O'Reilly: Tasered UF student "biggest wimp in the United States of America"
During the September 18 edition of his Fox News television show, while discussing the recent incident involving University of Florida student Andrew Meyer, who was shocked with a Taser after a confrontation with police that began while he was asking questions of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) during a September 17 campus forum, Bill O'Reilly asserted: "I've been tasered for a story, and all I can say is: He is the biggest wimp in the United States of America." O'Reilly added: "And I don't say that with any kind of bravado, but the overreaction to being tasered -- it's not -- it's an electrical shock is what it is." Also, only moments after showing a video clip of Meyer being shocked, during which the he cried out, "Don't tase me, bro. Don't tase me," O'Reilly stated: "It's not pleasant, but that idiot, he wanted this to happen. He wanted the cops to do it."
Citing an increase in the number of reported deaths associated with Tasers, the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has launched several studies into the effects of the stun guns, and the Justice Department initiated a "multi-agency technical evaluation of taser technology."
From the September 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Impact" segment tonight: Tasering freedom of speech. Twenty-one-year-old University of Florida student Andrew Meyer interrupted a forum for John Kerry yesterday by refusing to stop talking.
[begin video clip]
MEYER: I'm not even done yet, I have two more questions. If you were so against Iraq, then how come you're not saying let's impeach Bush now -- impeach Bush now before he can invade Iraq? Why don't we impeach him? Impeach Bush -- Clinton was impeached for what? A blow job? Why don't we impeach Bush? All right?
Also, are you a member -- are you a member of Skull & Bones in college with Bush? Are you in the same secret society?
KERRY: That's all right. Let me answer his question.
MEYER: Excuse me? Excuse me? What are you arresting me for?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: All right, now, he was arrested -- and when Meyer resisted, this is what happened.
[begin video clip]
MEYER: Help me! Help, they're arresting me!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: Stop -- do you want to be tased? Stop resisting.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE POLICE OFFICER: You'll be tased if you do not --
MEYER: If you let me go, I'll walk out of here. Just let me go.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: Quiet down and --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE POLICE OFFICER: Roll on your stomach --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: Do it now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE POLICE OFFICER: Put your hands behind your head.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: Do it now!
[...]
MEYER: Get the fuck off of me, man! I didn't do anything. Don't tase me, bro. Don't tase me.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: Stop --
MEYER: I didn't do anything. Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: Do not --
MEYER: Ow! Let me go!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE POLICE OFFICER: Get up!
MEYER: Let me go!
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: What are you doing?
MEYER: Let me go! Ow!
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Why are you doing that?
MEYER: Oh, my God!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: Back up!
MEYER: What did I --
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Why are you doing it?
MEYER: What did I do?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Police brutality!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE POLICE OFFICER: Stay back!
MEYER: What did I do?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE POLICE OFFICER: Stay back!
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: Now, I've been tasered for a story, and all I can say is: He is the biggest wimp in the United States of America.
With us now, attorneys Jeanine Pirro and Lis Wiehl -- both are Fox News analysts. And I don't say that with any kind of bravado, but the overreaction to being tasered -- it's not -- it's an electrical shock is what it is.
WIEHL: Right. Right.
O'REILLY: It's not pleasant, but that idiot, he wanted this to happen. He wanted the cops to do it; he wanted to disrupt the forum; and to me, I think he should be prosecuted.
I am sure the impression here is that O'Reilly, the "biggest whiner in the United States of America" is calling the tasered student the "biggest wimp" is deliciously rich. If that is the impression, it's pretty darn rich.
It was O'Reilly who called on FOX security when the guy mentioned the name " Keith Olberman " on his show. Who is the real whiner here ??
O'Reilly is a big fat F-ing LIAR!
If he Had been tasered, he'd put the footage on his show to prove what a man he was about it. Either that, or, he was tasered, and whined like a sissy.
Either way, we know he's a whiner, and a liar.
Biggest wimp? O'Reilly's 6'-4". Wimps don't get much bigger than that.
RICK:
To see O'Reilly's shocking footage, you have to rent "Strange Brew". That's O'Reilly (prior to radio fame) playing with the defib paddles ...
O'Reilly's been tased? Or is that dazed?
Must have been when he was in combat.
Not combat, bro. He hooks it up to his nads (after hours of searching) and then hits the button for gratification.
And then calls up the ladies to tell them about it...and eat falafel.
Maybe he was tased in the same way he won a Peabody Award, in his own deluded mind.
Whooooooooooooooooo CARES
I agree. I was fully expecting O'Reilly to rant baselessly about Kerry's "security guard goons and their NAZI tactics" or something similar. Perhaps years of reading his more wacko comments from O'Reilly and his ilk have finally inocculated me from this kind of lamer stuff.
In the interest of journalistic integrity, I'm calling on Bill O'Reilly to agree to be tasered on live TV. We'll see who the wimp is......
GREAT IDEA !!!
If it's not all that bad, then why do the police use it? If a putz like O'Reilly can just shrug it off, what about some drunk Bubba on a rampage? Could it be that O'Reilly is full of crap here, as usual?
I'm sure that the only time Billo hasn't been "full of crap" was that moment after he was tazed!
(Pssst....Uh, Bill? That wasn't a taser. You were undergoing "therapy"....)
1000 volts?
Now that was funny Neon, good one.
(Pssst....Uh, Bill? That wasn't a taser. You were undergoing "therapy"....)
It didn't work very well, did it?
Didn't bill also demonstrate the truth machine on the pink panther? ;)
You mean it didn't involve falafels or show bars in Bangkok?
let's be honest....he is a wimp! the guy was acting and just wanted to disrupt....hate to admit o'reilly's right.
O'Reilly's wrong, and so are you. In fact, I can think of at least 2 things you're wrong about: 1) Agreeing with the liar O'Reilly, and 2) Admitting it. Both actions are foolish.
Pretty clumsy article.
Is mmfa opposed to the use of tasers?
Is mmfa suggesting that this student was wrongly tasered?
Or is mmfa simply tossing red meat into their cage of O'Reilly haters?
I don't know about the first two questions...but the last one is a fact.
I don't think MMFA is opposed to the use of tasers. Where did you pick that up?
I do think it's pretty clear that the tasering was an unnecessary use of force. I wasn't there, I just saw the video.
The reason this was posted is because O'Reilly is calling somebody 'the biggest wimp in America'.
Hang on one sec, phone call...
Hello? The kettle's not here, can I take a message? What's that? You're black!
Welcome aboard...new cliche slingers are always a treat.
Original twist on an old cliche'--I like it!
Sorry to disagree here, but most police forces(this also includes university police) have a policy of using a taser when a suspect resists restraint. A restraint would be handcuffs or some other device that by normal strength cannot be over come. The student was pinned down but he wasn't in handcuffs and he was still resisting arrest at that moment. He basically got what was comming to him by not listening to the police. Is the guy a wimp? No, I highly doubt even a sex fiend lout like O'Rielly could move during a taser shock.
Wesley, hate's too strong an emotion to waste on someone like O'Reilly.
It is like throwing red meat, but only because Bill's such an easy target.
Anyone who puffs himself up as much as he does deserves a prick now and then.
But then, it might be fun to watch as he explodes from all of the puffing rather than us pricks.
Very good King...that gave me a good laugh.
Puffed up...he certainly is.
So then after all this time you are STILL unclear about what this site does. MMFA is opposed to O'Reilly's BS. Got reading comprehension?
Uh oh...is somebody due for a haircut?
just go away troll...
Actually I am. Its been three years. The guy I used for my once a year trim to keep my very long hair looking nice left and I havent found anyone I trust. So few good sylists are good with long hair.
It all makes sense now.................Just a joke, my friend.
Yikes...I never realized how miserable life must be for all the unfortunate women in Arizona.
In the Scottsdale area you could try Rolf's...they offer men a cut with an "artistic director" which includes a hot-towel treatment. A full-on makeover costs $142, and that includes color, cut, brow design and a facial product.
Or if you're in the mood for a road trip...there's always a favorite of John Edwards...the Pink Sapphire.
- Vanity is the quicksand of reason - George Sand
I think what O'Reilly meant when he said he was 'tased' is that he forgot to unplug his electric falafel before getting in the bathtub. Zing!
Too bad o'reilly chose to show the video-tape, but leave out the part where the kid BREAKS AWAY from law enforcement officers who are trying to get him out of the auditorium.
If the kid wasn't a Disorderly Person up to that point, then he certainly was the moment he BROKE AWAY from law enforcement officers doing their job (and no, I don't think zapping the guy was necessary to their job).
And by the way, o'reilly begins his segment with the words "Free Speech" on the graphic that accompanies him.
Of all the many Freedoms we enjoy in America (Speech being one of them), nobody can claim a "freedom" to be a Disorderly Person, or a "freedom" to refuse to follow the instructions of a police officer performing their duties, or a "freedom" of resisting arrest:
There's no "Freedom" to do those things.
Arresting someone for asking too many questions during a political gathering is idiotic. Kerry could be heard telling the officials that he wanted to answer the questions. Heated debate is not disorderly conduct.
I don't think he was arrested for simplyh asking too many questions...he was disrupting the forum and refusing to follow the rules everyone else followed and when he refused repeated attempt to get him to stop secuirty rightfully removed him...when he resisted and struggled he was warned if he did not stop he would be tasered into submission. He chose to continue to struggle and fight with security and in order to subdue him he was tasered. We could have an argument as to the pros and cons of using tasers but to say that this was due to him simply asking too many questions is a bit disengenuous.
if you read kerry's statement from yesterday, he noted that meyer was "barging to the front of the line". i think this guy was determined to provoke something.
and it notes in this link that the sponsors of the lecture asked police to remove him for being disruptive.
http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/university-vows-probe-of-taser-incident/20070918063509990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Police have killed inocent people ...
And have tasered for no good reason. But one of the reasons the less lethal taser is used is to stop the practice of instant Judge, Jury and Executions in one fell swoop by a police officer on citzens. I has happened.
I watched the young man beginning to resist the officers. Then he escallated that to a physical and verbal confrontation with the police. So a real big policeman started helping to escort him out. Then the young man began to violently resist being escorted out.
Later, when he just wouldn't stop fighting, they tasered him as he continued yelling, screaming at fighting with them.
He seemed to be aware of the cameras and performing to them. That's just my take on it. Am I wrong?
I sure think it was mostly a show. He barged to the front of the line, which is why cops were standing next to him while he launched into his diatribe. He's like those co-workers you have at work who start to make a statement in a team meeting and everyone else at the table looks into their laps while he wastes their time with a one-off question.
Then, instead of recognizing the standard etiquette in question and answer segments like this, where you get to do a small amount of prefacing, and then you ask one, and only one, question, he rambled on, ignored the fact that Kerry told him he was already well acquainted with Greg Palast's book. (and of course John Kerry is very familiar with the argument that he should not have conceded so quickly - did this student think he had uncovered some magical new info that Kerry had never been exposed to?)
Then the cops tried to lead him away to tell him that he acted inappropriately. Every adult should know that you don't yank yourself away from a cop after they've put your hands on you, but he did that and much more.
It ashames me that so many people are ignorant of the facts and judge him the abused person here even though they're ignorant of the facts.
i think he definitely played to the cameras.
This feels very strange for me ...
But for the first time (Fanfare) I must reluctantly agree with Billy Boy.
This young man was clearly out to make a victims news story of himself. I saw the complete video coverage and I'm shocked (Not a Pun) that he didn't get tasered much sooner.
He refused to leave peacefully. He was fighting and getting very physical with the police and broke away from them once.
I wonder why he wanted to make a news story of himself? Maybe we'll find out later. I don't know what tasers feel like but this kid was screaming bloody murder and seemed to be doing it for effect. To make his story better.
Hi Lost,
I watched the video of the incident yesterday and clearly the guy was being disruptive, but generally in a forum like that hecklers are simply ejected from the event without arrest. There were 4-5 officers surrounding the guy and they had him within a few feet of the exit when he was tasered. The guy asked why are you arresting me? Why don't you just let me leave? The tasering was way over the top and totally uncalled for in my opinion. They should have escorted him to the door like it appeared they were in the process of doing. I believe the guy's continued yelling and scene making pissed them off and someone was a bit to quick to pull the taser gun. I believe tasers are a great tool for officers to use and much preferable to say pulling their gun in situations that aren’t so dangerous, but taserings carry health risks as well for some individuals and it seems to me the guy's behavior while completely obnoxious and boorish wasn't severe enough to warrant the taser.Hi Lynn, I think they did attempt to eject him but unfortunatley he chose to resist. At one point he even broke away. In these situations things can quickly escalate and it is the responsibility of police to bring it to an end as quickly as possible to avoid further escalation and greater risk. They attempted to get him to leave, they attempted to escort him out peacefully. He was warned to stop fighting or they would have to taser him. It was always in the control of the student to stop this and it was his actions and choices that led to the need for him to be subdued. Had he left peacfully this wouldn't be an issue. I believe the police were not only justified but I think they made the right choice to bring the escalation to a quick end. I think this student went beyond simple abnoxiousness with his actions...I think that may be where we differ and why we have reached such different conclusions about the actions of the police.
Well Lost we disagree on this one.
Lynn, great minds can't always think alike (-;
I've never heard of any crime about "asking questions".
Where are you getting that? Did you just make that up?
The facts are that the idiot was arrested on charges of resisting an officer and disturbing the peace.
Police recommended charges of resisting arrest with violence, a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor.
Maybe you simply relied on o'reilly's cleverly edited video of the incident (part of the above item), where he carefully showed the incident, but cut out where the idiot BROKE AWAY from campus cops trying to get him out of the auditorium.
And for anybody who's maybe interested: I've heard (but don't know) that what we don't see in the video is that the forum was coming to an end; and it was announced that those people who were standing in the two lines at the two micro-phones, wouldn't be getting a chance to ask the Senator a question; when the announcement was made, this idiot meyer then went into a bit of a frenzy, and pushed his way to the front of the line, and then jumped up and helped himself to the micro-phone.
This is consistent with Sen. Kerry's Press Release, where he says the idiot "barged" his way to the micro-phone.
It also explains why there were two campus cops already, standing behind the idiot, waiting for him to finish his rant so they could escort him out of the auditorium.
The idiot was acting agitated and unstable and "barged" (Kerry's word) to the micro-phone, and then starts speaking crazily about "skull and bones" and "blowjobs" to a U.S. Senator, and when the campus police try and get him out of the auditorium, he BREAKS AWAY from them...
Too bad you relied on o'reilly's edited version of the video-tape, where he cleverly omitted the guy BREAKING AWAY from law enforcement officers doing their job.
Anyway, the Secret Service would have done a better job, and got the "barging" Disorderly Person out of the range of the U.S. Senator PRONTO...
Like pick the idiot up by all fours and get him the heck away from the Senator.
Anyway, I don't know where you got that stuff about "asking questions": The idiot was charged with the crimes of being Disorderly and Resisting, like he should have been.
The video backs that up (unless it's o'reilly's cleverly edited version you've seen).
Yes, that is true. But I find it an interesting conundrum that resisting arrest is breaking the law, but there appears to be no concerns about the possibility of entrapment. What's to stop the police from setting up a situation just to make an arrest given the points you make?
Snoopy, I think it is simple you don't resist. This guy knew what he was doing. He was disrupting the procedings and thought he didn't have to follow the same rules everyone else participating in the event did. He was removed. Had he allowed security to escort him out of the event and not made the choice to struggle and fight back things would not have escalated. It wasn't as if this guy was removed without cause...he recieved several warnings and chose to ignore them all.
so do you think he would have been arrested had he not resisted?
Snoopy, I can't answer that. I am only able to speak to what did happen. I think the student was in the wrong and was given more then enough warnings but he chose to escalate the situation and he is responsible for his actions and the consequences. I don't think secuirty was wrong for how they chose to subdue him.
I do agree there was definitely a transition phase where he went overboard. I think he was being confrontational up front, even in the way he posed his questions to Kerry. Unfortunate, I would have liked to hear Kerry's answers cause I thought they were good questions. I just have this nasty habit of being suspicious of police intent up front, I guess it's because I want to make sure they are doing the right thing always. Hmmm, that statement all of a sudden makes me feel funny about my feelings about the government doing the same to me via eavesdropping.... Must... drink... beer...
He was resisting arrest in their opinion fine. I have no problem that they chose to subdue and arrest him IF the tasering happened because it was necessary in order to effect the arrest fine. I havent seen the video but I keep hearing they tasered him AFTER he was handcuffed, that is AFTER he was subdued, if THAT is true then it was NOT part of subduing or arresting him rather it was meting out punishment and if THAT is what it was then in my opinion it is completely unprofessional and unacceptable.
In other words...you don't know what happened...thanks for nothing.
Read worrierking's funny post about someone puffed up and full of himself.
I havent seen the vidoe I made that clear. It was only nothing to those of YOU with the reading comprehension of dustmites. It is the clear distinction between what is acceptable and what isnt. Not my fault you arent bright enough to GET that.
What if the idiot had just walked up the aisle with the two campus police officers who were trying to escort him out, what if that happened?
If that had happened, there'd be no crime whatsoever.
But while being escorted out of the auditorium by two campus police officers performing their duries, the idiot BREAKS AWAY from them...
...and then he initiates a rather quick sequence of events, where everything he does is wrong, especially the first thing of BREAKING AWAY from campus police doing their job.
The whole thing's on the idiot.
And it's got nothing to do with "asking questions", because again, he asked his questions and was being escorted out...
...and he could have just went up the aisle with the two cops, but he didn't.
(And please notice, that the cleverly edited o'reilly version of it, that accompanies this item, omits the idiot BREAKING AWAY from the cops. Why did bill and Fox edit that out? Because it was the first of several criminal things the idiot did, that's why.)
"But I find it an interesting conundrum that resisting arrest is breaking the law, but there appears to be no concerns about the possibility of entrapment. What's to stop the police from setting up a situation just to make an arrest given the points you make?
I posted this in the other thread, but I think it's worth repeating here, since you asked the question and others seem to have quite an authoritarian view about resisting arrest. I think a lot of people might be surprised about their right to resist.
"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."
Clams,
thanks for reposting that, I missed it the 1st time. Good job keeping this in the open!
I think a lot of people might be surprised about their right to resist.
Thanks for posting this from one of the surprised people. People from my generation would never think of resisting arrest, truly I had no idea.
here's a 2006 florida case where the defendant tried to claim he had the right to resist. the court didn't buy it.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:DhLOfZKddCkJ:www.4dca.org/Oct%25202006/10-18-06/4D05-3900.op%26diss..pdf+earnest+tillman+vs.+state+of+florida&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
And it looks like the jury made the right decision to me considering the potential danger that the guy's wife was in. I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. You obviously went fishing for a case where a defendant's claim to resisting an unlawful arrest was challenged and defeated in court, but that doesn't contradict anything I posted here or in the other thread.
the john bad elk case is from 1900. i couldn't even find a couple of those others. i doubt that you're going to find too cases that say someone can resist a police officer with violence. and the point in this case is that the sponsors asked for him to be removed. he had no legal right to be there.
You have the right to resist unlawful arrest. Period. A judge and jury may determine whether or not something qualifies as unlawful arrest should you claim that right, but the police are not the Gestapo. You do not have to do what they tell you to do in every single situation simply because they are the police.
I think too many people give up their rights too readily when it comes to the police.
Clams, I don't agree. I think we have enough problems out there without people encouraging others to resist arrest and fight back in the manner you speak of. I have always advised those I care about that it is best to be calm and respectful and if the police chose to arrest you we will deal with it at the station. I have seen good and bad police. I have advised the same method for both...in the case of the bad police I emphasize it even more as the appropriate way to handle the situation. I think you put everyone at risk when you suggest they fight back in this manner.
This goes hand -in-hand with illegal search and seizure of a vehicle. Should an officer of the law be able to search a vehicle without due cause? Should one allow an officer to search without that due cause. NO. Unless people start insisting on their civil rights, they will continue to disappear.
What law did this guy break, to get escorted out of the auditorium? Last i checked, being obnoxious was not against the law.He might have continued to be obnoxious if they had decided to conclude the "forum" but until he showed intent to do physical harm to anyone, they had not real cause to remove him with or without arrest.
This guy was in violation of several laws/codes/ordinances. His civil rights were not violated. Freedom of speech is not an unfettered right. We do not have the right to disrupt a privatley sponsered event. This guy was acting aggressive and out of control and refused to abide by the same rules everyone else in attendence abided by. You do not have a right to comendere the microphone and decide everyone has to listen to you at a private event. The sponsorers were well within their rights to insist a disruptive audience member be removed. If he wanted to speak uninterupted then he should have taken to the streets not attempt to interupt a sponsored function.
I completely understand that position. Personally, though, I refuse to give the police more rights than they are entitled to. And I place a higher value on my rights as an American citizen than I do on the concerns of the police. To use your example, if I don't <i>have</i> to go down to the station, then I'm definitely not going down to the station. Obviously most police officers know their rights and boundaries, however, many do not. I won't cater to them just to make things easier. If I surrender my rights to a cop who's acting unlawfully, then it's a slippery slope from there.
Clams. and what if the police officer was within his rights to arrest or detain you...even though in your mind you thought he wasn't. What are the consequences of your actions if you resist because you didn't think you were doing anything wrong but in actuality you were in violation of some law/code/ordinance. I don't think the time for either side to make those decisions is on the "street". If the officer is wrong deal with it within the system. If you resist and the officer is forced to subdue you and you are injured do you have anyone but yourself to blame in that situation.
I honestly cannot imagine a scenario where I would be unaware that I was committing a crime that would require a cop to detain or arrest me. And I'm not just talking about physical resistance. You also have the right to refuse to answer questions, for instance. I've refused to comply with unreasonable commands from police officers before, and I was well within my rights to do so. I've never been involved in a violent encounter with police and I've never been accused of a crime greater than speeding, but I've had a few encounters where police officers acted outside the law or stopped me without due cause, and I refused to cooperate.
Clams, perhaps you, unlike most americans, have a greater knowledge of laws/ordinances/codes. But going back to this case as an example of the norm, apparently this man thought the police had no right to remove him from the event when in fact they did have the right. And listening to much of the debate going on here and else where many others also were unaware that they had the right. I understand your position but I think it is dangerous and I would not advise anyone I cared for to conduct themselves this way. I have a friend whose daughter was harrassed by police and I think she handled it best. She complied with their requests, was respectful, and then she filed a complaint. We are a nation of laws and I think that should be the first route you take not violence and forceful resistance to protect your rights and person. Just my opinion though Clams...not saying I'm right just that this is the way I think it is best handled.
I'm not advising anyone to act in a violent or unlawful manner. All I'm saying is that everyone should know their rights, and they shouldn't be afraid to exercise them. If I allow a police officer to harass me because I'm afraid he'll hurt me, then I am giving that police officer way too much power over me, my rights and my well-being.
I think that the point of this article is that Bill says that the method used on the student from UF was not as dramatic as the student made it appear. He seems to say that he, Big macho Bill, was tasered and he was OK.
There have been many unexplained deaths due to taser use. I saw this story http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/224099_vmalaika13.html which I could not believe. This along with the student tasering makes me wonder if our police are power hungry or just plain lazy.
Pearl, I agree there is concern with the use of tasers but there is also concern with the use of physically attempting to subdue a person who is struggling and fighting back. I think the taser is used to put a quick end to the struggl escalating. The purpose is to prevent further harm coming to the officers or the guy fighting back by ending it as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Lost, I have both a brother and sister who are police officers. My brother has been shot twice. I understand the purpose of the taser I simply question when it's used. To subdue a out of control person, yes I could see using it. To force an 8 month pregnant woman who would not sign a ticket? To handcuff a student on the ground surrounded by 5 other officers?
Pealr, I agree with you there is definitly incidents were abuse occurs. I was speaking more to using it to subdue as was used in Meyer's case.
And that is the point. WAS it used to subdue? IF it was fine. IF it was used AFTER he was subdued THAT becomes a big problem
Hi Solon, yes in my view it was used to subdue and end the escalation. I have seen no evidence to support what you have heard.
HE WAS ON THE FLOOR, SURROUNDED BY 6 OFFICERS!!! What is your definition of 'subdued?'
when you stop fighting and allow them to handcuff you, which at that point they had informed him they were going to do. he still resisted when he was on the floor. you can see it clearly in one of the videos.
I share many of pearl's concerns. I've seen many instances here in Texas where black youth are baited to be disobedient so they can be charged with resisting arrest. It's not widespread, but it happens. It's a fair point to say we need better oversight over our officers to ensure against this type of overt racism, or sexism, or any of the other isms out there that drive a segment of society to discrimination.
the question is this arrest. i think he brought it on himself.
I don't feel what I am saying is going off topic. If you don't think the wider discussion I started is not relevant, can you please elaborate?
i didn't say you were off topic. but just making some generalized statements about resisting arrest doesn't really pertain to this situation. i think he clearly resisted arrest and clearly brought it on himself.
Mefirst, when I watched the tape, at the start when the student was being escorted out and resisting, I heard Kerry in the background say "I'll answer his question, I'll answer his question". Could that student upon hearing Kerry's comment think that he had the speakers permission to stay and thus have his questions answered? Could that be why he continued to resist?
pearlene, you are not entitled to resist. whatever was said, he barged to the front of the line, wouldn't shut up and, according to a link i posted above, the sponsors asked for him to be removed. i think he gave up any benefit of the doubt when he refused to act reasonably. i saw a video shot from the back of the room and he was still resisting when he was on the floor. he pushed away one of the cops before he even left the mic. clearly out of control. i suppose that they could have broke his arm trying to handcuff him but the taser kind of ended that. he gets no sympathy from me.
the police have no right to stop speech either. he is physically stopped from speaking. the bar on what is treated as disruptive behavior and what justifies force has lowered substantially just in recent years. Raise your voice in a argument with someone and you are going to be prevented by the police . I can picture few venues where freedom of speech is still respected. We almost never seriously question the use of force. If Kerry did not ask for this sort of order, why do the police think they should restrain the speech? Watch your rights vanish before your eyes.
it was not "freedom of speech". i don't know what is so hard to understand here. he attended an event, he agreed to abide by their rules when he entered, he became unruly and disruptive and was asked to leave by the sponsors of the forum. if he wants to make a point and get arrested, fine. but that is what he did.
Snoopy I was born in Texarkana, Texas and left at age 29. My children tell me that they would not have survived in Texas if we had stayed because the know what injustice is and would not tolerate how many in authority treat blacks in Texas. With my brother and sister being officers in Texas some of the things they hear and see leave me extremely grateful that I moved my family years ago.
That is a lot of my concern about police officers. Police officer are us, all strains of society. While testing is suppose to weed out racist and sexist people we all know that will never be 100% perfect. I do not simplify the need for them. When in trouble whether criminal or non criminal, we call the police. This gives them authority but it also give them a responsibility. It is a lot of responsibility that does not pay well but if you choose to take the job, you know your pay and should be aware of your responsibility.
We must demand from our police what we want from our society. The manner in which the police handled this student is not what I want from my police.
pearlene, i think the thing that really gets ignored is the death penalty. we've had what,200 people on death row, exonerated by dna? the problem comes with the fact that most cases do not involve dna, but i guess the expectation is that those cases are supposed to be perfect. and the supreme court has said that you can convict someone solely on eyewitness testimony, even though that is proven to wrong almost half the time. i think there tends to be a rush to convict sometimes, when the evidence is not always there. personally, i have no problem with the death penalty when it comes to guys like ted bundy. but what i would like to see is a set of criteria for it. something more than the eyewitness testimony of a stranger, or the jail bird buddy who said the defendant told him he committed the crime.
Mefirst, I have a problem with the death penalty period. I find that I cannot make exceptions even for Bundy or Manson. Lady justice is unfair but it's the only system we have. If you put someone to death but later find out it was a mistake there is no do over from death. I unfortunately think there are a lot of people dead in Texas's death row that should not have died.
People who can afford lawyers against all evidence and logic (sorry but OJ) get a pass while other who could be proven innocent cannot cause they don't have the resources to help prove them innocent. I personally do not wish to decide life or death for a person under our justice system. IMO for me to put someone to death makes me no better than the person that did the killing.
I actually feel that life in prison is much more hash. Day to day living with no release date forced for the rest of your life to follow someone else's rules seems like punishment For men the knowledge that you will never touch nor love another woman (if that's your thing) is a pretty harsh thought to live with each and every day. Death seem to allow the person to escape thinking about what they've done to be there in the first place.
Pearl, I agree. I think there is no place in civilized society for goverment sanctioned executions of its citizens. I don't think 12 people or a judge should be making decisions about killing someone.
Pearl,
I've got your back. Have I ever told you about my 1st experience with a person of minority? Where I grew up was - from what I saw - white. Not predominately white, I mean white. I saw my 1st colored family when I was 15, selling mags for the band booster club. I am glad my parents raised me to be respectful of elders, a few sirs and m'aams got me in the door enjoying a full meal as they discussed which mags to buy. To this day I don't see any significant difference between the races, I just see significant differences between poverty and the middle class.
"Colored family"? Come on, man, are you serious? Did we just time warp back to the '50s?
I'm an old man, did you expect me to be hip or something?
It's got nothing to do with being hip. "Colored" hasn't been an acceptable way to address or refer to a black person since at least the 1960s. Pearlene may not have been offended, and I know you didn't mean anything by it, but you definitely should be aware that it's a word that many people, perhaps most people under the age of 50, either find offensive or would never use because others would find it offensive.
Careful Snoop. The thought police are out in force lately.
So can we take your comment to mean that you don't think there's anything wrong with calling a black person "colored"?
If you mean we aren't categorizing "colored" with the list of racially charged slurs like the n word, boy, etc. then yes. It doesn't make sense that it's such a racially sensative term given the NAACP still uses it in their name.
Well, the United Negro College Fund never changed their name, but we don't call black people "negros" anymore either. Just because "colored" isn't as caustic a word as the n-word, that doesn't mean it's not a slur. It once was acceptable, but it hasn't been now for about 40 years.
Clams, I had to go educate myself on the latest list of ethnic slurs. Man, somebody's busy, that's quite a list!
I've read the arguments about the term "colored", I can understand what you are saying. This term however is apparently one of the more argumentative terms as to whether or not it is now a racist term. Honestly, is there a term out there that can't be construed as saying white is the benchmark for racial divisions? Or put differently, why didn't we make white a derogatory term as well? As long as it continues to be the defining term of european americans seems it will be quite impossible to come up with something that won't be considered derogatory at some point.
Pearl, what is your take on this?
Snoopy, so true. I always tell my children kindness comes in all colors just as ignorance does. The more people of all races are exposed and therefore gain knowledge the better we all will be as a society.
I'm an old broad too so don't let Clams get you on the "colored" thing, I'm not offended. I've read your posts long enough to know that you were in no way being rude or disrespectful.
I'm only 50. When we were kids, the word colored was a repectful term, as opposed to all of those horrible unspeakables I heard from neighbor kids. Over the years, attitudes changed with the times. For a while, black seemed prefered, then African American.
Being white, it's not my call, but I don't believe Snoopy was disrespectful at all. In fact, Snoopy was speaking in past tenths and the story hit home better (for me at least) by using the dialect that was considered proper (by both races, [?] ) at that time.
If I'm incorrect in this point, I would certainly like to know so I can adjust. Input anyone?
First off I would love to see video or even listen to audio of O'Reilly getting a taste...
Today I considered how I would have felt if it was war protestors got tased...I think the Iraq war is a criminal offense on Bush's part to be clear...and I still come to the same conclusion. I was with the kid up until he put hands on the officers. Have your day in court by all means but never be stupid enough to think you can wrestle a cop and get away with it.
And of course
even after calling this guy "the biggest wimp..." O'Reilly will still try to claim (with a straight face, no less) that "I don't do personal attacks"
Because he is a lying satchel of fertilizer.
Somehow I'm confused. Where does this put most of us, who'd rather skip being tasered.
For some of us self respect is on the line here. Is there a website somewhere for the wimpyest people in America, to disprove this base canard.
Bill O'Reilly.com
Know what is ridiculous, they attack John Kerry for not doing enough and had he intervened they would have accussed him of not supporting law enforcement and over stepping his boundaries.
The Right Wing has become so dangerous, I just really cannot believe the Moderate Republicans are not speaking out more.
You mean the marginalized portion of the party that are the subject of safari's by the likes of RINO Hunter?
They're media-whipped MortyPoo...
The Cons control the microphone. 90% of talk radio. They've got their own TV station: Fake News.
The other corporate channels are pro-conservative. When you have an apathetic citizenry, and you control the microphone (and you control the voting systems): You Own It.
Is is fascism yet?
For once I have to agree with Bill 'O. This PUNK was being disruptive and needed to be brought under control. If this had been at one of King George's or Dead Eye Dick's Speeches the kid would have been SHOT. I wondered why they Tazed the kid? I didn't realize he was talking about King George.Newtler,Tulsa, OK.
Maybe tasering only effects humans?
This was a put up deal. They wanted this kid. They got him. As the kids have told me, when they want you they will get you.
In the service of democracy, is it possible to be a radical?
pretty strong words coming from a punter.
He lied about that too.
So Judas Goat O'Realy is at it again. Should we be surprised? More dissapointing is John Stewart's referring to the U of F student as a douche bag on the Daily Show. Shame on you John! If you look at the entire video the campus rent a cops were way out of line.
Sign me an embarrased U of F alum.
He WAS a big wimp! And loud, stupid, stubborn, uncooperative, and rediculous. However, this still does not justify the tasering he received. All the cops had to do was carry him out of there. After all, there were what, 4 of them? BUT, the cops have their new taser toys and they're just ITCHING to use them. It sickens me...
Bill, Drudge others are correct for a change. He got what he deserved, hopefully a felony conviction might teach that a-hole a lesson.
Question: When, how & why was O'Reilly Tasered? Or did he just imagine he was tasered?
I can't help but think that this country is ready for a takeover by the police and politicians.
It was pathetic to watch the video of the student being tasered and it was much more pathetic watching these students sitting in their chairs no saying a word.
I'm older now and this country is going to get what it deserves.
I guess these people are wimps as well then: [link to news.yahoo.com] [link to www.topix.net] [link to www.sciencedaily.com] [link to www.dailymail.co.uk] [link to www.dailycamera.com] [link to www.denverpost.com] [link to www.infowars.com] [link to www.pdiblog.com]
Maybe we should ask these people to stop overreacting to such simple electrical shocks like that...
Sure, most of these people are doing stupid things and deserve to be arrested. This kid in this article was an overaccting idiot looking for attention, sure. He already had 5 or 6 officers holding him to the ground, and I'm not sure I believe even that much before the taser was appropriate for him being a mike hog.
But to think tasers are harmless is rediculous. It may only be an electrical shock, that's all, but that's also all that the chair is.
Bottom Line Dont be an idiot and do what the police tell you to do. Meyer was looking for trouble and he found it. What did he think was going to be accomplished by askimg those questions anyway ? Meyer knew what he did wrong. He just thought that being a rich college kid would be enough to get away with it. You never know when someone will pull a gun or something. You can't tell by looking at someone if they are insane or not. The police are always second guessed. They look at all possibilities when something is going down. What is the worst that could happen here ? If they act fast people yell brutality. If they wait and see and something bad happens then everyone says why didn't they do something.
If you are an A$$ and you don't comply with athorities then you get what you deserve. And if you are tasered it might be a good idea not to act like a little girl about it.
P.S. If a drug is found to have a certain level of accidental deaths, the FDA will pull it off the market. What level of deaths does it take to either pull tasers, or at least stop considering them to be non-lethal weapons and look for a different non-lethal technology that lives up to the name?
O'Reilly is missing the point. The guy was tasered because he asked questions: 1) why did Kerry concede the election when it was clear even at that time that there were an extreme number of contested votes? 2) If Kerry was actually against the war, then why did he not move to impeach Bush? (After all, Clinton was impeached over a mere consensual sex act), and 3) was Kerry a member of the secret Yale group Skull and Crossbones? When asked to step aside, he said, I'm sorry but he's been speaking for two hours and I think I'm entitled to two minutes. They forcibly removed him at 1:45 as he was finishing his last question. Speculating as to Meyers' "motives" is inappropriate. Whether he has been a "prankster" in the past does not mean that these questions were not well-researched and thought-out, and deserved to be answered. The police should have listened to Kerry when he said that he'd answer the question. Kerry was the complete wimp. I was appalled to see him JOKE that Meyer was unable to appoint him to be President at the moment that the guy was being pinned face down by 7 cops and tasered. It's an inappropriate use of force, starting with the ACCENT staffer Max ?? asking the female officer to physically remove Meyer from the room. This was a political forum, and Meyers questions were completely appropriate. Nobody "deserves" to be tasered. He never once pushed, shoved, or behaved in any aggressive way. Resisting being dragged away for asking questions of a political candidate? This is what the First Amendment is for-- protecting those who dare to ask uncomfortable questions and who expect to be safe in an academic environment. O'Reilly is a caricature of a human being, and Beck is a thug who thinks it's funny to watch people in pain. I've been able to ignore those two as gum flappers until now, but I intend to contact the Fox sponsors and let them know I'll be boycotting their products.
As a Democrat, I'm embarrassed for Kerry's inept and callous response ("I didn't see what happened. The police must have had their reasons"). His inane joke just before the kid was zapped is worse than Dukakis' tank gaff.....
You guys are intellectually vapid. If you could actually counter his argument you wouldn't be attacking him personally. Interesting, no?
' O'Reilly stated: "It's not pleasant, but that idiot, he wanted this to happen. He wanted the cops to do it."'
Doesn't O'Reilly strike you as the sort of people who says rape victims wanted to be raped?
The guy said "no." No means no. Or does no in your book mean yes, Bill?
What the hell is O' Reilly thinking? I think there's a bigger problem here than how bad a damned taser hurts, who cares? The fact is, Andrew Meyer asked some questions, was trying to be arrested WITHOUT his rights being read or why he was being arrested, and then tasered him. What the hell is O'Reilly thinking? "Now, I've been tasered for a story, and all I can say is: He is the biggest wimp in the United States of America." How about next time i disagree with something HE says I taser him for it. How do you think that would fly? Morons. Stupid, idiotic, morons. The police should not have even stepped in. I hope they all get sued.
I am no fan of Bill O'reilly, who I believe is one of several candidates for "The Hermann Goering of the USA" title, but in this case, he's absolutely right.
Andrew Meyer has a website that used to have a bunch of video clips of him disrupting various events while trying to be funny. In one of those videos, he is at a Harry Potter book signing showing people a sign that reads "Harry dies!", and he gets various responses from passers by. He also had various off-beat articles that chronicled his attempts at doing rude "candid camera" style stunts.
What also goes unsaid is what eyewitnesses, particularly the woman to whom he gave his camera (who videotaped the incident), revealed.
Before the video camera was turned on, about a dozen people got to stand up and ask John Kerry questions, and the time was up for more. Meyer was not in the line with those people. He was in the middle of the audience. Meyer then gave his camera to a total stranger, and asked her to tape him. He rushed out to the Mic, and just grabbed it , and told everyone that the time for questions was not over, because he waited while all the other people got to ask their questions, and he deserved the right to speak (remember, he was not waiting in line with them). The cops approached him, and he actually egged them on, saying "Oh, are you gonna Taze me? You gonna arrest me...?" Kerry said to let him speak, and of course, he went into a long, drawn out rant that wasn't a question at all, and Kerry tried to answer it, but meyer wouldn't pause long enough to let Kerry answer.
The cops in the video ae actually pretty restrained until Meyer started rambling all of his conspiracy nonsense. When they grabbed him by the arm, he resisted, and was not actually under arrest at that point. He swung at the cops, and insulted them, and it was all caught on camera!
It is obvious from the whole chain of events, that Meyer went there with the intention of creating a scene, and videotaping himself, so he could put it up on youtube with his other videos (which he took down just a day after the incident). He's a publicity hound, and only seeks to get his 15 seconds of fame, by disrupting public events and filming himself. I hope that Meyer gets tazered again and again, and maybe even maced a few times. He's an idiot, and deserves the punishment that he so desperately seeks.