So about this Florida U student
 

Context: Student Tasered at campus forum for Kerry - CNN.com

Does the phrasing or enthusiasm with which we deliver a question make us subject to "public disturbance?"

Was he a douchebag because he kept drilling Kerry? If so, does that mean he should be taken to jail?

He was a complete douche bag, but that doesn't mean there were any grounds on which they could arrest him.

Of course it wasn't right for the police to tazer him nor to take him to jail but he put the law enforcement in a difficult position. He was being disruptive. However, Kerry could deal with it. He even mentioned to the cops "Let the guy have his say..."

I don't believe it was "enthusiasm" which caused the adverse reaction from the cops. He was in a public place causing a scene with little reason. His intent was almost violent and not needed. Such antics are not common practice in a valid and very PUBLIC political forum.

Its no different than flaming someone in an online community. If you go outside the lines of decency, then there are consequences.

Whether or not he was in the 'right or wrong' is besides the point. While he may have raised some valid points, his ascerbic tone was being disruptive to the discussion.

Two things are certain:

1) The police used far too much force than necessary to deal with the situation. A taser is just over the line and should only be used as a last resort if the person in question is excessively forceful and violent.

2) The tasee, Andrew Meyer, is an attention whore. He has a known history of videotaping himself doing provocative acts. I assume what he did at the Kerry speech is also a part of this.

Therefore, I think both parties are at fault here. One was being a total ass, the other acted too brutishly.

I dunno, something still doesn't sit right with me about this. I think we can all agree the actual tasing part was wrong. No matter how much of an attention whore he is, I guess my problem is that the police would attempt to take him off the stage in the first place.

It's like, Kerry's an adult, right? He doesn't need to be protected from scary words, right? Why not give this guy a minute out of your day if he's so passionate about it?

I hear all the time when people go off onto diatribes about how "there's a time and a place for that kind of thing." But I never really understand where this magical place is supposed to be. It's not like the whole U.S. population has a message board like this one where disparate opinions come into play.

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit.

Ok, WOW...he asks thought provoking questions, puts a senator on the spot. And he gets silenced and then taken away..AND tasered? All because of questions which is his constitutional right to ask. He should NOT be censored, and he should not have been arrested because of asking questions that might hurt Jon Kerry's or whoever's feelings. Hell, Jon Kerry wasn't even afraid, he said he wanted to answer his question, but police take them away?? I'd like to know if it was the police, or the dean or whoever was in charge of that forum discussion. Maybe whoever was in charge wanted the police to silence him. All in all, it's pathetic...PATHETIC what these Police are doing.


Overall, this is absolute disgust. Between this fascist bullshit and the backward mentality of those morons in Jena louisana who still think it's 1960...I don't know how our country [America] will wake up.

He was was making a scene and resisted arrest.

He deserved it.

And why was he being arrested in the first place?

lol, his mic was cut after he asked Kerry whether or not he was in Skull & Bones with Bush. Funny, that.

The thing is, he only started making a scene after the police decided to take him away. Plus, how can one be resisting arrest when he didn't do anything unlawful? Being manhandled by police should NOT be the result 'asking too many questions'.

(I also think he probably did this intentionally, but that does not make him wrong.)

From the video, I see him trying to shove away the police as they were taking him away. That's a big no no.

Why were they taking him away in the first place, though?

This is kind of my question too. On the other hand, I definitely think both parties are at fault here. Yes, he got needlessly, over-the-top loud and belligerent and, in turn, security used an obscene amount of force to silence.

My only question about this is: Had he been allowed his couple of minutes of stage time to ask his questions, would he have gotten belligerently out of hand thus causing such a scene in the first place? I want to say yes but I kind of get the feeling that the answer is no.

It seems like the kid was intentionally asking a retarded question, so the police were simply trying to move him from the mic at first, not arrest him. The mic had cut off, so it was obvious that his turn was over, but he still wasn't leaving. They tasered him after he repeatedly tried to resist them.

There is no reason the cops can't arrest him for disturbing the peace. That is perfectly legal and they are allowed to hold him and charge him or release him. Anyone saying otherwise doesn't know how it works.

The only issue here, really, was why they used the taser. Everything else was exactly what police officers are supposed to do.

Plus, you can bet that if Kerry really was the president or it were back in the time of the election, the Secret Service would have leveled the kid almost immediately.

Like, "Are you part of a secret society?"

Right.

That video was hilarious.
Up until he got tasered. (spelling?)
That was pretty harsh.

He seems like a kid that just got a tad bit overexcited and really wanted to ask Kerry some questions. (Regardless of how convoluted and stupid.)

lol florida sucks

really though, cops need to lay off the tasering so much. Mix it up with pepper spray or old-fashioned roughhousin' when the perp isn't on pcp! Come on guys.

seriously though f florida.

He started crying when he got tasered. That was kinda funny. He seemed to me like just another over passionate idiot expressing his views in a the wrong manner. He should have prepared a concise statement, delivered it quickly and then he wouldn't have gotten in any shit.

But was he really disturbing the peace? I've seen town hall meetings in my area that sound like that for an entire hour, but that's the process of it all. One person speaks for their time, the council members answer with whatever tripe they pull out of thin air, rinse and repeat.

If police can start arresting people that are just exercising their right to free speech in that kind of context (i.e. a public forum), can we even draw a line as to where they can't arrest us?

Think of it this way: a public speech session with an open-mic question forum with a passionate questioner is acceptable because it's kind of expected, isn't it? Who wants to see a political forum where the questions are all pre-approved nonsense? So was he disturbing the peace with his question, however hair-brained and passionate he was about it? No, not unless he ran up there and stole the mic from someone else.
On the flip side, think of a family playing in the park and some kids running around spray painting trees and screaming at kids about how their mommies and daddies fucked so they could be born. Now: is a gang of kids causing trouble in a park expected in that context? No. Those kids are, by all definitions, disturbing the peace.

The fact that he was shouting "Why are you arresting me" does not mean that the police were trying to arrest him or were planning on it. To me, it seems as if they were trying to escort him out of the auditorium when he was purposefully acting disruptive and pointless questions. I see nothing wrong with the police asking him to leave.

The problems comes when he refuses to leave the auditorium and starts pushing away the police. They tried to escort him away from the microphone, pretty passively might I add, but he refused, screaming and wrestling with anyone that came near him. If you are asked to leave and do not do so, it becomes trespassing. The University may be a public university, but campus security does have the right to remove you if there is sufficient need. Once the police asked him to leave and he refused, he was breaking the law. The resulting fight was indeed resisting arrest.

Sure, the first amendment, he had every right to say what he wanted. However, it does not allow you to be belligerent and disruptive to public order. Which was clearly what this guy was trying to. The police had every right to try and remove him from the auditorium and restrain him.

About the taser, though. If the guy is thrashing about so much and is unwilling to cooperate with the police's demands, which were completely justified in this case, what would you have them do? I know he was shouting about how he would walk out on his own, that was no longer an option. After his actions and the amount of disruption he caused, he was going out in police custody. If he would have settled down and let the police walk him out, he would have been fine. He just wanted to make a huge scene. He was given adequate warning that a shot from the taser was forthcoming if he would not settle down and cooperate. I would like to know a better solution to getting an unruly person to cooperate.

But before he started pushing back from the cops, there was no "sufficient need" to withdraw him.

I like that. You totally refuted his whole post by ignoring what he said and telling him he's wrong. Very high-level.

I don't argue that he had a right to be belligerent and disruptive but, when he is given the microphone and soapbox for an alloted time, it doesn't necessarily make it right for someone to clip him in the middle of that time for the simple fact that his questions are more direct than people are used to.

Then again, he did have a history of being an attention whore so I can't possibly overlook that. But now they have a volatile situation on their hands when the easiest way to have dealt with this situation would have been to bring out his history in the future and used that angle to discredit him and let this die quietly.

Well, unfortunately, later reports stated that he went up to the front of the room after they ran out of time for everyone to ask questions. He effectively cut in front of other people after time was over to do his thing.

That changes a lot of things then as I can no longer defend him for this as he was clearly out to make a scene and security, indeed, had every motive to attempt to remove him from the premises. Their harsh methods are still questionable though, but it's not like that part of the story was ever argued against here.

If you listen to the reaction of the students as he continues to talk, yes.

Honestly? No. Besides, free speech is not absolute and, like I said, police are well within their rights to arrest someone whom them believe is breaching the peace. Whether or not they charge him is another matter.

To understand why this rule needs to exist, you have to look at it from the standpoint of someone who should clearly be arrested. We don't want the police to sit back and worry about exact Constitutional law before acting, do we?

It is a judgment call. The police can release without charging him if they feel that was the case. Acting too soon is much, much more desirable than acting too late.

Additionally, it wasn't completely open-mic. The organizers (not the cops, I believe) said that he had asked his question and asked that he moved on...or something like that on the tape. The event was taken out of control by him. Certainly that is a situation that could apply.

Oh come on, it's not like he asked Kerry "Durrrrrr do you know you look like that dude from the Munsters?!" He had questions he wanted to ask, and the police gestapo take him away because audience members are 'gasping'? >_>. The dude's rights as an american were being trampeled on, and he didn't make a scene at all, until the Police and whoever tried to silence his mic and cut him off...aka censoring. I would sue.

Yes, because asking "We're you in the skull and bones with George Bush in college?" is a much more intelligent question.

They didn't take him away because the audience was 'gasping.' They cut off his mic because he was purposefully making disruptive comments after the events organizers had told him that they didn't have time for him to preface his question with a twenty minute speech.

What rights of his were being trampled on? Freedom of speech? Do you even know anything about freedom of speech? This has nothing to do with his ability to say and think what he wants. This is about the organizers not wanting him to disrupt the event. He could go outside and say anything that he wants, no one is stopping him from having his view points and expressing them. You should take note that Kerry was actually going to respond to the question of Kerry's concession and that no one tried to stop the man from speaking until his questions became disruptive. At which point he was asked to leave.

Freedom of speech is not absolute and is dependent on the situation. What one can say and do without consequences should be a matter of common sense. You can't run into a movie theater and shout 'fire'.

What exactly would you sue for?

Damages to his ego, obviously. :/

Police gestapo? Fascism? God, grow up, kid. You clearly have no idea what oppression really is.

@CloudNine

Ok, so they were asking him to leave, even though Kerry was going to answer his question. They still forced him out of there because of his questions. It was an open public forum, and just because his questions were more than 30 seconds does not give anyone the right to remove him silence him. That is censorship.

Too many people in politics and in political situations, never say what they want to say and/or ask because they might insult or hurt someone's feelings. I'm tired of that. I'm not saying 'be disrespectful and rude' what I am saying is we need the press or people who question gov't motives or sentaors, mayors, governers, blabla to be free to ask and debate issues without being frowned upon because of feelings being hurt or its something THEY dont want to hear. If those people there were disgusted by his comments, they could have left and/or just ignored him and let him get his schtick out.


And by the video...the event was disrupted when people were trying to silence and remove him. THAT is when it became disruption, not after the fact dude.


And personally, I would sue for infrigment of my rights being violated and for police brutality.


@
Denicalis

I can see you are bringing nothing to this discussion, but rather try and insult and belittle me [lol 'kid'] because you don't agree with my view. Why dont stop so we dont have this thread become personal ok? We don't need a flame war, thank you. Bye.

No, man. I really don't think you understand what oppression really is. Why else would you use that ever-so-witty comparison of school campus rent-a-cops to... oh... THE GERMAN GESTAPO?

That's great advice. I would advise you to take it.

Do you even know what censorship is? His speech was in no way "censored."

Dear Karasu:

If you are reading this, please do me a favor. Go back and read my previous posts, as it seems that you have failed to understand anything that I have said. Please do that before you continue reading the rest of this post.

Thank you.

Censorship? Maybe. Barely. About as much as if I had punched the guy, who was sitting next to me on the bus, in the mouth for humming Fall Out Boy the whole way to class this morning. See, if we were at a Fall Out Boy concert, then it would have been appropriate and in context. But on the bus, it was annoying and disruptive to the people on the bus. If I had punched him in the mouth, it would have silenced his voice because of his singing and that would have been censorship.

Much like the humming of the guy on the bus, the speaker's questions (after the question about Kerry's concession) were out of context and were made with no point other that being disruptive. Once it became apparent that he was no longer legitimately trying to question Kerry, he was asked to leave the microphone, which he refused to do. Thus, he was promptly attempted to be escorted out of the building.

You never answered my question. Do you think that "Were you in a skull and bones with George Bush" was an intelligent and honest question? If he had asked "Do you eat human excrement?" or "How large is your penis?" would you have allowed him to continue speaking? Would removing him under those situations have violated his freedom of speech? What if he got up and started to read from the Florida state phone book? Would it be a violation of his First Amendment rights if they removed him before he got the the B's?

You are right. We definitely need more people like this guy asking the truly hard hitting questions that the citizens of the United States of America would truly like to hear answers about from our political leaders. Jesus Christ, I have been waiting for years for someone to finally get up the courage to ask about Kerry and Bush's alleged college secret society misdeeds.

It was a sponsored 'open forum' put on by the University of Florida. The organizers have a right to remove you if they feel you are being disruptive. This is not congress. There is no filibuster. If you are being an idiot, we don't have to sit and listen to you.

Actually, it became disruptive after his refusal to leave the microphone stand and subsequent comments.

And you would lose and be laughed out of court for being an idiot. Seeing as no rights were being infringed upon and the fact that he was resisting arrest and being uncooperative is enough to justify the police action.

Which rights, I'm wondering?

The right to make an ass of oneself, of course.

That guy was clearly anxious and overly excited. He couldn't control himself, just listen to him speak. He's been talking fast since the beginning. That alone is a sign for the police to keep an eye on this guy.
Fast talkers are disruptive because they always want to get their word out to "win" the debate. Someone tries to answer but they just keep talking faster and faster and louder because they feel more stronger and powerful. (very fucking annoying because they don't know how to be concise.)

You can see he angles his body and looks towards the audience to try and provoke an uproar in his favor.
He even patronizes Kerry in a sarcastic way, "You won the election. Isn't that amazing?" That's another sign that this guy wanted to dish a huge battle of words with Kerry.
An argument is NOT orderly conduct.
They foresaw this so they pulled the mic.
Now, if the guy kept his cool and spoke calmly from the beginning then the whole thing could've went well.


Sue?? Brutality?? I didn't see the police use unnecessary force. They were pulling him and then a cop lifted him up and carry him out. Then he got out of hand and they tried to cuff him.
The video at 2:13, the guy is on the floor.
2:28, you hear someone say there's a taser on him.
3:07, you hear the taser popping.
The police held back on using the taser for 39 seconds. That means they had no other choice but to use um.... I guess you'd call it "brutality", to restrain him.


Rule #1: When the po po grabs your arms. You don't fight back or snap your arms out of their hand. As you can see in the video it turns into resisting arrest. And you can be arrested for resisting arrest.

I love that video. The dude got what was coming to him. They taser'd his ass. It went POPopopop. LOLOLOL. This made my day. He was literally screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

@Encep

Thats what I was trying to do in the first place, thanks.




@Melomane

Yea, when someone with holds you from speaking your opinion, preventing you from expressing your individuality. The cops and whoever was in charge, clearly was trying to silence him.




@CloudNine

You're making this personal, and I have no desire to battle it out with you, as I can see this entire debate now is "Everyone against Karasu because he's on the kid's side and thinks different like an individual".


Your sarcasm and your cuteness are totally uncessary, especially when you didn't read what I said. I said we need people to ask good strong questions and put politicians on the spot without being mocked and laughed at, but we can do it without being rude and disrespectful.


And as for your question, it didn't have true relevance i'll give you that, but...it was a fucking question. Big Deal. Kerry wouldn't have gone into detail about it anyway since it's a secret society.


And again i'll say it. He wouldn't have been disruptive if he was able to ask his questions and get the answer from Kerry. Good god. Am I the only person here who sees the wrong on the officials part? Obviously I am.




@Jouhou
Yep. Too many cops are trigger happy with those tasers, and these cops are no different in that area. It takes...7....7...cops to handle one college kid? And on top of that they have to taser the guy because they can't handle it. Bad Form.






As I can see though, i'm the lone eagle because I think like an individual and disagree with how these cops and officials handled the situation. It could have been done a lot better. Was the guy obnoxious? Yea I guess. I mean when he was tasered he was saying 'Ow' sarcastically...but hey...has anyone here been tasered? Do you know what it feels like? Probably not. I bet though it feels very painful, and you mock and laugh at him for being tasered? You see enjoyment in his pain? I guess you're a masochist then.


Anyway, i'll receed and let you continue in saying the kid deserved it, blabla. Oh and saying "Lolz good he's gone" or some other snide comment after me leaving shows a ton of immaturity and disrespect on your part. Because you took a debate and turned it into a "I don't agree with you, so i'm going to make this thread now about you and what you say!" Which that's what has happened here. It should have been on the issue, but of course people take one guy's opinion and makes that the focus instead. Bad form, gamingforce. Bad form

If you thought intelligently like an individual, no one would care.

I mean, it's not just that you're wrong. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You're saying things that maybe sound good but they make no sense. But it's that you just keep chuggin' along.

IMA GONNA SUE
Uh, for what?
MY RIGHTS
What rights?
IMA GONNA SUE

And the guy yelling "fire" in a crowded theater didn't cause the riot, but the people running out of the building did?

He was disruptive, which is why they were cutting him off. The fact that he continued to escalate it doesn't mean that he wasn't being disruptive before.

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/8255/1hotamovrm2.gif

Show me once where I made this personal and made a comment about you, personally, that is not relevant to the topic at hand. If you can find a place where I attacked you personally and not your opinion on this issue, then I will apologize, as that was not my intention. But as it stands now, stop trying to be a martyr.

I read exactly what you said and I agreed with you. Asking good strong questions, putting politicians and the stop and holding them accountable for their actions is key to staying informed and keeping our government on track with where we, the people, would like it to go.

What I choose to comment on was the relevance of what you were saying in this case. His 'good strong questions' about Kerry's concession were allowed to be asked and Kerry himself said he was going to answer his question. He was given the chance to speak freely and it was when his questions turned from 'good strong questions' to disrespective and disruptive that he was asked to leave. If he was being mocked and laughed at, it was because his questions were ridiculous. If I went up to George Bush and asked him "How come you don't were a big cowboy hat? You're form Texas aren't you?", I would probably get mocked and laughed at as well. It was a stupid, pointless question with the intent of getting a reaction, of course we are going to laugh at it.

Also, he was being rude and disrespectful to Kerry and the people in the audience. His questions deserved nothing better in response. Don't try and make him a victim in that regard.



Like I said before, it wasn't the question that there was a problem with. He could have gone out side and asked that question all he wanted to. No one was taking away his rights to asks questions or state his opinion. What was a problem, though, was the disruptive manner that he choose to make his voice heard. Just because you have a right to free speech does not mean that you the right to voice it anywhere you want, regardless of the disruptions that it may cause. Just like I said before, you can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater.

And again I'll say it. The very act of his getting up to the mic and asking his questions was the disruption. His question was inappropriate and did not necessitate an response. Not to mention that he went on a rant about impeaching Bush and Clinton's impeachment for a "blowjob." The actual content of the question is irrelevant. All that matters is that it was disruptive and pointless to the debate at hand. If I had went up to the mic and inquired about about Kerry's personal sex-life, do you think that I would still have been inappropriate for the police to ask me to leave?

How are we not thinking 'individually'? Because there are more than one of us that agree, we must be forming mob mentality and can not possibly hold these opinions of our own volition. You're not a martyr.

Have you ever been tasered, either? If not, you're not in a position to comment any more than anyone else is. Being obnoxious and uncooperative is resisting arrest. The police are not going to hold him on the ground for an hour before he decides to give up. That would be ridiculous, as he could sit there and squirm for a half an hour, all the while becoming more disruptive, with a group of policemen holding him down. It would be a waste of time for someone who is obviously uncooperative.

They are going to take the quick route into persuading someone in custody to cooperate with them. The quickest and least physically harmful way being a taser. He was given plenty of warning before he was tasered and he knew what was coming if he did not cooperate.

Also, I don't see how someone saying that restraint and the eventual use of a taser in this case was necessary is being masochistic. It is regrettable that it sometimes has to come to such violence, but it is unavoidable that it does come to that once in a while. To say that anyone who can understand the actions of the police is only doing so because they derive some sort of gratification from the violence is ignorant.


Really hanging on to your martyrdom today, aren't you? Chastising everyone here for something that has not happened? I can't speak for everyone else, but I have shown you, personally, no disrespect and have argued based on my views of this issue.

What else are we supposed to do in one of these threads, if not debate the subject at hand and arguing our opposing viewpoints? This thread is not about me and it is not about you. Your (along with mine and everyone elses) opinion on this issue along with getting facts pertinent to said issue is the point of this thread. Is that not what you and I are currently discussing?

What I think is bad form is you taking a debate on two opposing viewpoints of this issue, making it personal and insulting everyone here. Once I stop commenting on your opinions on the issue and start calling you fuck boy, then you can say it is personal.

Yes, I'm glad you see my point. The guy was so out of control they needed that many officers to keep him down. But evidently it wasn't enough so they had no choice but to taser him.

More than a right, freedom of speech is a responsibility. He had a right to ask questions but he was irresponsible. Someone told him to calm down a little, no need to shout into the mic. and he snaps at the person. Irresponsible children need to be tasered.
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/2769/taserdf1.jpg

And I like your post too. Let's hang out sometime on our high-level plateau of 1-lined responses of imaginary awesomeness. ^5

Ha ha! No. I'm not wrong for seeing this debacle a different way than you buddy. I think like you that both parties were wrong, HOWEVER what the law enforcement officers did was wrong and pretty much stupid. I have explained why, I will not anymore.


What a ridiculous analogy. Yelling fire in a movie theater is illegal, whereas asking questions to a senator no matter how benign it is, is NOT. Learn the difference dude. Don't compare them.



@Cloud

Because thats what just frickin' happened. I mean really, because I feel the guy was injustly taken away and feel his constitutional rights were violated, and you all disagree. I debate it, you debate it but turn it into something towards me. I back away and want to stop because we're drifting from the point, and i'm a fucking martyr? I'm not gonna be gang-banged by people because I think different than the majority. Spare me. And i'm not asking for a big wooden cross to hang myself on it, so don't make me out to be that.


ok:
= Thinking i'm just some inept fool, who can't interpet the words you say or anyone elses and have no say what so ever in this dicussion because of which. I find that insulting, but THAT'S me.

= Your sarcastic wording is insulting I feel.


However you're right...it has no relevance here, but i'm merely replying to your question towards me so don't take what I say to heart or try to debate ok?



Dude, he wasnt even uip there for five frickin' minutes how was he ranting???
Yea blowjob...its a vulgar word ok...but as Lewis Black said, ''we should be able to use adult words''. It's not like Kerry or any other person in that room hasnt heard that word before. I think they could handle that one word. Maybe that scenario was a setup for his real point before he was taken away?



*AHEM* "Probably not. I bet though it feels very painful" <--- Me. That implied I didn't know the feeling, but I was betting it feels very painful. So we pretty much established that dude.

Then I called whoever was 'lolzzz!!" over the fact he was being tasered, a masochist. Yet you say...something not even relevant to what I was talking about regarding my masochist comment...



I know the forum's mentality sometime. If someone said 'I'm leaving, later' during a debate, the other person will leave a comment like "Hah, good riddance loser" or something along those lines. It's predictable.


Ok, we're done. You can't use my words and flip it around to make it as I'm insulting people and making it personal, because i am not. Using your analogy, I haven't called anyone 'fuck boy' don't try and turn the table, not gonna work buddy.


Look, I can agree with you on the fact he was disruptive...disrespectful, maybe. What I don't agree with is the fact how he wasn't allowed to finish his questions because, and then arrested and tasered for it. I find that wrong, and that was my point. Like someone said earlier both parties are to blame, but I was merely saying how unfair it was for how he was being treated.

But you said you would sue because your rights and blah blah blah.

Just about the only thing that he could have any inkling of even suing on is the use of the taser (and that's not a strong case). There is no other case anywhere in the entire incident. Everything else is standard procedure. Whether or not you want to argue that it's unfair, well, whatever. But there is not a single matter of law that says they can't keep him from asking his questions and you keep insisting there is.

You aren't wrong because your opinion is wrong (necessarily), you are wrong because you are factually wrong.

That you don't understand the difference leads me to believe there is little hope of you doing much more in here than continuing to cry about how no one agrees with you and we all think you're stupid. (Which would be one thing you're actually correct on.)

Yelling fire in a theater is illegal because it disturbs the peace.
What he did was disturb the peace.

You argue that it only became an incident because the cops acted on his disturbing the peace, which is the same as saying that yelling "fire" isn't disturbing unless someone runs from the theater because of it.

('sup cognitive function)

True.

I can see i'm getting nowhere with you because you're a pompous twat, so we agree to disagree then.

I don't agree to disagree. I agree that, if anything, you are factually incorrect and have little to know idea what you are talking about.

The things I'm calling you out on are not subjective. I don't really give two fucks what your opinion is here. There is nothing to "agree" on.

1985? Jesus kid read more newspapers, you're too old to be actingly like a barely politically-aware preteen.

:highfive:

Quit making 1985 look bad >=[

First of all, someone enjoying someone else being hurt is a sadist, not a masochist. There, someone has pointed out yet another fact you have wrong. Secondly, you don't understand a goddamn thing about how freedom of speech works. He has every right to stand -outside- the building and scream about his idiotic conspiracy theories, but he doesn't have the right to disrupt a public discussion by forcing his way to the front of the line and refusing to step aside when asked. He was, in fact, disturbing the peace. And quite deliberately. You keep acting like this is a matter of opinion, when it is a matter of law. Read a fucking book or two before you decide to pull out your Che Guevara shirt and talk politics.

Anyone find it coincidental that the microphone is cut off and the cops rush in, like, 2 seconds after the kid mentions Kerry being in a secret society? I feel like Paul Walker in a crazy prep school... :erm:

And Deni, that kind of depends on who asked the kid to step aside doesn't it? It's not like I can yell out at someone to sit down and have the cops arrest them for me if they don't...unless everyone agrees with what I said. But in the video, half of the audience seems to just not care about the question until the point where he starts saying "No I will not sit down" or however he says it.
It's not clear at all who tells him to sit down (from the video--the only thing I've seen from this incident). It could be an audience member. Or was it later disclosed that it was an event staff member who told him to?

As I saw it on CNN, he was told by some moderator-type person to sit down and shut up (paraphrasing, obviously.) Though I'm not finding any good internet references to back that up.

It would be helpful if everyone read what actually happened or watched the unedited video.

Well I've seen two videos of footage regarding the event. And by judging from the videos, the guy was polite in the beginning, but as soon as he asked questions he got heated up, from the subject matter he was discussing, and that was when the officials and police got into it. Perhaps his alloted time expired yes, but he was getting to the point of his questions, when he was cut off, and taken away. I don't agree with that at all. Yes, I agree his time was alotted, but he was probably getting to his major point before being cut off. I feel that the police and the officials definitely could have handled that situation better, instead of taking him away. The only time I felt the student was wrong was when he resisted the arrest, that screwed him over. Either way, something needs to be done about this, because its just pathetic and ridiculous.

Yes!

We should repeal all laws regarding disturbing the peace!

Exactly! That is genius BlueMikey.

Creating a reaction among the audience doesn't mean he "disturbed the peace".

How is yelling and screaming NOT disturbing the peace?

He didn't really start yelling and screaming until they apprehended him. Thought crime, whoop-whoop.

The kid was looking for a reaction to begin with. He was not poking around with educated, intelligent questions, he was throwing around conspiracy theories and idiotic banter after he forced his way to the front of the line in the first place. Its no different than people putting on costumes and screaming during the Petraeus talks. Of course your ass is going to get dragged out, you only showed up to cause shit in the first place.

I really hate that 'yelling fire in a crowded room' anology. Coherently speaking your opinion in a political forum, no matter how ridiculous and off-base the opinion or how overzealous and loud-mouthed you are about it, does not put anyone in danger (aside from making everyone in the room a bit stupider by listening) and should NEVER be considered "disturbing the peace" or else we truly do live in a fascist police state.

However, this kid cut in line and was still too late to speak to Kerry, but because of his enthusiasm, was allowed to stand up and speak last anyway. I would have liked to see some random college student stand up and crack him in the face in the middle of his monologue rather than watch him get tackled by cops.

So you want to abolish breaching the peace laws that don't cause injury, but you're perfectly fine with people attacking each other.

Very logical.

No. It just would have been funny to see a douchebag get punched. In this context, he really was no longer speaking in a public forum. The forum was closed. He was out of line. I don't care who stops him.

The article said that he begged them not to use the taser, meaning that he would have probably stopped acting obnoxious and "disturbing the peace" ~ whatever, also meaning the should not have tazered him.

Kid should have been fucking tasered for calling someone "bro."

You know of course that him getting tasered validates his behavior, right?

Denicalis, I want to see some kind of proof that this guy actually forced his way to the front of the line. This "fact" comes from the same CNN that assumed the Virginia Tech shooter was a gamer, and said as much on live TV, despite having absolutely no proof. (there was, in fact, proof to the contrary, but they presented speculation and heresay as fact) I hope nobody can take issue with me distrusting a network known for such sensationalism. Also, I suspect that anything you've heard about this young man is colored by the personal opinions and beliefs of those who made the statements about him, and thus must be taken with many grains of salt.

It's not the job of police to follow orders. If, at any time, they feel their orders are unjust, it's their duty to refuse action. The law serves the people, not the other way around. If the laws fail to serve the people, then they are, by definition, unjust and/or useless. Some of the greatest atrocities are committed by folks who are "just doing their job", and while America isn't quite Nazi Germany or Burma, it doesn't mean that it's people are 100% free from oppression, nor does it mean that its governing body is healthy and functionally serving the people.

Democratic government's sole purpose is serving the people, through direct communication between the governing body and the people it serves. Through these public forums, presidential candidates learn what the people want, and the people learn where the candidates stand so they can cast an intelligent ballot. If the people cannot question authority or potential authority, if they are cut out of the decision-making process and denied the chance to make informed decisions, then democracy is either threatened or entirely non-existent. Democracy without debate is only an illusion of democracy.

Y'all keep talking about how this guy was disturbing the peace, but I wonder how you can actually justify that belief. Not one person was being hurt, not one person was getting anything other than what they went there to see: people asking questions of a politician.

I'm quite glad that he didn't go quietly, because this moment in history would've likely gone un-noticed by folks like us. The issue isn't that he got tased at all, really, but that he was forcibly removed from a public forum for asking questions that did not meet someone's approval. In a true democracy, John Kerry would have answered all of the questions, in order, and then moved on. He could give honest answers and help his campaign, or he could dance around the truth and look like a tool. Either way, the democratic process would have worked as it should. Cutting him off and dragging him out (taser or none) was a kick in the balls to the millions of American soldiers who've given their lives for liberty throughout history. Now, not only are you accepting the rape of the democracy that those before you worked so hard to build, you're laughing at the victims.

WTF?

Couldn't it be just as well argued that the police were serving the public by removing an unwanted person from the forum (not to mention that it's taking place on the campus and not some vague "public property," so I imagine they'd have their own rights as to determine what sort of behavior and acts should and shouldn't be allowed)?

True, but then you're violating the spirit of experimentation that colleges are supposed to facilitate, and that all ideas must be allowed a platform even if they are stupid as fuck ideas concerning Skull and Bones/Free Masons/Illuminati/12 Jew Bankers.

Yeah, I guess my school did host that black dude that was telling his audience the jews should be quaking in their seats because their time was up.

I think every school has its Free Speech Zone crazies, and if they don't well what the fuck is wrong with them? I went to a satellite college and we had a guy spreading the gospel that blacks are criminal animals that'll feel the sting of God's wrath.