Video:

 

http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=157250

 

 

You Tube:

 

[youtube=425,350]iqAVvlyVbag

I'm sorry - having attended so many public forums where during Q&A, some dipsh!t (perfect example above) either 1. goes waaay over their allotted time,  or 2. fails to follow a simple format set up to give everyone an equal chance, or 3. blathers on about some wacko nutjob conspiracy manifesto for an hour before asking their question... sorry, I think they did the right thing. Not to mention he just wouldn't shut the f#ck up - if he wasn't so annoying, I'd probably feel pity for his ordeal (mind you, I've only had half of my coffee this morning).

 

Folks, follow the Q&A format appropriately and when throttled to the ground by police, just put a sock in it!

So being annoying justifies getting tasered?

As annoying as he was, absolutely.

^  :laugh:

Seems like the cops definitely went overboard on this one. If the video had included the entire sequence of events, then maybe we'd better understand the situation.

^ the first post has a video link of the entire event.

 

*EDIT* Yes, we don't see what was said from the time he got up to speak. I'm not sure it matters though.

I don't see it that way... I mean, remember that scene in Airplane where the woman just flips the f#ck out ("I've gotta get out here, I've gotta get outta here!!!!) and she gets progressively worse as people try to calm her down? I mean, even a nun would want to belt the kid a good one so he'd shut the h#ll up!

If he would have just ask a simple question instead of acting a fool, he wouldn't have been in that situation. He didn't give kerry a chance to answer.

Well if the cops can use a tasar on this guy, then I think tasars would be justified at many block club meetings in Ohio City.

Maybe going off topic a bit, but remember this?

 

Police review policy after Tasers used on kids

Officers defend nonlethal use of force

Monday, November 15, 2004 Posted: 8:43 AM EST (1343 GMT)

 

This first-grader, who CNN is not naming, was shot with a Taser at school.

 

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Miami-Dade County Police are reviewing their policy on using Tasers after officers stunned two children with the weapons in the past few weeks.

 

 

Florida cops must like using tasers, haha

 

Now if we could just teach these darn civilians how to use a voting machine...

 

You voted for who?!  zap...  zap...

"Well if the cops can use a tasar on this guy, then I think tasars would be justified at many block club meetings in Ohio City."

 

And Tremont as well - and again, if someone meets the criteria (blathering their looney manifesto before getting to the point, going waaay over time limits, etc.), I think tasering is fully justified. That or the bar of soap in a tube sock bludgeoning (aka Full Metal Jacket).

 

Sorry folks - this is what happens when parents decide that little Johnny should be allowed to always express himself - whenever, wherever, and for however f#cking long. This is clearly the result of mousy-@ssed "permissive" parenting. Had Mom/Dad/Guardian pulled him aside at age 3 and smacked him upside the head, or disciplined him when he started running around screaming like a maniac, ruining my dinner/shopping experience/whathaveyou, he wouldn't have had 50K volts in his system now would he? Had Mom/Dad/Guardian fully ingrained the idea of respect (aka don't annoy the f#ck out of other people in the world), he would have asked a question - even an uncomfortable/probing one, Kerry would have answered or evaded and everyone would have gone home happy. Yes, Mom/Dad/Guardian, you SHOULD yank the leash every now and then!  :whip:

You're nuts.

I take it it's your first time conversing with MayDay?

Only took 446 posts!

At least I'm a nutjob who knows there are certain times in life where it's best to shut the h#ll up (despite what my partner might say)!  :-)

 

"Only took 446 posts!"

 

You're right... I'm definitely losing my touch if it took that long!  :-D

 

There are laws against creating public disturbances, and for failure to obey, etc.  The government cannot detain you for the content of your speech (outside of certain specific exceptions, like "fighting words"), but for your behavior?  Absolutely.

 

When a police officer gives you a reasonable order, don't become beligerent and try to fight him off, and you are EXTREMELY unlikely to be tasored.  And if you are, you just won the civil suit lottery.

 

I'm going to have to agree with MayDay and RV. The guy wouldn't calm down and leave orderly. He was resisting arrest. It seemed from the video that the only way the cops were able to calm him/get him to shut up was to be tasered.

If you ask me, the dude didn't get beat enough as a kid. Otherwise he wouldnt be so whiney, over-dramatic and throwing tantrums. His parents should be tasered too, for bad parenting.

Taser 'em all, I say!!!

 

Taser 'em all, I say!!!

 

 

MayDay for prosecuter

do you mean persecuter....

Its a matter of respect.  Its become typical in that you can't have an intelligent conversation, discussion, or debate with anyone who differs from you.

 

Now of course, Mayday would have all the small children tasered whether they are irritating or not.  HMMMMMM, he might have an idea there!!!  Sort of like the invisible fence.....just a slight correction!  He might be on to something!!!!    :clap:

I saw this on Hardball tonight and I have to wonder if this guys screams were just a tad melodramatic.

 

"Dont Taze Me Bro"... is it going to be a new catch phrase for awhile?

 

 

What's up with the guy who took that footage?  Just because someone is an amateur they can't keep the camera pointed in anything resembling a constant direction?

 

Anyway, the little sh*t got what he deserved.  He didn't get tased for his speech, or even for failing to shut up, he got tased for physically resisting arrest.

 

"Dont Taze Me Bro"... is it going to be a new catch phrase for awhile?

 

lol- I hope so.

If the police hadn't Tasered him, I would have. And I doubt I would have waited as long as they had. Why?

 

1. He has the right to free speech. But he isn't the only one who has that right. The spoiled twit was monopolizing the meeting and preventing others from having their chance at speaking.

 

2. When he was asked to sit down, he ignored them and kept going as if he was the only person who mattered. The police were correct in telling him to shut up and sit down or leave.

 

3. When he refused their order, as he was now creating a public disturbance, the police were authorized under the law to arrest him and physically remove him.

 

4. When he resisted their attempt to arrest him, the police are allowed to use all non-deadly force to subdue him. That includes a Taser, pepper spray, nightstick, spit hood or hobble (a plastic strip to tie legs together). I have read numerous police reports during my 13 years at Sun Newspapers where officers have used any and all of these tools to subdue people who refused their orders.

 

5. If you do not like these approaches, then change the law. Until the law is changed, police will continue to enforce it as it is currently written. So if the young man in Florida doesn't like what was done to subdue him, then he needs to write his legislators to get the law changed. Until then, either honor the law or risk being taken into police custody. It's that simple.

No, I think he needs to learn "the idea of respect (aka don't annoy the f#ck out of other people in the world)". :-D

They said on TV last night that this guy posts a lot of his antics on a website, and may have been planning to get some publicity with a stunt.  He probably didn't intend to get tazed though.

"In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way" - John Kerry

 

GAINESVILLE - A University of Florida student from Weston who has a history of taping his own practical jokes was Tasered by campus police and arrested after loudly and repeatedly trying to ask U.S. Sen. John Kerry questions during a campus forum.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/sfl-918tasered,0,1869563.story?track=rss

This was so clearly a stunt.

 

Nontheless, it's always disturbing to me when people applaud a man being silenced.

You say silenced as if he wasn't allowed to speak his mind or his opinions.  He was silenced for being rude and obnoxious, and clearly causing a disturbance.  People were applauding the effort by the police, just as a stadium full of people applaud as the police catch up to the streaker!!

He just needs to learn how to be succinct :)

You say silenced as if he wasn't allowed to speak his mind or his opinions.  He was silenced for being rude and obnoxious, and clearly causing a disturbance.  People were applauding the effort by the police, just as a stadium full of people applaud as the police catch up to the streaker!!

 

People applaud a streaker because he's entertaining. The speaker drew cheers because his speech made the other attendees nervous. Was he overly emphatic? Perhaps. But while the speaker's behavior may have been "rude" or "obnoxious," it was, above all else, protected. Tolerating only certain manners of speech is dangerous. The first amendment doesn't have a 3-minute rule.

The first amendment doesn't guarantee a mike and unlimited time at a privately sponsored forum.  He was certainly allowed to have the floor to speak within his three minutes, and after that to continue saying whatever he wants outside of the forum.  Again, he wasn't tasered and arrested for anything he said.  He was tasered and arrested for physically resisting arrest.

UF is a public institution. The speaker was a U.S. Senator. The issues being discussed were of a public nature. The speaker had a constitutional right to be heard, and he was forcibly denied this right. All of this trumps arbitrary time limits and the whim or charge of campus security.

 

Yes: the guy was irritating, I can't dispute that. Honestly, if I were Sen. Kerry, I would've said "Let me answer your first concern now, and then once all others have spoken, I'll answer the rest." This is how it's done in public hearings across the land, and it works. Shame on Sen. Kerry for not thinking more quickly on his feet, and shame of the organizers for not implementing a very basic public comment policy.

 

When all is said and done (and tasered), when we appoint the police as arbiters of free speech, we've set foot on a path that's hard to turn back from.

^thats ridiculous.  even at a public forum, there are rules to follow.  Even congress follows Roberts Rules of Order.  He had no constitutional right to speak.  What if he hadn't been called on?  Did he have the right to just stand up and start speaking?

 

Where do you guys come up with this crap?

UF is a public institution, but that doesn't mean that their facilities are open for any user to use in any way they see fit.  You can't walk into a UF classroom and say "I'm a member of the public, therefore I have a right to be here" and sit down.  You can't register for a class and then talk over the professor the entire time.  When you are on UF campus property, you have to abide by UF code of conduct.  If this guy had asked his question and then allowed the speaker to answer, he would have gotten an answer.  Instead he decided to blather over the speaker with a near nonsensical diatribe. 

 

I'm not a First Amendment lawyer, but as I understand it he has no constitutional right to speak at this particular event, at this particular venue, at this particular time.  Participation is a privilege.  He can rant all he wants on the street corner, on the public square, on an internet blog, or on Bill O'Reilly if Bill O'Reilly so decides, but if UF decides to turn off the microphone on him, then tough luck.

^thats ridiculous.  even at a public forum, there are rules to follow.  Even congress follows Roberts Rules of Order.  He had no constitutional right to speak.  What if he hadn't been called on?  Did he have the right to just stand up and start speaking?

 

Where do you guys come up with this crap?

 

Yes there are rules. Try extra hard to read and understand what I wrote about public comment periods.

 

Not speaking for any other guys, this guy came up with this crap after participating in my government; at times giving comment as a citizen, and at others, receiving comment as a chairperson.

 

As for where your crap came from, truth be told, I'm not terribly curious.

 

...I'm not a First Amendment lawyer, but as I understand it he has no constitutional right to speak at this particular event, at this particular venue, at this particular time.  Participation is a privilege.

 

Gonna have to agree to disagree about speech being a privilege. But when push comes to shove, I promise never to sic my goons on you. Well, not unless you really have it coming.

 

Yes there are rules. Try extra hard to read and understand what I wrote about public comment periods.

 

Not speaking for any other guys, this guy came up with this crap after participating in my government; at times giving comment as a citizen, and at others, receiving comment as a chairperson.

 

 

A bit full of self importance aren't you?  Oooo, a chairperson!  Local 4H club?  I don't need to try extra hard, I just happen to disagree with you.

 

 

City official. But I hope to work my way up to 4H someday. Thanks for your interest and encouragement.

^At least that explains your being out of touch!!  :wink:

Didn't say "speech" is a privilege.  I said participation in this event was.  With your experience, I'm sure you know "public comment period" is different than a q&a session at a forum that is open to the public.

 

Yes there are rules. Try extra hard to read and understand what I wrote about public comment periods.

 

Not speaking for any other guys, this guy came up with this crap after participating in my government; at times giving comment as a citizen, and at others, receiving comment as a chairperson.

 

 

A bit full of self importance aren't you?  Oooo, a chairperson!  Local 4H club?

 

Dude, please stop being such a dick.

 

KOOW - the government is perfectly allowed to set reasonable rules on the parameters of free speech at various times and places, as long as those rules are content neutral.  And things like public disturbances - say, for instance, shouting a rant during a public meeting after your microphone has been cut off?  That's definitely a content-neutral rule.

 

Could it have been handled better?  I'm sure.  But once the cops show up to take you into custody, they will take you into custody - the method and manner is wholly up to you.

 

^It's what happens when the cops start showing up that bothers me. There are reasonable rules for speech, but these were not well-played at this event. These cops seemed loaded for bear. The speaker didn't help his case, but he wasn't the danger to public safety proportionate to the police response

 

X, this was not a shareholders meeting or a prayer service; this was a very public figure speaking in a very public forum. The organizers need to be ready to reasonably accomodate the needs and rights of participants in the public comment session. They failed at this.

 

The question posed in this thread was "Freedom of speech?"

 

My answer will ALWAYS be: "Yes."

 

^At least that explains your being out of touch!!  :wink:

 

Thanks for yet another precious zinger. You are a fine American, DanB.

I have to agree with KOOW here. Without doubt, this guy was annoying ... but that's why I'm not equipped with a taser; a whole lotta people would be getting shocked. We empower police, on the other hand, with such weapons with the expectation that their training will lead them to cool and dispassionate service, resorting to the use of weapons only when absolutely necessary. To me, the response from the police did not seem commensurate with any threat he might have posed to the audience or to the officers.

 

And while the university is arguably a semi-private forum, they have specifically chosen to provide a venue in which students and others had an opportunity to ask questions of an elected official. When they provide such a forum, they should uphold the rights of individuals to express what they want. And in this circumstance, I can't help but think that not only was he removed because he was creating a disturbance but that he was also saying things that might be embarrassing to Kerry and therefore to university officials. Barring him inciting a riot, using threatening language, etc., it seems like a more appropriate action would be to shut off his mike. And even if you're going to forceably remove him, unless he's posing a very real danger to the officers, I don't know that struggling by itself warrants shocking someone ... I'm inclined to believe that two officers could get a WASP-y little twerp out of a building even if he was struggling. 

 

 

The problem is that the cops are acting like a private security firm and not like public servants. This guy was threatening no one and posed no danger. If the meeting organizers didn't like that he was taking up too much time, they should've handled it themselves.

 

Whatever happened to being run out on a rail? Can we bring that back? Sure beats getting tasered.

 

Tasers should be used to subdue dangerous persons, not just those who are getting on your nerves or won't obey a direct order.

Just to lighten things up here a bit:

 

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=23786&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml%3Fsource%3DSEO_SSP_Y%26intcmp%3DSEO_SSP_Y%26extcmp%3DSEO_SSP_Y&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

To paraphrase a well-known sentiment, "I may disagree with your douchebaggery, but I will defend to the death your right to douche, uh, bagify."