Probe finds Taser use on student was OK

[ruksak]

Quote by: Zeebadee You made a very broad statement, "Its illegal to disregard the instructions of a police officer." The point is, that in many cases in ISN'T illegal to ignore the requests of a police officer.

LOL......UGH!

Of course that statement was made in the context of a police officer being within the bounds of the law when giving an instruction. You also do not have to follow a police officers instruction if he asks you to kiss your own ass. Or if a cop asks you eat your own hat. Or fly to the moon. Or run across a busy freeway. Or set yourself on fire. Or....or...or......

You are distracting from the point, and that point is, when a police officer gives you an instruction, whether in traffic, a public place, or private property, you must follow the instructions given (Within the bounds of the law and human possibility).

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: ruksak LOL......UGH! Of course that statement was made in the context of a police officer being within the bounds of the law when giving an instruction. You also do not have to follow a police officers instruction if he asks you to kiss your own ass. Or if a cop asks you eat your own hat. Or fly to the moon. Or run across a busy freeway. Or set yourself on fire. Or....or...or...... You are distracting from the point, and that point is, when a police officer gives you an instruction, whether in traffic, a public place, or private property, you must follow the instructions given (Within the bounds of the law and human possibility).

It's not clear from the video I saw that the cops ever established to Meyer that they were "within the bounds of the law" when they gave him any "instruction". In fact, it appears that they just walked up, grabbed him, and started to drag him away.

The fact that Meyer was never prosecuted is a clear indication that the cops know they overreacted.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: ruksak They weren't trying to conduct a search and seizure. They asked him to come with them, an instruction, he disobeyed. That's illegal. They do not need probable cause to ask you to leave private property upon request. I don't know why you're talking about search and seizure laws. They do not apply in this case.

1. They didn't ask once, they grabbed him
2. Its public property!
3. It is not a crime in and of itself to disobey a cop, period, find me the damn law.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Suburbanite 1. They didn't ask once, they grabbed him.

Erm... yes they did and he responded that he would "ask his question now, thank you."

2. Its public property!

No it's not. An auditorium on a University Campus is in fact private property.

3. It is not a crime in and of itself to disobey a cop, period.

Right but it's a crime to interfere with the execution of their duties. Ergo if you are attempting to remove someone from private property who is clearly demonstrating disorderly conduct and he refuses, then you are within your power to arrest this individual.

Furthermore, ever heard of Resisting Arrest statutes? The very foundation of this body of law is that you are not complying with a law enforcement official.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Suburbanite 1. They didn't ask once, they grabbed him 2. Its public property!

As I've suggested before: If this sort of thing happened in Iran, the US government and media would have a field-day smearing Iran.

Also, as stated before, the distinction between public and private is an illusion. Free speech standards are generally applicable, and Meyer was doing nothing to incite a riot, nor did he know at the time he did anything wrong.

Grandpa h.

[Chaossaber314]

Seeing as he went into this with the explicit intent of stirring up shit, he knew exactly what he did was wrong. He just didn't expect to be tasered.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Seeing as he went into this with the explicit intent of stirring up shit, he knew exactly what he did was wrong. He just didn't expect to be tasered.

But "stirring up shit" by asking questions during a Q&A is not a crime, and certainly not attempting to start a riot like the police report falsely claimed. Nor did Meyer react in a particularly surprising way. When cops start moving someone away for just going over the time limit, he/she may react similarly. People often go over time limited during Q&A's, and it is rightly not regarded as some kind of "riotous" offense.

Coercion often begets some kind of struggle. That's an age old lesson some are apparently not capable of learning.

Grandpa h.

[brien]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Then we're not watching the same video. I did not see anyone lying "flat out" or perhaps we have different definitions of what that means. To me if someone is laying on the ground flat out they are submitting. That did not happen here.

Perhaps we haven't seen the same video. The one I saw shows the victim laying prone one the floor with about 5 cops standing over him. It is apparent the victim is restrained by a few of them. The victim is pleading in his submission with the now famous words "Don't tase me bro" and the officer just hits him with the taser.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Suburbanite They didn't ask once, they grabbed him

You're right. They didn't ask him once, they asked him twice. What exactly they said is inaudible......however they were obviously asking him to calm down or sit down. Meyers reference to Clinton getting a "blow job" was, in my opinion, where things started to go awry. Then he starts accusing Kerry of being in a secret society.

Police code permits that when verbal commands are ignored, physical coercion may be applied. They held onto his arm and tried to escort the disorderly person out (Meyer) and he violently shoved them away.

Quote by: Suburbanite Its public property!

As Chaossaber already said, NO, it's not public property.

It is not a crime in and of itself to disobey a cop, period.

When the police give you an instruction, whether in traffic, on public or private property, it is illegal to disregard their instruction. It can be termed as obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice.

Quote by: grandpa As I've suggested before: If this sort of thing happened in Iran, the US government and media would have a field-day smearing Iran.

If this sort of thing happened in Iran, he would be stoned to death or lose his head. Certainly he would have received a serious ass beating, as opposed to the brief jolt that he got.

But "stirring up shit" by asking questions during a Q&A is not a crime, and certainly not attempting to start a riot like the police report falsely claimed.

That particular charge doesn't enter until he is combative and appealing to the crowd of onlookers to "help" him.

Appealing to a crowd that vastly outnumbers the officers to interfere with police duties, is inciting a crowd to react, or riot.

[Wolfgang]

Well,
I personally think they do not nesisarily have the "right" to tazer the student Then again, the security could have thought he was doing somthing other. From the footage that i recived it looked as if he was "lunging" toward the Senator.
~Wolf~

[Suburbanite]

It is public property, its owned by the United States government. Thats why students can protest on their campus legally. This isn't a private university, its a public school.
Wolf he was quite far from the Senator.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Suburbanite It is public property, its owned by the United States government. Thats why students can protest on their campus legally.

I've said this before: "Private" and "public" is an illusory distinction. If we value free speech, we value it everywhere. And if we're intelligent, we don't have a Q&A and expect all the questions to make the speaker look angelic, or expect one to never go over some time limit. That's how things often go, and not every time this happens do officers start manhandling and tasering someone.

Also, as I've said before. If I attended a Q&A and began acting like the officers acted, people would start thinking I'm belligerent, possibly even maniacal. But when one does it in a uniform it's supposedly fine.

Grandpa h.

[tinybear]

Quote by: grandpa I've said this before: "Private" and "public" is an illusory distinction. If we value free speech, we value it everywhere. Grandpa h.

Well, I think you should appreciate that although freedom of speech is one of America's core values, it is not absolute. For instance, if you attend a seminar as an invited guest, you would have to abide by the rules of that seminar as set out by the organizers. Just as if you join this site (a privately owned chat website), you'd have to abide by certain rules, breach of which would entitle the webmaster to ban you. So, there is in fact a distinction between private and public. Indeed, even if you're in a public domain, there are still restrictions on freedom of speech. Bottom line is, you can't say or do whatever you please in any society, because society is governed by rules.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tinybear Well, I think you should appreciate that although freedom of speech is one of America's core values, it is not absolute. For instance, if you attend a seminar as an invited guest, you would have to abide by the rules of that seminar as set out by the organizers.

Well, nothing is absolute, but if the punishments are worse than the alleged crime, then you should probably speak against the punisher, not the alleged criminal. For example, do you start manhandling someone merely because he goes over a time limit and uses the word "blowjob?" Not by basic free speech standards.

What you have written so far in this thread seems like a license for "private" censorship, which I don't think is valid. Free speech standards are generally applicable, and should be defended as absolutely as possible.

And you mention rules, assuming that simply because they exist they must be legitimate. That's a pretty dubious argument.

Grandpa h.

[kingmea]

Well, nothing is absolute, but if the punishments are worse than the alleged crime, then you should probably speak against the punisher, not the alleged criminal.

Punishments are usually worse than the crime. Thats why most people aren't criminals. Duh.

For example, do you start manhandling someone merely because he goes over a time limit and uses the word "blowjob?" Not by basic free speech standards

By free speech standards he would be fine, but he resisted being escorted out and had unruly behavior. You're free to say whatever you want, but you must be ready to receive consequences for those words. He got his freedom of speech, and received a well-placed taser for them.

[another day]

Quote by: kingmea Punishments are usually worse than the crime. Thats why most people aren't criminals. Duh. By free speech standards he would be fine, but he resisted being escorted out and had unruly behavior. You're free to say whatever you want, but you must be ready to receive consequences for those words. He got his freedom of speech, and received a well-placed taser for them.

Lol...

1.) I'd like to think most people aren't criminals because they have some sense of morality, not because they fear the punishments.

2.) So in your world, freedom of speech means someone can say anything they want, but then you can shoot them or lock them up for saying it. niiice.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: kingmea By free speech standards he would be fine, but he resisted being escorted out and had unruly behavior. You're free to say whatever you want, but you must be ready to receive consequences for those words. He got his freedom of speech, and received a well-placed taser for them.

I think the whole point of the first amendment was that your words had no legal consequences.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Suburbanite I think the whole point of the first amendment was that your words had no legal consequences.

And yet, not all speech is protected under the first amendment. Quite the constitutional scholar you continue to be.

[Zeebadee]

Freedom of speech shouldn't mean you can't yell, "Fire" in a crowded theater. The Constitution makes no such claim.

However, the Constitution also grants no immunity to the claims for damages against one doing so.

[grandpa]

Quote by: kingmea Punishments are usually worse than the crime. Thats why most people aren't criminals. Duh.

First off, I need to commend you on your well-placed "Duh."
That's always a fair way to frame the discussion.

Anyway, it's a pretty common sense standard that punishments should not be worse than a crime (or alleged crime, of course). Wherever punishments are worse, it's obviously the punisher creating more harm.

Moderation is the real preventer of anti-social behavior, and we'd do well by abiding by it, unless we want an idiotic and sadistic society.

Grandpa h.