I'm not arguing that two wrongs make a right. I'm wondering at what point the line is drawn. Since I can easily state being in a crowded theater reading any political activist book and as being civilly disobedient. I'm well within my protected first amendment rights according to what I'm understanding here.

So at what point do I the innocent bystander have to tolerate this disobedience? At what point do those person's rights of not having to put up with his crap, AND the crappy response by the police. In short, it takes ONE asshole to ruin it for everyone, and then everyone suffers ad infintum because of it.

He was well within his rights of first amendment to stand outside the hall and shout to the high heavens his opinons. He had no established right to stay inside the building after being told to leave.

People seem to think that first amendment rights means that they can say what they want WHERE they want.

Innocent bystander?

Since when did inconvenience become such a horrendous burden for people to bear?

I think when people start thinking in these kinds of terms the time is ripe for civil disobedience.

Welcome to the slippery slope. Please watch your step.

Once he's inside, he's got every right to be heard. If it's a "controlled" venue, with a proper place designated, then he's in the wrong by being outside of that area.

The innocent bystander? They have the right to tune him out. They can't silence him.

Problematic, eh?

He resisted arrest here. If a cop arrests you go with it. If you believe the cop is wrong in arresting you let him arrest you and then sue the department for false imprisonment or other violations. But don't resist them. These officers fought to get him in handcuffs and he kept resisting. The cops were within their right to do this and I am confident they will be cleared as a result of the investigation.

Yeah I'd like to order spiderman super sticky boots please.

From what I've read he barged in front of others who also had a right to be heard. People who were in line and orderly. He's trumped their rights by cutting in front of them, and then causing a disturbance which distrupted the rest of the questions presented from what I can hear in the background audio. So his civil disobedience rights, trump their rights? Or like the innocent bystander, they have the right to stand there and not be heard? Further when time is over, but someone still hasn't been heard, then what?

As soon as the authorities (school officials) ask him to leave, he's trespassing. He may have a right to political speech, but he doesn't have a right to trespass.

What I read was that John Kerry was answering the last question when this guy approached the microphone.

OP states second sentence:
Student Andrew Meyer barged to the front of the line to ask Senator Kerry a question.

other news coverage state similar, so barging/cutting whatever you like to call it.

what I was referring to "and then causing a disturbance which distrupted the rest of the questions presented from what I can hear in the background audio" is for the Q&A during and after the incident. You can see from multiple footage that people are distracted by the incident including Mr. Kerry.

But he was defying on the basis that he believed he had the right to ask the questions. I don't think anyone is denying that they had the right to remove him from the event, the issue is whether they had the right (or should have the right) to taser someone who was not a danger to himself or others.

From the other youtube videos I've watched as a response to this posting, there are people up in arms about the fact he was removed.

http://www.alligator.org/articles/20...rrestbreak.txt

I don't think we have any of those people here. If we do, they're noticiably silent on that particular issue.

If he were making farting sounds with his hands and had been removed, I don't think that there would be any sort of protests similar to what you're describing. That would be the same protected speech, interestingly enough, albeit low-class, low-humor speech.

My big problem is the tasering here, not the removal of a disruptive individual.

The_Jazz: Indeed, that's the entire reason I thought this event was thread-worthy.

I think there is general, although not universal, agreement that the end game of the scenario is over the line. The discussion points, to me, lie in exactly at what point the situation went over the line, why it did so, and how it could have been avoided.

thanks mm, a bit better context, and nice that Mr. Kerry did continue to answer the question.

ub, I guess the question is ultimately how do you deal with real life trolls. There's no ban stick or moderation delete button.

i do think this is interesting, as mixed and jazz have referred in some way, to the points made in lucifer's thread on the greenpeace incident. what message does this send? what message does it send that some of us condone the use of tasers to subdue a non-complying student at a political speech?

is it only police officers / security guards who have this right to tase for noncompliance? should parents be allowed to tase unruly kids, or school administrators tase students?

to answer your question cyn, and i guess it echo's jazz: i hold the police / security to a higher standard than i hold a student at a political rally. i expect the police to be smarter than this. i expect them to be better trained.

as for the responsibility of the non-compliant...when did the law become that we had to become compliant? what the fuck does that even mean? he wasn't breaking any laws, under what legal right was he removed and tased? trespassing? disorderly conduct? inciting a riot? i think these are the interesting questions, personally.

edit: just saw the bit on trespassing and so forth. that actually strikes me as odd...that a student at a university can be trespassing on school grounds, but i guess so. i still think he has the right to protest that removal, and that the appropriate response is not a taser in the ass.

Not only that, but being asked to leave the building by a few guards doesn't necessarily means the owner of the land is saying you cannot be on the property. I think calling it trespassing is asking a lot, almost as much as disturbing the peace. The police were the ones disturbing the peace by using excessive force. BTW, it's not unreasonable to yell when you're being tased.

BTW, if someone shot me with a microwave weapon, they would melt my artificial aorta and would be directly responsible for my death. I'd hardly call a microwave weapon non-lethal.

Actually Will the second he was asked to leave and he refused he could have been arrested for a number of things (like trespassing). When he fought with the police trying to remove him he broke more laws thus they could arrest him. When the tried to cuff him he continued to resist thus he resisted arrest.

In the end was he arrested? Yes. Did he resist? Yes. Thus he resisted arrest.

He was asked to leave by police officers, speaking on behalf of.... no one. If a police officer is at my friend's house and asks me to leave, I get to tell him to go fuck himself. It's when my friend, the home owner, asks me to leave and I don't leave, that I'm trespassing.
They weren't arresting him, they were escorting him off the primacies.
In the end he was arrested, long after he was repeatedly tased for speaking out of turn. He didn't resist arrest.

The police where there on behest of the people running the event. The people running the event gave them the authority to remove people from the premises. A better analogy would be if your friend called the police asking them to remove you from his property and you told the police to fuck off.

Just watched the vid again. Those don't look like cops, they look like campus security, which means while they were acting on behalf of the campus, they also committed assault.

I don't know how it is in Florida, but here the University security are police officers, though they may not always carry a gun. This was a private event (you had to have tickets to get int) and the "authorized security" asked him to leave. He refused. Try doing that in a night club sometime when a bouncer asks you to leave and see what happens to you.

The cops did not assault him, in my opinion they were lawfully removing someone from a private event who was illegally trespassing. Hell if we lived in the land that DK envisions these guys could have shot to kill legally.

sorry will, that's a bunch of horseshit. REPEATEDLY? Did we watch the same video? I see ONCE. From the footage of the two videos I have seen of this that have been posted in this thread.

Assault? Again a far stretch I believe. If that is the case then they would not ever have been given an instrument like a taser. This isn't your rent-a-cop mall security where I'd agree, since they are still considered non police.

I know you don't intend to be rude, but how can you write "sorry will, that's a bunch of horseshit." and expect to think that's just discussion?

I see twice. Once, then another right after.
He didn't present a physical risk. He was a nuisance. They tased him.

Because it is part of the discussion calling you on the bullshit being espoused. (better if it's not horseshit?)

at :25-:24 of the OP video is the burst of the taser sound being utilized. It sounds like a ratchet. It doesn't happen a second time. The same sound is heard in the UK Your interpretation is that it is UK Greater Manchester Police Chief being tasered corroborates the sound.

Again, I don't see repeated and ask you to please verify your claim.

It seems like we're trying to stage battles on ground just because we don't want to concede anything to people who disagree with us.

I did an extremely small amount of fact checking. The people in the video are in fact from the University of Florida POLICE Department. The UFPD employs 89 sworn and certified law enforcement officers. That means they are authorized to carry lethal arms (but may or may not depending on department policy), can arrest people, have investigatory authorities, and depending on the state, may even serve warrents.

So, these guys are the real deal. They are authorized to use force, arrest, and detain you depending on the circumstance. They are also agents of the school, and as such can ask you to leave the premises. I can tell you that in my role working for a public school in NYC, I utilized the Public Safety officers on several occassions to remove students from the premisis. That's not an everyday occurence, but it's also in no way a remarkable one.

You can argue about whether these were appropriate decisions under the circumstance, but let's acknowledge the verifiable facts of the situation.

University of Florida Police Department

Thank you ubertuber.

willravel: I'm generally on your side here - I think the taser was excessive - but you're not helping the argument by claiming he was tased "repeatedly (you are the only person, across discussions on 4 sites that I've had, and any report that I've read, that has made that claim).I think it went over the line the minute the officers grabbed him by the arm and started trying to drag him out of there. Not because they didn't have the right to, but because it wasn't clearly necessary. Police officers need to be careful not to be the cause of escalation, and here they were not (careful; they were the cause). If you watch the video, you'll notice he gets upset over having his mic cut (though not, in any way, upset enough to be considered a threat to anyone). He steps away, expresses his anger for a bit, and he looks like he's about to settle down and just let Kerry answer the questions he asked. He doesn't get a chance to settle down, though, because the officers almost immediately step in at that point. They didn't bother waiting to see if cutting the guy's mic would deal with the situation well enough, and that is something they should have done.

never mind---thinking about this makes me realize my memory is not always as sharp as i think it is.

I don't know about some of the other angles, but the initial footage is from a camera that Andrew Meyer (the student) gave to another student at the forum (who he didn't know) to film him asking the question. The police are not behind this footage getting out. That said, I don't think him wanting his question taped is any indication whatsoever that he planned for this to happen, and I don't particularly trust some of the assertions made in the police report.

EDIT: and then roachboy had to edit his post :p Well, I'll leave this here anyway, in case the info is relevant for anyone else ;)

You know who shoulda' been tased? That lady screaming "Why? Why are you doing this?!?!?!" Seriously, though, this guy (Just like that dumb ass at UCLA) got what was coming to him. It's apparent that his whole intent was to stir up some kind of controversy and he got just what he wanted.

Urban Meyer. Quickly followed by Tim Tebow. And possibly followed by the entire Gator offense. And maybe by my brother-in-law, but that's a separate discussion....







In all seriousness, I find myself completely agreeing with SMeth. The officers escalated this incident to an unacceptable level. The "why" lady simply commented on that.

There are perfectly good examples of DTP and DC that are quite legitimate as far as charges go. What gets my riled is when I encounter an officer who knows they jacked up and have nothing else so they get all full of attitude and start talking DTP and DC because thats all they have left, even if its not legit.

So if that tool is available for non-lethal use of force, what is an appropriate usage? what are the parameters you are comfortable with?

I'm comfortable with the UCLA situation, and for the most part from what I've seen and read, this situation. If new information unfolds and comes forward, I may change my mind, but as it stands, I find the officers behavior an acceptable and reasonable amount of force.

what you're suggesting is that the taser should be used for non-compliance, not to subdue those that resist arrest. Personally, thats dangerous ground and is asking for deadly escalations in the future.

uh, I don't think so. If you truly think that I believe the world should be that way, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to my posts.

It basically runs down like this in my view.

Student: Moronic attention seeker hoping to god he'd become internet-famous by heckling John Kerry.

Rent-a-cops: Caught up in trying to justify their authority by tasing someone who didn't warrant it just because he had the balls to not do exactly what they said. How dare he not subjugate himself immediately to their authority.

Us: Engaging in a lot of hyperbole and conjecture with seemingly very little fact-checking.

We're all doomed.

cyn: as jazz more or less said: i'm comfortable with the use of a taser in a situation where the officer reasonably feels that the person in question represents a credible danger to himself or others.

i am not comfortable with it to remove a nuissance or non-compliant person.

i also think that its a little interesting that this occurred on a college campus. if there is one place you'd think that an unruly, politically motived youth would be expected...it's on a college campus. that magical place where you go to believe in fairness and unlimited potential and puffy clouds and rainbows...before your ass gets slammed to the turf the day you start a real job.

not just directed at you pig, but to those who don't think it can or should be used as a tool for compliance like a pr-24/baton.

for the safety of the officer? or just because well, he wasn't complying and shouldn't be subject to potentially dropping the quran. I'm sure it could have easily been resolved as him stating that he was slowly pulling out his right hand WITH the quran in it since he didn't want to drop it. Of course maybe he was too scared shitless to think about anything else.

Again, I state that officers should be allowed and expected to utilize tools that fit the situations appropriately and since this new ubiquitous technology is finally distributed far and wide, we'll continue to see how it is being shaped and formed as it's usage becomes better defined.

For this situation I posted above, I don't see any misuse as it is written. I haven't been able to find any more but the AP regurgitated on other sites.

don't sweat it cyn: i can take the heat. you take enough shit around here and weather the storm well enough - a little combative discourse will not make this little pig go 'wee wee wee' all the way home.

in reference to the above situation - for me it would depend. if they had intel that an armed suspect matching this guy's appearance was in the area, and he refused to remove his hand from his jacket...i can see that use of the taser, i think. much better than a shoot first, ask question later involving a handgun.

i don't think anyone thought the fool in the first link with the op was about to start anything violent. so that's a stretch to me.

i also wonder what this will do for the reputation of the police themselves. for instance, i live down in good ole south carolina. i can see bad things happening around here if the wrong person was shocked for 'noncompliance' we have a state strongly known for 'state's rights' and 'owning a shitload of guns'. i can see campus cops getting the shit kicked out of them, quite frankly. what if that crowd at the UF thing HAD taken a case of the ass over this...which i think could have easily happened. what if this kid had a bunch of friends in the crowd?

me please :)
I need a new youtube video!

some follow up, apparently again as I stated he didn't follow any rules, he squashed other people's first amendment rights by not abiding by the ACCENT rules put in place.