Don't tase me bro!

[Kenzan]

In case you've been under a rock like me the last two days.

I offer:

Don't Taze me Bro! (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/09/dont-tase-me-br.html)


Hey, somebody had to post it.

Discuss.
:D

Here's the remix BTW (http://youtube.com/watch?v=AkMkGOpAF4s)

[Alison2805]

Holy hell. That was really disturbing.

[verissimus]

Apparently he's a repeat offender / troublemaker, so I don't exactly sympathize with him. Bad karma and all that...

[Kapplow]

Yeah he did it for attention. He's even gone on the record saying the cops did the right thing. He got his 15mins and I got my laughs.

[verissimus]

... honestly, if you ask someone in a public gathering whether he / she's a member of the Skull and Bones, would you expect the person to answer 'yes'?

[kenwakokoro]

Tasers are so 20th century. Welcome the Silent Guardian (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=482560&in_page_id=1965), a new instrument for awarding honsoku.

[Ignatz]

1. A single, well trained person could have taken that kid out of the building in several seconds. I have done it several times.

2. The kid went there looking for trouble.

2. Kerry is still a bozo.

[Gideon]

Kid was looking for trouble (trying to cause trouble).

Security was Grade C with their ability to remove someone in the process of what essentially amounts to an act of civil disobedience.

Taser was unnecessary. There were 4 security people AT LEAST.

[Kenzan]

Kid was looking for trouble (trying to cause trouble).

Security was Grade C with their ability to remove someone in the process of what essentially amounts to an act of civil disobedience.

Taser was unnecessary. There were 4 security people AT LEAST.

The guy was unruly, and purposefully disruptive and inflammatory.
The guy has a record of doing crap like this to get attention for various things which are not always political.
He cut in line to screech his diatribe.
This wasn't some random Joe he was acting in a threatening manner to, it was a United States Senator. How did the cops know what he was going to do?
Amswer: They didn't. Also, he was on a college campus (I think) which is private property.

The cops gave him several chances to come peaceably.
He did not choose to comply. He escalated the situation.
They told him if he did not comply he would be tazed. He again elected non-compliance. It matters not how many cops were there.
The cops have to think of the safety of others, the perp, and themselves.
Would people have rather the cops wail on him with PR-24s?

This wasn't civil disobedience in my view.
To me, civil disobedience implies passive resistance, not flailing your arms and feet, wrestling with the cops while screaming profanity.

Was it necessary?
Yup. I think so.

What people are forgetting is that when a cop gives a citizen a reasonable directive, citizens are required by law to follow it peaceably. Refuse, and combat the cops, you will get your ass kicked every time.

So far as I can see, asking someone to leave for being disruptive is a reasonable request.

I think most people would consider the behavior disruptive.
If the guy was civil and really was concerned about the questions and not getting his 15 minutes of fame, would there even have been an issue?

[Kapplow]

My old man told me he heard on the news the cops involved got fired. My old man is not a reliable source :)

I've seen people on cops get taken out way worse for refusing to take their hands out of their pockets.

[Gideon]

lol kapplow - those tend to be pretty extreme situations. to my knowledge, the security guards were put on leave, not fired. the difference? no clue.

kenzan - the cops' actions were reasonable sure. but here's the part for me that makes me think - what's the justification for this?


They told him if he did not comply he would be tazed.

He escalated the situation by yelling louder and refusing to move - even sitting down. Sure. Did he throw a punch? Did he threaten to become violent? Did he appear to have been drinking such that he could act in an unintional manner other than his default mode of being a jackass? Did he have a weapon? Was there any threat of force that made this situation more than a loud jerk throwing a 21 year old's version of a temper tantrum? No.

So why then did the police decide to escalate the situation by threatening to use electric force when they could have just as easily rolled him over, cuffed him and taken him to jail on creating a public nuisance and resisting an officer?

Personally, I don't see one. But then, can you tell I'm a defense attorney? ;)

[Owen]

i think the kid is at fault for resisting arrest/removal but the cops are also at fault for tazering the kid once they had him in submission on the ground. everybody loses.

[Kapplow]

what's the justification for this?

Saying, "Don't taze me bro!!" thats justification.
To me thats practically an invitation to turn up the friggin voltage. Who says that? That guy knew camera was on him and the world was watching.

I have an idea, you don't wanna be tazed? How about obeying the commands of law enforcement instead of saying don't taze me bro. What a moron. It's like saying, "HEY! DON'T PUSH THIS BIG SHINY RED BUTTON!" He wanted to be tazed.

Sorry, it's the Hoegaarden (http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z169/Kendoka82/SSPX0221.jpg) talking.

[Gideon]

We can recognize that it's a bad idea to give a crack addict a kilo of smack. Same principle should apply to fools in my book. Give em what they need, not what they want.

[Bokushingu]

lol I got sidetracked by the ad for the new Bionic Woman series -- The website and sneak peaks look awesome! didn't realize they were remaking the Bionic Woman :) Plus Katie Sackhoff(starbuck of BSG) is the Villian :)

[Anonymous]

Honestly, that guy deserved what he got. The cops didn't know who the hell he was, for all they knew he was some nut who was planning on hurting someone. If he didn't want to get into that kind of trouble, all he had to do was leave with the cops and not try to resist like that, even homeless people on crack tend to know better than to try pulling the kind of stuff he did.

[Gideon]

Deserved or not, (which I don't think he did - sure he's an ass but...) doesn't it open up the police to use something in situations where it's not deserved? And for that matter, who decides who is deserving and who isn't? You? Me? The police? Don't we want to hold our law enforcement to a higher standard to protect against those instances where undeserving individuals are subject to that kind of action?


even homeless people on crack tend to know better than to try pulling the kind of stuff he did.


yeah... well... you'd be surprised. a warm bed and three squares a day can be pretty appealing - plus, if there's a possibility of free rehab... it might just be worth the tazer. homeless people on crack can be silly like that sometimes. i wonder what i'd do...

[Jiyoui]

In this case, this guy was just an idiot.

If you guys have seen any of the recent event involving the tazer and police.....

argh

[Anonymous]

Deserved or not, (which I don't think he did - sure he's an ass but...) doesn't it open up the police to use something in situations where it's not deserved? And for that matter, who decides who is deserving and who isn't? You? Me? The police? Don't we want to hold our law enforcement to a higher standard to protect against those instances where undeserving individuals are subject to that kind of action?



yeah... well... you'd be surprised. a warm bed and three squares a day can be pretty appealing - plus, if there's a possibility of free rehab... it might just be worth the tazer. homeless people on crack can be silly like that sometimes. i wonder what i'd do...

He was just asking for it, the cops *are* allowed to use nonlethal force to remove you from an area if you resist like that. This really isn't anything new.

I've personally called the cops on tweakers and have had them just leave without making a scene. No tasers, nothing. I've had the cops called on me, and I just did what they told me to do and left, again, without having any trouble at all. If you resist like that pretty much anywhere you're either gonna get tazed, hit a few times with a stick, or sprayed with mace, or if you're lucky just dragged to the ground, cuffed, and dragged off.

[MikeW]

Didn't even really look like they actually tasered him he was just whining. Typically the police don't have their hands on a person that is getting tased (yes I know they had latex gloves on but those don't stop current very well, they are a bio barrier). Taser are actually pretty safe as a knock down for both the person using them as well as the person being tased. It's much better than being knocked out by a billy club the way they used to do it.

[Ignatz]

. . .yeah... well... you'd be surprised. a warm bed and three squares a day can be pretty appealing - plus, if there's a possibility of free rehab... it might just be worth the tazer. homeless people on crack can be silly like that sometimes. i wonder what i'd do...
You say you are a defense lawyer and your profile says you are 28 years old. Therefore you probably haven't been practicing very long.
While folks in the far northwest might look at jail as a good place to spend the winter, I don't think many folks in Florida share that feeling.

Rather than quote your other post about the campus cops acting reasonably, let me just say, I beg to differ. They are obviously poorly trained. Problem is, the people that can train them can't. American cops will never, ever take any training from someone who is not a cop. You end up with thuggery.
Quick wristlock takes him down. Switch to any one of several holds and believe you me he will want to stand up and walk quickly in the direction that you want him to go. Remove him from the area and cuff him when he is away from the spotlight.

[Kenzan]

American cops will never, ever take any training from someone who is not a cop. You end up with thuggery.
Quick wristlock takes him down. Switch to any one of several holds and believe you me he will want to stand up and walk quickly in the direction that you want him to go. Remove him from the area and cuff him when he is away from the spotlight.

That reminded me of cops here in Glendale.
I've seen our boys take down people on three separate occasions, and all three were with some sort of locks, looked Aikido-ish. Our cops are HUGE. like Arnie HUGE.
Then again, I understand that to be selected to serve on the force of our city is among the most difficult selection process in the nation.

If they directed me to do a tap dance, I'd hoof it like Gregory Heines.
:D

In any event, here's my impression on the events currently going on in that dude's life:

Mr. DTMB: "Dad, "I'm sorry if I embarrassed the family."

Mr. DTMB's Dad: (Smoking Pipe) "On the contrary son, what you did was a very brave thing, standing up to Herman Munster like that. Your mother and I are damn proud of you boy! Here, have a Lexus!

Mr. DTMB: Gee, thanks, Dad!!!!! But...aw....blue?

Mr. DTMB's Dad: "Oh what heck, Candy-Apple red it is!!!!!"

Mr. DTMB: "You're the bestest DAD! "

:D

I hope that dude's balls lit up like a Christmas tree.

[h2o]

Didn't even really look like they actually tasered him he was just whining. Typically the police don't have their hands on a person that is getting tased (yes I know they had latex gloves on but those don't stop current very well, they are a bio barrier). Taser are actually pretty safe as a knock down for both the person using them as well as the person being tased. It's much better than being knocked out by a billy club the way they used to do it.
I have seen a lot of videos were people hold the subject subjected to tasing without gloves and it seems to work fine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J9_Xcs0Tho is an example.

[Kenzan]

AHAHAHAHAHA (http://youtube.com/watch?v=eNLQY3bQyaM)

:D:D

[Ignatz]

That's funny.

[Halcyon]

BTW, non-lethal doesn't necessarily mean without risk of injury. Check out this story of an officer whose muscle contractions during a taser demo caused spinal fractures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/health/18safe.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Anonymous]

BTW, non-lethal doesn't necessarily mean without risk of injury. Check out this story of an officer whose muscle contractions during a taser demo caused spinal fractures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/health/18safe.html?_r=1&oref=slogin



Still a better idea than just beating someone into submission with a club if you asked me.

[Gideon]

You say you are a defense lawyer and your profile says you are 28 years old. Therefore you probably haven't been practicing very long.
While folks in the far northwest might look at jail as a good place to spend the winter, I don't think many folks in Florida share that feeling.

...

Quick wristlock takes him down. Switch to any one of several holds and believe you me he will want to stand up and walk quickly in the direction that you want him to go. Remove him from the area and cuff him when he is away from the spotlight.

I've been practicing long enough (mostly in Detroit actually) to know that there are definitely people (note i limited those people to the homeless) who will take free room and board over lying in a street where people kick, yell, and piss on you. As to Florida, you get teenagers to go around killing the homeless, so you'd think they'd be just as eager, if not moreso, to go to jail.

All that aside, I think your statement about effective ways to forcible remove a person is perfectly reasonable. Electrocuting someone so that their 'will' will comply with yours is not. JMHO.

[Ignatz]

Make no mistake about it, my way is "compliance through pain". Do what I want you to do and it will stop hurting. The real trick is to lead them to where you want them to go because it stops the pain. It has to be done in a smooth way or else you just end up struggling. Their #1 concern is to stop the pain #2 is to escape. So if you want them to go to the left, make the pain stop if they go to the left but keep the pressure on so they keep going to the left and never get a chance to go for #2.

[Mr Softee]

Land of the free?

so long as you dont ask questions I guess....

[Kenzan]

Land of the free?

so long as you dont ask questions I guess....

Oh, one can ask questions;
Just don't waste everyone's time by disruptive blathering with self-grandiose attention-whore nonsense to a high-ranking government official who has graciously given (for a fee) to the students of this school a chance to engage in dialogs with someone who at least has the decorum not to fight policemen when being removed for breaking the law by disrupting a school function ( misdemeanor) and then compounding it by resisting arrest. (A felony) --actually Kerry may have done that himself at one time...

The cops don't have the time or luxury to play "WWF" with some dumbass who has broken the law. You fight the cops, you get tazed.
Quick, simple. period. It's not like you're being taken to a camp somewhere to be tortured.
Don't agree with the cops? Fine. Go with them peacefully and sue the crap out of the city later, in a court of law.

This jackalope represents some people's idea of what they think they can do or say or behave like in society, which is anything or anyway they want.

Surprise! ZZaP!
Life ain't all about YOU , college boy!
Most of us in the real world have to watch what and how the things we say and do to other people, and generally have to play by the rules which we make.
In the real world, dealing with people like this guy did can often get you a dirt-nap as a reward.

The guy's a disgrace to the school. IMHO.
:alien:

[Kapplow]

Check it out. (http://www.billoreilly.com/store)

If I had money to waste...

[samurai80]

People that should be tased upon arrest (for any reason)...

1. Paris Hilton
2. Lindsay Lohan
3. Phil Wright
4. Any news reporter that was involved with the Anna Nicole Smith thingy.
5. People who drink Bud Light (and think it tastes good)
6. People who deny that they've ever masturbated (don't look me in the eyes and lie to me, woman)
7. Anyone who claims to study, or has studied ninjitsu
8. Micheal Vick
9. Anyone who says, " Don't tase me bro!"
10.Child molesters (tasing must be directly to balls)

[Kapplow]

+ rep for you sir

11. Rosie O'Donnell
12. People who wear those ridiculous DBZ shirts.

[Big One]

I don't know who he is and what is his history. I only saw him asking uncomfortable questions. Kerry didn't like the questions, cop escorted him out because he asked unfavorable questions and tased him because he is loud. this is so f..k up. I guess if he asks something about bad Bush, he will be invited to VIP lounge.

[Ignatz]

13. Bill O'Reiley-does not need to be actually arrested, may be tased simply on suspicion of being up to no good.
14. Rush Limbaugh-ditto.

[Kenzan]

I don't know who he is and what is his history. I only saw him asking uncomfortable questions. Kerry didn't like the questions, cop escorted him out because he asked unfavorable questions and tased him because he is loud. this is so f..k up. I guess if he asks something about bad Bush, he will be invited to VIP lounge.

It wasn't the content of the questions, it was the fact that he was being purposefully disruptive.

The history of the event is important.
The whole reason why the cops were standing behind him in the first place was because reportedly he was making a scene outside in the lobby prior to the event, so they were watching him closely. He is also a journalism major. His prepared statement of his arrest was posted by his buddies on his website moments after the event. This wasn't about free speech in my view, but about a selfish twit interviewing for the Washington Press Corps. The sad part is, all of the students who are marching for this idiot are playing right into his hands.

In any case, the contents of the questions were strictly from the tin-foil hat wearing crowd, which also was crafted for mass Woo-Woo effect.

Skull and Bones! OooOoOOoOoOo scary!:eek:

Oddly enough, Kerry was going to answer the questions.
:confused::confused2

[Dave_petrucci]

Is it wrong for me to find that hilarious?

[Manuka]

Taser was unnecessary. There were 4 security people AT LEAST.


Presumably leaving zero security in 3 places where security was considered necessary, so this kid could have his selfish media moment.

[JCM]

nevermind....deleted post

[Big One]

It wasn't the content of the questions, it was the fact that he was being purposefully disruptive.

The history of the event is important.
The whole reason why the cops were standing behind him in the first place was because reportedly he was making a scene outside in the lobby prior to the event, so they were watching him closely. He is also a journalism major. His prepared statement of his arrest was posted by his buddies on his website moments after the event. This wasn't about free speech in my view, but about a selfish twit interviewing for the Washington Press Corps. The sad part is, all of the students who are marching for this idiot are playing right into his hands.

In any case, the contents of the questions were strictly from the tin-foil hat wearing crowd, which also was crafted for mass Woo-Woo effect.

Skull and Bones! OooOoOOoOoOo scary!:eek:

Oddly enough, Kerry was going to answer the questions.
:confused::confused2


He prepared a statement for his arrest? big deal, that what was called "planning ahead"

So he was making the scene outside in the lobby? I have known some others making more stupid things than that like lying to the whole nation about having sex with an intern. Beside, He didn't do harm to anyone.

His questions is stupid? I have heard many more stupid question from professional journalists. Why can Kerry just say " I don't want to answer those questions" and that is it.

What I have seen is he asked questions, cop wanted to escort him out, he just want to stay to listen to the answers, they push him out, they tased him. So if he want to be famous, the way he planned it, I have to say he is smart and the cop walked right into his trap. He deserved to be famous. I have seen more stupid people be famous, why can't he?

[Inner_Silence]

damn goo thing that I dont live in the US, Ill be dead by now, for all the things Ive said against university, politicians and all kind of assholes. censorship is everywhere, but not THAT hardcore.

THERE GOES FREEDOM OF SPEECH in the land of the free

[Inner_Silence]

It wasn't the content of the questions, it was the fact that he was being purposefully disruptive.


let me illuminate you

what that guy did in when he had to ask the "question" is a rhetoric tecnique. obviously that "college boy" knew that. it has a fancy latin name that I cant remember right now, but basically it works by asking a question that is really NOT a question. in other words, is making a monologic (sp) speech to say something and make it LOOK like a question, but it is not a question at all, you can realize it becouse the answer to the suposed "question" is actually irrelevant. I can see this becouse I was the argumentative team in my university and have learnt all this speech tecniques and this are obvious for the trained eye (or ear in this case)

[samurai80]

Your ears are trained too? I can get mine to do flips. Watch...ohhh!!! You missed it, they were spectacular. But seriously, when I got them they were wild, and without manners. Now they just stay where I tell them too, even when I have company over to my house.

[Inner_Silence]

ive seen that video lots of times, and there is a guy recording from a cellphone, and you can check aut that there is a guy that orders the policeman to shut the guy up...

really all that "secret society" stuff is not the important thing even the way that the guy asked the question (personally I think that he could have been more polite anyway, it would have even a bigger effect) the thing is that he got teased just for sayng things. in fact he was already on the floor when he got teased, i think all that it was unnecesary.

there is SO many things in my country that I really dont like BUT around here anyone can still say or think whatever they want without getting censored. of course everyone has to be responsable for their sayngs...

[Owen]

Your ears are trained too? I can get mine to do flips. Watch...ohhh!!! You missed it, they were spectacular. But seriously, when I got them they were wild, and without manners. Now they just stay where I tell them too, even when I have company over to my house.

must spread rep...

[Inner_Silence]

there are not big words, only small minds...

[Kenzan]

let me illuminate you

what that guy did in when he had to ask the "question" is a rhetoric tecnique. obviously that "college boy" knew that. it has a fancy latin name that I cant remember right now, but basically it works by asking a question that is really NOT a question. in other words, is making a monologic (sp) speech to say something and make it LOOK like a question, but it is not a question at all, you can realize it becouse the answer to the suposed "question" is actually irrelevant. I can see this becouse I was the argumentative team in my university and have learnt all this speech tecniques and this are obvious for the trained eye (or ear in this case)

I think you are missing the point.
This is not about free speech. This is about resisting arrest.
He was on private property. He was asked to leave.
Asking him to leave was well within the "rights" of the cops, as they were granted privilege to enforce the will of the property owner, in this case the University.
He refused to leave, and fought the cops.
Being allowed a forum to speak your mind on private property isn't a right, it's a privilege, which the University has the right to revoke at any time.

In summation, it was the call of the authorized executors of the University to remove him, they were legally in the right to do so, he resisted arrest, and he was subdued into compliance with a Tazer.

All perfectly legal.

[Kenzan]

there is SO many things in my country that I really dont like BUT around here anyone can still say or think whatever they want without getting censored.


Think of it this way;
Someone comes to my house and disrupts my party, starts spouting off rhetoric which I don't like. (It really does not matter the reason) in any case, I ask him to leave. It's my property,right? I get to decide who stays and who goes, right?

He refuses to leave, I call the cops. He fights the cops, and they taze him until he is compliant and removes him.
Do you have any issue with that?

When you are not still, but moving around, resisting the act of restraint, you are not in compliance. To avoid possible injury by law enforcement, if the subject does not comply, you must force compliance in the least harmful way available. In this case, pummeling someone into compliance would not have been acceptable.

You can talk about use of physical force and the number of cops available all day, but in a fluid situation such as wrestling someone to the ground and attempting to force handcuffs on a struggling subject isn't as easy as it looks, and injury to law enforcement or the subject is much higher than administering a tazer.

What if in the act of forcing compliance, an arm was broken, or if the subject had a sharp object in his pocket and accidentally jabbed the cops? It happens all the time.

Wrestling a person who is fighting arrest is an unnecessary and unacceptable risk law enforcement need not take when other quicker and safer means are available to do the same job.

[Theodore]

Actually it was a taser used as a stun gun.



"Some TASER devices, particularly those used by police departments, also have a "Drive Stun" capability, where the taser is held against the target without firing barbs and is intended to cause pain without incapacitating the target. TASER defines "Drive Stun" as "the process of using the EMD weapon as a pain compliance technique. This is done by activating the EMD and placing it against an individual’s body. This can be done without an air cartridge in place or after an air cartridge has been deployed."

A Las Vegas police document says "The Drive Stun causes significant localized pain in the area touched by the TASER but does not have a significant effect on the central nervous system. The Drive Stun does not incapacitate a subject but may assist in taking a subject into custody."

It is also known as "Dry taseing" or "Drive taseing"."

Note that this is different than what you normally see when a Taser is deployed, in that there are no barbs fired from the weapon, and total incapacitation does not result from a drive stun.

[Gideon]

I think you are missing the point.
This is not about free speech. This is about resisting arrest.


I think the reason this is such a debated topic is that it really is about both. The real question is, how do you balance the interest of the state (long covoluted route to get there having to do with University funding sources etc) and an individual's right to free speech (even if he is an ass).

I'm not quite sure this goes to the personal property rights of the University. Assuming the guy is a student, technically he has a right to be there as well. But I think that's an ancillary issue.

[Kenzan]

I think the reason this is such a debated topic is that it really is about both. The real question is, how do you balance the interest of the state (long covoluted route to get there having to do with University funding sources etc) and an individual's right to free speech (even if he is an ass).


Legally, the issue is pretty cut and dried.
It's not a free speech issue.



I'm not quite sure this goes to the personal property rights of the University. Assuming the guy is a student, technically he has a right to be there as well. But I think that's an ancillary issue.

I would argue that he doesn't have the right to be there.
He is allowed the "privilege" (If even that) by the University to be there.


I think you might be confused with the difference of "rights" and "privileges".

This will explain it fairly in depth. (http://revolutioni.st/cclass.html)
And by a Texan no less!
:D

[JoDuncan]

I just watched the original video.

Shit.

Impotence.

[Gideon]

Legally, the issue is pretty cut and dried.
It's not a free speech issue.

I'm sorry, I'm still lauging at this. A legal issue... cut and dried? When has that EVER been the case? XD


I would argue that he doesn't have the right to be there.
He is allowed the "privilege" (If even that) by the University to be there.

Actually, by virtue of the fact that the University accepts his money, he does possess a contractual right to be in that auditorium - in the same way I had a 'right' to attend class (they couldn't prevent me from being there) and this guy had a 'right' to attend that speech. The University couldn't per se bar his admittance by virtue of the fact that he is affiliated with the school.

However, and this is the issue I spoke of earlier. When does he forfeit that right and the right of the university to a good and orderly yadda yadda take over. This is the balancing of the individual and state right.


I think you might be confused with the difference of "rights" and "privileges".

Please, please don't make me give a lecture on Hohfeldian right duty relationships. I will provide the following for your reference however. You might find it interesting as he (Hohfeld) attempts to actually break down the different meanings of the english word, 'right' as we are using it in this discussion and in other matters of legal discourse.

Hohfeldian Right/Duty Relationships (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Newcomb_Hohfeld)

What you say is his privilege to be there, on school property, I argue is an affirmative right, in the sense that if it is taken from him, the University also possesses a correlative duty to allow him to be there. Now, if the boy didn't write home to mom or dad for the tuition check, he may be up a creek without a paddle. But if he is paid up, and the University deprives him of the right to be there, they they have breached their duty and can be held liable.

This then gets us to the real discussion - as a defense, the Uni says this kid is interfering with its more important duty to other students and their right to not have this particular discussion disturbed. Now the courts would have to balance the competing 'rights' involved - the individual and state.


This will explain it fairly in depth. (http://revolutioni.st/cclass.html)
And by a Texan no less!
:D

You sure he's not a West Virginian? Actually, I haven't listened to it - I will later though. I imagine from the site that it's fairly libertarian though. The Patrick Henry quotes tipped it.

[Big One]

Think of it this way;
Someone comes to my house and disrupts my party, starts spouting off rhetoric which I don't like. (It really does not matter the reason) in any case, I ask him to leave. It's my property,right? I get to decide who stays and who goes, right?

He refuses to leave, I call the cops. He fights the cops, and they taze him until he is compliant and removes him.
Do you have any issue with that?

When you are not still, but moving around, resisting the act of restraint, you are not in compliance. To avoid possible injury by law enforcement, if the subject does not comply, you must force compliance in the least harmful way available. In this case, pummeling someone into compliance would not have been acceptable.

You can talk about use of physical force and the number of cops available all day, but in a fluid situation such as wrestling someone to the ground and attempting to force handcuffs on a struggling subject isn't as easy as it looks, and injury to law enforcement or the subject is much higher than administering a tazer.

What if in the act of forcing compliance, an arm was broken, or if the subject had a sharp object in his pocket and accidentally jabbed the cops? It happens all the time.

Wrestling a person who is fighting arrest is an unnecessary and unacceptable risk law enforcement need not take when other quicker and safer means are available to do the same job.


First, if it is a private party, who is paying for John Kerry to come and speech. If you can tell me that some private citizen paid by his own money, now that is private. If it was from University of Florida, then it was not a private party and all the students have the right to come. Please show the proof that it was a private party.

[Kenzan]

Actually, by virtue of the fact that the University accepts his money, he does possess a contractual right to be in that auditorium - in the same way I had a 'right' to attend class (they couldn't prevent me from being there) and this guy had a 'right' to attend that speech. The University couldn't per se bar his admittance by virtue of the fact that he is affiliated with the school.


You have the right to be alive. You have the right to exists.
You have the right to pursue happiness.
You do not have the "Right" to go wherever you please, and say/do whatever you wish just because you "pays your money."

I am certain that whichever "contractual right" (whatever that is supposed to mean) given by the University also covers negation of any granted privileges due to actions of student asshattery.
:D



However, and this is the issue I spoke of earlier. When does he forfeit that right and the right of the university to a good and orderly yadda yadda take over. This is the balancing of the individual and state right.


The moment the student refused to obey the cops, he was breaking a law (several if you want to get technical) Which were at the time misdemeanors.
The moment he physically refused to leave and started resisting arrest, he committed a felony.



What you say is his privilege to be there, on school property, I argue is an affirmative right, in the sense that if it is taken from him, the University also possesses a correlative duty to allow him to be there. Now, if the boy didn't write home to mom or dad for the tuition check, he may be up a creek without a paddle. But if he is paid up, and the University deprives him of the right to be there, they they have breached their duty and can be held liable.


I am certain the University has covered themselves well regarding this area.



This then gets us to the real discussion - as a defense, the Uni says this kid is interfering with its more important duty to other students and their right to not have this particular discussion disturbed. Now the courts would have to balance the competing 'rights' involved - the individual and state.


Which, in this case, I feel the University is correct.

[Gideon]

You have the right to be alive. You have the right to exists.
You have the right to pursue happiness.
You do not have the "Right" to go wherever you please, and say/do whatever you wish just because you "pays your money."

We can take this out of the legal and into the religious if we want to discuss what rights we really have, but that'd be a wild (yet interesting in my mind) tangent.


I am certain that whichever "contractual right" (whatever that is supposed to mean) given by the University also covers negation of any granted privileges due to actions of student asshattery.
:D
A contractual right is one that is created as an agreement between two people. A simple example is buying a book for $10. We agree and do all the necessary things to make sure this is in fact what we intend. Then, if I give you the book and you don't give me the money, I can go to court to get you to pay up. Or, if I pay, and you don't give me the book, I can go to court and get you to deliver the book.



The moment the student refused to obey the cops, he was breaking a law (several if you want to get technical) Which were at the time misdemeanors.
The moment he physically refused to leave and started resisting arrest, he committed a felony.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on whether he's charged or not. Still, even if he was charged with a crime, the Constitution and various Supreme Court rulings say that if certain of his Constitutional rights were violated in the process, a criminal conviction might not stand.

This again points to the fact that the real discussion is the balancing of his free speech right versus the Uni's right to boot the boy out of the hall.


I am certain the University has covered themselves well regarding this area. They'd be irresponsible not to.



Which, in this case, I feel the University is correct.

Perfectly reasonable position. I've enjoyed the discussion. I'd add rep if I could. :)

[Kenzan]

We can take this out of the legal and into the religious if we want to discuss what rights we really have..


Really?
How so?
Unless you mean to say that in truth all rights are as illusory, since in fact "rights" are constructs of human societal concepts.



A contractual right is one that is created as an agreement between two people. A simple example is buying a book for $10. We agree and do all the necessary things to make sure this is in fact what we intend. Then, if I give you the book and you don't give me the money, I can go to court to get you to pay up. Or, if I pay, and you don't give me the book, I can go to court and get you to deliver the book.


We can also agree that one of us can nullfy the contract at any time for certain reasons or actions, or any reason or actions, generally the one who is in higher authority of the party, uses the contract to bestow privileges to the other party while crafting it to protect/benefit themselves.




Maybe, maybe not. Depends on whether he's charged or not. Still, even if he was charged with a crime, the Constitution and various Supreme Court rulings say that if certain of his Constitutional rights were violated in the process, a criminal conviction might not stand.


I'm not sure where I have seen that in the Constitution, but if you find it, I'll consider myself corrected on that point. In any case, while I am not confident that the school will bend to erroneous pressure and find it not cost effective to press charges, on the other hand, since taze-boy will inevitably sue, I'd expect the University and the Law to pretty much crush his spoiled-mama's boy ass..

[Kenzan]

First, if it is a private party, who is paying for John Kerry to come and speech. If you can tell me that some private citizen paid by his own money, now that is private. If it was from University of Florida, then it was not a private party and all the students have the right to come. Please show the proof that it was a private party.

The Campus of the University of Florida is not public property.
There are also a huge volume of State and Federal laws that Govern Universities that may not otherwise apply to the general public.

[Gideon]

Really?
How so?
Unless you mean to say that in truth all rights are as illusory, since in fact "rights" are constructs of human societal concepts.

Basically. :) Kind of pretentious to stand in front of God and tell Him that you're entitled to something other than what he's promised. A big one in the US is safety and security. Many people think it a right... I tend to think they're trying to construct something for themselves that will always have holes. Sand castles by the seaside and all.


We can also agree that one of us can nullfy the contract at any time for certain reasons or actions, or any reason or actions, generally the one who is in higher authority of the party, uses the contract to bestow privileges to the other party while crafting it to protect/benefit themselves.
Indeed. For example, at the Uni, they can kick you out for failing to perform academically, etc. I'm not sure the, you're being a complete ass is covered by that clause. And if it isn't a part of the agreement, it isn't a 'right' conferred by one party to the other. I also think you're being overly liberal with the term privileges. You don't confer privileges in a contract, you confer rights and assume duties. If you only conferred privileges, you've created a pseudo-promise that you could go back on at any time. If agreed to, fine. In general however, this does not reflect the nature of contracts. The whole point is certainty.


I'm not sure where I have seen that in the Constitution, but if you find it, I'll consider myself corrected on that point. In any case, while I am not confident that the school will bend to erroneous pressure and find it not cost effective to press charges, on the other hand, since taze-boy will inevitably sue, I'd expect the University and the Law to pretty much crush his spoiled-mama's boy ass..

Basically check the bill of rights. The Supreme Court has interpreted an Exclusionary Rule for violations of an individual's constitutional rights in criminal contexts. I'm not sure off the top of my head how the right to free speech is applied, if at all. My initial reaction is that it doesn't. *shrug*

[Kenzan]

Basically. :) Kind of pretentious to stand in front of God and tell Him that you're entitled to something other than what he's promised. A big one in the US is safety and security. Many people think it a right... I tend to think they're trying to construct something for themselves that will always have holes. Sand castles by the seaside and all.


While I agree with you on the illusion of security, I'd also say the same thing about God, but that's sort of beyond the scope of this forum.



Indeed. For example, at the Uni, they can kick you out for failing to perform academically, etc. I'm not sure the, you're being a complete ass is covered by that clause.


I am positive that there is something in the University agreement that states something along the lines that students will abide by and agree to follow reasonable and or lawful directions given to them by the University Cadre and Campus Police, although on in the case of Campus Police, it may already be inferred due to their obvious powers of authority.



And if it isn't a part of the agreement, it isn't a 'right' conferred by one party to the other. I also think you're being overly liberal with the term privileges. You don't confer privileges in a contract, you confer rights and assume duties. If you only conferred privileges, you've created a pseudo-promise that you could go back on at any time. If agreed to, fine. In general however, this does not reflect the nature of contracts. The whole point is certainty.


I disagree. A contract, such as a business contract, provides two parties with understandings of each person's committments and responsibilities as stated in the contractual agreement. In the case of the University, the student is being given "privilege" to use the Campus facilities and resources as the University has seen fit to distribute those items to the student for the purposes of that Student's education. The student does not have a guarentee to anything other that what the University states they do.
I would also argue that you to not have a "Right" to receive an education, no more than that you have a "right" to free services.
Would you advocate that a student bang on the door of admissions demanding his or her "right" to receive a free education?
Before you answer that, remember that just by paying your tuition, you are guaranteed no more privileges other than what the University has allowed the student.

As I am defining the two words:

Rights: Things that inheirantly belong to you which require no higher authority to obtain.

Privileges: Pretty much Everything else.

[Ignatz]

I think that in 20 years I could count on one hand the number of cases that I won by arguing the finer points of law. On the other hand, I have prevailed innumerable time by arguing the facts.

Might be the difference between an amateur and a pro. :eek:

ok. Do you have the right under the 1st ammendment to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater?

(I'll answer for you)

No.

Do you have the right to offer you opinion in a public forum about matters of public concern that are in some way relevant to the forum? (and before you start talking about pulic vs. private property, this was a public forum)

Again, the answer is yes.

So then, it would seem that, putting aside the fact that the campus security people are complete bozos, determining where on the continuum from yelling "fire" to offering an opinion lay the lads actions would be the first question you would want to answer. Correct?

Yes.

Ok, you take it from here. No need to complicate stuff with philosophy and theology and junk like that (certainly not sociology). Just the facts.

[Gideon]

While I agree with you on the illusion of security, I'd also say the same thing about God, but that's sort of beyond the scope of this forum.

And while I see your point that God may also be viewed as illusory, I would humbly disagree, though agree that the discussion is beyond the scope of this forum.



I am positive that there is something in the University agreement that states something along the lines that students will abide by and agree to follow reasonable and or lawful directions given to them by the University Cadre and Campus Police, although on in the case of Campus Police, it may already be inferred due to their obvious powers of authority.

I never signed anything from the University I went to other than my checks for tuition. And I'm not sure what inherent power a University has to employ campus police with any power greater than your standard 'rent-a-cop', but wisdom would dictate that you not piss off the security guard.



I disagree. A contract, such as a business contract, provides two parties with understandings of each person's committments and responsibilities as stated in the contractual agreement. In the case of the University, the student is being given "privilege" to use the Campus facilities and resources as the University has seen fit to distribute those items to the student for the purposes of that Student's education. The student does not have a guarentee to anything other that what the University states they do.

Again, this can only be measured when someone takes something away - when a duty under the contract is breached. If you pay tuition and are told you cannot sit in a class because you are 5 minutes late. Does the argument hold that your privilege to enter that class, despite the fact that you've paid for it hold water? I'd say no. Now granted the prof may be pissed, dress you down, lose respect for you and all that stuff - but those consequences are outside of direct University actions.


I would also argue that you to not have a "Right" to receive an education, no more than that you have a "right" to free services.
Would you advocate that a student bang on the door of admissions demanding his or her "right" to receive a free education?
Before you answer that, remember that just by paying your tuition, you are guaranteed no more privileges other than what the University has allowed the student.

Never made the argument that there was a right to free eduction, or education at all. In fact, I wouldn't even call it a privilege. Pure and simple, education is a blessing - one that I hope all are someday able to enjoy. I would say that if you've enrolled in Uni and they take your coin, they had better offer you classes you've enrolled in and allow you to attend. If not, refund tuition and cover consequential damages.


Rights: Things that inheirantly belong to you which require no higher authority to obtain.

Privileges: Pretty much Everything else.

I'm not too keen on your definitions, but yeah, mostly just semantic differences. Take your definition of right and apply it to the Uni in this case. What if the Univ of Florida had to call in state police to remove this clown - aka, they had to appeal to a high authority to enforce their interest. By your definition of 'right' because they are unable to handle their own problem, they really never did have that right at all.

This discussion actually goes back to the initial point about religion/philosophy and rights. Inherent rights are those we possess on our own, with no higher authority. Well, what then of the constitution - is that not a higher authority? Or the declaration of independence? is that not a higher authority? Do we really possess those rights by virtue of our status as human beings, or are they merely granted us by our own arrogance and the fact that we've arbitrarily claimed them with no one else more powerful to say otherwise?

[Gideon]

I think that in 20 years I could count on one hand the number of cases that I won by arguing the finer points of law. On the other hand, I have prevailed innumerable time by arguing the facts.

I love the perspective. My (as you've pointed out) limited experience has been that in order to argue the facts, you have to get the messy framework of how you're going to hear, listen, evaluate, and decide those facts out of the way first.

Even in your example of calling out fire in the theater, someone, somewhere had to make a determination as to how to decide whether or not that was protected speech before they could say it wasn't - even if it really was just a gut call based on common sense.

Sorry if our discussion has hijacked the thread. For me, this is very interesting stuff. I love jurisprudence. :)


Ok, you take it from here. No need to complicate stuff with philosophy and theology and junk like that (certainly not sociology). Just the facts.

LOL - "certainly not sociology"

"Just the facts ma'am. Just the facts."

[Ignatz]

Nope. Facts is facts (like parts is parts).
The outside parameters I gave you are not subject to discussion at all. They are hard and fast rules. How and why the rules were made is quite irrelevant to the determination of whether or not he could be forcibly ejected from the forum. An attempt to discuss that is simply mental masturbation and a way to avoid answering the real question.
Again, the way that they forcibly ejected him is a different issue. Once we decide whether or not they are justified in forcibly removing him then we get to the issue of the level of force used.

[Kenzan]

I never signed anything from the University I went to other than my checks for tuition. And I'm not sure what inherent power a University has to employ campus police with any power greater than your standard 'rent-a-cop', but wisdom would dictate that you not piss off the security guard.


Really? No waiver or agreement to rules and regulations?
Nothing? Just here's my check, when do I start?
Wow.
In any event, don't know how accurate it is, but... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_police)
Also, perhaps the looking down on Campus "rent-a-cops" security by the students is part of a larger issue. But then again, that's pretty much the same attitude most folks have of regular cops. Not exactly the best frame of mind for folks who risk their lives daily for a crap salary to clean up the messes of the rest of us.



I would say that if you've enrolled in Uni and they take your coin, they had better offer you classes you've enrolled in and allow you to attend. If not, refund tuition and cover consequential damages.


Exactly. Although depending on the circumstances, I would not offhand say a person would be due a refund.



Take your definition of right and apply it to the Uni in this case. What if the Univ of Florida had to call in state police to remove this clown - aka, they had to appeal to a high authority to enforce their interest. By your definition of 'right' because they are unable to handle their own problem, they really never did have that right at all.


But in this case, the Government is made up of entities and citizens granted special privileges whom are given authority by the people to enforce the rule of law where applicable on behalf of the people.
Since the Government is simply an extension of the will of the people (In theory)
then you are asking in effect, your own countrymen to aid you by extension of the offices which you as a people elected.
Ergo, you are helping yourself. The "Higher Power" is the people.




This discussion actually goes back to the initial point about religion/philosophy and rights. Inherent rights are those we possess on our own, with no higher authority. Well, what then of the constitution - is that not a higher authority? Or the declaration of independence? is that not a higher authority? Do we really possess those rights by virtue of our status as human beings, or are they merely granted us by our own arrogance and the fact that we've arbitrarily claimed them with no one else more powerful to say otherwise?

A good point, and in the end, I suppose it's a game of which makes more logical sense, and which form is closer to the founding father's vision?

[Gideon]

The outside parameters I gave you are not subject to discussion at all.

And yet, here we are.



They are hard and fast rules.
That are continuously subject to change.


How and why the rules were made is quite irrelevant to the determination of whether or not he could be forcibly ejected from the forum.

Except as to bring the discussion to the real point - the balancing of interests of the University and the individual.


An attempt to discuss that is simply mental masturbation ...

mmmmmmMMMMMMmmmMmMmmm... Jurisprudence... :P



Again, the way that they forcibly ejected him is a different issue. Once we decide whether or not they are justified in forcibly removing him then we get to the issue of the level of force used.
Your first statement has been my point from the start - what is justifiable (read: whose interests win the balancing, the Uni or the individual) in this context?

[Kenzan]

Except as to bring the discussion to the real point - the balancing of interests of the University and the individual.


What's there to discuss?

To summarize my position:

Git off'n mah prop'ty! (click, click!)

LOL
:D

[Gideon]

Also, perhaps the looking down on Campus "rent-a-cops" security by the students is part of a larger issue. But then again, that's pretty much the same attitude most folks have of regular cops. Not exactly the best frame of mind for folks who risk their lives daily for a crap salary to clean up the messes of the rest of us.

So long as there is power, it will be abused. There are many decent, sacrificing police officers out there. I went to school with some. However, there are many, many others that are there for the power trip and what they can get out of it. Having prosecuted cases and working with officers on a daily basis, I know for a fact that there are some in each category; even in the remotest of places, not just big cities. Officers are no different than any other human being in a position of power. At the end of the day, it's how you use it.



Git off'n mah prop'ty! (click, click!)

You mean, (bzzt, bzzt!) :)

[Ignatz]

And yet, here we are.. . .

Nope here you are. Do you get out of the shower to take a piss? If so then you should do insurance defense and bill 3000 hours of nothing per year.

[Gideon]

Nope here you are. Do you get out of the shower to take a piss? If so then you should do insurance defense and bill 3000 hours of nothing per year.

Does it matter whether I get out of the shower to take a piss, do it before I get in the shower, or piss all over myself in the shower?

If you have an objection to the direction of the thread and the discussion, feel free to raise it directly rather than being passive-aggressive about it. At the same time, please feel free to can the cute personal insults. There's your mental masturbation.

Now, if you just happen to hate all insurance defense lawyers who "bill 3000 hours of nothing" because someone close to you got in a wreck and some prick from the insurance company denied her claim, feel free to project that onto me all you like.

[Ignatz]

What's there to discuss?

To summarize my position:

Git off'n mah prop'ty! (click, click!)

LOL
:D

Nope. Wrong. You know that, too.

[Kenzan]

Nope. Wrong. You know that, too.

Yeah, but his girly-like screaming was really fun to watch.

I'm a sick, sick man...
:confused2

:D
LOL

[tgsfg]

Off topic:

Since there are seems to be lawyers/law students here, I have a question. Is it true that in some states it's legal to shoot someone that is trespassing on your property? Cause some guy told me this one time, but his credibility is near zero; however, the person he claims to have heard from has relatively high credibility.

On topic:

I'm pretty sure there were rules set by the University before the discussions took place. So if the student is participating, he has agreed to these rules no? It's like when you go to school(elementary, middle, high) you give up some rights in exchange for education. You have free speech, but if you're disrespectful towards the teacher, you get sent to the dean.

[Gideon]

Off topic:

Since there are seems to be lawyers/law students here, I have a question. Is it true that in some states it's legal to shoot someone that is trespassing on your property? Cause some guy told me this one time, but his credibility is near zero; however, the person he claims to have heard from has relatively high credibility.

I'll leave answering this one to:


a pro. :eek:

[Ignatz]

I'll leave answering this one to:

Thank you.

Dear tgsfg,
The answer to your question is No. It is not true that in some states it legal to shoot someone who is trespassing on your property.

Where should I send my bill?

I will now take a shower and go to kendo practice.

[Kenzan]

[QUOTE=tgsfg;285320]Off topic:

Since there are seems to be lawyers/law students here, I have a question. Is it true that in some states it's legal to shoot someone that is trespassing on your property? Cause some guy told me this one time, but his credibility is near zero; however, the person he claims to have heard from has relatively high credibility.

Look, it's like I told you before, yes, I will shot ye if'n y'all don't stop throwing rocks at my yard gnomes!!

LOL
:D

[Gideon]

Thank you.

Dear tgsfg,
The answer to your question is No. It is not true that in some states it legal to shoot someone who is trespassing on your property.

Where should I send my bill?

I will now take a shower and go to kendo practice.

Just make sure he doesn't bill you for getting out of the shower to take a piss.

[Kenzan]

Just make sure he doesn't bill you for getting out of the shower to take a piss.

I take offense to that statement.
I'm suing you for 12 billion for my pain and suffering.

:laugh:

[Gideon]

If only I was collectible. You might have a shot.

[Kenzan]

Ok all rhetoric aside, here's how I really feel about it;

Were I in charge of the event, I would have probably let the kid finish his say.
Not because he had the right, but it's just (In my mind) the right thing to do, and promotes healthy open dialog, even if he was acting like a douchebag.
Hard to say what I would have done as far as making the call to remove him but since the guy was belligerent. Also there may have been secret service present with other instructions, so there may have been other factors.

Would I have tazed the guy?
again, tough call, but probably not.
Were they right to do it?
Did they have the justification and authority to do it?
My gut says yes,

But I leave that to the Legal Eagles who are way smarter than I.

[Ignatz]

Just make sure he doesn't bill you for getting out of the shower to take a piss.

Why would I get out of the shower? I built the house and I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the shower and toilet are connected to the same pipe. Getting out is a waste of time.

I also wash my hands before I piss not after. I have a very clean penis, I wash it vigorously every morning. Although I never piss on my hands, I don't know what they have touched though.

[The great I AM]

Why would I get out of the shower? I built the house and I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the shower and toilet are connected to the same pipe. Getting out is a waste of time.So you crap in the shower too? That bastard must take bloody ages to jams its way down the pipes....

[Ignatz]

No my dear. When I smell the coffee brewing I get a pavlovian response and quickly conjure up a length of cable. Sometimes I have to reach in and break it in half so this it will flush. Try eating decent food and drinking good beer instead of slop and you might have a nice solid log some day.

I have designed a shower stall with a toilet in it though. Save a fortune on paper.

Of course in your case, since you just got to Japan, it will still be a couple more weeks before you take a crap.

[Chaby]

It's Hammer (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc) time!
:D

[kartoffelngeist]

Interestingly,


“In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way. I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention. I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of responding when he was taken into custody. I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured. I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted."
http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=283508

Legal issues aside (as they're not particularly interesting and we could argue over semi-colons 'til our hearts' content with no real answer), I think the police handled it extremely badly. Kenzan said in an earlier post that the guy was being disruptive (though I don't agree) and disrespectful to the speaker who had come to speak. However, you can hear Kerry trying to answer the question in the video.

Bit of a mess really...

[Manuka]

Why would I get out of the shower? I built the house and I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the shower and toilet are connected to the same pipe. Getting out is a waste of time.



No separation of black and grey water ?

Also as a toilet flush is designed to get "the stuff" down around the U bend and showers are not, how do you deal with the odor problem ?
or do you never eat asparagus. :laugh:

[Ignatz]

No separation of black and grey water ?

Also as a toilet flush is designed to get "the stuff" down around the U bend and showers are not, how do you deal with the odor problem ?
or do you never eat asparagus. :laugh:

I have a lovely septic system at the house. When I put in my outside showers I am installing a pond system for the grey water and a bit of piddle here and there will not be a problem. I plan on installing composting toilets for the logs. Also, since I live on a 30 acre spread, I pee outside most of the time anyway. Nothing like airing the old hose out.
The shower, like all plumbing, has a trap, you just can't see it. You are right about that. The trap is there to keep the odors out of the house.

I like the smell of asparagus pee but I don't let is sit in the bowl and flower.

[Inner_Silence]

I think you are missing the point.
This is not about free speech. This is about resisting arrest.
He was on private property. He was asked to leave.
Asking him to leave was well within the "rights" of the cops, as they were granted privilege to enforce the will of the property owner, in this case the University.
He refused to leave, and fought the cops.
Being allowed a forum to speak your mind on private property isn't a right, it's a privilege, which the University has the right to revoke at any time.

In summation, it was the call of the authorized executors of the University to remove him, they were legally in the right to do so, he resisted arrest, and he was subdued into compliance with a Tazer.

All perfectly legal.



yeah right, resist for arrest... in the video you can see clearly how hard he tried to ressist the arrest, in the second thet the cops where near he got out his ak-47 from his pocket and start spreading some bullets...
also you can see clearly in the video that when he was in the ground and had about 5 cops over him he got the strenght of subversive the university student and before he got out the chemical weapons from the other pocket te got tased to avoid death and destruction...

i think you are right if we avoid the little thing called "common sense"... besides no matter as much I tried to find it out, I still cant find the law that shows the subjects that you can get arrested by talking about it.

the ONLY real part of your argument is that he was in private property (thats also hypotetical) and you can se in the video that he was "asked to leave" as you say (I still cant find in the video the "please sir would you be so kind of leaving right now if it isnt much trouble..." part) everything else are just words. besides that argument can be easily refuted, as the guy in question, everyone else where also in this "private property" even the cops, why didnt everyone else where "asked out"? also its obvious that there was some other people that asked some other questions, why they werent "asked out"? its is obvious that the motivation of the arrest wasnt actually "asking a question" it was the subject of the question that got him arrested, otherwise everyone else would have been arrested... is very simple.

[Inner_Silence]

Think of it this way;
Someone comes to my house and disrupts my party, starts spouting off rhetoric which I don't like. (It really does not matter the reason) in any case, I ask him to leave. It's my property,right? I get to decide who stays and who goes, right?

He refuses to leave, I call the cops. He fights the cops, and they taze him until he is compliant and removes him.
Do you have any issue with that?

When you are not still, but moving around, resisting the act of restraint, you are not in compliance. To avoid possible injury by law enforcement, if the subject does not comply, you must force compliance in the least harmful way available. In this case, pummeling someone into compliance would not have been acceptable.

You can talk about use of physical force and the number of cops available all day, but in a fluid situation such as wrestling someone to the ground and attempting to force handcuffs on a struggling subject isn't as easy as it looks, and injury to law enforcement or the subject is much higher than administering a tazer.

What if in the act of forcing compliance, an arm was broken, or if the subject had a sharp object in his pocket and accidentally jabbed the cops? It happens all the time.

Wrestling a person who is fighting arrest is an unnecessary and unacceptable risk law enforcement need not take when other quicker and safer means are available to do the same job.

I also forgot that here in my country there are still universityes that are NOT private.

if we are talking in "what if" ... ok, again using common sense, a politician is a public figure, and as we say here "if you have done nothing, you have nothing to fear" IN THE BEGINNING that guy shouldnt have been involved in those incorrect acts, so didnt have to get jumpy when he was asked for inconvinient questions. instead of that he should have like 10 tons of arguments and proofs that the things that the "college boy" was acusing him where not true. instead of just make him shut.

out here, in the civilized world, we tend to fight with arguments and proofs, using scientific methods. everything else is for neanderthal (I was gonna say monkeys), personally I think that the use of force are for the ones that cant endure words AKA dumb assholes.

[Inner_Silence]

I would argue that he doesn't have the right to be there.
He is allowed the "privilege" (If even that) by the University to be there.




thats SO deontologic thats even pretty.

around here we have fought with sweat, blood and tears (even people have died for this couple of years ago) to make education as a right, not as a privilege. too bad to realize that all this years of struggle is for nothing.
you have THE RIGHT to go to college, you also have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. privilege is to have a ferrari. besides everyone of us PAY big money to use university infraestructure, is part of the contract.

[Inner_Silence]

The moment the student refused to obey the cops, he was breaking a law (several if you want to get technical) Which were at the time misdemeanors.
The moment he physically refused to leave and started resisting arrest, he committed a felony.


do you realize that there should be a motive to arrest right?
do you realize that for simple logic the motive to arrest cant be "ressist to the arrest" if we are talking of the same event, right?

[tgsfg]

He got arrested for actually screaming "Ow."

[Inner_Silence]

you know what??

may be the uni is right and all that unrealistic stuff. but personally I think that there is something much more important.

I think that us as human people have some rights and some priviledges, and we have been like 2500 years to figure it out which one is what. but also for me is more important that we have the moral DUTY to call out and point everything that is WRONG. define "right or wrong" whatever you want, but naturally, using that common sense that we have as human that differences us from animals, we know whats right or not. I think that we have the DUTY to stand up against all this bulls+it, we have the DUTY to rise our voices, against what is tearing apart our world. doesnt matter if you get arrested or worse. HOW MANY TIMES ive seen myself running from cops for standing up for my rights? for my right to study, to speech, to think... in short words to be free. how many of my mates where arrested or/and tortured for fighting this same ideals? personally I got away only becouse I was lucky and I think a little bit more than a bunch of cops, anyway I really dont mind getting arrested for sayng what I think or for standing up for that I think is right. and this fight isnt for us, this fight is for everyone that want to put their kids in school, for everyone that dot realize that they are being manipulated right now, for everyone that doesnt even realize what is this for, and dont give a damn about it. but if it wherent for this that is happening right now but you cant see it we all would be self induced slaves by now. there is still a little bit of freedom , like freedom of speech and its worth fighting for.

if we the people, dont open our eyes for those that will not do it, if we dont stand up, if we dont give the fight against all this crap that we call "system" nobody will. personally I think that what that guy did, and for what he got arrested for was the right thing to do, not becouse of what he said was true or false, becouse rising up voices and standing up for your beliefs are the right thing to do.

[Inner_Silence]

It is NOT true that in SOME states it legal to shoot someone who is trespassing on your property.


IT IS LEGAL IN ALL STATES!!!




just kidding, logic joke.:D:D:D

[Inner_Silence]

Interestingly,

Quote:
“In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way. I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention. I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of responding when he was taken into custody. I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured. I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted."

http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=283508

Legal issues aside (as they're not particularly interesting and we could argue over semi-colons 'til our hearts' content with no real answer), I think the police handled it extremely badly. Kenzan said in an earlier post that the guy was being disruptive (though I don't agree) and disrespectful to the speaker who had come to speak. However, you can hear Kerry trying to answer the question in the video.

Bit of a mess really...

YEAH RIGHT!

if "there is no evidence to prove your statement" is a proper answer for a question I am santa claus. besides thats a falacy becouse IF that is true, still doesnt mean that the statement is wrong.

MAN!, have one of us realize that there are some people that think that we DONT think?

[Kenzan]

thats SO deontologic thats even pretty.



I admit, I had to look that word up.
:D



around here we have fought with sweat, blood and tears (even people have died for this couple of years ago) to make education as a right, not as a privilege. too bad to realize that all this years of struggle is for nothing.
you have THE RIGHT to go to college, you also have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. privilege is to have a ferrari. besides everyone of us PAY big money to use university infrastructure, is part of the contract.

If you don't make the grades needed or have the money required to get in to College, you don't have the right to Diddly squat.

You might be confusing this with the right of "equal opportunity", in which case, I agree with you. Everyone has the "right" to try and go to the school of their choice, follow their dreams, etc.
But let's face it, not everyone is motivated enough to be successful.

So, if I understand your point, are you saying everybody should get a fair slice of the pie regardless of hard work you say?

That sounds like Socialism to me.

On the free speech issue, sure you can say what you like, whenever you like, but isn't what we are really talking about here regarding the concept of consequences? If you think for one moment you have the "right" to say or do whatever you want whenever you want without any repercussions, then you need to get out more. It's all about context, and as you mentioned, personal responsibilities in accepting those consequences.

For the rest of the replies, I suggest this may help you (http://tinwiki.org/wiki/Tinfoil_hat).

:silly:

[Ignatz]

IT IS LEGAL IN ALL STATES!!!




just kidding, logic joke.:D:D:D

In 2nd year logic you will learn that my answer does not exclude the conclusion that it is not legal in any state.

[verissimus]

Does this also set a precedent of future behavior by law enforcement agents? That is, if they (presumably) got away with this, are they legally justified to use a taser with impunity in the future for other public gatherings?

[Kenzan]

Does this also set a precedent of future behavior by law enforcement agents? That is, if they (presumably) got away with this, are they legally justified to use a taser with impunity in the future for other public gatherings?

That's the design of it.
But I wouldn't say with impunity,
unless that is, the public gatherings include campfires and the song "Kumbaya."
:D

[samurai80]

I don't know. Maybe I'm dead wrong, but I could've watched (with a smile) that kid get knuckled down, and been okay with it. Sure, politicians are usually douches, and people should ask questions, but this?

Here is a situation...

Billy is having a party at his house. He invites lots of friends. He allows people he doesn't know that well to show up, so long as they behave. Everyone is partying, and having a good time. Suddenly, a guest that Billy doesn't know raises his voice, and shouts slightly insulting questions at Billy from across the room. Billy should...

A. Avoid conflict by attempting to answer the questions.
B. Ask politely for the guest to leave.
C. Burst into tears and run away.
D. Punch the guest in question, for attempting to make Billy look like a punk in his own home.

Hint, the answer is D

Forget all this legal talk. It all comes down to what you know is right. Never in a million years, would I act the way that kid did. Everyone seems to really think there is some "rights" issue at stake here. The kid purposely acted like an ass, for the reaction. He got a reaction. End of story. No, you should not be able to walk around, saying and doing whatever you like. Thats stupid. It doesn't matter what any law says, you can't behave like that. Maybe you feel like shouting racial slurs at the top of your lungs, but I can drop you off in my old neighborhood in Atlanta, and see how long you last doing that. Oh, but I guess you had the "right" to.

Nurse "We're losing him."
Doctor "What happened?"
Nurse "They found him on Cleveland, excercising his rights."

[kartoffelngeist]

I don't know. Maybe I'm dead wrong, but I could've watched (with a smile) that kid get knuckled down, and been okay with it. Sure, politicians are usually douches, and people should ask questions, but this?

Here is a situation...

Billy is having a party at his house. He invites lots of friends. He allows people he doesn't know that well to show up, so long as they behave. Everyone is partying, and having a good time. Suddenly, a guest that Billy doesn't know raises his voice, and shouts slightly insulting questions at Billy from across the room. Billy should...

A. Avoid conflict by attempting to answer the questions.
B. Ask politely for the guest to leave.
C. Burst into tears and run away.
D. Punch the guest in question, for attempting to make Billy look like a punk in his own home.

Hint, the answer is D

Forget all this legal talk. It all comes down to what you know is right. Never in a million years, would I act the way that kid did. Everyone seems to really think there is some "rights" issue at stake here. The kid purposely acted like an ass, for the reaction. He got a reaction. End of story. No, you should not be able to walk around, saying and doing whatever you like. Thats stupid. It doesn't matter what any law says, you can't behave like that. Maybe you feel like shouting racial slurs at the top of your lungs, but I can drop you off in my old neighborhood in Atlanta, and see how long you last doing that. Oh, but I guess you had the "right" to.

Nurse "We're losing him."
Doctor "What happened?"
Nurse "They found him on Cleveland, excercising his rights."

I'm whinged about your aggression problems before, so I'll try and avoid doing it now.

What would be the consequences of D? Probably a fight, which is in no one's interest (unless you just enjoy fights, which some people seem to). Politely asking the person to leave is obviously the best course of action. It's possible to be polite and assertive at the same time.

Also, the hypothetical was in no way similar to what happened. It wasn't a party, it was a forum for political debate.

[samurai80]

True, but there are still rules. The point is, you can't say or do whatever you like. Where ever you go, there must be a respect for those around you. If this kid had done the same thing in a different situation, he would probably get his ass kicked.

P.S. I enjoy fighting as much as I enjoy being disrespected.

[Ignatz]

Can we please get back to discussing poo and pee?

[samurai80]

Poo and pee would certainly be more entertaining, and probably more informative. Poo huh? I usually go for cailling it poopies. It just sounds hilarious.

[Paikea]

Sora Aoi, perhaps?

[Gideon]

Any similarities?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/26/chetry.tasered.woman.interview.cnn

[Ignatz]

Bad cop. No donut.

[Inner_Silence]

In 2nd year logic you will learn that my answer does not exclude the conclusion that it is not legal in any state.

man, I study mathematics, logic is my field. of course I agree with you, but it was funnier the other way arround!!! :D:D:D

[Inner_Silence]

For the rest of the replies, I suggest this may help you (http://tinwiki.org/wiki/Tinfoil_hat).

:silly:

what can I say

must spread some rep, just too funny :D

[Inner_Silence]

Forget all this legal talk. It all comes down to what you know is right. Never in a million years, would I act the way that kid did. Everyone seems to really think there is some "rights" issue at stake here. The kid purposely acted like an ass, for the reaction. He got a reaction. End of story. No, you should not be able to walk around, saying and doing whatever you like. Thats stupid. It doesn't matter what any law says, you can't behave like that.

obviously we think the oposite way... personally if I would have enough strong evidence to back up suck heavy statement (in short word the guy acussed him for negligence and corruption) I would have done the same thing EVEN if I knew that it would end up in that electroshock session or worse. simply becouse I think that our duty as human beings is to react against those acts that will end up destroying the little freedom and/or democracy that hasnt been killed yet.

youth is here to stand up and fight for ideals, not to blindly obey.

[Kenzan]

youth is here to stand up and fight for ideals, not to blindly obey.

Failing that, they are here to support the porn, video game and Junk food industry.

:laugh::laugh:

[Gideon]

youth is here to stand up and fight for ideals, not to blindly obey.

And in many instances, to fight just as blindly as others obey.

[verissimus]

youth is here to stand up and fight for ideals, not to blindly obey.

That may be true in general, but in this particular case, the guy was an idiot looking for 15 minutes of fame, not the poster-boy for democracy and sunshine and everything nice that you're making him out to be.

You're doing a great disservice if you're comparing him to this (http://ramblingsofpassion.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/051201_tiananmen-square_ex.jpg).

[Maro]

That may be true in general, but in this particular case, the guy was an idiot looking for 15 minutes of fame, not the poster-boy for democracy and sunshine and everything nice that you're making him out to be.

You're doing a great disservice if you're comparing him to this (http://ramblingsofpassion.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/051201_tiananmen-square_ex.jpg).

But who is the arbiter of what is right or not? Just because you don't agree with his methodology, it doesn't make it wrong.

[Ignatz]

But who is the arbiter of what is right or not?

I am.
Don't make me smite your ass down.

[The great I AM]

Can we please get back to discussing poo and pee?Certainly.

I'll have you know that I go like clockwork every morning, and something the size and consistency that Jaws from Moonraker wopuld be pleased with.

Regular, me.

[Ignatz]

You know that since I cut back on red meat I lay a cable out that almost seems to be greased, yet the paper is clear.

[The great I AM]

You know that since I cut back on red meat I lay a cable out that almost seems to be greased, yet the paper is clear.Ditto! I've got stupidly high blood pressure for someone my age, so read meet and beer have taken the "back seat" for a while now, and the morning special comes out like a dead otter now!

[Ignatz]

Ditto! I've got stupidly high blood pressure for someone my age, so read meet and beer have taken the "back seat" for a while now, and the morning special comes out like a dead otter now!

Good thing too, Yanai sensei says you english drink beer like barbarians. Imagine, pouring a pint of guiness with no head. Like it is a contest to see how much you can get in the glass. You need to learn that beer, like life, is better with a little head.

[The great I AM]

Good thing too, Yanai sensei says you english drink beer like barbarians. Imagine, pouring a pint of guiness with no head. Like it is a contest to see how much you can get in the glass. You need to learn that beer, like life, is better with a little head.I don't drink guiness at all, so I am exempt from this.

And its a contest to see how much you can get in YOU, not the glass, and in that case, a little head just gets in the way....

[Ignatz]

I don't drink guiness at all, so I am exempt from this.

And its a contest to see how much you can get in YOU, not the glass, and in that case, a little head just gets in the way....

C'mon. Who among us doesn't like a little head now and again?

[Inner_Silence]

Failing that, they are here to support the porn, video game and Junk food industry.

:laugh::laugh:

HEY! HEY! HEY! HEY!!!
im not much in to junk food politics, but porn and video games are NOT only ideals, this are some sort of a religion...

[Inner_Silence]

You're doing a great disservice if you're comparing him to this (http://ramblingsofpassion.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/051201_tiananmen-square_ex.jpg).

those are different subjects I think we are in false analogy here... anyway great pic, around here something like that happened too years ago.

[Kenzan]

HEY! HEY! HEY! Music Champ (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6915957164855837586&q=hey+hey+hey+music+champ&total=116&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3)


HAH! :silly:
:D

[verissimus]

All I'm saying is - don't convert this into a youth march.

Edit: forgot to quote, but you know which post I'm referring to...

[The great I AM]

C'mon. Who among us doesn't like a little head now and again?I love a lot of head all the time, but not on my beer! Foam is for heathens, beer is for men!

[Inner_Silence]

HAH! :silly:
:D

we have some free time to spend in youtube aren't we?...

hey bach to the thread !!!!