There's so many neat images of shooting stars, and I got bored with the photo I had on (not mine), that I decided to change them periodically. The current image credit is www.tellthem.co.uk.
(I don't really have good artistic sense, but know what I like. Kind of like the Pope with porn.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
"my posts appearing willy-nilly, in the wrong places, conversation-wise, are a bit unsettling."
i'll bring our conversation here, so as to avoid any confusion.
“I don’t think anyone should be Tasered in those circumstances.”
actually, i’m sorta intrigued by this. precisely what are the circumstances that make this episode objectionable to you? do you believe there are instances when officers should resort to the taser, or do you object to the taser on principle?
KEvron
Hi KEvron,
I thought the Taser was a great invention when it first came out -- a non-lethal way to subdue unruly suspects, stop a fleeing burglar in his tracks, etc.
But now, they're being used flagrantly, for no reason whatsoever, more and more. One woman in California refused to get out of her car after being pulled over, so a cop Tasered her. The guy who was at the Kerry speaking engagement, whose only "crime" was speaking too loudly. I'm told (though I haven't checked for myself, don't really want to) that YouTube is full of videos of cops Tasering peoople for no reason.
So ... I do agree with using Tasers in extremely restricted circumstances, as when a real crime (robbery, assault, etc.) is in progress, or when a suspect is out of control -- but I think some kind of sanctions should be put on cops who Taser egregiously. I'd like to see actual laws applied to its use.
"whose only 'crime' was speaking too loudly"
actually, his crimes (sans quote marks) were trespassing and resisting arrest. had his comments to kerry (he didn't yell at kerry, btw. have you seen the video?) been the reason for being tasered, one would think he'd have been tasered at the mic, rather than momments later, while lying on the ground, strenuously resisting arrest, with several officers upon him. it's in the video.
KEvron
Per your suggestion, I did rewatch the video, and did some further reading on the incident. As far as I can determine:
1) He was there legally; no one can be forbidden from a public forum unless they are carrying a gun, or otherwise posing a threat;
2) After being put on the floor, he agreed to leave (and, of all sources, Fox News confirmed this -- http://tinyurl.com/ywpyap);
3) "Several officers" were involved. Seems to me more than one officer against a 20-something kid should be able to get him out of there without the need for a Taser.
My take, anyway.
"He was there legally"
don't know what you mean by legally; his admission into the was subject to the discretion of its sponsors.
"no one can be forbidden from a public forum unless they are carrying a gun, or otherwise posing a threat"
i'm not aware of any such laws. i do know that event sponsors, as arena lessees or tenants, have the right to determine admission and passage. happens all the time. and just because an event is open to the public does not mean event sponsors surrender these rights.
"After being put on the floor, he agreed to leave"
when he was on the floor, he did not have the option of simply leaving, as he was in the process of being detained for arrest. you don't get to call time out when they're trying to cuff you, especially when you've put up a good struggle.
"Seems to me more than one officer against a 20-something kid should be able to get him out of there without the need for a Taser."
the tape shows several officers upon meyer. it showed the twenty something kid, several inches taller than any of the arresting officers, strenuously resisting them, despite their efforts....
what can i say? the incident happened as it happened. and what are you trying to say? are you suggesting the police feigned their struggle to justify the use of the taser?
KEvron
KEvron, your points are valid. In the strictly legal sense, private venues can set their own attendance terms. I guess instead of legal, I meant in good faith, especially at a speech. It's not like it was a drunken party.
It seems to me cops used to handle this kind of thing much more circumspectly before Tasers. Same thing with angry motorists, and the like.
The flip side is, of course, I'm pretty sure lives ARE being saved. I've no statistics, but I don't hear as much about suspects getting shot as I used to.
I dunno ... I guess Tasers serve a purpose, but I don't like it when cops use them as a matter of course. I think they should be a last resort.
"It seems to me cops used to handle this kind of thing much more circumspectly before Tasers."
doesn't seem that way to me. there have been plenty of instances of police brutality prior to the advent of the taser. i'm more likely to be swayed by this claim if you could provide links to reputable citations with relevant study data which support the claim.
"I guess Tasers serve a purpose, but I don't like it when cops use them as a matter of course. I think they should be a last resort."
that's fine, but i'm not really interested in argueing the merits of the taser. i'm more interested in getting the facts straight. fact: meyer was tasered as he struggled against his arrest for trespassing, not for yelling at kerry. in fact, meyer never did yell at kerry. fact: the moment meyer resisted his escort from the premises, he was trespassing. fact: trespassing is a crime. fact: the moment meyer resisted his removal, he was subject to arrest. fact: the moment meyer resisted arrest, he was commiting a crime. fact: officers are issued tasers in order to deal with resistant subjects. the taser is meant to mitigate the need for other forceful measures, such as mace or the baton. fact: all weapons issued to officers are meant to reduce their exposure to peril, a fair concession, considring the conditions we ask them to endure.
facts. when we deviate from them, we tread dangerously into the realm of dishonesty.
KEvron
It appears not only are you right, but the whole incident was nothing like I thought it was.
I found the police summary of the incident at Michelle Malkin's site, of all places (I usually avoid her, as she's too rabid a conservative to me) -- here's the url -- http://tinyurl.com/5tvv5d
The whole thing was a stunt! Jeeze. Egg on face.
"facts. when we deviate from them, we tread dangerously into the realm of dishonesty."
Not only dishonesty, but ignorance. I'd like to thank you for setting me straight -- I wish neither to be wrong NOR dishonest.
Plus, I agree with your point about police needing to have safer methods to subdue suspects. I'm guessing the egregious uses of Tasers are few and far between (at least I hope so).
"The whole thing was a stunt!"
on who's part? meyers? his performance at the mic may well have been, but his subsequent arrest certainly was not.
and i never get my facts from malkin.
KEvron
"and i never get my facts from malkin."
Who you tellin'. Please. The woman is rabid. It's tiresome to have to go behind her to find the right answer.
I do believe it was a stunt, on Meyers' part. All of the hallmarks are there.
But leaving all that aside ... don't you think people should be able to say what they think, without some drone preventing them from saying it?
"don't you think people should be able to say what they think, without some drone preventing them from saying it?"
i guess it would depend on the circumstances. could you give me an example of some drone preventing people from saying what they think?
KEvron
Glenn Reynolds at instapundit.com can do it better than me. He has made a small hobby of noting examples of someone trying to prevent someone else from saying what they think (he usually titles such posts "Crushing of Dissent".) I did a search in his archives, and here's the url -- http://tinyurl.com/5faj9o
I'm not as libertarian as some on this issue -- for example, some people think even yelling fire in a crowded theater is okay, and that NO speech ought to be restricted. I disagree. If it's a direct incitement to violence or injury, it is a criminal act, and should be prosecuted as such. However, all other speech should be free and open to challenge or debate.
"and here's the url"
i never get examples of anything from glenn reynolds.
"However, all other speech should be free and open to challenge or debate."
bemusing how our discussion has evolved into a discussion on free speech. i'll bite. the right to free speech does not trump another's property rights, even if the other is a drone.
KEvron
You never get any examples from Reynolds? He DOES link ...
"the right to free speech does not trump another's property rights, even if the other is a drone."
Clarify, please?
"He DOES link"
so does google.
glenn reynolds is a douchebag. i won't give his site the benefit of my hits.
"Clarify, please?"
for example: the right to free speech does not include the right to trespass.
KEvron
How else to back up an assertion except with a link? Reynolds does check the validity of things. If he's wrong about something, he'll say so, and link to a better verified version.
As for free speech and trespassing -- I may be dense (frequently am), but I'm not getting the connection. The former is an expression, the latter a physical act.
?
"How else to back up an assertion except with a link?"
google.
"The former is an expression, the latter a physical act."
i would argue that they're both physical acts. regardless, i think my point is quite plain.
KEvron
Yes, strictly speaking, they are both physical acts -- but saying one has trespassed isn't the same as walking into someone else's house.
I still disagree with you about Glenn Reynolds. He checks every link. He also gets tons of e-mails from readers, often pointing out errors, which he quickly publishes. I trust his judgment.
"Yes, strictly speaking, they are both physical acts -- but saying one has trespassed isn't the same as walking into someone else's house."
i'm going to have to agree with your earlier comment: you can be dense. i did not compare the two acts; i said the one right does not supercede the other right. it parallels perfectly with our discussion re. meyer's arrest.
"I trust his judgment."
i don't.
KEvron
"i did not compare the two acts; i said the one right does not supercede the other right."
Okay, point taken -- when you put it that way, it makes sense. AND, I agree.
Vis-a-vis Reynolds, though, we're probably always going to disagree.
Post a Comment