ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

This link no longer works.

I'm trying to fix it. It does work in my e-mail. You gotta see it!

this is a good link to the taser incident

Thank you Mike DiDj. Do you know why the link in my Post doesn't work?

Not sure. This is what it says when I go there: The video you have requested is not available. If you have recently uploaded this video, you may need to wait a few minutes for the video to process.

Thanks, I saw that too and for one paranoid second I thought somebody pulled the video. Will keep trying to fix.

Unbelievable. So much for the spirit of inquiry being fostered at today's U.S. universities.

At least John Kerry answered the question, albeit unintentionally. Kerry stood by while Bush stole the election the same way he stood by while this student was tasered. Horrible. Not a fit leader.

This video is too close to home. Remember our own Cathy Jones, assaulted and arrested by Captain Norris for trying to ask a question at the candidates' forum.

Or Pete Lafollette, arrested for speaking 5 seconds out of turn after being smeared from the podium by Sue Horgan.

The fascist, repressive response is not isolated or unusual. We abide it right here in Ojai.

"Whither goest thou, America, in thy shiny black car in the night?"

Some years ago, when I was on the city council, a group of students from local schools, their teachers, parents, grandparents and a peaceful assortment of Ojai nature lovers gathered in Libbey Park to protest the cutting of an old Oak tree. When I walked into the park it was filled with police, many on horses. At that moment I realized that who ever has the power to call the police, has the power. At least for that moment.

I watched the video several times. There's something strangely familiar about the whole scene. I think that the student who spoke up was probably the brightest, bravest mind in there. What is frightening as you watch the video is how passively most of the rest of the students looked on. They appear to be too scared to move.

http://www.theandrewmeyer.com/

The guy is a publicity hound.

Were it not for his publicity-philia, I'd be outraged. But he wanted this.

thanks to people like Tyler, and the OjaiPost posters, the time has come when we need not give our lives to change the world -- need not die or kill to end the death machine.

bless you Andrew Meyer, for revealing your love for our emerging world of truth, respect, connectedness ...

I actually just saw this for the first time. Unbelieveable. To arrest him was bad enough, but to TASER him?!? I disagree with phosphorous, the poor kid may have wanted publicity (and why not if he feels so strongly about the allegations he made) but nobody wants to end up on the other side of the police when they feel compelled to overstep their bounds.

As a personal protest against this unabashed, unneccessary and counter-productive display of violence, I for one will buy and read the book that the student was so passionate about - "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast.

I too was surprised that the rest of the students were passively standing by in the auditorium or that Kerry himself did not request the police to stand down more vehemently.

Raymond,

The students applauded when they removed him. If that was you up there performing, I think you would have been just as glad to have this disruptive influence removed from the situation.

You people who think this was a disruptive influence need to wake up and get with the program. Unfortunately, most all American's don't see what actually happened, and just play it off like just another stupid opinionated person. DENY IGNORANCE!

You people who think this was a disruptive influence need to wake up and get with the program. Unfortunately, most all American's don't see what actually happened, and just play it off like just another stupid opinionated person. DENY IGNORANCE!

Anonymous,

What program is that exactly? Is it the one where the foul mouth bully who talks the longest, loudest and fastest gets the most attention?

My understanding is, the format of the engagement was intended for public QUESTIONS, (you know, something you say just before you wait for an answer) the individual who was removed, was clearly not participating within this format. It is however, not considered impolite to offer a little background for your question. This individual went well beyond that, accordingly, it was appropriate that he be removed. It is not fair that the speaker, or the captive audience, be lorded over with (the removed persons) rant. We are, in part, in the mess we are in, in this country because of the increasing lack of dignity and respect in public discourse. For a questioner to attempt to use the privilege of being able to ask a question, as an opportunity to give a speech (however relevant) is obviously inappropriate to anyone with good manners.

Hey, Come on...I don't like what you are saying, get your ass over here so I can tase you.

Hey, Come on...I don't like what you are saying, get your ass over here so I can tase you.

Anon,

Obviously, the two engagement formats are entirely different. Had you ever had the experience of being a lecturer, you would understand. Convincing themselves (and others) that apples and oranges are the same, is one of the places that the intellectually weak and disingenuous hide. Close the door please, so you may embarrass yourself in private.

I highly recommend a visit to www.GregPalast.com.

Below are excerpts from an article by Greg Palast, author of the book the student was recommending to Kerry.

Student Tasered for ‘Armed Madhouse’ Question to Kerry

“[Palast] said you won the 2004 election - isn’t that amazing?

There were multiple reports of disenfranchising of Black voters on the day of the election in 2004 in Florida and Ohio. … How could you concede the election on the day?”

We warned you: ‘Armed Madhouse’ is a dangerous book. Yesterday, Andrew Meyer, a University of Florida student was attacked by five cops, zapped with tasers and arrested after demanding that Senator John Kerry answer the question.

Meyer, just released from jail and now facing five years in prison for resisting arrest, held up a copy of the book and began …

Student to John Kerry: “I want to recommend a book to you. It’s called ‘Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast.’ He’s the top investigative journalist in America.”

Kerry: “I have the book. I’ve already read it.”

Student: “… In this book, it says there were 5 million votes and you won the election. … How could you concede the election on the day?”

Meyer, a telecommunications student at the Gainesville campus, asked related questions including a query as to why Kerry refused to vote for impeachment. When he passed his alloted one minute mic time, five cops jumped him, threw him to the ground, then shot him with taser shockers.

Kerry, true to character, stood immobile.

Now, I’ve given many talks. And some questioners have taken too long at the mic. But I’ve never done the Stalin thing of cops and electronic beating to limit the discussion.

The Washington Post reported only that Meyer was holding a “mysterious yellow book.” VERY mysterious.

I would note that enchained student was busted in Alachua County, Florida, where, six years ago, I uncovered massive, systematic and utterly illegal disenfranchisement of Black voters - ordered by Gov. Jeb Bush’s office just before the 2000 election. (”Florida’s Disappeared Voters,” February 2001, The Nation.) Alachua remains under federal scrutiny for its long history of racial bias against Black voters.

I must admit I feel some appreciation for Meyer, especially because, even while he was being shot with untold amps of electricity, until he was handcuffed, he would not let go of his mysterious yellow book, ‘Armed Madhouse.’

Published September 18th, 2007 in Articles. For the complete article go to:

http://www.gregpalast.com/student-tasered-for-armed-madhouse-question-to-kerry/

Come on, Come on - the kid was TASERED!!!

You may have an argument that he disrespected the rules of the format and crossed the lines of politeness and public decorum. You may have an argument that it was appropriate that he had his microphone turned off. You might have an argument that he should have been removed. And perhaps, if the only way to do that was to arrest him, then you still may have a valid argument for arrest. But how in the world can any decent person think it appropriate to TASER a kid who is lying prone on the ground, underneath 5 cops, pleading and almost crying (and at this point others are now yelling at the cops)....is that how you, as a lecturer, would advocate someone in your audience be treated?

If it were the norm to TASER people who overstayed their welcome at the podium, blurted out unpopular, opinionated political speech, and made the audience and organizers of the event a bit too uncomfortable and embarrassed - then we'd have a lot of sore celebrities on Oscar night. And they'd be on the phone with their lawyers first thing in the morning - which is where this kid and his parents should be, in my opinion. Perhaps the State of Florida needs a bit more scrutiny than they've been given in the past...

A taser gun is for people who violently resist arrest and who, in doing so, put either the cops, themselves or others in immediate danger. Not to suppress political protest speech!

Thank you LTOR. I totally agree! I had read your earlier post pointing this out but the full weight of it just hit me! I hope you post this on youtube for the thousands of commenters who seem not to get this!

Suza, LTOR, you're 100% right.

Come On's views are appropriate if this were North Korea, or Stalin's USSR perhaps. (Unfortunately we have far too many in this country who wish that's what we were, and work to make it so. Including you. Come On? If tasering dissenters to shut them up makes you more comfortable, you ought to think about whether America is for you. Rather than turn us into North Korea, why not just go there, where they already have a paradise for folks like you?)

In America, we celebrate the Andrew Meyers who speak up. The police who attached him should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon (yes, Tasers are deadly weapons), and they should be facing the felony conviction and five years plus in prison. Meyer had better get some lawyers and sue all of them. And where is Kerry's mea culpa, his statement that he failed to act when he should have, that Meyer is a hero, and perhaps an op ed answering the questions Meyer asked him (!).

Thanks Go On! I hope you post this underneath the video on youtube too. Yesterday Greg Palast said he was going to meet with the student (Andrew Meyer). I'm going to check Palast's web site periodically to see what comes of it!

LOTR,

Thank you for your comments.

The police who engaged this individual would have much preferred to just clear the mic. so the next individual could take their turn. Their were attempting to remind him to act in a way that he should have known himself. They would have much preferred if he would have just returned to his seat, which is what would have happened had he accepted their (at first) gentle reminder. When the police engage an individual who is belligerent to the degree he was, and resists them to the degree he did, they have no idea who he is, or if he is intoxicated, or on drugs which could cause him to be a safety hazard to himself, the police, or others in the room. If you have ever tried to subdue a hormonal possibly intoxicated, over stimulated post adolescent, without sustaining injury to yourself you would know how difficult that is to do. The situation was escalating, he was physically out of control, and could have easily injured someone accidently. I have seen elderly people paralyzed for life when an individual accidently fell on them and broke their neck while attempting to resist the police, I have seen children lose eyes in the same situation. If you were one of the police whose job is to keep the event secure for ALL involved, I do not believe you would see the subjects action as anything other than violent. The taxpayers can only afford so many police. Unfortunately and fortunately, the tazer is there so civil society may proceed and individuals who wish to disrupt unduly may experience the end game of their resistance with the least amount (usually) of harm.

I cannot believe that any person interested in genuine dialog on this important subject would seriously compare this situation to the academy awards. Apples are not oranges. Since you no doubt do not wish to be taken seriously on this point I will not do so.

Go on,
I understand the extent of peoples anger and helplessness in these modern times as the US moves closer to world domination. This kind of "dissent" will do nothing to subvert that. Have you noticed that protest does not work? What it does do is turn off the average individual, without whose vital participation we will not turn the tide of the coming American fascist state.

The kid blew an opportunity for real dialog. Had he calmly asked the questions we would have received an answer. Would that be on You Tube?

It takes alot of guts to stand up in a crowd and ask those questions. Sure, the student could have handled the situation better, the police, Kerry, the rest of the audience---everyone could have handled the situation better. I am sure the student's nerves were on edge. The fact remains that after a two hour lecture (or however long Kerry spoke) this chap was the only one that stood up and had the nerve to ask these questions! After he was dragged away did Kerry ever answer those questions to anyone's satisfaction? I agree with "Go On" who posted: "And where is Kerry's mea culpa, his statement that he failed to act when he should have, that Meyer is a hero, and perhaps an op ed answering the questions Meyer asked him (!)."

Come on,

Did we see the same video? Do you REALLY believe that there was evidence that he was so out of control (on drugs, intoxicated, hormonal?!?) that he was a threat to those around him (from the bored, disinterested looks on some of the other students' faces, I don't think they felt in any imminent danger). To follow your logic to its ultimate conclusion, then why in the world didn't they taser him when he was still upright and resisting??? Apples are indeed not oranges (you've said that twice). And a kid lying on the ground, underneath a handful of cops and pleading "What did I do" and begging "Don't taser me, Dude!" is NOT someone that is so out of control and dangerous that he needs to be zapped full of electricity!!! My God, where is your compassion!

And sorry you didn't appreciate my little tongue and cheek comparison above, but to deduce that I "no doubt do not wish to be taken seriously on this point" is crap and you know it!

Thanks Suza! I'm new to U-Tube, but will post my views when I figure out how to get around the site...

"Protest does not work"? Tell that to Richard Nixon who was deeply affected by the protests of the Vietnam War. Tell that to our politicians of today, including many Democrats, who go to extreme measures to keep dissenting voices out of their audiences.

I have a hard time believing, Come On, that you actually have a clue about free speech and violence. I watched the same video you watched and I did not see an out of control, violent person. I saw a passionate person asking real, important questions to a U.S. Senator who placed himself in a forum to answer those questions.

I, too, am terribly disappointed that John Kerry did not forcefully demand that the police leave this person alone. If you watched and listened he did try to stop the police, but certainly not in the way I would want my leadership to act. He should have told the police and the audience that this young man and his questions and his passion are what it means to be a TRUE AMERICAN. Sometimes it's not pretty. Sometimes it's not neat, or tidy, or polite. War is neither of those things either.

Why don't we get worked up about the soldiers dying everyday in Iraq and scream at the Politicians who are letting our sons, daughters, and fellow humans on the planet die everyday for no good reason. Instead we want to go on and on about whether or not this young man had the right to take up "too much time" at a University in FL. I applaud what he did and I'm happy that so many of my fellow Ojai citizens agree that freedom of speech is still a RIGHT in this country!

To post on youtube go to the video and scroll underneath the video to the bottom of the page where it has a blank box for Comments. I did it by clicking on the link to the video that Mike Diji provided in the earlier post near the top of this page, the one that says

"this is a good link to the taser incident"

Posted by: Mike DiDj | September 18, 2007 11:05 PM

THANK YOU Coleen Ashly! Please copy and paste your comments underneath the video on youtube where hopefully thousands, maybe millions of people will read them. In fact, I hope you send it to the LATimes Opinion section.

Right on, Coleen! And thanks, Suza.

Please. This isn't an issue of free speech at all. That kid went into the John Kerry rally with an agenda to create a spectacle and feed his own ego. There was no bravery, spirit of debate or any other nonsense going on.

Did he deserve to be tazed? Perhaps, though I would have done it with him standing up. "Come On" made some pretty salient points -- no one knows if this kid was on something. He could have hurt himself or others around him.

"Don't tazer me, bro!". Hysterically funny!

Cathy Jones should have been tazered too. 'Nuff said.

Carry on.

When I was in high school, we were all in the auditorium one day listening to the campaign speeches of the kids who were running for Student Body Government spots. Near the end of it all a kid named David walked to the mike and started to read from his notes. Almost immediately, the Principal walked to the podium and informed David that he had failed to turn in his candidacy papers on time and that he had already been told that he was not going to be allowed to run for office or speak at the assembly. David allowed the Principal to finish and then turned back to the microphone and continued to read his prepared statement. The Boy's Vice Principal stood up and walked over to the mike, and placed his hand over it. He told David to leave the stage. David continued to speak without the microphone. One of the gym teachers got up and joined the Boy's VP, and he also told David to leave the stage. At this point in time, kids in the audience were starting to yell "Let him speak!" The adults ignored us, and when David again refused to leave the stage, the VP and the gym teacher each grabbed one of David's arms and hustled him off of the stage. The audience started booing and yelling "Let him speak! Let him speak!" Our tight-lipped Principal stepped to the microphone and announced that the assembly was over, and that we all needed to leave and return to our 5th period classes. We did, but there was much grumbling.

Over the next two weeks, David became a celebrity, and his right to speak became a cause celebre. Kids talked about it in classes, at lunch, and after school. The dissonance continued to grow, and it really started to look as if there were going to be a school-wide strike of some sort. David had been suspended right after having been led off of the stage, and had not yet returned to school, and as far as I know no one had been in contact with him. He was a mystery kid who had few friends, and nobody really knew much about him except that he had transferred in earlier in the semester and that he was an average student.

During the two weeks of his absence, a legend started to grow. David somehow became a hero, a martyr, and the Very Best Candidate Ever for Student Body President. David was going to lead us out of the desert. David was going to end the war. David was going to deal with all of the bad teachers and administrators. David was going to turn our high school into a paradise, and David was, simply put, beginning to take on God-like proportions in spite of the fact that nobody had even the slightest idea what he was about or what he would have said had he been allowed to speak.

In the face of an imminent student body mutiny, our Principal made a wise decision: he allowed David to return to school, and he scheduled a special assembly. At this assembly, David wold be allowed to speak, and to say anything he wanted to say. His speech would not be edited for content by any member of the faculty.

The day arrived on a Thursday. The atmosphere was electric. We waited all day until the end of 4th period, and then we fairly ran to the auditorium. After the usual assembly amenities were out of the way and the Principal had finished recapping, editorializing, and admonishing the faithful to behave themselves, David was allowed to walk to the podium. There was a moment of wild cheering, but that ended when all of the large male authority figures on stage rose to their feet and started pointing at people in the audience. Finally, the house was quiet enough for David to speak. As he had done two weeks before, he started to read from his notes. We waited. We waited and listened. We listened and we kept waiting. We listened and anticipated. We leaned forward in our seats. We kept anticipating, right up until the point where David finished talking and walked off stage.

We were silent. We were still waiting. We thought maybe he had needed to get a drink of water before he could continue. But no; David was finished. David was through. David had mumbled his way through about 10 minutes of some of the most irrelevant crap any of us had ever heard in our lives. David was going to change the senior class colors. David was going to fight to reduce the price of the submarine sandwiches, and he was going to try to get Coca-Cola added to the cafeteria menu. David was going to babble on and on and never really say anything terribly important, and David was not going to lead us to the Promised Land. Ever. We were stuck in the desert, and the desert seemed more desolate than it ever had before.

A few teachers snickered and made comments to each other. My ears and face burned, and I'm sure I wasn't alone. There was a low sussuration of murmurs in the 1500+ person audience. Other than the Principal returning to the mike to tell us all to go back to class, that was about all that was said between the end of David's speech and the moment that the sunlight hit our unhappy faces on the steps of the auditorium. I heard one kid say "Student body government is a joke." A teacher near one of the exits heard him and replied, "Took you long enough to figure that out."

For those of us who were willing to open both eyes and think, that whole experience offered so many lessons. It was a milestone in my life, and I still think about it on occasion. (Obviously.) Had the faculty simply allowed David to speak when he had first tried, regardless of whether or not his papers were in order, a lot of anger, angst, paranoia, unhappiness, mistrust and very hard feelings on the part of everyone involved would have been avoided. Had the faculty allowed David to speak, we would not have lost 2 weeks of that semester to what amounted to a general strike, or at least a work slowdown. Had the faculty allowed David to speak, he would have revealed himself as a bit of a nebbish early on, and would never attained larger-than-life stature. Had David taken care of his freaking paperwork and turned it in on time, and had we not been at the mercy of a totalitarian faculty (as was the norm in those days of legally sanctioned corporal punishment), history would have taken a different turn at our high school, and -- in my opinion -- a turn for the better. (But, maybe not -- maybe things turned out exactly as they were supposed to.)

Today, I try to remind myself to let people speak. I don't always succeed. I still fear people who, with their words, wield great evil power over their listeners and sometimes find myself trying to shout them down and drown them out. I do my best to never have heroes, because everybody is just a human being and no one can live up to my comic-book ideals, and besides -- it's really unfair to put that kind of pressure to be perfect on another person when I refuse to put the same kind of pressure on myself.

I feel far more sorrow for the man who was mowed down by the tank in Tienanmen Square in 1989 than I do for Andrew Meyer, but I do feel sorry for Andrew Meyer. Both men learned something, but only one of them learned something that might do him any good in the long run. Meyer has balls, and maybe he will be the next Tom Hayden. Maybe not. Time will tell. I wonder what everybody else learned, except that they were angry?

Thanks, Suza, for posting this. I watched the video and was shocked (no pun intended) at the way he was treated after only a minute or so of what appeared to be a rational, relevant set of questions. Yes, his tone was inflammatory as he expressed the anger a lot of Americans feel at the apparent hijackiing of the last two presidential elections and all that has transpired as a result. Wouldn't you think that a university hosting a political event open to questions from the floor would be able to handle the situation in a more restrained and democratic fashion? Wouldn't you think that Kerry himself would step into the void and assert himself? But then my shock wore off when I remembered that all this took place in Florida. Need I say more? (Well, I guess I do because similar responses to public discourse have happened in Ojai. What does that say about us?)

Phalarope, you have learned the law of the guerrilla foco. Its something George W. Bush and his cronies are also very familiar with.

The idea is based on a simple insight into the nature of authoritarian oppressors. The oppressor's brutality is mostly hidden; as long as most people are quiet and polite, the oppressor can listen politely to their "requests", do nothing, and everything moves along on its horrendous and unacceptable path. There will be no change. People will indulge the idea that while horrible things are happening, on the whole the government is good and decent, and doing its best for the common good.

Then, a small group of guerrillas - the foco - prods the beast with a provocative action. The Boston Tea Party is a great example. Or Fidel Castro's July 26, 1953 attack on the Moncoya barricades (a few students attacking an army garrison). Or even Osama bin Laden's destruction of the Twin Towers - by nineteen kids armed with box cutters.

In each case, the beast responds in all its ferocity. The British commandeer homes and institute martial law on the unruly colonists. Batista rolls the army out over the entire Sierra, raids peasant homes, burns farms, confiscates vehicles and tools. George W. Bush invades and occupies Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorizing innocent civilians with nightly bombings, home invasions, raids, chaos and destruction, etc. etc.

The result? The people see the beast in all its brutality. They see the oppressor for what it is, its true brutal nature revealed. In these United States, thus began the Revolutionary War. In Cuba, when Castro returned with his eighty-odd volunteers on the Granma (promptly wiped out down to about 12), the people joined Castro's fledgling movement in hordes. In the middle east, a tiny group of whacko international criminals, numbering perhaps 100, swells to a hugely powerful international resistance movement with separate heads and bases in Pakistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, recruiting more every day. (Something I believe Bush and his cronies fully intend - they want to create a new international enemy. Osama and Bush are on the same side of this one. But that's for another post.)

If your high school principal had admonished that student, but let him speak, the issue would have ended. But your principal showed his true nature, and revealed the true nature of the system he represented. And you learned a lesson about authoritarians.

We are learning that lesson on this thread. Zappity Zap, Come On, Blew It don't get it. That kid was being an American - something Zappity Come and Blew perhaps have never done. Apparently they believe being an American is something you should be tasered for.

Meanwhile, we learned far more about Kerry from this video than we would have if the police had not intervened, and he had calmly answered the student's question. Didn't we?

Thanks Phalarope for your story and observations and Lanny for your comment which I hope is still near this post because someone came to the door as I wrote this and I was interrupted long enough for several more posts to fly through cyberspace. In case any one missed the Florida point in earlier posts, Greg Palast (author of "Armed Madhouse," the book the student was clutching) also noted that the student was busted in Alachua County, Florida, where, six years ago, I uncovered massive, systematic and utterly illegal disenfranchisement of Black voters - ordered by Gov. Jeb Bush’s office just before the 2000 election. (”Florida’s Disappeared Voters,” February 2001, The Nation.) Alachua remains under federal scrutiny for its long history of racial bias against Black voters.

Whoops typo, this sentence should say 'he' not 'I' "...he uncovered massive, systematic and utterly illegal disenfranchisement of Black voters - ordered by Gov. Jeb Bush’s office just before the 2000 election.

forget the banks notes
Mother is calling crystal clear notes
a song to recollect and dream forward
how much fear can a mass deception hold?
well...just look around little one come
take my hand
we can bike to the mall
and fly to the moon
yes we are the ones we have been waiting for
we are here again

There's another aspect of this whole travesty that gets me worked up even more now that I think about it: this kid is only 21 YEARS OLD!! Hopefully, we can all remember what it felt like when we first learned that our government lied to us, or was committing some horrible act in the name of "freedom" and "democracy". (For me, I was just a few years younger than Andrew and it was during the Reagan Administration and it was a time of awakening for me.) Can't we all remember how incredulous and horrified and disallusioned we were, how much righteous indignation we had, how we couldn't devour enough information, and how all we wanted to do was to rush out and do our part to save the world? That's part of being young, I'd like to think.

Can't those who feel that he got what he deserved see another side to what (I guess) they see as "misbehaving" in public when they think of it in terms of a display of youthful passion? Thank God for the kids his age out there who are politically active. They're getting fewer and farther between as the decades pass. If not for them and the generations that follow, America as we know it is lost forever. I'm an optimist, so I say it's never too late. But we're on the brink if it's acceptable to TASER our youth!

Consider this from an eyewitness.

http://animamrecro.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/eyewitness-account-of-taser-incident-at-kerry-speech/

“I was at the Kerry speech today, sitting 2 rows away from all the action. I’ll let you know how it really went down.

The forum was going to be over at 2 pm, and Kerry spoke for so long that the Q and A portion had to be shortened. He only got through about 7 of the 50 people who were waiting to ask questions. While the final question was being read, some douchebag ran down the aisle, grabbed the mic from the other side of the room, interrupted the kid who was talking, and started yelling at Kerry, demanding that his questions be heard. He started ranting about how Kerry talks in circles or something, and everyone was getting annoyed. The cops are all over him in no time and try to escort him out, but he starts yelling and resisting. Kerry insists that they let him stay and even agrees to answer his question.

After the interrupted guy’s question was answered, Kerry keeps his promise and lets the angry guy talk. This is the point where people started taking their cameras and phones out. All the videos floating around youtube start around here. You can see in the videos that his questioning gets kind of inappropriate, so somebody cut his mic. Instead of shutting up, he starts yelling and making an even bigger scene. He struggled all the way up the aisle, and started violently trying to free himself. They threatened to taze him and he wouldnt stop fighting, so he got tazed. They only had to arrest him because he was causing a disruption and wouldn’t leave peacefully. He wasn’t being silenced for asking tough questions, trust me.

It’s a shame that they had to taze the guy, but he had a chance to calm down and didn’t take it. He probably didn’t pose a physical threat to anybody in the room, but someone can’t just hijack the floor of a forum like that and expect not to get kicked out. This wasn’t some poor guy who was brutalized for trying to ask some tough questions. He’s just an obnoxious guy who had a fit when there wasn’t time for his questions and refused to be calm even when he was given the chance to speak. He was looking for trouble, and everyone applauded when he was forced to leave.”

Thanks for the link, Come on!!!! Did you read the all the comments? If you had you would have realized that besides the one OP that you quoted, the majority of the comments are more in line with what the majority here on this thread are saying - that it was completely unacceptable behaviour by the police. Again, even though it wasn't your intention, a big, big thank you!! Lots of good reading there.

LTOR

I have read, and do appreciate ALL the comments, here, and elsewhere. You are right, but I do not agree with you. If you look below the surface a little at this seemingly contradictory statement perhaps we could lessen the level of conflict in the world.

It is my opinion that this discussion goes beyond the pettiness of taking sides, and "majorities" and well reasoned positions about the event. It is my opinion, that to assume that ones personal opinion is "the truth" creates the kind of hopeless atmosphere where events like this one, as well as the election debacle, exist. Perhaps if we took an; (everyone is right) approach to this, and all other events, we could break the cycles of violence and oppression that are spiraling out of control in this world. This event, and all other events in my opinion could be better understood if looked at through the very basic lens of; what goes around comes around. Or as J. Krishnamurti said "The observer is the observed. It truly is an inside job. The people who claim ownership of the world deeply understand this, and they use this knowledge to pit us against one another, while we remain lost in the illusion of the certainty of our own opinions.

My very best to you,
My thanks to one and all for the exercise.

I'm off to a meeting but look forward to reading the new link posted above. There's always more than meets the eye --I'm sure in the days to come we will all learn more...

PS I meant to say I read the "eyewitness account" copied above, but want to read the comments on the link, and dig a little deeper, before I post anything more on this...

Well Come On, do you have any more substantiation for that "eyewitness account"?

But for the sake of discussion, lets assume it is in fact an authentic eyewitness account. It shows something that situational psychologists and people in criminal justice have known for years - people's perceptions are unreliable. Perceptions are colored by one's own participation in the situation.

We saw it with the Cathy Jones debacle. Many people who were at the forum and witnessed what happened said she deserved it, she caused it, she wanted it, etc. etc.

Very few who saw the video alone said that.

Why? Because video is objective. The observer is removed from the situation and is not a participant. And objectively, the video showed Captain Norris was out of line.

In this case, you have a roomful of people politely listening to John Kerry, observing the rules of the herd for such situations. One steps out of line, speaks up, takes a microphone, whatever, and interrupts the flow of common expectation. People in the room are annoyed - this kid broke the collective rules of the herd. They are participants in the John Kerry show, and this kid "disrupted" it. As the herd does, they sat silently until the proper authorities removed the annoyance.

If this kid were popular, a student leader, or had even ten friends in there with him, the reaction of the eyewitness participant to the very same behavior likely would have been very different. Since he didn't - he was an isolated member of the herd - the eyewitness saw disruption. S/he after all had been pacified and placated by more than an hour of John Kerry's speechifying.

But: The objective video shows the police overreacted, clearly, awfully, terribly, to the actual situation at hand. The eyewitness description does not undermine it, because as we see, the description is at odds with the video.

Now, it is possible that despite the video, the previous behavior of this kid that is not captured on video had somehow demonstrated to all present that the police had no other option - it was either, shut the event down and send everyone home, or remove this kid, by force. And that their training tells them to Taser anyone regardless of the situation if they do not cooperate with being manhandled, on some theory perhaps that this will prevent them from injuring themselves. (I've heard such ludicrous things before.) That, however, would be explanation by way of mitigation - insufficient to counter the clear video that shows the police were out of line. And, of course, that explanation is not supported by the video.

Any more "eyewitness" accounts? It would be interesting to test the theory.

Remember the Cathy Jones situation - some eyewitnesses said Captain Norris had no choice, she was disruptive; most eyewitnesses thought otherwise. Meanwhile the video shows an objective observer Captain Norris was out of line. She could have been permitted to finish her question; the speakers could have answered, or not. While no one can now know for sure, common sense tells us the disruption from that course of action would have been far less.

Well said! Thank you for taking the time to write this assessment of the "eyewitness account." I hope you go to
http://animamrecro.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/eyewitness-account-of-taser-incident-at-kerry-speech/
and post your comments. I am going back to the site, when I have time, and check out the comments. Interesting to see how human minds work!

I scrolled through the comments underneath the "eyewitness account." Here's one that might be noteworthy:

"Well ye anonymous eyewitnesses, perhaps you could explain one little detail. Usually when speakers come to a forum and take questions from the audience it is etiquette to THANK THE SPEAKER for appearing and answering questions.
That is what Meyer did.
Are you implying that he only commenced to do so AFTER a long preamble for which no video exists?
That seems a priori highly unlikely.
Try again."
secondharmonic Says:
September 19, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Suza,

Anyone who is foolish enough to escalate a situation with the police to the point where they get tazed, when it is well within their power to keep it from happening, is either temporarily or permanently mentally ill,drunk or intoxicated or both, and cannot be expected to follow typical progressions of syntax in their dialog. Nice try.

Anyone who is foolish enough to escalate a situation with the police to the point where they get tazed, when it is well within their power to keep it from happening, is either temporarily or permanently mentally ill,drunk or intoxicated or both, and cannot be expected to follow typical progressions of syntax in their dialog. Nice try.

Wow, One more, do you really think your statement makes any sense whatsoever? It is hard to believe your smug tone is real. Your above statement simply does not apply to this latest example of police brutality and state enforced censorship. It is too general and oversimplifies what actually occurred. Lousy try.

As an aside:

May I just say, Suza, that you are one of the most gracious, balanced and conscientious "Thread Hostesses" around. A big smile at you!!!

Mr. Zapper,

Beyond the complexity you are seeking to obfuscate the facts with in this case; the simple fact remains, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not;
Anyone with the least amount of common sense does not physically resist the police.

i'm confused: why is it common sense to not physically resist the police? is it because they have guns and the authority to lock us up? seems like in some cases that might be just the reason TO resist them, to show that we're not ruled by weapons, threats, and authoritarian regulation.

oh wait, yes we are. nevermind.

"Anyone with the least amount of common sense does not physically resist the police".

I agree. However unwarranted it may have been to put him under arrest in the first place, he should have submitted peacefully to the “process”. Political and civil-rights protesters of the 60’s and 70’s realized the efficacy of this and the public appeal it had in generating sympathy to their respective causes. We've seen this style used recently as well, from Martin Sheen, Alexandra Paul, Daryl Hannah, etc. There is absolutely nothing I can see to be gained from resisting arrest by the police.

BUT that is NOT the point here. The issue is how the police (who are trained to deal with these types of situations) grossly over-reacted. In a civilized society the worst that this level of “disobedience” should get this kid was maybe a trip to the police station or even perhaps a fine or whatever is legally appropriate, NOT an electrical shot! This device has been known to KILL people and to use it on a non-criminal kid who was already lying on the ground begging for mercy flies in the face of “common sense”. And logic. And decency.

With regard to crowd control in the US, and in the world in general, I think that we haven't seen anything yet.

Had there been no public outcry at the time, Reagan (as Governor of California) probably would have killed resisting (and, admittedly, bottle-and-rock-throwing) protesters in Berkeley. His famous quote at that time was "If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer." He backpedaled on that statement shortly thereafter, ("I certainly don't think there should be a bloodbath on campus or anywhere else. It was just a figure of speech.") but given that the Alameda County Sheriff's Department actually was firing 00 buckshot (about the size of a garbanzo bean, appx. 18 to a cartridge) at the ground in front of the protesters in an attempt to hit protesters' legs with ricochets, most people believed that Reagan said what he meant the first time, and there were plenty of people who were on his side.

That was about 37 years ago, and things haven't changed that much -- in fact, they've gotten a lot worse. Back then, there was no Blackwater. I fully believe that Blackwater employees would treat protesting US citizens the same way they treat Iraqis, and that there would be no way to stop them, and I believe that Blackwater or another private security force will be used as a security force in America before the 2008 elections are over. They are the private militia of what seems to be a rogue government bent on turning the US into some new flavor of dictatorship, and they have the keys to the kingdom. They are essentially untouchable, and they will have technology that even regular US armed forces don't have.

Dismal, yes. Unreal? What do you think? Before you answer, ask yourself what was the real rationale behind the government contracting with Halliburton and KBR to the tune of 385 million dollars to build "detention centers" in the US?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/national/04halliburton.html

If you'd rather not register to read the link at the NY Times, here's similar info at Truthout.org:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17936

Beyond the complexity you are seeking to obfuscate the facts with in this case; the simple fact remains, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not;
Anyone with the least amount of common sense does not physically resist the police.

This statement is quite different from the previous one which I took exception to.

Beyond the complexity you are seeking to obfuscate the facts with in this case;
This is another nonsensical statement. I certainly do not see how I have obfuscated the facts. Nice word. inappropriate use.

I agree that one does not resist arrest. It does show a lack of good sense but at the same time there are exceptions to every rule. This is not the issue I had with the previous statement. My issue was the: 'either mentally ill or drunk or on drugs' claim. This is an oversimplification which frames the incident in a way which 'obfusgates' the facts. You see, it is obvious that the student was not drunk or mentally ill. He was passionate and articulate and he takes issue with how our ability as a nation to vote for our president has been taken away. We no longer have a democracy. This is the heart of the issue. It is quite understandable in my eyes why someone would be so enthusiastic. It is called righteous exasperation.

Phalarope: Excellent addition to this thread.

Oops, that was just me, Spaz Zapper, forgot to put my name in.

let's face it....

the kid was overly aggressive in his questioning....

but his mic should not have been turned off....

and he should have been allowed to finish....

and he should not have resisted armed guards in uniform.....

and Kerry should have intervened to stop the melee....

and the taser should never have been used.....

plenty of blame to go around....

who among us would have done exactly the right thing in the heat of the moment?

Thank you, everyone, for your comments and a big smile back to LTOR. Here's a link to the latest news on this incident.

http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/university-vows-probe-of-taser-incident/20070918063509990001

(I was going to copy and paste the article here but then I read this: Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.)

I'm reading all the latest comments more closely during my lunch hour. I feel like scrolling down, cutting and pasting what I see as the key points made, such as:

"He was passionate and articulate and he takes issue with how our ability as a nation to vote for our president has been taken away. We no longer have a democracy. This is the heart of the issue. It is quite understandable in my eyes why someone would be so enthusiastic. It is called righteous exasperation."

"I fully believe that Blackwater employees would treat protesting US citizens the same way they treat Iraqis, and that there would be no way to stop them, and I believe that Blackwater or another private security force will be used as a security force in America before the 2008 elections are over. They are the private militia of what seems to be a rogue government bent on turning the US into some new flavor of dictatorship, and they have the keys to the kingdom. They are essentially untouchable, and they will have technology that even regular US armed forces don't have... ask yourself what was the real rationale behind the government contracting with Halliburton and KBR to the tune of 385 million dollars to build "detention centers" in the US?

No wonder many of us can't get a good night's sleep! Our unconscious smells all this and wants us to wake up!

Mr. Suchman,

A serious question;

I am curious, I realize this is "off topic" and as such, and I risk being "banned" by asking it, but how can you enforce your new posting dictate, which includes the potential of banning abusers of various offenses, without banning anonymous posters entirely?

Back to the topic; Would the tone and tenor of the tazed individuals 'questioning' session of Mr Kerry, if put into writing and entered on this post be a violation of your new posting dictate?

Respectfully

Mr. Legal Posturing,

I can't speak for Mr. Suchman but my guess is that we are on the honor system.

Mr. Suchman is a gentle, non-violent democratic soul. He might wave his magic wand over an obnoxious post on rare occasions and cause it to disappear into infinite cyberspace, but he would never reach through your computer screen and zap you!

Hi "Legal" - from a purely mechanical aspect, all commenters' IP addresses are recorded and it is not so tough to weed out someone if so desired.

But in practicality, I am not changing my approach to administrating the site, which is virtually unfettered participation and lack of censorship. I have no intention of clamping down, I am simply offering a bit of the carrot and the stick to hopefully raise the level of dialogue that seems to have devolved to a point where many people are hesitant to participate.

Also of note is that individuals Authors can still moderate comments on their own posts only, and that is at their discretion. My personal preference is to address comments directly, rather than ignoring or deleting them.

Thanks for participating!

Hmm,
Thanks TS and SF

I think I might have just had an epiphiny.

Hmm,
Thanks TS and SF

I think I might have just had an epiphiny.

Sorry; I was so overcome I forgot to check spelling; epiphany.

Tyler-

While your "hands-off" administration of the site is refreshing, I would consider it entirely appropriate if you had a heart-to-heart with some of the authors whose posts have led to the "devolution" of the dialogue.

The same for some contributors whose only purpose is to garner attention or generally disturb the flow.

Compared to some Yahoo boards, this site is positively cordial.

Anonymous - I communicate on occasion with our Authors via email, and I would like to see the Posts trend more Ojai-centric. I'm a little overwhelmed with work today to address this in more detail, but suffice it to say that we are on the same page. Thanks.

I followed an earlier link to an "eyewitness account" that ultimately led me to its source, the Daily Kos. Okay, I'll confess. Blogging is a new thing for me. I found myself reading many of the comments at that blog about the account and discovered that almost all the people use aliases so I guess that's the blogging standard. After all that reading, now I feel compelled to say one more thing on this topic. I'm speaking as a veteran of the Civil Rights Movement and the Diablo Blockade who has been harassed, arrested and even held hostage in the process of acting nonviolently for causes I believe in. In all those instances I was acting as part of a group with an agreed-upon non-violent strategy that included not resisting arrest. Meyer apparently was acting alone and, arguably, inappropriately. According to the account, he cut in line past many others waiting to ask questions as the shortened questioning time neared its end. Maybe it was all planned. Maybe he knew he would be arrested. I doubt that he expected to be tased. Still, it was a non-violent act. Okay, he cut in line. What do the statutes in Florida say about the appropriate punishment for that? Violent arrest and prison time? He was unarmed. He threatened nobody. He "resisted arrest" by refusing to be handcuffed and continuing to ask what he had done and why he was being arrested. He didn't actively fight back. Acting in the moment I think I would have lost my cool and responded the same way and asked the same questions.

As a teacher I have been trained in conflict intervention. The first thing a professional is supposed to do is to try to de-escalate the situation. The heavy-handed police force did the opposite while Kerry did nothing from the microphone to de-escalate it. That situation should never have degenerated to the point that he needed to be tased. At least not in the USA.

I strongly agree with Lanny. The student may have been rude to cut in line or too taken with the moment to just ask one question (It was a good question and I would have liked to have heard the answer), but he did nothing at all to indicate that he was a threat to anyone. In fact he put his hands in the air, which is the universal "I have no weapon" sign.
I was also deeply disappointed at Kerry's lack of leadership in the moment. He had a mike and he could have easily asked the police to let the student be and then responded to the question.

i'm confused: why is it common sense to not physically resist the police? is it because they have guns and the authority to lock us up? seems like in some cases that might be just the reason "TO resist them, to show that we're not ruled by weapons, threats, and authoritarian regulation"
Hey EVAN!! get off the computer (& your ass..) and lead the charge!!

The way I see it, this particular nation's number one industry is the military/weaponry complex. The number two industry is the prison/justice system. Thus, getting arrested only feeds the borg. When the criminal justice system becomes intrinsic to the health of a nation's economy then it becomes necessary to create a criminal class. In the not too distant future, the state will be taking your organs for a speeding ticket.

Dennis, Lanny, et al;

I have carefully reviewed the entire incident, including the complete video taped, and non video taped portion.

I appreciate your comments.

It is my opinion that some of his behavior before and during the video taped segment, could be determined by a reasonable person to be threatening. I am sure that there as many definitions of 'threatening' as there are individual people. But, if you accept this type of behavior as non-threatening, I would not like to see what you would consider threatening. I am truly astonished to discover that men such as yourselves do not consider this type of behavior threatening.

This will be an interesting one to watch go through the courts.

Thanks for the discussion.

Thanks, Anonymous, for contributing to the discussion. Just so I'm clear, do you feel that the student's behaviour was threatening even before someone turned off his mike and the police began forcing him to leave the auditorium, or by "threatening" do you mean he resisted and protested when the police began dragging him out of the room and handcuffing him?

As "The Foco" points out in his Comments above, the eyewitness accounts "shows something that situational psychologists and people in criminal justice have known for years - people's perceptions are unreliable. Perceptions are colored by one's own participation in the situation."

"In this case, you have a roomful of people politely listening to John Kerry, observing the rules of the herd for such situations. One steps out of line, speaks up, takes a microphone, whatever, and interrupts the flow of common expectation. People in the room are annoyed - this kid broke the collective rules of the herd. They are participants in the John Kerry show, and this kid "disrupted" it. As the herd does, they sat silently until the proper authorities removed the annoyance.

If this kid were popular, a student leader, or had even ten friends in there with him, the reaction of the eyewitness participant to the very same behavior likely would have been very different. Since he didn't - he was an isolated member of the herd - the eyewitness saw disruption. S/he after all had been pacified and placated by more than an hour of John Kerry's speechifying.

But: The objective video shows the police overreacted, clearly, awfully, terribly, to the actual situation at hand. The eyewitness description does not undermine it, because as we see, the description is at odds with the video..."

Perhaps I see it differently because I identify with the student. I can see myself at age 21 (or however old he was) standing up in the crowd, feeling nervous, filled with rightious indignation and exaspperation and possibly a high level of anxiety due to fear that I might not even have a chance to ask the questions I've waited to ask for so long. (From what I read, Kerry's speech ran over-time and many students who had waited their turn lost the opportunity to ask their questions).

Also, I have not figured out how the "eye-witness account" of what took place before the video can be accurate because the video shows the student thanking Kerry and making remarks that lead one to assume he had just begun speaking. On the web site of the "eye-witness" at least one commenter asked him to explain this detail on the video: Usually when speakers come to a forum and take questions from the audience it is etiquette to THANK THE SPEAKER for appearing and answering questions.
That is what Meyer did.

In other words, people are wondering if "eye witness" is implying that the student only commenced to do so AFTER a long preamble for which no video exists?

In any case, as you said, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out!

Does anyone know: How did the Cathy Jones incident play out?

I haven't seen Captain Norris around for awhile. Is he still with us?

What about her $10 million claim?

I do remember that there was another forum that followed, which had a contrasting format. In the second forum, there were no moderators and members of the audience were picked by raffle from a hat to ask questions. Cathy Jones was there too, but as best I recall, no police and no Captain Norris. Questions were lively - but no problems, no "incidents," no arrests. Gets one to thinking.