Just a reminder of why we went to war.

[Jesus Jones]

The last minute or so is comical

[jandajoy]

"we" didnt'. "He" did.

[Jesus Jones]

^ true


Freedom right!

[Texpat]

Penalties are good for law-abiding societies. Non-lethal force for being a smart-ass punk thinking he'd be cool and do that which he was clearly warned not to.

Don't go to America -- you won't like it.

Our sporting matches don't end it ties either.

[Agent_Smith]

^ *sigh* I really don't understand your beef with freedom of speech. Are you a Communist?

[Texpat]

Meyer apologizes in letter to students

By KIM WILMATH, Alligator Staff Writer

Andrew Meyer has addressed an apology letter to UF students, UF President Bernie Machen and Student Government for his "failure to act calmly" during a Sept. 17 forum with Sen. John Kerry.

In a letter released to the Alligator on Monday afternoon, Meyer wrote that he "stepped out of line" and felt he had tarnished UF's image.

"For that again, I am truly sorry," Meyer wrote.

Meyer, a UF telecommunication senior, was tackled, Tasered and arrested by University Police Department officers during a question-and-answer session following the speech from Kerry, a Democrat who represents Massachusetts.

Meyer was charged with a third-degree felony for resisting arrest with violence and a second-degree misdemeanor for disturbing the peace.

Meyer has since withdrawn from classes, said Robert Griscti, Meyer's attorney. He plans to return in January.

Meyer has accepted punishment from UF for violating the Student Code of Conduct, stated a news release from Patricia Telles-Irvin, UF's vice president of student affairs.

The details of Meyer's penalty could not be disclosed, Telles-Irvin wrote.

"Students make mistakes," she wrote. "What's most important are the lessons learned by all of us and making things right."

A decision from the State Attorney's Office about Meyer's criminal charges is due to become available today.

Spencer Mann, spokesman for the office, could not be reached for comment by press time.

Griscti said Monday he couldn't comment on the decision. Although Meyer allowed himself to be photographed in Griscti's office, he declined comment as well.

"This is beyond anybody's expectations in terms of media interest," Griscti said. "I've yet to find anybody who doesn't know about this in Gainesville, Europe or elsewhere."

The aggressive attention from other students and the media has been hard on Meyer, Griscti said, but he's learned a lot about journalism in the process.

"Given that this is his chosen field, it's been a good educational process," Griscti said.

He said Meyer's apology was completely self-prompted. He started drafting it immediately after his release from jail Sept. 18.

"In society, as in life, there are consequences for not following the rules," Meyer wrote. "In this instance, not following the rules has imposed consequences for many people other than myself, people who have seen their school, and perhaps their degree, tarnished in the eyes of others through no fault of their own."

Griscti said Meyer didn't plan his outburst, as the UPD report might have suggested.

However, Meyer's remark to officers in the police car, when he said they "did nothing wrong," was accurate. Meyer had no animosity toward individual officers, Griscti said.

Meyer wrote that he attended the speech to ask Kerry about voter disenfranchisement in America and he "lost his cool." (actions and consequences)

Griscti said he and Meyer are happy with Machen's creation of a committee to examine UF's policies on open forums, free speech and event security.

"The creation of the panel proved once and for all that UF cares about the direction it's going in," Meyer wrote.

Griscti said he attended the panel's first meeting and is willing to contribute what he can to the committee's future discussions.

He said he would examine the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's 300-page investigation of the officers' Taser use.

"I just hope people stay interested," he said. "This university could take a lead nationwide."

[Agent_Smith]

Correct, there are consequences to not following the rules and he suffered for it. The question is why these rules, which contradict the U.S. Constitution, are allowed to be enforced? As for his apology, what can I say? He wimped out.

[Texpat]

He fucked up, he got mouthy when he clearly knew the ground rules. He acted foolish and resisted arrest in a forum with a US presidential candidate.

Zap.

Welcome to America. You've been in Thailand too long if you think you can get away with ignoring rules, laws and regulations. The sooner this kid learns it, the easier life will be.

He didn't wimp out -- he wanted to be the cool kid and had his friend videotaping it. He got what he was asking for and you swallowed his little gag hook, line and stinker.

He apologized to his school and got over it. Some on TD will never get it.

[machangezi]

He fucked up, he got mouthy when he clearly knew the ground rules. He acted foolish and resisted arrest in a forum with a US presidential candidate.

Isn't a president just a servant of the nation??

BTW, Saddam used to cut out tongues if people got mouthy with him......he didn't get his tongue.........but there is a similarity here Taxi, if you use your brain........Saddam didn't like people asking him difficult questions.....

[Texpat]

This has nothing to do with the question and everything to do with his behavior. He made a scene, and deliberately brought attention to his cause, resisted arrest and rather than 'rassle him to the ground, security tased him.

He realized his transgression and apologized. Your tongue-cutting analogy is cute, but a bit off the mark.

[attaboy]

There are certain situations where free speech does not apply, in a private setting for one. A person does not have the right to enter a restaurant and begin spouting off his opinion. No shoes, no shirt, no service. A private establishment is not obligated by the Constitution to provide a citizen a forum to address his grievances. Along the same lines a private event does not by law have to tolerate an individuals opinion despite the meeting being held in a rented out public building.

[bkkmadness]

That's quite a shocking video (excuse the pun), do students really get tasered for asking the 'wrong' questions to politicians in America? Unbelievable.

and rather than 'rassle him to the ground, security tased him.

He was already on the floor when he was tased. Quite surprised that none of the other people there stood up to say something or get involved, I don't think that would ever have happened in the UK. There's a real fear of the authorities in America, and it seems for good reason.

[Texpat]

do students really get tasered for asking the 'wrong' questions to politicians in America?

No, they get zapped for resisting arrest. Happens all the time. If the cops wrest you to the ground and you scrape your knee trying to get away, they face months and months of investigations and allegations of abuse and blah, blah...

Now if you fuck around and don't follow instructions -- zap. It's nice and clean and quick and get's things done ~.

I don't think that would ever have happened in the UK.

Course it wouldn't. You dumbasses would stand there looking at him while he shouted at the top of his lungs and rushed to the stage wagging his finger at a PM candidate, calling him names and making a huge spectacle (broadcast to the world) and making a shambles of the Q&A all others had assembled to witness.

Then after the whole disaster was finished and the candidate's security shuffled him out the back door, you'd all sit around slapping yourselves on the back, congratulating yourselves for such brilliant restraint. Lovely.

You might even buy the guy a pint for allowing the opportunity to express your passive lawlessness in such a lovely and brilliant way.

There's a real fear of the authorities in America, and it seems for good reason.

Oh yes! Afraid of authority. Indeed! Tell us more!

When I'm in trouble, I look for a policeman.

[Agent_Smith]

Now if you fuck around and don't follow instructions -- zap. It's nice and clean and quick and get's things done ~.

A Nazi's wet dream.

[bkkmadness]

No, they get zapped for resisting arrest. Happens all the time. If the cops wrest you to the ground and you scrape your knee trying to get away, they face months and months of investigations and allegations of abuse and blah, blah...

Now if you fuck around and don't follow instructions -- zap. It's nice and clean and quick and get's things done ~.

So based on that, why didn't they taser him long before they wrestled him to the ground and risked months of investigations?

Course it wouldn't. You dumbasses would stand there looking at him while he shouted at the top of his lungs and rushed to the stage wagging his finger at a PM candidate, calling him names and making a huge spectacle

In the video footage I watched, he asked a question. This whole pre emptive strike defense is getting a little boring. In the UK, what would have happened is he would have asked a question, and it would have got answered or the candidate would have at least avoided answering it. You don't get arrested for asking questions in that manner in the UK or in most developed countries I would imagine.

Then after the whole disaster was finished

The whole disaster? You really do get into a panic about nothing. A student asks a question, he gets wrestled to the floor and once subdued, tasered.

You might even buy the guy a pint for allowing the opportunity to express your passive lawlessness in such a lovely and brilliant way.

We don't fear the authorities so much that not one single person would have stood up and said something.

As I say, quite shocking really but I guess sometimes you have to be on the outside looking in to notice these things.

[attaboy]

I don't believe he was honestly asking a legitimate question. He was seeking to takeover the event for a selfish reason. If they paid for the space, the producers of the event weren't obligated to indulge him.

The protocol for the event was one question in a timely manner so that the most number of attendees could ask a question in the given amount of time left over after Kerry's speech. This guy asked his buddy if the camera was on and he launched into what could be a preface of his question, then it became multiple questions with conspiracy accusations. It wasn't about Kerry answering him. It was about him monopolizing as much time as he could while the camera was on him,. He was generating a Youtube video for himself. So I can hardly say his democratic right to free speech was violated when the mic was shut off. He was taking over the event and he was being very undemocratic. Even when he was being hustled out he monopolized what time there was alloted to Q/A.

Did the police overreact when they tasered? Yes. Was Andrew Meyer hoping they would overreact? Yes. He spamed Kerry and he trolled the police. A genuine jerk.

[Agent_Smith]

He was seeking to takeover the event for a selfish reason.

Asking question(s) is taking over? Goodness, the things you are afraid of.

So I can hardly say his democratic right to free speech was violated when the mic was shut off.

No, it was violated when violence was used to shut him up. That is a tactic that would put a gleam in a Burmese general's eye.

[attaboy]

Afraid? You'll have to take the time to explain that because I won't take the time to interpret it. There is a longer video version out there. The guy was monopolizing what time there was alloted to the Q/A. His buddy was filming him. He was turning it into a show about him. They should have hustled him outside ready with the doors open.

[Jesus Jones]

He fucked up, he got mouthy when he clearly knew the ground rules. He acted foolish and resisted arrest in a forum with a US presidential candidate.

Isn't a president just a servant of the nation??

BTW, Saddam used to cut out tongues if people got mouthy with him......he didn't get his tongue.........but there is a similarity here Taxi, if you use your brain........Saddam didn't like people asking him difficult questions.....

That's to difficult for him to comprehend. The point to remember is that this kind of treatment has exculated on the US's own citizens since 911. Fortunately Tex is slowly becoming a minority that thinks this way.

Read your patriot act, learn your ammendments, as i find it bizzare the amount of folks from the US that I personally know, that don't have a clue what they are.

Regarding the guy apologising in court, there has been many that face loosing their edjucation is they don't.

[Agent_Smith]

He was turning it into a show about him.

Which is worthy of violent retribution, I see. Why not just answer the question and move on? Oh, because that would be upholding the principles our founding fathers enshrined in the highest law of the land and that would be a little too much to hope for, particularly when there are enough quislings that excuse these police state tactics.

[attaboy]

He was turning it into a show about him.

Which is worthy of violent retribution, I see. Why not just answer the question and move on? Oh, because that would be upholding the principles our founding fathers enshrined in the highest law of the land and that would be a little too much to hope for, particularly when there are enough quislings that excuse these police state tactics.

I stated the police over reacted. I'm pointing out something people may not have considered; a private establishment or a private meeting at a rented out public place is not obligated under the Constitution to provide a forum for a citizen's grievances. A person is not entitled to indulge themselves on someone else's dime. It's basic to western civil behavior. It's a principle of western civility.

It's a judgment call on the part of the hosts of the event. They can maintain civility so the most amount of exchange can take place in what time there is or they can express their tolerance by indulging a jerk who is mocking the speaker. Demonstrating tolerance is an important example to set for others. I understand that. At the same time tolerance does not take priority to the point pushing civility into a corner. There's no need to fear that civility is a step towards the orderliness of fascism. If that were the case than it can be argued that tolerance is a step towards the chaos of anarchy. I don't think we need to live in that kind of angst.

I'm not sure a speaker should answer a mocking question. Why give it legitimacy? What if the objective is to disrupt the event and make the speaker appear foolish by taking advantage of his tolerance? Political activists do this. It's a judgment call; tolerate the individual or maintain civility for the benefit of the group. I wouldn't let a goof or a determined political activist takeover an event I was hosting. They can do what they wish on their own dime.

Quisling is Norwegian right? I've got a Norway topic going if you're interested.

[bkkmadness]

I'm not sure a speaker should answer a mocking question. Why give it legitimacy? What if the objective is to disrupt the event and make the speaker appear foolish by taking advantage of his tolerance?

Was the question truly mocking and not legitimate at all? What exactly did he ask?

[attaboy]

Mocking is probably to harsh a word to describe his behavior. I haven't watched the longer version of the video since we last discussed the topic. His question wasn't legitimate. He was having a laugh at Kerry's expense, imo.

[lysander]

So laughing at someone whose wages you pay deserves being electrocuted? What happened to free speech in the USA?

[AntRobertson]

What happened to free speech in the USA?

You can still say what you like, as long as it's in accordance with the party line.

Another victim of the War of Terror.