Savage's website: "BULL-DYKE FASCIST TASERS STUDENT WHO ASKS KERRY TOO MANY QUESTIONS"
On September 18, the website of right-wing radio host Michael Savage linked to an article reporting on a University of Florida student who was shocked with a Taser and removed by several campus police officers -- at least one of whom was female -- from a September 17 forum featuring Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). Savage linked to the article with the headline: "BULL-DYKE FASCIST TASERS STUDENT WHO ASKS KERRY TOO MANY QUESTIONS." The actual article, which was titled "Student Shot by Taser Gun" and appeared on the website of a Baltimore TV station, did not state that a female officer was the one who tasered the student and did not mention any details about the officers who arrested him.
From Savage's website:
Following the incident, Kerry released the following statement:
In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way. I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention. I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of responding when he was taken into custody. I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured. I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted.
As Media Matters for America has documented, Savage frequently makes homophobic remarks on his program. On the March 20 edition of his show, Savage called a transgender murder victim a "psychopath" and a "freak." Days later, on the March 23 edition of his show, Savage blamed sexual reassignment surgery for the Columbine massacre. Savage has also repeatedly called gay parenting "child abuse."
Savage is disgusting but I want to comment on what the police did to that young man. It was disgusting and outrageous. Using a Taser on someone who was not violent. Another example of police oversteping their boundries.
From the story linked by MMFA:
I'm gonna be very interested in hearing what the final outcome of this story is. Right now, it looks like a cop may have been a little trigger-happy with the taser, but you just KNOW that the right-wing morons like Limbaugh, Hannity, Gunny Bob, and Melanie Morgan will try to make their listeners believe that John Kerry ordered the cops to taser the guy .......
...until they find out that isn't true, then they'll blame to student by saying he was an out of control Liberal.
sorry, but i'm going with the cops on this one. i've seen several videos of this, there's more than one. i'm sure there was an allowed time to ask a question. one person does not decide that they are going to dominate the time. when he was told your time is up, that should have been it, and kerry could have answered. hewas determined to have his way. in any case he is the one who decided to become combative and out of control. those guards are there to provide security and this guy would not stop. he defied repeated attempts to remove him and then repeated attempts to handcuff him. even when you think it unfair, you cooperate with the police. i don't think these cops were looking for a chance to taser someone. and this guy brought it on himself.
I disagree. Getting tasered for asking a question smacks of North Korea - not America.
But is that what happened? I thought he got tased for resisting the police, not asking questions.
I still think it's wrong that the cops did that because I don't think he was a real threat to the cops.
if you think he got tasered for "asking a question", then you are woefully uninformed. when the police tell you that you are under arrest, then there is no right to resist. police are not required to wait until there is injury to themselves or others. it's like pointing a gun at a cop. they don't have to wait until you shoot. and i also read today that those cops were summoned to the lecture by the organizers to remove meyer. he brought it on himself.
and you will note in kerry's statement above, he noted him "barging to the front of the line".
If I knew nothing at all about the incident and read your comment I might agree with you.However, there are way too many elements to choose from in this story. Meyers jumped the line since only one last question was being taken. He was not happy with Kerry’s response so he went off like a rocket. The microphone was cut, not his mic but the University's. He failed in so many ways to maintain composure and decorum. He then escalated the situation once he failed to obey the commands of the campus cops. Yes, commands. Having stated that, I don't believe, however, that stun guns or tazzers should ever be used by cops to subdue people in such public gatherings. There were enough cops to drag this man out of the auditorium kicking and screaming to both embarrass himself and the campus. But, once the tazzer came out the cops looked like the bullies.Tazzer use has been creeping into policing tactics all too casually over the years. I read of an old man in Florida who refused to get out of his car during a traffic stop. For his stubbornness he got zapped. Hope Meyers learned a lesson.
"even when you think it unfair, you cooperate with the police."
This has to be the saddest of arguments about this story. In a free society we have the right to protest, ESPECIALLY when we feel the situation is unjust or unfair.
Look at nearly all of our major civil rights changes - they came specifically because of a lack of cooperation with police. Imagine if MLK and the civil rights marchers had simply gone home when told to by the police. Imagine the women's suffrage protectors doing the same.
It's not our duty as citizens to blindly agree to do whatever the police tell us, it's our duty to deal with the consequences of such actions. It's our country's duty to give us the opportunity to make a case for why those consequences are unacceptable.
There's a side story here, namely Savage's incessant copyright infringement. You just can't take a published story, which is copyright protected, and change the headline, especially to the extent that he does. Whay hasn't any media company called him out for this?
Bill.
_____________________________________
For the truth on Michael Savage's lies, read "Savage Lies: The Distortions, Half-Truths and Outright Lies of a Right-Wing Blowhard," available at Amazon.com.
If he wasn't such an offensive a-hole, "Bull-Dyke Facist" would be kind of funny for its complete overexagerrated over-the-top-ness.
But that's WHY he's so offensive.
Even an offensive a-hole can make a joke, but in this case, what is the joke?
It's not a joke. The cop tasered him because she's a lesbian. What, you don't see Savage's logic? 1+1=2. Simple. Gay cop = antidemocratic violent suppression of speech. There. Get it?
Sorting that out was a stroke of genius, but I gotta admit, you're starting to scare me.
Over the top, yes, yet his sycophantic mouth-breathing audience (of MILLIONS) will call in droves to commend him for "telling the truth" the f#%%ty left-wing "red-diaper doper baby" media ain't. This guy's a joke. The other day he spent a whole segment talking about the origins of his "sense of humor" like it was a national treasure and like anyone (but his retarded audience)cares. He's a loser.
It was a good story. He was 5 in washrooms at school with thugish 13 and 14 year olds. He would would baffle 'em with b.s. while he took care of business, and before they knew it he was out of there. Personal experience is at the heart of good story telling.
On the March 20 edition of his show, Savage called a transgender murder victim a "psychopath" and a "freak."
As I see it, the only psychopath and freak involved in this story is Dr. Michael Weiner - the lunatic botanist who calls himself "Michael Savage".
He considers himself an epidemiologist as well.
From Wikipedia:
Michael Savage is the pseudonym of Michael Alan Weiner (born March 31, 1942), a controversial[1] American conservative talk radio host, author, and political pundit.[2] He holds master's degrees in medical botany and medical anthropology[3] and earned a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in nutritional ethnomedicine.[4]
He can consider himself a Thespian and a Martian for all I care he has no degree in epidemiology
This belch of a story is becoming a fascinating litmus test. Everyone seems to see what they want to see.
But Savage takes the freaking cake for slathering his own agenda all over this.
(BTW, the kid deserved what he got.)
"BTW, the kid deserved what he got."--Inkslave
Nice opinion. I suppose if they didn't have tazers, it would have been okay with you if they beat him with their billy clubs. You might want to rethink how much force is acceptable to take someone into custody who has committed no crime.
No, sparky, it would not have been OK. And the taser shot is an iffy call by the cops at best. But I have no sympathy for someone who ignores multiple cop commands, then resists to the point where four cops cannot escort him from the room, and then cries police brutality.
Thank you, well said.
So, if the tazer was an iffy call at best, then to repeat my question--how much force is okay with you to use on a person who has committed no crime?
You can't ask a broad question like that and expect to get one kind of answer, there are way too many variables - the person's demeanor, his or her weight/age/body-type, do they have a weapon, many other circumstances. Each situation is different and requires different approaches.
Failing to comply with a police command IS a crime. So is physically resisting arrest. The numbnutz clearly does both. You can debate all day whether the cops are justified in making the command, etc. but that's what the law says: Once the cops tell you to move, you move or they get to move you. And a judge sorts it out later.
Exactly, if you want to foolishly challenge a cop who is asking for your cooperation, then be prepared to be escorted out in a more forceful way that you have proceeded to instigate.
how much force? The minimum necessary. But for a moment, pretend you are one of the cops. You have a guy on the ground who is fighting to the point where four of you cannot cuff him. What exactly are your choices for getting the cuffs on him? A "compliance" hold hurts a lot more than a taser and can easily break a struggling suspect's limb. The taser is a much better choice, all around, at a moment like that.
Apparantly you have little experience with pain compliance holds. I have. They are extremely effective and rarely break bones outside of that being intentional or with a drugged fighter.
So, if the cops hadn't started to arrest him in the first place, there wouldn't have been a problem--right?
I have no problem with the police telling him to leave when they did. He was clearly committing disorderly conduct. So the answer is: No, if he hadn't been acting like an idiot, none of this would have happened.
And with that, i leave this circle jerk to those who apparently enjoy the game more than I do.
Don't go, we liked you being the pivot man!
dang, it was my turn to drive him next!
LOL :->
And your point here is really the only good one. Should he have been "messed" with at all? I saw the tape and I didn't see any need for the escalation but once the cops have told you what to do disregard their orders at your peril...and against the law.
I truly dislike cops in general. I find the majority of them to be rude, overly aggressive, incompetent and not very bright. Many just seem to feel that they can behave any way they choose.
Never the less, once they give that order you have two choices:obey or suffer whatever consequences they dish out and as said earlier in abnother post, a judge will then sort it out.
It's true Lolo, it seemed like the guy was trying to create a scene. We have plenty of regular posters around here who do the same kind of thing verbally. Seems really self-indulgent more than any desire to engage in trying to improve the politcal situation.
At the beginning of the tape the cops were already standing there waiting for the guy to finish so he had probably long ago stolen everyone's attention. People are confusing issues because of how offensive the guy seemed. It seemed pretty clear that the cop hit him with the taser just for being an ahole. Seems like a good enough explanation for some but I actually grew up in the United States. Don't know where these folks are from but where I'm from the cops aren't supposed to be making personal choices about when to dole out corporal punishment to people who annoy them. The implications are that civil rights are important but not if when they are violated by cops a jerk gets abused. Its just so SATISFYING.
The problem seems fixable. The training regarding use of force should be intense and assured before someone gets a badge and a belt full of weapons. I know it's different in different forces and some are really on top of it in this regard. But there should be pretty much a zero tolerance for cops who physically punish helpless people no matter what kind of a jerk he was before they had him helpless. This just has to be the way in a free society.
I've had the chance to see the footage a few more times. I din't know(assuming this is correct) that when he was tasered he was ALREADY cuffed!
He deserved to be removed and an arrest was justified, albeit probably not necesary. But tasering a kid on the ground who's already cuffed? If that happened I can't see any justification for it.
I'm afraid the justification of it for Tommy and a bunch of other people seems to be that the guy had it coming. In other words, once he was helpless the cop had the choice of whether or not to use electric shock to punish him for disobeying. Corporal punishment doled out with essentially a cattle prod by a police officer. That's hunky dory if you don't like the guy I guess is the idea. Personally I'm ready to start knocking people over the head with the Constitution so that maybe some small part of it will seep into their ungrateful brains.
"Failing to comply with a police command IS a crime. So is physically resisting arrest."
That's not correct. You DO have the right to resist. You're correct in saying that a judge will sort it out later, but it's absolutely incorrect to say that failure to comply with a police command or with physically resisting arrest is a crime. That cop may charge you with a crime, but that doesn't mean that it is.
Umm, Clams, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct are CRIMES.
This kid was disorderly and he clearly resisted the police. A review of the law on your part may be in order.
I'm familiar with the law, and thankfully we live in a country where the police are not judge, jury and executioner. They can charge you with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, but that doesn't mean that they are right. And it doesn't mean that you don't have the right to resist. Like I said, a judge will sort it out later, but the police are not automatically right in every situation. A cop can charge you with a crime, but that doesn't mean you've committed one.
You've lost me on this one. If you can be reasonably convicted for doing something, even if by a judge, then you don't have the "right" to do it.
You seem to be conflating the general with the specific. Resisting arrest is a crime. Specific behavior may not qualify as that once it gets to court. These are two different things. Since resisting arrest is an actual crime, one does not have the right to do it. It's not contingent on a judge or jury's ruling. That would be like me saying I had the right to beat someone with a baseball bat, up to the point where I was convicted of battery.
Let me put it this way: If a cop jumps out of the bushes and for no reason tackles me on my way to the store, I have the right to resist. Believe it or not, my right to resist actually extends to killing the cop if necessary. And that right should be upheld in a court of law. I committed no crime. It's up to a judge to decide whether or not an arrest is unlawful. It's not up to the cop. See the link below for more:
[link to www.constitution.org]
Bad link, let me try again:
[link to www.constitution.org]
OK, I don't know why that link doesn't work. Here's the info:
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)"
That's helpful clarification, now that the information is available. I guess the question is, was the original intent to remove him or arrest him? If it's a case of trying to remove him and he became violent, then an arrest is almost surely warranted at that point. If they just tried to arrest him for no valid reason, then some resistance is understandable.
It seems very poorly handled no matter how you look at it.
But there is a crime here;disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. I understand there are exceptions and extenuating circumstances for just about anything, but is that really the case here? Sure, if you think someone's trying to hurt or kill you, even it it's a cop who jumped out of the bushes at you, you can defend yourself. Does this person really have grounds to say that the goal was to hurt or kill him? If not, then he has to comply with orders. Just because you disagree with the reason for the arrest doesn't give you the right to resist it. You let the system sort that out, just as the cops do.
But yes, if you're talking about specific situations, that's more understandable. It's hard to tell that from the unequivocal comments of "you DO have the right to resist" and "it's absolutely incorrect to say that failure to comply with a police command or with physically resisting arrest is a crime" though. These are absolute refutations where minor qualifiers are more appropriate.
Well, the only qualifier necessary is "unlawful," as in you have the right to resist unlawful arrest. And this happens all the time. If a cop stops me on the street to question me, I'm under no obligation to talk to him at all. If he then chooses to haul me in and I resist, I'm still within my rights. He'll of course charge me with resisting arrest, but that won't stick at all because there were no other charges and there was no reason for him to haul me in in the first place. He might as well have just jumped out of the bushes and thrown the cuffs on me. It's the same scenario with the pretense of "questioning."
I am torn. If the officers' demands are reasonable, one should follow them. If the officer's demands are unreasonable, they should be challenged (or, in this case, ignored).
When a forum participant asks too many questions, but the forum Guest is willing to answer them, and even beseeches the officers to give him a chance to address the concerns, where is the excuse for police force? What right do these officers have to physically remove and taser an active participant that the Guest of the forum himself is encouraging to continue? It's not in their place to moderate the discussion, it's in their place to protect and serve.
The wierd thing is Savage would likely disagree vehemently with the position that this young man took. It sound like he was quite upset that Kerry did not challenge the Ohio results. I would bet Savage did not take the time to learn this or he would have applauded those officers.
I doubt he would applaud them if he was giving up a chance to try to make it look like Kerry was responsible. All that really mattered was getting Kerry and Fascist Bull Dyke into the same sentence. He's a class act through and through.
Here it is according to youtube
[link to www.workingassetsblog.com]
Hey, was that Redking?!? They tased our Revolutionary!
Thanks for the link Roundhouse. That really is a disturbing scene for a number of reasons. Anyone would have wanted to put a sock in the guy's mouth just so he'd shut up for a sec. Anyone knows that jumping around screaming in a room with a Senator is going to force the fuzz to do something about you.
But flat-out, that cop should lose his badge and go to jail for hitting him with electricity. They had 4 or 5 cops on him? Think they had it pretty much under control. You don't dish out shocks as punishment because someone is annoying you. That cop thinks he's judge and executioner of corporal punishment? Just wanted to inflict a little pain? I'd like to see the stats of how many times tasers have accidentally triggered cardiac arrest. There is a level of risk involved and if a cop is going to just do it because he doesn't like someone it shows that cop has no idea what his job is.
I'm not exaggerating about taking that guy's badge. They really should. If he would do that in front of a room full of people, I'd hate to see what he'd do on the street without so many witnesses. A guy on the ground and powerless. That's not why they give you the taser there fella. Really disgusting.
I liked the cop in his face talking to him. Now stop yelling. We know you've got five people grabbing you and holding you down and it's scaring the hell out of you. You're very frightened and agitated so calm down or we'll electrocute you!
Holy cow, was that the fascist bull dyke?
If the guy had left when his allotted time was up, and respected the rules and the forum, there would have been no incident. He started the incident, challenged the authority and is to ultimately blame.
The cops may have overstepped, overreacted, admittedly, there would have been no overstepping or overreacting had the guy not provoked the entire incident.
B.S.
There was no reason at all to use a taser on this kid. There's no excuse for the cops involved. They ought to be fired. 5 or 6 cops can't subdue one kid without using a taser? Give me a break.
The cops are on adminstrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation, but you want them fired? How ridiculous. So much for due process, videos alone are not proof that no investigation is warranted. The University is acting appropriately.
What responsibility does this "kid" have in your mind? Or is he a victim?
The 'responsibiltiy' of the kid doesn't relate to the action of a cop who tases a helpless subject. It's called changing the subject.
No, it's called putting the blame where it starts instead of acting like this kid is innocent. Besides, you want to convict the cops prior to any investigation being completed, is that what you're saying?
Tommy,
I have to disagree a bit with you here. The kid may have disrespected the forum and disobeyed it's rules but just because someone provokes a situation doesn't necesarily mean they deserve whatever they get. Suppose the cops had shot him instead? If the "he started it" argument doesn't hold up as the officers reactions become more extreme then a balance of some kind is needed here.
I've seen footage of a lot of protests and public speaking but i've never seen anyone tasered before. Situations like this aren't that hard to diffuse if a mature adult is doing the diffusing. Most police officers simply ARE NOT mature adults and many will behave in a manner that instead of diffusing a situation, escalate in instead.
Lolo, The cops didn't shoot him, that would be a totally different discussion. The point I am making is wait for the invesitigation to be completed. But the initial fault is the kid's who disobeyed the cops, had he not done that there would be no issue here.
No disagreement as far as waiting for the investigation to be completed. I'm not calling for anyone's head(though I really dislike cops).
I'm not sure i agree with your black and white stance on the kids fault. It's one thing to say the kid brought "something" on himself but police, in positions of authority and power, are there to protect and sereve US. Whom did they protect and serve here Tommy? Themselves? It's an excited college kid asking political questions. I think that you, I or just about anyone else on this forum copuld have peacefully diffused this situation with no arrests or tasering necesary.
The cops did shoot him Tommy. Not with bullets but with the Tazer.
Worrier, A tazer is a nonlethal weapon, not the same as bullets. The guy is a prankster who deliberately provoked the entire incident, however the investigation needs to go forward. We will see.
A) A tazer is a nonlethal weapon. Wrong, jsut google taser death statistics and take your pick of the 800,000 plus results.
B) The cops had absolutely no reason to do anything in this situation. Cops should not be used to moderate a forumn, to enforce debate rules etc. If and when someone violates a law then call the cops.
C) Properly trained cops would have NEVER used force in this situation. I've watched cops at football games resolve situations between beligerent drunks without touching anyone, much less tasing.
"But the initial fault is the kid's who disobeyed the cops"
From what I saw the cops didn't really have any reason to arrest the kid. He seemed to simply be asking questions to Senator Kerry in a polite manner. He wasn't yelling, disturbing the forum, or doing anything to deserve the treatment he got. The cops were way out of line here. Even Senator Kerry said that he was more than happy to go a little bit longer and answer the kid's questions. Kerry was never in any danger and was even willing to answer the kid's questions.
It did look like really bad police work. I do think the kid was trying to provoke a situation and create a scene. That being said, if 5? 6? police officers can't remove one freaky kid, I'd say it's a good thing there wasn't an actual protest of some sort. Two or three college kids might've taken over the whole town! You can bet these cops are in trouble, especially the one holding the taser. The kid was pretty helpless saying, "don't tase me bro!" and the guy just nails him. For spite? Punishment? That's what it will come down to I'll bet. Everyone else in the room kept their cool, including Kerry. Then again the guy has actually been under fire without wetting himself. In spite of how Karl Rove might have painted him.
Goofy story here.
It most certainly is a goofy situation. I think it would be interesting to know what transpired right before he asked his question. I have heard reports that he had cut to the front of the line to ask his question. Don't know whether that is true or not, but I did hear that. Also, we don't know what the officers and the individual who was dressed up in a suit (seemed to be a moderator positioned at the mic) said to the individual asking the question. They could have given him multiple warnings to ask the question instead of "informing" the audience as he said he was doing. My initial thought is that he seemed to take a long time, and I don't know what the rules of the forum were, but I would assume he exceeded his time limit. It appeared he was approached by the officer and the man in the suit once each before he was taken away. I would like to know what they said to him.
Smitty
That's how I saw it too. At the beginning of the clip the cops are all standing there waiting for him. My guess too was that he had been at this for a while already. He seemed like someone who was very intentionally trying to make a scene, not ask any questions.
That being said, it seems many people are having trouble seperating issues. Because you feel like he deserved it on a personal level the cop was justified in tasing him? That seems to be the implication. If someone is a big enough dork, the police have the authority to chose to dole out electric shocks as corporal punishment. That of course will be the key for this cop's lawyer. Was he shocking the kid to get the situation under control and ensure the safety of everyone in the room? Or was he shocking a helpless subject cause the guy just had it coming? To me, if that's the case, that's a serious crime by a police officer.
I'm not suggesting one way or the other. I didn't particular care for the way the student conducted himself leading up to the confrontation, but that is a side note. To me, if he was instructed to ask a question, and only a question, and the officers and moderator had warned him to hurry up, then he needed to either ask a question, or step down from the mic. It seemed he was taking an opportunity deliver a message, and then slipping a question at the very end to justify him being up at the mic. That is simply my opinion.
As for him being "escorted" out, (it seemed a littler too rough for it to be called an escort) if he was warned multiple times, at what point do you begin to use force. By force, I am saying placing your hand on the man's back, or grabbing his arm to lead him out. Again, that is if they have warned him. At some point in time, the officers need to enforce the rules of the forum to be fair to all, and sometimes, unfortunately, it gets physical. When the man resisted to leave, again if after he had been warned, then when he resists, more force is necessary. I don't know if he was already handcuffed or not when he was taken down to the ground with other officers around him, but he seemed really defiant and willing to put up a fight. He wasn't going easily. Now, if he was never warned up until this point, and he was simply being "annoying" (which is no crime), then he might have a case because it's not criminal to be annoying and ask a really long question. I think there a lot of factors we don't know that could help in determining this one. We have video, which helps tremendously, but only if we have all the facts that go with it.
All the kids motivations aside, all it will come down to is whether he was helpless when the policeman tased him. The taser is for getting a situation under control in order to prevent further violence. If the cop used it as punishment after the kid was under control I see that as a pretty serious crime on the part of the cop.
Agreed. I don't think a taser was necessary, but what does an officer do when an individual who is resisting refuses to calm down and allow himself to be restrained and escorted out? If you don't use the taser, do you bend and possibly break and arm or injure a shoulder to get his arms in a position that favors the officers? Just curious.
Perhaps if there are only two officers. But they had overwhelming force which allows you to handle an individual more gently. I used to work in bars and we had to deal with people far more out of control than this goofy kid. If you we had enough people on the spot it made it pretty easy to overwhelm the nut of the night and shuffle him out the door. And we didn't have the training of uniformed officers.
I'm convinced personally that he was trying to provoke them and be made into a high profile victim but that doesn't excuse cops who don't know how to handle being provoked. All they did was give him what he was after. And if the cop zapped a guy after he was helpless as punishment, there's nothing ambiguous about that.
Oh certainly, justice on the spot would not be my advice either. I do think the taser was brought too early. If this man was fighting for an extended period of time, and he was completely out of control, then maybe the use could be justified. But like you said, they had a number of officers there who could have handled the situation better. In my opinion, the officers wanted to get him out of the room as quickly as possible, so they used whatever they could to get him to comply. I'm not advocating for the officers at this point, but that is what I think they thinking at the time.
Goog question. The answer is what would you want the cops to do if that was your grandmother. I'd like them to hold her down, in as safe a manner as possible until her panties untie from whatever knot she has them in! You tase my Gram and you will have one heck of a legal storm coming at you!!
LOLO
From many of the reports I've seen, no amount of talking was going to calm this kid down if he was doing it for the cameras and not to make a point. In some reports , he acted up only when the cameras were not on him. In fact, he reportedly told the cops "I don't blame you, you were just doing your job" (paraphrasing). I'd be interested to see what a real eyewitness investigation of this turns up.
"but you want them fired?"
*lol*
How many students do they get to taser before they lose their jobs? If I work at McDonald's, how many burgers would I get to spit in before I lost mine?
Apparently it relates to how annoying the kid was? The kid was out of line. Therefore it's inappropriate to discuss whether or not a cop should hit someone with a taser when he is prone and helpless on the ground? Tommy do you ever make a cogent argument about anything?
Despite your insults, are you privvy to more information that is currently at the disposal of the university authorities who are invesitgating this incident?
Gee, but I think I will wait for the conclusion of the investigation before convicting these officers, that would be the appropriate approach to take, but not for you apparently.
I suppose the answer is that both tasering kids and spitting in customer's food is on a sliding scale. Gotcha.
Oh c'mon Tommy. These sort of things happen all the time without incident, and there was no reason for there to be an incident this time.
Sure, he should have given the floor to someone else, which started the incident. But, so what? Does that mean it's okay to dish out electric shock, or billy clubs, or bulletts? Where do you draw the line, and how much force is okay?
Rick,
I said it appears that they overstepped, but I am not a judge or jury investigating this case - which is what is being done, properly by the university.
Prudent and correct.
Neither you or I are the judge or jury, yet we both seem to have strong (opposing) opinions about what happened. I'm still wondering how much force you feel would be appropriate under these circumstances.
Rick, That is what investigations are for, if it's determined that excessive force was used, then the officers should be dealt with appropriately....but to call for their firing as some have done here is ridiculous, not to mention highly premature.
Err, . . . I haven't call for their firings.
If they are found to have used excessive force, I think that each of them should be tazered by the kid they tazered. It should be filmed and put on Utube. Perhaps, they'll think twice before they tazer again. Maybe it won't be as much fun for them if this were standard proceedure.
I said "some here", I never said you.
And your eye for an eye retribution punishment is interesting, I think?
"I think?"--Tommy
Please explain.
I think, because you know that would never happen as we don't operate like that....so I said it was interesting, gave you the benefit of the doubt for I felt you were being facetious, and then with a raised eyebrow, said "I think".
Thanks for the clearing that up. However, I did mean it literally in this case. I don't believe in eye for an eye necessarily by the way.
Therick, I'll answer simply NO TASER.
While the kid was struggling with the cops, Kerry is saying "No no, I'll answer the question" or something like that. This kid assumes that with the speakers permission he will get to stay and have his question answered but instead he is pulled along by several cops. More than enough to subdue him, place him on the ground and handcuff. Tommy they tasered him while he was on the ground surrounded by cops. There was no need for the taser, period.
It's just true Pearlene. Tommy once again is just making the case that no one can really know anything. I've worked in enough bars to know what it takes to get people out the door quickly. I'm no big cop with FOUR fellow officers or anything. But me and a couple of guys removed some FAR more belligerant dudes than that goofy kid. He seemed to be trying to escalate the situation to me. All that means is that the cops training, discipline and good judgement should kick in. They had overwhelming force which makes safely removing this one kid not really all that hard if you're trying to prevent violence. Which is their job of course. Keeping him on his feet, surrounding him and walking him out the door with FIVE cops wouldn't have been all that challenging really.
In addition, oversteppage and overreaction is not indicative of the sexual orientation or political ideology of the police officer.
Agree, Savage uses any opportunity to dig at gay people whenever and whereever he can, his take is his own bigotry on display.
Totally agree. Absolutely should lose his badge. No excuse to taser the kid whatsoever. They ought to make an example out of the cop who did this. Being an obnoxious college student doesn't mean you deserve to get filled with 50,000 volts of electricity.
"Hey, was that Redking?!? They tased our Revolutionary!"
I have to ask - was that called for? Really?
BLR,
Why yes, it was called for. Considering the kid has been really rude and flies off the handle when spoken to politely. And I don't mean fake polite like Tommy but really trying to talk to him. I'm a murderer I think? At least. Anyway, the kid flies off the handle in a way that genuinely reminded me of this poor kid in the video. And around here it's almost a compliment to have someone poke fun at you in a humorous way. If his feelings are hurt, if he's that gentle of a soul, he should probably tone down the calling everyone murderers thing. I'm guessing he can take a little ribbing. Nice of you to stick up for him though.
This is very very disturbing and in my opinion the officers did over react. At one point the guy said just let me leave why are you arresting me? Since the officers had already surrounded him and were already taking him to the exit they could have done just that. Hopefully their superiors will use this film to assess the offer's reactions and use it for training purposes. I kind of think their superiors would agree with me, that the officers unnecessarily escalated the situation.
I am also betting that if this had happened to someone at say a Bush event in 2004, his take on it would be different. He'd be all for it no doubt.
They don't let anybody into a Bush event that's not screened and their questions vetted beforehand.
They have actually sent people through the parking lots of events and checked for offensive bumper stickers then tracked down the people who came in that car and kicked them out. MM can point out the crazy crap the media does say, but it's tough to get the whole picture of what they're leaving out. That was yet another one of those "Could you imagine if that happened at a Democratic event instead of Bush's fake town hall meeting?" Now that would have been newsy.
But really this is where degenerates like Savage and Limbaugh and about a hundred others come into play. It's their point of attack to get people talking about these stories in the way they choose or even talking about them at all. The 'entertainment' fringe as the righties like to call it plays a vital role in their method of shaping the stories.
Yes I witnessed this in 95 when Pres. Clinton came to our small town. The secret service people showed up 2 WEEKS in advance to "set up" for the 2 hr event. It was quite a site. Can you imagine how many employees it takes to assist the Pres. and create security for all events 2 weeks in advance?
If you have evidence that the Secret Service screened the ideology of those wanting to attend a Clinton appearance in your town, cough it up.
He also came to my town and there was no screening based on political affiliation as there is for the current occupant of the White House.
No Tweak, you didn't witness this. What you're describing sounds like a pretty accurate description of some of the security that goes on in advance of a presidential visit in all recent administrations. What we were talking about is the ideological screening that has gone on during W's presidency. Were you confusing the two subjects or just trying to make it sound like Clinton did the same lame thing? It's just not historically accurate.
It's not a 'liberal' thing to know this. The ideological bubble that has kept dissenting opinions away from this president is unprecedented. Old Bush wasn't even anywhere near this bad although he was well known to be pretty out of touch with the 'common folk' as the Bushies seem to see us. This stuff isn't a mystery to anyone right or left paying attention for the past five decades. Seems like you're interested in politics.
Boy, now would be a good time for someone to re-post that youtube video of a republican college age kid kicking the crap out of a protester because of the t-shirt she was wearing.
Yea, but that didn't really MEAN anything did it? urp. That couldn't have been a reflection of anything broader because Savage never insinuated to me that it did. hicup. I don't think Hannity addressed it at all so clearly ffftt it didn't MEAN anything. knskszzzzzz
Uh-oh...the troglodytes better get their talking points together. Sean Hannity was taking the side of the police on his radio show today. In fact, he was lying (what's new) about Kerry's response. He claimed that Kerry was criticizing the police, but the very clip that Hannity played had Kerry simply trying to stay neutral...regretting that the dialogue was interrupted. He didn't specify whether the kid or the police did the interrupting. This just shows how confident Hannity is in his audience's stupidity...he can play a clip, then lie about it without blinking an eye. Amazing.
Haven't your heard Savage over the last few months though? He has said, repeatedly over and over again, that he has no friends in radio and or television anymore, and that because the other conservative talk show hosts didn't defend him when San Francisco tried to do something about his hate speech (I forget which issue it was), he no longer has their back, and considers them traitors, and that they're not really conservatives like he is. I'm pretty sure he's thrown the word "vermin" in there more than once.
Ah, Mike, Mike, Mike... You should really get a grip on this thing called reality once in awhile.
Now as for the tasering of this guy, sounds like someone got a little overzealous with their taser trigger finger. But I'm sure that the rest of the conservative world will try to pin this on Kerry. I would bet also, that if Tucker were there, he would have gone up to that guy, with a friend of his at his side, and taken him down himself.
Members of the the S.F. city council was promoting a protest outside his radio station. Great radio IMO.
I suppose if you are into that whole insanity thing
I wish Kerry had yelled at the police "Unhand that man! I'm going to answer his question! He has a right to free speech in this country/" or something along those lines. It would have been utterly fantastic. It would have been a really cool moment, no matter how obnoxious that kid was.
Yep. Cool like this guy. Unafraid to stand up and exercise his right to free speech.
[link to kempton.files.wordpress.com]
I guess saying "cop tasers student" was too difficult for angry mic.
The Cons have no shame, the kid was not being pro Bush at all in his questions and the cops used a taser quickly on a non violent person, Its shameful. Kerry did nothing wrong and was not involved in the Nazi like tactics. Savage is completely going to twist this.
All due respect, the kid was hardly "non -violent." He was strenuously resisting and refusing to comply with police commands. I have seen cops take it easy on people in those circumstances and then get hurt when a blade appears or a few wild kicks land. From the cop perspective there is really nothing else to do but subdue the subject.
Having said they, they should have been able to get the cufs on him without shocking him. But, maybe they were afraid of breaking his arm, etc. if they put a come-along hold on him.
It was a bad scene but the little droog brought it on himself.
He was strenuously resisting and refusing to comply with police commands
Maybe becuase his constitutional rights were being violated as he was participating in a poltiical forum taken away by an overbearing police force, also he was not violent, he did not have a knife or gun and was not threatening anyone. The police in this country are out of control.
Doris, That is quite a stretch and a little silly - the police in this country are out of control?
And what constitutional rights of his were violated? He knew the rules, or at least should have stepped away when his mic was cut, the only thing violated was his adherence to propriety and respect in such a public forum. If he'd acted appropriately there would be no incident.
I would disagree to an extent. Tommy, consider this: when cops are out of line, the city gets sued. When the city loses, guess where the payout comes from? That's right, taxes. I don't know about you, but I sure don't want a portion of my taxes going to pay for police screw ups.
Snoop, I have no disagreement on that, obviously I don't think anyone wants to pay for out of control police officers.
I was just refuting that excessive use of police force is out of control in this country, I have seen nothing of the sort. There are isolated incidences of course, but they should be fairly and thoroughly investigated and the presumption of innocence afforded the officer pending the outcome......that is all I am saying.
OK, I buy that.
No rights were violated, except the rights of the forum participants and Mr. Kerry to be spared this blowhard's ego trip. They asked him to stop. Then they told him to stop. Then they told him to leave. Then they put their hands on him to make him leave. That is what police do, Doris. And when a guy resists, they MUST take control of the situation.
The behavior of the cops is iffy in this case. They appear to be undertrained to deal with resistance. But leaping to this buffoon's defense is specious at best.
I am getting new insight into what's wrong with "the left" today.
Yes. And we're getting more evidence to back up what we already knew about the right--torture is acceptable, conforming is not optional, and you're just fine with living under a police state as long as it's run by others on the right.
I am getting new insight into what's wrong with "the left" today
You're right about the disturbance created by this guy at the University of Florida.
The moment he chose to break away from the grasp of the campus police officers who were trying to escort him out of the auditorium, he was being a Disorderly Person at the least (Sen. Larry Craig was charged with and plead guilty to Disorderly Person, for merely refusing to leave the public restroom with the police officer, after that officer identified himself and instructed Mr. Craig to leave ahead of him).
This guy at UF was a lot more of a Disorderly Person than Sen. Craig was.
And as you've pointed out, refusing to follow the instructions of a ploice officer performing their duties, is also a criminal offense (in addition to resisiting, which I don't know if they want to charge the guy with that).
As for the cops, while they're 100% in the right for doing their job, but you bet, they did that job poorly.
It began with two cops, both of whom were at least 6 inches shorter than the guy (and the woman seemed a foot shorter), over-reacting by having to grab the guy's arms, in getting him out of the auditorium.
Then there's the third cop in the matter, who chooses to contribute to it all by pointing a weapon at the guy (look closely at the video); he was sort of under-sized too.
In the final analysis, there were 7 campus cops on the guy, yet for whatever reason, they chose to struggle with him on the ground, instead of just picking his stupid arse up, by any or all of his four limbs and whatever else you feel like grabbing hold of, and carrying him as quickly and as forcibly as it requires, out of the auditorium.
Who knows why the 7 of them couldn't do that.
It's what the Secret Service would have done; it's what State Troopers do, by training.
Who knows why they had to zap the guy (if indeed they did that) while he was down.
Just pick him up and drag him out, like he was trash on trash-day.
You're going to get in trouble around here analyzing the performance of the cops, and actually paying attention to the tactics they used and how badly they executed them. See, you're supposed to just start yelling "fascist" the moment anyone, no matter how stupid, provokes a reaction from the police. Otherwise you're "the right" and eat babies.
Clearly the poor training of the cops is a major issue, as it was in the UCLA library a while back and, most tragically, as it was at Virginia Tech, when cops out of their depth made stupid assumptions and failed to issue an alert. That doesn't change the fact that the guy who got arrested is an idiot, who should have expected what he got.
This is interesting, because it serves like one of those ink-blots (Rorschach tests) that head-doctors show people. It's just one and the same visual image (or video, in the UF matter), and yet different people see different things in it.
I believe I've already described what I saw in the video, but to hear others start in on a "police state" and even veer off into mentioning "torture" and other stuff.
It's why I copied and pasted what it was you said, about learning about the "left".
And I just want to be sure that I'm understood what I see in this video (or ink-blot Rorschach):
I see a guy who for some reason his words and/or his behaviour, in addressing a U.S. Senator in a public place, has the law enforcement authorities in that place (campus cops), wanting the guy out of the auditorium.
And what I saw was that, whatever way those campus cops went about their job, this guy chose to BREAK AWAY from their grasp, and start getting loud and thrashing about...
(and I can hear the "police state" critics sneaking up on me now)
...and what this guy is doing is being a Disorderly Person at the least, and refusing and resisting maybe also.
And the cops, it being their job to attend to the guy who's being Disorderly, well, they did a crappy job.
They should have just grabbed the guy by whatever part of him they felt was handy (his hair works as well as any other thing), and dragged and/or lifted up his stupid Disorderly Person, and got him the heck out of the U.S. Senator's range PRONTO...
Like as fast as you can, no stops get outta the way THE EXPRESS IS COMING THROUGH!
In the video, in the ink-blot Rorschach, I saw one of the campus cops, he looked about the size of an NFL lineman, if not a professional wrestler...
...he looked like he could have done what I just described should have been done, all by himself.
(Sorry Doctor, stare and stare and stare some more I do, at that splotch of ink on that piece of paper: Danged if I can see a "police state" in it.)
I may be the only one here who mentioned police state and torture. I did NOT say that what these cops did was equal to a police state. I implied that Inkslave might be happy living in a police state as long as it was controlled by others on the right.
As for torture, I believe that other methods could have been used to escort this kid away, as do you. He was pinned on the floor, virtually motionless, yet still speaking loudly, and pleading for them not to shock him. But, they did it anyway, and it appeared that a couple of them enjoyed doing it.
I think that's borderline torture, and at least brutality. The worst part is that they seemed to enjoy it.
Just for the record my friend, it was not you or any comment you made, that I was thinking of when I mentioned the things I did.
As far as this comment thread goes, I had merely scanned it without really paying attention to any names, and chose to jump in under Inkslave's comment, for a reason you can see for yourself.
As for why I invoked "police state" and "torture"?
On the Huffington Post thread on this subject, they have over 1,400 comments so far on this video! (versus 100 on this thread)
And when I commented over there, about how unstable I thought the guy behaved within range of a U.S. Senator, and how the moment he BROKE AWAY from law enforcement authorities who were trying to get him out of the auditorium (out of the range of the U.S. Senator)...
And how I thought the cops did a poor job of it, by not just immediately making a wheel-barrell out of the guy, and driving him however he preferred (head-first if he likes) right out of the auditorium (and away from the Senator) in a BUM'S RUSH...
Well, over there at Huffington, that's where I saw all sorts of "police state" and "torture" stuff.
It was there I was thinking of.
No problem Dem, and thanks. Just thought I should clear up my writing in case I was been misinterpreted.
"...I was been misinterpreted."
Oh, too funny.
Should read 'was misinterpreted.'
I am getting new insight into what's wrong with "the left" today.
I've had a front row seat to what's wrong with the right for the last 6 years.
Just because you are asked to stop speaking according to forum rules does NOT mean that your constitutional rights were violated. You, I or whomever do not have the right at such a forum to make up our own rules and say whatever we like for as long as we like.
True. But breaking those rules are different than breaking the law, and does not call for being tasered.
Have I been spelling tazer wrong? S or Z ?
It's spelled with an S, TASER...
...and (are you ready for this?) TASER is an acronym: It stands for "Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle".
"Thomas A. Swift" being a fictional character and "genius inventor" (maybe like MacGyver I think) in a series of adventure stories published mostly for boys.
The books, and the "Tom Swift" character, were a favorite of Jack Cover, who invented this "electroshock weapon" in 1969.
(The Internet Wire has a million and one uses: You can topple a crooked Republican Congressional majority, and research useless trivia too, all without ever getting out of your pajamas... Praise!)
Holy Crap! Are you kidding me? I read that book when I was a little kid. It was a musty, dogeared old thing and I totally ate it up. I remembered the contents of it later and it kind of freaked me out. It's this really Freudian fantasy about having an Electric Rifle that just sweeps death in front of the kid. He goes to Africa and mows down herds of elephants. And there are scenes where he mows down people too. Little black people I remember being referred to as Pygmies and he just slaughters em. Nasty freaky little book. This is a kid's memory of it. No kidding I read this about 33 years ago when I was just old enough to read a whole book by myself. (No I'm not in my 50's now youse jokerz) I was too young to get the racist/creepiness of it. I think it was on my grandpa's shelf.
Really, the little "genius inventor" used his "electric rifle" to slaughter elephants and Pygmies?
And so I guess Jack Cover, who invented the "electroshock weapon" we're speaking of, was impressed enough and maybe even inspired, by the slaughter of those elephants and Pygmies, to work little Tom Swift into the name TASER.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Swift
That'll catch you up on the Tom Swift series of books.
You'll also see a link on that page, to a wiki page about the TASER.
It appears the episode you read was #10 in the original series, titled "Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle; or, Daring Adventures on Elephant Island"
"Daring adventures on Elephant Island"?
Sounds funny.
Jack Cover as a little boy, after finishing that book, and with visions still in his head, of the strewn about bodies of electrocuted elephants and Pygmies:
"Someday when I get bigger, I'm going to invent me one of those Electric Rifles for real!"
"And when I do, I'm going to name it after Tom Swift...
...and boy oh boy, we'll just see how them elephants and Pygmies (The ENEMY) do, when I ZAP 'EM with about two hundred thousand volts!"
Literature is great... kids are never to young, for good books and the inspiring adventures they contain!
Oh yeah, I remember the title well. I was a crappy student in school but I started reading on my own really young. So reading this old book off the shelf really impressed myself. It has always been one of those distinct things I remember from childhood. I actually mentioned it to my wife not too long ago when we were talking about racist stuff we'd been exposed to as kids. The elephants didn't fare too well either. Sure, there were grown men shooting lots of elephants and black people but young Tom Swift was just mowing them down. There ya go, just a charming bit of the Story of the Taser. Wonder if I'm remembering it wrong? Could it really have been that hideous? I may need therapy.
The guy clearly ended up breaking the law. But the tasering was clearly not necesary.
The guy said at one point why don't you just let me leave. Why didn't they just put him out? Now don’t get me wrong I have great respect for officers it is an extremely dangerous job and I thank God that they are in-between me and the bad guys, BUT sometimes there are officers that abuse their authority and they aren't perfect. It's been a long time but I experience an incident where some friends and I were verbally assaulted by policemen when I was 13 years old. I've told this story here before. The first time I was ever called the n-word was by White male police officers. They called us that among a lot of other ugly things including the B-word as they shooed us away. I was absolutely shocked because before that incident I thought all policemen were like officer friendly; you know that program where police go out to the schools as a part of their PR community outreach programs. Of course the precincts phones must have rung off the hooks that day with parents calling in complaints about how these officers talked to their very young teen-age children. Thank God they didn’t have tazers back then.
Lynn, there's no doubt that every police force in the country should be totally ruthless when it comes to getting rid of cops who abuse citizens. It's a natural danger of handing someone a badge and a weapon that their own personal demons will come out. Power effects people. This is a very well known phenomenon but we don't seem ready to accept how widespread it is when it comes to the police. They've got a really tough job in a lot of ways and I think dealing with the authority they've been handed is probably one of the toughest and unfortunately most poorly addressed. I've known some cops personally and I've known a couple of really good ones. Those people are serious assets to society and should be treasured. But then it seems like we're supposed to pretend that they're all achieving that level of competance.
It's simply not the case as you've unfortunately experienced. I've had several dealings with cops where they probably should have gone to jail for treating citizens (sometimes me) as poorly as they did. The cop you were talking about never should have walked another beat. When they use their power to abuse people because they clearly enjoy it, I feel like they're betraying a trust way beyond the trust we put in an average citizen not to rob a bank. It always seems like a deeply serious crime to me. The risks inherrent in their job complicate the issue of course, but it's certainly a real problem.
The questioner was a little nutty, disrespected the forum by not leaving when his time was up, Kerry handled it well, the police office may have overreacted and Savage offends all, typically.
Savage is a psychopath. He needs to be placed in asylum ASAP.
He's one of the sharpest hosts I've ever stumbled across. Because you disagree with him about this or that doesn't make him asylum material. The First Amendment doesn't allow only accurate free speech.
No his psychosis make him asylum material. His LYING and hatespewing make him a worthless human being. Vermin is too kind a word to describe him
What they should have done is let the idiot keep talking until everyone laughed him off the podium. Haven't we all seen this kind of idiot at every Q&A, no matter what the subject?
When they decided to cut his mic and forcibly remove him, they made a mistake, IMO. But so be it, it was their choice. When the guy didn't go willingly, HE made a mistake, IMO. There was no need to use the taser, from what I could see, but I don't have a problem with them forcibly removing him, when it was clear the ones responsible for the event wanted him out and he refused to leave.
A very reasonable take on the incident, well done.
I agree...Fawlty and Dem did a nice job of summarizing.
Somebody needs to tell the Silly Savage that it is against the law to use the American flag in an advertisement - as well as obviously being in very poor taste...
I believe that only applies in the District of Columbia.
l[link to www4.law.cornell.edu] />
I agree though that it's often used in bad taste.
I love to see the reactions of those who get tazed ......that was funnier than hail. Who cares what Kerry or the punk think. Savage? Its a show! I never listen to but that is all it is. As soon as Savage starts making policy I will start listening.
"I love to see the reactions of those who get tazed ......that was funnier than hail."-- Tweekthetroll
Wonderful. I thought you were a Republican.
Nope ......a "con" not a "can" not a "ex" or a "current" either. Reg. Inde.
Independent? Okay, whatever. It's clear you have a lot of growing up to do.
I'm as big as I am going to get......sorry.
We know. We're sorry for you too.
I wish Savage really would run for president. He used to hang out with Ginsberg and a lot of other gay communist types when he was Mike Weiner the botanist who shared their interest in psychedelics. Like most of those who seem overly outraged by homosexuality, he probably has some butt-thumping incidents in his past that he hopes never come out. If he runs for president you can bet they would. How gay do you have to be to rename yourself "Savage?"
He probably adopted 'Savage' to fit his 'Savage Nation' dual meaning theme. The second being a small 's' 'savage nation'.
I don't know, a lot of people here seem much more gay obsessed than Savage.
Savage is lower than human waste, the sun will shine a little brighter the day his name hits the obituary
That said the kid had the taser coming...watch the video again, at any point he could have surrendered willingly. He resisted arrest, bad stuff happens when you do that and you don't need to be a college student to know it. I oppose police brutality but must pass on this...much the way I wish Sharpton and Jackson would pass on the Vicks and Simpsons of the world.
Yeah, where are Al and Jesse on this anyway? Isn't this the type of case they fly in and get right in the middle of, holding a news conference and inserting themselves into the mix here......oh wait........we know why they're not here.
There you go again obessing over the Reverands Sharpton and Jackson again.
Did I bring them up? Obsessing? Really, when was the last time I mentioned their name Lynn?
Are you overprotective where they are concerned or what? Lighen up, it was a little joke.
I gotta say Tommy, I missed the humor part of your "joke."
What was the joke part? Was it the thinly disguised implication that Jackson and Sharpton aren't weighing in on this because the student isn't an AfricanAmerican?
Is that the funny part?
Just asking.
I brought them up and you got my point, gotta defend you there though we speak on opposite shores most the time
was meant to defend Tommy post button is nuts
Eden you're a new poster here. Tommy and I have history and that explains my Jackson and Sharpton quip. Tommy and I have a very unique cyberspace love hate relationship, but anyway IMO my Tomiester never fails to get a dig in at Sharpton and Jackson at any turn; you just turned on that Jackson-Sharpton hate button. I always tease him about them being his arch nemisis, sort of like the Joker and the Riddler are for Batman. He denies it of course, but all the regulars here know it.
I have to agree with Lynn, Tommy, that was a bit cheap. I'm no fan of Jackson and Sharpton (though I do enjoy hearing the latter speak, especially when he debates Sean Hannity) but Jackson and Sharpton are Civil Rights activists who advocate and defend disenfranchised black folks. Granted, both are media whor....hmm, I'm not going to go there, I feel a bit ashamed calling Reverends that word. Both are image-mongering celebrities who reduce black politics into nothing more than a freakshow, but that's a little cheap to drag them into this situation, especially when neither of them have came out to defend Vick or even Simpson with his recent arrest.
I dragged them in, Not Tommy and it was to make the point that defending ANYONE cheapens the movement.
Police brutality is beyong the pale but this kids lesson in going along peacefully doesn't rise to the occasion much like OJ Simpson and Mike Vick do not merit the Rev's attention
I dragged them in, Not Tommy and it was to make the point that defending ANYONE cheapens the movement.
Now that's a bit silly, not to mention extremely vague. So under no circumstances should activists defend those who deserve a fair shake in system that is sometimes rigged? Boy, I'm happy that those "pesky" Civil Rights activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and others didn't believe in such grand "philosophy." America would be such a better place now had they just stayed in their churches and mind their damn business!
Police brutality is beyong the pale but this kids lesson in going along peacefully doesn't rise to the occasion much like OJ Simpson and Mike Vick do not merit the Rev's attention
First of all, this story about the kid getting teser has been covered around the clock on all major networks, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc., so that doesn't fly at all. Second, are you saying that it's all Al and Jesse's fault for the media spending hours upon hours covering OJ Simpson and Michael Vick? Please. The media would have spent hours on both stories without Al or Jesse involved, which they have since I don't remember seeing either Al or Jesse coming to Vick's and Simpson's defense, suggesting that they're not getting a fair shake. Again, I'm no fan of Al and Jesse, but I think it was a bit cheap to even drag them into this situation. That's like asking why aren't GLADD or ADL coming to this kid’s defense, if assuming the kid is neither gay nor Jewish.
gotta say your limit on discourse is truly amazing...the point was pretty basic too, sorry you didn't get it.
Let me dumb it down, had that kid done nothing but ask a long question and gotten tased for that I would be first in line to defend the kid, he didn't, he fought off cops and resisted arrest
Unfortunately some civil rights people defend everyone regardless of what got them in trouble in the first place...a black woman claimed she was raped by white Duke lacrosse players, Jesse jumped to her defense, it turns out she was lying...THAT cheapens the movement
If you are done misrepresenting my point, and putting words in my mouth we can chat, but my point was simple really...defending a kid resisting arrest to score points on police brutality isn't winning hearts and minds, it's putting the cart before the horse
gotta say your limit on discourse is truly amazing...the point was pretty basic too, sorry you didn't get it.
Ah, yes, condescension. I knew that would follow soon when someone points out how you make vague statements, and when someone call you out on it to be clear, you retort the usual "gawd, you lack reading comprehension skills" defense. Perhaps the way you "simplify" things that are complex is your problem, not mine.
Let me dumb it down...
Weren't you already doing that prior to this post? If not, my bad.
...had that kid done nothing but ask a long question and gotten tased for that I would be first in line to defend the kid, he didn't, he fought off cops and resisted arrest
That is your interpretation of the video. I saw a kid, who while obstreperous and unruly, pleaded with the damn cop to not tase him and the cop, being trigger-happy, did it anyway. You mean to tell me that six cops couldn't drag a scrawny college student out of a building without tasing him? I don't buy that. I've seen cops handle crackheads and drug dealers with more restraint than this, so there's no excuse to go overboard with the taser.
Unfortunately some civil rights people defend everyone regardless of what got them in trouble in the first place...a black woman claimed she was raped by white Duke lacrosse players, Jesse jumped to her defense, it turns out she was lying...THAT cheapens the movement.
And I agree with you, and that's my main problem with Al and Jesse, they turned the protest movement into a glitzy, annoying, freakshow, where whenever someone see the two, rather than taking the event seriously, they roll their eyes and disregard the particular case, regardless of how serious it is. The fact that Jesse still hasn't apologized for jumping-the-gun on the Duke case taints his credibility even further.
...defending a kid resisting arrest to score points on police brutality isn't winning hearts and minds, it's putting the cart before the horse.
I'm not sure that's why people are defending this kid. From most of what I read on this thread and other sites, many felt the cop went to the extreme with the teser, regardless of the fact how unruly the boy was being. Again, SIX COPS couldn't handle and drag a scrawny college student without tesering him? Sorry, but any rational person can see that was overboard.
after putting words in my mouth, insulting my simple post and assigning back handed racist sentiment my way you got some GRAPES whining about condensation
the best part of your post was where you admitted understanding my point, I guess you just felt like attacking so you could gripe when you got slapped back
grow up
Let me dumb it down Eden
Really smart way to have a conversation!
I agree, whatever he could have possibly said after that was negated by the one uncalled for and disrepectful statement.
To me this is a very simple question. The police have every right to arrest someone and charge them with a crime. They have NO RIGHT to mete out punishment PERIOD. They are not judges nor juries. So Did they taser him in the process of subduing him for arrest or, as has been stated was he already handcuffed and helpless then got tasered for EFFECT? IF he was already in handcuffs and helpless and THEN tasered the cops were way out of line. IF they HAD to taser him to subdue him, that is the way that goes.
So the next time our military has to use force or taser a terrorist in order to subdue him, you're not going to call it "torture?"
Your post was a non sequitur. However NO if the military has to use a taser or shoot to death someone comitting terrorism I would not call it torture. Also I never have before. I also have never heard of any such incident. So if Bush nuked New York City would YOU call him a murderer? I mean as long as we are going with non sequitarial hypotheticals...
Yeah, where are Al and Jesse on this anyway? Isn't this the type of case they fly in and get right in the middle of, holding a news conference and inserting themselves into the mix here......oh wait........we know why they're not here. Tommy
Tommy, I feel like a Ronald Regan moment “There you go again” eweh….. FYI Rev. Sharpton is in the process of staging a march in Jena, LA, along with Martin Luther King Jr. and others. You see there was a school fight involving black kids sitting under a tree that white kids believed was “theirs” and the next day those black kids found 3 nooses hanging from the tree. Well those black kids didn’t find “white humor” and a fight took place. White kids, suspended, one of the black kids charged as an adult with possible sentence of 15 years I think. So whatever you may feel or think about Rev. Sharpton I believe there are those who greatly appreciate the fact that he shows up, draws attention and puts the spot light on what would have normally been sweep under the rug.
6 black kids beat 1 white kid...imagine if you were beaten by six other people regardless of color, Jesse cheapens the movement by defending thugs like the jena 6 and Michael Vick
So the Jena 6 black kids were "thugs" while the white kids aren't? Oh, thanks for that clarification. *rolls eyes*
way to put words in my mouth...I never justified the hanging of nooses, don't try that with me
tell me P what do you call six kids bashing your kid...angels
a little disingenous methinks
six kids on your one
way to put words in my mouth...I never justified the hanging of nooses, don't try that with me
No, you didn't justify it, but you left that part out and made it seem that Jesse and Al were defending these black kids because of their blackness and nothing else, especially when you drag Michael Vick into the same sentence. I don't think there's any innocent people involved in this case, both sides were at fault; however, the sentencing of the one black kid was extreme compared to what the white kids got in comparison
tell me P what do you call six kids bashing your kid...angels
I never suggested they were angels, I just think the way you selectively labeled the ones Al and Jesse are defending "thugs," while neglecting to mention the white kids involved, who should equally fall under your "thug" definition, was pretty slick, and yes, disingenuous.
six kids on your one
I don't condone what happened, but the reason why Jesse and Al are even stepping into this in the first place because of the unfair sentencing, so in that respect the one black kid who was sentenced as an adult WAS a victim of an unjust, unfair system. And due to the history of blacks in this country—especially in the South—where this same system subjugated an entire race to third-class citizenship for decades and decades, it's not surprising that two civil rights activists would step into this situation to overturn such a ruling on a teenager. To ignore why Al and Jesse are stepping into this situation is to bowdlerize history all together to suit one’s own purpose.
No, you didn't justify it, but you left that part out and made it seem that Jesse and Al were defending these black kids because of their blackness and nothing else, especially when you drag Michael Vick into the same sentence.
Lying strippers, ex football playing murderers, current football playing dog killer and six kids lucky they didn't kill one kid...yeah, Jesse and Al are hanging with some saints. PS I left lots of stuff out and you assigned it meaning so yes, you are putting words in my mouth. Also, that they were all black is the only thing holding that list together so either Jesse defended them because they were black or because they committed crimes...you pick
I don't think there's any innocent people involved in this case, both sides were at fault; however, the sentencing of the one black kid was extreme compared to what the white kids got in comparison
I agree the sentencing was wrong but the possiblity of six kids pummeling one and accidentally killing him cannot be understated as you have done
I never suggested they were angels, I just think the way you selectively labeled the ones Al and Jesse are defending "thugs," while neglecting to mention the white kids involved, who should equally fall under your "thug" definition, was pretty slick, and yes, disingenuous.
Nice try again, hanging nooses is horrible, racist and wrong and everyone who reads this string can see I didn't justify it though you want to act as I did to score cheap points...again what do you call killers, beaters, rapists if not thugs...also why did you associate thugs with blacks, because that is racist...whites can be thugs as well
I don't condone what happened
yet you suggest years of historical injustice and the hanging of racist imagery must be considered? sucks when people twist your words doesn't it...it wasn't deserved and you should be better than that
ex football playing murderers Eden
Now how did I know you were going to bring that up.
Lying strippers, ex football playing murderers, current football playing dog killer and six kids lucky they didn't kill one kid...yeah, Jesse and Al are hanging with some saints. PS I left lots of stuff out and you assigned it meaning so yes, you are putting words in my mouth. Also, that they were all black is the only thing holding that list together so either Jesse defended them because they were black or because they committed crimes...you pick
First, Al nor Jesse came out in defense of Vick nor Simpson recently, as far as I know. So I think you don't have your facts straight with that. Second, the kid who was jumped was released from the hospital the same day to attend a party. Yes, the six in question were wrong when they jumped the white kid, but you're leaving out prior things that happened before that incident, notably one of the black kids hit over the head with a bottle by one of the white kids who hung the noose on the tree. An NPR article covered this step by step, I suggest you read it.
I agree the sentencing was wrong but the possiblity of six kids pummeling one and accidentally killing him cannot be understated as you have done
But you continue to ignore the fact that while the injuries were bad, it wasn't bad enough to prevent the boy from leaving the hopsital and attending a party the same day! I'm not downplaying the kid being jumped, but you're ignoring critical key issues just to support your case.
Nice try again, hanging nooses is horrible, racist and wrong and everyone who reads this string can see I didn't justify it though you want to act as I did to score cheap points...again what do you call killers, beaters, rapists if not thugs...also why did you associate thugs with blacks, because that is racist...whites can be thugs as well
I never accused you of justifying it, I just think most of your posts are filled glittering generalities, which are high-sounding but are general and vague to influence positively the feelings of the audience toward a subject. You also use a lot of card-stacking, where you choose specific, favorable points that support a cause and ignoring the unfavorable points.
yet you suggest years of historical injustice and the hanging of racist imagery must be considered? sucks when people twist your words doesn't it...it wasn't deserved and you should be better than that
Hell yeah years of historical injustice should be considered when they're implying the same rules that are not that different from Jim Crow South! Now, listen, I really don't like to be snarky and pick on people because of how they delivery information, but the way you flippantly dismissed those six black students as "thugs," as if whatever happened to them they brought on themselves, was pretty cold-hearted, and it's something I would expect from closed-minded conservatives, not liberals. I’m sure you’re a cool guy and all, and if I offended you by being a bit of a dick, I’m sorry, but I just think this case is too complex and serious just to simplify it as six thugs beat up white boy while Jesse and Al run to their defense, regardless of them being guilty.
Yeah I vote GOP every year buddy, gimme a f'n break. Now I'm conservative, that's news to me. I N T E G R I T Y (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity) if you need look it up.
"And I agree with you, and that's my main problem with Al and Jesse, they turned the protest movement into a glitzy, annoying, freakshow, where whenever someone see the two, rather than taking the event seriously, they roll their eyes and disregard the particular case, regardless of how serious it is. The fact that Jesse still hasn't apologized for jumping-the-gun on the Duke case taints his credibility even further. "
This differs from my point how?
The stupid college kid resisted arrest, pushed cops, raised ruckus, did not surrender and got tased does not rise to Victoria Snelgrove status, ok?
Jumping to their defense lacks integrity in a way comparable to the "freakshow" the Revs have turned civil rights cases into by supporting lying strippers, declaring “We will not rest” until all charges are dropped against the Jena Six, Jackson said. AP Really, not even a slap on the wrist for jostling the fair hair of yon white boy, nothing? OJ Vick Michael Jackson....come on.
The Jenna incident reminds me of the looters vs. finding food photos from Katrina, although a more extreme example of how the same behavior is disparately treated and assumptions about the Blacks are always headed to the most negative; and amazingly as soon as any Black person or any person for that matter acknowledges it we’re jumped on as race obsessed. Like you Preston I am reality based and will not join the people that want to defend this obvious double standard and pretend that it doesn’t exist.
Eden, it was a school fight!
How many school kids get charged as an ADULT in a school fight to 15 YEARS in ADULT prison? Should this one kid have spent the last 10 months in adult prison for a school fight?
again it was six on one...you left that part out in your previous post...again, imagine six sets of arms and legs beating you, hitting you
not angels
school fight nothing
I went to school and when six kids ganged up on one it wasn't for a fair display of fisticuffs...I agree the sentencing was unbalanced but can Jesse and Al please take up one of the millions of civil rights cases that do not involve defending the rights of people doing wrong
Why not this case? What case would you like for Rev. Sharpton is “take on”? The fact that you agree the sentencing was unbalanced is very generous of you but I think the fact that there is a prosecutor in Louisiana 2007 who feels it’s perfectly OK to sentence a kid to 15 years in adult prison for a school fight is more than “unbalanced”. If this justice system is the best that we got we need to make damn sure that it works and 15 years in adult prison is not working. What started this was the fact that “black kids” asking the principal to sit under a tree that white student usually sit under. What was the white student response, to hang 3 nooses. Now I ask you what were the nooses for? To remind those black student that they could make a swing from them? No, they were there to remind those black student of “their” place. Imagine white student in 2007 reminding “black students” of “their place”. What did those “white student” get for their punishment? The principal recommended expulsion but the school board recommended 3 day “IN school” saying they were playing a prank, they didn’t mean to hurt anyone. Since when did hanging a noose become a prank? When the black student held a peaceful protest under the tree, guess what, the cops were called. When the black students ask to address the school board they were denied cause the “noose incident” was resolved.
The story is long and detailed and before you pass judgement on the youths involved, whether the case is “worthy” enough in your opinion for spotlight I suggest you read the full story.
If you have already read the story and this is your opinion don’t bother replying, we don’t have anything further to discuss.
The point of outrage pertaining to the Jena 6 situation has to do with the unbalanced treatment of the black youths when compared to the white youths. After the noose incident a young black man was beat up by the white youths who were related to the hanging of the nooses, and the young black man was also threatened with a weapon on a separate occasion. What did the cops do about it? Nothing. The only person who was charged was an adult white male who participated in the violence against the young black man, and he was only charged with assault, whereas all the black students were charged with attempted murder. One of the black students allegedly had nothing to do with the fight but was charged anyway despite insufficient evidence, and another of the black students was charged and convicted as an adult even though Louisiana state law requires a minor to be 17 to be charged as an adult. He was only 16 at the time of the assault and eventually he won an appeal on that point. The district attorney told the young black men he could wipe out their lives with the stroke of a pen, and that is exactly what he is attempting to do. These are young men who behaved very badly in the face of others bad behavior, but do they deserve to have their lives irreparably damaged, especially when all the while the white students remain unscathed? I don't condone violence, but I do think that the young men should all be treated the same regardless of race. These young men aren't being defended simply because they are black, they are being defended because they are being treated differently from the white kids who not only behaved the same way, but provoked the whole situation in the first place. Hopefully now you will understand why so many are rushing to defend these boys, not because they are black but because of the way they have been treated for being black.
We all know what Savage is. Conservative misinformation? Not only is this not misinformation, it's not even newsworthy. Savage is a dope and should be taken about as seriously as Michael Moore.
I agree that Savage and Moore should both be taken seriously. Both are trying to do good in their own ways.
So, LOLO, in your value system "Michael Savage should be taken about as seriously as Michael Moore"?
Thanks. That tells me just about exactly how seriously your opinions should be taken.
Another open-minded liberal...
If you have evidence that the Secret Service screened the ideology of those wanting to attend a Clinton appearance in your town, cough it up.
King....that was not my point. It was this.......
Can you imagine how many employees it takes to assist the Pres. and create security for all events 2 weeks in advance?
Ok, off topic, my bad.
Oh, OK, sorry then. I agree with your post.
Regardless of who is in office it's a logistical nightmare to prepare for a visit.
The bigger story---1+1/2 months since a Savage story here.
This kid must have been an only child raised by liberal parents.
And YOU must be a moron raised by wolves
To all those who are here saying "the kid brought it on himself" because he "resisted" the cops, sorry to say resisting doesn't begin and end with the cops simply rounding someone up. In all the jurisdictions I've had the necessity to read (and I'll admit here that Florida isn't one of those) "resisting" means resisting a law enforcement officer while said officer is "lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties," as it says here in Indiana. The question then is whether the cops here were engaged in something lawful when they made to remove the kid from the auditorium. I submit the First Amendment says, quite resoundingly and emphatically, "NO!"
And not just the part about "abridging the freedom of speech" but also about "petition[ing] the Government for redress of grievances." As a U.S. senator, Kerry is considered "the Government" for purposes of this little exercise in bully-boy police state tactics.
This is the vantage point of the taser incident at the Kerry speech that no one wants you to see. To check it out click here.
This is a clear example of Savage deciding to take a position opposite that of his fellow conservative talk show hosts. It's his way of verbally tasering them for their knee-jerk reaction to this incident. In the process he stirs the pot and, makes an arse of himself. The guy deserved to get thrown out of this event, and if the cops had to taser him, it shows just how stupid he was behaving.
Savage was right about one thing, though. It showed just what a stiff John Kerry is with regards to how he handled this incident, and his silly written summary after the event was over. He is an ineffectual dufus.
I was listening to some news this morning on the drive into work, and word on the street is that this guy who got shocked in the video, and was hauled off by the police is now saying that he provoked the response that he got, and that he doesn't blame the cops for reacting as they did, and that he played it up because he knew that there were cameras rolling, and that once he got outside of the room/auditorium that they were in, he stopped resisting, and went along with the cops peacefully.
So, it does seem as though he was trying to provoke a response, he got one, and then hammed it up even further making it seem worse than it really was. This is just what I heard though. Not sure of the validity of the report yet.
Global warming is accelerating, thanks to the hot gas emitted by this looney, pathetic excuse for a radio host. He makes Hannity and Limbaugh seem like Rhodes scholars! Oh, I forgot, Mr Savage (nee Weiner) boasts of having a PhD! In flower arranging, I believe.
Is it any wonder that political discourse has sunk to an all-time low in the US? It will remain so as long as Dr Weiner (or Weenie) is able to pull in an audience of such losers. He and his listeners are about as welcome as used toilet tissue!
--Thomas Chacko
That's pretty funny.
Weiner! He's the king of sling on The Michael Sewage Dump
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/9250/weinerkingye2.jpg
He's the King, alright.
You want fries with that?
Of all the people to be upset with the plight of this kid the Weiner is the biggest offender. Weiner "verbally tases" callers who disagree with him ALL THE TIME. No caller gets on and stays on who does not stick their tongues up his dirty anus and wiggles it around.
His calls are HEAVILY screened and it's obvious. Of course, Weiner knows no shame and thinks he's fooling everyone.
"Get off my show!" Zap!
"You're a moron!" Zap!
"Go back to your Mosque and plan aother bombing!" Zap!
There is no discourse between Weiner and callers.
Just for giggles, listen how fast Weiner's abrasive attitude gets ready to spring from the starting blocks of a "challenging caller".
Weiner. What a dick.