<!--quoteo(post=1653259:date=Oct 1 2007, 01:37 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 1 2007, 01:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653259"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree. Going back to something you said earlier.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just a quick note, not because I don't think you know this, but because your post is ambiguous: Quotes one and four are me, quotes two, three and five are Rob.
<!--quoteo(post=1653259:date=Oct 1 2007, 07:37 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 1 2007, 07:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653259"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This to me sounds like a description of a police state. I'm not sure what the law is in the US, but here, a police officer has to arrest me or he has no business in interfering in my behaviour as a law abiding citizen. He has no right to ask me where I have been, where I am going, or what I am doing without suspicion. The suspicion has to be tangible too, or he can get in trouble for that too. In a free society, the police enforce the law, they do not chaperone citizens on normal business. [...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unfortunately this winds up being a matter of interpretation by the police. They are educated on profiling which for the most part is relatively accurate. The state police busting drug runners comes to mind - these guys are GOOD.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited October 2007
Yes, of course it has to be interpreted by the police, but there needs to be more than "he has a ponytail, a moustache and was wearing a grateful dead teeshirt" before the rubber gloves come out.
The constitution of a democracy exists to protect the citizens from the government. There is no other reason for its existence. If we simply trust law enforcement and legislators then just tear up the constitution because it serves no purpose.
I think we're confusing mistrust of person with mistrust of organization. I suppose in democracy, mistrusting an entire organization which by design has no face is healthy. It's not as healthy to mistrust every man or woman wearing blue uniforms on the street, even though they may represent that organization.
You're right, the police have no authority to question where you're going, and you've got no obligation to tell them unless they have probable cause. But it makes things go more smoothly, and really, why should you care if some police officer knows where you're going? Unless you think that the police officer is nothing but a cold hearted back stabber and you're paranoid about it, and that leads back to the cases I was talking about earlier.
On to probable cause. It's really sketchy. In fact, it's usually left up to the courts to decide what is or is not probable cause. Like other vague words, it depends on context. Officers of the law have the power to establish probable cause and they'll use tricks to do it. It's the nature of the game; the motivations just change sometimes. We may think that searching someone's car to find a small bit of illegal substance is abuse of power, but what would happen in a system where the laws are left unchecked?
Officers of the law are NOT your friends. They service the community by keeping order. That doesn't mean that they have to always act cold towards you, but it does mean that you approach the relationship differently than you would with a friend. You don't usually just shoot the breeze with cops who are on a specific duty. If you do, they'll start wondering why you're talking to them, why you're distracting them. This doesn't apply to all officers, mind you. I'm sure one who walks a community beat is very friendly. This is a PR connection. But especially in situations like this poor fellow was in, you start shooting off at the mouth with a cop who's on point, ready to keep the peace in a volatile situation, and you're going to get hurt. That's just the way it is.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
I'll care that a police office knows where I'm going as long as he cares where I'm going. I have a right to privacy, and I protect it not just for the privacy it bestows but for the right itself.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not as healthy to mistrust every man or woman wearing blue uniforms on the street, even though they may represent that organization.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The trust of the organisation is proxied via it's representative. I'm not rude or ignorant to any police officer I talk to. I respond to all their queries in a helpful manner, and if they ask me for information they have no right to, I politely avoid answering. It sounds great in theory, and it actually works out well in practice too.
Anyway, I can't disagree with your general advice. Be polite and respectful. I think that's a two way street and if the officers in this incident had demonstrated a reasonably amount of fair and calm dialogue with the guy who was tasered, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think most situations of this nature can be dealt with without resorting to violence.
( Yes Depot, I did read the report <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )
Thats exactly it puzl, thats what I was trying to say. There was no dialogue between the man and the campus security of any sigificance, they didn't ask him to leave, or even warn him. It just seems like they went right to the physical intervention option. Role crazy security guards.
about the 'probable cause' tangent... I have no idea how that works. I've been stopped by cops before for speeding and whatnot. I'm always friendly and forthcoming with information when they ask 'where are you going' and 'where are you coming from' and stuff... and I've always been let off with a warning. but I guess it's different when you know you actually were breaking a law (let's face it - if you're driving, you're probably breaking a law. going over the speed limit, changing lanes without signaling, no seatbelt, air freshener hanging from your mirror - they can write you up for anything if they want to). if I were stopped while walking down the street and a cop asked me where I was going, I might be a little more upset about it.
but anyway, let's say I was stopped in my car for speeding or something and I decided to be a jerk and not cooperate with them. when do they have the right to arrest me and not just give me a speeding ticket? when do they have the right to search my car? just curious.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited October 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1653304:date=Oct 1 2007, 10:45 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 1 2007, 10:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653304"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyway, I can't disagree with your general advice. Be polite and respectful. I think that's a two way street and if the officers in this incident had demonstrated a reasonably amount of fair and calm dialogue with the guy who was tasered, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think most situations of this nature can be dealt with without resorting to violence.
( Yes Depot, I did read the report <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1653593:date=Oct 2 2007, 04:50 PM:name=Olmy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Olmy @ Oct 2 2007, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653593"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thats exactly it puzl, thats what I was trying to say. There was no dialogue between the man and the campus security of any sigificance, they didn't ask him to leave, or even warn him. It just seems like they went right to the physical intervention option. Role crazy security guards.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They did <b>tell</b> him to leave, and then proceeded to try and perp walk (that is them taking him by the arm and walking next to him) him out, failing that they tried to frog march him, failing that they attempted to cuff and restrain him, failing that the shocked him. They were presented with a situation and reacted to it. We all know that he is just some silly prankster, however if you watch the video with OUT that knowledge it looks like some one who is mentally unhinged.
<!--quoteo(post=1653754:date=Oct 3 2007, 12:25 PM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DiscoZombie @ Oct 3 2007, 12:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653754"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->about the 'probable cause' tangent... I have no idea how that works. I've been stopped by cops before for speeding and whatnot. I'm always friendly and forthcoming with information when they ask 'where are you going' and 'where are you coming from' and stuff... and I've always been let off with a warning. but I guess it's different when you know you actually were breaking a law (let's face it - if you're driving, you're probably breaking a law. going over the speed limit, changing lanes without signaling, no seatbelt, air freshener hanging from your mirror - they can write you up for anything if they want to). if I were stopped while walking down the street and a cop asked me where I was going, I might be a little more upset about it.
but anyway, let's say I was stopped in my car for speeding or something and I decided to be a jerk and not cooperate with them. when do they have the right to arrest me and not just give me a speeding ticket? when do they have the right to search my car? just curious.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ahh, probable cause. I love probable cause, it is fun, and one of the subjects I have studied.
Basically, here is how it works: The court decides.
Yup, that simple. If the court says that it was an illegal search/seizure (aka, no probable cause) then the evidence inadmissible in court (aka, the murder weapon they found? Yah, they can't present that to the jury).
To answer your specific question (speeding stop, and you act like an arse) it depends on what you do, and the judge's opinions. IF you simply mouth off to him, he can't really do anything (it is dumb on your part, but he can't do anything, aside from giving you the ticket and one for EVERY other infraction you make). If you act VERY belligerent (like you are under the influence), they can arrest you, and possibly search the car. IF you are being belligerent, and come off seeming stoned? Yah, they probably can search you car and have it approved.
Now, what makes up probable cause? well there are a few common things: 1) Search warrants. A warrant states that the court agrees that there is probable cause that specific evidence can be found in a specific place. The warrant must say WHAT is being searched for (Guns, cocaine, stolen TVs, whatever) and WHERE (House, garage, office building, floor in office building, room in office building, etc). These descriptions are supposed to be as clear and concise as possible. If there is no reason to suspect that John Doe has hidden AK 47s around the building that he works in, but you DO think he has them in his office, then it should state his office, not the building.
What is being searched for also is important as to how a search can be performed. If you are looking for Stolen TVs you can't go searching the medicine cabinet/in the mattress/what have you. If you are looking for handguns then yah, those places are cool, but you can't start popping open random bottles that are in the medicine cabinet. This is all important for when you find somethign you were NOT looking for but IS illegal (looking for guns, find drugs). If you open random medicine bottles when looking for guns, the drugs you find are not legal evidence (though you still take em with you when you leave).
2) Hot pursuit. Officers have just seen you do something incriminating and have no time to get a warrant. Ditching drugs out the side of a car window, gunshots followed by you fleeing the area, etc. When arresting you they may search your person and immediate surrounding (Car, desk, office, what ever). Note, when <b>arresting</b> you. If a cop pulls you over for speeding they do not have the right to search your car, only to give you a ticket and tell you to not do it again. IF a cop pulls you over and sees you ditching little baggies of white substance they then ARREST you and search your car.
All of these searches are STILL up to a judge to decide if they were legal or not.
With all that said and done I will point out a few things: I am not a lawyer. You are not a lawyer. If a cop asks you do to somethign and you believe that they do NOT have the right to do so (pull you over for speeding and ask to search your car) you have the right AND obligation to say "No officer, I do not give you permission to do that". IF they insists, your response is "I do not give you permission but I will not resist, may I have your badge number please?". Polite, and courteous, State your rights, but to NOT resist, as THAT is illegal.
Now, back on topic.
I am going to take a page from my personal experiences to create a situation. I am one of the people running a convention, let us say NYC Comicon (something I attended). I have invited a speaker, let us say it is Kevin Smith (who was awesome). And the speaker agrees to take questions, and the format will be people lining up at a mic that is in the main isle. One of those people becomes VERY incensed, too the point where they are just ranting on a mic and not letting Mr. Smith speak (hey, it happened, admitedly they were not incensed, just didn't stfu). So I ask the police/security/whatever to have the person leave. The police tell them to leave, they refuse and are force marched out, struggle, and eventually are zapped.
This person has committed 2-3 crimes: 1) Trespassing. YUP, if you are asked to leave an area (aside from public places) and refuse, that is a crime. 2) Resisting arrest/interfering with police (can't remember the actual name for the 2nd one), but yes, that is a crime. 3) Assaulting an officer. SERIOUS FARKEN CRIME. Any sort of assault on special groups is AUTOMATICALLY considered aggravated assault (Police, pregnant women, public workers, and a few others). This is actually nearly as serious a crime as Assault With a Deadly Weapon (depending on state). Yup, slugging a cop is nearly as bad a knifing me. And personally, I agree with those laws.
Now, the only difference between my situation and the one presented is that the speaker was a political entity, and thus heightens the level of warning the cops feel (or at least should, you shoulda seen the motorcade that Kevin Smith got, and then the one that Steven King got!).
<!--quoteo(post=1650812:date=Sep 20 2007, 02:42 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Sep 20 2007, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650812"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I'm mostly amazed about is the fact that people think violence is justified just because someone is annoying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you miss the fact that he refused to leave? That he refused to be led out? That he refused to stop flailing about like an idiot when the cops wrestled him to the ground?
It looks to me like the cops used minimal force required to get him out of there.
Using less-deadly weapons because someone isn't leaving a lecture when asked.
What if they didn't have a taser, or mace? Should they have shot him? Perhaps shoot him in the leg so he stops struggling while you carry him out. Sounds effective!
<!--quoteo(post=1654008:date=Oct 4 2007, 09:10 AM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Soylent_green @ Oct 4 2007, 09:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654008"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Did you miss the fact that he refused to leave? That he refused to be led out? That he refused to stop flailing about like an idiot when the cops wrestled him to the ground?
It looks to me like the cops used minimal force required to get him out of there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why was he obligated to leave? I didn't see the cops dragging all the other people who asked questions out of the building... He was annoying, but they could have just pulled him away from the mic and let that be that. The cops were ordered to forcibly escort the last person to ask a question out of the building?
I don't really even think it's a freedom of speech issue, it's a responsibility of authority issue, police officers don't have the right to drag you away from some where for being "annoying". What the hell was he even being arrested for? Is it illegal to ask important people uncomfortable questions in an "annoying" way? If something he's saying or doing can't be allowed to continue for whatever reason, the whoever is in charge is obligated to inform him politely and give him a chance to leave... they cut the mic and dragged him out of the building and he did nothing so much as resisting until there were 3 cops forcibly ejecting him. Shameful.
Tell him to shut up and let Kerry speak, let him stand there and listen to the question being answered, let him go home on his own two feet. FFS, forget the question of weather the guy should have been tazered, the question is weather or not the guy should have been touched in the first place.
<!--quoteo(post=1654304:date=Oct 6 2007, 02:40 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Oct 6 2007, 02:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654304"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Using less-deadly weapons because someone isn't leaving a lecture when asked.
What if they didn't have a taser, or mace? Should they have shot him? Perhaps shoot him in the leg so he stops struggling while you carry him out. Sounds effective!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well guess what? They had tasers. What's your point? That it is fortunate that they had tasers, so they didn't resort to more harmful means? Why, I agree. I'd rather see a man (whether justified or not) get tasered than shot. I'm glad we agree.
<!--quoteo(post=1654354:date=Oct 6 2007, 06:14 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Oct 6 2007, 06:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654354"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why was he obligated to leave? I didn't see the cops dragging all the other people who asked questions out of the building... He was annoying, but they could have just pulled him away from the mic and let that be that. The cops were ordered to forcibly escort the last person to ask a question out of the building?
I don't really even think it's a freedom of speech issue, it's a responsibility of authority issue, police officers don't have the right to drag you away from some where for being "annoying". What the hell was he even being arrested for? Is it illegal to ask important people uncomfortable questions in an "annoying" way? If something he's saying or doing can't be allowed to continue for whatever reason, the whoever is in charge is obligated to inform him politely and give him a chance to leave... they cut the mic and dragged him out of the building and he did nothing so much as resisting until there were 3 cops forcibly ejecting him. Shameful.
Tell him to shut up and let Kerry speak, let him stand there and listen to the question being answered, let him go home on his own two feet. FFS, forget the question of weather the guy should have been tazered, the question is weather or not the guy should have been touched in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you even read through this thread? The security police DID have the right to remove Andre Meyers as they had received orders from the host the forum had closed What does closed mean? It means the Q&A session is over, finished, done. In their attempt to usher him out he became extremely disruptive, and you know the rest of the story.
<!--quoteo(post=1654363:date=Oct 6 2007, 06:44 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Oct 6 2007, 06:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654363"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Have you even read through this thread? The security police DID have the right to remove Andre Meyers as they had received orders from the host the forum had closed What does closed mean? It means the Q&A session is over, finished, done. In their attempt to usher him out he became extremely disruptive, and you know the rest of the story.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, someone saying you have the right to arrest someone due to the conference being over makes it true. That makes so much sense. I'm glad the owners of private property operating public functions are allowed to have the police drag me out when the functions are over now, even if I'm fully willing to leave of my own accord. More bruises is always a good thing, right?
They had the right to force him to end his tirade, they had no more right to forcibly eject and arrest him than they had the right to arrest any other person watching the lecture.
As a matter of basic human ethics if someone has been invited onto private property, and must be asked to leave for some reason, you must give them a chance to leave of their own accord, and under the same conditions that every other guest is allowed to stay/leave. It was not necessary to do any more than block off the microphone and explain that the function was over and everyone is now invited to leave. That standard has worked in this kind of gathering for thousands of years, there was no need to make an example of some guy.
If someone happens to have big burly security when they ask you to leave their property/a convention they are running, they get used, and it's perfectly legal.
<!--QuoteBegin-"Swifty"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Swifty")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm glad the owners of private property operating public functions are allowed to have the police drag me out when the functions are over now, even if I'm fully willing to leave of my own accord. More bruises is always a good thing, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He wasn't willing to leave of us own accord until he was half way out of there and resisting the whole way. You're SOL by then and, if you're so willing to leave of your own accord, why would you resist in the first place to make the situation escalate to such a level?
I would be under the assumption that a political lecture would be above bouncing people. Legality does not connotate appropriateness, nor ethical soundness.
Additionally, generally speaking, bouncing someone does not include tazering, nor does it include arresting them.
He didn't start resisting until he was being CARRIED. The police report is BS, it's ALL on video, what some random cop says is objectively less reliable than what 5 or so independent video camera's record. Camera's don't magically twist reality, police reports regularly misrepresent small details though.
The forum had concluded, the host had informed the security police that the Q&A session was over, Andrew Meyers continued to talk after being asked to stop, and it appeared he was acting for no other reason than to incite a riot. The police took whatever means necessary at that point to prevent this from happening.
You shouldn't assume that a political lecture is above bouncing people. John Kerry was not running the forum, he was a speaker. The university administrators made the call to close the forum, why is that so difficult to understand? When it's over, it's over...
I don't understand why you bother arguing about this still. It's so blindingly obvious that both of you are so entrenched in your opinions that neither is even considering the other's argument. Neither of you will convince the other. You'll just keep repeating the same argument over and over until one of you gets tired and quits. Neither of you will budge a millimetre. Neither of you will achieve anything. Just accept that you won't get the other to agree and move on.
<!--quoteo(post=1654360:date=Oct 6 2007, 06:05 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 6 2007, 06:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654360"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well guess what? They had tasers. What's your point? That it is fortunate that they had tasers, so they didn't resort to more harmful means? Why, I agree. I'd rather see a man (whether justified or not) get tasered than shot. I'm glad we agree.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of us agree that sometimes situations like these have to be solved by applying force. The question is simply how much force. Just as some, which I tried to show in my previous post, could potentially consider using lethal weapons as a way to subdue and remove the dissident I believe the level of force used in this situation was neither warranted nor justified from my ethical perspective. What separates most of those who condone what happend with those who do not is just this, and that was my point.
And that's only grazing the issue of mass psychosis.
Before the Taser became popular they used blackjacks. I suppose it's better to bludgeon someone than taser them - I'm guessing there were less deaths from it.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited October 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1654439:date=Oct 7 2007, 01:17 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Oct 7 2007, 01:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654439"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would be under the assumption that a political lecture would be above bouncing people. Legality does not connotate appropriateness, nor ethical soundness.
Additionally, generally speaking, bouncing someone does not include tazering, nor does it include arresting them.
He didn't start resisting until he was being CARRIED. The police report is BS, it's ALL on video, what some random cop says is objectively less reliable than what 5 or so independent video camera's record. Camera's don't magically twist reality, police reports regularly misrepresent small details though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ummm.
You didn't read the thread did you?
The people who run the forum told the security to get him out.
He was told to leave and refused. (hell, that is on the video in the first post, and there are other videos, linked by me, latter on that show the ENTIRE thing, not just the little edited bit)
The security proceeded to try and escort him out, and he resisted.
At this point he is committing at least two crimes (Trespassing and resisting arrest).
They increased the level of force up until it became necessary (in their eyes) to shock him to arrest him.
What part of my statements to you disagree with? We can take it from there.
Or you can just insist that privet property laws should not exist, any one should be allowed any where, and to be as much of a nuisance as they want.
It's morally objectional for police to be allowed to take whatever means necessary to "stop a potential riot". I REALLY doubt there would have been a riot, and even if it were a plausibility, that's not an appropriate reason to justify battery and tazering of a human being. It's not the police's position to prempt, it's not their role to use force against people not breaking law, it's not their right to act arbitrarily.
I'm not calling for the firing of any police officers, who did what they thought was best and did what they believed they were being told to do, what I'm stating is that police enforcement as a whole should be instructed well and clear that it's not their position to act in the way they acted at Florida U. Police are not responsible to preempt imaginary evils, they are not within their authority to arrest people for frivolous infractions, when they take up the role of a security body they are supposed to be there to protect, not enforce.
I think the forum operators should have known better than to censor and forcibly eject students, and I think the police should have known to be less aggressive against a person committing no legal offense. It's a moral travesty to invite someone onto your property (for a public forum) and then shoot them for trespassing (have them forcibly ejected for no offense).
It's morally intolerable to treat someone however you want as long as you skim barely by the limits of the law. Really, what happened was basically an abuse of legal rights.
<!--quoteo(post=1654502:date=Oct 7 2007, 04:08 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Oct 7 2007, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654502"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's morally objectional for police to be allowed to take whatever means necessary to "stop a potential riot". I REALLY doubt there would have been a riot, and even if it were a plausibility, that's not an appropriate reason to justify battery and tazering of a human being. It's not the police's position to prempt, it's not their role to use force against people not breaking law, it's not their right to act arbitrarily. [...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you'll watch the video and read the thread all the way through you'll see where he broke the law multiple times - this is why he was removed from the scene and eventually tasered. The security police were only following orders and Andrew Meyers resisted, bringing all of this upon himself.
Morality is not a function of legality, slavery was once legal.
His "violation of the law" was in the form of resisting police arrest, arrest that SHOULD have really been illegal in the first place.
The police were just following orders, I don't fault them for that, it's their orders that were unacceptable. Either the police should have been trained before hand to know it's not their obligation to use non-lethal force against someone not perpetrating any violence or threats, or the forum should not have demanded a student be forcibly removed for speaking his mind.
It's not an issue of weather or not everyone did exactly what they were supposed to do, it's an issue of weather what they were supposed to do was right or wrong. My vote is wrong. America is not a police state and the police have no place enacting violence in a peaceful public forum, irregardless of who is saying what.
I believe disturbing the peace, trespassing, and inciting a riot were the laws he broke. Akaik there's little question as to if these infractions were committed, only if the state wishes to press charges.
Thansal has made some very good points in this thread justifying why the actions were taken. Try as I might I have yet to hear a good argument against these actions.
Moral of the story: when you're told the Q&A session is over and the forum is closed, stop shouting. You ARE a guest and therefore responsible for adhering to any applicable laws or regulations.
Calling what happened "Disturbing the peace" is an atrocity in the misuse of law, there was no peace being disturbed, there was no violent or aggressive action on his part, only words being spoken. "Trespassing" is invalid because he was invited into the function. "Inciting a riot" is not a magic bullet you can assign to any person saying things you disagree with. There was no riot or potential riot until a guy was on the floor getting tazered.
Once again, I'm not saying that the actions the police took were not justified, however, they were not MORALLY justified, and the fact that things went the way they did is an indication of a disturbing trend in what is seen as appropriate law enforcement. Simply put, that was the wrong way to handle that situation, it's not befitting of a university run public forum, and it's not befitting of legal law enforcement. Justifiable by law, sure, but that does little else but show us how insufficient and loopholy the law is.
So now you're a lawyer swifty, and the charges brought against Andrew Meyers are all false?
Tell you what, let me invite you into MY home. When I tell you it's time to go you'd best put the haul-ass on or you're guilty of trespassing. You seemed to have missed that the function was over. O V E R over, that means it's time to stop.
Did you happen to see how he was acting solely for the purpose of getting himself filmed? Or did you hear him holler at his friends, "Are you getting all this? Are the cameras rolling?" Beyond a shadow of a doubt he had it all planned and it was staged, hence the disturbing the peace and inciting a riot.
Andrew Meyers got away lucky. Very lucky. We can only hope the prosecutors find him guilty on all charges.
Comments
Just a quick note, not because I don't think you know this, but because your post is ambiguous: Quotes one and four are me, quotes two, three and five are Rob.
[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately this winds up being a matter of interpretation by the police. They are educated on profiling which for the most part is relatively accurate. The state police busting drug runners comes to mind - these guys are GOOD.
The constitution of a democracy exists to protect the citizens from the government. There is no other reason for its existence. If we simply trust law enforcement and legislators then just tear up the constitution because it serves no purpose.
You're right, the police have no authority to question where you're going, and you've got no obligation to tell them unless they have probable cause. But it makes things go more smoothly, and really, why should you care if some police officer knows where you're going? Unless you think that the police officer is nothing but a cold hearted back stabber and you're paranoid about it, and that leads back to the cases I was talking about earlier.
On to probable cause. It's really sketchy. In fact, it's usually left up to the courts to decide what is or is not probable cause. Like other vague words, it depends on context. Officers of the law have the power to establish probable cause and they'll use tricks to do it. It's the nature of the game; the motivations just change sometimes. We may think that searching someone's car to find a small bit of illegal substance is abuse of power, but what would happen in a system where the laws are left unchecked?
Officers of the law are NOT your friends. They service the community by keeping order. That doesn't mean that they have to always act cold towards you, but it does mean that you approach the relationship differently than you would with a friend. You don't usually just shoot the breeze with cops who are on a specific duty. If you do, they'll start wondering why you're talking to them, why you're distracting them. This doesn't apply to all officers, mind you. I'm sure one who walks a community beat is very friendly. This is a PR connection. But especially in situations like this poor fellow was in, you start shooting off at the mouth with a cop who's on point, ready to keep the peace in a volatile situation, and you're going to get hurt. That's just the way it is.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not as healthy to mistrust every man or woman wearing blue uniforms on the street, even though they may represent that organization.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The trust of the organisation is proxied via it's representative. I'm not rude or ignorant to any police officer I talk to. I respond to all their queries in a helpful manner, and if they ask me for information they have no right to, I politely avoid answering. It sounds great in theory, and it actually works out well in practice too.
Anyway, I can't disagree with your general advice. Be polite and respectful. I think that's a two way street and if the officers in this incident had demonstrated a reasonably amount of fair and calm dialogue with the guy who was tasered, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think most situations of this nature can be dealt with without resorting to violence.
( Yes Depot, I did read the report <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )
but anyway, let's say I was stopped in my car for speeding or something and I decided to be a jerk and not cooperate with them. when do they have the right to arrest me and not just give me a speeding ticket? when do they have the right to search my car? just curious.
I think most situations of this nature can be dealt with without resorting to violence.
( Yes Depot, I did read the report <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1653593:date=Oct 2 2007, 04:50 PM:name=Olmy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Olmy @ Oct 2 2007, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653593"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thats exactly it puzl, thats what I was trying to say. There was no dialogue between the man and the campus security of any sigificance, they didn't ask him to leave, or even warn him. It just seems like they went right to the physical intervention option. Role crazy security guards.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They did <b>tell</b> him to leave, and then proceeded to try and perp walk (that is them taking him by the arm and walking next to him) him out, failing that they tried to frog march him, failing that they attempted to cuff and restrain him, failing that the shocked him.
They were presented with a situation and reacted to it. We all know that he is just some silly prankster, however if you watch the video with OUT that knowledge it looks like some one who is mentally unhinged.
<!--quoteo(post=1653754:date=Oct 3 2007, 12:25 PM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DiscoZombie @ Oct 3 2007, 12:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653754"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->about the 'probable cause' tangent... I have no idea how that works. I've been stopped by cops before for speeding and whatnot. I'm always friendly and forthcoming with information when they ask 'where are you going' and 'where are you coming from' and stuff... and I've always been let off with a warning. but I guess it's different when you know you actually were breaking a law (let's face it - if you're driving, you're probably breaking a law. going over the speed limit, changing lanes without signaling, no seatbelt, air freshener hanging from your mirror - they can write you up for anything if they want to). if I were stopped while walking down the street and a cop asked me where I was going, I might be a little more upset about it.
but anyway, let's say I was stopped in my car for speeding or something and I decided to be a jerk and not cooperate with them. when do they have the right to arrest me and not just give me a speeding ticket? when do they have the right to search my car? just curious.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahh, probable cause. I love probable cause, it is fun, and one of the subjects I have studied.
Basically, here is how it works:
The court decides.
Yup, that simple. If the court says that it was an illegal search/seizure (aka, no probable cause) then the evidence inadmissible in court (aka, the murder weapon they found? Yah, they can't present that to the jury).
To answer your specific question (speeding stop, and you act like an arse) it depends on what you do, and the judge's opinions. IF you simply mouth off to him, he can't really do anything (it is dumb on your part, but he can't do anything, aside from giving you the ticket and one for EVERY other infraction you make). If you act VERY belligerent (like you are under the influence), they can arrest you, and possibly search the car. IF you are being belligerent, and come off seeming stoned? Yah, they probably can search you car and have it approved.
Now, what makes up probable cause? well there are a few common things:
1) Search warrants. A warrant states that the court agrees that there is probable cause that specific evidence can be found in a specific place. The warrant must say WHAT is being searched for (Guns, cocaine, stolen TVs, whatever) and WHERE (House, garage, office building, floor in office building, room in office building, etc). These descriptions are supposed to be as clear and concise as possible. If there is no reason to suspect that John Doe has hidden AK 47s around the building that he works in, but you DO think he has them in his office, then it should state his office, not the building.
What is being searched for also is important as to how a search can be performed. If you are looking for Stolen TVs you can't go searching the medicine cabinet/in the mattress/what have you. If you are looking for handguns then yah, those places are cool, but you can't start popping open random bottles that are in the medicine cabinet. This is all important for when you find somethign you were NOT looking for but IS illegal (looking for guns, find drugs). If you open random medicine bottles when looking for guns, the drugs you find are not legal evidence (though you still take em with you when you leave).
2) Hot pursuit. Officers have just seen you do something incriminating and have no time to get a warrant. Ditching drugs out the side of a car window, gunshots followed by you fleeing the area, etc. When arresting you they may search your person and immediate surrounding (Car, desk, office, what ever). Note, when <b>arresting</b> you. If a cop pulls you over for speeding they do not have the right to search your car, only to give you a ticket and tell you to not do it again. IF a cop pulls you over and sees you ditching little baggies of white substance they then ARREST you and search your car.
All of these searches are STILL up to a judge to decide if they were legal or not.
With all that said and done I will point out a few things:
I am not a lawyer.
You are not a lawyer.
If a cop asks you do to somethign and you believe that they do NOT have the right to do so (pull you over for speeding and ask to search your car) you have the right AND obligation to say "No officer, I do not give you permission to do that". IF they insists, your response is "I do not give you permission but I will not resist, may I have your badge number please?". Polite, and courteous, State your rights, but to NOT resist, as THAT is illegal.
Now, back on topic.
I am going to take a page from my personal experiences to create a situation.
I am one of the people running a convention, let us say NYC Comicon (something I attended).
I have invited a speaker, let us say it is Kevin Smith (who was awesome).
And the speaker agrees to take questions, and the format will be people lining up at a mic that is in the main isle.
One of those people becomes VERY incensed, too the point where they are just ranting on a mic and not letting Mr. Smith speak (hey, it happened, admitedly they were not incensed, just didn't stfu).
So I ask the police/security/whatever to have the person leave.
The police tell them to leave, they refuse and are force marched out, struggle, and eventually are zapped.
This person has committed 2-3 crimes:
1) Trespassing. YUP, if you are asked to leave an area (aside from public places) and refuse, that is a crime.
2) Resisting arrest/interfering with police (can't remember the actual name for the 2nd one), but yes, that is a crime.
3) Assaulting an officer. SERIOUS FARKEN CRIME. Any sort of assault on special groups is AUTOMATICALLY considered aggravated assault (Police, pregnant women, public workers, and a few others). This is actually nearly as serious a crime as Assault With a Deadly Weapon (depending on state). Yup, slugging a cop is nearly as bad a knifing me. And personally, I agree with those laws.
Now, the only difference between my situation and the one presented is that the speaker was a political entity, and thus heightens the level of warning the cops feel (or at least should, you shoulda seen the motorcade that Kevin Smith got, and then the one that Steven King got!).
Did you miss the fact that he refused to leave? That he refused to be led out? That he refused to stop flailing about like an idiot when the cops wrestled him to the ground?
It looks to me like the cops used minimal force required to get him out of there.
What if they didn't have a taser, or mace? Should they have shot him? Perhaps shoot him in the leg so he stops struggling while you carry him out. Sounds effective!
It looks to me like the cops used minimal force required to get him out of there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why was he obligated to leave? I didn't see the cops dragging all the other people who asked questions out of the building... He was annoying, but they could have just pulled him away from the mic and let that be that. The cops were ordered to forcibly escort the last person to ask a question out of the building?
I don't really even think it's a freedom of speech issue, it's a responsibility of authority issue, police officers don't have the right to drag you away from some where for being "annoying". What the hell was he even being arrested for? Is it illegal to ask important people uncomfortable questions in an "annoying" way? If something he's saying or doing can't be allowed to continue for whatever reason, the whoever is in charge is obligated to inform him politely and give him a chance to leave... they cut the mic and dragged him out of the building and he did nothing so much as resisting until there were 3 cops forcibly ejecting him. Shameful.
Tell him to shut up and let Kerry speak, let him stand there and listen to the question being answered, let him go home on his own two feet. FFS, forget the question of weather the guy should have been tazered, the question is weather or not the guy should have been touched in the first place.
What if they didn't have a taser, or mace? Should they have shot him? Perhaps shoot him in the leg so he stops struggling while you carry him out. Sounds effective!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well guess what? They had tasers. What's your point? That it is fortunate that they had tasers, so they didn't resort to more harmful means? Why, I agree. I'd rather see a man (whether justified or not) get tasered than shot. I'm glad we agree.
I don't really even think it's a freedom of speech issue, it's a responsibility of authority issue, police officers don't have the right to drag you away from some where for being "annoying". What the hell was he even being arrested for? Is it illegal to ask important people uncomfortable questions in an "annoying" way? If something he's saying or doing can't be allowed to continue for whatever reason, the whoever is in charge is obligated to inform him politely and give him a chance to leave... they cut the mic and dragged him out of the building and he did nothing so much as resisting until there were 3 cops forcibly ejecting him. Shameful.
Tell him to shut up and let Kerry speak, let him stand there and listen to the question being answered, let him go home on his own two feet. FFS, forget the question of weather the guy should have been tazered, the question is weather or not the guy should have been touched in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you even read through this thread? The security police DID have the right to remove Andre Meyers as they had received orders from the host the forum had closed What does closed mean? It means the Q&A session is over, finished, done. In their attempt to usher him out he became extremely disruptive, and you know the rest of the story.
Oh, someone saying you have the right to arrest someone due to the conference being over makes it true. That makes so much sense. I'm glad the owners of private property operating public functions are allowed to have the police drag me out when the functions are over now, even if I'm fully willing to leave of my own accord. More bruises is always a good thing, right?
They had the right to force him to end his tirade, they had no more right to forcibly eject and arrest him than they had the right to arrest any other person watching the lecture.
As a matter of basic human ethics if someone has been invited onto private property, and must be asked to leave for some reason, you must give them a chance to leave of their own accord, and under the same conditions that every other guest is allowed to stay/leave. It was not necessary to do any more than block off the microphone and explain that the function was over and everyone is now invited to leave. That standard has worked in this kind of gathering for thousands of years, there was no need to make an example of some guy.
<!--QuoteBegin-"Swifty"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Swifty")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm glad the owners of private property operating public functions are allowed to have the police drag me out when the functions are over now, even if I'm fully willing to leave of my own accord. More bruises is always a good thing, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He wasn't willing to leave of us own accord until he was half way out of there and resisting the whole way. You're SOL by then and, if you're so willing to leave of your own accord, why would you resist in the first place to make the situation escalate to such a level?
Additionally, generally speaking, bouncing someone does not include tazering, nor does it include arresting them.
He didn't start resisting until he was being CARRIED. The police report is BS, it's ALL on video, what some random cop says is objectively less reliable than what 5 or so independent video camera's record. Camera's don't magically twist reality, police reports regularly misrepresent small details though.
You shouldn't assume that a political lecture is above bouncing people. John Kerry was not running the forum, he was a speaker. The university administrators made the call to close the forum, why is that so difficult to understand? When it's over, it's over...
Most of us agree that sometimes situations like these have to be solved by applying force. The question is simply how much force. Just as some, which I tried to show in my previous post, could potentially consider using lethal weapons as a way to subdue and remove the dissident I believe the level of force used in this situation was neither warranted nor justified from my ethical perspective. What separates most of those who condone what happend with those who do not is just this, and that was my point.
And that's only grazing the issue of mass psychosis.
Additionally, generally speaking, bouncing someone does not include tazering, nor does it include arresting them.
He didn't start resisting until he was being CARRIED. The police report is BS, it's ALL on video, what some random cop says is objectively less reliable than what 5 or so independent video camera's record. Camera's don't magically twist reality, police reports regularly misrepresent small details though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ummm.
You didn't read the thread did you?
The people who run the forum told the security to get him out.
He was told to leave and refused. (hell, that is on the video in the first post, and there are other videos, linked by me, latter on that show the ENTIRE thing, not just the little edited bit)
The security proceeded to try and escort him out, and he resisted.
At this point he is committing at least two crimes (Trespassing and resisting arrest).
They increased the level of force up until it became necessary (in their eyes) to shock him to arrest him.
What part of my statements to you disagree with?
We can take it from there.
Or you can just insist that privet property laws should not exist, any one should be allowed any where, and to be as much of a nuisance as they want.
I'm not calling for the firing of any police officers, who did what they thought was best and did what they believed they were being told to do, what I'm stating is that police enforcement as a whole should be instructed well and clear that it's not their position to act in the way they acted at Florida U. Police are not responsible to preempt imaginary evils, they are not within their authority to arrest people for frivolous infractions, when they take up the role of a security body they are supposed to be there to protect, not enforce.
I think the forum operators should have known better than to censor and forcibly eject students, and I think the police should have known to be less aggressive against a person committing no legal offense. It's a moral travesty to invite someone onto your property (for a public forum) and then shoot them for trespassing (have them forcibly ejected for no offense).
It's morally intolerable to treat someone however you want as long as you skim barely by the limits of the law. Really, what happened was basically an abuse of legal rights.
[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you'll watch the video and read the thread all the way through you'll see where he broke the law multiple times - this is why he was removed from the scene and eventually tasered. The security police were only following orders and Andrew Meyers resisted, bringing all of this upon himself.
His "violation of the law" was in the form of resisting police arrest, arrest that SHOULD have really been illegal in the first place.
The police were just following orders, I don't fault them for that, it's their orders that were unacceptable. Either the police should have been trained before hand to know it's not their obligation to use non-lethal force against someone not perpetrating any violence or threats, or the forum should not have demanded a student be forcibly removed for speaking his mind.
It's not an issue of weather or not everyone did exactly what they were supposed to do, it's an issue of weather what they were supposed to do was right or wrong. My vote is wrong. America is not a police state and the police have no place enacting violence in a peaceful public forum, irregardless of who is saying what.
Thansal has made some very good points in this thread justifying why the actions were taken. Try as I might I have yet to hear a good argument against these actions.
Moral of the story: when you're told the Q&A session is over and the forum is closed, stop shouting. You ARE a guest and therefore responsible for adhering to any applicable laws or regulations.
Once again, I'm not saying that the actions the police took were not justified, however, they were not MORALLY justified, and the fact that things went the way they did is an indication of a disturbing trend in what is seen as appropriate law enforcement. Simply put, that was the wrong way to handle that situation, it's not befitting of a university run public forum, and it's not befitting of legal law enforcement. Justifiable by law, sure, but that does little else but show us how insufficient and loopholy the law is.
Tell you what, let me invite you into MY home. When I tell you it's time to go you'd best put the haul-ass on or you're guilty of trespassing. You seemed to have missed that the function was over. O V E R over, that means it's time to stop.
Did you happen to see how he was acting solely for the purpose of getting himself filmed? Or did you hear him holler at his friends, "Are you getting all this? Are the cameras rolling?" Beyond a shadow of a doubt he had it all planned and it was staged, hence the disturbing the peace and inciting a riot.
Andrew Meyers got away lucky. Very lucky. We can only hope the prosecutors find him guilty on all charges.