He might be a little bitch, but FUCK them for tasering him and tackling him for no reason. Dude was just asking his questions. Police brutality, especially from Rent-a-Cops is unacceptable in whatever form.
Mark
· 2 years ago
This is an interesting comment on the video at NewTeeVee.com:
"It is every citizen’s duty to resist false arrest 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.
“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).
Not one person attempted to rush to the aid of Meyer who was screaming “HELP! HELP ME!” Do individuals have the right to come to the aid of another citizens being falsely arrested? YES!
“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).
And on the issue of actually killing an arresting officer in self defense:
“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.
Wow, Mark, I knew I stepped in it with this one. I had two minds when I first saw it...and I think Sen. Kerry was trying to do the right thing. He kept saying, "Let him go, I'll answer his question." That kind of thing.
The police have a lot of power. I didn't know about the resisting arrest thing...very interesting.
I do think that little punk was only concerned with his own agenda, and that was to get on YouTube. If he has something important to say, I would be more sympathetic. Instead, he was a total actor and pussy. In fact, I'm surprised someone didnt get hurt. The Taser was WAY over the top, but those were rent-a-cops. I would think that a decent bouncer could have done better. But his histrionics (They want to KILL ME!) and such made it a lot worse.
Are you proposing that people should have intervened? Is that the right thing to do? Or does he get his day in court and go that route? I mean, he has legal recourse and I'm sure planned this advance (the handing out of video cams) and now will get a pretty penny.
The university president said the cops were out of line. Stuff happens in the heat of the moment. I like free speech and am not crazy about cops getting out of control. As I mentioned to you, my dad was a cop and they didn't have Tasers back then...but there was LOTS less freedom then...and no video cams. Back in the day, that kids parents would have bitch slapped him. Too bad they didn't do it a little more. No meaningful communication happens when people provoke like he did with no goal for it except self promotion.
Mark
· 2 years ago
Of course, I wrote those comments while my blood was still BOILING after watching that video. Just like how I felt after watching the video about the student in the library at USC (google that).
I just hate, more than anything in the world, oppression. The tools of oppression in action make me depressed and angry and, well, boil my blood. Yes, the kid was annoying and idealistic and big mouthed. But yes, he sure has the right to say that. Why does everything need to be so 'controlled' in front of His Majesty John Kerry?
Yes, the other people there should have stepped in to help the man. I just don't think we have enough of that in America. We're drugged into thinking 'this will never happen to us.'
Ever read about The White Rose - the student underground movement against the Nazi regime? My heroes.
Oh, the USC one SUPER pissed me off...he was leaving and they wanted to try their new guns. I was glad that people intervened on that one. You've got me thinking, my friend. Thanks for the resources, that really helps. That's what real dialog is about.
Frank
· 2 years ago
Just one other point...I thought Kerry was trying to do the right thing...you can hear him say it several times. But I don't think a U.S. senator can jump down and get in the middle of that...there are genuine security concerns. It's not about Mr. Kerry's virgin ears, it's that the guy tried to keep going long after the last question, was disrupting, etc. Free speech, yes, but as we all know, that doesn't mean you can scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. That guy has an entire open internet to make his points...and in private events there is not as much expectation for free speech and anything goes. I could be wrong about that, but I would have no illusions about going to someone's wedding, say, starting a screaming fit about how marriage oppresses women, and expect that I could stand there and make my point. I might be right, but I don't necessarily have the right for people to counter me.
I have lots more on this. One of my friends is an activist and was arrested a couple of years ago because she was handing out fliers at a Michael Moore movie (9/11) that were antiwar and anti-Bush. The police really tried to pull some shit on here, like the public disturbance and resisting arrest thing. Crazy. I hate it.
Mark
· 2 years ago
LOL! Wouldn't that have made a splash if John Kerry DID just jump into the audience to aide the kid? Whoa. Wouldn't that have changed the kids attitude?
Yeah, exactly. It's about dialogue. It's about freedom of speech. I do condone asking our leaders tough questions, though. You can't throw a guy out for asking difficult questions. Brushing aside his concerns because they weren't screened and coming from a mainstream angle.
I just wish people would open their eyes a bit and see how much control the leaders of this country have. I've let go of my angsty, alarmist attitudes of my youth, but I'm still HIGHLY skeptical that anyone with that much power does much for the greater good.
Pinky Bear
· 2 years ago
Kerry is a coward that he didn't speak out about that. It is a side effect of Bush that we shut people up.
Frank
· 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure that Kerry was saying "Let him go, I'll answer his question" all along. I don't know how I all of a sudden turned into a Repub on this one, but the Q was over. The kid forced his way to the mic when the Q was over. Then he grandstanded. Had himself taped. My best scenario would have been for the session to end without a mic, then he could have shouted all he wanted.
Just imagine yourself for a second...do people have the right to disrupt with no end in mind? I mean, it's not like he was trying to save the whales, or do the good civil disobedience work that Jimmi and his people at ADAPT do. This guy's only M.O. was to get attention for himself. Do you think he really wanted answers to those questions? Or that he was owed them? Or that an kind of question at any level of inappropriateness whould be met with calm and indifference.
I would have liked it if Clinton had answered. He could kick some verbal ass.
Charlie
· 2 years ago
I'm wondering what the alternative is. Although the prelude to the event is not show, as I understand it, the man was being disruptive to the event. The event organizers asked security to restore order.
The question at this point is whether the man's 'freedom' is greater than his responsibilty to everyone else. Can the event organizers use various means to eject someone.
There is not doubt, that after being asked to leave by security he chose not to. That after they tried to forcibly escort him, he chose not to be escorted.
The one big failure I see here is that 4 security officers could not properly restrain and eject a disruptive individual without applying pain to make him succumb. I don't care a bit about any pain he may have suffered when they were trying to get the cuffs on, but to need to intentionally cause pain to force acquiecence shows ineptitude (not necessarily evil, however).
In short, if tasering is what it takes to restore the public's rights to the forum, then I'm OK with it. There should have been better alternatives, though.
Mark
· 2 years ago
True. True. True. I don't care about the spastic dude, I just care that he go tasered.
CraftyMoni
· 2 years ago
Dude. I want that t-shirt. Oh man. That would be so funny to wear in Spokane. The cops here are infamous for over-using them.
I am sure they could have done without the taser. I don't think you're a total Repub, Frank. Very thought provoking.
Tish
· 2 years ago
Hi there! I found my way here by way of Priscilla Palmer's Personal Development List. I saw your HR blog listed there. I'm an HR Manager in Knoxville, Tennessee. Nice to meet another person in the field! :) I'll check in on you and your HR blog from time to time. Have a great night!
Frank
· 2 years ago
Hi Tish, glad you found your way here. Always great to meet other HR people. ;-) Thanks much!
rick
· 2 years ago
Wow, what incredible dialogue... and no one got hurt in the process. So this is why the internet and blogging were invented.
Frank
· 2 years ago
Rick, it's funny...short post, lots of thoughtful comments. I knew I was falling down when I posted this one...I had a lot of cognitive dissonance...what I really liked was the thought stimulation and how it made me look inside myself. That's always a good thing.
Kris
· 2 years ago
Frank -
Can I use "Don't tase me bro" as the tagline for my next blog? I'll give you a royalty if it takes off. Maybe I'll change the hr capitalist from "get to the table, stay at the table", to "don't tase me bro". I'm tempted....
All Comments
"It is every citizen’s duty to resist false arrest
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.
“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).
Not one person attempted to rush to the aid of Meyer who was screaming “HELP! HELP ME!” Do individuals have the right to come to the aid of another citizens being falsely arrested? YES!
“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).
And on the issue of actually killing an arresting officer in self defense:
“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.
http://www.newstarget.com/022041.html"
The police have a lot of power. I didn't know about the resisting arrest thing...very interesting.
I do think that little punk was only concerned with his own agenda, and that was to get on YouTube. If he has something important to say, I would be more sympathetic. Instead, he was a total actor and pussy. In fact, I'm surprised someone didnt get hurt. The Taser was WAY over the top, but those were rent-a-cops. I would think that a decent bouncer could have done better. But his histrionics (They want to KILL ME!) and such made it a lot worse.
Are you proposing that people should have intervened? Is that the right thing to do? Or does he get his day in court and go that route? I mean, he has legal recourse and I'm sure planned this advance (the handing out of video cams) and now will get a pretty penny.
The university president said the cops were out of line. Stuff happens in the heat of the moment. I like free speech and am not crazy about cops getting out of control. As I mentioned to you, my dad was a cop and they didn't have Tasers back then...but there was LOTS less freedom then...and no video cams. Back in the day, that kids parents would have bitch slapped him. Too bad they didn't do it a little more. No meaningful communication happens when people provoke like he did with no goal for it except self promotion.
I just hate, more than anything in the world, oppression. The tools of oppression in action make me depressed and angry and, well, boil my blood. Yes, the kid was annoying and idealistic and big mouthed. But yes, he sure has the right to say that. Why does everything need to be so 'controlled' in front of His Majesty John Kerry?
Yes, the other people there should have stepped in to help the man. I just don't think we have enough of that in America. We're drugged into thinking 'this will never happen to us.'
Ever read about The White Rose - the student underground movement against the Nazi regime? My heroes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose
I have lots more on this. One of my friends is an activist and was arrested a couple of years ago because she was handing out fliers at a Michael Moore movie (9/11) that were antiwar and anti-Bush. The police really tried to pull some shit on here, like the public disturbance and resisting arrest thing. Crazy. I hate it.
Yeah, exactly. It's about dialogue. It's about freedom of speech. I do condone asking our leaders tough questions, though. You can't throw a guy out for asking difficult questions. Brushing aside his concerns because they weren't screened and coming from a mainstream angle.
I just wish people would open their eyes a bit and see how much control the leaders of this country have. I've let go of my angsty, alarmist attitudes of my youth, but I'm still HIGHLY skeptical that anyone with that much power does much for the greater good.
Just imagine yourself for a second...do people have the right to disrupt with no end in mind? I mean, it's not like he was trying to save the whales, or do the good civil disobedience work that Jimmi and his people at ADAPT do. This guy's only M.O. was to get attention for himself. Do you think he really wanted answers to those questions? Or that he was owed them? Or that an kind of question at any level of inappropriateness whould be met with calm and indifference.
I would have liked it if Clinton had answered. He could kick some verbal ass.
The question at this point is whether the man's 'freedom' is greater than his responsibilty to everyone else. Can the event organizers use various means to eject someone.
There is not doubt, that after being asked to leave by security he chose not to. That after they tried to forcibly escort him, he chose not to be escorted.
The one big failure I see here is that 4 security officers could not properly restrain and eject a disruptive individual without applying pain to make him succumb. I don't care a bit about any pain he may have suffered when they were trying to get the cuffs on, but to need to intentionally cause pain to force acquiecence shows ineptitude (not necessarily evil, however).
In short, if tasering is what it takes to restore the public's rights to the forum, then I'm OK with it. There should have been better alternatives, though.
Can I use "Don't tase me bro" as the tagline for my next blog? I'll give you a royalty if it takes off. Maybe I'll change the hr capitalist from "get to the table, stay at the table", to "don't tase me bro". I'm tempted....