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.