Talk:University of Florida Taser incident/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Blanking of Kerry response

Dear anon, could you at least use edit summaries to explain your edits, such as this blanking of Kerry's response, the text of which seems quite important? Badagnani 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes.
Kerry's office made the "claim" that the Senator was unaware of prior warnings despite the fact that there were no prior warnings. Meyer was waiting in line. I reflected on whether it would be more accurate to propagate the mistruth and a rebuttal or to simply erase.
How would you address a falsehood repeated as quote within Wikipedia? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.67.251.75 (talk • contribs)

Please sign posts by typing four tildes after your post. Without video proof it is not possible to determine whether Meyer cut in line, which some eyewitnesses have stated he did. That is only one aspect of the story, however. When the evidence is avaiable, the truth will come out despite any possible conflicts between Kerry's statement and what actually happened. As to whether Kerry knew Meyer was being tasered, he must at least have known that something painful was happening to him, as he was screaming extremely loudly, over and over, for a long period. An examination of the video will show this, belying Kerry's response without any additional commentary on our part. Badagnani 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot insert your own conclusions regarding the incident regardless of what you think about the veracity of Kerry's statement. Please see our rules regarding neutrality and original research. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"As to whether Kerry knew Meyer was being tasered, he must at least have known that something painful was happening to him, as he was screaming extremely loudly, over and over, for a long period." Would you be so kind as to insert the proper tags for a reference to this link at the end of the now more-appropriate response? http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=157250#videoid=157250

121.67.251.75 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone else get this link to work? Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the footage shows Kerry trying to answer, then standing and watching the entire scene, occasionally commenting into his mike (what he says can't be made out). When Meyer bellows "Don't tase me, bro," then "Ow! Ow! Ow!" it is clearly audible, most likely through the entire hall as it was the center of attention at that moment. Badagnani 00:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

well put! =] Connör (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Kerry was pretty far away from the action, and he definitely may not have heard the taser go off from where he was. It's a perfectly sensible conclusion that Meyer was simply continuing to act paranoid and complaining a lot, as opposed to actually being in physical pain from a taser. This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIYTJ75U4NU&mode=related&search= is actually from the vantage point closest to Kerry I could find, at least for the first part of it. You can clearly see that Kerry may not have been able to clearly hear what was going on on the opposite side of the auditorium for three main reasons: Meyer's yelling was not very clear, there was much murmuring near the stage which made the barely-audible yells even more incomprehensible, and Kerry was actually talking intermittently throughout the ordeal. This is not proof that Kerry did not hear it, but I think it's enough to say that it's absolutely possible that he did not, in fact, hear the tasering happening and assumed it was just more of Meyer's rambling and complaining. Sykopomp 01:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That video's audio quality is horrible. A more accurate portrayal of the clear audio within the hall is here: And this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8ndctwAJmU is the one closest to Kerry's location. Shouts of OW! Ow! Ow! as multiple members of the audience jump to demand the police stop is fairly unambiguous. 121.67.251.75 02:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The part where he actually gets tasered, which you're talking about, also has the camcorder operator very close to the action. Before the camera operator gets close, he is also much closer to the action than Kerry would be (halfway across the auditorium, actually). I see no evidence as to why there can't be ambiguity here. Take off that tinfoil hat, look at what it did to this poor chum. Sykopomp 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tin does conduct the electricity from tasers rather well. Interesting how his "conspiracy questions" employed no interpretation and only used facts that Kerry himself acknowledged. There are 3 videos listed in external links. One shows the entire auditorium. Hear him screaming as he is tasered. Draw your own conclusion. 121.67.251.75 02:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Details of the incident

This fanciful characterization of the event is interesting, but certainly not verifiable. I suggest it be removed unless it can be re-written from a NPOV. The article links to actual video so there is no reason to provide this narrative in such a poor form. Dlabtot 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to act so hastily. These details have been summarized in the 955 articles that appear on Google News (this story has been leading Google news, as very top story, for several hours now). The editors working on this page can just go through and source each sentence. Badagnani 01:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The entire section is original research - a Wikipedia written version account of what appears on the video. None of it is actually verified as you suggest. Which is my point. And probably why it is so inaccurate - from this account, someone who had not watched the video would think that he calmly and coherently "prefaced his question for the audience and Kerry, then proceeded to ask" the three questions as worded on the page. Of course we know that is a significant misrepresentation of what actually happened. Dlabtot 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Fully verifiable by the videos listed at the end. The beginning of the incident is not documented on video anywhere and thus referred to as "reportedly.." which is the most we can gleam from eyewitness accounts. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.67.251.75 (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
See No original research. Dlabtot 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot missing from this description, some of which would certainly help this article seem less biased. For instance, it makes it sound like they immediately took Meyer down at the top of the stairs, while the videos clearly show him resisting and shoving at the officers. Also, Meyer puts his hands up in the air (supposedly to signal non-violence) only after he had physically resisted and pulled away from the two officers (which in turn causes two more officers to come up to help escort Meyer out) Furthermore, the first linked video (the one that goes to Hot Air) shows a man in a suit, probably a moderator, motioning for the microphone to be cut and then backing away. Considering the microphone was cut at that point, the man in the suit was most likely an authority figure for this event. This also means that the officers were acting on orders from another party (again, likely the officials for the event), and not simply jumping in and taking Meyer away. This description could also use some more regarding what occurred when Meyer was outside the hall, especially Meyer appearing very concerned that the officers were going to kill him and pleading for somebody to come with him to make sure the officers wouldn't kill him.
Good point! The Liveleak video (ref. 12 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ec_1190097717 ) shows what happened when Meyer is escorted downstairs. Apparently he feared for his life. This is a draft transcript:
1:24 [upstairs]
Meyer: “I don’t want to go down that elevator.” Female officer: “Listen to these officers. Quiet down and listen to the officer, okay ? Do you understand ? Quiet down. Take a deep breath. Take a deep breath and walk out of these offices.” Meyer [looking at the car keys the female officer is holding in her right hand]: “Can I have my car keys ?” Female Officer: “You’re gonna get everything back. You need to calm down, do you understand ? Calm down. Am I clear ?” Male Officer holding Meyer comments [inaudible] Meyer [turns to him and says]: “Alright ? What did I do man ?" Female officer: “Calm down. C-a-l-m down” Meyer: “What did I do wrong ?” Meyer [being escorted to the stairs]: “My book ! Has anybody got my book ?” Meyer [at female officer walking down the stairs in front of Meyer]: “My possessions ? Hello ! Hello !“ Female officer: “Hey !” Meyer: “Why am I being arrested ? Why am I in handcuffs right now ?” Female officer: “C-a-l-m down !” Meyer: “There are people that know I am here. You can’t …, you can’t just like that…” Female officer [pointing at a girl with a videocamera]: “Is that your camera ?” Meyer: “That’s my camera, yes.” Female officer: “And is that you’re girlfriend ?” Meyer: “That’s my girlfriend.”
2:14 [downstairs]
Meyer: “Bro !” Male officer holding Meyer: “Stop !” Meyer: “You’re gonna break my arm !” Male officer: “Stop !” Female officer: “Stop and stop. Just listen. Take a deep breath and listen. Where’s you’re ID ?” Meyer: “I don’t have any ID on me.” Male officer: “Do you have a wallet ? “ Meyer: “I did not bring my wallet. I didn’t think I needed a wallet for this.” Female officer: “You did not think you were gonna incite a riot here today ?” Meyer: “Incite a riot ? I just asked him a question !” Meyer: “Why am I under arrest ? Why am I under arrest right now ?” Female officer: “You’re under arrest for inciting a riot.” Meyer [in disbelief]: “Inciting a riot ? Inciting a riot …” One of the officers makes a remark [inaudible] Meyer: “Oh my god, they’re giving me to the government ! They’re giving me to the government ! They’re giving me to the government !” Meyer: “Can I have my, can I have my camera please ?” Female officer: “We’re gonna get your camera. You’re not going to have it back.” Female officer: “What is your name ?” Meyer: ”I’m afraid to tell you.” Female officer asks a question about Meyer’s ID [inaudible] Meyer: “I don’t wanna give you that, I’m afraid. I’m not telling you anything.” Female officer: “We’ll book you as John Doe then.” Meyer [at the girl with the video camera]: “YOU know who I am. Will you please tell people. Will you please tell people I’ve been arrested today. Okay ? I did not DO anything.” Woman at the back: “I’ll testify in court.” Meyer: “Thank you ! Thank you !” Another woman: “Me too.” Meyer: “Everyone that was here today, please go to the police station…” Male officer: “You are not allowed to talk to anybody, Sir !” - See PS - Meyer: “…ask them where’s the guy that was arrested at the protest. Ask them where’s the guy that was arrested at the John Kerry rally. Okay ? Ask them, ask them where I am, because they’re gonna try and kill me . They’re gonna try and kill me !” Meyer: “This is …what is this right now ? Why am I under arrest ? What did I do ? Why am I in handcuffs ? What did I do ? Let me go !” Meyer: “You tased me ! Please can I, can I …I am not gonna go anywhere. If you let me sit down on this bench, if you take these handcuffs of me…” Male officer to female officer: “We’ll take him to [inaudible] right here.” Meyer: “Oh my god ! Please take these handcuffs of me ?” Meyer: “Please take these handcuffs of me ? Let me go, I’m not gonna …Just let me sit down. I just wanna sit, I just wanna sit ! Can I sit, can I sit ?“ Male officer escorting Meyer to exit: “Get up, get up !”
4:04 [end]
PS On one of the YouTube videos ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzhiI9jui8M ) at this point we can hear a male member of the audience stating: “I’ll be happy to talk to anybody”. And when Meyer is escorted to the exit he says: “Anybody ? Anybody ? Just follow along. Come with us. Make sure they don’t kill me. Anybody please ?” Part of Kerry’s answer to Meyer’s questions is on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y90tjV_Va0o . Is there complete footage, or a transcript, of what Kerry actually answered ? Same camera also shot first part of the incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJbh2MlNHug Peter de Jong 06:46, 23 September 2007

Also, it's clearly two officers, not four, who initially attempt to guide Meyer away from the mike and out of the hall. It's only when Meyer starts resisting that two more officers come in that we see four officers. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.242.127 (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is initially two officers who seize him and attempt to walk him away. Then four march him to the back of the hall. Then five pin him down and taser him. Saying that their action of removing him was directed by the person with some influence over the PA is speculative, as is claiming that the man with some degree of influence over the PA (perhaps he was just a bystander in a suit giving a suggestion the actual controller).

Using "resist" here implies a legal definition. Being bodily seized without informed you are under arrest or given a reason for that arrest may not be legally describable as "resisting arrest". That is merely a charge and Meyer remains innocent until proven guilty. 121.67.251.75 01:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The event details are clearly skewed to the sympathetic views of the youtube commenters. There is a police report that gives quite a different picture of an opportunistic kid who wanted attention and actually quite happy. 128.227.79.72 02:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The youtube commenters seem not entirely sympathetic. "total smartass! if he disagrees with something or has a question he can do it in a respectful way." "Attention leftist idiots: Although you are nothing but dead weight in society, I do think you could be helpful here. What was the name of the book the liberal brat was holding up?" "Some people just don't know when to shut up. This guy was tasered and still wouldn't shut up. You can tell he liked the attention." Fortunately, we don't have to rely on a report written by a biased party hours later. We have multiple videos at the time it occured.121.67.251.75 02:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes like the video that cuts 30 seconds of Meyer flailing around. 128.227.79.72 02:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


A) He is seized less than 2 seconds after his mic is cut: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&mode=related&search= B) He can't "lay pinned by five officers" then be "wrestled to the ground" 121.67.251.75 02:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Look editing person - how many times can one "loudly and repeatedly refuse to leave" in the less than two seconds between mic cutoff and seizure? \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.67.251.75 (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The citation for the officer saying, this is not his choice, is in the video. 121.67.251.75 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Resist" or "Resisting" has a legal implication via "Resisting arrest" and Meyers is innocent until proven guilty. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.67.251.75 (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


Citation provided: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/17/video-cops-tase-moonbat-at-kerry-speech-just-to-watch-him-squirm/ with 47 seconds remaining, the officer clearly says after Meyers offers to get up and walk out: "You do not have that option."


On: "After he loudly and repeatedly refused to walk away." versus "his microphone was cut and two University...." http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=157250#videoid=157250 At :13, his microphone is silenced. At :15, the police are holding him. He could not, in 2 seconds, have loudly and repeatedly refused to walk away. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.67.251.75 (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


A full text transcript is now available in the page's edit history (It was removed right away...). Feel free to use it, add it to the page, or correct it. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.172.237.110 (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I keep seeing allegations that he pushed other students out of the way to get to the microphone. I haven't seen a video showing this. If there is a link to one I'd be interested in seeing that. Otherwise I can understand why some might feel the police over reacted. If it is true he pushed other students out of the way then legally that is an assault. Now would someone normally be arrested if that was all that happened? Probably not. I also haven't seen a video that has recorded what the police are saying to him before they attempted any restraint. It could be they were telling him, "Sir you have to leave." This would be an appropriate way to handle someone who alledgedly pushed students out of the way to get to the mike. His refusal to leave at that point becomes an issue where the police would have to remove him. He appeared to still have several oppurtunities to leave before alledgedly being told he no longer had that option. He was charged with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace. The latter charge could be an expedient way of charging him for pushing other students out of the way. I don't believe I'd tell the police I wanted to press charges against him for merely pushing me out of the way. I wouldn't be sad to see him arrested on that charge for doing that and refusing to leave though. Either way I feel he was rude and disrespectful to Senator Kerry. He asked the Senator three questions in a row without letting him answer. It was only when officers got involved that Senator Kerry was able to say he'd like to answer the last question. Not that I haven't seen newscasters behave equally offensive at times either.

As an aside I had seen someone arrested at Arizona State University while attending a candellight vigil for Matthew Shepard after he was murdered. Someone who I assume was another student mooned the crowd and then didn't understand why he was immediately being arrested. It looked to us like he was saying several times, "What have I done?" to the officers. He did not resist arrest though and was taken away, probably for disturbing the peace. If he had resisted I think we'd have seen a similar reaction from the University Police.

Don't flame me bro :)

Skywayman 13:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stating that Mr. Meyer fought the police from the ground is extremely inappropriate because that is the entire crux of the ongoing official investigation. If we assume in this article that he was still resisting at that point, then there is no need for an investigation. The authorities have launched an official investigation and we should not assume the results. This article may be libelous, especially if the investigation determines that he was not "fighting" while on the ground. First, consider the accuracy issue and the fact that it is very hard to determine what was happening at that point; secondly, consider the legality of publishing statements with an undetermined truth value while that truth value is being sought by a government investigation. 128.223.56.152 22:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No citation is needed for the fact that he pleaded from the ground, as it is clearly audible on all posted videos. 128.223.56.152 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag

  • Someone added a "neutrality" tag to the article. However, whoever it was does not seem to explain here what the alleged problem is with the article. I am removing the tag. If someone wishes to reinsert it, please explain here what they believe to be non-neutral about the article. Thanks, Johntex\talk 02:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The section just above this, Details of the incident, is mostly about NPOV. The only facts presented here are the ones which show Meyer completely cooperating with the police, such as "with his arms raised in the air to show his nonviolence". Several facts are omitted, including him shoving police officers and struggling against them repeatedly. Ajonlime 02:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ajonlime. Notable facts have been removed from the article. The original wording of the article has been altered and a lot of subjective interpretations added without sourcing. Was he nonviolently resisting? It's a matter of opinion. He pushed and shoved against the other officers. Revolutionaryluddite 02:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this is due to the early reporting done for the story. If you check the revised updated versions of the AP article, many balancing details have been added yet this page is slow to correct the details as the AP has. 128.227.79.72 02:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The 'Details of the Incident' section certainly has a disputed neutrality as is evidenced by the lively discussion and edit history. I particular take issue with some of the characterizations of what he said and did which seem to be wildly inaccurate. I'm putting the tag back in for this section. After a consensus has been reached, feel free to remove it. Dlabtot 04:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned in the comments above, "Why are you doing this?" and "Leave him alone" do not seem to represent the overall reaction from the videos I've watched. The overall audience reaction is applause when Meyer is first dragged away and laughter when he is Tasered. The more sympathetic comments are most audible on the tape belonging to the girl Meyer asked to film him. I have no idea if that's her voice on the video or if she was "in on" some kind of attention-grabbing scheme, but it seems like *most* people were sick of the guy. See Jay 02:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The overall response seems to be complacency. Of those that speak, it is a call that he be let go. There are 3 videos listed as external links and each one of them demonstrates this with much clearer audio. There is also applause to one of his questions. 121.67.251.75 02:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure the applause is to one of his questions? There's enough distance between when his questions are done and when he's being taken away that leads me to believe the applause was more for Meyer being taken away. You can see people smiling and looking back and watching as this happens in the videos. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.242.127 (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We are speaking to different applauses. Reference the extended footage external link to see smiles and more interest as he speaks plus applause after his first question. 121.67.251.75 02:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is right. The applause came right after Meyer said Kerry should have been president. 128.227.79.72 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)



[edit] User:Mike.lifeguard's deletions

Some editor named "Mike.lifeguard" is repeatedly deleting hidden editing comments addressing important unresolved points in the article. This is wrong and you need to restore those immediately, thanks. Badagnani 03:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I believe these comments are not helpful since no discussion can take place on the article page. It would be more prudent for you to put your grievances with the writing on the talk page rather than on a page where no one can refute or discuss them. Gdo01 03:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree the comments are not helpful as hidden text. It is better to place them here. Johntex\talk 03:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
They seemed like a ploy to get content with a particular bias into the article so as to be hidden from scrutiny. As there have been so many vandals and vandal fighters on this page, it was tough to tell who had added them. Seeing as how the talk page is for discussion of the article's content, it seems obvious that any unresolved issues would be discussed here - never hidden in the article itself. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I have requested 1 day of semiprotection at WP:RPP – Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please take back your accusation of a "ploy." Thanks. Badagnani 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kerry's joke

Kerry's "joke," partially audible in some versions of the video, is that, once Meyer is on the ground and about to be Tasered, Kerry says that he wants to answer Meyer's "very important question" but that Meyer seems to be "not available." That seems to be the essence of it. Badagnani 03:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Certain reports said Kerry's joke was that Merer was unavailable to confirm [Kerry] as president. Johntex\talk 04:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Meyer? What does that mean? Badagnani 04:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Made a joke" is ambiguous could imply that he said "Two guys entered a bar and..." Kerry joked that Andrew Meyer is not available to swear Kerry in as President, which is a reference to Andrew Meyer's question where Andrew Meyer said that Greg Palast's book said that John Kerry won the 2004 election, "Isn't that amazing." Jim.Callahan,Orlando 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

From DRAFT TRANSCRIPT on this page Sen. Kerry: "calms down this situation would calm down. ... I'll answer his question. Unfortunately, he is not available to come up here and swear me in as President."

Andrew Meyer: "Why are they arresting me? Did someone do something here? Are they arresting?"

Sen. Kerry: "Let me just say. because it is a very important question."

Jim.Callahan,Orlando 00:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The joke is audible on this video beginning at 2:45. Badagnani 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Tag

There is an obvious bias in how the event is reported. In the videos, Meyer appears to be very combative with the officers. And there's the issue of "tased" vs. "drive stun". Take a look at UCLA Taser incident to see how the event should be reported...without loaded vocabs and a POV. Added the tag. Jumping cheese 04:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Also changed to drive stunned. Jumping cheese 04:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
He was combative but completely nonviolent. andrewlargemanjones
(talk) 07:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oxymoron alert. Dlabtot 07:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the neutrality tags since no reason was given for placing them. If the tags are reapplied, without appropriate explanation, I will revert the page under the vandalism model. Dlabot you have a history of throwing tags without explanation. Due to this history you may find yourself under intense scrutiny. Fair warning. William (Bill) Bean 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason for placing the neutrality tag has been given repeatedly. For one example, look at the comment by Jumping at the head of the section you are replying to. For another example, see this diff. I'm unmoved by your threats, and certainly have nothing to fear from 'intense scrutiny'. I'd suggest you review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF Dlabtot 15:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You did not give a reason initially. Would you like me to post the from the history page showing this? I can do that you know. In future when you throw a NPOV tag include a reason. If you can't give a reason for an NPOV tag don't throw it. If you think the entire article should be listed a 'nomination for deletion' tag should be thrown; which was done in this case. Politicising an issue because you don't like it is POV. Throwing tags without reason is POV. Finally, there are threats and there are fact. I do not like trolls here. I actively work to get them banned. This is a fact; not a threat. William (Bill) Bean 21:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are unable to refrain from further personal attacks, I will place an alert on WP:WQA Dlabtot 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the tag has been added back, not by me, but by another editor who through some strange coincidence, has given the same reason that I have given repeatedly. Please do not arbitrarily remove tags unless a consensus has been reached to remove them. Dlabtot 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Do not throw tags without cause and they won't be removed. Throw tags without cause (clearly stated) and the tagging will be viewed as an act of vandalism and treated accordingly. William (Bill) Bean 21:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that you have been repeatedly and clearly told the reasons why the tag was put in place, and even posted a message saying that you agree with those reasons, I hope you will refrain from engaging in further personal attacks. Dlabtot 21:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack to correct a contributor when he or she is clearly WRONG! Do not throw tags without giving a reason. Again fair warning. William (Bill) Bean 00:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying that you think he's combative is original research and forbidden by Wikipedia policies. If you want to add that to the article, simply find a reliable source that says this, and it will be duly added.--Gloriamarie 16:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note that he did not add the word 'combative' to the article; rather he used the word here on the talk page to express his opinion as to why the section was not NPOV. Dlabtot 18:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but this talk page is also not the place for discussion of personal opinions that do not somehow improve the article or how it's written; I was simply saying that as a reminder because many people do not know about the original research policy.--Gloriamarie 09:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps saying "combative but nonviolent" is an oxymoron. Fine then, I will be blunt: you are wrong; he was not combative. All he did was run around flailing his arms, trying to get away from people. The police reports said that he "elbowed" and things of that nature, but this contradicts with several videos that are on the internet. The only time there may have been any elbowing or kicking was when three or four officers were pinning him to the ground. The man was not violent. If so, please tell me where this can be seen in the videos, give me a link, and tell me at what point in the video there is evidence of his "combative" nature. Then I will at least consider the opinion that he was combative to be viable. But right now I just think you ware mistaken. andrewlargemanjones
Well, I have no opinion as to whether his behavior should be characterized as 'combative', 'violent', 'unhinged', 'disruptive' or 'grandstanding', but since the article rightly does not characterize his behavior, the point is moot. Dlabtot 19:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I take issue with the following sections.
"After Mayer's alloted time was up, the microphone into which Meyer had been speaking was cut off. He continued to scream his questions at Kerry. Four University of Florida police officers seized him; some members of the crowd then applauded."
I would not characterize what Meyer was doing as screaming. There is loud talking or shouting and then there is screaming. I believe what Meyer was doing is the former not the later.
"Kerry said, "That's all right, let me answer his question."[1] The student struggled for several seconds[2] and demanded an explanation of the officers' conduct. He shouted "Help!", "What have I done?" and "Get away from me!", with his arms raised in the air. All four officers began forcibly ushering him to the back of the room as Meyer attempted to stand his ground.
Speculation. Characterizing Meyer as "standing his ground" is POV.
"As Meyer fought the officers on the ground,[citation needed] they threatened to taser him.
Characterizing Meyer as fighting the officer's on the ground is POV. This is speculation at best. William (Bill) Bean 21:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Considering that you have listed numerous reasons that you believe the section is not WP:NPOV, I hope you will now follow Wikipedia policies and refrain from removing the tag until a consensus to do so has been reached here on the talk page. Dlabtot 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wrong again. You did not follow proper procedure. You tagged the article as POV without giving cause. I do not have a problem with the tag itself if the tag is backed up with a reason. You did not do that. FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE!!!


The following is from your own talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dlabtot A quick review of this page reveals much. You apparently tag without cause and then cry foul when someone protests. Cute, but obviously a troll tactic. You might want to knock it off.


You have a history of tagging articles without showing appropriate cause. Are you a sock puppet?


Finally, I have no doubt that you COULD be a fine editor and welcome member of this community. However, to date, you are failing miserably. William (Bill) Bean 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

[edit] More Witness Reports

This letter is as biased as the wiki article, though in the other direction. However, it does provide more clarity as to why the police officers seemed clustered around the microphone area at the start of the video and possibly why they were so willing to "detain" Mr. Meyer. I'm new at posting on Wiki so please forgive the sloppy post.

So I went to the John Kerry town hall forum this morning trying to get students registered to vote. I run a student government organization called Chomp the Vote. Anyway I went inside to watch the event. Senator Kerry took the podium and began delivering a speech about the Middle East, Iraq, dimplomacy, etc. Anyway, after he was done, a university ambassador asked Kerry a few premade questions. Once that was over, Senator Kerry announced he would take questions from the students. There were two microphones placed on each side of the aisle. One on my side and the other on Andrew Meyer\u2019s side. Senator Kerry began answering the student\u2019s questions from each aisle. Eventually it was announced that there would only be a few more questions answered. Since Meyer and I were both in the back of each line, it did not seem likely that our questions would be answered.

However, while Senator Kerry was responding to a student\u2019s question, all of a sudden Meyer rushed to the microphone with cops in pursuit. At that point no one knew what was going on. Could he have a gun, a bomb? Immediately, Meyer began yelling into the microphone that he had been waiting in line forever and that Senator Kerry should \u201cspend time to answer everyone\u2019s questions!\u201d Senator Kerry tried to calm the student down by telling him that he would \u201cstay here as long as it takes to get the questions answered.\u201d The police * approached Meyer who began taunting them by saying \u201cwhat! are you going to taser me? are you going to arrest me?!\u201d The police grabbed Meyer, but Senator Kerry asked the police to let him go and that he would answer his question. Senator Kerry finished answering the other student\u2019s question and then proceeded with Meyer. (*This entire scene is not in any video I can find so far. This is why 2 cops are seen right behind Meyer at the start of some videos*).

Meyer approached the microphone and began to talk about a book he had which stated that Kerry won the 2004 election because of disenfranchisement of black voters and faulty voter machines that produced \u201cBush\u201d as the winner. He then posed another question about why President Bush had not been impeached. \u201cPresident Clinton was impeached because of a blowjob, why not Bush?\u201d. The third and strangest question he posed to Senator Kerry was asking him if he was part of the skull and bones society with Bush at Yale. Meyer\u2019s mic cut off after that, probably because he had mentioned the word \u201cblowjob\u201d.

...I don\u2019t know if this is relevant or not, but Andrew Meyer is a former sports writer for the school newspaper The Alligator. In his columns, he has been known to make ridiculous statements in order to gain attention for himself. Was today a publicity stunt?

The letter is useless to Wikipedia unless it is featured in a reliable source (newspaper, magazine) and is referenced.--Gloriamarie 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true. It can be used as a reliable source for an opinion that is attributed to the person who wrote it. \u2014 Omegatron 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it can't, unless it was written by someone notable and/or appeared in a reliable source.--Gloriamarie 09:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Eyewitnesses are not notable... \u2014 Omegatron 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

EYEWITNESS AND VIDEOGRAPHER http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s

From: hunnybun523 As the person who filmed this event. I would like to say that although Andrew may appear to be a conspiracy theorist, he still was accosted by the police after Senator Kerry said he wanted to hear the question. If Accent Speakers Bureau had allowed all those standing in line to ask questions, this never would have happened. Unless of course the police would have stepped in anyway.

Jim.Callahan,Orlando 01:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

VIDEO 3 -- includes removal from auditorium and scene on stairs and lobby "UF Student Andrew Meyer Tasered At John Kerry Speach Video 3" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnxK5S7--w8&mode=related&search= Provided by: parishmillerdotcom University of Florida student Andrew Meyer is tasered by Campus Cops after disrupting Senator John Kerry's Q&A session in Gainesville, Florida. For more, please go to parrishmiller.com http://www.youtube.com/user/parrishmillerdotcom Jim.Callahan,Orlando 01:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

MORE NEWS COVERAGE FROM CNN's University Service (note READ/VIDEO/PHOTOS Tabs) http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/09/19/cnnu.tase/

CNNU campus correspondent Eunic Ortiz is a senior at the University of Florida. Ortiz attended the Sen. John Kerry event where a student was Tasered by police. CNNU is a feature that provides student perspectives on news and trends from colleges across the United States. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of CNN, its affiliates or the schools where the campus correspondents are based.

  • * * While about 350 students protested the incident Tuesday, the opinions on campus seem to be evenly divided over whether the officers acted properly.
On the popular online networking Web site Facebook.com, students from around the nation have already created more than 80 groups discussing what happened Monday. Even among those groups, the count is almost split between the number who oppose the police's action and those who support their decision.

Jim.Callahan,Orlando 01:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sloppy edits/blanking

These sloppy edits/blanking, from an editor who wants this page deleted, just don't make any sense. Please restore the blanked text and fix the tortured grammar and non-standard use of italics. Badagnani 07:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not blanking - I'm replacing original research with text based on cited reliable source, text that also happens to match up to the objective reality viewed by millions of people on video. Please don't replace material that cites reliable sources with original research. Dlabtot 07:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
PS, if I've used italics incorrectly, you could just fix that instead of reverting. tia Dlabtot 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You may also avoid blanking important background to this event. Further, selecting from the nearly 1000 news sources about this incident, text that calls his question by the slang term "three-parter" (which many of our readers who do not have English as their first language) is ill-considered. From someone who wants this article deleted, it would be great if you'd refrain from such blanking before a decision is made in this regard. Badagnani 07:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and include whatever you want from one of these 1000 sources? That would go a long way towards helping the article achieve WP:NPOV Dlabtot 07:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the References section you fooled with and please fix it, thanks. Badagnani 07:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't 'fool with' the References section, which consists of nothing but the reflist tag. However, my editing of the Details sections certainly did mess it up somehow and I'm sorry but it's late and I cant figure it out. Revert to your hearts content. Dlabtot 07:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More blanking by editor who wants this page deleted

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Florida_Taser_incident&diff=158904066&oldid=158903880 Badagnani 07:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask you to refrain from continuing to mischaracterize my edits as 'blanking'. I'd please ask you to remain civil and assume good faith. Your disagreement with me does not give you a right to make personal attacks. Dlabtot 07:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any "blanking" in that edit. Removal of one sentence isn't "blanking". Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truther?

Alex Jones's website, Prison Planet, has a claim Mr Meyer is a "a 9/11 truther",[1] for whatever that's worth. CWC 15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)updated 15:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Independent Florida Alligator (his former newspaper) says the same: [2] 128.227.81.252 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
No, that article simply says he once held a sign up on a busy street saying George W. Bush was responsible for 9/11. Even many who think that Al Qaeda was responsible also place blame on others, such as the president, for not heeding warnings by the FBI and by Al Qaeda itself. It's also given on that page in the context of him saying that he likes to play practical jokes. That does not mean he's a truther.--Gloriamarie 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The statement "George W. Bush was responsible for 9/11" means what it says, especially when it's placed on a sign. It does not have hidden meanings. I agree that, since Meyer is a practical joker, he may have just been pretending to be a truther. He also has videos of himself pretending to be a woman, that doesn't necessarily mean that's he gay or anything like that. Revolutionaryluddite 21:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
No, there are different meanings for that. Some people think Bush should have taken heed to others' warnings that al Qaeda was a threat and planned to fly planes into buildings. FBI agents were telling their superiors that foreign nationals were learning how to take off and not land at flight school. Responsibility in these ways and responsibility for actually planning the attack are completely different things, but could both lead to that statement. 76.182.88.254 03:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The Prison Planet website is generally not considered a reliable source so we shouldn't be adding their claims without independent corroboration. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Cheers, CWC 15:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For your edification: COMPLETE Transcript available!

The Full Transcript of the questions, arrest, comments and tasering incident are available at this URL http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?display=30&messageid=439335&page=2#6793162

70.105.30.46 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Too bad all of it fails WP:V 128.227.81.252 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Pretty accurate transcript. What a shame it's not in a WP:reliable source so that it could be used in the article. Dlabtot 16:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The video itself is a reliable source. \u2014 Omegatron 23:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have prepared this transcript, based on this Google video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8185752758224020914 above link not available 09/20/2007 7:50 PM, but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s seems to be same video -- checked timestamps Jim.Callahan,Orlando 23:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC) (and other videos, including the CNN iReport). It is a draft, please correct. My intent is that this quotes from a revised and corrected version of this draft could be to improve the main article.

2nd DRAFT TRANSCRIPT OF JOHN KERRY/FLORIDA/TASER INCIDENT Sen. Kerry: "To continue to pile name upon name upon some wall in the future for a strategy that has failed. That's the distinction. Sir..."

Andrew Meyer to John Kerry: "I first and foremost want to thank you for your time. You spent a lot of time talking to us here today. Thank you for coming and being open and honest. You'd recommended a book to us earlier. I had wanted to recommend a book to you. It's called 'Armed Madhouse' by Greg Palast.

Sen. Kerry: "I have it."

Andrew Meyer: He's a top investigative journalist in America."

Sen. Kerry: "I've already read it."

Andrew Meyer: "AND, [in this book, holding up a copy of a yellow book, "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast], he says YOU WON the 2004 election!

Sen. Kerry: "Right."

Andrew Meyer: "ISN'T THAT AMAZING! ISN'T THAT AMAZING, YOU WON IN 2004! In fact, there were multiple reports on the day of the election of disenfranchising of black voters in Florida and Ohio."

Sen. Kerry: "Right."

Andrew Meyer: "I'll ask my question. Thank you very much. I'll ask my question. I'm going to preface it. You've been talking for two hours, I think I've got two minutes. Thank you, Thank you very much."

Andrew Meyer: [Turns to side] "I'm going to ask him my question. I'm going to inform people then, I'm going to ask my question, so there were multiple reports of of disenfranchising of black voters on the day of the election in 2004."

Sen Kerry: "Right."

Andrew Meyer: "There was also voting machines, electronic voting machines in Volusia County, Florida that tallied backwards. So, amidst all these reports of phony, bogus stuff going on, how could you concede the election on the day? [small applause] How could you concede the 2004 election on the day? In this book, it says there were five million votes that were suppressed and you won the election. Didn't you want to be President? I am not even done yet, I have two more questions."

[1:21 on Google video]

Andrew Meyer: "If you were so against [the war in] Iran, how come you are not saying let's IMPEACH BUSH NOW? IMPEACH BUSH NOW before he can invade Iran? Why won't you IMPEACH HIM? IMPEACH BUSH. Clinton was impeached, for what, a blow job? Why don't we IMPEACH BUSH? Alright?"

Andrew Meyer: "Also, are you a member, were you a member of Skull and Bones in college with Bush? Were you in the same secret society, as Bush? Were you in Skull and Bones?" [turns to side] Andrew Meyer: "Thank you for cutting my mike. Thank you. Are you going to arrest me? Excuse me, excuse me, what are you arresting me for?"

POLICE: ?

[Google video 1:46]

Andrew Meyer: "Whoa!, Whoa!, Whoa! Is anybody watching this? I'm not through here. I want him to answer my ...!"

[applause and cheers]

[confusion, camera image shakes]

Andrew Meyer: "Get off me! Get off me!"

Andrew Meyer: "Hey, what [the F***] are you doing?"

Andrew Meyer: "Get off me!"

Andrew Meyer: "Hey! Hey! What are you doing? What is going on here? What is going on here?"

[Google Video 2:00]

Andrew Meyer: "I want to stand to be able to hear the answer to my question."

Andrew Meyer: "Why are you ... harassing ...me"

Andrew Meyer: Help, HELP!, Help, Are you... Kidding me?"

Andew Meyer: "They're arresting me! ... HELP! Help me!"

Sen Kerry: "Could we..."

Andrew Meyer: "Oh! I didn't do anything!"

[Google Video 2:19]

Andrew Meyer: "HELP! Help me, help, they're arresting me!"

[Google Video 2:28]

Female Spectator: "Why is there a Taser on his chest? I mean... [inaudible] was a complete idiot"

POLICE [in background]: "Get down! GET DOWN!

Sen Kerry: "I think if everybody just..."

POLICE: "DO IT NOW!"

Sen. Kerry: "calms down this situation would calm down. ... I'll answer his question. Unfortunately, he is not available to come up here and swear me in as President.

Andrew Meyer: "Why are they arresting me? Did someone do something here? Are they arresting?"

Sen. Kerry: "Let me just say. because it is a very important question."

[Google Video 2:58]

Andrew Meyer: "What did I do? Get off of me! I have no idea... Get the F*** off me man!"

Andrew Meyer: "I didn't do anything. Don't tase me bro! Don't tase me!"

Andrew Meyer: I SAID DON'T DO IT! OW! Ahhg! Ow!!!! Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow!

Andrew Meyer: "Let me go! Let me go!"

POLICE: "Step back, now!."

Female Spectator: "Why, Why are you doing that!?"

Andrew Meyer: "Oh my God!"

POLICE: "Back up, back up."

Female Spectator: "Why are you doing it!?"

Andrew Meyer: "What did I do? What did I do? What did I do?"

Female Spectator" "Why? Why!"

POLICE: "Come on, have a seat."

END OF 2nd DRAFT TRANSCRIPT This 2nd DRAFT is much more reliable, but still a draft. You should be able to print it out and follow the Google Video syllable by syllable. I have added timestamp markers for reference. It is hard to transcribe accurately more than 30 seconds at a time. Jim.Callahan,Orlando 20:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jim.Callahan,Orlando 20:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jim.Callahan,Orlando 18:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit war

There is absolutely no call for the uncivil exchanges that have been going on in the recent edit summaries. I've upgraded to full protection so you will have a chance to calm down. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The user has continued to attack me and I have reported him to WP:AIV. If I was in any way uncivil, I apologize but I was trying to be cooperative but the user immediately started name calling and cursing. Gdo01 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that the other user was (rightfully) blocked for vicious personal attacks, but I don't think edit summaries like "please give a rationalle or i will treat you as a vandal" are appropriate or helpful either. That doesn't excuse his conduct, but saying things like that may serve to make a situation much worse. Given that one user in this dispute is blocked, the edit war isn't likely to continue, so I'll lift the block. This should not be considered an endorsement of a particular version or a particular user. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That rationalle was in response to this which the user did 2 minutes after I initially removed the categories and links. I think I was in my right to give a pseudo warning if a user immediately starts saying I am the problem. Gdo01 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how you could possibly be fighting over whether or not this has to do with Freedom of Speech / 1st Amendment. It seems to me fairly obvious that it is definitely a Free Speech issue. More specifically the right to ask questions without fear of arrest is exactly what is at stake. So why were all the Free Speech-related links deleted??? And without any discussion on this page??? 141.152.54.208 22:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The event had ended. Kerry agreed to hear a few more questions, this guy rattled/rambled on with his volume of talking points, the police tried to remove him, and he started being belligerent physically. He could have just walked out with the police, but he chose to resist. From what I saw, the police were very reluctant to use force. He didn't suffer any lasting injuries. The police did their job, and I think they did it as well as they could, considering the circumstances. The only reason this is getting so much coverage is because people get a sick kick out of watching someone getting tased on TV. The networks know that it means eyeballs on the screen, so they are milking it for more than it's worth. The Revolution has been televised. Recap at eleven. Oh, one more thing, I endorse full protection. - Crockspot 23:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't agree that it is in any way a free speech issue. Based on the context it seems more to be an issue with the appropriate level of force to use to control a disruptive individual at an open forum. Especially considering the fact that Mr. Meyer was given an opportunity to ask a question after the question period was over, it would be hard to make the case that there was an effort to censor his speech. Dlabtot 23:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact his question was actually answered. 128.227.126.157 23:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incidentally, did Kerry answer his questions?

And if so, are there any transcripts? 153.42.168.174 18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be kept in mind that although this Wikipedia article gives the false impression that he asked three coherent questions, the video gives lie to that characterization. Dlabtot 20:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I could make out three questions-- Kerry just didn't get a chance to answer them. It doesn't matter what either of us think, only what reliable sources report on the incident.--Gloriamarie 09:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you know of any reliable sources that have reported the questions in the re-written form with the numbered list, as appears on this page? Dlabtot 09:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of the incident being a prank by Meyer

I personally feel that the section of the article discussing that the incident was possibly a prank does not have enough conclusive evidence to be included in the article. The section I am referring to is titled "Background." This is an erroneous title, since half of the content concerns the incident, and all of it seems to be supporting the theory that the incident was a prank by Meyer. At any rate, most of the supporting evidence of this theory is based on unrelated pranks, which does not prove anything. Additionally, just because he wanted someone to video tape him also does not prove anything. Speaking personally, If I were a journalism student who appeared to ask Kerry very important questions, I would also want to be videotaped. Being videotaped asking a question is not proof that he came there to create a disturbance, get tased, and call international attention to the incident (or just get a laugh). He had no way of knowing that half a dozen police officers would tase him and haul him out of a speech for going over his allotted time-- such an incident is quite unexpected. Finally, the claim that he was light-hearted and laughing in the car also proves and indicates absolutely nothing. If you watch the video, you see that he has calmed down as he is exiting the building. Who's to say that by the time he was at the police car, he was no longer in pain and thought the whole thing to be funny? (knowing that it would create a lot of attention and sympathy for him) Who's also to say that wasn't an act or a defense mechanism? Cops are not generally the best people for evaluating the psychology of a person.

I'm sorry, but the case made that the event was a prank is extremely weak-- it doesn't need a whole section. The already existent mention of the comment J. Bernard Machen, with perhaps a sentence or two of follow-up, is enough. andrewlargemanjones \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.135.98 (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

'Conclusive evidence' is not the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. See: WP:V and WP:NPOV. Dlabtot 19:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the title of the section is erroneous but the rest of the section is verifiable and cited. As long as credible news sources are suggesting things that seem to discredit Meyer, it can be included no matter how much we may try to refute the sources. Anyway, the stuff in that section is likely to reappear in court as counts against Meyer. In court, the reports by a police officer that was there is integral to the case no matter how psychology-inept the officer may be. Gdo01 19:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough, and the title "Police Response" is a much more appropriate response. I don't know that it needs the first sentence though, about his website, unless the police mentioned it.andrewlargemanjones

All of this stuff is mentioned in the news as well. It's notable. \u2014 Omegatron 23:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is possible for a single individual to have both a humorous and a serious side. The "diatribe" against the Iraq War and the U.S. media's coverage of it on Meyer's website, www.theandrewmeyer.com , is not particularly amusing, and does not seem to be so. Thus, the extrapolation that Meyer did this to be funny, because he had previously written humorous articles and skits does not seem to be a necessarily correct one. Badagnani 05:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public Response/Reaction

I've heard that some TV stations have conducted polls gathering public opinion about what viewers thought about the incident. Can we get some of this information archived?

[edit] Quotes/transcript instead of three-point summary

Please include actual quotes of Meyer, including the language that led to the incident. One possible transcript is here, though there are probably other more official ones.

Also, he repeatedly asked what he had done wrong and got no response from the officers, though at one point a police woman says "inciting a riot". Apparently the charges actually brought were "disrupting a public event" and resisting arrest. \u2014 Omegatron 23:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the editorial re-writing of what Meyer said gives a false impression that he actually did ask three coherent questions, however, lacking a WP:reliable source from which to quote, I'm not sure what can be done. Dlabtot 23:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I now see that there are three or more transcripts listed on this talk page.
Including quotes that they all agree on and linking to all of the transcripts as references is perfectly verifiable. The videos themselves are the ultimate source. \u2014 Omegatron 23:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
None of those transcripts come from a WP:reliable source. And a Wikipedian consensus version of what appears on the video - no matter how factual - would constitute original research. Dlabtot 23:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dlabtot. As I understand it, we have discretion in removing verifiable content that we believe to be false/misleading based on non-reliable sources and/or OR, but that same evidence is not suitable for inclusion. Flatscan 05:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
On further reflection it does seem better to have a transcript instead of the 1,2,3 list.
A transcript has the advantage of verisimilitude - that is to say, it's close to what actually what happened. Whereas the list could easily give someone the mistaken impression that he just asked three questions and then his mike was cut. And it is just as much original research, as the transcript, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is the only place where his questions are edited into such a numbered list. It does not appear in any of the cited sources, nor on the video, Meyer never says, one, two, three. So for these reasons, I think a transcript is preferable... comments? Dlabtot 06:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
He did ask his first question, then informed Kerry and the audience that he was going to inflict two more on them. It's a fair summary and we don't feature transcripts for most such instances. In this section, the transcript would be verbose and rambling. Badagnani 06:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I do agree that a transcript would be verbose and rambling. That is precisely my point. He was verbose and rambling. Whereas the numbered list of rephrased questions gives the exact opposite impression - that he was concise, orderly, and articulate. And I haven't seen that impression conveyed in any WP:reliable source, just as I haven't seen a numbered list anywhere but Wikipediea. Maybe a transcript is not the way to go but neither is a numbered list of questions. Dlabtot 08:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't like the numbered list for the reason that Dlabtot mentioned - a reader could infer a structure to the questions. The current version with transcript excerpts has too much information that should be cut (especially if not verifiable) or moved to a separate section. I would much prefer a verifiable source that said something in 2-3 sentences along the lines of "Meyer rambled [or appropriate NPOV verb] for nearly 90 seconds." Flatscan 04:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't agree. He asked a question, stated he was going to ask two more, then asked two more. This should be clearly reflected in the description of the events. Badagnani 05:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems that this is in response to my comment. I suggest an organization similar to UCLA Taser incident, where the lead is very brief, the initial description of the incident is concise and NPOV, and additional detail and POV disputes follow in separate sections. Flatscan 00:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The "summary" of Meyer's questions does not accurately reflect the content and delivery of Meyer's questions/speech. I'm in favor of a transcript, but until someone comes up with one from a valid source, I'm going to try for a shorter explanation. Nosferatublue 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Good edit. If it stays, I'd support removal of the POV tag. Dlabtot 17:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] picture

Is it ok to just upload a screenshot from one of the youtube vids? because this article really needs a picture. Or if anyone already has a picture that is ok to upload, then please do. Connör (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not need a picture. Especially since the YouTube video is very poor quality and doesn't clearly show anything. superlusertc 2007 September 20, 02:48 (UTC)
There is a common picture that is being used in a lot of news articles. It is here, http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e214/andrewlargemanjones/arrestbreak.jpg . I don't know the procedure of what can be posted, concerning photos, on Wikipedia, but I think that is probably the best photo to put.andrewlargemanjones
That's not bad. The AP byline says (AP Photo/Independent Florida Alligator, Andrew Stanfill) superlusertc 2007 September 20, 06:08 (UTC)
Ok, I uploaded that pic. Image:Meyersarrest.jpg Connör (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Boston Globe has a still photo.
Two officers are pulling in different directions, with ineffective grip, and a third is aiming the Taser - you can even see the laser aiming spot on his torso.
--195.137.93.171 12:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liveleak Footage

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ec_1190097717

Request that information from the above video be incorporated into the article.

And for chrissake, let's at least make an effort to be fair and balanced, despite your feelings about the issue.

Great another video that cuts out Meyer's bad behavior. 128.227.126.157 03:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Request that you do it. See WP:SOFIXIT. superlusertc 2007 September 20, 03:05 (UTC)

Sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.131.224 (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] as he finished, his mic was cut?

Where's the evidence that he 'finished'? I don't see any indication that he was gonna stop talking before his mic was cut, especially considering that as soon as it was cut, he started YELLING.... there certainly exists no WP:reliable source that says he 'finished'. Dlabtot 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He had finished the third question (about Skull and Bones); we know it was his third and final question because after he had asked his first question, he stated that he had two more. I agree that had his mike not been cut off, he probably was going to keep talking, reiterating the third question or whatever, for some amount of time, then wait for Kerry's response. He has apparently stated to friends that he is dismayed by the amount of attention the media and public are paying to his treatment by police and the comparatively little attention being paid to the questions he had asked, and Kerry's answers to them. Badagnani 03:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure whether you agree or disagree, since you've kinda said both. He did at one point say he had two more questions. That does certainly indicate that he intended to ask three questions, but I don't see how the datum that he intended to ask three questions is in any way related to the assertion that he 'had finished' the third question at the point his mike was cut. Especially considering his rambling, nearly-incoherent behavior up to that point, it seems at least as likely to assume that he was prepared to re-ask and re-phrase his third question at length, as it is to assume that he 'had finished'. Dlabtot 03:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that he said he had three questions, then asked three questions. After he asked the third question, he kept running his mouth and the mike was cut off. If there's some better way to phrase that, that would be fine. Badagnani 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Good edit; he had made it through his three "questions", but he was def. not finished speaking when his mic was cut. Nosferatublue 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user: 128.227.126.157

this user is from the uni's offices and is exclusively working on this artcile and is doing their best to Bias the article in favour of the tasorers I dont particularly care but you should keep an eye on it.58.106.19.162 05:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the ARIN WHOIS; how do you know it's not just some random student, faculty or staff member?
  • OrgName: University of Florida
  • OrgID: UNIVER-27
  • Address: Computing and Networking Services
  • Address: room 112, ssrb, stadium road
  • Address: PO BOX 112050
  • City: Gainesville
  • StateProv: FL
  • PostalCode: 32611-2050
  • Country: US
  • NetRange: 128.227.0.0 - 128.227.255.255
  • CIDR: 128.227.0.0/16
  • NetName: UFNET
  • NetHandle: NET-128-227-0-0-1
  • Parent: NET-128-0-0-0-0
  • NetType: Direct Assignment
  • NameServer: NAME.UFL.EDU
  • NameServer: LOWER-NAME.SERVER.UFL.EDU
  • NameServer: RUTGERS-NAME.SERVER.UFL.EDU
  • Comment:
  • RegDate:
  • Updated: 2004-04-14 Badagnani 05:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Post AfD cleanup

I'm not sure what the eventual outcome of the AfD will be, but we've got at least one admin (Omegatron) who thinks that it's pretty clear that this will be kept. So let's start getting this thing in order based on the suggestions that we've had so far.

My only suggestion would be to add a proper attribution to the photo Image:Meyersarrest.jpg. Follow me to the talk page there, and I'll tell you more. superlusertc 2007 September 20, 23:57 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of description of Meyer's questions/comments

This is a very bad edit. Substituting the transcript for the description of what happened is not a good idea. Badagnani 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a start. The transcript should be incorporated with the description of the event to make it clear that Meyer did not ask Kerry three logical, coherent questions. Revolutionaryluddite 01:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think his questions were quite logical and coherent, but I do agree that having the transcript is good for the article. CelestialDog 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


That's not what was done, and there was no discussion first. The description of what happened is now very confusing and unreadable. Bad edit. Badagnani 01:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

More undiscussed blanking here. Very bad edit. Badagnani 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusing and unreadable? Good, because that's what his comments made most people feel. Just kidding. It's not the sort of prose that we expect in an encyclopedia, so it should probably be pared down. Looks like someone took a stab at it. Here's how I'd do it:
You'd recommended a book to us earlier. I had wanted to recommend a book to you. It's called 'Armed Madhouse' by Greg Palast. He's a top investigative journalist in America. AND, [in this book, holding up a copy of a yellow book, "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast], he says YOU WON the 2004 election! ISN'T THAT AMAZING! ISN'T THAT AMAZING, YOU WON IN 2004!
In fact, there were multiple reports on the day of the election of disenfranchising of black voters in Florida and Ohio...[S]o there were multiple reports of of disenfranchising of black voters on the day of the election in 2004. There was also voting machines, electronic voting machines in Volusia County, Florida that tallied backwards. So, amidst all these reports of phony, bogus stuff going on, how could you concede the election on the day? [small applause] How could you concede the 2004 election on the day? In this book, it says there were five million votes that were suppressed and you won the election. Didn't you want to be President?
If you were so against [the war in] Iran, how come you are not saying let's IMPEACH BUSH NOW? IMPEACH BUSH NOW before he can invade Iran? Why won't you IMPEACH HIM? IMPEACH BUSH. Clinton was impeached, for what, a blow job? Why don't we IMPEACH BUSH? Alright?
Also, are you a member, were you a member of Skull and Bones in college with Bush? Were you in the same secret society, as Bush? Were you in Skull and Bones?
(I have the sneaking suspicion that I forgot an ellipsis.)
Also, why are these bad edits? If you could be more descriptive and tell me why you think they're bad instead of just making a blanket statement, it might help. In this case, why isn't the sentence redundant? I see the same information elsewhere in the article. Maybe I'm missing something.superlusertc 2007 September 21, 02:03 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

This editor's edits are getting ridiculous and unencyclopedic. Badagnani 03:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are they ridiculous? The diff that you linked to only had one sentence added, which wasn't terribly encyclopedic, but not that bad.
Please don't think that I'm out to get you with these comments; it's just that they're not very descriptive and don't help those who are unfamiliar with the situation to understand the situation. Also, if this really is a major issue, you might want to make a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. superlusertc 2007 September 21, 04:44 (UTC)

I don't think it's "ridiculous", but it is cheap and sensational. I'm removing it. Also the statement "Notice the difference..." I think that one is worse, makes the article sound like a blog. Nosferatublue 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But I'm just trying to figure out what Badagnani is concerned about. I don't think it's just that it looks like a blog. superlusertc 2007 September 22, 09:13 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Grace coverage

For what it's worth I watched this first on Nancy Grace. She tends to take a clip of footage and repeat it over and over again in the background while she gives her (highly editorialized) comments on the legal implications. True to form she did that with this story, she continually played only the scenes where the kid was struggling, and when they taser him the sound cut off. I had no idea he was yelling "don't taser me bro" until I read it here on wikipedia. Long story short, she made the kid out to be a juvenile delinquent with nothing important to say and no other mission then to harrass (actually it looked like he was on drugs or something). With only that interpretation of the scene, my opinion on this was highly biased and negative toward the kid, until I saw more footage and got the whole picture.

The moral of course is to not trust one news source and check out several, and their editorial styles and political agendas, before coming to any conclusions.Rglong 16:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Great point. CelestialDog 21:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The better moral is not to listen to Nancy Grace, period. David Fuchs (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Details

(Badagnani) OK - I added 'resisted' to "two more officers joined in, and the four officers forcibly removed him to the back of the room as Meyer, once even breaking free." This sentence is incomplete as it is. I think "as Meyer resisted, once even..." makes sense, as he was resisting. I also took out Andrew, since the paragraph has been calling him Meyer up to that point. He's the only Meyer in the story, so there isn't any clarity to be gained by calling him "andrew meyer" when everywhere else we call him 'meyer'. Nosferatublue 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the few previous edits I objected to. Badagnani 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Capitalization of the Transcript

I'm not sure why some sentences are capitalized. I assume to denote yelling, but the decision of what is or isn't a yell is arbitrary, and rather unnecessary. It's painful to read and if someone wants to know when he yells or doesn't there are many videos widely available.

Jstanierm 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What kid?

Will someone please explain why this guy is repeatedly referred to as a "kid". It implies some kind of innocent child. He's 21 years old and BY LAW as much of an adult as myself and I'm 60.24.7.171.139 02:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet meme

The "Don't tase me bro" line has become an internet meme in a way. I know on YTMND they're going crazy with it, and 4Chan is probably doing the same (I haven't checked the latter). Do you think we should mention this?

--Kblavie 01:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a 'wait and see' approach would be a better idea. Revolutionaryluddite 05:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Police brutality, same day, different place (Roseland, Indiana)

Check this before youtube removes it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAZATt4tM74 Violence is completely uncalled for! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseland,_Indiana ""There was an incident, reported on September 17, involving David Snyder and Officer Jack Tiller. During a heated argument between Snyder and the council chair due to yielding the floor with a 1 minute stipulation, which Snyder said is against the city rules. The council chair ejected Snyder. As Snyder was leaving, he turned to Officer Jack Tiller and remarked, "Oh look, the bully's back". This appeared to enrage the officer, who then proceeded to push Snyder. The video then continues outside with the Officer sitting on Snyder and beating him. The felony charge where the Officer claimed that Snyder attempted to strike him has since been dropped."" What charges have been brought against the police officer? AugustinMa 12:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

How come we never hear about "criminal brutality"?67.161.166.20 22:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Senationalizing Andrew Meyer/Wikipedia Bias (No Objectivity)

Since the Andrew Meyer page became merged with this one, I will repost what I posted before:

Wikipedia Sensationalizing Andrew Meyer I am ripping mad at Wikipedia. You're supposed to be OBJECTIVE...yet you have slanted statements...favorable statements like this----> Notable credit(s) became an Internet and TV celebrity when videos were posted of police tasering him at a speech by U.S. Senator John Kerry.

Not only is Wikipedia biased in its reporting of the incident on their "University of Florida taser" page by leaving out the facts, but on THIS page they are calling him a celebrity (an individual who hit my sister before she tased him). Calling this cretin a "celebrity" is definitely biased. And there is even more idiocy by wikipeida---> On September 17, 2007, Meyer was subdued by five campus police officers and tasered while asking Senator John Kerry a number of questions during a question and answer period following the Senator's speech at the University of Florida.


First of all, sir, he was not subdued while he was asking John Kerry questions. This suggests what the biased want you to think that he was subdued because he asked a certain question. He was subdued AFTER he was unruly and used the word "blow job" and said other profanity. The subduing part happened after they attempted to remove him from the microphone (the microphone that was turned off by event staff because he was inappropriate) and in the process of escorting him away from the microphone he made a scene and was resisting the officer's instructions. He was only "under arrest" after he made a scene and was physical with the officers. The miranda rights were read when he was unruly. The officers approached this idiot only to get him to stop his inappropriateness and escort him away from the microphone. The "subduing" part happened because he being unruly. So, report the darn FACTS. All I did was try to change that wording to accurate reporting of the FACTS of the case and you would not allow this.

Things like this show you just how biased wikipedia is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedrdrew (talk • contribs) 04:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Isn't that now four reversions in one day by User:Thedrdrew?"

Yup. You have that right.

Here is another phrase of support from Wikipedia "Meyer came to international prominence..." He only became "prominent" because he got someone to film the entire thing in an effort to get fame. Meyer has repeatedly done stunts to get attention. He used the Kerry event to catapult him into "prominence." What is very evident to a third grader reading this so-called professional article done by wikipedia is that it makes you lead to one conclusion. "Meyer was subdued by five campus police officers and tasered while asking Senator John Kerry a number of questions." You ought to be ashamed of yourselves, Wikipedia.

Ok, here is another edit: "On September 17, 2007, Meyer was subdued by five campus police officers and tasered while asking Senator John Kerry a number of questions."

So now he was tasered while he was asking John Kerry questions? Please. I did not hear Meyer asking anyone questions while he was being tased. I think I heard him say "owe!" if I'm not mistaken...and last time I checked "owe" wasn't a question. And what questions was he asking? He mostly did a monologue, asked questions in between, and went back to a monologue. He didn't even allow Kerry to answer a question. Again, Wikipedia bias... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedrdrew (talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Meyer Tased While Asking Kerry A Question?

The left-wing lunatics (or the lunatic left) wants everyone to believe that this was simply an infringement on someone's First Amendment Rights. With such statements as "Andrew Mayer was tased while asking Kerry a question" (which is stated in the Liberal- and- Not- Objective Wikipedia article) we see more and more of how challenging it is for media types to keep their on viewpoints out of reporting. So here's the picture that Wikipedia and other liberal outfits want you to see: Someone is trying to ask someone a question...and in the middle of asking the question he gets tased. The main idea is that Andrew Meyer was prevented from participating simply because he asked John Kerry certain questions. Ok, Wikipedia, so what was left out? Well, the facts of course. First of all Meyer got tased well after asking Kerry any questions, so the acuracy of the statement you have in the page is 0%. Any third grader could pick that one up. When he got tased all he said was "ow!!" which is an exclamation not a question. This moron Andrew Meyer has been known as a practical joker and was seeking attention---which is what he got. Isn't that nice. We have an epidemic in this country already where police officers are being attacked----articles like this help to defeat our constitution enforcers (police officers).

Fact: The question-and-answer session was over. Meyer pushed into the front of the line and demanded that he ask questions. The event had a specific format with explicit rules. Everyone else followed them. As a matter of fact, the Code of Conduct that Officer Mallo was referring to contains elements which describe the expectations of student conduct at public events. He did not follow the code of conduct. The individual refused to say whether or not he was even a student--and this event was only for students. So, this "victim" was not being cooperative in any way, shape, of form. He was not some model citizen or model student who was just simply trying to participate in this forum who had his first amendment rights infringed upon. Of course you are going to have these ambulance chasing "watchdog" groups who will seize any opportunity to advance their agenda---no matter what the reasons are.

Wikipedia, get your facts straight.

Drew Mallo---Right on Target for America 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedrdrew (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Psst. WP:NOT#FORUM. Wikipedia is not a forum for telling people exactly what you think about the issue at hand. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It includes well-sourced information that can be verified (WP:V) in reliable sources (WP:RS). It does not promote a point of view (WP:POV) (as some of your edits do, calling him offensive and disorderly. As far as I am aware, he has not been convicted yet). In biographies of living people, Wikipedia does not include information that could be considered libellous (WP:BLP). In any case, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period" (WP:3RR) (1, 2, 3, 4?).
Your information comes from original research. This is not allowed on Wikipedia (WP:OR). If you can get the information that you want to include reported in a reliable source, I'm sure that we can discuss its inclusion, provided that it is not libellous, does not promote a point of view and does not prevent others from making future edits without the fear of being reverted.
I'm tempted to put up Template:Notaforum, but I'm not one to threaten to delete comments. superlusertc 2007 September 22, 17:13 (UTC)
If your sister was one of the campus police perhaps you should consider that it is you, sir, who is biased and not the contributors to the article. 129.81.185.76 17:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a forum for telling people exactly what you think about the issue at hand."

But it also is not a forum for telling the truth about the facts. I read your responses--none of which address exactly what I said. And it does not matter if I am related to the police officer who applied the taser or not. That is like answering a question with a question. You still fail to address what the FACTS are. Facts are not owned by anyone--it is not your facts or my facts. They are just facts.

"Your information comes from original research. This is not allowed on Wikipedia.."

Exactly why I am strongly considering stopping my donations to Wikipedia. It does not allow ANY research apparently. Again, please address the quotes that I have. You are still off topic.

"If you can get the information that you want to include reported in a reliable source, I'm sure that we can discuss its inclusion..."

Yet you got your information from biased sources yourselves. Get my information from "reliable" sources? How about eyewitness accounts? And I guess reports from police officers are not considered reliable. Dude, just look at the opening sentence of the article. "He got tased as we was trying to ask a question." Is this true or is it clearly false? At what point did he actually get tased? Your opening statement is misleading...and ostentatiously biased.

"I'm tempted to put up Template:Notaforum, but I'm not one to threaten to delete comments."

Go for it! Your tempted to remove comments because you find them threatening. You obviously cannot admit when you are wrong. That is what liberals do. When they lose an argument on the internet and they have the power to cover it up by deleting that person's comments...they will do so. Dude, I'm not worried if you do or not. You read my comments which moved you to respond (albeit it being an emotional response).

"If your sister was one of the campus police perhaps you should consider that it is you, sir, who is biased and not the contributors to the article."

Again, this is what liberals do. You still have not addressed by direct criticisms of this article. So, in order to try to win the debate you bring up something irrelevant. Even if it wasn't my sister I would be responding in the same fashion. In fact my immediate response was the same as the biased wikipedia article. I emotionally reacted first also. But then I collected myself and looked at the facts. I did this based on my more than a decade long experience of understanding liberal bias. I also reviewed all of the available videos and read all of the police accounts. Then I found out what the facts were. I am more than certain that Officer Mallo will be able to keep her job.

Nice try....Nice try.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedrdrew (talk • contribs) 17:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I said "I'm not one to threaten to delete comments." You have somehow misconstrued this as me stating that I am "tempted to remove comments because [I] find them threatening." superlusertc 2007 September 22, 17:55 (UTC)

[edit] POV-template

It seems to be very tempting to add various POV-template to this article. But all such additions have to be clearly justified and its reasons be further elaborated here. --Camptown 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The POV templates have been added/removed multiple times, sometimes without discussion. I reviewed the current version of the article, and it seems reasonably NPOV to me, though I could have missed something. Flatscan 20:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I placed or replaced a POV template at least once and have discussed it here on this talk page. But the problems have been long since resolved, imho. Dlabtot 20:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Removing cleanup tag

As someone who hadn't heard of this incident before reading the article, I thought it was well-organized and easy to comprehend. The only mention of cleanup I see on the talk page is this, which doesn't really advocate cleanup in the common sense of the term. I'm removing the cleanup tag; feel free to reinsert it if genuine concerns are voiced which might warrant substantial cleanup. — xDanielx T/C 17:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the Post_AfD_cleanup section. I did not add the cleanup tag. I have no opinion on the cleanup tag. Enjoy! superlusertc 2007 September 23, 21:44 (UTC)
I was actually considering tagging the article for cleanup myself. Maybe it's not a clear case of "cleanup", but it certainly is ugly to look at. Do we really need the awkwardly formatted YouTube video transcription and all of the blockquoting? Pele Merengue 08:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clearer description needed

"The student struggled for several seconds[8] and demanded to know why he was being arrested." This needs to be clearer. Did the police tell him that he was being arrested at that time, or did he just think they were arresting him? From the video, it looks like he first asks "Are you arresting me?" and then it slowly escalates from there. It is unclear exactly when the decision to take him out of the room turned into a decision to arrest, then a decision to tase. Wrad 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The text is unclear, in part, because the situation is unclear. We have not identified all of the relevant decision points and the sequence in which they were made, let alone, who made the decisions for what reasons. The decisions, with the exception of Senator Kerry recognizing Meyer (the videos start with Kerry recognizing Meyer so they don't show that Kerry was overriding the event organizers announcements just prior to when the video begins), are not documented on the videos. Some decisions are documented in the individual officers accounts in the Police Report, but the Officers accounts are not always consistent (actually, that is to their credit, if the officers' accounts were perfectly consistent, one would doubt their independence). For example, one officer says ACCENT told them to remove Meyer, and another says the officers decided among themselves to remove Meyer. Since this is controversial, I included both accounts and let the Wikipedia reader decide. Jim.Callahan,Orlando 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
As to your comment about the officer's accounts not being perfectly in-sync: yes, it's a good thing the reports aren't 'mad-lib' style fill-in-the-blanks, with each officer just adjusting what name is where. But don't you think the cops should agree on major issues like whether or not they decided on ther own to remove him, or if they were ordered to? :sigh: I guess it's best to leave both in for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.196.19 (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] students response

This CNN article [3] says student's opinions are evenly divided, the article doesn't show this.

A good portion of the article focus seems to be on Palast's book and the speakers rant, - I think this could be seen as implying that his mike was cut for political reasons but the event organizers say it was cut off because of the use of offensive language.[4]. On at least one tape[5] the man standing behind and to the speakers right can be seen giving a signal to someone to cut (hand across the throat) just after the speaker does use such a term, and the mike is cut just seconds later - The article only mentions this in the police report. Ken E. Beck 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because we don't know who it was. The gesture is visible in the video shot from the back of the room. The man making the gesture is seated in the front row, center section, on the right aisle facing the stage. He is probably one of the organizers of the ACCENT speakers' bureau, most likely the Dennis Jett who is referred to in the article (with link to his bio). Are there any sources who give the identity of this individual?
I think his gesture meant "cut the mic" or "have him stop his questioning," but not necessarily to have him arrested. From what the female officer says to Mayer from when they begin to grab him (one officer on each arm), they seem to be saying "outside" repeatedly, but I do not hear any other explanation of why he is being escorted outside or whether he is under arrest, or for what, or his Miranda rights. Badagnani 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the tape can not be used to show the mike was cut off for offensive language, not enough info, plus may be original research. However the organizers make this claim as well I think it could be legitimately added . Ken E. Beck 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Offensive language 1. The single use of the word, "blowjob." There was no cursing till he was being removed when he used the F-word. 2. Was accusatory towards Kerry by asking repeatedly why he conceded 3. Repeated the phrase, "Impeach Bush" to the point that it sounds like he is trying to start a chant.

Why does Meyer repeat almost all of his sentences at least twice? Meyers non-stop repetition of his own phrases seems to be either a tactic, habit or medical condition. The medical term, for the symptom, is, Palilalia which is defined in WikiPedia as, "the repetition or echoing of one's own spoken words." Is it fair (and within the WikiPedia guidelines) to note Meyers extremely repetitive speech pattern and imply that it might be a medical condition? (or is that his defense attorney's job?) Jim.Callahan,Orlando 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If Palilalia is the symptom, is Asperger Syndrome the disease? "Unlike those with autism, people with AS Asperger Syndrome are not usually withdrawn around others; they approach others, even if awkwardly, for example by engaging in a one-sided, long-winded speech about an unusual topic while being oblivious to the listener's feelings or reactions, such as signs of boredom or wanting to leave." BINGO!!! Jim.Callahan,Orlando 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He wouldn't be the first autistic-related tasing controversy. Wrad 23:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The individual may also have been Max Tyroler, who is described in the police report as the director of the ACCENT Speaker's Bureau, and on the ACCENT website as the Director of Itinerary. Badagnani 00:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Before the cameras rolled

The article needs to say a bit more about these moments. The police report makes several statements which clarify the police reaction a lot. Wrad 04:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

YouTube - UF Student tasered at John Kerry Speech

I couldnt get to my camera in time to record his entrance, but this guy basically comes running in with 4 or 5 cops in tow and says he has been running around trying to get in to ask a question and the cops are going to arrest him for it. they almost do it then but Sen. Kerry says he will answer it. he then answers a previous question someone else asked ...

Blog - Online Communications Director for John Kerry

… there was a long line of people waiting to ask questions, and Meyer was near the back. He rushed up to the mic, butting up past many, many kids and making a scene. Apparently he’d been talking with the police and they were arguing long before Meyer ever got to the mic (reports from Florida are that they threatened him with arrest already). That’s why there are police in the video when you first see it. They tried to remove him before he said anything, but JK intervened, calling them off and saying he’d answer his question. Remember, back in 2004, there was a lot of press about how open the Kerry campaign was to outside questioners and even protesters, especially compared with the hermetically sealed Bush campaign. JK’s done thousands of these events, really enjoys them (he told me once that doing Q&As with regular citizens is the best part of his job), and he’s totally comfortable dealing with disruptive people. So he made sure to call the U of F police off. Which, technically, he had no authority to do, since this was a U of F event, not a Kerry event. They were their police.

"this account is coming from a friend of mine who was there"

The forum was going to be over at 2 pm, and Kerry spoke for so long that the Q and A portion had to be shortened. He only got through about 7 of the 50 people who were waiting to ask questions. While the final question was being read, some douchebag ran down the aisle, grabbed the mic from the other side of the room, interrupted the kid who was talking, and started yelling at Kerry, demanding that his questions be heard. He started ranting about how Kerry talks in circles or something, and everyone was getting annoyed. The cops are all over him in no time and try to escort him out, but he starts yelling and resisting. Kerry insists that they let him stay and even agrees to answer his question.

Not sure if they count as authoritative, verifiable - a consistent picture emerges, with no contradictions.
--195.137.93.171 08:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

Why was the name of the fourth officer removed in this edit? Badagnani 05:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture

There needs to be a section talking about how he has become an internet phenomenon on especially on youtube.com and ytmnd.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.36.57 (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! :) — xDanielx T/C 04:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] police reports

I have not seen any sources based on the police reports, the entire sequence is something like this:

It was announced that only a couple more questions would be taken, Meyers was far back in line.
Meyers barged up to the front of the line, an Accent supervision signaled to the police. Meyers was approached by an officer, asked if he was a student, did he know the rules and was told that if he created a disturbance he would be required to leave. Meyers said he didn't have to answer. An officer began to escort Meyers out.
Meyers began yelling and waving him arms shouting he was going to be taken to jail. Kerry tells Meyers to calm down, said he would take the question. He then finishes answering the previous question. Accent director?? or the police decided that after Meyers asked his question they wanted to speak with Meyers outside.
Meyers hands a camera to the young women who was next in line to ask Kerry a question and asks her to record.
-VIDEO STARTS- Kerry tells Meyers, go ahead, Meyers began his diatribe, police tried to prompt him to ask his question - he turns and angrily informs him he has three questions etc.
Meyers uses the word blowjob, Accent director signals to cut the mic Meyers turn to the police with some words,
Police began to escort Meyers out for creating a disturbance Meyers resists being removed. etc

Is this not correct? Ken E. Beck 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, out of sequence watch the videos, the videos begin with Kerry recognizing Meyer, so VIDEO STARTS has to be earlier. Although there was a conversation between the police officer and Meyer before the video (both Police Report and Kerry's statement) not clear that "officer began to escort" before video. Yelling is on the video. To maintain neutrality, prefer to have police reports backed up by other sources, for example, even Sen. Kerry says Meyer "barged in line." Where we don't have confirmation (or just a newspaper article quoting the same police report), the police report information is in a separate section, "police report." Might want to add police conversation with Meyer (refered to by Kerry as well as Police Report) before speech and any confirmed "last question" announcement by former Ambassador Jett to the "incident" section.Jim.Callahan,Orlando 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

According to reports the police tried to take Meyers out and Kerry told them not to. Kerry told Meyers to calm down that he would take his question, then he turns and finishes answering the previous question. - none of this is on any video I've seen. Then he takes Meyers question, which is when the video begin or begin to show Meyers. Ken E. Beck 15:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's true, all videos start when he starts his question. We need to tell the story before that point better. Wrad 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Officer Wise's account is not consistent with Officer Mallo's account and has some internal inconsistencies. I hope some video of this phase surfaces -- didn't anyone tape the whole speech? Rather than delete Officer Wise's account, I added back in that in that Officer Wise's account, after the first escort out with Meyer's arm in a transporter position Meyers hands his video camera to Clarissa Jessup. Where was the video camera? In Meyer's other hand? (which may have been holding the book). But, rather Wise's delete the account, I just added back in the parts that did not make sense (without editorial comment in the article) and let the WikiPedia reader decide. Jim.Callahan,Orlando 04:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your edit summary associated with this comment: →police reports - In Wise's account, Meyer may have 3 hands, 1) transporter position, 2) book, 3) camera Do you have a source that describes the "transporter position"? I don't know exactly what it is, and I wasn't able to find it with a quick search. Later in Wise's report, he describes Mallo and himself removing Meyer in "a dual transporter position", which is visible in the video. The officers are holding Meyer's arms at/near the elbows, and he is able to retain his book. If one assumes that a single "transporter position" is executed in the same way, just with one officer, both of Meyer's hands would be free to hold his two objects. Flatscan 02:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The interesting thing, in my view, about this incident is that in fact, if someone was to read the police reports, which are confusing, not in chronological order, some what inconsistent as you point out, and possibly self-serving, you would likely be somewhat confused, unsure, but have some idea of what transpired. On the other hand, watching a video, particular the one by Kyle Mitchell that starts when Meyers begins to talk about the Skull and Crossbones and lack context, you may feel very confident that you understand what happened. Ken E. Beck 13:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I watched several videos and made my transcript from the longest continuous one. There was a problem with an early CNN video that dropped about 30 seconds between the questions and the tasering. On the other hand, the police reports refer to profanity and other than the single use of the word "blowjob" there is none, until Meyer uses the "F-word" while being removed. Someone has done a good job of classifying the videos by camera angle. No video, to my knowledge, shows Meyer being read his Miranda warnings. Officer Mallo goes out of her way to describe cameras being turned off on the stairway when she allegedly read Meyer his Miranda rights... ^^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.Callahan,Orlando (talk • contribs) 05:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that claims that Meyer was not properly Mirandized? Jim.Callahan,Orlando, I appreciate your contributions to the article and this Talk page (particularly your transcript), but your incredulity at the police reports in this section seems excessive, more than is appropriate for a POV source. Flatscan 05:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] continued notability?

First... this is not about questioning the AfD ruling, or re-opening the question of whether this article should be a keep or not. That issue is settled. What I want to discuss is whether this event continues to be notable, now that some time has passed.... and assuming the answer is "yes", then focusing at least a section of this article on that continued notability. I have seen far too many current event articles that get a great deal of attention while the event is going on, only to be left in a horrible state once the news cycle, and everyone's attention, has moved on to something else ... articles that do not contain any information about the subsequent results of the event. I fear that this will happen with this article. So we need to discuss the events continued notablility. A lot of people expressed a desire to keep this article based on its being an "important event". OK... that's fine... in which case, we need to discuss what that importance is. I realize that it may still be too soon to judge this. but once that importance becomes clearer we need to discuss it.

Please... do not leave this article in a state where it simply discribes a once-current event. Stay on top of this story, and follow up. It may be that those of you who feel that this is the "One of the most important events of our genneration" (as one editor put it at the AfD)... or it may be "much a-do about nothing" (as another put it)... but what ever the ultimate outcome is, let's make sure we address it. Blueboar 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The only long-term notability or 'ultimate outcome' of the incident that I can see is that Meyer sues the police officers for damages (and he wins or loses). I disagree that the ythmnd reaction to the incident should be mentioned in this article, except in passing. Revolutionaryluddite 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It'll be interesting to see how this changes UF policy, and what the panel decides. Until then, we can't really see what will happen. Wrad 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, partly what I am getting at is whether this becomes a "cause celebre" or not... Will this be a three day wonder... soon forgotten, or will it remain a topic of conversation and comment on editorial pages, blogs. Did the current polularity of "Don't Tase me, Bro" as a catch phrase continue or did no one remember what it was about after a few weeks. Things like that. I agree that we will not know the answers to this for a while... but I would like the article to have some follow up that discusses these things. Blueboar 19:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sources

I have not seen much good coverage of this in the papers, mostly blogs, here for example is the statement from Online Communications Director for John Kerry [6] what are the guidelines for this stuff? Ken E. Beck 23:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm usually against blogs, but this one seems to be an exception, since its writer genuinely know what she's talking about. And yes, it does seem to be largely an internet phenomenon. Wrad 23:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This site has several eye witness and an interesting commentary [7] Ken E. Beck 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged contradiction in police reports

Excerpt from this article's current edition:

Officer Mallo says, "Max Tyroler, asked us to take him [Andrew Meyer] out of the auditorium"; while Officer Wise says, "I leaned over to Ofc. Mallo and we made the decision that Meyer would be escorted out of the auditorium after his statements/questions due to his overall demeanor and actions."

Read the full quotes on the main page again. This statement seems intended to show a contradiction in the police reports. But the two quotes are referring to two different times. In Mallo's report, she states that she told Meyer to see her outside after his question was answered to discuss UF's code of conduct. This was before the main incident. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Mallo and Wise would coordinate on this, and Wise's quote in the above statement also refers to the joint planning being done before the main incident. Then, some time passes during which Meyer asks his question and is judged to be excessively belligerent by the Accent staff, and it is at this point that, according to Mallo's report, they are asked by Accent to remove Meyer.

I see no contradiction here. I am not sure how to proceed with this. I would go ahead and include this analysis in Wikipedia but it is clearly Original Research. However, I think that whole statement, being that it is an unsourced analysis, verges on OR, so maybe the best course of action is to simply remove the statement? Mbarbier 23:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed Mallo's and Wise's reports, and I agree with your analysis. It is clear that the discussion that Wise describes occurs prior to "blowjob", and the request/order from Tyroler comes afterward, simultaneous with the cutting of the mic.
  • Mallo's report: After asking the question, the man would not let Senator Kerry finish his statement and kept badgering the senator about his beliefs, talking about "blow jobs", and yelling as loud as he could as to sensationalize his presence. At that moment the Accent Director, Max Tyroler, asked us to take him out of the auditorium and had his microphone turned off stating, "He had said enough."
  • Wise's report: I leaned over to Ofc. Mallo and we made the decision that Meyer would be escorted out of the auditorium after his statements/questions due to his overall demeanor and actions. Meyer continued his disruptive behavior at the microphone and made a statement concerning why President Clinton was almost impeached for receiving a "blowjob", at this point ACCENT staff cut the sound off to the microphone.
The current version (permalink) should be edited. In context, it doesn't seem overly POV, but it implies a non-existent inconsistency between the reports. It also gives the false impression that Mallo and Wise conferred briefly, then immediately removed Meyer of their own volition. Flatscan 01:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the entire section should be removed, simply say: According to the Miami Herald (the second source used in the article) "Members of the student group sponsoring the event summoned UF police to escort Meyer out, according to a police statement", the text from the police reports should be replace with other sourced material when possible due to O.R. concerns. Ken E. Beck 02:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the entire paragraph. I hadn't realized it, but the Police report section already has the relevant sections of Mallo's and Wise's reports. Could you clarify your last sentence? Do you mean that we should try to avoid citing the police reports? I can see how POV could be an issue, but there are no other verifiable sources available. The non-verifiable eyewitness accounts that I've read don't contradict the police reports. Flatscan 04:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we are in agreement. I think the raw police reports are not the best source if a secondary source can be found. For the early part of the incident using the police reports seems like the best solution for now. As you say they are in agreement with the eyewitness reports. Ken E. Beck 14:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Antosca

Who is Nick Antosca and why is his blogging worthy of being in the article? Thousands of bloggers have opinions on this incident. Lots42 03:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the "Huffington Post" section, has no place in the article. This has gained national attention and may lead to policy changes, so discussion of the topic on a national scale is relevant. A partisan blog with an overly long opinion quote, however, isn't.

If subsequent edits want to undo the delete, please supplement it with reasons why the "Huffington Post" section is relevant to the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.99.124 (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is Nick Antosca blogging worthy compared to the thousands of bloggers who have opinions? By rank of prominence, Huffington Post is one of the most widely read. Antosca article was quoted in the Boston Globe as well. [8] so there is little doubt of his prominence as compared to thousands of bloggers. Antosca's post was the most strongly worded on any prominent, progressive, blog I could find. I think a better one could be found from a conservative blog, I used the one (Malkin) I did because it had a lot of detail.
I don't think that it is reasonable in dispute that The Huffington Post is national in scope or prominent.
There is a section named reactions. It has the reactions of the students, by Kerry, by the University officials. Is it being claimed that the reaction of commentators is not relevant to the story? People who hold the view that this incident, by itself, is of minor importance (my view by the way) would believe that the reaction to it is the main point. Ken E. Beck 14:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this was a good edit. As Meyer's suit against the police develops, there will probably be serious third-party analysis on the tasering and whether the police's actions were appropriate. Until then, all we have are responses from ideological blogs and Op-Eds that aren't suitable for the article. Revolutionaryluddite 17:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Woot - It was hardly balanced anyway. Nosferatublue 18:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meyer's questions

Meyer's line of questioning suggested a Skull and Bones conspiracy. While widespread election fraud was going on Kerry conceded the 2004 presidential election on the day, not only to let a fellow bonesman become President of the US but after the election Kerry also refused to vote for impeachment of President George W. Bush on Irak. These facts illustrate the S&B linked conspiracy theory that the majority of the Democratic Party would never support Kerry if he lead the Irak invasion. As a Republican Bush was a much better suited candidate for that. Of course Kerry or Bush would never ever admit to anything concerning S&B influencing US politics. This video (from 1:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y90tjV_Va0o ) shows only the beginning of what Kerry answered. Tucker also commented on Kerry's answers (from 2:35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI ). Peter de Jong 09:03, 27 September 2007

The summary of Meyer's "questions" does not actually represent what he actually said. Meyer was rambling and confrontational; the summarization of the range of topics he touched on suggests he was much more concise and logical. I think that now that we have a good transcript of his questions up, this section is redundant. Also, this ("Palast later said that Meyer had referred to a chapter in the book called "Kerry Won. Now Get Over It" and that the chapter has special relevance to the locale of Meyer’s arrest.[10]) is way out of place here. Palast is suggesting that Meyer's arrest is part of a far-flung conspiracy of silence; this is totally extraneous to a description of Meyer's actual "question". Nosferatublue 14:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, "Armed Madhouse" links directly to the Amazon.com advert - aren't in-article links supposed to be Wikipedia only? Nosferatublue 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just moved the transcript of his questions to the "Meyer's Question's" section; I think this gives the article better continuity, and I think the transcript of his questions belongs under this heading. Speak up if you think I'm wrong. Nosferatublue 14:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an improvement, I was thinking that the commentary and the transcript should be weaved together a little, for example that he was waving the book at Kerry (or the students) and that he turns and address the students at times (isn't that amazing?) and the police at others. Also I believe that at one point Kerry asks "What is your question" I don't see that. Ken E. Beck 14:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ken, sorry I just moved your addition without discussing it first. Feel free to revert if you prefer. Nosferatublue 16:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether Meyer was rambling or making sense and asking coherent questions is POV. The facts are that Meyer specifically referred to Palast’s election fraud investigation and that the county Meyer was arrested in had a major record of rigged elections. Meyer clearly believed Palast. When he was arrested Meyer feared for his life. He asked bystanders to accompany him to the police station. Also ALL three questions Meyer put forward did not involve John Kerry sec, but John Kerry AND George W. Bush. Including the question on S&B. Meyer specifically asked if Kerry was a member of the same secret society as George W. Bush. Although I do not believe in a conspiracy myself, these facts are at the very heart of Meyer’s actions and comments and thus basic to the article. Please stick to the facts and put both the conspiracy theory and the locale of Meyer’s arrest back in. Thank you ! Peter de Jong 20:38, 27 September 2007

I don't see the point of this discussion. His questions are given verbatim in the transcript; do we really need Wiki-punditry to try to explain Meyer's motivations for asking what he did? Badagnani 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter de Jong- Tell me what's wrong with this sentence: "Please stick to the facts and put both the conspiracy theory and the locale of Meyer’s arrest back in". Hint - you were right about locale. Meyer was arrested at the UofFL in Gainesville, as the heading shows. However, sticking to the facts does not mean giving airtime to a conspiracy theory. It is factual that such a conspiracy theory exists, however, it is purely theoretical (and completely unverifiable) that a connection exists between the location of Meyer's arrest and the fact that alleged voter fraud occured at that location during 2004. If such a connection could ever be proved, even, reference to it would not belong in a section devoted solely to the content of Meyer's questions. You're right that my opinion that Meyer was rambling is POV; that's why I didn't include it in the article.

You state when Andrew Meyer was arrested he feared for his life. Unfortunately, I don't think Andrew Meyer is a credible source for this, as his actions and words were all highly erratic at the time. Feel free to state at the appropriate place in the article that Meyer refused to give his name, and that Meyer stated he was afraid for his life. That's accurate and verifiable. Nosferatublue 20:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree a good Wiki article should stick to verifiable facts, but you seem to be missing the point. Meyer asked these questions because he believed Greg Palast. That’s verifiable as Meyer specifically mentioned Volusia County and generically referred to minorities being disenfranchised in Florida and Ohio. Palast makes the connection with Alachua County. When Meyer hears he will be transported to Alachua County jail (Liveleak video) he exclaims: “Oh my god, they’re giving me to the government !” After which he does not want to give officer Mallo his name (“I’m afraid to tell you”) and starts asking bystanders to accompany him to the police station (“Ask them where’s the guy that was arrested at the John Kerry rally. Okay ? Ask them where I am, because they’re gonna try and kill me !”). Whether his fear was justified or not, and whether there actually was a conspiracy or not, is irrelevant. The fact remains that Meyer believed there was a (S&B 'pulling the strings of government') conspiracy and this was what promted him to ask Kerry his three conspiracy linked questions. Therefore it should be in the article IMHO. Peter de Jong 23:50, 27 September 2007

Badagnani - [sic] is a way of saying "This misspelling is not my fault, it was present in the original source". Here the author of the article called a mic a mike, so when we quote him verbatim, I'm just letting the reader know that the misspelling is the fault of the original author, not a wikipedian. Nosferatublue 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I know what "sic" means. As per Dictionary.com, "mike" and "mic" are both widely used alternate informal spellings for "microphone." I don't believe "mike" is an incorrect usage. In fact, most sources list "mike" as the main spelling and "mic" or "mic." as an alternate spelling. Badagnani 21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Woops, sorry - I didn't mean to be patronizing. I would consider "mike" to be a misspelling, but if Dict.com says otherwise, feel free to ignore me. Nosferatublue 21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I see, well some people do consider "mike" a misspelling but I think it is the time-honored and normal way of spelling this, whereas "mic" has come in over time. The reason "mic" isn't a good spelling, IMO, is that in English it would normally be pronounced "mick." Badagnani 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Good deal :) Nosferatublue 21:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punditry

Awright, peoples. There seems to be some disagreement on wether or not to include commentary by media unrelated to the event in the article. I think this article should stick to solely what was said and done at the time by the persons involved. The title of this article is University of Florida Taser incident - lets stick to describing this incident. Pundits pronounce moral judgment on a situation, something that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Nosferatublue 20:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The response from Palast does seem worth mention, as the author of the "little yellow book." Badagnani 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's tempting, but I disagree, for the same reason above. We should limit ourselves to describing the incident itself and its immediate effects. We should include the Kerry quote, since he was present at the incident, and he continues to be affected as it plays out. Palast just provides commentary, something we should avoid. Nosferatublue 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note this incident got world wide attention and has started heated discussions on ethical as well as practical issues everywhere. To narrow the comments to those directly involved does not reflect the world wide scope of the incident. Also a selection of typical comments offering different POVs will be very informative to future readers IMHO. Peter de Jong 00:18, 28 September 2007

I agree with Nosferatublue that the blogosphere, Op-Ed, and editorial reactions should not be included in the article-- at least for now. Revolutionaryluddite 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
What is this, Wikipedia lite? Beyond the bare facts what is important about this incident? I propose the following: Incident was widely viewed on utube. It was widely seen as a free speech issue. The actors were criticized including the police, Kerry, and Meyer. Kerry, Meyer and the police were defended. There was speculation of conspiracies. If good sources can be found for theses things I think they should be included, as well as any thing else that rises to the level of inclusion. Ken E. Beck 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ken, what is a "good source" for a "speculation of conspiracy"? That's basically what the Palast quote is; a speculation of conspiracy. It's unverifiable. Palast wasn't there, his sole connection to this actual incident is that he wrote the book that Meyer was waving around - if Taser International decides to start suggesting conspiracy theories, will we publish theirs just because they made the piece of hardware that was involved? The point is, conspiracy theories and punditry regarding this are already extremely broad and diverse - it makes more sense to decide to stick to facts than it does to try to represent each possible theory and viewpoint. Remember the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nosferatublue 02:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Palast has significant political ties to the incident for obvious reasons. A taser manufacturer wouldn't have those kinds of ties. — xDanielx T/C 16:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
And? Palast may have political ties, but TASER International has financial ties. Heck, you could argue that RFK Jr., who wrote a (later thoroughly disproven) article providing evidence of voter fraud, has political ties to this too, but I would argue that quotes from all three (Palast, RFK Jr., TASER International) are mostly irrelevant to this article, unless they happen to have some profound insight into the situation, which I don't believe they do, their opinions are really as valid as Yuri Geller's in this situation, which is to say not at all. -FrYGuY 06:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Palast, "wrote the book that Meyer was waving around" and formed the basis for Meyer's first question. The key point about Palast is that he had the opportunity to disown Meyer and say that Meyer misread or misrepresented his book. Palast did not, his reaction was more to embrace and extend Meyer's first question. Books present ideas in words, tasers are simply inflicting pain.66.195.118.2 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Which Palast quote is being referenced just above? Badagnani 02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Nosferatublue makes exactly the point I wanted to make - Palast has no special knowledge of the incident. If we decide that the book somehow merits its own section, Palast's comments may be relevant there. Flatscan 05:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
My argument for inclusion would be that it appeared in the Gainsville Sun therefore it should be considered for inclusion in the article. I don't think this falls fully in the category conspiracy, I think it does however full in the category free speech issue. Here Palast says "When you bring up uncomfortable stuff, it's going to create discomfort," said Palast, who reports for BBC Newsnight and writes for Harpers and Vanity Fair. "Obviously, if he was speaking about baseball scores - if he maybe had a different political viewpoint that wasn't seen as combative or outside of what's permissible - then the cops' backs wouldn't have been up." Taser sparks UF debate I think this should go in and no more, unless more is published in an acceptable source. Ken E. Beck 11:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think the Palast reaction section as is should be removed, self published source. Ken E. Beck 12:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tase v. Taser

While I think that tase is more apropos, what with the "Don't tase me, bro!" comment, I do believe that "Taser" should be the base for non-quote material. My justification being that TASER is an acronym (Thomas A Swift's Electric Rifle, for those curious), and while it has come into use as a stand-alone word like laser or radar, it's still good form to treat it as such. Thus "Tasered" would be more correct than "tased".

On the other hand, "Lase" is, and has been a word since the '60s, so I'm certain "Tase" will be a word soon enough. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or something like that.

Feel free to post differing opinions, after all, evolving language and all that jazz. -FrYGuY 08:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Tase" has been used by police officers in both (UCLA and UF) Taser incidents. Flatscan 13:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Any other comments? I'm planning to restore "tase" if there is no further discussion. Flatscan 17:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Police reports

This section, as a block, doesn't make much sense. The relevant parts should go into proper sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken E. Beck 14:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the section should be restored. POV or not, the police report is a comprehensive primary source. It also appears to be the only verifiable source of the events before the videos start. Presenting it in its own section makes it clear that the entire section should be read keeping POV in mind. Flatscan 17:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I see your point but don't agree. Instead anywhere the reports are used it should be in the blockquotes. (I didn't do it for the Meyer criticisms section because I have difficulty with the editing required.) That way it is clear where it is from. I didn't take it out because of POV issues,I took it out because it is out of sequence, poorly written etc. We should help the reader by putting the appropriate section of the reports in the proper place in context. If anyone wants to read the whole reports they can. Ken E. Beck 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your reasons. I think the current narrative of the incident has excessive detail and that adding the police reports to the main text will worsen this. My proposed solution is to lead the Incident section with a summary — I'll propose a reorganization of the article in a new section, when I have time. Flatscan 01:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking to replace the text, not add to it, but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Ken E. Beck 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not paper and (as with many of our articles) we want to have the most detailed article possible, which people around the world will refer to as the definitive, complete source. The article is not too long. Badagnani 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But has any information been lost? I was not trying to shorten the article, I am trying to show what happened, according to Wise, but as a block rather then "According to officer Wise.... etc, Just revert if you like, as I said I have no strong feeling about it. Ken E. Beck 18:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what I have in mind, rather then say according to Wise, simply put the text in. My thinking is it shows what happened but also shows the source, the police reports. I'd support any improved rewrites. Ken E. Beck 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Police report

The University Police offense report contains statements from several University of Florida police officers.

Police Report, Statement of Officer Nicole Lynn Mallo [1]
Before asking [Senator Kerry] the question, I had a chance to ask the man [Andrew Meyer] if he was a student and he stated, "I don't have to tell you." I then asked him if he knew the rules to the student code of conduct and he said, "What?" I informed the man that after he asked Senator Kerry the question that I needed to talk to him outside. After asking the question, the man would not let Senator Kerry finish his statement and kept badgering the senator about his beliefs, talking about "blow jobs", and yelling as loud as he could as to sensationalize his presence. At that moment the Accent Director, Max Tyroler, asked us to take him [Andrew Meyer] out of the auditorium and had his microphone turned off stating, "He had said enough." Officer Wise and I grabbed both of the man's arms and asked him to come with us out of the auditorium to speak with us. * * *" [1]

Police Report, Statement of Officer William L Wise [1]

I leaned over to Ofc. Mallo and we made the decision that Meyer would be escorted out of the auditorium after his statements/questions due to his overall demeanor and actions. Meyer continued his disruptive behavior at the microphone and made a statement concerning why President Clinton was almost impeached for receiving a "blowjob", at this point ACCENT staff cut the sound off to the microphone. Meyers [sic] threw his hands up in the air in disgust of having the microphone turned off.[1]

Officer Mallo says, "Max Tyroler, asked us to take him [Andrew Meyer] out of the auditorium"; while Officer Wise says, "I leaned over to Ofc. Mallo and we made the decision that Meyer would be escorted out of the auditorium after his statements/questions due to his overall demeanor and actions." Both agree that Accent staff turned off the microphone.

Andrew Meyer had handed his camera to a woman. He had asked her if she was recording him moments before beginning his questions.[2]

Police Report, Statement of Officer Pablo De Jesus [1]
I observed Meyer hand a digital hand-held camera to white female he was present with, and it appeared that he instructed her to film his interaction.

Police Report, Statement of Officer Nicole Lynn Mallo [1]
The man at that point turned to his friend and said, "Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?" The man was talking to a woman who was there to film him.[1]

Police Report, Statement of Officer Amanda Spurlin [1]
After the incident, I remained in the lobby while attendees left the building. I was then approached by a female subject, Clarissa Jessup. She stated that she had been in line in front of Mr. Meyer when he asked her to videotape his exchange with Senator Kerry. She stated that she did not know Mr. Meyer.

The report states that "as [Meyer] was escorted down stairs with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again." Additionally, the report states that Meyer was "laughing and being lighthearted in the car, his demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight."[1] The police officers have said that during the ride, Meyer said that "I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong, you were just trying to do your job."[3]


"Both agree that Accent staff turned off the microphone."
In http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Qef8oPmag at 01:32 when Meyer says 'Skull and Bones', you can see someone in a suit beside the officers, possibly Max Tyroler, make two sharp chopping actions across his throat with his right hand - a standard signal to sound engineers for 'cut'. All three had looked to the back when the 'offensive' (?) word 'b***job' was uttered, as though someone else might have cut it then.
--195.137.93.171 05:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Police Report: "At that moment the Accent Director, Max Tyroler, asked us to take him out of the auditorium and had his microphone turned off stating, "He had said enough."" - Yup, that's Max Tyroler, unless they were in radio communication ? I suppose the officer and Kerry said "Ask your question" simultaneously ... but police and security don't usually share a radio channel - in UK at least.
--195.137.93.171 08:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

On the link supplied above it seems to me Kerry can be clearly asking "So whats your question" but the transcript doesn't show this. Ken E. Beck 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The identification of the suited male as Tyroler seems like OR or outright conjecture. He could be someone else relaying Tyroler's orders. Flatscan 02:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Florida Police Department - "Use of Force" Standards Directive

Is it worth adding a link to the policy ?
HTML version
Maybe as a footnote to "University investigation - review our police protocols" ? --195.137.93.171 01:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's worth adding as an 'external link', but including it in the 'police' section would be WP:SYN. Revolutionaryluddite 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very important--video showing what happened before Meyer asked his question

This video should be worked into the article, as it seems to the first/only one that shows what happened between Meyer and the police *before* he asked his question, at least for a minute or two. Badagnani 03:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A certain anon is having trouble waiting, and has just inserted the video somewhere in the article. Please check this edit and verify that this is the best place for this video. Diff Badagnani 04:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he briefly confronted the police before is somewhat notable, but I don't think think it should be mentioned there. It should be mentioned in proper context. Also, the video itself has been re-edited by someone extremely sympathetic to Meyer. If there's just this single video and no independent collaboration of the events, we should wait. If it has to placed into the article right now, I think the video should be added in the 'External Links' section. Revolutionaryluddite 05:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's already been. See the edit history. There have been several other controversial/undiscussed/non-consensus edits made since, as well. Badagnani 05:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there was agreement that it is acceptable to create a transcript along with a description and the Meyer's questions section is a result of that. It was pointed out that the eyewitness reports were in agreement with the police reports. Is this video any different? It agrees with the police reports and the source "Before the video rolls. It think we should add Kerry's remarks to the transcript. Ken E. Beck 14:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a primary point and needs backup beyond just words. Esp since this is a YouTube phenomena. The particular YouTube posting isn't the best with the editorializing intro graphics. However, it establishes the point that Meyer was a problem prior to the questions and it takes weight away from the free speech fallacy. It's nothing to do with the content of his words, (other than the profanities) but is about his behavior.

If someone makes a transcript that includes dispassionate notations of his actions during that early stage, then that would be acceptable. With the link later. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.178.19.26 (talk • contribs)

The IP is UF DHCP, so previous contibs are not valid. Some are. 159.178.19.26 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ARCHIVE THIS PAGE

Someone should archive this page. I've done what I can for sections that aren't ongoing, but there are still way too many sections here. Timneu22 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Badagnani 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title - Taser/taser

The title of this article appears to be incorrect. Why is "Taser" not "taser"? Wikipedia's standards are to capitalize proper nouns. Is "taser" a proper noun? Timneu22 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a brand name. See Taser. Badagnani 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
But more specifically, isn't it TASER? That's what I get from the taser article. Timneu22 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that TASER (like LASER) isn't used any longer, and that the company that produces the item calls it a "Taser" (capitalized, but not in all caps). To call it a "taser" would be like calling a copy machine a "xerox" here or a facial tissue a "kleenex," which would be informal and unencyclopedic. Thus, we've been calling generic weapons of this type "electroshock weapons" and the actual brand name weapon a "Taser." Badagnani 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Just thought I'd bring it up. Timneu22 20:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the manufactures generally refer to them as 'TASERS'. Newspapers and journals go with a semi-capitalized 'Taser'. Revolutionaryluddite 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)