UF student gets tazed for excersizing 1st amendment at a forum with John Kerry

Status
Not open for further replies.
STAGE 2,

I agree that proper use of force was used in this situation. That was not my point.

My point was saying you can not deny access to property that allows access to the general public based upon race, age, sex, etc...If you own a restaurant, put a sign in the window that says "Whites Only" and see how quick you get fined (RIGHTFULLY SO).

You CAN deny access based upon your beliefs when it comes to your home though.
 
Last edited:
He was handcuffed and down. Waiting will subdue him or talking him down - as soon as the 4 cops get off his back, where they no longer need to be when the man is cuffed.Perhaps he was resisting several knees in his back causing enormous pain.

Too much, the taser, the whole thing.
Click to expand...

He was NOT handcuffed. He had ONE cuff on and was continuing to resist while at the same time crying out like a Monty Python peasant "I'm being repressed!" He resisted with the full intention of creating an incident on camera.

I got an idea, let's just go to the stick and beat him down until he complies! Anybody agree?

We all assume here we know the protocol for force escalation in the department. I can see plenty of reason to stop wrestling with the suspect who continues to physically resist and apply the taser to not only prevent harm to the officers but to the suspect. His continuing to struggle and resist could easily have resulted in serious and lasting physical harm to him as he was forced through brute strength and leverage on joints to comply. Instead they whip out the taser, he cries "don't tase me," when he was told they would if he failed to cease resisting, yet he continued to resist BEGGING for the photo op. So instead of dislocating his arm, thumb, wrist or elbow they apply the juice, he cries like a little girl, and the scoop him up without any further resistance. He is fine, the officers are fine, the law has been upheld and the moron got his photo op. With luck he will be expelled from the university, wasting the thousands probably spent already, and leading him down a clear path to a career involving the phrase "would you like fries with that?"
 
Sun Tzu wrote:

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn’t pass this one up. At a recent conference held at UF (University of Florida), a student asked “controversial” questions to Senator John Kerry and was detained and shot/hit with a Taser gun – even though you can hear Kerry in the video saying, “That’s alright, let me answer his question”. This kind of thing makes me sick – PLEASE read this news story in its entirety and then watch the YouTube video associated with it. This totalitarian government has got to be revolutionized. How can people sit back and let things like this happen? I know a lot of people are probably thinking, “just another liberal wanting attention”, but this is above and beyond the belief of just one ignorant bastard. This is a direct, despicable violation of the First Amendment and all applicable freedom-related laws. If you know anyone that would be interested in this e-mail, please do your country a favor and pass along this e-mail. For those of you that praise CNN and other such “entertainment news” channels, wake up and look at what’s really happening – correction: what’s already happened to this country. Stuff like this is getting more and more common; our “freedom”, or what’s left of it, is spiraling out of our grasp in front of our eyes. Welcome to the beginning of the "police state".

The student in question WAS allowed to exercise his Rights. I feel you don't understand what "Free Speech" is. It's not the Right to say anything at any time to anyone, no matter what. The charge was "Inciting to Riot"

He had the opportunity to ask his questions, and then he refused to leave. This constitutues a risk to a member of the government. I don't like Kerry, but he has the Right to be protected. Whether or not he was at risk is not the issue here

The student was making an unusual disturbance, and was asked to leave. He'd had his time, and refused to leave. When presented with an order to leave by LE, he chose not to. What's LE supposed to do? Bargain with the kid?

The student wanted to make a scene, and he got more than he bargained for. Inciting to riot sounds about right to me. He wanted to play this game, and he learned that he only knew about half the rules

It's his own fault

As an extreme example, try busting onto the floor of the Senate someday, to 'inform people' about whatever your political pet peeve is. You will be arrested. But not for trying to exert Free Speech
 
Last edited:
The student in question WAS allowed to exercise his Rights
Click to expand...

You have no freedom of speech or freedom to assemble rights in a private forum/function. Your freedom goes as far as the operator/sponsor will allow.
 
Heres a safe rule of thumb. When you have 2 officers standing around doing nothing, a taser probably isn't warranted.
 
Heres a safe rule of thumb. When you have 2 officers standing around doing nothing, a taser probably isn't warranted.
Click to expand...

Right! Better to beat him with the stick! Dislocate his arm! Break some bones! Cause a concussion! Inflict some form of lasting injury!

If the taser leaves no lasting injury as can all too easily happen with a pile on then why is it not a safer solution to a suspect who refuses to comply and does so with physical force? Would this kid have preferred a broken arm?
 
new bumper sticker

taze_store2.jpg
 
CrazyIvan-

Do you mean to tell me that this person was not allowed to exercise his Rights?

The fact that he is allowed to do ANYthing only with prior consent in this context is immaterial

He WAS allowed to speak. He was not censured. Are you actually arguing that since he was only speaking because he was allowed to in this context, that his Rights were violated? Any use of "Freedom of Speech" is under certain guidelines. The classic case of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is a well known example. It is also unlawful to threaten the President, even if it is only spoken words. Those are just two examples

The argument has been made that this person was tazed because he "tried to exercise his right to free speech", and that is 100% bogus, unadulterated BS. It has been a few years since I studied constitutional Law, but this person's rights were not violated

or are you splitting hairs with the actual definition of "freedom of speech"? I can't tell what you're driving at
 
Last edited:
I am saying that there are no rights to assemble or rights to free speech in a private forum. You can't 'excercise' your rights in a situation where you do not retain that right. You are granted temporary rights by the operator/sponsor of that privately funded assembly. It is THEIR right to decide what they want and what they don't want to hear or have go on, (as long as it abides by anti-discrimination laws in this case because of the ability of access by the general public).

They asked him to leave. He did not. They attempted to remove him, he did not move. They attempted to arrest him, he fought back.

He is guilty of
1. Criminal mischief
2. Disturbing the Peace
3. Disorderly Conduct
4. Interrupting a private assembly (similar to lying in the street in front of parade that has received a permit to march)
5. Tresspassing
6. Resisting Arrest
7. Assaulting a peace officer (if he had any impact with any of the officers)

These peace officers acted in accordance with their training and in accordance with the law regarding this situation.

I apologize if I went off on some tangents, but people often confuse rights and freedoms. Different scenarios, situations, environments and issues often dictate what freedoms you have and don't have at that moment.
 
There is a longer version of the video before he starts asking the Skull and Bones questions. Question-taking was over but he muscled his way to the front of the line to ask a question after this had been announced (and Kerry allowed it). He started asking loaded questions (his intent was to get a reaction) and those in charge decided there was no merit to his questions - thats their call, whether you agree with it or not. He was requested by a police officer to step away from the microphone at which point he pulled away and said he had more to say.

Mistake #1.

They cut off his microphone and approached him to escort him out, and he started screaming about why are you arresting me, what have I done?

Mistake #2.

He then kept resisting even after they put him on the floor.

Mistake #3.

According to witnesses, as long as a camera was not on him, he was docile, but as soon as a camera arrived he started acting up and claiming he was going to get killed and all.

They guy was a jerk who thought he could grandstand and waste the police officers' time by grabbing attention. Any one of us would have known better, and would have left the first time a police officer requested it.

I think Kerry is an ass and am as Conservative as it comes, but this was all about personal accountability. He kept acting like an ass and ratcheted up the response al on his own. SOBER even. Drunks you can almost feel bad for, but this guy (assumingly) was stone cold sober and just wanted a good video.

I am sure he is looking to monopolize on this on talk shows and all. Screw him, lets concentrate on debate over the Amnesty bill.
 
CrazyIvan-

We have misunderstood each other here. I see what you're saying now

I was replying to the notion of this person being censured- I read a lot about how people are "outraged" because this person was tazed when he tried to talk, that he was not allowed Free Speech

What I'm saying is that this notion is bogus- he was allowed to speak. Not that I think Freedoms and Rights are the same things

The scenario somehow is that the "Right to Free Speech" (I very purposefully use quotation marks here) was "violated"

Impossible, even if that absurd notion were how things work- because he was in reality allowed to speak. See what I mean?
 
which he has never been, he should have cowboy'd up and allow this adolescent to speak...but of course, Kerry has never been good at doing the right thing, except when it came time to schmooze higher ranking arse to get them to endorse his heroics ...hence, medals that were never really earned were awarded...I always stand up for the little guy, and I have a special place in my soul for 'Nam vets, but this jerkoid is not one of them...that said...did the kid need to be tasered? NO!
Click to expand...

I live in Ma., and I don't like Kerry. I sincerely thank you for your Service, but I don't think that the fact that it was John Kerry has any bearing here. I think Kerry is a fraud, myself, and I hope he's voted out and is never heard from again

I do however feel that the taser is legally one of the non-lethal option available to Police to control people who do not obey their lawful orders. And their order to this person were both reasonable and lawful

I can't imagine what the kid needed- to be tackled and arm-locked? Hit with a high pressure water hose? cracked on the head with a nightstick? To have a weapon drawn and pointed at him? To have an arm broken or ribs cracked by the weight of several officers piled on top of him?

I strongly feel that the consequences of his poor choices that day got him tazed, not that the Police used an unreasonable method to restrain him
 
CB:

I agree with you. He was given his opportunity to speak. He overstepped that opportunity when he forced his way back to the microphone. Everythign else was a fallout from that thereafter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top