im sure by now everyone's seen this video,
its a video of a student at Florida University during a John Kerry forum, being tazed after asking too many questions. they claim of course he was resisting arrest but he doesn't seem to be too much of a threat to me. and when someone's handcuffed on their ground pleading not to be tazerred, is it really necessary to use that force?

what i find more scary about this scene is how none of the student body there with him did a god damn thing about this obvious abuse of police force. sure some people shout to stop but no one is down to fight the police, in the 60's, that would've been a riot. people would've stuck together and fought back against the establishment, but now they have us so well trained we sit back and watch, or like i'm doing now, bitch about it in an anonymity on the internet.

we're increasingly speeding towards a military police state, we'll soon loose our freedoms unless we grow a spine and do something about it. this ties in with the 10 steps towards fascism article i posted in the Amero thread.

you can claim these are just conspiracy theories, but why don't you look up the Military Commissions Act, that repeals Habeus Corpus, and if you don't know what that is then you must love living under a rock. Habeus Corpus is the right to petition you're detention. to have a fair trial. if you can't petition you're detention, then how is there justice?

if you can't speak freely at an open forum on a university's campus, how can you claim we have freedom of speech? by the way, did you notice how quickly they cut the mic off when he said Skull and bones?


think for youself. question authority.

__________________

ur right, we dont have freedom of speech, its back to the days of hitler, ou bad mouth him? torture!!! WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!
The officers had no right to do that.
they said he resisited arrest, but why was he being arrested? for saything the truth

He may have had no right to be ARRESTED, but the fact is that he was being arrested. And you simply cannot resist arrest. If you are innocent, then you will be released soon enough. But resisting will get you in a lot of trouble. Once the police start the process of placing you under arrest, they aren't going to change their mind. Resisting is just stupid and he had every right to be tasered. Don't get me wrong, he shouldn't have been arrested in the first place, but I do agree with the police officers' decisions to tase him. And remember - the police don't have as much time to think about things as you do, after it happens. They are trained to act quickly to prevent something bad from happening before it happens.

__________________
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools..."

the fact of the matter if that he showed no signs of violence, he was just speaking. something we're all free to do, express ourselves through speech. ok...you say he still was being arrested, fine. did they have to taze him after he was in handcuffs on the ground? was that needed? you can't let police get away with things like this, it sets dangerous precedents

__________________

they were put on leave for a bit

If you look at the video closely, they were not able to get him in the handcuffs until after he was tased. He was still resisting, so additional force was needed.

That's standard procedure after ANY instance of shooting or stunning a civilian.

__________________
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools..."

ok, i couldn't tell that he wasn't handcuffed but i could tell that he sure as hell wasn't going to be able to stand back up and mount any kind of an offensive flurry against those officers, when they had him down 4 or 5 to 1.

but thats not even the point i'm trying to make. they arrested him for speaking.

__________________

Then why didn't you say "arrested" in the title instead of "tazed"?

Anyway, I do completely agree with you on that he shouldn't have been arrested for speaking his mind and we are losing free speech. Even as Andrew was being arrested, Kerry was saying "Just let me answer his question..." (or something very close). He was absolutely arrested for no reason.

__________________
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools..."

They really did have no right to try to arrest him. He was just speaking, a right given to him by our Constitution. If the Constitution is not upheld, we will fail as a country. He was resisting arrest, indeed, but not violently. He wasn't trying to attack the police. And he begged them to stop tasering him. They didn't have to keep doing it. And Kerry DID say that he wanted to answer the man's question. And the crowd DID tell the police to stop, but they didn't do anything. I don't think that a country is worth living in when you have to conform to anything the authorities do.

__________________
- Ash (This will make a better quote once it's no longer his signature, but until then, I'm doubling the quotational awesomeness of the forum.)

The Constitution is also interpreted as saying that everyone should carry a gun and no-one has the right to tell you not to. Which is wrong. So there's room for speculation.

Liberal Hippy Douche was looking for his 15 minutes. He got it. Then he tried for another 15. Almost got it. Then he went for the gusto when they tried to remove him. You know, if he hadn't have tried to stand up when he was on the floor, he wouldn't have gotten tased. He *was* resisting arrest by definition. And he got what was coming to him for that. His mouth and his body got him into the trouble he got into, I have no sympathy for him. When he knew he was getting arrested, what should be have done? Accepted it, gone with the police (to avoid getting, I dunno, TAZED), and if he was really innocent, wait until you're back on the OUTSIDE (a matter of what, a couple of hours probably?) before you raise hell. He could have had every major news outlet on his side within a matter of days, if he's really that gung-ho on his convictions. Now, everybody's just showing him getting beat down.

He asked Kerry why he didn't try to impeach Bush. Is there not some statute that prevents that sort of thing from happening for a certain period of time after election or re-election? I know in Canada the period is about two years, but that's before another election can be called.

Kerry seemed to me to have more pride than to consider himself (and to be considered) as a President without the support of the people. He knew he didn't have the support of the people in 2004, so he gave it up. Was it a bad decision in hindsight? Probably. But the worse decision was the however number of millions of people that wanted Commander Finger-on-the-Button in charge.

__________________
"Lemme tell you somethin' you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a mean, ugly, nasty place. And I don't care how tough you are, it will beat you down to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it! You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard you hit. It's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward."
-Sylvester Stallone as Rocky Balboa, Rocky Balboa, 2006.