Was the tasing of the moonbat a publicity stunt?

Better question: “Was the tasing of the MOONBRAT a publicity stunt?”

By the time he was saying he’d leave it was already far too late. He’d swung at cops, which is as big a no-no as it gets. He was tazed only after repeated warnings to stop struggling. That “Ow! Ow! Ow!” was pure BS. Want pain? Try a baton to the kidneys.

Odds are, if the cops had sent their big guys down instead of the tiny woman, things wouldn’t have gotten so far out of hand. Intimidation is just as important as the badge and gun. There’s a reason the old NYPD went out of it’s way to hire ‘Irish Whales’.

To anyone (*cough*Thacker*cough*) who says I’m an intolerant misogynistic fascist, I say:

You know me, sir!

Do you have a right to be heard? I don’t think so…

Why does Meyer, then?

But as Miss A wisely disclaimed in t’other post, I reserve the right to flip-flop pending further evidence ;-)

Ochlan on September 19, 2007 at 12:31 PM

HEY! Don’t pull me into this one, bro! ;)

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

He chose not to comply

You have 15 seconds to comply…or else

Coulda fooled them

I think everyone else was at all times capable of opening their mouths and exercising their vocal chords…y’know…speaking

Perhaps you’re referring to the difficulty of being heard over anothers’ yabbering…that’s a separate thing entirely. Do you have a right to be heard? I don’t think so…at least, not from my understanding of what ‘rights’ actually are.

A breach of etiquette, protocol, general bad manners…sure…but not a suppression of anyones rights.

I didn’t see any hands over mouths or gags…

I didn’t see a gag on Meyer either, so I guess by your logic his rights weren’t infringed upon.

Their rights remained intact.

Coulda fooled them.

Then he prevented others there from being able to speak

I didn’t see any hands over mouths or gags…

What about their rights?

Their rights remained intact.

Maybe we got off on the wrong foot. Apologies

No need my friend…all part of the hustle’n'bustle of vigorous debate :-)

My point was that the dude was resisting arrest

My point was that he should never have been accosted in the first place.

But as Miss A wisely disclaimed in t’other post, I reserve the right to flip-flop pending further evidence ;-)

Which he did. Then he prevented others there from being able to speak. What about their rights?

Jim Treacher on September 19, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Exactly his rights ended the moment he begun infringing on the rights of the other people there. The fact that a person has rights does not mean that their rights trump the rights of others.

He simply had the right to be there and to speak.

Which he did. Then he prevented others there from being able to speak. What about their rights?

Ochlan on September 19, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Maybe we got off on the wrong foot. Apologies. I still disagree with you, however. I won’t tase you for it though.

My point was that the dude was resisting arrest.

Cheers.

Up the man…Fight the establishment bro…

Or, you’re just an arrogant prick

LOL Welcome to my flawed world.

Your claim that he did not have a non-existent right is a strawman. I pointed out the simple right that he does actually have, as do we all. The consequential aspect of this is to point out that your argument is void.

I find the whole blase tone of this thread to be concerning.

You people just want cops to be able to beat up anyone on authority of the government for any reason. Be careful what you wish for.

ThackerAgency on September 19, 2007 at 9:29 AM

Seriously dude, you need to go back to taking your meds. No one here is advocating anything even remotely close to that.

Ochlan on September 19, 2007 at 11:30 AM

Or, you’re just an arrogant prick.

This statement doesn’t make any sense

…or you haven’t the sense to comprehend it…

I’ve also never been arrested, mainly because I do what the police want me to do when they stop me

BAAAHHHH!!!

Is it possible for anyone to have such a right? If not, then you’re not actually saying anything useful.

Ochlan on September 19, 2007 at 10:42 AM

This statement doesn’t make any sense.

He did not have the right to be there while disturbing the proceedings

Is it possible for anyone to have such a right? If not, then you’re not actually saying anything useful.

He simply had the right to be there and to speak. May I refer you to an old piece of parchment we all supposedly value?

Publicity stunt…sure…whatever. He acted like a total pussified drama queen when the fit hit the shan.

I don’t see how his rights should be subject to others’ assessment of his motives, however.