Leftist Blogs Defend Police Brutality In Student Tazering

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

And likewise, if you sat at the microphone and babbled to the point that they shut it off, then after fighting the cops you got tazed.....I'd say I'd be having a humorous evening. :D

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Rot. In. Hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakez

Rot. In. Hell.

---

I'm suggesting you chill out a bit.........that crap don't fly in here dude.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

I'm suggesting you chill out a bit.........that crap don't fly in here dude.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

---

Saying you find it humurous that my rights are violated and I'm being held down by a crowd of officers being tasered does not fly with me.

You know what, you win, we're all just pussies that want our rights upheld, forget it all just do what you want with us.. :wtf:

Since when is it cool to make fun of people that are sticking up for YOUR rights? It seems a lot of people like to act like this.. and honestly PB, I don't understand it. Why were these rights put there in the first place if we're all just pussies for using them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakez

Since when is it cool to make fun of people that are sticking up for YOUR rights? It seems a lot of people like to act like this.. and honestly PB, I don't understand it. Why were these rights put there in the first place if we're all just pussies for using them?

---

First off I've done NOTHING to you so back off on the hostility. This is a forum for open debate not pissing down each others legs.

Next, creating a public scene isn't the way to go and when ya resist Johnny Law he usually wins. Let all them student drop the bomb on them cops with Kerry in the room and you'd find some people seriously fucked up! That is the way shit's handled the world wide. Many countries you wouldn't be seeing ol' boy for a long, long time.

Have a good one!:s4:

If Bush and his administration said "We have proof that of WMD's" and start a war over it, and then come to find out these WMD's don't even exist, why is this man still in office?

My only response to you is to reread my previous point because you brought nothing up that wasn't already addressed in that post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakez

If Bush and his administration said "We have proof that of WMD's" and start a war over it, and then come to find out these WMD's don't even exist, why is this man still in office?

---

Is there proof that the information that was given was fabricated and if so why isn't the Dem congress going after him then?

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Next, creating a public scene isn't the way to go

---

I think I've pinpointed what you don't understand, the scene was already created when this lone man was followed by a crowd of police into the event. I don't know about you, but when an officer (or a group of them) is in the room I am fully aware of his presence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Many countries you wouldn't be seeing ol' boy for a long, long time.

---

Wow, my mom used to tell me stuff like that when I was a child "you have it so much better than those other kids", all of a sudden that makes it OK that this kind of event takes place..

Dude.......this says it all:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ntcrawler

The guy butted his way to the front of the line because he didn't believe he would be able to get to the front in time for his question. This is why the police was flanking him(notice how they didn't arrest him yet or even ask him to leave, I'd call that pretty lenient). Then he goes on to ask 4 questions
"How could you concede?"
"Didn't you wanna be president?"
"Why didn't you say, 'Impeach Bush!'?"
"Were you a member of skull and bones?"

Thats 4 questions asked in his OVER A MINUTE RANT! Now how would you feel if you were the person in the back of the line and just got butted? You would probably just suck it up because its only one question! Oh wait, he gave 4 questions. How is that fair to his fellow man, I mean its so obvious that Meyer's multiple questions are so much more important then all the people he butted.

Now comes the fun part! They police have a job to do and were told to escort the man out. They grab the guy and try to lead him out the door. Now they weren't arresting him yet! They didn't have a kung-fu grip on him obviously because he slipped right out and in doing so it became a disturbance of the peace and resisting an officer. Another officer comes and tries to take push out and Meyer yet AGAIN pulls alway from the officer . The officers and Meyer end up on the ground and he still is resisting when they tell him to roll on his stomach and put his arms around his back. Now they could try to pull him out again. They could wrestle his arms behind him and risk injury. They could of just whipped out the good o'l Baton and beat him him in to submission. Instead they did the right thing and tazed him(note they did not have him hand cuffed at that point). Obviously it worked because they were able to hand cuff the fella and if you guys have seen the video of after they left the hall he was acting fine.

---

He played the fool, caught a buzz...........you CANNOT go into a public forum like this and not expect problems. Saying that "he has the right" more/less states the the rest of the people don't have the right to receive out the forum what they expected. The rights of the many out weigh that of the one........

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

I'm not disagreeing with the fact he was a little foolish, however that doesn't justify the officers actions. It could have easily been handled better, this guy doesn't deserve a criminal record because he got a little hot headed (for good reason) in public bro..

Can anyone even show me some proof that he cut infront of people? I can't see this on any video and all the news reports I read are highly manipulating the facts.

this kid is doing the right thing... he is getting exposure...

and trust me, they didn't have to taze him...

he needed to ask his questions... not some tard trying to get kerry's views.

he, in my eyes is a hero... although he cried like a bitch, my hat is off to him for that, and i would of gladly taken the pain for him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakez

I'm not disagreeing with the fact he was a little foolish, however that doesn't justify the officers actions. It could have easily been handled better, this guy doesn't deserve a criminal record because he got a little hot headed (for good reason) in public bro..

Can anyone even show me some proof that he cut infront of people? I can't see this on any video and all the news reports I read are highly manipulating the facts.

---

The Swamp: Witness defends Kerry response to Taser incident


' The cameras did not catch Meyer cutting off a student five words into a question, said Kathleen Shea, a junior who attended the forum.

"Not only did he jump up out of turn to the microphone, he was being very condescending," she said.

That's when students started pulling out their cameras, the student organizers cut off his microphone, and campus police tried to pull him away, Shea said. '

Although I do mostly believe he probably did cut infront of people, that still doesn't prove anything. Something gets out of hand and suddenly multiple students pull out cameras and start recording? I find that extremely hard to believe, there has to be full footage of the event somewhere..

Edit: according to this witnesses words, questioning was cut off before he went to the microphone, so he really wasn't cutting infront of anyone? Is the fact that he asked her to tape him wrong? Was he supposed to tape himself?

Quote:

---

CLARISSA JESSUP SPOKE TO C-N-N ABOUT THE ARREST OF ANDREW MEYER, SAYING ORGANIZERS HAD CUT OFF QUESTIONING BEFORE HE WENT TO THE MICROPHONE.

---

and then..

Quote:

---

The cameras did not catch Meyer cutting off a student five words into a question, said Kathleen Shea, a junior who attended the forum.

---

Someone needs to get their story straight..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Dude.......this says it all:


The rights of the many out weigh that of the one........

---

hey Psycho, either everyone get the same rights or noone should get the right. if one gets the rights and another doesnt, its communist facist state.

no matter how annoying that guy was(and i havnt seen footage) it was his AMERICAN RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, and to my knowledge he didnt attack anyone, so worst that should have happened is the cops should have handcuffed him and escorted out of building and released him not to return(unless he wants jail time for tresspassing)

sorry i didnt mean to quote dude......this says it all


just the rights of the many outweigh that of the one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texas grass

hey Psycho, either everyone get the same rights or noone should get the right. if one gets the rights and another doesnt, its communist facist state.

---

So everyone has the right to cut to the front of the line and hog the microphone for their own personal agenda........sounds like a plan. Maybe we could provide them with boxing gloves to see who the winner of free speach would be.

Have a good one!:s4:

Just as my post indicated...There was nothing for him to be arrested for, therefore resisting a false arrest is not illegal..He had every right to attempt to flee. It was a false arrest, and it was his duty, as the supreme court has ruled...

There is no such crime as "resisting arrest." This is a fictitious crime dreamed up by law enforcement to accuse a citizen of a crime when they refuse to surrender to the illegal demands of the police.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that resisting a false arrest is not merely a citizen's right, but his duty! In fact, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to rule that if a law enforcement officer is killed as a result of actions stemming from a citizen's attempts to defend themselves against a false arrest, it is the fault of the officer, not the citizen.

Here's a short collection of relevant court rulings on false arrest and resisting arrest:

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

In other words, Andrew Meyer would have been justified in using whatever reasonable means necessary to defend his life against his assailants. The gang of six individuals who assaulted Meyer, regardless of what clothing and badges they were wearing, were threatening his safety and his life. They assaulted him with a dangerous and potentially deadly weapon, and they kidnapped him by forcefully removing him from the room against his will.

Was Meyer being annoying to others by taking up air time at the microphone? Perhaps so. But being annoying is not a crime. If it were, John Kerry, President Bush and practically elected official in the country should be arrested. They're all far more annoying than Meyer.

Additional information from the courts:

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

Why did the bystanders not assist Meyer?

The most astonishing thing about this video is not merely the fact that six police officers brutally assaulted and arrested Meyer for his "Free Speech crimes," but that this room full of onlookers did nothing while Meyer screamed for help. (YES!!!WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?)

In 1964, a New York resident named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death, screaming for help, while hundreds of her neighbors watched and did nothing. No one called the police. The case of Kitty Genovese became a lightning rod for psychological research that attempted to understand the madness of crowds and why a group of people would do nothing to help an innocent bystander.



Tell me that he deserved to have his rights violated? Fuck that, this is america, and that's what we're a free country for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markass

Just as my post indicated...There was nothing for him to be arrested for, therefore resisting a false arrest is not illegal..He had every right to attempt to flee. It was a false arrest, and it was his duty, as the supreme court has ruled...

There is no such crime as "resisting arrest." This is a fictitious crime dreamed up by law enforcement to accuse a citizen of a crime when they refuse to surrender to the illegal demands of the police.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that resisting a false arrest is not merely a citizen's right, but his duty! In fact, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to rule that if a law enforcement officer is killed as a result of actions stemming from a citizen's attempts to defend themselves against a false arrest, it is the fault of the officer, not the citizen.

Here's a short collection of relevant court rulings on false arrest and resisting arrest:

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

In other words, Andrew Meyer would have been justified in using whatever reasonable means necessary to defend his life against his assailants. The gang of six individuals who assaulted Meyer, regardless of what clothing and badges they were wearing, were threatening his safety and his life. They assaulted him with a dangerous and potentially deadly weapon, and they kidnapped him by forcefully removing him from the room against his will.

Was Meyer being annoying to others by taking up air time at the microphone? Perhaps so. But being annoying is not a crime. If it were, John Kerry, President Bush and practically elected official in the country should be arrested. They're all far more annoying than Meyer.

Additional information from the courts:

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

Why did the bystanders not assist Meyer?

The most astonishing thing about this video is not merely the fact that six police officers brutally assaulted and arrested Meyer for his "Free Speech crimes," but that this room full of onlookers did nothing while Meyer screamed for help. (YES!!!WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?)

In 1964, a New York resident named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death, screaming for help, while hundreds of her neighbors watched and did nothing. No one called the police. The case of Kitty Genovese became a lightning rod for psychological research that attempted to understand the madness of crowds and why a group of people would do nothing to help an innocent bystander.



Tell me that he deserved to have his rights violated? Fuck that, this is america, and that's what we're a free country for?

---

He was being escorted out of the building under the wishes of the Forum Organizers. He decided he wasn't going to go, Disturbing the Peace. :P

...when this goes to court...justice will be served....(if he don't cop-a-plea).....:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

So everyone has the right to cut to the front of the line and hog the microphone for their own personal agenda........sounds like a plan. Maybe we could provide them with boxing gloves to see who the winner of free speach would be.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

hog? he asked 3 pointed questions and gave a short preface....he was on the mic for 1min 30sec and got it all out....kerry even said he would answer the questions.

was he a little bit of a dick? yes! but it's college! many college students are very much into activism at that age. Not only that...its Kerry...someone who's been involved with politics for a majority of his life....they're all used to hecklers, haters and people who ask difficult questions.

when they were holding him down on the ground you can even hear the kid say "i'll walk out of here" but he got tazed anyway

This is what happens everytime, we are talking about talking about the real topic at hand, what I mean is, instead of discussing his questions for Kerry here and what his real motive was, we are discussing what has happened when he tried to talk, avoiding the real topic at hand, which is John Kerry and the questions. Every time someone speaks out with information like this everyone's discussion is focused on their actions and talking about why they said that and not WHAT THEY SAID!

It's the same thing with the war, moveon.org publishes an ad that some people don't like so we decide to talk about talking about the war instead of talking about the war itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakez

This is what happens everytime, we are talking about talking about the real topic at hand, what I mean is, instead of discussing his questions for Kerry here and what his real motive was, we are discussing what has happened when he tried to talk, avoiding the real topic at hand, which is John Kerry and the questions. Every time someone speaks out with information like this everyone's discussion is focused on their actions and talking about why they said that and not WHAT THEY SAID!

It's the same thing with the war, moveon.org publishes an ad that some people don't like so we decide to talk about talking about the war instead of talking about the war itself.

---

Noooo. The "Real Topic".... The real topic is what the first poster made. If you wanna talk about that stuff then make a new topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FireTheft

hog? he asked 3 pointed questions and gave a short preface....he was on the mic for 1min 30sec and got it all out....kerry even said he would answer the questions.

was he a little bit of a dick? yes! but it's college! many college students are very much into activism at that age. Not only that...its Kerry...someone who's been involved with politics for a majority of his life....they're all used to hecklers, haters and people who ask difficult questions.

when they were holding him down on the ground you can even hear the kid say "i'll walk out of here" but he got tazed anyway

---

They tried walking him out and he pulled alway. Not once but twice when they tried escorting him. Sadly Kerry doesn't have a say on whether he stays or not because it is the organizers of the forum's decision.

anyone else want to hear from kerry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markass

Just as my post indicated...There was nothing for him to be arrested for, therefore resisting a false arrest is not illegal..He had every right to attempt to flee. It was a false arrest, and it was his duty, as the supreme court has ruled...

---

Post me a link my friend that states that in case that you feel your being arrested withour a just cause you can fight the cops.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighTillIDie

anyone else want to hear from kerry?

---

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the rest of the people that showed up for the speach?

I don't care for the s.o.b. but I don't think that the rest of the crowd was there to see the shocking of an assclown as compared to hear Kerry.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ntcrawler

He was being escorted out of the building under the wishes of the Forum Organizers. He decided he wasn't going to go, Disturbing the Peace. :P

---

And that means he was tased for a good reason? Seriously, it is out of hand. How could you support this? Free your mind, it isn't right for this stuff to happen.

THE CONSEQUENCE DID NOT FIT THE "CRIME"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

And that means he was tased for a good reason? Seriously, it is out of hand. How could you support this? Free your mind, it isn't right for this stuff to happen.

THE CONSEQUENCE DID NOT FIT THE "CRIME"

---

He was tased so they could get the hand cuffs on him. Did it not work? They could of risked injury on themselves and Meyer if they decided to wrestle with him. They could of just beat him with a baton until he submitted as well. They took the best route and he seemed fine when they took him out of the hall. My mind is free; it is yours that seems hung up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

And that means he was tased for a good reason? Seriously, it is out of hand. How could you support this? Free your mind, it isn't right for this stuff to happen.

THE CONSEQUENCE DID NOT FIT THE "CRIME"

---

you're right, in retrospect they probably should have just blown his head off right there...that would have made it even easier to handcuff him and arrest him for daring to ask an elitist god a question...

score one for freedom!!

and again pisshead you send my mind twirling into outer space...

...its a compliment because it seems most of your stuff levels and rebuilds my conspiracy thought process

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakez

This is what happens everytime, we are talking about talking about the real topic at hand, what I mean is, instead of discussing his questions for Kerry here and what his real motive was, we are discussing what has happened when he tried to talk to him, avoiding the real topic at hand, which is John Kerry and the questions. Every time someone speaks out with information like this everyone's discussion is focused on their actions and talking about why they said that and not WHAT THEY SAID!

It's the same thing with the war, moveon.org publishes an ad that some people don't like so we decide to talk about talking about the war instead of talking about the war itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ntcrawler

Noooo. The "Real Topic".... The real topic is what the first poster made. If you wanna talk about that stuff then make a new topic.

---

---

???? I was on topic.

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that you wanted to talk about the questions he asked and referred to it as the "real topic".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ntcrawler

He was tased so they could get the hand cuffs on him. Did it not work? They could of risked injury on themselves and Meyer if they decided to wrestle with him. They could of just beat him with a baton until he submitted as well. They took the best route and he seemed fine when they took him out of the hall. My mind is free; it is yours that seems hung up.

---

You seem to be dismissing the fact that a bunch of cops were holding him down. With all that muscle power, why would they need to tase him? How could they not have handcuffed him without the taser? Your argument makes no sense. Your mind isn't free, you're supporting police brutality with the idea that "he could have hurt the cops, or himself." Explain that one, because last time I checked, they had him pinned down. Obviously he couldn't do a thing to hurt the cops. This is police brutality, and it is you who has been manipulated to support it.

"They could have just beat him with a baton until he submitted as well". Hypothetically speaking, if they didn't have tasers, would you have supported this course of action?

You clearly don't understand those cops (that's plural) holding him down already had him subdued, for the most part. It would have just taken a minute or two longer to get the cuffs on him. Oh, but of course, that's really inconvenient for the cops, right? So, if it's inconvenient for the cops to spend a little extra time to prevent the violent act of using a taser, then the person who committed the so-called crime should be tased. Is this right? I'm not sure, I can't really predict your arguments, because I have not been manipulated to support police brutality, and the impending police state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Post me a link my friend that states that in case that you feel your being arrested withour a just cause you can fight the cops.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

...have a good one :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Post me a link my friend that states that in case that you feel your being arrested withour a just cause you can fight the cops.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

and keep in mind, that it's not feeling you're arrested without just cause, it's if you ARE being arrested without just cause..and in this case, regardless of if the kid was just being escorted out in the first place, there was no reason for the cops to even put his hands on him, he was merely asking questions, and fortunately, as some weirdos say, we're fighting in Iraq for our 'rights and freedoms' haha, yeah, whatever, but this is a country where it's citizens have rights..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markass

and keep in mind, that it's not feeling you're arrested without just cause, it's if you ARE being arrested without just cause..and in this case, regardless of if the kid was just being escorted out in the first place, there was no reason for the cops to even put his hands on him, he was merely asking questions, and fortunately, as some weirdos say, we're fighting in Iraq for our 'rights and freedoms' haha, yeah, whatever, but this is a country where it's citizens have rights..

---

He has a history there.......he was being walked out and started to resist as was VERY clear in all the vids. So where is the unjust arrest?

Have a good one!:s4:

If the arrest itself is a false arrest(one for no reason)..then there is no resisting arrest, because technically he's not being arrested...they had NO reason to even put their hands on him.

Did you miss the higher court cases I posted before the post you quoted?

There is no such crime as "resisting arrest." This is a fictitious crime dreamed up by law enforcement to accuse a citizen of a crime when they refuse to surrender to the illegal demands of the police.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that resisting a false arrest is not merely a citizen's right, but his duty! In fact, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to rule that if a law enforcement officer is killed as a result of actions stemming from a citizen's attempts to defend themselves against a false arrest, it is the fault of the officer, not the citizen.

Here's a short collection of relevant court rulings on false arrest and resisting arrest:

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

In other words, Andrew Meyer would have been justified in using whatever reasonable means necessary to defend his life against his assailants. The gang of six individuals who assaulted Meyer, regardless of what clothing and badges they were wearing, were threatening his safety and his life. They assaulted him with a dangerous and potentially deadly weapon, and they kidnapped him by forcefully removing him from the room against his will.

Was Meyer being annoying to others by taking up air time at the microphone? Perhaps so. But being annoying is not a crime. If it were, John Kerry, President Bush and practically elected official in the country should be arrested. They're all far more annoying than Meyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

You seem to be dismissing the fact that a bunch of cops were holding him down. With all that muscle power, why would they need to tase him? How could they not have handcuffed him without the taser? Your argument makes no sense. Your mind isn't free, you're supporting police brutality with the idea that "he could have hurt the cops, or himself." Explain that one, because last time I checked, they had him pinned down. Obviously he couldn't do a thing to hurt the cops. This is police brutality, and it is you who has been manipulated to support it.

"They could have just beat him with a baton until he submitted as well". Hypothetically speaking, if they didn't have tasers, would you have supported this course of action?

You clearly don't understand those cops (that's plural) holding him down already had him subdued, for the most part. It would have just taken a minute or two longer to get the cuffs on him. Oh, but of course, that's really inconvenient for the cops, right? So, if it's inconvenient for the cops to spend a little extra time to prevent the violent act of using a taser, then the person who committed the so-called crime should be tased. Is this right? I'm not sure, I can't really predict your arguments, because I have not been manipulated to support police brutality, and the impending police state.

---

Like I said, they could of wrestled with him. Now right before they buzzed him he was using his free hand to gain leverage on a chair. If they proceeded to try to pull him over and they broke his arm you would still be crying police brutality. Was Meyer disabled in the video afterwards? Did the shock actually injure him? I haven't heard of any injuries received because of the shock therefore calling police brutality for this case is slap in the face to all the REAL cases of police brutality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markass

and keep in mind, that it's not feeling you're arrested without just cause, it's if you ARE being arrested without just cause..

---

You are not under arrest until you are read your Miranda rights. Police can still detain you with cuffs while they perform an investigation. And if you know youâ??re innocent of said crime how do you know the police believe the same? Nothing in the constitution allows oneself to self judge ones own innocents. That is why we have a jury of our peers, justice is truly blind. This kid was not under arrest until he started to resist, simple.

If I talked back to my parent as a kid I wouldn't be sitting comfortably for the next few days, but I would have learned my lesson. Same is true for the tazed kid, if he had followed the forum rules and did not be rude and cut people off then maybe he would not have been asked to leave and have it snowball downhill from there on. This guy WAS on private property and has to adhere to the rules set forth. He resisted leaving the place on his own so force was necessary to remove him. Later on you can hear him say "if you let me go I will just leave", why did he not just leave when first told to? He was guilty of disorderly conduct, and got what he had coming. Too many people today lack discipline and respect for anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ntcrawler

Like I said, they could of wrestled with him. Now right before they buzzed him he was using his free hand to gain leverage on a chair. If they proceeded to try to pull him over and they broke his arm you would still be crying police brutality. Was Meyer disabled in the video afterwards? Did the shock actually injure him? I haven't heard of any injuries received because of the shock therefore calling police brutality for this case is slap in the face to all the REAL cases of police brutality.

---

Break his arm? LOL. Now you're just resorting to making up hypothetical situations and using them as an argument.

Um, in case you didn't know, getting tased hurts quite a bit. It doesn't have to "injure" someone to be police brutality. By the way, there have been deaths from tasers. Of course, that is when police are using more than one taser. And yes, that is police brutality - worse than this video. This video isn't bad police brutality, but it is police brutality nonetheless.


If there were no tasers, would you have supported the concept of beating him into submission with a baton? In your other post you said that would have worked as well. Would you have supported that course of action if no tasers were available? Because apparently you think the dude was dangerous to the handful of cops and himself. I truly think that is a ridiculous thing to say when a bunch of cops already pretty much wrestled him to the floor. He was using his other arm to try and get away... but oh, wait, I guess 6 cops aren't strong enough to pull his arm into place to handcuff him.