DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Misespimb** · 09-21-2007, 04:22 PM

Kid was looking for trouble (trying to cause trouble).

Security was Grade C with their ability to remove someone in the process of what essentially amounts to an act of civil disobedience.

Taser was unnecessary. There were 4 security people AT LEAST.

The guy was unruly, and purposefully disruptive and inflammatory.
The guy has a record of doing crap like this to get attention for various things which are not always political.
He cut in line to screech his diatribe.
This wasn't some random Joe he was acting in a threatening manner to, it was a United States Senator. How did the cops know what he was going to do?
Amswer: They didn't. Also, he was on a college campus (I think) which is private property.

The cops gave him several chances to come peaceably.
He did not choose to comply. He escalated the situation.
They told him if he did not comply he would be tazed. He again elected non-compliance. It matters not how many cops were there.
The cops have to think of the safety of others, the perp, and themselves.
Would people have rather the cops wail on him with PR-24s?

This wasn't civil disobedience in my view.
To me, civil disobedience implies passive resistance, not flailing your arms and feet, wrestling with the cops while screaming profanity.

Was it necessary?
Yup. I think so.

What people are forgetting is that when a cop gives a citizen a reasonable directive, citizens are required by law to follow it peaceably. Refuse, and combat the cops, you will get your ass kicked every time.

So far as I can see, asking someone to leave for being disruptive is a reasonable request.

I think most people would consider the behavior disruptive.
If the guy was civil and really was concerned about the questions and not getting his 15 minutes of fame, would there even have been an issue?

09-21-2007, 04:22 PM	#9
Misespimb Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 376 Senior Member	Kid was looking for trouble (trying to cause trouble). Security was Grade C with their ability to remove someone in the process of what essentially amounts to an act of civil disobedience. Taser was unnecessary. There were 4 security people AT LEAST. The guy was unruly, and purposefully disruptive and inflammatory. The guy has a record of doing crap like this to get attention for various things which are not always political. He cut in line to screech his diatribe. This wasn't some random Joe he was acting in a threatening manner to, it was a United States Senator. How did the cops know what he was going to do? Amswer: They didn't. Also, he was on a college campus (I think) which is private property. The cops gave him several chances to come peaceably. He did not choose to comply. He escalated the situation. They told him if he did not comply he would be tazed. He again elected non-compliance. It matters not how many cops were there. The cops have to think of the safety of others, the perp, and themselves. Would people have rather the cops wail on him with PR-24s? This wasn't civil disobedience in my view. To me, civil disobedience implies passive resistance, not flailing your arms and feet, wrestling with the cops while screaming profanity. Was it necessary? Yup. I think so. What people are forgetting is that when a cop gives a citizen a reasonable directive, citizens are required by law to follow it peaceably. Refuse, and combat the cops, you will get your ass kicked every time. So far as I can see, asking someone to leave for being disruptive is a reasonable request. I think most people would consider the behavior disruptive. If the guy was civil and really was concerned about the questions and not getting his 15 minutes of fame, would there even have been an issue?
	Quote