Tazed

[molsen]

No it's not speculation, the cut the mic right after he said ******* and the cops were already upset with him for barging in and cutting the line to ask a question in a forum he wasn't invited to. Although I'd love to hear your theory about why they cut the mic on him. You've already said Kerry agreed to answer the question so it wasn't because he didn't like it. The only possible reason would be because of his language.

the cops were already upset? i'm glad you asked them how they were feeling, that's very nice of you. the ensuing investigation will determine all of this.

Then all they did was attempt to take him by the arm and take him outside. They only had to use force when he refused. If they had calmly told him he had broken the rules of the forum and asked him to leave, do you honestly think he would have with his attitude?

it doesn't matter what i, you, or the cops THINK he would have done. there is procedure to follow that was not followed. when they took him by the arm after his mic was cut, THAT WAS FORCE.

He had already shown disregard for rules when he barged in front of everyone at the forum. They were only attempting to escort him out of the forum for breaking the rules. If you break the rules at a store by not wearing a shirt and then refusing to leave, the cops can remove you by force if necessary.

yes, but only after ASKING you to leave, then TELLING you to leave. you don't see a guy shopping in your store w/ no shirt and call the cops and they come in, without saying anything, and force the man out. like i said, there is procedure to be followed.

As I've said before, the first amendment is not cart blanche to say whatever you want, I suggest you do some research on what it really means.

yea, i know this. you're preaching to the choir, buddy. i've taken way too many law classes. my issue with this situation is not so much what was said anymore, but how the police reacted to that.

 

[Static_11]

wow. this exploded.

didn't mean for this to turn into a war. haha.

 

[Grievearz]

it doesn't matter what i, you, or the cops THINK he would have done. there is procedure to follow that was not followed. when they took him by the arm after his mic was cut, THAT WAS FORCE.

All you did was argue small points about how I saw the situation go down but you offer no evidence that what I saw happen is not true. You just suggest that I'm wrong because I didn't ask them and confirm. Well did you ask them? Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Then you attacked my example itself rather than the point it was showing. Of course no example is going to match up exactly.

Being a cop is all about reading people and figuring out what they think suspicious people will do. If I was a cop, I'd regard someone who barges to the front of a line in a formal debate where a US figurehead is speaking to be suspicious and I'd be on a heightened guard. It's their job. They can't always wait until the person takes action before taking action themselves, furthermore you seem to be an expert on police procedure that should have been followed. Could you please explain to me exactly what that was and at what points the did not follow it? They asked him twice to ask his question, he didn't even give Kerry a chance to answer. It was obvious, at least to me, that he was only there to stir up trouble in a formal on campus forum.

 

[molsen]

i've been doing some reading up on obscenity and protected speech on public university campuses. there is some contrasting information, but i'll present it anyways.

obscenity is legal in the absence of state or local laws to the contrary. BUT it can be protected speech so long as it is within the context of academic discussion, which this instance was.

you should also be aware that commentary about political figures is some of the most highly-protected speech in this country, so it is quite unlikely that the "blow job" would be grounds to cut off someone's mic, let alone remove him from the premises.

 

[Grievearz]

Did you not see (b)? I'd say that Blow Job fits into that category... This test is worthless in this situation because it was set up in the rules of the forum that there would be no cursing. It's obviously considered a bad word seeing as how it's censored on this forum. It can be protected speech, but like I said before this was a closed forum in regards to questions and this speech was not appropriate for the situation. This was not some reporter asking questions. There were certain rules to this forum that were required to be followed by the university, which as you stated before is a State entity. Had he waited till after the debate and shouted these questions to Kerry on the way to his car, and the cops removed him I'd fully agree with you.

Simple fact is that it's not. He didn't follow the rules of the forum.

 

[Grievearz]

He removed a part of his last post regarding the miller test, this is what he posted.

The Miller test - from Miller v. California 413 US 15 (1973) was a landmark ruling which discarded the Roth test and remains the current standard for pornography today. Justice Burger laid out the new, three part test as: "(a) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct, as outlined in state law, in a patently offensive way; and (c) whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

 

[molsen]

furthermore you seem to be an expert on police procedure that should have been followed. Could you please explain to me exactly what that was and at what points the did not follow it? They asked him twice to ask his question, he didn't even give Kerry a chance to answer. It was obvious, at least to me, that he was only there to stir up trouble in a formal on campus forum.

i'd be happy to explain.

first, the police must assess whether the person in question is an imminent physical threat. in this case, the person had no weapons nor was he acting out physically, so no...no threat.

second, they are to say something to the extent of "sir, i have to ask you to leave" if refused they say "sir, you must leave" followed by a warning of "if you do not leave, you will be forcibly removed and arrested"

third, physical force can be used if the person does not comply.

again, this is all based on the assessment that the person does not pose an immediate threat. so, as you can see, the police completely skipped step 2 and immediately resorted to physical force.

 

[molsen]

He removed a part of his last post regarding the miller test, this is what he posted.

The Miller test - from Miller v. California 413 US 15 (1973) was a landmark ruling which discarded the Roth test and remains the current standard for pornography today. Justice Burger laid out the new, three part test as: "(a) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct, as outlined in state law, in a patently offensive way; and (c) whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

lol, i removed it for a reason, it applied to visual obscenity, not verbal. thanks for the irrelevant post...:nerd:

 

[Grievearz]

If that's the best you have, I'm going to bed. You've yet to answer any of the questions I posed to you. Now you're just arguing stupid little things to act as a red herring to the fact that you can't argue my main points. It wasn't an irrelevant post because my response referred back to what you posted and then you removed it. I didn't want to confuse anyone.

 

[molsen]

It's obviously considered a bad word seeing as how it's censored on this forum.

:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:HAHAHAH that is the funniest thing i've heard all night! what's censored on this forums has absolutely, positively NOTHING to do with the law

It can be protected speech, but like I said before this was a closed forum in regards to questions and this speech was not appropriate for the situation. This was not some reporter asking questions. There were certain rules to this forum that were required to be followed by the university, which as you stated before is a State entity. Had he waited till after the debate and shouted these questions to Kerry on the way to his car, and the cops removed him I'd fully agree with you.

Simple fact is that it's not. He didn't follow the rules of the forum.

show me these rules. show me the law/rule for the state that makes what he said illegal. then i'll stop with the free speech thing