[nitpick]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocuted[/nitpick]
Haven’t we heard this same argument from five other crackheads?
Regulating something like that is unhelpful and insults the intelligence of the audience. There’s no correct time for how long a question should take, so someone would just write down his own standard - why would that be better than letting people use their brains? There was no misunderstanding in this case.
It’s not really just about time at these things. Some people come to ask the speaker questions, others come to give a speech. One is helpful and can be edifying, the other is obnoxious.
Does that justify his cutting in line? No. And if he really wanted answers to his questions, I imagine he could have cut down on his speechifying. The security guards overreacted, but they would not have reacted at all if he hadn’t behaved the way he did.
I’m sensing a problem which is more definitional than philosophical.
Arrested doesn’t mean “sent to jail” it mean “detained under the 4th Amendment.” Officially speaking, a person is arrested whenever they reasonably feel they are not free to leave the officer’s presence.
You, when you are saying, “he deserved to be removed” that is EXACTLY the same meaning as “he deserved to be arrested.” The police we executing his removal (which it now appears you feel was justified) when he resisted and they used force to effect their removal.
The DA didn’t press charges so no worries about Our Hero/Douchebag clogging up the system when there are murderers, rapists, etc out there.
What he was saying was political dissent. He questioned the Florida election results which, statistically, were completely out of whack. He brought up the reasonable question of, “are you and your frat brother in cahoots.”
Sure, you might think you already know the answers to his questions, or that he asked them as a jerk. But of all the speech that society doesn’t want to listen to (racism, hatred, bong hits for jesus), this sort of political vigilantism is most deserving of constitutional protection. It is the very reason the first ammendment was written.
And please realize, “look at him, he’s a douchbag. he even looks like a douchbag” is THE slippery slope by which people shut their ears and find justification to silience, oppress, or violently hurt someone. Ugh, I don’t know how to stress this point enough. Oppression always, ALWAYS starts with you just not liking the guy, whether it has to do with hate crime or crimes against speech or any other form of incivility or injustice.
And making a constitution then for our country will insult the people’s intelligence so we shouldn’t have one? No. We simply need rules. In the past, we let the people of the states “use their brain” as you put it under the articles of confederation times of our country. Then selfish people, with no restrictions to stop them, took advantage of their freedom and use it wrongly just like how some selfish person given the freedom to ask a question for the length of time he thinks right will gobble up the time, and other people will have less time because of the limited forum time left. You simply need rules, or people will take advantage of their unlimited freedom and be selfish and it’ll just be a chaotic battle, just like it turns out to be in a lot of these forums. Thus forum time will be uneven like mentioned in my last comment. Explain to me how this can be prevented without rules.
Andrew Meyer did come to ask questions, not a speech. He asked three, want me to tell you what they are?
And now you change my opinion. I never thought that him meaning well justified him to cut in front of three people, never said that, but he would have been arrested for his negative reaction to not being able to ask his question in the forum (when he should have just been taken out, I think we can agree on that), which I am saying is even more bizarre and wrong than having Meyer able to cut in front of three people to ask a question, don’t you think? Well, Meyer wouldn’t have ended up just taken out. It’s either he would have been arrested (the police report of the incident I read states the police tried to arrest Meyer when he reacted negatively) or John Kerry would have intervined ad Meyer would have asked his question, which do you prefer?
Which, as I have explained is EXACTLY the same as arresting him.
John Kerry is not a member of the executive. He has no authority to enforce the laws, nor can he excuse someone who has broken a law. He is a senator- which means he helps define crimes not enforce crimes. The Florida legislature, in their infinite wisdom, defined “disturbing a school function” as a crime and thus Meyer broke a law written by the people’s elected representatives when he pushed aside others to speak.
His arrestability for breaking that law does not expire through time and cannot be excused by a member of the Federal Legislature.
Hate the law? Take it up with the Florida Legislature who wrote it, not the police delegated to enforce it. That acted within the law in all respects.
Well, yes, I do feel the removal was justified, but keep in mind, it’s for a different reason than what he asked in his question, but yeah, I guess you can say that.
Well no, “arrested” and “sent out” don’t mean exactly the same thing. I know arresting isnt EXACTLY “sent to jail”, sorry I gave you that impression, but it doesn’t fit the meaning of just “sent out” either. Being “sent out” with the context of my usage would be just sent outside the forum and nothing else done to him. Arresting him would be trying him out for something he did that would be potentially damaging, and though what Meyer did was obnoxious, it wasn’t potrntially damaging, so he shouldn’t be tried out as though he might have damaged something. Know what I’m saying?
Which is what happened, or would have happened had Meyer not begun to flail and other wise present a danger to the officers who were escorting him.
Again:
- Removing someone from someplace under state authority is a seizure under the 4th Amendment. (There is an argument what happened was more of a Terry Stop than an arrest, but IMHO its kind of weak)
- Meyer was arrestable at any point between when he began to disturb the school function and when the Statute of Limitations on that crime expires. His arrest had nothing to do with the content of his speech but rather his disruptive conduct prior to speaking.
Ergo, he was both arrested, and arrested legally.
I know Kerry isn’t part of the executive branch but he successfully intervined the policemen trying arrest meyer the first time he got arrest placed on him which is why he was able to ask his question. I was just asking this other guy a question involving that.
And that law, “disturbing school functions”, it is so vague, as far as I’m concerned, “disturbing school functions”, could mean not going to class on time one day, clearly shouldn’t be arrested for that. One could interprit it as actually causing a disturbance and damaging or potentially damaging the school but not actually just breaking a small campus rule. See what I mean, I need context.
This is why I think it was justified. Regardless of whether he was being a horse’s ass (which he was) or what his motives were, Meyer was acting very suspiciously and fidgety while a high-ranking political figure (a controversial one at that- one with many enemies) was in the room. Security is paid to protect students/faculty/anybody at the college, and they probably had been told to be particularly protective of men like Kerry (who, as a public figure in a polarized political climate, I’m sure has had death threats). I think security probably thought, and I would say reasonably, “better to tase this guy and find out he’s an unarmed harmless crank than to do nothing and have him pull a gun or dart for the stage”.
If there’s a lesson to be learned it’s don’t be a wise-ass college boy in a room with blue collar state employees paid to carry tasers.
I know Kerry isn’t part of the executive branch but he successfully intervined the policemen trying arrest meyer the first time he got arrest placed on him which is why he was able to ask his question. I was just asking this other guy a question involving that.
And that law, “disturbing school functions”, it is so vague, as far as I’m concerned, “disturbing school functions”, could mean not going to class on time one day, clearly shouldn’t be arrested for that. One could interprit it as actually causing a disturbance and damaging or potentially damaging the school but not actually just breaking a small campus rule. See what I mean? I need context.
I go to UF… believe me, we were INUNDATED with this crap for weeks.
Here’s how I see it washed.
point 1) Meyer was being a jerk. He was wasting time with inane questions, out of line, while the questioning period was essentially and possibly actually supposed to be, already closed. Kerry attempted to be a gentleman and allow the overtime questioner a chance to speak.
-
ACCENT (the part of Student Government that hires speakers) officials on hand decided that because the questioning period was over, Meyer had not been acknowledged, and his arguments were becoming increasingly bizarre, that he should be cut off. THE POLICE WERE NOT TAKING LEGAL ACTION AT THIS POINT. They were removing a disruptive participant at the request of the officials running the show.
-
Andrew Meyer at this point started acting completely unreasonable. Note it was later revealed that he the cameramen were planted or at least working for him (later he wanted to know if he could be filmed at the police station, and when he could get his camera back. When the cameras were off, the police universally agreed he calmed down and started laughing and joking about the whole thing)
-
At this point, Meyer was resisting a police action, the police were then justified in using increased force to remove him. He then CONTINUES to disobey direct police orders, leading to his arrest and tasering, which by this point was certainly justified since he was disobeying officers, and probably by this point resisting arrest.
Of course they were justified. On the other hand, they would NOT have been justified if they had just arbitrarily decided to ARREST him, but they WEREN’T, they were asked to merely escort him from the building at which point Meyer became completely out of control and had to be subdued.
That is more assumptions than evidence. Going by your philosophy “better to tase this guy and find out he’s an unarmed harmless crank than to do nothing and have him pull a gun or dart for the stage”, then half of the people should be tased for not liking Kerry snd hsving a slight risk of shooting him. All you can prove is that he doesn’t lke John Kerry, you can’t prove he would shoot him, okay?
What Hello Again fails to understand is that certain laws are purposely vague. They’re not written with the intent of always being enforced. They’re written to justify the police in doing what they like. I don’t disagree with this principle, but you have to understand how the rule of law in this country actually works.
For example, where I live there’s a law against loitering. If you stand on a streetcorner for too long, you can get arrested. The police are “justified” in arresting anyone they’d like, but they’re only Justified in arresting the punk kids who scare old women, for example. So if you don’t understand the difference, and think that just cuz there’s a law against “disturbing school functions” then the police Should have arrested Meyer for asking a question a minute too long or yelling, then you’re an idiot. Sorry. The question of whether the police or school officials were being jerks themselves silencing someone whose ideas they didn’t like and didn’t want to hear, doesn’t go away.
What part of my post are you referring to? I never stated or implied that anyone should be or was tased for not liking John Kerry; in fact I think Meyer was pro-Kerry [or at least very anti-Bush]). Meyer was was clearly subdued and tased due to his suspicious (other adjectives that would work include unreasonable, hostile, uncooperative, incoherent, nutty, belligerant, etc.) actions. Other students, regardless of how they felt about the man, were not acting bizarre and then refusing to sit down or even be quiet after repeated requests, or physically resistant to removal. When I first saw the footage I assumed he was either a general nutcase or stoned, and I still think it; I’m guessing the security guards made that assumption also and responded accordingly and reasonably.
He said, “I’ll walk out of here”, they should have let him go and walk out.
Oh yes, my friend, and as you can see, because of these minor general priciples, people can go nuts and come up with unreasonable ideas about the law. This is why now the good old president of the US has been legalized to smash through the laws. The president has to “serve for the common good”, obviously by smashing the bill of rights by doing warrentless wiretaps, arrests, and punnishments, plus keeping it all secret (obviously for the “common good”).