FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The land of the free?





paul_indo
or the land of police brutality?

A University student gets tazered for asking Senator John Kerry some uncomfortable questions.

From the Sydney Morning Herald, Australia

Quote:
Tasered for asking Kerry questions

September 18, 2007 - 5:31PM

A University of Florida student was Tasered and arrested when he tried to speak at a forum with US Senator John Kerry during a question and answer session, university officials said.

Andrew Meyer, 21, asked the Democrat senator why he did not contest the 2004 presidential election, which he lost to President Bush, and why there had been no moves to impeach Mr Bush.


Link to the news article which includes a U tube video of the incident which clearly shows that he did nothing to provoke the attack.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/general/tasered-for-asking-kerry-questions/2007/09/18/1189881504453.html

Good ol USA.
Quote:
bogger
you spelt the title and youtube wrong, for your information. I don't like bad spelling.

To be honest, the question that student asked was intended to provoke senator Kerry into a response.

*watches film*

He was making a scene! what can you expect, they had to get him out somehow, and he was too strong to be forced out, he could have not resisted and gone out quietly.
They warn him.
Fighting arrest.
They state specifically that they are arresting him for refusing to leave the building.
It's utterly deserved, he tried to cause a scene, so they had to shut him up one way or another.
I find this funny: Someone shouts "police brutality" because they taser a man, that's not police brutality, they could have shot him, or baton him, but all they did was inject him with a non lethal dose of electricity. it doesn't even stun him, just make him go "ow ow"

Note that John Kerry DOES answer it, or attempts do, but Mr Meyer is still causing a scene.

Admittedly, I don't see WHY they arrest him, but after that, they can't just stop...
ThePolemistis
The boy touches upon the secret skull and bones society. Kerry doesnt like that.
AftershockVibe
I'm not usually someone who agree with the use of that kind of thing unless it's necessary but to be perfectly honest the guy was doing it deliberately and in fact, the police probably did exactly what he wanted them to do.

He wanted attention and he got it.
smarter
"Tasered for asking Kerry questions" = stupid sensational title used by biased journalists to draw attention.

I watched the YouTube video and I agree with bogger. No police brutality there. On the contrary, when asked to leave the student caused the whole incident. He should be fined for resisting an officer and disturbing the peace.

Occasional police brutality (not in this case) does not make a country less free if the cops are punished!
So wrong title here!


On the other hand an interesting topic would be: is USA THE land of the free anymore? I guess Benjamin Franklin turns in his grave! Maybe I am subjective here but I consider Europeans (EU) to be closer to freedom than Americans.
ThornsOfSorrow
He didn't get tasered for asking a question; he got tasered because he didn't sit down when he was supposed to, he didn't leave the building quietly, and he resisted arrest.

I know that police officers sometimes get out of control, but you can't believe everything you see on the news/internet. First of all, the student was probably on the stage for longer than he should have been (even though all of that is not seen on the video). I don't think the question itself was what got his mic shut off, but rather the fact that he wouldn't sit down. Afterall, didn't Kerry begin to answer the question as the student was being arrested? And the other students were cheering when he was escorted off-stage, which suggests that he was being obnoxious.

Even if the student didn't think that he should have been arrested, it's never a good idea to resist. The best thing to do in that situation is to just cooperate until you have a chance to talk with a lawyer. For anyone who does this, chances are that the prosecutor will realize that there wasn't probable cause for arrest. However, if someone makes a scene, as that student did, then it's very hard to argue innocence. He was throwing his arms around, physically fighting the officers (at least from what I can see), and basically making a scene. He was told that he would be tasered, yet he kept resisting. That's his fault.
ocalhoun
smarter wrote:


On the other hand an interesting topic would be: is USA THE land of the free anymore? I guess Benjamin Franklin turns in his grave! Maybe I am subjective here but I consider Europeans (EU) to be closer to freedom than Americans.

Yes, the US has been going downhill recently...
Some major reforms are needed. If these two were done, I think it would cause a chain reaction that would save the USA:
1: In order to vote, you must pass a test (one similar to the military ASVAB) If you fail the test, you can attend classes for free in order to educate yourself to a point where you can be trusted with the next vote. This test would be the only criteria for weather or not you are allowed to vote, besides citizenship.
2: Politicians are forbidden to receive campaign contributions from businesses or corporations. The much smaller amount of money going to the politicians is made up for by using the FCC to force all television companies to give an equal amount of airtime for all candidates, including independents.
Magicman
He was asking for it. He wanted that attention. "Don't tase me, bro! Don't tase me! I didn't do anything!" That was the sound clip they kept playing on the radio and honestly its pretty funny. He was resisting arrest, simple as that. He deserved what he got.
coolclay
I also echo most everyone else here. Everyone knows (or should know) what resisting arrest is, it doesn't matter if you didn't do anything, if you fight with a officer they automatically have a right to arrest you. If you don't cooperate they have 100% right to taser, mase, or use any other acceptable methods to incapacitate the offender. This dude obviously wanted trouble and he got it. Probably the kid of some rich liberal extremists, and figured mommy and daddy can sue and get more money from the taxpayer and get him out of jail. Anyone who thinks this is police brutality/excessive force or whatever does not know a whole lot about the judicial system. Albeit I probably know more then most because my father is a cop but, this is pretty obvious stuff people. Once again the media blows something out of proportions to print the sensational story.
paul_indo
bogger wrote:
you spelt the title and youtube wrong, for your information. I don't like bad spelling.


Oh my god.... the spelling police

please don't taser me..... Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Just joking
Liu
ThornsOfSorrow wrote:
He didn't get tasered for asking a question; he got tasered because he didn't sit down when he was supposed to, he didn't leave the building quietly, and he resisted arrest.

I know that police officers sometimes get out of control, but you can't believe everything you see on the news/internet. First of all, the student was probably on the stage for longer than he should have been (even though all of that is not seen on the video). I don't think the question itself was what got his mic shut off, but rather the fact that he wouldn't sit down. Afterall, didn't Kerry begin to answer the question as the student was being arrested? And the other students were cheering when he was escorted off-stage, which suggests that he was being obnoxious.

Even if the student didn't think that he should have been arrested, it's never a good idea to resist. The best thing to do in that situation is to just cooperate until you have a chance to talk with a lawyer. For anyone who does this, chances are that the prosecutor will realize that there wasn't probable cause for arrest. However, if someone makes a scene, as that student did, then it's very hard to argue innocence. He was throwing his arms around, physically fighting the officers (at least from what I can see), and basically making a scene. He was told that he would be tasered, yet he kept resisting. That's his fault.

You completely missed the point. The taser's primary usage is to be used when a suspect is a dangerous threat to police officers or others. This guy was an undergraduate journalism student who was unarmed and already subdued. Who cares if he was being obnoxious, who cares if people were cheering his exit, he still doesn't deserve it.

5 officers were already on top of him, heck one officers already had the ability to lift him with no problem, what more do you need? The guy was subdued, he was not trying to harm anyone, yet a taser was still used. Ok, so lets say he was resisting when he was on the ground, then there is something wrong if 5 people cannot cuff someone. If anything, they were so ready to use excessive force, and it always seems like the small cop with the Napolean complex is the one to do it. Even police officers who have watched the video believe that the taser was not needed, that alone should tell you something.

Quote:

If you don't cooperate they have 100% right to taser, mase, or use any other acceptable methods to incapacitate the offender.

I'm sure i'm not alone to be glad that you're not an officer.

It's frightening that people actually agree with what happened.
paul_indo
Here is another angle with the complete dialog which I believe shows that, although he continued for a while it was actually only 1 minute and 30 seconds from when he started till when they tried to get him out.

This doesn't seem unreasonably long and Kerry was actually saying he would answer the questions so why was the guy removed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIYTJ75U4NU%20
coolclay
Wow, that dumb@ass should not even have been allowed to ask questions.

Quote:
The taser's primary usage is to be used when a suspect is a dangerous threat to police officers or others.
No, a gun is to be used when a suspect is a dangerous threat to police and others.

No, I very much disagree, as will just about any member of law enforcement. A taser is used to incapacitate individuals who can't be controlled. This idiot was rolling, and fighting for more then 2 and a half minutes, nearly wiping out several people, and placing several people in dangerous positions, they obviously couldn't get him under control. They probably would have maced him first but with that many bystanders it is not a choice. So that zap him, and seconds after that the get him cuffed and removed. Obviously it worked. Moral of story if your going to be a jack@ass, and fight with police, your going to get what you deserved.
GSIS
The guy asked a perfectly legitimate question. Politicians should be able to deal with that. It was surprising, or perhaps it wasn't, that Kerry made no attempt to intervene and prevent the victim from being assaulted by the police officers. It's also notable that he took considerable time to decide to try to answer although with the scene going on in front of him perhaps that's not really surprising.

How many of us would not become agitated when threatened with arrest, and man-handled by police officers, for asking a question and, maybe, going a little over time when asking that question? Very few, I suspect.

Impeachment of Bush for his war crimes is a hot topic at the moment. One I rather think Bush and his supporters have an urgent desire to stamp out. I question the political allegiances of those police officers.
Liu
coolclay wrote:
Wow, that dumb@ass should not even have been allowed to ask questions.

Oh, since when is America allowed to censor questions? He asked obnoxious nearly rhetorical questions, but YOU have no right to tell him he did not have the right to. This is our given freedom. You're better off living in a different country if you think otherwise.

Quote:

No, I very much disagree, as will just about any member of law enforcement.

Give me evidence that "just about any member of law enforcement" will agree with you. Because I HIGHLY doubt that. You sound like you're just saying he deserves to be tasered just because he was obnoxious.

Quote:

A taser is used to incapacitate individuals who can't be controlled. This idiot was rolling, and fighting for more then 2 and a half minutes, nearly wiping out several people, and placing several people in dangerous positions,

Are you joking me? A threat? Nearly wiping out people? Are you serious? Have you actually watched the video? You're one to exaggerate.

Quote:

they obviously couldn't get him under control.

If five officers on top of one individual does not mean "subdued" then please tell me what is.

Quote:

They probably would have maced him first but with that many bystanders it is not a choice. So that zap him, and seconds after that the get him cuffed and removed. Obviously it worked. Moral of story if your going to be a jack@ass, and fight with police, your going to get what you deserved.

There is something wrong if 5 officers cannot cuff one individual who is obviously smaller than them. The moral of the story I got was these officers are lazy, high on power, and so ready to use excessive force when other methods are clearly optional.

For your reading pleasure:
Taser S.O.P.:C.Authorization to use wrote:

C.1 To control a dangerous or violent subject when deadly force does not appear to be justified and/or necessary;
C.2If attempts to subdue the subject by other conventional tactics have been, or will likely be, ineffective in the situation at hand; or
C.3If there is reasonable expectation that it will be unsafe for officers to approach within contact range of the subject, see also the Use of Force continuum,

Attachment A.. D. Prohibitions:
D.1The TASER may not be used on individuals who can be controlled by voice command or direction.
D.2The TASER may not be used as punishment or retaliation.
D.3 TASERs will not be used in conjunction with O.C. Spray.
D.4Handcuffed prisoners should not be tased without extenuating circumstances.

Now, C1-3 is where this mostly applies.

C.1 -- He was not dangerous or violent. He did not throw any punches or kicks. He specifically raised his arms.
C.2 -- This is where they lacked; conventional tactics. Sure he may have been resisting, and being obnoxious, but this police force had an arsenal of 6 people. It's impossible to have NOT have gotten him under control seeing the circumstances.
C.3 -- Officers were already on top of him. The man was subdued.
bogger
@ liu,

They may not have been RIGHT to use it, but they weren't wrong in using it, according to the prohibitions A-D.

Quote:
There is something wrong if 5 officers cannot cuff one individual who is obviously smaller than them. The moral of the story I got was these officers are lazy, high on power, and so ready to use excessive force when other methods are clearly optional.


He wasn't smaller than them. Forcing him to leave could possibly have caused him longer term damage than the taser. you said "lazy and high on power", a blatant generalisation, and ironic in that you give out to coolclay for exaggeration (I lump these 2 together).

Quote:
Oh, since when is America allowed to censor questions? He asked obnoxious nearly rhetorical questions, but YOU have no right to tell him he did not have the right to. This is our given freedom. You're better off living in a different country if you think otherwise.


They didn't censor his question, the question was asked and answered, they were merely forcing him out of the questions booth, if I may call it that.

coolclay wrote:
Albeit I probably know more then most because my father is a cop but, this is pretty obvious stuff people

liu wrote:
Give me evidence that "just about any member of law enforcement" will agree with you. Because I HIGHLY doubt that. You sound like you're just saying he deserves to be tasered just because he was obnoxious.

He probably asked his dad?

@paul_indo: thank you for fixing the title Smile

@GSIS: I may not be happy about it, but he knew they had Spray, guns and Tasers, so in resisting them, he knew what may happen. Were I in his shoes, I would let them walk me away without any fight. My question wasn't something I particularly wanted to hear the answer to, being probably rhetorical, and I feel that I would have made a better point with my question by leaving gracefully than by causing a scene and focussing the attention on "police brutality" instead.
ThornsOfSorrow
Liu wrote:
You completely missed the point. The taser's primary usage is to be used when a suspect is a dangerous threat to police officers or others. This guy was an undergraduate journalism student who was unarmed and already subdued. Who cares if he was being obnoxious, who cares if people were cheering his exit, he still doesn't deserve it.

5 officers were already on top of him, heck one officers already had the ability to lift him with no problem, what more do you need? The guy was subdued, he was not trying to harm anyone, yet a taser was still used. Ok, so lets say he was resisting when he was on the ground, then there is something wrong if 5 people cannot cuff someone. If anything, they were so ready to use excessive force, and it always seems like the small cop with the Napolean complex is the one to do it. Even police officers who have watched the video believe that the taser was not needed, that alone should tell you something.


Why does it matter if he was just a student? Seung-Hui Cho was also a student, yet that didn't stop him from murdering 30-something people at Virginia Tech. Obviously this other student wouldn't have gone that far, but the point is that you never know. You can't look at someone and just assume that he's harmless. The officers didn't know that the Florida student wasn't armed. If he was resisting that much, then who's to say he wouldn't have pulled out a knife?

As for there being something wrong if five people can't get someone in handcuffs, it's very hard to get control of someone when he's flailing his arms around. Even if one officer each grabbed a limb, it's very difficult to force someones arms behind their back and to get his hands close together if that person is determined to resist. As I said before, they told him what was going to get tasered, thus giving him the ability to keep it from happening. He chose not to listen, so it was his own fault.
joshumu
The kid even says he will leave I mean, unless your in a black bloc there is no point in resisting the cops. Even if you didn't do anything it is best to shut your mouth and just do what they say until court. But whit this country looking more and more like a police state, its weird that the cops would do that at such a high profile event.
coolclay
Quote:
Oh, since when is America allowed to censor questions? He asked obnoxious nearly rhetorical questions, but YOU have no right to tell him he did not have the right to. This is our given freedom. You're better off living in a different country if you think otherwise.


Obviously I didn't mean the questions should be censored, what I meant was senator Kerry's time could have been much better spent answering questions about things that mattered. This kid wasn't asking Kerry questions because he wanted an answer, he was asking questions to be a trouble maker, and cause a scene. Several times Kerry said he had the book, and already read it, but the idiot didn't even care, or acknowledge him for that matter.
Quote:

Give me evidence that "just about any member of law enforcement" will agree with you. Because I HIGHLY doubt that. You sound like you're just saying he deserves to be tasered just because he was obnoxious.

Ask the next cop you see, if an unknown possibly armed individual resists arrest, and wrestles with several cops for 2.5 minutes, in the middle of a crowded auditorium, with a US senator in close proximity and will not allow himself to be handcuffed, is a taser an appropriate solution? Read Bogger's reply as well.



Quote:
Are you joking me? A threat? Nearly wiping out people? Are you serious? Have you actually watched the video? You're one to exaggerate

Yes, I watched 2 different videos several times. In the videos I watched, I saw the individual fighting with several police officers in the middle of a crowded auditorium. I saw the kid almost plow into the guy standing along the wall. I saw some students close to the action quickly dart out of their seats, to get away from the action. For what everyone know he could have been planning to assassinate senator Kerry. When your dealing with a sensitive situation, and a high profile important individual like a senator, you have to consider the worst case scenario.

Quote:
If five officers on top of one individual does not mean "subdued" then please tell me what is.

Dictionary.com subdued definition: To quiet or bring under control by physical force or persuasion; make tractable. If your watching the same video I am, watch how he flails and does not comply when the officers tell him to put his arms behind his back and to stop resisting. That means he is not subdued.
bogger
flails is a bit over the top.

And no, planning to assassinate him is a stupid argument... You ruin all of your other points by saying something so unlikely as that...

I really do fail to see just why Tasering is such an amazing offence, could someone link me to a description of the worst harm it can do?
viraj
ThornsOfSorrow wrote:
Liu wrote:
You completely missed the point. The taser's primary usage is to be used when a suspect is a dangerous threat to police officers or others. This guy was an undergraduate journalism student who was unarmed and already subdued. Who cares if he was being obnoxious, who cares if people were cheering his exit, he still doesn't deserve it.

5 officers were already on top of him, heck one officers already had the ability to lift him with no problem, what more do you need? The guy was subdued, he was not trying to harm anyone, yet a taser was still used. Ok, so lets say he was resisting when he was on the ground, then there is something wrong if 5 people cannot cuff someone. If anything, they were so ready to use excessive force, and it always seems like the small cop with the Napolean complex is the one to do it. Even police officers who have watched the video believe that the taser was not needed, that alone should tell you something.


Why does it matter if he was just a student? Seung-Hui Cho was also a student, yet that didn't stop him from murdering 30-something people at Virginia Tech. Obviously this other student wouldn't have gone that far, but the point is that you never know. You can't look at someone and just assume that he's harmless. The officers didn't know that the Florida student wasn't armed. If he was resisting that much, then who's to say he wouldn't have pulled out a knife?

As for there being something wrong if five people can't get someone in handcuffs, it's very hard to get control of someone when he's flailing his arms around. Even if one officer each grabbed a limb, it's very difficult to force someones arms behind their back and to get his hands close together if that person is determined to resist. As I said before, they told him what was going to get tasered, thus giving him the ability to keep it from happening. He chose not to listen, so it was his own fault.


I think legally it may seem to be a wrong act. But many a times people are forced to do things to take charge of the situation. The police may have used the same to make him quite when he was suppose to. I don't feel they have made such a big mistake. At least its better than shooting in the leg... Very Happy
Liu
Quote:

He wasn't smaller than them. Forcing him to leave could possibly have caused him longer term damage than the taser.

What?

Quote:

you said "lazy and high on power", a blatant generalisation, and ironic in that you give out to coolclay for exaggeration (I lump these 2 together).

What term(s) would you use then?

Quote:

hey didn't censor his question, the question was asked and answered, they were merely forcing him out of the questions booth, if I may call it that.

I never said they censored his question.

Quote:

I may not be happy about it, but he knew they had Spray, guns and Tasers, so in resisting them, he knew what may happen.

Is this not a false and blantant ironic generalization? You don't know someone is going to use something just because they own that device. I've seen police officers reach down to their hand guns just because someone wanted to file a complaint against a police station. Having something only gives you the potential to use it, it doesn't mean that it WILL happen.

bogger wrote:

I really do fail to see just why Tasering is such an amazing offence, could someone link me to a description of the worst harm it can do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_weapon
Is death good enough for you as a "worst harm"?

Quote:

Why does it matter if he was just a student? Seung-Hui Cho was also a student, yet that didn't stop him from murdering 30-something people at Virginia Tech. Obviously this other student wouldn't have gone that far, but the point is that you never know. You can't look at someone and just assume that he's harmless. The officers didn't know that the Florida student wasn't armed. If he was resisting that much, then who's to say he wouldn't have pulled out a knife?

These officers should have just blown his head off. I mean, geez, this guy could have been carrying strap on bombs. You never know, but you better be safe than sorry!

Quote:

As for there being something wrong if five people can't get someone in handcuffs, it's very hard to get control of someone when he's flailing his arms around.

I'd like to see you flail your arms around with 5 people around on top of you.

Quote:

As I said before, they told him what was going to get tasered, thus giving him the ability to keep it from happening. He chose not to listen, so it was his own fault.

If a handgun was used instead of a taser, would you hold your same opinions? Albeit, it's definitely more excessive, but the point is still there -- the force is excessive, and just because you don't listen does not mean its your fault. Police officers are trained for these situations to arrest someone without resorting to excessive force such as tasering. You only use what is necessary.

Are you saying if you don't listen, it's always your fault? This sounds like sheep talk.

Quote:

Dictionary.com subdued definition: To quiet or bring under control by physical force or persuasion; make tractable. If your watching the same video I am, watch how he flails and does not comply when the officers tell him to put his arms behind his back and to stop resisting. That means he is not subdued.

This goes back to my other point. If six officers cannot contain one person without resorting to electrocuting an unarmed skinny individual, then something is not right with these officers.

Quote:

Yes, I watched 2 different videos several times. In the videos I watched, I saw the individual fighting with several police officers in the middle of a crowded auditorium. I saw the kid almost plow into the guy standing along the wall. I saw some students close to the action quickly dart out of their seats, to get away from the action. For what everyone know he could have been planning to assassinate senator Kerry. When your dealing with a sensitive situation, and a high profile important individual like a senator, you have to consider the worst case scenario.

For what everyone knew, he could've been just ... *gasp* ... asking a few questions and making a point. Shoot the guy then if this is a worst case scenario.
ThornsOfSorrow
Liu wrote:

bogger wrote:

I really do fail to see just why Tasering is such an amazing offence, could someone link me to a description of the worst harm it can do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_weapon
Is death good enough for you as a "worst harm"?

Whether or not death can result from tasering, his life was obviously not endangered by the short zap of electricity he received. If it really hurt him so much, his reaction would have been a shriek of pain rather than him just yelling "ow". Tasering is meant to render someone immobile so that they can be subdued, not to hurt them. Besides, some police officers even volunteer to be tasered at the police academy just to see what it feels like. They wouldn't do this if it was such a horrible experience.

Liu wrote:

ThornsOfSorrow wrote:

Why does it matter if he was just a student? Seung-Hui Cho was also a student, yet that didn't stop him from murdering 30-something people at Virginia Tech. Obviously this other student wouldn't have gone that far, but the point is that you never know. You can't look at someone and just assume that he's harmless. The officers didn't know that the Florida student wasn't armed. If he was resisting that much, then who's to say he wouldn't have pulled out a knife?

These officers should have just blown his head off. I mean, geez, this guy could have been carrying strap on bombs. You never know, but you better be safe than sorry!

I never said that; in fact, I pointed out that it was a different situation. My point is that officer safety (and the safety of the public) comes first. If the campus police didn't taser this kid and he ended up waving a knife around, then people would be shouting that they should have done more (as in the case of Seung-Hui Cho). If they had "blown his head off" then I obviously wouldn't be defending them, but they didn't; they zapped him with a bit of electricity that he easily could have avoided.

Liu wrote:

I'd like to see you flail your arms around with 5 people around on top of you.

I'd be able to do that just fine until someone grabbed hold of my arms. However, even with a bunch of people "on top of me", it wouldn't be hard for me to simply tense up my arms and make it very difficult for them to be pulled together in order to be cuffed. Even my little brother was able to do that when he was arrested. He was only able to be handcuffed after he stopped resisting on his own.

Liu wrote:

ThornsOfSorrow wrote:

As I said before, they told him what was going to get tasered, thus giving him the ability to keep it from happening. He chose not to listen, so it was his own fault.

If a handgun was used instead of a taser, would you hold your same opinions? Albeit, it's definitely more excessive, but the point is still there -- the force is excessive, and just because you don't listen does not mean its your fault. Police officers are trained for these situations to arrest someone without resorting to excessive force such as tasering. You only use what is necessary.

Are you saying if you don't listen, it's always your fault? This sounds like sheep talk.

No, I definitely would not feel the same, although I would expect him to cooperate if he was threatened with a handgun, just as I would expect him to cooperate when being threatened by a taser. It's just the sensible thing to do. Of course you only use what's necessary, but those police officers obviously thought that tasering was the right thing to do in that particular situation. Police officers go through A LOT of intense training. Sometimes they do abuse their power, but maybe their training dictated something to them about the situation that you can't possibly know because you didn't have that training. Of course I didn't either, but I've taken classes in criminal justice, criminal law, and criminal investigation, thus having more knowledge of law enforcement than the average person.

It's obvious that I'm not going to change my opinion about this and neither are you. For this reason, and because I feel that this conversation has rapidly switched from a debate to a heated argument, I'm going to step out. Feel free to offer a rebuttal to what I've posted in response to you, but I won't be replying again. I've never had a problem with you in the past (nor do I now), so I'd rather not risk making you an enemy (if I haven't done that already).
Liu
ThornsOfSorrow wrote:

Whether or not death can result from tasering, his life was obviously not endangered by the short zap of electricity he received. If it really hurt him so much, his reaction would have been a shriek of pain rather than him just yelling "ow". Tasering is meant to render someone immobile so that they can be subdued, not to hurt them. Besides, some police officers even volunteer to be tasered at the police academy just to see what it feels like. They wouldn't do this if it was such a horrible experience.

Someone asked for the worst case scenario, and I gave it to them. I agree that his life wasn't at a high endangerment, but that doesn't discard the fact that deaths have occurred from tasers. However, I know that there are tons of people who volunteer to be tasered, but just because they volunteer to do so does that mean a taser should be used commonly. I know people who have been tasered, and they simply lose any control of their bodies while they are being tasered. It is not a pleasant experience.

I've ruptured and ripped my liver in half in a real bad accident. I wasn't screeching or yelling, but it was more of a low "ow" like this fella on the video. Just because they don't yell loudly, does not mean they're possibly experiencing the worst pain they've ever come to. Everyone is different in how they express pain.


ThornsOfSorrow wrote:

I never said that; in fact, I pointed out that it was a different situation. My point is that officer safety (and the safety of the public) comes first. If the campus police didn't taser this kid and he ended up waving a knife around, then people would be shouting that they should have done more (as in the case of Seung-Hui Cho). If they had "blown his head off" then I obviously wouldn't be defending them, but they didn't; they zapped him with a bit of electricity that he easily could have avoided.

I made an analogy to the concept you were making. Just because an officer does not see a weapon, they are NOT allowed to assume the worst situation. Why do you think soldiers in Iraq are not allowed to fire at every one they see? You have to verify a dangerous situation first before you can act appropriately with the right force.

You're advocating the idea of "shoot first, ask questions later."


Quote:

I'd be able to do that just fine until someone grabbed hold of my arms. However, even with a bunch of people "on top of me", it wouldn't be hard for me to simply tense up my arms and make it very difficult for them to be pulled together in order to be cuffed. Even my little brother was able to do that when he was arrested. He was only able to be handcuffed after he stopped resisting on his own.

You're avoiding the question.

Do you honestly believe a person cannot be handcuffed with 6 police officers? This is a "yes" or "no" question.

ThornsOfSorrow wrote:

No, I definitely would not feel the same, although I would expect him to cooperate if he was threatened with a handgun, just as I would expect him to cooperate when being threatened by a taser. It's just the sensible thing to do. Of course you only use what's necessary, but those police officers obviously thought that tasering was the right thing to do in that particular situation.
Police officers go through A LOT of intense training. Sometimes they do abuse their power, but maybe their training dictated something to them about the situation that you can't possibly know because you didn't have that training.

Just because you don't go their training does not mean you don't have a say and pass judgment on whether their actions were justified or not. If their training dictates them to make bad decisions, then that should not be advocated.

Quote:

Of course I didn't either, but I've taken classes in criminal justice, criminal law, and criminal investigation, thus having more knowledge of law enforcement than the average person.

I'm an Engineering graduate that has studied circuits, electricity, physics, ethics, etc. Of course then that would mean I have more knowledge of the dangers, effects, and workings of tasers than the average person. But of course this knowledge isn't any more valid than the coursework you went through to study the workings of and history of law and criminal studies. None of our coursework directly relates with the brute force training the physical training they go through. So exactly what point are you trying to make besides seemingly touting? You shouldn't have to exclaim your background to make a point.

Quote:

It's obvious that I'm not going to change my opinion about this and neither are you. For this reason, and because I feel that this conversation has rapidly switched from a debate to a heated argument, I'm going to step out. Feel free to offer a rebuttal to what I've posted in response to you, but I won't be replying again. I've never had a problem with you in the past (nor do I now), so I'd rather not risk making you an enemy (if I haven't done that already).

I never said I had a problem with you either, but if you want to step out, sure thing.
Soulfire
Remember, America is the land of limited freedom and limited opportunity. The same nation that prides itself on being a "melting pot" of cultures is the very same nation that is building a fence to keep foreigners out. Hrm ...
LumberJack
Land of Freedom and Opportunity seems to be a couple generations ago. Now it is the land of fences and suspicion :S
Moonspider
Soulfire wrote:
Remember, America is the land of limited freedom and limited opportunity. The same nation that prides itself on being a "melting pot" of cultures is the very same nation that is building a fence to keep foreigners out. Hrm ...


No...building a fence to keep foreigners from illegally entering the country. Foreigners are more than welcome to come to the United States legally.

It's like my house. People are more than welcome to come and visit, as long as they don't break in.

Respectfully,
M
Soulfire
Moonspider wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
Remember, America is the land of limited freedom and limited opportunity. The same nation that prides itself on being a "melting pot" of cultures is the very same nation that is building a fence to keep foreigners out. Hrm ...


No...building a fence to keep foreigners from illegally entering the country. Foreigners are more than welcome to come to the United States legally.

It's like my house. People are more than welcome to come and visit, as long as they don't break in.

Respectfully,
M

You believe that most immigrants from Mexico have the resources to jump through the hoops that the U.S. demands when it comes to immigration? Especially since 9/11. And you're missing the point of my post.
paul_indo
viraj wrote:
I don't feel they have made such a big mistake. At least its better than shooting in the leg... Very Happy


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Do you live in Indonesia????

That is the favourite tactic of the Indonesian police.

They are obviously the best marksmen in the world and should enter the Olympic pistol shooting competition because they can hit anyone in the calf from 20 meters in the dark.

Although I sometimes wonder why the bullet went in the side of the leg when the criminal was running away, I guess it ricocheted.
Moonspider
Soulfire wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
Remember, America is the land of limited freedom and limited opportunity. The same nation that prides itself on being a "melting pot" of cultures is the very same nation that is building a fence to keep foreigners out. Hrm ...


No...building a fence to keep foreigners from illegally entering the country. Foreigners are more than welcome to come to the United States legally.

It's like my house. People are more than welcome to come and visit, as long as they don't break in.

Respectfully,
M

You believe that most immigrants from Mexico have the resources to jump through the hoops that the U.S. demands when it comes to immigration? Especially since 9/11.


No, I don't. We're getting way off topic, but I don't think anyone and everyone should just be allowed to wander into the United States willy nilly. Besides, more than just Mexicans cross the southern border. It is a security risk. The fence (if ever completed) doesn't keep all foreigners out, just those (be they Mexican or other) from illegally entering across the southern border.

Soulfire wrote:
And you're missing the point of my post.


Perhaps I did. I thought you were making a sarcastic comment on the seeming hypocrisy between our national identification and our national policies.

Respectfully,
M
Bru, stuffce
The poor kid did say to the police "Let me go and I'll just walk out of here." Then they tazered him.

Still, he was an idiot for protesting at a political event. Bush goons have had people arrested and charged for wearing "Impeach Bush" T-shirts. Freedom of Expression doesn't cover political speech in the USA or the UK. Though possibly, now that Yo Blair is gone, that will be remedied.

I think the kid was lucky not to be Muslim. We all know what happens to innocent Muslims when America gets hold of them. Kidnapping, rendition to a torture camp, torture, mock executions, beatings, threats, withholding of all rights allowed by the Geneva Conventions and finally dumped home with no job, no house, no family and no apology.

Land of the Free? Hah!

The famous phrase should be "Truth, Justice or the American Way"
Moonspider
Bru, stuffce wrote:
Bush goons have had people arrested and charged for wearing "Impeach Bush" T-shirts.


I'll believe that when I see it. That sounds like utter nonsense. Please provide a reference.

Latest update on the story:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Oct24/0,4670,StudentTasered,00.html

Respectfully,
M
liljp617
I find what the cops did to be atrocious and I don't necessarily think the guy deserved it, but he wasn't exactly innocent and he was inciting other people to get on the police. He did bring it upon himself in a way, but the cops could have carried him out of the building quite easily without the tasing.

Bru, stuffce wrote:
The poor kid did say to the police "Let me go and I'll just walk out of here." Then they tazered him.

Still, he was an idiot for protesting at a political event. Bush goons have had people arrested and charged for wearing "Impeach Bush" T-shirts. Freedom of Expression doesn't cover political speech in the USA or the UK. Though possibly, now that Yo Blair is gone, that will be remedied.

I think the kid was lucky not to be Muslim. We all know what happens to innocent Muslims when America gets hold of them. Kidnapping, rendition to a torture camp, torture, mock executions, beatings, threats, withholding of all rights allowed by the Geneva Conventions and finally dumped home with no job, no house, no family and no apology.

Land of the Free? Hah!

The famous phrase should be "Truth, Justice or the American Way"

Much of your post is extremely biased and a lot of it isn't even true. Until you can prove otherwise with resources I'll refrain from seeing this from your viewpoint.
LimpFish
Well people I've lived in America for a lil bit, but Im from Sweden, and boy can I tell you that I feel soooo much more free here in Sweden than I did in America! In the US, wherever you went, you got kicked out or yelled at by either cops or security guards. You cannot be anywhere without getting in trouble! Or well to be more accurate, during daytime, you can pretty much feel free and walk around, to an extent. But as soon as it turns like 6pm, you can forget being in public parks, playgrounds, or even just hangin out outside of malls! To me coming from Sweden that is CRAZY! It is even considered a CRIME to be in a PUBLIC park in the evenings/nights. Land of the free? I think not.
liljp617
LimpFish wrote:
Well people I've lived in America for a lil bit, but Im from Sweden, and boy can I tell you that I feel soooo much more free here in Sweden than I did in America! In the US, wherever you went, you got kicked out or yelled at by either cops or security guards. You cannot be anywhere without getting in trouble! Or well to be more accurate, during daytime, you can pretty much feel free and walk around, to an extent. But as soon as it turns like 6pm, you can forget being in public parks, playgrounds, or even just hangin out outside of malls! To me coming from Sweden that is CRAZY! It is even considered a CRIME to be in a PUBLIC park in the evenings/nights. Land of the free? I think not.

What's the reason to be in a park at night? One goes there to "picnic" or eat, hang out with friends during the day, play sports, etc. The shady crap comes in at night. Perhaps they were doing it for your own good; maybe there's a lot of crime or robberies there at night. Don't jump to conclusions. And I've spoken to dozens of Europeans (a lot of people from Sweden actually) who say they would rather live in the US than most European countries.
Tumbleweed
37 seconds..after he starts to talk....(ish)....37 seconds and the first move is made against this young man, for me this is an obvious intention by those in control of the forum not to have any awkward questions asked, fullstop, you can see them tell him to basically shut up after 37 seconds, maybe this guy has a history of being disruptive and they allready had a "not on my watch" attitude towards him, when they had him in handcuffs and surrounded while waiting for transport to cart him off he asks "why have I been arrested"...it looks like the officer that makes the 37 second move replys to him "incitement to riot" ..... maybe laws have been amended to include something else but at 37 seconds is this guy causing a riot ?

paul_indo wrote:
bogger wrote:
you spelt the title and youtube wrong, for your information. I don't like bad spelling.


Oh my god.... the spelling police

please don't taser me..... Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Just joking

Laughing Laughing
LimpFish
liljp617 wrote:
LimpFish wrote:
Well people I've lived in America for a lil bit, but Im from Sweden, and boy can I tell you that I feel soooo much more free here in Sweden than I did in America! In the US, wherever you went, you got kicked out or yelled at by either cops or security guards. You cannot be anywhere without getting in trouble! Or well to be more accurate, during daytime, you can pretty much feel free and walk around, to an extent. But as soon as it turns like 6pm, you can forget being in public parks, playgrounds, or even just hangin out outside of malls! To me coming from Sweden that is CRAZY! It is even considered a CRIME to be in a PUBLIC park in the evenings/nights. Land of the free? I think not.

What's the reason to be in a park at night? One goes there to "picnic" or eat, hang out with friends during the day, play sports, etc. The shady crap comes in at night. Perhaps they were doing it for your own good; maybe there's a lot of crime or robberies there at night. Don't jump to conclusions. And I've spoken to dozens of Europeans (a lot of people from Sweden actually) who say they would rather live in the US than most European countries.


You see, that's exactly the mentality I'm talking about. What are you supposed to do there at night? As a swedish citizen I say, what the heck should the police or anyone else care? Because that's how it is over here. You can be wherever the %&# you want, as long as you do not do anything illegal. In Sweden, you don't have to think about where you are or where you're going, "trying" not to get in trouble with the law, because you simply can't, unless you do obviously illegal things. As long as you're only hanging out, talkin on the phone, or whatever, not doing anything "bad, you'll never get in trouble in Sweden, but in the US, you will, and I did, several times. And no, I dont think the police did it because of MY own good, cuz they sent me to an american court for trial!

I can also think of several reasons to live in the US, just as my american friends can think of lot of reasons to rather live in Sweden. I like America, it is a great country in many ways, but the american people are by swedish standards living with BIG restrictions on their freedom.
liljp617
Personally, I don't believe your story of having to go to court. They sent you to court because you were in a public park after dark? On what charge? Were you arrested? They abuse their power often, yes, but you seem to keep adding stuff to your story just to prove your point.
Liu
Bru, stuffce wrote:


Still, he was an idiot for protesting at a political event. Bush goons have had people arrested and charged for wearing "Impeach Bush" T-shirts. Freedom of Expression doesn't cover political speech in the USA or the UK. Though possibly, now that Yo Blair is gone, that will be remedied.

You're being sarcastic right? Freedom of expression last time I checked does cover political speeches.
Tim Graham
liljp617 wrote:
Personally, I don't believe your story of having to go to court. They sent you to court because you were in a public park after dark? On what charge? Were you arrested? They abuse their power often, yes, but you seem to keep adding stuff to your story just to prove your point.
I think that's beside the point..the root of the issue is that if you're legally allowed to stand in the middle of the park at the dead of the night, then why should you need to worry about being told off for it? I know we're all meant to be "alert, but not alarmed" but surely that's taking things to the extreme?
Moonspider
Tim Graham wrote:
I think that's beside the point..the root of the issue is that if you're legally allowed to stand in the middle of the park at the dead of the night, then why should you need to worry about being told off for it?


That depends upon the park. Wink
polis
I wonder how worse he could be trated if he wasn't white.
liljp617
Tim Graham wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Personally, I don't believe your story of having to go to court. They sent you to court because you were in a public park after dark? On what charge? Were you arrested? They abuse their power often, yes, but you seem to keep adding stuff to your story just to prove your point.
I think that's beside the point..the root of the issue is that if you're legally allowed to stand in the middle of the park at the dead of the night, then why should you need to worry about being told off for it? I know we're all meant to be "alert, but not alarmed" but surely that's taking things to the extreme?

It actually has a lot to do with it. If he was sent to court/arrested, the obviously he was doing something wrong there. If he wasn't doing anything wrong, the court wouldn't have wasted its time...it's not like they don't have enough to do on a daily basis; they're only like 12 years behind on court cases. If he got sent to court, there was a reason (a reason that he has yet to establish here, so his story seems quite fictional).
LimpFish
liljp617 wrote:
Personally, I don't believe your story of having to go to court. They sent you to court because you were in a public park after dark? On what charge? Were you arrested? They abuse their power often, yes, but you seem to keep adding stuff to your story just to prove your point.


Well, considering how poor your skills of comprehension seem to be, I couldnt care less what you believe, it still happened, why the heck would I lie?

No I was not arrested, but they held me, ran a check on me, which took forever since Im not american. And yes, I had to go to court, because obviously, it was illegal to be in public (that's what they're called, but apparently, the name is misleading) parks after a certain hour, I think it was 7pm or something. The actual charge read to me in court was "remaining in a park after hours" or something similar. And that, if you ask me, is ridiculous. Whatever they try to do with these stupid laws, it's not gonna be done by sending foreign people who are used to be able to freely walk around their country in general, and public parks in particular, to court.
LimpFish
I guess that sure shut some less intelligent mouths in here up..
indianinworld
This is called as the Freedom of Speech Smile
LimpFish
liljp617 wrote:
Tim Graham wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Personally, I don't believe your story of having to go to court. They sent you to court because you were in a public park after dark? On what charge? Were you arrested? They abuse their power often, yes, but you seem to keep adding stuff to your story just to prove your point.
I think that's beside the point..the root of the issue is that if you're legally allowed to stand in the middle of the park at the dead of the night, then why should you need to worry about being told off for it? I know we're all meant to be "alert, but not alarmed" but surely that's taking things to the extreme?

It actually has a lot to do with it. If he was sent to court/arrested, the obviously he was doing something wrong there. If he wasn't doing anything wrong, the court wouldn't have wasted its time...it's not like they don't have enough to do on a daily basis; they're only like 12 years behind on court cases. If he got sent to court, there was a reason (a reason that he has yet to establish here, so his story seems quite fictional).


Well yeah if you're like 12 years behind on court cases, I must say that makes your country and its laws even more stupid. And no, my story is not fictional. The reason was that I was in a public park after 7pm. "Land of the free" indeed.
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
No I was not arrested, but they held me, ran a check on me, which took forever since Im not american. And yes, I had to go to court, because obviously, it was illegal to be in public (that's what they're called, but apparently, the name is misleading) parks after a certain hour, I think it was 7pm or something. The actual charge read to me in court was "remaining in a park after hours" or something similar. And that, if you ask me, is ridiculous. Whatever they try to do with these stupid laws, it's not gonna be done by sending foreign people who are used to be able to freely walk around their country in general, and public parks in particular, to court.

If you were not arrested then why was a charge put to you? If you were not arrested then you could not have appeared in a criminal court, since you only appear in such a court to answer a criminal charge, and criminal charges require a formal arrest, reading of your rights and the opportunity for representation. If you were brought up on a civil charge, that would be different, but what you appear to be saying is that this was a criminal matter.
Frankly your story is unbelievable.
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
LimpFish wrote:
No I was not arrested, but they held me, ran a check on me, which took forever since Im not american. And yes, I had to go to court, because obviously, it was illegal to be in public (that's what they're called, but apparently, the name is misleading) parks after a certain hour, I think it was 7pm or something. The actual charge read to me in court was "remaining in a park after hours" or something similar. And that, if you ask me, is ridiculous. Whatever they try to do with these stupid laws, it's not gonna be done by sending foreign people who are used to be able to freely walk around their country in general, and public parks in particular, to court.

If you were not arrested then why was a charge put to you? If you were not arrested then you could not have appeared in a criminal court, since you only appear in such a court to answer a criminal charge, and criminal charges require a formal arrest, reading of your rights and the opportunity for representation. If you were brought up on a civil charge, that would be different, but what you appear to be saying is that this was a criminal matter.
Frankly your story is unbelievable.


once again, I have no idea where you get your ideas from, but you should consider gettin info from somewhere else, because obviously you are wrong. I was NOT arrested, all they did was take my ID, run checks on me, and gave me a piece of paper and told me to appear in court at a specific date. On the piece of paper were three boxes that could be checked, traffic violation, infraction and crime. On mines they checked Crime. The day I went to the courthouse, I was told to go to room 3A, which I looked up on the map of the floor, which labeled the room 3A as "Criminal Court". Once in there, I was in there together with several other people, and we all got our charges read to us and stuff. Some people they just told to get a real good lawyer etc. To me what they said was basically that if you admit you're guily, you'll get away with a $25 fine, because then they would write it down to a violation. But if I would've plead not guilty, they would've let a jury decide if I was guilty or not, and if they judged me as guilty, the penalty would have been jail.

Needless to say, I plead guilty, with the addition that I however did NOT know that public parks were restricted areas at certain times, and that I did not intend to do anything illegal.

I really find this unbelievable too. It seems unlikely any country would be so stupid that this could happen. And that the citizens accept being treated like freakin dogs, not being able to go where they want.
Bikerman
Well, I'm not going to restate the obvious. Let's just say that I don't believe this story and leave it at that.
If I were you I would let this drop!
icecool
isn't that always the problem in every society?
who is more important - the individual or the multitude...
philosophers, law makers, religious thinkers... i think everybody with half a brain is asking this question all the time and still nobody has come up with an answer that satisfies everybody!!!!
why??
because as soon as you have 2 people together having to agree on something there has to be a compromise and both don't get 100 % their own way - we are all different individuals with our own ideas, standards, opinions etc...
the compromise these 2 people reach may look stupid to a 3rd one - i say fair enough but respect it - it's THEIR compromise not yours.
it gets hard when you have 350 million people, all with their own ideas... etc, having to exist under the same compromise like in the usa. by logic you have 350 million people not getting their own way.
that's why there are rules of conduct - moral, legal, economical.. all sorts of rules.
some are written down, some not.
the written down ones apply to everybody regardless of race, creed, gender... all that stuff.
some of the other ones you learn as you grow up.
still others are coming from within each one of us and are different for each one - personal moral standards.

to apply all that to the question at hand here in a very siplyfied way:

the guy is an idiot and should have known better - looking at the vid i actually think he did know better and got the attention he was seeking - he didn't expect the tazer like the kid doesn't expect the slap on the head from a normally quite plazid parent.

the cops are people as well - fallible like the rest of us. to watch them all i can say is that they need some basic training in dealing with a confrontation - any well trained cop can frogmarch a guy like that out of the room. what they did is totally inexcusable and they should be either re-trained or re-depoyed to desk jobs where they don't come into contact with the public.

but to take this incident and say it's synonymous for all of society is a very dangerous direction and i'm sure unfair to a lot of good people living there.

stop generalising
respect each others opinions
don't judge others

cheers
Bikerman
I am not saying that the US is an example of freedom of speech to the rest of the world (although I do believe that it is probably the most 'free' society that currently exists). I am a constant and vociferous critic of the US on foreign policy matters, and I have grave doubts about some of the national measures passed in response to the 'global terror threat'. The Patriot Act, for example, strikes me as profoundly repressive.

That being said, I think it is unhelpful to base criticism on unsubstantiated, and frankly unbelievable, third party testimony.
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
I am not saying that the US is an example of freedom of speech to the rest of the world (although I do believe that it is probably the most 'free' society that currently exists). I am a constant and vociferous critic of the US on foreign policy matters, and I have grave doubts about some of the national measures passed in response to the 'global terror threat'. The Patriot Act, for example, strikes me as profoundly repressive.


Quite frankly, I don't believe you, or anything you say.

Especially since you're obviously being sarcastic:

Bikerman wrote:
although I do believe that it is probably the most 'free' society that currently exists


But it's nice to every now and then meet an american that actually is self aware enough to joke about himself and his country. I salute you for that!
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I am not saying that the US is an example of freedom of speech to the rest of the world (although I do believe that it is probably the most 'free' society that currently exists). I am a constant and vociferous critic of the US on foreign policy matters, and I have grave doubts about some of the national measures passed in response to the 'global terror threat'. The Patriot Act, for example, strikes me as profoundly repressive.
Quite frankly, I don't believe you, or anything you say.
Well, that's a bit rich, but I can live with it.
Quote:
Especially since you're obviously being sarcastic:
Not in the least. There is no sarcasm at all in the above passage. I meant every word of it, quite literally.
Quote:
But it's nice to every now and then meet an american that actually is self aware enough to joke about himself and his country. I salute you for that!
Well, if you look at my Avatar you will see that I am not a citizen of the US at all. I'm British.
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
LimpFish wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I am not saying that the US is an example of freedom of speech to the rest of the world (although I do believe that it is probably the most 'free' society that currently exists). I am a constant and vociferous critic of the US on foreign policy matters, and I have grave doubts about some of the national measures passed in response to the 'global terror threat'. The Patriot Act, for example, strikes me as profoundly repressive.
Quite frankly, I don't believe you, or anything you say.
Well, that's a bit rich, but I can live with it.

That was mostly an attempt to use your own argumentation technique against yourself. Not believing anything the other person says, no matter if its obviously true or not, deny it anyways!

Quote:
Quote:
Especially since you're obviously being sarcastic:
Not in the least. There is no sarcasm at all in the above passage.

Then I would suggest you to take a look at what you wrote, because you probably made a mistake, you just wrote that you thought THE US was the most free society that exists. That's either sarcasm, typo, or a product of having absolutely zero experience and/or knowledge about the world around you.

Quote:
Quote:
But it's nice to every now and then meet an american that actually is self aware enough to joke about himself and his country. I salute you for that!
Well, if you look at my Avatar you will see that I am not a citizen of the US at all. I'm British.

Oh yes I see that now. My bad. Well I still enjoyed the joke (or the typo, whatever it was. Hopefully, for your sake, it wasn't lack of knowledge)
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
That was mostly an attempt to use your own argumentation technique against yourself. Not believing anything the other person says, no matter if its obviously true or not, deny it anyways!
I don't do that - I just refuse to believe things which are unbelievable.
Quote:

Then I would suggest you to take a look at what you wrote, because you probably made a mistake, you just wrote that you thought THE US was the most free society that exists. That's either sarcasm, typo, or a product of having absolutely zero experience and/or knowledge about the world around you.
Perhaps, then, you can suggest a society which is more free?
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
LimpFish wrote:
That was mostly an attempt to use your own argumentation technique against yourself. Not believing anything the other person says, no matter if its obviously true or not, deny it anyways!
I don't do that - I just refuse to believe things which are unbelievable.

Not only unbelievable things. You also refuse to believe what happened to me. Have you ever been to America I must ask? If you have, you'd know that's not unbelievable over there.

Quote:
Quote:
Then I would suggest you to take a look at what you wrote, because you probably made a mistake, you just wrote that you thought THE US was the most free society that exists. That's either sarcasm, typo, or a product of having absolutely zero experience and/or knowledge about the world around you.
Perhaps, then, you can suggest a society which is more free?

I'd suggest my own country, since that's the one I know the most about, Sweden. I could also suggest the other nordic countries. Those are the ones I know the most about that's why I suggest them. Im pretty sure however there are more than those.
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
Not only unbelievable things. You also refuse to believe what happened to me. Have you ever been to America I must ask? If you have, you'd know that's not unbelievable over there.
<sigh>Yes I have been to the US. No I don't believe what happened to you. Yes it is unbelievable that the events you described could happen over there.
Quote:
I'd suggest my own country, since that's the one I know the most about, Sweden. I could also suggest the other nordic countries. Those are the ones I know the most about that's why I suggest them. Im pretty sure however there are more than those.
Well, freedom of speech in NOT protected in Sweden, for a start. An employee's right to criticise an employer, for example, is specifically excluded from the constitutional right to freedom of speech (1974). Did you know that?
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
LimpFish wrote:
Not only unbelievable things. You also refuse to believe what happened to me. Have you ever been to America I must ask? If you have, you'd know that's not unbelievable over there.
<sigh>Yes I have been to the US. No I don't believe what happened to you. Yes it is unbelievable that the events you described could happen over there.
Quote:
I'd suggest my own country, since that's the one I know the most about, Sweden. I could also suggest the other nordic countries. Those are the ones I know the most about that's why I suggest them. Im pretty sure however there are more than those.
Well, freedom of speech in NOT protected in Sweden, for a start. An employee's right to criticise an employer, for example, is specifically excluded from the constitutional right to freedom of speech (1974). Did you know that?


No. It is not unbelievable, considering also 7 of my friends once were fined for remaining in a public park after 7pm too. And me and my friends have several times been threatened by security guards to leave playgrounds, malls etc, or they are gonna call the cops. Land of the free? More like land of the Gestapo. In Sweden, if it's a public place, it is open to the public, no one is fined or brought to court for being there at any time. Of course people could be brought to court for doing illegal things there, say assaulting someone, but solely being in a public place is not criminal in Sween and i hope it will never be. I do not want this to become as restricted as America, that makes me feel like a caged animal.

And second. I did just read the official Freedom of Speech law at the website of the swedish Department of Justice, and especially its limitations. The only limitations I found was regarding reproducing and distributing video or sound containing child pornography or sexual violence and stuff like that. For you to learn, this is one of those times when you're supposed to say "I don't believe you". When the other person is saying something highly unbelievable, without any sources whatsoever. Considering that the official law itself does not contain even any word for employer or employee, or anything similar, I would call your statement a lie. But it was a good try.. or not really.
Bryan_Bezzle
Well I could believe LimpFish if he says he had a violation written upon him for being in a park after hours. Thats not anything to do with America or it's "freedom" that has everything to do with that community and the owners of the park. Yes you are free to do what you want, but there are consequences for as well. I can walk up to Area 51 right now I am free to do that, that also means I disregarded the signs that say "Stop. No Entry. Deadly Force Authorized."

Put it in terms of your house. Every man and woman in America has the freedom to walk right into my house. That doesn't mean by state law I can't shoot you because it was my property and I "feared for my life."

You are free, but there are rules so that those freedoms can be protected. You hate the cops eh? I bet you wont when they save you from being mugged. Or when they stop a homicidal maniac who was going to happen onto your street the next night by chance.

I agree America is slowly moving towards less freedoms and disguising that move with safety regulations and basically using terrorism. i.e. RIDF chips.

Back to LimpFishs incident though, Ive dealt with many of those types of court appearances and they usually are either for felony offenders or misdemeanor charges brought on by arrest. The owner of the park would have to decide on whether to press charges on a person or persons for being in the park after hours, but why would they go through the court system if the cop caught you there? I believe you man because you say it, I didnt go through it so I really have no place to tell you youre lieing, but there does seem like there is something missing from your story if you indeed had to go to court for a simple violation of park rules.
LimpFish
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Well I could believe LimpFish if he says he had a violation written upon him for being in a park after hours. Thats not anything to do with America or it's "freedom" that has everything to do with that community and the owners of the park. Yes you are free to do what you want, but there are consequences for as well. I can walk up to Area 51 right now I am free to do that, that also means I disregarded the signs that say "Stop. No Entry. Deadly Force Authorized."

Put it in terms of your house. Every man and woman in America has the freedom to walk right into my house. That doesn't mean by state law I can't shoot you because it was my property and I "feared for my life."

You are free, but there are rules so that those freedoms can be protected. You hate the cops eh? I bet you wont when they save you from being mugged. Or when they stop a homicidal maniac who was going to happen onto your street the next night by chance.

I agree America is slowly moving towards less freedoms and disguising that move with safety regulations and basically using terrorism. i.e. RIDF chips.

Back to LimpFishs incident though, Ive dealt with many of those types of court appearances and they usually are either for felony offenders or misdemeanor charges brought on by arrest. The owner of the park would have to decide on whether to press charges on a person or persons for being in the park after hours, but why would they go through the court system if the cop caught you there? I believe you man because you say it, I didnt go through it so I really have no place to tell you youre lieing, but there does seem like there is something missing from your story if you indeed had to go to court for a simple violation of park rules.


Dude, I was as surprised as you are when he said Id have to go to court. I was thinking at WOOORST he'd fine me right there on the spot. I was 99,9% sure he'd do nothing but tell us we weren't allowed to be there. There is nothing to add to the story really, Im a foreigner, which I said already.. my girlfriend who was also there, is a local. Actually, the chain that normally closed off the parking lot was not there, neither the signs, because construction work was being done, which makes it even weirder that they didnt just tell us to leave.

I understand the concept that freedom needs to be protected with some restrictions to it. But I do NOT see why anyone would need to make it illegal to be in a public park? Why the heck make it a public park at all then? Fence it in!
Bryan_Bezzle
LimpFish wrote:
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Well I could believe LimpFish if he says he had a violation written upon him for being in a park after hours. Thats not anything to do with America or it's "freedom" that has everything to do with that community and the owners of the park. Yes you are free to do what you want, but there are consequences for as well. I can walk up to Area 51 right now I am free to do that, that also means I disregarded the signs that say "Stop. No Entry. Deadly Force Authorized."

Put it in terms of your house. Every man and woman in America has the freedom to walk right into my house. That doesn't mean by state law I can't shoot you because it was my property and I "feared for my life."

You are free, but there are rules so that those freedoms can be protected. You hate the cops eh? I bet you wont when they save you from being mugged. Or when they stop a homicidal maniac who was going to happen onto your street the next night by chance.

I agree America is slowly moving towards less freedoms and disguising that move with safety regulations and basically using terrorism. i.e. RIDF chips.

Back to LimpFishs incident though, Ive dealt with many of those types of court appearances and they usually are either for felony offenders or misdemeanor charges brought on by arrest. The owner of the park would have to decide on whether to press charges on a person or persons for being in the park after hours, but why would they go through the court system if the cop caught you there? I believe you man because you say it, I didnt go through it so I really have no place to tell you youre lieing, but there does seem like there is something missing from your story if you indeed had to go to court for a simple violation of park rules.


Dude, I was as surprised as you are when he said Id have to go to court. I was thinking at WOOORST he'd fine me right there on the spot. I was 99,9% sure he'd do nothing but tell us we weren't allowed to be there. There is nothing to add to the story really, Im a foreigner, which I said already.. my girlfriend who was also there, is a local. Actually, the chain that normally closed off the parking lot was not there, neither the signs, because construction work was being done, which makes it even weirder that they didnt just tell us to leave.

I understand the concept that freedom needs to be protected with some restrictions to it. But I do NOT see why anyone would need to make it illegal to be in a public park? Why the heck make it a public park at all then? Fence it in!



lol well like I said man..even public parks are owned or ordained by some type of person or organization. If they see it fit for the park to be closed at a certain time, then whether or not the sign says public that is their rules. Were you maybe smoking mary the wana ?? Thats usually a good reason to take prosecution of the rules to their limits.
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
No. It is not unbelievable, considering also 7 of my friends once were fined for remaining in a public park after 7pm too. And me and my friends have several times been threatened by security guards to leave playgrounds, malls etc, or they are gonna call the cops. Land of the free? More like land of the Gestapo. In Sweden, if it's a public place, it is open to the public, no one is fined or brought to court for being there at any time. Of course people could be brought to court for doing illegal things there, say assaulting someone, but solely being in a public place is not criminal in Sween and i hope it will never be. I do not want this to become as restricted as America, that makes me feel like a caged animal.
OK, since you insist on re-raising this, let's do it.
1) You say you were not arrested for any offence but you were, by the police, required to appear in a criminal court charged with a criminal offence. Since you were not arrested then no criminal charges could have been put to you, and therefore you could not have appeared in a criminal court charged with anything. In simple terms - not possible, doesn't happen.
2) You say you then appeared in criminal court and were given the option of accepting a fine or possibly going to prison. The charge was, you say, "remaining in a park after hours". I have asked a colleague of mine who is a lawyer in the US about this. His response - not possible, there is no such criminal charge.
3) You say that you had no legal representation. Any criminal defendant is offered public defence council as a matter of right. Ergo not possible, didn't happen.

Conclusions: Either
1) You are hiding something and were charged with some crime that you have not declared
1a) You were prosecuted via the civil courts for a civil infringement on private property (in which case there was no chance of a prison sentence)
2) You are delusional and think this happened but it didn't really
3) You are lying
4) You have been subjected to the most extraordinary, unconstitutional and illegal treatment which would, if true, be a public scandal

I tend to think it is not 4.
Quote:
And second. I did just read the official Freedom of Speech law at the website of the swedish Department of Justice, and especially its limitations. The only limitations I found was regarding reproducing and distributing video or sound containing child pornography or sexual violence and stuff like that. For you to learn, this is one of those times when you're supposed to say "I don't believe you". When the other person is saying something highly unbelievable, without any sources whatsoever. Considering that the official law itself does not contain even any word for employer or employee, or anything similar, I would call your statement a lie. But it was a good try.. or not really.

Well, try: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/SWEDEN/ANCHOR-YTTRANDEFRIHET-SE.htm
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
LimpFish wrote:
No. It is not unbelievable, considering also 7 of my friends once were fined for remaining in a public park after 7pm too. And me and my friends have several times been threatened by security guards to leave playgrounds, malls etc, or they are gonna call the cops. Land of the free? More like land of the Gestapo. In Sweden, if it's a public place, it is open to the public, no one is fined or brought to court for being there at any time. Of course people could be brought to court for doing illegal things there, say assaulting someone, but solely being in a public place is not criminal in Sween and i hope it will never be. I do not want this to become as restricted as America, that makes me feel like a caged animal.
OK, since you insist on re-raising this, let's do it.
1) You say you were not arrested for any offence but you were, by the police, required to appear in a criminal court charged with a criminal offence. Since you were not arrested then no criminal charges could have been put to you, and therefore you could not have appeared in a criminal court charged with anything. In simple terms - not possible, doesn't happen.
2) You say you then appeared in criminal court and were given the option of accepting a fine or possibly going to prison. The charge was, you say, "remaining in a park after hours". I have asked a colleague of mine who is a lawyer in the US about this. His response - not possible, there is no such criminal charge.
3) You say that you had no legal representation. Any criminal defendant is offered public defence council as a matter of right. Ergo not possible, didn't happen.

Conclusions: Either
1) You are hiding something and were charged with some crime that you have not declared
1a) You were prosecuted via the civil courts for a civil infringement on private property (in which case there was no chance of a prison sentence)
2) You are delusional and think this happened but it didn't really
3) You are lying
4) You have been subjected to the most extraordinary, unconstitutional and illegal treatment which would, if true, be a public scandal

I tend to think it is not 4.
Quote:
And second. I did just read the official Freedom of Speech law at the website of the swedish Department of Justice, and especially its limitations. The only limitations I found was regarding reproducing and distributing video or sound containing child pornography or sexual violence and stuff like that. For you to learn, this is one of those times when you're supposed to say "I don't believe you". When the other person is saying something highly unbelievable, without any sources whatsoever. Considering that the official law itself does not contain even any word for employer or employee, or anything similar, I would call your statement a lie. But it was a good try.. or not really.

Well, try: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/SWEDEN/ANCHOR-YTTRANDEFRIHET-SE.htm


in reply to both for you about if I was hiding something, or smoking the "mary o wana". I did NOT smoke marijuana, never have never will, did not drink or have any alcohol with me, was not affected by anything, perfectly sober. I was there with my girlfriend, just turned around on the parking lot pretty much, used it to turn around. Then we stopped for talkin and I guess I kissed her a few times too, that's it.

As for the others... I was not arrested no, they just took my ID, yelled at me and stuff, and handed me a paper slip saying to appear in court at a certain date. I still have the paper slip here, and it says date to appear in court, out of the boxes "Traffic Crime", "Infraction" and "Criminal", "Criminal" is X'ed. Under "Did commit the offense of:" it says "Enter or remain in a closed park" Section RO 10-1.2 (A)(12).
As I said, in the courthouse, there were different rooms, my room was labeled criminal court. There was a judge, DA, and a bunch of other people "up there" by the judge. Before and after me, people were charged with check fraud, assault, etc etc. One man was charged with urinating in a public area (he was like 90 years old and didnt even speak english, his friend interpreteted in cantonese for him). And no, I had no representation, neither did anyone else, like I've said before. Neither was there a jury, which I've also said before. But yes, I was given the option of pleading guilty and instead gettin it as a violation ($25) or plead not guilty, and then I would've gone to a jury trial (at another date, and there I assume I would've had representation) with the possibility of going to jail. Their words not mine. And yes, what they said when reading my charge was "Remaining in a closed park after hours" or something similar. And I seem to remember it right now that I took out the slip I got and read it. (see above for what it said exactly).

I dont know who that mumbo jumbo "lawyer" friend of yours is. But Im not hiding anything at all, and were not charged with anything else than this. I was not in a civil court, since the DA clearly said to my face that thet penalty for my crime could be jail if it was taken to a jury trial.

On the note of the freedom of speech, what that link you posted seems to talk about is that employees are not allowed to disclose confidential information? If that is your argument for Sweden not being a free society, I guess I'm willing to trade my opportunity to disclose confidential company information (which I doubt that people in any other country, including the US, can do either) for the right to physically hang out wherever I want (with obvious exceptions like in strangers houses) without gettin harassed by cops or security guards. Or the right to free health care and free education.
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
As for the others... I was not arrested no, they just took my ID, yelled at me and stuff, and handed me a paper slip saying to appear in court at a certain date. I still have the paper slip here, and it says date to appear in court, out of the boxes "Traffic Crime", "Infraction" and "Criminal", "Criminal" is X'ed. Under "Did commit the offense of:" it says "Enter or remain in a closed park" Section RO 10-1.2 (A)(12).
OK - you sound very convincing, I'll give you that. Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this.
OK was it something like this?

(This is a Washington infraction notice so yours might be slightly different).
Quote:
As I said, in the courthouse, there were different rooms, my room was labeled criminal court. There was a judge, DA, and a bunch of other people "up there" by the judge.
You mean the District Attourney turned up for this case? That is very odd for a misdemeanour case. Are you sure it was the DA?
Quote:
Before and after me, people were charged with check fraud, assault, etc etc. One man was charged with urinating in a public area (he was like 90 years old and didnt even speak english, his friend interpreteted in cantonese for him). And no, I had no representation, neither did anyone else, like I've said before. Neither was there a jury, which I've also said before. But yes, I was given the option of pleading guilty and instead gettin it as a violation ($25) or plead not guilty, and then I would've gone to a jury trial (at another date, and there I assume I would've had representation) with the possibility of going to jail.

OK...If you can scan your charge slip and post a jpg I will have my friend look at it. I still think you have either misunderstood the charge or have missed something out here, but I am always willing to be convinced by evidence, and you may be assured that if I am wrong on this I will certainly apologise for disbelieving you.
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
On the note of the freedom of speech, what that link you posted seems to talk about is that employees are not allowed to disclose confidential information? If that is your argument for Sweden not being a free society, I guess I'm willing to trade my opportunity to disclose confidential company information (which I doubt that people in any other country, including the US, can do either) for the right to physically hang out wherever I want (with obvious exceptions like in strangers houses) without gettin harassed by cops or security guards. Or the right to free health care and free education.
OK, several points here.
Firstly, the assumption in Sweden is that ALL company information is confidential - that is different to the US.
Secondly I think there is a danger of confusing several uses of the word 'free'. When I said that I believe the US is probably the most 'free' society, I meant the word to mean 'personal freedom' or 'autonomy'. 'Free health care' is not an example of such a freedom - indeed I will argue that it is the opposite.
No health care is 'free'. Someone always has to pay. In Sweden (and here in the UK) there is a national health system which is funded by the state from taxation. Taxation is, itself, a restriction on personal freedom. The state intervenes in a private contract between you and your employer and says 'I will have some of your earnings'. The Scandanavian countries have a higher level of taxation than most others because they have a 'better' social provision of services than most. You can characterise this as citizens giving up a certain amount of autonomy in order to provide for the general good. I actually support this and believe it to be a good thing, but it is not an example of greater personal freedoms - rather the reverse.
LimpFish
im sorry I dont have access to a scanner, at least not right now, but I can say that the slip is pretty much similar to yours. the only major difference is that the checkboxes are traffic crime, infraction and criminal.. and on mines criminal was checked. more info for what it said I had in my previous post. Ill try to scan it if I get an opportunity and post it here.

As for the stuff about ALL information being confidential, I've never ever experienced or heard about anything like that. And I couldnt even find that in the actual text of the law so Im putting myself doubting to that one still...

And I guess it's a matter of what perspective you view it from, when it comes to free health care. Assuming that you have a decent job and economical standards, yes, free health care would probably feel more like giving up some freedom by paying some extra taxes. But if you on the other hand dont have a job, several kids, and if you (and maybe your kids too) have some serious, maybe incurable illness, I would say that free health care is for sure a big addition to personal freedom. By gettin the treatment you need, and otherwise would not be able to afford, you can still live your life like you want to, without goin bankrupt.
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
And I guess it's a matter of what perspective you view it from, when it comes to free health care. Assuming that you have a decent job and economical standards, yes, free health care would probably feel more like giving up some freedom by paying some extra taxes. But if you on the other hand dont have a job, several kids, and if you (and maybe your kids too) have some serious, maybe incurable illness, I would say that free health care is for sure a big addition to personal freedom. By gettin the treatment you need, and otherwise would not be able to afford, you can still live your life like you want to, without goin bankrupt.
So then what we have is the majority sacrificing some freedom (economic) for the benefit of the minority. It is surely, therefore, not possible to characterise that as a greater degree of personal freedom (autonomy) for the country as a whole.
Don't misunderstand me, I am a 'left winger' and always have been, and I believe in social provision such as the Health Service, but it is incorrect to use that as an example of greater personal freedoms - it clearly isn't.
Critics of the US (and as I said before, I am one of them in areas of foreign policy) should be clear about what it is they criticise, otherwise the perception is of a generalised attack on the US - an 'anti-US' mentality - which is not helpful and only serves to polarise opinions in the US about these damn 'foreigners'.
I stand by my comment that the US is the 'most free' society (in terms of personal autonomy) that I can think of. The level of personal freedom is not ideal, far from it, but it is greater than here in the UK, for example.

PS - I may well be wrong on the employer confidentiality in Swedish law. I can't find any reference either in my researches so I withdraw that example.
LimpFish
I understand your point I guess. And I must say I pretty much shared your opinion on that until I actually went there, and got "harassed" on average once a month for just _being_ somewhere which was totally not a private, restricted, or in any other way special area. (The park thing is an exception I guess since obviously, somewhere, there was a sign that said it was restricted after 7pm, even though I never saw it) That one thing is for me such a big thing that I cannot compare it to anything else in Sweden. Sure, in Sweden, we have very high restrictions on drinking and driving, one glass of wine and you cant drive, we do have high taxes, and so on, but as long as you pay your taxes, you can do whatever you fricken want, you can go anywhere and do anything, and as long as you're not doing something obviously criminal, youll have NO trouble with the law or security guards whatsoever. In the US you pretty much gotta watch out with what you're doing, or you might end up in trouble with the police or security guards even thought you had no intention of doing anything wrong. That made me personally feel extremely confined, restricted and not free at all, but the the opposite. And that makes me feel way more so than payin higher taxes. Therefore I would not call the US the most free society, but that's my personal opinion.
Bikerman
Well, in fairness I must say that it is nearly a decade since I was in the US so my own experiences are probably out of date. I suppose the paranoia over terrorism over there is largely to blame. I'm on record as saying that the Patriot Act is a gross infringement of civil liberties, and the fact that it was passed so quickly, and almost unanimously, speaks ill of the democratic process (in my opinion).
I still tend to think the US is a reasonably 'free' society as far as individual autonomy is concerned, but there seems little doubt that these freedoms have been eroded.

Even here in the UK, where we have lived with terrorism for decades, the 'global war on terror' has been used to justify repressive legislation, and is still being used to justify further proposed erosion of civil liberties - often in an almost unbelievably dishonest manner (as with proposals for ID cards, DNA database, increasing the detention time without charge and others).

There are parts of the US system which I would wish to see more of here in the UK - a proper freedom of information act and written consitutional rights being the most important two. There are other parts of the US system which I would not wish to see here. The poor basic social provision, the huge and growing under-class of citizens and the corporate driven corruption endemic in the political system would be the main three.
Related topics
Free Hosting-Availability
Hey guys, want a free sig?
Free games
Submit to tons of search engines for free
Question before requesting free hosting
.co.nr is back up and accepting registration
Free Domain & Redirect Services
land of the free uses torture
Land of the death
The Middle East Conflict
How will technology shape our lives in 50 years.
Say hallo from java land
Free domains @ "binero.se"
Are landline phones dying?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.