Leftist Blogs Defend Police Brutality In Student Tazering

[HighTillIDie]

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

[ntcrawler]

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. '

[jakez]

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?

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..

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..

[texas grass]

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)

[texas grass]

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


just the rights of the many outweigh that of the one

[Psycho4Bud]

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:

[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?

[ntcrawler]

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

[Dutch Pimp]

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

[FireTheft]

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