Honestly, I'm not entirely sure about agreeing with him being "removed from the premises".
He held a politician's feet to the coals.
Kerry had hours worth of "speech".
This kid had a few minutes.
And yet, this kid is the "offender" and not the pol?
Why?
Because he "monopolized time" ? Because he said "nothing useful" (as opposed to Kerry? But I digress)
The "tazing" of an otherwise unarmed civilian is unacceptable.
Hedonis, I respect your service as a LEO. I mean thee no disrespect - but....
... I too have "restrained" combative individuals.
The one on the floor at the first floor of a Meth building that was going up in smoke with 14 gun shot wounds, combative and high on Cocaine while my partner and I are trying to wrestle her high and belligerent ass onto the stretcher... or the 450 lbs PCP addict who took four people to subdue him at the height of his "rage"... or the 25 year old Methadone addict and alcoholic who thought he was above and beyond Physics and the Law when he rammed a van of 5 (two parents, 3 young children. All killed upon impact) and ended up setting off on a 6 mile chase on foot through dense thicket in back country Louisiana.
I'm not just trying to single you out here, Hednois. Please bear with me.
I'm not trying to claim that I'm in any way "better than you" or "more experienced than you". Hell no - while I "know the law" .... I don't know about "law enforcement". I'm not an Officer of the Peace. Nor am I an Officer of the Law. My extend of "law enforcement"? I have enforced two "Citizen Detention/Arrest" in my lifetime with my personal firearm. That's it.
Again, I'm not singling you out in my post.
With
that said.... I'm sorry,
but no matter what the kid might have "said", he didn't deserved to be responded to with the "force" displayed. He wasn't a "threat" to anyone save for his opinions.
What's next? Be "reserved in your comments" about the next pol lest you get "tazed" for "disturbing the peace" ???
Utterly absurd! The Constitution grants every citizen the Right to Free Speech and also the Right to Peaceably Assemble and Petition the Government for redress their grievances.
Amendment I said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
{emphasis mine}
I'll even grant the argument that his kid might have been as asswipe and might have tried to "monopolize" debate time - but still, all he's doing is talking.
He wasn't swinging fists. He wasn't brandishing weapons. He wasn't threatening anyone with violence. He wasn't coercing anyone. He was asking questions - albeit disjointed, rambling ones... but questions nonetheless. Legit or not - he had the right to ask those questions.
I'm honestly surprised by folks here who say that what he said didn't "deserve time" or that "his partisan opinions were unwarranted". Some of you even endorsed 'cutting his mic' as an appropriate course of action because this kid wasn't 'contributing anything worthwhile'.
Since when did we all become disciples of Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reiley and Sean Hannity? Since when did Americans accept "cutting off the mic off someone's speech" as acceptable practice?
Is this still a Constitutional Republic? Does the Constitution and the Bill of Rights hold any water here anymore?
He has broken no Constitutional law. The Right To Free Speech isn't restricted to acts you find conscionable - it also protects expression of those deemed "unconscionable".
* This Right is the very same one that deems that OJ Simpson can write "If I Did".
* This Right is the same one that enables institutions such as NAMBLA to exist.
* This Right is the same one that enables ordinary US citizens to criticize or other wise disagree with their government and enjoy immunity from prosecution.
* This Right is the very same one that deems that a website such as Freeones.com isn't "banned" in the US - goodness knows there are enough folks in the US who would love to have pornography shut down and banned forever....
So on and so forth.
Can someone tell me what actual law this kid violated?
And does said "law" resound with the Constitution?
Other than being an arrogant, bossy, pushy, prick - I see no real "law" that he has violated. Being an arrogant, bossy, pushy, prick isn't a crime - if it were so, the President (and dozens of Presidents before him) ought to be behind bars right now!
Oh, no doubt, the "University" will have a hundred odd "codes of conduct" laws which will support his prosecution - I have no delusions of that at all. But at the same time, I wonder if his "punishment" warrants his "crime" - assuming, of course that what he "did" counts as a "crime". He might be punishable under University laws - but as an American citizen, he has committed no crime.
cheers,
