Were the actions security at the UF Kerry Forum (sept. 18, 07) justified?

Great Debates
1

Hello, yeah, I may seem like I’m not serious from my user name, but it’s only an inside joke, I really want an intelligent debate.

So, WERE the UF police actions in this forum justified? That’s the question. In my opinion, no, but I want to hear your opinions, especially the other side.

Here’s my account of the incident, tell me if it’s a fair account or if it’s missing something.

Alright, so, the first the first thing involving the victim (name: Andrew Meyer, 21), was that he yelled across the room to get his question asked. The campus officials ordered the kid to be grabbed, nearly got arrested, but Kerry intervined, and let him ask the question. So Kerry answered another guy’s question (unimportant to the incident), then Andrew Meyer went up the mic. First, he went talked about a book which he used to outline his question, called Armed Madhouse, which he talks about the reports of election fraud in the '04 election for about 35 seconds. He was then interrupted by the police, who wanted him to stop talking, which took approximately 10 seconds for the interuptions to cease and him going back to his question. He went on about 50 seconds more with these questions. He first asked Kerry why he didn’t try to win back the election when the fraud reports were going around, then why he didn’t try to impeach Bush later on, then if he’s in skull in bones. His mic was cut off just before he finnished the skull and bones question by order of the campus officials. Right after he realized his mic was cut off is where the incident happened.

He was first is grabbed by two policemen (also by order of the campus official). “That’s okay, let me answer his question” Kerry said but the escorting still continued as Kerry answered his whole question. Meyer’s reaction is that he yells and tries to get out of the police’s grasp (but note, he never tries to hurt the police). As the two officers start to lose grip, two more join. Then Meyer escapes and tries to run away, but allof them dogpile him and two more officers join to make it a 6 to 1 battle. Then he tries to resist, but then the police warns him of the taser. He saysm “I’ll walk out of here”. They took no notice and tried to keep him still. He continued resisting, so he got tased. From hearing the video, it sounded like they pushed the button twice, meaning they tased him twice, pain lasted approximately 8 seconds. Then he was sent out.

Please state your opinions or insight on anything to do with this issue.

2

There have been a couple of threads on this already. Might want to check them out.

3

The guy was a total jackass. Literally every time the police asked him to leave, he wouldn’t, until they tried to arrest him and he resisted. Someone struggling against arrest has got to expect to get tased. They tased him, handcuffed him, and then escorted him out. I’d say the police were pretty subdued, actually.

4

The thing with tasering controversy… I think it’s a conflict between the two ideas “tasering isn’t really violence” and “violence is bad.”

A lot of people need to start thinking of tasering as like punching someone in the face or beating them with a club. I have a feeling the police wouldn’t have inlficted physiacl voilence on that guy.

A lot of people also need to understand that violence isn’t that bad. Bruises heal just fine, feeling pain is no big deal, and that it’s not something to avoid at all costs.
It’s funny you brought this incident up, because there was another that happened more recently where a man in Canada died after being tasered repeatedly for not much reason.

The real danger in violence is not the violence itself, it’s the fact that it’s so easy to inflict it. There have to be costs that the punisher endures to balance his judgement. At the very fn least, if the police were forced to do paperwork for every time they taser someone, they wouldn’t just run around doing it for fun.

Ok, and the last thing I’d like to say: as Colbert pointed out, wtf was up with all the other people in the audience, including Kerry himself, who just sat by doing nothing, not even reacting. It says a lot about our society, and about Kerry, the floppy wet towel.

5

Link re Canadian taser-inflicted death:

6

Yes. As Mosier pointed out, the guy was acting like an idiot, resisting arrest, and begging for something like that to happen so he could get the attention (IMHO).

Since you say “no”, you will fit in well here. Welcome! :slight_smile:

7

Well, if freaking and and throwing furniture around in the secure area of an airport counts as not much reason, anyway.

8

Alright, I get your point, but Alex (and everyone else that’s reading this), tasing is not the issue I meant to bring up in this thread, though yes, violence isn’t bad But only when there’s justification to the violent act and if it was the right amount of violence to counter the crime or whatever.

The issue I meant to brought up is if what the police in the Meyer situation did was justified or not and not whether tasers should be permitted or not, though I do think tasers are overall a plus but only when used in the right voltage at the right time; there have been arguably cases where police have abused tasers and people have died from it. As fr ths one, I don’t think any sort of escorting was the right action period and the police tased the guy twice, which would be marks down on the police.

9

The police were cleared of the incident.

Now asking if it was justified…That may be a tad subjective.

I feel that they were perfectly justified. John Kerry is an important person in government. If some moron starts talking about conspiracy theories in the middle of an otherwise mundane speech, and then refuses to chill out- Well, if I were John, I would want him taken down as well. YMMV.

10

Alright, from reading the comments above I see that people think the justifications are his resistance and that he tried to do it intentionally to get attention.

Yes yes, I can see he resisted, I think I know what Meyer did as you can see from the account of the incident. But here’s the thing, if you can’t tell me what he did wrong exactly and how it violates American principles, than his resistance would be justified because w/o justification of the police for their aggression, Meyer is entitled to self defense meaning he can do what was necessary to get out of being grabbed, and npte he didn’t try to unnecessarily hurt the police. It’s not as simple as him resisting the police and concluding he should be arrested.

Second, there’s absolutely no evidence that he did this to get attention. This claim is based on Meyer excerpts with their context completely taken out. And how in the world can he predict the attention he’ll get, for all he would know, it would barely just make the paper like a thousand other incidents, but just by chance, it got a lot of coverage (which is why I made this into a thread in the first place). So arguably, you cannot say this is an “attention getting” “stunt”, at least not without more evidence.

11

It was very justified. At the least he was disrupting a school function, which is a crime in the state of Florida. At most, he created a present threat to a US Senator by attempting to instigate a riot.

Anywhere on this spectrum, the police were justified in arresting him because he committed a misdemeanor in their presence. His resistance in the face of their legal arrest was also a crime – namely resisting arrest. BTW, the Supreme Court says that the police may use ANY REASONABLE FORCE, judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, to effect an arrest. They are not ever required to use the minimum force possible.

Finally, he is also a total douchebag, because he deprived others, who were obeying the rules of the forum, the chance to speak.

You might be interested in the report which cleared the officers. It has many additional details.
http://www.wftv.com/download/2007/1024/14414374.pdf

12

Also, according to this news report, they did have evidence that this was intended as an “attention getting stunt.”

The report details a campus incident involving Meyer on Sept. 11, a week before the Kerry event, that investigators state shed light on the student’s “mindset.” During the Sept. 11 incident, a groundskeeper reported seeing Meyer argue on campus with supporters of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s presidential bid. The groundskeeper told investigators he heard Meyer tell a friend “if he liked what he had seen … that he should go to the Kerry speech and he would really see a show.”

13

Ok, sorry. About this case in particular:
It was TOTALLY uncalled for the security guards to restrain this man’s freedom of speech when Kerry, the person being addressed, did not mind it and in fact asked the guards to let the man continue. The guards were in no position to do what they did.

14

Unless someone says “hey, everybody, let’s riot,” he’s not attempting to instigating a riot. I don’t know how that law gets interpreted in real life, but I would be enormously upset if it’s used so recklessly.

In fact, every single law of the sort “causes unrest,” “disturbs the peace,” “has the potential to do something,” should really be reworded to simply say “does something we don’t like.” It’s a catchall that serves to throw out the rule of law for minor crimes. Anything can be charged under them. Now there is certainly reason for the judicial system to have some leeway to declare anything it wants as a small crime, even if there’s no law for it (if the judges do their part and act responsibly). But don’t fn think for a second that just because you can charge an action under such a law, you are justified in calling it a crime.

15

Being, you know, AGAINST THE LAW is, in fact, what makes something a crime. In fact, it is the only thing that CAN make something a crime.

16

Yes yes, I hate conspiracy theorists too, but they’re Americans just like us and they’re entitled to ask their questions. Yeah, maybe he was a little loud, but he was still asking questions, conspiracy theorist or not, I thought some of what he asked was pretty good. Even if you or Kerry don’t like what he asked, doesn’t mean ut should be dismissed. As long as they are questions that are forum related and are possible to answer should be permitted.

17

And how is what Meyer asked lawbreaking? come on, he just asked questions, he’s entitled to that.

18

Kerry wanted him to continue speaking, actually.

And no. It still wan’t justified, for no other reason than being a jackass where people were trying to have a serious conversation.
It was thread shitting of the highest order. The Real World: Straight Dope

19

Reallized it was cleared, but that doesn’t change my mind. Sorry, but I’d really like to be persuaded that it was justified and not just the courts to decide on one thing. Guess I’m just stubborn that way.

Anyway, you tell me that he resisted arrest but it wouldn’t be a crime right if the police had no good reason to grab him, or else it would considered an appropriate act of self defense just like anybody who unreasonably grabs someone.

What would help me realize the justification is if you tell me exactly what he did that made him deserve to be grabbed. He posed no threat as far as I’m concerned. He did absolutely nothing but ask questions (by Kerry’s permission) and talk about a book to outline the situation in which his question is about (which he was entitled to do). He was no threat to the US senator because the US senator was listening to his questions by his permission and was ready to answer like a normalquestion, alright. And tell me exactly what he said that would indicate him to try and start a riot.

20

Yes. I reallized Kerry let him continue speaking, which even more so doesn’t make me realize the problem, I’m just saying even if Kerry didn’t like it. Meyer was having a serious conversation. Tell me how his being grabbed off the mic was right rather than saying he’s a jackass, that tells me nothing about the reasoning behind the incident.