Student Tasering at Kerry Q&A

[BeBMan]

I think instead of the ability to ban people Ming should get Long-Range Taser Power (tm)

[Wezil]

Sorry to dredge up a quote from pages ago Lotm. I've been away...

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I think the question is, if they cross a line, should they get thrown out of the venue, and if they resist leaving the venue should they get subdued?

What if after getting the mike, hed started talking about a free x-box? Or decided to just sing christmas carols? At what point is someone disrupting the event?

Fair enough, but again, who made the cop the moderator of the event? Was she there to analyse the questions and decide which were legit and which were simply a "rant"? As I'm sure you know, it is not uncommon for people to make speeches or statements when they are supposed to be asking a question.

From what I have seen the guy was no doubt a rude jerk, but Kerry (the guy answering the questions) was perfectly happy to answer but Joe and Jane Law Enforcement decided they had had enough.

If Rude Jerk was just talking about an x-box or singing carrols I suspect Kerry would not be answering and the moderator (whoever they were) would have asked for the person to be removed. At which point the police do their work.

If this had happened first and Rude Jerk still wouldn't leave then I would be on the other side of this issue.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
Sorry to dredge up a quote from pages ago Lotm. I've been away...



Fair enough, but again, who made the cop the moderator of the event? Was she there to analyse the questions and decide which were legit and which were simply a "rant"? As I'm sure you know, it is not uncommon for people to make speeches or statements when they are supposed to be asking a question.

From what I have seen the guy was no doubt a rude jerk, but Kerry (the guy answering the questions) was perfectly happy to answer but Joe and Jane Law Enforcement decided they had had enough.

If Rude Jerk was just talking about an x-box or singing carrols I suspect Kerry would not be answering and the moderator (whoever they were) would have asked for the person to be removed. At which point the police do their work.

If this had happened first and Rude Jerk still wouldn't leave then I would be on the other side of this issue.

Its not clear if there was a moderator, or if there was, what their reaction was. Perhaps the whole event was poorly planned? It may well be that the police overstepped their role, which should have been left to a moderator.

However how does that become a freedom of speech issue? If a moderator has the right to tell someone to shut up, and to direct security to drag him away, then he has no right to keep speaking. That the police incorrectly usurped the moderators role does not make this a free speech issue, at least not wrt the rights of the Rude Jerk. The Moderator, and Kerry, may have had cause to object that THEIR speech rights were impinged, but AFAIK they have not said that.

And of course once the rude jerk is being dragged away, at whomevers direction, the question of whether the police should use tasers or brute strength, though a legitimate question, is not a free speech question either.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Its not clear if there was a moderator, or if there was, what their reaction was. Perhaps the whole event was poorly planned? It may well be that the police overstepped their role, which should have been left to a moderator.

True, this we do not know. I am presuming (the inherent right of all OT posters ) That with a guest as high profile as Kerry, there would be a moderator. I may be wrong.

However how does that become a freedom of speech issue? If a moderator has the right to tell someone to shut up, and to direct security to drag him away, then he has no right to keep speaking. That the police incorrectly usurped the moderators role does not make this a free speech issue, at least not wrt the rights of the Rude Jerk. The Moderator, and Kerry, may have had cause to object that THEIR speech rights were impinged, but AFAIK they have not said that.

I don't think I ever argued it was a freedom of speech issue per se. I won't presume to know more about American Civil Rights law than you but it seems to me there is a significant issue when an armed, uniformed, member of the "state" (loosely used) can decide themself that a speaker at a question/answer forum has crossed a line. Rude Jerk was just that. He was rude and he was a jerk but he was not dangerous or violent and I heard no one in charge of the event ask for him to be removed. Indeed Kerry wanted to answer.

And of course once the rude jerk is being dragged away, at whomevers direction, the question of whether the police should use tasers or brute strength, though a legitimate question, is not a free speech question either.

So long as "whomever" is in a position to make that call, I agree. That would be resisting a "lawful arrest" and for that I have no sympathy, provided of course the force was reasonable.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil


[q] there is a significant issue when an armed, uniformed, member of the "state" (loosely used) can decide themself that a speaker at a question/answer forum has crossed a line.

Remember, these were University cops. Had this been a private university, they wouldnt have been state employees. Since UF is a state university, they are state employees, but then so might have been the moderator.

The question is, if entity X, whether its a private university, a state university, or a private corporation holds an event on its own property, can its delegated representatives toss someone out cause they dont like what hes saying? Is not the question of whether the delegation is made to the armed, uniformed reps, or the unarmed uniniformed reps, an internal matter to that org? And if one of the orgs reps violates the orgs own rules and usurps another reps role, is that not also an internal matter?

How much is this different BECAUSE its a state university?

[Wiglaf]

won't presume to know more about American Civil Rights law than you but it seems to me there is a significant issue when an armed, uniformed, member of the "state" (loosely used) can decide themself that a speaker at a question/answer forum has crossed a line. Rude Jerk was just that. He was rude and he was a jerk but he was not dangerous or violent and I heard no one in charge of the event ask for him to be removed. Indeed Kerry wanted to answer.

His mic was cut presumably by the person with authority to do so.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Remember, these were University cops. Had this been a private university, they wouldnt have been state employees. Since UF is a state university, they are state employees, but then so might have been the moderator.

Right. They are government. Not sure the fact the moderator was also government really matters, but I will accept your presumption that they were also gov since you seem prepared to grant me there must have been a moderator.

The question is, if entity X, whether its a private university, a state university, or a private corporation holds an event on its own property

But it does matter if it is private or government. In this country your Constitutional Rights (we call them Charter Rights) are to protect you from abuses from the State, not your fellow citizens (tort law does that). Surely your rights offer a similar protection?

, can its delegated representatives toss someone out cause they dont like what hes saying?

Good question. I would have to say yes they can. But again, this was not the role of the armed officer to decide if this speech was to be disallowed.

Is not the question of whether the delegation is made to the armed, uniformed reps, or the unarmed uniniformed reps, an internal matter to that org? And if one of the orgs reps violates the orgs own rules and usurps another reps role, is that not also an internal matter?

The use of force has to be justifed in any circumstance. When there is not an issue of safety involved there was no need for forcible removal at the sole discretion of the officer. A rude defendant will not be removed from a courtroom until the judge asks for the removal. A violent/dangerous/aggressive one will be removed immediately. There simply was no demand for him to leave, except from the cops that didn't like what they were hearing. They overstepped their role.

How much is this different BECAUSE its a state university?

Lots I suspect, precisely b/c they are a state university.

[Kuciwalker]

Lots I suspect, precisely b/c they are a state university.

Lotm's question is a lot more complicated than that. The precise position of private and public universities vis-a-vis the First Amendment is not clear given what case law exists.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12


Ya! And we know cops alway lie!

Always? Of course not. Cops are, for the most part, good people. They develop a somewhat twisted mindset over time but it comes with the nature of the job.

That said, I saw a cop caught in a lie, on the stand, about six months ago. Even when confronted with evidence of his lie (*gasp* through the courtroom) he continued to deny.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


His mic was cut presumably by the person with authority to do so.

I'm not prepared to grant you that. We don't know how the mic was cut, by whom, or why. Too presumptious.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Lots I suspect, precisely b/c they are a state university.

Lotm's question is a lot more complicated than that. The precise position of private and public universities vis-a-vis the First Amendment is not clear given what case law exists.

Yes, I don't claim to be an expert on US Civil Rights Law. Imran would be a better authority on this. IIRC he studied US Constitutional Law....

I'd be much more comfortable if I was referencing ss. 2,7-9 of the Charter

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
most of us suffer "torture" every day. Stop sensationalizing.

Do you realize how full of it your are? Get this bud. Amnesty International says it's toture, and they also say that you have never been tortured. You are not qualified to say what torture is. Let it go.

[Shrapnel12]

Wezil, You will never get into Kid's anarchist club with that kind of attitude. Cops are evil! Eviiillll!!

Kid, Whatever Amnesty International says must be true. You've sold me.

[Wezil]

Nope sorry. Never met an evil one. Yet.

[Kidlicious]

Just one more point I want to make.

Just because you save lives and keep people safe does not give you the right to inflict pain on people and risk their life.

As I've already mentioned, people sometimes die from being tasered. It's unacceptable for police to shot people with tasers unless there is serious danger to someone. I think the situation has gotten out of control, and I blame Bush! No actually I blame people for not standing up.