John Kerry is a coward

[dizm]

<http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igFKO9Qa4e5qeGs6UWf2oRYvtYpQ>

How can a former Presidential candidate not speak up when someone is arrested for asking questions?

[softwareNerd]

It isn't at all clear to me that the cops wanted to arrest him when they first approached him. Kerry's people obviously wanted him to stop talking, and they cut the mike. What happens in the next few seconds is unclear. From the video, the cops might have been holding him to escort him out of the hall. After a while of walking with the cops and appealing to the audience, he begins to resist the cops physically. I assume they arrested him because he was resisting, not because he asked a question.

[Seeker]

It isn't at all clear to me that the cops wanted to arrest him when they first approached him. Kerry's people obviously wanted him to stop talking, and they cut the mike. What happens in the next few seconds is unclear. From the video, the cops might have been holding him to escort him out of the hall. After a while of walking with the cops and appealing to the audience, he begins to resist the cops physically. I assume they arrested him because he was resisting, not because he asked a question.

How can they arrest someone for "resisting escort"? That's weird. I think there ought to have to be some other element, like trespass or disorderly conduct, to warrant the invokation of the government's use of force (whether called "arrest" or "escort" or whatever), don't you think? As far as I know (or care), "arrest" means ANY time a cop so much as wiggles his finger and directs you to come over - since you can't choose not to obey, that's arrest - and demands specific rational justification before it occurs, and the question is, what is that justification? What law did this man violate in the first instance?

Edited September 19, 2007 by Seeker

[softwareNerd]

In the video, the female cop speaks to the guy first. It sounds like she tells him to stop talking, and he doesn't. It's possible that the cops intended to escort him out of the room.

Objectivists put up talks in colleges all over the place, and people have protested during recent ones. If someone is being disruptive inside the room, the organizers may ask him to be silent or to leave. If a questioner is told to stop, he should do so, and it is the sole discretion of those who are organizing the event to decide to ask someone to shut up.

I'm not saying the cops acted correctly. However, one needs to say what they should have done at that point. For instance, should they have stood back and repeated their demand that he leave, at least twice, before trying to make him?

I think the jury is out. It'll be interesting to see what unfolds, during the investigation.

[Seeker]

Agreed. I will say that Kerry plays a role in what troubles me about this, because he engages the student while the student is asking the question, but before the student can finish the female cop intervenes. There does not appear to be any civil reason at that point for her to do so. Where is the disruption at that point? The event is Kerry, right? Seems to me that if anyone was disrupting the exchange in which Kerry himself was engaged, it was the officer!

[BryanG]

Apparently this person got into a scuffle with the police while trying to get in to the area where Kerry was taking questions. That was the reason why the cops were standing within arms reach of him when he was asking his questions. They already knew he might be a problem.

The police removed him because he seemed to be getting agitated again when he was asking his questions.

If you watch the longer version on Youtube, he began fighting the police as they were escorting him out (again, they had already dealt with him in an agitated state before he got in) and they put him on the ground. They told him repeatedly to get his hands out so they could handcuff him and he refused.

Police sometimes will secure someone with handcuffs for their safety, and the subjects safety - it has nothing to do with being arrested, that may or may not take place later, but that was not what was going on when the police had him on the ground. Securing someone in that situation is their primary concern.

I think they could have got the cuffs on with out using the taser, but I'm not a cop and I wasn't there in the situation.

I don't agree with the irrational laws that cops enforce, but I have no illusions about the risks cops face every day.

[DarkWaters]

This appears to be a telling video of the incident.

I have noticed that the student loudly shouted something that resembled "I am going to be tased" at around 2:25. Furthermore, a woman commented at around 2:27 that "they have a taser to his chest." Since the taser was not used until one minute later, this suggests that the student was issued and acknowledged a warning.

It is also worth noting that in addition to resisting being escorted (by attempting to run towards the stage in front of the audience) the student also continued to shout as loud as he possibly could throughout the entire ordeal. Surely this was incredibly disruptive. Moreover, the student also vigorously struggled the entire time until he actually shocked.

Anyway, I am not arguing that the taser was necessary ex ante. I am still uncertain. Does anybody know why the police might have put him on the ground instead of immediately ejecting him from the auditorium without handcuffs? Was there too much of a risk of him trying to rush back in to continue to disrupt the event? Is this just part of the training for these situations?

Is there any risk of longterm damage from being tasered for a young man his age? I doubt that he had a pacemaker.

Edited September 20, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Seeker]

You all are dancing around the salient point, which is that the police released him for him to ask the question. What in the universe did they do that for? If they wanted him out of there, they should have cuffed him and removed him immediately if he did not leave when asked. Cops ought not be ushers or moderators. They should have no right to decide which questions are relevant, or how much questioning is enough, having granted him the ability to ask questions in the first place. Also your attempted distinction between arrest, escort, and securing for safety is philosophically meaningless. Restraint by force is restraint by force, whether or not for the purposes of benevolence or altruism. At no point did it appear that others were at risk.

Seeming agitated is not an offense. You better believe there are times in public debates when discussions rightly become heated, the participants agitated. It is not a crime, nor sufficient to justify restraint by force.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Seeker

[softwareNerd]

You all are dancing around the salient point, which is that the police released him for him to ask the question. ...Cops ought not be ushers or moderators.

Is there any video of the part before he goes up to the mike? From the other part, the cops appeared to be acting on the wishes of organizers. You could say they were being ushers, taking action on behalf of the moderators. So, if the cops had held him off before, because (as has been reported) the organizers had decided there would be no more questions, that would be fine. If the organizers had relented and said they would take his question after all, it would have been fine for the cops to let him go to the mike.

It is perfectly legitimate for the cops to act on the instructions of the organizers in this context. If I organize a speech and have cops around because I know there will be trouble, then I -- as an organizer -- would want the cops to enforce certain instructions. Obviously, they should not obey if I point to someone and say "arrest that man". However, if I tell a person, "please leave", or "please stop talking", and if that person does not, the cops may ensure that the person is made to leave the event.

I agree with Seeker that this initial part is the critical part.

The resisting, tasering and so on is perfectly normal escalation that follows from that starting point. Basically, when two cops grab you in this type of situation, the way to ensure they do not escalate force is to go limp and obey their instructions. That's not the "natural" thing to do when someone grabs you. Also, this guy might have wanted to make a show of the fight with the cops. However, from the cop's perspective, when someone is pulling his arms away, and not being cooperative, they will increase their use of force until he is subdued. So, the initial point -- where the cops attempt to control him -- is the essence to understanding who was right or wrong. The rest is an escalation of that starting point.

[thejohngaltline]

The only evidence I have to go on here are the variety of news articles I've read (each with various conjectures as to Meyer's behavior--ranging from the whole thing being a hoax to it being a gross violation of freedom of speech), the police reports (which contradict both each other and what I witnessed in the videos so drastically that I am unwilling to draw any conclusion but that they are flawed), and the video itself, which made me sick. It looked like a scene from 1984 or a low-grade sci-fi horror.

I don't think they had cause to do more than kick him out.

[gags]

I don't think they had cause to do more than kick him out.

Once the situation has escalated to the point where someone is in a physical struggle with the police, they have an obligation to subdue the person using the least harmful method that the situation warrants. In this case, it seems to me that using a device like a taser is preferable to possibly breaking the guy's arm (while they cuff him) or hitting him with a baton.

[BryanG]

"They should have no right to decide which questions are relevant, or how much questioning is enough, having granted him the ability to ask questions in the first place."

I don't think that was the motivation of the police officers. I could be wrong, but they looked to be reacting to his behavior, not the relevance of his questions.

"Also your attempted distinction between arrest, escort, and securing for safety is philosophically meaningless."

I was responding to this your description of what "arrest" constitutes as quoted below - that was all I was addressing.

"As far as I know (or care), "arrest" means ANY time a cop so much as wiggles his finger and directs you to come over - since you can't choose not to obey, that's arrest - and demands specific rational justification before it occurs, and the question is, what is that justification?"

You can be called over by an officer to answer questions about a crime you may have witnessed, or you could be pulled over for a traffic violation and let go with a warning. Neither instance would be classified as an "arrest" per se.

The term "arrest" has a specific meaning. That was the point I was trying to make.

"At no point did it appear that others were at risk."

Yes the point was that it appeared, on video, after the fact, that no one at risk.

That's a different perspective than when it's happening in real time.

[Mammon]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/18/o...port.072274.pdf

Read the official police report. It gives a better painting of what happened.

[Mimpy]

The guy was told several times to stop resisting. He did not. The police really had no choice: he was making an unnecessary scence, disrupting the peace, and not following police orders. How many times could they have told him that if he did not stop resisting, he would be tasered? He knew it was going to happen.

[K-Mac]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/18/o...port.072274.pdf

Read the official police report. It gives a better painting of what happened.

Sounds like he got what he deserved to me.

[KendallJ]

The guy was told several times to stop resisting. He did not. The police really had no choice: he was making an unnecessary scence, disrupting the peace, and not following police orders. How many times could they have told him that if he did not stop resisting, he would be tasered? He knew it was going to happen.

It's pretty clear to me that once police have decided to make an arrest, most states allow them to escalate force to carry out the arrest, short of using deadly force.

What just sort of rubs me the wrong way is the above statement; i.e. the thing upon which the arrest was predicated. Is this equivalent to pulling over a driver because his tail light is out so that you have cause to check for drugs as Groovenstein has pointed out on the traffic laws thread? You see, it is when the basis to excercise force becomes, for all intents and purposes, circular that is, it is simply a justification to exercise force; that's when I take issue.

I'm not sure why an "unecessary scene" has any relevance.

Here are some Fla statute citings that are relevant. Maybe one of our lawyers can help us undestand how these might be interepreted, but at first glance, they are fairly general enough as to be used an almost any situation where an officer deems the peace disturbed. I'm not yet decided per se, but that is the point that concerns me.

871.01 (1) Whoever willfully interrupts or disturbs any school or any

assembly of people met for the worrship of God or for any lawful purpose

commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable

as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083

877.03 Breach of the Peace, Disorderly Conduct. Whoever commits such

acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the

sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who

may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such

conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor in the second degree....

843.02 Resisting Officer Without Violence To His or Her Person. Whoever

shall resist, obstruct or oppose any officer as defined by s.943.10

(1),(2),(3),(6),(7)_,(8) or (9), menber of the Parole Commission

.....shall be guilty of a misdemeanor in the first degree.

776.05 Law Enforcement Officers; Use of Force in Making Arrest.

A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned

or directed to assist him or her need not retreat or desist from efforts

to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance

to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of ANY force:

(1) which he or she reasonably believes to be necesary to defend himself

or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest.

[Mimpy]

It's pretty clear to me that once police have decided to make an arrest, most states allow them to escalate force to carry out the arrest, short of using deadly force.

What just sort of rubs me the wrong way is the above statement; i.e. the thing upon which the arrest was predicated. Is this equivalent to pulling over a driver because his tail light is out so that you have cause to check for drugs as Groovenstein has pointed out on the traffic laws thread? You see, it is when the basis to excercise force becomes, for all intents and purposes, circular that is, it is simply a justification to exercise force; that's when I take issue.

I'm not sure why an "unecessary scene" has any relevance.

Well, this is Senator John Kerry we are talking about. He is a pretty high-profile figure. The student was refusing to follow police orders and instead running toward the stage, ie, toward Johny Kerry. How could the police have allowed that?? This guy could have done anything. He wanted to make a scene. They told him to stop and he did not. Instead, he made it worse by resisting. I don't believe they would have arrested him if he would have just gone with them. They were probably just going to take him outside and not let him come back in. But his resistance is what pushed them further.

[Thales]

Well, this is Senator John Kerry we are talking about. He is a pretty high-profile figure.

I don't think that's relevant.

The student was refusing to follow police orders and instead running toward the stage, ie, toward Johny Kerry. How could the police have allowed that?? This guy could have done anything. He wanted to make a scene. They told him to stop and he did not. Instead, he made it worse by resisting. I don't believe they would have arrested him if he would have just gone with them. They were probably just going to take him outside and not let him come back in. But his resistance is what pushed them further.

I agree that he was making a scene. He was obnoxious and boorish and it would have been reasonable to kick him out. However, I don't think he was threatening, nor was he trying to be threatening. He looked harmless to me. However, just to provide some more context here, did you hear or see the John Lewis talk at George Mason University this year? The crowd in that case was not just loud and boorish, they were threatening, and not just for a moment, but for the entire talk. This wasn't one guy, it was an organized mob and what did the police do? Nothing!

That crowd was ten times worse than the guy in the John Kerry case.

I think what we have here is the left using their muscle the way it will benefit them. Some one is boorish and obnoxious to a leftist speaker? Well, uncalled for! arrest that thug! Some is boorish and threatening to a right wing speaker? Hey, they're just expressing themselves, and the speaker's views were so repellent he deserved it!

I see this pattern time and time again when it comes to university talks, so I don't think it's a coincidence.

[gags]

I see this pattern time and time again when it comes to university talks, so I don't think it's a coincidence.

I think you're right Thales, the left on college campuses is only for free speech when it's something they want to hear. However I doubt that this was a consideration for the policemen who arrested this jerk at the Kerry speech. On the other hand, there may well have been someone in charge who told the cops in effect, "enough, this guy has to go". Of course the cops are between a rock and a hard place. They are told to remove the jerk, he starts to fight with them, they subdue him using force (which was their only alternative), and they are made out to be the bad guys. Being a police officer in our society is a no-win situation.

[Thales]

I think you're right Thales, the left on college campuses is only for free speech when it's something they want to hear. However I doubt that this was a consideration for the policemen who arrested this jerk at the Kerry speech. On the other hand, there may well have been someone in charge who told the cops in effect, "enough, this guy has to go".

I think it's that, or they are given some criterion before hand regarding crowd behavior. This is why I gave the George Mason University talk as a counter point.

Of course the cops are between a rock and a hard place. They are told to remove the jerk, he starts to fight with them, they subdue him using force (which was their only alternative), and they are made out to be the bad guys. Being a police officer in our society is a no-win situation.

He didn't appear to be a threat at all. That part I didn't see. He looked non-violent. What I saw looked over the top, one guy surrounded by cops and being tased.

That said, the guy should have been kicked out. He was being a pest, but nothing more than that.

[gags]

He didn't appear to be a threat at all. That part I didn't see. He looked non-violent. What I saw looked over the top, one guy surrounded by cops and being tased.

That said, the guy should have been kicked out. He was being a pest, but nothing more than that.

Whether he was a threat or not, I think we both agree that his behavior warranted his removal from the event. The problem arose when he chose to resist. At that point the police are entirely justified in using the level of force necessary to subdue him and to remove him. When a man of even moderate strength starts to struggle, it can be very difficult to get him cuffed. I'm no cop, but it wouldn't surprise me if the sort of swarming tactic that the police used is part of their training for this kind of situation.

[Mimpy]

However, just to provide some more context here, did you hear or see the John Lewis talk at George Mason University this year? The crowd in that case was not just loud and boorish, they were threatening, and not just for a moment, but for the entire talk. This wasn't one guy, it was an organized mob and what did the police do? Nothing!

That crowd was ten times worse than the guy in the John Kerry case.

I listened to Dr. Lewis' lecture at George Mason. People were loud and obnoxious: it's true. But all they did was boo him. The questioners were harsh in their tone, but they implicated no threat towards Dr. Lewis, unlike how Andrew Meyer tried to resist the police and run towards the stage. That requires immediate police intervention.

I'm not saying that the protesters at Dr. Lewis' lecture should not have been removed. They were disrupting the event, and they, too, should have been escorted out by the police. If any of them resisted at that point, they, too, would be committing a crime.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Mimpy

[Thales]

I listened to Dr. Lewis' lecture at George Mason. People were loud and obnoxious: it's true. But all they did was boo him. The questioners were harsh in their tone, but they implicated no threat towards Dr. Lewis, unlike how Andrew Meyer tried to resist the police and run towards the stage.

I'm not saying that the protesters at Dr. Lewis' lecture should not have been removed. They were disrupting the event, and they, too, should have been escorted out by the police. If any of them resisted at that point, they, too, would be committing a crime.

I didn't see Meyer charge the stage. What I saw is that he wouldn't leave the microphone.

As to the Lewis case, they did much more than just boo him.

Here is one description:

I just got back tonight from Dr. John Lewis’ lecture on state-sponsored Islamic-Totalitarianism at George Mason University. There were countless police officers around the building providing security. Needless to say an entire mob mentality broke out as “demonstrators” in the audience disrupted the entire event. Islamofacist groups and their Marxist dhimmi associates hurled invectives, howled, and spat as if in a possessed frenzy. The professor and his supporters, much to their credit, behaved with complete restraint and respect for different viewpoints during the Q&A session. The same absolutely cannot be said of his opponents. So much for tolerance and diversity. Their attempts to disrupt and shut down the talk were a disrespectful, uncivilized display of hate that supported the argument that you cannot reason with or appease this kind of enemy.

From what I hear the atmosphere was very intimidating, and threatening, and John Lewis was concerned for his life.

Just as an observer, when I saw Meyer I didn't get the feeling that he was anything but a nuisance. He didn't behave in a way I associate with intimidation. He didn't swing his fists, or tackle anyone, or engage in any violent action toward anyone, nor did he seem inclined that way. He didn't say anything threatening. Whereas the George Mason crowd, from that I gather, was in a frenzied mob state.

I’m not going to argue this too hard, because Meyer was in the wrong, it’s just that the response seemed over the top, especially considering the George Mason crowd.

[Mimpy]

This has nothing to do with the George Mason event, though. It very well could be true that the police there should have escorted the disruptive protesters out of the lecture hall. The fact that they did not has nothing to do with they should have done.

In the case of UF's event, several people heard Andrew Meyer tell his friend to start recording before he began to speak. It was clear to anyone around, especially the police, that this guy meant to say something that he found important enough to keep a record of. That in itself is not a cause for alarm. But when the student became excited and started charging Kerry with a series of irrelevant, disrespectful questions, the police had every reason to escort him out of the lecture hall. Keep in mind that Meyer was already speaking when he was not supposed to. The Q&A session was over. Because Meyer was so insistent and emotional, Kerry decided to entertain a few of his questions. That was Kerry's generosity, considering how rude Meyer was acting.

But regardless, the fact remains that he resisted police force. That is illegal. Thus, he was tased, after repeatedly being told to stop resisting. The events that led up to the event help justify the police's actions on a broader level. This guy was an ass: he got what he deserved. He wanted to disrupt the event, and he did. But the joke's on him. From a strictly legal perspective, however, this guy broke the law.

And I repeat that this is Senator John Kerry we are talking about. He is at more risk than John Lewis simply because he is better known. That is not to say that Dr. Lewis did not deserve the same kind of security. But the fact is, security is arranged by a group of people. This can be done by those who are sponsoring the event, such as the campus club or organization, or by those from the speaker's staff, as well. I am guessing the latter for Kerry. They wanted strict security. They got it. They were not willing to tolerate a jackass disobeying the law.

Good for them.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Mimpy

[BryanG]

According to the police report they had him on the ground and had one handcuff on, but were unable to secure his other hand to get the other cuff on - due to him thrashing about.

There is a potential risk to the officers when dealing with an unsecured handcuff attached to a thrashing arm.