Student Tasered in Front of John Kerry

[Caleb]

Last time I checked, being a loudmouth jerk taking up 2 minutes of public Q&A time (versus the allotted 30 seconds) wasn't grounds for arrest.

It is legitimate grounds for physical removal from the public forum though inorder to protect the free speech rights of others.

This thread has been a reminder to me of how much simpler it is to be a pacifist. I don't have to worry about how much force is allowed, under what circumstances, blah blah blah. It's always wrong.

Thank each and every one of you who have participated in this 15 page thread for reminding me of that.

[Sheep Fuzzy Wool]

View from yet another camera http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Qef8oPmag

[KBCraig]

View from yet another camera http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Qef8oPmag

Thanks for that. Being from a more "legitimate" ( ) news source, it should get a bit more respect.

Secondary note: I think the crowd sat there for two reasons: first, they were glad the loudmouth was being ejected. Second, they are thoroughly conditioned to just sit there while the "professionals" handle things. They don't want to be the nail that stands up and gets hammered down.

Thirteen years of public school, and whaddaya get? Compliant "subjects". 

[Quantrill]

I honestly can't believe that.  Nobody did or said ANYTHING?!?!

From what I can tell, the cops never told him he was under arrest.  He did nothing wrong by resisting.  And he damn sure didn't do anything to deserve being tasered.


Damn, I can pretty much guarantee I'll be tasered at some point cuz there is no way I'd sit idly by if I saw that BULLSHIT happening...
(pardon my English)

[CNHT]

I honestly can't believe that.  Nobody did or said ANYTHING?!?!

From what I can tell, the cops never told him he was under arrest.  He did nothing wrong by resisting.  And he damn sure didn't do anything to deserve being tasered.


Damn, I can pretty much guarantee I'll be tasered at some point cuz there is no way I'd sit idly by if I saw that BULLSHIT happening...
(pardon my English)

I'm with you Q -- there were enough people there to have jumped the cops and releived them of their weapon.....

but none with the b**** to do it.

[EthanAllen]

Last time I checked, being a loudmouth jerk taking up 2 minutes of public Q&A time (versus the allotted 30 seconds) wasn't grounds for arrest.

It is legitimate grounds for physical removal from the public forum though inorder to protect the free speech rights of others.

This thread has been a reminder to me of how much simpler it is to be a pacifist. I don't have to worry about how much force is allowed, under what circumstances, blah blah blah. It's always wrong.

Thank each and every one of you who have participated in this 15 page thread for reminding me of that.

Then the infringement of the individual equal right to speech (a type of force) is justified?

An example being when someone has the floor to speak others can stand-up and shout that person down?

[EthanAllen]

I honestly can't believe that.  Nobody did or said ANYTHING?!?!

From what I can tell, the cops never told him he was under arrest.  He did nothing wrong by resisting.  And he damn sure didn't do anything to deserve being tasered.


Damn, I can pretty much guarantee I'll be tasered at some point cuz there is no way I'd sit idly by if I saw that BULLSHIT happening...

It looks like the police were under orders to physically remove anyone who the organizers cut the microphone on. If they resisted physical removal then the police were under orders to arrest him. If he resisted arrest, then normal procedure is to taser him to subdue him in order to get handcuffs on him.

The whole thing was handled poorly from the start. You never have a stationary microphone for people to ramble on. If they start prefacing the questions with long statements then the person holding the microphone pulls it away and says: "do you have a question for the senator?" If the person continue to ramble you just pull the microphone away and go to the next person. If they continue to shout then the police officer tells them they have to stop interrupting of they have to leave. If they don't stop them the person is physically escorted out.

[E-ville]

When your under arrest and ask what for are they not suposed to tell you and ready your rights... None of this was done.. He did even ask what he was being arrested for.. they were just there to drag out people that were not wanted.. there is another video showing how this one suit guy signaled the cut the mike with the finger across the throat signal , as soon as the mike was cut the cops moved in..  not to mention that they were standing right next to this guy,  this was orcastrated.. planned probably even before the event happened..

[EthanAllen]

When your under arrest and ask what for are they not suposed to tell you and ready your rights... None of this was done.. He did even ask what he was being arrested for.. they were just there to drag out people that were not wanted.. there is another video showing how this one suit guy signaled the cut the mike with the finger across the throat signal , as soon as the mike was cut the cops moved in..  not to mention that they were standing right next to this guy,  this was orcastrated.. planned probably even before the event happened..

The guys was first to be physically escorted out of the building. That means taken by the arms and escorted out. If he resisted being physically escorted out of the building then he was to be arrested. In order to arrest someone who is physically resisting you must subdue the person first.

Once the person is subdued and take out of the building on his way to the station they can read you your rights and tell you what you are being charged with - resisting arrest, not obeying a lawful order of a police officer, etc.

[Quantrill]

Wow.  So do you work for the feds or are you in grade school?

[Braddogg]

Wow.  So do you work for the feds or are you in grade school?

ZING!

[CNHT]

Wow.  So do you work for the feds or are you in grade school?

[KBCraig]

I left a couple of comments over at Law Dog's blog. I still have hope for him, even though he was wrong here.

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2007/09/oh-come-on.html

[E-ville]

See this is where the law has gone wrong.

If I print a article in a newspaper that says "Bush should be impeached" and some one is offended.. can they send the cops over to arrest me?
If they do come over to arrest me and I say what am I being arrested for and they don't respond with a answer and I deny them the ability to arrest me, then I can actually be charged with a crime.. that makes no sense since there is no crime in saying or printing a opinion.

Now here is the rub, so lets say I print this article and the do arrest me and then I'm arrested, and thrown in jail till my trial and I'm found not guilty because there was no crime committed in printing my opinion, but I'm charged with the crime of resisting arrest but the arrest was not justified.. they may throw out that charge but, in this process i was already jailed for a time for my free speech.. thus punishing me for free speech .. THAT IS WHATS WRONG.

And even more I cant get compensated form the government for my lost time as a free person.. this is how they punish you for things that are legal..  Cops should have a very very good reason to even try touching or stopping you, they arn't a judge or jury but yet they can punish you.

[Braddogg]

I'm pretty sure "being offensive" wasn't the charge . . . .  A better question would be, "If I submit an article for publication in a newspaper that the editors found offensive, are they interfering with my right to free speech if they don't publish it?  And if I break into their office and paste my piece over someone else's piece, can I be arrested?"  After all, the editors welcome unsolicited op-ed pieces, like the people running the UF John Kerry forum.  The editors decide what pieces go in and which do not, like the people running the UF-Kerry forum.  Andrew cut a bunch of people in line to go speak, which is similar to taking someone's space in the newspaper Op-Ed section.