Kerry rally

[Von Tonner]

[/quote] Everything has its time, place and limits. From the video, he overstepped his time, was asked to step away and he refused, including pushing/pulling a policeman away. He does not own the place and does not make its rules. If he doesn't like it, he should have obeyed the rules or not shown up in the first place.

All that seems to be in question here is whether he was sufficiently aware of his violating the owner's rights. I cannot tell from the video but it's a close call either way.[/quote]

Well, that is not how I read it. He didn't "overstep his time". One can see a guy in a suit who, when the student talks of Clinton and "the blow job", brings his hand up and draws it across his throat. At this point the mic is switched off and the police move in. If you read the official police reports this is how it went down.

So, the initial reaction by the police had absolutely NOTHING to do with disturbing the peace at all - that came later. It was that the Accent group leader in charge (the guy drawing his hand across his throat) didn't like the tone of questioning the student was putting across. Now yes, one can question his use of the word "blow job", but even that would be silly.

So, I do not see in what way he violated the owners rights. He was given permission by the speaker to ask his question. The trouble was, nobody liked the question.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

So, I do not see in what way he violated the owners rights. He was given permission by the speaker to ask his question. The trouble was, nobody liked the question.

IF that's true, then I agree. However, read and watch here. I really cannot tell.

EDIT: Love your bonnet! :p

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

EDIT: Love your bonnet! :p

Please Avon, I'm trying to ignore it.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

Please Avon, I'm trying to ignore it.

You can't. I've saved it for posterity:

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

You can't. I've saved it for posterity:

Ok, how much to make it 'go away'?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Um, that's the idea under certain circumstances. As I said, stun, tase, club - they all hurt but they need to be put in play under certain circumstances.

Obviously there's a big difference between German and US cops!

I cannot honestly say what the "rules of taser engagement are" but in principle using force to subdue a suspect is perfectly legitimate. Like I said, before tasers and stunners, there were billy clubs. Bakc then they we used and abused as well.

In this case the guy was refusing to be cuffed and continued struggling with the police who did not seem to be able to pin this guy down. Why? I don't know. I wasn't there and you cannot see clearly in the videos what's happening in the scuffle on the floor. At some point, however, enough's enough. In this case, he seemed to be quite deservant of using extra means in order to be restrained and cuffed.

I'm sorry. You lose me here. One does not need to have a bomb in a book to get arrested for DTP and one does not need a bomb in a book to get tased for aggressively resisting arrest.

Not everyone is a second Bruce Lee.

Once again one doesn't have to be. There are plenty of instances of people being arrested who know nothing of martial arts or hand-2-hand combat who use their available means to inflict harm to law enforcers. This shouldn't be news to you. Are you trying to pretend it doesn't happen? It happens plenty.

and I expect policemen to have proper training to deal with a figure like in this example without using weapons.

I am not qualified to know whether what's shown on the video is proper or improper.
[quote]If american polcie cant do that, they are welcomed to complete their training in Germany. Hell, even I could train them in this regard.

There really is no such thing as "American Police". Each townlette, city, state, county, etc., can have their own forces, with separate offices, budgets, facilities, resoures, and most important different laws and training for them all.

Discussed above. I disagree in as much as I see a possibility that it was called for and, again, I'm not familiar with the rules of when tasers are allowed.

Again, you cannot fully see what went on in the struggle on the floor in the back of the auditorium.

Each case is different and has to be judged for its own facts and circumstances.

Look up the details on the web. People are making timelines in the videos when he was told to step away, when he exceeded his time limit, how he ignored police requests and movements to stop, etc. That's why I say this case is very hard to call.

He brought it upon himself. Here's how I would have done it, based on how my parents brought me up to respect the laws and rules of society:

AVON: And furthermore, Mr. Kerry, ever since your wife introduced green and purple ketchup, our pasta dinners have............

MODERATOR: I'm sorry, your time is up.

AVON: I'm switching to Hunts, you Wafflehead!

And I'd go back to my seat. That's not what happened here.

Again they tried but he was unruly from the 1st second. Look at the videos again. And this is an essentially cause of this blowup and solely this jerk's fault.

They tried and failed. Interestingly, maybe because each cop individually was afraid to use sufficient physical force, out of political correctness fears. This resulted in the stunning, which makes things look even worse. I'm just theorizing because you do need to explain why so many able bodied cops could not subdue this guy. Is it fear of using force and then heading for an inquiry? In this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised.

Looks can be deceiving and it's about time people analyze news and events for what they are and not for how they look and feel.

Wowh - your posting is longer than mine!

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Wowh - your posting is longer than mine!

Type is cheap. :p

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

Precisely. Will someone who agrees with the arrest of this man please explain to me up to the point of the police stepping in (not the students reaction in response to) what he had done which was illegal and prompted police action. Is heckling in an open political debate, invited by the speaker (in this instance Kerry) illegal in the States?

In South Africa prior to our democracy, a British citizen (woman) living in South Africa attended a public political meeting and when the political apartheid candidate got up to speak she stood up and threw a bad tomatoe at him. She was arrested and deported. It made world headlines and the action by the police and government at the time was roundly condemned - and rightly so. Thank god we have moved on in SA.

Please tell me that the USA is not going down that path.

And secondly, is it unlawful to openly resist arrest by the police if you have not done anything wrong? This question in a police state of course would be meaningless.

From above:

When you resist what the cop is trying to do you have opened yourself up to use of force.

[sunvalleyslim]

And secondly, is it unlawful to openly resist arrest by the police if you have not done anything wrong? This question in a police state of course would be meaningless.[/quote]
From above:

When you resist what the cop is trying to do you have opened yourself up to use of force.

[/quote]

bradclark said it right when you resist, you open yourself to a use of force. So lets start with the ecalation of force.
1st reason and verbalization....."Sir will you step outside"
2nd firm grip control..........starts failing arms
3rd control hold.......Bar arm control not allowed.....subj resists and ofcr unable to aplly hold
4th pepper spray.......inside auditorium with people, someone besides the supect is going to get the effects of the spray...might clear out the whole place
5th Nightstick/PR24.....not going to look good on the camera....Remember Rodney King....definitely going to be viewed as excessive force
5th Tazer.......probably most appropriate inside....doesn't look bad, easy to subdue resisting suspect.

Suspect was told to stop resisiting numerous times and warned that he would be tazed......He says no don't taze me, but he never stops failing around.......

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by sunvalleyslim

And secondly, is it unlawful to openly resist arrest by the police if you have not done anything wrong? This question in a police state of course would be meaningless.

From above:

When you resist what the cop is trying to do you have opened yourself up to use of force.

[/quote]

bradclark said it right when you resist, you open yourself to a use of force. So lets start with the ecalation of force.
1st reason and verbalization....."Sir will you step outside"
2nd firm grip control..........starts failing arms
3rd control hold.......Bar arm control not allowed.....subj resists and ofcr unable to aplly hold
4th pepper spray.......inside auditorium with people, someone besides the supect is going to get the effects of the spray...might clear out the whole place
5th Nightstick/PR24.....not going to look good on the camera....Remember Rodney King....definitely going to be viewed as excessive force
5th Tazer.......probably most appropriate inside....doesn't look bad, easy to subdue resisting suspect.

Suspect was told to stop resisiting numerous times and warned that he would be tazed......He says no don't taze me, but he never stops failing around.......[/quote]

Ok look, for the record I think this students behaviour is out of line BUT.
He is a student who like many students is passionate about his beliefs, believes he and he alone can solve all the worlds problems, that anybody over 30 doesn't have a clue what they are talking about etc, etc. In short he is still wet behind the ears but believes he knows it all - like many students.

It was a political debate which by its very nature in question time could become emotionally charged. Kerry's a big boy, a seasoned politician, leave it to him to verbally spar with this kid.

The interesting thing is this. In the police reports everything this kid said is meticously recalled and noted by the police except for the one question this kid kept shouting out, and that is: "Tell me what I have done wrong?".
Why have over 5 individual policeman in their written reports detailed everything else this kid said from "blow jobs" to "don't kill me" etc failed to mention this question he repeatedly shouted out? Could it be that they themselves didn't know the answer and would rather the question not be asked. Because it looks to me as if the police did not react to this student because THEY saw him do something wrong but rather they were told to react to him by a third party who didn't like the aggressive and or politically motivated question/statement this kid was making.

Looking at this incident however, I'm asking myself the question how I would react to police forcefully interfering with me if I was convinced I had not done something wrong. I'm thinking of an incident a few years back where police stormed a residential house in dead of night only to discover that they had the wrong street number. I may be wrong but I think someone in that house was even killed in the mayem that followed when the residents understandably resisted this assualt on their property.

How many times haven't we seen police back off, not use force and try and reason with whoever it is they wish to apprehend. Why couldn't that have been done in this incident. I certainly do not support this kid in his political views. If I lived in the States I would be Republican to the core, but, damit, this was a political debate, a kid full of hot air wanting to take on a veteran poltician with even more hot air. It could have been fun.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

It could have been fun.

"An officer, however, said in the police report that Meyer's "demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight" and that he was "laughing" and "lighthearted" on the way to jail."
- Tasered Student Has History Of Practical Jokes

[Von Tonner]

Thanks for the link Avon.
If ever I doubt my reasoning as to why I think Kerry is a wimp I will refer back to his statement below.

"Whatever happened, the police had a reason, had made their decision that there was something they needed to do. Then it's a law enforcement issue, not mine," he (Kerry) told The Associated Press in Washington.

[Von Tonner]

Found this on defence to resisting arrest.

Defense to resisting arrest

A common defense to resisting arrest is that the officer acted with excessive force. While an arrestee is expected to comply with an officer's reasonable actions to affect an arrest, the arrestee is allowed to defend himself from unreasonable, excessive force used by the officer.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

Thanks for the link Avon.
If ever I doubt my reasoning as to why I think Kerry is a wimp I will refer back to his statement below.

"Whatever happened, the police had a reason, had made their decision that there was something they needed to do. Then it's a law enforcement issue, not mine," he (Kerry) told The Associated Press in Washington.

What's really funny is that I have no liking of Kerry as a reliable politician yet in this case I believe he behaved very appropriately.

There is nothing "wimpy" about respecting law enforcement and not hindering them or insulting them for doing their job. Just the opposite of the arrested buffoon here.

[Skybird]

What Tonner said. I do not like the idea that whatever the police considers "appropriate" should and must be obeyed by civilians at all cost. This kind of uncritical law and order mentality reminds me of the german word "Kadavergehorsam", which originally referred to the expected blind obedience of soldiers and military contexts, but also means exactly this: blind obedience in all contexts. there is no room for that in the very idea of "democracy". Tonner mentioned "excessive force", and that'S what it is about. The incident, or others like this, must be examined, reviewed, and become the basis for correcting proecudres used by the police, so that it does not repeat. That way, the probability that a situation of using excessive force appears again, gets reduced, and by that the valdiity of the demand to comply with police demands gets raised. but the more often police demands, in the widest sense, are vunerable to criticism concerning their appropriateness, the more it is reasomnable, legal, and justified to resist them. In the end the goals does not justify all means - else you would need to accept that the man eventually would be shot dead with three officers sitting on him and holding his arms and legs down. And finally, the tazer was not used as a weapon in self defense, but as a disciplinary measure - that's how I see it. And that is totally unacceptable. It is the court's and judge's job to decide on disciplinary measures in the form of penalties, not the police's.