"student douchebaggery"  :lol:

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.

 

I gotta call nonsense on that.  He had the same time to speak as everyone else was alotted - does the first amendment require that he be given MORE time than others?  Hell, Kerry didn't have to take ANY questions!  But once the organizers decided that they would allow questions, they had to allow all questioners the same level of access, regardless of content.  Which they did.  Once he exceeded his time, and once, upon being asked to stop talking, he chose to create a disturbance, his right to be heard in that forum was done.  Nothing to do with content - he was creating a public disturbance.

 

And at that point, the only question is what the best method for quelling that disturbance was.  Is speaking with him, calming him down, and ending things that way the best course?  Well, it takes two to tango, and he wasn't in the mood to dance.  At that point, is arresting him the best course?  Well, you've gotta do something.  Is dragging him out bodily while he struggles and endangers himself, the officers, and bystanders the best policy?  Perhaps it would be.  Or perhaps using non-lethal force to subdue him in place and then removing him is the best course.  We can second-guess the officers all day, but I would imagine they probably followed the dictates of their training and the rules for subduing belligerent individuals here, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

 

^ See your point; I guess I just can't imagine a student going 45 secs. asking a very detailed question about the underfunding of American educational systems would have received the same treatment. It seemed like they chose to remove him right after his comments became a pointed criticism of Kerry not contesting the election. That to me indicates that the content of his speech might have been at least as large a reason for his ejection as was the length of his speech.

 

After seeing the Daily Show video, it appears to be even more excessive a use of force to me. He certainly did struggle, no question about it. But he was also being escorted out by FOUR law enforcement officials. It also appears he might have been face down and being placed into cuffs when he was tasered ... which again indicates to me that they tasered him because he was speaking out and creating a scene for the police officers and for Kerry more than because there was a chance they wouldn't be able to subdue him (since, for all intensive purposes, they had).

One's freedom of speech does not trump anyone else's; hence the time allotment. It was a full room, and Sen. Kerry is a busy man so the 3 minute time limit for questions is reasonable. Should we have let this joker have all afternoon for his rambling diatribes while the others wait? He is clearly a "look at me, pay attention to me" type jackass; not much unlike a 2 year old that throws a fit when he is not paid attention to. (MayDay's comments are right on BTW -- that would be a great topic for another thred to be started). He would have never left the mic on his own, he clearly thinks the rules do not apply to him.

 

Its not really a free speech issue anyway...did the cops need to tase him? Should he have went to jail? If your a snotty ass kid, you might get folks aggravated with you...shoot he was probably the kid in class who would raise his hand and tell the Prof he forgot to give the quiz!

The Police report ---

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/18/offense.report.072274.pdf

5'9" and 200 lbs? I can see why it took four officers to carry him out! He has all that energy to expend, he oughta hit a treadmill! :lol:

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.

 

I gotta call nonsense on that.  He had the same time to speak as everyone else was alotted - does the first amendment require that he be given MORE time than others?  Hell, Kerry didn't have to take ANY questions!  But once the organizers decided that they would allow questions, they had to allow all questioners the same level of access, regardless of content.  Which they did.  Once he exceeded his time, and once, upon being asked to stop talking, he chose to create a disturbance, his right to be heard in that forum was done.  Nothing to do with content - he was creating a public disturbance.

 

Yet Sen. Kerry attempted to answer the question. Guess campus security trumps a Senator in Florida.

 

And at that point, the only question is what the best method for quelling that disturbance was.  Is speaking with him, calming him down, and ending things that way the best course?  Well, it takes two to tango, and he wasn't in the mood to dance.  At that point, is arresting him the best course?  Well, you've gotta do something.  Is dragging him out bodily while he struggles and endangers himself, the officers, and bystanders the best policy?  Perhaps it would be.  Or perhaps using non-lethal force to subdue him in place and then removing him is the best course.  We can second-guess the officers all day, but I would imagine they probably followed the dictates of their training and the rules for subduing belligerent individuals here, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

 

Get ready to smile: http://www.google.com/search?q=taser-related+death&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

 

^ Florida leads the nation in the number of taser related deaths with more than 30. I think the number is around 220 nationwide.

I couldn't tell from the video shaking, but it seems like they tasered him too much. I think sending a shock of 50,000 volts is enough to paralyze someone for 5 minutes. I agree that it should only be used to physically control the person acting obnoxious. I was under the impressing he was physically resisting arrest. It's hard to tell from the video though.

I'm not saying the police made the right choices - in fact, you'll note I said I'm sure it could have been handled better.  But the fact that folks die from being tased does not change whether Florida law says that a taser is a non-lethal weapon.  As we well know in Cincinnati, choke-holds have proven fatal as well - that doesn't make them a lethal technique.

 

Did the police follow procedures?  I don't know, and could be convinced either way.  Are tasers too often fatal for police to be allowed to use them in situations of simple non-compliance?  I don't know, and could be convinced either way.  But to return to the question at hand - were this man's first amendment rights violated?  Absolutely not.

 

A person's right to free speech (or anything) ends where another's right begins. By continuing to speak after his allotted time, he was infringing on the rights of those who were waiting their turn. Basic social contract/1st amendment knowledge

I'm not saying the police made the right choices - in fact, you'll note I said I'm sure it could have been handled better.  But the fact that folks die from being tased does not change whether Florida law says that a taser is a non-lethal weapon.  As we well know in Cincinnati, choke-holds have proven fatal as well - that doesn't make them a lethal technique.

 

Did the police follow procedures?  I don't know, and could be convinced either way.  Are tasers too often fatal for police to be allowed to use them in situations of simple non-compliance?  I don't know, and could be convinced either way.  But to return to the question at hand - were this man's first amendment rights violated?  Absolutely not.

 

The right to speech trumps the right to peace and quiet; in the bigger picture of a free society, unfettered access to the former assures generous access to the latter.

 

If you can say with absolute certainty that this man's speech was not impinged upon, then I applaud you as a man of your convictions, RV.

A person's right to free speech (or anything) ends where another's right begins. By continuing to speak after his allotted time, he was infringing on the rights of those who were waiting their turn. Basic social contract/1st amendment knowledge

 

There is a huge difference between "speech" and "anything." Your right to fart ends at my nose. Your right to speak your mind does not end at my ears.

I never said anything about everyone else's right to peace and quiet. I was referring to their right to also SPEAK their mind. He was infringing upon everyone else's right to do so. That is why their are time limits on this stuff: so that everyone's right to speech is protected.

I've posted some commentary on other forums, but here is what I surmised happened --

1. He wanted the attention. By grabbing the microphone and interrupting another user from using their alloted time, he was only asking for trouble.

2. By running from the police, then forcefully resisting arrest, he was only asking for trouble.

3. By screaming for help, looking to start a riot, he was only asking for trouble.

4. By keeping his cool while being led out, only to go into a panic mode near the television cameras once outside, and then remain calm in jail, is saying you are an attention whore.

 

--

 

Police: Meyer calmer off camera

By ALICE WALLACE

Sun staff writer

 

University of Florida student Andrew Meyer reportedly told police "you didn't do anything wrong" during his ride to jail after he was Tasered and arrested during a campus forum with Sen. John Kerry on Monday afternoon.

 

A 12-page incident report was released by the University of Florida Police Department on Tuesday and gave accounts of the incident from the perspective of eight different officers who were present Monday afternoon.

Basically, here is the key: Don't gather all of your facts based on a YouTube video. Not poking this to anyone here, but at other forums I frequent, someone will post some text or a YouTube video from the Internet, then base their entire rationale around it. Everyone should take the time regardless, to find other sources to balance it out.

 

--

 

Students stunned -- and tired -- about Taser incident

 

GAINESVILLE, Florida (CNN)  -- It has been 48 hours since college student Andrew Meyer was stunned with a Taser during a forum with Sen. John Kerry, and some students are still in shock over what happened.

 

But other students at the University of Florida are already tired of hearing about it.

 

While about 350 students protested the incident Tuesday, the opinions on campus seem to be evenly divided over whether the officers acted properly.

I never said anything about everyone else's right to peace and quiet. I was referring to their right to also SPEAK their mind. He was infringing upon everyone else's right to do so. That is why their are time limits on this stuff: so that everyone's right to speech is protected.

 

Then the organizers needed a better plan to accomodate the rights of all to speak; I'm guessing the conversation chilled a bit after the tasing.

If you can say with absolute certainty that this man's speech was not impinged upon, then I applaud you as a man of your convictions, RV.

 

Start clappin', baby!

 

Wait: let me get my air horn and giant foam "Go RiverViewer!" hat!

I think these lines from the article posted above are pretty key.  The guy was clearly talking after the forum was over, as Kerry graciously allowed him to ask one last question.  He interrupted another speaker to do so.  He badgered the guest instead of asking a question as he was given special permission to do.  He then fled when they tried to escort him from the building.  When they caught him, he violently resisted the police.

 

"The incident report details the events leading up to Meyer's arrest, saying that Meyer was in line to ask a question of Sen. Kerry when it was decided that no more questions would be allowed during the forum.

 

Meyer continued down the aisle toward Kerry angrily, according to police, saying he wanted the senator to answer his question because he had been waiting for two hours.

 

Though Kerry directed that Meyer be allowed to ask his question, police report that Meyer did not ask any specific question and instead "badgered" the senator, asking why Kerry was not in support of impeaching President Bush when President Bill Clinton was impeached over a sexual act.

 

At that point, the officers on scene reported that an Accent director, Max Tyroler, turned off Meyer's microphone and asked police to escort him out of the auditorium, saying "he had said enough," according to Mallo's report."

 

Based on that, I don't see how he can be defended on grounds of Freedom of Speech.

 

Wait: let me get my air horn and giant foam "Go RiverViewer!" hat!

 

You mean you don't keep that right next to your desk?  Come on, I thought EVERYONE did!

 

It's not like this guy was tased for what he had to say, he was resisting arrest and got tased.  I don't see how this is even a first ammendment issue.  The guy was removed for going over his time (certainly there is no opposition to this, right?), and then when he was being arrested he resisted and was tased. 

Freedom of speech does not apply to private institutions or events. It has been clearly defined by the Bill of Rights that the freedom of speech only extends to public institutions or events, or at public gatherings. The Supreme Court has ruled that private venues or even places like shopping malls, are not considered public venues and are exempt from the 1st Amendment.

Ah well it's a good thing we design and utilize publc space as much as when we first started interpeting the bill of rights.

It was a private venue, not a public space.

Freedom of speech does not apply to private institutions or events. It has been clearly defined by the Bill of Rights that the freedom of speech only extends to public institutions or events, or at public gatherings. The Supreme Court has ruled that private venues or even places like shopping malls, are not considered public venues and are exempt from the 1st Amendment.

 

True: you hand over your rights the moment you enter the corporate space. That's bad enough.

 

But again: by so many definitions this was NOT a private event. UF receives public funds. Sen. Kerry is a public individual. The nature of the speech was public policy. He called on the man in question, and expressed a willingness to answer his concerns. 

 

I am disturbed by the readiness of many on this forum to side with the police on this one. The guy was a jackass, but as soon as we start deciding who has a voice and who doesn't based on personality, we've turned our system into a scarier version of American Idol.

 

I refuse to believe I'm the lone nut on this. Can I at least count on you Paula?

Taking Sides in a Tasing

September 19, 2007,  9:25 am

By Mike Nizza

 

Take it from Andrew Meyer, the University of Florida student hit with the Taser shot heard around the world via YouTube: Did the cops do anything wrong?

 

“I am not mad at you guys,” the police report [pdf] quoted him as saying in the ride to jail. “You didn’t do anything wrong, you were just trying to do your job.”

 

Does that mean that Mr. Meyer felt that he was simply doing his job as well? Friends of his told The Gainesville Sun that despite his reputation as a prankster and his apparent flair for self-promotion, exhibited on his personal Web site, TheAndrewMeyer.com, the dramatic exit from Senator John Kerry’s appearance on campus “was not any sort of publicity stunt.”

 

But one of the officers said that “his demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight,” shifting in a matter of minutes from the kicking-and-screaming coiner of the new catchphrase “Don’t Tase me, bro” to “laughing and being lighthearted.” Then, they say, he asked them whether the news media would be on hand when he arrived at the police station.

 

Moreover, one of the widely circulated videos of the incident was filmed with his own camera. As he pushed his way toward the microphone to put his questions to Senator Kerry, he handed his camera to Clarissa Jessup, a student he didn’t know, and asked her to record him.

 

Then, just as his diatribe was heating up, he turned to Ms. Jessup and said, “Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?,” according to the police report.

 

Mr. Meyer has been released from police custody and has yet to be formally charged with either resisting arrest or disturbing the peace. Two officers involved in the incident have been placed on leave pending an investigation of their conduct in the incident.

 

While the state attorney’s office tries to make up its mind what to do, Florida students and other Facebookers are continuing to debate whether Mr. Meyer’s rights were violated.

 

For an interesting discussion on whether he should’ve been ejected (it may have been his mention of a sexual act, not a secret society, that prompted the heave-ho) and whether what he did amounted to resisting arrest, check out this forum, which requires registration.

 

If nothing else, the episode left Senator Kerry looking aloof, a criticism lobbed at him regularly during the 2004 campaign. As the incident unfolded, he tried to use his microphone to lighten the mood, seemingly unaware of the seriousness of the situation. Later, he said that he had not been aware until afterward that the student had been shocked with a Taser.

 

And while even Mr. Meyer’s friends concede that he unraveled a bit during his on-mike, on-camera rant, the senator on the receiving end of the rant said he regretted “enormously” that “a good healthy discussion” was cut short.

^^ Well, college campuses are considered private venues for the most part, oddly enough. We had a Supreme Court case quite a few years ago that upheld public university's policies in creating "free speech zones," where anyone that would pre-register (30 minutes beforehand) could voice their opinion for an indeterminate length of time. There were several challenges to this, mainly along the lines of 1st Amendment rights. As a student at UK currently, that has a free speech zone, I am not allowed to publically voice my opinion in a "loud" manner elsewhere on campus without being arrested or given a citation. I surmise that is why the UofF event is being considered a private venue, as it was not considered a "free speech zone."

 

I don't agree with it, but that's just the rules.

 

I also don't agree 100% with the police officer's actions, but the kid was fleeing, resisting arrest, and had set the event up for a publicity stunt -- even handing the camera off -- HIS own camera -- for "evidence." He was even quite civil outside of the cameras.

Freedom of speech does not apply to private institutions or events. It has been clearly defined by the Bill of Rights that the freedom of speech only extends to public institutions or events, or at public gatherings. The Supreme Court has ruled that private venues or even places like shopping malls, are not considered public venues and are exempt from the 1st Amendment.

 

True: you hand over your rights the moment you enter the corporate space. That's bad enough.

 

But again: by so many definitions this was NOT a private event. UF receives public funds. Sen. Kerry is a public individual. The nature of the speech was public policy. He called on the man in question, and expressed a willingness to answer his concerns. 

 

I am disturbed by the readiness of many on this forum to side with the police on this one. The guy was a jackass, but as soon as we start deciding who has a voice and who doesn't based on personality, we've turned our system into a scarier version of American Idol.

 

I refuse to believe I'm the lone nut on this. Can I at least count on you Paula?

 

Again, how was he not given a voice? He was tased for resisting arrest, not for being annoying or what he said.  He was told to stop speaking because he asked more than one question and was over his time.

And was interrupting others and had cut off another student's question.

^^ Well, college campuses are considered private venues for the most part, oddly enough. We had a Supreme Court case quite a few years ago that upheld public university's policies in creating "free speech zones," where anyone that would pre-register (30 minutes beforehand) could voice their opinion for an indeterminate length of time. There were several challenges to this, mainly along the lines of 1st Amendment rights. As a student at UK currently, that has a free speech zone, I am not allowed to publically voice my opinion in a "loud" manner elsewhere on campus without being arrested or given a citation. I surmise that is why the UofF event is being considered a private venue, as it was not considered a "free speech zone."

 

I don't agree with it, but that's just the rules.

 

This should make any American's blood boil. We can't preach to anybody about freedom as long as free speech is suppressed ANYWHERE within our borders. I hope this shit makes it to the Supreme Court again. And again. And again, and if it ever stops, we're really in trouble.

I believe that it came about after the numerous protests regarding the Vietnam War at our campus at least. Ours was fairly violent and we had an arson fire that burned down an entire structure (home to the ROTC).

Freedom of speech does not apply to private institutions or events. It has been clearly defined by the Bill of Rights that the freedom of speech only extends to public institutions or events, or at public gatherings. The Supreme Court has ruled that private venues or even places like shopping malls, are not considered public venues and are exempt from the 1st Amendment.

 

True: you hand over your rights the moment you enter the corporate space. That's bad enough.

 

But again: by so many definitions this was NOT a private event. UF receives public funds. Sen. Kerry is a public individual. The nature of the speech was public policy. He called on the man in question, and expressed a willingness to answer his concerns. 

 

I am disturbed by the readiness of many on this forum to side with the police on this one. The guy was a jackass, but as soon as we start deciding who has a voice and who doesn't based on personality, we've turned our system into a scarier version of American Idol.

 

I refuse to believe I'm the lone nut on this. Can I at least count on you Paula?

 

Again, how was he not given a voice? He was tased for resisting arrest, not for being annoying or what he said.  He was told to stop speaking because he asked more than one question and was over his time.

 

Again with this "talking over his time" malarkey. Sen. Kerry TRIED TO ANSWER HIS QUESTION! I swear modern civics textbooks must be written by the Boy Scouts of America with a Foreward by the Marquis De Sade.

Again with this reasonable, content-neutral restrictions on public events...I personally am appalled that they restricted his ability to hold his own forums that he could address at length, to write books, give speeches, publish his thoughts on the internet and in newspapers.  Florida cops are jack-booted thugs, and this nation is going straight to hell.  Never been this bad, EVER - why, up until Bush became king, folks could create public disturbances at will, resist arrest, and that's what made America great, dadgumit!

 

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't......

 

 

Such dramatics!

They really do hate our freedom, don't they.

I still think this was an excessive use of force. I still think this was an infringement of his speech, as it seems that a trigger comment (whether about sex or secret societies or whatever) got him ejected, rather than the simple fact that he ran over.

 

Perhaps most disturbingly to me is that some of the media coverage (and perhaps some of the forumers) are arguing that it was justifiable because this student had a history of being a prankster and obviously wanted the media attention. First, I think we get into very murky grey water when we try to determine what someone's internal motivation is. Second, it's my understanding that the Supreme Court has only given one instance when motive reduces rights to freedom of speech ... commercial speech. Unless his primary purpose was selling a product or service for which he receives some sort of financial gain, motive shouldn't enter into the discussion. And even commercial speech still has some limited protections.

 

When Justice Holmes talked about the "marketplace of ideas", I don't think he meant the "marketplace of ideas, except when someone is an obvious camera hog" or the "marketplace of non-annoying ideas".

You must watch this.

 

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!