View Single Post
Old 09-20-2007, 08:29 AM   #10 (permalink)
Female
whitney_03
Member
whitney_03's Avatar
Posts: 610
Age: 21
Join: Aug 2006
Location: North Dakota
Developed Toaster (22)
Activity90/540
 
Addiction203/3142
 
Progress Bar59%
 
whitney_03 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer View Post
They did. Watch the video YOU linked again. At the beginning of his speaking and several times during it as he appeared to be ranting on without a question, the policewoman next to him asked him to wrap it up. You can't hear her ask, because she isn't close enough to the microphone, but you can see him turn that way and hear HIS response. You can also see it from her perspective (and hear some of her speaking if you listen closely) in THIS link: Top Stories.



Again, watch the video YOU linked. You can clearly see an officer closer to the front near the stage. The minute Meyer says "blowjob", that officer begins speaking into the walkie talkie on his left shoulder. It is shortly after that the microphone is cut off... the act of silencing him was already IN motion before he mentions "Skull and Bones"... it began as soon as the words "blowjob" left Meyer's mouth. According to the witness testimony, it was at the request of the dean that his microphone be cut at that point.



That's a good question and raised some speculation by Justin Klatsky, another eye-witness as follows:
"I have two explanations for why these questions are not being asked and why the videos have been only posted in a blatantly biased form. One explanation is that the MSM (Main-Stream Media) and the videographers are acting with clear political intentions and that this is a clear political strategy. The other explanation is just as plausible and perhaps more disturbing - the MSM does not think to ask these questions out of pure lack of ability or incompetence and the students that filmed the event do not even think of how their editing affects the perception of events."



No, a plea for attention doesn't justify it... refusal to comply with the request of an officer... and continued resistance DOES. He was asked by the officers attempting to escort him to go outside (they were NOT arresting him at first, merely escorting him outside). He struggled with them and asked why he was being arrested... he wasn't at that time, but when he kept struggling against their efforts to remove him from the building, it became an arrest attempt instead. Despite him begging NOT to be tasered later, from the audio he STILL had not complied and chose instead to argue with the officers saying he'd "walk out" if they'd release him - it was too late at that point for him to merely walk out - he'd been making a large scene struggling with the officers before they managed to subdue him and they likely were not going to take a chance he would simply comply without being cuffed at that point. Lesson of the day: If an officer requests you to do something - do it. You can protest it later through other channels that are far less likely to get you tasered.


My brother is a police officer and I can tell you he would have done the same. I work at a psych hospital and I will tell you we give PRN meds and restraints BEFORE someone gets assaulted. The police use the same tactics. They use crisis prevention methods to restrain/subdue someone BEFORE they hurt someone. If this guy is a big fan of making a scene then the police obviously could not trust that he wouldn't have stooped to any kind of low to do so.
Why do people have such a low opinion of the people that risk their lives to keep us safe? I really don't understand why we are so quick to think that a police officer would do something intentionally to hurt someone. Just like anyone else in this field, they have to justify why they did this later to their supervisor and possibly in defense to their job, so why would they do something to endanger their job security?
Is that not bias? Is it not a prejudice?
Reply With Quote