I didn't read all comments to see if this had been suggested, and maybe it's too cutesy or off-point, but it's the first thing that flew into my head thinking of Vermont and a tangle of optical fiber cables ("Vermicelli", if you didn't notice it above in the subject). You're welcome to it, if you want it.
Cheers, and best of luck with this ambitious project. I pray it'll be a resounding success that many other communities/regions will try to emulate.
Regards.
Meyer, is it? He appeared at a public discussion that, for obvious reasons, had rules... so that many might participate within an allotted time, certain constraints were necessary.
I watched the whole video on this. From the very outset, it was clear that this guy felt somehow entitled to make his own rules. Not content to ask "a question" and listen to "an answer," he felt entitled to lecture on historical facts of the 2004 election prior to his question, which he clearly said was not his only one. This demonstrated to me a willful disregard for the necessary civilized constraints imposed on the event and clearly entitled someone in authority over the event (organizer, Kerry aide, etc.) to call for the man to be disinvited. Many people tried to politely stop him from monopolizing the event.
When he failed or refused to submit, the police instructed him to go and attempted to escort him from the premises. He defied an order of duly-appointed and -empowered police and resisted them. I will grant that the police are not always right. But in our society, we have empowered them as the keepers of the peace. One big law that's always been on the books is that, when the police give you an order, right or wrong, you follow it or suffer the consequences. Redress of any violation that order might have committed can be had in the proper forum. Resisting police is an invitation to be subdued (or worse), and anyone who claims otherwise is being naive.
I watched the entire video, and I saw not one single event of cooperation with the authorities from this man. He did everything in his power to resist them, short of giving an officer a bloody nose or pulling a gun.
Someone in authority over the event had the power to invite this man (and everyone else) to attend, just as you can invite friends over to your house. This same someone had the authority to disinvite and insist that he go, just as you have with guests who become unwelcome for any reason. At the point he failed or refused, he became a trespasser. At the point where he failed or refused to comply with a police order to exit, he broke another law. At the point where he attempted to break free from the grasp of police and began flailing at them, he broke at least one or two other laws.
He created cause to arrest him, yet refused to submit to arrest. For their own safety and the safety of any other attendees in proximity, the police had a duty to subdue a man who gave every indication that he would refuse to be subdued and would not follow lawful orders. I heard *many* opportunities by officials and police at that event given for him to calm down and comply, and he *would* *not* *do* *it*. He had the power to stop his physical oppression at any time and did not exercise it. If I had behaved similarly under similar circumstances, I would expect the authorities to react similarly.
If, instead, in his raving insistence on being heard, he wrestled himself free and in flight back to the microphone (or wherever), knocked someone to the ground, grievously injuring them, the story might be how the police were so negligent not to protect other attendees. For all anyone knew, he could have been carrying a weapon or anything. To subdue him was an absolutely necessary first step, and he could have acquiesced at any time and avoided most of the drama and trauma.
He did this, not the police. Give the guys a break.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't read all comments to see if this had been suggested, and maybe it's too cutesy or off-point, but it's the first thing that flew into my head thinking of Vermont and a tangle of optical fiber cables ("Vermicelli", if you didn't notice it above in the subject). You're welcome to it, if you want it. Cheers, and best of luck with this ambitious project. I pray it'll be a resounding success that many other communities/regions will try to emulate. Regards.
Meyer, is it? He appeared at a public discussion that, for obvious reasons, had rules ... so that many might participate within an allotted time, certain constraints were necessary.
I watched the whole video on this. From the very outset, it was clear that this guy felt somehow entitled to make his own rules. Not content to ask "a question" and listen to "an answer," he felt entitled to lecture on historical facts of the 2004 election prior to his question, which he clearly said was not his only one. This demonstrated to me a willful disregard for the necessary civilized constraints imposed on the event and clearly entitled someone in authority over the event (organizer, Kerry aide, etc.) to call for the man to be disinvited. Many people tried to politely stop him from monopolizing the event.
When he failed or refused to submit, the police instructed him to go and attempted to escort him from the premises. He defied an order of duly-appointed and -empowered police and resisted them. I will grant that the police are not always right. But in our society, we have empowered them as the keepers of the peace. One big law that's always been on the books is that, when the police give you an order, right or wrong, you follow it or suffer the consequences. Redress of any violation that order might have committed can be had in the proper forum. Resisting police is an invitation to be subdued (or worse), and anyone who claims otherwise is being naive.
I watched the entire video, and I saw not one single event of cooperation with the authorities from this man. He did everything in his power to resist them, short of giving an officer a bloody nose or pulling a gun.
Someone in authority over the event had the power to invite this man (and everyone else) to attend, just as you can invite friends over to your house. This same someone had the authority to disinvite and insist that he go, just as you have with guests who become unwelcome for any reason. At the point he failed or refused, he became a trespasser. At the point where he failed or refused to comply with a police order to exit, he broke another law. At the point where he attempted to break free from the grasp of police and began flailing at them, he broke at least one or two other laws.
He created cause to arrest him, yet refused to submit to arrest. For their own safety and the safety of any other attendees in proximity, the police had a duty to subdue a man who gave every indication that he would refuse to be subdued and would not follow lawful orders. I heard *many* opportunities by officials and police at that event given for him to calm down and comply, and he *would* *not* *do* *it*. He had the power to stop his physical oppression at any time and did not exercise it. If I had behaved similarly under similar circumstances, I would expect the authorities to react similarly.
If, instead, in his raving insistence on being heard, he wrestled himself free and in flight back to the microphone (or wherever), knocked someone to the ground, grievously injuring them, the story might be how the police were so negligent not to protect other attendees. For all anyone knew, he could have been carrying a weapon or anything. To subdue him was an absolutely necessary first step, and he could have acquiesced at any time and avoided most of the drama and trauma.
He did this, not the police. Give the guys a break.