UF student gets tasered at John Kerrys speech while asking a question

[jlee]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Kerry said he would answer the question so the police had no reason to try and remove him.

John Kerry isn't responsible for the safety and well-being of the people inside that auditorium. The cops were. Therefore it's not up to Kerry whether the kid stays or goes, regardless of whether he'd answer the question. The kid was acting unstable and needed to go.

If you say the police are responsible for decided who can and can not be at the event then you run smack into the first amendement trying to throw him out. If the government is in charge it must be a public place and he can run around being as big of jerk as he likes and the police can't ask him to leave until he breaks the law.

If it is not a public place it is up to the host to decided when to ask someone to leave. In this case it would be the Kerry. The police of course could arrest him if he broke a law, but they are not empowered to ask people to leave.

Being unstable is not a crime. The police should never have gotten involved.

The first amendment does not give you the right to create a disturbance.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Kerry said he would answer the question so the police had no reason to try and remove him.

John Kerry isn't responsible for the safety and well-being of the people inside that auditorium. The cops were. Therefore it's not up to Kerry whether the kid stays or goes, regardless of whether he'd answer the question. The kid was acting unstable and needed to go.

If you say the police are responsible for decided who can and can not be at the event then you run smack into the first amendement trying to throw him out. If the government is in charge it must be a public place and he can run around being as big of jerk as he likes and the police can't ask him to leave until he breaks the law.

If it is not a public place it is up to the host to decided when to ask someone to leave. In this case it would be the Kerry. The police of course could arrest him if he broke a law, but they are not empowered to ask people to leave.

Being unstable is not a crime. The police should never have gotten involved.

The first amendment does not give you the right to create a disturbance.

bravo.

some people want to stttttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeetch their "first amendment rights" beyond the original intent.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Kerry said he would answer the question so the police had no reason to try and remove him.

John Kerry isn't responsible for the safety and well-being of the people inside that auditorium. The cops were. Therefore it's not up to Kerry whether the kid stays or goes, regardless of whether he'd answer the question. The kid was acting unstable and needed to go.

If you say the police are responsible for decided who can and can not be at the event then you run smack into the first amendement trying to throw him out. If the government is in charge it must be a public place and he can run around being as big of jerk as he likes and the police can't ask him to leave until he breaks the law.

If it is not a public place it is up to the host to decided when to ask someone to leave. In this case it would be the Kerry. The police of course could arrest him if he broke a law, but they are not empowered to ask people to leave.

Being unstable is not a crime. The police should never have gotten involved.

The first amendment does not give you the right to create a disturbance.

bravo.

some people want to stttttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeetch their "first amendment rights" beyond the original intent.

You think asking a question to some one running for the highest office in the country is outside of the intent of the first amendment?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Kerry said he would answer the question so the police had no reason to try and remove him.

John Kerry isn't responsible for the safety and well-being of the people inside that auditorium. The cops were. Therefore it's not up to Kerry whether the kid stays or goes, regardless of whether he'd answer the question. The kid was acting unstable and needed to go.

If you say the police are responsible for decided who can and can not be at the event then you run smack into the first amendement trying to throw him out. If the government is in charge it must be a public place and he can run around being as big of jerk as he likes and the police can't ask him to leave until he breaks the law.

If it is not a public place it is up to the host to decided when to ask someone to leave. In this case it would be the Kerry. The police of course could arrest him if he broke a law, but they are not empowered to ask people to leave.

Being unstable is not a crime. The police should never have gotten involved.

The first amendment does not give you the right to create a disturbance.

What disturbance did he create. He asked a question at the microphone that was placed there to ask questions. How is that a disturbance?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Kerry said he would answer the question so the police had no reason to try and remove him.

John Kerry isn't responsible for the safety and well-being of the people inside that auditorium. The cops were. Therefore it's not up to Kerry whether the kid stays or goes, regardless of whether he'd answer the question. The kid was acting unstable and needed to go.

If you say the police are responsible for decided who can and can not be at the event then you run smack into the first amendement trying to throw him out. If the government is in charge it must be a public place and he can run around being as big of jerk as he likes and the police can't ask him to leave until he breaks the law.

If it is not a public place it is up to the host to decided when to ask someone to leave. In this case it would be the Kerry. The police of course could arrest him if he broke a law, but they are not empowered to ask people to leave.

Being unstable is not a crime. The police should never have gotten involved.

The first amendment does not give you the right to create a disturbance.

What disturbance did he create. He asked a question at the microphone that was placed there to ask questions. How is that a disturbance?

From the police report:

At that moment the Accent Director, Max Tyroler, asked us to take him out of the auditorium and had his microphone turned off stating, "He had said enough."
....and....
Meyer began to yell towards Senator Kerry concerning a book he read, stating that Senator Kerry actually won the elections in 2004. Meyer did not give Senator Kerry an opportunity to answer his question during his disorderly behavior. Before Senator Kerry could attempt to answer his first question/statement, Meyer advised there were two more questions. I leaned over to Ofc. Mallo and we made the decision that Meyer would be escorted out of the auditorium after his statements/questions due to his overall demeanor and actions.
Meyer continued his disruptive behavior at the microphone and made a statement concerning why President Clinton was almost impeached for receiving a "blowjob", at this point ACCENT staff cut the sound off to the microphone. Meyers threw his hands up in the air in disgust of having the microphone turned off.

I believe they charged him with disrupting a school function...sounds appropriate to me.

Up here, I'd go with disorderly conduct: He recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm by making loud or unreasonable noises in a public place. Per NH RSA 644:2.

 

[Dessert Tears]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: alkemyst, emphasis added
You don't get your arm broke in what I explained above unless you want your arm broken. A taser can kill you. A broken arm possibly could (fracture cutting an artery, post surgery infection, etc), but the chance is slim to none.

Can you provide any cases where a Taser in "Drive Stun" or a conventional stun gun has been linked to a death?

For what purpose? My points are the cops did not need any taser in this situation.

Feel free to look up that all the deaths did not use "Drive Stun" and get back to us.

There is zero danger of "Drive Stun" causing ventricular fibrillation and sudden death. "Drive Stun" can stimulate neither surface muscles - it is ineffectual in causing electro-muscular disruption (incapacitation, "paralysis") - nor the cardiac muscle.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Kerry said he would answer the question so the police had no reason to try and remove him.

John Kerry isn't responsible for the safety and well-being of the people inside that auditorium. The cops were. Therefore it's not up to Kerry whether the kid stays or goes, regardless of whether he'd answer the question. The kid was acting unstable and needed to go.

If you say the police are responsible for decided who can and can not be at the event then you run smack into the first amendement trying to throw him out. If the government is in charge it must be a public place and he can run around being as big of jerk as he likes and the police can't ask him to leave until he breaks the law.

If it is not a public place it is up to the host to decided when to ask someone to leave. In this case it would be the Kerry. The police of course could arrest him if he broke a law, but they are not empowered to ask people to leave.

Being unstable is not a crime. The police should never have gotten involved.

The first amendment does not give you the right to create a disturbance.

What disturbance did he create. He asked a question at the microphone that was placed there to ask questions. How is that a disturbance?

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Kerry said he would answer the question so the police had no reason to try and remove him.

John Kerry isn't responsible for the safety and well-being of the people inside that auditorium. The cops were. Therefore it's not up to Kerry whether the kid stays or goes, regardless of whether he'd answer the question. The kid was acting unstable and needed to go.

If you say the police are responsible for decided who can and can not be at the event then you run smack into the first amendement trying to throw him out. If the government is in charge it must be a public place and he can run around being as big of jerk as he likes and the police can't ask him to leave until he breaks the law.

If it is not a public place it is up to the host to decided when to ask someone to leave. In this case it would be the Kerry. The police of course could arrest him if he broke a law, but they are not empowered to ask people to leave.

Being unstable is not a crime. The police should never have gotten involved.

The first amendment does not give you the right to create a disturbance.

What disturbance did he create. He asked a question at the microphone that was placed there to ask questions. How is that a disturbance?

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Feel free to respond to my post as well.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Feel free to respond to my post as well.

respond to what, you never made an argument.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Feel free to respond to my post as well.

respond to what, you never made an argument.

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Kerry said he would answer the question so the police had no reason to try and remove him.

John Kerry isn't responsible for the safety and well-being of the people inside that auditorium. The cops were. Therefore it's not up to Kerry whether the kid stays or goes, regardless of whether he'd answer the question. The kid was acting unstable and needed to go.

If you say the police are responsible for decided who can and can not be at the event then you run smack into the first amendement trying to throw him out. If the government is in charge it must be a public place and he can run around being as big of jerk as he likes and the police can't ask him to leave until he breaks the law.

If it is not a public place it is up to the host to decided when to ask someone to leave. In this case it would be the Kerry. The police of course could arrest him if he broke a law, but they are not empowered to ask people to leave.

Being unstable is not a crime. The police should never have gotten involved.

The first amendment does not give you the right to create a disturbance.

What disturbance did he create. He asked a question at the microphone that was placed there to ask questions. How is that a disturbance?

From the police report:

At that moment the Accent Director, Max Tyroler, asked us to take him out of the auditorium and had his microphone turned off stating, "He had said enough."
....and....
Meyer began to yell towards Senator Kerry concerning a book he read, stating that Senator Kerry actually won the elections in 2004. Meyer did not give Senator Kerry an opportunity to answer his question during his disorderly behavior. Before Senator Kerry could attempt to answer his first question/statement, Meyer advised there were two more questions. I leaned over to Ofc. Mallo and we made the decision that Meyer would be escorted out of the auditorium after his statements/questions due to his overall demeanor and actions.
Meyer continued his disruptive behavior at the microphone and made a statement concerning why President Clinton was almost impeached for receiving a "blowjob", at this point ACCENT staff cut the sound off to the microphone. Meyers threw his hands up in the air in disgust of having the microphone turned off.

I believe they charged him with disrupting a school function...sounds appropriate to me.

Up here, I'd go with disorderly conduct: He recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm by making loud or unreasonable noises in a public place. Per NH RSA 644:2.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Feel free to respond to my post as well.

respond to what, you never made an argument.

Oh really? His post indicated that the organizer of the event asked the police to remove the guy from the event. That's a pretty significant fact, and it completely destroys your argument about the first amendment being applicable.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Feel free to respond to my post as well.

respond to what, you never made an argument.

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Kerry said he would answer the question so the police had no reason to try and remove him.

John Kerry isn't responsible for the safety and well-being of the people inside that auditorium. The cops were. Therefore it's not up to Kerry whether the kid stays or goes, regardless of whether he'd answer the question. The kid was acting unstable and needed to go.

If you say the police are responsible for decided who can and can not be at the event then you run smack into the first amendement trying to throw him out. If the government is in charge it must be a public place and he can run around being as big of jerk as he likes and the police can't ask him to leave until he breaks the law.

If it is not a public place it is up to the host to decided when to ask someone to leave. In this case it would be the Kerry. The police of course could arrest him if he broke a law, but they are not empowered to ask people to leave.

Being unstable is not a crime. The police should never have gotten involved.

The first amendment does not give you the right to create a disturbance.

What disturbance did he create. He asked a question at the microphone that was placed there to ask questions. How is that a disturbance?

From the police report:

At that moment the Accent Director, Max Tyroler, asked us to take him out of the auditorium and had his microphone turned off stating, "He had said enough."
....and....
Meyer began to yell towards Senator Kerry concerning a book he read, stating that Senator Kerry actually won the elections in 2004. Meyer did not give Senator Kerry an opportunity to answer his question during his disorderly behavior. Before Senator Kerry could attempt to answer his first question/statement, Meyer advised there were two more questions. I leaned over to Ofc. Mallo and we made the decision that Meyer would be escorted out of the auditorium after his statements/questions due to his overall demeanor and actions.
Meyer continued his disruptive behavior at the microphone and made a statement concerning why President Clinton was almost impeached for receiving a "blowjob", at this point ACCENT staff cut the sound off to the microphone. Meyers threw his hands up in the air in disgust of having the microphone turned off.

I believe they charged him with disrupting a school function...sounds appropriate to me.

Up here, I'd go with disorderly conduct: He recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm by making loud or unreasonable noises in a public place. Per NH RSA 644:2.

You might want to look up argument in the dictionary.

You posted part of the police report but that doesn't make any specific justification on why he was arrested. You then post your little law but never made any justification for arresting under that law. Also you didn't even specify which of inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. And you also never said if you considered the noise to be loud or if you considered it to be unreasonable.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Feel free to respond to my post as well.

respond to what, you never made an argument.

Oh really? His post indicated that the organizer of the event asked the police to remove the guy from the event. That's a pretty significant fact, and it completely destroys your argument about the first amendment being applicable.

See that is an argument. And it goes back to my first post in this thread that Kerry said something like "thats ok I will answer the questions" which implies that Kerry gave him permission to stay.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Feel free to respond to my post as well.

respond to what, you never made an argument.

Oh really? His post indicated that the organizer of the event asked the police to remove the guy from the event. That's a pretty significant fact, and it completely destroys your argument about the first amendment being applicable.

See that is an argument. And it goes back to my first post in this thread that Kerry said something like "thats ok I will answer the questions" which implies that Kerry gave him permission to stay.

Kerry doesn't decide who gets to stay or go.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Feel free to respond to my post as well.

respond to what, you never made an argument.

Oh really? His post indicated that the organizer of the event asked the police to remove the guy from the event. That's a pretty significant fact, and it completely destroys your argument about the first amendment being applicable.

See that is an argument. And it goes back to my first post in this thread that Kerry said something like "thats ok I will answer the questions" which implies that Kerry gave him permission to stay.

Oddly enough, Kerry doesn't trump the law.

I didn't bring up argument - you did. Nice try, though.

You posted part of the police report but that doesn't make any specific justification on why he was arrested. You then post your little law but never made any justification for arresting under that law. Also you didn't even specify which of inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. And you also never said if you considered the noise to be loud or if you considered it to be unreasonable.

RSA 644:2

What I stated is sufficient. I am authorized to arrest for such offense and, if necessary, to use force to effect the arrest.

The fact that others in this thread support the officers involved confirms that there is probable cause that an offense involving public annoyance or alarm was committed. It is illegal to physically resist said arrest. It's the court's duty to decide whether or not it was justified, not yours.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Kerry said he would answer the question so the police had no reason to try and remove him.

John Kerry isn't responsible for the safety and well-being of the people inside that auditorium. The cops were. Therefore it's not up to Kerry whether the kid stays or goes, regardless of whether he'd answer the question. The kid was acting unstable and needed to go.

If you say the police are responsible for decided who can and can not be at the event then you run smack into the first amendement trying to throw him out. If the government is in charge it must be a public place and he can run around being as big of jerk as he likes and the police can't ask him to leave until he breaks the law.

If it is not a public place it is up to the host to decided when to ask someone to leave. In this case it would be the Kerry. The police of course could arrest him if he broke a law, but they are not empowered to ask people to leave.

Being unstable is not a crime. The police should never have gotten involved.

The first amendment does not give you the right to create a disturbance.

What disturbance did he create. He asked a question at the microphone that was placed there to ask questions. How is that a disturbance?

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Not to mention, as much as a hate John Kerry, he is a US Senator and the police needed to protect him. They did not know if this guy was dangerous, apparently he was acting a psycho, why would they think otherwise?

 

[QED]

LOL @ the people defending the student's "right" to create a disturbance.

When the police first approached him, he wasn't being arrested. He was being escorted out of the building. Once he resisted and starting shoving the officers, the police had grounds for an arrest. Once he continued resisting arrest, the police had grounds to subdue him as peacably as possible-- include tazering.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Feel free to respond to my post as well.

respond to what, you never made an argument.

Oh really? His post indicated that the organizer of the event asked the police to remove the guy from the event. That's a pretty significant fact, and it completely destroys your argument about the first amendment being applicable.

See that is an argument. And it goes back to my first post in this thread that Kerry said something like "thats ok I will answer the questions" which implies that Kerry gave him permission to stay.

Kerry doesn't decide who gets to stay or go.

Says who? Mugs is claiming that the police where act as security and where told by those hosting the event to remove the person. One would assume that Kerry and his staff are the ones hosting the event and therefor get to say who stays and who goes.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Feel free to respond to my post as well.

respond to what, you never made an argument.

Oh really? His post indicated that the organizer of the event asked the police to remove the guy from the event. That's a pretty significant fact, and it completely destroys your argument about the first amendment being applicable.

See that is an argument. And it goes back to my first post in this thread that Kerry said something like "thats ok I will answer the questions" which implies that Kerry gave him permission to stay.

Oddly enough, Kerry doesn't trump the law.

I didn't bring up argument - you did. Nice try, though.

You posted part of the police report but that doesn't make any specific justification on why he was arrested. You then post your little law but never made any justification for arresting under that law. Also you didn't even specify which of inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. And you also never said if you considered the noise to be loud or if you considered it to be unreasonable.

RSA 644:2

What I stated is sufficient. I am authorized to arrest for such offense and, if necessary, to use force to effect the arrest.

The fact that others in this thread support the officers involved confirms that there is probable cause that an offense involving public annoyance or alarm was committed. It is illegal to physically resist said arrest. It's the court's duty to decide whether or not it was justified, not yours.

No citing a law is not sufficient you must show how he violated the law. Other peoples opinions are equally as meaningless as yours. And yes it is the public job to decided if police action was justified or not and to take the correct political actions if they feel it was not justified.

Please try and under stand your making a different argument then Mugs. You are saying he broke the law and that justified the first contract from the police. Mugs is saying that the police were told to remove him when he had not yet broken a law.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Kerry said he would answer the question so the police had no reason to try and remove him.

John Kerry isn't responsible for the safety and well-being of the people inside that auditorium. The cops were. Therefore it's not up to Kerry whether the kid stays or goes, regardless of whether he'd answer the question. The kid was acting unstable and needed to go.

If you say the police are responsible for decided who can and can not be at the event then you run smack into the first amendement trying to throw him out. If the government is in charge it must be a public place and he can run around being as big of jerk as he likes and the police can't ask him to leave until he breaks the law.

If it is not a public place it is up to the host to decided when to ask someone to leave. In this case it would be the Kerry. The police of course could arrest him if he broke a law, but they are not empowered to ask people to leave.

Being unstable is not a crime. The police should never have gotten involved.

The first amendment does not give you the right to create a disturbance.

What disturbance did he create. He asked a question at the microphone that was placed there to ask questions. How is that a disturbance?

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Not to mention, as much as a hate John Kerry, he is a US Senator and the police needed to protect him. They did not know if this guy was dangerous, apparently he was acting a psycho, why would they think otherwise?

They don't know that he is any more or less dangerous then anyone else in the room.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Feel free to respond to my post as well.

respond to what, you never made an argument.

Oh really? His post indicated that the organizer of the event asked the police to remove the guy from the event. That's a pretty significant fact, and it completely destroys your argument about the first amendment being applicable.

See that is an argument. And it goes back to my first post in this thread that Kerry said something like "thats ok I will answer the questions" which implies that Kerry gave him permission to stay.

Kerry doesn't decide who gets to stay or go.

Says who? Mugs is claiming that the police where act as security and where told by those hosting the event to remove the person. One would assume that Kerry and his staff are the ones hosting the event and therefor get to say who stays and who goes.

Do you think the guest speakers at school events are the ones organizing the event? You must not have set up many events for schools. The fact of the matter is, the student was causing a disturbance and was instructed to be removed from the premises. The force came after he resisted being removed from the premises not because of his childish antics. You can defend his behavior as no big deal but it really has no bearing on the argument that he was still a disturbance and was asked to leave.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Feel free to respond to my post as well.

respond to what, you never made an argument.

Oh really? His post indicated that the organizer of the event asked the police to remove the guy from the event. That's a pretty significant fact, and it completely destroys your argument about the first amendment being applicable.

See that is an argument. And it goes back to my first post in this thread that Kerry said something like "thats ok I will answer the questions" which implies that Kerry gave him permission to stay.

Kerry doesn't decide who gets to stay or go.

Says who? Mugs is claiming that the police where act as security and where told by those hosting the event to remove the person. One would assume that Kerry and his staff are the ones hosting the event and therefor get to say who stays and who goes.

Do you think the guest speakers at school events are the ones organizing the event? You must not have set up many events for schools. The fact of the matter is, the student was causing a disturbance and was instructed to be removed from the premises. The force came after he resisted being removed from the premises not because of his childish antics. You can defend his behavior as no big deal but it really has no bearing on the argument that he was still a disturbance and was asked to leave.

I really have no idea what sort of agreement that Kerry had with school or how the event was portrayed. You can clearly see from the video that he thought Kerry had given him permission to stay and that is when he got the police off him the first time. I agree his behavior makes no difference, so why do you keep saying he made a disturbance like it is some magic word.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
bravo.

some people want to stttttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeetch their "first amendment rights" beyond the original intent.

Which is expected given the magnitude to which some are trying to shrink the intent of the other nine.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glutenberg

You obviously did not read the back story of him cutting in line, cutting other students off, and causing a disturbance during the event. Why bother commenting on something before you at least superficially glance over the facts. Your style of argument is the equivalent of what my 3rd grade cousin uses. You may want to think about that.

He cut in line, that is something your 3rd grade cousin would whine about.

Feel free to respond to my post as well.

respond to what, you never made an argument.

Oh really? His post indicated that the organizer of the event asked the police to remove the guy from the event. That's a pretty significant fact, and it completely destroys your argument about the first amendment being applicable.

See that is an argument. And it goes back to my first post in this thread that Kerry said something like "thats ok I will answer the questions" which implies that Kerry gave him permission to stay.

Oddly enough, Kerry doesn't trump the law.

I didn't bring up argument - you did. Nice try, though.

You posted part of the police report but that doesn't make any specific justification on why he was arrested. You then post your little law but never made any justification for arresting under that law. Also you didn't even specify which of inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. And you also never said if you considered the noise to be loud or if you considered it to be unreasonable.

RSA 644:2

What I stated is sufficient. I am authorized to arrest for such offense and, if necessary, to use force to effect the arrest.

The fact that others in this thread support the officers involved confirms that there is probable cause that an offense involving public annoyance or alarm was committed. It is illegal to physically resist said arrest. It's the court's duty to decide whether or not it was justified, not yours.

No citing a law is not sufficient you must show how he violated the law. Other peoples opinions are equally as meaningless as yours. And yes it is the public job to decided if police action was justified or not and to take the correct political actions if they feel it was not justified.

Please try and under stand your making a different argument then Mugs. You are saying he broke the law and that justified the first contract from the police. Mugs is saying that the police were told to remove him when he had not yet broken a law.

I already did. My opinion is backed by law.

The subject recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm by making loud or unreasonable noises in a public place.

He was loud and unreasonable. He recklessly created a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. There you have it in black and white.

Does anyone other than smack Down fail to understand this?