One story, three reports, your opinions?

[SouthernN'Proud]

I think he was told his time was up because they didn't like what he was saying... and the police tried to remove him why? Who was he hurting... or disturbing... even Kerry can be heard saying it's ok!

With his speech, he was hurting no one. When he began resisting arrest and flailing about he endangered anyone within arm's reach.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. What if he hadn't been restrained/removed/whatever? Who would have been next to try and top his antics? At what precise point does the potential for a full-scale riot become possible? Or probable? How far should one person be allowed to go in a situation already emotionally electric, as any political appearance has the potential for being? This wasn't Kent State part 2, thankfully. Who prevented it from becoming that though? That's right...the cops. Hundreds of people in attendance owe the fact that they were never in harm's way to the actions of a few policemen.

Maybe Kerry thought it was OK. Maybe he wanted to address this young man's questions. All well and good. But is he above making an error in judgment? Can any one of us comfortably say with any degree of certainty what might have happened had this student been allowed to continue? I certainly can't, and neither can John Kerry.

Kerry is compensated to speak, which he did. Cops are compensated to protect the public from even potentially dangerous behavior, which they did. Did they go too far? Did they act too soon? Those are debatable points. However, using nothing except your own words and the implied emotional reaction(s) behind them, it seems to me they acted properly. You weren't even there and already you A) are ready to jump on a cop (always a smart move); B) are defending the actions of a person guilty of the crime of resisting arrest if nothing else; C) are "fuming"; and D) have an entire hypothetical explanation as to why events you were not part of occurred. That tells me that this student needed to be removed. His resistance resulted in the use of escalated force in order to effect his removal and the protection of every other living being in that building. His actions dictated his own fate. They also apparently have sparked an equally violent (fuming?!) response in you.

Free speech...yes. At all costs. Using it to put me or anyone else in danger? No way. That's called abuse of rights. As a result his rights were restricted for a time. I say, justly so.







I still ain't read the different coverages, and I still refuse to supply a link to the news outlet of my choice, because it's none of anybody's damn business.

 

[Error]

So... if I went to x political icon's speech, I voice my opinion... and that opinion is objectionable to that icon, I can be arrested? On grounds that I could have started a riot?

...

 

[2minkey]

yeah you can't argue with them law enforcement folks. they're all powerful anywhere outside the bedroom...

 

[markjs]

for fuck's sake man chill it out. you take this shit waaaaay too seriously.

Not at all, The first time she went out of her way to tell us she didn't care, she was looking for a reaction, so I obliged her, that's all. So when she got offended and struck back, looking for still more reaction, well again, I obliged her. Give the people what they want right?

Then again I didn't start the thread without wanting reactions.

 

[Gonz]

Scenario: Guy rushes a mic & begins shouting.

Cops response: Is he carrying? Will he shoot Skerry? A bystander? Me?

He's acting unusual. Is he on drugs? Is he drunk? Is he dangerous? Is he armed?

*attempting to remove offender from the situation in order to get a better handle on what's up* He's fighting! He's SCREAMING! Godamn it, this is gonna be on CNN. Should I soot him? Probably but this IS GONNA BE ON CNN. so instead, let's use less than lethal force.

*Takes boy to jail.* *see's self on CNN*

Shit!

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

So... if I went to x political icon's speech, I voice my opinion... and that opinion is objectionable to that icon, I can be arrested? On grounds that I could have started a riot?

...

Not at all.

Voicing his opinion, as I stated, is fantastic. Freedom of speech at all costs. Besides, one of the last things you'll ever see me do is defend a scumbucket like John Kerry.

The student's opinion (like those of so many others...) is 100% irrelevent. His actions, specifically flailing his arms and physically resisting a lawful (until proven otherwise) arrest and in doing so placing other people in danger of being physically struck was his mistake.

Had he calmly waited his turn to address Kerry, then done so in the manner of his choosing, and then simply made his point and moved on, I'd be right there with you proclaiming his arrest was a travesty. He did not do this. He chose to behave quite differently, for reasons of his own which I speculated about above. At that moment he ceased being a protestor and commenced being a danger, or at the very least an unknown element with the very real potential of being dangerous. Again, his actions dictated his fate. We could use more of that kind of accountability if you ask me.

Again, let's put the shoe on the other foot. I would imagine and would most certainly hope that there was tight security for this event. But as we all know all too well, security is imperfect. What if he had a gun? What if he left the assemblage and went and GOT a gun? Is this student rational? Is he capable of reacting to Kerry's speech with violence? Do you have any real idea whether or not this student is capable of duplicating the events of April 16 at Virginia Tech? I don't. Neither did John Kerry. And neither did the policemen who removed him.

Likewise, I have no idea if the intent of the policemen in question upon their initial approach to the student was to arrest/remove this guy, or simply to try and intimidate him into adopting a more suitable method of making his point, or to simply try and encourage him to move on and allow the event to proceed. Because I don't know these things, I must base my reaction upon my own experiences with policemen at similar gatherings. And based upon that experience I find it doubtful that his voiced opinios resulted in his eventual arrest. Others with differing experiences may disagree, and have every right to do so. I ain't them.

 

[2minkey]

Then again I didn't start the thread without wanting reactions.

no shit?

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Others with differing experiences may disagree

And apparently already have done so...

 

[markjs]

My news comes from D, none of the above.

That's rich coming from the guy who said:

I've clearly stated my thoughts on the value of opinions as opposed to fact.

But then he further buries himself (if you use his own logic against him) by spouting off endlessly about the case, which he already admitted that he doesn't have any actual first hand, facts, because he couldn't be bothered with such trivialities.

With his speech, he was hurting no one. When he began resisting arrest and flailing about he endangered anyone within arm's reach.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. What if he hadn't been restrained/removed/whatever? Who would have been next to try and top his antics? At what precise point does the potential for a full-scale riot become possible? Or probable? How far should one person be allowed to go in a situation already emotionally electric, as any political appearance has the potential for being? This wasn't Kent State part 2, thankfully. Who prevented it from becoming that though? That's right...the cops. Hundreds of people in attendance owe the fact that they were never in harm's way to the actions of a few policemen.

Maybe Kerry thought it was OK. Maybe he wanted to address this young man's questions. All well and good. But is he above making an error in judgment? Can any one of us comfortably say with any degree of certainty what might have happened had this student been allowed to continue? I certainly can't, and neither can John Kerry.

Kerry is compensated to speak, which he did. Cops are compensated to protect the public from even potentially dangerous behavior, which they did. Did they go too far? Did they act too soon? Those are debatable points. However, using nothing except your own words and the implied emotional reaction(s) behind them, it seems to me they acted properly. You weren't even there and already you A) are ready to jump on a cop (always a smart move); B) are defending the actions of a person guilty of the crime of resisting arrest if nothing else; C) are "fuming"; and D) have an entire hypothetical explanation as to why events you were not part of occurred. That tells me that this student needed to be removed. His resistance resulted in the use of escalated force in order to effect his removal and the protection of every other living being in that building. His actions dictated his own fate. They also apparently have sparked an equally violent (fuming?!) response in you.

Free speech...yes. At all costs. Using it to put me or anyone else in danger? No way. That's called abuse of rights. As a result his rights were restricted for a time. I say, justly so.

I still ain't read the different coverages, and I still refuse to supply a link to the news outlet of my choice, because it's none of anybody's damn business.

And once again admits that he's providing a kneejerk reaction based on second hand knowlege. He also already provided this tidbit which describes everything he's contributed to this thread:

Little room for argument which of the two that...contribution...falls into.

Damn SnP yer slippin and makin this easy for me, even for you! Sheit dawg, I hardly have to add commentary, just quote you and then answer you with another quote from you!

 

[markjs]

no shit?

Dub me....CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!!!

 

[Gonz]

blah blah blah

why is your Fox link still going to CNN?

 

[Winky]

Knowing your issue with speeling I feel its my civic duty to hep
you out here
it’s

Oblivious

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Larry, how does None of the Above equate to none at all? And unless you were there, you have no real firsthand data either ya know.

This personal vendetta is getting old, real quick, and quite transparent.

 

[markjs]

blah blah blah

why is your Fox link still going to CNN?

Because I misunderstood when you said it was the same. I erroneously assumed that you meant the stories were so similar, but the second time yo mentioned it, it was clear. Thank you, and the link is fixed.

I am too tired and distraught for reasons un-related to OTC to give my full reaction, now, and I want to re-read each strory one last time before I do, but here's the shocker of the day:

I think the Fox News version is the most complete one, and perhaps the most accurate. That is not to say I think it's without slant, but I was rather surprised what the slant tends to suggest, in my take on it. More details later.

 

[markjs]

This personal vendetta is getting old, real quick, and quite transparent.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

If you didn't tell us what you know about the story and make statements such as you did, are we to just assume that of course you have the "real facts" because of your obvious "superiority" to everyone else here perhaps?

*I* did watch the entire video of the actual event, just as it happened. Unless it was some mad edit job devised by some evil genius with an agenda, which is entirely possible, however quite ulikely since nobody who was actually there has come forward to debunk the video of the actual event, and since it would be a monumental undertaking to make a real video into something it's not look that continuos and coherent, possible, but insanely unlikely.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

All paranoia aside, you fail to get within 40 miles of answering a simple question. How does none of the above equal none at all?

 

[markjs]

This personal vendetta is getting old, real quick, and quite transparent.

And one more thing, at least I'll cop to it. I am just another one in the trenches fighting fire with fire in this war of ideals.

It seems to me that you, on the other hand, see yourself on some "moral high ground", which is as laughable as your ideas on the confederacy IMHO.

 

[2minkey]

get a room...

 

[Winky]

"continuos and coherent"

Lemme get back to ya on dat.

 

[markjs]

All paranoia aside, you fail to get within 40 miles of answering a simple question. How does none of the above equal none at all?

Never said it did, but answer me this question, did you watch the entire video of the actual event? Or did you just read/watch/hear some story written about it, from the news source which must be very controversial at best, considering you are ashamed/afraid/whatever, to admit what it is?