University of Florida Student Tasered Into Submission

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 19 2007, 07:05 AM) [snapback]514713[/snapback]</div>

Please define for me "Berman-like". Also, your employment of "Berman-like" was done in a positive or negative fashion? And, what prompted its use if not creation since I am unaware of anyone prior to this employing it?

Evan, I am paying enough attention. So you are advocating when a candidate in a debate exceeds his or her alloted time be subdued physically if they do not strictly adhere to the time limitations agreed to prior to the debate? And if you do allow them extra time, how much extra time or what % of overage would you grant them before physically subduing them. And if the candidate does not strictly adhere to the topic at hand, is that sufficient to initiate a discontinuation of their response?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 19 2007, 07:05 AM) [snapback]514713[/snapback]</div>

This is the key issue. There were set rules for this public exchange which the individual chose to ignore, but that's not what got him tasered. It was a series of escalating steps that got him tasered:

1) He went over his time and refused to step down when asked nicely.
2) He still refused when asked directly by members of security.
3) He resisted security when they attempted to physically remove him.

At that point it had become a scuffle, and people get hurt or killed when scuffling with security forces and police. Many departments opt to use a taser in this situation rather than resorting to large amounts of physical force, where body parts start breaking.

Could this have been handled better? Probably. Who was mostly at fault? The person who was tasered.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Sep 19 2007, 07:34 AM) [snapback]514740[/snapback]</div>

Agree 100%. Why couldn't the guy simply ask his question in the allotted time and then give up the microphone like everyone else? Because he wanted the attention of causing a scene. That is what his real goal was, to get attention. From the police report:

In the 12-page report, which gives accounts of the incident from the perspective of eight different officers who were present Monday afternoon, Officer Nicole Mallo writes that Meyer would only resist officers when cameras were present.

"As (Meyer) was escorted down stairs (at the University Auditorium) with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again," Mallo wrote.

 

Freedom of speech has its boundaries. You can't go into a crowded theater and yell fire. At an organized event, you can use your freedom in any way such that it doesn't infringe on the rules of the event. Lets assume, dr B, that you're attending a medical conference. Does your freedom of speech extend so far that you can stand up and spend an hour spewing off about Iraq or Iran or whatever other political situation comes to mind? Would the coordinators of the event ask you to leave? If you refused, would they have the police escort you out?

There's a difference between denying someone freedom of speech and removing someone that is acting inappropriately for the situation and being a public nuisance.

In this case, When he went over his time, they made every effort to resolve the situation. He was asked to stop. The microphone was turned off. The police attempted to politely escort him from the room. As others have stated, there were very strict guidelines in place so that everyone had a chance to say something. He violated those guidelines and was asked to leave. This had absolutely nothing to do with the content of what he was saying.

Note that at no point did the police say "you're under arrest". Instead, they simply attempted to escort him from the room. The taser comes from his resistance to that escort. It's like the classic skit where cop is trying to arrest someone that's punching and kicking and struggling, all while yelling "I'm not resisting arrest!"

So in answer to your question, he didn't "violate his freedom of speech guarantee" - instead, he violated the rules set out for the event. Under those circumstances, he can be asked to leave and if necessary escorted from the premises by the police. This wouldn't have even been an issue if he hadn't struggled.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 19 2007, 07:09 AM) [snapback]514735[/snapback]</div>

Berman-like - To ignore the opposing viewpoints or points made against you in a debate. To try to boil the debate down to a black and white question of "good or evil". To use completely unrelated thoughts and situations to support your cause. To play the anti-semite card when no mention of religion has been made. To accuse someone of supporting a cause simply because they don't support your extreme view against the cause.

I think that about sums it up.

 

WOW! Look at the TASR stock zap up!

http://finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=TASR

 

You know what they say... any publicity is good publicity

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 19 2007, 07:09 AM) [snapback]514735[/snapback]</div>

Oh stop crying like a baby. You know you'd taser the whole nation of Iran if it would prevent them from building a nuke right? How's that for tangentiation?

 

Wow, this thread seems to have grown some pretty good legs in the past 10-ish hours.

I think that the only reason this debate is still going is because of the excessive use of force. If the story was just about some campus loud-mouth hogging the microphone until they were escorted out of the auditorium (even if they had gotten pepper sprayed at some point), it wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the traction it presently has. There is something visceral about the sound of a Taser being activated, not once but by my recollection, 4 separate times. If Meyer was on his feet, actively fighting the campus police, it would have been a justified use of force (and he could have been zapped as many times as necessary until he was down on the ground). But the line was crossed when 4 (or 6) officers had already restrained him (he was completely on the ground (4-points of contact)) - because that was when he was zapped with the Taser.

Bringing Iran/Iraq into the discussion/debate is really a ruse because the incident did not happen in Iran or Iraq. It happened in the U.S.A., where until recently, we had a rather high regard for a person's right to speak their mind as long as they didn't cause collateral problems (such as screaming fire in a crowded theater) by the exercise of their freedom to speak. It is pretty bad when a couple are arrested for wearing (and refusing to remove) t-shirts that advocate the impeachment of a president - they were not disrupting the event in any fashion other than wearing the t-shirts. Fortunately saner minds prevailed in a court of law in the t-shirt arrest. I wonder what will happen this time around.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Sep 19 2007, 09:10 AM) [snapback]514749[/snapback]</div>

I think you should be mindful of whom you are using as references - they may have a vested interest in this case.

What would be in your opinion, the appropriate response to protesters who acted like he acted if they say, interrupted a Senate session or Presidential speech or news conference? Dont most protesters want to create a scene??? is that not the idea of what they are doing? You think the use of force employed by the security forces was justified? Where does his right to free speech start and end here?? And when do we allow security forces the ability to silence someone who is just speaking, and when do we allow them to use violent force - life threatening force potentially - in squelching someones speech?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Sep 19 2007, 01:48 PM) [snapback]514853[/snapback]</div>

Or if it had the Prius traction control, in which case it would still be inching forward.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Sep 19 2007, 01:48 PM) [snapback]514853[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The use of the taser when he was already completely and totally restrained was going beyond what i believe constitutes proper use of force in that case. I also am hesitant to agree with the security forces in the way they handled him from the get-go -- i reserve judgment until i get a chance to see more of the tape preceding their entry into the scene. What i do NOT understand is when they actually shot the taser into him - was he already on the ground - if so - i would love to be his attorney --- if he was standing and still resisting their attempts at controlling him then they should have used it then, while he was up. It is sadistic if they employed the taser from start to finish while he was on the ground fully restrained.

It is tough to believe this happened in the US of A. John Kerry might have said it best - and i am paraphrasing here - in all his years of speaking and protesting he never saw anything like that happen -- and think about all the protests he was at, and the speaking he has done.... thats a large volume of experience. It is my belief that the freedom to protest (within reason - obviously - not yelling fire in a theater, not causing physical harm or endangering others, etc) should be a cherished right here in the US. So this kid was a mic hog, so he wanted attention, so what?

the joke is in the end - he won BIG time --- he got GLOBAL ATTENTION and - he is going to get big bucks too (my opinion here - at least enough for a free education and possibly enough to start his own publication, and start a nice retirement account, and take a nice long vacation somewhere.....) :lol: You just gotta love those that want to limit free speech and the right to protest -- now i can understand why those that want to do that love or respect or want to emulate those that do like Castro, Arhmidijad, Mao, Stalin, etc, etc...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Sep 19 2007, 11:03 AM) [snapback]514862[/snapback]</div>

Ha! It kind of depends on the condition of the surface - high degree of slippery-ness, VSC might have been activated as well....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 19 2007, 01:00 PM) [snapback]514859[/snapback]</div>

This isn't about free speech. The person has every right to say anything he wants in a public area. You can't use free speech as a trump card for behavior that is illegal, which disturbing the peace is. 1) He was given the microphone to say what he wanted. When asked to finish, he refused to give it up. 2) The person in charge decided to have security remove the person when he wouldn't leave voluntarily, which he has every right to do. 3) When asked to leave by security, he refused. When security tried to remove him he resisted. That makes him guilty of a second crime.

If someone comes on your property and starts spouting religious or political speech do you have to simply let him do it because of his right to free speech? If he doesn’t leave when you ask him to wouldn’t you call the police? If he then resisted wouldn’t you want the police to physically remove him? The right to free speech doesn't mean you can break the law to do it.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 19 2007, 01:45 PM) [snapback]514895[/snapback]</div>

A person doesn't have to be "a clear and present danger to others" to be limited. Being a public university doesn't mean he has a right to break the law.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 19 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]514907[/snapback]</div>

I have absolutely no legal background, but even I can see that you guys are way off the mark by debating this as a "free speech" issue (legally anyhow). This is a tresspasing issue. It's no different than if he stood up in the middle of a Broadway musical and started yelling about Iran. He would have gotten his butt thrown out from such a situation just as fast and he would have been manhandled by police just as much if he resisted.

He violated the time limit rules of the event. He was asked to stop but he continued on to the point of creating a disturbance. He was asked to leave. He then refused to leave and continued causing a disturbance. He then became a tresspasser. Police then tried to remove him from the building. He resisted, requiring the police to remove him by force.

Like I said, it would have been no different if he stood up in the middle of a musical or play, and started shouting and disrupting the event.

 

Most of you keep missing the point.

You can see it in the guy's face and hear it in is voice in the videos. This guy wanted to make a stink and he wanted to get in trouble. He wasn't up there to get answers to questions, or even to make a real and meaningful point in front of an audience. He was, in my estimation from watching the vids, up there with clear intent to *disturb the peace* which is a crime.

He compounded that with *resisting arrest* which is a felony. I hope he gets charged with the felony because that will stay on his record and remind him of what an nice person he was.

As for the taser, I'm not trained in either the evaluation of dangerous situations like that, or the judicious use of force. On the surface, it looks a bit unfair for an unarmed guy to be tasered while being restrained by 4+ officers, but I'll leave that one up to the experts.

Even if the tasering was unjustified, it doesn't mean this guy didn't commit a crime (or a number of crimes), and I hope he's suitably penalized.

p.s. I'm on Evan's side with the Free Speech thing... it's silly to try to tie that into this discussion. This guy's right to free speech was not violated.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 19 2007, 02:03 PM) [snapback]514907[/snapback]</div>

I don't need to take a law class to know that trespassing is illegal, and when he refused to leave he was trespassing. Can you answer my question to berman: If he was on your property saying the same things and wouldn't leave would you just throw up your hands and say "Oh well, his free speech rights trump my right to have him removed"?

 

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me to hear such a diversity of opinion. It will be interesting to see what the courts have to say.