No Andrew Meyer Thread Till Now? Not Surprising, Given the Generally Low Level of Consciousness


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : No Andrew Meyer Thread Till Now? Not Surprising, Given the Generally Low Level of Consciousness

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next
Author Message
Simon Wiesenthal
Send message
Joined: 8 Feb 02
Posts: 105
Credit: 80,113
RAC: 0
United States
Message 648166 - Posted: 24 Sep 2007, 23:16:50 UTC
Last modified: 24 Sep 2007, 23:51:40 UTC

Given the generally low level of sociopolitical consciousness round these SAH parts, it's not surprising to me that no thread, till now, has mentioned University of Florida at Gainesville police' Tasering student Andrew Meyer on Monday, September 17, 2007, in an auditorium hosting a John Kerry "forum."

Now that you've been informed of the incident, you can educate yourself about it on Youtube, and get back to me, weighing in with your view on "freedom of speech" vs. "law enforcement."

Profile Blurf
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 06
Posts: 7579
Credit: 6,974,160
RAC: 2,965
United States
Message 648271 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 2:30:01 UTC

The kid doesn't impress me--I saw the video and heard the audio-both several times.

1) He blew through several people to barge to the front of the line including interrupting one who was in the process of having his question answered.

2) He started flailing his arms about wildly before rather than simply stopping. I'm sorry but this made it obvious he could be a security risk.

This kid has a history of stupid stunts...he got what he asked for, unfortunate as it was.

One time in my college years in North Carolina, a kid got really out of hand (freshman) and when he got up and threatened the professor (relatively small-framed female-one of the best profs I ever had), a bunch of us told him in no terms to park it. He went to make a move at the professor and came by me, I crotched him with the handle of my wheelchair and dropped him like a rock. Then 3 ppl sat on him until Security arrived.

Same kind of kid..same idiotic behavior. Tazoring vs crotching...I dunno.
____________


Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1597
Credit: 932,316
RAC: 2,944
United States
Message 648286 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 3:06:16 UTC - in response to Message 648166.

Given the generally low level of sociopolitical consciousness round these SAH parts, it's not surprising to me that no thread, till now, has mentioned University of Florida at Gainesville police' Tasering student Andrew Meyer on Monday, September 17, 2007, in an auditorium hosting a John Kerry "forum."

Now that you've been informed of the incident, you can educate yourself about it on Youtube, and get back to me, weighing in with your view on "freedom of speech" vs. "law enforcement."


I heard about it, days ago. Saw the video. What is the issue?

A US Senator is giving a Q&A session. Kid gets pissed when he is told there isn't enough time left to get to his question. Kid gets rude and insulting and makes a scene. The Senator tells him to go ahead and ask his question. Kid is so pissed that he continues his angry rant, then charges towards the US Senator in a threatening manner. Kid gets Tasered. Again, what is the problem here? None whatsoever. Kid is very dang lucky it wasnt back around '68 in the wake of the MLK and RK assassinations. He woulda been shot dead then.

This isn't a case of UFG, the Police, or Senator Kerry depriving Andrew Meyer of 'free speech'. This *is* a case of Mr. Meyer acting like a dumbass.

Simon, perhaps it would be best if you didn't bold your entire post. And insulting everyone else here

Given the generally low level of sociopolitical consciousness round these SAH parts


isn't exactly the way to proceed to gain much sympathy for your position(s).

Have a nice day.

Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 648309 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 3:38:29 UTC
Last modified: 25 Sep 2007, 3:44:33 UTC

So that security man who tasered this student felt so threatened and so scared that he drew his weapon (and a taser IS a weapon, and is sometimes even a deadly one) against an unarmed person who just ranted?
Just another case of unjust violence against people with a different opinion!

"The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out." ~Chinese Proverb
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” ~Isaac Asimov
“Nothing good ever comes of violence.” ~Martin Luther
____________
Account frozen...

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 648329 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 4:38:25 UTC - in response to Message 648286.
Last modified: 25 Sep 2007, 4:39:19 UTC

Kid is very dang lucky it wasnt back around '68

You mean back when carrying a handgun didn't 'intimidate' anyone... When telling blonde jokes didn't 'offend' anyone... When yelling bomb wasn't necessarily 'threatening' but rather kinda funny... When we didn't have to pass through metal detectors and be frisked at every door... Of couse we had to worry about facing the paddle or the belt when we got home, but hey, we learned, and nobody ever got hurt or went to jail over it...

Sorry folks, these were the days of 'woodstock', not the 'wild wild west'... ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1597
Credit: 932,316
RAC: 2,944
United States
Message 648358 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 6:26:08 UTC - in response to Message 648309.

So that security man who tasered this student felt so threatened and so scared that he drew his weapon (and a taser IS a weapon, and is sometimes even a deadly one) against an unarmed person who just ranted?
Just another case of unjust violence against people with a different opinion!

"The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out." ~Chinese Proverb
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” ~Isaac Asimov
“Nothing good ever comes of violence.” ~Martin Luther


Uhh... No, Thorin... The security/police/whatever person didn't feel threatened. He/she/it didn't taser the kid because they personally were threatened. The kid, in the middle of his angry rant, rushed towards Senator Kerry (D-Mass), a very important and influential politician on the national level. Kerry ran against Bush for President in 2004.

The security-type person used their Taser on the kid to stop what could have been an assassination attempt. They did their *job*.

Yes, I am aware that a Taser can sometimes kill the target. But then, so can yelling 'Boo!'... Many years ago, a neighbor owned a chihuahua that hated my guts. It had bitten me a couple of times. One day, I snuck up on it and yelled 'Boo!' at it. It died a few seconds later. It was elderly (around 17 or 18), and had a heart condition, which I had no knowledge of.

Point is that sometimes a Taser can kill someone because they have, for instance, a heart condition. However, the person using the Taser almost always has no way of knowing that. On almost everybody, a Taser is safe and non-lethal.

Bottom line: This kid is in the audience of a Q&A session with a very important politician in the USA's national government. This kid has a snit because he won't get to ask the politician his question. The kid disrupts the Q&A session in a rage. The politician can not calm him down, not even by telling him to go ahead and ask his question. The kid continues to act angry and hostile. The kid rushes towards the stage the politician is on. The politician's security detail uses what is in almost all cases a non-lethal weapon on the kid to stop him before he reaches the politician.

It is NOT a free speech issue. Even after the kid's rude, angry outburst began, the politician invited the kid to go ahead and ask his question. It was the kid that decided not to do so and to continue on his rude, angry rant.

It is not an issue of 'police brutality'. The kid was very angry, and was advancing on a politician in the national government. The security/police used a non-lethal weapon on the kid to STOP him BEFORE he got close enough to the politician to do any harm. They COULD have shot the kid dead with their firearms, they had justification. The kid was highly agitated and was advancing on a US Senator. That constituted an immanent threat of bodily harm on the Senator, that potentially could have lead to the Senator's death (who knows what the kid might have had in his pocket). Nope... The security detail acted properly.

Now, if the kid had just disrupted the Q&A session, even pottymouthing Sen. Kerry, without making the threatening move towards Kerry, the Taser response would have been over the line of acceptable conduct on the part of the security detail. Back during the 1980 Presidential campaign, I attended a Q&A with Bush the Elder. Calmly called him a SOB (for being against Reagan's supply-side economics) in front of the TV cameras. All that happened to me was I got picked up and carried out of the room by Bush's security detail. Political statement made, and nobody got hurt (except my arms were sore where the gorillas in suits grabbed me). But, not ONCE did I say or do anything that threatened Bush the Elder. That is where Mr. Meyer made his mistake. He got all bent out of shape (irrational) and rushed at Sen. Kerry. The Taser use was appropriate.

Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 648369 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 7:16:20 UTC - in response to Message 648358.
Last modified: 25 Sep 2007, 7:17:49 UTC

So that security man who tasered this student felt so threatened and so scared that he drew his weapon (and a taser IS a weapon, and is sometimes even a deadly one) against an unarmed person who just ranted?
Just another case of unjust violence against people with a different opinion!

"The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out." ~Chinese Proverb
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” ~Isaac Asimov
“Nothing good ever comes of violence.” ~Martin Luther


Uhh... No, Thorin... The security/police/whatever person didn't feel threatened. He/she/it didn't taser the kid because they personally were threatened. The kid, in the middle of his angry rant, rushed towards Senator Kerry (D-Mass), a very important and influential politician on the national level. Kerry ran against Bush for President in 2004.

The security-type person used their Taser on the kid to stop what could have been an assassination attempt. They did their *job*.


Oh, thus just speaking angry, and being "pottymouthed" to a person who is a politician by chance is an assassination attempt? Ridiculous!
What is this security guy? Paranoid or something?
Or is it just the new nowadays' muzzle policy: "Shut up and listen or you get TASER'd?"

FIY: Tasers are not NON-lethal, it's what your biased media like to call "less-lethal".
Although the statistics differ on how many have actually died after being shocked by a TASER, some numbers state it is as high as 250 since the TASER has been introduced to law enforcement officials.

What are Tasers?
They are hand-held weapons that deliver a jolt of electricity – up to 50,000 volts – from up to 6.5 metres away. The shot can penetrate up to five centimetres of clothing.
It stuns the target by causing an uncontrollable contraction of the muscle tissue. He/she is immobilized and falls to the ground – regardless of pain tolerance or mental focus.

TASERs work by overriding the electrical system of the body by use of a high voltage, low current electrical discharge, making the muscles twitch or spasm, causing great pain and brief paralysis in victims. ... Most of the testing of the TASER and weapons like it have been performed on pigs and relaxed, healthy humans, but on the street most people facing police custody are not relaxed. They also may be on drugs, have health issues or be mentally ill and for these people 50,000 volts, especially if given more than once, may be all it takes to kill them.

I don't know which sadistic mind invented these things, and which sadistic mind introduced them as a police weapon, permitted to be used against unarmed civilians who just express their anger VOCALLY. Oh, your police is better than the Chinese or Russia ones, they don't use bullets and bats anymore against people who are angry and "pottymouthed", they use 50,000 Volt to muzzle them. Very human. Very non-violent.
What would this police or security man have done if the "kid" as you call him had thrown an egg or a tomato on the Senator? Shot him dead with their gun? I bet they would've done that, paranoid and violent as they are.

Don't tell me about non-existing police violence.
____________
Account frozen...

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1597
Credit: 932,316
RAC: 2,944
United States
Message 648382 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 7:59:13 UTC - in response to Message 648369.
Last modified: 25 Sep 2007, 8:05:17 UTC

So that security man who tasered this student felt so threatened and so scared that he drew his weapon (and a taser IS a weapon, and is sometimes even a deadly one) against an unarmed person who just ranted?
Just another case of unjust violence against people with a different opinion!

"The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out." ~Chinese Proverb
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” ~Isaac Asimov
“Nothing good ever comes of violence.” ~Martin Luther


Uhh... No, Thorin... The security/police/whatever person didn't feel threatened. He/she/it didn't taser the kid because they personally were threatened. The kid, in the middle of his angry rant, rushed towards Senator Kerry (D-Mass), a very important and influential politician on the national level. Kerry ran against Bush for President in 2004.

The security-type person used their Taser on the kid to stop what could have been an assassination attempt. They did their *job*.


Oh, thus just speaking angry, and being "pottymouthed" to a person who is a politician by chance is an assassination attempt? Ridiculous!
What is this security guy? Paranoid or something?
Or is it just the new nowadays' muzzle policy: "Shut up and listen or you get TASER'd?"

FIY: Tasers are not NON-lethal, it's what your biased media like to call "less-lethal".
Although the statistics differ on how many have actually died after being shocked by a TASER, some numbers state it is as high as 250 since the TASER has been introduced to law enforcement officials.

What are Tasers?
They are hand-held weapons that deliver a jolt of electricity – up to 50,000 volts – from up to 6.5 metres away. The shot can penetrate up to five centimetres of clothing.
It stuns the target by causing an uncontrollable contraction of the muscle tissue. He/she is immobilized and falls to the ground – regardless of pain tolerance or mental focus.

TASERs work by overriding the electrical system of the body by use of a high voltage, low current electrical discharge, making the muscles twitch or spasm, causing great pain and brief paralysis in victims. ... Most of the testing of the TASER and weapons like it have been performed on pigs and relaxed, healthy humans, but on the street most people facing police custody are not relaxed. They also may be on drugs, have health issues or be mentally ill and for these people 50,000 volts, especially if given more than once, may be all it takes to kill them.

I don't know which sadistic mind invented these things, and which sadistic mind introduced them as a police weapon, permitted to be used against unarmed civilians who just express their anger VOCALLY. Oh, your police is better than the Chinese or Russia ones, they don't use bullets and bats anymore against people who are angry and "pottymouthed", they use 50,000 Volt to muzzle them. Very human. Very non-violent.
What would this police or security man have done if the "kid" as you call him had thrown an egg or a tomato on the Senator? Shot him dead with their gun? I bet they would've done that, paranoid and violent as they are.

Don't tell me about non-existing police violence.


First of all, look at the video AGAIN. After the initial attempts to peacefully lead him away from the 'audience question podium' failed, Meyers became more agitated and tried to break away from the officer's grip as he lunged towards Sen. Kerry. Threatening move is THAT, not the pottymouthing. After he tried to attack Sen. Kerry, THAT is when more officers jumped on him, he was dragged away from Sen. Kerry towards the back of the room, and they tried to handcuff him without success. He was still highly agitated and still attempting to break free. It was THEN, and ONLY THEN that the electric device was brought out and used on Meyers.

Oh, and it wasn't a Taser, it was a Stun Gun. Tasers can be used at range. You gotta touch the perp with the Stun Gun. Other than that, though, same thing for the most part, except they are sightly less dangerous. A stun gun discharges through two metal contacts OUTSIDE the body. A taser fires needles connected by wires to the unit. These needles penetrate the skin and discharge into the 'wet' tissues beneath. You can get a MUCH bigger jolt from a Taser.

And as to 'pottymouthing'... Thats what I did to Bush the Elder, not what Meyers did to Kerry. I stated that, had he remained calm, Meyers could have called Kerry just about every name in the book, likely without even being arrested (just escorted from the room, as I was back in 1980).

And I know what a stun gun/taser is, how it works, the associated dangers, and what it feels like to be zapped by one. It isn't fun. However, I stand by my statement when I called them 'non-lethal'. A firearm (which is considered 'lethal') is designed to do someone severe bodily harm leading to death. A taser/stun gun is designed to incapacitate someone (although from time to time people DO end up dying -- stuff happens) without causing bodily harm.

No, the police in the Meyers vs. Kerry incident acted properly.

Oh, and another thing... Meyers HAD to have been planning this. Why else would he have had a friend next to him video-recording the incident? I wonder if she (the friend) will be brought up on 'conspiracy to commit' charges?

Oh, throwing an egg or tomato at someone *IS* assault. THAT, in and of itself, could have given Meyers a few years in prison. You can calmly and peacefully call someone every name in the book... But if you start lunging towards them when you are agitated, especially if you touch them in any way or try to hit them with any sort of a thrown object, you are guilty of assault (possibly aggravated) of one degree or another. That means prison time.

Simon Wiesenthal
Send message
Joined: 8 Feb 02
Posts: 105
Credit: 80,113
RAC: 0
United States
Message 648394 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 9:00:07 UTC - in response to Message 648369.
Last modified: 25 Sep 2007, 9:27:28 UTC


Oh, thus just speaking angry, and being "pottymouthed" to a person who is a politician by chance is an assassination attempt? Ridiculous!
What is this security guy? Paranoid or something?
Or is it just the new nowadays' muzzle policy: "Shut up and listen or you get TASER'd?"

FIY: Tasers are not NON-lethal, it's what your biased media like to call "less-lethal".


Your observations are spot on.

There is a disturbingly large part of America, i.e., roughly half, more or less in keeping with the stark divide renting America at her seam, which can watch the same footage you and I do, and see something completely different. Do you see anything resembling the hysterical claims these folks are making? I don't.
Where you and I see a citizen exercising First Amendment rights to free speech, they see "securtiy risk," "charging," and -- get ready for it -- "assassination?" If it weren't so sad it would be hilarious.

What we have, zwerg8_thorin, my friend, are two camps in the United States: the Fascist and fellow travelers, and the Resistance. We of the latter have exhausted almost all peaceful means to restore the Constitutional rule which has held our once great Republic together for nearly two and a half centuries. Those who wage genocide against Iraq for nearly twenty years, are expanding the pall of tyranny over her invader's country.

This struggle is carried out less and less in the halls of Congress and in the streets, while conditions continue to strain to the breaking point, and higher and higher forms of organization continue to thrive and grow online. Were I of the rulership class, I'd be mighty anxious about the eery calm of the still significantly large cohort of liberty-minded, highly motivated, armed America.

Support Ron Paul for President in '08!

Profile Es99 (part ii)
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Jul 07
Posts: 291
Credit: 18,010
RAC: 0
Message 648395 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 9:02:35 UTC - in response to Message 648329.

Kid is very dang lucky it wasnt back around '68

You mean back when carrying a handgun didn't 'intimidate' anyone... When telling blonde jokes didn't 'offend' anyone... When yelling bomb wasn't necessarily 'threatening' but rather kinda funny... When we didn't have to pass through metal detectors and be frisked at every door... Of couse we had to worry about facing the paddle or the belt when we got home, but hey, we learned, and nobody ever got hurt or went to jail over it...

Sorry folks, these were the days of 'woodstock', not the 'wild wild west'... ;)

Weren't there a whole load of riots across America in 1968?

You have a very rose coloured view of the 60s my friend.
____________
Account frozen...

MrGray
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3177
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 648400 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 9:14:30 UTC - in response to Message 648382.
Last modified: 25 Sep 2007, 9:49:43 UTC

Oh, throwing an egg or tomato at someone *IS* assault. THAT, in and of itself, could have given Meyers a few years in prison. You can calmly and peacefully call someone every name in the book... But if you start lunging towards them when you are agitated, especially if you touch them in any way or try to hit them with any sort of a thrown object, you are guilty of assault (possibly aggravated) of one degree or another. That means prison time.



Actually:

Introduction

In the context of criminal law, "assault and battery" are typically components of a single offense. In tort law, "assault" and "battery" are separate, with an assault being an act which creates fear of an imminent battery, and the battery being an unlawful touching. Assault and battery are intentional torts, meaning that the defendant actually intends to put the plaintiff in fear of being battered, or intends to wrongfully touch the plaintiff. The wrongful touching need not inflict physical injury, and may be indirect (such as contact through a thrown stone, or spitting). This article describes the law of assault and battery as it is commonly applied, although the law may vary in any specific jurisdiction.


Assault

An assault invoves:

1. An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force;
2. Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril;
3. Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented.

Note that an assault can be completed even if there is no actual contact with the plaintiff, and even if the defendant had no actual ability to carry out the apparent threat. For example, a defendant who points a realistic toy gun at the plaintiff may be liable for assault, even though the defendant was fifty feet away from the plaintiff and had no actual ability to inflict harm from that distance.


Battery

A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Please note that an offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury. A defendant who emphatically pokes the plaintiff in the chest with his index finger to emphasize a point may be culpable for battery (although the damages award that results may well be nominal). A defendant who spits on a plaintiff, even though there is little chance that the spitting will cause any injury other than to the plaintiff's dignity, has committed a battery.
Privilege

In order to be liable for an assault or battery, the defendant must lack privilege to assault or batter the plaintiff. The following are examples of "privilege":
Consent

Where a defendant has the plaintiff's consent to commit an act of assault or battery, the plaintiff may not later bring a lawsuit. The most typical context for consent occurs in sports. The intentional foul in basketball, or the tackle in football, are an anticipated part of the game. While it may be possible for certain conduct to be so far outside the realm of what is reasonable to nonetheless give rise to a tort - for example, chopping an opposing player off at the knees in a football game, an action which is known to have a very high probability of causing serious and even crippling injury - rule violations which are part of standard play are unlikely to support a legal action. Consent also exists in the context of authorized medical or surgical procedures.


Police Conduct

A police officer is privileged to apply the threat of force, or if necessary to apply actual force, in order to effect a lawful arrest. A defendant who suffers injury as the result of reasonable force exerted by the police to effect a lawful arrest will not be able to sustain a lawsuit against the arresting officers for assault or battery.
Self-Defense

A person who is assaulted may use such reasonable force as may be necessary, or which at the time reasonably appears to be necessary, to protect himself or herself from bodily harm. An act of self-defense must ordinarily be proportionate to the threat. That is, if you believe a person is going to spit on you, depending upon the context it may be reasonable to push the person away, but it would not be reasonable to hit the person with a baseball bat.

A plaintiff may be expected to withdraw from the threat, if possible, before engaging in forcible resistance. However, if the plaintiff is in his own home and the defendant is not a member of the plaintiff's household, a plaintiff will typically not be required to further withdraw from the threat once the plaintiff has retreated to his own home.


Defense of Others

Defense of others is similar to self-defense, and usually occurs in the context of one family member protecting another. Some jurisdictions permit a defendant to assert defense of others, even where the defendant is mistaken as to the existence of a threat, as long as the mistake is reasonable. Other jurisdictions do not permit this defense unless there was an actual threat or battery against the other person.
Voluntary (Mutual) Combat

Where the plaintiff voluntarily engages in a fight with defendant for the sake of fighting and not as a means of self-defense, the plaintiff may not recover for an assault or battery unless the defendant beat the plaintiff excessively or used unreasonable force. If two people voluntarily enter a brawl, it is unlikely that either will be able to sue the other. However, if one falls, and the other takes advantage of the situation by kicking him and causing injury, that act may well be considered to be an excessive use of force which would support a cause of action.


Defense of Property

Many jurisdictions allow the use of some amount of threat or force by a person who is seeking to protect his own property from theft or damage. In most jurisdictions, there is no privilege to use force that may cause death or serious injury against trespassers unless the trespass itself threatens death or serious injury. Please note that there are some jurisdictions with extraordinarily broad laws, permitting the use of significant and even deadly force to prevent the theft of property. (Leaving aside the moral issues of using physical force to defend property, be sure that you know your local laws before applying force in such a situation.)


Discipline

Some people are legally authorized to apply physical restraint or battery in order to discipline others. For example, in most jurisdictions, parents are legally authorized to apply reasonable physical discipline upon their children. In some jurisdictions, school teachers are permitted to apply a certain level of physical restraint or discipline against students. The staff of a mental health facility may have legal authority to apply reasonable restraint to prevent a patient from causing harm to himself, to others, or to property.
Merchant's Privilege

Most jurisdictions grant merchants the right to apply reasonable force to detain shoplifters, or other persons who the merchant reasonably believes are attempting to steal the merchant's property.
Provocation

Words alone, no matter how insulting or provocative, do not justify an assault or battery against the person who utters the words.


*Penalties vary. Interesting to me, they don't teach basic law in High School. I think it would cut down on a lot of ignorant actions and save society some suffering.



.
____________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Simon Wiesenthal
Send message
Joined: 8 Feb 02
Posts: 105
Credit: 80,113
RAC: 0
United States
Message 648409 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 9:49:05 UTC - in response to Message 648400.
Last modified: 25 Sep 2007, 9:51:27 UTC


Introduction

In the context of criminal law, "assault and battery" are typically components of a single offense. In tort law, "assault" and "battery" are separate, with an assault being an act which creates fear of an imminent battery, and the battery being an unlawful touching. Assault and battery are intentional torts, meaning that the defendant actually intends to put the plaintiff in fear of being battered, or intends to wrongfully touch the plaintiff. The wrongful touching need not inflict physical injury, and may be indirect (such as contact through a thrown stone, or spitting). This article describes the law of assault and battery as it is commonly applied, although the law may vary in any specific jurisdiction.
Assault

An assault invoves:

1. An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force;
2. Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril;
3. Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented.

Note that an assault can be completed even if there is no actual contact with the plaintiff, and even if the defendant had no actual ability to carry out the apparent threat. For example, a defendant who points a realistic toy gun at the plaintiff may be liable for assault, even though the defendant was fifty feet away from the plaintiff and had no actual ability to inflict harm from that distance.
Battery

A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Please note that an offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury. A defendant who emphatically pokes the plaintiff in the chest with his index finger to emphasize a point may be culpable for battery (although the damages award that results may well be nominal). A defendant who spits on a plaintiff, even though there is little chance that the spitting will cause any injury other than to the plaintiff's dignity, has committed a battery.
Privilege

In order to be liable for an assault or battery, the defendant must lack privilege to assault or batter the plaintiff. The following are examples of "privilege":
Consent

Where a defendant has the plaintiff's consent to commit an act of assault or battery, the plaintiff may not later bring a lawsuit. The most typical context for consent occurs in sports. The intentional foul in basketball, or the tackle in football, are an anticipated part of the game. While it may be possible for certain conduct to be so far outside the realm of what is reasonable to nonetheless give rise to a tort - for example, chopping an opposing player off at the knees in a football game, an action which is known to have a very high probability of causing serious and even crippling injury - rule violations which are part of standard play are unlikely to support a legal action. Consent also exists in the context of authorized medical or surgical procedures.
Police Conduct

A police officer is privileged to apply the threat of force, or if necessary to apply actual force, in order to effect a lawful arrest. A defendant who suffers injury as the result of reasonable force exerted by the police to effect a lawful arrest will not be able to sustain a lawsuit against the arresting officers for assault or battery.
Self-Defense

A person who is assaulted may use such reasonable force as may be necessary, or which at the time reasonably appears to be necessary, to protect himself or herself from bodily harm. An act of self-defense must ordinarily be proportionate to the threat. That is, if you believe a person is going to spit on you, depending upon the context it may be reasonable to push the person away, but it would not be reasonable to hit the person with a baseball bat.

A plaintiff may be expected to withdraw from the threat, if possible, before engaging in forcible resistance. However, if the plaintiff is in his own home and the defendant is not a member of the plaintiff's household, a plaintiff will typically not be required to further withdraw from the threat once the plaintiff has retreated to his own home.
Defense of Others

Defense of others is similar to self-defense, and usually occurs in the context of one family member protecting another. Some jurisdictions permit a defendant to assert defense of others, even where the defendant is mistaken as to the existence of a threat, as long as the mistake is reasonable. Other jurisdictions do not permit this defense unless there was an actual threat or battery against the other person.
Voluntary (Mutual) Combat

Where the plaintiff voluntarily engages in a fight with defendant for the sake of fighting and not as a means of self-defense, the plaintiff may not recover for an assault or battery unless the defendant beat the plaintiff excessively or used unreasonable force. If two people voluntarily enter a brawl, it is unlikely that either will be able to sue the other. However, if one falls, and the other takes advantage of the situation by kicking him and causing injury, that act may well be considered to be an excessive use of force which would support a cause of action.
Defense of Property

Many jurisdictions allow the use of some amount of threat or force by a person who is seeking to protect his own property from theft or damage. In most jurisdictions, there is no privilege to use force that may cause death or serious injury against trespassers unless the trespass itself threatens death or serious injury. Please note that there are some jurisdictions with extraordinarily broad laws, permitting the use of significant and even deadly force to prevent the theft of property. (Leaving aside the moral issues of using physical force to defend property, be sure that you know your local laws before applying force in such a situation.)
Discipline

Some people are legally authorized to apply physical restraint or battery in order to discipline others. For example, in most jurisdictions, parents are legally authorized to apply reasonable physical discipline upon their children. In some jurisdictions, school teachers are permitted to apply a certain level of physical restraint or discipline against students. The staff of a mental health facility may have legal authority to apply reasonable restraint to prevent a patient from causing harm to himself, to others, or to property.
Merchant's Privilege

Most jurisdictions grant merchants the right to apply reasonable force to detain shoplifters, or other persons who the merchant reasonably believes are attempting to steal the merchant's property.
Provocation

Words alone, no matter how insulting or provocative, do not justify an assault or battery against the person who utters the words.


Ѫ ʎɐɹƃɹɯ ϡ,

I agree. Not only does the State have a weak "case" against Mr. Meyer, but Meyer himself, should he hire high-powered counsel, can probably punish the State of FL for several millions of dollars in civil court, and possibly secure prosecution against one or more of the police involved, for assault and battery of Mr. Meyer.

MrGray
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3177
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 648410 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 9:54:07 UTC
Last modified: 25 Sep 2007, 9:59:34 UTC

I saw the video and have an opinion that the guy messed up.

He may have had a point, though I wasn't listening to the audio carefully, but tried too hard and is now trying to make himself a martyr.

Although the venue didn't look all that important, he could have done much better waiting his turn and not yelling. He'll get resisting as well, IMHO.

Gotta work within the construct peacefully or play the fool and wear the black hat. Public opinion is everything. Presentations must cater to this social fact.


Thank you for posting and sharing your thoughts.

Respectfully,

Ѫ ʎɐɹƃɹɯ ϡ


.
____________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 648424 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 10:25:38 UTC - in response to Message 648382.
Last modified: 25 Sep 2007, 10:42:04 UTC


First of all, look at the video AGAIN.
I did, at spiegel.de - I saw a student asking inconvenient questions and being interrupted by several cops who wanted to hinder him to do so. Censorship? Have the questions been too inconvenient?
After the initial attempts to peacefully lead him away from the 'audience question podium' failed,...
which was not really peacefully... Why have they been against some interrogating questions?
... Meyers became more agitated and tried to break away from the officer's grip as he lunged towards Sen. Kerry.
No, he lunged to get out of their grip. Kerry stood quite far away on the stage. Not only Meyer was several yards away from the stage when asking his interrogating questions, he also would have to climb on the stage first to really attack Kerry. Which means, your point,
Threatening move is THAT,
is not longer valid.
... After he tried to attack Sen. Kerry,...
With what? With more inconvenient questions? Or with the sheet he had in his hand?
... THAT is when more officers jumped on him, he was dragged away from Sen. Kerry towards the back of the room,
in the video I saw, he never was THAT close to the Senator!
...and they tried to handcuff him without success.
Of course, when 4, 5 cops wrestling him down, they hinder each other to handcuff that one guy - they were enough to successfully handcuff a huge octopus, but one or two had been enough to handcuff that ONE person!
...He was still highly agitated and still attempting to break free.
Sure - if I were attacked by cops because of just asking questions I would also try to break free.
It was THEN, and ONLY THEN that the electric device was brought out and used on Meyers.
Oh, of course - it's not enough for one unarmed student to be jumped on by a superiority of 4 or 5 armed cops, they also HAD TO stun him to calm him down - And that's no police violence, of course not!

Oh, and it wasn't a Taser, it was a Stun Gun.
...which surely makes it less harmful...
Tasers can be used at range. You gotta touch the perp with the Stun Gun. Other than that, though, same thing for the most part, except they are sightly less dangerous.
Sure... "slightly"...
A stun gun discharges through two metal contacts OUTSIDE the body. A taser fires needles connected by wires to the unit. These needles penetrate the skin and discharge into the 'wet' tissues beneath. You can get a MUCH bigger jolt from a Taser.
That's why they use stun guns for torturing - they are "less dangerous" for the victim! It still are some Kilo-Volt which are sent into the body of an unarmed person!
And I know what a stun gun/taser is, how it works, the associated dangers, and what it feels like to be zapped by one. It isn't fun.
And still you advocate it?
However, I stand by my statement when I called them 'non-lethal'. A firearm (which is considered 'lethal') is designed to do someone severe bodily harm leading to death. A taser/stun gun is designed to incapacitate someone (although from time to time people DO end up dying -- stuff happens) without causing bodily harm.
That's the collateral damage then, isn't it?

No, the police in the Meyers vs. Kerry incident acted properly.
Properly for a police state.

Oh, and another thing... Meyers HAD to have been planning this. Why else would he have had a friend next to him video-recording the incident? I wonder if she (the friend) will be brought up on 'conspiracy to commit' charges?
There were several students with cameras - all part of a conspiracy? Forget it.

Oh, throwing an egg or tomato at someone *IS* assault. THAT, in and of itself, could have given Meyers a few years in prison.
If the egg were a ceramic egg I would understand this argument. But a normal egg or some vegetable? Paah!
You can calmly and peacefully call someone every name in the book...
Sure.
But if you start lunging towards them when you are agitated, especially if you touch them in any way or try to hit them with any sort of a thrown object, you are guilty of assault (possibly aggravated) of one degree or another. That means prison time.
Only if you're close enough to hit someone. If I stood 6 feet away from you and struck out as to hit you, would this be a threat? I doubt it.
____________
Account frozen...

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1597
Credit: 932,316
RAC: 2,944
United States
Message 648519 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 14:51:45 UTC
Last modified: 25 Sep 2007, 15:04:07 UTC

Ok, Thorin, let me ask you this: At what point during that Video did things 'begin to go wrong' in your opinion, and who made the first 'bad move'?

Was it when Meyer didn't just ask his question at the start, but instead started off giving a book review/history lesson?

Was it when Meyer insisted that he be allowed not only to ask one question, but 'two more'?

Was it when Meyer became somewhat agitated during his 'questions'?

Was it when a person or persons unknown decided to turn off his microphone?

Was it when the first two Police Officers asked Meyer to leave the audience podium?

Was it when Meyer refused to do so?

Was it when the first two Police Officers tried to lead him away from the audience podium?

Was it when Meyer began physically resisting the Police Officers?

Was it when Meyer, during the physical struggle, dragged the melee over to directly in front of the stage where Sen. Kerry was?

Was it when Meyer almost succeeds in breaking free of the Police Officers' grip while lunging directly at the stage where Sen. Kerry was, while still having that book in his hand?

Was it when more Police Officers join the fray, pulling Meyer up the aisle towards the back of the room and away from Sen. Kerry (who, by the way, at this point is still requesting Meyer continue with his question(s))?

Was it when the Police Officers try to place handcuffs on Meyer, who is so obviously going to be under arrest at this point that it isn't even funny?

Was it when Meyer still continues to resist arrest?

Was it when the Police Officers decide to use a stun gun to assist them in placing handcuffs on Meyer before the fight injures another audience member?

-----------------------

Well? Where did things begin to go wrong in this incident and whose fault was it?

While I eagerly anticipate your answer, in order to save time allow me to give my opinion on the answer.

------------------------

Things began 'go wrong' when Meyer refused the quite legitimate request of the Police Officers to leave the audience podium after his microphone was cut off. And by the time that Meyer began physically resisting the Police Officers' attempts to remove him from the room, the 'fault' for the incident was squarely on him.

The police were there for three reasons. 1. To protect US Senator Kerry. 2. To protect the audience members. 3. To help ensure order during the Q&A session. It was Meyer's refusal to comply with the legitimate instructions that the Police Officers gave him in regards to reason #3 that forced them to go medieval on Meyer in regards to reasons #1 and #2. If one disrupts an appearance by a politician, one is GOING to be removed from the venue. That is a GIVEN. Disruption isn't usually a crime. 'Failure to comply' is, and will usually lead to arrest. 'Resisting arrest' is an even bigger crime.

Things did NOT go wrong when Meyer asked a politician an embarrassing question or two. I've done that, a LOT.

Things did NOT go wrong when Meyer disrupted a Q&A session with a politician. I've done that once.

Things DID go wrong when Meyer failed to cooperate with the Police 'goon squad' when they first 'invited' him to leave the room. When I disrupted that Bush (the Elder) Q&A back in 1980, I cooperated, and just got ejected from the room (mission accomplished, however... Got to make my statement about Bush the Elder to his face, on camera, and in front of several newspaper reporters... :-) ). Meyer didn't cooperate. He got himself in a heap of trouble (at the minimum, resisting arrest), not to mention having at least 6 Police go medieval on him and a stun-gun used on him.

This isn't a 'freedom of speech' issue. Meyer *had* his 'say' during his protest. If he had been a little more calm about it, and had cooperated with the Police when they tried to peacefully remove him from the room, Meyer probably could have totally avoided any trouble whatsoever.

Meyer bears total responsibility for having that stun-gun used on himself.

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9023
Credit: 256,123
RAC: 125
Canada
Message 648531 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 15:21:32 UTC

Andrew Meyer Tazered by police

You actually look at that video and tell me that was a proportionate response.

Even the audience thought the police were going too far. So what if he was being a bit annoying? The response by the police was inappropriate. Actually watch the video and you show me where the student was being aggressive or violent. He had his hands up all the while.

They had him pinned down by 6 officers and only then did they taser him. That action by the police was indefensible. The man was making a protest that harmed no one. Next you will be telling me that China has it right when they shoot student protesters.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Dominique
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Mar 05
Posts: 1629
Credit: 74,745
RAC: 0
United States
Message 648538 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 15:39:50 UTC - in response to Message 648531.

Andrew Meyer Tazered by police

You actually look at that video and tell me that was a proportionate response.

Even the audience thought the police were going too far. So what if he was being a bit annoying? The response by the police was inappropriate. Actually watch the video and you show me where the student was being aggressive or violent. He had his hands up all the while.

They had him pinned down by 6 officers and only then did they taser him. That action by the police was indefensible. The man was making a protest that harmed no one. Next you will be telling me that China has it right when they shoot student protesters.


Bloviating windbags tend to see things other than reality. I suppose that the swirling mass of hot air distorts the truth.

____________

Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 648541 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 15:44:00 UTC
Last modified: 25 Sep 2007, 15:45:43 UTC

Well...
Here is the video again. As you will see, the thing was, Meyer was jumped upon only because of asking whether or not Kerry was member at "Skulls & Bones", the same secret society Bush supposed to be a member of.
Then, the entire "angry ranting" (which is rather a loud protesting against the rude treatment by the police), and what you interpret as "attacking the Senator" is only because the cops are upon Meyer - who actually did nothing than raise inconvenient subjects.
Of course the speech of Kerry was then interrupted only by the "Why are you arresting me?" and "Aw!" and "What did I do?" and "Get off of me" and "Don't tase me!" of a in my eyes non-violent person.
Things began go wrong when the cops went to arrest Meyer whilst he was asking his questions. The first "bad move" as you call it, MajorKong, was made by the police who played censor there.
I my eyes it was a clear case of exaggerated police censorship and police violence.
____________
Account frozen...

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1597
Credit: 932,316
RAC: 2,944
United States
Message 648546 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 15:55:45 UTC - in response to Message 648531.

Andrew Meyer Tazered by police

You actually look at that video and tell me that was a proportionate response.

Even the audience thought the police were going too far. So what if he was being a bit annoying? The response by the police was inappropriate. Actually watch the video and you show me where the student was being aggressive or violent. He had his hands up all the while.

They had him pinned down by 6 officers and only then did they taser him. That action by the police was indefensible. The man was making a protest that harmed no one. Next you will be telling me that China has it right when they shoot student protesters.


I have seen the video. Multiple times.

The audience was cheering the police as they grappled with Meyer. Only Meyer's female friend (who was taking the video) was screaming 'what are you doing' to the police.

Meyer WAS being 'agressive'. Resisting arrest by fighting with the Police. And he didn't have his 'hands up' in the traditional 'I surrender' gesture. He was flailing them around as he struggled with the police.

As I stated before... Meyer was not 'in the wrong' when he did his 'protest'. He WAS in the wrong when he physically resisted attempts by the police to remove him from the room.

When you do something like this, and the police come up to you and request that you leave, you allow them to peacefully guide you to the exit. Its not likely that you will be in any serious trouble then. However, if you do as Meyer did, and it leads to a scuffle with the police, then expect to be in deep excrement.

It was in everyone's best interests for the Police to end that fight as soon as possible, before some accident happened such as one of their guns getting dislodged from its holster and possibly discharging sending an innocent bystander to the hospital.

Meyer earned that stun-gun's discharge when he 'failed to comply' with the police's instructions and then 'resisted arrest'.

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1597
Credit: 932,316
RAC: 2,944
United States
Message 648548 - Posted: 25 Sep 2007, 15:59:19 UTC - in response to Message 648541.

Well...
Here is the video again. As you will see, the thing was, Meyer was jumped upon only because of asking whether or not Kerry was member at "Skulls & Bones", the same secret society Bush supposed to be a member of.
Then, the entire "angry ranting" (which is rather a loud protesting against the rude treatment by the police), and what you interpret as "attacking the Senator" is only because the cops are upon Meyer - who actually did nothing than raise inconvenient subjects.
Of course the speech of Kerry was then interrupted only by the "Why are you arresting me?" and "Aw!" and "What did I do?" and "Get off of me" and "Don't tase me!" of a in my eyes non-violent person.
Things began go wrong when the cops went to arrest Meyer whilst he was asking his questions. The first "bad move" as you call it, MajorKong, was made by the police who played censor there.
I my eyes it was a clear case of exaggerated police censorship and police violence.


Police censorship???

It likely was either a Kerry staffer or a university official that killed the microphone and asked the police to remove Meyer. It almost certainly wasn't the police doing so on their own initiative. The police only 'became violent' towards Meyer when Meyer refused their request to leave the podium and physically resisted them.
____________
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome

“Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty.”
― Tacitus

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next

Message boards : Politics : No Andrew Meyer Thread Till Now? Not Surprising, Given the Generally Low Level of Consciousness

Copyright © 2014 University of California