Tasered for asking John Kerry questions

[explod]

explod - can I ask you a question please
as an excop -
how often have you seen totally - I mean TOTALLY - trumped up charges that someone resisted arrest ?

I'm talking about the "ole trifecta" - "assault of an officer, language and resist "

PS 90% of the time BS - IMO - I await your opinion / confirmation / denial

As a junior a number of times on stations. However 1970 demonstrations at the Springbok Rugby, Olympic Park there were 40 or fifty bundled into vans just because they were there. Police mood became inflamed when a Traffic Operations Group member was injured when (I think) a live flare got caught unside his helmet. Demonstrations brings out the worst in crowds and in police.

As I reached higher rank it never happened in my presence and rarely on my watch as I did not tolerate it. I became unpopular as a result so that says something but many of my peers felt the same way and as a result the job cleaned up in this regard from those early times. Cant speak for the last nine years when I retired.

Later at Court some informants would fail to front so suspects, so called would have charges dismissed. Bail Act was also bad in those early years and offenders could be locked up for days for very trivial stuff, so some things have improved considerably.

 

[cuttlefish]

i have stated repeatedly in this thread he was initially restrained because he was in a heightened state of agitation and was requested by the moderators of the forum to shut up. he wouldn't shut up and when approached by security he responded with violence and erratic behaviour. even at this point he still wasn't "under arrest", he was merely being forcefully ejected from the meeting - had he just stfu and left without resisting that would have been the end of it. i really can't make it much clearer than that for you.

I don't agree, but have a better understanding of your line of reasoning from the above. If you had refrained from insulting and deriding the bloke it would have been easier to decipher your point from earlier posts.

I believe the police were ineffective in their approach to communicating with him, this led to him forming the view that he was being subdued as a result of the content of his questions. I also don't believe his emotional state was at a level of agitation that required him to be restrained, particularly given that he was in a university environment, he was asking quite confronting questions on a big political issue to a major political figure, and he was only 21 years old. I believe John Kerry (who said "its ok I'll answer his question" simultaneously with him being restrained) took the situation in the context it should have been taken and that the police should have taken it.

When he was restrained without the reason for the restraint being communicated effectively to him prior to the act of restraint, he formed the view that he was being arrested as a result of the content of his questions, not because he was disruptive and ignoring directives. This extended to him then thinking that he might actually be being 'taken away by the government' for holding an anti-government viewpoint. This fear led him to resist the arrest and try to escape.

When you break it down, he was effectively asking John Kerry to impeach Bush and implying that a possible reason John Kerry hadn't impeached Bush was because they were actually in cahoots via a secret society. These are weighty issues for the mind of a 21 year old and its understandable that he'd get emotional in raising them to a significant political figure. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech - he didn't threaten anyone and I don't believe anyone genuinely thought he may be a threat.

I still believe the initial restraint was unnecessary in the context of the situation and conveyed the wrong message to both the individual and society as a whole.

 

[2020hindsight]

As a junior a number of times on stations. However 1970 demonstrations at the Springbok Rugby, Olympic Park there were 40 or fifty bundled into vans just because they were there. Police mood became inflamed when a Traffic Operations Group member was injured when (I think) a live flare got caught unside his helmet. Demonstrations brings out the worst in crowds and in police.

As I reached higher rank it never happened in my presence and rarely on my watch as I did not tolerate it. I became unpopular as a result so that says something but many of my peers felt the same way and as a result the job cleaned up in this regard from those early times. Cant speak for the last nine years when I retired.

Later at Court some informants would fail to front so suspects, so called would have charges dismissed. Bail Act was also bad in those early years and offenders could be locked up for days for very trivial stuff, so some things have improved considerably.

thanks explod
I can tell you I've recently seen a case where a number of police completely fabricated "a trifecta" - and fabricated assault charges where they in fact were doing the assaulting.
and when it went to court it was shown to be so (using detailed analysis of video evidence)
still justice won out in the end.
Just I'd hate it if they had tasers - they did enough damage with pushing , kicking , and unnecessary mace

 

[2020hindsight]

explod - just in case you want to reminisce
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/sportsf/stories/s444361.htm
note that there's an audio track as well
note this was posted on ABC in 2001 - hence 30 years ago becomes 30 odd 37 whatever

Thirty years ago, the South African rugby team, the Springboks, arrived in Australia for a six week match tour.

Although supported by the Federal Government, the Springbok tour was deeply contoversial and divisive. It sparked anti-apartheid protests around the country, and a state of emergency was declared in Queensland.

On this 30th anniversary, a range of people involved offer their recollections, and views on how this tour changed Australia.

Lawyer TONY ABRAHAMS played with the Australian rugby team in South Africa in 1969, but became one of seven anti-apartheid Wallabies who spoke out against the 1971 tour. MEREDITH BURGMANN, now President of the New South Wales Legislative Council, was one of the organisers of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, arrested numerous times during the Springbok tour. Accountant JOHN HOWARD was the Treasurer of the New South Wales Rugby Union, and in charge of the Springboks' travel and security during the tour - a job that turned out to be much bigger than he'd expected!

And barrister LLOYD McDERMOTT was the first Aborigine to play with the Wallabies, in 1962, but was barred from touring to South Africa with the team in 1963. He's the patron of a young Aboriginal rugby team which this year played in South Africa. In his view it's the culmination of what all the protests were about in 1971.

lol feeling it's a different John Howard. - mind you the rest rings true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Blacks_vs_Springboks

Here's a background - the boks started internationally in 1891 - we might be hearing more about them in France in 2007 yes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_national_rugby_union_team

Seventies and eighties
When the All Blacks toured South Africa in June-July 1970, the Springboks won the test series 3-1. The Prime Minister of New Zealand cancelled the 1973 Springbok tour of New Zealand, but the 1976 All Blacks tour of South Africa went ahead. Again the Springboks won by three tests to one.

Massive anti-apartheid demonstrations greeted the South African rugby tour of Australia in 1971. The South African team had to be transported in Australian Air Force planes as the trade unions refused to service planes or trains transporting them. The Springboks’ tour began with matches in Perth, then Adelaide and Melbourne. The Springboks won all three tests, scoring 18-6, 14-6, and 19-11.

The Lions team that toured South Africa in 1974 was unbeaten over 22 games, and triumphed 3-0 (with one drawn) in the test series. The management of the Lions concluded that the Springboks dominated their opponents with physical aggression. The Lions decided "to get their retaliation in first" with the infamous '99 call'. The idea was that a South African referee would be unlikely to send off all of the Lions if they all retaliated against "blatant thuggery". At the "battle of Boet Erasmus Stadium," one of the most violent in rugby history, JPR Williams famously ran over half of the pitch and launched himself at 'Moaner' van Heerden after such a call.

lol "the Battle of Boet Erasmus Stadium"

 

[disarray]

we're going around in circles here cuttlefish. i understand your point and i disagree with it. he lost control, became irrational and so was taken down, your psychological interpretation of his inner thought processes notwithstanding. it was a perfectly justifiable act, and maybe in the future he will learn a measure of self control and get a small glimmer of understanding that no one really cares about his rantings on secret societies, election rigging and book reviews. he can save that for his crappy blog. so thank you for the discussion and we'll agree to disagree. see you in the next thread where we butt heads

 

[explod]

we're going around in circles here cuttlefish. i understand your point and i disagree with it. he lost control, became irrational and so was taken down, your psychological interpretation of his inner thought processes notwithstanding. it was a perfectly justifiable act, and maybe in the future he will learn a measure of self control and get a small glimmer of understanding that no one really cares about his rantings on secret societies, election rigging and book reviews. he can save that for his crappy blog. so thank you for the discussion and we'll agree to disagree. see you in the next thread where we butt heads

Absolutely wrong, he did not get upset in any way till the police touched him, they precipitated the action then later tasered him.

 

[disarray]

Absolutely wrong, he did not get upset in any way till the police touched him, they precipitated the action then later tasered him.

nope. he was emotionally charged regarding his subject matter, the first approach by security was brushed off with confrontational body language and defiance. the mic was cut, security moved in, he became aggressive. HE precipitated the action that later got him tasered.

 

[explod]

nope. he was emotionally charged regarding his subject matter, the first approach by security was brushed off with confrontational body language and defiance. the mic was cut, security moved in, he became aggressive. HE precipitated the action that later got him tasered.

Since when can police touch some one for being emotionally charged. In fact he was merely being insistent on the point he was making and the question being asked. If a person was armed or a threat physically yes, but not in this circumstance. It is not the charter of police to act on points of view, emotially charged or not.

 

[disarray]

Since when can police touch some one for being emotionally charged.

when the moderator of the discussion forum wants him to shut up. and they weren't cops, they are campus security - they have a history of being taser happy and i would concede they probably lack the training and discipline of cops.

In fact he was merely being insistent on the point he was making and the question being asked

student - "NO! i'm gonna finish my question. and i have 2 more questions!" /cue irrational rant
audience - "groans"

in fact he was being a complete wanker on the point he was making and the questions he was demanding to ask. enforcing your opinions and ignoring moderators defeats the purpose of "discussion forum" non? he was in the audiences' face and wouldn't step back when requested.

It is not the charter of police to act on points of view, emotially charged or not

no its the charter of police and security to do as directed by organisers of the event. as they did. we might just have to agree to disagree here too

 

[cuttlefish]

we're going around in circles here cuttlefish. i understand your point and i disagree with it. he lost control, became irrational and so was taken down, your psychological interpretation of his inner thought processes notwithstanding. it was a perfectly justifiable act, and maybe in the future he will learn a measure of self control and get a small glimmer of understanding that no one really cares about his rantings on secret societies, election rigging and book reviews. he can save that for his crappy blog. so thank you for the discussion and we'll agree to disagree. see you in the next thread where we butt heads

yeah I'm happy to put it to bed there as well, in the future organisers of such events may learn that before restraining someone its not a bad idea to let them know why they're being restrained, that getting a little hot under the collar is part of politics, particularly in a student forum, and that 5 trained people are actually capable of safely restraining someone without the need to use a weapon. Differing viewpoints and not likely to change so happy to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[drmb]

The guy Andrew Meyer has a history of "pranks" and set ups. What you don't see in the vids is the lead up to the questions, when Andrew Meyer taunts the cops before he starts asking his questions - he asks "you going to arrest me. You going to tase me?" read the police reports of the incidents, it's verifiable by witnesses - draw your own conclusions.

Excerpt below (entire extract too long for ASF)

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/19/document-drop-the-andrew-meyer-taser-stunt-police-report/

9/17/2007 14:33 INITIAL MALLO, NICOLE LYNN 048 JVINSON 9/18/2007 15:24

On 09/17/07 at 1015 hours, I was working an overtime function at the University Auditorium for Accent presents Senator John Kerry. There were approximately 350 plus people in attendance. At approximately 1245 hrs., Ambassador Jett informed the audience that there would be a question and answer session and that Senator Kerry would only be answering about 6 questions, 3 on each side of the room where there were microphones set up. Senator Kerry told Ambassador Jett that he might be able to answer a couple more, time permitting. Senator Kerry was answering questions during the “question and answer stage” of his presentation when the audience was told there would only be one question left to be answered. After the question was answered, Senator Kerry stated the question and answer was over and thanked the audience for asking their questions. The approximate number of people in line asking questions was about 20, and Senator Kerry answered about 8 questions. All of the people standing in line started to dissipate and either sat back down or started to leave. As Senator Kerry was ending his speech, a man disrupted the senator by screaming, yelling, and flailing his arms. The man moved his way down the aisle yelling, “Why don’t you answer my questions, I have been waiting and listening to you speak in circles for the last two hours.”

“These officers are going to arrest me”. I didn’t see any officer directly next to him until I noticed Officer Wise walking down trying to get his attention. The man was screaming and yelling obscenities until Senator Kerry told him to calm down and that he would take his question, but he needed to calm down. At that point, the man stated, “You will take my question because I have been listening to your crap for two hours”. The man at that point turned to his friend and said, “Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?” The man was talking to a woman who was there to film him. Before asking the question, I had a chance to ask the man if he was a student and he stated, “I don’t have to tell you.” I the asked him if he knew the rules to the student code of conduct and he said, “What?” I informed the man that after he asked Senator Kerry the question that I needed to talk to him outside. After asking the question, the man would not let Senator Kerry finish his statement and kept badgering the senator about his beliefs, talking about “blow jobs”, and yelling as loud as he could as to sensationalize his presence. At that moment the Accent Director, Max Tyroler, asked us to take him out of the auditorium and had his microphone turned off stating, “He had said enough.” Officer Wise and I grabbed both of the man’s arms and asked him to come with us out of the auditorium to speak with us. The man then lifted me up and pushed Officer Wise to avoid being taken into custody. As he pushed and kicked Officer Wise, Sgt. King grabbed him and escorted him out of the room, but the man pushed Sgt. King out of the way and was yelling and trying to get back down the aisle. At this point Officer Sexton, Officer De Jesus, and Officer Lamb tried to assist Officer Wise and Sgt King in getting a hold of the punching and kicking irate man while Officer Dean, Officer Passero, and Officer Spurlin were present trying to assist.

The man continued to scream and yell as well as push, kick, and elbow the officers attempting to take him into custody. After multiple attempts to tell him to stop resisting, the man said, “No” and continued to push and elbow the officers. Only one handcuff was placed on the man as he continued to punch his way out of the hold. The officers could not get a hold of his other arm as he was kicking, punching, and elbowing into officers. After many attempts to get the man to comply, he chose to continue actively resisting the officers. I obeyed the command from Sgt. King to utilize the taser for the continuation of non-compliance by the man. One contact tase to the man’s left shoulder was deployed for the duration of its cycle. After the cycle ended, the man was asked to comply and stop resisting and for a brief moment he did, at which time he was placed in handcuffs. After he was lifted to his feet, he kept screaming and yelling to let him go by continually pushing the officers. I read the man his Miranda rights and explained why he was being placed under arrest. As the man was escorted down stairs with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again. Some of the comments that the man made were “You can’t kill me.”, “They are giving me to the government.” and “They are going to kill me.”

9/17/2007 14:38
SUPPLEMENT
DE JESUS JR, PABLO
052
DEJESUS
9/18/2007
12:52

On September 17, 2007, at approximately 1352 hrs, I was working an overtime assignment at the University Auditorium in reference to Accent’s guest speaker Senator John Kerry. I was
located on the west side of the stage area providing security for Senator Kerry. The event consisted of Kerry’s speech and a question and answer session. Before the question and
answer session commenced, it was stated that they would limit the number of questions to at least 6 questions due to Kerry’s limited time. Kerry answered approximately 8 questions
when it was stated that there would be one more question taken after Kerry finished answering the current one. At this point there were approximately a dozen other subjects
that did not get to ask Kerry their questions.

Shortly thereafter an angry white male in the line for questions, Andrew W. Meyer, forced himself on the microphone, displayed his agitation with Senator Kerry for making him wait in
line, stopping the question and answer session, and not allowing him to speak. He stated in a loud disorderly manner that he was “sick of listening to Kerry’s crap for the past two hours”
and demanded to be allowed to ask his question. He also excitedly stated as Ofc. W. Wise #501 and Ofc. N. Mallo #48 approached him, before making contact or exchanging words,
that they were going “to arrest me for trying to ask my question”. I also approached Meyer from my posted location to possibly assist Mallo and Wise if Meyer behavior escalated any
further.

Meyer was told that he would be granted the opportunity to speak by Senator Kerry after he finished answering the question that Meyer interrupted. Before I returned to my post I
observed Meyer hand a digital hand-held camera to white female he was present with, and it appeared that he instructed her to film his interaction. When Kerry permitted Meyer to
speak, he began ranting without asking a specific question to Senator Kerry. He shared a book with Kerry and congratulated Kerry for winning the 2004 election. He became
inappropriately vulgar when he asked Kerry why he is not for impeaching Bush; after relating Bush’s conduct in office to President Clinton’s impeachment based on a “blow job”.

He also accused Kerry of being a member of the “Skull and Bones” society. Shortly after that statement, the Accent staff cut off Meyer’s microphone and Mallo and Wise attempted to escort Meyer out of the building. Meyer became actively resistant by pushing and flailing away from Mallo and Wise. The potential for officer injury was present based on the locations of Mallo and Wise in the auditorium isle next to fixed wooden folding seats; I drew out my department issued X-26 taser to respond to Meyer’s active physical resistance and/or to possibly gain compliance from Meyer. I gave Meyer verbal commands to “put your hands behind your back,” but he continued his active physical resistance. I was promptly non-verbally directed, by shaking his head no, to re-holster the X-26 by Sergeant King #32.

Sgt. King then responded to Meyer’s resistance by attempting to control and escort him out of the building. Meyer continued to struggle and got tangled up with Sgt. King. It appeared that they both lost their footing and fell to the floor at of the top of the isle in between the fixed wooden seats on the west side of the auditorium. Once Meyer was on the ground, Sgt.
King and Wise attempted to restrain Meyer. He continued to resist by bucking and trying to roll away. Ofc. Sexton #73 and Ofc. Lamb #65 attempted to restrain Meyer’s legs which were
flailing about. The struggle continued before compliance could be gained.

I managed to take control of Meyer’s right hand and restrain it into one side of my handcuffs. Due to Meyer’s erratic flailing, the inability to attain Meyer’s left arm from his resistance,
and increased potential for injury with one cuff on, Sgt. King attempted to deploy a contact tase to no avail. He then instructed Mallo to apply a contact tase to gain compliance in order to place Meyer’s left hand into the other cuff. Mallo gave verbal commands and informed Meyer that he would be tased if he did not comply. Once Mallo applied the tase, Wise
assisted Meyer’s left arm to where I was able to apply the other cuff. Once he was restrained, he was escorted out of the Auditorium where I checked the fitting and applied the
double-locked function on the cuffs.

Ofc. Wise and myself returned to the auditorium to provide security for the duration of the
function and assist Ofc. Dean #86 and Ofc. Passero #54 in escorting Kerry to his vehicle.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

The guy Andrew Meyer has a history of "pranks" and set ups. What you don't see in the vids is the lead up to the questions, when Andrew Meyer taunts the cops before he starts asking his questions - he asks "you going to arrest me. You going to tase me?" read the police reports of the incidents, it's verifiable by witnesses - draw your own conclusions.

Excerpt below (entire extract too long for ASF)

.

Thanks for that.

It now appears clear that he set it up. Police are human. This guy manipulated a democratic forum for his own ends.

Garpal

 

[numbercruncher]

Just received a entertaining email about the effects of Tasering, if it unappropriate please delete.

> >TO KEEP US SAFE IN SA!!!>

>>Don't agree with the final testing solution, I have some Colleagues who

>>would make better subjects, but nevertheless this is a Cracker!!!!

>>

>>

>>

>>Not too long ago, I saw something at the gun shop that sparked my

>>interest. The occasion was our 10th anniversary and I was looking for a

>>little something extra for my wife. What I came across was a100,000-volt,

>>pocket/purse-sized tazer.

>>

>>The effects of the tazer were supposed to be short lived, with no long

>>term adverse affect on your assailant, allowing her adequate time to

>>retreat to safety. Needless to say, this was way too cool. Long story

>>short, I

>>bought the device and brought it home. I loaded two AAA Batteries in the

>>thing and pushed the button. NOTHING!! I was so disappointed. I learned,

>>however, that if I pushed the button AND pressed it against a metal

>>surface at the same time; I'd get a blue arc of electricity darting back

>>and forth between the prongs. Awesome!

>>

>>Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to my wife what that burn spot is on

>>the face of her LG convection oven.

>>

>>Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to myself that it

>>couldn't be all that bad with only two AAA batteries, right? Yah. There I

>>sat in my recliner, my cat looking on intently, the trusting little

>>soul, while I was reading the directions and thinking that I really needed

>>to try this thing out on a flesh & blood moving target. I must admit I

>>thought about zapping Kitty for a fraction of a second, but thought better

>>of

>>it. She is such a sweet cat and, as most of you already know, hell hath no

>>fury like a cat pissed off. But, if I was going to give this thing to my

>>wife to protect herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that

>>it

>>would work as advertised. Am I wrong?

>>

>>So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and my Blue Bulls supporter Jersey,

>>with my reading glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose,

>>directions in one hand, tazer in another. The directions said that a

>>one-second burst would shock and disorient your assailant; a two-second

>>burst was supposed to cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily

>>control; a three-second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop

>>on the ground like a fish out of water. Any burst longer than three

>>seconds would be wasting the batteries. All the while I'm looking at this

>>little device measuring about 5" long, less than 3/4 inch in

>>circumference; pretty cute really and loaded with two itsy, bitsy AAA

>>batteries thinking to myself "no flippin' way!"

>>

>>What happened next is almost beyond description, but I'll do my best.

>>

>>I'm sitting there alone, the cat looking on with her head tilted to one

>>side as if to say, "don't do it, you stupid man," reasoning that a

>>one-second burst from such a tiny little ole thingy couldn't hurt all that

>>bad. I

>>decided to give myself a one-second burst just for the heck of it. I

>>touched the prongs to my naked thigh, pushed the button, and

>>

>> HOLY MOTHER OF @@@!!!!, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, CRAP ON A STICK,

>> F@&$ ME GEORGE!!!!!

>>

>> I'm pretty sure THE BLUE BULLS TEAM ran in through the side door, picked

>> me up, body slammed me on the carpet over and over and over again and

>> then slammed the recliner over my head just for fun. I vaguely recall

>> waking up on my side in the fetal position, with tears in my eyes, body

>> soaking wet smelling like pEEEEE, both nipples on fire, testicles nowhere

>> to be found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest

>> position, and pins and needles in my legs. The cat was standing over me

>> making meowing sounds I had never heard before, licking my face,

>> undoubtedly thinking to herself, "Do it again, do it again you stupid

>> IDIOT!"

>>

>>Please take this from the voice of experience - there is no such thing as

>>a one-second burst when you zap yourself!!!!. You will not let go of that

>>thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about

>>on the floor! Three second burst would be considered conservative. A

>>minute or so later (I can't be sure, as time was a relative thing at that

>>point), I collected my wits (what little I had left), sat up and surveyed

>>the

>>landscape. My bent and forlorn reading glasses were hanging miserably on

>>the mantel of the fireplace. How did they up get there? My triceps, right

>>thigh and both nipples were still twitching. My face felt like it had

>>been

>>shot up with Novocain, and judging by how my jaw hung listlessly, my

>>bottom lip must have weighed 88 lbs. By the way, at this point my

>>testicles, feeling like they withdrew into my body somewhere around my

>>ribcage, are still

>>waiting for the all clear signal to emerge from the bomb shelter. Now I

>>know how Tom Hanks' character felt when he had to go search for Private

>>Ryan.

>>I felt like I should offer a significant reward for their safe return.

>>Even now, I experience shrinkage when I plug anything into the socket.

>>

>>So if you ever feel compelled to "mug" yourself with a tazer to test it,

>>take my advice! Repeat after me...here, kitty kitty....

 

[drmb]

Thanks for that. It now appears clear that he set it up. Police are human. This guy manipulated a democratic forum for his own ends. Garpal

Not only did he apparently set it up, but he appears to have carried the camera into the meeting, to give to a female companion, just before his tirade. Just before the hissy fit, he asks the cops "Are you going to arrest me? Are you going to tase me?" Then just before he starts asking his questions to Kerry, he checks with the female, "Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?”

See vid http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=157250#videoid=157250

Email from UF student Tyler Antar who was there, and was at the other microphone waiting to ask his question ----

"So I went to the John Kerry town hall forum this morning trying to get students registered to vote. I run a student government organization called Chomp the Vote. Anyway I went inside to watch the event. Senator Kerry took the podium and began delivering a speech about the Middle East, Iraq, dimplomacy, etc. Anyway, after he was done, a university ambassador asked Kerry a few premade questions. Once that was over, Senator Kerry announced he would take questions from the students. There were two
microphones placed on each side of the aisle. One on my side and the other on Andrew Meyer’s side. Senator Kerry began answering the student’s questions from each aisle. Eventually it was announced that there would only be a few more questions answered. Since Meyer and I were both in the back of each line, it did not seem likely that our questions would be answered.

However, while Senator Kerry was responding to a student’s question, all of a sudden Meyer rushed to the microphone with cops in pursuit. At that point no one knew what was going on. Could he have a gun, a bomb? Immediately, Meyer began yelling into the microphone that he had been waiting in line forever and that Senator Kerry should “spend time to answer everyone’s questions!” Senator Kerry tried to calm the student down by telling him that he would “stay here as long as it takes to get the questions answered.” The police approached Meyer who began taunting them by saying “what! are you going to taser me? are you going to arrest me?!” The police grabbed Meyer, but Senator Kerry asked the police to let him go and that he would answer his question. Senator Kerry finished answering the other student’s question and then proceeded with Meyer. (This entire scene is not in any video I can find so far. This is why 2 cops are seen right behind Meyer at the start of some videos*).

Meyer approached the microphone and began to talk about a book he had which stated that Kerry won the 2004 election because of isenfranchisement of black voters and faulty voter machines that produced “Bush” as the winner. He then posed another question about why President Bush had not been impeached. “President Clinton was impeached because of a blowjob, why not Bush?”. The third and strangest question he posed to Senator Kerry was asking him if he was part of the skull and bones society with Bush at
Yale. Meyer’s mic cut off after that, probably because he had mentioned the word “blowjob”. The cops grabbed him, but Meyer was able to get away several times. Eventually more cops were brought in to help subdue Meyer. Meyer continued to resist arrest, scream, curse; however he was enventually subdued by about six cops up around the entrance. As he is on the ground, he is told several times to put his hands around his back. He is also warned that he will be tasered if he does not comply. Eventually he is tasered twice. The video does not show whether he complied or not.

Senator Kerry was trying to answer his question to the audience, mostly the one about faulty voter machines. I am a die hard conservative Republican but I do respect Senator Kerry for trying to soothe the situation as best he could and trying not to escalate the situation. He DID intervene by letting the student at least present his question. I never received an opportunity to ask my question, but when Senator Kerry ended the show after the Meyer incident, he did come off stage to shake hands and give autographs. At that point, I was able to ask him my question, shake his hand, and get a autograph at the same time. Now why couldn’t Andrew Meyer do that?

I don’t know if this is relevant or not, but Andrew Meyer is a former sports writer for the school newspaper The Alligator. In his columns, he has been known to make ridiculous statements in order to gain attention for himself. Was today a publicity stunt?"


QED - he set it up - Chaser style - but not so funny

There are always two sides to any story, but I prefer to stick with my original assumption, once the police in the US give you a clear direction and order, you MUST obey them! Argue about it afterwards in court if you want to, but to disobey a direction from a police officer, and then to resist, is to ask for strong response, which Mr Meyer not to his surprise no doubt, found out

 

[2020hindsight]

here's the full story
.

In a healthy democracy he would have been allowed to ask those questions
In a police state he wouldn't.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=205116&highlight=trigger#post205116
see , getting down to monsyllables now,
University of Florida student Tasered at Kerry forum

if you look at that second mentioned youtube - you only have to watch 15 seconds or so - you will see them make the decision to arrest him after he says the word "Bush"

It's abc stuff - anyone trying to defend those police (assuming a fair trial in a healthy democratic state) would lose.

See - have a look at time line 00:05s - they are letting him ask his question,
then he mentions "impeach Bush"
then 2 seconds later!! - see the picture at 00:07s - they all swing to the camera and decide (almost immediately - actually the hand across the throat signal is given at 00:10s) - to arrest him.

So he was arrested for mentioning Bush.
If he hadn't mentioned Bush he'd be ok

 

[2020hindsight]

Of course you can argue that the rules of that country (USA) mean that he was disobeying a political command / directive. - possibly even lawful in that country ..

so also then these monks should be removed and/or tasered yes?

And for Bush to complain about human rights abuses - see that's his problem - he is on such shakey grounds ...
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/25/2043032.htm?section=justin

Burmese junta threatens action against further protests
Posted 3 hours 53 minutes ago


State media has explicitly ordered the monks to stay out of politics. (AFP)
Burmese officials riding on trucks in central Yangon used loudspeakers to warn against new anti-junta protests, one day after Buddhist monks led 100,000 people in the streets.

"We warn the monks and the people not to participate in protest marches," local government officials shouted into loudspeakers from at least two trucks circling around the nation's commercial hub.

"We will take action under the existing law," they warned, echoing threats carried in state media since late Monday.

More protests were expected today, again led by the monks whose revered status has made them rallying figures for public anger that erupted more than one month ago after a crippling hike in fuel prices.

State media has explicitly ordered the monks to stay out of politics, and accused foreign media of fuelling the protests that have become the biggest challenge to the regime in nearly 20 years.

"All the members of the Sangha (clergy) residing in the Union of Burma are directed to avoid getting involved in party politics and instigation," the official New Light of Burma newspaper said.

"Some foreign media telecasting the protests aim to cause unrest in Burma," the paper said.

The warnings in the newspaper, a government mouthpiece, mirrored threats of a crackdown carried on state television late on Monday

 

[drmb]

In a healthy democracy he would have been allowed to ask those questions
In a police state he wouldn't.(

Hindsight, with respect, I think you just don't get it. Meyers set up the incident to get publicity. Read the police evidence, read the independent observer's email. He got his 15 minutes of fame that he was after!

 

[2020hindsight]

Hindsight, with respect, I think you just don't get it. Meyers set up the incident to get publicity. Read the police evidence, read the independent observer's email. He got his 15 minutes of fame that he was after!

lol - what's wrong with that ? -
sheesh.

drmb , I would claim that you would be laughed out of an Australian court on those grounds, if that's the extent of your problem with his behaviour

 

[wayneL]

Meyers set up the incident to get publicity. Read the police evidence, read the independent observer's email. He got his 15 minutes of fame that he was after!

I don't think that's the point at all. It may be relevant to the actions of the police in ejecting him, but it's irrelevant to being tased inappropriately, which is what the thread is about.

But those police reports are almost comedic in their inaccuracy and spin, particularly the first one. LOL

That's alright though, just justifying themselves.

 

[rederob]

Hindsight, with respect, I think you just don't get it. Meyers set up the incident to get publicity. Read the police evidence, read the independent observer's email. He got his 15 minutes of fame that he was after!

Very dumb remark!
Meyers never had control of the situation, so was not able to "set up" anything.
It was John Kerry that had top billing, and only through his good grace to receive more questions did Meyers get a look in.
Meyers attracted the attention of police because of how he jumped his queue got the next question in.
Meyers handed over his videocam to a girl he never knew - at least she states unequivocally that she never had met him before - so there was not a great deal of planning that went into this by Meyers.
Two police involved have been suspended pending further inquiries, so their actions were, prima facie, beyond what could reasonably have been expected in the situation.
In my university days the "radicals" always got to ask their politically skewed, often rambling, questions of visiting "establishment" speakers. There was regular heckling, interjections, tension, jeering and bad manners.
Most guest speakers (then and now) knew how to handle these situations and their answers - whether we agreed with them or not - won over any lingering tensions.
The fact that Meyers is a wannabe media tart (not getting off to the best of starts) is not, as Wayne points out, the principal issue.
It appears we should all hand over to police our right to freedom of speech, and never question this overarching authority they have - if we are to believe a few posters in this thread - on fear of grave retribution (and subsequent arrest for acting against those who actively remove those rights from us.
In a democracy the police should be the protectors of our rights, not those that take them away because... well, I'm not sure why in Meyers' case because charges against him were based on his reaction to the police that had no grounds for arresting him in the first place.
Being rude, attention seeking and an idiot are not grounds for arrest!