University of Florida police used a stun gun on UF student Andrew Meyer in the middle of an auditorium full of students and faculty Monday during a campus forum with U.S. Sen. John Kerry. Within hours, multiple videos of the incident taken by quick-thinking students were viewable on the Internet, allowing this issue national exposure and, hopefully, scrutiny.

While neither exceeding his time allotment nor ignoring line protocol, both of which Meyer seems to have done, are appropriate or respectful actions at a lecture event, his transgressions clearly pale in comparison to those of the officers.

It is clear from the video that the police escalated the nature of the conflict by forcibly grabbing a non-physically threatening Meyer as they attempted to remove him from the auditorium. His resistance was completely understandable. By the time the officers used the stun gun on him, Meyer was pinned to the ground and clearly outmanned.

Meyer was arrested for resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, giving police a more palatable way to describe Tasering a student for over-questioning a senator.

The apparent passivity of both the audience and the senator, who has since condemned the police action, in the video is unnerving, though it is undoubtedly difficult to speak up when the individuals sworn to uphold your right to do so threaten you with stun guns.

Unfortunately, this is not a revelatory incident. A student was similarly Tasered with little provocation at UCLA last year. As university students, we must not let ourselves be rendered speechless by these abuses of power. Universities, especially, should be places that foster spirited civic engagement and freedom of speech.

The officers involved must be relieved of their posts. Their presence on a university campus undermines the very purpose of institutions of higher education.

Submitted by lewisc on Wed, 09/26/2007 - 16:46.

Don't forget how he wasn't

Don't forget how he wasn't going to let Rush Limbaugh tell him what he said.

Submitted by ericb on Sat, 09/22/2007 - 07:46.

First Amendment

The First Amendment analysis is also misplaced. The First Amendment covers only government entities, not private functions or private organizations. Thus, student groups have the right to choose who can or cannot attend or speak at their meetings. Further, even were the First Amendment applicable, Mr. Meyer's behavior would not have been protected, as his disruptive behavior would be considered disturbing the peace. Consider: The spectator galleries in the US House and Senate are public property, yet none of us can yell down from the gallery in order to challenge a member of the House or Senate. When, as periodically occurs, someone chooses to disrupt the House or Senate floor from the galleries, they are physically removed and charged with disorderly conduct. This happens despite the guarantee in the Constitution that one may "petition the government for the redress of grievances" and is routinely upheld by the courts. As to the use of the taser, recent postings have confused and blurred two distinct issues: Mr. Meyer's free speech rights, and his resisting arrest. Mr. Meyer was tasered in order to force him into handcuffs, not in order to punish him for disrupting the meeting. While Mr. Meyers will undoubtedly have some minor scars from the use of the taser, he would likely have had a more strenuous objection to having one or more torn rotator cuffs, or to having his shoulder dislocated. Both are common occurrences when a subject resists being arrested. The murkier issue is the UF police department's policy on use of the taser, which appears to restrict use of the taser in situations such as this. If one has an objection to how the police handled Mr. Meyers, it should arise from this issue, not misplaced arguments regarding the First Amendment.

Submitted by public4him on Fri, 09/21/2007 - 08:29.

heckler's veto

Although Mr. Meyer was out of turn he was still a registered student participating in a school activity. The Senator was willing to answer Meyer's questions. Meyers was giving the Senator a chance to respond to his line of questions. Meyers is protected under the first amendment because he allowed for a response (See Heckler's Veto). Meyers had credible references to back up his line of questioning and he was not verbally attacking the Senator even though his methods were aggressive in the way his questions were put forth. Meyers was not a threat to himself, to the crowd, Senator, or even the police. If anyone was disturbing the peace it would be the police. The use of force has to be equal to subdue the suspect. The suspect was already is custody. If the suspect refuses to move, police use a hog-tie and carry the suspect, not zap the crap out of them. The cops caused the confrontation. Meyers should have calmly demanded a lawyer right then and there.

Submitted by Michael Wilt on Thu, 09/20/2007 - 15:18.

totally, it was

totally, it was amazing. Although to be fair to the esteemed Dr. Dean, he did say "that's crackpot right wing journalism and I'm not going to take it from Bill O'Reilly or anyone else," or something to that effect.

Submitted by lewisc on Wed, 09/19/2007 - 23:51.

Your exchange with Howard

Your exchange with Howard Dean was still the greatest single moment I ever witnessed at an IMPACT Symposium. WILT: "So, are you going to apologize for saying that President Bush causing 9/11 was 'an interesting theory?'" DEAN: "Well, it is an interesting theory!" WILT: "But-" DEAN: "THAT'S CRACKPOT RIGHT-WING RADIO!"

Submitted by Michael Wilt on Wed, 09/19/2007 - 15:51.

I agree 100%. As someone who

I agree 100%. As someone who had his microphone cut off while questioning Howard Dean at the Impact forum a couple years ago, I can say for certain that had I continued talking or whatever, I shouldn't have been tazed. Neither should he have been treated like this.

Submitted by ericb on Wed, 09/19/2007 - 15:13.

Taser incident

Three things. First, the meeting was not Senator Kerry's. While he may have been willing to answer the question, it was the right of the meeting host to control who has access. Like it or not, agree or disagree with the decision, the group hosting the meeting had, inter alia, turned off the microphone and requested that the police remove Mr. Meyer. Senator Kerry's willingness to address Mr. Meyer's questions therefore is not dispositive. Second, only 12 states retain the common law right to resist unlawful arrest, and Florida is not among those states. Again, use of force is always unpleasant, but the police are authorized by law to use force when someone resists arrest--and that is the case in Florida even were, arguendo, the arrest unlawful. In the latter case, the courts have long held that a civil suit is the remedy, not self-help. Thus, you are misinformed when you state that resisting an unlawful arrest is not illegal. Third, the Supreme Court has long held that disruptive speech of the sort displayed by Mr. Meyer is not protected by the First Amendment. You may not agree with the case law, but it is the law nonetheless.

Submitted by simplenem on Wed, 09/19/2007 - 10:40.

I am stunned that anyone

I am stunned that anyone could even defend this incident. The student was not violent, was not yelling or screaming, and was NOT ASKED to leave at any point prior to physical confrontation by the UF security. The student was asking Senator Kerry why he conceded to the 2004 election when there was evidence of "voting irregularities" and was told by one of the guards to hurry up with his question. The student said "[Senator Kerry] has been talking for over 2 hours, give me one minute". At this point, the forceful removal of the student began to take place, despite that on the video you can CLEARLY hear Senator Kerry saying "Let me answer his question". There is a reason Senator Kerry released a statement within an hour saying "I have been in politics for 37 years and have never had an incident that ended like that. I regret that the healthy debate was interrupted." Being long-winded is not a crime, asking a question to a voluntary public appearance by Senator Kerry is not a crime, resisting an unlawful arrest is not a crime either. The Senator has done countless appearances before, he would've been able to handle a silly question from some college student. God forbid this student questions the government, how dare he! But if we never questioned the government we would still be under English rule. It scares me to think that anyone could support silencing a student by way of police force. This country is based on principles of freedom and equality, however it was not evident in this incident at any point. Because this student did not ask the "right" question in the "right" manner, he was physically removed and then tasered when completely overpowered by 4 or 5 officers. The student's chest was in the floor when he was tasered and was obviously not being violent. I hope I never live to see something like this happen again. Cooperation and understanding by force and weaponry belongs in Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Nazi Germany, not in the land of the free. I know this might not be the response you were looking for, but please dont tase me, bro.

Submitted by ericb on Wed, 09/19/2007 - 08:13.

I respectfully disagree. Just as one cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater, so too is it against the law to disrupt a public gathering. According to police reports, they were called by the meeting organizer to eject the student. The microphone was cut off, and Mr. Meyer was repeatedly asked to leave, yet instead of complying with the officers' orders, he escalated the situation. Further, he resisted arrest, which is, itself, a criminal offense. As for the use of the taser, it appears that the officers used it in drive stun mode, which is when it is applied to the subject's skin in order to cause pain. As such, use of a taser is preferable to using the other means of force permitted under the law in order to obtain compliance, and runs less risk of serious injury. Indeed, cuffing an uncooperative subject creates a high risk of tearing the subject's rotator cuff and other long-term injuries. Thus, use of the taser was the best in a series of unpleasant options in a situation that was created entirely by Mr. Meyer. The fact that the confrontation was one of Mr. Meyers' doing was something he himself acknowledged, when, out of view of the cameras, he told police that they had done nothing wrong, and were simply doing their jobs. Bottom line, it is not up to Mr. Meyers to decide whether to comply with the police when they direct him to leave a meeting that he is disrupting. The fact that Mr. Meyers was not "physically threatening" is irrelevant, and Mr. Meyers was not within his rights to resist arrest.

Login or Register to leave comments.

OUR VIEW: Taser incident threatens campus culture

Don't forget how he wasn't

First Amendment

heckler's veto

totally, it was

Your exchange with Howard

I agree 100%. As someone who

Taser incident

I am stunned that anyone

Taser incident

Login or Register to leave comments.

Vanderbilt on Twitter

Popular Content