The Constitution provides you with a means to state your case... but it doesn't protect you from people who are appointed to uphold the laws.

Actually SMW, that is exactly what the Constitution does. It defines and limits the power of government and it's officers.

:thumbs:
DB

Actually SMW, that is exactly what the Constitution does. It defines and limits the power of government and it's officers.

:thumbs:
DB

So, Dharma. What would YOU do, given the circumstances I asked about previously? A cop walks up and says, "Turn around and put your hands behind your back." Would you stand there an wave a copy of the Constitution in his face?

We're talking reality, not idealism, dear.

;)
SMW

So, Dharma.

So???
Let me guess, you think "the Constitution is only a piece of paper", right?

:rolleyes:



What would YOU do, given the circumstances I asked about previously? A cop walks up and says, "Turn around and put your hands behind your back."

I would demand to see a badge, not just the shield. Do you know the difference?
Any idiot can go rent a police uniform and fake badge from a costume store.

Believe it or not SMW, here in America, you DO have rights. Even if you are too craven to stand up for yourself and claim them.


We're talking reality, not idealism, dear.


I am talking reality.

you are talking about made-up scenarios.

:thumbs:
DB

If you will listen to the tape, at the 1:20 mark, the man is heard saying loudly and clearly -- "I'll walk out of here".

He is clearly telling the police that if they will allow him to his feet he will voluntarily leave.

There is NO excuse whatsoever for what the police did, and I find it incredible that you would --in light of his offering to leave the building-- try to defend their actions.

He got his way, didn't he? He did leave the building! Too bad he didn't think of volunteering to do that BEFORE his actions required police intervention.

Too bad he didn't think of volunteering to do that BEFORE his actions required police intervention.

He DID NOT DO ANYTHING that justified the police physically assaulting him and torturing him with a taser.

:thumbs:

A cop walks up and says, "Turn around and put your hands behind your back." Would you stand there an wave a copy of the Constitution in his face?I'd look him right in the face and ask "What for?"

...his actions required police intervention.The question is: was this sort of "intervention" required? My answer is: No.

Yeah...weld.I guess that's why we tolerate yer Stupid appraisals
round hears,as mush we doo-doo.What?

So???
Let me guess, you think "the Constitution is only a piece of paper", right?

:rolleyes:

I would demand to see a badge, not just the shield. Do you know the difference?
Any idiot can go rent a police uniform and fake badge from a costume store.

Believe it or not SMW, here in America, you DO have rights. Even if you are too craven to stand up for yourself and claim them.

I am talking reality.

you are talking about made-up scenarios.

:thumbs:
DB

'rent a police uniform and fake badge' eh? And you accuse me of talking about made-up scenarios.

Go ahead and hedge the question, Dharma. My scenario happens all the time and COULD happen to you. It's doubtful any cop is going to stand around while you spout off articles from the Constitution.

As usual, you're avoiding in an attempt to prove some obscure point.

BTW, what is your point? That a REAL uniformed cop with a badge AND a shield AND a gun AND handcuffs could never place you under arrest because you have Constitutional rights?

Go ahead and hedge the question, Dharma.

I answered your silly, made-up question you big cry baby.

I would ask "what for?" and go from there.



BTW, what is your point?

My point was simple, my hyper-argumentative friend.

You claimed the Constitution does not protect people from those in power.

I corrected you and pointed out the facts.

Originally Posted by dharmabum
Actually SMW, that is exactly what the Constitution does. It defines and limits the power of government and it's officers.

As usual, you got defensive and snarky.

What else is new?

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by smartmouthwoman
Too bad he didn't think of volunteering to do that BEFORE his actions required police intervention.


He DID NOT DO ANYTHING that justified the police physically assaulting him and torturing him with a taser.


Exactly.

Evidently, those of a fawningly obedient sheeplike mindset cannot grasp such a concept as a free citizenry who possess the right to not be brutalized for simply asking questions.

The question is: was this sort of "intervention" required? My answer is: No.

Unfortunately, that's not your call. The degree of intervention required can only be made by the officers at the scene. Later, their superiors might decide whether they used too much or not.

Fact is, once you've drawn the attention of law enforcement, whether it be disrupting a structured public gathering or driving a car similar to one seen holding up a bank, it's the cops duty to act quickly or at the very least, investigate the situation.

IOW, at that point, it's too late for you to avoid what might turn out to be a very unpleasant confrontation. In the case of the mistaken car ID, if you're cooperative, you'll probably be on your way in minutes. If you're not, you might wind up in jail. Even though up to the point you were stopped, you did nothing wrong.

Don't you people ever watch COPS. Or at least COPS 2.0 on G4? Maybe you should. It's a real education on what bad things can happen if you twist off on a cop... for whatever reason.

I answered your silly, made-up question you big cry baby.

I would ask "what for?" and go from there.



My point was simple, my hyper-argumentative friend.

You claimed the Constitution does not protect people from those in power.

I corrected you and pointed out the facts.



As usual, you got defensive and snarky.

What else is new?

:rolleyes:

Indeed, what else is new. You answered nothing, Dharma. You evaded and avoided and twisted my words.

I did NOT say the Constitution doesn't protect you from people "in power". I said it doesn't protect you from people with the AUTHORITY to uphold the laws. And I stand by that statement. If you don't believe me, try robbing a bank and tell it to the POWERS who come to arrest you.

You answered nothing, Dharma. You evaded and avoided and twisted my words.

Originally Posted by dharmabum
I would ask "what for?"

Why can't you at least try to be honest for once, SMW?
:spank:


it doesn't protect you from people with the AUTHORITY to uphold the laws. And I stand by that statement. If you don't believe me, try robbing a bank and tell it to the POWERS who come to arrest you.

And those "powers" who show up will read me my miranda rights, this proving you wrong.

Do you know what "rights" are?

:thumbs:
DB

Exactly.

Evidently, those of a fawningly obedient sheeplike mindset cannot grasp such a concept as a free citizenry who possess the right to not be brutalized for simply asking questions.

Are you and Dharma related? You're beginning to sound just alike.

They should make a movie about you two... Dumb and Dumber.

Are you and Dharma related? You're beginning to sound just alike.

They should make a movie about you two... Dumb and Dumber.

You are looking pretty pathetic as you twist to try and avoid addressing the actual point of the discussion here.

He DID NOT DO ANYTHING that justified the police physically assaulting him and torturing him with a taser.

Why can't you at least try to be honest for once, SMW?
:spank:




And those "powers" who show up will read me my miranda rights, this proving you wrong.

Do you know what "rights" are?

:thumbs:
DB

Yes, I know what miranda rights are. And right after they read them to you and ask if you understand them... they'll put your ass in jail and let the judge deal with you.

One "right" you should really consider is the RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. The more you say on this subject, the sillier you look.

I am ashamed that so many of my fellow posters think so little of our Bill of Rights that they are telling us that we have no right to question a police officer but must blindly obey him/her no matter what they do. We have a right to question them no mattrer what. Our rights don't end when we see a badge and a uniform.

I watched the video yet again and yet again hear Senator Kennedy answering the student's question and see one male and one female officer look around and then go and grab him.

Meyers repeatedly asks what he has done wrong and is never told. Now I don't know about the rest of you but if I am being manhandled, and yes, he was being manhandled, by a police officer I am going to demand to know why. We don't yet live in a police state although judging by the comments of some they would probably welcome it.

This is one of the few times you will see posters as disparate as me, The Praetorian, Freethinker, Shilohproject and Dharmabum in total agreement. We represent polar opposites of the political spectrum and one of the few things we agree on is the importance of freedom of speech. The first freedom that is taken away by a totalitarian regime is freedom of speech and that freedom must be rigorously defended at all times.

This was a travesty of justice and it seems it is not the only one in the news lately. The University of Florida student was tazered, the woman in Ohio was tazered and a woman in a wheelchair was tazered to death, all within a short time. It seems some cops have a new toy and are all too eager to play with it.

Good cops are to be respected but cops who abuse their authority should be culled from the force. This was a clear case of abuse of power and indefensible.

Yes, I know what miranda rights are. And right after they read them to you and ask if you understand them... they'll put your ass in jail and let the judge deal with you.


Do you have a point?
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I do not know how the judicial system works.

Unfortunately, that's not your call.
This is where I beg to differ. In this country, the police work for the people, and the people have the right and obligation to step in when there are abuses of positions that carry some authority. The frequency of documented misuse of tasers, sometimes resulting in death, is alarming. Those of us on this forum who challenge the use of such force in this sort of situation represent a small percentage of a growing number of very concerned Americans who see this sort of abuse as freaking ridiculous.

You watch; change is coming.

This whole thing is horseshit. For one, the guy had stopped resisting and was already on the ground in handcuffs when they tased him. And that's on top of the fact that they had no reason to arrest him or ask him to leave in the first place. He wasn't being disruptive, disturbing the peace or anything else of that sort. He just had a long question.

In the longer video, you can hear one of the cops come up to him and tell him "Ask your question." Who the hell made her the moderator? Who told the cops that they could remove a person for asking a long question? Who told them that they have ANY function besides keeping order?

What happened at the University of Florida was nothing but a case of some bored cops on a power trip. Removing them from the force isn't enough. Charge them with assault and send their asses to jail.

This is one of the few times you will see posters as disparate as me, The Praetorian, Freethinker, Shilohproject and Dharmabum in total agreement. We represent polar opposites of the political spectrum and one of the few things we agree on is the importance of freedom of speech.
For the twenty gazillionth time, this is not a freedom of speech issue. You are not required to be provided a platform (or, indeed, a mic) for your speech.

The motley crew on my side of the fence is Brooks (ex-cop), LiquidFork (ex-cop), Vilepagan (degree in police science), SMW, Foolsworth (both conservatives), and me...I fit in seemingly nowhere, as staunch a defender of freedom of speech as the names you listed, and yet, I see no rights violations here. The funniest thing I see is that all the people who have been given any sort of training as a policeman, all agree that this is nothing to sneeze at. And I also notice the danger of labeling too much as freedom of speech, without understanding the underlying concept of property ownership and what rights a property owner has vis-a-vis guests on his property. If this guy was saying this stuff on a sidewalk or from his house, I'd agree with you. Hell, I agree with you all that them kicking the guy out was contrary to the spirit of the event. There's no question that he didn't get to say all he wanted to say. We all on this side simply believe that whomever is in charge of an event, and by extension the security hired by such people, has an absolute, inalienable right to remove any person he pleases. You cry freedom of speech without realizing that the First Amendment limits the powers of the government, but not property owners. One's sovereignty over one's property is just as much a basic right as freedom of speech is, and should not be ignored in any case, unless you want the idea of trespass to be abolished, which leads to the abolition of the entire concept of property rights. Perhaps this explains why a very small-government libertarian finds the whole outcry about this ludicrous. So, Frogger, why don't you stop with your holier-than-thou straw man about how we're all advocating a police state. Both sides are arguing from a libertarian perspective, in different ways and focusing on different rights, just as I believe both pro-choice and pro-life views can both be viewed as libertarian. You were not born with a monopoly on the truth. Try to see things from another person's view rather than taking the easy way out and building a straw man to attack. Your argument would be more cogent if you did so.

Very impressive but very wrong, Borghunter.

Freedom of speech extends to unpopular speech or it is no freedom at all. Besides, freedom of speech is not the sole issue here. The major issue is abuse of power by six campus police officers.

You keep repeatng that the people running the event had asked the cops to remove Meyers yet you have given no proof of this. This is your supposition. Since Senator Kerry was the only reason for the event and since Senator Kerry said the questions were important and was in the process of answering them my supposition is that the cops took it upon themselves to remove Meyers. This supposition is bolstered by their own statement in which they say, THEY had decided to remove him from the hall. They did not say the event organzers asked them to remove him from the hall but THEY decided to remove him from the hall.

The fact that you have two ex cops on 'your side of the fence' means nothing. In fact it means less than nothing. Those who aspire to be police officers often if not usually exhibit a greater desire for control than the general population. That is the reason there are checks on the power of the police and their ability to do as they please. That is why we have police review boards, to review and to stop these abuses of power by a group that by its very nature desires more control than than the general population.

I give more credence to the fact that those on the extreme left, Freethinker and Dharmabum and those on the extreme right, The Praetorian, and those more in the center, Shilohproject, Jester, me and others see this as an abuse of police powers than the fact that you have two ex-cops and a cop wanna be think the force used was appropriate.

I will have to wait to read your response until I return from Deleware Monday or Tuesday.

You have shown to my satisfaction that you do not really believe in freedom of speech but in freedom of some speech. You have shown this by your posts in which you indicated that the police were correct in their actions because he wasn't acting, as you called it, 'sane'. This shows that it was how he was asking his questions or the questions he was asking that matter to you since he was grabbed by the two cops after he had asked his question and while he was standing calmly at the microphone.

You can try to blow smoke and make this seem a property issue but when a college or university has an open forum for discussion and questions and answers by and with a political figure they abrogate a bit of their right to simply eject any speaker they feel like ejecting. (This is true even though you have in no way proven that the event organizers, part of the college establishment asked that Meyers be removed from the premises).

Even if they had asked that he be removed there is such a thing as appropriate force and the force used far exceeded that which was appropriate. Once the suspect was on the ground and stating that he would walk out of the hall with them there was no need to taser him. The tasering was an escalation of force far beyond what was necessary.

That some police are far too quick to taser people has been supported by the other two cases in which people were tasered by cops, one of which cases resulted in the death of a wheelchair bound woman.

I am as law and order as the next person but I am not in favor of a totalitarian police state in which the authorities and their representatives, in this case the campus police are given carte blanche to act in any way they wish.

It has been stated that the audience was in support of what the police were doing. If so it was a small part of the audience since cries of stop what you are doing and similar statements can be heard coming from them.

This was a blatant case of a gross overresponce by overzealous campus police and if nothing is done such behavior will increase.

The purpose of the police, including campus police is to apprehend criminals and to prevent crime. In this case they did neither. What they did do was remove a participant from a public event in a premeditated and preplanned show of force, which was proven by their own statements. It is not the job of the police to decide what speech will be allowed or how that speech must be delivered. It is also not the job of the police to use force that is far inexcess of that required in a given situation.

Freedom of speech extends to unpopular speech or it is no freedom at all. Besides, freedom of speech is not the sole issue here. The major issue is abuse of power by six campus police officers.

Freedom of speech isn't an issue here at all. As Borg correctly points out, Mr. Meyer didn't have the right to speak at this event. The organizers of the event had every right to decide who could speak, and who couldn't.


You keep repeatng that the people running the event had asked the cops to remove Meyers yet you have given no proof of this. This is your supposition.

Who turned off the microphone?


Since Senator Kerry was the only reason for the event and since Senator Kerry said the questions were important and was in the process of answering them my supposition is that the cops took it upon themselves to remove Meyers. This supposition is bolstered by their own statement in which they say, THEY had decided to remove him from the hall. They did not say the event organzers asked them to remove him from the hall but THEY decided to remove him from the hall.

See what happens when you make suppositions?


The fact that you have two ex cops on 'your side of the fence' means nothing. In fact it means less than nothing.

Of course you'd be in a much better position to determine what proper police procedure should be, considering your vast experience in the field. :rolleyes:


Those who aspire to be police officers often if not usually exhibit a greater desire for control than the general population. That is the reason there are checks on the power of the police and their ability to do as they please. That is why we have police review boards, to review and to stop these abuses of power by a group that by its very nature desires more control than than the general population.

Great...now you're a psychologist with an insight into the minds of policemen and those who aspire to policework.


You have shown to my satisfaction that you do not really believe in freedom of speech but in freedom of some speech.

And you've shown that you have no understanding of this incident at all when you refer to this as a "freedom of speech" issue. Not to mention you habitually misrepresent his actions, and the actions of the police, as seen in the two videos so far posted.


You have shown this by your posts in which you indicated that the police were correct in their actions because he wasn't acting, as you called it, 'sane'. This shows that it was how he was asking his questions or the questions he was asking that matter to you since he was grabbed by the two cops after he had asked his question and while he was standing calmly at the microphone.

Good example...you now contend that Mr. Meyer was standing "calmly" at the microphone. If you believe this, you haven't been paying attention. You earlier repeatedly stated the cops grabbed Meyer "from behind", in an attempt to portray the cops as cowardly I would imagine. Why did you stop saying that?


You can try to blow smoke and make this seem a property issue but when a college or university has an open forum for discussion and questions and answers by and with a political figure they abrogate a bit of their right to simply eject any speaker they feel like ejecting.

Completely false.


(This is true even though you have in no way proven that the event organizers, part of the college establishment asked that Meyers be removed from the premises).

Again, who shut off the microphone?


Even if they had asked that he be removed there is such a thing as appropriate force and the force used far exceeded that which was appropriate.

Stated by someone who has no knowledge of the law regarding the use of force. Once he began to resist, the cops were legally justified in using whatever force was necessary to effect an arrest, up to and including, shooting him.


Once the suspect was on the ground and stating that he would walk out of the hall with them there was no need to taser him. The tasering was an escalation of force far beyond what was necessary.

Bull. He was resisting the attempts to handcuff him and that resistance ceased immediately after being tased.


That some police are far too quick to taser people has been supported by the other two cases in which people were tasered by cops, one of which cases resulted in the death of a wheelchair bound woman.

No doubt some police misuse Tasers, I just don't think this is an example of that.


I am as law and order as the next person but I am not in favor of a totalitarian police state in which the authorities and their representatives, in this case the campus police are given carte blanche to act in any way they wish.

And neither is anyone else.

This whole thing is horseshit. For one, the guy had stopped resisting and was already on the ground in handcuffs when they tased him.

I think you're mistaken about that Jester. Watch this video that dharma posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE76LQwT6qA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fthesarcasticcynic%2Eblogspot%2Ec om%2F2007%2F09%2Fshock%2Ddoctrine%2Dat%2Duniversit y%2Dof%2Dflorida%2Ehtml

You can clearly see the woman cop on the left is the one with the cuffs. She gets one cuff on him and then he starts twisting around again trying to avoid being cuffed. At that point you hear the taser and immediately thereafter he's cuffed and carried out.


And that's on top of the fact that they had no reason to arrest him or ask him to leave in the first place.

They did if the event organizers wanted him gone, and I believe they signaled that desire when the microphone was shut off.


What happened at the University of Florida was nothing but a case of some bored cops on a power trip. Removing them from the force isn't enough. Charge them with assault and send their asses to jail.

Very unlikely. The cops are being investigated, but no charges against them have been filed as yet. Mr. Meyer was arraigned on two criminal charges however.

The cops are being investigated, but no charges against them have been filed as yet. Mr. Meyer was arraigned on two criminal charges however.Surely you do not offer this observation as objectively supporting you argument, huh?

Mr. Meyer didn't have the right to speak at this event. .

The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights would like to have a word with you.
Let me guess, you think he only has a right to speak in private where nobody, especially the person he wants to ask his questions of, can hear him..

:rolleyes:

Let me guess, you think he only has a right to speak in private where nobody, especially the person he wants to ask his questions of, can hear him..

:rolleyes:

You're not a very good guesser. He had no right speak at that event. He was granted the privilege of addressing the speaker, but when the hosts of the event decided to cut off the microphone, they were within their rights to do so.

Surely you do not offer this observation as objectively supporting you argument, huh?

Not at all. The only point I'm making here is that based on what information is available to the DA in this case, they saw fit to file criminal charges against Mr. Meyer for his conduct. While this in no way assigns any guilt to Mr. Meyer, it does show that his conduct was at least arguably criminal. My guess is that the felony charge will be dropped in exchange for a guilty plea to "disturbing the peace".

For the twenty gazillionth time, this is not a freedom of speech issue. You are not required to be provided a platform (or, indeed, a mic) for your speech.

Yes it is and yes you are. The Framers specifically chose to single out and protect the primary "platform" of their day... the Press. It is the ONLY industry that the framers singled out for protection because it was the primary platform for mass communication in their day. They didn't conceive of microphones, but one can easily deduce that they did intend for normal citizens to have a "platform" and thus they would have protected people at microphones at public speaking forums from being tasered for being too loud and too emotional.

This is a freedom of speech issue but this is also a law enforcement issue.
Tasers are no laughing matter. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPoQYAIbvbo)

Tasers are being used like they were meant as an alternative to billy clubs instead of their guns. Tasers are meant as an alternative to shooting someone who is posing a threat to the police officer. Tasers are meant to incapacitate but the reality is Tasers can kill. Over 150 people have died in the United States after being tasered. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3633845&page=1)

Instead of being used as an alternative to a gun to incapacitate someone who poses a physical threat to the police officer, they are being used as torture devices to force compliance from uncooperative citizens.

This is morally unacceptable.
It is wrong
and everyone knows it.
The reaction of authority in each case proves it.

Heidi Gill, 38, said she feared for her life when police Officer Rich Kovach Tasered her over and over again after a bar argument in Warren, Ohio.

"I didn't think I was going to make it out of there. I just wanted this pain to stop. This electrocuting and Tasering … I didn't know what Tasering even was," Gill said.

After a police video of Gill's Tasering was released, Kovach was placed on paid leave.


They point out the relevant facts:

And earlier this week, the Taser incident heard 'round the world: Monday, University of Florida student Andrew Meyer's persistent questions to Sen. John Kerry drew ire from campus police.

He was physically restrained by campus police before one officer Tasered him.

Meyer yelped during the incident, "Don't Tase me, bro! I didn't do anything!"

After the altercation, the university put two campus police officers on leave and asked for a state probe into whether they had used appropriate force.

He had no right speak at that event.

I am sorry but you are wrong.

This was even the appropriate venue for what he was doing.

If this kid had accosted Kerry walking down the street with these questions and ended up getting tasered, we would be having a different discussion.
But this was absolutely the appropriate place and time for him to ask his questions.
It was a public event, in a public school, open to the public, with an open question and answer session specifically for the public to ask questions of a public official.
Kerry had pointed to him and given him the floor, he didn't even interrupt anyone.

If not here, then where the hell do you suggest is the appropriate place and time for him to ask Senator Kerry his questions???



He was granted the privilege of addressing the speaker,

Sorry Vile, but you are dead wrong.
Free Speech is a RIGHT in America, NOT A PRIVILEGE!

Amendment I:
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.

Notice that our Freedom of Speech is assumed, it does not need to be granted by anyone because it is inalienable to everyone. We also have the right to assemble peacefully in public and petition (to ask) our government for a redress of our grievences.

THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT MR. MEYER WAS DOING AND DOING PEACEFULLY, when the police wrongfully decided to physically assault him and torture him into compliance with a taser.

Being rude in a public forum is not a crime.

If it were then Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter would have been tasered into silence long ago.



but when the hosts of the event decided to cut off the microphone, they were within their rights to do so.

You don't know who cut the microphone.

Even if the "Hosts" (i.e. Public School employees) did cut the mic, Senator Kerry clearly said that they were "important" questions and that he was willing to answer them.

That decision of the Senator trumps whatever the public school employees thought they were going to do because they didn't like Mr. Meyer's questions or his tone.

Mr. Meyer has a RIGHT to Free Speech.

There is no such thing as a right to Deny Free Speech, which is what you are asserting that the public school employees had in a public forum.

If some public school employee did decide to cut the mic, then he should lose his job also.

Those employees do not own the school.

It is public property.

I'm sorry but your argument holds no water.

The school will end up paying for this and rightfully so.
I predict they will settle with the student out of court.

.

They didn't conceive of microphones, but one can easily deduce that they did intend for normal citizens to have a "platform" and thus they would have protected people at microphones at public speaking forums from being tasered for being too loud and too emotional.

I'd agree, but he wasn't tasered for being too loud or too emotional. He was zapped for resisting the officer's attempts to handcuff him after he violently resisted them.

I'd agree, but he wasn't tasered for being too loud or too emotional. He was zapped for resisting the officer's attempts to handcuff him after he violently resisted them.

The officers' decision to physically assault him was what started the entire thing.

They had no right to grab him, since he didn't do anything to justify it.
They were wrong.
Did they have the power to do it? yes. Did they have the right. No, absolutely not.

If you believe that might makes right then you would probably say the police were "within their rights" because they had the power to do what they did to him.

The reality, however, is that in a constitutional democracy, might does not make right. Rights are inalienable.

Torturing him with the taser is a secondary crime on their part.

It takes the whole crime to a new height.

Now we are talking abuse of his rights and physical abuse.

This was even the appropriate venue for what he was doing.

I think at least part of the problem here is that you can describe Mr. Meyer's behavior as "appropriate" and keep a straight face.


It was a public event, in a public school, open to the public, with an open question and answer session specifically for the public to ask questions of a public official.

If you're naive enough to think that "free speech" gives you the right to say whatever you want in a public place, I can understand your confusion. Try reading up on the legal history of Supreme Court decisions regarding public speech.


Kerry had pointed to him and given him the floor, he didn't even interrupt anyone.

Not that I think it's terriblt relevant to his being zapped, but according to several witnesses, he did interrupt someone.


Sorry Vile, but you are dead wrong.
Free Speech is a RIGHT in America, NOT A PRIVILEGE!


Perhaps if you post that repeatedly and in an even larger and more colorful font, it will become a convincing argument.


Notice that our Freedom of Speech is assumed, it does not need to be granted by anyone because it is inalienable to everyone. We also have the right to assemble peacefully in public and petition (to ask) our government for a redress of our grievences.

No one ever said the right to freedom of speech wasn't "assumed". Your problem seems to be that you think that right cannot be legally abridged for any reason, and that's just not the case. The organizers and participants in this event had every right to expect an orderly environment to be maintained to conduct that "free speech" you are so fond of. Mr. Meyer decided that his speech was more important than someone else's and he violently resisted the police when they attempted to remove him.


THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT MR. MEYER WAS DOING AND DOING PEACEFULLY, when the police wrongfully decided to physically assault him and torture him into compliance with a taser.

If you believe he was acting "peacefully", you're blind, ignorant, or just desperate.


You don't know who cut the microphone.

You're right of course, but Mr. Meyer wasn't addressing the cops, or the crowd when he said "thanks for cutting the microphone". Who do you think did it?


Even if the "Hosts" (i.e. Public School employees) did cut the mic, Senator Kerry clearly said that they were "important" questions and that he was willing to answer them.

So what? Senator Kerry was the guest speaker.


That decision of the Senator trumps whatever the public school employees thought they were going to do because they didn't like Mr. Meyer's questions or his tone.

ROFL. That's because he's a Senator and he outranks them, right? ;)

I don't recall ever seeing a program where the guest speaker made decisions on security matters, or matters of protocol and decorum.


Mr. Meyer has a RIGHT to Free Speech.

As do we all. Your mistake is in suggesting that that right is total.


There is no such thing as a right to Deny Free Speech, which is what you are asserting that the public school employees had in a public forum.

Of course there is. Not only do the public school authorities have a right to limit what speech may occur on their property, they have a duty to do so in an effort to maintain law and order on the campus to protect the safety of the students.


If some public school employee did decide to cut the mic, then he should lose his job also.

Fire everybody. Good answer.


The school will end up paying for this and rightfully so.
I predict they will settle with the student out of court.

.

I predict he'll plead to disturbing the peace to avoid the felony resisting charge. :)

The officers' decision to physically assault him was what started the entire thing.

They had no right to grab him, since he didn't do anything to justify it.
They were wrong.
Did they have the power to do it? yes. Did they have the right. No, absolutely not.

I couldn't disagree more. I believe the organizers of the event communicated to the police that they wished for Mr. Meyer to be removed, and that they had every right, indeed a duty, to do so.


If you believe that might makes right then you would probably say the police were "within their rights" because they had the power to do what they did to him.

I don't believe as you suggest, so your argument is moot.


The reality, however, is that in a constitutional democracy, might does not make right. Rights are inalienable.

Reality is that your right to "free speech" is abridged, and rightfully so, in many ways.


Torturing him with the taser is a secondary crime on their part.

I can't accept your definition and usage of the word "torture" to describe the officer's use of the Taser in this case. It cheapens the meaning of the word IMO. There are real cases of torture in the world, and a policeman using a Taser to gain compliance from an unruly suspect so he can be handcuffed just doesn't rise to the level of cruelty and harm necessary for that word to apply. In addition, if you believe Tasering someone so you can take them into custody is "torture", than you'd have to apply that label to the use of pepper spray, or a baton. IMO, it's not even close.


It takes the whole crime to a new height.

Now we are talking abuse of his rights and physical abuse.

No, you are talking about that. Now you can convince yourself that you are on a crusade against evil people who believe "torture" is ok. :rolleyes:

If you're naive enough to think that "free speech" gives you the right to say whatever you want in a public place, I can understand your confusion. Try reading up on the legal history of Supreme Court decisions regarding public speech.
Minor point, Vile. He had every right to say whatever he wanted to say to/about Kerry. The privilege of remaining in the building is what was taken away.

The privilege of remaining in the building is what was taken away.And you are honestly comfortable with the way it was handled by the authorities?

And you are honestly comfortable with the way it was handled by the authorities?
Yes. If someone I invited into my house was making a disturbance and I wanted him gone, I'd want the cops to behave exactly like this.

Yes. If someone I invited into my house was making a disturbance and I wanted him gone, I'd want the cops to behave exactly like this.

I really can not comprehend why you keep using that insane analogy about people coming into your house.

I'd look him right in the face and ask "What for?"
Exactly. So would I, but then again, that's why I've experienced a different side of "law enforcement" than SMW has. You DO have rights in this country.

Exactly.

Evidently, those of a fawningly obedient sheeplike mindset cannot grasp such a concept as a free citizenry who possess the right to not be brutalized for simply asking questions.
Precisely.

(God, it's kinda scary when I'm agreeing with FT and (in a limited way here) Dharma. Yikes.)

Minor point, Vile. He had every right to say whatever he wanted to say to/about Kerry. The privilege of remaining in the building is what was taken away.
That's exactly right, and how...."effective" they were at removing a sober college kid from the premises too. And that just impressed the hell outta me, I gotta tell ya....
If someone I invited into my house was making a disturbance and I wanted him gone, I'd want the cops to behave exactly like this.
And if you slip 'em a few hundred bucks, they might even let you sock him a few times. Try it the next time you host an "open" event - it's a real hoot.

Yes. If someone I invited into my house was making a disturbance and I wanted him gone, I'd want the cops to behave exactly like this.I'd hope your date was there to witness you getting off to the unnecessary violence required by incompetant cops. It'd be sorta like watching how someone treats a waiter, you know, to learn something about them as a person. (Only in this case, the waiter gets stung with 50,000 volts of electricity while being held down by six cops!)

I'd hope your date was there to witness you getting off to the unnecessary violence required by incompetant cops.
Ho ho! Very clever, insinuating that I get my rocks off by watching people get arrested. Wrong, but clever. Keep up those tremendous debate tactics, bub, maybe someone will eventually decide to declare a winner as a function of how many ad hominems you make! :thumbs:

Ho ho! Very clever, insinuating that I get my rocks off by watching people get arrested. Wrong, but clever. Keep up those tremendous debate tactics, bub, maybe someone will eventually decide to declare a winner as a function of how many ad hominems you make! :thumbs:I meant it exactly as I stated it. Those cops were incompetant and had to resort to violence because of their incompetance, and you love the the way they (mis)handled the situation. You really reveal something about yourself here.

I meant it exactly as I stated it. Those cops were incompetant and had to resort to violence because of their incompetance, and you love the the way they (mis)handled the situation. You really reveal something about yourself here.
That I believe in property rights? Seriously, why don't you read my arguments instead of making stupid assumptions?

If it makes you feel any better, Borg, I completely understand your point, and as a matter of fact, I think you're correct, but with that said - I don't think Meyer's "removal" was handled properly. That kid was manhandled, period. By a bunch of thugs who are hiding behind a trumped up "resisting" charge, no less.

That I believe in property rights? Seriously, why don't you read my arguments instead of making stupid assumptions?
I've read your argument, Borg. I have no problem with the notion of property rights and have never challenged that part of your scenario.

What I asked you about was how the cops handled it. You said you'd want the cops to handle it that same way in your own home. This has gone beyond whatever the initial cause for action might have been, and moved on to an examination of how the response was handled. If you stand by your earlier comments, it is not because you appreciate property rights, but because you advocate violence from cops as a substitute for competance.

What I asked you about was how the cops handled it. You said you'd want the cops to handle it that same way in your own home. This has gone beyond whatever the initial cause for action might have been, and moved on to an examination of how the response was handled. If you stand by your earlier comments, it is not because you appreciate property rights, but because you advocate violence from cops as a substitute for competance.
First of all, competence. Spelling, learn it.

Secondly, if the cops tried to escort a guy out of my house and he wouldn't have any part of it, as far as I'm concerned, they're perfectly justified to escalate the level of force in order to get the dude out of my house. Would I prefer to see them use less force? Sure. It's always best to operate at the lowest level of force on the escalation chart, or whatever the technical term for that is. Do I think the cops could remove an unwilling trespasser without resorting to a taser/baton/pepper spray? Depends on the guy's size and strength, I guess, and if trying to carry him out the door is going to end up with someone hurt, I'd prefer they whip out the taser/baton/pepper spray rather than end up with the police, the suspect, or myself with a broken bone.

For what it's worth, in that situation, I'd only like to see the pepper spray out. When there is no crowd, it's the safest tool they have, and it's usually pretty effective.

Idealism is a wonderous thing. It allows people to look at the world and see what it COULD be... if only...

I think the main difference of opinion being expressed here has more to do with some looking at the situation and pointing out how things SHOULD have been done. The other half of us are stating the reality of how things ARE done. Idealist strive for a perfect world and feel obligated to stand on the Constitution when they see what they believe to be someone's rights being infringed upon.

Realists believe, in spite of occasional flaws, the system works. To do anything other than fix the immediate problem is overkill.

Condemning the entire law enforcement system because of a few 'bad' cops (if indeed they ARE bad cops) is ridiculous. Waving the Constitution is redundant.

Contrary to what Dharma may believe, police officers do not buy their badges at a costume shop. Every law enforcement person in this country is highly trained on what constitutes infringement on people's Constitutional rights. They know exactly how far they can go... and where they CAN'T go when arresting a person. They can't just walk into your home and arrest you without a warrant. They can't stop you on the street, put handcuffs on you and take you to jail without telling you what you're being arrested for. If they tell you you're under arrest, they can't stop you from asking all the questions you want to ask... AFTER you're in custody. They don't have to say, "You're under arrest. Would you like to talk about it before we put these cuffs on you?"

The system ain't perfect, guys, but it works. And when it doesn't, outrage at the incident is understandable... even admirable. That's what this discussion started out to be about. But now it's escalated to a heated debate about Constitutional rights.

I believe those questions were addressed many years ago when law enforcement procedures were designed and implemented in this country, and are reviewed and adjusted when a court decides a case against a police officer. There are checks and balances in place that keep a person's rights in the forefront of every police officer's mind. Their job depends on it.

Do they screw up sometimes? Absolutely. It ain't an ideal world.

But, realistically, the system still works. Occasional warts and all.

SMW

Idealism is a wonderous thing. It allows people to look at the world and see what it COULD be... if only...

I think the main difference of opinion being expressed here has more to do with some looking at the situation and pointing out how things SHOULD have been done. The other half of us are stating the reality of how things ARE done. Idealist strive for a perfect world and feel obligated to stand on the Constitution when they see what they believe to be someone's rights being infringed upon.

Realists believe, in spite of occasional flaws, the system works. To do anything other than fix the immediate problem is overkill.

Condemning the entire law enforcement system because of a few 'bad' cops (if indeed they ARE bad cops) is ridiculous. Waving the Constitution is redundant.

Contrary to what Dharma may believe, police officers do not buy their badges at a costume shop. Every law enforcement person in this country is highly trained on what constitutes infringement on people's Constitutional rights. They know exactly how far they can go... and where they CAN'T go when arresting a person. They can't just walk into your home and arrest you without a warrant. They can't stop you on the street, put handcuffs on you and take you to jail without telling you what you're being arrested for. If they tell you you're under arrest, they can't stop you from asking all the questions you want to ask... AFTER you're in custody. They don't have to say, "You're under arrest. Would you like to talk about it before we put these cuffs on you?"

The system ain't perfect, guys, but it works. And when it doesn't, outrage at the incident is understandable... even admirable. That's what this discussion started out to be about. But now it's escalated to a heated debate about Constitutional rights.

I believe those questions were addressed many years ago when law enforcement procedures were designed and implemented in this country, and are reviewed and adjusted when a court decides a case against a police officer. There are checks and balances in place that keep a person's rights in the forefront of every police officer's mind. Their job depends on it.

Do they screw up sometimes? Absolutely. It ain't an ideal world.

But, realistically, the system still works. Occasional warts and all.

SMW

Um,Sugar Pooh Honey Pot... Realism shoud be exclusive domain
of the Work week,s'not the Weekend.
Geez Louis...You need to get out mores often and smell the
flowers At Nite.
Cuz ...even Flowers take a break.

Idealism is a wonderous thing. It allows people to look at the world and see what it COULD be... if only...

I think the main difference of opinion being expressed here has more to do with some looking at the situation and pointing out how things SHOULD have been done. The other half of us are stating the reality of how things ARE done. Idealist strive for a perfect world and feel obligated to stand on the Constitution when they see what they believe to be someone's rights being infringed upon.

Realists believe, in spite of occasional flaws, the system works. To do anything other than fix the immediate problem is overkill.

Condemning the entire law enforcement system because of a few 'bad' cops (if indeed they ARE bad cops) is ridiculous. Waving the Constitution is redundant.

Contrary to what Dharma may believe, police officers do not buy their badges at a costume shop. Every law enforcement person in this country is highly trained on what constitutes infringement on people's Constitutional rights. They know exactly how far they can go... and where they CAN'T go when arresting a person. They can't just walk into your home and arrest you without a warrant. They can't stop you on the street, put handcuffs on you and take you to jail without telling you what you're being arrested for. If they tell you you're under arrest, they can't stop you from asking all the questions you want to ask... AFTER you're in custody. They don't have to say, "You're under arrest. Would you like to talk about it before we put these cuffs on you?"

The system ain't perfect, guys, but it works. And when it doesn't, outrage at the incident is understandable... even admirable. That's what this discussion started out to be about. But now it's escalated to a heated debate about Constitutional rights.

I believe those questions were addressed many years ago when law enforcement procedures were designed and implemented in this country, and are reviewed and adjusted when a court decides a case against a police officer. There are checks and balances in place that keep a person's rights in the forefront of every police officer's mind. Their job depends on it.

Do they screw up sometimes? Absolutely. It ain't an ideal world.

But, realistically, the system still works. Occasional warts and all.

SMW


******************************

Um,You're not fixin to start a nutter thread entitled :

Dear Smarty

are Yuz

THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT MR. MEYER WAS DOING AND DOING PEACEFULLY, when the police wrongfully decided to physically assault him and torture him into compliance with a taser.

I think at least part of the problem here is that you can describe Mr. Meyer's behavior as "appropriate" and keep a straight face.

For me, this captures the essence of this issue, Vile. You seem to be strongly implying that his behavior was somehow inappropriate.........no?

?!?!?!?

Please tell me HOW asking a few questions ---in a public venue, at an event that was open to the public, with an open question and answer session specifically for people to ask questions of a public official--- is EVER to be deemed "inappropriate"........?!?!?

Are you saying that America has REALLY gone THAT far down the road to a totalitarianist, 1984-like society........?!?!?

Also, you are being extremely dishonest, intellectually, on the very important point of whether or not he was acting peacefully.

You are steadfastly refusing to recognize that before the police began to confront this person and to (with no justification, IMO) harass this person, he was doing what he was doing peacefully.

That, to me,speaks volumes about how misguided and uninformed your approach to this argument is.

Um,Sugar Pooh Honey Pot... Realism shoud be exclusive domain
of the Work week,s'not the Weekend.
Geez Louis...You need to get out mores often and smell the
flowers At Nite.
Cuz ...even Flowers take a break.
Look who's talking! Doesn't appear you're out smelling the roses tonight, eh?

;)
SMW

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]Look who's talking! Doesn't appear you're out smelling the roses tonight, eh?


I've Sowed enough Wild Oats to coat the Earth,a few times
over.
How bout yerself,thar World weary traveler of Texas
Roadhouses and the like.

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]Look who's talking! Doesn't appear you're out smelling the roses tonight, eh?


I've Sowed enough Wild Oats to coat the Earth,a few times
over.
How bout yerself,thar World weary traveler of Texas
Roadhouses and the like.
Yeah, same here. Just thought I'd log on and see what happens at Allforums on Sat nite. Not much, it appears. Guess Dharma's got a hot date. Lucky gal. *koff*

[QUOTE=Foolsworth]
Yeah, same here. Just thought I'd log on and see what happens at Allforums on Sat nite. Not much, it appears. Guess Dharma's got a hot date. Lucky gal. *koff*

OK,so you've won yerself a Holy Picture.
What Elsie ya want.?
Some Free Cheese & Crackers.

First of all, competence. Spelling, learn it.I'm a terrible speller. Thanks for the correction. As for the rest, I suppose I'll leave you to opinion, and hope you never run into someone who escalates violence out of proportion to the threat.

I think the main difference of opinion being expressed here has more to do with some looking at the situation and pointing out how things SHOULD have been done.I'm looking at the situation and saying that anyone who escalates to a level of violence out of proportion to a threat should be held to judgement, even if they are a cop, maybe more so.
Realists believe, in spite of occasional flaws, the system works.The system only works when all are open to critical judgement and evaluation.
To do anything other than fix the immediate problem is overkill.All I'm asking is for the immediate problem of unnecessary police violence to be addressed. The only "overkill" in this matter was from the cops.

Condemning the entire law enforcement system because of a few 'bad' cops (if indeed they ARE bad cops) is ridiculous.First, I've never condemned all cops, but rather ask that the bad ones are held to judgement. Second, no one is made less human by being employed as a cop, so there are surely some bad apples out there.
Waving the Constitution is redundant.Why would you say this?
Every law enforcement person in this country is highly trained on what constitutes infringement on people's Constitutional rights. They know exactly how far they can go... And yet abuses occur. It seems to me that in this you may be slipping into the role as idealist yourself.
The system ain't perfect, guys, but it works. And when it doesn't, outrage at the incident is understandable... even admirable. That's what this discussion started out to be about. But now it's escalated to a heated debate about Constitutional rights.If you believed, as some do here, that those rights were abused, would you stand up for redress?
I believe those questions were addressed many years ago when law enforcement procedures were designed and implemented in this country, and are reviewed and adjusted when a court decides a case against a police officer.Only because people did bother to complain!
There are checks and balances in place that keep a person's rights in the forefront of every police officer's mind. Their job depends on it.And yet abuses occur. As in this case.

I think at least part of the problem here is that you can describe Mr. Meyer's behavior as "appropriate" and keep a straight face.

Actually Vile, I said he was in the "appropriate forum" for asking his questions. I have said repeatedly that he was a little rude, but that being rude is not any justification for his being manhandled and ultimately tortured by the campus police.


If you're naive enough to think that "free speech" gives you the right to say whatever you want in a public place,

I already said that Free Speech is all about context and that this kid's questions were reasonable and he was doing it in the absolutely appropriate forum.


I can understand your confusion.

You appear to be the only one here who is confused about what I have said.
:thumbs:


Not that I think it's terriblt relevant to his being zapped, but according to several witnesses, he did interrupt someone.

If you watched the video I posted a link to then you would know that is a lie.
He did not interrupt anyone. Kerry was speaking, the kid was standing there quietly and waited for Kerry to finish, then Kerry look up at the kid, points at him, says "You have a question" and gives him the floor.

The kid did nothing whatsoever to justify the way he was abused.


Your problem seems to be that you think that right (to Free Speech) cannot be legally abridged for any reason, and that's just not the case.

Of course it is not the case. As I said when I talked about context, free speech is abridged when it causes a public safety issue. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, for example.

This kids speech did not even remotely cause any public safety issue.


blah, blah, blah... to conduct that "free speech" you are so fond of.

You are not fond of free speech? This explains a LOT about your wacky, unsubstantiated opinions here.


Mr. Meyer decided that his speech was more important than someone else's

Now you are just making shit up.


and he violently resisted the police when they attempted to remove him.

The police wrongfully attempted to remove him in the first place. They had no right to do that as the kid did nothing to justify it.

Torturing him with the taser was an additional crime.


If you believe he was acting "peacefully", you're blind, ignorant, or just desperate.

If you think he was being violent before the police attacked him then you are completely insane.

ALL HE WAS DOING WAS SPEAKING!

You do not have a single leg to stand on. You have no argument. The video PROVES you are 100% wrong.



You're right of course, but Mr. Meyer wasn't addressing the cops, or the crowd when he said "thanks for cutting the microphone". Who do you think did it?

He turned to the people standing behind him, which included the cops, when he said it.

You do not know who cut the mic. One of the cops could have easily unplugged it.

You are talking right out your ass here.


1. Not only do the public school authorities have a right to limit what speech may occur on their property,
2. they have a duty to do so in an effort to maintain law and order on the campus to protect the safety of the students.

1. I challenge you to find ANY example of such a "right" from the Constitution, Bill of Rights or even the Declaration of Independence. I have quoted directly from them to prove that the rights I am advocating actually exist.
All you have done is the equivalent of "nuh uh." You don't seem to have anything whatsoever to support your arguments except lies about violent behavior and disturbances that the video proves didn't happen.

2. The kid was not threat to the safety of the students. The out of control campus cops were the threat.


I predict he'll plead to disturbing the peace to avoid the felony resisting charge.

I will predict that all those bogus criminal charges get dropped like a hot potato when pissed off people like myself start flooding the prosecutor's and mayor's office with phone calls this coming week.

For me, this captures the essence of this issue, Vile. You seem to be strongly implying that his behavior was somehow inappropriate.........no?

I'll remove the implication and make it a declarative statement. Mr. Meyer's behavior was highly inappropriate.


Please tell me HOW asking a few questions ---in a public venue, at an event that was open to the public, with an open question and answer session specifically for people to ask questions of a public official--- is EVER to be deemed "inappropriate"........?!?!?

Are you saying that America has REALLY gone THAT far down the road to a totalitarianist, 1984-like society........?!?!?

Not at all. I'm not saying his asking of the questions was inappropriate, just his response to being asked to leave.


Also, you are being extremely dishonest, intellectually, on the very important point of whether or not he was acting peacefully.

I don't believe I am. If Mr. Meyer wanted to "peacefully" protest his removal from the hall, he should have sat on the floor and non-violently resisted his removal without fighting with the police. Ever see a video of people being removed from a peaceful "sit-in"? Like that.


You are steadfastly refusing to recognize that before the police began to confront this person and to (with no justification, IMO) harass this person, he was doing what he was doing peacefully.

I have done nothing of the kind. I've stated repeatedly that I believe the hosts of this event asked for his removal, and whether or not you agree with their decision, Mr. Meyer's response was completely inappropriate, and his reaction is the primary cause of his being shocked and handcuffed.


That, to me,speaks volumes about how misguided and uninformed your approach to this argument is.

Think what you will. Your argument hinges on the fact that you believe his right to speak was violated. My argument is that even if that's true he had no right to protest violently, which he obviously did.

Actually Vile, I said he was in the "appropriate forum" for asking his questions. I have said repeatedly that he was a little rude, but that being rude is not any justification for his being manhandled and ultimately tortured by the campus police.

I agree that rudeness is no justification for what the police did, but you also refuse to recognize that he wasn't arrested and handcuffed for "rudeness".


I already said that Free Speech is all about context and that this kid's questions were reasonable and he was doing it in the absolutely appropriate forum.

Take that up with the university.


If you watched the video I posted a link to then you would know that is a lie.

I watched your link, and you toss around that word too easily.


He did not interrupt anyone. Kerry was speaking, the kid was standing there quietly and waited for Kerry to finish, then Kerry look up at the kid, points at him, says "You have a question" and gives him the floor.

Actually, when the camera turns to face Mr. Meyer he's already at the mic, so you have no idea if he stepped to the mic in front of someone or not, but nice try. I was referring to eyewitnesses who describe him as stepping in front of someone else to speak.


The kid did nothing whatsoever to justify the way he was abused.

Sure he did. It's called "resisting arrest", and you don't get to do it even if you believe you're being wrongfully arrested.


Of course it is not the case. As I said when I talked about context, free speech is abridged when it causes a public safety issue. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, for example.

The most commonly cited example, but not the only time or reason your speech can be legally abridged.


This kids speech did not even remotely cause any public safety issue.

His speech didn't, but his actions sure did.


You are not fond of free speech? This explains a LOT about your wacky, unsubstantiated opinions here.

And statements like that explain a lot about why you're so well-respected as a debater here.


The police wrongfully attempted to remove him in the first place. They had no right to do that as the kid did nothing to justify it.

Even if I believed that was true, which I do not, I still wouldn't believe that gave him the right to violently resist the arrest.


Torturing him with the taser was an additional crime.

If your argument was sound, you wouldn't have to resort to hyperbole in a desperate attempt to inflame people.


If you think he was being violent before the police attacked him then you are completely insane.

If you believe he was "tortured" you shouldn't be lecturing people about insanity.


ALL HE WAS DOING WAS SPEAKING!

You conveniently ignore the fact that he was also REFUSING TO LEAVE WHEN TOLD TO DO SO.


You do not have a single leg to stand on. You have no argument. The video PROVES you are 100% wrong.

You forgot to say, "nyah nyah".


He turned to the people standing behind him, which included the cops, when he said it.

And you'll notice one of those persons, (not a cop) move the mic after he's escorted away from it. Who do you think he was?


You do not know who cut the mic. One of the cops could have easily unplugged it.

You're grasping at straws.


You are talking right out your ass here.

Another example of your fine debating skills.


1. I challenge you to find ANY example of such a "right" from the Constitution, Bill of Rights or even the Declaration of Independence.

I have no idea what you're ranting about here, but I never made any claim that these documents were the sole source of our "rights" as American citizens. Are you under the mistaken impression that they are?


I have quoted directly from them to prove that the rights I am advocating actually exist.

Congratulations. Are you also aware that the documents you mention are a "framework" and don't specifically delineate the limits on the "rights" described therein?


All you have done is the equivalent of "nuh uh."

I see you're regressing to your elementary school days again.


You don't seem to have anything whatsoever to support your arguments except lies about violent behavior and disturbances that the video proves didn't happen.

I know you like to accuse people of lying and call them names without specifically citing their "lies", but could you please quote what I said that you believe was a "lie" and tell me how it is "proven" false by your video link? If you can't, take your childish insults and stuff them up your ass. :)


2. The kid was not threat to the safety of the students.

You can only make that judgment in hindsight. Do you think the cops should have been expected to know that when they took him into custody, and if so how?


I will predict that all those bogus criminal charges get dropped like a hot potato when pissed off people like myself start flooding the prosecutor's and mayor's office with phone calls this coming week.

Knock yourself out. ;)

I have done nothing of the kind. I've stated repeatedly that I believe the hosts of this event asked for his removal, and whether or not you agree with their decision, Mr. Meyer's response was completely inappropriate, and his reaction is the primary cause of his being shocked and handcuffed.



Think what you will. Your argument hinges on the fact that you believe his right to speak was violated. My argument is that even if that's true he had no right to protest violently, which he obviously did.[/QUOTE]

Yer obviously NOT singing to the choir,hears.It's Fashionable for
Today's GenXer crowd to believe in things with little regard to
application.All they know is what someone tole them in grade
school about Free Speech & stuff.They have no intuitive ability
to put a Free Speech Right into use.One doesn't have Free Speech
Rights inside a Courtroom.Or a Hospital.A Funeral or Opera House.
Maybe at a Sporting event,but even there,a Heckler MAY be
escorted out.
That's the real dilemna we face.Our Youth had such traumatically
flawed upbringing and education,as to make thinking,almost a
negative.They act out what they see & hear on TV or in the
news.Likenened to that Popular Geek {Steve-O} from Jackass.
The guys a Moron.Slightly retarded.Obviously NO higher education.
He isn't Tough.Just dangerous,careless and yucky.
But some Girls may be attrqacted to that kind of Ballsiness.
Same thing here.Many college kids,are Literally beholdin to what
others do & say and Peer pressure.Why do you think College kids
all act the same on Spring Break.
There...I juts solved a nutter Social dilemna.
Put a Jack Webb { Sgt.Joe Friday of Dragnet } on every corner
like we did at the turn of the Century and this Stupid Free Speech
bidness wood vanish quicker than Mule shit on Times Square.

I agree that rudeness is no justification for what the police did, but you also refuse to recognize that he wasn't arrested and handcuffed for "rudeness".

What exactly do you think he did to justify the police physically assaulting him? Because he refused to stop speaking? It is his god-given right to speak if he wants. As long as all he was doing was speaking nobody had any right to tell him to stop.



I watched your link, and you toss around that word too easily.

Obviously not very closely.



Actually, when the camera turns to face Mr. Meyer he's already at the mic, so you have no idea if he stepped to the mic in front of someone or not, but nice try.

You are grasping at straws.



Sure he did. It's called "resisting arrest"

Which did not happen until AFTER the campus police decided to physically assault him.
Your have your timeline backwards.



The most commonly cited example, but not the only time or reason your speech can be legally abridged.

According to you, it can be abridged by anyone with the power to abridge it if they decide to do so.

Not much of a "right"... :rolleyes:



You conveniently ignore the fact that he was also REFUSING TO LEAVE WHEN TOLD TO DO SO.

Case in point. According to you, the right to free speech extends only until some anonymous person tells you that you cannot speak anymore.
:rolleyes:



And you'll notice one of those persons, (not a cop) move the mic after he's escorted away from it. Who do you think he was?

The next guy in line?

That is the whole point.

YOU DO NOT KNOW!
You are making shit up that is not on the video.



I have no idea what you're ranting about here,

I know.
And that seems to be the crux of the problem here. You are making shit up as you go and I am basing my argument on fact and evidence.

What exactly do you think he did to justify the police physically assaulting him?

I'm afraid I can't answer your invalid question.

It is his god-given right to speak if he wants.

I don't believe in God, and as far as I know, he wasn't the organizer of the speaking engagement.


As long as all he was doing was speaking nobody had any right to tell him to stop.

An opinion which only serves to highlight your ignorance of Constitutional Law.


Which did not happen until AFTER the campus police decided to physically assault him.
Your have your timeline backwards.

Nothing wrong with my time-line. I just don't share your delusions.


According to you, it can be abridged by anyone with the power to abridge it if they decide to do so.

According to you, the right to free speech extends only until some anonymous person tells you that you cannot speak anymore.


ROFL.


YOU DO NOT KNOW!
You are making shit up that is not on the video.

Not at all...you are the one who insinuated it was the police who shut off his mic.


And that seems to be the crux of the problem here. You are making shit up as you go and I am basing my argument on fact and evidence.

Of course..."facts" like these...

The cops "assaulted" Mr. Meyer because they didn't like what he said.

They "tortured" him into silence.

And my personal favorite:

"It is his god-given right to speak if he wants."

You wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you in the ass. You rely on hyperbole, innuendo, ad hominem attacks, and a juvenile understanding of Constitutional free-speech issues to make an argument that can only be described as ridiculous. When you encounter a question you can't answer without making yourself look completely foolish, you make a pathetic attempt to change the subject or construct a strawman and flail away at it.

Here's a couple questions I'll ask again:

If you believe that using a Taser to induce compliance in a suspect you're taking into custody amounts to "torture", wouldn't the same apply to the use of pepper-spray or a baton, or even just twisting someone's arm behind their back to get them to stop struggling? How do you feel about those actions? Is that "torture"?

Do you honestly believe the organizers of this event (or any other event) have no right to tell someone they are being disruptive and must leave?

Vile,

You keep spouting off about "ignorance" of Constitutional law, but so far I am the only one to actually substantiate what I say with evidence.

So far all you seem to be doing is covering your own ignorance with a lot of lame attempts at insults.

:thumbs:
DB

I'm afraid I can't answer your ... question.

Yes, that is clear.


I don't believe in God...

Do you believe in inalienable rights?



If you believe that using a Taser to induce compliance in a suspect you're taking into custody amounts to "torture", wouldn't the same apply to the use of pepper-spray or a baton, or even just twisting someone's arm behind their back to get them to stop struggling?

Firstly, police use their tasers far more frequently than they do pepper spray or their batons. Tasers were not meant as an alternative to their baton either, it is meant as an alternative to their gun.
Secondly, when it is 6 cops on 1 kid, and they have him pinned to the ground, the taser, pepper spray and baton are all completely unnecessary and using them would be inappropriate, especially to torture the person into compliance.

Tasers are not meant to be used to "induce compliance" through extreme pain, which by the way, is the definition of torture. They are meant as an alternative to shooting someone. Are you trying to claim that unless they used their taser their only alternative would have been to shoot him as they had him pinned to the ground? Are you claiming that they would have had to use pepper spray or their batons? Are you trying to claim that six cops could not carry one kid out of the room? That is bullshit. I have carried plenty of struggling people out of the bar I used to bounce at with only two of us. Six cops have no excuse.



Do you honestly believe the organizers of this event (or any other event) have no right to tell someone they are being disruptive and must leave?

1. Only if the person is actually being disruptive enough to warrant it. This kid was not. Even Senator Kerry said he was not.
2. You have yet to show who these mysterious "organizers" you keep holding up are or if they even exist, let alone if they made the decisions you keep claiming they did.
3. Since this is a public event, at a public university, then no, they do not have any such right. If this were a private event you might have a point, but in this case, you have nothing.

:thumbs:
DB

Vile,

You keep spouting off about "ignorance" of Constitutional law, but so far I am the only one to actually substantiate what I say with evidence.

For instance?


So far all you seem to be doing is covering your own ignorance with a lot of lame attempts at insults.

ROFL. You can't even be original.

Here's some "evidence".

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=speaking_meetings

"When a government decides to offer a “public comment” period at an open meeting, it provides that citizens may exercise their First Amendment rights. Government officials can limit comments to the relevant subject matter, control disruptive or overly repetitive speakers and impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech."

Here's some "evidence".

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=speaking_meetings

"When a government decides to offer a “public comment” period at an open meeting, it provides that citizens may exercise their First Amendment rights. Government officials can limit comments to the relevant subject matter, control disruptive or overly repetitive speakers and impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech."

This was actually a "question and answer" session, not a "public comment" session. And John Kerry, the highest ranking government official there, said to let the kid speak.

Thanks for the evidence that supports my argument.
From that link:
Public forum — Under the public-forum doctrine, government officials have less authority to restrict speech in places that by tradition have been open for free expression. Such an area is called a public forum. In its 1983 decision Perry Education Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators Ass’n, the Supreme Court wrote: “In places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed.”


:thumbs:
DB

3. Since this is a public event, at a public university, then no, they do not have any such right. If this were a private event you might have a point, but in this case, you have nothing.
"The Guideline violates the principles governing speech in limited public forums, which apply to the SAF under, e.g., Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 46 -47. In determining whether a State is acting within its power to preserve the limits it has set for such a forum so that the exclusion of a class of speech there is legitimate, see, e.g., id., at 49, this Court has observed a distinction between, on the one hand, content discrimination - i.e., discrimination against speech because of its subject matter - which may be permissible if it preserves the limited forum's purposes, and, on the other hand, viewpoint discrimination i.e., discrimination because of the speaker's specific motivating ideology, opinion, or perspective - which is presumed impermissible when directed against speech otherwise within the forum's limitations, see id., at 46." majority opinion, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia

Yes, that is clear.

If you're going to quote me, quote the whole sentence. Your desperation is showing that you have to selectively edit words out of one of my sentences in order to make a lame point.


Do you believe in inalienable rights?

I believe the phrase "inalienable rights" is very poetic, and a fine sentiment. I also believe it has little bearing in the day-to-day application of the law. There is no right that the Government can't take away from you legally in the proper circumstances, including your most basic right, the right to life, so ultimately, my answer would be no.


Firstly, police use their tasers far more frequently than they do pepper spray or their batons.

I haven't been made privy to any statistics on this matter.


Tasers were not meant as an alternative to their baton either, it is meant as an alternative to their gun.

Incorrect. As has been stated before, there are two basic types of hand-held Tasers. One shoots two darts to a range of about 30 feet, and delivers a jolt designed to incapacitate without serious injury. This typr is designed as an alternative to a firearm in certain situations.

The second type has two metal prongs that protrude at the business end of the flashlight-like device and these are pressed against the skin of the target and a current travels between the two prongs. This type induces a great deal of pain, and is designed to be used in the place of a baton in certain situations.


Secondly, when it is 6 cops on 1 kid, and they have him pinned to the ground, the taser, pepper spray and baton are all completely unnecessary and using them would be inappropriate, especially to torture the person into compliance.

You state this as fact even though you posted video evidence to the contrary. Extraordinary.


Are you trying to claim that unless they used their taser their only alternative would have been to shoot him as they had him pinned to the ground?

Don't be an ass.


Are you claiming that they would have had to use pepper spray or their batons?

I'm saying they would have had their choices more limited.


Are you trying to claim that six cops could not carry one kid out of the room? That is bullshit.

Yes it is. As are most of your "are you trying to claim"? statements. :)


I have carried plenty of struggling people out of the bar I used to bounce at with only two of us. Six cops have no excuse.

You're right of course. Your "expertise" as a bouncer is certainly more convincing than the statements made in this thread by two policemen.


1. Only if the person is actually being disruptive enough to warrant it. This kid was not. Even Senator Kerry said he was not.

Oh. I guess that settles it then. You get to decide based on the 3:00 video you saw. Why do I waste my time trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who makes statements like this?


2. You have yet to show who these mysterious "organizers" you keep holding up are or if they even exist, let alone if they made the decisions you keep claiming they did.

ROFL.

And John Kerry, the highest ranking government official there, said to let the kid speak.


That's truly hilarious dharma, thanks for the chuckle. On your planet does a Representative "outrank" a Senator, or vice-versa?

I can't believe this thread is still going on. Twenty-five goddamn pages. ::shakes head::

I was just about to say that, I would think you folks would have gotten tired of this by now.

On your planet does a Representative "outrank" a Senator, or vice-versa?

Can you stick to reality please?

Are you trying to claim that the Senator was not the highest ranking government official there?

Instead of showing off your desperation with lame attempts at insults, why don't you actually address the point for a change?

:thumbs:
DB

FINALLY, you actually addressed a point! You are making such progress! I am so proud of you!

I asked:
Do you believe in inalienable rights?

You answered:
I believe the phrase "inalienable rights" is very poetic, and a fine sentiment. I also believe it has little bearing in the day-to-day application of the law. There is no right that the Government can't take away from you legally in the proper circumstances, including your most basic right, the right to life, so ultimately, my answer would be no.

Well, this explains the difference between us and why we will never come to any reasonable agreement.

I believe in inalienable rights, as did the founding fathers.

You do not believe in inalienable rights.

Therefore you can excuse any abuse of power because 'rights' are not a factor to you.
What an authoritarian belief system you have.

:rolleyes:

Can you stick to reality please?

Are you trying to claim that the Senator was not the highest ranking government official there?

Instead of showing off your desperation with lame attempts at insults, why don't you actually address the point for a change?

:thumbs:
DB
Isn't the separation of powers a very basic Constitutional concept? Further, are the cops not in the executive branch, and Sen. Kerry in the legislative?

Further, are the cops not in the executive branch, and Sen. Kerry in the legislative?

Assuming that they are actual cops and not just rent-a-cops, then they would actually be state employees, not federal.

Assuming that they are actual cops and not just rent-a-cops, then they would actually be state employees, not federal.
Even more reason why Kerry would have no authority over them.

Even more reason why Kerry would have no authority over them.

???

The Right of Free Speech is a Federal Right.

Kerry was the highest ranking federal official there.

Why would some campus police outrank him in the decision of whether to stop the kid from asking his questions?

???

The Right of Free Speech is a Federal Right.

Kerry was the highest ranking federal official there.

Why would some campus police outrank him in the decision of whether to stop the kid from asking his questions?
This is silly logic. Campus police have the duty to ensure the safe proceedings of the business of the campus. It's not a question of rank.

This is silly logic. Campus police have the duty to ensure the safe proceedings of the business of the campus. It's not a question of rank.

What a silly claim. The safty of the proceedings was never in question.

That's not something for you to decide, either. It's the campus police's job, not dharmabum's, not Senator Kerry's.

Safety can also mean order. If the campus police thought there was a possibility of the guy inciting a riot, they had the right to remove him from the premises.

A duty, not a right, but yes.

That's not something for you to decide, either. It's the campus police's job, not dharmabum's, not Senator Kerry's.

Again, I disagree.

The video clearly proves that the "safty" of the proceedings was never threatened by the kid asking questions.

Hopefully the campus police will pay dearly for making such a series of poor decisions.

The video also clearly proved that the kid was never trying to "incite a riot".

I think it was a touch excessive, and yes, they probably could have handled it a bit better, but there's no need for them to pay "dearly." It's not like they seriously injured him.

That aside, I like how you highlight your own spelling error by putting it in quotes.

I think it was a touch excessive, and yes, they probably could have handled it a bit better, but there's no need for them to pay "dearly." It's not like they seriously injured him.

Do you think that the kid did anything that:
a. threatened the safty of the proceedings?
b. indicated he was trying to incite a riot?

A duty, not a right, but yes.
That proves my point even more. Thanks. :)

The video also clearly proved that the kid was never trying to "incite a riot".
He may not have been trying, but he could have. Had the rest of the audience become rowdy in response to what he was saying, the situation would have quickly and easily escalated out of control of the campus police who were present. It may not have happened if they hadn't done anything, but like Nappy said, they have a duty to prevent disruptions, preferably before they start.

I think it was a touch excessive, and yes, they probably could have handled it a bit better, but there's no need for them to pay "dearly." It's not like they seriously injured him.
I agree. Hindsight is 20/20, and we ask our police officers to make split second judgment calls like this all the time. Of course, no one pays attention or cares at all when they make the right decisions, which I'd say happens most of the time.

Do you think that the kid did anything that:
a. threatened the safty of the proceedings?
b. indicated he was trying to incite a riot?
I don't care to make that call from the very limited information presented in the video. On the surface it appears that he did not, but again, I wasn't there. Do you think the officers' actions were politically motivated?

I agree. Hindsight is 20/20, and we ask our police officers to make split second judgment calls like this all the time. Of course, no one pays attention or cares at all when they make the right decisions, which I'd say happens most of the time.

This reminded me of a Chris Rock bit where he talked about guys who act like they really accomplished something to be proud of by doing what they are supposed to do in the first place.

"I take care of my kids"- YOUR SUPPOSED TO YOU DUMBMOTHAFUCKA!
"I've never been to jail"- WHAT YOU WANT, A COOKIE?

Should they be excused when they make the wrong decision?

Do you think the officers' actions were politically motivated?

Not overtly, no.

.

Not overtly, no.

.

Oh ! BTW... Dharma is the name of a FEMALE sitcom actor.
I mean...Actress.
What's yer excuse.?

Dharma is the name of a FEMALE sitcom actor.

Is it? Thats nice. It is also the word for the teachings of the Buddha.

Fool
- noun
1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.


:lolhit:

He may not have been trying, but he could have. Had the rest of the audience become rowdy in response to what he was saying, the situation would have quickly and easily escalated out of control of the campus police who were present. It may not have happened if they hadn't done anything, but like Nappy said, they have a duty to prevent disruptions, preferably before they start. ummm...no. The pigs almost started a riot by trying to arrest him. I have already said...he was done with his question, let him hear Kerry's response then kindly ask him to leave. The only point in arresting him after he was finished was to needlessly exert authority.

ummm...no. The pigs almost started a riot by trying to arrest him. I have already said...he was done with his question, let him hear Kerry's response then kindly ask him to leave.

Huh?

Ask him to leave?

On what grounds?

For what reason?

This goes back to what the kid asked (numerous times) the authorities who were manhandling him; "What did I do wrong?"

I think it was a VERY pertinent question, and one that --if these officers had had any legitimacy to their gestapo tactics-- they should have able to give him an answer to.

Nowhere in the video can I find where these men-in-blue informed this person-- "We are pinning you to the floor, placing you in handcuffs and tazering you because you broke law number XXXX".

Huh?

Ask him to leave?

On what grounds?

For what reason?

This goes back to what the kid asked (numerous times) the authorities who were manhandling him; "What did I do wrong?"

I think it was a VERY pertinent question, and one that --if these officers had had any legitimacy to their gestapo tactics-- they should have able to give him an answer to.

Nowhere in the video can I find where these men-in-blue informed this person-- "We are pinning you to the floor, placing you in handcuffs and tazering you because you broke law number XXXX".

He allegedly only put on this show when there were cameras trained on him. He even asked if there were going to be cameras at the jail. The guy had ulterior motives in my opinion. He wasn't trying to make a political statement.

Not overtly, no.

.
Well, then, what about this incident would lead you to believe that a harsh response is justified? Let me remind you, the kid was not seriously injured, he was breaking procedure, and he resisted efforts by law enforcement to do their jobs. Sure, they overreacted, but so did the kid.