1. Blogs
  2. NotStyro's blog
  3. "Don't Tase me bro!" arrest videos & analysis

"Don't Tase me bro!" arrest videos & analysis

NotStyro

Shared on Thu, 09/20/2007 - 23:11
Some videos of this event for you to review...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CheY0jYXJjY
(events leading up to arrest and being dragged out of auditorium)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUtBlDu8azU
(different angle; from signal to cut mic to being dragged out of auditorium)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or85SRArYMQ
(different angle; shaky & blocky; events leading up to arrest and being dragged out of auditorium)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnxK5S7--w8
(mid-arrest in auditorium to lobby exit)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vR-4DawSUM
(different angle of pre-arrest, then skip to close view of tasering)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOlmNBxke-E
(start at 0:23; points out obvious pre-arrest events)

I haven't seen a video yet that shows Andrew Meyers, jumping the Q/A line or Kerry suggesting the Q/A period has ended. I have heard/read this from multiple sources, but I have yet to see any video that substantiates those claims. There will likely be loads of spin on this event, so watching the videos that show the same event from differing angles helps.

From the videos, it appears that Kerry had no problem allowing Meyers to ask a question/statement. Meyers appeared polite and thankful for Kerry addressing the forum. Meyers then goes into a long rambling statements & sets of questions more/less challenging Kerry. During his statements Meyers is interrupted by someone, probably the police officer behind him, but it appears she eventually agrees to let him finish. Someone cuts the mic and Meyers turns to address someone else behind him, then the police officers grab him (committing simple battery) and start leading him into the hall. He realizes that the officers are likely going to arrest him and he begins resisting.

Most likely Meyers began resisting arrest because he knows that he was not doing anything illegal. Meyers was allowed to attend the event and allowed to make a statement and/or question Kerry. Was Meyers making threats to Kerry? None that I heard. Was Meyers demanding that others commit violence upon Kerry? Again, none that I heard. Was Meyers carrying a weapon that could be used to commit violence upon Kerry or bystanders? A book, even one written by Greg Palast (great writer, btw), could not be stretched into the definition of a weapon. Simply put, there is no evidence to demonstrate why the police chose to attack, commit varied and multiple acts of battery upon, then arrest Meyers.

The use of the taser(s) on Meyers was particularly brutal. The police already had Meyers pinned to the ground and officers holding his arms. The officers refused to address his questions on why he was being arrested (valid question). The officers didn't even acknowledge Meyers suggestion/request that if they were to let him go that he would freely leave the auditorium (although he had no reason to have to leave). Then he was reduced to begging the officers not to use taser(s) on him (I've read/heard the first wouldn't work so the officers found one that did work). In his begging he could have probably greatly increased the outrage factor if he claimed to have a heart condition before the officers used taser(s) on him, but he fortunately didn't chose to go that route.

It wasn't until the police had Meyers in handcuffs down in the auditorium lobby that they told him he was being arrested/charged with inciting a riot. Watch/listen to those videos again, but that is what the officers said - inciting a riot. Watch/listen to the beginning of the videos again, was Meyers requesting/demanding the audience attack Kerry and/or another party? I didn't hear anything like that. I wonder what speech those officers were listening to, because it sure wasn't what Meyers was saying.

Was this a stunt, a prank, or an assault on Meyers and/or on the Bill of Rights? Time will tell what actually happened in the auditorium at UF.

Comments

Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/21/2007 - 06:51
Listen to his response to the moderator..."I'm not even done yet I have two more questions"...clearly implying that he believes that the rules established for this forum don't apply to him. The moderator then makes a decision to enforce the rules and have him removed since he really isn't "asking a question" but making a political speech, which is not the purpose of a QA session. I don't think the police intended to arrest him. I think they were simply going to lead him out of the forum at the request of whomever was in charge (cut the mic). He turned it into an arrest by his actions. He resisted, become violent, and the police responded with violence. At this point, by calling on the audience to "help", i.e. to get involved in preventing the police from removing him from the forum, he was attempting to incite a riot. It is an appropriate charge. The police are now on administrative leave pending review, which many take to mean that they did something wrong. This is a pretty standard procedure, however, keep in mind this was ordered by a University President, not by their law enforcement chain of command. University Presidents act strictly for political reasons and in response to public pressure. Don't expect any leadership there. What we also do not see in the videos is that happened before the QA session. Reports are that Meyers has a history of trying to stir up the pot and that the police had been warned about him being at this event. After all, I have never been at one of these where police surrounded the QA mic, so this is more to this story than the videos show. The now defunct web site was an interesting read. Also, leaving for forum, I read that Meyers was very much under control until the cameras came out of the venue and he could "perform" some more. This was not an assault on the bill or right. I was a prank and there will be a lot of handwringing and a lawsuit and some time to "come to Jesus" when instead his momma should simply spank him and teach him better behavior. Meyers caused this to happen, plain and simple. In the forums RogueRedneck said it best "But he didn't get put on the ground and tazered for asking the question. He got tazered for being disruptive, not complying with the officer's instructions, and pulling away when they attempted to peacefully walk him out. If he would have peacefully asked his questions, there wouldn't have been any problem. If he would have peacefully vacated, there wouldn't have been a problem. His actions escalated the situation." Meyers is responsible. People need to quit trying to use this to indict the cops or maje some big civil rights issue out of it. It's just children behaving badly.
Raider30's picture
Submitted by Raider30 on Fri, 09/21/2007 - 07:32
> Once again I'll point out that you do NOT have the right to resist an arrest - even one you believe to be unlawful. People don't seem to understand this. > See it is the above kind of nonsense that leads me to question your ability to get past whatever predispositions you have towards law enforcement and formulate an unbiased opinion. I must have missed all the 'attacks' in the video because I never once saw an officer strike Meyers. I did see them attempting to control Meyers by holding onto his arms when he flails about wildly. > I'll assume here that you are just ignorant about the taser and simply let you know that the use of tasers in departments that have issued them has caused the numbers of injuries to suspects AND officers to drop significantly. The taser causes an involuntary body wide muscle spasm preventing the suspect from continuing their combative actions. Yes it does cause instant pain compliance - however, unlike traditional pain compliance(ie. strikes, joint manipulation, OC, etc.) the taser's pain also stops instantly. Meaning that when the officer lets off the trigger the pain instantly goes away. When looked at on the traditional 'force ladder' the taser is actually safer for all involved in an arrest situation than other methods. > Yet, throughout this begging he still refused to comply with their demands. At the point the taser was used they had one handcuff on him and could not get the other cuff on. Had Meyer give up his other hand the officer would not have used the taser. Every step taken by the police is reactive in nature. Thats generally the way policing is done. Officers base their responses on the subjects actions. > This is ridiculous. If I remember right from the video Meyer makes this comment AFTER they officers attempted to have him leave and only AFTER he was taken down to the ground. At one point on the video a large officer physically picks up Meyer and walks him towards the entrance. At the moment the officer gets close to the entrance Meyer begins to flail about and tries to walk back down the aisle. Now explain to me why the police would believe Meyer after all that, that he would suddenly voluntarily leave the building? Thats just absurd. The bottom line is this: Meyer knew he was being asked to leave. At that point and time it doesn't matter what the reason is or who is asking him to leave. It is clear that uniformed officers are attempting to get him to leave. His responsibility at that point is to comply with law enforcement . Everything that transpired from that point on is solely the responsibility of Meyer. If he feels he is being treated unjustly then the appropriate time to file a complaint or whatever he chooses to do is later.

click for more 2O2P member action

click for more 2O2P member action

© 2007 Media Crumb Inc. All rights reserve Media Crumb Inc.

Join our Universe

Connect with 2o2p