Don't Tase Me Bro!

Asking John Kerry a question shouldn't usually land you in the hands of the police. John Kerry had just finished a two hour long speech at the University of Florida and it was now time for some Q&A. Q&A sessions at any college can be quite a fascinating experience for even the most casual of observers, and this time it was no different. Up stands Andrew Meyer, UF student, to ask Kerry some piquant and contentious questions. He gets carried away in the course of his questioning, and is eventually led away by Campus police. Foolishly resisting his arrest, his futile attempts to get free lead to him being dragged to the back of the auditorium where he was pinned to the ground and “tasered” with stun guns that the police were carrying. Referring to Clinton in such irreverent terms, he could have avoided, but nothing justifies the police’s actions in the matter.
Andrew Meyer had come with a mission, and was quite well prepared to execute, but a few imprudent words led to his being taken away in the middle of his questioning, in less than agreeable circumstances. The police say they took him away because of his profane reference to Clinton, but not everyone views it in the same light. That his questioning was provocative and impassioned is clear for everyone to see, but does that necessarily justify the use of the stun guns? Where does it fit in with the larger question of free speech?

According to the police this was more a case of public profanity or obscenity than a limitation of free speech. Then why would they tell Meyer after arresting him that he had been arrested for “inciting a riot”? The police clearly did not themselves know where they stood on the matter, since they approached Meyer not once, but twice; once before his reference to Clinton and once after, which would mean that the Clinton reference alone could not have been the reason for their intervention.

If that was not the reason, then was it just the manner in which Meyer was going about his questioning? If yes, it would beg the question: are there limits to free speech in a public forum or is the phrase "limiting free speech" itself an oxymoron? Was Meyer really disturbing the peace courtesy of his trenchant manner? Or did the police decide for themselves that this was the case and that they should put an end to it?

John Kerry’s attempts, albeit half-hearted, to quell the situation, saying, "No, it's alright, I'll answer the question" definitely signaled that he was not unduly affected by the questioning. Nevertheless, Andrew Meyer found himself at the back of the auditorium and his futile attempts at resisting arrest only led to him being "tasered" by the stun guns that the police were carrying on their persons. Weren't stun guns supposed to be used as a last resort? There were enough officers to bring down a single college student; what was the need of using stun guns on him? Meyer’s screams for mercy were unheeded and the incident from that moment on had become controversial.

Why though was Meyer resisting when he knew it was futile, not to mention against the law? He was clearly quite shaken by the entire episode and after being taken outside was getting paranoid by the minute. He didn’t calm down even after repeatedly being told to by the officers in charge to do so. His frequent assertions of innocence and fear overly dramatized the situation and by the end of it he feared for his life. Meyer would have done better to have calmed down and let the police go about their business according to the law, even if he believed that he was in the right and had done nothing wrong. His affectations of fear and paranoia didn't do him any good. People all around him would have supported him in any case, but his continuous pleas and resisting gave the police some ready fodder to exacerbate the situation and making it look far more serious than it really was. All in all, the police use of stun guns seems totally unnecessary, but Meyer could have avoided most of his troubles with some more considered decision making on his part.