Don't Taze Me, Bro!

boarderlinefrenzy · Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:20 am Post subject: Don't Taze Me, Bro!

Seen it on the news. My brother goes to University of Florida, so this is kind of a big deal to us. Personally, I think he desrved it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

Discloser: I'm not sure about this video, but some of the longer ones, you may not want to watch if you don't want to watch the violence.

EDIT: acutlly watching this view over agian (I the first time I watched it, it was fromthe opposite direction and you saw a lot more) it isn't too bad.

What do you guys think?

I did some research, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. He violated the open forum rules and then he fought against them.

mike · Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:51 am Post subject:

Yes.

He didn't get tasered because he asked the Skull and Bones question. He got tasered because he was resisting arrest. Had he let the security take him away peacefully, he probably would've been let go outside.

Now, I don't know why he got arrested in the first place.. politicians always get asked these types of questions by journalists/critics/whatever and I've never seen it dealt this way.
_________________

my style diary

alexisgeek · Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject:

Yes - because he was resisting arrest.

If it weren't for the fact that he was resisting arrest, then no. The guy was just exercising his First Amendment right (the Right to Free Speech). It's a good thing he wasn't killed by the taser, though. Then those cops and even maybe Kerry might be in a serious amount of trouble. I find it interesting that even though Kerry did answer the guy's question, he didn't stop the cops from arresting him.

Nothing Better · Supermodel Joined: 31 Dec 2006 Posts: 829 Smiles: +16 417

I disagree with all of you. From what I've seen, the guy was doing nothing wrong. He was just presenting his point of view. Okay, the Skulls and Bones thing was sort of off, but Kerry even said that he would answer. Then, the campus police comes to arrest him. He had no weapon and wasn't posing a threat to anyone. When he resisted arrest and asked what he had done, I completely understand him. Then, there were six police men and women there. It's pretty bad when six people who are supposed to protect us can't subdue a single individual who has no weapon without using a taser. It was a power trip.

boarderlinefrenzy · Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:03 pm Post subject:

^It has nothing to do with exercising his right to the First Amendment (freedom of speech in this case). It was and open forum and he disobeyed the rules. The police officer asked him to step down, he refused. Then he resisted arrest.

Andrew Miller- What did I do wrong?!?!?! (x20)
Cop- Starting a Riot (or something like that, I don't really remember.)

Not starting a riot like revealing some new information (as fashion boy said... news reporters have asked this question before and never have been chastised) , starting a riot by refusing to comply with the rules.
_________________

“Imagination is the highest kite one can fly”
~Lauren Bacall

Nothing Better · Supermodel Joined: 31 Dec 2006 Posts: 829 Smiles: +16 417

What rules did he dissobey? He waited in line, Kerry said "You, sir." and there was obviously a mike for questions after the forum. Kerry was fine with the question, hell he even answered it as the guy was being tasered. They had no right to arrest him.

Under United States federal law, a riot is defined as A public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual (Taken from Wikipedia)

He wasn't violent until they arrested him, he was alone, his acts did not constitute a clear and present danger to any person. His acts were NOT riot acts. Yes, he did raise controversial subjects, but these questions need to be answered. He did not deserve to be arrested, and by proxy, did not deserve to be tased.

DeadDisco · Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject:

Tazering someone seems really harsh but I still think it was okay. He avoided arrest, knowing they would do they if he kept fighting them.
_________________

Tick tock, you're not a clock
You're a time bomb, baby

boarderlinefrenzy · Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:49 pm Post subject:

He ran out of time on his turn. Each person only has an certain amount of time. If he wasn't so obnoisious and condensending, I'm sure the poilice wouldn't have warned him to tone it down. But, no... he's too good to follow the rules everyone else has to follow.
_________________

“Imagination is the highest kite one can fly”
~Lauren Bacall

missally · Supermodel Joined: 06 Dec 2006 Posts: 687 Smiles: +6 415

^ Damn... I wish all the obnoxious and condescending people I know were arrested.

He had the right to know what he did, and of course if someone came up to you and was like YOU'RE UNDER ARREST and you have no clue what you did you wouldn't be like "oh sure cuff me here you go". I don't think he was out of hand and didn't deserve the arrest. Maybe if they told him what he did then he wouldn't have been so shocked, confused, and scared which would've meant little/no resistance on his part.