Bias Marches On

**Brother of Yeshua** · 09-18-2007, 07:56 AM

Click Here for the Op-Ed & Video

A decent Op-Ed from prisonplanet.com on the tazing of a man ASKING A QUESTION OF JOHN KERRY. They do a nice job of pointing out the bias of democrats in this situation.

I like how John Kerry decides to answer the man after he's being "neutralized" so he can't follow up to his bullshit answer.

**Opunaya** · 09-18-2007, 08:14 AM

This so horrible...how can anyone defend both the police's actions or John Kerry's is beyond me. But the picture is hilarious...I

tonto128 · 09-18-2007, 01:34 PM

i saw the video on the news this morning. its absolutely ridiculous.

El Pirata · 09-18-2007, 04:17 PM

damn this is so messed up

**Brother of Yeshua** · 09-18-2007, 08:31 PM

LOL It's not even half past midnight and Kerry's team already has crafted a respose, and a pretty fucking lame one if you ask me.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/kerry_didnt_know_cops_were_tas.html

I'd say, judging from the fact that the whole auditorium was echoing with his screams and you could hear the taser clicking, it would be hard not to know.

Kerry did offer to answer the question, but I can't say I trust in good faith that he legitimately wanted to have the discussion.

Seems like a new tactic of posing ignorance to allow for the raping of our first amendment rights.

Walker · 09-18-2007, 08:47 PM

Kerry is such a flake. Democrats wonder why Bush beat him in '04 but its not hard to see why when his own party has trouble supporting him.

This incident just goes to show how both parties are tainted.

Lucifer · 09-19-2007, 02:50 AM

Well, this link (Michellemalkin.com) tells a more complete story of the events (as well as including eye-witness testimonies from other students and a video clip where you can here his conversations with the officers before his mic is cut).

It mentions that the student in question, Andrew Meyer, had a habit of making scenes to draw attention to himself... that he had already disrupted the proceeding prior to when the videos circulating begin (hence the two officers standing close to him at the start of the videos), and that he was asked to leave. Did you notice the audience applauding when the officers began attempting to escort him out? The applause wasn't for him, it was for the officers (of course, this same crowd became a little upset when he was screaming and being tasered in the back row). While I'm still unsure as to whether the amount of force used to restrain him was excessive or not... the incident was not spurred by him simply asking a question.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 09-19-2007, 08:11 AM

1. The cops should of just told him his time was up and let him move.

2. Why do the cops stand by silent until he mentions skull and bones, but they don't stop him from running out of line and be a potential threat (assuming he has a gun and/or bomb and/or whatever, as the police most likely would have, because it's their job to think like that). Instead, they allow him to jump in line (allegedly) and according to the video below, have a lengthy conversation with John Kerry.

3. Why was his bullrushing the mic not documented in any other news report on this issue until his "friend" that was there with him (that to my knowledge has only posted blog replies on the internet, not gone public) tells everyone this story. Wouldn't the police remember that? Wouldn't trained security officers know to report the full event, not just the part of him resisting arrest?

4. I can buy the part about the kid wanting attention, but that doesn't justify what happens in this video. At the very least this was horrible training of security and at the worst this is organized suppression of free speech.

Here's the video

And in the interest of fairness, Here is another account of the events.

Lucifer · 09-20-2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

1. The cops should of just told him his time was up and let him move.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

2. Why do the cops stand by silent until he mentions skull and bones, but they don't stop him from running out of line and be a potential threat (assuming he has a gun and/or bomb and/or whatever, as the police most likely would have, because it's their job to think like that). Instead, they allow him to jump in line (allegedly) and according to the video below, have a lengthy conversation with John Kerry.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

3. Why was his bullrushing the mic not documented in any other news report on this issue until his "friend" that was there with him (that to my knowledge has only posted blog replies on the internet, not gone public) tells everyone this story. Wouldn't the police remember that? Wouldn't trained security officers know to report the full event, not just the part of him resisting arrest?

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."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

4. I can buy the part about the kid wanting attention, but that doesn't justify what happens in this video. At the very least this was horrible training of security and at the worst this is organized suppression of free speech.[/u][/b][/url]

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.

whitney_03 · 09-20-2007, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucifer

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?