I had to take 10 straight weeks of law mostly Constitutional Law so I am very confident in what I say. I graduated at the top of my class with an overall 98%. I am not saying I am perfect or I am right all the time but I am right on this.

 

The problem with political discourse today is that there aren't enough people like that guy, asking the hard questions and asking them passionately. The event was a forum Q&A with last election'ss Democratic Presidential candidate. There shouldn't be any complacent head nodding and easy questions like "whats your opinion on so and so policy" considering the current state of affairs. He's going to be asked why he conceded the election when he should have asked for an investigation and fought.

 

But the police, especially when they outnumber a suspect 6-1 and when they have him pinned already, I think should be able to handle one man.

 

Once again, what was disorderly--and therefore, unlawful--about the questions he asked? The speaker was willing to answer them, the crowed seemed unperturbed. The only ones that were 'disordered' by his questions were the police, who then decided that it was unlawful.

And 'hindering the flow of events?' Really? So the right to free speech is contingent on making sure things flow smoothly?

You admitted earlier that you were biased, while I think that I can indeed see both sides. The police made a short-sighted decision that favored control over freedom, because that's what the law functionally encourages. I don't fault them for making a situational mistake. But I will fault any defense of them made despite the clarity of hindsight and the opportunity for careful consideration.

 

I'm tired of protesters who use "civil disobedience" like a get out of jail free card. If you practice civil disobedience you accept that the police will arrest you and may be brutal to you and you take it, even to the death, because you hope that your sacrifice will outrage society and shock it into change.

First of all, if he wanted to make a political statement all he had to do was seize up and let the police drag him out. He shouldn't have struggled at all. What more powerful image of repression is there than police pulling a harmless person away for asking questions? I don't approve of such tactics in this instance, but he blew his opportunity to make the police look bad.

Furthermore, I noticed that his mike cut out just as he was finishing the Skull and Bones question, only then did the police actually start pulling him away. Before that, a guy that was standing behind them did a "cut it" gesture and stepped forward to remove the mike once the speaker was gone. I don't think the police made the decision to remove him, it was the event operators. After that the police had to follow through with their orders.

I think actually tasering him was going too far, but in all fairness, they did give him plenty of warning before they did it.

 

The 1st amendment states that you have all these rights as long as it is done in a peaceably manner. When you become disorderly you relinquish your rights.

 

But his exercising of free speech didn't infringe on any negative rights of anyone there or the event. Was it disorderly because they didn't like his question? If thats the case I call bullshit.

 

The police handled this very well. His mike was cut which is kinda like saying stop and he began to become more disorderly. The police was right in every way.

 

How was he being disorderly? How did his exercise of free speech infringe on anyone else's rights? Was he being disorderly because he was resisting arrest? Then why were they arresting him?

 

One, the first amendment doesn't state that. It states that you may assemble peaceably, but the right to free speech does not carry with it any such conditions. That's a fine point that may not have been covered in your law class, but stands regardless.

Two, you're certainly entitled to ignore my question, but I'll continue asking it.

What was disorderly about his actions?

He asked a question. That's it. It was rude, it was out of turn, but nothing about it was any more disorderly than any other question asked in the session. It was words, nothing more and nothing less, and words are protected under the Constitution above and beyond any laws against 'disorderly conduct.'

 

Sure it infringed on the rights of the other people who could not ask ?'s if you want to get technical. Whether or not they liked his quistion is not the issue its the fact that he refused to obey the rules. People there are rules you have to follow the rules whether its by the law or the people who own/run a place or event.

 

You are right It states that you may assemble peaceably which is what they were doing he started to break the peace. I have answered your question he became disorderly when he refused to follow the rules. Thats what you have rules for is to keep order.

 

I tend to agree with Prowl. You actually answered your own question - why do you think 4 or 5 police officers could not subdue him? He was acting out of control, resisting arrest. One person can actually put up quite a fight.

And, no, he was not allowing Kerry to answer the questions. He was continuing to talk even while Kerry was trying to answer.

Stupid kid. Think they know everything when in school (ahh, those were the days). I actually think the police acted very responsibly; that guy was crazy.

 

He asked a series of brief questions, that the speaker was answering. Are you honestly arguing that him doing so infringed upon the rights of other speakers--who ostensibly wouldn't be allowed to ask questions anyways, since 'session was over'--to the point that it gave the police the right to stop him from speaking?

So interrupting another person is enough justification to for the police to silence a citizen? Technically speaking, of course.

 

Thats bull and you know it. I was a Poli Sci major for three years, I took enough courses in government and law to have a good understanding of it. His use of freedom of speech did not inhibit nor did it infringe on anyone else's rights. Kerry was going to answer the question. His question was the last question, so even if it did prevent anyone else from asking a question it wouldn't have mattered. But regardless of that, by asking questions that the speaker was going to answer, nothing was being infringed on. The police just didn't like his question and the way he asked it.

 

From everything I've seen and heard, this guy deserved it and I have absolutely no sympathy for him.

 

So my right to free speech is only applicable when the rules allow it?

What good is it, then, if at any point the police can inform me that by exercising it, I'm disobeying the 'rules,' and therefore, acting disorderly and not entitled to speak freely. That doesn't sound like anything remotely resembling free speech to me.

 

I agree with Prowl delta to a point. I agree he was disorderly, and resisting, but with what 3,4 5 police officers, no sign of any weapon, was as taser neccesary? If thatmany officers could not easily, and safely subdue one flailing scrawny kid....

 

He was willing to answer, but the guy wasn't allowing him to answer. I watched this twice, and I am telling you, this guy was there to cause trouble. And, yes, you do have free speech until that speech breaks a law, in this case disorderly conduct. As it was assumingly sponsored by the university, the university places rules of the function, and since a public university is public property, therefore this a** was causing disorderly conduct on public property. If he wanted to actually get an answer (which I strongly think he did not - he wanted to cause a disruption), he would have asked in a civilized manner, the question he wanted to ask. He NEVER gave Kerry a chance to respond. When Kerry did, he tried to continue his verbal, eh, I won't say assault, more like idiocracy...

 

I call shenanigans!
I agree with Prowl_Delta_31 on this issue. Yes, I do believe that they could have handled the kid without the tazer-ing (but who the hell knows what he could have truly been up to). However, it appears to be the kid's fault. Just a stupid stunt to stir things up in his favor for his own political views. God I hate politics.

^ from here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/student.tasered/

And on that note, I'm done with this thread. Good day to you all!