Andrew Meyer

[kandrathe]

From what I saw in the clip, I absolutely do not believe he had an ulterior motive.

I've heard that he specifically asked the girl to film him, meaning to me that he was going to make a scene. Huge drama follows. Posted on YouTube within hours, and Mr. Meyer is now a tragic hero. Staged. Staged. Staged. I've seen it. I know the mind set of protesting students. It is that age where they are still invincible, and suddenly have a huge idealistic chip on their shoulder. For the protesting student, scuffling with the cops is a right of passage.

I read between the lines and see "Mr. Kerry, why didn't you try to fight the results in the courts like Al Gore did to try to win the election away from that hated Mr. Bush?"

[oldmandennis]

From your responses, it is clear that you are either unfamiliar with the protest culture, or so far into it that you see things completely from their point of view. The point of protest culture is to provoke the authorities as far as possible to get attention to your (spastic) viewpoint. The idea that he wasn't ready for the confrontation is absurd just by watching the tape, and is further turned to sillyness by the relevation that he was 1)planning on taping this and 2) a much different person off camera.

Plus Kerry did try to deescalate the situation by answering his question, the student can clearly be heard talking over his attempt to answer. There is not going to be any removing him quietly.

A dislocated shoulder can tear a bunch of ligaments leading to a lifetime of pain. Trust me on this one, I'd trade 10 seconds of pain for a torn rotator or labrum any day of the week and twice on sunday. Death is exceptionally unlikely to happen with 1-2 tasings of a healthy young adult. I'd say you are as likely to die under anesthetic during your shoulder operation.

[Taelas]

From your responses, it is clear that you are either unfamiliar with the protest culture, or so far into it that you see things completely from their point of view. The point of protest culture is to provoke the authorities as far as possible to get attention to your (spastic) viewpoint. The idea that he wasn't ready for the confrontation is absurd just by watching the tape, and is further turned to sillyness by the relevation that he was 1)planning on taping this and 2) a much different person off camera.

It's the first.

Ah well. It's not a pretty situation, in any case.

[kandrathe]

It's the first.

Ah well. It's not a pretty situation, in any case.

No not pretty, it's true. There was an incident while I was in college where 40 to 50 people handcuffed themselves in a chain in such a way to block egress of a crowd, which then got out of control. Many of them, including a friend of mine, ended up with serious injuries and broken limbs. There was also a pretty serious bombing around that time by an animal rights group opposed to animal testing. The protest groups milk it afterwards for all the PR and news coverage they can get. Its a game of doing something outrageous enough to keep the press trucks showing up, while not too dangerous or illegal to get anyone injured of convicted of a serious crime.

The press feeds the protester beast by offering exposure and coverage, then the protesters feed the media beast with good entertainment value and ratings. Not to mention the press tend to lean politically the same direction of the protesters. It's an incestuous and evil pact. In a way campus protests are a kinder, gentler "terrorist" in that rather than violence against people used to disrupt their environment, the campus protesters use bull horns, drums, and civil disobedience sufficient to provoke a police response. They try to be louder than anyone else including professors trying to hold classes, and from what I've seen they are not interested in hearing or discussing peacefully alternative points of view.

[eppie]

From your responses, it is clear that you are either unfamiliar with the protest culture

HAhahahahah...the man is from Denmark....he understands protests culture.

I think the we see here a big difference in how to look at the situation between europeans and americans (much more than in our Iraq debates:) ) (yes 25 years of smileys)

Protesting or striking is a great thing to be able to do, it is not always nice, the protesters often try to go as far as they can, and the police also does this often.
We (or at least me) are however far more concerned with the rights of the protesters (even though we don't have to agree with what they are standing for), while you are more concerned with the side of the law.

Protesting has to go to or over the edge of what is allowed, otherwise it is not protesting. If they trains go on strike, that is very annoying.....but I understand why the people do it. (I have seen a strike at a supermarket in teh US once where the strikers were not allowed to talk to the people walking by....every 5 minutes a policecar passed by to see if this was all going fine...).

If we however look at the south koreans...they go much farther than us in europe.....those guys know how to protest.

My point being that every country has a different level of accepting protests before acting, and also a different way of acting. That is probably why we don't really agree with/ understand eachother here.

(ps I understood you were talking about protest culture (this phenomenan at these discussionmeetings) but I just wanted to make a nice story....)

[Taelas]

I do not understand how someone can intentionally provoke such a response just to get news coverage, no. I do understand more civil protests, though. Striking, for example.

[Munkay]

HAhahahahah...the man is from Denmark....he understands protests culture.

My point being that every country has a different level of accepting protests before acting, and also a different way of acting. That is probably why we don't really agree with/ understand eachother here.

Once again, you have totally missed the mark. First off, protests can't be clumped together into one big heading. Protests in Croatia, the US, China, and Tibet are all different animals. Each country has its own social culture around what should be protested, how it should be done, what is effective, and what is shocking.

As for this quote, "We (or at least me) are however far more concerned with the rights of the protesters (even though we don't have to agree with what they are standing for), while you are more concerned with the side of the law."

Do us a favor and go troll under a different bridge.

Cheers,

Munk

[eppie]

Do us a favor and go troll under a different bridge.

Cheers,

Munk

Do me a favour and stop calling me a troll.

I think it is perfectly clear that (without stating an opinion) that in some countries the police is more willing to use force than in other countries. And the same goes for the general acceptance. I'm not saying that you like to see the police beating up somebody, but I mean the general consensus that 'whenever the police does so and so, you probably asked for it'.
In Holland e.g. the police suffers from a lack of respect, for which you hear often that a drunk guy got arrested, after which his friends tried to rescue him, leading to a fight....after which usually not too many people are arrested and convicted......which than leads to this lack of respect.
So like I already stated (why do I have to keep repeating myself) is that there is a clear different opinion on police action in different nations, and I'm not saying which one is better, but I guess it is somewhere in the middle.

[oldmandennis]

HAhahahahah...the man is from Denmark....he understands protests culture.

Well he said he didn't in a previous post. I know there is a big protest culture in Europe, but I don't know how possible it is to get away from it in small towns.

(I have seen a strike at a supermarket in teh US once where the strikers were not allowed to talk to the people walking by....every 5 minutes a policecar passed by to see if this was all going fine...).

Nope. You misunderstood things. The protesters may have been instructed to keep things quiet by their union, to keep public support high. The police are frequently at these sort of things to keep order. They are also there to protect the publics right to shop at the store (moving in front of a shopper to stop them from entering the store interferes with THEIR right to move and shop freely). There is, however, no legal way to stop a striker from peacefully expressing his opinion on public property. In fact, the parking lot, which is technically private property, is considered open to the public and they are not allowed to ban strikers from it (we had a grocery strike not to long ago here).

Remember, we had democracy and constitutional freedom of speech when you were still mucking about with kings.

Do us a favor and go troll under a different bridge.

Seems a bit uncalled for.

[Taem]

Unless you're an idiot, you know resisting arrest results in more charges and an escalated situation. No one who resists arrests ends up the better for it. It's a pretty simple fact to grasp, so defying arrest does imply a.)massive stupidity or b.)an ulterior motive.

Cheers,

Munk

c) or no civil liberties... What would have happened if blacks and women had that kind of mentality Munkay? Think a bit before you open your mouth in such a vulgar attempt to squash others opinions!

Just because it's not something you would do does not automatically make it wrong.

[Taem]

You always have time to think. Especially if it's dragged out for 3 minutes, and men are standing on top of you saying 'I am going to Taser you'. You're really giving him too much credit, this wasn't a one second snap decision. It was a continuous decision made over a matter of minutes.

And believe me, I'm not here trying to defend the actions of the police officers. But I've also seen enough of that video to know that kid had a plan for protest before he even asked his question.

Cheers,

Munk

I agree completely with what your saying here; that kid was a disruptive influence and was not going to go peacefully. I think the campus police, while they did tazer him one too many times, had every right to defend 'themselves' from him. Sure, there were 5-of them, but against one over-zealous protester, well nobody wanted to get hurt so they used what force they deemed necessary to restrain him before somebody did get hurt. Not to mention, aren't most colleges or universities privately owned, so when they told him to leave, he was trespassing, right?

Please note that my other reply to you Munkay does not contradict what I'm saying here; in the other post you were implying resistance to police officers in ANY situation is not alright, and to that I disagreed.

[Taem]

A follow up article in the Central Florida Alligator.

Hahaha, the article says he shouted profanity - I didn't hear any. Then it says he pushed the officers in a violent manner - what a load of crap, he pushed them away not in violence, but avoidance in a defensive maneuver. If they are going to charge him with a crime, why not a real one like Disrupting The Peace? This is a mockery of our justice system that just proves there is no justice anymore! Remember that boys and girls, if you push away an officer in a defensive manner, you are a violent police brutalizer that must be punished!

[eppie]

Remember, we had democracy and constitutional freedom of speech when you were still mucking about with kings.
Seems a bit uncalled for.

This is too easy....
we are still mucking about with kings actually. I am actually regularly in 5 of the countries around here that are still 'mucking about with kings' can you name a few without having to use the internet? :)

That is why I can't find out which year you actually are talking about?
In Holland we started being a republic in 1581, and true we got our constitution only in 1814. The funny thing is however that we also update it once in a while.

[Munkay]

c) or no civil liberties... What would have happened if blacks and women had that kind of mentality Munkay? Think a bit before you open your mouth in such a vulgar attempt to squash others opinions!

Just because it's not something you would do does not automatically make it wrong.

And how do you change C? I'll tell you by fighting police officers in the moment will only make the matter worse. You fight the cause, just as blacks and women did, after the arrest. When you're face to face with an officer dead set on arresting you, physically fighting back won't win anything except a stricter punishment at their hands.

You can argue that its great fuel for the fight afterwards, which I would agree with fully. But to do anymore in the moment isn't helping to do anything but escalate the situation.

Cheers,

Munk

[Munkay]

Do me a favour and stop calling me a troll.

I think it is perfectly clear that (without stating an opinion) that in some countries the police is more willing to use force than in other countries. And the same goes for the general acceptance. I'm not saying that you like to see the police beating up somebody, but I mean the general consensus that 'whenever the police does so and so, you probably asked for it'.
In Holland e.g. the police suffers from a lack of respect, for which you hear often that a drunk guy got arrested, after which his friends tried to rescue him, leading to a fight....after which usually not too many people are arrested and convicted......which than leads to this lack of respect.
So like I already stated (why do I have to keep repeating myself) is that there is a clear different opinion on police action in different nations, and I'm not saying which one is better, but I guess it is somewhere in the middle.

Hmm, on reading your reply I realized I misread your quote Eppie. Although I may not agree with you, I do apologize for calling you a troll. :)

Cheers,

Munk

[Taem]

And how do you change C? I'll tell you by fighting police officers in the moment will only make the matter worse. You fight the cause, just as blacks and women did, after the arrest. When you're face to face with an officer dead set on arresting you, physically fighting back won't win anything except a stricter punishment at their hands.

You can argue that its great fuel for the fight afterwards, which I would agree with fully. But to do anymore in the moment isn't helping to do anything but escalate the situation.

Cheers,

Munk

I wasn't necessarily talking about aggressively fighting back, but more along the lines of passive resistance, i.e. the black man who rode in the front of the bus and wouldn't leave when asked so he was arrested, and women who protested womens rights in the streets and burned their bras and were arrested for demonstrating in public (forgive me, but I just got back from work and don't feel like scouring the net for names). I believe in both these cases, they resisted arrest passively which resulted in their incarceration. Without these people resisting arrest, nothing would have been won for our civil liberties.

[Munkay]

I wasn't necessarily talking about aggressively fighting back, but more along the lines of passive resistance, i.e. the black man who rode in the front of the bus and wouldn't leave when asked so he was arrested, and women who protested womens rights in the streets and burned their bras and were arrested for demonstrating in public (forgive me, but I just got back from work and don't feel like scouring the net for names). I believe in both these cases, they resisted arrest passively which resulted in their incarceration. Without these people resisting arrest, nothing would have been won for our civil liberties.

I was only talking about aggressively fighting back. I'm not sure where our lines got crossed, but if that's what you meant then there was no disagreement from the start.

The post you originally quoted was a post in response to Andrew Meyer's resisting of arrest, which was a physical resistance. Insert a 'his form of physical resistance' where necessary if that helps:)

Cheers,

Munk

[oldmandennis]

This is too easy....
we are still mucking about with kings actually. I am actually regularly in 5 of the countries around here that are still 'mucking about with kings' can you name a few without having to use the internet? :)

That is why I can't find out which year you actually are talking about?
In Holland we started being a republic in 1581, and true we got our constitution only in 1814. The funny thing is however that we also update it once in a while.

This is getting off topic, but hey its slow at work.

The Danish liberal and national movement gained momentum in the 1830s, and after the European Revolutions of 1848 Denmark peacefully became a constitutional monarchy on 5 June 1849.

The US constitution was approved in 1788 and last amended in 1991.


You should expect to pay a price for civil disobedience. If something is very wrong with society, fight like hell to change it. They will salute your sacrifice later. On the other hand, if you are a spastic crackpot media whore, you deserve what you have coming. It's offensive to compare civil rights pioneers, who frequently gave their lives for their cause, to this moron getting tased.

[Taelas]

Uh, I think eppie is from Holland.

I'm the Dane.

[kandrathe]

Hahaha, the article says he shouted profanity - I didn't hear any. Then it says he pushed the officers in a violent manner - what a load of crap, he pushed them away not in violence, but avoidance in a defensive maneuver. If they are going to charge him with a crime, why not a real one like Disrupting The Peace? This is a mockery of our justice system that just proves there is no justice anymore! Remember that boys and girls, if you push away an officer in a defensive manner, you are a violent police brutalizer that must be punished!

Maybe you listened to an edited version.

Transcript

I think what brought the cops swarming in was his crass use of the word "#$%& *@#" (rhymes with slow mob). He seemed to be keeping his hands out of reach and he is a pretty big guy. Much bigger than the female officers who were trying to subdue him.

I just try to think at times like these... What would Doc do? Knee cap him, or just let him speak his peace and prove himself an idiot.