"Don't Tase Me Bro"
Judging from Sean Hannity's radio show and some comments on a Christian blog, it appears that many right wingers thought Andrew Meyer had it coming. There are two major arguments that they use to defend the tasering, and I think each misses the point:
==> "The police were afraid. Just read their reports."
Since my objection is that the police didn't handle themselves professionally, and that in a free market this particular firm would go out of business, this type of response is silly. It's like seeing a guy punch his toddler at the store for not giving up a toy, and then someone defending him by saying, "Nah man, he didn't use too much force. I talked to him, and he wasn't hitting the kid out of sadism. The guy was really frustrated and just wanted the kid to shut up! If they kid had behaved, I know for a fact that guy wouldn't have slugged him."
==> "Andrew Meyer wanted the publicity. He was glad he got tasered."
Umm, do I really need to dwell on why this isn't a good retort from today's conservatives, who think Meyer's rants were ridiculous? Oh well here goes: Imagine Sean Hannity saying, "You know, these liberals whine that we shouldn't be bombing innocent Muslims. Well guess what, Osama *wants* us to do that."
Oh wait, I think Sean Hannity probably has said that...
In any event, I hope you get the point. If the police shouldn't have tasered that kid when he was on the ground and already had one hand cuffed, then the fact that the kid was actually doing it all for publicity isn't a justification for making his plan succeed.
One last point: Of course hindsight is 20-20, but I thought it was pretty obvious that that kid wasn't really a public threat. I mention this because some bloggers defended the cops on the grounds that the kid could've been a nut job who pulled out a gun, and then the public would've wondered why the cops waited so long to take him out. (Also, I doubt Kerry's security would've let a gun into the auditorium on the students, but that's another issue.)
==> "The police were afraid. Just read their reports."
Since my objection is that the police didn't handle themselves professionally, and that in a free market this particular firm would go out of business, this type of response is silly. It's like seeing a guy punch his toddler at the store for not giving up a toy, and then someone defending him by saying, "Nah man, he didn't use too much force. I talked to him, and he wasn't hitting the kid out of sadism. The guy was really frustrated and just wanted the kid to shut up! If they kid had behaved, I know for a fact that guy wouldn't have slugged him."
==> "Andrew Meyer wanted the publicity. He was glad he got tasered."
Umm, do I really need to dwell on why this isn't a good retort from today's conservatives, who think Meyer's rants were ridiculous? Oh well here goes: Imagine Sean Hannity saying, "You know, these liberals whine that we shouldn't be bombing innocent Muslims. Well guess what, Osama *wants* us to do that."
Oh wait, I think Sean Hannity probably has said that...
In any event, I hope you get the point. If the police shouldn't have tasered that kid when he was on the ground and already had one hand cuffed, then the fact that the kid was actually doing it all for publicity isn't a justification for making his plan succeed.
One last point: Of course hindsight is 20-20, but I thought it was pretty obvious that that kid wasn't really a public threat. I mention this because some bloggers defended the cops on the grounds that the kid could've been a nut job who pulled out a gun, and then the public would've wondered why the cops waited so long to take him out. (Also, I doubt Kerry's security would've let a gun into the auditorium on the students, but that's another issue.)
Comments
Post a Comment