Talking about the Skull and Bones will get you tasered.

[The Tourist]

I would submit the quote, "Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

One of the rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights is free speech. It covers unpopular speech. And it is listed as the first right simply because being able to chill criticism is the first act to stifle freedom.

One day in our country the leftists will indeed gain control of our firearms, our speech, the education deemed fit for our children, and our right to assemble.

I'm sure that if our TFL members are still alive and not in a gulag, they will speak out about freedoms long forgotten in a parchment that nobody reads or heeds.

And as they speak, they too will be tazered...

 

[DonR101395]

I would submit the quote, "Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

One of the rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights is free speech. It covers unpopular speech. And it is listed as the first right simply because being able to chill criticism is the first act to stifle freedom.

One day in our country the leftists will indeed gain control of our firearms, our speech, the education deemed fit for our children, and our right to assemble.

I'm sure that if our TFL members are still alive and not in a gulag, they will speak out about freedoms long forgotten in a parchment that nobody reads or heeds.

And as they speak, they too will be tazered...

Nice story, except he didn't get tazed for what he said. He was asked by those hosting the meeting to leave and refused, he was asked by the police to leave and refused, they attempted to assist him leaving and he resisted. He got tazed for his actions not his speech. Would it make you feel better if they would have just beat him a while to get the cuffs on him?

 

[teeroux]

the skull and bones have agents everywhere even in the police.


i saw the whole video as well as other ones and i dont think he violently resisted arrest but he did resist.

the tazeing part was a no no all them offices pinning him on the ground there was absolutly no reason for the 100,000 volts.

but for the whole he was stirring up trouble what did they think was going to happen when you give colledge students the floor to speak.

he may not have gotten around to asking a question but he was given the mic and spoke his mind (without threats or vulgur language)and there isnt anything illegal about that.

 

[The Tourist]

Nice story, except he didn't get tazed for what he said. He was asked by those hosting the meeting to leave and refused

And at the end of the day, what's the difference?

You hold a forum and throw the doors wide open to a candidate who wishes to lead a Republic, you invite unpopular speech.

During our protest years in Madison, a group against the war filed into our State Capitol building and caused quite a ruckus.

One representative is quoted as saying, "How can we run a democracy with all of these people in here..."

Despite the fact this lawmaker didn't know what type of government we actually have, it represents an important factor. In Wisconsin we have what is known as "an open meetings law." You represent the government, you show people what the heck you're doing.

A kid poked fun at Kerry. I've been doing that for three years. Big deal.

You can always find an excuse to chill debate. I'm surprised that someone didn't eject him because the fire marshall counted too many people.

He spoke, he got tazered. If you were speaking your mind sincerely about enacting a helmet law, I guess my friends and I could stuff you into a garbage can.

We could always say, "He was inciting a riot. That's stuff dangerous. He had it coming."

 

[RedneckFur]

I agree with the others who feel that the tasering was going too far. Its easy to do away with free speech, as long as you are creative with your reasons.

 

[gvf]

If he was defending 2nd Amendment rights in the same way you'd be screaming blody murder.

 

[The Tourist]

Its easy to do away with free speech

This is my point. The guy had as much right to speak as Kerry.

When a group, especially the government, can scare you with something (arrest, a tazer, a tax audit) then you no longer have free speech. We don't even seem to be angered by this anymore.

Frankly, if you feel that a tazer was a proper response to speech, then don't object and start spouting about your rights if they use one on you.

 

[gvf]

If he was defending 2nd Amendment rights in the same way and the same thing happened to him you'd likely be screaming bloody murder.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

This is my point. The guy had as much right to speak as Kerry.

Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to disrupt a meeting/speech. He could stand outside and yell forever. He just wanted TV time and he managed to get it.

 

[JuanCarlos]

This is my point. The guy had as much right to speak as Kerry.

This is (to an extent) true. Though if Kerry is the one who was invited specifically to speak, I'd say that the event organizers aren't being unreasonable if they ask those that would prevent him from doing so to leave. They're free to demonstrate outside; I think those that came specifically to hear Kerry and not this guy should be able to do so.

But even that isn't necessarily the issue here. Keep in mind this is merely my understanding from both the video and reading a couple accounts; correct me if I'm wrong. The issue here is that the floor was opened up for questions, and everybody else has just as much right to speak as this guy did. Not only did he (so it would seem) cut in line, but he also (from what I can tell) went over his allotted time for his question. At this point it is also not unreasonable for the event organizers to cut him off.

The main problem I see is that Kerry seemed willing to engage his question, and he was dragged off before this could happen. But considering his behavior, I don't think this was necessarily a horrible thing...again, everybody else, including Kerry and others with questions, had the right to speak as well.


This specific instance falls in a bit of a gray area (it would have been reasonable both to let him continue or cut him off, IMO)...but what you're arguing is that a protester or heckler can basically do whatever he wants, regardless of how disruptive. The people who organized this appearance presumably either own or have paid for the use of this space (considering the context, I'd wager it was the university who organized it and they own it). While I don't support their right (assuming it was opened to the public) to drag somebody off because they don't like their T-shirt, they're certainly within their right to ask somebody who is actually disrupting their event to leave.

 

[DonR101395]

And at the end of the day, what's the difference?

You hold a forum and throw the doors wide open to a candidate who wishes to lead a Republic, you invite unpopular speech.

During our protest years in Madison, a group against the war filed into our State Capitol building and caused quite a ruckus.

One representative is quoted as saying, "How can we run a democracy with all of these people in here..."

Despite the fact this lawmaker didn't know what type of government we actually have, it represents an important factor. In Wisconsin we have what is known as "an open meetings law." You represent the government, you show people what the heck you're doing.

A kid poked fun at Kerry. I've been doing that for three years. Big deal.

You can always find an excuse to chill debate. I'm surprised that someone didn't eject him because the fire marshall counted too many people.

He spoke, he got tazered. If you were speaking your mind sincerely about enacting a helmet law, I guess my friends and I could stuff you into a garbage can.

We could always say, "He was inciting a riot. That's stuff dangerous. He had it coming."

The difference is he imposed himself on others while trying to exercise that right to speak. It would be no different than say...you're out to dinner with the Mrs. and some guy decides to stand next to your table and begins insulting your wife because he doesn't like her choice of shoes. The management asks him to leave because he is being disruptive and he refuses. Is it your opinion that he is simply exercising his right to free speech and should be left alone to continue being disruptive and abusive? If the cops come should they not be allowed to remove him from the establishment? There is no action you can legally take, he simply exercising his freedom of speech.
The organizers of the event didn't want him there. He practically begged the cops to escalate the situation, as soon as he resisted by pushing them away, they had no choice but to put him in cuffs, when he resisted the cuffs, he again chose to elevate the use of force continuum. There are a lot worse things they could have done to get him to comply than taze him. Had they not tazed him, but instead decided to grapple with him, it's highly likely besides the arrest and court costs he would also have medical bills for his effort.




BTW: I can't stand Kerry, but he also had a right to speak at an event which was organized for him and his supporters; without some idiot kid trying to take over the event. The kid wants to make a statement; fine make it and leave.
I guess that doesn't make good news though

Also the event wasn't a debate and if you and your friends were holding an event that I disrupted you would have the same recourse as these event organizers had and used.
The difference would be when asked to leave I have the common sense to leave.














Strike that, I have enough sense not to disrupt an event in the first place.

 

[The Tourist]

At this point it is also not unreasonable for the event organizers to cut him off.

Juan, I'm sorry but I have to taser you at this point. Nothing personal.

If I'm not mistaken, usually when a speaker, award winner, candidate or comedienne runs over their allotted time they flash a red light. I didn't know it was legal to actually shoot them.

Heck, next debate I'm not bringing Roberts Rules of Order (or even Hoyle), I'm just going to start packing an electric gun.

Juan, Juan, get up and quit flopping like a fish. Gee whiz, I only hit you with 100,000 volts and almost no amps. For pete's sake, this is a debate...

 

[JuanCarlos]

I may not totally agree with you there, but at least you made me laugh.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

The issue here is that the floor was opened up for questions, and everybody else has just as much right to speak as this guy did.

No. The Q&A session was over. The guy wasn't even the next in line. He jumped to the microphone and started yelling his questions.

 

[STAGE 2]

He was on the ground, cuffed and still fighting. He was tazed because he would not comply. His fault.

Baloney. Whether he was compliant isn't the issue. He was on the ground and presented no threat to anyone. Theere simply was no need for the taser. Especially when hes screaming like a stuck pig "don't tase me don't tase me".

if they dog piled the knucklehead they would be accused of being JBTs

I don't agree. I think thats exactly what should have happened with at least 4 cops in the room.

Not true. Most of the videos are less than perfect, but you can distinctly hear commands being given for him to put his hands behind his back. Repeatedly. And he was squirming around and actively resisting. Officers were trying to handcuff him and he refused to put one of his hands behind his back.

That may be, but I've heard other reports that said he was cuffed when they gave him the juice.

I agree with the others who feel that the tasering was going too far. Its easy to do away with free speech, as long as you are creative with your reasons.

This isn't a speech issue. This was (presumably) a private forum, or at least one with rules regarding speaking. This guy didn't comply and was rightfully booted. The way in which he was booted was excessive in my opinion, however there has in no way been a violation of his freedom of speech.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I think thats exactly what should have happened with at least 4 cops in the room.

Have you ever attempted to subdue someone that didn't want to be subdued? He was tazered to make him stop fighting. Even handcuffed, both he and the LEOs could have been seriously injured. It was used to end the fighting. All he had to do was stop fighting and he would never have been zapped. He was not going to stop fighting as long as a single camera was there.

 

[The Tourist]

I may not totally agree with you there, but at least you made me laugh.

Juan, thanks a lot. I know that humor is subjective, but I like to amuse people in debate.

If one thing gets settled tonight, one of the computer geeks will build us a "taser smilie" that we can use to shoot each other as we disagree.

And we shouldn't forget the central problem with this issue. For example, we've had many issues in my locale about the use of tasers and the race card.

But despite the arguments over the conditions of his speech, an American was shot by a another American for the outrage of disagreeing with an American. If that doesn't chill you, I don't know what will.

In the Bible there is a reference to the fact that shackles could not be used on a Roman citizen. The passage details the misunderstandings in the arrest of a Christian/Jew who was also a citizen.

When you start jamming electrodes into purveyors of the Bill of Rights, we ought to take a long pause and examine where this policy is headed.

 

[STAGE 2]

Have you ever attempted to subdue someone that didn't want to be subdued?

Yes. Many times. You'd be surprised how compliant people become when you start playing with their wrist.

He was tazered to make him stop fighting. Even handcuffed, both he and the LEOs could have been seriously injured.

Baloney. The guy was on the ground with no less than 2 cops on top of him. If he was already cuffed then thats even worse. Resisting is one thing, but fighting? Give me a break. This guy wasn't fighting anyone.

It was used to end the fighting. All he had to do was stop fighting and he would never have been zapped. He was not going to stop fighting as long as a single camera was there.

Fine. So use 4 officers and carry him out. This guy isn't the incredible hulk. He is some punk college student. If 4 cops can't handle a college student without cclearing leather, then how do we expect them do deal with real threats.

The taser was excessive. Period. They had ample resources to physically detain him, and he presented no threat to the cops. All of his physical actions were attempts to get away from the police as opposed to attacking or confronting them.

Your logic of "all he had to do was stop and it would have happened" reminds me of the hours and hours of testimony by the LAPD about escalation and deescalation. "Well if he wouldn't have moved his arm, I wouldnt have bounced my baton off the top of his skull several times"

Excessive is excessive. This was over the line.

 

[Marko Kloos]

The title of this thread is misleading.

He got tasered for resisting arrest, not for talking about Skull & Bones.

Watch the video. He physically assaults one of the cops (putting an elbow to the head/neck area of the black cop), and puts his hands underneath his body when they wrestle him to the ground. He refuses to pull out his hands even after multiple commands. It's not like he didn't have an option to avoid the Tasering by just following the instructions of LE.

I'm as big an enemy of overbearing police tactics as the next guy, but this college kid clearly set himself up for a public arrest and confrontation intentionally by being a total douchebag. He rushed the mike, talked over his allotted time, refused to yield the mike, asked inflammatory questions that were sure to get a negative reaction, refused to vacate the floor when asked to do so by campus police, and then resisted arrest by trying to run away and physically assaulting the officers.

If you think you're being detained or arrested illegally, there's a way to seek redress, and that's the courtroom. Resisting arrest will not make the cops give up and go for a coffee.

Freedom of Speech is a red herring in this particular case. If Kerry had answered his questions, do you think he would have yielded the mike? Freedom of speech does not mean you don't have to follow common courtesy rules at a public event--it doesn't mean that you can cancel out other people's freedom of speech by claiming the floor for yourself. The guy knew he had a captive audience, and he was probably giddy about all the cameras in the room.

You know I'm not at all a fan of authoritarianism, but I fail to see the abuse here. If anything, they were restrained, as they were probably mindful of all the cameras. The little douchebag was mindful of them as well...that's why he loudly asking them to not taser him instead of doing the one simple thing that would have kept him from getting tasered.

What you have here is a Journalism major who was setting himself up for a.) a lawsuit against the campus PD, b.) campus-wide fame as a "free speech martyr", and c.) some consolation nookie from the hot female journalism major that sits three rows behind him.

 

[divemedic]

Here is more of the story. Read on:

The report details the events leading up to Meyer's arrest, saying that Meyer was in line to ask a question of Sen. Kerry when it was decided that no more questions would be allowed.

Meyer continued down the aisle toward Sen. Kerry angrily, according to police, saying he wanted the senator to answer his question because he had been waiting for two hours.

Though Sen. Kerry directed that Meyer be allowed to ask his question, police reported that Meyer did not ask any specific question and instead "badgered" the senator, and at one point said something about President Clinton being impeached over a sexual act.

At that point, police reported that ACCENT Director Max Tyroler turned off Meyer's microphone and asked police to escort him out of the auditorium, saying, "He had said enough," according to Officer Mallo's report.

That has given rise to rumors that Meyer, who aspires to work in the national media,