You may have already seen this video of a conspiracy theorist being tasered at a John Kerry speech...
But, via a letter written to Michelle Malkin, here's what happened before this kid started disturbing the peace and resisting arrest...
So I went to the John Kerry town hall forum this morning trying to get students registered to vote. I run a student government organization called Chomp the Vote. Anyway I went inside to watch the event. Senator Kerry took the podium and began delivering a speech about the Middle East, Iraq, dimplomacy, etc. Anyway, after he was done, a university ambassador asked Kerry a few premade questions. Once that was over, Senator Kerry announced he would take questions from the students. There were two microphones placed on each side of the aisle. One on my side and the other on Andrew Meyer's side. Senator Kerry began answering the student's questions from each aisle. Eventually it was announced that there would only be a few more questions answered. Since Meyer and I were both in the back of each line, it did not seem likely that our questions would be answered.However, while Senator Kerry was responding to a student's question, all of a sudden Meyer rushed to the microphone with cops in pursuit. At that point no one knew what was going on. Could he have a gun, a bomb? Immediately, Meyer began yelling into the microphone that he had been waiting in line forever and that Senator Kerry should "spend time to answer everyone's questions!" Senator Kerry tried to calm the student down by telling him that he would "stay here as long as it takes to get the questions answered." The police approached Meyer who began taunting them by saying "what! are you going to taser me? are you going to arrest me?!" The police grabbed Meyer, but Senator Kerry asked the police to let him go and that he would answer his question. Senator Kerry finished answering the other student's question and then proceeded with Meyer. (*This entire scene is not in any video I can find so far. This is why 2 cops are seen right behind Meyer at the start of some videos*).
Meyer approached the microphone and began to talk about a book he had which stated that Kerry won the 2004 election because of disenfranchisement of black voters and faulty voter machines that produced "Bush" as the winner. He then posed another question about why President Bush had not been impeached. "President Clinton was impeached because of a blowjob, why not Bush?". The third and strangest question he posed to Senator Kerry was asking him if he was part of the skull and bones society with Bush at Yale. Meyer's mic cut off after that, probably because he had mentioned the word "blowjob".
...I don't know if this is relevant or not, but Andrew Meyer is a former sports writer for the school newspaper The Alligator. In his columns, he has been known to make ridiculous statements in order to gain attention for himself. Was today a publicity stunt?
So, he cut in line, kept asking question after question, resisted police when they tried to shoo him out (and yes, I do think it was appropriate for security to move him on since his mike had been cut off), kept resisting and making a ridiculous scene, kept fighting after they decided to arrest him, kept on struggling even after they pulled out the taser, and then finally got tased.
Good for the campus police because Meyer deserved what he got.
PS: I wish the campus police acted more like these guys when conservatives are speaking at colleges instead of sitting on their thumbs while libs takeover the stage and throw pies.
|
Score: -3
John Hawkins | 02:04 PM |
(3)
Posted by Pork_Soda
2007-09-18 14:19:34
Posted by maledicta
2007-09-18 14:19:45
I definitely agree this type of action should be used on liberal activists just the same, they seem to be the over excited ones most of the time.
Posted by PatrickBritton
2007-09-18 14:21:22
Posted by Pork_Soda
2007-09-18 14:24:20
Him screaming, 'help, help!' makes me think it was indeed a stunt he pulled to get attention.
Posted by JannyMae
2007-09-18 14:28:55
Posted by rgr50279
2007-09-18 14:31:26
Posted by maledicta
2007-09-18 14:32:14
Halp me, halp me... classic. SLMAO.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-09-18 14:41:06
Posted by maledicta
September 18, 2007 2:32 PM |
Mutha-McLovin seconded.
The prodigious rate that these self-important beatches are produced sometimes gets me vexed.
Posted by Pork_Soda
2007-09-18 14:41:57
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
September 18, 2007 2:41 PM |
The same place that they would be if the head choppers come knocking at their doors. Hiding under the table and bawling like little babies, wondering where the police or military are. Yet these yellow bellies loathe both the police and the military.
Posted by NORSEMAN
2007-09-18 14:44:38
Posted by NorthernCanuck
2007-09-18 14:45:11
Posted by JannyMae
2007-09-18 14:46:58
Posted by gayunemployedmexican
2007-09-18 14:48:13
I had a good laugh over it. A nice way to start my day i would say.
Posted by bokchoy
2007-09-18 14:50:42
September 18, 2007 2:45 PM |
Yea, LOL. He was squealing louder than Ned Beatty in Deliverance.
Posted by NORSEMAN
2007-09-18 14:54:20
All I saw was the officers wrestling with Meyers on the floor and then he starts bawling "don't taser me, don't taser me" just before he starts in with that shrill, girlish shrieking.
So, have the campus cops admitted to tasering the moonbat?
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-09-18 14:58:44
Yes, but here is a prediction on how this will play out.
This kid will hire a lawyer that will sue the police over all of his rights that were violated. The ACLU will jump into this on the kid's side. He will win some settlement and be laughing all the way to his next protest.
On the other side, the security officers that gave this punk exactly what he was asking for and deserved, will be reprimanded and marked as issues within their department, adversly affecting their careers.
In other words, this punk will be rewarded for his idiocy, while the officers that acted properly will be held accountable.
Posted by StanW
2007-09-18 14:59:27
September 18, 2007 2:59 PM |
You may be right Stan but this happened in Florida, not New York or Massachusetts so there is hope.
Posted by NORSEMAN
2007-09-18 15:09:56
Andrew Meyer was intentionally disruptive out of some hairbrained notion that the right to free speech automatically endows a person to interrupt the whole world and bring it to a halt so they can exercise that free speech.
But the right to free speech, in a civilized society, does not override nor negate the rules/laws of that society which are set in place to protect and safeguard the health and welfare of all members of that society.
And someone needs to tell Andrew Meyer that just because one has the right to free speech, does not guarantee the person the right to a captive audience to hear the free speech. Just as everyone has a right to free speech, everyone else has a right not to be -forced- to listen to that speech.
If he wants a society ruled by anarchy, then he'd better start expecting a lot rougher treatment than he got this time. Meyer is, sadly, one of the clueless self-centered drama-kings/queens that have been all too oppressive in our society in recent years. I hope people will stand up and stand behind the security and law enforcement personnel who handled this out of control nutcase.
Just my two cents worth. Thanks for listening/reading, those who did. :)
Posted by KendraWilder
2007-09-18 15:12:12
Posted by bokchoy
September 18, 2007 2:50 PM |
It is f'n hillarious. "Don't Tase me bro!!! OW OW OW....OW..OW!!!"
The more I listen to it the funnier it gets!
Posted by Pork_Soda
2007-09-18 15:16:11
September 18, 2007 2:59 PM |
You might be right Stan. However i still have hope that if this happens to go to court that the judge will have half a brain.
As some have said before free speech does not give you the right to disrupt society.
And to be frank about this situation the kid got off light. If officers did not have tasers like they do now he probably would of gotten beat with a good sturdy club.
Posted by bokchoy
2007-09-18 15:17:39
Posted by Malcolm_S
2007-09-18 15:24:55
I say get a prosecutor that goes after disruptive lunatics seeking attention the way the Vegas DA has gone after serial scofflaw OJ.
Posted by daveinboca2
2007-09-18 15:26:00
They said he was a Communications major. He should switch to Drama major.
Posted by dmacp
2007-09-18 15:26:54
The more I listen to it the funnier it gets!
Posted by Pork_Soda
Me too, and I thought I was a compassionate conservative LOL. This just cracks me up.
Moonbats should try that in every situation: don't ticket me bro! See how that works for them.
Help! I've been tasered and I can't get up!
I don't know if it truly is this funny or just satisfying to finally see one of these idiots get taken out.
Posted by NorthernCanuck
2007-09-18 15:34:31
September 18, 2007 3:12 PM
Very well said.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-09-18 15:34:52
Posted by AlexinCT
2007-09-18 15:37:02
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
I don't care if you cut in line or were disruptive, if you're not a threat, you shouldn't be tasered. This kid was obviously not a threat to the safety of the 4 officers who had him pinned down.
I normally agree with what you say, but you're way off base here. These cops used excessive force to say the least and should be immediately relieved of their positions. Watching the whole video, I see a kid who obviously was unstable, off base and just plain obnoxious. But a threat to those around him, no. The police and you are quite wrong about this one.
Posted by ratkiller78
2007-09-18 15:42:02
The human body has numerous pressure centers that allow the infliction of severe pain without causing permanent injury. Having had trained with several cop friends in martial arts I can attest to just how painful these control techniques are. I screamed, but not quite like this bloke did. I suppose because I knew the pain was coming. It hurt much less when I got to practice on my cop buddies. The only time I could inflict pain on a cop and not spend ten years in a federal penitentiary! Of course, I got my ass kicked in a later sparring sessions.
Posted by Tracer
2007-09-18 15:43:05
September 18, 2007 3:42 PM
Sorry dude. The punk was not tasered and the cops used standard operating procedures to control an unruly citizen.
The cops had no idea if the guy was dangerous or not. He refused to compy with their lawful orders, he refused to leave the venue, became beligerent and combative when they tried to escort him out.
Actually, the cops were more gentle than they had to be.
Posted by Tracer
2007-09-18 15:53:41
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-09-18 15:55:00
September 18, 2007 3:55 PM
Actually he has gotten as much negative reception as positive on most sites and Conservatives have been very polite and supportive of the way that Kerry handled the situation.
Posted by Malcolm_S
2007-09-18 16:01:47
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-09-18 16:01:55
That's exactly what I was thinking. Meyer's whole bleating of "don't tase me, don't tase me" was an act. Did anyone even see the taser that was alleged used in the video? The punk's hoping for a windfall lawsuit.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-09-18 16:05:30
Actually it was fun and games AFTER he got tasered too! Even more so!
How many times a day would you like to taser some a**hole when he cuts you off, or stands in front of you deciding which lottery scratch tickets to buy when you need gas or coffee and you're late for work? Tasers should be mandatory.
Posted by mojoe
2007-09-18 16:09:16
Oh please. He was being gently escorted to the door and started going bonkers. The minute you start jumping and thrashing around while in police custody, you're going to get a well-deserved beat down. Shoving police and trying to escape is not "obnoxious", it's dangerous behavior.
Those cops had no idea if he had a gun or knife or was going to try and rush the stage or run away. He needed to be subdued and secured to eliminate the possibility of a threat to anyone in the audience.
Posted by Mike_M
2007-09-18 16:09:53
One thing I will say though is if you're trying to get attention, and the cameras are rolling, don’t scream like a little girl. Would you want your kids to see that in twenty years. At least he didn’t pee himself, I guess.
Posted by inthemid
2007-09-18 16:11:09
GOB,
Even the police dept acknowledges that the taser was used or are they "acting" as well. However the idiot kid deserved it for not obeying a lawful police order and then strugling against them.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-09-18 16:14:03
September 18, 2007 4:05 PM
He may have been acting about the taser. The pain infliction was not an act. I'd say he was down right surprised at the pain.
He doesn't have much of a law suit anyways. The ACLU does not take on cases that would set their agenda backwards. Even they don't waste their time on pansies.
Posted by Tracer
2007-09-18 16:14:36
As I'm sure we'll agree to do with this situation as well. No hard feelings, right?
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-09-18 16:15:31
He wasn't tasered for cutting in line or being disruptive. He was tasered because he was fighting with police officers and resisting arrest. He was warned repeatedly that if he did not cease his resistance he would be tasered, and the officers made every effort to escort him from the room without having to resort to the taser or to physical force. He was warned before the video above even begins that he needed to stop what he was doing; he ignored every warning and became immediately belligerent with the officers. If resisting arrest doesn't warrant the use of a taser, then why do officers even carry them? And if the cops aren't allowed to use the necessary amount of physical force to detain someone, how exactly are they supposed to arrest people?
More irritating than anything else is that Meyer almost certainly intended for this to happen. Think about it: If you want to ask someone on stage a tough question, do you charge the stage? If you don't want to get tasered and arrested, do you dare the cops to do so? If you want any chance of having your say in a public forum, do you begin screaming and fighting with police? Every single action he takes in that video contributes to what ultimately happens to him, and the fact that he's so vocal about exactly what's going on isn't an accident. He planned this out. So while there's some short-term satisfaction in seeing him get the beatdown he deserves, in the long-run he succeeds in attracting the attention he desires.
Posted by maledicta
2007-09-18 16:17:33
Posted by idpanicman
September 18, 2007 4:14 PM
The video does not show the cops tasing the guy. If they did while the cops were on top of him, the cops themselves would have been shocked by the electric pulses. The electric pulses are conducted across the skin of the person being tased. If there is any skin-to-skin contact with another person, that person will feel the shock.
Posted by Tracer
2007-09-18 16:23:00
Thank you! I asked if anyone knew if the campus police had copped (pun intended) to tasering him back at 2:58, but no one answered. Would you mind providing a link?
Btw- I doubted the veracity of Meyer's taser accusation due to the fact that the current would've travelled into the cops as well as the moron himself. And yet I didn't see any of them so much as flinch. Tough cops on that campus.
"However the idiot kid deserved it for not obeying a lawful police order and then struggling against them."
Glad to see that this is one of those rare instances were we're in agreement.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-09-18 16:24:19
So are you saying that the Police dept is lying now? They came out and stated that the police officer who did the tasing and the sergant who ordered it have been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation. Evidently the police dept feels that the student was tased.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-09-18 16:26:05
Posted by inthemid
2007-09-18 16:26:27
GOB,
Here is the link
http://www.ocala.com/article/2...7/1053/BREAKING_NEWS
Posted by idpanicman
2007-09-18 16:33:08
Excerpt from the article:
Ah, a felony would be sweet, but it probably won't happen.
Just curious, does anyone think that Mr. Meyers may have learned his lesson? Or will the attention that he's getting from this foolish act only embolden this idiot?
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-09-18 16:45:41
September 18, 2007 4:26 PM
Calm down, dude! The video does not show them tasering the guy. What is so hard to understand about that? It does not mean that that video is the end all of information about this incident. There is more to this story than what is shown in this video.
It is quite likely that they tasered him at some point not depicted in this video. Perhaps in the hallway of the auditorium? The point is you are not going to tase some guy lying on the floor with four cops on top of him and not shock the cops as well.
Posted by Tracer
2007-09-18 16:50:39
I'm sure he "learned" exactly the wrong lesson: That the whole world is mean, nasty, and conspiring to get the few truth-tellers out there like himself.
Posted by maledicta
2007-09-18 16:58:12
Sorry Tracer, not really mad at you, horrible day in the real world.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-09-18 17:02:11
September 18, 2007 4:33 PM
I read the article link you provided and yes, the cops tased the guy after the cops tried to hand cuff him. It is likely that they had used a hand-held device. In my experience with a taser, you did not use it with your buddies on top of the perp because they would get shocked as well. Perhaps there are low power devices capable of that now. When I got tased it hurt like hell and I thought for sure I would lose control of my bladder and sphincter.
During the video the cops were appying pressure point control on the guy elliciting his cries of pain. It is unlikely that he would cry out in pain when being tased. It would have been more like a phlematic "argh" sort of sound.
Posted by Tracer
2007-09-18 17:11:46
Posted by idpanicman
September 18, 2007 5:02 PM |
Same here. I'm joining gayunemployedchicano in the unemployment line. My eyes are going blurry from trolling the job boards. Anyone need a Candidate Sourcer/Recruiter?
Posted by Pork_Soda
2007-09-18 17:21:13
Posted by RetiredNavy
2007-09-18 17:26:44
Next Best Thing: Laying on the ground, crying like a little girl!
Posted by StanW
2007-09-18 17:30:42
Posted by StanW
September 18, 2007 5:30 PM
Nothing like reality smacking you in the face!
Posted by Tracer
2007-09-18 17:37:26
September 18, 2007 3:42 PM
Sadly, I'm sure you will be the first to criticize the cops if they ever allow a violent situation to escalate. I'm sure your first words will be "why did the police allow this to happen?"
The police are responsible for maintaining law and order. Today, they're too violent but tomorrow, they're not aggressive enough to quell the violence.
The video obviously shows the kid trying to escape the police. He cooperated for a while then tried to run away. When you are responsible for lives you don't have time to sit back and ponder if the person in question is a threat or not.
Since you obviously have fantastic foresight, perhaps you can join the police. They can use people like you who are 100% accurate in identifying the difference between a true threat and some nutjob student who is a little too obsessed with Alex Jones.
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-09-18 17:43:29
Posted by Genghis_Shan
2007-09-18 17:45:47
Why are these idiots so obsessed over the Skull & Bones society? So Kerry belonged to the same club as Bush, walked around in a funny robe and had a secret handshake, so frickin' what?
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-09-18 17:49:40
;-)
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-09-18 18:11:47
I am far from a sympathizer for criminals. If you deserve to be tasered, you should get tasered. However, I am also not a person who think that the police get carte blanche to do whatever they feel like doing. This kid did not deserve to be tasered. They didn't taser him while he was running around, they tasered him while he was pinned down by the police. What threat did he pose at this point? He hardly looked like Jack Bauer's little brother, ready to bust out of the dogpile of cops and slaughter everyone in the room. No he was looking to ask Kerry a few tough questions and end up a hero on daily kos. Also, the police truly had no business trying to arrest this kid. He did noting illegal. Kerry engaged him, basically told the police to stop what they were doing, and yet he ends up in jail. No, anyone who supports what the police in gainesville did to this kid is just plain wrong. Again, these officers deserve to lose their jobs.
Also, what violence did you see this kid do? Pull away from a cop? If you have done nothing illegal, the cops have no right to detain you.
Posted by ratkiller78
2007-09-18 18:16:34
Posted by scalt
2007-09-18 18:35:06
I don't doubt that the kid was tasered (why would the police say it if it wasn't true?) I just don't think that he was being shocked IN THIS VIDEO...from the sound of it, he's having some pressure applied to some of the points aformentioned by previous posters.
His whole stint sounds pretty false to me, honestly.
Posted by gwgmer
2007-09-18 18:46:31
Posted by tblrk2006
I realize that this is a bit late, but that was my thought exactly!
Posted by paulehansen
2007-09-18 18:56:54
To gwgmer, a taser was clearly used, you hear the clicking of the taser as it is applied to him and he rightlyfully screams out in pain. Tasers are a serious weapon, they hurt, and should only be used in true threatening situations, not when 3 or 4 cops have you pinned to the ground, this was excessive force.
Posted by dstrauss
2007-09-18 18:59:37
As far as an excuse to "hire little blond police officer women", last i checked we lived in a free country which means if a woman wants to be a police officer she has that right, no "excuses" needed. So if you feel that a woman should not be a police officer then maybe you should move to a country where such freedoms have not bee granted. We are in wars to protect our freedoms after all.
Posted by dstrauss
2007-09-18 19:07:58
Posted by scalt"
If someone is resisting the "thrown out" recommendation, how do you suggest they enforce it? He was clearly struggling, instead of cooperating with police. He tried to rush around them a couple of times after they clearly tried to politely escort him out. Not knowing his intentions or what weapons he may have, should they have just politely allowed him to pass through them, so they didn't injure him? Are the police supposed to form some form of human shield to move him out, meanwhile ignoring the rest of their responsibilities for security? Reality has to set in amidst all this idealism. The police are people too and not machines.
I have friends who are police and based on my observation of the response here, these aren't bad cops or even cops who responded poorly. These police exercised great professionalism with this self absorbed jerk. If they used a TASER after he was cuffed, that is a common practice to discourage further fighting from the assailant.
Anybody else remember the Atlanta convict that escaped court custody (even while cuffed)? Hand cuffs do not mean the fight is done. They just provide some advantage to the police, but they don't completely subdue the assailant.
His screaming was very theatrical and put on. This was all show on his part and now these cops are going to be put on trial more than this anarchist. I hope the university backs off on their critique of the cops. The university president is already caving to the rest of the moron students who think the anarchist was "wronged" somehow.
Posted by canddmf
2007-09-18 19:08:00
Posted by paulehansen
2007-09-18 19:21:36
Posted by Vanir
2007-09-18 19:22:22
Posted by scalt"
If someone is resisting the "thrown out" recommendation, how do you suggest they enforce it? He was clearly struggling, instead of cooperating with police. He tried to rush around them a couple of times after they clearly tried to politely escort him out. Not knowing his intentions or what weapons he may have, should they have just politely allowed him to pass through them, so they didn't injure him? Are the police supposed to form some form of human shield to move him out, meanwhile ignoring the rest of their responsibilities for security? Reality has to set in amidst all this idealism. The police are people too and not machines.
I have friends who are police and based on my observation of the response here, these aren't bad cops or even cops who responded poorly. These police exercised great professionalism with this self absorbed jerk. If they used a TASER after he was cuffed, that is a common practice to discourage further fighting from the assailant.
Anybody else remember the Atlanta convict that escaped court custody (even while cuffed)? Hand cuffs do not mean the fight is done. They just provide some advantage to the police, but they don't completely subdue the assailant.
His screaming was very theatrical and put on. This was all show on his part and now these cops are going to be put on trial more than this anarchist. I hope the university backs off on their critique of the cops. The university president is already caving to the rest of the moron students who think the anarchist was "wronged" somehow.
Posted by canddmf
2007-09-18 19:23:26
How were the officers supposed to know what threat level he posed? All they knew was he was being extremely disruptive and was resisting their attempts to remove him from the auditorium. He might have had a gun tucked in the back of his pants. He might have had a knife in his pocket. It was impossible for them to pat him down because he was thrashing around like a maniac.
In that situation the only prudent response is to assume that the perp is a threat and incapacitate him as soon as possible.
Uh, yeah he did.
The police were escorting him out of the room for being disruptive and he started physically resisting. If he had only settled down and calmly left the auditorium, he would never have been arrested.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-18 19:44:40
I'm sorry, but anyone who is a) resisting arrest, and b) acting that much of an ass deserves a tasing.
Posted by jasamc
2007-09-18 19:43:54
In the video you can clearly hear the officers warn the kid that if he continues to resist, he'll get tazered. If he didn't want to get tazered, all he had to do was stop struggling.
How do you know he was "obviously" not carrying a weapon? There are plenty of firearms small enough to be tucked in a man's pants and knives are easily concealed.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-18 19:47:25
September 18, 2007 7:23 PM
You're right, we should all be allowed to follow only the rules and laws that we want to, and the jackbooted thugs should leave us alone.
So, where do you live? I've always wanted to burn a house to the ground.
Posted by jasamc
2007-09-18 19:47:50
And I suppose the fact that the physical standards for police officers have been dumbed down to allow more female cops makes no difference to you?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-18 19:51:02
September 18, 2007 6:59 PM |
Posted by Vanir
September 18, 2007 7:22 PM |
Posted by BrightHorizons
September 18, 2007 7:23 PM |
Since all three of you seem to be suffering from a terminal case of dumb-as-a-brick syndrome, I'll address you all together.
The kid was not arrested or tazered because he was "dissenting" or for voicing unpopular opinions. He was arrested and tazered because he was PHYSICALLY RESISTING THE POLICE.
Did you get that? PHYSICALLY RESISTING THE POLICE.
Since when is physical resistance against lawful authority a Constitutional right? I checked the Constitution and I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-18 19:57:41
Meyer was very obviously both resisting arrest and trying to escape from the officers - depending on whether or not you view his actions as violent, he's guilty of either a felony under section 843.01, or a misdemeanor under 843.02. Either way, use of force is justified under http://www.flsenate.gov/Statut...76/SEC07.HTM&Title=->2007->Ch0776->Section%2007#0776.07">776.07 (1). I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and say what's evident from the tape isn't violent, but there's really not any kind of a gray area here in terms of whether or not he was resisting.
We've now gone from the merely incorrect to the inane. Clearly, as long as the young man doesn't murder multiple police officers, he should be left alone. I'm sure that's what Florida lawmakers had in mind when they devised their criminal code.
Of course not. Resisting arrest and fighting with police officers does.
Two thoughts here. One, he wasn't tasered for an attempt at "good honest debate," he was tasered for fighting with police. Second, the irony here is that it's Meyer's actions that ruined any chance at having an intelligent discussion in the first place. There's no definition of reasonable discourse that includes shoving your way up to the front of the line and yelling a bunch of "Why do you beat your wife?" questions at someone who's only offense consists of not being as politically extreme as you. The person solely responsible for the transition from an open Q&A forum to a circus is Meyer - yet somehow he gets to hide behind a defense of the very discussion that he himself destroyed. That really doesn't make much sense.
Posted by maledicta
2007-09-18 20:03:18
September 18, 2007 7:57 PM |
Apparently you are suffering from dumb-as-a-brick syndrome as well since in order to resist arrest they had to be arresting him for something, and that something was not clear. If you watch the video he was speaking the Kerry asking about the bone and skull club and the female officer reached out and tried to grab his arm to stop him from speaking. At the point that he reached out, he was talking loudly but was NOT being unruley. THEN he resisted the police. But the female cop appeared to reach out and grab him arm soley because he was being loud and obnoxious, NOT for resisting anyone.
Posted by dstrauss
2007-09-18 20:25:49
In your opinion. To me and, obviously, the police, he was. And guess what? The only opinions, in that type of situation, that matter are those of the police.
And a threat to those around him. As far as she could tell. If he wasn't, it was up to HIM to calmly step back when told to. As soon as he decided against that, he was ignoring the lawful orders of a police officer.
Posted by jasamc
2007-09-18 20:34:12
Don't fight with cops. Really, you'll rack up the charges pretty quickly when you do.
Posted by maledicta
2007-09-18 20:38:41
What DimHorizons is saying is that if this troother cut me off, preventing me from exercising MY First Amendment rights, then I have the right to knock out his fucking teeth and the police cannot do anything about it, right DH?
Oh, I'm sure this asswipe's questions were REALLY important. After all, we MUST have the facts on Kerry's Skull & Bones connections because if we don't, then you fucking assholes would have to live in the real world.
What is really funny is that you sheep humpers voted for Kerry so, what you're saying is that the Democratic party supports jack-booted thugs. Gee, we've been saying that for a long time. Thanks DimHorizons for realizing that you're a stupid fucking asshole.
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-09-18 20:49:29
Here's the biggie, which triggered his arrest and resultant justified use of force by the arresting officers:
843.01 Resisting officer with violence to his or her person.--Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; parole and probation supervisor; county probation officer; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
This isn't resisting arrest, it's resisting the lawful order of a police officer in a violent manner. This dude is a felon, and is going to be watching his back in the prison shower, not filing lawsuits.
Posted by Mike_M
2007-09-18 21:03:18
Posted by dstrauss
2007-09-18 21:05:49
Posted by Mike_M
2007-09-18 21:05:53
The incident didn't start when the video above does. Read the excerpt from the letter to Malkin - Meyer had rushed the microphone out of turn and resisted the officers before Kerry let him speak. The video begins around the point when his time expires and the officers decided he should be escorted from the room. So there's more than you're seeing just there.
Posted by maledicta
2007-09-18 21:10:57
To you perhaps. To me it seems very clear that he was being arrested for disturbing the peace.
"Unruly" is exactly what he was. He was "disorderly and disruptive and not amenable to discipline or control" (Oxford American Dictionary).
Thank you. You've just conceded the argument.
Correct. He was being loud and obnoxious and disrupting an event that other well-behaved students came to see. That is a crime.
Except that he HAD been asked to stop.
www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RNKFQG0&show_article=1&catnum=0
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-18 21:14:15
Then perhaps you should do a little research.
http://www.ocala.com/article/2...7/1053/BREAKING_NEWS
Though Sen. Kerry directed that Meyer be allowed to ask his question, police reported that Meyer did not ask any specific question and instead "badgered" the senator, and at one point said something about President Clinton being impeached over a sexual act.
At that point, police reported that ACCENT Director Max Tyroler turned off Meyer's microphone and asked police to escort him out of the auditorium, saying, "He had said enough," according to Officer Mallo's report.
Actually he doesn't. The First Amendment does not give you the right to disrupt a peaceable assembly. The officers were well within the law to escort him out of the auditorium.
Just because you didn't hear anyone say his time was up doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-18 21:20:41
September 18, 2007 9:05 PM |
Utterly irrelevant. He was asked to leave, refused. He was then being escorted out of the room by police, at which time he disobeyed their orders by physically fighting back.
Game. Over.
Look up Florida law. Simply from the video alone Meyer committed at least one felony, and probably broke several other laws in the process. Bye bye pal. Thanks for playing.
Posted by Mike_M
2007-09-18 21:49:30
Posted by Pork_Soda
2007-09-18 21:54:11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vR-4DawSUM
On the audio you can clearly hear the female police officer saying "stop, stop," as Meyer is escorted away from the microphone. He was asked to stop talking and leave, but he resisted.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-18 22:08:28
Personally, I think he was trying to enter a resume with George Soros for the upcoming Republican Convention, to be hired to help orchestrate Code Pinko and other Socialists activities for the cameras.
Posted by Rose
2007-09-18 22:52:11
I'm sure he is having roaring good time over this, thinking himself to be a mighty clever fellow in HIS mind.
Posted by Rose
2007-09-18 23:27:17
This kid first made a run for the front - alone enough to "present" himself threateningly enough to be expelled from the meeting and possibly arrested - which he full well knows, as do all the students in the building.
Then he grabs the microphone NOT HIS TURN and for THREE - NOT ONE - questions, and showing no signs of stopping! OR OF SHOWING RESPECT FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE ASSEMBLY and its rules.
Posted by Rose
2007-09-18 23:35:45
You can call whatever you want, but you're still wrong.
An open forum that Meyer was willfully disrupting. Ergo, an illegal disturbance of the peace.
It appalls me that you would defend this man for disrupting a peaceable assembly, thereby denying other students their right to participate in an open forum.
Or are crazy weirdos the only people who have the right to free speech now?
Exactly, which is why Meyer was removed from the auditorium. He was disrupting the event and denying other students their right to ask questions and participate in the forum.
Absolutely I would.
You see, we conservatives don't take kindly to people who think they are better than the police or that the rules don't apply to them.
Yeah, yeah. Go re-live your hippy golden years elsewhere.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 00:22:55
Posted by thhhbbbb
2007-09-19 02:46:51
Viva la revolution indeed.
Posted by klaatuwolf
2007-09-19 04:13:59
In my opinion this is not about liberal vs conservative, but perhaps you disagree--Anyway, I have always admired and respected police officers (unlike most people, unfortunate yet true), and I have a close relative of the highest integrity who has made law enforcement their career. But I believe this Andrew Meyer fiasco was an abuse of power. Overkill.
Believe it or not, klaatuwolf, there is a field of judgement between shooting the back of a human's head, tasering, or cuffing someone. Thought you should know.....
Posted by thhhbbbb
2007-09-19 04:59:42
It doesn't matter whether Andrew Meyer asked rude questions or whether he wanted to provoke or whether he's used to be a troublemaker. There are other ways to calm somebody down.
Even if you all don't like that guy, everybody got's the right to say what he wants to say when he wants to say it...even if it's "ridiculous".
All this remembers me at the time of World War II and the former German Democratic Republic.
Politicians are used to people like Meyer. The students time was up, so what? And if really everybody wanted him to shut down why nobody told him to do so?
Posted by Mira
2007-09-19 05:20:11
September 19, 2007 4:59 AM
Posted by Mira
September 19, 2007 5:20 AM
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, that maybe you don't understand, let's try this one more time:
We don't care what Meyer was saying. We don't care if he disagrees with a political stand or agrees with it. But when the police are physically moving you, and you are fighting back, you deserve to be tasered. He wasn't shot, nothing was broken, he was subdued.
Now, if you still have a problem with it, then obviously, you have a problem with police enforcing the laws with minimum lethality. Me? I like the fact that the cops have a weapon that incapacitates and am thinking of buying a smaller version for my wife to take with her to work.
Posted by jasamc
2007-09-19 08:00:45
There is never never a legitimate reason to disobey an order from a police officer or resist arrest. Period. Full stop.
I am fully awafe that cops are human too, and make mistakes on occasion. But the legitimacy of the arrest at the moment it occurs does not have a bearing on if you are letgally obliged to cply with order. If you think you are being incorrectly detained, then there will be plenty of time to fight it legally later on. But you are NEVER justified in resisting arrest.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of tasers. I much prefer chemical agents like CS (tear gas) or Oc (pepper spray). I've had alot of exposure to their use in my line of work and they are extremely effective. But whatever works and in this case the use of pepper spray in a crowded hall might not have been a good idea.
This was clearly not a case of excessive force. This guy refused to comply with numerous verrbal orders and was refusing to submit to handcuffs. At that point, they were justified to use force to compell him to allow himself to be handcuffed. Sure they had him on the ground. So what? Would you have prefered that they simply wrestled with him until they could force his arms into a postion to be handcuffed? I've seen people's arms get broken like that. using a taser to gain compliance when this guy continued to resist reduced the chance of either the cops or the suspect being injured.
Finally, allow me to agree with those who have said that their opinion would not change even if the person being restraint shared my ideology. Hell, I'd probably be even MORE for seeing this guy cuffed and stuffed if he were on my side as I would hope that guys like me respected the rules of law and were smarter than this.
"Trench Raider"
who has rolled around on the floor tyring to candcuff guys more times than he cares to remember....
Posted by trenchraider
2007-09-19 08:57:56
You have one piss poor memory then.
All you apologists for fighting the police are even worse than the typical liberal protest crowd. Nobody has a First Amendment right to disrupt a peaceful assembly. Nobody has the right to ignore the lawful orders of a police officer. Nobody has the right to resist arrest.
If this reminds you of WWII Germany, you're an idiot.
Posted by Mike_M
2007-09-19 09:43:21
Since you obviously don't seem to respect the First Amendment rights of the OTHER people who had questions I hope that someday, someone cuts in front of you to ask a bunch of juvenile questions. When you become angry when you were cut off by someone else we will be happy to remind you that you fully supported this for other people.
Liberalism = extreme selfishness
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-09-19 10:05:58
To: michaelsavage@michaelsavage.com;MichaelSavage@savagenation.com
Subject: Watch what you say Mr. Savage.
Mr. Savage-During your rant about the Florida campus cop taser incident you stated that "the crowd should have jumped the cops!" While I agree that the campus cop was wrong in her actions, and that the student should not have been given more than the old heave-ho out of the lecture room, I would like to think that your suggestion that the crowd should have jumped the cops is not the smartest thing that you have ever uttered when you start on a "rant and roll."
Cops (real cops and campus security folk) don't need you suggesting that crowds take the law into their own hands and escalate situations into either Rodney King or Reginald Denny situations. If you think that it is ok for groups or crowds to jump cops whenever they think it is appropriate, I think that you are going to lose a lot of real cops who were up to this point fans and supporters of Michael Savage and The Savage Nation.
If you feel that you have the right to yell "fire in a crowded theatre" because you are smarter, wiser, and more intelligent than everyone around you, you are going to lose a lot of conservative supporters and intelligent supporters really fast.
Yes, the campus cop was way out of line, but for you to suggest that the audience should have "jumped the cops" is also way out of line. Watch what you say Mr. Weiner, or you might find more people thinking (?) that your "act" is just an "act" after all.
**************************************************
So far Mr. Savage has not responded. This is a man who claims to support law enforcement personnel and departments everywhere. I suppose the hypocritical Mr. Savage only supports certain law enforcement personnel and departments. I know I won't be listening to that lying hypocrite again anytime soon.
Savage obviously feels that raving and ranting ceaselessly even when asked to cease and desist is fair game, and law officers should just stand around and watch. The Savage "rules of engagement for police officers" is as full of it as he is.
BS47
Posted by blackscorpion947
2007-09-19 10:29:43
http://www.starbanner.com/arti...7/1053/BREAKING_NEWS">This Article says it all
Posted by xtremewing
2007-09-19 10:32:28
Your mind-boggling stupidity is interesting.
Anyone with even a shred of rationality can see that Meyer got exactly what he deserved.
If he didn't want to be removed from the auditorium, he shouldn't have been ranting like a moron.
If he didn't want to be wrestled to the ground by the cops, he shouldn't have been resisting their attempts to remove him.
If he didn't want to get tazered, he should have settled down and stopped fighting when the officer warned him that he would be tazered if he didn't calm down.
What the police did was right and just. The ONLY person at fault here is Meyer.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 10:37:49
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE DISRUPTIVE OF ANY LAWFUL, PEACEFUL, and LEGAL ASSEMBLY.
Andrew was Disturbing the Peace. The female officer was attempting to end this, by asking him to leave and taking him by the arm. As soon he fought bak he was guilty of Resisting Arrest, Assault of an Officer, and Disturbing the Peace, AT A MINIMUM!
If I or any of the rest of conservatives had done the same thing we would have been just guilty. It's not an issue of what he said, or even how he said it. It's the fact that he went from being a
an upstanding citizen to felon in the blink of an eye.
Also if you listen carefully to the video you can definitely hear the staccato zap of the taser at least once, while he was on the ground.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-09-19 10:41:28
I'm sure you believe all sorts of ridiculous things. But it doesn't change the fact that Meyer got exactly what he deserved.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 10:45:14
I respectfully disagree, Sam.
Meyer got exactly what he asked for! He got far less than he deserved.
Posted by StanW
2007-09-19 10:56:51
I agree.
I am shocked that so many people here think that PHYSICALLY RESISTING AN OFFICER OF THE LAW (a felony offense, for your information) is just fine and dandy.
Look, you can keep obfuscating the issue and pretending that all Meyer did was “ask rude questions”, but you’re not fooling anybody.
Meyer was disturbing a peaceable assembly. This is a crime.
Meyer physically resisted when the officers tried to escort him out. This is also a crime.
Face the facts. Meyer deserved what he got.
No, sir (madam?), everybody does not have the right to say “what they want, when they want”. When you are disrupting the right of OTHER PEOPLE to say what they want, your freedom of speech no longer applies.
I don’t know what kind of history you were taught, but that analogy is just ridiculous.
So what?
Are you kidding me?
Rules exist for a reason, numbnutz. In this case, the rules said that when your time is up, you sit down and shut up. Meyer broke those rules and he suffered the consequences.
Once again, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vR-4DawSUM”>he WAS told to stop.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 10:56:57
September 19, 2007 10:31 AM |
And when was the last time anybody cared what Michael Savage said?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 11:00:24
""Trench Raider"
who has rolled around on the floor tyring to candcuff guys more times than he cares to remember...."
TMI :)
Posted by Homerlicous
2007-09-19 11:16:06
Apparently, you were not alive during the time span you mention. The Nazi's would have already had him in a camp on a 900 calorie a day diet, and a 18 hour work day.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-09-19 11:24:57
I knew people like this in college. They live for this kind of stuff. Fighting the police, causing a scene, getting arrested.
I have been in situations like this one, and the one thing you do is act like a rational adult. I clearly told the police or campus security not to put their hands on me, but I would leave. As long as you tell them "I'm going, please don't put your hands on me" and act like an adult, it will be fine.
As soon as you fight back or start yelling, they are going to take you down. The taser is controversial, my college used pepper spray. But it should never get to that point. They can easily break your arm as well. And you do not have a case in fighting it, because you escalated it to that point.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-09-19 11:47:00
The problem is not resisting the officer, but whether the "order" given by the officer was legal. The statute above makes that clear. So if the order given by the cop was not legal, then the charge of "resisting" cannot be applied.
Does an agent of the government have the right to stop a person from speaking based on the content of that speech?
Rules exist for a reason, numbnutz. In this case, the rules said that when your time is up, you sit down and shut up. Meyer broke those rules and he suffered the consequences.
I agree with the premise, but since when does a cop enforce the rules of a Q&A session? Where is that in the Florida Statutes?
The idea that Meyer was "disturbing the peace" falls somewhat flat on its face because the students in the auditorium appear at peace and not disturbed in the least while he is talking.
Once again, he WAS told to stop.
So he was told to stop exercising his First Amendment rights by a cop? Is that your position here?
I am troubled by this to an extent because I keep thinking "what happens if a cop says stop my talking to people about my faith?" What happens when a cop says "you have to stop talking about conservatives and the looney left?"
I think Meyer was a publicity hound that wanted to cause trouble. Just because he got what he wanted or deserved doesn't mean that the UF Cops acted in an appropriate manner throughout the incident.
It is possible that in this case, both Meyer and the UF police were wrong and acted contrary to the law.
Posted by gitarcarver
2007-09-19 12:11:26
It wasn't based on the "content" of the speech, but the manner in which that speech was delivered. Meyer was being loud and obnoxious and he had exceeded the time allowed to ask his question. He disrupted the event and broke the rules. That's why he was asked to leave.
Normally they don't, but Meyer had already been acting disruptive (see the letter written to Michelle Malkin above) so the campus police already had their eye on him. The director of the event cut the mic and radioed the cops to escort Meyer out, which they did.
Although I firmly believe that Meyer is guilty of disturbing the peace, truth be told, I doubt Meyer would have been charged at all if he had just done what he was told and left calmly. The fact that he didn't was, IMO, what earned him a charge of disturbing the peace.
Actually it was the person in charge of the event (ACCENT Director Max Tyroler) who told him to stop via the cops.
Regardless, telling him to stop talking and leave is perfectly legal. He doesn't have any "right" to be there and disrupt an event that the other students came to see.
If you are standing on the sidewalk haranging people but otherwise doing nothing wrong (i.e., you aren't body-blocking them or chasing them down or anything), then the cops aren't going to do anything.
But if you walk into a peaceable assembly and rant on and on like a maniac, denying others their right to speak at an event they paid to attend, then the cops (or whatever relevant authority is on the scene) have every right to ask you to leave and remove you by force if you refuse.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 12:55:14
I didn't realize that not being "loud and obnoxious" was a condition of the First Amendment. Yes, he exceeded his time and the mic was cut off (as it was for all people who exceeded their time.) Where the others excorted out of the building as well? Where they asked to leave?
Normally they don't, but Meyer had already been acting disruptive (see the letter written to Michelle Malkin above) so the campus police already had their eye on him. The director of the event cut the mic and radioed the cops to escort Meyer out, which they did.
Two problems: 1) If he had been disruptive before, then why was he not escorted out of the building then? The fact of the matter is that Kerry and the event director allowed him to stay and speak. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that he wasn't disruptive to the point of being thrown out for his earlier actions. In other words, he was not being disruptive when he was speaking.
2) The director of the event works for the State of Florida. That makes him an agent for the government.
Regardless, telling him to stop talking and leave is perfectly legal. He doesn't have any "right" to be there and disrupt an event that the other students came to see.
Whether he is "disruptive" is subjective. I once again go back to the point that if he was "disruptive" before being given the mic, then why was he not told to leave then. Surely you can't be saying that his words were more disruptive than his actions of cutting into line, etc. That doesn't make any sense at all.
But if you walk into a peaceable assembly and rant on and on like a maniac, denying others their right to speak at an event they paid to attend, then the cops (or whatever relevant authority is on the scene) have every right to ask you to leave and remove you by force if you refuse.
If ranting like a lunatic is the criteria for being asked to leave, then why wasn't Kerry asked to leave?
I am willing to say that the cops have the right to remove him. That is fine. But even you admit that the cops told him to stop speaking. That's really close to a violation of the First Amendment. While the kid / idiot is speaking, there is no murmur in the audience that he is being disruptive or anything.
As the ACCENT director works for the state, his direction to remove the guy while speaking better be based upon the factual evidence that the guy was being disruptive while speaking. I don't think that claim can be supported.
Like I said, I think that Meyer was wrong, but the cops may have crossed the line as well.
Posted by gitarcarver
2007-09-19 13:45:47
This type of action happens all the time at public speaking, town hall and college events all the time with the same result. The only difference here is that the kid was tasered. If he would have been pepper-sprayed, we would not even have heard of it.
Protesting is a good thing, but you have to always conduct yourself responsibly. When you act up like this you make everyone on your side look like you, so you do more damage than good.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-09-19 13:47:05
Posted by D-Vega
2007-09-19 13:58:57
As a Florida resident, I was curious to see what the statutes say about taser / stun guns. I could only find one statute and that covers tasers that fire electrode darts. I asked a friend that is a policeman who said that the guidelines issued by the FDLE for use of tasers follow the statute whether the taser fires electrode darts or not.
The statute says that a taser may be used to subdue a person, when a person refuses to cooperate, or when the person is a flight risk.
Clearly the video shows that Meyer was not being subdued. Before being tasered, you can see him rise up, and roll over. He certainly is not cooperating. His actions are those of a person that is looking to flee from the police. (And not, you don't have to flee from the police and "run away." "Fleeing" means attempting to escape from police control.) Meyer clearly was attempting that as well.
I'm sure that a few fall guy policemen or police wenches will be fired for voilating this individuals first amendment rights.
Nice of you to portray the police so kindly. Tell me, how many of the UFCP do you know?
There may be two issues here. The first may involve his speech. That is up in the air for me right now. The second issue is whether the police had the right to escort him from the building and use the force they did when he resisted. That is not up in the air.
If Meyer is convicted of a felony for the resisting arrest, he will be gone from UF. That is not a great thing on your resume.
Posted by gitarcarver
2007-09-19 14:05:22
And *I* am sure you have no idea what you are talking about.
Michelle Malkin has published the reports from all the police and security personnel involved. Meyers was disruptive and did not obey the lawful orders to leave. The security personnel only escalated the force to match his, up to and including subduing and arresting him.
It is also clear that Meyers coordinated this confrontation and had friends there to filem it. He was totaly in the wrong. The police were totally in the right.
Meyer got waht he asked for, but got much less than he deserved.
And you, SST, continue to prove yourself "Useless, useless."
Posted by StanW
2007-09-19 14:59:43
Yeah, your First Amendment rights have already been trampled, hasn't it SST? Oh wait, you're speaking here, so much for that bullshit.
I'm sure those five cops couldn't have put the cuffs on him without tasering him.
So speaketh the resident law enforcement official of this board. How many years did you serve as a police officer SST? Zero? Of course they could have done that, how many cop shows did you watch to come to that conclusion?
I'm sure what he did is not illegal, and I'm sure that a few fall guy policemen or police wenches will be fired for voilating this individuals first amendment rights.
Gee, you don't seem to care about the First Amendment rights of the others who were cut off by Meyer, simply because Meyer decided that his First Amendment rights were more important. After all, it is imperative we know about Kerry's involvement in the "Skull & Bones" club, right?
Right wingers used to support freedom of speech. What happened to you all?
Oh I'm sorry. I thought freedom of speech allowed us to give our own opinions, not spew out your opinion. Isn't it interesting how you nutjobs are always demanding freedom of speech for yourselves then immediately accuse others of censorship when they don't echo your opinion?
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-09-19 15:06:39
It is when it occurs in an official forum for discussion.
If Meyer wanted to vent his crazy conspiracy theories he could do it on the sidewalk outside. His right to free speech doesn't trump the other student's right to participate in the forum or listen to the speaker.
Did the others rush the microphone and DEMAND to be able to ask their question(s) or did they wait their turn?
I wouldn't know. You should probably ask the director if you want to find out.
Which in no way prevents him from throwing a student out for being a disruption. If a professor throws an unruly student out of a lecture hall, even though the only thing the student has done is express a loud and obnoxious opinion, is that a violation of the First Amendment too?
I would guess his attitude was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Regardless, Meyer didn't have the "right" to be there. You may think that throwing him out was morally or ethically wrong, but there was nothing illegal about it.
Kerry wasn't ranting, just boring.
Perhaps it skirts close to the edge, but it doesn't cross the line.
Just because he wasn't disturbing anyone within range of the camera mic doesn't mean he wasn't causing a disruption.
And I'll remind you that the students cheered when they saw Meyer being forced out.
I disagree.
Meyer refused to let Kerry answer any of his questions. It was patently obvious that he was only there to vent his Bizarro-World ideology for the audience. Since the event was supposed to be a Q&A forum, this is a disruption.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 15:28:43
Pepper spray would have put the other students (and officers) at risk. I don't know if you've ever been exposed to the stuff, but it fucking hurts (I've heard it likened to dousing your face in gasoline and lighting it on fire).
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 15:39:16
This is one of the points that have been continually made that bother me.
The First Amendment doesn't protect "free speech" from the acts of citizens. The First Amendment protects the right of free speech from the government.
The police are government agents. Meyer is not.
I know what you are saying and to a great extent I agree with you. But Meyer's responsibility to the First Amendment and the government's responisibility to the First Amendment are not the same.
Posted by gitarcarver
2007-09-19 15:46:54
Great. What next? Concentration camps for those you don't like?
Look, the guy simply wouldn't stop talking. Big deal. I don't think he needed to get taken down and tasered for that.
This isn't about left wing or right wing opinions it's about all of us. When cops start tasering people for asking questions we're all in trouble.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-09-19 15:47:10
In my college protest days, I saw cops crossing the line, using threatening language and using inappropriate force. This was not the case here.
This kid knows nothing about police brutality.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-09-19 15:52:13
I think this is the heart of the issue. He was not tasered for asking the question, he was tasered because he was asked to leave and refused/caused a scene. Once he resisted the police, they have no choice but to either a) let him be, or b) take him down.
I guarantee you that this kid has done this type of thing before. This is not some ordinary kid who wanted to ask an innocent question and was immediately taken away by police. That's a wholly different thing. In that case, I'm sure other students would have gotten involved in the matter. If you view the video, you will actually see them smiling at this guy being taken down.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-09-19 16:01:17
It is when it occurs in an official forum for discussion.
I can't seem to find that in the First Amendment. Certainly Meyer's actions were not "fighting words" or the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" type exceptions to the First Amendment.
Did the others rush the microphone and DEMAND to be able to ask their question(s) or did they wait their turn?
So the disruption occured BEFORE his questions? If that is the case, then why wasn't he removed then, instead of when he was speaking?
Regardless, Meyer didn't have the "right" to be there.
Meyer is a UF student at UF sponsored event on the UF campus. The event was not closed. It was open. So on what basis do you wish to say that he did not have the same right to be there as other UF students?
Just because he wasn't disturbing anyone within range of the camera mic doesn't mean he wasn't causing a disruption.
Sorry, but I don't understand this. Are you saying that there is no proof that there was a disruption? You are the one that keeps saying that he was being disruptive. Now you seem to be saying that since the camera and mic don't support that, I have to prove that there was no disruption. I think that you have to prove that he was.
Perhaps it skirts close to the edge, but it doesn't cross the line.
Maybe ..... maybe not. I am not convinced that the police didn't stop him because of the content of words, and not his actions. The police tell him to "stop" while he is speaking.
I have concerns about that.
And I'll remind you that the students cheered when they saw Meyer being forced out.
I heard a few clap when he stopped his questions. Whether that reaction is based on his stopping, his removal, or his question itself is debatable. What is not debatable is that during the entire time he is speaking, there is no indication from anyone in the audience that he is causing a disruption.
It was patently obvious that he was only there to vent his Bizarro-World ideology for the audience. Since the event was supposed to be a Q&A forum, this is a disruption.
So he was stopped for the content of his speech which is what I feared all along.
Posted by gitarcarver
2007-09-19 16:07:09
Posted by Left_Turn September 19, 2007 3:47 PM
Agreed! Good thing that has no relation to this case and what happened here.
Posted by StanW
2007-09-19 16:08:49
Posted by Left_Turn September 19, 2007 3:47 PM
Of course. Before you know it, the cops will be monitoring blogs, identifying the rabble-rousers, find their IP addresses and break down their front door to arrest them.
I hear they're going to be at your house tomorrow. If I were you I would flee to Mexico before its too late.
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-09-19 16:14:28
Try hooking up a loudspeaker to the outside of your house and blaring your political views all night long at full volume. I promise you, you will be stopped.
Posted by maledicta
2007-09-19 16:36:21
http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=157250
Three points to mention:
1) In the auditorium, the policewoman clearly told him to calm down or he will be tased. He didn't calm down, he kept shouting.
2) Later, in the hall the policewoman told him again to calm down or he will be tased again. This time he learned his lesson.
3) Meyer was clearly resisting arrest. He even told them to get away from him. How many people cooperate with the police by screaming "Help!" and "what did I do?" This is not resisting arrest?
If this really was a police state, then why weren't the people who were shooting the video arrested as well? This video demonstrates that someone was following Meyer into the hall. This video even showed the police looking at the camera operator so they were obviously aware of what was going on. This is one of numerous cameras and the police were obviously aware of this. Why haven't they been arrested? Why weren't they tased?
This idea of a police state is pure bullshit. Also, the audience clearly applauded when Meyer was being hauled away.
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-09-19 16:59:42
Via RightWingSparkle, Tazer Boy turns out to be a Ron Paul supporter.
Shocker, that.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 17:14:38
Be sure and let us know when that actually happens.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 17:17:23
Not really. From what some friends of mine who've seen the video have told me, the police were likely using a "dry taze". That's when you take a tazer gun (the kind that shoots out those little pins attached to wires) and press it directly against the suspect's skin, rather than actually firing it. The pins don't penetrate and the shock is apparently much less than normal. If true, this would explain why none of the officers who were holding Meyer down got shocked and why Meyer was still able to stand up after being tazed (a full jolt should have incapacitated him for some time).
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 17:23:00
Posted by bkopping
2007-09-19 17:24:33
While you may be right, the First Amendment does not support what Meyer did.
I don't have to yell 'fire' in a theater to violate the First Amendment. I can violate it simply by being loud and obnoxious because it prevents the rest of the patrons who are there to watch the performance. My first amendment rights end when it intrudes upon the rights of others. In order for your argument to be correct you would have to show that the audience wanted to hear Meyer's questions. Many clapped when Meyer was hauled off because they obviously thought that Meyer was a disruption.
Kerry was trying to speak and this idiot kept yelling, trying to call attention to himself. He could have left quietly but chose to make himself the next news event. If you notice in the video you couldn't hear Kerry talking because he was screaming so loud? That is a violation.
Right up front MS, let me say that I appreciate how you and I have conversed and discussed this. I appreciate the fact that we are exchanging ideas rather than insults.
That's because you've been focusing on the topic at hand. Rest assured, we have been enjoying this debate as much as you.
So the disruption occured BEFORE his questions? If that is the case, then why wasn't he removed then, instead of when he was speaking?
They should have, but gave Meyer a chance. What would have happened if they stopped Meyer from asking his questions in the first place? How many people do you think would scream, "censorship?"
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-09-19 17:31:07
Normally I would have, but it's been my experience that you usually give as good as you get so I figured insults would be less than productive. :)
I'm sorry, that was phrased poorly. What I meant to say was that the forum was not strictly speaking a public function, and thus not subject to the First Amendment (at least not entirely).
I never said he didn't have the same rights as the other students. I'm saying neither he, nor anyone else, had a "right" to be there. This may have been a UF sponsored event, but it was also privately sponsored as well.
The speech was sponsored by ACCENT which uses donations from private entities to fund sponsored events, and John Kerry was a speaker sponsored by ACCENT and financed by using donated private funds.
On this video? Perhaps not. But there are other videos out there from different angles and with better audio.
I didn't say I could prove he was a disruption, I'm just saying the evidence supports it. Clearly someone thought Meyer was disrupting the event, else he would not have been removed. Unless you think the police just up and decided to taze this guy for no reason.
Actually the police told him to stop when his mic had been cut and the director told them over the radio that Meyer had to go.
Perhaps they were temporarily struck dumb by the incredible idiocy he was displaying. :)
Seriously though, I think the clapping and cheering sends a very clear statement that the other students were happy to see him go. If they were angry about it (and to be fair, there is at least one video out there that I know of where you can hear one or two people saying the cops should let the kid go) then they probably would have booed, not cheered.
No. Again, it wasn't what he said, but the manner in which he said it.
If he had simply asked his questions in a calm and collected fashion, he never would have been thrown out.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 17:44:37
Agreed.
But bear with me here. In your case you are violating an statute or ordinance against a loud volume after a certain time or whatever.
Is there an ordinance that covers the volume of a question at a forum?
The difference is that you are not being silenced for WHAT you are saying, but rather violating ANOTHER ordinance.
If the kid was asked to leave because he was being disruptive, that's okay. If he was told to shut up and leave because of the content of his speech, that is wrong.
Posted by gitarcarver
2007-09-19 18:30:16
I don't know why the people clapped. It is just as likely that they clapped at his question. In that no one said a word during his questions, both interpretations are feasable.
But there is something else here.
I don't have to show that the audience wanted to hear Meyer's questions. That is suppression of a right by mob rule. Imagine if you will a conservative that walked up calmly to a mic in a Q&A session with Hillary and asked her about any one of the myriad of scandels she and her husband have been in. The cops come and take the conservative away. The crowd applauds.
We would be screaming bloody murder about it and rightfully so.
If you notice in the video you couldn't hear Kerry talking because he was screaming so loud? That is a violation.
I can hear Kerry, so I am unsure why you can't. Even assuming that you cannot hear Kerry, what law or ordinance did Meyer violate by the volume of his voice?
What would have happened if they stopped Meyer from asking his questions in the first place?
We would not be talking about this?
How many people do you think would scream, "censorship?"
Probably none as there would not be an issue of whether Meyer was removed because of his speech or conduct.
I am not saying Meyer was a saint here. I hope ya'll remember that. I just worry that the cops were reacting to the content of the guy's questions rather than his conduct. If they were responding to his conduct, that's fine. If they were reacting to the content, Houston we have a problem.
Posted by gitarcarver
2007-09-19 18:46:19
Posted by jbrown
2007-09-19 19:08:30
I'm sorry, but I think that you and I have seen people removed from many venues for the content of their speech and not because they were being disruptive.
Unless you think the police just up and decided to taze this guy for no reason.
No reason?
I don't think I said that.
Was the reason he was told to leave "legal" is the question I have. If it was (ie based on his conduct) then the officer's order to leave was just. As the statute supports, he has to obey that lawful order and if he "resists," he is subject to the repercussions.
However, if the officers were removing him on the content of his questions, then their order to shut up was not legal.
And therein lies the crux of this matter to me. If the cops were acting based on Meyer's conduct, then he has legal problems. If the cops were acting on the content of his questions, that's governmental censorship.
Posted by gitarcarver
2007-09-19 19:08:36
Posted by jbrown
2007-09-19 19:09:24
Posted by jbrown
2007-09-19 19:10:25
Working under the assumption that in his combative state, he did not injure an innocent bystander, injure a police or security officer, or injure himself... all of which could have caused a lawsuit.
The security personnel did not use lethal force and only escalated the force to match Meyer's. He was completely responsible for what happened to him. All he had to do was cooperate and this would not have happened.
Posted by StanW
2007-09-19 19:14:22
Two relevant facts:
1. Although I claimed earlier that Meyer was removed for going over time, it seems I was misinformed. As it turns out, Meyer rushed forward and grabbed the microphone after the Q&A session had ended. The only reason he was able to ask his question at all was because Kerry apparently took pity on him and asked that he be allowed to speak.
2. His mic was cut for a number of different reasons. Among them were the fact that he was ranting and not actually asking any questions, the fact that he was using vulgar language (possibly in violation of the Student Code of Conduct), and the fact that Meyer interrupted Kerry while he was trying to answer another student's question. As far as I'm concerned, that pretty much wraps up the question of whether Meyer was being disruptive.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 19:18:20
Of course they could have successfully removed him without using weapons to subdue him.
But could they have done it without causing an injury to Meyer, an officer, or one of the other students? All it would take is for Meyer to throw himself into another student and that student to fall into one of the fixed wooden seats.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 19:24:31
September 19, 2007 7:18 PM |
I've heard the audio from right before the punk seized the mike 'till the delicious screams rang out from his induced agony. This little narcissist
had every opportunity to back off from the mike when asked. He didn't. He could've gone with the officers to be escorted from the building but he resisted.
Posted by Pork_Soda
2007-09-19 19:26:52
The point is that a statute like that can be consistent with the First Amendment because it does not protect speech that intrudes upon the rights of others. What is regulated is the method by which the speech is delivered, not the content of the speech itself. Same deal here with Meyer. He was escorted from the room because he was being disruptive - that there isn't a law prohibiting being an asshole to a guest speaker doesn't mean he has carte blanche to be as obnoxious as he chooses. Remember that he wasn't being arrested at that point, the cops were just using force to remove him. There doesn't have to be a law specifically authorizing them to do that. Cops can use force to prevent people from entering a crime scene or getting too close to a public figure, even though the aren't statutes expressly prohibiting those.
Posted by maledicta
2007-09-19 20:10:07
Naturally. The only people who still argue that point are idiots like Left_Turn who can't seem to grasp the fact that "fighting with cops = bad".
But that isn't the issue here. At the moment, the debate is about whether Meyer was being disruptive to the point that he deserved to be thrown out. I think I've sufficiently proven that he was, in fact, disrupting the event and therefore deserved to be removed. The fact that he had to be removed by force is entirely his own fault.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-19 20:17:59
Actually, I took the exact opposite of this. While Meyer's actions are not examplary, the police reports from each cop don't match up. There are inconsistancies all over the place in those reports.
Some of them also contradict the letter from a student observer that started this thread.
I don't think that bodes well for the credibility of the police.
He was escorted from the room because he was being disruptive - that there isn't a law prohibiting being an asshole to a guest speaker doesn't mean he has carte blanche to be as obnoxious as he chooses.
That is the question, isn't it? Whether he was escorted from the building for being disruptive or something else. Certainly the cops say he was being disruptive - if only they could agree on when.
There doesn't have to be a law specifically authorizing them to do that.
So cops can act outside the law with impunity? I don't think so.
In fact, I don't want police the police to try and exercise power and authority not granted to them by law.
Maybe you do, but that type of power and authority is ripe for abuse.
See: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...ials/undueinfluence/
Time will tell what will happen with Meyer. I would feel much better if the police had gotten their stories straight and their stories matched the eyewitness account but this is not a perfect world.
Thanks for the conversation. It was an enjoyable exchange of ideas.
Take care.
Posted by gitarcarver
2007-09-19 20:39:26
tools
Posted by Liberal
You clearly didn't read the thread. You are clearly the one spewing uninformed opinion. Free speech was squased by Meyer. He committed a crime in resisting the police.
Why don't you head over to one of the lefty loon websites where they're blaming BUSH for this episode.
Or, you could have an epiphany of sanity and blame Meyer, who caused the whole incident, and deserved what he got.
Posted by JannyMae
2007-09-19 22:04:58
Yes, the entire event is available.
Too bad for you that it doesn't support what you say.
Posted by gitarcarver
2007-09-19 22:16:16
I don't think that's much of a question at all. You really think the cops went after him because they disagreed with the content of his message? You really think they were even listening, or could care one bit about his politics? I suspect they were irritated by even having to be there.
They're not acting outside the law in that sense, though. They're preventing a crime from occurring. Just like the crime scene example: There isn't any law that says you have to stay X amount of distance away. But the cops will block you off anyway just to enforce some order. There doesn't have to be a law authorizing each action by the police in order to promote general order.
I love that. He didn't cut in line, he just ran up to the front and asked a question out of turn. Right.
Two thoughts here. One: I watched the video again, and that's very clearly not what happened. Two: Think about what you just said. The cops removed him... as he was leaving the auditorium freely? Huh? Why the hell would they do that? That just doesn't make any sense.
Posted by maledicta
2007-09-19 22:23:18
'Cuz "might makes right", eh klaatuwolf?
In my opinion this is not about liberal vs conservative, but perhaps you disagree--Anyway, I have always admired and respected police officers (unlike most people, unfortunate yet true), and I have a close relative of the highest integrity who has made law enforcement their career. But I believe this Andrew Meyer fiasco was an abuse of power. Overkill.
Believe it or not, klaatuwolf, there is a field of judgement between shooting the back of a human's head, tasering, or cuffing someone. Thought you should know.....
Posted by thhhbbbb
September 19, 2007 4:59 AM |
This post was my favorite. When it was pointed out to this tool that in real police states, "agitators" like this little anarchist are disposed of...he responds with "'Cuz "might makes right", eh?" Idiot. You missed the point, sir, which makes you a typical liberal. Klaat was trying to point out that we're not living in a police state, nor should we be. Merely that the accusation that we already have one is completely groundless.
When this story first broke, about some college kid making a ruckus at a Kerry speech, I hoped it would turn out to be some scrappy conservative out to mock John F'n Kerry. Maybe some Young Republican encouraging the man to quit flipflopping on everything, grow a pair, and get the hell out of the Senate to boot.
Nope! Just another hippie with a radical case of BDS, and a hunger for the spotlight to boot.
My favorite part of the video was where he was screaming, "Help me! Help me!" I was yelling, "WHO the hell do you expect to help you, idiot? You've got FOUR COPS on you!" Geez...did he think the crowd was going to storm the officers and get all of themselves arrested on serious criminal charges? What a dumbass!
The police showed remarkable restraint. At times I found myself wanting to step into the picture and give the little punk a couple smacks with a baton a-la Rodney King. Some of his remarks clearly seemed intended to provoke the officers' tempers or goad them into some action that he could later claim was 'police brutality.' I agree with those who say that it's clear the fellow provoked this outcome intentionally.
I also was amused by one of the posters above, who claimed we're already living in a police state. When it was pointed out that in real police states agitators are simply shot, he responded, "Oh yeah, let's just shoot people in the back of the head." Nice job sir...WAY TO MISS THE POINT!
I really do not care if he was tasered or not. If he wasn't, he should have been. Why the police didn't simply 'cuff him by force and bodily haul him off is beyond me; the fracas dragged on far too long as it was.
Posted by cylarz
2007-09-20 01:37:04
I think that it is possible that someone disagreed and told the cops to shut him down.
I suspect they were irritated by even having to be there.
At triple their normal pay? This was a piece of cake assignment for them.
Just like the crime scene example: There isn't any law that says you have to stay X amount of distance away. But the cops will block you off anyway just to enforce some order. There doesn't have to be a law authorizing each action by the police in order to promote general order.
But there are laws protecting crimes scenes. So the cops are enforcing the protection of that scene. HOW they protect it - the means and the methods - must also be within the scope of the law. For example, if you are standing on public property or your own property watching a cop arrest someone, the cop has no right to order you to go away, and then arrest you if you don't. Cops still must act within the law.
The interesting thing about this is how when it initially came out, people on the right used this as an example of the hypocrisy on the left of not letting people speak and supression of "freedom of speech." The left claimed that this was a suppression of speech by "jack booted thugs," etc.
Now the tactic on the left is to claim everything is fine - but that the right never had its facts straight and just a tool.
As I see it, there are but three choices here:
1) You had a organization with a liberal speaker violating the rights of a speaker.
2) You have a liberal nut job that should have been given the chance to air his nutty questions, no matter the cost.
3) You have a liberal that went to a liberal event with the express intention of disrupting it.
As someone said, it is interesting to watch liberals eat their own.
Posted by gitarcarver
2007-09-20 12:29:13
You know, I thought that tasering didn't look right. I've seen people tasered on those cop shows and not only do they twitch when tasered, but it also paralyzes your motor skills. This kid would not have been able to move or talk after a real tasering. So, then actually it's not as big a deal as I thought, and I didn't think it was a big deal to begin with.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-09-20 13:39:35
Posted by D-Vega
September 20, 2007 1:39 PM |
Ya I thought as much too. From what I've seen you barely emit a noise, just twitch and "ride the lightning". Can't do squat besides that. Unless you're on PCP or somethin'.
Posted by Pork_Soda
2007-09-20 14:15:43
Don't get me started ...
Posted by RWGuy_50
2007-09-20 21:08:40
Don't get me started ...
Posted by RWGuy_50
2007-09-20 21:14:04
Very possibly. I wouldn't be surprised if that's why the ACCENT director cut his mic and told the police to escort him out.
But even assuming that's true, it's irrelevant. The event was privately sponsored, and therefore Meyer didn't have a "right" to be there.
There are laws against interfering with crime scenes, but as far as I know there is no law that says you have to stay X feet away from a crime scene.
By your logic, if someone is murdered on the sidewalk the police have no right to stop people from walking right through the crime scene, so long as they're careful not to step on anything.
Actually I think they can, to a point.
If a cop is arresting someone and tells you to back off because you are too close, and you don't, IMO he could theoretically be justified in arresting you, or at least have another officer herd you away. If you resist that, then you could definitely be arrested.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-09-20 23:01:52
Andrew didn't come up "wailing" as you say, take a look at this longer version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE76LQwT6qA and see how he THANKS Mr. Kerry for his time. He didn't yell at Mr. Kerry, nor did he put him down. He asked questions that provoked huge controversy.
John Kerry HIMSELF said "let me answer his question". In another news report, Mr. Kerry stated, "I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption" - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...s/article2489183.ece
Also, Andrew said, "Are you taping this?" because he wanted to have record of what was happening for legal reasons, not for publicity. He kept yelling, "What did I do?" He wasn't laughing or mocking anyone.
HE WAS ALREADY DOWN ON THE GROUND WITH HANDCUFFS ON WHEN THE OFFICERS TASERED HIM. What was the point? There were more than enough officers to perform the arrest.
I am a strong republican, but despite political views do not appreciate how the situation was handled.
Posted by rwn44
2007-09-22 02:01:21