Video: Cops tase moonbat at Kerry speech just to watch him squirm
posted at 9:48 pm on September 17, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Well, not exactly. Via Jay Stephenson, the video shows the cops moving in after just one question although the article Dan Riehl found suggests the guy had been at it for a bit longer than that. I wonder what, if anything, he said or did to alarm them before the clip picks up; they’re awfully quick to grab at him after he finishes speaking and for no discernible reason. From there it plays out like the UCLA incident last year — screaming, struggling, and finally pain-compliance via the taser, which typically is supposed to be used to immobilize a suspect who’s threatening the officer, not to quiet down someone who’s in custody.
As usual with these things, everyone involved comes off badly.
Update: HuffPo’s headline captures the Arianna interpretation of the incident perfectly.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]
The link I screwed up to “liberal Fascism…”
Buy Danish on September 18, 2007 at 7:08 PM
Resolute on September 18, 2007 at 7:07 PM
It turns out that the original video that was posted here is out of context and doesn’t show what happened before he got to the mic.
See this link for the details.
Buy Danish on September 18, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Buy Danish on September 18, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Eh, well if he did essentially run up and seize a mic that is a different story. He committed a physical act and should be delt with by force. But in that case they should have removed him immediately not wait and see if they liked what he had to say to determine if he would be removed. Incompetence on the part of the police either way, either remove him right away because he has no right to steal the mic or let him speak. You dont’t let him speak and then remove him by force based on what he says or that he wont be quiet. totally flawed
Resolute on September 18, 2007 at 7:23 PM
So, I am just wondering where the university cops were with their tasers when anger college kids were throwing crap at Ann Coulter?
Hmmm… Probably in the crowd throwing crap at her too from the looks of both videos.
lgodfrey88 on September 18, 2007 at 7:30 PM
At the point at which he had nothing but speak at an open mic he was simply being escorted away from the mic after several warnings from a uniformed police officer. After taking a few steps he became physical and had to suffer the consequences of that.
pedestrian on September 18, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Resolute on September 18, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Agreed.
pedestrian on September 18, 2007 at 7:50 PM
You cannot hear those warnings in the original tape - unless of course you have some super duper audio capacity on your computer that I don’t have.
UPDATE
Shep Smith just reported a few minutes ago that this guy Meyer has quite a history as a get punked prankster, so this could be a prank…
Buy Danish on September 18, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Thank you for this link, Buy Danish.
Without having read all of the 399 previous posts, and with all due respect, I think you’re all missing a key point.
I’ve just seen a vid that was just shown on Bill O’Reilly’s show, and I believed I heard the word “blowjob” uttered by the kook in question, in front of a U.S. senator. Regardless of how one feels towards this particular gentleman, this is a “magic word” that will get you immediately escorted away.
kevcad on September 18, 2007 at 8:34 PM
kevcad on September 18, 2007 at 8:34 PM
I suppose he should/could have used the word Lewinsky.
By the way, I saw a woman pushing her child in a stroller to day that had the F word on it, all spelled out with no asterisks, so the times they are a changing.
Unfortunately.
Buy Danish on September 18, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Heh. Because I described him (accurately) as a leftist brat, you decided that the reason I support the actions of the police are because I think he’s a leftist. Interesting, and completely wrong. That he is a leftist brat had nothing to do with it; it was just one of the facts as I saw it.
Again, you have conjured this up. In my world, anyone who conducts themselves like this kid gets removed from the room; his political views have nothing to do with anything, and I have made this clear in several comments.
Jaibones on September 18, 2007 at 8:43 PM
The clip on this thread skipped the blowjob question and him brushing away the girl cop twice. That brushing away indicates he knew he was being warned to leave.
The fact that this cleaned-up version was posted so quickly leads me to believe the person who posted it was in on it.
pedestrian on September 18, 2007 at 8:53 PM
After finally watching several videos of the incident, the snotnosed punk reminds me a lot of how one of my boys used to act when they were toddlers and when they didn’t want to go somewhere I was taking them.
Except this punk is fully grown and was potentially a lot more dangerous.
If my 16 year old treated the police the same way that imbecile did, I’d have stood over the cops and asked them if they needed me to zap him a couple of more times for them. Then again, if he’d have been my son, I’d be ashamed of the job I did as a parent.
angryoldfatman on September 18, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Jaibones on September 18, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Fine. Your sentence was unclear when you said “leftist brat” in relation to using a nightstick.
I didn’t conjure up anything - you said what you said and I read it to mean that you singled him out for punishment because he was a Leftist. The second sentence was just an explanation in case you still didn’t understand what I objected to about your original statement.
Anyway, I’m glad that we straightened this out. It sure took an awful lot of posts to do it!
Buy Danish on September 18, 2007 at 9:30 PM
The Andrew Meyer incident according to Yahoo, with a mention of the possibility that it was a prank:
But details from his online writings and videos raised the question of whether his harangue during the forum was genuine or some kind of stunt.
I’ve been punked, Bro!
Buy Danish on September 18, 2007 at 9:39 PM
The things is they wait to hear what he has to say to decide to remove him. Either he has a right to the mic or not. Either he was disruptve or not before that point. Police and whoever controls the venue/mic make it about free speech by waiting for him to make political points before suddenly decideding to remove him by force without warning. Thats what I see.
Descriptions that he was warned or his mic was cut first, I can not spot in these recordings. Chronologically, his removal was caused by polital remarks, unless these recordings are messed up or doctored.
Resolute on September 18, 2007 at 9:42 PM
I don’t agree, it was obvious from the beggining he was resisting arrest. He started to make threatening moves and saying “get the hell off me” and became more and more combative.
In addition the officers clearly warned him that he would be tasered if he did not comply with their orders (stop resisting and place his hands behind his back to be cuffed) yet he continued to be combative therefore the officers had every right to take the measures they did to subdue him and protect themselves.
Liberty or Death on September 18, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Quoting Resolute, “The things is they wait to hear what he has to say to decide to remove him. Either he has a right to the mic or not. Either he was disruptve or not before that point. Police and whoever controls the venue/mic make it about free speech by waiting for him to make political points before suddenly decideding to remove him by force without warning.”
In order for the police, or the people in charge of the venue, to wait for him to make political points before removing him they would have needed a transcript of what he was saying. And he did not have a right to the mic; he cut line, remember?
Of course, it doesn’t matter one whit WHAT he said, which is the point that so many of ya’ll are missing. Bottom line: 1) Disorderly conduct: He cut line to ask multiple questions depriving others who waited in line of their chance at questions. What Kerry says is unimportant as he was not the manager of the venue.
2) Trespass: He refused to leave when the authorities asked him to.
3) Trespass #2: He refused to leave when the officers attempted to usher him out by utilizing passive physical force.
4) Resisting Arrest: When told he was under arrest, he resisted again with force.
As far as the tasering goes, here is a generic ‘Use of Force Continuum’ which most police agencies use.
1) Passive verbal: “Sir, would you mind leaving the establishment?”
2) Aggressive verbal: “Sir, you WILL leave now, or you will be under arrest.”
3) Passive physical: This is where the officer lays hands on the person attempting to direct their movement in a non-forceful way.
4) Impact/Chem/ESD: This is aggressive physical, where police attempt to use pain compliance via PPCT, baton, capstun, stun devices, etc.
5) Lethal Force: This is where the officer sees the suspect is endangering his own, or another innocent person’s, life and utilizes deadly force to stop him.
Ok folks. Am I the only one who’s watched the myriad videos that are floating around and seen 1-4 properly administered? Please note that use of an ESD (Electronic Stun Device) is NOT relegated to protecting an officer’s life; that would be #5, Lethal force. ESD’s are used to subdue non-compliant suspects. And it is MUCH safer to ‘taze’ a non-compliant suspect then it is to physically immobilize him, whack him with a nightstick until he starts listening, etc. The officers used the most HUMANE method they had at hand to end the situation which was caused by the unlawful actions of this apparent attention hound.
wolfva on September 19, 2007 at 8:27 AM
my thoughts exactly…thank you for stating it so succinctly, my friend.
Miss_Anthrope on September 19, 2007 at 9:57 AM
I think we should start tasing all hollywood celebs whenever they start acting like pricks! Start buying battery stock!
sabbott on September 19, 2007 at 10:00 AM
MAYBE KERRY will give the kid one of HIS THREE Purple Hearts…
NRA4Freedom on September 19, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Hmmmm. A case Beauchamp pre-ejaculation?
Richpete on September 19, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Ya’ll are a hoot. Can’t object to what a cop says … Just submit … They don’t need a reason …
All the makings of sheep, or fascists …
I ain’t hoppin’ just because Johnny Law says so. He needs a reason. A damned good one.
AZ_Redneck on September 19, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Sounds like somebody’s thinkin’ ’bout startin’ his very own sovereign nation!
Jim Treacher on September 20, 2007 at 2:31 AM
Friendly rejoinder from someone who has defied police orders many, many times (see my comments above): Hoppin’ “just because Johnny Law says so” is the law.
There are reasons for that law. “Damned good ones,” in fact. There are lots of ways to–what’s the phrase in the Constitution again?–petition the government for a redress of grievances if Johnny Law gives orders that are out of line, reduce my (legitimate) rights or worse, are evil.
If you don’t like that law though, feel free to get others together and work to change it. Who knows, you just might succeed. This is still America, after all, in spite of what liberals think–the greatest country on Earth, where we citizens can get together, and speak freely albeit peaceably, and work to change things.
inviolet on September 20, 2007 at 7:40 AM
“Help Help! I’m being repressed!”
Most disgusting is the idiotic U of F students organizing a protest for him. They wouldn’t know a just cause if it bit them. These stupid people will be running society someday and managing the government. “Idiocracy” indeed!
JJ Trueheart on September 20, 2007 at 6:26 PM
You just described a fascist state … Just do what the officer says … Question nothing …
The term you are looking for is “lawful order”. I have no problem with a lawful order.
AZ_Redneck on September 20, 2007 at 8:47 PM
The left wants to take the guns and give away the country for cheap votes. The right wants to take the guns and put a cop on every street corner. Both sides are afraid of freedom and sit to wait for the government to solve their problems.
I am ready to declare that I can govern myself.
AZ_Redneck on September 20, 2007 at 10:12 PM
No, it’s called state law. There are laws like this in every state. Here’s a statute from an Oregon trial: >”Failure to obey a police officer (sic)” statute number ORS 811.535
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A128400.htm
Adding a little to my comment, are we? I never said we weren’t to question anything. I said the time for redress if the order was not lawful (unless you are prepared to be arrested, and the officer can lawfully do so if you disobey his order–if that’s fascism it’s been around a long time) was in the courts.
Please look at that Oregon link. It popped up when I googled for a statute number in any state, and it shows how a citizen successfully defended himself on appeal against disobeying a police order he considered wrong. In court. The way our legal system has been set up. If you don’t like this, you’re free to work to try to change it. (That’s another difference between us and fascism.)
Any citizen is free to disobey any police order he chooses. There are legal consequences to that choice, and I’ve taken them many times, as I pointed out earlier. The difference between a system of law and fascism is, the cops are not accountable to anyone objective, and likely as not you can be disappeared or shot for dissenting. I trust that’s not what you’re talking about.
inviolet on September 21, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]