The 3 minutes BEFORE the student got tasered @ Kerry's Q&A

page: 14
42
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Just as if you went to a private birthday party at some rich guys mansion. He hired security guards. For some reason they wanted you to leave, maybe because you were disturbing the other guests, or scaring them.

So the rich guy's hired security guards tackle you, and zap you. You now have been thrown off the rich guys private property.

Now what? You're going to sue and probably make a mint on a settlement.

Where does the american government come into this picture?

How does this relfect the forfieting of your rights as an american citizen?
(Your rights will be upheld in a court of law)

Does the above scenario show any signs of fascism in america?
I think It's the same thing with the student at the school. Believe it or not that school is much more like the "rich guy's" mansion than it is a public city owned, or state owned facility.




posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
BTW, for all you cowards who would sit in silence, here's how free men respond to fascism...



www.youtube.com...


[edit on 21-9-2007 by Shar_Chi]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Part 1

After carefully watching some of the videos surrounding this incident, it seems to me that it has been blown way out of proportion. Judging strictly from what I have seen, the incident arises not from an effort to suppress freedom of speech or the content of his (Meyers') questions, but rather from the his blatant disregard for the rules of the program he is participating in.

It helps if you watch the OP's video and one from another angle, such as this: www.youtube.com...

To start off with, prior to the videos Meyers apaprently cut to the front of the question line and possibly cut off the questioner before him. Aside from being extremely rude, that is a pretty flagrant breech of conduct. That he should even be allowed to ask his question(s) at all is hardly assured; why should he be gratified for that sort of action? At any rate, he's on pretty thin ice already, and that explains the two security guards behind him as well.

He winds up with the opportunity the speak. Maybe the decided to let him go instead of trying to remove him, maybe Kerry just addressed him before they could decide what to do. At this point on the youtube video you see him at the mike, with the two officers behing him as well as a woman in a pink dress and a suited man. The man in the suit has often been described as the "Kerry Handler," or government representative who hushes up Meyers when he asks sensitive questions. I've never seen anything or anyone officially state his position, but judging from his close collusion with the campus secuity guards and audio technician, as well the fact the it is a school run program, he is probably a school official moderating the proceedings.

After Meyers has been speaking for about 25-30 seconds, the suited man (moderator?) speaks briefly to the female officer, who than then says something to the effect of "get your question" to Meyers responds somewhat heatedly that he will ask his question, but he has to finish prefacing it first. At about 2:38 in the OPs video, he resumes his speech, and at around 2:18 actually delivers a question. However, he keeps talking, in a more animated manner, firing more questions, while Kerry tries to get a couple words in edgewise. (At one point Kerry asks him what his question is.) After Meyers finishes his first question but continues speaking, the moderator once again speaks to the female officer, who apparently asks Meyers to finish up. Meyers responds by saying that he is not only not finished, but has two more questions.

Try and see this from the point of view of the moderator. This guy cuts to the front of the line, then, instead of asking a question he starts what is clearly and fairly lengthy preplanned speech, when he asks a question he does not give Kerry a chance to answer, and when reminded that he should let Kerry answer his question he snaps back that he's not finished and that he has two more questions. In effect, he has butted in, shown no respect for the rules or operators of the forum, and hijacked it for his own ends. The moderator is not only fully justified in having him removed, its basically his job to do so. This is not to say that Meyers questions themselves were at fault, they were good questions and I would have like to have heard them answered, but his methods and delivery were grossly innappropriate.

The claims that Meyers was seized in response to his Skull and Bones comment also seem unfounded. The point at which the decision is made to cut off Meyers is when the moderator turns to look off to the side ostensibly at the sound tech. In the youtube video this is at 1:29, about one second after Meyers says the word "blowjob." By the time the moderator makes eye contact with sound tech and gives the cut gesture meyers has made the Skull and Bones comment, but he started acted before it was said and before the moderator could have known it would be said.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by mastermindkar]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Reguardless if you agree with the guy or not, I believe that the police should have just removed him from the building and stood by the door if he was such a problem. Prevent him from coming back in. If He came back in then maybe I could see him getting arested certainly not Tazered! This is a Collage where Ideas and thoughts are to be expressed. I would expect Univertsity Police to have a little more tolerance and restraint when dealing with collage students. This is just another example of police becoming Judge, Jury and Executioner.... I wonder if police view everyone as a criminal?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 



Agreed.

Not to mention he's going to make a lot of money now with his book, his settlement. His website is booming, I bet he can sell anything he wants now.

I have come to really admire this guy. Very, very smart kid. He'll probably be a millionaire before he graduates.

Someone who can see what really happened here can learn and profit.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
The clown went to that event with two video cameras with the sole intent of making a scene that would result in him being removed.

He got exactly the response he was trying to provoke.

Why is anyone surprised/outraged?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I've read all the posts on this and was so frustated that I came up with my own "out of control rant" or "diatribe." It's rather long so I had to break it into two parts:

This incident is a clear example of the beginnings of a police state. More often these days police are resorting to physical coercion as their first method of control rather than using the power of reason and dialogue.

This student did absolutely nothing wrong. For those who say he was out of line, asked too many questions or was going over his allotted time, I would ask them to please watch the reporters at any press briefing. They do exactly what he did. We must remember he was a Journalism student. He's probably being taught to be aggressive in his questioning. For those who say he was ranting and wouldn't get to the question, I would refer them to any Senate committee hearing (the Patreaus one last week is a good example). Each senator gets 7 minutes and a lot of them blab on and on setting up their point of view and then finally they say "I know I'm OUT OF TIME, but General Patreaus is the Iraq war making us any safer?" (P: Umm... I don't know...) Should this tiny event on this tiny campus really garner more respect and dignity than a Senate hearing? For those who think his comments were inappropriate and should not force everyone else to listen to them, I ask: If I go to a movie and find the film offensive should I demand them to stop it, and should they comply with my wish? There would be only one option for me to do (really two options, but if I'm really offended the second would not count) which each person at this college event was perfectly capable to opt for.

This student was also clearly not out of control as he was well aware as soon as the microphone was turned off. WHen the mic was shut off, he did not continue to shout questions up to the stage. Rather he says in a sarcastic way "Thank you... you turned off the mic....thank you" because he knew he was finished, immediately after which, without uttering a sound, the two officers grab him by the arms. What kind of "legal command" is this? Should he have spread him self out on the floor? Should he have put his hands behind his back? Or should he have assumed the officers wanted to waltz? But what if the officers wanted to foxtrot? Where was the standard "you've asked your questions, now you need to leave or face trespassing charges" from the officers? If you claim that the student would not have listened, how will we ever know since the officers choose to get physical before resorting to reason. Only after a second or two does he start to resist when the woman officer says quite clearly "Stop, stop, stop." But again, how was the student to know what her intentions were? If he was under arrest, then clearly there was a grave injustice happening, but if they were just trying to escort him out how would he know? They never said the word "Arrest" or even "Leave." Then it escalated down hill from there, resulting in the tasering.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Part 2
In a perfect situation, if they truly thought he was a threat, the two cops would not have been standing idly behind him, looking around for instructions, while he was on his "diatribe." Rather they should have called the other officers into the room at that time and as soon as he was finished (or when they cut the mic to make him finish) they should have surrounded him and asked him to leave. They should have allowed him to decide whether to become physical or not.

Now officers do face deadly situations from time to time, but they are supposed to receive training to spot these before they develop so they can prevent them. These cops should have been making a threat assessment while they were behind him: smartaleck student, a book in one hand, droopy pants with his underwear showing, no bulges in his back pocket (not even a wallet). Rather they are looking around for instruction from someone else. (The woman officers reaction when he said the word "blowjob" was rather funny, and sad). But maybe they did assess him and did find him to be a threat, in which case they should have tackled him and dragged him out WHILE HIS BACK WAS TO THEM and he was asking his questions. Since they didn't do this I only assume they didn't consider him much of a threat. And if he wasn't a threat, why did they grab him?

These officers are to me clearly unsuitable to be on the job. I read the police report that was linked in another section and all of their accounts don't match up. One mentions he was escorting him out before this video begins, but the other ones don't mention this. The woman officer quotes from a conversation she supposedly had with him before this video but the officer who was supposedly escorting him out doesn't mention this conversation. The thing I find very strange and a bit scary is that the officers present before the scuffle emphasize his language and the manner of his questions. (The woman officer whose reaction was so funny even puts the word blowjob in her report) Only one officer even says he was insulting Senator Kerry. Maybe he did before the video started but shouldn't all of them mention that? And finally one officer says the event WAS OVER and they were trying to get him to leave. If it was over why was Senator Kerry still answering questions?

This event (and others popping up all over the internet) shows me that the police are developing a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. Granted officers are human and are prone to make mistakes, but they also must remember that we too are human, we too make mistakes and we should be afforded some dignity before they lay their hands on us. They also must realize the times we are living in and that many of us are aware that we are all the next potential Jose Padilla. To all those who say Padilla was found guilty and he deserved what he got or to those who say I don't do anything wrong so they won't bother me, I would kindly refer them to one of the many people who have been found innocent after spending many years on death row.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Part 2

It seems more likely that his blow job comment, which was not necessary and not very politically correct given the circumstances (addressing a Senator in a public auditorium) was simply the last straw.

So the two officers attempt to lead him by the arms, and then he escalates the situation. And it is most definitely his actions and his (poor) decisions which casue the scene. This is not some unilateral action by the officers; they are doing what they have been directed to do, what they are supposed to do in this situation, and in the manner they are supposed to do it. Meyers responds by shouting "why are you arresting me!" This is wholly unjustifiable; he is clearly not being arrested, but rather being removed from the stage (for aformentioned violations of conduct). He proceeds to shout, wrestle himself free of the security officers, dirupt the proceedings and cause a scene while the officers lead him out.

What I think is fairly important, is he winds up on the ground because he attempts to bolt from the officers at the door and they tackle him. It was not the officer's decision to bring him down and handcuff him in the room. This is cut out of the OP's video.

Up until this point the security officers and officals have acted in an entirely appropriate manner and the problems rest solely with Meyers. The tazer is its own issue. At this point four officers have him on the ground while a fifth holds the tazer. One of the officers pins Meyers' right hand behind his back, and is attempting to pin his left arm. However, Meyers continues to fight back and straighten his arm. The officer tells him that if he does not surrender his arm he will be tazered. Meyers shouts "Please don't tazer me!" but does not relax his arm. The officer tazes him for about 2 seconds, and his arm is immediately pinned.

In regards to the comments about the cop pinning Meyers smiling during/after the tazing, a cursory review of the scene shows that this is utter nonsense. This occurs with about 14 seconds left on the OPs video, and the officer is clearly snapping "get back" to a bystander. The still-frame, which shows his lips curled back to deliver the word "get," may appear like a smile. However, this is clearly a poor attempt at spinning the scene which many have jumped on to propagate their anti-authoritarian views.

Was the use of the tazer necessary? No, certainly not. He was on the ground with four officers on him, it was only a matter of time before they got him in cuffs. But was the use of the tazer wholly unjustified? This is heavily opinion based. Personally I think it was excessive, but not entirely unreasonable. The tazer was not used as torture, it was used with the specific object of getting Meyers to cease his resistance, which it did quickly and efficiently. There are many examples of police officers abusing or misusing their tazers, but this is a at best a very marginal case.

As a final, personal opinion note, I've seen a lot of people tazered. Between some unusual parties and pranks I've been party to, dozens of videos on Break.com, and training videos on Liveleak.com, theres been everything from soldiers getting tazed on full power as a dare, to some jerk tazing his girlfriend in her sleep. I've never seen anyone; male, female, young, old, willing participant or target, complain so loudly about being tazered. It seems very obvious they Meyers is hamming it up once the officers sieze him, right from his initial "Why are you arresting me?" through the "Help! Help!" while they carry him out. It seems entirely insincere, which, considering his actions leading up to his seizure, is also entirely in character.

You could at least make a case (not a terribly strong one) that he was subject to some excessive force from the security officers, but Meyers is not some champion of free speech. At best, he is a reflection of the poorer aspects of misguided activism.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by mastermindkar]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
So tell me what you guys think is going to happen at his trial???

I don't really think he is going to get any jail time, and if he does plan on suing, I highly doubt he will be seeing any compensation.

The judge will probably realize the fault's of each side, and basically meet in the middle somewhere and call it 50/50. Sure his amendment right was broken, but he also caused a "disturbance" at a political public gathering. Thus, not giving him any grounds to sue. Even if he appeals, it would be just be a waste of time I believe.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38
Good points, but really I was just making the argument that this doesn't have anything to do with the US government becasue it happened on private property. Those security guards weren't gov officials, or even city police officers, were they?

I don't think they should have zapped him, what if he had a heart condition?

I'm just making the distiction that there's a difference between private property, and a private event held in a private institution.

Just to give you an example of where I'm coming from, I am angry about seeing city or state police officers zapping people who don't immediately comply with their demands. Such as what we're seeing in that new video.

My bottom line is that this isn't proof that america is a fascist state because that kid's incident didn't have anything to do with the american gov. it was all private property, privately hired security guards.

Maybe its evidence that the U of FL is run by fascists and people who don't believe in or uphold our rights.

This had nothing to do with the american gov. or the american people wimping out.


Fair enough and some good points also.

I just feel the whole air surrounding the USA right now, private security or not, it’s all fear and if you wear a uniform, any uniform, you become part of this administration’s arm of control.

Mr Bush and his mates coming out with words like “we should never tolerate conspiracy theories” and actions that keep the general population in fear 24-7. (Watch out for this, watch out for that and do not have people speaking out against us, your loving Government, as this is not patriotic) These men in uniform, private or government hired, they are only human also and they listen to the government and what it has to say on these issues, so I bring it back, the whole mood of the country and the people within it, right to the government’s door.

I truly believe this school and its policies on policing within, is spawn from the current mood of your country, which is being projected from the very Government who run and represent it, and if we (us all) do not stop this now, then things will get totally out of control.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by InterWeb

Fair enough and some good points also.

I just feel the whole air surrounding the USA right now, private security or not, it’s all fear and if you wear a uniform, any uniform, you become part of this administration’s arm of control.

Mr Bush and his mates coming out with words like “we should never tolerate conspiracy theories” and actions that keep the general population in fear 24-7. (Watch out for this, watch out for that and do not have people speaking out against us, your loving Government, as this is not patriotic) These men in uniform, private or government hired, they are only human also and they listen to the government and what it has to say on these issues, so I bring it back, the whole mood of the country and the people within it, right to the government’s door.

I truly believe this school and its policies on policing within, is spawn from the current mood of your country, which is being projected from the very Government who run and represent it, and if we (us all) do not stop this now, then things will get totally out of control.


I hear what you're saying, but it was actually worse in the 60's.

(Do you live in the US?)

Back in the 60's, I beleive it was 1967? The state police were called in to a demonstration on the campus of a University in Ohio. They shot and killed 3 students.

Tasers are new, so I wonder if the police and security guards are just over using this new technology waiting for the gov. to step in and start making new laws regarding their use.

I don't think there is any increase in "Fascism" in the US. I just think we're seeing more things like this happen because everyone is recording everything these days, everyone has a camera. Add to that a new toy the cops have which needs to have new laws to govern their use.

Maybe since everyone in the US is recording everything that happens (such as getting zapped, and police brutality, etc.) this will cause new laws protecting US citizens and make the police and security guards more aware and restrained, knowing they're almost always being watched.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eye_Of_Truth
This is just another example of police becoming Judge, Jury and Executioner.... I wonder if police view everyone as a criminal?


Police only think criminals are criminals…

Was someone executed? It looked a lot like justifiable force was used to control a belligerent individual, an individual who was actively resisting lawful enforcement officers and their attempts to control and detain and or arrest him.

The use of the “TASER” is normally very low on the law enforcement “Use of Force” continuum. Above physical presents, verbal commands, hands on tactics and below OC pepper spray, impact weapon, less lethal weapons and deadly force.

By the way it is spelled “TASER” not “Tazer” here is the link

www.taser.com...



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
First let me say that I don't belive all police are like this. However in this situation it is clear that emotions were out of control. An escort outside should not have been that hard to do with 6 police officers. Even on the ground 6 police should have been able to control him. The Situation was made into something bigger than it ever should have been.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
The clown went to that event with two video cameras with the sole intent of making a scene that would result in him being removed.

He got exactly the response he was trying to provoke.

Why is anyone surprised/outraged?


IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO BE TAZED FOR ASKING QUESTIONS
It is not normal.
It is not constitutional.
It is not right.
It is fascist.
It is totalitarian.

I agree with you that his action were purposeful, but in my view he martyred himself to prove the point that if he asked certain questions he would be dragged off of stage by police.

To expect and accept to be tazed for doing what he did is to have sheep mentality. A free citizen has the right to ask questions.



Probable cause to arrest:
Under common law, a police officer could arrest an individual if that individual committed a misdemeanor in the officer's presence, or if the officer had probable cause to believe that the individual was committing a felony (i.e., probable cause to believe that someone had committed a misdemeanor does not justify an arrest; the police officer has to actually witness the misdemeanor.)
[]
He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds.
[]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause


wiki 4th amendment



Congress shall make no law []abridging the freedom of speech[or the right to] petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


wiki 1st amendment

Were they fighting words? Did they represent a clear and present danger? Was he shouting fire in a packed theater? Was he encouraging imminent lawless action?

Or did he ask about a secret society that the 1st and 2nd place man in the last 2 party election both belong to? ...before a mafia nod was given to shut him up.

Fascism.

I am,

Sri Oracle



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO BE TAZED FOR ASKING QUESTIONS
It is not normal.
It is not constitutional.
It is not right.
It is fascist.
It is totalitarian.

I agree with you that his action were purposeful, but in my view he martyred himself to prove the point that if he asked certain questions he would be dragged off of stage by police.

To expect and accept to be tazed for doing what he did is to have sheep mentality. A free citizen has the right to ask questions.


Or did he ask about a secret society that the 1st and 2nd place man in the last 2 party election both belong to? ...before a mafia nod was given to shut him up.



Ok so what? There are 18,760 separate police agencies in the U.S. with approximately 940,275 employees, and every day police officers step over the line. This is not because we live in a fascist police state or the NWO wants it that way it is because police are human and they need to make quick decisions. Some decisions are good some are bad, and some are so bad that the officers are put on leave, or suspended, fired, or even put in jail.

That kid was out of control, and I don’t care what question he wanted to ask because of how he acted. The campus cops had every right to remove him but they went too far for what was needed. Big deal, get over it for it will happen again many many times, but unless there is a official memo to zap anyone anytime you need to put the blame at the right level, and that level is the officer that used the Tazer.

So what should be done? I don’t know, maybe they need more training, or maybe that cop needs to be fired, but in any case stop fanning the Constitution around. I don’t see anyone slap a rapist or murder with the Constitution even though they are surely preventing your Constitutional rights too.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I have watched this video about 10 times... and ive watched the other ones from different angles...

Totally disgusting!!!

There seems to be two mindsets on this forum, those who agree with the level of force used and those who don’t... You can always tell when someone knows, in their heart, that they are wrong because they do not just debate, but try to make jokes or throw insults...

Some people on here have even suggested that his questions made no sense!?!? Please explain!

Although his questions were passionate... they also were relevant!! He only started screaming when they tasered him... he only started shouting when they manhandled him!!

But, all that aside... Humans are made up of many unique individuals... some are quiet some are loud, some are extravert some are introvert... it is the beauty of the human race... Do you really want some Gattaca type of future where everyone just sits quietly like good little citizens asking one tame question at a time???? Where would we be today if everyone behaved in a manner that would not offend our leaders???

The leaders, politicians and security forces of the world are there to serve the people, not the other way around... and sometimes we need to ask them tough questions. Sometimes those questions are passionate, sometimes they are angry and sometimes they are just inquisitive. What would happen if these questions (or the passion behind them) are banned or discouraged? Oh... that’s right... it’s called communism.

I am from Britain, and i must say that just the contingent of security personnel alone was enough to shock me. I would find it incredible to see multiple security members attending a university lecture involving a failed Politian!

But, alas, Britain is going down the same path... The streets are becoming more violent due to the nature of material pumped into kids brains and the “haves and have not’s” society... this social Darwinian style of capitalism... adverts are telling kids if they don’t have £200 sneakers they are a failure and music/films is showing them that robbery, guns and criminal lifestyle is cool... The violence that then inevitably follows is being used as the reason for increased “security” and more surveillance! I’m sure it won’t be long before tasers, or another form of none lethal weapon, are used here to... At first to stop the kid waving a knife/gun around... and eventually to stop kids asking the wrong question in a manner not deemed fit by the powers that be!

Very sad!



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38
Just as if you went to a private birthday party at some rich guys mansion. He hired security guards. For some reason they wanted you to leave, maybe because you were disturbing the other guests, or scaring them.

So the rich guy's hired security guards tackle you, and zap you. You now have been thrown off the rich guys private property.

Does the above scenario show any signs of fascism in america?
I think It's the same thing with the student at the school. Believe it or not that school is much more like the "rich guy's" mansion than it is a public city owned, or state owned facility.



Your analogy is logically flawed. First, the police were not trying to get Meyer to leave, as in your analogy. They were trying to handcuff him and arrest him. That would constitute kidnapping if private security guards did that, along with battery for using a taser unnecessarily. Second, even if the UF is not a public university, which I believe it is, an open forum like the one that Kerry spoke at is public in nature, and 1st Amendment rights would apply. You are wrong as a matter of law about it more resembling private property than a state-owned facility. Nothing warrants stronger 1st Amendment protection than public forums with politicians on political issues of national importance. That forum sponsors may have had the right to stop his questions, they did not have the right to have him arrested or electrocuted.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

What kind of "legal command" is this? Should he have spread him self out on the floor? Should he have put his hands behind his back? Or should he have assumed the officers wanted to waltz? But what if the officers wanted to foxtrot? Where was the standard "you've asked your questions, now you need to leave or face trespassing charges" from the officers? If you claim that the student would not have listened, how will we ever know since the officers choose to get physical before resorting to reason. Only after a second or two does he start to resist when the woman officer says quite clearly "Stop, stop, stop." But again, how was the student to know what her intentions were? If he was under arrest, then clearly there was a grave injustice happening, but if they were just trying to escort him out how would he know? They never said the word "Arrest" or even "Leave." Then it escalated down hill from there, resulting in the tasering.


You got to be kidding me...after reading all the posts as to his true intent you post this?

He pulled away from the female cop many times and was screaming “why you arresting me” when all they wanted to do was get him out, but he would not let them as he moved around down front and pulled away anytime someone tried to get a hold on him. Once a larger cop was able to lead him towards the exit at the top he rather violently pulled away once again and that is when he went to the ground.
If an officer tells you to stop what do you do? Do you start waving your arms and scream nonsense, or do you stop? You do what this guy did when you have a secret agenda to push the cops to the point that they use force.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by inconspicuous

Originally posted by Electro38
Just as if you went to a private birthday party at some rich guys mansion. He hired security guards. For some reason they wanted you to leave, maybe because you were disturbing the other guests, or scaring them.

So the rich guy's hired security guards tackle you, and zap you. You now have been thrown off the rich guys private property.

Does the above scenario show any signs of fascism in america?
I think It's the same thing with the student at the school. Believe it or not that school is much more like the "rich guy's" mansion than it is a public city owned, or state owned facility.



Your analogy is logically flawed. First, the police were not trying to get Meyer to leave, as in your analogy. They were trying to handcuff him and arrest him. That would constitute kidnapping if private security guards did that, along with battery for using a taser unnecessarily. Second, even if the UF is not a public university, which I believe it is, an open forum like the one that Kerry spoke at is public in nature, and 1st Amendment rights would apply. You are wrong as a matter of law about it more resembling private property than a state-owned facility. Nothing warrants stronger 1st Amendment protection than public forums with politicians on political issues of national importance. That forum sponsors may have had the right to stop his questions, they did not have the right to have him arrested or electrocuted.



It was private property, and it was a private event. (Now I'm still not sure about this, but were they city cops or proviate security guards?)

It looked to me like they were just trying to escort him out because he was being rude, disruptive and scaring his fellow classmates.

Then he started to get hysterical, and began to struggle with the guards. It escalated.

I'm not saying it was right for them to zap him. My point is (which no one is getting), is that this all happened on private property, private event and with privately hired security guards.

With those things in mind, it has no reflection on the USA becoming a Fascist state. The US gov. was not involved at all during the whole incident.

(It will be now, when in court).

It may be evidence that the people running the school have fascist views, but has nothing to do with the US gov. (That's all I'm saying). I've gotten a lot of replies to what I said but everyone is overlooking over this point, and not responding to it.





top topics
 
42
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join