O'Reilly revealed that he, too, had been tasered once, and it didn't really hurt that much. Meyer was therefore hamming it up, according to O'Reilly.
Well, one thing O'Reilly's revelation can teach us about tasering: it obviously doesn't knock much sense into your head about the First Amendment, and what it means for freedom of speech in this country.
The First Amendment certainly does not say or mean that it's ok to interfere with speech, and taser a speaker, as long as the pain is not that bad. No pain is acceptable if meted out by the government or its agents. No interference with free speech by the government or its agents is acceptable. Period.
Now the University of Florida police might not have been the Secret Service or the FBI. But they were still acting as agents of the government - that is how any police force, however local, derives its powers. The 14th Amendment says states cannot withhold rights of citizens guaranteed under the Constitution. That's pretty clear.
So O'Reilly, as he so often does, missed the forest the trees. He missed the most important factor in the tasering of Andrew Meyer - the blatant violation of his First Amendment rights - because O'Reilly was more interested in making his personal experience with the taser the focus of his story.
Whatever someone's political position, he or she should be outraged about what happened to Andrew Meyer in Florida. It's a shame O'Reilly wasn't.
16 comments:
I like how you don't hold the Flipper responsible, when he was actually in the room and could have prevented it.
Sen. Kerry REPEATEDLY suggested they leave him alone so he could answer his questions... so, your comment about the "Flipper" (I'm assuming you are talking about Sen. Kerry) is irrelevant.
Dr. Levinson, while I see where you're coming from, Andrew Meyer wasn't tasered for speaking his mind, he was tasered for struggling with police officers when they were removing him from the auditorium, and he was removed from the auditorium for acting completely inappropriately during an organized event. Now, I know Meyer has the right to free speech, but the people who paid Senator Kerry to give his speech at their school have the right to run an event and remove people from that event who they view as disruptive, and they also have every right to call on the police in order to do just that.
Eric summed it up perfectly!!!
Jessica: I'm afraid I don't agree with your appraisal of Eric's summary.
Here's why: The people who set up the Kerry event made a decision to make that event open to the public. The instant they did that, they gave up their right to interfere with a questioner's speech (unless it was posing a clear and present danger, etc - and, even then, I would need to see exactly what the danger was - did the speaker have a weapon, etc.)
Now, of course, most reasonable people, including me, would agree if that a speaker was going on and on, talking for 15, 20, 25 minutes, than that would be an abuse of his or her freedom.
But how long was Andrew Meyer talking? 2 minutes?
Further, the police used excessive force even if they had been justified in removing Meyer from the event. You taser someone when they present a physical threat. Meyer was not threatening anyone.
Bottom line: the officers who administered the taser should be brought up on criminal assault charges. Whoever ordered Mr. Meyer to be pulled away from the microphone should be the recipient of a nice big civil suit.
At a private event, which is, an event that is sponsored by a private entity, they choose the rules. They pay for the event, they get to decide who does what. "Opening their doors to the public" does not remove this right from them. It does not remove the right from them any differently than McDonalds, a private company, which has doors "open to the public" which can refuse to serve anyone for any reason. They run the building, they call the shots.
Are you saying, as LawDog has stated, that McDonalds doesn't have the right to remove unruly guests from their business?
They, of course, being the owner decide what "unruly" is? Just like churches can decide that someone coming and yelling "SATAN" is unruly?
Or, if they do not have the ability to do so, they do not have the ability to call in law enforcement to do it for them?
Remember one big thing about these "Open to the public" places. You don't have to be there. You decided to be there of your own free will. Removing someone from the place is just reinforcing that decision. You don't have to go into McDonalds if you know they made the decision to kick out anyone wearing red hats. You can just not go.
I don't see people picketing Sam's Club because they require a membership.
About the "excessive force." Are you saying that if he were just simply to yell really loud and be stronger than the officers who did NOT know if he had a knife, gun, or other weapon stored on him, that they should have just left him alone when he refused to comply to lawful order? You say that you would need to see the danger, but when you don't know if this kid could possibly be riling himself up to be a School Shooter, you have to act on the information you have.
"Whoever ordered Mr. Meyer to be pulled away from the microphone should be the recipient of a nice big civil suit."
He bought the microphone, he says who uses it. Case closed.
If it wasn't such a big damn deal, the law enforcement officers should have allowed his questions to be answered. After all, law enforcers are here to PROTECT AND SERVE.... right? Law enforcement was created to protect, and to serve the people of the united states, not just the ones with money and respect. They, as the clearly did, are NOT here to take AWAY OUR RIGHTS. Andrew Meyer was, and is, just as we all are, protected under the United States Constitution, and Directly under the 1st amendment to free speech. As we all know that the United States Constitution is the rule of the U.S. and anything under it... such as state or local laws are nullified when it surmises the constitution. Andrew Meyer Had every RIGHT, just as you and I, to do what he did. In America these rights are diminishing and the only way to get the back is to STAND up for them! Do SOmething THIS IS OUR FUTURE AND THESE ARE OUR RIGHTS DONT LET THEM DISAPPEAR!.... www.geocities.com/lilsisters21/home.html check out this site.... on the 3rd video page is Aaron Russo's "AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM" a must see.... passs it on.
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It appeared to be a private function, which means when the guy in charge says its time for you to leave, its time for you to leave. No ifs, not buts, no arguements. Its the same if you are in someones house, they say leave, you had better start steppin. The Police asked him to move along, he refused, they told him, to move along.. He refused. How were his rights violated?? I suggest you read up on your rights, and get a better understanding of them.
That not withstanding, he still should not have physically struggled against the officers, it appeared to me in the video he even struck one with his elbow.. Many no-no's there.
Had he complied, he most likely would have walked away, and could have filed a complaint, but he chose to act like a jerk instead. The man got what was coming to him, taser (being a very forgiving solution after striking an officer), and a ride to jail, just guessing here.. Criminal tresspass, Disorderly conduct-disruption of school event, resisting arrest/detention, assault on a public servant.. What more do you people want?
Mr. TxPo-Po... i suppose you are a police man because of your name, a Texan at that, god be with you. I suggesting taking another look at that tape, John Kerry Instructed the police to let him be that he would answer those questions. So my questions is why didn't they allow him to stay to hear his questions answered? Is this a police state? You SIR ARE HERE TO PROTECT THE US, YOU "TxPo-Po" ARE HERE TO SERVE ME, AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN. When you relize that, when you understand that you are a servant to the american civilians and NOT the American's with money, or respect, or that are with the government, when you relize, and all your other police co workers, WHEN YOU RELIZE THAT YOU ARE A CIVILIAN TOO AND THAT YOU HAVE RIGHTS JUST AS ALL OF US, WHEN YOU RELIZE THAT YOU WORK FOR A GOVERNMENT THAT IS INFRINGING ON THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and YOU are the one that is taking away our rights by enforcing things such as this. YOU sir are just as guilty as the neo cons that are ruling this country. you should reach around pull your head out of your "butt" and get a grip and relize what is ACTUALLY going here. READ the presidential advance manual, pd 51, HR 3162( aka the "patriot act"), the warren commission, 9/11 commission report, and when you do read these GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS understand your rights as an american and as human which are outlined in the first 10 amendments (aka the bill of rights), and then maybe you should argue with someone. Until you actually READ them, there is no point in you arguing because you have no idea what im talking about. DO SOME RESEARCH MR PO PO, and WAKE UP.
oh and another thing, i did not hear the police say move along, i SAW them immediately grab him.. take a look for yourself. quit trying to defend the police and be an american and watch what actually happened. did they have probable cause? what did he do that threatened the security and lives of anyone at that gathering? was he physically agressive to anyone? NO, NOT until they were physically agressive with him. so my police man, if you think that being physically aggressive with someone because of you title is ok, than that is evidence that you too, are not in line with the rights of the human population. get another job. because you too, are POWER HUNGRY.
*Chuckle* Take a valium red, your gonna bust a blood vessel. Simple answer, Mr. Kerry was'nt running the event, he was a guest speaker unless I'm mistaken. I know my rights, as they are the same as yours, and have not nor will I infringe them. Investigate what your forming your expert opinion on here bud. Since none of us were there to begin with, its all heresay anyway.
However, further searching has afforded a little more light on this subject.. Our dear loudmouthed fool was escorted from the building prior to the tape rolling. He then proceeded to sneak in, take the mic from another person, and when it was turned off began shouting at mr. kerry. It doesn't matter that Kerry was willing to answer the questions.
I'm curious where you expect any line to be drawn.
Look around a bit more, perhaps we saw different versions of that video, the one I saw you could clearly see officers speaking to him before making contact.
The man did have the right to speak, and did have the right to ask questions. This time came and went, and when he became a disruption it was time to go.
**edit above for additional info*
The video I saw.. http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=157250#videoid=157250
Plus a more complete news report, (take with grain of salt) http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/student.tasered/index.html
Note the differences in the video, one is cut so you only see the police making contact..
Bear in mind still, we were not there. From the combined information, looks like they were justified in removing him. It was his choices which led him to physical contact, and tasering. At what point do you thinnk they should've made contact?? Would you expect an officer to ask someone to leave, and when he says no, just say "Oh well, we tried." Doesn't work like that, ask, tell, then he left no more options. Its not pretty, I agree, but he chose to fight them. What do you think?
HERE A DIFFERENT LOOK MR PO PO. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/09/18/hill.tasering.witness.cnn THEY GRABBED HIM AS SOON AS HE FINISHED HIS QUESTIONS. I STILL CANT BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE THE ODACITY TO SAY THEY WERE RIGHT IN THEIR DOING. HE DID NOT STRUGGLE AND TRY TO RESIST THE ARREST UNTIL HIS ARMS WERE BEING BENT IN UNCOMFORTABLE POSITIONS AND THEN, FROM WHAT I SAW I BELIEVE HE TUGGED ON HIS ARM JUST TO MOVE IT FROM THE POSITION IT WAS IN. IN SERVERAL SCENES YOU CAN SEE HIM AND HIS ARM BEING PULLED IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. AS WELL, HE DID SEEM TO COMPLY UNTIL THEY DID GET PHYSICAL WITH HIM. NOTE THAT JOHN KERRY SAID REPEATEDLY TO LET HIM FINISH.... AND IN REPORTS HE HAS ALSO SAID HE DID NOT KNOW THE STUDENT WAS BEING TASERED, JUST WITH THAT FACT ALONE PROVIDES EVIDENCE THAT THE PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS BEGAN WAS UNJUST AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ALSO I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE AN EXPERT, I AM ONLY A MERE OBSERVER OF WHAT OUR COUNTRY IS BECOMING, AND AS AN 18 YEAR OLD I AM THE FUTURE AND HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE SURE MY FUTURE AND THE FUTURE OF MY FUTURE AMERICANS IS PRESERVED
--RED
This is again one of many videos.. look at several of them, catch the different views, and see if you can't see them speak to him first. I hate to break it to you, but sometimes police to have to use force to gain compliance. First we ask you to comply, then we tell you, then we are forced to make you comply. And I'll ask you, do you really expect them to ask someone to comply, have them refuse, and the police just give up? Say "Oh well, we tried." and call it a day? No sir.
Mr. Kerrys opinion in this situation is irrelivant. Its the administrator of the building whom is in charge. If there is anyone who deserves people unhappy with them, its the administrator for not allowing proper time for the amount of students involved.
And I agree I don't like alot of what I see going on, (which is all off topic) but even though some of the laws we may not like, it is still my responsibility to follow, and enforce them. If you don't like whats going on fighting the police is not the way to handle it. file complaints, argue your cases in courts, write to your senators.
Again, based only on the videos, I saw them communicate with him verbally, I saw the female Officer tug his shirt sleeve (an attention getter) which he ripped away.. And only then did they attempt to physically escort him away, which he chose to resist. If at any point he had stopped fighting them, he probably wouldnt have taken a ride on the taser.. One hand in cuffs or not, if he was still fighting it was still justified. The taser being used is not a pretty sight, but that does not make it wrong or ineffective. Sorry yall dont like it, but it is what it is. They had a job to do, they followed the use of force continueum.
And Finally if you really want to understand your rights, go out and buy a copy of your states law books, (the copy that police use would be educational) bypass google here, trusting the internet or others opinions will get you in trouble. Read your Constitution. (Note this is very simplified) You have the right to speak freely, in public. In private however, the owner of the private area has the right to chuck you into public, where you can continue speaking. Therefore his rights were not infringed.
Post a Comment