By Stewart N. Thorpe of Citizen Press Revolution
Now, after viewing the video above, read this article: http://www.theledger.com/article/20070918/BREAKING/709180413
Notice how the first video's context differs from the accounts of "official" sources and the video they link to? They cut off what the student had to say before those moments. Why do you think they did so? Look at the mug shot they add to the article? What do you think corporate media is doing here?
Kerry makes a joke while police arrest a student, Andrew Meyer, for simply talking and attempting to communicate to a government representative (Kerry).
They make Kerry look like a hero but telling everybody to "cool down". This isn't heroic. Allowing the students to heat up and defend civil liberties is heroic. Allowing and aiding police arresting, detaining, and cutting off the a citizen from exercising a freedom is not heroic, its vile. Kerry, you wouldn't defend our liberties? Kerry could have said "leave the boy alone, he has done nothing wrong". No, he played it off like it was completely acceptable, even after Meyer was being tasered, for no good reason, and screaming and asking for people to help him.
Kerry did nothing but assist the police injustice and brutality. And now hundreds of students have a stark first-hand experience of being afraid to speak up and out against government. Thanks Kerry. What a fellow you are!
Andrew Meyer did NOTHING wrong.
Disrupting a public event? He was participating in a public event! But as soon as it became clear that this young man wanted to voice his opinions and educate people to better understand them, he became a problem. As soon as he didn't stand up and sit down without serious questioning or disagreement, as soon as it became clear that his speech became too critical and sharp, he was in trouble.
Should a citizen be charged with resisting arrest when the arrest is bogus? Don't you understand the Catch-22 going on here? The police are not going to be reprimanded. The freedom-hating police culture is not going to be questioned. It will be put down as an "unfortunate incident".
The government hates our freedoms. The government hates when people actually exercise their freedoms. And I can testify that this is not a singular incident of police misconduct, but is simply a case study of systematic police hostility against citizenry, especially citizenry that "step out of line" by exercising and embracing their freedoms to the tee.
Any police officer involved in the violation of anyone's civil liberties must lose their jobs. It is only with a severe punishment that police culture will respect liberty and freedom.
Police can arrest anyone for no reason at all, simply because they don't like what you are saying, the way you look, anything. "Charges" can be dropped, but the abuse of power cannot be retracted. If you do anything besides compromising your civil liberties, you can be arrested with no charges, charged with resisting a bogus arrest, charged with ambiguous charges like "disrupting a public event", and while you might get released, the damage against liberty is already done. Your so-called freedoms are only allowed with permission and must be relented for small matters like putting a senator in a tight spot.
Wake up, America!
If you are truly "patriotic" of liberty, then you have to stand against powers not abroad, but here, our government, the police, oversized corporations that buy out our politicians, and an all too ready compliant corporate media, which, for example, has done everything to slant and marginalize against this student without looking *completely* heartless.
I don't want Capt. Jeff Holcomb of the UPD to resign. They will simply replace him with another plug-head with the same attitude but different face. Lets teach him Capt. Jeff "Screw Liberty" Holcomb a lesson but demanding him to suspend for a long-term or terminate those police officers involved. Those that aren't suspended or terminated will have a strong lesson to share with the replacements.
If you write for your school's newspaper, make this an article an issue, help organize students against this and bring awareness of the sheer absurdity and terrorism of and by the modern police state.
If you are a student, contact your nearest SDS chapter to organize actions, support, etc against an obvious culture, not singular incident, of police brutality and hostility against civil liberties. Don't let the police or corporate media spin this to make Andrew Meyer appear as if he was being "disruptive". Pfh.
When criticizing, informing, and asking questions is "disruption", we can either start getting swastika tattoos or resist, push back, fight back, and give em' hell.
Demand major and the most severest of reparations for the UF's University Department of Police. Anything less is an insult to liberty. Nothing should be put above liberty and freedom. Those who do so do not deserve liberty or freedom.
Period.
Last thoughts:
The American government treats us as subjects instead of citizens. The American government must be reminded that we are the citizens and that the governence that they have over us is not their right, but a privilege. Neither political parties are responsive to the public or serve first and foremost the public interest.
They regard themselves as modern kings, queens, dukes, duchesses, barons, and baronesses.
They regard us as stupid cattle.
And they want us to feel like stupid cattle and regard each other as stupid cattle.
I refuse.
I absolutely refuse.
There is an old flag that flew during the American Revolution.
It was called the Gadsden flag.
It is time for the Gadsden Flag to be reborn.
Awake, encourage, inform, support, become involved, or initiate action with the newly reborn Students for a Democratic Society or similar organizations in your area:
http://www.studentsforademocraticsociety.org/chapter_roster.cgi
Andrew Meyer: an American citizen exercising his freedom of speech to criticize and ask questions of the government.
People, readers, let me ask you just one small thing. Give them just a little bit of hell.
http://www.police.ufl.edu/ -- (352) 293 1111
Demand that all police officers be given notices that their jobs are being terminated and/or suspended without pay for a year as soon as replacements are available. And if you happen to find yourself bored during the day, save this phone number and call them again. And again. Its the phone line that they give for complaints. I'm complaining. We'll complain together. Again. And again.
As for Kerry, write as many letters to the editor, blog entries, bulletin posts, comments, everything to expose Kerry for the co-opting slimeball that he is. Why didn't Kerry simply say: "Let him go. Let him leave." Instead he told the audience to cool down, not get involved, not stand up for someone's civil liberties being violated. He didn't criticize the police actions. he is just a-okay as is 95% of our elected Congress would do the same thing as Kerry.
America, stop and ask yourselves, where are we going? What is happening to us? And what are we going TO DO about it?
And what do we do when voting doesn't work to protect our freedoms?
I have done a follow-up that examines video footage evidence on a timeline scale that inarguably proves that police escalated it and seriously questions the police's version of what happened.
Eh, here's what happened:
He waited in line for a LONG time, the last one in line, while Kerry blathered on. It got ot be his turn and he was already irritable from waiting. He was told to keep it short because of the time.
He asked Kerry why he didn't contest the 2004 election results. He was actually a SUPPORTER of Kerry.
he basically snapped and the organizers of the whole thing asked for him to leave. When the police came, he refused. He started screaming and yelling and resisting arrest. (he was to be charged with a variant of 'disturbing the public' and, of course' resisting arrest')
He struggled and screamed at and against a bunch of cops, refusing to be taken out of there and refusing to comply with the cops orders. They told him to stop resisting or they'd taser him. He didn't. So they did.
We do have the right to a peaceful protest, but this guy wasn't protesting... he was a SUPPORTER of Kerry, cranky that he didn't get his 15 minutes of fame talking with Senator (and presidential candidate loser) Kerry... Then, as only a journalism student that he is could do, he believed that the police don't have any jurisdiction over him, so he resisted arrest.
When the cops tell you to do something.... you do it. That isn't 'police state' mentality or a loss of freedoms, that is submission to the authority set before you, as a part of this great and free Republic of the United States of America.
If you want to be able to buck the cops at will because you don't like when they impede on what you want to do, there are many central american countries that operate that way (of course, you have to bribe the cops to do so) . .. and their people keep running here to the nation lf law and order.
I am troubled by this piece of your logic: "When the cops tell you to do something.... you do it." That mentality is exactly how a police state starts. Police officers are just regular people too. They makes mistakes. A police officer has no more validation to grab someone than you or I.
As well you say, "When the police came, he refused. He started screaming and yelling and resisting arrest. "
You should have said, "When the police grabbed him and attempted to physically remove him by force, he refused." The police didn't merely come. How can you overlook that and merely say the "police came"?
At the very least these officers did a poor job and should have been better trained to handle the situation. This was a police failure and to call it anything else would be naive.
Nope, you're mostly wrong.
The police were called in and asked, by the people organizing the event (who have a right to eject people for causing a scene), to remove this kid who was making a scene of the fact that he, a journalism student, couldn't further question John Kerry (whom he apparently supports, as he asked Kerry why he didn't contest the 2004 election results).
The police came in and tried to escort him out of the room, but he started avoiding them, screaming and yelling, then more cops came in and tried to get a hold of him and take him out.
He continued to resist and struggle and fight against the cops.
So, they tasered him, after warning him a couple times that if he didn't stop they would taser him.
That is, pretty much, by the book and exactly how it is to be handled.... you start peacefully, then if they resist, you try to move them out, if they resist you bring in backup.... if they continue to resist and you and your backup can't get them out, you warn them that they could be tasered.
If they continue to fight and scream and resist.... you taser them.
That's why they have tasers..... otherwise the option would be to beat him with nightsticks or shoot him.
If this were a police state, they'd have done those two things.
You don't have the RIGHT to ignore the orders of an officer of the law.... sorry, it isn't there.
If you want to see a police state, go head over to Iran where people are arrested for not wearing the proper attire (not covering themselves enough if a female) . . .
Head to Cuba where if you say something bad against the government there, you get arrested.
Head to Africa, where you're just shot.
No, we have wide freedoms in this country, and we've become so spoiled that we don't even recognize it anymore.
actions have consequences. Resisting arrest is illegal. He wasn't tasered for making a scene with his little temper tantrum, he was tasered because he believed that he was above the law.
(whom he apparently supports, as he asked Kerry why he didn't contest the 2004 election results)
I don't get the logic there. Asking why the results weren't contested automatically makes one a Kerry supporter? I've known many who did not support Kerry at all who have posed the same question.
-----
~Fallon~
"Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something." Henry David Thoreau
-----
his two questions were "Why did you not contest the 2004 Election Results?" and "Why has there not been an Impeachment of President Bush?"
couple this with information coming out that he is a journalism major (and there are so few conservative journalism majors around). . .. conclusion: He is a supporter of John Kerry, somewhat upset that President Bush hasn't been impeached and somewhat upset that Kerry didn't fight for the presidency, and VERY upset that he had to wait in a long line to ask his questions.
Someone cuts his microphone and immediately the police grab him and arrest him; ridiculous. This is hardly how you react to a person who takes longer than their alloted time on the microphone at a question and answer event, not in a free society anyway. You should be ashamed for defending them.
As well, six police officers do not need to taser a man prone on the ground; this is clearly wrong.
Once again, facts are being skewed so that people can beat up on the police.
He was tasered for resisting arrest. He was not arrested for asking a question. he was arresting for resisting the police when he was being escorted out.
he was being escorted out because the organizers of the event wanted to kick him out for the scene he was making (prior to getting to the mic)
He was not 'laying prone' of his will, but was struggling and fighting against a bunch of cops who were trying to escort him out. (notice that it didn't start with a mob of cops.)
He felt as though the rules and laws don't apply to him. Turns out, they do.
Six police officers can't arrest a single individual resisting arrest? Give me a break. The police are trained in multiple ways to make an individual prone.
The organizers wanted him kicked out? Who exactly? Show me them. So, it is the organizers that determine who has the right to speak and who doesn't? There is not out article I have read that says this, maybe you have inside information or another article.
You got it backwards. He felt that the civil freedom to speak applied to him. That's why he resisted. He saw it as injustice. And somehow we are supposed to think it is morally superior to comply with injustice than to stand up and resist injustice?
The spirit that you possess isn't the spirit that the American revolutionaries possessed, but of the loyalists who complained, but felt that it was more wrong to do something about injustice and better to comply and obey, regardless of the price in freedom.
Citizen Press Revolution
we'll deal with them in order:
Six police officers can't arrest a single individual resisting arrest? Give me a break. The police are trained in multiple ways to make an individual prone.
Correct... it is very difficult for even half a dozen police officers to safely cuff a person who is screaming yelling struggling and resisting arrest. Don't believe me? try doing it.
The organizers wanted him kicked out? Who exactly? Show me them. So, it is the organizers that determine who has the right to speak and who doesn't? There is not out article I have read that says this, maybe you have inside information or another article.
Sorry, pretty common knowledge even in the early reports that the orginaizers asked for him to be removed. If you cannot find such information in the plethora of news articles, you won't bother to read or believe anything I link to.
You got it backwards. He felt that the civil freedom to speak applied to him. That's why he resisted. He saw it as injustice. And somehow we are supposed to think it is morally superior to comply with injustice than to stand up and resist injustice?
No, oddly enough, you don't have the right to fire off anything you want to say at any time. You do have the right to peacefully protest, but resisting arrest and struggling against cops isn't 'peaceful protest' . . . sorry. Also, when the organizers of an event want you removed, they have a right to have you removed as it is their event. Even though he is a journalism major, and one day will be a journalist, he is not above the law. (Journalists do not have 'extra rights' to say things, ask questions or be places that others cannot be.)
As it turns out, journalists can be ejected and arrested despite their screaming, yelling and whining. Journalists are not above any laws and if they resist arrest, they are in trouble.
You are quite naive. You obviously have never been on the other side of the fence. And only on the side of being unquestioning, blind, obedient, never criticizing sheep.
I have been to peaceful protests. I have seen people arrested and threatened with arrest for doing absolutely nothing illegal. The charges may get dropped, but that's not the point. The point is that your freedom is violated whether the charges are dropped or not dropped. And that the police have contempt for civil rights rather than respect for civil rights.
And if you actually WATCH the video, Andrew Meyer is interrupted after speaking for 27 seconds, a mere 27 seconds. Meyer says that Kerry has been speaking for two hours, that he can speak for two minutes. Meyer asks the initial question, states he has two more questions, and actually asks them both before the mic is cut. He actually has spoken and finished for speaking a complete 1 minute and 30 seconds. That is too long?
Despite that, you can hear him shrug, say thank you, and turn to go sit back down. Watch carefully. He wasn't yelling his questions or comments or making a disruption. Once the mic is cut, he has resigned himself to go sit back down -- until the police tried to arrest him. Then this where he starts yelling and asking what had he done wrong.
If the police had left him alone, no disturbing a public event would happen. No scene would happen.
The question is if speaking for 1 minute and 30 seconds warrant for "disturbing a public event". Especially because he did not yell or scream after his mic was cut? The whole resisting arrest is unimportant and ignores what he was originally being arrested for. You cannot be solely arrested for resisting arrest, something else comes first or should at least.
Blind obedience is not a virtue. Blind obedience has consequences. And freedom isn't one of them.
Citizen Press Revolution
The organizers of the event wanted him ejected, as is their right.
he resisted arrest.
You do not have a right to resist arrest.
See above.
Citizen Press Revolution
i'll bet the organizers hand picked the students to ask question that they scripted and when this guy started asking the real questions they had to censor him. "Poor Kerry, he is such a great guy for coming to our lowly campus, he should not be insulted with real questions. How unpatriotic!"
The point here no matter how you see the situation, Kerry was an impotent worm for not stopping the cruel campus rent-a-cops. He campaiges against war but voted for the war and continues to vote to fund the war. He has no spine and would make a perfect puppet president for the neo-con world order just like the present one.
Answer: Yes, Bush and Kerry are both members of the secret skull and bones
society.
Regardless of the fact that he wasn't face down on the ground. He was on the ground with several officers over top of him. There was no need to taser him. You haven't addressed why a taser was necessary. A mob of police officers can't subdue a rowdy event goer so they shock him into submission; that's sick man. It makes me sick that the police think the are justified to use this level of force in this situation. Read the news, overuse of tasers is a problem. There is a serious case here for "excessive force", and to think otherwise is just being biased and ignorant.
Again the police should use discretion, simply because the organizers wanted the man to leave doesn't mean the police have probable cause to arrest him.
He was charged with "disrupting a public event ", which is a felony. The man's intentions were to participate in the event, which is what he was doing. I'd be interested in reading the fine print for this "disrupting a public event " law.
This man hardly deserves a felony charge for taking too long on the mic and whatever else he allegedly did before getting to the mic. Since when is being rude a felony?
I have no desire to "beat up on police"; they protect us from criminals. This kid is not a criminal.
A Taser was necessary because, despite half a dozen cops trying to get him on his stomach and cuffed, he was still fighting and struggling against the cops.
Frankly, they use tasers because it was deemed too excessive to use firearms to shoot them when they resist arrest.
Now it is too excessive ot use tasers. What do you suggest, spitballs?
How about if you just come clean and admit that you think that cops are bad guys and we'd just be better off if we didn't have them?
You probably complain when you get a speeding ticket too.
How long was he on the ground? Time it; not long. Hardly long enough to consider a taser. He posed no physical threat or danger to the event goers and posed very little threat to the police officers.
"Frankly, they use tasers because it was deemed too excessive to use firearms to shoot them when they resist arrest." Again an insight into your thought processes. Even bringing up the use of firearms in this discussion is strange to me. Again he posed no threat to the event goers and very little threat to the police. The idea of a firearm being used in this situation is ludicrous.
I am not an anarchist; we need cops and I appreciate them when they do a good job. Oh, and of course I complain when I get a speeding ticket. ;) That's just me being human, but I plead guilty cause I know I deserved it.
Police started using tasers because beating someone with a club or shooting them were deemed too excessive.
And, he WAS presenting himself as a threat to the police when he was resisting arrest.
You don't have a right to resist arrest.
Such a threat that he was flailing and screaming for help. Bogus. Legalism != Truth.
Plus you can notice that when he resists, he raise his arms high above his head which is a statement that he isn't going to attack or that he isn't threatening. He simply wants to know what he has done wrong. Perhaps it was asking questions that was threatening?
Blind obedience is not a virtue. Blind obedience has consequences. And freedom isn't one of them. :-)
Citizen Press Revolution
Simply because the Crow laws in the south were the law, would you be saying that anyone who broke those laws do not have the right to break those laws?
You have the choice to do anything you want. You have consequences. You can err either on the side of blind obedience or err on the side of integrity and standing up for what you believe is right.
Blind obedience hates freedom. Blind obedience hates thinking. Blind obedience hates morality. Blind obedience hates liberty. Blind obedience hates questioning. Blind obedience hates ethics.
Blind obedience is not a virtue.
Blind obedience has consequences.
And freedom isn't one of them.
Citizen Press Revolution
Nice attempt to make me look racist.
You do not have the right to resist arrest.
Resisting arrest is not akin to the civil rights movement.
Notice, it was the Southern DEMOCRAT that opposed the civil rights movement.
Where do you get that he's trying to make you look racist?
Again, quit beating the, "You do not have the right to resist arrest."
We understand it is illegal to resist arrest. We are not referring to legal rights. Are you not understanding this? Are you really that thick skulled?
Actually:
"Defense to resisting arrest
A common defense to resisting arrest is that the officer acted with excessive force. While an arrestee is expected to comply with an officer's reasonable actions to affect an arrest, the arrestee is allowed to defend himself from unreasonable, excessive force used by the officer. "
You sometimes do have the legal right to resist arrest.
And regardless, ethical and moral rights are higher than legal rights. The legal system is not the apex of human morality and wisdom -- far, far, far from it.
Citizen Press Revolution
As well, I just watched the video of him outside of the auditorium. He keeps asking the police why he is being arrested and none of them answer him. This is a clue to me that the UPD may have just found something to charge him with after he was arrested and tasered.
It sounds like you've worked in law enforcement, so I'm suspecting that you're biased. You have to give some ground in this discussion when you obviously need to. Your other comments make you seem like you're just angry cause people are ragging on cops.
As well it the video shows a single police officer clearly carrying him all by himself. It also shows several police standing there watching. It also shows several eye witnesses telling the police to stop and saying "police brutality".
They weren't protecting anyone from this kid. Who or what were they protecting that required them to do what they did?
Nope, I have never served as a policeman or ever worked for law enforcement. Closest I ever got was to be a security guard locking doors at a small christian college.
your suspicions are wrong.
the video shows a single police officer carrying him out until he starts to yell and scream and struggle. Then others come in. That's how they are allowed to do things.
as far as 'making up charges' . . .. are you serious? he was ejected from the event by the organizers. No crime there unless the organizers press charges.
However, the kid then resisted arrest and fought the police. That IS a crime.
You do not have the right to resist arrest.
The broken record of "You do not have the right to resist arrest." is getting old.
As well, your remarks on Cuba, Iran, and Africa are no excuse. Yeah it's a lot worse other places. Thank god I'm in America; that's still no reason to let injustice go unprotested. If anything the fact that it's so bad in other parts of the World is a reason to be louder.
So don't paint me in your mind as ungrateful. I recognize my freedom plain as day, which is why I get angry when I see things like this taser incident. No one is going to take my freedom away from me.
Again, you don't have a freedom to resist arrest or fight against police trying to escort you out.
What about the rights of the people assembling the event? Why are their rights taking a back seat to someone's temper tantrum?
Actions have Consequences.
Their right to assembly weren't violated. Meyer's questions did not prevent them or disperse their assembly. Bad logic.
The Catch-22, Orwellian police state:
Obey. If we are violating your freedom and you do not obey us, you are in the wrong. You have freedom, but we have freedom to arrest you exercising it with no charges or drummed up charges and hold you for 24 hours. And if you dare resist being arrested for no previous reason while we arrest you exercising your freedom, then you are guilty of the charge of resisting arrest and deserve to have your freedom violated.
In this case, the illegal arrest of him taking extra time on the mic resulted in him resisting what he saw has an unlawful arrest, and that resisting becomes a drummed up charge of "disrupting a public event" despite that it was the police's actions which caused the disruption of the event. They could have given him two more minutes. Whoopee doo. Hardly worth manhandling, violating a citizen's opportunity for freedom of speech, tasering, and arrest.
Think.
Please, think.
Your type of expressed thinking means that the police are free to arrest anyone for anything and free to disrupt and prevent the full exercise of freedoms. And that somehow, disobeying a police order is morally worse than violating a person's freedom and unlawful arrest that suddenly becomes lawful when the person recognizes that it is an unlawful arrest and takes action accordingly.
Blind obedience destroys the spirit of freedom and liberties that supposedly we have soldiers die for abroad while we violate them, disrespect them, and discard them domestically.
Blind obedience has consequences.
And it isn't freedom.
Citizen Press Revolution
He didn't have a right to go on his rant, so they wanted him ejected.
He resisted arrest.
End of story.
you cannot resist arrest.
end of story.
Speaking for 1 minute and 30 seconds is a rant? Asking all three questions he stated he would ask is a rant?
Snicker.
You can resist arrest.
You can sometimes legally resist arrest in cases of excessive and unprovoked force.
You also can choose to follow a higher law, one of morality, conscious, and ethics, and that may lead you to resist arrest.
The legal system is not the climax of human wisdom or morality, far, far, far, far from it.
Citizen Press Revolution
"Again, you don't have a freedom to resist arrest or fight against police trying to escort you out."
If it is unjustified, yes I do. It's an unalienable right given to us by God himself. I don't need you or the government to recognize it, but I have it none the less.
And if it came down to it, I'd hope my peers judging me would see the injustice.
No, even if unjustified, you do not have a right to resist arrest.
you have a right to due process, a right to sue for injuries (physical or otherwise) that stem from the wrongful arrest, but you do NOT have the right to resist arrest.
you are so wrong that it appears to be borderline wilful.
I was not referring to a legal right my good man, but an ethical right. See my other response as well.
You don't have 'ethical rights.' . . . you have legal rights. All of our rights guarenteed in the Constitution and the Court of Law are based on legal rights. They may draw from ethics (specifically Christian Ethics), but they are legal in nature. "Ethical Rights" to resist arrest exist as much as a giant spaghetti monster. Saying it exists doesn't mean that it exists.
You do not have a right to resist arrest.
Didn't Christ storm Herod's Temple? Didn't he break the law?
You don't think there was or ever will be a case were the right thing to do is resist arrest?
What is a right? It's just an idea, it's not something you can hold; it's not tangible. A right is spiritual, ethical, legal, moral, and societal. It's can be one or many of these.
What is a legal right, what is a human right, and what is an ethical right don't always match, and I think it is more important to follow what is a human or ethical right than what is necessary a legal right. It was illegal to assist slaves escaping from their masters. If we had slavery still inside the United States, someone broke this law, would you be arguing that regardless if it was ethical or moral or following one's conscience, that person broke the law and that those actions have consequences?
You like to regurgitate one-liners. Here it is again for you:
Blind obedience is not a virtue. Blind obedience has consequences. And freedom isn't one of them.
Citizen Press Revolution
Someone gives you a gift.
Now, if you do not use that gift, but put away where it is out of sight, does that mean you appreciate that gift?
Now, if you use that gift regularly, proud of it, polish it, fix it, amend it, protect it from wear, tear, and damage, does that mean you appreciate that gift?
If you criticize government and police for violating the (limited) gift of freedom that we possess, that shows the greatest appreciation for that gift.
If you allow and refuse to criticize the government and police to violate these freedoms we are supposed to possess, that shows you didn't really care much about them in the first place.
Citizen Press Revolution
Nope, and you're wrong.
You do not have a right to resist arrest.
I sort of feel that I need to cut that out and save it in my computer's clipboard so that I can save myself some typing.
You have a right to speak against your government and not get shot. The kid was a Kerry Suppoter and wanted to know that Kerry didn't contest the 2004 election and why President Bush was not impeached.
However, he was told that time was short due to how long Kerry went on with his speech, and this kid was at the end of a line for questions. He felt that he (the journalism major) was more important than anything else and demanded that his questions be answered anyway. The organizers wanted him removed for not abiding by THEIR rules as the organizers of the event.
he Resisted Arrest.
you can't do that. I can't do that. No One can do that.
You cannot Resist Arrest.
End of story.
Don't you mean it is illegal to resist arrest? You can do it all you want; there is nothing stopping you. Your wording gives insight into your mentality. You can resist arrest; I can resist arrest; anyone can resist arrest.
As another note in some states it is only illegal to resist legal arrests. And sometimes if the arrest is found to not have probable cause the resisting arrest charges are dropped.
Very true, the charges are dropped if the arrest was found to be unlawful... not because of a 'right' to resist arrest, but because the arrest was found unlawful.
That doesn't give you a right to resist arrest.
You don't have a right to resist arrest.
There are higher laws and moral standards that I support for people resisting arrest. Everybody has a moral right to resist arrest -- this may mean they are charged and sentenced for it, but that doesn't mean that they don't have a moral right to resist arrest if they feel it unjust.
There are consequences, but those consequences shouldn't be treated as if they are one of the ten commandments written infallibly by God himself. Do you live by moral standards and integrity or simply obey everything you are told to do?
Blind obedience isn't a virtue.
Citizen Press Revolution
How is this conservative logic?
Otherwise very good post.
So, when a government officials blathers on for two hours inanely and a citizen who is obviously passionate and concerned wants a bit of time to express himself, it is justifiable for police to detain him, cut off his mike, taser him, and arrest him?
What is wrong with you??
Citizen Press Revolution
Heh.
He wasn't tased for his temper tantrum at not getting to ask his questions of John Kerry.
His mike wasn't cut off because he was wanting to ask John Kerry questions.
He was having a temper tantrum over having to limit himself due to time. The rules were set by the organizers of the event. Their Event, Their Rules.
They wanted him ejected so they asked for him to be escorted out. He resisted and started yelling and screaming and jumping around trying to get away from the police. He started to struggle against them and resisted their actions and orders. This is against the law, so he is now to be put under arrest for disturbing the peace and resisting the order of a policeman. But, it doesn't stop there....
He continues to resist arrest and is fighting against the cops, and it takes 6 to hold the guy down. (you try to hold someone down who is hopped up on the adrenaline of a temper tantrum)... They warn him to stop and to come with them, he refuses and resists.
They tell him that he has to stop resisting and come with them or they will tase him. He refuses and resists.
They tase him.
What is wrong with you for suggesting that the POLICE are the 'bad guys' when this kid is the arrogant kid that is breaking multiple laws? Why is it ok to rail against the cops, but cheer on a kid that is disturbing the public, resisting a police order and resisting arrest?
The police tasering someone is what disturbed the public more than anything Meyer could have done.
What is the big deal about letting him speak? He was the last one in line. He had been waiting a long time.
So, Meyer wants a couple extra minutes, the police start grabbing at him, Meyer felt that the right to speak applied to him, and he had been waiting an awful long time. Somehow, it is more wrong that Meyer wanted a couple extra minutes? What is the big deal of giving Meyer a couple extra minutes? No one else was behind him!
Meyer is obviously passionate about governance and democracy. This is an individual who likely prizes the freedom of speech specifically. And he sees cops trying to detain him while he is exercising that freedom. He asks multiple times "what did I do? what did I do wrong?"
He wanted to know why he was being detained by police.
At circa 2:17 of the video on this blog, you can hear Meyer saying "thank you" and turning as if to leave. The police then attempt to detain him. Watch it.
Meyer had only spoken for 1m38 sec up to that point. That's it. A minute and a half.
After asking Kerry if he really wanted to be president, Meyer stated he had two more questions, why not impeach, and if Kerry belonged to the college club called Skulls and Crossbones. He had asked them. He says thank you and starts to leave. Turns. Police then attempt to detain him. He had ended his questioning.
Rethink your prejudice and assumptions.
Citizen Press Revolution
your anti police rhetoric is realy tiring. The sad part is that it is also widespread.
the organizers of the event have the right to eject people as they see fit. They wanted him gone and asked the police to remove him.
He resisted Arrest.
You can't resist arrest.
Your blind obedience it really boring.
You can resist arrest. Its called civil disobedience. The law is not the standard to measure morality. One's conscious should be more valued than the letter of the law. NO social change in history has existed without civil disobedience accompanying it. This is not planned civil disobedience, of course, but he resisted because he felt that he had done no wrong. Most people would allow themselves to be arrested. He didn't.
You ignore the argument. And regurgitate blind obedience.
Citizen Press Revolution
IS this America or another third world nation such as Pakistan?
(i am from Pakistan therefore I know this type of thing is common occurence there)
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
Notice that everyone here is upset at the police for doing their job as requested by the organizers of the event.
Why is no one racing to condemn the organizers of the event?
You're right here. People should be asking why the event organizers brought the police in in the first place.
that free speech is about forcing your views upon people and refusing to allow others to speak.
I think today's version of free speech is shameful. When a popular conservative wanted to speak on my campus, people blocked the entrance and tried to shout his presentation down. This is NOT free speech.
The free speech that every should know is one where everyone has the right to speak. You may give your rebuttal IF given the chance.
You do NOT make a scene, and you do not resist arrest in the name of speech.
I don't see the parallel between your example and this event. However, I agree it's a shame that some groups of protesters are very naive.
"The free speech that every should know is one where everyone has the right to speak. You may give your rebuttal IF given the chance." Agree.
"You do NOT make a scene, and you do not resist arrest in the name of speech.", Our founding father's are turning over in their graves. Strongly disagree.
""You do NOT make a scene, and you do not resist arrest in the name of speech.", Our founding father's are turning over in their graves. Strongly disagree""
I think that's a mistake. The founding fathers believed in law and order.
If you want a parallel, take a look at Ghandi. He freely assembled, but they always cooperated with police, even when they were beaten.
Look at MLK, Jr. He asked his supporters to always cooperate with the authorities. You may sit in a white-only section, but when police come to arrest you, you cooperate,.
The only people who I see thinks free speech is about violence is the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, the KKK. etc. These are not what I want to represent free speech. Free speech is about speaking your mind, especially about injustices. It is not about breaking the law.