University of Florida student tasered at John Kerry Talk....

[ERD50]

I think they could use a TAZER at all the celebrity awards ceremonies. The ratings would probably go up.

Not to pick on Sally Field, she's just the latest in a long line, but I'm tired of these pretentious celebrities who use the stage and a (somewhat) captive audience to shoot off their mouths over their personal beliefs. They are being recognized for their singing, acting, or whatever talents - not for their latest 'cause'.

If an actor, singer or whomever wants to talk about a cause, let them rent their own hall, invite (or charge) people to show up, but don't 'hijack' an awards show. Maybe they are afraid no one would show up?

-ERD50

 

[Htown Harry]

IMO, this one's on the cops for escalating too quickly.

I was an eyewitness to a similar situation once, but it had a very different outcome.

It was at a regional authority's board meeting. Every meeting, the chairman called on members of the public to speak. The rules said each speaker who had signed up beforehand had 90 seconds to comment, which was enforced with a bell. As a practical matter, after the bell rang an average citizen was allowed to quickly finish his thoughts before anyone interrupted.

Elected officials, however, rarely had the bell rung on them while they spoke. If parliamentarian did ring the bell, the politician was almost always invited to continue by one of the board members.

Not on this day. An elected official - and a political enemy of the board chairman - came to speak. I don't remember the topic, but he lit into the board and the chairman with strong policy criticisms, bordering on personal accusasions of the board members' motives. At exactly 90 seconds, the bell rang and the chairman abruptly called the name of the next speaker. It was very similar to the "turn off the mike" moment in the video, because things went south immediately.

About 30 seconds of gavel-banging and "spirited", personal shouting in both dirtections between the dais and the speaker's podium followed. Eventually, the chairman stood up and shouted for the agency cops in the room to take the speaker away.

As the politician continued on with "We will not be silenced" rants and the chairman shouted, pointed and banged his gavel, the top cop in the room slowly walked over solo to the speaker. He folded his arms across his chest and stood beside the speaker. By leaning over, he indicated he wanted to whisper somthing in the speaker's ear. The speaker stopped shouting just long enough to allow the cop to speak to him.

After the cop said a few words, he took a step back and observed the speakers' next move from a short distance. The speaker nodded and continued on for about 10 or 15 seconds, concluding with a flourish that included storming to the exit and slamming the door on his way out.

I later asked the cop what he said to handle the situation. "Help me out here, will ya? I need for you to wrap up."

 

[RunningBum]

IMO, this one's on the cops for escalating too quickly.

I don't disagree with that. But I have no idea what their instructions were going in. Once they made the decision to take him away, the kid should not have put up such a fight.

And I think this kid was going to ramble until something like this happened anyway, but they should've given him a few seconds after shutting off the mike to see if he quit or escalated.

 

[ERD50]

What you have just witnessed in this video is an authentic scene of police state brutality.

If that is what you define as 'police state brutality', I'd like to see a lot more of it, everyday, everywhere.

Did you watch the long version? Did we see the same tape?

YouTube - Student Tasered At Kerry Speech: Longer Version

My take on it was quite a bit different from yours:

• Meyer was assaulted by six officers, thrown to the ground and attacked with a violent weapon.

> Meyer was given every chance to comply with the officers and be peacefully escorted out of the building.

• Meyer volunteered to leave the room if the officers would let him go.

> Meyer forcefully escaped the officers grip. It appeared to me (and some eyewitnesses) that Meyer's intent was to cause a disturbance.

• Meyer did not strike any officer at any time. His hands were always in a defensive position.

> see 1:54

• Meyer attempted to flee his assailants (as any rational person would).

> I guess we disagree on who the 'assailant' was?

• .... any crime other than "resisting arrest"

> Other's covered the 'resisting arrest' thing already.

• Meyer was arrested for merely exercising his Free Speech rights.

> Did you hear the groans and reaction from the audience when he said he had two more questions (1:24)? They didn't want to be forced to listen to this Bozo. Most of them were there for an exchange and to learn something, not to be lectured by some attention seeking jerk. Their opportunity for free speech was being violated. Free speech is not something you impose on others.

Meyer is free to speak, but not anytime, not anywhere. Not on my front lawn at 3AM for example. There were rules for this event, and he wasn't following them. If he wants to go to a park and peaceably hand out leaflets, or talk to people without creating a disturbance, he is free to do so. He is free to rent a hall, or hold a meeting at his house and discuss what he wants.

Even Free Speech comes with some responsibilities - be civil to your fellow citizens.

Now, if he got TAZR'd for peaceably handing out pamphlets, or if the police beat down his door because he was holding a political discussion among friends, THAT would fit my idea of 'police state brutality', and I would fight that tooth and nail.

I want to see the police enforce the laws, and use force when needed. I don't want to live in a lawless world.

I wish the cops had managed a less dramatic way of dealing with this loser, he is getting too much publicity, which is just what he wanted.

-ERD50

 

[chinaco]

Interesting to see the whole video. NBC news coverage started video at the point at which he was pulled away from the mike, so you couldn't get a feeling for the situation.

I noted that someone first asked him to stop talking and wait for the answer after he'd talked for 32 seconds. The mic was cut, and they grabbed him at 92 seconds.

Yes, he was getting obnoxious, and my take is that the crowd felt he should shut up. But what we have here is someone who was wrestled to the ground and tasered because he exceeded the 90 second time period allotted for a question.

I don't think this is a free speech issue, as they portrayed it on NBC Nightly News. It's just a case of poorly trained campus security stepping in too soon, followed by an escalation with poorly trained Florida cops.

If the campus cops had let him go on, the crowd would have started chanting "Let Kerry answer." If he was still at the mic after 5-10 minutes, then zap him.

Finally, look at technology's influence here. Something happens, and ten students whip out their cameras, and in a few hours the incident is youtubed around the world.

Thanks Al. That amount of time is important to consider. It shows that the police reacted fairly quickly... maybe too quick.

I am not sure what was happening or what was going through people's minds.

It appears that the cops were a bit heavy handed. But we need to bear in mind a couple of things. The kid was getting fairly emotional. Remember the Virginia Tech shooting a few months back. The leaders and cops in these institutions are probably a bit on guard. Things can spin out of control quickly. Maybe they interpreted the situation in that way. Perhaps they were using judgment and profiling the situation.


My gut response is to side with the student. But... If you were one of those cops in that situation, what would you have done. There is not a simple answer. Their job is to try to keep some form of control and to provide protection. That sometimes means being proactive and preventing things from escalating.

Maybe it would have been better if they had rules for asking questions with a stated time limit. Ask a simple question, 1 or 2 sentences. That is it, no back and forth rebuttals... (the forum was not a debate). Then everyone would at least understand how to act.

Unfortunately, this kid wanted to use the opportunity to grand stand a little and it back fired on him. I do not think those cops are thugs. They were faced with what they perceived as a potential bad situation and responded. I am not sure anyone is in the wrong, but people on both sides may have something to think about the next time they are in the situation. both the student and the police.

The taser is commonly used to subdue someone.... and it is better than a night stick and usually less likely to cause any permanent injury.

The more I think about it... the less sympathy I have for the student.

IMHO - No one should lose their jobs or go to jail. Either side. But they should be forced to review their behavior and actions.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

I later asked the cop what he said to handle the situation. "Help me out here, will ya? I need for you to wrap up."

polite intimidation works so much better than a tazer.

seemed to me that the kid was in a panic paramount to a mental breakdown. good society does not use cow prods against the mentally unstable.

 

[ERD50]

Unfortunately, this kid wanted to use the opportunity to grand stand a little and it back fired on him.

Chinaco, I think you make some very good points, esp about the police and the Virginia Tech murders. They were there primarily to protect Kerry and the general public. It is likely that the police over-reacted, I think it is a bit tough to tell from the tape (how hard was he resisting them, etc), but the police are in a very tough situation. Maybe the police chose poorly, but their protection of Kerry and the general public trumps whether this jerk with deliberate intentions to disrupt things, and who is resisting being peaceably escorted out, was treated with excess force.

I will disagree a bit on the statement I quoted though. IMO, it didn't 'back-fire' on this kid at all. He's done this kind of thing before,. He was looking for attention and got it in spades. The Tazing was 'icing on the cake' for an attention seeker.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

But what we have here is someone who was wrestled to the ground and tasered because he exceeded the 90 second time period allotted for a question.

T-Al, that certainly is not what happened! How can you say that!

You make it sound like at 90 seconds, they grabbed him and TAZ'd him, end of story.

It was not the exceeding of the time limit that got him tazed, it was subsequent resisting being escorted out, and his struggle with the officers.

Come on, watch the video. They turn off his mike, (apparently there was a time limit, as is common), they do put their hands on his ONE arm to start to escort him out - if you look you can see this is not forcibly done. His first words are "Whoa - are you gonna arrest me?' Like that is what he wanted, and wanted the camera he brought to catch those words.

If a cop started to escort me out of somewhere that I was acting over-the-top, I think I'd be more likely to say 'OK, OK, can I stay if I just settle down - or something like that to de-escalate the situation. He clearly is trying to escalate things. Then he starts trying to tear away from them and swears at them.

At least one minute and 40 seconds of struggling takes place before they taze him (it looks like the tape was edited/paused, so it may have been longer).

Had this kid really been sincerely interested in free speech (instead of hiding behind it and using it for his own selfish purposes), he could have asked one of those questions respectfully. I don't think he would have been tazed for asking any ONE of the following questions:

FREE SPEECH Q #1: Mr Kerry, can you explain why you did not more aggressively pursue the issues of voter fraud in 2004?

FREE SPEECH Q #2: Mr Kerry, can you explain why you did not seek the impeachment of President Bush?

FREE SPEECH Q #3: Mr Kerry, can you explain your involvement with the 'secret' group known as Skull and Bones?

For all we know, someone DID ask those questions that day. But we won't hear the answers because this jerk wants attention. And he did not seem interested in hearing the answers, he just wanted to shout out his statements. I guess his web site was not getting enough traffic.

As I said in other posts, I don't know that the tazing was justified, but there is much more to the story than, 'he went over the time limit and got tazed'.

-ERD50

 

[brewer12345]

T-Al, that certainly is not what happened! How can you say that!
-ERD50

Yes, yes, we know: you loves you some forces of oppression. Next!

 

[ERD50]

Yes, yes, we know: you loves you some forces of oppression. Next!

[satire] Right Brewer. Any person in favor of an orderly society and having laws enforced must also be in favor of oppression, police brutality, torture, and whisking people off in the middle of the night to never be seen again. Gotta stop those subversives, no matter what the cost to liberty!

And any person that believes in personal responsibility would laugh at any unfortunate people starving in the street.

Must be nice to see the world so clearly in stark black/white. No shades of grey to complicate your view of the world!. It's so easy to feel superior that way![/satire]

If that guy showed any sincere interest in free speech, rather than just getting attention, he could garner some respect from me, even if his views differed from mine.

-ERD50

 

[martyb]

Originally Posted by brewer12345
Yes, yes, we know: you loves you some forces of oppression. Next!


Me too.....ZZZAP dat azz!

 

[brewer12345]

If that guy showed any sincere interest in free speech, rather than just getting attention, he could garner some respect from me, even if his views differed from mine.

-ERD50

I rather doubt it.

 

[ERD50]

I rather doubt it.

And why is that? I never criticized the content of his 'speech' (whatever it was), but criticized the fact that he was disruptive and interfered with other people's access to free speech.

But I guess it is easier for you to put people into your little pre-defined boxes if their view might be to the right of yours. So be it.


Oh, so FREE SPEECH should have no bounds? Is that your story? Ironic that you are the originator of the following threads:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f32/dont-feed-gded-trolls-29966.html

Unbelievable. Where's Andy or the mods with the boiling pitch and feathers when you need them?

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f32/serious-problem-developing-29963.html

.... I would suggest that the ban of these cretins be reinstated post haste.

I'm sure that's 'different'. No tazer was involved.

-ERD50

 

[brewer12345]

And why is that? I never criticized the content of his 'speech' (whatever it was), but criticized the fact that he was disruptive and interfered with other people's access to free speech.

But I guess it is easier for you to put people into your little pre-defined boxes if their view might be to the right of yours. So be it.


Oh, so FREE SPEECH should have no bounds? Is that your story? Ironic that you are the originator of the following threads:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f32/dont-feed-gded-trolls-29966.html


http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f32/serious-problem-developing-29963.html


I'm sure that's 'different'. No tazer was involved.

-ERD50

No, I was intimating that you would side with the cops no matter what they did.

 

[ERD50]

No, I was intimating that you would side with the cops no matter what they did.

Hmmm, is that what you get out of these statements I made?

I wish the cops had managed a less dramatic way of dealing with this loser,

It is likely that the police over-reacted,

Maybe the police chose poorly,

I don't know that the tazing was justified,

I think you need reading glasses, brewer.

-ERD50

 

[brewer12345]

Hmmm, is that what you get out of these statements I made?



I think you need reading glasses, brewer.

-ERD50

I read you loud and clear, thank you very much. Bye-bye.

 

[ERD50]

I read you loud and clear, thank you very much. Bye-bye.

So sorry, but I just realized that I missed this one on that last reply:

Now, if he got TAZR'd for peaceably handing out pamphlets, or if the police beat down his door because he was holding a political discussion among friends, THAT would fit my idea of 'police state brutality', and I would fight that tooth and nail.

-ERD50

I guess I'm too late to ask you how you interpret THAT as 'siding with the cops no matter what they did.'.

-ERD50

 

[Bigritchie]

Big richie, I bent as far as I can personally in my prior post.

Yours, OTOH, seems to me very extreme and not supportable at all. I hope you never have personal occasion to test out your theories first hand. When the police tell you you are under arrest, my advice is 100%, no questions asked, COMPLY. Fight them in court later, if you like. Write a letter to the editor. Protest outside the station once you are released. Write a book. Call your local news station. Make a web blog decrying your circumstances of arrest. Vote out the politicos who control the police in that region. Run for office. Call your Congressman. But IMHO, it is a fool who thinks resisting arrest is a wise move under ANY condition.

I would not resist and just fight it later, I just wanted to point out what the law actually says. But at the same time, America would not even exist had not our founding fathers resisted authority. Part of me agrees with what you say, but I would say if we asked the Jews in Germany before and during WW2 they would say something else. it is a fine line.

And I have nothing against the police, I think they have a rough job, and they deal with the insane public every day which would drive me nuts. I for one, would not want their job.

When someone that I do not agree with, looses their freedom, eventually I loose my own.

 

[CCdaCE]

The whole incident reminds me of a drunk student at a hockey game yelling at the other team.

Does anyone know if he was intoxicated? I wouldn't call someone that is about to TAZE me, "bro".

-CC

 

[Bigritchie]

That kid should start a t-shirt/bumper sticker line that says "Don't taze me Bro!", he could make a fortune.

 

[ERD50]

When someone that I do not agree with, looses their freedom, eventually I loose my own.

Agreed. But in this case, were freedoms lost or were freedoms preserved?

The disruption caused by this kid meant that the people who came to listen to Kerry were robbed of some of their freedom to hear Kerry speak.

This is why I say that Free Speech comes with responsibilities. If you are going to disagree, fine, but do it in a civil manner that respects MY freedoms.

-ERD50

 

[Olav23]

I do not want to get involved in this discussion as it is close enough to achieving Godwin's Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

What I would like to add is that everyone should at least look this over, in case the unthinkable happens and you are (hopefully wrongly) in such a situation:

American Civil Liberties Union : Know Your Rights: What to Do If You're Stopped by the Police

 

[DRiP Guy]

I would not resist and just fight it later, I just wanted to point out what the law actually says.

I appreciate the perspective, even if I may not agree with it.

But at the same time, America would not even exist had not our founding fathers resisted authority.

That is true. And they felt they were being wronged, and were prepared to pay the ultimate price. I am similarly inclined to fight vigorously for my rights, and also to fight government oppression. I just happened to think that this particular incident was a perfect case of when tasers SHOULD be used, and why police sometimes DO need to take action. He asserts he was just exercising his free speech rights. I feel the evidence shows he ended up creating a disturbance, resisting arrest, etc. So, for myself only, far from feeling the oppression of a police state, I'm dang glad they were there. I only wish they had perhaps acted more slowly. Maybe.

Part of me agrees with what you say, but I would say if we asked the Jews in Germany before and during WW2 they would say something else. it is a fine line.

I would offer that this does not appear to me to be a case of creeping institutional shut down of legitimate citizen's rights, it is merely enforcing existing well-established law, that I for one happen to be completely sanguine about. CALEA act and warrantless wire tapping and suspension of habeas corpus for 'detainees' causes me true grave concern. One whiner getting taken down because he won't cooperate, never intended too and was dead set to be an attention w_hore does not worry me a bit.

And I have nothing against the police, I think they have a rough job, and they deal with the insane public every day which would drive me nuts. I for one, would not want their job.

Amen, bro.

When someone that I do not agree with, looses their freedom, eventually I loose my own.

"When someone that I do not agree with, unjustly loses their freedom, eventually I lose my own" Fixed that for ya....!!!!
O0

 

[DRiP Guy]

I wanted to post this, it is very slightly off topic I suppose, but if we are really talking about a practical way to make sure you secure your own rights, watch and learn.

The police have a difficult job, but they are generally NOT there to help you on a traffic stop. These tips could save those without a lot of practical experience from terrible mistakes. After you watch this series of videos, then pay attention next time you watch "Cops" and see how many times the person could have legitimately avoided a situation leading to their arrest.



BUSTED Clips | FlexYourRights.org

Of course, for a bit of comic relief, we need the ever popular (R for very salty language):

YouTube - Chris Rock - Beat by the Police

 

[Martha]

DRIP Guy, those clips are great.