So about this Florida U student

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.

Originally Posted by Karasu

he asks thought provoking questions

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

Right.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Matt

But was he really disturbing the peace?

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

Quote:

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?

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?

Quote:

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? 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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Karasu

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

Which rights, I'm wondering?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Karasu

this entire debate now is "Everyone against Karasu because he's on the kid's side and thinks different like an individual".

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

Quote:

He wouldn't have been disruptive if he was able to ask his questions and get the answer from Kerry.

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.

Quote:

Bad form, gamingforce. Bad form

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Karasu

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.

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.)

Quote:

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.

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)

Quote:

i'm just some inept fool, who can't interpet the words you say

True.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Yes!

We should repeal all laws regarding disturbing the peace!

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?