DescentBB

\"If they wanted to hurt him for his opinion, why do it in public?\" you have the answer and it unfolded in front of you in the video.

People don't want to get involved due to various reasons, and the whole 'don't touch cops' is one of them.

Hey went to ask a sensitive question of a politician ..and he expected a what.. an honest straightforward answer???


OMG.. REALITY CHECK! This was a presidential candidate. This guy needs to step back and reevaluate his expectations.

Ferno wrote:"If they wanted to hurt him for his opinion, why do it in public?" you have the answer and it unfolded in front of you in the video.

People don't want to get involved due to various reasons, and the whole 'don't touch cops' is one of them.

What does that have to do with my question? Explain to me your reasoning: why do you see the cops intentionally cutting him off just to taze him? It doesn't make sense to me that if they're point is to hurt him for political reasons that they'd do this in front of everybody.

\"why do you see the cops intentionally cutting him off just to taze him?\"

because he asked about skull and bones. but you'd know that if you watched the video md and I posted.

I see, so the cops are enforcing the political agenda of the \"Skull and Bones\" secret society?

Topher wrote:What does that have to do with my question? Explain to me your reasoning: why do you see the cops intentionally cutting him off just to taze him? It doesn't make sense to me that if they're point is to hurt him for political reasons that they'd do this in front of everybody.

Weasel words R us!
Topher, as far as I can remember, nobody said that the cops intentionally cutting him off just to taze him. So, unless you can quote a post or two saying that they did, cut it out.
And cut out that "Nazis" and "I'm sorry, but if that isn't excessive and abuse of power, I don't know what is" while you're at it, unless you can find posts for that too. Nobody listens to a straw-man debate.

They cut him off because he was talking, which the cops shouldn't have. The boy resisted arrest because he thought he should stay up, which he should or should not have, that depends on your opinion. The cops tazered him because he resisted arrest, which they should not have.

Canuck wrote:Even though he used a "bad word" it was his right to do so. He was tasered for no good reason in my mind, and essentially for speaking his mind.

No, actually, it wasn't his right to do so. This wasn't a public forum and you CAN'T say whatever you want in a situation like that - it's goverened by the body in charge of the premisis. This issue has nothing to do with free speech whatsoever.

He was tasered for a good reason - he acted like a child and struggled and then got WARNED and ignored it! One jackass down, a few billion to go

Ferno wrote:here's the event in it's entirety.

That was not in its entirety. It conveniently left out a 21 year old acting like a child and screaming at police officers and further trying to escape them, which is what lead to the tasering....

He wasn't there to ask Kerry questions, he was there to preach and badger. And it's the right of the establishment to stop it if they don't want to make their guest uncomfortable (or if they just don't ★■◆●ing like him). And people cheered when he was led away!

Finally, as someone mentioned earlier, it's a congressman and presidential candidate!!!! The police are there for his SAFETY! And if some monkey decides to be a jackass, they will take action to make it stop. I mean, really, the kid could have been a distraction for an assassin for all they knew!

MD-2389 wrote:Which is why I used the term 'communist oppression'

because that is what this is. Do you not see your rights being torn away from you? I mean what are you going to do when you can't say ANYTHING but the 'pure' words?

This is bordering on fascism.

How so? You have the right to remove someone from your property - and that includes if you don't like what they are saying. They can say it outside.

MD-2389 wrote:It WAS censorship because he was prevented from asking his questions

Maybe you can say what you want on someone else's property, but they sure as ★■◆● can remove you from it.

MD-2389 wrote:and it WAS police brutality because he was assaulted without provocation.

Apparently you didn't watch the video.

\"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!\"

Funny, I had to watch something like 4 separate vids to see most of the whole thing. There is still a few seconds missing down stairs where he gets exceptionally belligerent. (long after getting zapped)

One video at first claimed to be the \"complete\" video, but barely showed 2 minutes of the thing and spend 4 minutes in interviews.



It doesn't take 2 minutes to ask 3 questions. A person, if they REALLY want to get an answer, could do it in under a minute.. without rushing. A person talks something like just over 200 words per minute in normal conversation.

I would like to point out that Kerry did answer his question(s), Kerry (whom i don't really care for) didn't ask the guards to tase him; so it's hardly \"the Man\" putting someone down. Just several people having a great deal of difficulty handling a very stressful situation. ... and one 21 year old who still hasn't learn to do what he was told.

k done.

Kyouryuu wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:This boy was a complete jerk and I stand by everything I said.

Yeah. Because we should arrest people for being jerks. I'm calling the cops on you, Bet. Once more, you astound me.

I hope I continue to see things clearly and keep astounding you.

Bee

The most disturbing thing about this whole incident was Kerry. He is a professional protester cutting his teeth in the 60's protesting against the war. Why on earth he did NOT tell the cops to stand down and answer this kids questions is disgusting. Kerry should have thought back and handled it like a man instead of making jokes and ignore the bashing of this kids (whoever, however stupid) freedom of speech.
Way to go Kerry

Nirvana wrote:

Canuck wrote:Even though he used a "bad word" it was his right to do so. He was tasered for no good reason in my mind, and essentially for speaking his mind.

No, actually, it wasn't his right to do so. This wasn't a public forum and you CAN'T say whatever you want in a situation like that - it's goverened by the body in charge of the premisis. This issue has nothing to do with free speech whatsoever.

He was tasered for a good reason - he acted like a child and struggled and then got WARNED and ignored it! One jackass down, a few billion to go

The event however is on Federal Land on sovereign USA soil. I do believe Federal Law supersedes in this circumstance and from what I saw everything was OK until the kid mentioned the Skull and Bones... thats when the handlers went ballistic. Poorly handled and really showed the public what Kerry is really made of.

And I cant quite believe how many people have accepted Tasering as an OK thing to do. Fully 5% of the population have a physiology that when Tased their heart stops. There was excessive force used and if you believe its OK then perhaps one day you will be subjected to it. It is not pleasant.

I am so glad to live in Canada after reading the comments posted.

And our dollar on par too

Duper wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:Yeah screw that guy, damn protester. Freedom of speech, who the hell ever gave him that right? The police should of killed him in my opinion, he got off too light!

Oh please. Read the Bill of Rights. We are not granted the freedom to act like an idiot and say whatever we feel. If you believe that, you need to turn off the TV.

Oh please. Tazers are known to kill and I don't believe a possibly lethal weapon like this should be used after someone was already on the ground and could of been handcuffed. This is police brutality, which is defined as "Excessive force used by police." When someone is subdued, you do not use a possibly lethal weapon against them when they could just be handcuffed and escorted out. Whatever your beliefs may be about him being pulled out of the building, that is a FACT.

Also, I rarely watch TV, except for World News with Charles Gibson, so TV has nothing with this, thank you for trying to write me off because of my little amount of TV watching I do.

Maybe one day when people are barred from entering debates because of their political views, things may be viewed in a different light.

oh wait...

That was not in its entirety. It conveniently left out a 21 year old acting like a child and screaming at police officers and further trying to escape them, which is what lead to the tasering....

He wasn't there to ask Kerry questions, he was there to preach and badger. And it's the right of the establishment to stop it if they don't want to make their guest uncomfortable (or if they just don't **** like him). And people cheered when he was led away!

Are you serious? If the establishment wanted him to stop, they could have simply escorted him out.

Cmon dude..

It doesn't take 2 minutes to ask 3 questions.

Speakers at the microphone get two minutes to say their piece. That is fact.

Canuck wrote:The event however is on Federal Land on sovereign USA soil. I do believe Federal Law supersedes in this circumstance and from what I saw everything was OK until the kid mentioned the Skull and Bones... thats when the handlers went ballistic. Poorly handled and really showed the public what Kerry is really made of.

What? No, really, just because it's at a school doesn't mean you can't be escorted off by those in charge of the event. If he'd gone up there and said something to the effect of "★■◆● all n******, let's hang them can you pass a bill to do this well that would be great mr senator because I hate n******" (note the intentional leaving out of time to answer any sort of question) would that have been ok? Should he have stayed up there?

Canuck wrote:And I cant quite believe how many people have accepted Tasering as an OK thing to do. Fully 5% of the population have a physiology that when Tased their heart stops. There was excessive force used and if you believe its OK then perhaps one day you will be subjected to it. It is not pleasant.

I actually am not too concerned about it happening. It's possible it was excessive, but he DID get a warning. It's not like he wasn't doing anything. Furthermore, he was in the presence of a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, which is something people seem to be ignoring. These people take it ★■◆●ing SERIOUSLY. I mean, really, the child's rabble rousing could have caused a SERIOUS disturbance that could have gotten the man killed. In a situation like that with someone important to protect, sometimes more extreme measures are necessary. And no, I won't be subjected to it (at least not by these officers) because I won't act like I'm 3 if I get escorted off the stage.

Ferno wrote: Are you serious? If the establishment wanted him to stop, they could have simply escorted him out.

Ferno, are ★■◆●ing you KIDDING ME!??? They were TRYING to escort him out - that was the POINT!!!! HE WOULDN'T LET THEM!

Ferno wrote: Speakers at the microphone get two minutes to say their piece. That is fact.

My guess is more 2 minutes to ask questions. He wasn't asking questions [that were meant to be answered, he didn't even give time for answers]. He was getting on a soapbox and preaching at someone else's party.

Dakatsu wrote:

Duper wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:Yeah screw that guy, damn protester. Freedom of speech, who the hell ever gave him that right? The police should of killed him in my opinion, he got off too light!

Oh please. Read the Bill of Rights. We are not granted the freedom to act like an idiot and say whatever we feel. If you believe that, you need to turn off the TV.

Oh please. Tazers are known to kill and I don't believe a possibly lethal weapon like this should be used after someone was already on the ground and could of been handcuffed. This is police brutality, which is defined as "Excessive force used by police." When someone is subdued, you do not use a possibly lethal weapon against them when they could just be handcuffed and escorted out. Whatever your beliefs may be about him being pulled out of the building, that is a FACT.

Also, I rarely watch TV, except for World News with Charles Gibson, so TV has nothing with this, thank you for trying to write me off because of my little amount of TV watching I do.

Dak, The TV comment as figurative. And yeah, tasers can be dangerous. ... it 50,000 volts for cryin out loud. You can pass that much, though, getting zapped off a door knob. (I understand the application is different here) The problem with this argument is thought that is disintegrates into "anything can be potentially lethal". While somethings are more overtly dangerous than others, ANY force carries the potential of permanently disabling someone depending on their individual disposition.

but like I posted a bit ago:"Just several people having a great deal of difficulty handling a very stressful situation. ... and one 21 year old who still hasn't learn to do what he was told."

I don't like to see people hurt. (and frankly, I'm surprised it bothers so many here.) So naturally, seeing someone get tased is a disturbing thing. This guy lost his cool in a big way. He was overcome by the adrenaline rush you can get from confronting someone in front of others. He starts ranting rather listening to what is being told to him. This pushes the cops to their limit as well coupled with everyone screaming. Cops are humans too and far from perfect. They lose their cool too.

They tased him once, for two seconds. (about)

When someone is subdued, you do not use a possibly lethal weapon against them when they could just be handcuffed and escorted out.

Exactly, but he was resisting this effort with all his strength. If he had complied from the start or not jumped up and down screaming at the top of his lungs while they were TRYING to escort him up the aisle way, none of this would have happened.

EXCESSIVE force would have been repeated tasering and/or baton usage, which would have been their most likely option if they had not had tasers. Listen to the female cop REPEATED giving this guy instructions.. not different ones but the same one over and over.

I didn't really want to post on this again, I thought I was clear enough. Guess not. I'm with Nirvy on this one.

MD-2389 wrote:You are allowed TWO minutes at the mic. If you pay clear attention to what he said during the video, he flat out says "my two minutes aren't up yet!" The student first starts speaking at time index 00:06 (Bet's link) and is interrupted at 00:39 by one of the rent-a-cops, and interrupted AGAIN at 1:15, and finally his mic was cut at 1:37. It doesn't take a math major to figure out that he didn't get his two minutes is quite clear.

I'll have to concede the point on the time. It looks like his two minutes weren't up, they were cutting him off early because he was acting like a jerk.

At the last political debate, I was allowed two minutes and I asked four questions.

\"They were TRYING to escort him out\"

I'm sorry but just grabbing someone is not 'trying to escort' someone out.

\"HE WOULDN'T LET THEM!\"

hey, instead of screaming how bout trying that again in a normal tone. but of course he wasn't gonna let him. If I got grabbed like that from behind with zero warning, I'd fight like a bastard to get free.


I watched the thing seven times from multiple angles. I think I would have picked up whether or not he was asked to leave first.

No, but pushing him towards the door is

Ferno wrote:I'm sorry but just grabbing someone is not 'trying to escort' someone out.

They did ask him, didn't you watch the video?


[Police officer interrupts Meyer]

Meyer: [Turning to police officer]

"I'll ask my question. Thank you very much. I'll ask my question. I'm going to preface it.

He's been talking for two hours, I think I can have two minutes.

Thank you, thank you--thank you very much."
...

you forgot \"i'll inform people first and then i'll ask my questions'. and 'thanks for cutting off my mic.'

Up here in canada, if someone's truly being disruptive, they are requested to leave first. and if they get a definite \"no\", they then physically escort him out.

Yes Ferno, I'm sure that has happened at every assembly Canada has ever had

The video at the bottom of this article
http://www.starbanner.com/article/20070 ... AKING_NEWS
has what seems to me to be the most complete video record of the altercation between Meyer and the campus police.

I'm a bit confused after reading through a number of these posts. Several posters seem to be under the impression that Meyer was entitled to two minutes for posing his questions. Can anyone confirm whether this was in fact the case (source please)? My reading of the circumstances were that this was not a debate with set rules, but a Q&A after a speech by Kerry.

edit: a further set of reports
http://www.starbanner.com/article/20070 ... AKING_NEWS

Nirvana wrote:Yes Ferno, I'm sure that has happened at every assembly Canada has ever had

jest all you want, but I know what I've experienced.

dissent wrote:The video at the bottom of this article
http://www.starbanner.com/article/20070 ... AKING_NEWS
has what seems to me to be the most complete video record of the altercation between Meyer and the campus police.

Not quite. If you dig through YouTube, you'll find more complete videos of this incident.

Ferno wrote:

Nirvana wrote:Yes Ferno, I'm sure that has happened at every assembly Canada has ever had

jest all you want, but I know what I've experienced.

OK Ferno! How many candidates for prime minister have you ever witnessed live with any sort of incident where someone was asked to leave with authorities involved for security? 0? oh, yeah, that's right.... and probably close to 1 in a million Americans haven't either. WE'RE BEING SOFTENED UP WITH SOFT FACISM 300 AT A TIME A;LIFJA;SKLJFLASK;DJF!

Ferno wrote:Not quite. If you dig through YouTube, you'll find more complete videos of this incident.

And don't just look at Ferno's "complete" video either, because it's not nearly complete.

Ferno wrote:Not quite. If you dig through YouTube, you'll find more complete videos of this incident.

Yeah, possibly. But they had not been previously posted on this thread.

Regardless of why he was forcefully escorted from the mic, the point is that tazering someone who is already in handcuffs and down on the ground is WRONG. Period.

I attribute that kid being censored to Kerry's organizers, him and his ilk are a bunch of slime-balls anyway, thats already been established so im not really surprised. Oh, freedom of speech exists, but only to those loyal, non-questioning Democrats. Everyone else can be escorted away because they are not loyal to the party! (sound familiar?)

He would not have been made to leave if he had just asked him question and waited for an answer ... even if he DIDN'T get one or one he wanted.

Why do you guys insist on putting this on Kerry? It's rather obvious that this guy was out of line. Good grief, would you think a 6 year old acting like that, shouting and bad mouthing someone or his parents were exercising \"free speech\"? Come on, just a LITTLE conventional wisdom here.

Now, before you reach for the reply button, I am not inferring that you should hand cuff and taser a 6 year old. (stupid I should even have to say that. )

Top Wop wrote:Regardless of why he was forcefully escorted from the mic, the point is that tazering someone who is already in handcuffs and down on the ground is WRONG. Period.

So we're debating tazering a student, tazering a student for political motivations, whether university cops should have tazers or ethicalness of having tazers period?

I'm confused.

Ok.. 4 vids later and 20 minutes... he was NOT handcuffed when they tased him. They were trying.

I think This vid gives the best angle, and focus.

Skyalmian wrote:4 officers and 1 guy; a pair of handcuffs would have sufficed nicely if those dweebs in black had handled him properly. Never mind that he didn't deserve to be harassed at all for asking politically incorrect questions. He would have been on his way fine if they'd let him finish.

Everyone ... that would be the reason that at least two of the officers involved are now on administrative leave (a nice phrase for being off duty while the bosses figure out what to do with them) while the incident is investigated.

Some may think it's a "slap on the wrist" but you don't know what punishment/reprimand/other the officers may face after the investigation is done. Ye of little patience. Wait it out. That's what the involved officers should have done... but they made a mistake.

You know... I think we've about chatted this one to death.

I haven't watched the videos and I really don't care to debate whether officer X or jackass Y crossed any lines. But I do want to respond to a particularly bad argument:

TechPro wrote:that would be the reason that at least two of the officers involved are now on administrative leave while the incident is investigated.

From what I understand, it's typical to place officers on leave if they're under investigation. It's not a statement of guilt or innocence, it's just a CYA thing.

Let's take the advice you gave a couple sentences later: wait it out. Let's not go all Jack Murtha here.

Top Wop wrote:I attribute that kid being censored to Kerry's organizers, him and his ilk are a bunch of slime-balls anyway, thats already been established so im not really surprised. Oh, freedom of speech exists, but only to those loyal, non-questioning Democrats. Everyone else can be escorted away because they are not loyal to the party! (sound familiar?)

I suppose I'll say it again: this issue has absolutely zero to do with freedom of speech. It's only about whether or not excessive force was used by the police officers. In this case, I vote definitely not. If the speaker had been someone other than a congressman and presidential candidate, I'd possibly be open to considering that as a possibility.

Yawn. After all the speech protests by the leftests without a one being tasred, we finally have a protester against the socialist champion Kerry and he gets electrocuted. Nice.

I wonder when Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia University and the protestors show up, if Lee Bollenger will have them shot.

Nirvana wrote:I suppose I'll say it again: this issue has absolutely zero to do with freedom of speech. It's only about whether or not excessive force was used by the police officers. In this case, I vote definitely not. If the speaker had been someone other than a congressman and presidential candidate, I'd possibly be open to considering that as a possibility.

Half of the video has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The other half has everything to do with it.
...Although I don't like using the term 'freedom of speech', because it's much too general, and much too easy to say 'freedom of speech doesn't exist' without relating to this individual topic.

TIGERassault wrote: Half of the video has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The other half has everything to do with it.
...Although I don't like using the term 'freedom of speech', because it's much too general, and much too easy to say 'freedom of speech doesn't exist' without relating to this individual topic.

No, NONE of this has anything to do with freedom of speech. If you hold an event, you can kick out or censor anyone you want from saying anything and it isn't a freedom of speech violation - it's your right to do so. Now, if the book that the little bugger was holding onto had been prevented from being published, THAT would have been a freedom of speech issue.