It's ok to tase the bro!

Justme, i think you didnt follow the dialogue i was responding to.

A previous poster had said:


"The constitution states that congress shall make no law restricting free speech, it does not require me (or anyone else) to listen or to let you spout your views on my property."


My comment was with respect to that. I don't think a property owner could use physical force, unless there was a risk the person was going to cause them physical danger. Police intervention is of course a different matter.
 
Re: Private property, private event??

This event, ostensibly a political forum to communicate in person with a federal elected official, held on a state-owned university...of which Meyer was a tuition-paying student. I don't know if tickets were required, or it was open to the public, but Meyer was in the room legitmately. Disagree with Meyer's approach if you like, but he asked a pertinent political question to the speaker (Kerry apparently didn't object to the question and was in the process of responding when the thugs attacked).

So, how does this equate to insulting someone in their private living room (or for that matter, in a privately run internet forum)?:confused: If anything, political speech is the most sensitive form of communication protected by the first amendment, this incident most certainly falls within this domain. I'd very much like to hear a reasoned defense of the "private-property/private event" assertion. I think its fallacious.

Hey, lets just call every political event "private"; regardless of the facts. Then event coordinators can arbitrarily attack (through uniformed thugs) anyone they may disagree with, with impunity? Is that how far we've come?
 
What exactly are you saying?
Click to expand...
That I am sick and tired of the simplistic juvenile attempts to paint this as "he was tased for asking questions"

If you feel the need to hinge your argument on a lie why even bother to argue
Actually at that point it is not even arguing it is simply trying to spread a lie

If someone is trespassing on my property (but not in my house), are you justified in using a Taser on them?
Click to expand...
How does that analogy even come close to this? Are you even trying to think this out ?
The person in control of the property did not tase the idiot the police did after the PIC asked for their assistance and the idiot refused to leave and violently resisted
Now try coming up with an analogy that deals with the facts of this incident

So the state you are in allows physical, potentiallly deady force be used against crazy people who are yelling?
Click to expand...
Repeat a lie enough and it becomes truth?
 
Last edited:
This event, ostensibly a political forum to communicate in person with a federal elected official,
Click to expand...

A forum in which all the other attendees, and the speaker, had the expectation of a certain level of decorum.

held on a state-owned university...of which Meyer was a tuition-paying student.
Click to expand...

Was this event sponsored by the school, or did a separate entity pay for the use of the space? Because I could obviously be wrong, but I think I remember it being the latter. At which point it being state-owned no longer matters.

And paying tuition is not an all-access pass to do whatever you want on campus or at campus events.

I don't know if tickets were required, or it was open to the public, but Meyer was in the room legitmately.
Click to expand...

Right up until he was asked to leave.

Disagree with Meyer's approach if you like, but he asked a pertinent political question to the speaker (Kerry apparently didn't object to the question and was in the process of responding when the thugs attacked).
Click to expand...

Pertinent is arguable. Even assuming it was, he used the time he was given to ramble instead of asking an actual question of the speaker, and last I checked the other attendees (or the actual scheduled speaker, Kerry) didn't show up to hear a speech from him.

And "thugs" didn't "attack." Police officers, at the behest of the event organizers (who may or may not have actually paid for exclusive use of the space) asked him to leave. He resisted, including physically assaulting police officers. Maybe if he had just went ahead and asked whatever it is he wanted to ask, instead of playing amateur conspiracy theorist soapbox and wasting everybody's time, this wouldn't even have happened.

Lastly, I'll reiterate what I and others have tried to drive home...he was not tased because of what he said/asked (did he ever even ask a question?). He was asked to leave because of that. He was tased because he physically and violently resisted the police officers who were trying to escort him out.
 
This really isn't that complicated. Even for us skull and bones guys. :rolleyes:

The idiot made a screeching, loud, obnoxious fuss to try and distrupt everything and to get himself a lot of attention. He had a big temper-tantrum. He was asked nicely to give up the mike, and then he was asked nicely to leave. He wouldn't voluntarily do either.

So the authorities made him involuntarily cease his screeching, loud, obnoxious temper tantrum. Instead of playing a wrestling game (and risking the safety of officers and other members of the audience), they tased the idiot. When they did that, he stopped distrupting everything. And he voluntarily gave up the mic, and he voluntarily left.

How simple was that? But if you want to keep arguing for the sake or argument, then carry on.
 
Thats absolutely true. But you probably couldn't get away with Tasing someone over it.
Click to expand...


Actually, if you are on my property (or property that I have authority over) and I ask you to leave, you are now trespassing.

Under Florida law, a person has the right to use force, except deadly force, to stop the commission of a misdemeanor, or a non-violent felony upon himself, or property which he has ownership or possessory interest in, or a legal duty to protect. (FS 776.031)

So yes, if a person is on your property and is told to leave, he is tresspassing from the point he refuses to leave after being told. Using a Taser at this point would not be unlawful force under Florida Law.

For more information, you can get an excellent book on the use of force under Florida Law at www.floridafirearmslaw.com
 
Joab,

I am not talking about the police using the taser, but the actual property owner. I realize this is not analogous to the student who got tased. I was responding to another post which someone had made:

" Decline to leave a private event in my neck of the woods and you would be wishing that they only used a taser on you. "


The person making this statement seemed to be using the word "they" to refer to the people holding the private event, not the police. Maybe they meant the police, but they didnt say police anywhere in that statement. I don't think a private property owner would be justified in using a taser for someone causing a public disturbance where life and limb were not being threatened. I realize the police would be justified, if the person resisted arrest, but that is not what I was talking about.
 
Read from Florida Law:

810.09 Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.--

(1)(a) A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance:

1. As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011; or

<snip>

commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.

(2)(a) Except as provided in this subsection, trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree
Click to expand...

Then read:

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect.
Click to expand...

You can use a taser to prevent trespassing. As soon as you tell a person to leave, and they refuse, they are trespassing.
 
Thanks for quoting the law, that is what I was looking for. So you would be OK to use a taser to get a trespasser off your property, assuming that a taser is viewed as non-lethal, rather than less lethal. If thats the way Florida law reads, then I don't see why they backed down and didnt charge this guy.
 
What has happened to the idea that violence should be only used in response to violence?

It's troubling that so many of you actually seem to be advocating the use of violence against non-violent individuals. As if that was ok or something.

Don't mistake me for a pacifist...I wholeheartedly believe that anyone who presents a mortal threat should be rendered incapable of EVER being a threat again...but I do not believe that violence should be used except in response to violence.
 
Why do people keep repeating the ignorant assessment that this guy was "tased" for saying something? The cops used a taser on the moron because he resisted being removed from the proceedings!!! When you become physical with properly authorised law enforcement you give them a right to become physical right back.

Want to make an argument that this kid should have been allowed to hijack a forum then go ahead. Say the cops didn't have a right to escort him from the proceedings nor even turn off his mike. But only someone who has never dealt with irrational zealots or the mentally ill would suggest that someone has the right to resist LE from helping you relocate.

People talk about american's losing their rights and point to this incident. If anything this type of incident is why people are losing their rights. With rights come responsiblities. What about the rights of the few hundred other kids? What about Kerry's rights? Among certain self rightous zealots there seems to be an attitude of "my right to freedom in all things supersedes all of your rights"
 
How far we've come!

True story. About 15 years ago, many of us citizens fought unsuccessfully against the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area (Oregon/Wash); arguably a property rights usurpation many magnitudes greater than the recent Kelo decision.:eek: A public hearing was held in White Salmon, Wa. (strictly window dressing, in retrospect). I had prepared a written statement, clean but highly critical of the Columbia River Gorge Commission. After signing up to speak, and waiting my turn, I started at the mic. Stafford Hansell, commission chairman, started getting red-faced as my statement was read. Then he started inturrupting me, saying I was "out of line", etc. To which, the packed audience started chanting "let him speak", "let him speak"! (this scenic area designation was unpopular; had been voted down by 80% in a previous local ballot question - consent of the governed?) After pausing, I continued reading my statement, noticing that Mr. Hansell was livid, and had summoned a staff member and was whispering something to him.

Only after the event, did I find out that Chairman Hansell was telling that staff member to have the county sheriff (who was standing at the back of the room) throw me out and have me arrested for disturbing the peace! And the sheriff, to her credit, told that staff member heck! no, he's not breaking any law! Anyway, the hearing ended peacefully.

Fast forward to today, when political handlers have instant control of mic switches, and unquestioning thugs to spring into action to enforce not the law, but their unwritten, off the cuff interpretation of "decorum" (translation = make sure the candidate looks good). Heck, there have been stories where audience members have been barred at the door from political rallies, by political hacks because they were wearing T-shirts against the candidate. All very sterile and controlled. "Go to the designated free speech cage, out in a field 1/2 mile away" (watch at next year's conventions :barf:)

Judging from this thread, that's exactly how many citizens want it. I'll go on record as saying this environment has chilled free speech, sanitized the political dialogue, to the detriment of the country. Respectfully, I'll ask those who support this kind of thing to reflect and reconsider their opinions.
 
clean but highly critical of the Columbia River Gorge Commission.
Click to expand...
After signing up to speak, and waiting my turn, I started at the mic
Click to expand...
See any differences
The boy had not signed up to speak and did not keep it clean

His mic was cut for using profanity and he was asked to leave, he should have
 
Do you think it is helpful for political discourse to degenerate to the point where it's just a shouting match like some foreign parliments?

Your example is not a good one. An open forum where the government is supposed to be getting input(consent) from the governed on a specific project is very different from a political forum. Is there no recognition of the rights of the majority of the people in attendance, people who might have a question?

I grow weary of people at political events monopolising everyone's time with their own narrow agenda. I tire of watching or hearing "interviews" where the "interviewer" is more interested in pontificating and monologing than asking a question. And I just get mad when people get physical with properly authorised LE.
 
this is what you call democracy, huh, pal?
Click to expand...
Missed this one

No, pal, it's not called a democracy.
Never has been a democracy, never was intended to be a democracy and never will be a democracy

Look it up
 
Why do people keep repeating the ignorant assessment that this guy was "tased" for saying something?
Click to expand...

The same reason that people keep saying that Bill Clinton was impeached for having sex. Clinton was charged with lieing to a grand jury about having sex before he ever got to the White House.
 
Last edited:
I think tasing him was completely unnecessary. They could have easily muscled him out, unless the cops were all nearing retirement age and stuffed full of donuts. Yapping in order to obstruct someone's speak is a violation of free speech in itself, no matter who's talking.
 
I think tasing him was completely unnecessary. They could have easily muscled him out, unless the cops were all nearing retirement age and stuffed full of donuts. Yapping in order to obstruct someone's speak is a violation of free speech in itself, no matter who's talking
Click to expand...

What are you 12 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top