John Kerry, as someone holding power, could have intervened in a more forceful way. He could have invited Meyer to the stage or stepped off the stage to interfere with the arrest. Its Kerry's inaction that makes him so weak as a politician (and a presidential candidate?). He says he's for the powerless but when given a chance to prove it, he fails. He has body guards to protect him. Meyer had only Kerry.Sentence 1: Holding power? What power? Intervened how? John Kerry had zero power over those cops. They were answerable only to their superiors, not to any Senator.
Kerry didn't even know what was going on. I've given lectures (as most of you have not), and I know what it is like to stare into the stage lights while speaking into the sound system. Believe me, the senator probably had very little idea as to what was going on in the back of the hall.
Sentence 2: Kerry should have invited a blowhard onto the stage? That is the single most moronic suggestion since Bush said "Let's invade Iraq."
Why should a conspiracy-crazed crank be allowed to bull his way onto any stage he pleases? Why should the Meyers of this world be allowed to say anything at a Kerry event?
Free speech does not mean that Kerry and his audience should be forced to endure such drivel. Free speech means that Meyer has a right to speak at his own event. If nobody shows up, tough shit.
People who ask questions at a public event are exercising a privilege, not a right.
Similarly, none of you have any "right" to say one word on this blog. I allow you that privilege. If the newspaper prints your letter to the editor, you have been granted a privilege, not a right.
If you want to determine who does and does not merit such a privilege, then start your own blog, run your own newspaper, get your own radio program, or speak at your own events.
The first amendment is not absolute. It does not give me the right to yell at the actors during a Shakespeare performance. And it does not give Andy Meyer the right to push other people out of line and take over a public event. Such behavior is, in fact, criminal.
The videotape evidence clearly shows that Andy Meyer violated section 877.03 of the Florida criminal code -- Breach of the peace; disorderly conduct. He then went on to resist arrest. He is not just a rude loudmouth. He is a criminal and fully deserved to be treated as such.
Why should a criminal be allowed to drive a Senator off the stage?
Sentence 3: "Its Kerry's inaction that makes him so weak as a politician..." So letting the blowhard drive him off the stage would have been a sign of strength? Good freaking Kee-RIST...!
La'ikoa, by any chance, are your parents named Kelly Bundy and Homer Simpson...?
Sentence 4: Failed how? Meyer was not powerless; he was a criminal. Creeps like Meyer should be truncheoned if they fight back against police officers.
Sentences 5 and 6: Do a little research before you open your yap, la'ikoa. Kerry has no bodyguards. He lost his Secret Service protection when he lost the election. The only law in that auditorium was provided by the University of Florida police, who did a damned fine job.
We now know from a witness to the event that the tasering was perfectly justified. The name of the witness: Andy Meyer.
Here are his own words to the cop who tasered him: "You didn't do anything wrong."
Get it? If the alleged "victim" stipulates that the tasering was justified, then that is that is that. Case closed. What part of "You didn't do anything wrong" can't you understand?
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.Andy set up this entire tableau. He wanted to be tasered. He either suffers from a psychological malady, or -- and this is the theory I now tend to favor -- he was paid by the Republicans to initiate this incident. Similarly, I suspect that some of the anti-Kerry posters on various blogs and public forums are actually plants.
"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.
If this "pay-off" theory is correct, then we may expect to see a series of similar planned diversions, all cleverly designed to divide the Democrats.
12 comments:
Joseph, I have a taser comment. This applies not only to the fellow in FLorida but to the grandmas that have been tased, as well as many many Americans.
A taser is a weapon. It should not be used lightly and without thought. Electricity is dangerous.If cops had specific instances to use tasers , it would help.
A taser should be a substitute for a gun. Would the officers had shot the fellow in Florida with a bullet? A taser is not a " control device".
The dangers of electricity passing through the human body are well documented. If you are unaware, electricity is used to restart the heart in medical applications. It clearly affects more inside the body that what the cops realize that it does.
We have no long term studies on using tasers on humans. Personally, having watched many humans shocked back to life in a cardiac cath lab, I feel it is the absolute wrong thing for a non medical person to be administering an electrical charge to the human body.
Now cops are practicing medicine in reality... you reckon docs will start arresting people?????????
You have touched on my own argument against so-called non-lethal weaponry: It reduces the threshold for use.
In this case, I don't think the bar was set too low. A big young guy -- who probably has mental health issues -- had been fighting cops for quite some time, and refused to become compliant. He injured a cop and posed a threat to others in the auditorium. He was warned that if did not comply, he would be tazed. He continued fighting. The cops made good on their threat.
I know that tasers have been used improperly in the past, but this was a textbook example of how to do it correctly.
Interesting that opinion on both the right and left is divided on this taser incident. Michael Savage last night said it was fascist police brutality.I wouldn't go that far.
I don't think he should have been arrested in the first place. He was finished with his rather long, rhetorical 3-part question, which Kerry had said he would answer, when they moved in on him.
Joe, I have to disagree with you on this being the right thing to have done. No, I don't have any problems with Kerry. I voted for the man and am quite disappointed that he lost. No, I also don't think he could have done anything in the situation. But, I watched the video. You may think the kid was being a jerk, but he did nothing to warrant an electric shock. He was a danger to nobody. Secondly, given your questioning of authority at times on this blog, I find it funny that you'd cite a police report saying that "Mr. Meyer said he did nothing wrong after the incident." To be honest, I don't even really care if he did. So you thought the kid was a dick. Yeah. It's a shame that so many seem comfortable with letting that be the test for whether or not one deserves to get tased. You may want to think about that one a bit more, since you have in the past.
There is "questioning authority" and then there is "questioning authority." Dick Cheney may be Darth Vader, but cops are just normal guys doing a job.
Yeah, I know that some cops are corrupt. And even good ones can be a little corrupt under certain circumstances, just as any of us can "shave" our ethics from time to time. I have followed the Ramparts scandal and other controversies involving the LAPD rather closely, so I know that the profession does not attract angels. Still, cops do a tough job, one that I would rather not do, and I must respect them for doing it. Our entire legal system would fall to pieces if we did not grant some respect to the testimony of police officers.
If you look back over all my previous writings, you will see that my attitude has been consistent. Politicians I don't like are fair game. Same thing with spies and media bigwigs and big business types. But when it comes to police officers, I have always tried to be, if not deferential, then at least...understanding.
In this case: Yeah, I am inclined to believe the cops.
Face it, that "nothing wrong" crack sounds like something Andy would say. He's young and full of bravado and doesn't think things out. He definitely does NOT know when to keep his mouth shut.
Besides, days have passed since that report surfaced, and Andy has yet to call it a lie.
So again I say: If the alleged "victim" stipulates that the cop who tasered him did "nothing wrong," then that is that is THAT. Who am I to disagree? Case closed.
Joe, why in your opinion did Kerry not contest the criminal theft of the 2004 election?
And why does he not support indicting the Bushite war criminals at The Hague, nor even impeaching the bastards under the local kangaroo jurisdiction?
I just can't believe you'll say it's all for vote-winning or realpolitik reasons.
Your characterisation of the anti-Dem left has a lot of truth in it but sometimes it smacks of building up a straw man.
It's uncool to say so, but the only solution to the parlous state of the world really is worldwide revolution. To hell with the ideas embodied in the US constitution and all that shit... To hell with all nations and States. To hell with business, consumerism, alienated labour, and the spectacle. Sound unrealistic? That's because its realisation isn't on the horizon. But it's all we've got. It's the only chance humanity has got.
The alternative is beyond the worst nightmares - or fantasies - of the looniest conspira-buffs. Mass chipping? Yes indeed. I don't know how anyone who gives some sort of sensible meaning to the concept of 'history' could think otherwise. The future will either be one of socialism or one of the intensification and moving-to-a-higher-level of barbarism, aided in the latter scenario with all the means of the ongoing capitalist technological revolution.
Millions of people in America have actively supported the last two Democratic presidential candidates for honourable reasons, namely because they want to see the back of the right-wing, blood-soaked, criminal Repuglican filth. These good people were wasting their time. How many Repuglican victories will it take for you to come to accept this? Three? Four?
Accepting it doesn't lead anywhere positive in the short term. Is that the problem??
The Bushites stole two elections. What is the likelihood that they won't steal a third, when their main so-called opposition doesn't even accuse them of stealing any in the first place?
And if they do, sure, Repug plants on the left, and people on the left who've got their heads up their arses, should be allotted their fair share of the blame. But so should the rest of the Democratic party, which is so part and parcel of the US regime that it is even structurally involved in the National Endowment for Democracy, which helps achieve with PR and slush funds what elsewhere gets done with American shells and tanks.
b
Joe, I just can't agree. Case is not closed. You're a writer/investigator? I'm a lawyer. I have absolutely no problems with police either. However, based on what I witnessed in the video, I see it as abuse. I do have a significant problem with abuse by police because that damages our legal system as well. A taser is supposed to be used only in circumstances where a suspect is a danger, not because they simply aren't doing what you tell them to. When you say " He definitely does NOT know when to keep his mouth shut," I cannot agree with that logic. It sounds too much like blaming a rape victim because of how they were dressed. Does it make sense for someone to keep their mouths shut and do what they're told by police? Absolutely, and I wouldn't advise anyone otherwise. But, when they don't, doesn't justify the use of a tser, a baton to the head, etc? No, it does not.
The one thing that has truly bothered me about this whole story is how people have responded to it, and how political they've made it, either in support or reaction based on who they like and didn't like. It doesn't matter. This is clearly a case of abusive police conduct and shouldn't be treated as anything more. In an instance where I've seen abusive police conduct, no, I'm just not willing to trust the report of the very people involved in the conduct. Nor am I even willing to give it credibility if it's true. So a kid who just got tased is being passive while in the back of a car? As much as this can be played off as some type of confession, it can also be a result of the fact that he may have been scared. and, in the end, his testimony there doesn't even really matter. The cop that used the stun gun should be investigated regardless and, in all likelihood, punished. The subsequent lack of statements from Meyer is not important either. I would imagine that he's talked to a lawyer and may
likely have this go in front of a civil court. Regardless, given the amount of news coverage this is getting right now, and how many pundits and peanut gallery folk are already willing to spin it, if I were his lawyer, I'd be telling him to not make any statements at all at this point.
john, I have to admit that yours is a reasonable comment, and I am glad to hear from a lawyer. I also know that Andy is indeed lawyered up right now. He's keeping quiet, no doubt at the lawyer's request. I'm guessing that Daddy is putting his spoiled brat of a kid through school, and Daddy has insisted that Andy stop acting like such a 'tard and start doing what he is told.
So, yeah, his lawyer probably wisely told him to keep his mouth shut, and Andy is (uncharacteristically) following sound counsel.
But if I were a lawyer, and if the pool of potential jurors were being exposed to a false statement by the police that could impact my client at trial, then I surely would issue a public statement on my client's behalf denying that he ever said such a thing.
No such denial has been heard.
I think Andy really said it. In fact, I'd bet money on it...and I NEVER bet.
And if he stipulated that the tasering was justified -- well, who am I to argue?
I don't think for one second that Andy was scared when the cops were hauling him away. The guy was clearly acting. Just look at the video! I feel confident that most jurors will agree with my assessment.
The following is a bit discursive, but I might as well say it.
Weirdly enough, that same "blaming the rape victim because of how she as dressed" analogy was posed by my ladyfriend as we discussed the case. At that moment, we happened to be driving through a really seedy and intimidating area south of Hollywood at (roughly) 2:00 a.m. I asked her: "Tell me honestly. Let's say you saw a young lady dressed like Britney Spears, wearing a ripped-up t-shirt with the message 'RAPE ME', walking down this street at this time. How much sympathy would you have for her if she were attacked?"
Legally and ethically, yes, she has a perfect right to do just that, and no assault would ever be justified. But that's not what I'm asking. On a purely human level, would you have much SYMPATHY for such a ninny? Aren't some behaviors so flabbergastingly unwise as to leave you reeling and cynical and just plain uncaring?
I have a legal right to walk through Compton wearing an "I HATE NIGGERS" signboard (as Bruce Willis does in one of the "Die Hard" movies) -- but would you have any sympathy for me if I were assaulted? Or would you just smirk when you heard the story? Be honest.
Part of my own reaction to the fate of Andy Meyer is, I confess, emotional. I know conspiracy buffs of Andy's type. I have intimate knowledge of how those people think and act. And I know how those creeps behave in public: They feel that their Higher Truth gives them the right to behave in abominable ways. I've seen what happens when such people decide to disturb a public event at which there are no cops.
Over time, I lost all sympathy for those clowns. Sorry, but hard experience has left me bereft of the ability to think of them as human beings with human rights.
Suppose you were an actor in a play. Suppose a loudmouth in the audience got up and took over the performance. Nothing can make him shut up. Even when the cops show up, he keeps going on and on. He resists arrest, fighting the cops, endangering other members of the audience. Would you care about the loudmouth's First Amendment rights -- or would you, in your heart of hearts, just want to see the fucker truncheoned and bleeding? Be honest.
Like it or not, Andy is a criminal. He created a public disturbance. He is charged with a felony. He clearly resisted arrest. He is going to prison and I will be glad.
I find it interesting that people think that tazing a subject to effect an arrest is abusive. I mean, sure, the police could have just said, "wow, this guy is too much of a handful, let's just forget this whole arresting him thing and let him go." Maybe they should always do that, and just let the idiots in the world feed on the...rest of the citizens. I mean really, the guy was clearly disorderly, and clearly resisting arrest. Tazing someone hurts like crazy, but it incapacitates for about five seconds. Usually one hit is enough to get a person who is resisting into handcuffs. And, most people who get tazed instead of beaten into submission, suffer less traumatic injury to their body.
Thanks Joe, for the privilege of posting. :)
Joe, I am not fully aware of how many details surrounding this case have gotten leaked. If I were the kids lawyer, and the supposed confession in the police report was widespread, yes, maybe I'd make a comment on his behalf. But, honestly, I don't see how it makes a difference. It's really no different than someone who got beaten by their lover saying "I deserved it." Here, we have video where the accused hadn't physically threatened anyone. So he was resisting? There were more than enough cops there to slap on the cuffs and remove him. It was taken further to make a story that seems all too familiar with these things. Where deadly force is used to assert authority, not to "protect and serve."
Your question on whether or not I feel sorry for this kid, or other people engaged in stupid behavior, is irrelevant. I don't feel sorry for this kid. That doesn't change the fact that the cops screwed up.
My opinions of how people are, or how they have treated mean the past, mean absolutely nothing when it comes to abuse by law enforcement. It's still abuse, no matter how much I may dislike the victim. And since our like towards a particular kind of person is not supposed to apply once law and justice get involved, I'd rather stick to that principle, rather than coming closer to becoming the type of person I'd morally oppose.
Joe. Joseph. Whatever?
I don't respect your viewpoint, but hey, it's your blogspot.
In your efforts to name the "dumbest liberal blogger", you've not managed to come across as an intellectual giant yourself.
Please locate the nearest electrical outlet and punish yourself as you're guilty of showing your indifference in cyberspace.
Post a Comment