ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 08/28/2014 05:17 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Politics
German Chancellor Angela Merkel Announces $690 Aid Package for Ukraine
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think the U.S. should do more to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine?
  Latest Events
08/28/2014 03:41 PM
walter3ca receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie Get Married in France'
08/28/2014 03:14 PM
PinkTiger receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie Get Married in France'
08/28/2014 01:45 PM
coronado receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Man Suspected of DUI Lets 8-Year-Old Newphew Steer the Car'
08/28/2014 01:24 PM
coronado receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Brazil: Man Found Alive in Body Bag'
08/28/2014 01:03 PM
coronado receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Southwest Airlines Loses Elderly Passenger'
08/28/2014 12:33 PM
coronado receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Model Arrested for Stealing Chocolate Bars'
08/28/2014 05:50 AM
edie receives 10 Points for good Assessment of 'U.S. Military Jet Crash Lands in Virginia'
08/28/2014 05:50 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Zara Apologizes for Selling Toddler Shirt With Holocaust Star'
08/28/2014 05:49 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Neil Young to Divorce Wife of 36 Years'
08/28/2014 05:49 AM
estrella242 receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Utah Woman Arrested After Baby Found in Trash Can'
  3.181 Visits   8 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
09/18/2007 07:05 PM ID: 65016 Permalink   

University of Florida Student Shocked at Kerry Forum

 

Andrew Meyer, a senior at the University of Florida, was tasered, arrested and charged with resisting arrest with violence. The incident took place during a question-and-answer session after Sen. John Kerry's speech.

The senior attempted to ask Sen Kerry about his involvement in Skull and Bones, a secret society at Yale University, when the microphone was cut off. The forums sponsor, Accent, said he used profanity. Meyer began to protest loudly.

When officers attempted to remove Meyer, he resisted "acting in a violent manner" and yelling "Don't Tase me, bro!" according to the arrest report. Officers tased and subdued Meyer. The incident was videotaped, and has made it's way to Facebook.

 
  Source: www.alligator.org  
    WebReporter: David M Barger Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  63 Comments
  
  Classic  
 
NT
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     09/18/2007 07:16 PM     
  Yeah  
 
I'm passionate about the preservation of "freedom of speech" as they call it. I'm also passionate about attention ****** like Andrew Meyer not being idiots in public.

Asking important questions is no excuse for causing a scene and whining like an overly emotional female on her period. If he had stayed calm and collected, rather than confrontational, he could have embarrassed the bonesman on stage, not himself.

This is one instance where i'm glad police jumped at the opportunity to use force. Can you imagine a world where police didn't keep hippie college kids in check? The streets would be overrun with sandal wearing ***** sipping starbucks cappucinos and starting riots for every half assed reason under the sun.

In closing,
??????
???????
???????
 
  by: Providence Kevin   09/18/2007 07:31 PM     
  yup the Taser Strikes again  
 
./www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/18/wkerry118.xml
Kerry even said let me answer his question! Why did the cops interupt?

"As campus police then attempted to hustle him out of the room, Mr Kerry said: “That’s alright, let me answer his question”, and continued to answer Mr Meyer’s question about why he didn’t contest the controversial 2004 presidential election result. "
 
  by: MmmMan     09/18/2007 08:25 PM     
  The utube versions  
   
  by: MmmMan     09/18/2007 08:36 PM     
  Cops made it worse  
 
copy n paste from huffpo

"I'm not as convinced as you about what's real. Forty years ago what the police did would've caused a riot and students likely would have prevented the police from reaching that kid. I was in a few protests, tear gassed, and confronted by baton wielding police but can't recall too many instances where students backed down without first making their point and more than a few were jailed for defending someone on the ground.

I don't know what to think about police any more. At one time, I was prepared to believe the worst and then I saw law enforcement's perspective and came to understand that they have a difficult and dangerous job. These days police are prone to overreact. If a citizen does something non-violent that police tell him not to do; if the citizen protests...that's a basis for beating the crap out of the citizen? What country is this anyway? I was under the impression that non-violent non-cooperation and protest as very American.

Had the police ignored this kid, I suspect the situation would have defused but by overreacting they made it worse. I was at a political rally in SF last January. People were given the opportunity to take a few minutes to ask a question or make a comment. One man got to the mike and wouldn't leave until the politician on the dais answered his questions. The crowd got annoyed and started to shout the man down until the candidate quieted the crowd, confronted and debated with him for a few minutes (which is all the guy wanted), and, then asked him to step down. No violence...only a little courage and leadership. Who was the politician? Dennis Kucinich and he received a standing ovation. It says a lot that Kerry let the police taser this citizen (who had asked a couple of legitimate questions) without saying anything when he could have diffused the situation by showing leadership. Kerry let the police do his talking for him. Wonderful..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
 
  by: Kaleid   09/18/2007 08:43 PM     
  Cut off his Mic. Tase him.  
 
If it were Bush, everyone would be up in arms. Now it's Kerry, you're all confused now aren't you?

While you're hesitating, those speaking with the *RIGHTEOUS* Indignation! of neo-conservatism have stepped in and used it as a forum for 'killing freedom of expression'.

Imagine you felt strongly about something; Blood at boiling point. If someone cut you off at mid-sentence and then tackled you. Wouldn't you go ballistic?
 
  by: redstain   09/18/2007 08:59 PM     
  Okay...  
 
He kind of posed his questions wrong, but why didn't anybody help him? The cops had no reason to arrest him. I hope he sues like crazy.
 
  by: Dark_Stang   09/18/2007 09:27 PM     
  Suing? It's only money.  
 
I hope it makes it into primetime.
 
  by: redstain   09/18/2007 09:37 PM     
  Yeah I agree  
 
He should have been more calm when asking, and asked the right questions, not inform people. When the skull and bone question got asked thats when the police acted. WTF, thats BS!
 
  by: Vhan     09/18/2007 09:42 PM     
  @Vhan  
 
I'm sure none of the cops even knew what he was talking about. All they heard was "secret society" and figured they had to bring down the crazy guy.
 
  by: Providence Kevin   09/18/2007 09:43 PM     
  @redstain  
 
Apparently it was the police, not Kerry.
 
  by: velger   09/18/2007 10:18 PM     
  Glad he got what he did  
 
If you read the whole article, the guy was given plenty of opportunities not to be a jackass. He was allowed more than the alloted time questioners were given. He was asked at least once you can see in the video to step down from the podium. After his mic got cut off was when he started shrieking like a banshee. After screaming for a couple minutes was when they ORDERED him to be quiet or leave. After he chose neither option, they placed him under arrest for disturbing the peace. Thats when he started fighting back. Its not like this guy got tackled because he asked a S&B question, it just happened that was the rant he was on when they gave him his 32nd or so chance to cool off.
 
  by: brinlong     09/18/2007 10:57 PM     
  @Velger: Kerry could have taken him.  
 
@Velger: Oops. I wasn't saying Kerry was responsible for the Taser-Event.

I am saying that because Kerry was the target of protest, the liberals didn't immediately see the inappropriateness of the response.

The guy was a little 'worked up', if you were blase about it, "crazy (worked up)" - not to be mistaken with an actual mental illness. But it shouldn't have been taken as a right to Gag the man.

Kerry, or even Bush, could have taken him on. Anwering the question. If he was refuse to give up the floor after his questions - that would have been a different matter.

Kerry was trying to answer.
The police tased his chest! Wonder what they were attempting.
 
  by: redstain   09/18/2007 11:03 PM     
  @brinlong: military 'false-politeness'  
 
That's what a like to see. A little military pseudo-politeness.

Hold out hand. Place other hand on holstered Taser. Then say:
"Please sir, step away from the podium. [Or I'm gonna tase your chest]."

Tell me, what muscle groups were they trying to incapacitate; because they had him prone with his arms twisted back?

Why are you attempting to justify use of force because the man disagrees with you? Did he attempt to strike/assault the staff? If a man refuses to sit down, do you tase him?

Have you not gotten laid this year?

[semi-related: I've had another arguement where use of war was being justified because they wouldn't give your oil. What is with America these days? Have we gone mad?]
 
  by: redstain   09/18/2007 11:15 PM     
  @redstain  
 
Ah. I misunderstood.

I agree that it is never a good idea to get angry or rowdy when it comes to politics -- that only leads to stupidity.
 
  by: velger   09/18/2007 11:16 PM     
  This guys so getting  
 
PAID!!!

Oh yes... This kids going to get a big fat settlement and I'd say he should get every penny.

I'd like to point out as someone else said, it is NOT illegal to resist arrest when its an illegal arrest to begin with. Sure looks unjustified to me.
 
  by: kristmen   09/18/2007 11:42 PM     
  If footages are used in court; no contest.  
 
The police will have to settle out of court if they know what's good for them.
 
  by: redstain   09/18/2007 11:52 PM     
  Police State  
 
... Its coming.
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     09/18/2007 11:52 PM     
  The Tasering Will Continue Until You All Submit!  
 
Tasers were developed as a non-lethal option to bring dangerous situations under control. But law enforcement officials are now using them with wild abandon in cases where simple diplomacy or a little hard work would otherwise suffice...

EXCELLENT blogpiece here:
http://onemansblog.com/...
 
  by: Kaleid   09/19/2007 01:51 AM     
  @redstain  
 
Why are you attempting to justify use of force because the man disagrees with you?

...What? The man was resisting arrest. Whatever he was discussing is irrelevant.

Did he attempt to strike/assault the staff?

Yes. When they initially tried to remove him, he nearly nailed one of the officers in the head.

If a man refuses to sit down, do you tase him?

He didn't refuse to sit down. He refused to surrender the floor, then he refused a request to be calm, then a request to be quiet, then he resisted arrest. And considering this guy had 4 officers holding him, it was obvious he was resisting arrest. I love how everyones assuming these guys were skullbreakers because of this whiner. This wasn't Rodney King. The cops weren't shrieking for his blood or clubbing him, they were trying to make an arrest.

Have you not gotten laid this year?

Yes. Probably more than you.
 
  by: brinlong     09/19/2007 02:09 AM     
  umm  
 
Police state is coming? Police state is here!

Where are all the pro-taser and pro-police people now? That was completely unjustified arrest. Those police should be arrested for assault.

He kept asking what he was being arrested for, but none of them replied.
 
  by: jendres     09/19/2007 02:29 AM     
  @brinlong  
 
It sounds like you saw a different video than most of us. As soon as they cut the mic, he said "thanks for cutting off my mic" and started walking away. Then the cops jumped on him.

"The man was resisting arrest. Whatever he was discussing is irrelevant."

So you feel the citizen has no right to resist a wrongful arrest? It doesn't take much to figure out that you likely don't agree with this kid's political views... even without you saying it.

The fact that he was annoying is no reason for them to try to arrest him.

I gotta say I'm more than a little disappointed that no one tried to help him... I guess that's just the power cops hold over us. I hope they don't ever decide to abuse that power. Oh... nevermind.
 
  by: erasedgod   09/19/2007 02:32 AM     
  @brinalong  
 
where any of these requests legal?

The first thing the police did was arrest him from behind. they did not make any lawful requests, they made an unlawful arrest.
 
  by: jendres     09/19/2007 02:32 AM     
  @brinlong: you're disseminating misinformation  
 
You are clearly disseminating mis-information to those who aren't bothered to check the video footages.
(I urge people to check them, if only to expose brinlong)

* You could hear the crackle of the Taser while he was on the floor. (Footage2: 1:34)
* The presenters noted the Tasers crackled as he was prone. (Footage2: 1:34)
* Footage5 shows he had his hands outstretched in the air (no resistance)
* He clearly says: can you see this.
* The crowd is cheering (he's played to them) (footage5)
* The crowd are stunned at police brutality, and protest for police to desist repeated tasing. (footage 1&3)

On a side note: In Footage 5 at the beginning, we can already see as the man stands - before he even begins talking - there are: 2 uniforms, 3 suits looming behind him. They were prepped for a takedown.

"he's a whiner"?
Here's a few police "whiners", swearing while demonstrating the taser
http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: redstain   09/19/2007 03:14 AM     
  oops:  
 
make that 2 uniforms, 2 suits.
 
  by: redstain   09/19/2007 03:18 AM     
  interesting quote:  
 
Comment made by police demonstrating Taser in back: "the worst thing is I can't breathe"

Is that what they were doing to the student?
 
  by: redstain   09/19/2007 03:21 AM     
  "Where are all the pro-taser & pro-police people?"  
 
You called?

Can any of you tell me at what point this guy was being placed "under arrest?" I can clearly see the point at which he begins screeching about it (at which point, he has done nothing illegal), but at that point they're doing nothing more than escorting him away from the podium. Now, I'm not saying they responded correctly in the end, but at some point in that scuffle, legally being a nuisance became disorderly conduct, which is an arrestable offense. Amidst his grandstanding, that became resisting arrest. You can clearly see in the video that at no time does he stop to comply, and even as he's almost out of the room, he's still fighting with the cops.

When I heard about this story, I was all ready to sympathize with this guy, but seeing the video, I'm not about to do that. Had he let the officers take him back to his seat after he said his piece, there would have been no tasering. As for that...

"Footage5 shows he had his hands outstretched in the air (no resistance)"

Oh, so if a man robs a bank and drops the money when the cops move in, is he free to go? The guy had already resisted arrest, and he CONTINUED to do so while, yes, putting his hands in the air, which means little when the police want them behind your back and you're still jumping around and trying to make a break for it. So what if they forced the guy to the ground? It took 4 guys to hold him there and he'd already shown he was not about to de-escalate the conflict.

It's not what he initially did, but the very poor choices he made after the fact. At some point in there his conduct did become illegal. When he repeatedly demonstrated no willingness to comply, yes, he was subdued. What should the police have done, impotently thrown up their hands when he tried to break away the first time and allowed him to resume his antics?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/19/2007 04:00 AM     
  @redstain  
 
* The presenters noted the Tasers crackled as he was prone. (Footage2: 1:34)

Yes, and if you listen, he is warned at least 3 times "Calm down or you will be tased."

* Footage5 shows he had his hands outstretched in the air (no resistance)

MomentofClarity crushes that arguement rather nicely. Well written.

On a side note: In Footage 5 at the beginning, we can already see as the man stands - before he even begins talking - there are: 2 uniforms, 3 suits looming behind him. They were prepped for a takedown.

.......I don't even know where to start with that one. Who's ever heard of police attending a speaking event for a sitting senator?

Point is, if he'd just walked with the officers out of the building, or even out of the meeting room, he'd had gotten a stern lecture about his conduct. When he started trashing like a junkie off of COPS, that was when he was actually charged with a crime. If he thought it was a false arrest, he could've waited until they released him, filed a complaint and sued to his hearts content. But when you go from nuisance to threat, you're treated as a threat. And being seen as a threat in front of a senator, cops, and Secret Service agents (you know, the ones who could potentially get away with shoot first, ask later) is rather dumb.

Oh yeah, and heres a link with a more complete video, rather than just cutting from him speaking to being Tasered.

http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: brinlong     09/19/2007 04:20 AM     
  @MoC: nice to point out footage5  
 
But Footage5 was in reply to brinalong's accusation:
"he nearly nailed one of the officers in the head"
Which was clearly not the case.

He was escorted away. He drew attention to himself which would not be wise if he was actually resisting. But he wasn't.

How many people does it take to hold a whiney student bitching about police brutality? Again, it would not help his case IF HE WAS ACTUALLY STRUGGLING*. Which he wasn't. You saw 4 people having to hold him down. I saw him prone on the ground - THEN the taser going off.

He was not about de-escalate the conflict. [That's a nice term isn't it? Alluding to escalation yet no quite english.] There was nothing to "de-escalate" since he spent most of his time playing to the crowd. If by, "wont the hell shut up" as an interpretation of "resisting arrest", then - well you have me there. /sarcasm

The analogy to bank robbery is not quite accurate. He was led away. What was unnecessary was the Tasering and excessive force. The police dragged him away as was expected.

Tasers are a [relatively] non-lethal version of a firearm. They cause less trauma than a baton. But this doesn't mean you go to town and use him as a pin cushion because he's a loud mouth.

When I see a Taser, I see a more humane firearm - but a firearm nevertheless. **

*not shouting, but there is no facility to stress/underline a phrase instead of a sentence.

** I avoided, but am prepared to argue merits & faults of use of non-lethal weapons in the police force if you want.
 
  by: redstain   09/19/2007 04:35 AM     
  @MOC  
 
"Can any of you tell me at what point this guy was being placed "under arrest?""
When the police grabbed him from behind. Now they might not have said "you are under arrest", but that is what they did.

"Whether a person has been arrested depends not on the legality of his arrest but on whether he has been deprived of his liberty to go where he pleases."

Was this arrest lawful? No. He had broken no law and there was no probable cause to believe that he had.

Is it legal to resist an unlawful arrest?
Yes. If an arrest is illegal, you may use reasonable force to resist it.

Was the use of force by the police justified? I don't know about Florida, but in the UK and Australia, the use of force to effect an arrest must be "reasonable in all the circumstances". The use of a taser (a portable torture device) on a subdued man is not reasonable.
 
  by: jendres     09/19/2007 05:35 AM     
  what I find interesting  
 
Is the recent reports being put out on the media about him being a "prankster" and questioning his motives. This is completely irrelevant and strikes me as a campaign to discourage people from supporting him.
http://www.theage.com.au/...

Why aren't there reports on the personal lives and histories of the police officers involved?

Also it is interesting to see that the general perception is that have to obey a police officer and that you can't resist arrest. This is not correct.
 
  by: jendres     09/19/2007 06:48 AM     
  hm...  
 
I seem to have had the opposite reaction to the video. When I heard about a loud-mouth getting tazed at a Kerry forum, I figured he deserved it, but when I saw a couple of the videos, I got pissed off.

Whether he was being a pain in the ass or not, there was absolutely no reason to taze him. You're not supposed to taze people out of convenience. It's supposed to be used when the perp is a threat (but not necessarily a lethal one), which this kid was not.

Any cop with even an ounce of training would have absolutely no trouble cuffing someone laying prone on the ground... especially with half a dozen other cops helping. They tazed him out of laziness.

As for his resisting arrest: The second they laid their hands on him, they were detaining him. This isn't like the protesters at the Patraeus testimony (who had no reason to be protesting in a hearing). He hadn't broken any laws before they detained him, so he was well within his rights to go ape-shit.

In watching the video a few more times, I'm totally convinced that he was heading back to his seat as soon as they cut the mic.
 
  by: erasedgod   09/19/2007 07:52 AM     
  @redstain  
 
"He drew attention to himself which would not be wise if he was actually resisting. But he wasn't."

Really? So, he was doing what the officers said? At what time on which video do they say, "Hey, try to break this hold. Now, jump up and down and keep screaming." Why wouldn't it be wise draw attention, if one simply wanted to make a scene to make the police look bad?

"Help, help, I'm being repressed!"

"How many people does it take to hold a whiney student bitching about police brutality?"

I don't know, watch the video where that black cop looking to be about 300 pounds is having trouble removing him from the room. I suppose he was just being so darned nice, they just couldn't take it.

"[That's a nice term isn't it? Alluding to escalation yet no quite english.] There was nothing to "de-escalate" since he spent most of his time playing to the crowd. If by, "wont the hell shut up" as an interpretation of "resisting arrest", then - well you have me there. /sarcasm"

Here's a little help if you're having a problem with that word. Maybe you should stick to trying to piece together legitimate arguments if you can't even get your personal attacks right.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/...
http://www.answers.com/...
http://www.yourdictionary.com/...

As far as what he did, he ended up doing a lot more than just not shutting up. If you look at that and see a guy just trying to speak, than I don't think much rational debate is going to occur between us.

"The analogy to bank robbery is not quite accurate. He was led away. What was unnecessary was the Tasering and excessive force. The police dragged him away as was expected."

Right, and as they did, he resisted and got disorderly. You keep omitting that part, as if your version of the tape jumps from when they cut his mic to where he's on the floor at the back of the room. That would be like if my bank robbery argument described a man going into the bank and then getting arrested.

I really have nothing else to say unless you can honestly address his conduct in its entirety. He clearly keeps breaking away from officers and trying to run back into the room. They don't have to put up with that, and if they had no other means to get his hysterical form out of the room, then that's what they had to do. Again, what should they have done when he kept resisting and they couldn't get the cuffs on? Just say, "Oh, well, I guess he won't go, so we'll have to leave him alone?"

I'll get to the other comments tomorrow, it's too late already.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/19/2007 11:36 AM     
  wow  
 
That video is screwed up. Freedom of speech just took another pounding.

It says a lot about the US though, a guy who's just trying to ask a question (no swearing from what I heard) gets bundled by how many police? Then, when he can't move, they taser him for good measure. Then the whole damned world looks on at the state America has reached.

The worst bit for me was the rest of this guys peers just standing round and watching. Just as anyone watching the video can see, that was bad, the Police were acting wrongly. Yet everyone just gawked at them, like the slaves in biblical times when another slave was beaten (that analogy was very purposeful).

The population are mindless drones, even the 'intelligent' university ones just shut up and watch the state doing whatever it wants.

That is truly terrifying, I hope the UK doesn't end up like that, although, maybe it has already?
 
  by: Maxx20     09/19/2007 11:54 AM     
  @MoC: arrested, then getting your head kicked in.  
 
There were 4 officers to one student. The student was big. Two officers were big. The sudent was bitching "Look, look I'm being repressed."

At what point is he resisting arrest? Because he didn't shut up?

As to some of your notes:
"tape jumps": please check other footages
"de-escalate": double-plus good!
"couldn't get the cuffs on": 4 police, and everyone resisted a choke hold?

The police were lazy & vicious or just poorly trained. I'd go with the former.

You're so keen on the bank analogy? Right, it's like a man entering a bank. And he gets bundled to the ground hard, arrested .... then nightsticked several times while he's scre - whining police brutality. That about an even-handed assessment?

Kerry seemed nonplussed by it. Why can the police. Why can't you?
 
  by: redstain   09/19/2007 12:35 PM     
  Sigh.....  
 
Granted, people like redstain will probably think this is "neo-con propaganda," but its starting to look like this guy staged the whole damn thing.

http://www.cnn.com/...

Granted, I'm condensing from the whole article:

He then turned to a woman and said "Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?" the report said.

Police noted that his demeanor "completely changed once the cameras were not in sight" and described him as laughing and being lighthearted as he was being driven to the Alachua County Detention Center.

"I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong. You were just trying to do your job," Meyer said, according to the police report.

Nice... Sad part is people like redstain are right. He'll win his little lawsuit and get 5 or 6 million dollars, and these good officers will be fired.
 
  by: brinlong     09/19/2007 03:49 PM     
  @brinlong  
 
Interesting: I'll have to suspend my judgment on this until more information comes to light. I still think the tazing was excessive, though.
 
  by: erasedgod   09/19/2007 05:51 PM     
  yeah  
 
I was rowdy once with police and got hit twice in the knee with an ASP and you damn right after that I was as sweet as can be :) Then again being nice in that situation just meant laying back and enjoying the dragging they were doing to me :) haha

But, from what I saw he handed the recorder to the girl behind him to tape the questions he was asking (for his website / personal pleasure) the cops got jumpy, and he asked whether or not she was still recording. I'd do the same. But you know what, this guy has a video of him screeching like a woman while he's getting tasered, and a room full of people who can sue also for mental anguish. (I can't sleep at night because im scared cops will pull me out of my house for nothing and tase me)(The screams keep me up at night)
 
  by: matr1x   09/19/2007 06:10 PM     
  @matr1x  
 
"...got hit twice in the knee with an ASP..."

Ow, damn. I used to own one of those things. I thought it was awesome. It could be a pain to put away, though. I lost while moving across the country.

/pointless
 
  by: erasedgod   09/19/2007 07:56 PM     
  @redstain, jendres, and erased  
 
Red, if you're going to continue to ignore his increasingly beligerant reaction to the police, we have nothing more to discuss. He was not arrested for asking a question but for what followed, which was him fighting with police, including (but not limited to) jumping up and down, trying to run, and eventually needing to be physically restrained. That you distort my bank robbery analogy so completely as to omit the crime itself shows that you're too obsessed with villifying the police to review the situation in an unbiased fashion. It's like arguing evolution with people who deny that fossils even exist.

Jendres: "[Police arrested him when they] grabbed him from behind. Now they might not have said 'you are under arrest,' but that is what they did."

Can you cite a source for me where arrest is defined as merely laying hands upon someone? Police officers move people around a scene all the time, but they're under arrest when they're taken into custody. Escorting the guy back to his seat was not an arrest.

"He had broken no law and there was no probable cause to believe that he had."

Like I said, what he was doing eventually became disorderly conduct: http://www.in.gov/...

"IC 35-45-1-3 Disorderly conduct
Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;"

An example from Indiana law, but that seems to sum it up well. If they did eventualy turn it into an arrest (which is hard to tell from the video, with all that commotion), his antics would then be resisting arrest.

"Is it legal to resist an unlawful arrest? Yes. If an arrest is illegal, you may use reasonable force to resist it."

Citation? Frankly, I doubt this because police would never be able to arrest ANYONE if it were true. Judges decide the validity of charges, not citizens at the moment of arrest.

"Was the use of force by the police justified? I don't know about Florida, but in the UK and Australia, the use of force to effect an arrest must be 'reasonable in all the circumstances'."

The tasering IS a contentious point. Should they have done it, or should they have just sat on him until he ran out of energy to fight? Sounds like a judgement call to me, one for which people have already been suspended. I don't fault them, though, because given what he was putting them though, he put them in the position to need to make that call.

Erased: AS far as the tasing, he was not tasered out of "convenience," but because the police had arrested him and he was resisting the completion of the job. That is a crime and they didn't have to wait for him to stop. Maybe they could have cuffed him, and maybe they DID cuff him but that didn't stop him. I don't know, that's not clear, but situations vary and this one is vague.

As I've noted above, I don't think that touching him constituted arrested or detaining him, but you can source information showing otherwise. It looks to me like he was going back to his seat for the second before he found another means of getting attention. But, whether or not he intended to go back to his seat, he did not and I contend that after this is when he transgressed legally permitted conduct, anyway.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/19/2007 10:39 PM     
  Hardball - Assault On Free Speech?  
   
  by: Kaleid   09/19/2007 11:00 PM     
  Wheelchair bound woman killed by police tazer  
 
http://news.yahoo.com/... (2006)

I'm all about police using tazers when necessary, but it should not be a substitute for work.

On a side note: What the hell, Florida?
 
  by: erasedgod   09/19/2007 11:52 PM     
  No justification for Tasing.  
 
This arguement is pivots on what justified the Tasing. MoC claims he was violent. I did not see that. Maybe if he shows me the footage and timestamp, that may clear things up.
So far, in the myriad of footages, all I see a man getting jumped.

What constitutes Resisting Arrest?
By my standards,
* attempted ot actual violence during arrest
* threat of violence
would constitute resisting arrest.
By you standrd - from what I can glean
* not saying "what color" when the arresting officer says "shit"
* not cowering like a little baby when they lay a hand on you

I've seen police close up before the advent of pepper spray and tasers. Two officer can bring down almost anyone.

Nightsticks, pepperspray and tasers were only sanctioned when the suspect produced a weapon. Not to mete out summary punishment.

I know you're attempting to reason with me. But you arguements carry no weight. Show me the footage and the timestamp where he's anything more than a ham.
 
  by: redstain   09/19/2007 11:53 PM     
  @MOC  
 
The act of an arrest can be verbal but also physical. Holgate-Mohammed v Duke from which I quoted provides you with more information. It is however only lawful once the arrestee is informed of why he is being arrested. A quick search reveals good old wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/...
and p465 of The English Legal System, by Gary Slapper, and David Kelly.

It is interesting that you link to the Indiana law on disorderly conduct. This law appears to have been modified to handle the Westbro Baptists. However, Andrew Meyer was not disrupting a lawful assembly of persons and has not even been charged with disorderly conduct.

He was requested to ask his questions, which he did, and then his microphone was cut when he exceeded his allotted time. He then attempted to return to his seat when he was arrested.

He has been charged with disturbing the peace. Again this would be a very difficult charge to make, since it was the police actions which lead to the disturbance. He was simply asking a question as he was requested.

Do you go arresting people that ask annoying questions? Andrew may have been a "whiny brat", but why would you forfeit your constitutional rights to allow police to arrest "whiny brats"?

"Citation? Frankly, I doubt this because police would never be able to arrest ANYONE if it were true. Judges decide the validity of charges, not citizens at the moment of arrest."
Again, I point to the reference I provided. Just because you THINK like everyone else that you have to do everything that a police officer tells you doesn't make it true. This is a culture that leads to police excess. The arrest was unlawful. He resists while asking them to tell him why he is being arrested. They don't tell him and just focus on restraining him. This is an unlawful arrest. Using reasonable force to resist is a legal right. If you claim otherwise, YOU find a link showing me that.

So in summary your argument is:

- He was acting disorderly.
This is demonstrably false and he has not been charged as such.

-You don't know when he was arrested.
I told you and showed you he was arrested at the moment the police grab him.

-You claim he was resisting arrest.
I have shown that the arrest was unlawful and that resisting an unlawful arrest with reasonable force is a legal right.
If not in the US, then you are already a police state. If this was not a right the police could just hold you in a jail indefinitely. They could just keep unlawfully arresting you.
 
  by: jendres     09/20/2007 01:31 AM     
  also  
 
I see a continuing position taken by the media to cast doubts on Andrew Meyer's character as if it even matters.

Again, why not investigate the history of the arresting officers? I see one of them has a tattoo, lets make that a big issue. What about the two officers stood down. What are their names? What are their websites? /sarcasm

This is a concerted effort by the media. And why wouldn't it be? If you are a democrat, he was being nasty to Kerry. If you are a Republican, he was a trouble maker and "Law & Order" is important. In fact Law & Order has been the platform of both sides of the political spectrum for the past 20 years. It explains the false perception that you have no rights.
 
  by: jendres     09/20/2007 01:44 AM     
  well  
 
I have done some further research and resisting arrest is not allowed in New Jersey no matter if the arrest is unlawful.

Well this is unbelievable. An unlawful arrest could be them taking you to their basement for further "questioning" with a taser.

If you remove that line from your penal code, then you don't get the situation you argued. Instead you get the arrestee being in a position to defend themselves from arrest by people impersonating a police officer (McDonald's anyone?) or an officer acting unlawfully.

THANK GOD I DON'T LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE.
 
  by: jendres     09/20/2007 04:06 AM     
  @red, jendres  
 
Red: "I know you're attempting to reason with me. But you arguements carry no weight."

That's your opinion, just as mine is that your arguments are either hopelessly biased or intellectually dishonest. I'll let other readers decide which of us is right, leave it at that, and get on to someone who can account for more than the first and last minute of the video.

Jendres: "He then attempted to return to his seat when he was arrested."

Mere contact is not an arrest here, and the conduct for which he was charged had not occurred at that time. Under our law, had he wanted to resist the police, he could have gone limp. That's it; anything more is resisting arrest and causing a disturbance, and that's why peaceful protesters here train very carefully to do just that. There was only a second between when he stopped talking into the mic and when the officers touched him, and I don't think any video is crisp enough to capture his intent. It sure doesn't look to me like he had any intention to stand down and await an answer, and the police did have the authority to physically take him back to his seat. Had he gone limp, we would not be having this discussion, but what he did WAS illegal under our laws.

And why do people keep quoting the phrase "whiny brat" in responding to me? I'll thank you to needle me with MY words if you're inclined to take that approach. I'd like my characterization to be, "belligerant jerk."

"This is demonstrably false and he has not been charged [with disorderly conduct]."

You're right, he's been charged with disturbing the peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/... and resisting an officer (http://en.wikipedia.org/...

I think both of those are pretty undeniable, and I don't think the police doing what they're authorized to do can be cited as justification. But, that's something Andrew could have fought in court, which, as you found, is how our system works.

"I see a continuing position taken by the media to cast doubts on Andrew Meyer's character as if it even matters."

While I'm avoiding it, I do think that goes miles in deflating the martyrdom argument some have been using. Legally, I don't think it matters, but maybe it'll make a few overly-reactionary people reconsider who they're reflexively backing. It's certainly relevant to the story. If anyone finds some history to any of the cops, that's be newsworthy, too.

"This is a concerted effort by the media."

Sure, against tasers. I guarantee you Meyer would not have gotten the attention he did if not for that little device. If any doubt that, I challenge them to name any of the Code Pink folks (that they didn't know previously) hauled out of the General Petraeus hearing. I may not think the police are squeaky clean, but this is NOT the guy to hold up as a posterboy for free speech.

"If [you cannot resist arrest] in the US, then you are already a police state. If this was not a right the police could just hold you in a jail indefinitely. They could just keep unlawfully arresting you."

I have the right to my day in court. That may not allow me to walk free that day, but it does prevent the flagrant abuses you describe. They cannot just keep arresting you, because eventually you could throw back things like harassment and wrongful imprisonment. How likely you'd be in succeeding is anyone's guess...
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/20/2007 07:55 AM     
  @MOC  
 
I don't know why you persist. He is arrested at the point that he is prevented from going about his business either verbally or physically. ie. When his liberty is restrained. I gave you a reference for this and this is in the US.

Now looking at this further, the US laws do seem screwed up and I'll just add the resisting arrest law to a growing list of poor laws I've seen in the US. (To be fair, we have bad defamation and copyright laws in Australia, but at least our legal system is aware of it and we are looking at changes.)

Perhaps you saw the recent article about the officer that said he would make up charges to arrest a driver who was parked in a public car park? If the officer didn't know about the video it would have been just some other "belligerent jerk" getting his just deserves.

This whole argument is indicative of the police state mentality in the US. You claim to be a libertarian, yet you support this clear suppression of liberty. Perhaps it is as Asimov said, "I want the liberty to grow rich and you can have the liberty to starve". Because this definitely doesn't fit the Libertarian creed.

"Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud."
http://www.lp.org/...
 
  by: jendres     09/20/2007 08:40 AM     
  If I was being arrested, I'd want a film crew.  
 
I'm sure readers are not strangers to YOUTUBE clips of police brutality.
* unnecessary tasering
* inappropriate levels of force
* attacking prone and submissive targets
* attacking journalists recording these acts

If I knew that I was going to cross paths with the police later, I'd want one, two , as many cameras trained on me as possible.

Fortunately, I've never had anyone I know attacked in such a manner. But I've had the dubious privelege to of seeing many uncut footages where police mete summary punishments on people they come into contact with.

Tasering is sanctioned in response to lethal weapons.
Again, there was no footage showing him strike any officer. (4 Points of Vantage.)
 
  by: redstain   09/20/2007 09:18 AM     
  @jendres  
 
"I don't know why you persist. He is arrested at the point that he is prevented from going about his business either verbally or physically. ie. When his liberty is restrained. I gave you a reference for this and this is in the US."

I persist because I think that interpretation is absurdly broad, and the only reference I see you've provided is to Wikipedia, which notes,

"The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."

And also...

"This article does not cite any references or sources."

Perhaps I missed the valid reference. I know police tell people where they can and cannot be all the time. They break up verbal altercations and remove people from the area who may not have harmed anyone but may be on the verge of doing so. I was told I could not return to my house for 6 hours when police were searching for a car thief who'd crashed in my yard a few years ago. My liberties were restricted, but I certainly wasn't under arrest. I would have been, and justifiably so, if instead of walking away and letting them do their jobs I'd started hopping around like this guy and yelling, "What did I do, I wanna go home!" In this litigious culture, arrest at the first restriction as you suggest would be a fountain of gold for lawsuits. That's why I don't buy it, because everyone ever pulled over could sue!

Politically, there's libertarianism, and then there's anarchy. The latter is the only belief system by which police could never, ever tell you what to do. We give police the authority to resolve conflict, and frankly I think that's more useful than police given the authority to nag or declare an arrest one can walk away from if one thinks it "unlawful."
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/20/2007 09:27 AM     
  =D  
 
floriduuuh!!!!
 
  by: FunkMan   09/20/2007 01:01 PM     
  @MOC  
 
you seem confused. Being able to resist an unlawful arrest is not the same as being able to just walk away because you choose to.

If the arrest was lawful then your resistance would be illegal and the police action to affect your arrest would be justified. Your choice to make. The courts place to decide. It seems to work outside the US and I have to say your country is not a shining example of liberty that its citizens think it is.

You cite an example of a lawful order made to you by a police officer. You would have been disrupting an investigation. however you were not arrested, because I'm sure you could have gone down the street, go have dinner with a friend, etc...

"We give police the authority to resolve conflict, and frankly I think that's more useful than police given the authority to nag or declare an arrest one can walk away from if one thinks it "unlawful.""

There was no conflict here. No-one was being threatened with violence prior to the arrest. Your comment is disingenuous and a strawman. No-one is claiming that you should just be able to walk away from police and they can only nag you. However if they arrest you unlawfully you should have the right to resist. The police in the UK and Australia are still arresting people quite successfully.
 
  by: jendres     09/21/2007 03:04 AM     
  Police are terrorist thugs  
 
Police are thugs and deserve no respect at all. Any one who inflicts pain and suffering like the police do just because they were told to rather than them morally deabing it themselves and choosing their own course of action is nothing but a brain dead/washed thug. they are no differnet to a Nazi doing what they are told under hitler.
King Aurthur did not care about Maddigans Gaurds or soliders because if they were worthy men they would have refused to fight for Maddigan. the situation is the same today with modern police and soliders. ('its a job' is not an excuse unless terrorist is also a valid occupation and excuse)
 
  by: veya_victaous     09/21/2007 07:48 AM     
  Confused?  
 
Yes, because you tout this wonderful policy but never explain it. How does one resist an arrest once one decides it is unlawful? In our system, you still have to go into police custody, but you can argue your case before a court within a short period of time. You say you needn't comply with an unlawful arrest, but that you can't just walk away...so, what? Do you just sit there with police sharing an awkward moment?

"You cite an example of a lawful order made to you by a police officer."

Just as the story does of the order given to Meyer.

"...however you were not arrested, because I'm sure you could have gone down the street, go have dinner with a friend, etc..."

And Meyer could have gone back to his seat. If my relocation was merely a part of doing their job (investigating the theft) and not an arrest, I fail to see how the relocation of this guy from the podium in the course of doing their job (maintaining the peace at a lawful public gathering) MUST have been an arrest. That is, until he started resisting the cops taking him there. Then, just as if I'd tried to run back into my house, he was resisting an office and could be arrested.

"There was no conflict here. No-one was being threatened with violence prior to the arrest."

And you're accusing me of being disingenuous and propping up strawmen? I never said it had to be violent and neither does the law. I clearly cited sources which define both offenses for which he was charged and neither require violence, merely creating a disturbance and resisting an officer. He did and he was. If you disagree that these should be arrestable offenses, fine, but our law says otherwise.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/21/2007 08:29 AM     
  @MOC  
 
“Yes, because you tout this wonderful policy but never explain it.” I have and I will once again.
“How does one resist an arrest once one decides it is unlawful?” With reasonable force. If a police officer continues with an unlawful arrest they will be exposed to even greater charges. They have to be mindful of abuse of power. It is an inbuilt check, something that doesn’t exist in the US system. A police officer can unlawfully arrest you and when you natural reaction is to resist someone grabbing you, they have you on a criminal charge, regardless of the merits of the original arrest.

“You say you needn't comply with an unlawful arrest, but that you can't just walk away” Incorrect, I didn’t say you just can’t walk away. You can, if the officer realises that they have no lawful charge with which to hold you. However, being human they probably will get angry and commit to using even greater force unless they are well trained. If they use unreasonable force, they risk loosing their jobs and their liberty. Surely a libertarian would have no problem with that?

>>"You cite an example of a lawful order made to you by a police officer."

“Just as the story does of the order given to Meyer.” No it doesn’t. What was the lawful order? To sit down? No, they jumped him from behind. The only request I heard was for him to ask his question.

>>"...however you were not arrested, because I'm sure you could have gone down the street, go have dinner with a friend, etc..."

“And Meyer could have gone back to his seat.” Could he? I failed to see that opportunity. I see him moving to his seat after having his mic cut and then being grabbed from behind by two police officers. Perhaps you have been looking at a completely different event.

“If my relocation was merely a part of doing their job (investigating the theft) and not an arrest, I fail to see how the relocation of this guy from the podium in the course of doing their job (maintaining the peace at a lawful public gathering) MUST have been an arrest.” You weren’t relocated. I assume that you weren’t physically grabbed and moved about. Am I correct?

“ That is, until he started resisting the cops taking him there. Then, just as if I'd tried to run back into my house, he was resisting an office and could be arrested.” No he was arrested prior to that. He asked them why he was being arrested. This seems to be a constant misrepresentation of yours. HE WAS ARRESTED WHEN HE WAS GRABBED FROM BEHIND.


>>"There was no conflict here. No-one was being threatened with violence prior to the arrest."

“And you're accusing me of being disingenuous and propping up strawmen?” Yes. You cut out your quote: “We give police the authority to resolve conflict.” See no strawman from me. I’m using your words and concept about police authority and applying it to this situation.

“I never said it had to be violent and neither does the law. I clearly cited sources which define both offenses for which he was charged and neither require violence, merely creating a disturbance and resisting an officer.” He didn’t create a disturbance of the peace. That is ridiculous. He merely asked a question of a politician as he was requested to do.

“If you disagree that these should be arrestable offenses, fine, but our law says otherwise.” A true disturbance of the peace should be arrestable, however asking questions of a politician in a civilised democracy shouldn’t be.

Not long ago it was against the law to be homosexual. Hey, you may disagree, but that was the law.
 
  by: jendres     09/21/2007 09:16 AM     
  @jendres  
 
I fail to see any difference between your policies and ours, save for perhaps the presence or absence of a resisting arrest charge. We both have the choice to resist. The police can override both of our choices, or choose not to do so, and the only thing we can do about it is appeal later. Is that right?

"What was the lawful order? To sit down? No, they jumped him from behind. The only request I heard was for him to ask his question."

Mm, more of this "jumped him" business. Maybe I missed the running tackle and monkey pile, but what I see is a couple of officers walk over to him and begin moving him back towards the audience. Their grip on his arms may have been firm, but it was hardly violent.

"Could he? I failed to see that opportunity [to return to his seat]. I see him moving to his seat after having his mic cut and then being grabbed from behind by two police officers. Perhaps you have been looking at a completely different event."

Or perhaps your opinion is not the sublime truth of the matter. I see him turn for a split second towards the audience, and in another split second the police lay hands on him but not directing him from the audience at all until another split second later, after he's begun to make a scene. You can no more discern his intent for certain than I can theirs. However, there was no time for them to announce an arrest, and the laying on of hands alone does not constitute one. Cite a valid source to show otherwise, but the capslock key doesn't help you refute that.

"You weren’t relocated. I assume that you weren’t physically grabbed and moved about. Am I correct?"

Sure I was, from my house to the street. Had I made it difficult, they probably would have taken me by the arm and walked me down the block. That's not arresting, but if I'd fought it, they would have changed course to the nearest police car as it became an arrest...just as they changed course for the back of the room with him and his escort became an arrest.

">>>"There was no conflict here. No-one was being threatened with violence prior to the arrest."
>>And you're accusing me of being disingenuous and propping up strawmen?” >Yes. You cut out your quote: “We give police the authority to resolve conflict.” See no strawman from me. I’m using your words and concept about police authority and applying it to this situation."

There needn't be direct violence for conflict.

Main Entry: 1con·flict
Pronunciation: 'kän-"flikt
Function: noun
2 a : competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons)
http://www.m-w.com/...

"He didn’t create a disturbance of the peace. That is ridiculous. He merely asked a question of a politician as he was requested to do."

I think I've well established that I don't accept your characterization of events, so I really see no need of benefit in continuing to counter conclusions drawn from them. You think he was arrested for asking a question, I think he was arrested moments later when he resisted arrest. Until one of us can produce a police report which states which is true, I don't think we've much more to say about it, because in essence we ARE arguing two completely different events.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/21/2007 10:07 AM     
  Ah FFS  
 
I have given you the reference. Ok. once again. Holgate-Mohammed v. Duke, [1984] A.C. 437 (H.L.), at p. 441

"The word “arrest” . . . is a term of art. First, it should be noted that arrest is a continuing act; it starts with the arrester taking a person into his custody, (sc. by action or words restraining him from moving anywhere beyond the arrester’s control), and it continues until the person so restrained is either released from custody or, having been brought before a magistrate, is remanded in custody by the magistrate’s judicial act."
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/...

You continue to expect me to do your research and then have the audacity to argue with me.
 
  by: jendres     09/21/2007 02:39 PM     
  Perhaps you can explain it to me.  
 
Lets run through this.

He is allowed on stage to ask a question.
He has a set time limit in which he can ask his question.
He breaches this time limit and refuses to cede the stage to the next questioner.
The microphone is turned off, and he begins shouting loudly to compensate.

The police move in and taser the shit out of him.
Now, I've been deliberatly open about him being heavily tazered, because personaly, I dont have a problem with it.

As usual, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
You are not free to enter a private meeting, express your opinions and prevent anyone else expressing theirs.
Do you seriously want that?

It is my understanding that as soon as he was asked to leave the podium and refused, he was breaking the law, as soon as the police escorted him from the podium, he was under arrest, as soon as he did not comply, he was resisting arrest.

Why the hell should police risk this little piece of crap gouging an eye out?
Tazer him till he co operates
 
  by: AnsweringQuestions     09/21/2007 03:06 PM     
  @jendres  
 
Yes, I expect the person making the claim that runs contrary to what I know of police action to back it up. Since you can not or will not address the simple fact that police regularly direct movement of people without arresting them, as they directed Meyer's movement before he resisted, I asked for a source to prove this. Yes, you've cited that ruling numerous times before, but it's not an American ruling, and I thought you'd seen the folly of trying to argue one nation's law regarding another nation's incident. Honestly, I've tried to help you, but I'm come up with no source outlining the process of arrest in the United States. This may be helpful, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

"In the United States, the Miranda warning is a warning given by police to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are asked questions relating to the commission of a crime. A custodial situation is where the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained although he is not under arrest."

"Custodial situation," not arrest. If you've got a better source on our laws, I'll be watching.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/21/2007 04:59 PM     
  @MOC  
 
You don't know much about the law obviously. It is common practice to call upon ruling from other countries especially English speaking countries in making legal decisions. The reason is because our laws are based on common law from the UK. Yes even American law.

You quote wikipedia. Well how about:
"The reading of the Miranda warning or similar "caution" to an arrestee advising him or her of rights is not legally required upon arrest."
So there is obviously a mistake in the Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
 
  by: jendres     09/23/2007 10:16 AM     
  @jendres  
 
Hmm, seems you don't know much about this law, or you wouldn't be dealing our generalities rather than evidencing any specifics. Note YOU cited wikipedia, and I already criticized that citation as needing some polishing before citing a different page. That aside, that sentence is also correct. It goes on to say, "A legal caution is required only when a person has been taken into custody AND IS INTERROGATED." [emphasis mine] The police SHOULD read one their Miranda rights when one is arrested, if interrogation is to follow, because if they do not any answers given will not be admissible in court.
See here: http://www.nolo.com/...
Also here: http://www.aclu.org/...

"I. THE MIRANDA COURT ANNOUNCED CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED MINIMUM PROCEDURES TO PROTECT FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS DURING CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION."

Note the significance of whether or not interrogation is to follow. It's more complicated than "arrested or not." You must recognize that what is required is different at various points in the process...
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/23/2007 11:41 AM     
  @MOC  
 
you are going completely off on a tangent.

I have given you an example of what is commonly considered an arrest in most english speaking countries. Have you any evidence to show that the US is different or you just going to keep searching wikipedia for bad references?
 
  by: jendres     09/23/2007 03:18 PM     
  A tangent?  
 
The only tangent is the distraction from your own unmet burden of proof. You've yet to prove a damned thing that you've been on about here, beyond an example of foreign law (which means jack given that laws here vary BY STATE) and, ironically, bad wikipedia references (hell, it's even YOUR tangent). I've evidenced every one of my contested counterpoints, even proving negatives as best as possible. When you convert your moral outrage into something intellectual, let me know. I'm more than satisfied that my position has been argued and, having spoken to a police officer I know since we began, I also know I'm right. I even learned a little bit...did you know that, at least in some parts of our country, they can handcuff you without placing you under arrest? Well, another tangent for another day...
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/23/2007 08:11 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com