Covering the business of education and training

"The Boy, 21,..."

That's no boy. Last time I looked 21 was a "Man".

From watching the video, he didn't seem like much of a threat to me. I'll admit he was out of line. I agree he needed to be removed from the stage. If you look at the police reaction, it was like they saw something I didn't. Considering him a security threat for trying to speak what's on his mind and probably offending a lot of people including Kerry. Come to think of it, the police were probably offended. That explains their harsh reaction. If he was properly warned and informed of what he was doing wrong and that he could be arrested for it, I'm sure he wouldn't have reacted the same way. It went from get off the mic, we're arresting you and taking you off the mic, now we are going to taser you if you don't calm down. He obviously didn't understand what was going on and he panicked. I think a large number of people would have reacted the same way he did, there's either a problem with the police or the procedures here.

Very interesting. I have been to numerous student forums and plenty of students preface their questions prior to asking them, none were removed forcibly because of it. There was also no word from the police (and since I could hear him, I don't see why I wouldn't have been able to hear them as well), saying that if he didn't stop he would be arrested. I heard no warning nor did I hear them respond to his question about whether or not he was being arrested. He might have been out of line but this looks like the police to not properly handle the situation either. Obviously with someone as well informed as this young man, they should have been very clear about what they were doing.

I suggest that people that do not freely sign the chart are simply denied the right of speaking or writing. And the people offending the rule should simply be sent in a reeducation camp somewhere. You think this is a fascist point of view? congratulations, there may be hope for you finally.

so they arrested him and didn't tell him what he did wrong! what was the arrest for escort him outside tell him to leave if he doesn't then arrest him there was four cops are you kidding me. if four cops can't subdue one man then thats a whole other problem. this was over the line no doubt. four cops can't cuff one guy? are you kidding me they have to taze him come one and after they have him in cuffs he gets tazed again!

What is wrong with todays society when a student,who cleary has important things to ask Kerry, get tasered for it. I did NOT see any hostility come from Andrew, only the cops who have itchy fingers. If tasers weren't here yet, what other means of violence would these sad excuses of police have used.? Would they have shot him in the leg, or maybe beat him senseless with a club. Was the security there for Kerry or for the students? Why did Kerry just stand there and not have said anything? Does he not care what these students, who will take that job in the near future, have to say? He should have stopped it and had those cops apprehended. Andrew Meyer, I'm very sorry for what you had to endure for speaking your mind. America justice at its best.

That student had every right to ask his questions. The forum was designed with that purpose in mind. The First Amendment guarantees him that right, to speak his mind - WHATEVER HIS TONE OF VOICE - without being subjected to harassment or physical assault by anyone, particularly those charged with PROTECTING those rights.

Furthermore, the speaker, John Kerry, was an elected official, a PUBLIC SERVANT of our Republic and SHOULD be scrutinized by the public with pointed, relevant questions.

There are longer videos that follow the cops outside the hall and they tell him they are charging him with "Inciting a Riot". The only riot I saw incited was by them and perhaps John Kerry for not wanting to answer the questions posed him, particularly the very damaging one about his membership in Skull and Bones at Yale.

WAKE UP, FOLKS! This is FASCISM, plain and simple. That's NOT what this country is about. That is NOT what our forefathers fought a war of independence for, so we could live in a fascist dictatorship. They realized the importance of civil disobedience and dissent in a free and healthy society and they codified its importance in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, which assert that our rights are given unto us from our Divine Creator, NOT following from any government or police authority.

If the debate over this incident has shown us nothing, it's that far too few people in this country still understand what "Freedom" actually is. Most just assume it's that thing that the "terrorists" hate us for. I've got news for you...our founding fathers WERE terrorists. ANYBODY who fights tyranny is going to be labeled a terrorist. They will be labeled a "troublemaker" and an "inciter of riots". The application of this label will only further underscore the need to fight.

Ron Paul 2008!

Oh, and anybody who thinks that this boy should have been "removed from the stage" clearly do not understand what the core issue is here. The issue is NOT whether excessive force was used on an "unruly student", the issue is whether this person was "unruly" to begin with and what it means to have Freedom of Speech in a free society.

This mentality that it's ok to stifle free speech as long as the person is exhibiting some sort of "lack of respect" is OUTRAGIOUS, PERIOD.

You people who think this way need to get an education on what it means to live in a free society because obviously you7r public school systems have failed you in that respect. What else would you expect from a system run by the very government that would like nothing more than for you to FORGET it?

Don't let history repeat itself. This doesn't have to become a fascist state. We don't have to give up Liberty for an illusion of security. It doesn't have to be this way. We can be wiser than people have been in that past. We can tear it down and see through it. We just have to realize that the time to act and speak out about it is NOW, not after another world war has come and gone.

Read your Bill of Rights. Read the writings of the founders of our nation in order that you may understand what your rights are and where they come from lest you relinquish them unduly.

Liberty is a rare and sacred jewel in the crown of humanity, and it should not be worn lightly!!!

Meyer was arrested (seized):
Under the circumstances here, Meyer was seized (arrested). He was both physically restrained and, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable innocent person would not think he was free to terminate the encounter with the police. Therefore he was arrested (seized) under both definitions.

Seizure with excessive force is unconstitutional:
One kind of Constitutionally unreasonable arrest is one with excessive force, in other words, police brutality. Therefore the next question is whether the police used excessive force in arresting Meyer.

Florida law limits the use of force by police:
Florida law allows the use of force when a person is resisting a lawful arrest. See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05
An arrest is only lawful when the police have probable cause to think that the suspect has violated the law. Therefore the question is whether the police reasonably believed that Meyer had committed some crime.

Police only allowed to use force for "lawful arrests:"
The crime(s) of which Meyer was accused (other than resisting arrest) are
apparently (depending on which newspaper article you read) inciting riot or obstructing an educational institution. A quick skim of those laws convinces me that it is unlikely that Meyer violated either one. See the text of these laws at: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0877/SEC13.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0877-%3ESection%2013#0877.13

This arrest was not lawful, so the force was illegal:
Therefore the police were not entitled to use force against Meyer because the lacked probable cause to think he had violated the law. In the absence of probable cause, the arrest is not a "lawful arrest," and therefore force is not authorized under Florida law. Therefore the police's use of force was illegal. Furthermore, Florida law expressly makes the use of force unlawful in such situations, stating that "a law enforcement officer . . . is not justified in the use of force if the arrest is lawful and known by him or her to be unlawful." See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC051.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%20051#0776.051

Even if the arrest was lawful, the force was excessive:
Further, even if we assume that Meyer had violated some criminal law, such that the police were entitled to use some force in the arrest, they are only entitled to use force reasonable under the circumstances. See the applicable Florida law on the use of force. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05

In this case Meyer was trying to avoid arrest but he threatened nobody. That is, Meyer was just yelling and trying to get away (by flailing around, yelling, and trying to walk away and evade the police's grasp). He didn't bite, kick, have a weapon, etc.

Therefore under the circumstances, the use of the taser was excessive force. Since excessive force was used in accomplishing the seizure of Meyer, Meyer's 4th amendment rights against unreasonable seizures was violated.

Video footage
=============
This footage includes what happened to Andrew Meyer once he was removed from the hall:
http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=157250

Details: Arrest (Seizure)
=========================
The 4th amendment to the Constitution literally bans "unreasonable searches and seizures."

So the question becomes, was tasering Meyer an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Constitution?

First, we need to know if what the police did to Meyer was a seizure.

Basically, a person is seized when the suspect either (A) submits to assertion of authority or (B) when there is physical force. For example, the fatal shooting of a fleeing suspect by a cop is a seizure.

If you read the Supreme Court cases, you see that the legal community tends to use the term "seizure" instead of the lay term of "arrest." I'll use "arrest" to help make the rest of this explanation clearer.

To repeat, a person is seized when the suspect either (A) submits to assertion of authority or (B) when there is physical force.

Under the US Supreme court case of Florida v. Bostick in 1991, one is not seized if a reasonable person in that person's situation would have felt free to decline officer’s request or otherwise terminate the encounter with the officer. This case also establishes that a "reasonable person" is a "reasonable innocent person."

Determining whether a person has been seized (AKA arrested) can be tricky. The US Supreme court case of US v. Mendenhall in 1980 established a totality of circumstances test to determine whether a person has been arrested (seized). Factors to consider under the Mendenhall test include threatening presence of several officers, display of weapon by officer, physical touching of citizen, use or language or tone of voice indicating compliance possibly compelled.

Citations:
Florida v. Bostick
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1717.ZS.html

US v. Mendenhall
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZS.html

References: Relevant Florida State Law
======================================
According to a Sept 17 2007 article in the The Gainesville Sun ( http://ocala.com/article/20070917/NEWS/70917006/1053/BREAKING_NEWS ) "Capt. Jeff Holcomb of the UPD said Meyer had been charged with disrupting a public event"

Under chapter 843.01 of the Florida Code, "resisting an officer with violence to his or her person" consists of "Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any officer . . . legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person, is guilty of a felony of the third degree". See
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0843/SEC01.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0843-%3ESection%2001#0843.01

776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05

776.051 Use of force in resisting or making an arrest; prohibition.--
(1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC051.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%20051#0776.051

843.01 Resisting officer with violence to his or her person.--Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; parole and probation supervisor; county probation officer; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0843/SEC02.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0843-%3ESection%2002#0843.02

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.--Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0877/SEC13.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0877-%3ESection%2013#0877.13

Disrupting a school assembly is probably a violation of chapter section 877.13 Educational institutions or school boards; penalty for disruption." Under this law, it is second degree misdemeanor to "[k]nowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state."
877.13 Educational institutions or school boards; penalty for disruption.--
(1) It is unlawful for any person:
(a) Knowingly to disrupt or interfere with the lawful administration or functions of any educational institution, school board, or activity on school board property in this state.
(b) Knowingly to advise, counsel, or instruct any school pupil or school employee to disrupt any school or school board function, activity on school board property, or classroom.
(c) Knowingly to interfere with the attendance of any other school pupil or school employee in a school or classroom.
(d) To conspire to riot or to engage in any school campus or school function disruption or disturbance which interferes with the educational processes or with the orderly conduct of a school campus, school, or school board function or activity on school board property.
(2) This section shall apply to all educational institutions, school boards, and functions or activities on school board property; however, nothing herein shall deny public employees the opportunity to exercise their rights pursuant to part II of chapter 447.
(3) Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0877/SEC13.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0877-%3ESection%2013#0877.13

wtf is this for real?welcome to america - the land of freedom.Whats wrong with u guys?fu...n cops!!!!

Oh please! Taser Boy got what he desevered because he was unruly, and obnoxious--to say the least! And what was John Kerry suppose to do--jump in and get tasered himself? Taser Boy is a total nut job, end of story.
Besides, we have bigger fish to fry folks: The war in Iraq, in fact, Bush should send Taser Boy there!

Go Ron Paul!

*
No surprise.... a national story, a national sort of "humorous" response!

Seems like their are some folks out making a statement about this incident. It's not unusual, but still interesting. Different perspectives make for a bit of humor. One example...

www. cafepress. com/UF_taser

I guess there will be some good come of this... a spotlight on unnecessary force by police which is becoming all to common. This could have been much worse... there have been too many deaths caused by tasers, many being used when they weren't necessary. At least Andrew wasn't injured, no matter whether he was right or wrong in his actions.

Have a great day,

Sincerely,
Taxitnt

I've personally witnessed crazy conspiracy-therorists go ape at UF's speaking engagements in the past. They are usually wearing sweatpants; eyes as red as stoplights they slur out how they found this obscure internet site that can prove direct corrolation between IBM and George Bush's cooperation with Nazi Germany.These people are usually sad, tragic figures that get out their question with a mental eyeroll from the speaker and a spattering of snickers from the audience.

I know that this video will be politicized like hell over the following days as an arguement platform for both liberals and conservatives. It will most likely be taken out of context and replayed in the light that fits the agenda of whoever it is that's showing it.

I've seen people ushered off by the event staff, but never like this...

I guess my take on the whole fiasco is that while I admire the kid's tenacity, he was kind of a moron. Sure he made everyone feel a little uncomfortable, but sometimes that's what it takes to get an "honest" answer out of politicians. But it's like, "Hey kid! Dude, if you're going to get yourself arrested AND tazed, make sure it's for something other than looking like a huge crybaby."