I never argued or concluded anything of the kind. You have misread and/or misinterpreted my remarks. In relation to this reply of yours, I have argued two main points:
(1) That the cops were instructed by the appropriate authority to remove Meyer right then and there, so waiting things out was not an option for them, and
(2) If, as I contend the evidence strongly suggests, Meyer went there in a planned “media event” to have himself video-taped fighting with the cops (and possibly even being tasered) over a staged faux-political confrontation, then Meyer would have never left or backed down until he got the fight he wanted.
In no way, shape, or form was any “pre-knowledge” of Meyer’s intent necessary!
All that had to happen for the events to unfold as they did (or worse) was for Meyer – and Meyer alone – to have gone there with the deliberate intention of provoking a fight with the cops and refusing to leave until he got what he was after.
Really, now, this is very, very simple. I don’t understand why you are having difficulty grasping my point.
Either your logic is deeply, deeply flawed, or you have not been able to comprehend my arguments. I suspect both may be the case.
Let me repeat the exact words that you are responding to, with additional emphasis: “If, as I contend, he went there specifically to get publicity from a pseudo-political fight with the cops, he would never have left until he got one! Nothing is more critically important in this case, except, perhaps, the fact that the proper authority instructed the cops to remove him and remove him right then.”
So your objections to those words such that “we dont know if he would have left, or how far he would have pushed it” are spectacularly illogical and irrelevant, if for no other reason than because I began that construct there and elsewhere with the word If. We cannot know for certain what his intent actually was, and we do not need to for my point to be valid. My arguments hold up perfectly well as written.
At best, you are replying to an argument I never advanced; you are attacking a straw man. Kindly desist.
You’re again being illogical or disingenuous or lack comprehension of my words and arguments. Here’s the full context:
Thus we see just how badly you’ve blundered with your logic again. You argued that Meyer would have backed down without police action if he felt he had “lost support of the crowd”. When I point out, correctly, and citing a participant, that he had lost the support of the crowd right from the start – which completely invalidated and refuted your argument – you illogically and irrelevantly respond here by saying that some people voiced disapproval of the cops’ actions later, long after he had lost the support of the crowd in the way you claimed would have stopped him without police intervention at all!
Do you really not see the deeply flawed logic of your arguments?
OK, now let’s look at the next example of your defective reasoning, which is doubly confused. I had written:
To which you replied in this post as follows:
That’s a rather byzantine scramble of illogical arguments, but this post is already too long, so I’ll skip trying to untangle it all. I’ll just point out two bits of bizarreness. (1) Meyer went there not to provoke the cops, but to bait and provoke the session overseer, who “fell for it, hook line and sinker”?? And (2), do you not realize that therein you’re arguing against yourself?
Asserting that we should never act on “maybes” isn’t reckless? Would you prefer foolhardy? Or irrational? Or heedless, harebrained, hasty, headlong, heedless, helter-skelter, ill-advised, or imprudent? I’ve got more adjectives if you wish me to continue trying to find the right word…
Forgive me if I choose to stop responding to your arguments…
Ambushed, thank you for kind and thoughtful words. I regret I am under time constraints.
I am very wary of the Good German defense. On the other hand, in morality, if not in law, we are judged by our intent, not by our results. (It is a sin to try to hurt someone unlawfully. It is not a sin to hurt someone while trying to help him.)
So it is wrong to do wrong just because someone tells you to do it. We are all moral creatures responsible for our own decisions.
There are so many things wrong with that statement I don’t know where to begin. If you don’t feel officers should carry guns that’s your opinion and has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Guns are not jewelry to be decided on when they go to work. The function of Law Enforcement Officer is not ambiguous. Their job is to enforce the law. As has been pointed repeatedly, they didn’t escalate anything. He did. He was told to leave and he didn’t. The school has every right to remove obnoxious people from their campus. Happens every day. He refused and was then arrested for trespass. There’s nothing ambiguous about that. He resisted arrest and they took him down. He continued to resist and they tasered him. Every step of the way he escalated it. He became a physical threat the moment he physically resisted arrest. There is no wiggle room to debate the arrest. NONE. “Don’t taze me Bro” was followed by continued physical resistance. H e said one thing but his actions said something else. His choice. Again, if you think the police are there to debate the arrest, that’s your opinion.
That’s exactly when they should have weapons. Life is not an episode of WWF where nobody gets hurt. If a person wants to deal with arrest on their terms (physically) that’s their choice. The police aren’t there to discuss his feelings on the matter of arrest. When confrontations get physical their job is to stop the event as quickly as possible with the minimum amount of injury before it gets out of hand. They were confronted by a loon who continued to act irrationally in a room full of people. The police did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do.
By your definition the police did the right thing. By tasering him they avoided a continued physical conflict which could have easily injured him. Nobody told the police to tase him. All they did was attempt to escort a trespasser out of the room.
At 2:27(by the countdown timer) from the first link in the OP, right after Meyer asks Kerry “Didn’t you want to be President?”, he says “I’m not even done yet, I have two more questions” Two more questions, one which dealt with Clinton’s impeachment and one about Skull and Bones. That’s three completely separate questions on three different subjects (by his own words), not a multi part question.
What the school and the law enforcement officers can’t do is determine that you are obnoxious based upon your speech. Remember, Kerry said that he could be an exception to the rule and ask his question after the “final” questioner. Kerry also said that he was asking some good questions and that he wanted to answer them.
The problems seemed to be that 1) He jumped line – which is unusual and 2) He went on and on and on – which is not unusual unless the audience is preselected.
The more unusual behavior jumping line was seemingly forgiven by Kerry. His refusal to edit his speaking annoyed the organizers who had his mic cut off. At this point, he has no amplification, but Sen. Kerry does.. It makes sense to me that if the police had stayed quiet, and Kerry had started speaking, the student would have calmed down.
What had he done at this point that was illegal? You are not supposed to be arrested for breaking forum rules, being inconsiderate or being an attention whore. And certainly no law should abridge your freedom of speech.
If at that point his behavior became disruptive, then the police would have cause for approaching him to remove him from the crowd.
From what I saw, his behavior did not become aggitated until they were upon him.
Martin Hyde: The university buildings may be public buildings, but they are managed by the university administration who sets up rules for their use and rules for the events that happen within them, they have the authority to eject people for violating said rules and to use university police to do so if they wish.
[/quote]
Public schools and universities, however, do not have the privilege of setting up just any rules they want to. They are an arm of the State. The laws for state schools are different from private schools. In the Bill of Rights where it says, “The State shall make no law…,” that means public schools too. Thus, the University of Florida shall make no law…
If I were one of those five policemen, I would be embarassed that we had to use a taser on a guy that all of us were already holding down. I mean, come on…
So, do you guys want teachers to have tasers when breaking up a fight at school? You don’t want them to risk getting hurt, do you?
Thank heavens we didn’t have them when I was teaching! But it will come to that if this attitude about authority continues to prevail.
Does anyone know of anything else that was scheduled on the program? Kerry’s speech was long and they were at the end of the question and answer session.
The hell they can’t. He was being rude to the people he cut in front of and he was rude to the Senator when he continually interrupted him. The goofball’s response to the Senator’s attempt at dialog was that he would ask questions when he was done informing people. At that point he had already asked the Senator a series of questions. He was a complete loon. … The school had every right to ask him to leave.
He wasn’t being tased for being a loon, he was tased because he engaged in a physical confrontation with police who were only leading him out the door. He kept screaming that he was being arrested when he wasn’t. All they were doing was removing a trespassing nutjob.
So, What’s your point? Kerry also made fun of him after the crowd cheered at his removal and he started getting physical with the police: “unfortunately he’s not available to swear me in as president”.
The problem is that he didn’t leave when he was invited to. .He showed no signs of calming dawn and wouldn’t let the Senator speak.
I don’t disagree with your blue point. I just think his intention is immaterial to judging their response. They don’t know his intention, they only know his actions. #1 is a good argument, #2 doesn’t factor in.
What I am saying is that armed officers of the law should not be the first line of defense in approaching every single disruption of a public event.
Oh, really? No room for debate? NONE? :dubious:
You prove too much. This is an argument for every single person to be armed all the time so that any potential public disruption of any kind can be immediately dealt with quickly. That’s not the kind of society I want to live in. I don’t want a society in which we are prophylactically protected from every blowhard, loon, or prankster by an OFFICER OF THE LAW.
A free, democratic society should have a greater tolerance for disruption in the form of speech. It hurts us less to have 30 minutes of our time wasted than to live in a society in which armed cops are ready to pounce on anyone who gets out of line.
I understand the point you’re trying to make. But this room had a US Senator in it and there were going to be police guarding him. That’s a given. IMO this guy wasn’t just rude, he acted crazy from the git-go. His behavior was observably disconnected from reality. He appeared to lack the ability to reason his situation. My suspicion was borne out as the situation progressed.
Again, I understand your point. Trading time for confrontation is a viable tactic. Police do this all the time and the option is probably part of their standard training. I don’t think it would have worked because of the student’s behavior. He appeared to want the confrontation.
You’re trying to add an argument that I will agree with to the situation. As stated above, I agree this is an option. But I’ve been at a protest rally where people got over excited and I would have preferred a little more interaction from the police. Had the situation gone south I would have seriously injured someone before taking injury myself.
While the moderator of the event could have let the kid ramble on, he chose to cut his tirade short. I think this was a good decision due to the close proximity to the Senator. By asking him to leave, the police were giving him a psychological sobriety test. The student failed miserably. His actions proved he was incapable of controlling himself.
This is something of a chicken vs egg discussion. On one hand there is a person who can’t control himself and on the other hand there is a catalyst that might push him over the edge. The logic in this situation is that it is better to flush out a crazy person BEFORE he does something that can’t be undone.