|
virtualdynamo (August 8, 2008 at 12:54 pm)
"Sounds like there were questions coming out of his mouth"
Yes. MULTIPLE questions (preceeded by a preamble) when he had ALREADY been told to leave before this, but was allowed to stay and ask ONE question.
YES, they MUST escort him out. THe people running the forum told him to leave and he refused. Security MUST remove him at that point. You can't do what you want when you want and where you want. That is sheer ignorance.
virtualdynamo (August 8, 2008 at 12:52 pm)
"Then what you say means that they can forcefully grab anyone just because they don't know that one has a weapon or not."
Yes. If someone is told to leave the premises, and refuses, OF COURSE police can forcefully grab him. Absolutely. If he continues to resist, like this guy did, they can do more than grab too.
It has nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty." That applies to coourt proceedings. The guy isn't even under arrest at first, here. He just needs to leave.
DrewJ16 (August 8, 2008 at 9:29 am)
I can't make an accurate assessment since I don't know the whole story. But from what I saw the guy was A) intransigent B) not complaisance, C) and at 0:27 he attempted to FLEE after being held by multiple officers. Therefore, because he was not obeying the officers instructions, his last action cause a last resort: tasering. This is justified.
Yerizzo (August 8, 2008 at 6:22 am)
Sounds like there were questions coming out of his mouth. That's why Kerry said I will answer your question lol. He just got heated in his questions and baffled as to why that happened and everyone should know why. Just thinking about why votes are counted or changed gets you mad. That's like you don't matter, we'll choose who we want. And he was trying to get away because there was no reason why they needed to detain him or escort him.
Yerizzo (August 8, 2008 at 6:06 am)
LoL, so guilty until proven innocent? Then what you say means that they can forcefully grab anyone just because they don't know that one has a weapon or not.
redrumrob (August 4, 2008 at 8:14 pm)
"Lam1ngton
So arresting people for having a vocal opinion is lawful in the United States is it ?"
The only people that say he was arrested for what he said a)don't know the whole story, b)are ignoring the facts &/or c)are complete fucking idiots. Based on you baseless, bullshit statements I'm going to have to go with c) in your case. Meyer broke no less than 4 laws & broke all 3 forum rules that day. Find out what you're talking about before you open your stupid fucking mouth next time.
Natelp85 (August 4, 2008 at 10:27 am)
the guy was clearly resisting arrest. those officers do not know this guy, they do not know if he was armed with a weapon or not. this is a clear example of the safe application of non-lethal force.
tonnaguy (August 3, 2008 at 7:27 pm)
he was on the floor surrounded by 5 or 6 cops, so why did they also need to taser him?
wvDaxx (August 1, 2008 at 5:34 pm)
Thank you for the obvious. If he would not have been removed and went on for hours, people would have bitched "where was security".
When faced with options like this, you gotta' do the right thing whether people like it or not.
veranka3 (July 31, 2008 at 8:13 pm)
True. I'm tired of smug conspiracy idiots like this guy doing something inappropriate & then yelling "police state" when others have to deal with him. People didn't attend this event to hear a paranoid fool with a persecution complex talk about his Skull & Bones- Bush & Kerry-in-cahoots to rig the election stupidity. If he wasn't physically removed, he would've gone on forever. if everyone with an opinion acted like him, there would be no civil discourse whatsoever, just lots of yelling. |
