YouTube - Analysis of tasered UF student; hushed talk

Comments
Posted at 2007/09/20/0925 by farkinga
(show tags and categories)

RTFA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOlmNBxke-E

Taser A story of hushed talked and hand signals.

Interesting video! This clearly depicts that, at a certain point, a plainclothes individual tells the police when to assault the kid. It seems to be the Skull and Bones question that made them cut his microphone. That was what made them decide to tackle him.

The decider

So who, exactly, is this guy? The decider. He knows when you’ve used up all your free speech.

Theoretically related posts:
  1. YouTube - UF Student tasered at John Kerry Speech
  2. YouTube - Re: UF Student tasered at John Kerry Speech
  3. YouTube - Re: Re: UF Student tasered at John Kerry Speech
more recent post
older post

Viewing 6 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Found out who the guy is:

    "Accent Speaker’s Bureau president, Stephen Blank (in some videos, front row left side of right aisle), signals the AV guys to cut Meyer off."
    • ^
    • v
    sorry the above quote is from http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/17/student-ta...

    (4th or 5th comment down)
    • ^
    • v
    Wow - nice work. I still wouldn't mind to hear the answers to those questions...
    • ^
    • v
    this has nothing to do with free speech.
    • ^
    • v
    well it has SOMETHING to do with free speech, since he was cut off from speaking... and then tasered. However, it wasn't the government that cut him off from speaking and I understand the sentiment that this event doesn't really relate to the first amendment.
    • ^
    • v
    @AL (anonymous lurker?)

    If the kid weren't brutalized, then do you mean to suggest that there would have been nothing wrong with the police action?

    The "government" may not have cut him off, per se, but the government does provide assurrances against being cut off like that. It's appropriate if the "government" responds to this incident, in some way.

    Are you HAPPY watching an American debate where one of the speakers gets taken away by the police and tasered? Do you think, "my country is cleaner/safer now that this disrespectful kid has been taught a lesson?" I can't help but say it: you might find your style of "freedom" is literally thriving ... in China.

    Let's pretend: what if it weren't a college kid, but a politician running against Kerry? Would you grant that it might be a first amendment issue, in that case?

    Would we still say, "I'm glad they cut his mic and arrested him. This is the march of freedom - one less dissident politician to rile up the riff-raff." Warning: don't knee-jerk and say, "yeah - that's the kind of American I want."

    You would legitimately be labelled "democracy-hating" if you supported imprisoning politicians for speech. Here's the problem: we're in Iraq (nominally) because we believe so strongly in bringing democracy to them. If you support that principle, then what ground do you stand on when you also support imprisoning speakers at a political forum?

    If you support Iraqi democracy, then surely you also support US democracy... right? The notion that Iraqi democracy will be stronger than US democracy is frightening, but you're making it a reality, unless you believe in democracy both here and abroad.

    The kid PROBABLY would not have been tasered if he had silently been arrested, and then this situation would ONLY involve speech. Or, would you argue, "that's just due process. That's the law. That's justice. Speech wasn't a part of it." Speech WAS a part of it - this is all part of the democratic process. It doesn't matter if the kid is a politician or not - he's free to assemble, free to petition his representatives. Free to speak.

    The crowd is free to boo him into submission, but that's not what happened. They listened while he spoke, just as Kerry listened and responded. The police acted against the will of the assembly, against the will of the kid, and against Kerry's will, too. Everyone, it appears, was willing to allow this conversation to take place. The kid had all the permission he needed in order to speak.

    See, the cops can't arrest you for engaging a politician in a political forum. If you want to argue "the cops CAN arrest you for ANYTHING they want," then I would argue that they SHOULD NOT arrest you for speaking at a forum. It's not what the COPS want - it's what WE want out of the cops. The cops are SERVANTS. Their will is to serve the public - what they personally want is irrelevant to their station as a public servant. The police voluntarily suppress their personal desires because their will to serve this country is stronger... unless that particular will to serve is weak.

    If you want to argue that the cops can do anything they want, irrespective of the order of law, then you obviously have no respect for the law. Otherwise, you would have a problem when the cops misbehave.

    By maintaining a principled approach to law enforcement, the Police are elevated to a higher level than the criminals they oppose. It is their superior principle that allows police to violate certain laws that normal citizens can not violate (e.g. cops CAN attack people, cops CAN imprison people, etc.) If a citizen assaults another citizen, then the cops will attack the aggressor and be the ONLY party to have acted justly, even though every party involved may have assaulted someone.

    When the cops do not have a principled approach to law enforcement, then they become mere thugs, answering only to stronger thugs. That's what the UF rental police were: thugs. Those thugs have no principle to hold up in their defense, so they've been dismissed. Even before they tasered the kid, they violated him because they didn't have any REASON to do what they did.

    Even the UF Police know this (hence the dismissals) - so what is the meaning of your comment? It is inconsistent with the findings of the Police, of the University, and most importantly, with the US Constitution and the spirit of American democracy. I disagree with you, too.

    To take a play from the Rovian handbook, you're either for democracy in the US and in Iraq, or you're against it. And don't say, "I only support Iraqi democracy." That's just hilarious.

    So, please tell me US democracy is stronger now that this kid has been assaulted and arrested. For the sake of argument, please explain how this has nothing to do with free speech, both in this instance and in the future. Explain how this event is either neutral or positive, with respect to how we conduct our lives. Explain how we are MORE free.

    I will listen, and if it's good, I'll put it on the front page of RTFA.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus