I don't know which side to take here...
The guy did this solely to get attention and make a scene, so I can't exactly say he's blameless.
On the other hand, the cops went WAY overboard. three tasers? Hello, one shock, you're on the floor spasming in pain! Also, the speaker told them he wanted to answer the questions, and not to attack the guy, yet they did it anyway.
So in all, I say both the kid, and the cops were to blame. And while I think the cops did worse, the kid is not blameless.
phattonez wrote:From what I've heard he was disrupting what was going on.
All he did was take too long in asking his question. Senator Kerry said he didn't mind and was willing to answer.
I can't believe how accepting you people are of fascism and government authority. Sheeple. You deserve the world you will inherit.
Who says he did this solely to get attention?
The news media?
The news media have also drug out every instance on the guys website where he made fun of this or joked about that....
WHAT'S that got to do with it?
You mean if I joke about something on this website, then I can't be serious about politics at another event?
What you have here is the news media jumping in to cover up what they know was a miscarriage of justice on the part of some cops who have no business wearing that uniform.
Beldaran wrote:All he did was take too long in asking his question. Senator Kerry said he didn't mind and was willing to answer.I can't believe how accepting you people are of fascism and government authority. Sheeple. You deserve the world you will inherit.
I can't believe how you're against seemingly everything that someone in authority does.
I never said that the cops were blameless, but I'm not going to automatically indict them when I don't have all of the evidence and I don't know what was going through the heads of the cops.
I didn't think that the student was being overly disruptive. I'll agree that he was being disproportionately loud and obnoxious, but really he was just livening things up. It seemed that the forum was going sort of slow and boring, with it's overly restrictive and subdued format, and it seems like Kerry was actually quite happy to see things get shaken up a bit.
Meyers' oddball questions would have given Kerry a great opportunity to display some humor and get some good press. If I were in the audience, and someone like Meyers ran in and started asking such questions, going over the 1 minute time limit and such, I wouldn't personally feel offended. I'd actually feel very glad that I came to get such entertainment and hear some really creative questions that were admittedly more exciting than anything I'd think of to ask a politician. I feel that much of the audience, and Kerry himself, felt alike.
I do wish that Kerry were more aggressive in his attempts to stop the police. He really choked at a great opportunity for a legislator to display some serious Anti-Executive Branch initiative. I'm disappointed that he failed to be more assertive. He could have re-established himself as a hero, at least among liberals.
The way I see what happened is this;
The guy started asking questions of Kerry that made Kerry look bad.
Some people in the room started booing and hissing the guy for asking such questions.
The guy wasn't going to be intimidated buy those Kerry supporters so he continued and the louder they got the louder he got.
Then he was branded the trouble maker, and the cops were called in to remove him.
That looks like exactly what happened to me, and if so the people that wouldn't allow the guy to ask his questions should have been the ones arrested since it was rightfully them that disrupted the meeting.
Instead the cops let themselves be used like storm troopers right out of communist russia to stop the guy from exercising his 1st amendment right to hold these politicians accountable for exactly who they are and what they are doing to this country.
If we the people let this stand, then whomever the politicians hire to scream the loudest will soon have our first amendment rights in their pocket.
When we speak out, they'll simply have us arrested for disturbing the peace and tranquility of the "organized assembly", when it truth what it really is, is public political meeting where ALL voices are guaranteed the right to be heard, by the first amendment.
What I don't like is when people say things like:
"The first amendments grants you a right to free speech, but not the right to a public pedestal."
That's sort of like saying:
"Sure, I'll let you be pacified with your freedom to say what you want... just please don't say it where someone might hear you. I wouldn't want you actually spread an idea, or anything like that!"
If you want to speak do it at your own venue, I think that works better. If someone doesn't want you to say something at their even then more power to them. However, the other person should have the right to be able to speak to the same amount of people and respond.
Hopefully that makes sense.
phattonez wrote:If you want to speak do it at your own venue, I think that works better. If someone doesn't want you to say something at their even then more power to them. However, the other person should have the right to be able to speak to the same amount of people and respond.Hopefully that makes sense.
Wait a minute here...
WHAT do you mean "at your own venue"?
That was Kerry speaking at a campus correct?
Doesn't that make that ALL students attending that campus "their venue"?
And if that campus is collecting my tax dollars, doesn't that make that MY venue?
Or are only democrats allowed to ask questions of democrats when they come, and only republicans allowed when republicans come?
Sorry, but that just won't work that way, anytime a politician gets up on a soapbox they should be expected to hear whatever comes their way regardless of who is saying it.
The person hosting the event gets to decide who gets to go or who doesn't get to go.
That will make socialism/communism a breeze to get enacted in this country then, we'll just exclude anyone who wants it otherwise, all the while we'll spend THEIR money to host our events.
So then you would want Republicans spewing out whatever the hell they want at the DNC and not to be thrown out? Really, a limit has to be drawn somewhere.
Tasers need to be highly restricted. Considering the average "cop" or security guard is of low intelligence and most likely an asshole who really believes they are in charge, they don't understand or care what they are doing. They like to tell you that the taser is a non-lethal weapon, which is bullshit. Electrical current going through your body does bad things.
If you watch the video, every single one of those cops should be fired. They all gathered around in a mob and just zapped him for fun. If you cannot grab and restrain someone, why the fuck are you a security guard? When you have something like 5 "guards" there you have no excuse to use a taser. It doesn't matter if this guy was being loud and annoying. That is no reason for use of a taser. Just imagine if the guy had some kind of heart condition and died. Then we'd really be talking.
Also, I too don't support the idea of cops or security having any sort of greater than you "authority". If you cannot deal reasonably with people you shouldn't be in that line of work. It's certainly a good thing there are so many cameras everywhere because now such bullshit by police is caught for all to see. There was recently a story in my area where a guy had a camera in his car when he was pulled over and in the end of it all the officer was fired for his misconduct.
phattonez wrote:So then you would want Republicans spewing out whatever the hell they want at the DNC and not to be thrown out? Really, a limit has to be drawn somewhere.
Republican ~ Democrat is all the same to me, one is a bullet to the head and the other cancer.
If a politician is going to stand up on his soapbox and field questions then he better be willing to take on ALL comers and NOBODY should be treated like that boy was for asking the tuff questions and then not backing down until he got an answer.
The cops were wrong and they should receive their just reward as well.
So at a presidential inauguration people should be allowed to get up on the microphone and speak out against the president? It just doesn't work. Protesting it is fine, but you're gonna disturb it? That's just not right.
phattonez wrote:It just doesn't work.
Why doesn't it work? Because anyone who tries it gets taken away by police?
Because nothing would ever be said in front of many people. We would never be able to express our opinions during large gatherings. Imagine on TV, we would never be able to hear anyone say anything because there would be someone else trying to speak louder.
phattonez wrote:
I never said that the cops were blameless, but I'm not going to automatically indict them when I don't have all of the evidence.
Well if you're so smart, why don't you apply this same logic to your religion. You've accepted that conclusion without any evidence, why not this one?
phattonez wrote:So at a presidential inauguration people should be allowed to get up on the microphone and speak out against the president? It just doesn't work. Protesting it is fine, but you're gonna disturb it? That's just not right.
Where's your logic on this?
A presidential inauguration is the act of placing that elected person into office, not a question and answer period, just like when the president gives the state of the union address, these functions have their purpose and a question and answer forum has its function, how do you logically compare those two?
If the guy had been at the inauguration and stood up and started making a pest of himself I'd be the first to say "drag the bum out", but he wasn't was he, he was asking a question that Kerry didn't want to answer at a public question and answer forum.
Beldaran wrote:Well if you're so smart, why don't you apply this same logic to your religion. You've accepted that conclusion without any evidence, why not this one?
Didn't Biggiy already tell you not to bring religion into this? I have evidence, you just wouldn't accept it as truth because it's not scientific.
Just in the same way that the people holding the forum didn't want the guy to speak, no one wants anyone to disrupt the inauguration ceremonies (I hate that I couldn't find a more grammatical way to say that).
Beldaran wrote:Well if you're so smart, why don't you apply this same logic to your religion. You've accepted that conclusion without any evidence, why not this one?
Belderan I told you on the first page NOT to turn this into a religious debate. It's about police and how much half the country hates them. Don't bring it up again.
It's apparent that a lot of you just flat out don't like law enforcement because they "abuse their power". Out of all the police officers in the country how many of them are actually abusing the power they are given? I'm not talking about going through a red light hot with their lights on. I'm talking about beating someone, pulling everyone over because they can or flashing their gun around.
One cop does something bad and it makes headlines across the nation. Another cop pulls someone out of a burning building, saves someone from death or something of the sorts and they get a pat on the back. How do you know every single cop in the country is corrupted? Because they pulled you over and gave you a speeding ticket? You saw an officer 3,000 miles away from you on the news for beating a black, Mexican, Cuban or Asian?
biggiy05 wrote:Belderan I told you on the first page NOT to turn this into a religious debate. It's about police and how much half the country hates them. Don't bring it up again.It's apparent that a lot of you just flat out don't like law enforcement because they "abuse their power". Out of all the police officers in the country how many of them are actually abusing the power they are given? I'm not talking about going through a red light hot with their lights on. I'm talking about beating someone, pulling everyone over because they can or flashing their gun around.
One cop does something bad and it makes headlines across the nation. Another cop pulls someone out of a burning building, saves someone from death or something of the sorts and they get a pat on the back. How do you know every single cop in the country is corrupted? Because they pulled you over and gave you a speeding ticket? You saw an officer 3,000 miles away from you on the news for beating a black, Mexican, Cuban or Asian?
You don't get to tell me what to talk about. If you don't enjoy my posts, don't read them. I am not breaking any rules.
I will continue to not listen to you because I do not respect your authority to modify the way I make my arguments.
If I am banned and this is my last post, very well then. It will have been undeserved and reflect poorly on the maturity of the administration.
Phattonez: Unscientific evidence to support your points is the same as having no evidence at all.
Beldaran wrote:You don't get to tell me what to talk about. If you don't enjoy my posts, don't read them. I am not breaking any rules.I will continue to not listen to you because I do not respect your authority to modify the way I make my arguments.
If I am banned and this is my last post, very well then. It will have been undeserved and reflect poorly on the maturity of the administration.
Phattonez: Unscientific evidence to support your points is the same as having no evidence at all.
Just the fact that there are any Jews left in the world with the whole world out to kill them off should be proof enough of the existence of God. 😉
When you reach a point in your life that you are willing to look for God, it's then that you will see Him, not before, until then the fact that you don't believe He exists doesn't make Him any less so. 😉