FL Student Tasered After Asking John Kerry a Question
Andrew Meyer, a UF student from Weston, is tasered and taken away by police after asking John Kerry a question during a speech.
Kerry seems to want to answer his questions, but the police move in and tackle him to the ground, Kerry goes on to crack a joke while they taser him and the police later state that he was attempting to incite a riot.
Comments (47)
If we were a nation of citizens it would have been those jack booted thugs pressed against the floor by the crowd.
But we are a nation of subjects. Subjects to taxes, subject to foreign wars, subject to regulations, and subject to unlimited police power. Their power did not come from their tazers, but their uniforms.
Published: September 17, 2007 11:41 PM
This is exactly why we need private police
Published: September 18, 2007 12:25 AM
More importantly, police must be held accountable for their actions like any private citizen.
I go to UF, and from what I've heard elsewhere, the guy did force his way to the microphone once or twice. He probably needed to be thrown out (the audience did applaud the police), and wasn't exactly being cooperative about the whole process. It seemed like he was basically just showboating after the police got ahold of him.
Published: September 18, 2007 12:43 AM
He probably needed to be thrown out (the audience did applaud the police),
What was the crime he commited ?
Published: September 18, 2007 1:14 AM
The taser might have been the cop's idea of the lesser of the evils required to get him out of the forum (since a forced-exit might cause other injuries).
I don't think this was a very bad case of police brutality at all. Yeah they screwed up, but IMO the worst part is the fact that he was taken to jail for it. Thats a lot worse than getting tasered...
Published: September 18, 2007 2:10 AM
It looked to me like he was violating the rules of the meeting with regard to questions (asking several at a time in a fairly rhetorical way), and then refused to leave when asked to do so by the event's appointed security (who happened to be police officers). It's not as if they immediately tasered him and dragged him out.
Believe me, I probably have as low an opinion of the police as anyone here, but I don't have much of a problem with their actions here.
Published: September 18, 2007 2:16 AM
The video seems to show that John Kerry was willing to answer his questions, but the police intervened before he had a chance.
I don't see the security giving the questioner a chance to leave before they took him down.
Published: September 18, 2007 2:40 AM
If any of you fail to see the problem with the use of aggressive violence in this situation, then we are in very serious trouble.
Would any of you have felt that you had the right to tackle and tazer somebody in those circumstances? Take the cops and uniforms and badges out of the equation. Imagine that you are just sitting there, in your khaki shorts and t-shirt and flip-flops. Do you feel the need to go superhero and save people from harm? No? If you feel inhibited in getting violent, that's because you still have an instinctive sense of the boundaries of appropriate behavior.
Cops are bound by the very same rules. Cops are not empowered to do anything that you and I can't do. I know they are in today's police state, but their use of violence is not made legitimate by the mere presence of a uniform, badge and employment status.
If the event organizer had the rights of a property owner, then they could have simply turned off the mike and made it clear that he was being evicted. It was an event for the purpose of asking political questions at a microphone.
Published: September 18, 2007 6:03 AM
I'm honestly pretty surprised by a lot of the comments here so far. It is one thing to break the subset of rules in the way that Meyer did, but it is a wholly other thing to take a human being, taze him, bind his hands, and drag him off to incarceration for nothing more than asking a few questions. The two acts are hardly equivalent.
I went to an event a couple years ago at Loyola U Chicago where Ann Coulter came to speak (it was free and I figured it'd be fun to watch the folks at my school scream at her about "limited free speech"). She was indeed screamed at, cursed at, had water thrown at, interrupted constantly, et cetera; it was all rather disgusting, honestly. There were Chicago Police (but Loyola security took care of 99% of it while the CPD sat outside... for real) there, but when people were removed--even kicking, screaming people--they were simply removed from the event, and left to wander in the real world. They'd committed no crime, no matter how vile their actions, and they were thus evicted from the event into the real world.
Published: September 18, 2007 8:16 AM
George,
Pretend it was a privately owned building hosting a private question/answer session, with a privately-owned microphone and rules establishing how to ask a question (get in line, keep it brief, make it relevant to the topic at hand, etc). If you had someone who violated the rules and continued to do so after being told not to, isn't that person agressing on the organizer's private property rights? In which case, force may be used to subdue and remove the aggressor.
So what's different about this situation (other than the fact that the speaker is just another power-hungry socialist, and likely few in that audience have any appreciation for property rights)?
Published: September 18, 2007 8:21 AM
Frank, surely a degree of proportionality is mandated?
Published: September 18, 2007 8:25 AM
This PERSON/INDIVIDUAL/CITIZEN although annoying did absolutely nothing wrong and Kerry seemed interested in answering his questions, and Kerry was NOT AT ALL threatened. So this was a blatant case of police over-reaction ending in the use of a torture device to subdue the person.
The only saving grace here is that we can see first hand from personal video placed on the internet (THAT BOTH PARTIES WANT TO REGULATE) the horrible nature of a system that started as a mechanism to respect the individual gone wild.
BUT THE WORST PART IS:
Kerry AND the police supposedly work for the person they are torturing.
Published: September 18, 2007 8:30 AM
why didn't kerry attempt to intervene and restore order? where's the leadership? did he not want to embarrass the officers and organizers? seems like kerry missed an opportunity to show true leadership. he sat back and babbled something inaudible when he could have spoken up forcefully and, like a true leader, attempted to calm matters, including directing the officers to restrain themselves.
Published: September 18, 2007 8:45 AM
Pretend it was a privately owned building hosting a private question/answer session, with a privately-owned microphone and rules establishing how to ask a question (get in line, keep it brief, make it relevant to the topic at hand, etc). If you had someone who violated the rules and continued to do so after being told not to, isn't that person agressing on the organizer's private property rights? In which case, force may be used to subdue and remove the aggressor.
I don't have to pretend. I treat all property as though it is privately owned, because I do not subscribe to the idea of "publicly" owned property in the first place. Some organization (or person) owns that property, and thus has the full property rights to set the terms of use of persons on that property.
Fine. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this student violated the terms of use of that property, according to whoever had the right to establish those terms.
As an initial matter, it should be OBVIOUS to everyone that the manner in which this student violated the terms of use of the property was NOT a crime. He did not kill someone in the auditorium. He did not threaten anyone. He incited no riots. (The fact that they invented this silly charge on the spot as a pretext amply demonstrates that they KNEW they had no legitimate basis for an arrest. They might as well have said he was under arrest for jaywalking, and their bad intent would have been no more obvious.)
If he had committed a crime, then a forcible arrest would have been immediately justified, no warnings necessary. But that's not what happened. He merely spoke in a way that the premises owner didn't approve of. Fine. What is the legitimate way of dealing with an INVITEE who (for any reason or no reason) the owner decides he no longer wants on the property? He is required to make it clear to the invitee that the invitation to be on the property is revoked, and that IF he does not leave, THEN he is a trespasser.
That's the absolute MOST that this student could have been -- a trespasser. But he was only a trespasser after he was NOTIFIED that he was a trespasser. He must be given ample information that his invitation to be on the premises is revoked.
In this case, it was not at all clear that this student was given any such notice. That's what I meant when I said that this event was staged for the very purpose in which he was using it -- to ask highly-charged political questions at a microphone set up for that very purpose. It was not at all clear from the context of this event that he had violated the terms of use. He could have reasonably concluded that he was doing exactly what the event was set up to accomplish.
You do not have the right, even as a property owner, to kill someone who innocently wanders onto your property. There is no more vigorous defender of property rights than me, but there is no basis in any legitimate law for the use of violence against someone who obviously doesn't KNOW he is a trespasser (and doesn't pose a threat to anyone).
Let's say you invite a guest to your house for dinner. Your guest then proceeds to use the wrong fork for his salad. You have the absolute 100% unfettered right to eject that person from your house. Or, let's just say that you simply change your mind arbitrarily during the main course, and want your dinner guest to leave immediately, for no reason. You have that right.
At the instant you change your mind and want your guest to leave, he is a trespasser. But you do NOT have the right to tazer him and slap handcuffs on him simply because you have unilaterally decided that you want him to leave. You have to give him ample notice that he is no longer invited and that he WILL BE CONSIDERED a trespasser IF he does not leave immediately.
If that was the basis for this tazing and arrest, then that's what the cops would have said -- you are under arrest for trespassing. But they didn't. They came up with "inciting a riot." What a joke. If anyone deserves to go to jail, it's these cops.
Published: September 18, 2007 9:05 AM
There's a different video of this over on CNN. Although it does not show a complete, unbroken shot like this one does, it has much better video quality, and shows more of how the whole thing started. I encourage everyone to see both versions before making comment.
It doesn't look like this guy was tresspassing, or stormed in, or anything like that. He may have come under false pretenses, but that's a different story altogether. The beginning of his "question" was polite, referenced Kerry's speech, and didn't come off as a rabble rouser. Unfortunately, CNN's video has several edits, so I don't know what happened between the start of that, and the start of this video referenced here.
My guess is that Kerry's answers failed to please this guy, and that he failed to fawn on Kerry as other questioners did.
The core question is, whose property or person was threatened by this man, to invoke physical retaliation in so crude a fashion? This incident took place on public property, either in an open event, or else one that this guy had to pay to get in. Kerry was unthreatened, the audience was unthreatened.
I don't care if it was by government cops or private security -- there was absolutely no excuse for this. In fact, you might call this the dark side of spontaneous order. I'm certain Kerry didn't want this outcome; you can hear him quietly trying not to have a heart attack from the stage from trying to distance himself from the police action in as meek and mild a way as possible. (As an aside, if you ever want proof of Kerry's complete and utter lack of leadership skills, keep this video handy.)
Early this morning, I was watching this for the first time as my eldest daughter reported in for home school. Six years ago, the day before 9/11, I discovered I was going to become a parent with this child. I can't help thinking now, as I did then: what the hell kind of world have I brought her into? I'm trying to teach her to be bold and brave, to stand up for what is right and true. How can I do that, when this is what is waiting?
Published: September 18, 2007 9:27 AM
Well at least he'll make some money off this if he is smart; sue the cops for harrassment or civil rights abuse or something. Though I wonder how smart he could be if he's asking real questions to a modern politician, unless he enjoyed watching kerry squirm and avoid the question or lie to his face.
Published: September 18, 2007 11:27 AM
Frank S:
"If you had someone who violated the rules and continued to do so after being told not to, isn't that person agressing on the organizer's private property rights? In which case, force may be used to subdue and remove the aggressor."
You are despicable.
The owner of property does not unlimited powers to abuse and torture any person that enters his premise, particularly property that is open to the public!
Laws are a natural part of human existence. Its the State that creates the systematic lawlessness that we see in the video.
Perhaps I'll invite you over for tea, decide you are no longer welcome, throw you to the ground, tazer you, hand cuff you, then put you in a cage for objecting. Its my property, so you only have rights when I say you do.
Published: September 18, 2007 11:40 AM
I cannot help but be reminded of the opening chapter of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. The chapter, titled "Arrest," deals with what happens when the KGB makes an arrest. He notes that they were only able to get away with political arrests because the victim's neighbors would not come to his aid.
We are passing quickly from police state to prison state.
Published: September 18, 2007 2:11 PM
Disgusting events.
Published: September 18, 2007 3:24 PM
This video is more telling:
http://www.abc2news.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=5618@wmar.dayport.com
To me it looks like the cops meant to take the guy's arms and just lead him away, and the guy totally overreacted. Then the cops overreacted... and the results were obvious. The cops should have simply told the guy to leave before grabbing him (although they didn't seem to grab him too forcefully), but they didn't. The kid should have been calmer about the whole thing too, but he wasn't.
I see a guy who was being escorted out of a building by security, threw a fit about it, and the security forces overreacted. Yeah it shouldn't have happened, but to call this evidence of a "police state" is a serious exaggeration. It was bad policing, no doubt, but its a drop in the bucket compared to other instances of police brutality.
Published: September 18, 2007 4:20 PM
My thoughts exactly, G.
Published: September 18, 2007 4:53 PM
The issue here is the use of the taser.
A taser is only supposed to be used in situations where deadly force is necessary. Tasers were introduced to replace guns when possible. They are not supposed to be deployed under any other circumstance.
This is just one of many examples where police have used a taser in a situation where it is completely uncalled for. There have been numerous deaths attributed to tasers, mostly deployed in situations where deadly force was not necessary.
Police officers need to be held dearly responsible for using tasers in situations where deadly force is not necessary. This is an issue that needs to be taken very seriously.
Published: September 18, 2007 6:14 PM
I agree that Kerry could have seized this opportunity to exercise some leadership and calm both this mann and the police. He didn't. Whatever the man's behavior was, it wasn't harmful to anyone and the police had only to inform him of his "trespassing" status once they were asked to do so. At that point they could have aressted him for such and escorted him away. They failed to control the situation properly and "tazed" him unnecessarily.
Published: September 18, 2007 6:36 PM
If anything this was very unprofessional behaviour on part of the security forces.
Published: September 18, 2007 6:46 PM
To me it looks like the cops meant to take the guy's arms and just lead him away, and the guy totally overreacted.
They had no right to "take the guy's arms" in the first place. They were REQUIRED to instruct him to leave, and REQUIRED to give him an opportunity to do so voluntarily BEFORE they laid a violent hand on him. They didn't. That makes the cops aggressors. They assaulted him, pure and simple.
Defining a sharp distinction between aggressive and defensive violence is the central, all-important concept in all of law, freedom and the entire liberty movement. If you can't identify aggression here, then you probably can't identify it in the world of politics either.
Published: September 18, 2007 6:55 PM
Yes the cops were too aggressive and yes they screwed up. But assaulted him? Come on. They tried to take his arms to lead him away, and he freaked out. By his definition this may have been assault, but for the cops it was probably a perfectly natural thing to do. Notice how they don't grab a hold of him very forcefully at first, until they realize he isn't going to come quietly. They weren't expecting resistance (we all know what cops do when they expect resistance). The cops escalated the situation unnecessarily, then the kid escalated it even further.
I just can't see how the kid couldn't understand that he wasn't wanted on the property by the event managers. He pushed his way to the mic forcefully enough for a few cops to be standing next to him, and then ranted for a while. Its unfortunate and wrong that the kid wasn't warned before the cops grabbed him, but you can't say didn't know what he was doing. Its pretty clear he just wanted to make a scene.
Published: September 18, 2007 7:37 PM
Sorry, I forgot to mention that the only video I've seen which was filmed close to the kid doesn't really get the audio well. It could be that the cops did warn him and we can't hear it, or were talking to him while he was yelling. Even if the cops did warn him properly I'd still fault them for many reasons, but we really don't know enough from these videos to draw much in the way of conclusions.
I'd trust a jury to make the right decision.
Published: September 18, 2007 8:00 PM
To me it looks like the cops meant to take the guy's arms and just lead him away, and the guy totally overreacted.
They arrested him for asking questions, his supposed "overreaction" notwithstanding. The police proceeded to torture him with a taser because he would not submit. That is clear. I see evidence of nothing else except of armed, state-sponsored thugs violating that person's rights.
Published: September 19, 2007 12:47 AM
I do public speaking as part of my profession, and at many events there's at least one wanker (almost invariably male) who pretends to be asking a question but in fact is merely grabbing the spotlight (and microphone) as a pretext for boasting about his credentials, parading his personal opinions, airing his gripes ... almost anything except actually asking an honest question.
I've seen four separate videos of the UF taser incident: amazing how everything is now captured on video now, because everyone's got a camera. That idiot at UF wasn't really asking Kerry a question: he was trying to spread some propaganda from a discredited book, and trying to challenge Kerry as opposed to actually seeking information from Kerry.
The jerk was there to subvert the event to his own agenda. The police attempted to escort him out in a civil manner. Only when he resisted this did they taser him. That moron is lucky they didn't club him to death. Kerry, meantime, stood there with his thumb up his ... well, Kerry doesn't come out of this with any glory.
The police were absolutely justified in what they did, and I don't believe that this incident is in any way evidence of a 'police state' or totalitarianism or any such rubbish. We live in a democracy which offers legitimate forums for dissent. That jerk at UF didn't dissent in a legitimate manner.
Published: September 19, 2007 2:31 AM
Fergus,
What crime was committed?
Published: September 19, 2007 2:50 AM
The jerk was there to subvert the event to his own agenda.
Fine. So what? When that happens, what do you do?
Answer: You treat him as a trespasser.
How do you turn an invitee into a trespasser, you may ask?
You give him (1) clear instructions to leave the premises, and (2) allow him to leave voluntarily.
The law, for several centuries now, is that if you use physical force without doing BOTH of these things, then you are guilty of an assault.
The event organizers NEVER gave him a clear instruction to leave. They may have told him to stop with the inappropriate questions, but they NEVER instructed him to leave. There was no time. Kerry told him to ask his questions. He did up until they turned off his microphone (which they had every right to do). He spoke for about 1 more second before he realized he had no mic. Then he turned to face the cops, who then grabbed him by the arms WITHOUT GIVING HIM A CLEAR INSTRUCTION TO LEAVE THE PREMISES.
The police attempted to escort him out in a civil manner.
Wrong. A civil manner requires them to (1) tell him to leave, and (2) allow him the opportunity to leave on his own. Physical force is only justified if they do both of those things. They didn't. They therefore assaulted him.
Published: September 19, 2007 5:52 AM
What Crime did this student commit? Is this still America? Wake Up people - We are losing more and more of our civil liberties everyday. The young man had a right of freedom of speech! We do not have to agree with what the young man said but he had a right to say it. The Officers had a legal obligation to verbally give CLEAR instructions and give him an opportunity to leave on his own without incident first. Had they done
their jobs properly no excessive force would have been necessary. I'm sure Kerry is a big boy
who has had alot of uncomfortable questions thrown at him & since he said told the young manto ask his questions, So what was the problem?
Published: September 19, 2007 9:25 AM
One thing I might be missing...
Folks are saying that the cops should have given him a clear instruction to leave first. My question is, why should the cops have gotten involved at all? This was an open event. They had no more right to tell him to leave than he would have, telling them to leave.
Published: September 19, 2007 10:38 AM
I have assumed that the cops were acting as agents for whoever had the right to control access to the property. If so, then they had the right to eject anyone for any reason, or no reason. But, even if they had the right to eject him, they STILL had to eject him in the proper way -- by giving him instruction to leave and an opportunity to comply BEFORE grabbing him.
It's also entirely possible that they had no authority to control who was in the room, in which case that would be yet another basis for the cops' wrongdoing, since Meyer had obviously committed no crime at the point they grabbed him.
Published: September 19, 2007 11:25 AM
George Gaskell, I assume you are correct that the cops may not initiate aggression until they have informed this individual he is a trespasser, and given him the opportunity to comply voluntarily with vacating-so in this respect, the cops were in violation.
But nevertheless, the individual was implicitly "informed" he must vacate through the explicit actions of those attempting to eject him.
It seems like there might be wrongs on both sides: the violation you correctly pointed out above, IN ADDITION to a wrong committed by this individual by not complying when it was implicit in the property owners' actions that he is being asked to vacate.
I don't think the former violation precludes the possibility of the latter.
Published: September 19, 2007 5:37 PM
the individual was implicitly "informed" he must vacate through the explicit actions of those attempting to eject him.
Just like you are implicitly informed by a thug on a street that he doesn't want you to be on a "his" street when he tingles your ribs with a knifepoint.
Published: September 19, 2007 5:54 PM
It is clear that the police were justified in leading this guy off the premises. But does anyone truly believe that they were justified in using a taser?
Published: September 19, 2007 6:03 PM
"Just like you are implicitly informed by a thug on a street that he doesn't want you to be on a "his" street when he tingles your ribs with a knifepoint."--Averros
Not a consistent analogy: the street thug has no property rights to exercise, so this is aggression.
In the present instance, I assumed the controllers of the property were exercising their property right to evict a trespasser via their agents.
Just to reiterate, George Gaskell correctly pointed out said agents aggressed upon this individual by laying hands upon him without explanation. My point, however, is that this doesn't preclude this person's having to vacate since it was implicit via the agents' non-verbal actions that the individual is now being deemed a trespasser.
"It is clear that the police were justified in leading this guy off the premises. But does anyone truly believe that they were justified in using a taser?--Stephen Davis
No.
Published: September 19, 2007 6:59 PM
Just to amplify, Stephen Davis, no, the taser was not justified. These were incompetent goons who aggressed upon this individual-- albeit in the course of exercising a legitimate property right of the controllers of the property.
Published: September 19, 2007 7:08 PM
What I find interesting is the justification in some responses as to why someone wearing a uniform has right to suppress someone from asking a question which demands honesty? And then calling the person who asked a legitimate question which required honesty on the speakers part tresspassing. What I saw was a deliberate handling for anyone who asked truthful, tough questions. The handling would have been used for anyone who asked anything that demanded honesty or asked that the speaker address an issue which is pertinent to the voter, but not something the speaker would ever want to talk about fully to anyone in the public for what reason I do not know, the skull and bones is a secret. And I guess that is where it will remain. Why we allow people to become or run for president that are members of secret societies I will never understand, my vote is for someone who has no secret allegiances, no agenda to do the bidding of any secret society and is open and honest. look if you have secrets, secret allegiences then no matter who you are the person, in my opinion, should not be in office if you cannot answer tough questions and be genuine - its called leadership character and does not assume you are perfect. If we stop people from being able to ask a tough question even if we don't agree and then allow someone to be accosted and tasered for asking for an honest answer to a question many people have had for years, but have not had the courage to ask of the very people who wish to represent us, then what does that say about where were are headed as a society? if people cannot tolerate open dialogue even if we don't like what we hear sometimes. It seems that we are moving more toward a system that supports the abuse and suppression of free thought, where people begin to justify or rationalize the punsihment of student who wish to ask a question for which many others are afraid to ask of the supposed leaders of the world who direct society and how we respond to global situations. It seems that intolerance of man toward his fellows is increasing at a rampant rate. If we are engaged in a one sided conversation, where all one can inflow is what another says and if we ask questions we better walk on eggshells, then there is no debate, and no communication and what good is that? Toleration of one-another cannot exist at the end of a taser, gun or fear of incarceration or torture. It can only ensure that certain topics never be shed light on, and can only be used as a control mechanism or be used by people who are fed up with their fellow man. We live on an ever shrinking world, 6 billion and growing. It will be interesting to see if man survives, because long term survival will only occur in a free society where people can freely co-act for the betterment of mankind. It will be interesting to see what happens out of all of this.
Published: September 19, 2007 9:13 PM
Dan, your response strongly suggests you don't have an understanding of the concept of property rights as identified by the Austrian school. Do you realize the site you're on? While you're here, I think you would benefit from the enormous resources on that subject. In fact it's such an embarrassment of riches, I'm at a loss where you should start. Suggestions, anyone?
Published: September 19, 2007 9:44 PM
My point, however, is that this doesn't preclude this person's having to vacate since it was implicit via the agents' non-verbal actions that the individual is now being deemed a trespasser.
That is incorrect. The whole point of the instruct-first rule is that it is illegal to put their hands on him without such a verbal instruction. The restraint cannot be both (a) the physical means of removal AND (b) a substitute for a verbal instruction that, by its very nature, must precede the physical means of removal. That makes no sense.
Besides, Kerry appeared (to me, at least) to be in charge of the event, and mere seconds before the violence, he said, "I'll answer his question." At that moment, Meyer was still an invitee. After that statement, the cops clearly gave no verbal instruction that would overrule Kerry's statement such that it would let Meyer know he was required to leave and give him an opportunity to leave voluntarily. They just grabbed him.
Published: September 20, 2007 7:59 AM
I don't know which worries me more: the civil rights violation, or the fact that there are still people out there who take Kerry seriously. Using a taser on a loudmouth is excessive force. Better trained officers could have removed him without resorting to potentially dangerous means. A taser disrupts the nervous system, which, while in most cases harmless, could cause death in someone with a weak heart, or who used a pacemaker. There are a number of far safer manhandling techniques that could have been applied.
Published: September 20, 2007 8:25 AM
Here is how things should have happened:
1. The kid overstays his welcome at the microphone.
2. The moderator approaches him and tells him his time is up.
3. He ignores the warning, and continues to overstay his welcome.
4. The moderator approaches him and tells him that if he doesn't voluntarily step down and return to his seat that he will be asked to leave the premises.
5. The kid continues to ignore the warning, so the police are summoned to ask him to leave the premises.
6. The police approach the kid and ask him to leave the premises, and tell him that if he does not leave voluntarily that they will have to remove him from the premises.
7. He does not leave voluntarily, so two cops grab his arms and begin to escort him off the premises.
8. He resists, so four cops grab his arms and legs, carry him outside, and tell him that if he attempts to enter the premises again he will be arrested for trespassing.
Published: September 20, 2007 10:57 AM
Good points.
For sure, the goons botched the incident and aggressed upon this man
In the same way, if you're a guest in someone's home, and without warning the owner pulls you to the door trying to eject you, they have committed aggression which you have a right to resist.
But don't you still have to leave the premises? To me, it would be pretty clear a property owner pushing me out their front door meant I was no longer welcome. Would I have the the right to hold my ground on this person's property demanding an explanation saying "What did I do? What did I do?"
Published: September 20, 2007 5:26 PM
Yes, you do have to leave the premises. No matter what the reason, a property owner has the right to ask anyone to leave. Clearly this guy should have left the premises. The police would have been justified in telling him that if he refused to leave voluntarily that he would be arrested for trespassing, but as far as I understand the scenario this did not happen.
Published: September 20, 2007 6:34 PM
That idiot WANTED to be a martyr, so he deliberately provoked the police into manhandling him.
I've met a few abusive police officers, and sometimes I've been on the receiving end of their abuse, but in general I have a great deal of respect for police officers and the very difficult (and dangerous) job they do. To everyone here, I ask: d'you think YOU could do a police officer's job? You'd run out of patience very fast.
On top of all their other hazards, police are now up against a new phenomenon: suicide by cop. Every so often, some guy wants to kill himself but (for lack of nerve, or religious qualms, whatever) he can't bring himself to do the deed directly. So he creates a public disturbance, and then when the police arrive he deliberately provokes one of them into using deadly force. Most police officers are (surprise!) human beings, and it's very upsetting for them to kill someone, and then be required to deal with all the inquiries and so forth.
I don't believe that the idiot at U.F. wanted the police to kill him, but it's quite clear that he deliberately set out to provoke them. I shouldn't be surprised if his intention, all along, had been to contrive a juicy lawsuit with a fat settlement. And some scummy tort lawyer will collect one-third of it. (We REALLY need tort reform!)
On this discussion board, Daniel asked me: 'What crime was committed?'. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm reluctant to address this, but I'll have a go anyway. I suspect that, in strict interpretation of civil law, the guy had not committed a crime. Very likely, he studied the laws about civil disobedience beforehand, and was very careful to stay on that side of the line. But absolutely, he had decided in advance to be a grandstander and to provoke the police.
By the way, ask anyone who lives in Boston about John Kerry. That guy and his billionaire wife are notorious for treating 'the little people' (all the rest of us) with utter contempt. The Kerrys routinely jump the queue at public events, park illegally, pull every stunt they can get away with. Remember how Kerry occupies a quantum superposition by owning and driving a petrol-guzzling SUV but not actually owning it.
Getting back to that moron who got tasered (not 'tased', please). Upon re-watching the videos, it seems very clear to me that one of his agenda was to disseminate propaganda from that discredited book he was holding. He's some sort of a conspiracy theorist, and he was hoping that a few people in that audience would swallow his conspiracy, or at least help spread it.
Something we all should bear in mind about police, at least in the U.S.A.: if a police officer tells you 'Come here', you are legally entitled to say 'No' and walk away ... or just to walk away without saying anything, or to say 'No' without walking away. However, if a police officer says 'You are under arrest', then you are legally REQUIRED to co-operate. If you do not do so, you then commit the crime of resisting arrest. I am not endorsing these rules; I'm merely pointing out the facts which currently prevail, as explained to me by a U.S. lawyer who does pro-bono work for political protestors. Break the rules at your peril.
Published: September 21, 2007 2:59 AM