My apologies, I didn't address your question properly and directly. I moved on to another factor concerning the KKK.
Concerning your post, you stated that a person would go on stage and yell it out on the microphone. After looking at the video again, it looked like John Kerry allowed Andrew Meyer to talk and the microphone was there for him to talk on. To some people, it looked like he was disrupting the peace but to others, it looked like he was stating his opinions and that his rights were violated.
How do you know that he was stating his opinions? Those people that think he was only just stating his opinions where is the proof? I have proof that says he was not stating his opinions but rather attempting to disrupt the meeting. The key words you used were "to some people". If some people feel that he was disruptive then by law he is disruptive. I can use my neighbor as an example. When my neighbor plays loud music I sometimes don't mind but if other people do then it is considered disruptive and the cops can be called to his house.
How do you know that he was stating his opinions? Those people that think he was only just stating his opinions where is the proof? I have proof that says he was not stating his opinions but rather attempting to disrupt the meeting. The key words you used were "to some people". If some people feel that he was disruptive then by law he is disruptive. I can use my neighbor as an example. When my neighbor plays loud music I sometimes don't mind but if other people do then it is considered disruptive and the cops can be called to his house.
Exactly. I'm not completely positive that it was his opinions or not but to some people, they believed that they violated his rights. Now, if you were to express your opinions about something you believed was "incorrect" and disrupted people while doing so, how do you think you should be treated?
How do you know that he was stating his opinions? Those people that think he was only just stating his opinions where is the proof? I have proof that says he was not stating his opinions but rather attempting to disrupt the meeting. The key words you used were "to some people". If some people feel that he was disruptive then by law he is disruptive. I can use my neighbor as an example. When my neighbor plays loud music I sometimes don't mind but if other people do then it is considered disruptive and the cops can be called to his house.
Exactly. I'm not completely positive that it was his opinions or not but to some people, they believed that they violated his rights. Now, if you were to express your opinions about something you believed was "incorrect" and disrupted people while doing so, how do you think you should be treated?
Okay Okay, What is your view on this? Is it legal or not. Please pick a side and debate for it. I want your thoughts not the thoughts of what other people think ok? And to answer your question about if I were to disrupt a meeting with my opinions. I would like to be treated with care. If the cops tell me enough is enough I will listen to them without hesitating and comply with their orders. If I have done nothing wrong then why resist? Later on I can sue them if they did do something breaking my rights. This guy however did not comply.
That's what is different from you and people like Ireland and myself. We are founded on a belief that I am allowed to say whatever I wish to say. The KKK can have parades. I can call George Bush a moron. The newspapers can put cartoons about mess ups that politicians do. What you are arguing is that it's okay for someone to be removed for stating his opinions. Now, I understand there is evidence that he had the intentions to 'disturb' the discussion. But, let me ask you something...Did that information come out before or after the discussion? Because if after, this man was wrongly treated. The microphone was given to him and that entitles him to say what he wishes to say. It's really as simple as that.
That's what is different from you and people like Ireland and myself. We are founded on a belief that I am allowed to say whatever I wish to say. The KKK can have parades. I can call George Bush a moron. The newspapers can put cartoons about mess ups that politicians do. What you are arguing is that it's okay for someone to be removed for stating his opinions. Now, I understand there is evidence that he had the intentions to 'disturb' the discussion. But, let me ask you something...Did that information come out before or after the discussion? Because if after, this man was wrongly treated. The microphone was given to him and that entitles him to say what he wishes to say. It's really as simple as that.
No it is not as simple as that. The microphone in his hands does not = "say what you want". The microphone in his hands = say what you want relevant to the discussion in a respectable manner. Now to answer your question about the evidence that this man disrupted the peace. Yes there were evidence during as well as after the discussion that showed he was disrupting the peace. During the questioning he was repeatedly asked to actually ask his question. He asked 3 questions in a row without giving Kerry time to explain them. The police knew this was a publicity stunt and stopped it before he went too far. The police did not wrongly treat him because they kindly asked him to leave but he refused and resisted arrest. If you were charged with murder and the police arrest you but they have no evidence, then you will be released. However if new evidence arises in the future you can still be charged and penalized. It doesn't matter that evidence came later as long as it came. If I were at this forum, I would think this was a total joke and so would many others who were actually laughing at him during the questioning.
Then if it's a joke, why taser him in the first place? Why do 6 grown police officers have to sack and cuff a man who was having his question answered and electrocute him? He didn't have a weapon, he wasn't threatening anyone, he wasn't charging the stage or ANYTHING. They pounced on the man as if they were just waiting for someone to get out of line, to show their primal, brutish strength, to be able to finally take someone down. This isn't to say that the man wasn't a prankster, or a conspiracy theorist, or just wanted attention. He probably did. But NONE of these things constitute a arrest or an electrocution, these measures should only be used when someone else's rights are violated, such as a threat to murder or injure. Since they were not made, there is no Constitutional backing for the amount of force used by those officers. Thus, they have overstepped their bounds as law enforcement personnel and stepped into a world only Orwell thought possible.
Then if it's a joke, why taser him in the first place? Why do 6 grown police officers have to sack and cuff a man who was having his question answered and electrocute him? He didn't have a weapon, he want threatening anyone, he wasn't charging the stage or ANYTHING. They pounced on the man as if they were just waiting for someone to get out of line, to show their primal, brutish strength, to be able to finally take someone down. This isn't to say that the man wasn't a prankster, or a conspiracy theorist, or just wanted attention. He probably did. But NONE of these things constitute a arrest or an electrocution, these measures should only be used when someone else's rights are violated, such as a threat to murder or injure. Since they were not made, there is no Constitutional backing for the amount of force used by those officers. Thus, they have overstepped their bounds as law enforcement personnel and stepped into a world only Orwell thought possible.
As I have said countless times they did not taser him because it was a joke. They tasered him because he was RESISTING ARREST. How do you know he didn't have a weapon at the time of this incident? How do you know there wasn't a gun in his pocket? The senator John Kerry was present and the police have a duty to protect him from any threats. If you look at the video closely, you can clearly see that he is resisting arrest. When he was on the ground, he said let him go up and walk out. Why do the police have to trust his words? They already know that he doesn't comply with their orders.
With all the views Kevioke and I disagree with, this is one of those rare ones where we agree. This man was wild. The way he talked was ascendingly “angry” and “crazy”. When he already told John Kerry to shut up and to let him talk for a few minutes, it’s obvious that he was out of control. There are limitations to the freedom of speech. America is not a totally free country as many people would like to think. You aren’t free to do a lot of stuff. I mean, think about it. It’s not like Great Britain where they have those soldiers that look straight and don’t talk to you. If you go up to a American Cop and start using your “freedom of speech” by cussing at him or verbally intimidating the man, he’s not going to act like those British guards and just shut up. He’ll probably beat your [censored]. You are verbally abusing the person. On top of that, in a preschool, co-teachers can not yell at each other if they are mad at each other since a child could be watching this and get “psychologically damaged” in some way. There are also such things to the law called “slander” and “libel”. You can get in big trouble for that. As you can already see, there are limitations to the freedom of speech thing like Kevioke said. And just to let you guys know, I don’t know about the KKK, but in California, if you are associated with either the Sorrenos, Nortenos, or Maravilla, you can go to jail. Lots of people get caught for wearing their “gang related” tattoos.
Back to the point, the kid was out of control. This is Mr. Kerry. Don’t think he doesn’t have any bodyguards. You can’t go to a governor, or a previous presidential candidate and start yelling at him and barking orders at him and not expect his guards to take you down. And like Kevioke said, the man resisted arrest. You see them taking him away, but he is struggling. Now, to all you who think that the guy was innocently and immediately tasered for no reason, the video lasted for 3 minutes. The last 2 minutes was when the guards started stepping in. They didn’t start really tasering him until the end. If he was one innocent man trying to go cooperatively with the cops, why did it take so long? If a man who is angry with me and is resisting 6 cops is trying to get back to me, I would be scared. After not listening to the cops and struggling, why wouldn’t I taser the guy to calm him down? Anybody would do it.
What kind of country uses violence to silence those using freedom of speech? Dictatorships such as Saddam ruled Iraq? Hitler ruled Nazi Germany? Soviet Russia? America? Yes, yes, yes and yes. So, at what point did America decide to become a hypocritical country? Because didn't they invade Iraq to remove Saddam because of his violence against people, so why do American's allow it to happen in their own country? So, it means they're either afraid, hypocritical or stupid - or maybe all three. A student stood up during a campaign with John Kerry and made a statement about the black people votes in Florida being ignored and the discovery of voting machines which counted backwards, and then went on to ask why Kerry stood by and let it happen? What was Kerry's answer? Set the police on him, letting them tazer him for continuing to exercise free speech.