The First Amendment...does anybody else see the word PEACEABLY?

[renie408]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Let's say I go to my town council meeting tonight. I have an agenda to draw attention to myself, I like heckling public figures and unnerving them. I insure that the woman standing in line behind me tapes my whole exchange. (None of that would mitigate my right to free speech, but it would speak to my motive.)Now, when my turn to speak comes, instead of saying what I have to say or asking my question calmly, I repeatedly talk over the answers, get louder and more belligerent and generally act in a manner designed to provoke. (I still think I am within my free speech rights here. We are free to be obnoxious.) At this point, someone steps forward and tells me that my time is up. I have ranted for over a minute and a half. I refuse to step down and keep shouting. They cut off my mike. I just shout louder. (At this point, I am edging out of free speech and into public disturbance, I would think). Two police officers step forward and quietly try to move me away from the microphone. I jerk away from them, swinging my arms wildly and try to run, screaming the whole time. There is a scuffle. (I have now wandered FAR away from free speech and am solidly into resisting arrest territory, wouldn't you think?) Eventually, four policemen are forced to hold me down because I am still struggling. At this point, I get tasered in an attempt to make me stop struggling.

What some of you are saying is that ALL of that kid's behavior was covered under free speech. You are WRONG. The time he spent SPEAKING was covered. Once he was asked to step down and he freaked out, HE moved out of free speech territory. BTW...Kerry was NOT avoiding his questions. He was trying to answer them. From what I have read, he never really got a chance. No matter what he said, the kid twisted it and went off on another rant. And from everything that has been found out about this guy, it's obvioius that I was right last night. He got what he went there for.

Why is that kids right to rant more important than the rights of the other people who came to ask John Kerry questions and listen to his answers? They wanted a chance to have some free speech, too. But this attention whore took that away from them. The right to free speech does not give you the right to resist arrest or to disrupt a group of people who are peaceably assembled.

BTW...those of you passionately defending this nit's behavior...where did you fall in the Imus thing? Why is one wrong and one an exercise of free speech? I didn't support Imus and I don't support this guy. Neither of them were exercising free speech as I understand it.

[Cobalt Violet]

1. What about the taser?

Was Imus tasered?

[brentspeak]

2. The police report says that the practical joker in question wasn't fully tased

They put part of the taser on him, but not the whole thing, so he actually didn't receive any jolts.

[Cobalt Violet]

4. That's not what I heard.

We all know police never lie.

[renie408]

8. They might lie, but they are limited by the laws of electricity.

If you are touching someone and they get electrocuted, what happens to you? The whole time I could not figure out how they could be tasering him and holding him at the same time.

[Connie_Corleone]

16. The normal use of a taser is to stand several feet away and shoot.

Pressing the taser on his body doesn't deliver the same shock. It's much less. I was wondering the same thing as you when I first saw the video.

[brentspeak]

9. What did you "hear"?

[renie408]

6. Which makes sense since the police where HOLDING HIM when they tasered him.

How could they have held onto him and not been shocked also if he had received a full taser??

[brentspeak]

11. Good point. I didn't even consider that.

If he was shocked, every cop touching him would have been jolted too.

[Squatch]

21. I cannot access youtube while at work, but you can view videos

of training sessions of the Taser. In those videos, two people are usually holding a person by the elbow, the weapon is fired, and the jolt delivered, all the while, the person's spotters are still holding on with no apparent discomfort.

[havocmom]

88. And he wouldn't have been still yelling if it was a full hit from the taser

He was not hit with a full charge and he was there to draw attention to himself. He was denying others' their chance to exercise their first amendment rights.

He doesn't help any liberal cause and he sure as hell doesn't represent me or any other liberal I have ever met.

[merh]

10. how do you partially shock someone?

how do you partially taze someone?

Will you go get the type of weapon they used and video tape as you try to prove to us it can be done?

[renie408]

14. How do you shock someone while holding them barehanded without getting shocked?

[merh]

17. that's how the taser works

since you are ignorant about the weapon I would suggest you not discuss it any further until you educate yourself

and, if you really are going to educate yourself then take the time to read the 11th Circuit Case of Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2004). That is the key taser case in the district which includes Florida that upheld the use of a taser while discussing the concept of "force necessary under the totality of the circumstances". If you read that case you will easily be able to see that the use of the taser in this incident is distinquishable from the taser use in the Draper case.

How many officers were arresting him and was he armed?

That video shows the officers had him in their control, the use of the taser was excessive, as if they were punishing him - the 8th amendment does not allow that.

[renie408]

19. So a taser limits the electricity to the person being zapped's body?

How does it do that? I will check it out right now.

If the police broke Florida law in using the taser, then they should be punished. They should have used physical restraint methods instead.

[merh]

20. They used more force than necessary under the circumstances

It's a shame law enforcement has forgotten how to use pressure points to subdue. They are less harmful and more effective especially in such close quarters.

Additionally, the man was trying to exercise his rights, the purpose of the event and that mic gave him the sense that he could. Kerry wanted to answer. Seems as the boys with badges should have left him alone until Kerry answered. They made the event the drama it became.

.

[renie408]

23. The student organizers of the event asked them to remove him. n/t

[merh]

25. And they are grown ups and could have said, let's let him finish

as he has the right to do. Let's let Kerry answer.

You cannot provide a free speech environment and then shut down the speech when it is not comfortable for you. He had an expectation that he would be allowed to ask his questions and Kerry allowed to answer them.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

26. HE DIDN'T HAVE A RIGHT!

NONE!

GOSH, a nice discussion of the meaning of free speech might put an end to some of these claims that simply AREN'T TRUE!

The government wasn't censoring his speech. He wasn't being punished for the content of his speech. There were no violations to his right to speech!

The organizers simply had a format that A. Meyers refused to follow, and after serveral requests to step away from the mike, he became even more belligerent and escalated the entire episode to resisting arrest.

Furthermore, he had NO EXPECTATION that he would be allowed to ask his questions and have them answered. (Besides, he was more interested in grandstanding, anyway.) If you attend these kinds of events, you know that oftentimes there's not enough time to answer everyone's questions. If fifty people are lined up for questioning, and there's only time to answer ten people, are the others all supposed to act like Andrew Meyer? Hell, no!

[merh]

27. Ermm, yes, he had an expectation that the organizers established.

He asked his questions and, as the format created by the organizers established, he had the right to expect an answer and not be shut down or forced away. He did not make any threats, he did not cuss and cause a disturbance by his rude behavior. He asked "heavy" questions and he was not as eloquent as others.

Kerry wanted to answer the questions.

He had an expectation that was established by the organizers.

They violated his rights when they shut him down for exercising his rights.

Seems rather silly and excessive force was used.

Three against one, how do you like them odds, heh!

[midlife_mo_Jo]

63. Are we even watching the same videos

1) Andrew Meyers was more interested in grand standing and didn't give Kerry a chance to answer.

2) The expectation is always that "some" people will have their questions answered. I've never been to something like this where time didn't run out and people weren't allowed to answer their questions. First come, first served.

3) Andrew Meyers is the one who escalated the entire situation when he repeatedly refused to move from teh mike. He was the one using "silly and excessive force" when he wouldn't move.

Three against one? I think not.

[merh]

100. See post 98

The funny thing about free speech - I value it so much that I cherish it for others, even if what they say pisses me off or is annoying.

Go watch the tape again check the time stamps. The organizers allowed it to get out of hand and then caused the disturbance while violating his right to free speech. They set up the protocol, they provided the soap box, but censored him with his questions were challenging. They then got the cops to violate his rights further.

[TheWraith]

66. He didn't want an answer, and he wasn't going to stop talking.

Has anyone who's defending this man actually watched the videos? It's clear that he's simply grandstanding, making a nuisance of himself, and trying to draw attention. Furthermore, he didn't have any right to come in and disrupt the event, any more than I have the right to crash a party and start yelling over top of everyone else. It wasn't his questions that were out of line, it was his BEHAVIOR.

[renie408]

22. Found it. But I don't understand this part...

You are right about the current, but read this: "This rapid work cycle instantly depletes the attacker's blood sugar by concerting it to lactic acid. In short, he is unable to produce energy for this muscles, and his body is unable to function properly. The stun gun also interrupts the tiny neurological impulses that control and direct voluntary muscle movement. When the attacker's neuromuscular system is overwhelmed and controlled by the stun gun he loses his balance. Should the attacker be touching you, the current will NOT pas to your body!"

And this...
"The AIR TASER releases an electric current in a pre-set time sequence (an initial seven seconds followed by several 1.8 second breaks for a total time of about 30 seconds in each cycle). This cycle ensures that the nervous system of the target does not recover instantly to allow him to remove the probes. The follow-on bursts disrupt the process of re-equilibration of the nervous system. While the target is disabled, the user can place the device on the ground and escape."

If the kid was tasered, how was he still yelling and struggling? Does it effect some people worse than others?

[Ohio Joe]

29. I don't think you are correct

There was recently an incident here in Ohio where a guy attacked his lawyer in court. He was tasered and one deputy holding him got shocked. This story has a video of the incident.

http://www.nbc4.com/news/14097342/detail.html

[merh]

30. Bullshit, there were three officers sitting on top of him.

They were not shocked - guess maybe there are different tasers.

Again, are you willing to demonstrate for us how he could be only partially tazed? Will you let us try to do that to you and can we videotape it?

[Ohio Joe]

34. I have no idea how to partially taze some

Nor did I ever claim such a thing could happen.

[onenote]

41. here's how you "partially" taze someone

Some taser devices, particularly those used by police departments, also have a "Drive Stun" capability, where the taser is held against the target without firing barbs and is intended to cause pain without incapacitating the target. TASER defines "Drive Stun" as "the process of using the electroshock weapon as a pain compliance technique. This is done by activating the device and placing it against an individual’s body. A Las Vegas police document says "The Drive Stun causes significant localized pain in the area touched by the TASER but does not have a significant effect on the central nervous system. The Drive Stun does not incapacitate a subject but may assist in taking a subject into custody."

That almost certainly is what happened to Meyers.

And before everyone gets all up in arms about "pain compliance" -- what do you think twisting someone's arm behind their back or hitting them with a baton or using pepper spray is all about? Making the person comfortable? The idea is to stop someone from persisting in their behavior (resisting police commands). A drive stun device, properly deployed, is actually a pretty humane way of doing that compared to the alternatives.

[merh]

51. And you know for a fact that this police force uses those

tazers how?

.

[onenote]

55. I never said I knew for a fact. However, all of the evidence suggests that I'm right

From the various videos I've seen, and from statements made about what was done, it certainly sounds consistent with the use of the device as described. His behavior and reaction certainly isn't consistent with the device being used in its longer-range, projectile electrode mode.

[merh]

56. Did you watch the video or listen to the sounds the taser made

when it was fired into his chest? (I say chest because the female watching it and protesting it screamed that they had a taser at his chest.)

And why would it take 7 officers and a taser to control this fellow? Hell, that one officer was so large and strong, he picked him up to move him up the corridor to the doorway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s

[onenote]

57. yes, but what does that have to do with the question at hand

I"m not disputing that the police used an electroshock device on him. I'm just suggesting that, based on the evidence, it was used in the drive stun mode described in my earlier post. In fact, reports that it was held against him are further evidence that it was in drive stun mode for localized pain compliance rather than in the mode used to incapacitate someone by affecting their central nervous system. If you can point to some evidence that suggests that my analysis is flawed, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[Ohio Joe]

58. Interesting, thanks for the info. (nt)

[merh]

52. See post 2

I was originally responding to him.

[merh]

31. I think you are incorrect

How many were sitting on him when they tazed him?

Your video does not apply to this instance.

[Ohio Joe]

33. I don't see anyone sitting on him

I see one officer holding his arm and another holding him down. As soon as he is tazed, the officer holding him down sure looks to me like he is being shocked. In addition, many of the stories regarding the incidents say he was. Here are two, a google search would show more

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=b4bf15cd-f36f-4a5c-af47-2acde81f0098

http://www.13wham.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=86190411-821b-4cb0-9cac-258b23218772

[onenote]

38. I've read Draper and I'm struggling to see how it helps your argument

People can read it and come to their own conclusions. But I see absolutely nothing in that opinion that would suggest that Meyers would have a prayer of winning if he brought an excessive force claim against the cops.

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314745.pdf

[merh]

50. One officer against one man in Draper

Force necessary under the totality of the circumstance. The time of the incident, the incident being at night and outside, the length of time the trucker gave the officer hell. All of that is well beyond this incident.

How many officers were on him and dragging him out? I counted at least six (6). Yes, Draper is definitely distinguishable.

.

[onenote]

59. distinguishable yes. relevant distinction? not necessarily

The draper court described the particular factual circumstnaces that if felt justified the use of the taser in some detail. Yet, if the Draper court mentioned that the situation presented there involved a one-on-one situation between a cop and the person alleging excessive force as one of those circumstances, I missed it (which is possible, so if its there, please point it out).

What I found to be most relevant in the court's opinion was the following:
"In the circumstances of this case, Reynold's use of the taser gun to effectuate the arrest of draper was reasonably proportonate to the difficult, tense and uncertain situation that Reynolds faced in this traffic stop, and did not constitute excessive force. From the time Draper met Reynolds at the back of the truck, Draper was hostile, belligerent and unccooperative. No less than five times, Reynolds asked Draper to retrieve documents from the truck cab and each time Draper refused to comply. Rather, Draper accused Reynolds of harassing him and blinding him with the flashlight. Draper used profanity, moved around and paced in agitation, and repeatedly yelled at Reynolds. Because Draper repeatedly refused to comply with Reynold's verbal comments, starting with a verbal arrest command was not required in these particular factual circumstances. More importantly, a verbal arrest command accompanied by physical handcuffing, in these particular factual circumstances, may well have, or would likely have escalated a tense and difficult situation into a serious physical struggle in which either Draper or Reynolds would be seriously hurt. Thus, there was a reasonable need for some use of force in this arrest.

"Although being struck b a taser gun is an unpleasant experience, the amount of force Reynolds used -- a single use of the taser gun causing a one-time shocking -- was reasonably proportionate to the need for force and did not inflict any serious injury. Indeed, the police video shows that Draper was standing up, handcuffed, and coherent shortly after the taser gun stunned and calmed him. THe single use of the taser gun may well have prevented a physical struggle and serious harm to either Draper or Reynolds. Under the "totality of the circumstances," Reynolds use of the taser gun did not constitute excessive force...."

Now, in this case, many of the facts are not dissimlar (an agititated, profane, uncooperative person refusing to comply with police commands). The fact that there were more cops on hand may weigh in Meyers favor, but is, I believe, readily offset by the fact that (a) he was in fact physically struggling with the cops and they were having difficulty subduing him without resort to additional means (Draper was just standing in front of his truck) and (b) the taser use appears to have been less forceful (i.e., drive stun rather than incapcitation) than in the Draper case.

As I said, I don't think Meyers would have a prayer of prevailing if he brought an action alleging excessive force.

[merh]

60. Yes, a very relevant distinction.

One man against one officer.

versus

One man against 7 armed officers, one of which was able to pick him up and move him across the room. Try to spin it all you like, the two cases are totally different and the use of force in this instance was excessive, punitive and unconstitutional.

.

[onenote]

61. if you say so

But the fact that four or five officers were struggling with him and were having trouble subduing him almost certainly would counsel in favor of the justifiable use of force and given the limited type of force used (and the fact that a warning was given, which was not the case in Draper), if I was going to bet on the outcome of this case in court, I'd bet heavily against Meyers.

And if the number of cops/number of arrestees its such a relevant fact, how come it wasn't mentioned by the Draper court in its recitation of the circumstances that it found weighed in favor of the cop's use of force?

In fact, I think it can be convincingly argued that the case for the limited use of force in the Meyers case is more justifiable than the use of a more significant level of force against Draper. Draper wasn't physically struggling, he was just standing in front of the cop and he was alone, not in a room full of other people who could have been injured if the struggle between Meyers and a group of cops got out of hand (along with the possibilty of more than one cop being injured).

[merh]

62. WRONG - all they had to do was let him stay down until he calmed

down. There was no rush to get him cuffed and out of the room, the cops were not in danger and the other private citizens in the room were not in danger. The activities on the stage continued and there were other doors to leave through. Use of force to defend, not to torture and make others comply. He was not a felon, his offenses were simple misdemeanors and there were SEVEN (7) cops. Watch it again and you can see the female cop that was giving him all of the orders tasered him in the chest while others held him.

Draper was one trucker and one cop, late at night, outside on the side of the road. This guy was nowhere near a Draper suspect.

Hell, that big cop picked Meyers up and moved him up the aisle to the door. No cop was in danger from Meyers but they did face danger from each other since they all over reacted.

.

.

[onenote]

64. gotta disagree

There was no sign that he was going to calm down. That's like saying the cop and draper could've stared each other down until draper finally produced the documentation being demanded. And while the big cop carried meyers part way down the aisle, meyers still broke free, and had to be wrestled down. He was still flailing around on the ground and was posing a threat of harming someone. The amount of force used by administering the drive stun was probably less dangerous than the force that would have had to be applied by several cops keeping his legs and arms pinned for an indefinite time.

And as far as the relative seriousness of the offense, Draper merely was accused of driving with a burned out taillight, while Meyers was charged with disturbing the peace. Plus, as previously noted, Draper was not physically resisting arrest, and Meyers was, which is a very significant distinction, and one that leads directly to the conclusion that the cops would be found not to have used excessive force against meyers.

[merh]

80. And you would be wrong, but that isn't surprising.

You need to practice your briefing of cases. The time that lapsed (3 plus minutes) was not a lifetime, it wasn't even close to the time involved in Draper matter and Meyer never threatened the cops or was abusive. He just wanted to know why he was under arrest. His questions were not crimes, had they not tried to remove him he wouldn't have been so upset and confused. Kerry could be heard saying he wanted to answer the questions.

Draper was argumentative and hostile with the cop from the get go. It was a one on one situation. The cop didn't have 6 others around to help him. It occurred outside and it was at night. The taser was found appropriate under those circumstances.

Your support of the cops also proves your ignorance of police tactics and procedures. The cops I know who have watched this video consider the cops involved an embarrassment to all LEOs. They say the officers are not properly trained and the first question most of them ask is "why no pressure points restraint?" Seriously, you need to do better to defend sloppy police work. I would venture to guess that the UF will quietly settle this quickly.

Meyers may be an ass and a provocateur, but he still has rights and those were violated. He had an expectation that he would be allowed to ask questions and get answers. That is what the organizers established. The organizers changed the rules on him because his questions were not pleasant. Kerry can be heard in the background saying "I want to answer". That female cop tased him in the chest as punishment. Other means were available to subdue him.

.

[onenote]

82. I am not concerned at all about my ability to brief cases

After nearly 30 years as a practicing attorney, I'm pretty confident of my abilties. What concerns me is your inability to read court opinions (assuming you bothered to read the Draper case). For example, you have contended that the fact that draper involved a one-on-one confrontation distinguishes the case. Yet, as the opinion makes clear, back up consisting of more than one additional officer had arrived on the scene prior to the application of the taser by the officer. To quote the opinion Reynolds "signaled to his backup, which had just arrived, with his flashlight" prior to draper again verbally refusing to cooperate (which then was followed by the tasering). In fact, it was one of the back up officers that handcuffed Draper, not Reynolds. Its not surprising, therefore, that the court didn't rely on, emphasize, or even mention the "one-on-one" nature of the confrontation as a factor in assessing the case, since that isn't what actually occurred.

Moreover, as the portion of the opinion I quoted above makes clear, whether or not you or I approve of the police attempting to remove meyers, the standard for assessing whether their action was lawful sets a pretty low bar, one that the cops met. You might check out the police report as well. It indicates that one cop initially unholstered her taser while they were trying to get Meyers up the aisle, but was instructed not to apply it. She reholstered it but then withdrew it later after Meyer tried to get away from the officers at the back of the room and was taken down. He was refusing to allow himself to be handcuffed. His physical confrontation and actions were far more threatening and dangerous than anything that Draper did. Moreover, per the police report, the taser was applied to Meyers shoulder not his chest, for a single cycle. Maybe someone could prove otherwise, but I doubt it.

Here's a link to the police report: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/18/offense.report.072274.pdf

I don't think the cops should've tried to remove Meyer when they did, but they were asked to do so by the sponsor of the event, Meyer previously had been disruptive (announcing that he was going to get arrested even before the events captured on video occurred), and was struggling with the police.

If I was representing the cops on this, I would wish all my cases were this easy.

[merh]

90. And you would lose this case if you defend the cops.

Especially if you cannot see the obvious and relevant distinctions between Draper and this incident. You may want to go do some studying on the proper techniques to be used by law enforcement and you may want to review the video a little closer. The man was down, at least five (5) officers had him on the ground where he presented no danger to himself or the officers, the disturbance was a disturbance of their making, of the organizers making.

Less than 5 minutes, not the prolonged time behind the Draper vehicles. Inside, not at night one-on-one.

The lady with the taser (who appeared to have a short female cop attitude) will loose her job and this matter will be settled quietly by all involved. Law enforcement doesn't want poor police work to muck up their taser use and to be the key case on tasers in the circuit.

[onenote]

91. Where in the draper case did they make the time of the confrontation a factor

I missed that.

Again. Draper may have been wrongly decided (I happen to think it was). But if the courts say its not excessive for a non physically resisting guy stopped for a broken taillight to be tasered (not just drive stunned) without warning and with multiple cops on the scene, then I am quite confident that, faced with a case in which someone who has repeatedly struggled with and sought to escape the grasp of the police, who is resisting being cuffed, who is warned that he will be tasered, and who receives a single drive stun taser application to his shoulder from which he immediately recovers, is not going to hesitate to find in favor of the cops.

[merh]

97. Oh my - maybe you don't read cases as well as you think.

Draper was upset with the cop for blinding him with the flashlight. You can't do that in the day. That is how the entire "disagreement" began.

You may want to check out Owens v. State and Williams v. State. The discussions in those two Florida cases are relevant here.

There are two (2) huge problems with the case for the UF police. One (1) they don't have a standard policy for the use of tasers which means their training in the use of same is questionable if it happened at all. Two (2) the UF police didn't charge Meyers with trespass (failure to leave after numerous requests he leave), had they done that, their physical attempts to remove him including pulling him by the shirt as depicted in the photo below (while his hands are up in the air and he is asking what the hell is going on) would have more credence. As he was only asking questions and the questions appeared to be disfavorable to the politician on the stage there is the obvious appearance of censorship on the part of the organizers. One cannot use the cops to violate another's rights. What is funny is the group that keeps screaming that Kerry should have stepped in. He did, he continued the format and said he wanted to answer the questions, thus the established program settings would have continued and no disturbance had if the organizers had not told the police to shut down Meyers. As I have opined, the Draper case is disquisable from this case though one is bound to follow the reasoning as found in same. "A court looks to the "totality of circumstances" to determine whether the manner of arrest was reasonable." The totality of the circumstances would show that the attempts to arrest were attempts to censor his speech and the use of the taser was excessive under the circumstances.

[onenote]

99. how does his accusation that he was blinded make the police force more appropriate in draper

Having some trouble following your logic. Draper claimed that he was blinded by the cops. The court accepted that as true for purposes of deciding Draper's claim. They found the use of force wasn't excessive. What exactly am I missing?

Moving on, I see no discussion in Draper of the significance, or lack thereof, of a police force having a standard policy.

Finally, I've tried finding the cases you reference (but don't give citations for). I found an Owens v. State where the court found improper admission of hearsay evidence as to whether a cop's use of a taser was justifiable. The hearsay evidence supported the cop's claim that the suspect physically attacked him before he used the taser. There was conflicting, non-hearsay evidence that the suspect came out of the house with his hands up and was tased without initiating any resistance or confrontation. How that case is supposed to help Meyer is beyond me. There is no hearsay issue and there is no question that he was resisting.

I found several Flordia cases entitled Williams v. State, including one involving self-defense and one relating to the legality of an arrest. If you could clarify which of these cases you are referring to (or whether you were referring to yet another Williams v. State case) that would be helfpful.

[TheWraith]

69. He wasn't going to calm down, he was playing to the cameras. NT

[merh]

76. yeah he was.

But he was going to calm down. Nothing he did warranted a tazer, there were 7 of them. They were in control (pressure points would have been more effective than the tazer any way). He was committing a simple misdemeanor not a felony. The force was excessive under the circumstances.

[onenote]

85. you may be a mindreader, but there was nothing in his behavior suggesting that

He repeatedly tried to break away from the cops before he was tasered and cuffed. Even after being partially cuffed (but before the taser was applied) he continued to struggle. Sure, he might have eventually worn himself out. But before he did so, he also might have injured one of the cops in his flailing around. And while there were seven officers present, not all participated in subduing him, which was appropriate. There was a United States Senator present and a distractive disruption. It was entirely appropriate for at least one officer to continue to watch the entire room. ANd as the video indicates, one officer also was attempting to keep people back away from the struggle -- also appropriate police work.

Again, I think it would've been better if the organizer of the event had not ordered the mike cut and asked the cops to remove meyer before letting him carry on a bit longer to see if he actually was going to finish and let Kerry answer. But once the police tried to remove him, his refusal to cooperate and physical struggle opened himself up the use of appropriate force and, in this instance, a single drive stun taser application would not, under applicable case law, be considered excessive.

[merh]

98. Nope, that is your impression of what occurred

it all happened in minutes, he was pulled away from the mic physically though he wasn't doing anything wrong. The format was question and answers and the nature of his questions were not hostile, threatening or intimidating, they were just challenging to the speaker. The organization established the protocol and he had a right to expect that he would be allowed to participate as others before him. The questions asked and the questions answered.

The disturbance was begun by the organizers, they were responsible for the disturbance when they had the cops physically remove him when they decided to censor his speech, his questions. If they had followed the protocol as they claim they were, his mic should have been cut off at .40 seconds into this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI0pbT_Z5F4 - when the cop first approached him. It was not and he was allowed to continue until 1.39 into the video. Then they cut off his mic (after he asked that all too scarey question about "skull & crossbones") and the cops began to try to force him out. He kept asking if he was under arrest and the cops did not anwer him, they just continued to pull him away from the mic. If you look at 2.03 on the tape you will see that little male cop had his wrist. At that time he could have been cuffed and subdued, the same for 1.58 on the tape will the little female cop had his wrist. Proper police training would have had them subdue him at that time, if he were considered under arrest, violent or a danger to them or others. He was not told he was under arrest so how could he know that he was resisting arrest?

Further, if you watch the tape at 2.06 the big cop picks him up and carries him up the aisle, he has him in bear hug, he has him subdued and controlled. At that time he could have been cuffed had he been under arrest and at that time, if the cops knew what the hell they were doing, they would have brought him outside the room, advised him of his rights and cuffed him while the big officer had control of him.

But they didn't do that because they don't know what the hell they are doing and he really wasn't under arrest at that time, it wasn't until they had him on the floor, not 1 cop, not 2 cops, not 3 cops, not 4 cops, but at least 5 cops and maybe more, had control of him on the ground and held him down as the lady cop tazed him while he begged her not to. Was she mad because he called her "bro"? She was pissed that he was ignoring her badge and power. So he was tazed at approximately 3:10 on this tape, an entire 3 minutes lapsed on this tape, it doesn't seem like that long a time for the cops to be trying to subdue him and they were the ones in force, in control. Again, "A court looks to the "totality of circumstances" to determine whether the manner of arrest was reasonable." the totality of the circumstances are not in the cops favor. Especially knowing that the UF police have no taser policy and the man was not charged with trespass.

He was not charged with trespassing for failure to leave when requested, so that is not a defense available to the cops. He had been subdued, physically picked up by the large cop. The taser was merely punishment because he was so annoying, imho.

[onenote]

101. different impressions then

FIrst, according to eyewitnesses and the police report, the organizers originally announced that there was time for six questions. Kerry volunteered that he might be able to take a couple more than that. After seven or eight questions were asked and answered, it was announced that the next question would be the last one. At that point, Meyer, who had been behind a number of other people in line who were not going to be able to ask their questions, apparently began loudly demanding that he be allowed to ask a question. At that point the police approached the microphone and Meyer asked whether he was going to be arrested. Meyer was told that he would be allowed to ask his question after he allowed the questioner he interrupted to finish. It is only after this last question finishes that any of the videos that I have seen begins. I would assume that there are videos out there that would confirm or disprove the accuracy of the eyewitness and police reports, but I haven't seen them (which is a bit odd). What you call annoying, the cops and the courts are likely to call, based on the totality of the circumstances,resisting the police.

In this regard, you suggest that once Meyer was in a bear hug he could've been cuffed. Well,yes the cop had him in a bear hug. But the video clip you linked to cuts away for a few seconds so that it goes straight from the cop carrying meyer towards the back of the room to a scene with the cops and Meyer on the ground.
Here is a video clip that doesn't cut away and it shows that Meyer continued to resist and indeed pulled away from the cop that had him in the bear hug, which is what led to his being brought down to the ground.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/18/offense.report.072274.pdf

[merh]

102. The problem with your description is the video tape

or rather tapes that provide a different image than what the organizers claim. He was allowed to ask his questions, when first approached he simply said he wanted to ask his question and when. The cop stepped back and did not advise that if he continued he would be arrested for disturbing the peace. He was allowed to ask not one, not two, but three questions and upon his third question about the skull and crossbones, his mic was then cut off thus giving the appearance of censorship. Add to that the fact that Kerry said he wanted to answer and the cops never advising him that he was under arrest. Had the cop said to him when he was first approached, we need you to leave or you will be arrested for trespass, any further communications would have been the disturbance. He did not disturb the peace until he was grabbed by the police officers and even when grabbing him, they did not tell him he was under arrest or advise that if he didn't leave he would be under arrest. How can you resist arrest when you are not under arrest?

I'd really like to see that full length video, but you didn't provide the link.

Please provide the link.

edited to add: even the offense reports note that the organizers agreed to allow him to ask his questions.

[onenote]

104. I provided a link to the longer video that shows him trying to escape the bear hug

As for what happened prior to what is shown on the videos that have been circulating, I expressly stated in my post that I would imagine that there are videos that either would confirm or deny the eyewitness reports (and police report) version of what happened during that time frame (ie. whether he did or did not interrupt a previous questioner and demand to be heard despite an announcement that there would be no more questions). I in no way suggested that I had seen such a full length video. Like you, if one exists (and I can't believe no one was taping the entire event) I'd like to see it. As for the fact that he was given permission to ask his question, doesn't the very fact that it was within the power of the organizers of the event to grant him that permission suggest that they had the right to withdraw it as well?

[merh]

105. Where?

In the post I just responded to you provided the offense reports. Said reports are in conflict with the videos I have seen.

Please provide the link to the longer video.

Because they granted him permission to ask his questions (or finish asking his questions) they gave permission to him to be an active participant in the program. When he asked a question that was appeared to "challenge" the speaker is when the mic was cut off and the attempts forcibly remove him began, thus it was by order of the organizers that the disturbance began. Withdrawing permission was the censorship, they censored his speech when he asked politically incorrect questions and then they had the police further violate his rights by removing him and then arresting him without cause.

[onenote]

106. Just realized that the link to the video showing him trying to get away wasn't in my post

Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Qef8oPmag

Still can't find anything that shows events preceding the point where he is allowed to address Kerry.

[merh]

107. So 1 minute 56 sec into this they could have cuffed him and didn't

Then when he is on the floor in the back they have him on his stomach and there are at least four on him and that lady cop standing over him and he is begging folks to help him and them not to taser him, he lifts up and she tasers him.

Yup, all of this is excessive force and the arrest was only necessitated after his rights were violated.

That longer version depicts the abuses more than the short version. I betcha his lawyers are loving it.

[onenote]

108. Your opinion. Mine differs

He was in an almost constant state of motion moving his arms resisting attempts to hold them down. At 1:56 his arms aren't in position to be cuffed and there is every reason to believe, based on his immediate subsequent behavior, that he would have resisted any attempt to move them into that position. Indeed, while on the floor, they were able to get one arm cuffed but he continued to try to spin his body and other arm away. The idea that he could easily have been cuffed at any point is contradicted by the tape imo.

As for who's lawyers are loving what, I guess time will tell.

[merh]

109. And as is apparent from your observations

You know nothing about proper law enforcement training (which this group apparently never had) and your posts fail to acknowledge what the university has acknowledged. The UF police have no taser policy.

Time will indeed tell just as the video conflicts with the officers accounts in their written offense reports.

[onenote]

110. you may be right. Time will tell. One last question

Do you have a link to where the University acknowledges that the UF police have no taser policy?

Thanks

[merh]

112. I had read it in one of the articles released after this occurred.

It was a statement made by a university rep and not the university police department. Now I find that the police department claims to have a taser policy and they believe it was followed during the incident.

If I find the previous article, I will provide the link.

The Florida ACLU has released a statement.

Review of University Police Policies, Investigation Needed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 18, 2007

CONTACT:
Brandon Hensler, Director of Communications, [phone] or [e-mail]

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida today expressed dismay at the circumstances surrounding a University of Florida Police Officer’s use of a taser gun in the process of arresting a student at a speech by U.S. Senator John Kerry in Gainesville. The student, Andrew Meyer, was forcibly removed by campus police from a microphone where he was asking questions of Sen. Kerry.

Kerry can be heard expressing a desire to respond to Meyer’s questions in videotape coverage of the campus incident, so the question becomes – did police squander the free speech rights of both Kerry and Meyer?

“Apart from the taser use issues, one must consider the free speech implications of the police officers’ actions,” said Howard Simon, ACLU of Florida Executive Director. “People have a reasonable expectation to ask questions in a public setting – even if they are aggressive and some disagree with their position – that is free speech plain and simple. Similarly – Kerry had a reasonable expectation to be able to answer those questions. Neither of them was able to exercise their free speech rights due to the police action.”

Additionally, it appears that sufficient police force was present to control Meyer without the need to taser him. If that is the case, which only a comprehensive investigation can determine, this may be a classic example of excessive force. A review of the police department’s policies and protocols on use of tasers, as well as the officer’s actions, will be required to determine whether use of the taser was warranted or if indeed, poor judgment was exercised.

“The answers to these, and other questions, will only be known once the police conduct an investigation into the officer’s actions,” said Glenn Katon, ACLU of Florida Central Region Office Director. “The use of tasers has grown exponentially in recent years, and the jury is still out, so to speak, on what best practices are for how and when to use them. This case appears disturbing and certainly merits a full investigation.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida is freedom's watchdog, working daily in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend individual rights and personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For additional information, visit our Web site at: www.aclufl.org.

# # #

2007 Press Releases

This is the President of UF's statement on the incident:

To students, faculty, staff:

I have received a great deal of communication and input last night and this morning regarding the incident that occurred Monday at the conclusion of a town hall forum being held by Sen. John Kerry. The incident resulted in a student being tasered.

We are interested in learning what happened and are taking the following immediate steps to ensure the university utilizes best practice protocols:

*University of Florida Police Chief Linda Stump has requested the Florida Department of Law Enforcement conduct a formal investigation into the arrest of UF student Andrew Meyer. An independent review such as this will make sure the results are objective and impartial. Chief Stump’s priority is to ensure that the public remains confident in the department’s ability to keep the campus safe.

*Two officers involved in the incident have been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

*We plan to assemble a panel of faculty and students to review our police protocols, our management practices and the FDLE report to come up with a series of recommendations for the university.

*Administrators and police officials plan to analyze the incident and conduct an internal review and will consider changing protocols in response to this incident, if necessary.

*Finally, as is standard procedure, the State Attorney’s Office will review the charges brought against Mr. Meyer. We have communicated with the State Attorney and understand he plans to expedite his review.

I will talk about the incident and answer questions at a news conference scheduled for 2 p.m. in Emerson Alumni Hall.

Sincerely,
J. Bernard Machen president, UF

[onenote]

113. Yep. There is a policy and here it is.

Its posted on the University's website -- http://www.president.ufl.edu/incident/UFPD-use-of-force-policy.pdf

And among other things, it defines various levels of subject resistance and officer control response. Level four resistance is defined as "Active physical resistance" -- The subject makes physically evasive movements to defeat an officer's attempt at control. This may be in the form of bracing or tensing, attempts to push/pull away or not allowing the officer to get close to him/her. However, the subject does not attempt to strike the officer or inflict bodily harm upon the officer.

That sure sounds like Mr. Meyer.

And what is the authorized policy for response to a level four resistance? Its the use of "Intermediate Weapons -- Weapons that are primarily used to render a subject controllable such as a baton, ASR, or Taser."

Not so sure that Mr. Meyer's lawyers are laughing.

edited to amend earlier cross-post

[merh]

114. Excuse me but to assume I didn't answer because I couldn't is just wrong.

You have taken time to respond and I have not mocked your slowness and assumed it meant your weak argument was without merit. This latest jab of your's was uncalled for and rude.

We have had a relatively calm discussion but you are now making it personal. Be polite or go away and debate it with someone that you can beat up on with your incorrect interpretation of the law and the facts as established in the video and the offense report.

[onenote]

115. Not sure what you are referring to - I edited my post immediately

upon seeing that you had responded. . When I had last looked before beginning to type my response (which took some time since I was reviewing the policy even as I quoted from it) I edited to remove the snark about you're not responding, since in fact you did respond.If you check the times, my original post and your post were submitted at exactly the same time and I amended mine two minutes later, noting expressly that I was revising to reflect a cross post (ie the fact that my earlier post had crossed with yours).

Peace.

[merh]

103. Relative to that offense report.

Read the officer's version of events as found on page 4 & 5. His/her version is not what is seen on the tape. That will blow his/her credibility out of the water.

A group of rank amateurs that forgot they were being videotaped and that clearly over reacted.

Yup, the one that tased him will be fired, a taser policy will be adopted (if they are allowed to continue to carry them), and the university will settle this quietly.

All of the versions of the officers on the scene differ from each other and all of them conflict with what the tape shows. They all do establish that the organizers never asked that he be arrested and he was never arrested. The charge of resisting arrest won't work unless you are resisting an actual arrest.





.

[Mugu]

53. The same way birds sit on high tension lines without being smoked. n/t

[Stuckinthebush]

12. I figured that when watching the video

If the kid had been tasered he wouldn't have been yelling "Ow Ow Ow!"

This whole incident is about a kid who has a history of pranks according to UF and wanting to get attention for his blog.

I'm fucking amazed at the DU response to this.

[Marrah_G]

15. I thought so

It is almost impossible for someone to keep talking while being tased. I thought it odd that the guy did not react or move in the same manner as other people do.

[madinmaryland]

3. Now that would be worth watching!!

[renie408]

5. Did Imus struggle violently with police?

No, he didn't.

How would you remove a man who is over six feet tall, healthy and strong, who had already tried to get away from you and who after repeated requests to calm down was still struggling? And do you think that with your method, there would be no chance he would be injured in any way?

[Cobalt Violet]

7. Call for back up.

Not use a potentally deadly weapon like these serial taserers.

[renie408]

13. There were four policemen trying to hold him down. How much back up would you want?

And how do you know these cops were serial taserers? You don't.

[Cobalt Violet]

43. How many it takes.

One of these cops has already tasered 3 students. I saw the new report about it.

[Catchawave]

18. Has anyone seen his website ?

I've been trying to find it since I heard a discussion saying it's full of disruptive behavior that he boasts about ?

I also believe he crossed the line of "civil disobedience" by resisting arrest. The point of CD is getting arrested !

I don't believe he was denied his 1st Ammendent rights when he infringed on others' rights to a peaceful assembly.

There was a guy in uniform at a Yearly Kos panel for VoteVets who attended merely to support the war! He started his diatribe towards the panel, but the mod noted he was in violation of wearing a uniform to a political event, and asked him to be removed. There was a back and forth yelling match for a minute or two, but when security showed up to remove him, he left peacefully.

He showed up at another vets panel wearing civvies, and they let him speak.

[renie408]

24. Civil Disobediance is also about being 'civil'. It is passive resistance. n/t

[goodgd_yall]

40. And it's about disobedience

CD involves breaking an ordinance or law.

[stranger81]

28. "Peaceably" modifies your right to assembly, not your right to free speech [n/t]

[Kajsa]

35. Here's this guy's " purpose in life"

from another DU thread,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1839794

Now, you have to know this about me: I am huge Marlins fan, and a born heckler. My purpose in life is to badger, jeer, and cajole professional athletes.

Does this guy sound like he cares about peaceably assembling?


Should he have been tasered? Absolutely not!
Is he an ass? Absolutely!

[stranger81]

37. sure -- he's a complete ass -- no disagreement here . . . . .

but even complete asses have rights.

[Zodiak]

54. yes

I am in full agreement here.

Tazer, bad!
Guy, ashhole.

But last I checked, this country has been full of assholes since its birth and I see no clause in the Constitution about abrigement of freedoms for assholitis.

[goodgd_yall]

42. Exactly. I pointed that out too. And it makes a difference. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Imus was tasered?

[Greyhound]

36. The authoritarians speak out... again. n/t

[goodgd_yall]

39. "Peaceably" goes with the right to assemble

not the right to speak. I've gone to plenty of speeches where a voice was raised by an impassioned speaker and no one dared arrest the speaker because it was known to be unconstitutional to do so.

Granted the young man was part of an audience and not there to make a speech as Kerry was, he had not violated anybody else's rights. I've read he supposedly pushed his way to the front, but he was allowed to ask his questions and once given that he should have been allowed to finish and wait to hear Kerry's answers. It was the University security that violated the peace, not the Meyers, in my opinion.

[slowry]

46. It also doesn't go with "dance". Can I hit cops if I'm dancing at the same time :D? W00t n/t

[onenote]

44. I think the cops acted precipitously, but in the end, the result probably would've been the same

I think the cops jumped the gun when they tried to remove Meyers when they did. I think it would've been better to allow him to rant on for a bit longer to see if he would allow Kerry to answer. However, my guess is that in the end the result would've been the same because Meyers either (1) would never stop and let Kerry answer or (2) would continue to argue with Kerry if he allowed Kerry to try and give an answer. WHile it would be lovely if everyone could get their own unlimited private dialogue with national figures like Kerry, its not anyone's right and at some point it would've become necessary to shut him up. MY guess is that, whenever it happened, he would have reacted belligerently and struggled loudly with the cops, to the same end as occurred.

[DemGa]

45. They should have let the guy keep speaking

He would have worn himself out, and if he continued, would likely just feel embarrassed as his reactions did not match the stimulus. It would have run its course in short order.

But the police HAD to cause an escalation. Police are just far too quick to lay their hands on people, thereby causing the very situation they are responding to.

If the authoritarians could learn this simple fact, we'd all be much better off.

[Jed Dilligan]

47. Actually, the proper response would have been

to get in front of him, distract him, and engage him in a dialogue, calmly and in a friendly manner. Then coax him to come along to further discuss his problems somewhere else. Unfortunately, the kind of people who can do that are not the ones we hire as cops.

[onenote]

48. See post #44

I agree he should've been allowed to continue, but my guess is that it still would've played itself out much the way it did because he wouldn't have "worn himself out" and I suspect he's immune to embarassment.

[DemGa]

49. Yes, I saw that post after I posted

and it could have played out the same way. But unless he was truly mentally unstable, I suspect he would have calmed down on his own.

The fact is, the guy got what he expected, and reacted accordingly. Had he been met with peace, his demeanor might have changed. Of course, we can't know.

[girl gone mad]

65. Peacably is an adverb, modifying the verb "assemble"

It doesn't apply to the freedom of speech clause. That's 6th grade English.

You're revising the content of the constitution to suit your whim.

[jgraz]

67. Am I the only one sickened by this sudden outbreak of knee-jerk authoritarianism on DU?

Why the hell are so many people twisting logic in order to justify this thuggish attack on a political dissenter?

[1320crusier]

70. those are the types that want a govt nanny..unfortunately youll have to get used to it

was the guy annoying...yup... did he disrve to be tackled, tased, and arrested...not so much.
the govt isnt responsible for you... you are.

[TheWraith]

71. I'm sickened by so many people supporting a guy who was intent only on disruption and grandstanding.

If some freeper behaved the same way, trying to deliberately disrupt the Kerry event the way this man did, everybody here would be bashing them non-stop. Somehow this guy gets a pass because he was supposedly a lefty? I call bullshit. He was disrupting the established rules of the Q&A by butting in at the head of the line and taking over the mike; he was refusing to allow anyone else to talk; and he was becoming increasingly obnoxious. The organizers asked him to leave, he refused. They cut his mike, he just shouted louder. They asked the campus police to remove him, and when they try to walk him out, he starts resisting and getting into a fight. When he won't stop fighting even with several officers trying to hold on to him, they give him a low-level jolt from a taser. So remind me who's supposed to be the bad guys here?

This guy was clearly in the wrong every step of the way. He deserves to be condemned for his behavior, not applauded for it. There are a lot of miscarriages of justice in the world. This sure as hell isn't one of them.

[piesRsquare]

72. Amen!

This punk-ass kid is fine. No harm was done to him; no injury. He's now famous, just like he's always wanted, and he'll make a fortune off of this stunt.

Meanwhile, because of his little childish tantrum:

-Two cops have been suspended (which will taint their employment records)

-U of F is embarassed

-Kerry (an excellent, Democratic Senator) is embarassed, and in the "hot seat"--he's being bashed by Libs AND Cons

-U of F and the State now have to spend time and resources on an investigation

-The day-to-day lives of other U of F students are being disrupted, as the University is flooded with media reps

-Yom Kippur starts on Friday night: His (poor) parents no doubt will be the talk of the congregation when they go to synagogue. Not to mention the fortune they'll be paying in attorney fees.

***
Andrew Meyer is loving his current fame, no doubt. But his little performance on Monday is resulting in a lot of headache for a lot of people. All he had to do was ask his questions.

I can't stand people like this.

[OzarkDem]

79. Welcome to DU

[Mythsaje]

74. You know why this is important?

Because it doesn't matter if he was just grandstanding. No one knew his motivations and general attitudes until AFTER this all happened. He COULD have been a serious activist who was all worked up at that point in time. It wouldn't have changed how it was handled. They would still have sat on him and zapped his ass because THEY COULD.

Him being an asshole has nothing to do with the issue. It could happen to any of us who had the nerve to stand up and say "hey, wait a minute. You're bullshitting us." Maybe we wouldn't ourselves say such a thing to JK, but we sure as fuck should have the right to do so without being grabbed, manhandled, and eventually tasered because we dare to object to that sort of treatment.

Part of the reason we're here in this situation with regards to the Constitution is that people kept making excuses for all the policies and procedures that violated its spirit for the past thirty years. When they realized all they had to do to suspend the 4th Amendment was to proclaim it necessary to "win" the War On Drugs, and all the fucking halfwits in this country said "oh, that's okay then."

Now people have been handed the lesson if they step out of line at a political speech or rally, they're going to be manhandled and tasered and EVEN HERE people will be able to justify it.

Lovely.

[OzarkDem]

78. Your interpretation

I suppose he was supposed to sit quietly in his seat saying nothing while the rest of Kerry's time was used up by wide eyed students taking turns praising Kerry and telling him what a great person he is.

Kerry didn't have a problem with it, why do you?

[Beelzebud]

89. When the rabble get out of line, they are to be treated as livestock.

It's only a small jolt. If it's not too good for cattle, why should it be too good for the rabble?

Clearly the student deserved everything he got, and he'll now know to just SIT DOWN, AND SHUT UP from now on. He knows his place. As does everyone who watched. Want to go up against the elite? Prepare to be put in your place. If only we would have expanded the fine work we did at Kent State. Then this country would be pure and clean of the rabble, and we could be well on our way to world domination by now.

[Mythsaje]

73. They see him as a loudmouth jerk...

THEY probably would've tasered him, so it's okay if the cops did.

Ah, heck if I know.

I can't help but think the taser was over the line.

They should've just stayed back and not escalated the situation by playing at being bully boys. JK has already stated that he thought he could've handled it. This was uniformed thuggery.

[OzarkDem]

77. Its pretty disgusting

though its a vocal minority.

[Bluebear]

83. It's disgraceful.

[Beelzebud]

84. No you're not, but it has opened my eyes as to why America is swirling down the shitter.

If it had been a Republican speaker, half the Protest Warriors would be singing this guy's praises.

[Cronus Protagonist]

111. It boggles the mind

Why vote Democratic if they take the authoritarian Republican side? I don't get it myself.

[renie408]

116. Jesus Fucking Christ. I am a Republican because I don't think

this kid has the right to disrupt a peaceful, organized public discussion with a screaming rant?

Well shit, if being a Democrat means you support ANY speech in ANY manner at ANY time, then maybe I am a Republican.

Hey, hanging that noose in a tree was free speech. Support that?

[Cronus Protagonist]

117. No, you are behaving like a blithering idiot

Note I mentioned your behaviour not you yourself. And I did not call you out in my post either, but apparently you thought it fit you, and perhaps you're right on that - you would know better than anyone else. So tell me, why bother to vote Democratic when the Republican party would better reflect your views?

And by the way, the issue is not whether or not one can shout at an event, take longer or anything of the sort, the issue is whether or not police can use a taser as punishment while 6 of them are holding you down. You can try to spin that fact into another to support your skewed point of view, or so that people won't notice the zealous drool from your mouth, but trust me, you're not being successful at the subterfuge.

Apparently, we've not only lost habeus corpus in this country, we've also lost the principle that cops cannot judge, try, convict and punish or torture at will or as they see fit. And to think that some Democratics AND Republicans march in lock-step on this issue is disheartening to say the least. I used to think this was the land of the free.

[cui bono]

68. Have you heard of the expression: "excessive force"?

:eyes:

[Fly by night]

75. Enough with the taser threads. Though I agree w/ you, this is getting to be intellectual diarrhea..

... or mental masturbation. Neither one is very pretty and they damn sure aren't productive in any sense of the word.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

81. What?

I do support Imus's free speech, just not what he says. It's my free speech right to say he's an idiot and obviously it's my right not to buy products from advertisers on his canceled show, etc. But he definitely has the RIGHT to speak like an asshole.

Now, you're right that free speech doesn't give you the right to resist arrest. But it absolutely does give you the right to scream, shout, and yell, even if that means grabbing attention from everybody else. The Bill of Rights is to protect the individual--YOU--from the tyranny of the majority, and freedom of speech is to protect YOUR right to be loud and vocal and to grab attention at the expense of the attention the majority of the room/school/nation might want.

Remember that when Anne Coulter visits town and you don't want to stop shouting her down, even though the rest of the room wants to hear her talk.

[Beelzebud]

86. "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."

--George Orwell, from 1984

The future is now.

[BlooInBloo]

87. Even if you're right, he didn't have to be tazed.

[onenote]

92. maybe not, but what do you suggest the cops should have done to stop him from resisting?

I think the situation was a disaster from the start. Having read the police report, it appears that a series of miscalculations and judgment errors were made, starting, imo, with the decision to give in to Meyer's demands that he be allowed to ask Kerry a question after the question and answer period had ended (without any number of people who had wanted to ask questions being able to ask their questions). Once the decision to let him speak was made, I think the organizers of the event screwed up in turning off his mike, at least at the point that they did so. They should've let him ramble on for another minute or so to see if he actually intended to let Kerry speak. If he persisted for another couple of minutes, then I think it would've been appropriate to turn off the mike. If he then allowed Kerry to answer, fine, the situation is over. If (as I kinda suspect would've been the case) either didn't let Kerry answer or tried to continue an argument with Kerry, then I think the better thing to do was for Kerry to say I've tried to answer your questions, thank you, and now I must be going. If Meyer continued to cause a disturbance after that, then I would have no problem with the police escorting him from the hall. And if he resisted the police physically, I would have no problem with them cuffing him. And if in order to cuff him, after a warning, they used a single drive stun taser application to his shoulder, the effects of which wore off immediately, I'm not going to complain.

[BlooInBloo]

94. Whatever cops did before there were tasers. Duh.

[onenote]

95. biilly clubs, batons, choke holds, guns, dogs.

That's what they did before.

[BlooInBloo]

96. Sorry - I meant whatever they did to WHITE folks before tasers.

[Bucky]

119. biilly clubs, batons, choke holds, guns, dogs.

Maybe you should specify non-Irish, non-Mediterranean, non-union, middle class white people who are well groomed and unaffiliated with left wing ideological groups.

[BlooInBloo]

93. Nobody is familiar with the "Congress shall..." part of it, either.

[Bucky]

118. My problem was with the taser. It's a weapon and can be lethal.

If he's being disruptive, fine, haul him off and talk him down to being calm. If he doesn't calm down, book him for disorderly conduct. But they electocuted a guy who was not being a violent threat. That's not cool. Tasers are there to replace guns, not to augment the verbal authority the cops have.

[onenote]

120. I know of some of the problems with tasers, but do they occur in the drive stun mode?

I haven't heard of problems when tasers are used in drive stun mode (tasers can be used with cartridges that shoot probes that impact the central nervous system or they can be used in the drive stun mode which essentially causes pain, but doesn't disable the CNS from what I understand.