” is much more controlled than I thought at first, as he’s pretty slowly just moving his arms so they can’t grab him.
Look at the part of the video when the officers first try to escort him from the building. You cannot honestly call that "controlled flailing".
I've been misquoted here. I'd appreciate an edit, Threads.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: It’s even worse when I look at the clearer video Morbo posted, because his “resisting arrest” consisted of backing away from officers, trying to run after they grab him and carry him up some stairs, and finally, weakly trying to sit up. He never strikes an officer, his “flailing” is much more controlled than I thought at first, as he’s pretty slowly just moving his arms so they can’t grab him.
Look at the part of the video when the officers first try to escort him from the building. You cannot honestly call that "controlled flailing".
I've been misquoted here. I'd appreciate an edit, Threads.
I removed the quotes but kept the phrase. Thats essentially what you said. Sorry if that offended you but I honestly see no difference between controlled flailing and "his 'flailing' is much more controlled...".
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
You misunderstand. I never said that Someone else in this thread did.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I've seen somebody get tasered before and imo it is much safer for both the cop and the bad guy than using batons or something. Usually people are more docile after being tasered than if they just got hit by a baton and it doesn't critically injure or kill them like a gun could potentially do. People who are being hit will most likely hit back, as it is their instinct. Tasers remove that from the equation.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: You misunderstand. I never said that Someone else in this thread did.
Ahh... my bad I fixed it now
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
This happened at the school I go to. I work at the TV station across the hall from where these yahoos work.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Huh. I didn't think swear words were protected speech. Or fighting words.
They must have a different definition of provacative there at Colorado State than we do here in Florida. Or we're just southern enough for that. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
that was a pretty compelling editorial article. that said, besides having the word 'taser' in it it seems completely unrelated to the Andrew incident.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I know. That's what's so ridiculous. Maybe I should have posted this as a new thread, though.
I just think they missed the point completely, and in the same way many people have about the whole thing. I don't think this was a free speech issue. No one was telling him he had no right to say what he did. He just wouldn't shut up when his time was up, and he wouldn't leave when he was supposed to. And then he began resisting arrest. Of course, for the idiots at the Collegian, his rights were infringed, and so that was an opportunity to attack Bush in an extremely unprofessional manner.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Originally posted by The Rabbit
quote:If the moderators felt the young man had unjustly taken the microphone, they could have immediately interupted to inform he had not been recognized to question. If that did not work, they could have turned off that microphone immediately. The fact that the moderator did neither of those things suggests either that the moderator chose to allow the question (which is withing a moderators rights even if someone cuts the lin) or that the moderator was negligent.
It's manipulative blackmail to make the moderator do this. This is a security problem (not a threatening one, but an unauthorized access one) and should be treated as such.
"Manipulative Blackmail" You've got to kidding!! I've moderated a large number of seminars, debates and discussion panels ranging from scientific forums to political debates. I speak as one with extensive experience. THE JOB of the moderator is to regulate the flow of questions and answers. In every situation in which I have either moderated or spoken it is the express responsibility of the moderator to recognize questioners in a fair and unbiased fashion and to ensure that speakers and questioners stay within the rules and time limits prescribed. If someone is speaking out of turn, it is the moderators responsibility first and not the responsibility of security. How is it "manipulative blackmail" to suggest a moderator should moderate the discussion?
quote:
quote:The police took a situation which had been non-violent, legal and only mildly offensive and escalated it to a violent criminal offense.
The police did not escalate this to a violent criminal offense.The kid is the one who escalated this to criminal.
Dag, When the Police grabbed the kids arms, they committed an act of violence. If it had been anyone but the Police, they could have been charged with assault in most US states for that action. Since the police action was the first violent action in the encounter, the police unquestionable escalated to violence. I saw absolutely nothing in the video that would justify that escalation. There is every reason to believe that if this situation had been handled differently, the kid would have left the stage without the use of force and none of us would have heard of it.
[ September 24, 2007, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How is it "manipulative blackmail" to suggest a moderate should moderate the discussion?
It's not manipulative blackmail for you to suggest a moderator should moderate the discussion. It is manipulative blackmail for this kid to force onto the moderator the choice of either silencing him, having him removed, or allowing him to abuse the process.
quote:Dag, When the Police grabbed the kids arms, they committed an act of violence. If it had been anyone but the Police, they could have been charged with assault in most US states for that action. Since the police action was the first violent action in the encounter, the police unquestionable escalated to violence. I saw absolutely nothing in the video that would justify that escalation. There is every reason to believe that if this situation had been handled differently, the kid would have left the stage without the use of force and none of us would have heard of it.
quote:Dag, When the Police grabbed the kids arms, they committed an act of violence. If it had been anyone but the Police, they could have been charged with assault in most US states for that action.
Assault does not necessarily involve violence, so the fact that this might (and it wouldn't if it were, say, private security) be assault is not proof that it was violent.
Moreover, this kid is the one who escalated it to criminal, not the police.
quote:I saw absolutely nothing in the video that would justify that escalation.
His going to the stage justified his removal, including taking him by the arms.
quote:There is every reason to believe that if this situation had been handled differently, the kid would have left the stage without the use of force and none of us would have heard of it.
There is every reason to believe that if this kid hadn't intentionally tried to make a scene we wouldn't have heard of it, either. There's every reason to believe that if he had just waited in line, we wouldn't have heard of it. There's every reason to believe that if he had left with the police, we wouldn't have heard of it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:His going to the stage justified his removal, including taking him by the arms.
B.S. If his going to the stage justified his removal, he should have and likely would have been removed immediately not after allowing him a minute and a half at the microphone.
quote: Assault does not necessarily involve violence, so the fact that this might (and it wouldn't if it were, say, private security) be assault is not proof that it was violent.
I guess this depends on your definition of violence. As a student of Ghandi, I tend to view any act of coersion rather than persuasion as violent. I recognize that is a definition that is not widely accepted. The use of physical force to inflict discomfort or injury on an individual is however a very commonly accepted definition of violence. While grabbing a persons arms with the intent to force them to move need not inflict severe injury, it is certainly causes some discomfort. It is an inherently violent act.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:B.S. If his going to the stage justified his removal, he should have and likely would have been removed immediately not after allowing him a minute and a half at the microphone.
So it's all or nothing - the minute it's justified they have to act, or it proves later actions unjustified? And not just all or nothing, but so obviously all or nothing that you can label it B.S. Right.
I know for an absolute fact that police and other's acting as site security frequently - probably the vast majority of the time - do not remove when they are justified in doing so.
quote:I guess this depends on your definition of violence. As a student of Ghandi, I tend to view any act of coersion rather than persuasion as violent.
Then he was violent by taking the microphone when it wasn't his. It was coercive, and not mere persuasion.
quote:I recognize that is a definition that is not widely accepted.
You got that right.
quote:The use of physical force to inflict discomfort or injury on an individual is however a very commonly accepted definition of violence. While grabbing a persons arms with the intent to force them to move need not inflict severe injury, it is certainly causes some discomfort. It is an inherently violent act.
No, it doesn't "certainly" cause some discomfort.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:During the forum, Meyer peppered Kerry with questions and refused repeated requests to leave the microphone after his allotted time was up. He had asked Kerry about impeaching President George Bush, why he didn't challenge the 2004 election results and whether he and Bush were in the secret Skull and Bones society as undergraduates at Yale University.
WOULDN'T LEAVE
FDLE said in its report that police use of the Taser was appropriate because Meyer refused police orders to leave the campus auditorium. Meyer clenched a chair to keep police from removing him.
The Taser was the safest way to remove him without harming Meyer or others, the report concluded.
''While I am pleased that the FDLE review is complete, we still have work to do on a separate front,'' University of Florida President Bernie Machen wrote in a statement.
``As an academic institution, it is our responsibility to continually review -- and improve-- how we foster an open environment that is also safe for our everchanging campus community.''
In the 17-page summary of the report, FDLE said it spoke with several witnesses who said that days before the event Meyer vowed to put on ''a show'' at the Kerry event.
According to the report, during a Sept. 11 Gators for Rudy [Giuliani] rally, Meyer got into an argument with another student and told a friend that ``if he liked what he had seen that he should go to the Kerry speech and he would really see a show.''
In addition, the report said that after his arrest, when Meyer was out of view of the cameras, he told officers that they did not do anything wrong and then asked ``if cameras will be at the jail.''
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Someone else in this thread did. ![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
That is what I was working at, but you said it much more succinctly.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)