Thanks for your input Zavaro! <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/notworthy.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /> Maybe we can revive this suckah!
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1654764:date=Oct 9 2007, 12:01 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Oct 9 2007, 12:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654764"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So now you're a lawyer swifty, and the charges brought against Andrew Meyers are all false?
Tell you what, let me invite you into MY home. When I tell you it's time to go you'd best put the haul-ass on or you're guilty of trespassing. You seemed to have missed that the function was over. O V E R over, that means it's time to stop.
Did you happen to see how he was acting solely for the purpose of getting himself filmed? Or did you hear him holler at his friends, "Are you getting all this? Are the cameras rolling?" Beyond a shadow of a doubt he had it all planned and it was staged, hence the disturbing the peace and inciting a riot.
Andrew Meyers got away lucky. Very lucky. We can only hope the prosecutors find him guilty on all charges.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no point in attacking people's professional credentials in a discussion like this, Depot. It's a cheap tactic, and only serves to lower the tone of the whole discussion. The point of this thread is not to prosecute Andrew Meyers, nor to bring about changes in law. We're here to discuss our opinions of the case and, as such none of us need be lawyers. It's a safe bet that very few people participating here are lawyers, just as I feel comfortable assuming that you're not a lawyer either (you can feel free to prove me wrong though). By the logic of your argument, however, this thread would be closed to all but lawyers, at which point we might as well not bother with the discussions forum and all sit at home in a darkened room with our fingers in our ears, humming quietly to ourselves.
This idea that he was inciting a riot is utterly, utterly laughable. He was making a scene of himself. The exact legality of doing so aside, he was not screaming "hey guys let's have a riot we can totally rip this place apart!" Yes, he was acting out on camera, but at what point is that supposed to lead to everyone (or anyone) in the room beating the stuffing out of each other? How does "don't tase me bro" translate to "RIOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!"
I appreciate that you believe he did something very wrong, even illegal, but how can you possibly think that what he was doing was intended to lead to a riot?
When a person creates a disturbance as Andrew Meyers did for the sole purpose of creating a scene and getting it taped, it's difficult not to see how this could easily be construed as inciting a riot. If you watch the video closely you will see where this scene was obviously pre-planned and performed for a reason. At least it was obvious to me...
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
If it was pre-planned and performed, it was done so to make a point, be that political, comic or otherwise.
I'm willing to follow you on it being planned. What I'm not capable of following you on is whatever massive leap of logic you're making to suggest that the fact that he planned it means he was trying to instigate a riot. Why does a premeditated public making-a-scene-of-yourself constitute a desire for a brawl? Does this mean street theatre is incitement to riot if its participants planned to do it and tape the results?
At any rate you're contradicting yourself. You say he did it "for the sole purpose of creating a scene and getting it taped", but then immediately go on to suggest he was inciting a riot. How can he be if his <i>sole</i> purpose was "creating a scene and getting it taped"? Surely "sole purpose" implies he had nothing else planned, be that a riot or an ice cream social.
That's how the police saw it and I agree with them. Being "loud and assertive" would probably have been classified as disturbing the peace in this case, except for the fact that his actions appeared to be done for the purpose of influencing others to follow.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1656275:date=Oct 16 2007, 01:47 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Oct 16 2007, 01:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1656275"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's how the police saw it and I agree with them. Being "loud and assertive" would probably have been classified as disturbing the peace in this case, except for the fact that his actions appeared to be done for the purpose of influencing others to follow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How? Where did he ask anyone to join in with him. At what point did he even indicate desire for others to do so? I think you need to go back and pick out specific parts of that video and demonstrate why they show him influencing others in the hall to act in the same manner as himself.
Of course, once you've done that you can explain how exactly a room full of people acting in a loud and assertive manner could possibly constitute a riot.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
heh, my take is just the reverse: 1) It doesn't matter that he was being an ass. 2) It doesn't matter that he planed it (heck, I am willing to bet the cops did NOT know that it was planned at the time).
Being an Ass is not a crime.
Creating a disturbance, trespassing, and making your self seem like a possible threat to a political figure are ALL good reasons to forcibly eject some one from an area.
Resisting police is a good reason for them to up the force used. He apparently resisted enough that he left marks that could be documented by the police on camera (as in photos of bruises or something). I know some one is going to say "that is just a lie in the police report" but remember, it is IN the police report! if the kid goes to trial, the police report comes under scrutiny, if they can't produce the evidence, then they get in LOTS of trouble.
honestly, people are taking in to account facts that are honestly not pertinent. The cops were presented with a situation: apparently unstable and possibly dangerous individual. Were asked to remove him by some one who DOES have the authority. Attempted to. Met with forceful resistance, were unable to over come it with standard force and escalated it to the point where they could either zap him, or use stronger physical force. By stronger physical force I am talking about actual come along, and other such VERY painful things. Heck, if they had used those, he probably would have broken his arm. Yes, I said that HE would have broken HIS arm. IF you resist a come along you risk seriously injuring yourself. So they used a stun gun.
The fact that he planned it before hand has no bearing (as the cops didn't know this) The fact that he was being an ass has no bearing.
<!--quoteo(post=1656280:date=Oct 16 2007, 09:15 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 16 2007, 09:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1656280"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How? Where did he ask anyone to join in with him. At what point did he even indicate desire for others to do so? I think you need to go back and pick out specific parts of that video and demonstrate why they show him influencing others in the hall to act in the same manner as himself.
Of course, once you've done that you can explain how exactly a room full of people acting in a loud and assertive manner could possibly constitute a riot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you watched the video closely? Have you bothered to read this entire thread? He was playing to the cameras and the crowd, and asking, "are you getting this on tape" or "are the cameras rolling"? It was all staged.
"The fact that he planned it before hand has no bearing (as the cops didn't know this)" is false, it played into why he was subdued in the manner he was. This is why they felt he was playing to the crowd and inciting a riot.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited October 2007
Your argument is rather strange Depot. Are you saying that nobody has the right to plan civil disobedience? That the fact that he planned to record the incident made his protest any less valuable?
this is dangerously close to "the guy is a dissident so he got what he deserved". A healthy democracy does not simply stamp on the minority opinion and call it inciting a riot.
Your argument is also circular. You are saying that they were rough with him because he checked to see if his co-conspirators caught them being rough with him. Well, which came first?
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
Please don't accuse me of not reading the thread, when you're not even bothering to properly read my post. I know he wanted people filming it. That's not what I asked. I asked you to point out specific parts of the video where he is inciting a riot. Asking someone to film you is not inciting a riot, nor is playing to the crowd. So I'll ask you again: go back and pick out specific parts of that video and demonstrate why they show him instigating a riot.
Please this time be prepared to back up your arguments rather than accusing me of not reading.
Simply enough I saw his actions the same way the police did. One of the charges brought against him was "Inciting a riot" and I feel they were justified, according to what I've seen and heard.
Whether the charges will stick is yet to be determined. However the prosecutor decides to proceed with this case will dictate whether the police were in error.
But regardless of the inciting a riot charge it's been pointed out multiple times of his trespassing and disturbing the peace... guilty as charged imho.
<!--quoteo(post=1656280:date=Oct 16 2007, 09:15 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 16 2007, 09:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1656280"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How? Where did he ask anyone to join in with him. At what point did he even indicate desire for others to do so? I think you need to go back and pick out specific parts of that video and demonstrate why they show him influencing others in the hall to act in the same manner as himself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He said "Help! Help! Help! Help me!" after yelling for some time about the injustice of being escorted out of the building. "Inciting a riot" doesn't have to mean "Join me in asking questions" (honestly, I don't see how that would even be considered). "Inciting a riot" can also mean "Beat up the cops who are hauling me away".
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
Have I missed something? Since when was "Help! Help! Help! Help me!" an incitement to riot? Why is proclaiming what you feel to be the injustice of your treatment an incitement to riot? Does this mean that people who scream out when they get mugged are attempting to instigate a riot? I'm sorry, but that's outrageous. There's no possible way that this guy, in protesting what he thought to be unfair treatment, was actually intending for everyone in the room to start causing gratuitous damage to people and property. I agree that "beat up the cops" could be construed as such, but as we've all seen <i>he didn't say that</i>.
Depot, all you're saying now is that you agree with the police. Which of course is fine as a statement of allegiance, but if you want your arguments that he was attempting to incite a riot seriously, then you have to back it up with evidence. The police believe it, yes, but that's not very useful as evidence, because the purpose of this thread is to debate whether or not the police were right in what they did. To rely on a police account of why they were right would just be circular logic.
<!--quoteo(post=1656312:date=Oct 16 2007, 01:39 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 16 2007, 01:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1656312"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Have I missed something? Since when was "Help! Help! Help! Help me!" an incitement to riot? Why is proclaiming what you feel to be the injustice of your treatment an incitement to riot? Does this mean that people who scream out when they get mugged are attempting to instigate a riot? I'm sorry, but that's outrageous. There's no possible way that this guy, in protesting what he thought to be unfair treatment, was actually intending for everyone in the room to start causing gratuitous damage to people and property. I agree that "beat up the cops" could be construed as such, but as we've all seen <i>he didn't say that</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> He was crying "help, help, help" while being arrested. If someone were to stop that arrest, what would the officers do to the person attempting to halt the arrest? If both people were to escape arrest, what would they have to do to the officers to get away? Obviously, physical force would have to be used. So now two people are being arrested: what if another person joins in? And another? That's a riot. That's mob mentality. That's the worst nightmare for a police officer, and it's something that needs to be stopped before it's started - in this case, by tasing the person and getting him under control and out of the building as soon as possible.
Secondly, why are you equating an innocent person having a crime committed against them with a man committing a crime?
I've seen the same evidence you have Insane, your view is just different. Andrew Meyers created a potentially explosive situation by his actions and he was making a conscious effort to fire up the crowd. Because of this erratic behavior he was ushered off the floor as rapidly as possible. The administrators and the police officers saw his actions the same way I did, so what else is there to explain?
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1656314:date=Oct 16 2007, 06:48 PM:name=MedHead)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MedHead @ Oct 16 2007, 06:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1656314"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Secondly, why are you equating an innocent person having a crime committed against them with a man committing a crime?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1656318:date=Oct 16 2007, 02:40 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 16 2007, 02:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1656318"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I could ask the same question of you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Disturbing the peace and resisting arrest are crimes, Insane. The taser didn't come out until he resisted arrest. The arrest didn't begin until after he'd disturbed the peace.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
TBH, I thought we were discussing if the police's actions were acceptable or not, not if the charges placed against him after arrest were.
Inciting a riot may or may not stick, that is up to the DA's office and then a judge to decide.
Heck, we are arguing over a crime we don't even know the definition of. Federal law states that if ONE person in a group of 3 or more does something that might harm a person or property, it is a riot.
NYS law says: "A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm." So under those definitions what he did COULD be considered inciting a riot. But again, that is up to the DA's office and then a judge.
If calling for people to help you when you're being arrested isn't inciting to riot, then I don't know what is. We're back to mistrust of organization vs mistrust of individual. I may well, and probably should, mistrust the motives of an entire police force attached the the civilian government. It's quite insane to mistrust the motives of every individual police officer in the world. They are there just as much for my benefit as for my grief.
If you're under arrest, and you call for help, what your asking for is for any witness to be spurred into action to free you. That means locking horns with the authoritarian figures, or more precisely, to attempt to move from a more orderly state to a less orderly one. For a group of people to perform actions with this goal in mind is a riot as far as most people are concerned, I think.
I said this before, but please try to think about it. What happens when someone's making a scene like that and you're actually in the room? It's completely different from watching it on TV. When you're there, the emotions are running high, because we're intuitive animals. Video leaves out very important perceptions. You're likely on edge, because someone is crying out like they're in danger, and now you have to figure out if you're in danger, too. You're caught between obedience and self-preservation. You can argue the morality of a decision in those conditions all you want, but morality aside, it's bad news for a police officer. Their job is to maintain order, and a situation like that degrades order.
Whether or not he's charged, I believe this man indeed was inciting to riot.
So yelling for help (when being arrested) is inciting to riot, and inciting to riot is a crime. Thus, yelling for help (when being arrested) is a crime. What if someone abducts me, claiming I'm under arrest? Should I assume they are arresting me and therefore remain quiet lest I break the law, thus allowing them to abduct me without anyone noticing it, or should I yell for help, thus breaking the law if they're arresting me?
You are generalizing lolfighter, yelling for help (when being arrested) in THIS case was inciting to riot. You can hardly apply that to being arrested in general or in every circumstance. <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
"In case of arrest or abduction, please contact your lawyer and carefully consider the details and circumstances regarding your situation before deciding whether you should call for help."
"Guys, can you stop dragging me out of the room for a moment? I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to call for help, and I need legal advice. My cellphone is in my inner pocket."
-You have a population of attendees who at the end of a political QA forum, meaning that there's a possibility of ruffled feathers already.
-You have a single individual who has for a sustained period aggravated any bad emotions people have. (Either, "Why won't he shut up?" or, "Why isn't Kerry answering him?" or, "Why is he yelling?" or, "Why aren't they doing something about him" or, "Why ARE they doing something about him?" or whatever)
-You have staff and officers who, at the critical moment, have made the decision to remove this individual.
ALL other arguments of whether or not his removal was valid can be put aside right now. It's done, it's happened. What the officers face right now is a situation in which tempers could possibly be flaring in any which direction or any which reason. They may even be over-estimating the agitation of the crowd a little, who knows? I challenge any of you to accurately predict the disposition of a crowd in a situation like this.
So, now, the man in question is being removed. We have:
-Several officers acting within the orders they have been giving and surrounding this person in a threatening manner.
-A crowd of <i>young</i> people who by their own nature may be more apt to tangle with police because young people have always been such. You can argue this point if you want, I won't argue back though; I take it as a given.
-Kerry blathering on anyway, becoming essentially just one more useless input for people to process. (I'd have been more impressed with him if he's just shut the hell up until it was over and not tried to be a hero or something.)
Now, this man screams "Help me! Is anyone going to do anything?" and similar statements asking the crowd to intervene. You can't argue this any other way. Anyone in that room would have interpreted his meaning as this, and not something off the wall like "When is the world going to wake up and realize that Kerry is in bed with Bush?" He was asking for direct help in fending off the officers.
Why is this bad? Because if people start doing that,
1: All other officers and staff in the room become targets, and also are obligated to help stop the "uprising" 2: People caught in the middle of the battle royal will be stampeded 3: People will flee through any available exit, and other people will also be stampeded 4: If any officers or attendees have fire arms, we cannot rule out the possibility that they will be used
In a word: riot. This is worst case, sure, but as we know from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings" target="_blank">Kent State</a> things can get out of hand.
This is the last time I'll defend the incite to riot stuff, because this thread's going nowhere faster than anything I've ever seen go to nowhere. So, if you still don't agree that in this case, that screaming about injustice you currently face at the hands of the officers and calling for anyone around you to spring you from their clutches, is inciting to riot, then I guess we just have to disagree. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1656378:date=Oct 16 2007, 07:37 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 16 2007, 07:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1656378"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...] This is the last time I'll defend the incite to riot stuff, because this thread's going nowhere faster than anything I've ever seen go to nowhere. So, if you still don't agree that in this case, that screaming about injustice you currently face at the hands of the officers and calling for anyone around you to spring you from their clutches, is inciting to riot, then I guess we just have to disagree. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This thread's been going nowhere for a while now but you know what? They don't lock thread's by author's request anymore so who cares?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited October 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1656378:date=Oct 16 2007, 07:37 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 16 2007, 07:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1656378"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In this situation:
-You have a population of attendees who at the end of a political QA forum, meaning that there's a possibility of ruffled feathers already.
-You have a single individual who has for a sustained period aggravated any bad emotions people have. (Either, "Why won't he shut up?" or, "Why isn't Kerry answering him?" or, "Why is he yelling?" or, "Why aren't they doing something about him" or, "Why ARE they doing something about him?" or whatever)
-You have staff and officers who, at the critical moment, have made the decision to remove this individual.
ALL other arguments of whether or not his removal was valid can be put aside right now. It's done, it's happened. What the officers face right now is a situation in which tempers could possibly be flaring in any which direction or any which reason. They may even be over-estimating the agitation of the crowd a little, who knows? I challenge any of you to accurately predict the disposition of a crowd in a situation like this. So, now, the man in question is being removed. We have:
-Several officers acting within the orders they have been giving and surrounding this person in a threatening manner.
-A crowd of <i>young</i> people who by their own nature may be more apt to tangle with police because young people have always been such. You can argue this point if you want, I won't argue back though; I take it as a given.
-Kerry blathering on anyway, becoming essentially just one more useless input for people to process. (I'd have been more impressed with him if he's just shut the hell up until it was over and not tried to be a hero or something.)
Now, this man screams "Help me! Is anyone going to do anything?" and similar statements asking the crowd to intervene. You can't argue this any other way. Anyone in that room would have interpreted his meaning as this, and not something off the wall like "When is the world going to wake up and realize that Kerry is in bed with Bush?" He was asking for direct help in fending off the officers.
Why is this bad? Because if people start doing that,
1: All other officers and staff in the room become targets, and also are obligated to help stop the "uprising" 2: People caught in the middle of the battle royal will be stampeded 3: People will flee through any available exit, and other people will also be stampeded 4: If any officers or attendees have fire arms, we cannot rule out the possibility that they will be used
In a word: riot. This is worst case, sure, but as we know from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings" target="_blank">Kent State</a> things can get out of hand.
This is the last time I'll defend the incite to riot stuff, because this thread's going nowhere faster than anything I've ever seen go to nowhere. So, if you still don't agree that in this case, that screaming about injustice you currently face at the hands of the officers and calling for anyone around you to spring you from their clutches, is inciting to riot, then I guess we just have to disagree. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your argument isn't much more than a scare tactic. "If the police don't arrest people they think are inciting a riot, Kent State could happen again". Ironically, You're using one of the worst abuses of police force to justify the use of police force.
The situation didn't look "explosive" to me. With the exception of the kid all of the students were sitting in their seats. If the security guards were twitchy, fine they were twitchy, but inciting a riot seems like a stretch and a justification after the fact.
I think they were correct to be able to force him to leave because, as it's been stated, it was a private forum. The taser appeared excessive since he was on the floor with his hands behind his back with officers on top of him. He appeared cuffed, which as Depot has said many times, is not what the police report says. Whether or not he was cuffed doesn't matter to me, he was subdued at that point and the taser was excessive.
Comments
Tell you what, let me invite you into MY home. When I tell you it's time to go you'd best put the haul-ass on or you're guilty of trespassing. You seemed to have missed that the function was over. O V E R over, that means it's time to stop.
Did you happen to see how he was acting solely for the purpose of getting himself filmed? Or did you hear him holler at his friends, "Are you getting all this? Are the cameras rolling?" Beyond a shadow of a doubt he had it all planned and it was staged, hence the disturbing the peace and inciting a riot.
Andrew Meyers got away lucky. Very lucky. We can only hope the prosecutors find him guilty on all charges.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no point in attacking people's professional credentials in a discussion like this, Depot. It's a cheap tactic, and only serves to lower the tone of the whole discussion. The point of this thread is not to prosecute Andrew Meyers, nor to bring about changes in law. We're here to discuss our opinions of the case and, as such none of us need be lawyers. It's a safe bet that very few people participating here are lawyers, just as I feel comfortable assuming that you're not a lawyer either (you can feel free to prove me wrong though). By the logic of your argument, however, this thread would be closed to all but lawyers, at which point we might as well not bother with the discussions forum and all sit at home in a darkened room with our fingers in our ears, humming quietly to ourselves.
This idea that he was inciting a riot is utterly, utterly laughable. He was making a scene of himself. The exact legality of doing so aside, he was not screaming "hey guys let's have a riot we can totally rip this place apart!" Yes, he was acting out on camera, but at what point is that supposed to lead to everyone (or anyone) in the room beating the stuffing out of each other? How does "don't tase me bro" translate to "RIOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!"
I appreciate that you believe he did something very wrong, even illegal, but how can you possibly think that what he was doing was intended to lead to a riot?
I'm willing to follow you on it being planned. What I'm not capable of following you on is whatever massive leap of logic you're making to suggest that the fact that he planned it means he was trying to instigate a riot. Why does a premeditated public making-a-scene-of-yourself constitute a desire for a brawl? Does this mean street theatre is incitement to riot if its participants planned to do it and tape the results?
At any rate you're contradicting yourself. You say he did it "for the sole purpose of creating a scene and getting it taped", but then immediately go on to suggest he was inciting a riot. How can he be if his <i>sole</i> purpose was "creating a scene and getting it taped"? Surely "sole purpose" implies he had nothing else planned, be that a riot or an ice cream social.
How? Where did he ask anyone to join in with him. At what point did he even indicate desire for others to do so? I think you need to go back and pick out specific parts of that video and demonstrate why they show him influencing others in the hall to act in the same manner as himself.
Of course, once you've done that you can explain how exactly a room full of people acting in a loud and assertive manner could possibly constitute a riot.
1) It doesn't matter that he was being an ass.
2) It doesn't matter that he planed it (heck, I am willing to bet the cops did NOT know that it was planned at the time).
Being an Ass is not a crime.
Creating a disturbance, trespassing, and making your self seem like a possible threat to a political figure are ALL good reasons to forcibly eject some one from an area.
Resisting police is a good reason for them to up the force used. He apparently resisted enough that he left marks that could be documented by the police on camera (as in photos of bruises or something). I know some one is going to say "that is just a lie in the police report" but remember, it is IN the police report! if the kid goes to trial, the police report comes under scrutiny, if they can't produce the evidence, then they get in LOTS of trouble.
honestly, people are taking in to account facts that are honestly not pertinent. The cops were presented with a situation:
apparently unstable and possibly dangerous individual.
Were asked to remove him by some one who DOES have the authority.
Attempted to.
Met with forceful resistance, were unable to over come it with standard force and escalated it to the point where they could either zap him, or use stronger physical force. By stronger physical force I am talking about actual come along, and other such VERY painful things. Heck, if they had used those, he probably would have broken his arm. Yes, I said that HE would have broken HIS arm. IF you resist a come along you risk seriously injuring yourself. So they used a stun gun.
The fact that he planned it before hand has no bearing (as the cops didn't know this)
The fact that he was being an ass has no bearing.
Of course, once you've done that you can explain how exactly a room full of people acting in a loud and assertive manner could possibly constitute a riot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you watched the video closely? Have you bothered to read this entire thread? He was playing to the cameras and the crowd, and asking, "are you getting this on tape" or "are the cameras rolling"? It was all staged.
"The fact that he planned it before hand has no bearing (as the cops didn't know this)" is false, it played into why he was subdued in the manner he was. This is why they felt he was playing to the crowd and inciting a riot.
this is dangerously close to "the guy is a dissident so he got what he deserved". A healthy democracy does not simply stamp on the minority opinion and call it inciting a riot.
Your argument is also circular. You are saying that they were rough with him because he checked to see if his co-conspirators caught them being rough with him. Well, which came first?
Please this time be prepared to back up your arguments rather than accusing me of not reading.
Whether the charges will stick is yet to be determined. However the prosecutor decides to proceed with this case will dictate whether the police were in error.
But regardless of the inciting a riot charge it's been pointed out multiple times of his trespassing and disturbing the peace... guilty as charged imho.
He said "Help! Help! Help! Help me!" after yelling for some time about the injustice of being escorted out of the building. "Inciting a riot" doesn't have to mean "Join me in asking questions" (honestly, I don't see how that would even be considered). "Inciting a riot" can also mean "Beat up the cops who are hauling me away".
Depot, all you're saying now is that you agree with the police. Which of course is fine as a statement of allegiance, but if you want your arguments that he was attempting to incite a riot seriously, then you have to back it up with evidence. The police believe it, yes, but that's not very useful as evidence, because the purpose of this thread is to debate whether or not the police were right in what they did. To rely on a police account of why they were right would just be circular logic.
He was crying "help, help, help" while being arrested. If someone were to stop that arrest, what would the officers do to the person attempting to halt the arrest? If both people were to escape arrest, what would they have to do to the officers to get away? Obviously, physical force would have to be used. So now two people are being arrested: what if another person joins in? And another? That's a riot. That's mob mentality. That's the worst nightmare for a police officer, and it's something that needs to be stopped before it's started - in this case, by tasing the person and getting him under control and out of the building as soon as possible.
Secondly, why are you equating an innocent person having a crime committed against them with a man committing a crime?
I could ask the same question of you.
Disturbing the peace and resisting arrest are crimes, Insane. The taser didn't come out until he resisted arrest. The arrest didn't begin until after he'd disturbed the peace.
Inciting a riot may or may not stick, that is up to the DA's office and then a judge to decide.
Heck, we are arguing over a crime we don't even know the definition of. Federal law states that if ONE person in a group of 3 or more does something that might harm a person or property, it is a riot.
NYS law says:
"A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm."
So under those definitions what he did COULD be considered inciting a riot. But again, that is up to the DA's office and then a judge.
If you're under arrest, and you call for help, what your asking for is for any witness to be spurred into action to free you. That means locking horns with the authoritarian figures, or more precisely, to attempt to move from a more orderly state to a less orderly one. For a group of people to perform actions with this goal in mind is a riot as far as most people are concerned, I think.
I said this before, but please try to think about it. What happens when someone's making a scene like that and you're actually in the room? It's completely different from watching it on TV. When you're there, the emotions are running high, because we're intuitive animals. Video leaves out very important perceptions. You're likely on edge, because someone is crying out like they're in danger, and now you have to figure out if you're in danger, too. You're caught between obedience and self-preservation. You can argue the morality of a decision in those conditions all you want, but morality aside, it's bad news for a police officer. Their job is to maintain order, and a situation like that degrades order.
Whether or not he's charged, I believe this man indeed was inciting to riot.
What if someone abducts me, claiming I'm under arrest? Should I assume they are arresting me and therefore remain quiet lest I break the law, thus allowing them to abduct me without anyone noticing it, or should I yell for help, thus breaking the law if they're arresting me?
"Guys, can you stop dragging me out of the room for a moment? I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to call for help, and I need legal advice. My cellphone is in my inner pocket."
-You have a population of attendees who at the end of a political QA forum, meaning that there's a possibility of ruffled feathers already.
-You have a single individual who has for a sustained period aggravated any bad emotions people have. (Either, "Why won't he shut up?" or, "Why isn't Kerry answering him?" or, "Why is he yelling?" or, "Why aren't they doing something about him" or, "Why ARE they doing something about him?" or whatever)
-You have staff and officers who, at the critical moment, have made the decision to remove this individual.
ALL other arguments of whether or not his removal was valid can be put aside right now. It's done, it's happened. What the officers face right now is a situation in which tempers could possibly be flaring in any which direction or any which reason. They may even be over-estimating the agitation of the crowd a little, who knows? I challenge any of you to accurately predict the disposition of a crowd in a situation like this.
So, now, the man in question is being removed. We have:
-Several officers acting within the orders they have been giving and surrounding this person in a threatening manner.
-A crowd of <i>young</i> people who by their own nature may be more apt to tangle with police because young people have always been such. You can argue this point if you want, I won't argue back though; I take it as a given.
-Kerry blathering on anyway, becoming essentially just one more useless input for people to process. (I'd have been more impressed with him if he's just shut the hell up until it was over and not tried to be a hero or something.)
Now, this man screams "Help me! Is anyone going to do anything?" and similar statements asking the crowd to intervene. You can't argue this any other way. Anyone in that room would have interpreted his meaning as this, and not something off the wall like "When is the world going to wake up and realize that Kerry is in bed with Bush?" He was asking for direct help in fending off the officers.
Why is this bad? Because if people start doing that,
1: All other officers and staff in the room become targets, and also are obligated to help stop the "uprising"
2: People caught in the middle of the battle royal will be stampeded
3: People will flee through any available exit, and other people will also be stampeded
4: If any officers or attendees have fire arms, we cannot rule out the possibility that they will be used
In a word: riot. This is worst case, sure, but as we know from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings" target="_blank">Kent State</a> things can get out of hand.
This is the last time I'll defend the incite to riot stuff, because this thread's going nowhere faster than anything I've ever seen go to nowhere. So, if you still don't agree that in this case, that screaming about injustice you currently face at the hands of the officers and calling for anyone around you to spring you from their clutches, is inciting to riot, then I guess we just have to disagree. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
This is the last time I'll defend the incite to riot stuff, because this thread's going nowhere faster than anything I've ever seen go to nowhere. So, if you still don't agree that in this case, that screaming about injustice you currently face at the hands of the officers and calling for anyone around you to spring you from their clutches, is inciting to riot, then I guess we just have to disagree. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This thread's been going nowhere for a while now but you know what? They don't lock thread's by author's request anymore so who cares?
-You have a population of attendees who at the end of a political QA forum, meaning that there's a possibility of ruffled feathers already.
-You have a single individual who has for a sustained period aggravated any bad emotions people have. (Either, "Why won't he shut up?" or, "Why isn't Kerry answering him?" or, "Why is he yelling?" or, "Why aren't they doing something about him" or, "Why ARE they doing something about him?" or whatever)
-You have staff and officers who, at the critical moment, have made the decision to remove this individual.
ALL other arguments of whether or not his removal was valid can be put aside right now. It's done, it's happened. What the officers face right now is a situation in which tempers could possibly be flaring in any which direction or any which reason. They may even be over-estimating the agitation of the crowd a little, who knows? I challenge any of you to accurately predict the disposition of a crowd in a situation like this.
So, now, the man in question is being removed. We have:
-Several officers acting within the orders they have been giving and surrounding this person in a threatening manner.
-A crowd of <i>young</i> people who by their own nature may be more apt to tangle with police because young people have always been such. You can argue this point if you want, I won't argue back though; I take it as a given.
-Kerry blathering on anyway, becoming essentially just one more useless input for people to process. (I'd have been more impressed with him if he's just shut the hell up until it was over and not tried to be a hero or something.)
Now, this man screams "Help me! Is anyone going to do anything?" and similar statements asking the crowd to intervene. You can't argue this any other way. Anyone in that room would have interpreted his meaning as this, and not something off the wall like "When is the world going to wake up and realize that Kerry is in bed with Bush?" He was asking for direct help in fending off the officers.
Why is this bad? Because if people start doing that,
1: All other officers and staff in the room become targets, and also are obligated to help stop the "uprising"
2: People caught in the middle of the battle royal will be stampeded
3: People will flee through any available exit, and other people will also be stampeded
4: If any officers or attendees have fire arms, we cannot rule out the possibility that they will be used
In a word: riot. This is worst case, sure, but as we know from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings" target="_blank">Kent State</a> things can get out of hand.
This is the last time I'll defend the incite to riot stuff, because this thread's going nowhere faster than anything I've ever seen go to nowhere. So, if you still don't agree that in this case, that screaming about injustice you currently face at the hands of the officers and calling for anyone around you to spring you from their clutches, is inciting to riot, then I guess we just have to disagree. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your argument isn't much more than a scare tactic. "If the police don't arrest people they think are inciting a riot, Kent State could happen again". Ironically, You're using one of the worst abuses of police force to justify the use of police force.
The situation didn't look "explosive" to me. With the exception of the kid all of the students were sitting in their seats. If the security guards were twitchy, fine they were twitchy, but inciting a riot seems like a stretch and a justification after the fact.
I think they were correct to be able to force him to leave because, as it's been stated, it was a private forum. The taser appeared excessive since he was on the floor with his hands behind his back with officers on top of him. He appeared cuffed, which as Depot has said many times, is not what the police report says. Whether or not he was cuffed doesn't matter to me, he was subdued at that point and the taser was excessive.
Edit: typo
Hindsight.