Student at a Kerry event is Tasered:

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Decider The cops didn't move in until AFTER the university officials cut the microphone audio. At that point the student started yelling and directing his attention to the officials and cops on his right.

he was yelling loud, like what happens at some Q&A sessions around the country and the world. Some people get a little emotional at speaking engagements. Watch C-Span.

This was not handled appropriately at all. He started yelling because he wanted to finish his question, and started yelling more because felt he was under attack, which was an understandable reaction when cops began to manhandle him.

And Kerry's reaction certainly is relevant. It's proof that he hardly felt threatened by the questioner--sort of relevant when the charge is "inciting a riot," don't you think?

Instead, the videos show cops out of control, and "even coordinators" who don't respect free speech. Seriously, why is everyone letting them off the hook, just because of their title? Give me a break! If you host a Q&A session, you should expect one may

1. Go over the time limit
2. Get a little emotional
3. Elbow a cop when they start to crowd around him/her (a standard reaction when someone's surrounded by people)

If you overlook these common sense possibilities, you should not even do a Q&A.
It was not handled appropriately.

Grandpa h.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Grandpa 3. Elbow a cop when they start to crowd around him/her (a standard reaction when someone's surrounded by people)

No, having a questioner get in a fight with the police is not typical of Q&A sessions. Nor should it be surprising that he got hurt trying to fight with the police.

I strongly disagree with you, but I will give you credit for acknowledging that he did elbow that one cop though. A lot of people are still pretending even that didn't happen.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 No, having a questioner get in a fight with the police is not typical of Q&A sessions. Nor should it be surprising that he got hurt trying to fight with the police. I strongly disagree with you, but I will give you credit for acknowledging that he did elbow that one cop though. A lot of people are still pretending even that didn't happen.

So, when are you going to formally acknowledge what we already know - the taser was unnecessary.

[The Decider]

Quote by: grandpa he was yelling loud, like what happens at some Q&A sessions around the country and the world. Some people get a little emotional at speaking engagements. Watch C-Span.

This wasn't C-Span. Callers are routinely cut-off when they whig out. When this student was "cut off" during his THIRD question, and by no means his final one, he should have taken his seat and allowed Kerry to answer one or all of his rambling statements/questions. But he didn't. He staged a loud protest and refused to relinquish the mike to the next questioner. Most of the audience wanted him gone.

Quote by: grandpa This was not handled appropriately at all. He started yelling because he wanted to finish his question,

Correction, his THIRD question. And in fact he did finish that question. He said something like, "Senator, are you a member of Skull and Bones?" I consider that a complete question. But the student wasn't finished. When is the cutoff point after going over your allotment of one brief question--four, ten, twenty? When does the guest speaker get to answer any question--when the questioner decides the time is right? The university controlled the forum. Period. The student got more leeway than he deserved.

Quote by: grandpa and started yelling more because felt he was under attack, which was an understandable reaction when cops began to manhandle him.

Again, you must have seen a different video than the several I have watched. The student began yelling immediately after his mike was cut, NOT only during or after the police moved in for the arrest.

Quote by: grandpa And Kerry's reaction certainly is relevant. It's proof that he hardly felt threatened by the questioner--sort of relevant when the charge is "inciting a riot," don't you think?

Kerry was seperated from the audience by an elevated stage and university security. He was not in the best position to determine the flow of events, nor did he have any authority to do so. He was a guest only. The audience wanted the student removed--that is clearly audible on all the videos.

Quote by: grandpa Instead, the videos show cops out of control, and "even coordinators" who don't respect free speech. Seriously, why is everyone letting them off the hook, just because of their title? Give me a break!

No, I won't give you a break because you've misrepresented my position. In an earlier post I seperated the incident into two parts, pre-taser and post-taser. I am not convinced that tasing was necessary, but I am also not in the cop business. The university has suspended two of the cops pending a full investigation. If they exceeded their authority by tasing the student, then I would support their termination and possible prosecution. However, before the tasing event, I don't see where they violated anybody's rights. Instead, I see an action supported by the audience and the university officials at a private venue.

Quote by: grandpa 3. Elbow a cop when they start to crowd around him/her (a standard reaction when someone's surrounded by people)

Elbowing a cop during an arrest may be a "standard reaction" in your neighborhood, but in mine such a reaction will be met with another standard response---an ass-kicking. Until cuffed, a struggling suspect is considered dangerous and no court in my neighborhood will convict the cop for struggling back. And I live in liberal Massachusetts. The tasing is another matter, but the first attempt at arrest looked textbook to my untrained eyes.

Quote by: grandpa If you overlook these common sense possibilities, you should not even do a Q&A.

Common sense also applies to the student, a legal adult. He should know the forum Q&A rules and follow them. He should not strike a police officer even if he feels unjustly arrested. Some on this thread call the student "a kid" and "immature," but that's no defense. He's a legal adult and responsible for all his actions on another person's property. It's a lesson he must learn the hard way, apparently.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Zeebadee So, when are you going to formally acknowledge what we already know - the taser was unnecessary.

Unnecessary? Possibly. If they worked harder they probably could have restrained him. I just don't think they should have to under these circumstances. By this same token if someone runs at a group of cops with a baseball bat, yes, they could probably restrain him and get the bat away from him without using a taser or pulling out an asp/baton, but should they have to? I understand that he didn't pose as imminent a risk to these cops as someone with a bat but I think there's other principles to debate here. My overall point is that just because something is unnecessary, does not make it excessive.

What this argument comes down to is what you personally consider to be a use of excessive force. If someone is under arrest which this Andrew Meyer character was at the point that he was fighting the cops, and disobeying orders, I think they have every right to tase him, and given that they gave him an opportunity to comply, warning that if he did not do so he would be tased, he was given fair warning.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 My overall point is that just because something is unnecessary, does not make it excessive.

And my point is that unnecessary force, as in this case the use of a taser, ceases to be an element of control and instead becomes a form of punishment, something the cops are not legally authorized to summarily administer .

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Zeebadee And my point is that unnecessary force, as in this case the use of a taser, ceases to be an element of control and instead becomes a form of punishment, something the cops are not legally authorized to summarily administer .

I disagree. I see it as a tool to make a difficult job easier. Sure a hammer isn't necessary to drive a nail through wood, but it sure is a hell of a lot easier than using a random blunt object.

In this case it is a tool to facilitate compliance. Had they continued to tase him after he was completely restrained, I would agree with your assertion regarding punishment. I don't see any evidence to indicate that is the case.

[bigdfilm]

Quote by: grandpa Instead, the videos show cops out of control, and "even coordinators" who don't respect free speech.

Wow, ok I already pointed out that freedom of speech does not apply to private property, see my first post on this topic. As a second example of the limitations of freedom of speech, one cannot stand up at a play or similar event and start interrupting the environment. You will be escorted out. That is how it works. Same thinking applies to this situation, once he has been asked to sit down, he is no longer welcome to speak on that property. It is up to the property owner to decide if he will be removed. This in no way interrupts his right to freedom of speech. That is the property of the school, they may invite or reject who ever they see fit.

It was not handled appropriately.

I ask you then, how would you have handled the situation, if you were the cop. You have just been asked to escort this gentleman out of the lecture hall. He is not compliant. You then do one of the following:

A) Let him continue to speak and interrupt the atmosphere of the meeting
B) Keep asking nicely for him to follow you out the door
C) Cap his ass
D) Ask him to come with you, he refuses, you then try to strong arm him out the door, after attempting this he still fights and is becoming a danger to you and the other nearby people, you decide it is time to use a little more force, you pull your taser and warn him that he is going to be shot if he does not comply, he continues to fight so you decide that it is time to end this pointless fight before someone really gets hurt.

I'll give you a little hint, the right answer starts with the letter "D"

[The Decider]

Quote by: Zeebadee Being tasered while on the ground under control will make any prosecution difficult if not impossible

Was the student "under control" on the ground, as in handcuffed? Without cuffed hands, a tall and healthy young male is dangerous, even for five cops. If he was tasered whiled cuffed, then I would agree with you--the student will probably walk away from any indictment. That's a big "if."

Quote by: Zeebadee All his objectives were met, at the total cost of a taser shot. Gotta admire that.

I see little admiration for this clown on this thread or in the media at large. Anti-cop groups, anarchists, and some college students praise his "courage," and he may get a guest slot on some late-night comedy show, but I don't see any groundswell of admiration for a guy who disrespected a guest speaker, his own classmates at the event, and his university. I just see a loud-mouthed punk with an excess of bravado. "Don't tase me, bro!" doesn't give him much "street cred" either.

[grandpa]

First of all, there is no difference between private and public. That distinction is imaginary, regardless of what the law says.

Second, the cops didn't have to do anything. He was not threatening anybody.

Where in the video does he provoke anybody? Please point it out:

Daily Kos: Cops Lie on Kerry Taser Incident Police Report

How was he even being an "asshole?" Even the time limit argument makes little sense. He didn't get to finish his question promptly because the cops were interrupting him! His questions needed some elaboration.
He didn't do anything wrong!!! At worst, he moved around due to the surprise of being arrested for no apparent reason.

Also, the police lied in their report. Meyer dd not say the following:

"You will take my question because I have been listening to your crap for two hours," Meyer told Kerry, according to the police report of the incident.

Nor was he "yelling as loud as he could as to sensationalize his presence," as the police report says. He was trying to finish his last question.
Where was he trying to incite a riot? By having the cops interrupt his speech? If anything, the cops were about to cause a riot.

And the fact that he elbowed a cop when they were crowding him shouldn't surprise anybody. That's a perfectly natural reaction when someone--anyone-- pushes you around like that. He didn't even elbow anyone hard, just in the way on might expect when you're being surrounded by people. He reacted in a perfectly predictable way.

This was handled improperly, and again, the fact that this occurred on "private property" means nothing. The distinction between private and public is an illusion.

Anyway, this is my last post on this, because it's getting circular. I will check back to see if ayone actually refutes my points. So far you people have said things were not captured on film, such as that he was antagonizing the cops. That's putting it backwards.

"Option D" was not the right option. The cops should have just let him finish asking his questions, which were not directly threatening anyone.
In fact, he shouldn't have even been asked to leave.

Grandpa h.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Grandpa First of all, there is no difference between private and public. That distinction is imaginary, regardless of what the law says.

And there goes your credibility.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 And there goes your credibility.

Whatever.

Grandpa h.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Grandpa Nor was he "yelling as loud as he could as to sensationalize his presence," as the police report says. He was trying to finish his last question.

Get your head out of the sand and stop wasting your pity on a loud mouth prankster. This was a coordinated effort to disrupt the Kerry forum and to make a video of himself being dragged off by the cops. Only thing he didn't count on was getting tased.

There are many better examples of police brutality you could expend your effort on. This is not worthy of the attention its getting.

I T~~~~W A S~~~~ A~~~~C O O R D I N A T E D~~~~S T U N T!!!!


Have a good laugh at yourself for bitting the hook that Meyer baited for you.

[The Decider]

Quote by: grandpa Also, the police lied in their report. Meyer dd not say the following: "You will take my question because I have been listening to your crap for two hours," Meyer told Kerry, according to the police report of the incident." Nor was he "yelling as loud as he could as to sensationalize his presence," as the police report says. He was trying to finish his last question. Where was he trying to incite a riot? By having the cops interrupt his speech? If anything, the cops were about to cause a riot.

Grandpa, you obviously did not read the entire police report. Big mistake. The out-of-context quote you lifted from DailyKos.com occured BEFORE any of the videoclips started. As proof, the quote was preceded by the following information in the police report but not on video:

a) Prior to the speech Ambassdor Jett, the forum moderator, announced a Q & A session limited to 6 questions, 3 from each side of the room.

b) During the Q & A, twenty people lined up behind two microphones and Kerry fielded 8 questions. As the forum was about to end, the student began yelling and screaming and flailing his arms and demanding that Kerry take his question--the 9th of the evening.

The video clips began during the student's question. So how exactly do you know if the cop was lying or not, Grandpa?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/0...ort.072274.pdf

Quote by: grandpa And the fact that he elbowed a cop when they were crowding him shouldn't surprise anybody. That's a perfectly natural reaction when someone--anyone-- pushes you around like that. He didn't even elbow anyone hard, just in the way on might expect when you're being surrounded by people. He reacted in a perfectly predictable way.

Usually cops "crowd" suspects they are arresting. How do cops in your neighborhood arrest people--by saying "pretty please?"

Quote by: grandpa This was handled improperly, and again, the fact that this occurred on "private property" means nothing. The distinction between private and public is an illusion.

Grandpa, you need to back up this claim. It's not a fact because you say so.

Quote by: grandpa "Option D" was not the right option. The cops should have just let him finish asking his questions, which were not directly threatening anyone... Even the time limit argument makes little sense. He didn't get to finish his question promptly because the cops were interrupting him! His questions needed some elaboration.

Read the police report again. The student was on borrowed time from the beginning of his first question. He asked THREE. He refused to stop when the microphone was cut off after his third question. He began yelling and resisting the police officers' orders. This idiot got more leniancy than he deserved.

[bigdfilm]

Quote by: grandpa "Option D" was not the right option. The cops should have just let him finish asking his questions, which were not directly threatening anyone. In fact, he shouldn't have even been asked to leave. Grandpa h.

So you still have not given me an answer. Do you chose A, B or C?

There is NO other option, as the cop you have been asked to remove this guy from the room.

I'm guessing you would have chosen A. For me I would have loved to chose option C, lol.

Honestly the only correct answer is D. There is no other way around it.

Anyone else want to weigh in on this? I would love to hear what you think the correct answer was.

BTW, I really like what The Decider said on this in response to Grandpa.

[bigdfilm]

Quote by: grandpa "You will take my question because I have been listening to your crap for two hours," Meyer told Kerry, according to the police report of the incident. Grandpa h.

Sorry, but sometimes it is very hard to get the exact wording when you are writing a report several hours later. No, your right, he did not say that exactly. It was more along the lines of, "We've been listening to him speak for two hours, I think he give a min of his time to hear me out...."

True those are not the same sentences but when you add the inflection he used they have the same meaning.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: grandpa Whatever. Grandpa h.

I just find it humorous that you argue that this man's rights were violated, rights that are legally based and legally granted, then go on to attack the law in general on something as basic as Private vs. Public property. The very nature of owning private property is the very basis for these rights. If there is only an imaginary right to own private property, then you do not own any of your possessions, and taking it a step further even your own body. Utilizing this same humorous logic, tasering this man is the equivalent of tasering a rock or other inanimate object as both are apparently in your eyes devoid of the right to themselves.

Point being, don't make ridiculous catch all absolute generalizations without thinking them through.

[grandpa]

Quote by: bigdfilm So you still have not given me an answer. Do you chose A, B or C?

The police didn't have to act at all.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: bigdfilm Sorry, but sometimes it is very hard to get the exact wording when you are writing a report several hours later. No, your right, he did not say that exactly.

Exactly. Nor was his tone as rough as the report depicted. There is no reason to say he was trying to "incite a riot."

Here is a transcript I found online, written as verbatim as possible:

JOHN KERRY: "and to continue to pile name upon name upon some wall in the future for a strategy that has failed - that's the distinction. Sir (Points to Andrew Meyer at microphone)" ANDREW MEYER: "I fir..I first and foremost want to thank you for your time. You spent a lot of time talking to us here today. I want to thank you for coming and being open and honest. Uh, you recommended a book to us earlier, I wanted to recommend a book to you it's called 'Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast'" JOHN KERRY: "Yeah, I have it actually..." ANDREW MEYER: "Yeah, he's the top investigative journalist in America..." JOHN KERRY: "I've already read it..."

It sounds remarkably different than John Kerry telling him to calm down after he was scremaing obscentities and flailing his arms around, doesn't it? Again, the police report lies. It also doesn't mention how the cops kept interfering with his question, nor does it mention how it was the cops who initiated the confrontation (which is really key when talking about "inciting a riot," which is not what Meyer did). I'm not making a particularly philosophical argument here, just repeating what is depicted on the video. And Meyer reacted the way anyone might react when they're being led away for no apparent reason. Seriously, if I acted the way the police did to someone at a Q&A, people would be wondering what the hell is wrong with me, right? Why should it be different if I was wearing some uniform?

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I just find it humorous that you argue that this man's rights were violated, rights that are legally based and legally granted, then go on to attack the law in general on something as basic as Private vs. Public property. The very nature of owning private property is the very basis for these rights.

Rights are based on perception, understanding. That is not necessarily a matter of law-making and official enforcement.
Rights are indeed perceived, for better or worse. Your assertion that certain behavior is justified based on some Public/Private dichotomy is highly questionable. Behavior is behavior, whether we deem it "public" or "private," "legal" or "illegal."
Again, I hardly consider this in the realm of opinion, it's simply fact. And my argument isn't that people cannot perceive rights over their own bodies, or that tasering a person is the same as tasering a rock. People do not instantly become inanimate simply because you challenge their legal status. In fact, the legal status of a person makes him/her an abstract entity.

I criticize laws in general because they re-characterize morality and human behavior. Indeed, people can and do justify all kinds of terrible acts because laws exist supporting them, or laws look the other way. Laws can be unjust, and ultimately are in principle. This is not to say "get rid of all rules and standards," but just don't blindly assume they are correct, or that any authority is inherently justified.

In fact, there are some decent feminist critiques of the public/private cultural dichotomy, saying it is significantly based upon historical gender restrictions. I think that general thesis is correct, but I digress.

Grandpa h.