NationStates Jolt Archive

15 minutes ago

GAINESVILLE, Fla. - A University of Florida student was Tasered and arrested after trying angrily and repeatedly to ask U.S. Senator John Kerry about the 2004 election and other subjects during a campus forum. Tuesday morning, a judge ordered the student released from jail on his own recognizance.

Videos of Monday's incident posted on several Web sites show officers pulling Andrew Meyer, 21, away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.

"He apparently asked several questions — he went on for quite awhile — then he was asked to stop," university spokesman Steve Orlando said. "He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off, then he became upset."

As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., can be heard saying, "That's alright, let me answer his question." Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room.

Meyer screams for help and asks "What did I do?" as he tries to break away from officers. He is forced to the ground and officers order him to stop resisting.

Source Yahoo/AP/OccNEWS
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_re_us/student_arrested_kerry_3

@ CNN ongoing TV

CNN edited clips are making him look like a poor victim.. so pathetic.
they have yet to show the extent of his "very important question".. they are just looping (8 times in the last 10 min) the 7 seconds where is is screaming "aww awww awwww why are you tassering me.. I didnt do anything.."

VIDEO

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=49750&cl=4134379&ch=68276&src=news

So this is what is probably going to happen, he and the videotape girl (Jessup something) stand now to make a million $$ or more in interviews, book sales and other benefits.

Being a douchebag isn't grounds to arrest and taser some one.

So this is what is going to happen, he and the videotape girl (Jessup something) stand now to make a million $$ or more in interviews, book sales and other benefits.

How is one supposed to write a whole book about that one time the police tasered them?

Being a douchebag isn't grounds to arrest and taser some one.what do you suggest they do when someone refuses to leave the mic when his 5 minutes are up?

How is one supposed to write a whole book about that one time the police tasered them?thiz iz America my friend.

Cut his fucking mic and take it away.After his 5 minutes was up they did cut his mic.. and it didnt work.
they also asked him to leave (the private property).. and it didnt work..

what do you suggest they do when someone refuses to leave the mic when his 5 minutes are up?
Cut his fucking mic and take it away.

Well, this is perhaps one of the few times Oceandrive and myself have something to agree on. This entire story is blow up, and is pretty sad indeed. I love the headline that was given in the news "Kerry event turned violent"!

Yeah, until we can see the whole incident, I'll reserve comment. It's too easy to be led into positions by selective editing.exactamente.

Yeah, until we can see the whole incident, I'll reserve comment. It's too easy to be led into positions by selective editing.

Being a douchebag isn't grounds to arrest and taser some one.

Actually isn't that exactly what happens everytime a heckler interferes with a speech, address, or any major event involving a high ranking government offical ? I'm shocked they waited so long to taser him actually. Remember John Kerry is a United States senator, and those policeman couldn't know the mental state of the student. He could have been a psycho waiting to explode.

I'm as skeptical of the police as you can get but:

1) the guy ran over his time
2) his mic was cut off
3) he continued on
4) he was asked to leave, he refused
5) the police attempted to remove him, he resisted

He was resisting a police effort to lawfully remove him from the property after he became a disruption. Frankly speaking, that's what you get.

What they don't show is Kerry *personally* ordering the police to tazer him, and Kerry dancing with glee everytime the poor kid twiches on the ground as the cops put another 500,000 volts to him.

What they don't show is Kerry *personally* ordering the police to tazer him, and Kerry dancing with glee everytime the poor kid twiches on the ground as the cops put another 500,000 volts to him.

Indeed. Is that because it never happened and you are a troll hoping to cause a riot, or because CNN is hushing it up I wonder...

This is shocking the guy was a bit exited but surley the officers could have dealt with it better. I,m glad i live in a free ish country

Indeed. Is that because it never happened and you are a troll hoping to cause a riot, or because CNN is hushing it up I wonder...

CNN's covering it up. They also cut out where the six cops beat him with rubber sticks, and demanded where he got the idea for his questions. They're probably still torturing him.

Regardless of who is in the right or wrong, don't resist the police. You'll lose. Do what they say. Complain later. *nod*

I'm as skeptical of the police as you can get but:

1) the guy ran over his time
2) his mic was cut off
3) he continued on
4) he was asked to leave, he refused
5) the police attempted to remove him, he resisted

He was resisting a police effort to lawfully remove him from the property after he became a disruption. Frankly speaking, that's what you get.

I agree with Neo Art.

Yeah, until we can see the whole incident, I'll reserve comment. It's too easy to be led into positions by selective editing.yep..

same for OJ alleged set-up/armed robbery..

What they don't show is Kerry *personally* ordering the police to tazer him, and Kerry dancing with glee everytime the poor kid twiches on the ground as the cops put another 500,000 volts to him.

I was grinning. I really couldn't dance with glee without a better view. I saw no twitching. :(

Eh. Kid was a giant dick. Pigs were bigger dicks. Pig's self-esteem required demonstration of said bigger dickishness. Hence, kid gets zapped.

Frankly, the use of a taser was innapropriate, especially after he promised to leave, but hardly supprising. No shit, the cops are useless sacks of shit little better than the gangs they claim to combat. What do we expect? We give them exceptionalism and hero worship, and we never question them when they fuck someone up. Police culture is violent and thuggish as a result.

Were his civil rights in any way violated? No. He should have been removed from the event. The only thing worth note at all was the police's innapropriate use of a taser, and, frankly, that should be no suprise at all.

Two things need to happen.

One, this kid needs to sue the police for abuse and what not and make lots of money.

Two, the police need to charge the kid and throw him in jail and take all his newly won money.

It's a lose-lose-win situation. The kid and campus police, not even real police, both lose. And the government gets the money.

Regardless of who is in the right or wrong, don't resist the police. You'll lose. Do what they say. Complain later. *nod*

Unless you've got a gun, then start shooting and aim for the face. They don't have kevlar faces.

Unless you've got a gun, then start shooting and aim for the face. They don't have kevlar faces.

True, but they have several hundred friends in the area who take that kind of stuff very personally. :p

Eh. Kid was a giant dick. Pigs were bigger dicks. Pig's self-esteem required demonstration of said bigger dickishness. Hence, kid gets zapped.

Frankly, the use of a taser was innapropriate, especially after he promised to leave, but hardly supprising. No shit, the cops are useless sacks of shit little better than the gangs they claim to combat. What do we expect? We give them exceptionalism and hero worship, and we never question them when they fuck someone up. Police culture is violent and thuggish as a result.

Were his civil rights in any way violated? No. He should have been removed from the event. The only thing worth note at all was the police's innapropriate use of a taser, and, frankly, that should be no suprise at all.


They weren't asking him to leave anymore. They already did. He refused. At that point, they were asking him to stop resisting, put his hands behind his back, and come with them. He refused. He got zapped.

My only gripe is that they needed to give the guy with the camera a better view. I like to watch them twitch. :)

After his 5 minutes was up they did cut his mic.. and it didnt work.
Didn't work? Then you give the mic to some one else, no one cares about the dumbass yelling up in the rafters.

They weren't askig him to leave anymore. They already did. They were asking him to stop resisting, put his hands behind his back, and come with them. He refused. He got zapped.

Seen the whole thing? I have. He agreed to come peacefully, and they tasered him. The only pity is that they will be excused by an "internal review" for their violence, and he'll be affected by this for the rest of his life.

My only gripe is that they needed to give the guy with the camera a better view. I like to watch them twitch. :)

There are multiple angles available. I'm fairly certain you can find one with him twitching, if that's what, er, "floats your boat".

Am I a horrible person because I laughed at this?
I dont know, something about self-rightous pricks (of any political affiliation) getting whats coming to them gives me the giggles.
Kinda like that video from a while ago of the kid in the library getting tazered. Same situation, really.
The moral of this story:
Dont act like an idiot around police.
IF you must act like an idiot around police, leave the building when they tell you to.
Unless you LIKE getting wrestled to the ground and tazered.

As was already mentioned, I think the police were quite justified. Kerry, even though I dont like him, IS a US government official and possible presidential candidate. His security trumps some idiots right to scream about the SKULL AND BONES SOCIETY LOL.

So you support Bush?

Um dude, he resisted arrested. Neo Art is most definitely not a Bush Supporter.

Seen the whole thing? I have. He agreed to come peacefully, and they tasered him. The only pity is that they will be excused by an "internal review" for their violence, and he'll be affected by this for the rest of his life.



There are multiple angles available. I'm fairly certain you can find one with him twitching, if that's what, er, "floats your boat".

Well, it's not the same one, but here's one of my favorites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE_7NTBfwHE

That guy absorbed a lot of voltage. :)

True, but they have several hundred friends in the area who take that kind of stuff very personally. :p

That's why one gets the fuck outta dodge immediately after. ;)

Or why I shouldn't post while listening to NWA.

I'm as skeptical of the police as you can get but:

1) the guy ran over his time
2) his mic was cut off
3) he continued on
4) he was asked to leave, he refused
5) the police attempted to remove him, he resisted

He was resisting a police effort to lawfully remove him from the property after he became a disruption. Frankly speaking, that's what you get.


So you support Bush?

Fixed.

What the hell has the GOP got to do with anything?

This is about the police and their behaviour, not politicians. The whole of society is at fault for excusing the police of their bad behaviour, not just the Republicans or Democrats.

That's why one gets the fuck outta dodge immediately after. ;)

Or why I shouldn't post while listening to NWA.

Let's be fair; You shouldn't do anything while listening to NWA. *nod*

Um dude, he resisted arrested. Neo Art is most definitely not a Bush Supporter.

Technically, he was never arrested formally, and therefore was not resisting arrest.

ALL HAIL THE GOP!!!! DOWN WITH POLITICAL FREEDOM!


Fixed.

Technically, he was never arrested formally, and therefore was not resisting arrest.

He was still resisting the cops when they tried to get him off the stage.

Fixed.

You DO realize that the student was accusing Kerry of being part of a government conspiracy, yes? Or a SECRET SOCIETY CONSPIRACY TO CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT, anyway. From the video I saw, he was going on about the Skull and Bones society, which most likely means that he thinks the Illimunatii are controlling the US Government.
I dont like Bush, or, for that matter, either political party. The Republicans and the Democrats are both basically the same thing at this point. The only difference is what they say.

He was still resisting the cops when they tried to get him off the stage.

Absolutely. And right he was to. The cops should not have been manhandling him. He had surrendered the mic and was heading back out into the audience.

He was still resisting the cops when they tried to get him off the stage.

Only because they arrested him for no reason.

Only because they arrested him for no reason.

Actually, they didn't declare him under arrest. He wasn't arrested. Their actions were innaproprate and served only to escalate the situation, but they were also not without a reason. He had just barged into the room, stole the mic from another student, asked a multiple-minute long question (after being asked by Kerry to speed it up), and, prior to entering, had already had a confrontation with the police. Their response was wrong, but he was no fucking angel.

Why are cops tasering someone they already immobilized?

This and the UCLA incident are really indicative that we are ending up with some pretty poorly trained cops these days.

1. You don't taser someone you've already immobilized.
2. You don't taser someone and then ask them to move on their own power (and keep tasering them when they don't).

In my opinion, these cops need to be fired... Along with anyone who signed off on their training.

Absolutely. And right he was to. The cops should not have been manhandling him. He had surrendered the mic and was heading back out into the audience.

Doesn't matter. He continued on for several minutes after his mic was cut and he was asked to stop. At which point, he became no longer welcome on the property.

This has nothing to do with rights, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This has nothing to do with bush or the constitution.

he was on private property, and nobody has the right to be on someone else's private property without the owner's permission. Just because you are a student at a school doesn't give you the right to access all school property. You have permission to enter certain parts of school property as long as it is believed you are adhering to the school's code of conduct.

He caused a disruption, at which point his permission to remain on that property was revoked. It doesn't matter that after this point he calmed down and tried to sit down, he was no longer welcome on that property at that time. It that point, he became a tresspasser, and the police absolutly have the legal right to remove someone from property that the person is no longer welcome on.

Likewise, when the police attempt to remove a trespasser from private property, if said individual refuses to leave peacefully, as he did, that individual is now resisting the police's lawful efforts to remove him. At which point he got tasered.

And that's pretty much it. He caused a disruption and as a result was deemed no longer welcome on the property. He then resisted the authority's lawful efforts to remove him from this property, and he got his ass tasered.

It doesn't matter if he "went back to the audience", at that point he was no longer welcomed in the building.

Well, it's not the same one, but here's one of my favorites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE_7NTBfwHE

That guy absorbed a lot of voltage. :)

Wow....what an idiot.

according to Yahoo, the nitwit has a history of making a spectacle of himself (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_re_us/student_arrested_kerry) and practicle jokes. Did the cops go a bit far? Probably. Looks like he pushed his luck one to many times.

Doesn't matter. He continued on for several minutes after his mic was cut and he was asked to stop. At which point, he became no longer welcome on the property.

This has nothing to do with rights, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This has nothing to do with bush or the constitution.

he was on private property, and nobody has the right to be on someone else's private property without the owner's permission. Just because you are a student at a school doesn't give you the right to access all school property. You have permission to enter certain parts of school property as long as it is believed you are adhering to the school's code of conduct.

He caused a disruption, at which point his permission to remain on that property was revoked. It doesn't matter that after this point he calmed down and tried to sit down, he was no longer welcome on that property at that time. It that point, he became a tresspasser, and the police absolutly have the legal right to remove someone from property that the person is no longer welcome on.

Likewise, when the police attempt to remove a trespasser from private property, if said individual refuses to leave peacefully, as he did, that individual is now resisting the police's lawful efforts to remove him. At which point he got tasered.

And that's pretty much it. He caused a disruption and as a result was deemed no longer welcome on the property. He then resisted the authority's lawful efforts to remove him from this property, and he got his ass tasered.

It doesn't matter if he "went back to the audience", at that point he was no longer welcomed in the building.

QFT

Well said Neo Art.

Seen the whole thing? I have. He agreed to come peacefully, and they tasered him. The only pity is that they will be excused by an "internal review" for their violence, and he'll be affected by this for the rest of his life.


What a pussy.

What a pussy.

I'll have to agree. He got tazered once. It sucks, but its not a SOUL SCARING TERRIBLE LIFE-CHANGING EXPERIENCE. That bit comes when the police officers tie him up in the shower room and rape him.

-snip-.

I'd quibble with the claim that it was private property, since the University of Florida is a Public University, but I think that that is largely irrelevant.

I don't really care about your lawyer crap. It doesn't matter to me. It's just beaurocratic nonsense, and it has little to do with the real world that real people live in. I don't care if he was legally right to resist police intervention, he was morally right to. When the police give you shit over activism, you should give them shit right back.

Morover, legal crap aside, the improper use of a taser is what is really the issue at hand. The student was disabled on the floor, promising to co-operate, and easily handcuffable. The use of a taser was innapropriate, and the police in question should lose their jobs.

What a pussy.

Wonder what would of happened if they'd just pistol whipped him or beat him with a night-stick? Would he be scarred for all eternity?

What a pussy.

I'm sorry, but you are aware that criminal charges (which, by the way, were only brought to cover the asses of the police in question. It's SOP for them.) stay on your record and make it damn hard to do things like get a job, right?

I'm sorry, but you are aware that criminal charges (which, by the way, were only brought to cover the asses of the police in question. It's SOP for them.) stay on your record and make it damn hard to do things like get a job, right?

I think Neo Art will correct me if I am wrong but I believe they only stick if you are found guilty.

I don't really care about your lawyer crap. It doesn't matter to me. It's just beaurocratic nonsense, and it has little to do with the real world that real people live in. I don't care if he was legally right to resist police intervention, he was morally right to. When the police give you shit over activism, you should give them shit right back.

Morover, legal crap aside, the improper use of a taser is what is really the issue at hand. The student was disabled on the floor, promising to co-operate, and easily handcuffable. The use of a taser was innapropriate, and the police in question should lose their jobs.

Ahh, I see, so you want to discuss whether the actions of the police, the enforcers of the law were inappropriate, but you can't be bothered to care about what the law is. And instead of discussing my "lawyer crap" you want to try to argue that, despite acting illegally, he was right because...you say he was, apparently. Then you call for the police to lose their jobs over actions you say are "inappropriate" yet you really can't be bothered to find out what is legally appropriate in those circumstances.

So you want to have a discussion about appropriate or inappropriate police conduct, whose conduct is regulated by law...but you don't really care about the law.

OK, so what use are you to this conversation, other than my amusement?

Well, this is perhaps one of the few times Oceandrive and myself have something to agree on. This entire story is blow up, and is pretty sad indeed. I love the headline that was given in the news "Kerry event turned violent"!

I can see Fox's headline now: "Kerry Tasers Innocent Student!"

that's what I tell my kids, complaining is for after you have a lawyer to do it for you, just comply, and get someone else to yell at them.

I also think that I should be in charge of the taser. I think will settle the argument once and for all as to whether it is being used appropriately or not. :)

Ahh, I see, so you want to discuss whether the actions of the police, the enforcers of the law were inappropriate, but you can't be bothered to care about what the law is. And instead of discussing my "lawyer crap" you want to try to argue that, despite acting illegally, he was right because...you say he was, apparently. Then you call for the police to lose their jobs over actions you say are "inappropriate" yet you really can't be bothered to find out what is legally appropriate in those circumstances.

So you want to have a discussion about appropriate or inappropriate police conduct, whose conduct is regulated by law...but you don't really care about the law.

OK, so what use are you to this conversation, other than my amusement?

Frankly, cutesy little courtroom tricks aren't of intrest, Art. On a very real level, it doesn't matter what the law says until it's in the courtroom. We're talking about what OUGHT to be, not what is. Of course, the police appologists will make up a million different excuses for them, and they will get off without a charge. That doesn't make that right, and that just means that the system is broken.

The fact of the matter, silly laws and poorly designed manners of reeling in the police aside, is that what they did was wrong. Not illegal, not "out of their jurisdiction" and nothing to do with your much vaunted JD, but morally wrong, and something that SHOULD be treated as wrong, even though it will not be.

And if all you can bring to the table is what the law says, what good are you to this conversation. The law is not infallible.

Regardless of who is in the right or wrong, don't resist the police. You'll lose. Do what they say. Complain later. *nod*

that's what I tell my kids, complaining is for after you have a lawyer to do it for you, just comply, and get someone else to yell at them.

I think Neo Art will correct me if I am wrong but I believe they only stick if you are found guilty.

yes and no, criminal records checks will show any convictions and any ongoing charges (IE you have been charged but there has been no conclusion yet).

Criminal records checks typically will not show charges that were dismissed, nulprosed or where you were found not guilty.

The fact of the matter, silly laws and poorly designed manners of reeling in the police aside, is that what they did was wrong. Not illegal, not "out of their jurisdiction" and nothing to do with your much vaunted JD, but morally wrong

Say....who?

And if all you can bring to the table is what the law says, what good are you to this conversation. The law is not infallible.

But it would seem you think that you are.

Frankly, cutesy little courtroom tricks aren't of intrest, Art. On a very real level, it doesn't matter what the law says until it's in the courtroom. We're talking about what OUGHT to be, not what is.

Actualy, you do have to talk about what the law is in order to fight said law.

Of course, the police appologists will make up a million different excuses for them, and they will get off without a charge. That doesn't make that right, and that just means that the system is broken.

And once again, we come back to the blame police first crowd. Instead of looking at the whole situation like normal people, people go off and blame the police for all of their troubles.

The fact of the matter, silly laws and poorly designed manners of reeling in the police aside, is that what they did was wrong. Not illegal, not "out of their jurisdiction" and nothing to do with your much vaunted JD, but morally wrong, and something that SHOULD be treated as wrong, even though it will not be.

So enforcing a code of conduct and stopping a person who went over time and made a nuicense of himself is morally wrong? He fought the cops son. You do not fight police. Especially in today's climate.

And if all you can bring to the table is what the law says, what good are you to this conversation. The law is not infallible.

He brings alot more than you do.

Say....who?



But it would seem you think that you are.

And right off into personal attacks and irrelevant tangents. Thanks, but I'll pass today, Art. I have class to get to.

I think Neo Art will correct me if I am wrong but I believe they only stick if you are found guilty.

When a friend of mine was putting in an application to law school, it actually asked if she had ever been charged with even a misdemeanor other than traffic tickets. Because another woman had once brought completely trumped up assault charges against her, she had to list that charge.


As to my opinion here (because I'm going to give it whether you guys care or not, MUAHAHAHAHA!), I do think the use of the taser was unnecessary, but I don't think it is or should be legally actionable. It actually looks like this kid got more consideration from the police than he was legally entitled to, and he still chose to push it.

yes and no, criminal records checks will show any convictions and any ongoing charges (IE you have been charged but there has been no conclusion yet).

Criminal records checks typically will not show charges that were dismissed, nulprosed or where you were found not guilty.

Thank you for the info *bows*

Actualy, you do have to talk about what the law is in order to fight said law.

The law will let the police get away with tasering a subdued student without any disciplinary action. That is wrong. That is all I need to know.

And once again, we come back to the blame police first crowd. Instead of looking at the whole situation like normal people, people go off and blame the police for all of their troubles.

When the police are wrong, the police are wrong. Rehashing old right-wing talking points (by the way, it wasn't much more substatial when the phrase was "blame America first", kid) won't change that the police have an ingrained culture of violence that is most often enacted against activists.

So enforcing a code of conduct and stopping a person who went over time and made a nuicense of himself is morally wrong? He fought the cops son. You do not fight police. Especially in today's climate.

Being a nuisance does not excuse violence against someone. And you should fight the police, when they are in the wrong. You should also accept that there are consequences, and man up to those consequences, but evil unchallenged grows. And today's climate is probably balmy and warm, in Florida, same as it always is. Irrelevant to the subject.


He brings alot more than you do.

Baseless personal attacks aren't much to bring either.

Why do you hate fee speech?

I hate to have to pay for speech to.

And it isn't that simple, New Tacoma. Oversimplifying it like that just makes you seem as insane as the young man in question.

Being a nuisance does not excuse violence against someone. And you should fight the police, when they are in the wrong.

Let me ask you a few question, and we'll skip the "law" since you seem to find that irrelevant, amusingly enough, let's just stick to morality.

Is it morally right or morally wrong to remain on someone else's property when you are no longer welcome?

Is it morally right or morally wrong to refuse to leave said property after you are informed that you are no longer welcome?

Is it morally right or morally wrong for police to attempt, peacefully, to remove someone from property he is no longer welcomed on, after that person has been informed that he is no longer welcome and refused to leave?

Is it morally right or morally wrong for someone to resist being peacefully removed from property he is no longer welcomed on, after being informed he is no longer welcomed on it?

Is it morally right or morally wrong for police to use force to remove someone from property he is no longer welcomed on if he resists being removed peacefully?

By all means, show me where this act turned morally wrong. Because the only person I see in the moral (and legal) wrong here is the person who was tresspassing and refusing to leave.

He was still resisting the cops when they tried to get him off the stage.

Say....who?



But it would seem you think that you are.


Why do you hate free speech?

Why do you hate free speech?

Oh I don't. In fact I'm a great fan of free speech. That young man should absolutly have the right to say whatever he wants (with a few exceptions such as defamation, inciting to riot etc etc). His right to speak should be unquestionable.

he has the right to say pretty much whatever he wants. he does not, however, have the right to stand on my porch while he says it.

Why do you hate free speech?

Why are you such a troll?

When a friend of mine was putting in an application to law school

Ah, the bolded part there is the problem. The ABA and relevant state associations have pretty strict rules on who gets to get degrees, and what they have to reveal.

Saw the video and the SOB deserved to be tasered. He was struggling with the police.

So, to conclude, you fail the thread, life and being a decent human being. You may now kill yourself.

So? Just because something is public land does not mean that they have to tolerate assholes like this. They still have to control the environment and follow through with the rules of the establishment. This guy failed to follow the rules of the establishment (public or private makes no difference) and thus was retained.

You just failed.

Let me ask you a few question, and we'll skip the "law" since you seem to find that irrelevant, amusingly enough, let's just stick to morality.

Is it morally right or morally wrong to remain on someone else's property when you are no longer welcome?

It was a public univercity. Fail

Is it morally right or morally wrong to refuse to leave said property after you are informed that you are no longer welcome?

See above.Fail

Is it morally right or morally wrong for police to attempt, peacefully, to remove someone from property he is no longer welcomed on, after that person has been informed that he is no longer welcome and refused to leave?

The police were peaceful in the same way that the Gestapo are cuddley little bunnies.

Is it morally right or morally wrong for someone to resist being peacefully removed from property he is no longer welcomed on, after being informed he is no longer welcomed on it?

Not if it is a public place.

Is it morally right or morally wrong for police to use force to remove someone from property he is no longer welcomed on if he resists being removed peacefully?

He wasnt removed pecefully, he was manhandled by some goons and then held down and tasered.

By all means, show me where this act turned morally wrong. Because the only person I see in the moral (and legal) wrong here is the person who was tresspassing and refusing to leave.


So, to conclude, you fail the thread, life and being a decent human being. You may now kill yourself.

So if someone disagrees with America being turned into a police state

We are not.

where freedom of speech is trodden upon,

Not happening.

civil liberties are dissmissed as frivolities

Again, not happening.

and the Billl Of Rights is all but obsolete makes me a troll?

Bill of rights obsolete? That also is not happening. Next argument?

Actually isn't that exactly what happens everytime a heckler interferes with a speech, address, or any major event involving a high ranking government offical ? I'm shocked they waited so long to taser him actually. Remember John Kerry is a United States senator, and those policeman couldn't know the mental state of the student. He could have been a psycho waiting to explode.

Well as they had him on the ground...and there was 3 or 4 of them.....

Seriously, are only people who are physically weak and untrained in how to restrain people allowed be police in America? Because if three cops have to use a taser on cuddles there, its no wonder they have side-arms. Some granny might take her bag to them.......

Why are you such a troll?



So if someone disagrees with America being turned into a police state where freedom of speech is trodden upon, civil liberties are dissmissed as frivolities and the Billl Of Rights is all but obsolete makes me a troll?

Saw the video and the SOB deserved to be tasered. He was struggling with the police.


O NOES!!!11!!1 NOT STRUGGLING WITH THE PO-PO!!!

If they're unable to get a nerd in an armlock and fuck him out the door without a Taser, theres no hope for them.

Oh I don't. In fact I'm a great fan of free speech.


Yeah, sounds like it. :rolleyes:

Yes, because of something that has nothing to do with everyday life, we should all bow down to authority, nevermind questioning the use of a taser by people who could be outwrestled by my cat.


You realise that any number of governments would just love to clone you and replace us with the results, don't you?

My mother always taught me that you fight with the police, you get what you deserve. This guy fought with police and he got what he deserved.

So enforcing a code of conduct and stopping a person who went over time and made a nuicense of himself is morally wrong? He fought the cops son. You do not fight police. Especially in today's climate.


Yes, because of something that has nothing to do with everyday life, we should all bow down to authority, nevermind questioning the use of a taser by people who could be outwrestled by my cat.


You realise that any number of governments would just love to clone you and replace us with the results, don't you?

We are not.

Prove it.



Not happening.

Prove it.




Again, not happening.

Porve it.



Bill of rights obsolete? That also is not happening. Next argument?

Prove it.

Prove it.

Freedom of Speech? I can still speak out against the government. I can denounce what this government is doing. I can tell the governor where he can stick it. I can speak my mind in public (provided I do not start a riot) and say what I want.

As to being a police state? that one is obvious. To be a police state, the government has to be authoritarian and the government is most certainly not that.

As to civil liberties, one still needs warrants to conduct criminal investigations.

As to the Bill of Rights, again that is an obvious one.

Ah, the bolded part there is the problem. The ABA and relevant state associations have pretty strict rules on who gets to get degrees, and what they have to reveal.

Yeah, most places don't ask that. I was just pointing out that simply being charged with a crime - even if that charge is completely and utterly false and gets dropped - can possibly adversely affect the rest of your life.

Your mother was a dingbat.

Resorting to insults? They get you nowhere.

My mother always taught me that you fight with the police, you get what you deserve. This guy fought with police and he got what he deserved.


Your mother was a dingbat.

My Father was a cop. I've worked security. He deserved to be fucked out on his ear. The fact is that THREE FULLY GROWN MEN WERE INCAPABLE OF REMOVING A GEEK WITHOUT GETTING OUT A TASER. This means either gross fucking ineptitude or some sadistic streak.

Or he was still struggling regardless what the police were doing. It does not matter. Fact is, he got what he deserved for struggling with the cops in the first place.

My mother always taught me that you fight with the police, you get what you deserve. This guy fought with police and he got what he deserved.

My Father was a cop. I've worked security. He deserved to be fucked out on his ear. The fact is that THREE FULLY GROWN MEN WERE INCAPABLE OF REMOVING A GEEK WITHOUT GETTING OUT A TASER. This means either gross fucking ineptitude or some sadistic streak.

Well as they had him on the ground...and there was 3 or 4 of them.....

Seriously, are only people who are physically weak and untrained in how to restrain people allowed be police in America? Because if three cops have to use a taser on cuddles there, its no wonder they have side-arms. Some granny might take her bag to them.......

5 if you count the 2 female officers... Though the two smaller female officers didn't do anything but force him to the back where the other 3 male officers could immobilize him (first) and then taser him (second)...

To others: I really don't care what the kid did leading up to, or its correctness. These cops had absolutely no business using a taser in this situation. They were already at a point where the use of the taser was no longer needed. If they couldn't get him immobilized, yes... But they had already done that... All they had to do was cuff him and drag him out...

And I really really hate these damned time warps.

And I really really hate these damned time warps.

Seconded, or firsteded, or thirdeded... Depending on where Jolt slaps this one in the time line

My Father was a cop. I've worked security. He deserved to be fucked out on his ear. The fact is that THREE FULLY GROWN MEN WERE INCAPABLE OF REMOVING A GEEK WITHOUT GETTING OUT A TASER. This means either gross fucking ineptitude or some sadistic streak.

Why not both?

Freedom of Speech? I can still speak out against the government. I can denounce what this government is doing. I can tell the governor where he can stick it. I can speak my mind in public (provided I do not start a riot) and say what I want.


But if you do that at a Kerry speech, you're going to get tazered.

Well you'll have to bear with me now, because I'm not American so theres somethings I may not be familiar with.

What law allows an officer of the law to administer pain and suffering as an on the spot punishment (as distinct from using nessecary force to restrain an offender and commit them to custody pending trial)?

The cops are allowed to use whatever force necessary to subdue the person they are hauling out. If the person resists arrest, additional force may be applied.

Or he was still struggling regardless what the police were doing. It does not matter. Fact is, he got what he deserved for struggling with the cops in the first place.

Well you'll have to bear with me now, because I'm not American so theres somethings I may not be familiar with.

What law allows an officer of the law to administer pain and suffering as an on the spot punishment (as distinct from using nessecary force to restrain an offender and commit them to custody pending trial)?

Well as they had him on the ground...and there was 3 or 4 of them.....

Seriously, are only people who are physically weak and untrained in how to restrain people allowed be police in America? Because if three cops have to use a taser on cuddles there, its no wonder they have side-arms. Some granny might take her bag to them.......

Though some question of it was truly necessary may exist, I find tasering to be for primarily the safety of the person being restrained. Should he continue to resist while being restrained, he could have easily been more gravely injured. Now he'll just go home with the unpleasant memory of several hundred volts being sent through him!

And honestly, if he can't take a tasering every now and then, perhaps political activism is not his forte :'P. This entire event is so blown out of proportion though. Perhaps if one of the officers were to have used that side arm to restrain him, there would be something to complain about.

I'd quibble with the claim that it was private property, since the University of Florida is a Public University...Private Property? I dont know I am not a lawyer.
.
Technically, he was never arrested formally, and therefore was not resisting arrest.Like I said, I am not a lawyer.. you talking legal definitions.. and I am no lawyer.
.

Were his civil rights in any way violated?Like I said.. maybe you should ask NeoArt or some-one-else...

** NeoArt adresses the legal issues**


(NeoArt,) I don't really care about your lawyer crap. It doesn't matter to me. It's just beaurocratic nonsense.. But your post were addressing the Legal issue..
.
I don't care if he was legally right to resist police intervention.....

Morover, legal crap aside...
...the police in question should lose their jobs.well.. guess what, you canNOT fire them whitout addressing Legal inssues... and what you call "the beaurocratic nonsense"

The cops are allowed to use whatever force necessary to subdue the person they are hauling out. If the person resists arrest, additional force may be applied.

I think you're trying to back track, as my question covered that.

You stated
Or he was still struggling regardless what the police were doing. It does not matter. Fact is, he got what he deserved for struggling with the cops in the first place.

Fact is, he got what he deserved for struggling with the cops in the first place

So an intial act of resistance alllows the cops to restrain and then inflict pain as a punishment at their own discretion? What law allows this and what is this sentence referred to in American law?

So, to conclude, you fail the thread, life and being a decent human being. You may now kill yourself.

uh huh, suuuure. Now tell me, do you honestly and truly believe that merely because it is a state university, that anyone can go anywhere they want at any time because it's "public land"?

Are you really that dumb, or are you just pretending?

Though some question of it was truly necessary may exist, I find tasering to be for primarily the safety of the person being restrained. Should he continue to resist while being restrained, he could have easily been more gravely injured. Now he'll just go home with the unpleasant memory of several hundred volts being sent through him!

And honestly, if he can't take a tasering every now and then, perhaps political activism is not his forte :'P. This entire event is so blown out of proportion though. Perhaps if one of the officers were to have used that side arm to restrain him, there would be something to complain about.

Its entirely possible that he bears up well under Tear Gas, Pepper Spray and Water Cannon, but has weak events in both Baton Charge and Unnessecary Taser.

So an intial act of resistance alllows the cops to restrain and then inflict pain as a punishment at their own discretion? What law allows this and what is this sentence referred to in American law?

Of course not, that would be stupid. However, resistance allows the cops to restrain and inflict pain in order to subdue the individual actively attempting to prevent them from doing their legal duty.

As police officers they have a legal duty to remove trespassers from property they are no longer welcome on, he was no longer welcome on that property, ergo, the police had a legal duty to remove him.

he resisted their attempts to remove him, and as such, they are legally allowed to disable him.

Its entirely possible that he bears up well under Tear Gas, Pepper Spray and Water Cannon, but has weak events in both Baton Charge and Unnessecary Taser.

If this is the case, someone should advise him to stick to group riots and violent peace marches, because his strength in one on one civil disobedience are severely lacking.

And hey, since we're on this nonsense of "it's a public university" as if that matters worth a damn, let's take a look at Florida State University's code of conduct that the student agreed to when he joined FSU:

(15) Trespassing

Definition: To enter or remain on school grounds/campus (School safety zone - 500 feet off any real property owned or leased by FSUS), school transportation, or any school sponsored event/off campus without authorization or invitation

1st ocurrence: Immediate notification of appropriate law enforcement agency...

From Florida State University's Code of Conduct (http://www.fsus.fsu.edu/StudentParent/Documents/Student_Code_of_Conduct.pdf), page 29.

Of course not, that would be stupid. However, resistance allows the cops to restrain and inflict pain in order to subdue the individual actively attempting to prevent them from doing their legal duty.

As police officers they have a legal duty to remove trespassers from property they are no longer welcome on, he was no longer welcome on that property, ergo, the police had a legal duty to remove him.

he resisted their attempts to remove him, and as such, they are legally allowed to disable him.

And up to the point they administered the Taser I saw no problem. However, if three grown men (and two women) can't remove a poxy student without having to resort to a taser, then woe betide us all.

Let us not also forget that this forum held the presence of a high-ranking government official (Kerry being a US senator). Should this student have been mentally deranged, on top of being a foolish activist, and the police not sufficiently restrain him ending in someone being hurt or killed including the senator himself.... well then this would have been an entirely different jar of pickles wouldn't it!

If this were the president and this student approached as he did, the secrete service would have whisked him away so quickly one would barely be able to distinguish the transition from the students interruption to the moderator asking for the next question! And he'd probably still be in an anti-terrorist detention center being held for questioning! ::nodds with confidence::

Was he a threat? Did he have a weapon? Did he say something offensive, racist or derogatory that would have cause security to act so definitively?

Is this the state of Democracy in the nation?

Your mother was a dingbat.

So, to conclude, you fail the thread, life and being a decent human being. You may now kill yourself.

You fail at following basic forum rules. You have an Official Warning for flamebaiting, given that this is not your first problem with flamebaiting. Expect to be given an invitation to the rest of the Internet if you keep it up.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

And hey, since we're on this nonsense of "it's a public university" as if that matters worth a damn, let's take a look at Florida State University's code of conduct that the student agreed to when he joined FSU:

(15) Trespassing

Definition: To enter or remain on school grounds/campus (School safety zone - 500 feet off any real property owned or leased by FSUS), school transportation, or any school sponsored event/off campus without authorization or invitation

1st ocurrence: Immediate notification of appropriate law enforcement agency...

From Florida State University's Code of Conduct (http://www.fsus.fsu.edu/StudentParent/Documents/Student_Code_of_Conduct.pdf), page 29.

Game! Set! Match! Neo Art.

Was he a threat? Did he have a weapon? Did he say something offensive, racist or derogatory that would have cause security to act so definitively?

Is this the state of Democracy in the nation?

Did you read the whole thread?

No. Why would you? :rolleyes:

The man was granted an amount of time to ask his question. He rambled on and went longer than the time he was granted. He was politely asked to relinquish the microphone. He did not. The microphone was turned off. He remained and complained about that and continued to rant. He was asked to leave. He refused. He was ordered to leave by the summoned police. He refused. He was then subjected to being forced out by a total of five officers who ordered him to leave with them without resisting. He refused and continued to resist after being repeatedly ordered to stop.

Now, at this point, I think they should have just manhandled him out the door. Instead, they leapt to the Taser option, and I find that excessive, but not criminally so. An administrative letter about excessive force should go into thier files and they should receive re-training on how -- five -- cops should deal with one unarmed nerd.

Done and done.

To answer your question, then. YES, that is democracy in action because democracy means you don't seize a microphone and otherwise act in a disruptive or disrespectful manner while expressing yourself. You have a right to your opinion, but the university has a right and a responsibility to maintain order. Get this -- if we as Americans don't care for that university's policy, we can petition the government (initiative and/or referendum) for change and/or elect people who support our cause and have them write new legislation or strike down old legislation.

Where your indignation should come into play is the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, most Americans are too lazy or uninspired to use the process granted to them by the laws of the land.

Satisfied?

Now, at this point, I think they should have just manhandled him out the door. Instead, they leapt to the Taser option, and I find that excessive, but not criminally so. An administrative letter about excessive force should go into thier files and they should receive re-training on how -- five -- cops should deal with one unarmed nerd.

You say "one unarmed nerd" I say an obviously hostile and potentially deranged individual who, for all anyone knew, was armed, within spitting distance of a US senator.

Under those conditions I find a tasering perfectly permissible.

Amazing. I wonder... You Americans have all these guns, right? So why don't you ever take those fucking pigs at gunpoint, disarm them, beat the shit out of them, haul them off to their stations, and lock them up?

It seems the reasonable thing to do.

Because most cops do not like beating people up.

Amazing. I wonder... You Americans have all these guns, right? So why don't you ever take those fucking pigs at gunpoint, disarm them, beat the shit out of them, haul them off to their stations, and lock them up?

Um, generally because for all its faults and foibles we tend to like our society and would not prefer civil war.

Was there a point to this other than vaguely masturbatory sounding fantasies about killing cops?

Amazing. I wonder... You Americans have all these guns, right? So why don't you ever take those fucking pigs at gunpoint, disarm them, beat the shit out of them, haul them off to their stations, and lock them up?

It seems the reasonable thing to do.

Now, here's the thing, I believe sometimes standing up to the police is justified, even perhaps proper. When your rights are at stake, standing up to authority may even be necessary. But that wasn't hte case here.

He didn't have a right to get answers from Senator Kerry, he didn't have the right to the microphone. He didn't have the right to disrupt that audience. He didn't even have the right to be in that building. He didn't have the right to do anything he tried to do. He wasn't standing up for his rights, he was standing up to the police who were trying to stop him from being a disruptive dick and potential security issue. He resisted the police who were attempting to stop him from doing something he had no legal right to do, and for that, he got fucking tasered.

And he deserved it.

I believe this should be standard operating procedure at every Kerry event. If your crazy enough to attend a Kerry event, small jolts of electricity to your brain may be just the thing you need.

Now, at this point, I think they should have just manhandled him out the door. Instead, they leapt to the Taser option, and I find that excessive, but not criminally so. An administrative letter about excessive force should go into thier files and they should receive re-training on how -- five -- cops should deal with one unarmed nerd.


Which was it, excessive or not criminal? You can't have both. If they used excessive force then it's disciplinary action preferably followed up with a trial for assault and battery. They don't get special rights to avoid being prosecuted for a crime.

To be honest he deserved it, if he was asked nicely to stop being a twat - he should have.

Technically, he was never arrested formally, and therefore was not resisting arrest.

Actually this is quite wrong.. he was formally arrested, hence the mug shot: Andrew Myers Mug Shot (http://www.local10.com/2007/0918/14142406.jpg)

He in fact was resisting arrest even after he was handcuffed thats why he was tasered! If you watch the video, this is exactly what the police are saying. So I don't see what the issue is here. And even after he was taser, the level by which he exuded his pain was almost comical. While never being tasered myself, I've never seen anyone complain so much during or after the process.

I'm so glad I don't live in the US. The really disturbing thing is that most of you seem to support the brutal actions of your police. You will end up living in a police state.
I hope this guy sues the police and get a big payout, maybe that will make them think twice about tasering a harmless person.

I'm so glad I don't live in the US. The really disturbing thing is that most of you seem to support the brutal actions of your police. You will end up living in a police state.
I hope this guy sues the police and get a big payout, maybe that will make them think twice about tasering a harmless person.

I see you did not read the thread nor the article. It is nice to see that you support hooligans who cross a line and fights police.

I'm so glad I don't live in the US. The really disturbing thing is that most of you seem to support the brutal actions of your police.


Its all about who's on stage. If it was a Bush rally, you'd see a bunch of people calling for Shrub's resignation.

Police Brutality - It makes up for a small penis.

I see you did not read the thread nor the article. It is nice to see that you support hooligans who cross a line and fights police.

I did read the whole thread, hence my statement "most of you seem to support the brutal actions of your police". It seems you did not fully read my post.

The guy in the article was clearly not a hooligan. He was not violent or aggressive at any point in the video. Yes, he was making a nuisance of himself and deserved to be removed from the building, but tasering a man who is helpless and pinned on the floor is completely unacceptable.

I did read the whole thread, hence my statement "most of you seem to support the brutal actions of your police". It seems you did not fully read my post.

Yes I did. However, you just do not realize that the dude violated the code of conduct of the establishment. He was asked to stop and he did not. The Police told him to stop and he did not, and when the person failed to do so, he was restrained legally and he fought the cops and thus....One does not disobey the cops.

The guy in the article was clearly not a hooligan. He was not violent or aggressive at any point in the video.

I see you missed the part where he struggled with the cops.

Yes, he was making a nuisance of himself and deserved to be removed from the building, but tasering a man who is helpless and pinned on the floor is completely unacceptable.

Was it? Read up on what Neo Art said. He's a lawyer and a fine one at that.

Seriously guys, America is supposedly a free and democratic country right? I think I have seen more 'hostility' in the Congress than from this guys (not to mention foreign Parliaments like Japan) yet security didn't just randomly tase the reps if they got a little upset over an issue. And before anyone says something like 'Congress is different', it's not, in a democratic country a person should be able to stand up in a public place and say their opinion to the masses without violence.

America=http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/4972/motivator6364712se1.jpg

@ CNN ongoing TV

CNN edited clips are making him look like a poor victim.. so pathetic.
they have yet to show the extent of his "very important question".. they are just looping (8 times in the last 10 min) the 7 seconds where is is screaming "aww awww awwww why are you tassering me.. I didnt do anything.."

Wow. American democracy strikes back, I guess. And people here blame it on CNN to justify the use of weapons against an unarmed person.

oh wait, there's a comment from a bunch of guys here... I'll read it:

"Good work americans! You're finally learning how to answer to dissent!"
signed: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Videla.

Yes I did. However, you just do not realize that the dude violated the code of conduct of the establishment. He was asked to stop and he did not. The Police told him to stop and he did not, and when the person failed to do so, he was restrained legally and he fought the cops and thus....One does not disobey the cops.

I see you missed the part where he struggled with the cops.

Is it? Read up on what Neo Art said. He's a lawyer and a fine one at that.

The guy initially tries to pull himself away from the cops, but at no point does he attempt to strike them or anyone else. After the cops restrain him and take him to the back of the hall they have him pinned down and he is no danger to anyone. Tasering him at this point is unnecessary and excessive. It looks as if it was done as a punishment rather than a restraint.

As I see it, the argument boils down to this: Should the police be allowed to use harmful and potentially lethal force to subdue an individual who has not been violent and has not threatened any violence?

I would say the answer is emphatically: No.

The guy initially tries to pull himself away from the cops, but at no point does he attempt to strike them or anyone else.

By trying to pull away from the cops brought this on himself. By trying to break out of the cops grip, the cops felt that he was trying to run and therefor, they are allowed to use force to subdue the person. As I said, Neo Art gives a very good explaination.

After the cops restrain him and take him to the back of the hall they have him pinned down and he is no danger to anyone. Tasering him at this point is unnecessary and excessive. It looks as if it was done as a punishment rather than a restraint.

Was he a danger? I do not know. We do not know what was really going on. Videos are good but when played, one cannot see what is being said or happening.

As I see it, the argument boils down to this: Should the police be allowed to use harmful and potentially lethal force to subdue an individual who has not been violent and has not threatened any violence?

I would say the answer is emphatically: No.

Not been violent? I see you really have not been paying attention. Alwell.

Wow. American democracy strikes back, I guess. And people here blame it on CNN to justify the use of weapons against an unarmed person.

oh wait, there's a comment from a bunch of guys here... I'll read it:

"Good work americans! You're finally learning how to answer to dissent!"
signed: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Videla.

Oh look, its sarcasm.

By trying to pull away from the cops brought this on himself. By trying to break out of the cops grip, the cops felt that he was trying to run and therefor, they are allowed to use force to subdue the person. As I said, Neo Art gives a very good explaination.

Neo Art's explanation suggests that the police were entitled to restrain the man and remove him from the area. I'm not disputing this. I am stating that the method of restraint was grossly excessive.

Once the five cops had pinned the guy to the ground he was restrained. All they had to do was cuff him and take him away. The tasering was completely unnecessary.

Okay Disposable, quick question; You ever try to cuff someone and take them away when they're resisting? I've done it, it's not easy.

Okay Disposable, quick question; You ever try to cuff someone and take them away when they're resisting? I've done it, it's not easy.

I've not done it myself, but I've seen it done on numerous occasions, with properly violent suspects too. The police in the UK seem to be able to apprehend struggling people without the use of tasers, I don't see why the US police have to use them.

It was still a lot less intense and disturbnig than the one a few months ago where the student was in the lobrary and got tasered repeatedly. After watching the raw video it does seem this guy was resisting the whole time, and the tasering was minimal. Only two quick shots from what I could see.

I remember that video on the camera phone, it was brutal and horrible to watch.

It was still a lot less intense and disturbnig than the one a few months ago where the student was in the lobrary and got tasered repeatedly. After watching the raw video it does seem this guy was resisting the whole time, and the tasering was minimal. Only two quick shots from what I could see.

Publicity stunt? (http://www.starbanner.com/article/20070918/NEWS/70918007/1053/BREAKING_NEWS)

In the 12-page report, which gives accounts of the incident from the perspective of eight different officers who were present Monday afternoon, Officer Nicole Mallo writes that Meyer would only resist officers when cameras were present.

"As (Meyer) was escorted down stairs (at the University Auditorium) with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again," Mallo wrote.

Mallo was one of two officers who actually rode in the vehicle as Meyer was escorted to the Alachua County jail, and she said said he told them during the ride: "I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong, you were just trying to do your job," according to Mallo's account.

Mallo also wrote in her report that he asked, at one point, if cameras would be present at the jail.

If the cops are to be believed, it sounds like the guy was looking to cause trouble and get the publicity that he's gotten...

You say "one unarmed nerd" I say an obviously hostile and potentially deranged individual who, for all anyone knew, was armed, within spitting distance of a US senator.

Under those conditions I find a tasering perfectly permissible.

One more time. The kid is on the ground already when he's tasered and they had him outmanned five to one. Tasering would have been called for if he'd been a much larger, stronger man or had been demonstrably armed. By the time they used the device, he was out of any sight-line to Kerry.

Which was it, excessive or not criminal? You can't have both. If they used excessive force then it's disciplinary action preferably followed up with a trial for assault and battery. They don't get special rights to avoid being prosecuted for a crime.

Are you insane? Of course it can be excessive and not criminal. There are degrees of everything. Disciplinary action within the department is the same as whenever anyone makes a mistake at any job -- not every mistake is a crime, even for the cops. In this case it looks like (emphasize that because none of us were there) tasering was the highest-end response in the range of popssible responses and can be perceived as excessive. So long as no harm was done to the tasee(?), the cops need to be remediated about when to use the device and have a disciplinary "black mark" on their records. They shouldn't be fired and they shouldn't be charged with a crime (unless there are similar marks on their records) because there's not enough evidence to make any kind of brutality charge.

Criminal would have been using 'sticks or drawing firearms. If these five people had trouble hauling off one person, the problem might lie in the physical requirements for those officers' positions. Regardless, you don't throw away an officer and their training without attempts at remediation and education. It could even have been their first time with a US senator in the mix -- I don't know about you, but that would make me a bit edgy.

The truth, as is usually the case in human affairs, is somewhere between the extremes. In this case, the extremes of "it was brutality" and "it was nothing". Despite what the current administration and their media mouthpieces might believe, there IS a place for nuance in public affairs.

Publicity stunt? (http://www.starbanner.com/article/20070918/NEWS/70918007/1053/BREAKING_NEWS)



If the cops are to be believed, it sounds like the guy was looking to cause trouble and get the publicity that he's gotten...

Now THAT I can believe.

It is people like Corny and Neo Art that allow dictators to rise to power. All it takes is for a few cops to start using tasers at every arrest and voila! A police state! But noone knows or cares about it until they break down, YOUR door, start killing YOUR loved ones then it becomes a problem.

:rolleyes:

Publicity stunt? (http://www.starbanner.com/article/20070918/NEWS/70918007/1053/BREAKING_NEWS)



If the cops are to be believed, it sounds like the guy was looking to cause trouble and get the publicity that he's gotten...


Fake. The cops are covering there asses with this made up bullshit.

Publicity stunt? (http://www.starbanner.com/article/20070918/NEWS/70918007/1053/BREAKING_NEWS)



If the cops are to be believed, it sounds like the guy was looking to cause trouble and get the publicity that he's gotten...

Now THAT I can believe.

Makes 2 of us.

Makes 2 of us.

Oh yeah, he wanted to get tazed, you must be insane or something Corneli.

I say the video, and the was not armed and was not threatening anyone. He was acting like a jerk, but he did not deserve to be tased. I don't think the cops should have manhandled him like that either.

Police should so not be doing this anyway, for their own sakes more than anything. It's these kind of videos showing such naked force and brutality that enrage people into retaliation. It fuels hatred of police.

Oh yeah, he wanted to get tazed, you must be insane or something Corneli.

I was agreeing with the fact that this was a publicity stunt on his part. Learn to read.

Police should so not be doing this anyway, for their own sakes more than anything. It's these kind of videos showing such naked force and brutality that enrage people into retaliation. It fuels hatred of police.

Only in those that do not trust police anyway. You do as the police ask and nothing happens. It is as easy as that.

Only in those that do not trust police anyway. You do as the police ask and nothing happens. It is as easy as that.

Sorry, but I do not like the 'do what we say or we'll tase and beat you up' argument, the whole naked brute oppression doesn't work as well as more subtle types, with the brute type you get either of 2 reactions: total cower or total anger. I would do what police want (within reason) to be a proper citizen, not out of fear of retribution and pain. A despotism is by definition a regime that can threaten pain and fear at any time, it is total confrontation and stress of subjection. I think the police stamping on their back, cuffing the guy while tasing him saying 'do not struggle' and 'submit' says it all. In such circumstances retaliation is of course justified, in fact I would encourage it.

Here's the thing about police and use of force. Hindsight will always be 20/20, things don't always look the same in the situation at the time. We recognize this and require police to use force only when they reasonably believe it to be necessary in the circumstances. We don't even require them to be right, only that they reasonably believe it necessary in the circumstances.

They will, at times, make mistakes. That's why they have tasers, because they're non lethal. Because they will make mistakes, even if they reasonably believed what they were doing at the time, under the circumstances they were in, was necessary.

Do I believe, objectively, that tasering him was necessary and the right thing to do? No, probably it wasn't. However, am I willing to believe that at the time, in the circumstances they were in, and the enviornment they were in, it's possible that the police reasonably believed it to be necessary? yeah, I can see that.

Sorry, but I do not like the 'do what we say or we'll tase and beat you up' argument,

Oh brother :headbang:

the whole naked brute oppression doesn't work as well as more subtle types, with the brute type you get either of 2 reactions: total cower or total anger.

Sounds like the type of people you actually support.

I would do what police want (within reason) to be a proper citizen, not out of fear of retribution and pain.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

A despotism is by definition a regime that can threaten pain and fear at any time, it is total confrontation and stress of subjection.

Again, your kind of people.

I think the police stamping on their back, cuffing the guy while tasing him saying 'do not struggle' and 'submit' says it all. In such circumstances retaliation is of course justified, in fact I would encourage it.

Yea. Start a riot. That always works :rolleyes:

Yea. Start a riot. That always works :rolleyes:
Well I would have to say that the lowest form of a coward is someone who refuses to stand up to oppression, even if they do it in a uniform, yes it's an emotional response but it's right to fight that kinda stuff.

Well I dislike alot of people, but I would have to say that the lowest form of a coward is someone who refuses to stand up to oppression, even if they do it in a uniform, yes it's an emotional response but it's right to fight that kinda stuff.

here's the funny thing about talking about "standing up to oppression"...the kid broke the law. He was trespassing, he was creating a disturbance, and he was resisting arrest.

This wasn't some ghestapoesq storming into his home and taking him into the night never to be heard from again. He broke the law and resisted attempts to lawfully arrest him.

What oppression are you fighting? What evil are you "standing up to"? The fact that a criminal resisted arrest and got tasered? In the heirarchy of evils this ranks pretty low.

Well I would have to say that the lowest form of a coward is someone who refuses to stand up to oppression, even if they do it in a uniform, yes it's an emotional response but it's right to fight that kinda stuff.

Violence begots violence.

here's the funny thing about talking about "standing up to oppression"...the kid broke the law. He was trespassing, he was creating a disturbance, and he was resisting arrest.

This wasn't some ghestapoesq storming into his home and taking him into the night never to be heard from again. He broke the law and resisted attempts to lawfully arrest him.

What oppression are you fighting? What evil are you "standing up to"? The fact that a criminal resisted arrest and got tasered? In the heirarchy of evils this ranks pretty low.
I am remembering the old slogan, 'When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty'.

Violence begots violence.

And your what?... A 'turn the other cheek' Christian pacifist or something? You best renege on your Iraq/Iran positions then pretty quickly. I think any cop using his badge to cow and beat people up for his own self-esteem deserves a kick-in.

I am remembering the old slogan, 'When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty'.

and I'll ask once again, where particularly was the injustice of using non lethal force to subdue a criminal who was resisting arrest?

Because that's all that this is, the use of non lethal force to subdue a criminal who was resisting arrest. You can spew forth as many stupid slogans as you like, but this was not some private citizen hauled away because he dissented with the government. He was a trespasser who was resisting arrest.

He wasn't standing up for any of his rights that the police sought to supress. He wasn't some innocent victim that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. He didn't have a right to be in that building. He didn't have a right to the microphone. He didn't have a right to have Senator Kerry answer his questions. He didn't have the right to resist a lawful arrest. He didn't have the right to do anything that he did.

And when he refused to leave the property after being lawfully told to leave, he became a criminal. And when police attempted to arrest him, he resisted that arrest.

It is people like Corny and Neo Art that allow dictators to rise to power. All it takes is for a few cops to start using tasers at every arrest and voila! A police state! But noone knows or cares about it until they break down, YOUR door, start killing YOUR loved ones then it becomes a problem.

:rolleyes:

You're funny. As in "in the head'. The guy was NOT taken from his home, he was NOT ejected for saying unpopular things, he was removed because he was -- wait for it -- BREAKING THE LAW. If you have a problem with the law, there are numerous ways to address that. Reading Frank Miller graphic novels and "raging against the machine" isn't one of them. Especially when "the machine" isn't doing anything illegal.

Oh yeah, he wanted to get tazed, you must be insane or something Corneli.

Look, did you read anything about this guy? He's got a website featuring videos of himself doing all KINDS of things for attention. He has a history and there is a pattern. It isn't therefore unreasonable to suggest that this, too, was a stunt.

I am remembering the old slogan, 'When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty'.

Could you clarify which part of the law applied in this case you believe was unjust please? The bit about the organisers having the right to ask him to leave or the bit about the police being allowed to use force to remove a trespasser who refuses to leave and resists arrest?

And your what?... A 'turn the other cheek' Christian pacifist or something? You best renege on your Iraq/Iran positions then pretty quickly. I think any cop using his badge to cow and beat people up for his own self-esteem deserves a kick-in.

Those who abuse their badges, I agree with you. As far as I can see these guys did not abuse their badges. Did they go to far with the taser? It is possible but as Neo Art said, hindsight is 20/20.

and I'll ask once again, where particularly was the injustice of using non lethal force to subdue a criminal who was resisting arrest?

Because that's all that this is, the use of non lethal force to subdue a criminal who was resisting arrest. You can spew forth as many stupid slogans as you like, but this was not some private citizen hauled away because he dissented with the government. He was a trespasser who was resisting arrest.

He wasn't standing up for any of his rights that the police sought to supress. He didn't have a right to be in that building. He didn't have a right to the microphone. He didn't have a right to have Senator Kerry answer his questions. He didn't have the right to resist a lawful arrest. He didn't have the right to do anything that he did.

And when he refused to leave the property after being lawfully told to leave, he became a criminal. And when police attempted to arrest him, he resisted that arrest.

Andaras does not understand this.

I'm as skeptical of the police as you can get but:

1) the guy ran over his time
2) his mic was cut off
3) he continued on
4) he was asked to leave, he refused
5) the police attempted to remove him, he resisted

He was resisting a police effort to lawfully remove him from the property after he became a disruption. Frankly speaking, that's what you get.

Very true, I would in a normal case say that this is a violation of the Freedom of Speech, but in a public arena such as this, you are held accountable for what you say, and if we didn't have rules to account for certain order in a public arena, then it would be mass chaos.

here's the funny thing about talking about "standing up to oppression"...the kid broke the law. He was trespassing, he was creating a disturbance, and he was resisting arrest.Missed that part. I only saw the vid.

Still, if Kerry was willing to answer his questions, why not let him. And if he really needed to be removed, why not simply remove him? Why pile on him on the floor and taze him?

Your initial reply to me is rather ironic, making me believe you missed my point, so I'll attempt to clarify: Just like it isn't my job to punish coppers, however much I might feel warranted in doing so, it isn't their job to punish people either.

It is just as easy to carry a cuffed hooligan off the premises as it is to taze and then carry off a cuffed hooligan from the premises. It makes no practical difference, save perhaps satisfying some, in your words, masturbatory shit. Meaning it is excessive use of force. There's no excuse for it. Every one of the involved coppers ought to get fired and have assault charges filed against them.

Which, of course, leads me to believe you have some masturbatory urge to see random idiots get brutalized by authority figures, and if that's indeed the case, I suggest you rent some porn instead. But it's getting off topic.

It is just as easy to carry a cuffed hooligan off the premises as it is to taze and then carry off a cuffed hooligan from the premises.

I am not a policeman and so have no experience in this, but intuitively I believe this just would not be true. At the very least you have a chance of scaring the person into behaving, surely.

Violence begots violence.

And what are you supposed to do? Be a pacifist? Pacifism is a cop-out for cowards. It is not morally defensible to sit by while injustice takes place. You can't defeat injustice through inaction and sending 'good thoughts' and 'lovingkindess' to the purpetrators of injustice.

And what are you supposed to do? Be a pacifist? Pacifism is a cop-out for cowards. It is not morally defensible to sit by while injustice takes place. You can't defeat injustice through inaction and sending 'good thoughts' and 'lovingkindess' to the purpetrators of injustice.

So what's the injustice in this incident?

Let the man ask his questions! It seemed like Senator Kerry was even willing to answer him, so why treat him like a villain?

Probably because he had been asked to leave, had refused, had been asked to leave by police, and refused again, then resisted the police. He was technically a trespasser and resisting arrest. Which makes him a criminal, or 'villain'. Which is probably why they treated him as a villain.

So what's the injustice in this incident?

Well from what I saw in the video, it seemed like the cops didn't like his questions, so the manhandled him and tased him when he wasn't 100% meek and servile towards them.

Sounds a little unfair to me.

Let the man ask his questions! It seemed like Senator Kerry was even willing to answer him, so why treat him like a villain?

here's the funny thing about talking about "standing up to oppression"...the kid broke the law. He was trespassing, he was creating a disturbance, and he was resisting arrest.

This wasn't some ghestapoesq storming into his home and taking him into the night never to be heard from again. He broke the law and resisted attempts to lawfully arrest him.

What oppression are you fighting? What evil are you "standing up to"? The fact that a criminal resisted arrest and got tasered? In the heirarchy of evils this ranks pretty low.
He was fighting for one of the most sacred rights granted to all Americas: the right to wander into other people's houses and yell at them. Sadly, most people have simply surrendered this great privilege, leaving only a handful of crazy persons and this guy to uphold our proud, and intensely annoying, heritage.

Well from what I saw in the video, it seemed like the cops didn't like his questions, so the manhandled him and tased him when he wasn't 100% meek and servile towards them.

Sounds a little unfair to me.

Let the man ask his questions! It seemed like Senator Kerry was even willing to answer him, so why treat him like a villain?

You mean the questions that he asked to kerry then went over his time, was told to stop and he did not. He continued and they cut his mic and he still was going on and then he resisted the police who tried to escort him off stage and he continued to resist.

So tell me what the cops did wrong.

Well from what I saw in the video, it seemed like the cops didn't like his questions, so the manhandled him and tased him when he wasn't 100% meek and servile towards them.

Sounds a little unfair to me.

Except a TINY problem with that. It wasn't the cops who asked him to leave, it was the event coordinators. He was told to leave, he refused, the police were called to remove him, he resisted.

What part of this is hard to understand? What part of this is hard to get? The police were summoned for the direct and specific purpose of removing him. They didn't just decide to haul him off, they were brought there to get him out.

Let the man ask his questions! It seemed like Senator Kerry was even willing to answer him, so why treat him like a villain?

Because, he was told to leave and refused. At that point he was breaking the law. He got treated like a villian because he was a villian. He broke the law, that's pretty much the definition of villian.

He was fighting for one of the most sacred rights granted to all Americas: the right to wander into other people's houses and yell at them. Sadly, most people have simply surrendered this great privilege, leaving only a handful of crazy persons and this guy to uphold our proud, and intensely annoying, heritage.

you fucking win this thread.

Well from what I saw in the video, it seemed like the cops didn't like his questions, so the manhandled him and tased him when he wasn't 100% meek and servile towards them.

Sounds a little unfair to me.

Let the man ask his questions! It seemed like Senator Kerry was even willing to answer him, so why treat him like a villain?

And you got all of that, just from the video? Wow. Just wow.

It doesn't occur to you that a video may not capture the entirety of the circumstances surrounding this event? The police being contacted by the people in charge of the event to remove him from the premises, for instance?

I really doubt he was dragged out of there because "the cops didn't like his questions," especially when the article clearly states that cops were TOLD to remove him.

From watching the video, it would seem that the kid actually did get a substantial amount of patience and tolerance from the Police, and while the tasering was likely unjustified.

And you got all of that, just from the video? Wow. Just wow.

It doesn't occur to you that a video may not capture the entirety of the circumstances surrounding this event? The police being contacted by the people in charge of the event to remove him from the premises, for instance?

I really doubt he was dragged out of there because "the cops didn't like his questions," especially when the article clearly states that cops were TOLD to remove him.


I'm sorry, I saw the video before I went to class, didn't have time to read the article.

Anyways, even if the police were told to remove him, he was no threat to anyone, there was no reason to taser him. There were 5 cops on the guy, more than enough to take him down to the police station, the tasing was unnecessary and brutal. Now, I don't the cops should be fired or anything like that. I do think an apology is in order, however.

Not been violent? I see you really have not been paying attention. Alwell.

He wasn't violent. He was resisting, but he wasn't acting aggressively towards the police or trying to harm anyone. Pulling away from someone is generally not seen as a violent action.

Should he have calmed the hell down and let them remove him from the building? Absolutely. But insisting that he was violent isn't going to make that case.

In the end, it really does look like the taser was used as punishment for resisting, rather than as a necessary action to subdue him. And that is probably why the officers involved in doing so are currently under investigation.

In the end, it really does look like the taser was used as punishment for resisting, rather than as a necessary action to subdue him. And that is probably why the officers involved in doing so are currently under investigation.

Not really, investigation is pretty standard in pretty much all instances like that, considering as a result of their investigation the police are given time off with pay and, should the investigation find no improper behavior, then no note will go in their file...

As I said before, hindsight is 20/20. Things always look different after the fact. Was it necessary? Probably not. Could it have looked necessary at the time and under those circumstances? Possibly..

I'm sorry, I saw the video before I went to class, didn't have time to read the article.

Anyways, even if the police were told to remove him, he was no threat to anyone, there was no reason to taser him. There were 5 cops on the guy, more than enough to take him down to the police station, the tasing was unnecessary and brutal. Now, I don't the cops should be fired or anything like that. I do think an apology is in order, however.

Well, threat isn't really relevant. It has to do with property rights and a little thing called Trespassing.

Well, threat isn't really relevant. It has to do with property rights and a little thing called Trespassing.

That still doesn't mean he should be tased. That was unnecessary, and I'm sorry, I don't see how the cops thought it was necessary, when 5 them already had him on the ground.

That still doesn't mean he should be tased. That was unnecessary, and I'm sorry, I don't see how the cops thought it was necessary, when 5 them already had him on the ground.

I wasn't really weighing in on the tasering. More so the "being removed for trespassing."

I wasn't really weighing in on the tasering. More so the "being removed for trespassing."

If he was trespassing, then yes, the owner of the property has the right to have him removed, but that does not give the police the right to brutalize him in the process.

If he was trespassing, then yes, the owner of the property has the right to have him removed, but that does not give the police the right to brutalize him in the process.

they DO have the right to subdue him if necessary as he resists arrest. THe only question is, if it was reasonably believed to be necessary at the time.

How can it be that I'm actually agreeing with OceanDrive about something?!? 0_0



He was fighting for one of the most sacred rights granted to all Americas: the right to wander into other people's houses and yell at them. Sadly, most people have simply surrendered this great privilege, leaving only a handful of crazy persons and this guy to uphold our proud, and intensely annoying, heritage.
/thread

If he was trespassing, then yes, the owner of the property has the right to have him removed, but that does not give the police the right to brutalize him in the process.

No, but the fact that he was resisting arrest gives them the right to restrain him and taser him. If you claim that the taser is only for more problematic cases I have some sympathy but you must understand people on the scene don't have ten minutes to repeatedly watch the video and compare it to the rulebook before deciding what to do. This was probably more than necessary but not so much more that I would expect the right call to be made every time.

If you go punishing police for making the wrong judgement call regardless of how hard it was to make correctly you will cripple the police totally. You have to give them some leeway so they can function without being paralysed by indecision every few seconds.

...but he was not using force to try to get them off of him.

Using force is applying force. Using any muscle to attempt to free a part of your body that is in the grip of a police officer is using force to try to get them off him.

I do not know how you can claim that you are sure from this video that he was lying still and docile and he was applying no force to any of his limbs.

Also the cops had to move him, so they only needed to believe he would cause problems when lying on the ground or when they began to move him towards the exit again.

Well cops can say that looking funny at them is resisting arrest...I don't hold much stake in what they claim. It did look like he was 'resisting' arresting by pulling way from the cops, but he was not using force to try to get them off of him. There were 5 cops around him while he was on the ground when they tased him. Don't you think that seems unecessary and excessive? How could the cops actual believe him to be so much of a threat while on the ground surrounded by other cops?

That the police needed to tazer the guy to be able to remove him from the premises means one thing to me - that the police need to required to have higher levels of fitness. You're telling me 4+ officers cannot remove one person from a building without using a tazer? Pathetic. What would they do in a real crisis?

No, but the fact that he was resisting arrest gives them the right to restrain him and taser him. If you claim that the taser is only for more problematic cases I have some sympathy but you must understand people on the scene don't have ten minutes to repeatedly watch the video and compare it to the rulebook before deciding what to do. This was probably more than necessary but not so much more that I would expect the right call to be made every time.

If you go punishing police for making the wrong judgement call regardless of how hard it was to make correctly you will cripple the police totally. You have to give them some leeway so they can function without being paralysed by indecision every few seconds.

The cops already have way too much leeway.

All he was doing was trying to pull away from the cops. He was not being a danger to them, or anyone else. He was on the ground, surrounded by cops, what could he do that would endanger anyone? Nothing. There was no reason. He never threw a punch to get away, never attacked the cops in anyway. He was simply gave no cause to warrant being tasered.

Using force is applying force. Using any muscle to attempt to free a part of your body that is in the grip of a police officer is using force to try to get them off him.

I do not know how you can claim that you are sure from this video that he was lying still and docile and he was applying no force to any of his limbs.

I guess I should have clarified, he wasn't using force to try to hurt the cops so he could flee, therefore no tasing was needed. He was already on the ground!

That the police needed to tazer the guy to be able to remove him from the premises means one thing to me - that the police need to required to have higher levels of fitness. You're telling me 4+ officers cannot remove one person from a building without using a tazer? Pathetic. What would they do in a real crisis?

I agree.

I guess I should have clarified, he wasn't using force to try to hurt the cops so he could flee, therefore no tasing was needed. He was already on the ground!

This uses an unfounded assumption that a taser is only usable when someone is intending to injure somebody else. I very much doubt this is the case.

All he was doing was trying to pull away from the cops. He was not being a danger to them, or anyone else. He was on the ground, surrounded by cops, what could he do that would endanger anyone? Nothing. There was no reason. He never threw a punch to get away, never attacked the cops in anyway. He was simply gave no cause to warrant being tasered.

He had a complete flip out 50 feet from a US Senator. Which again, we are forgetting. Remember, the cops don't know if this guy is armed. They don't know if he's totally nuts or just a dick. They don't know if he's just some jackass with low social skills and a lack of impulse control or the next Hinkley.

All they know is there's a guy acting irratically in the presence of a US Senator and is trying to pull away from them.

Now, let me honestly ask you, in that circumstance, is it really unjustified for the police to play it safe and presume the guy who is acting like a lunatic in front of a US Senator may be a threat?

Moreover the presumption seems to be that since they had 5 guys there, a taser wasn't warranted, completely ignoring the fact that on low settings (which it was pretty low considering the guy was still moving afterwards) is generally SAFER for someone than a dogpile of police twisting your arms behind you as you struggle trying to cuff you.

Frankly speaking, the risk of great injury is substantially greater when you have 5 people trying to physical restrain someone than it is to send a quick jolt through him that, while hurting like a mother fucker, doesn't do any permanent damage.

I'm surprised that this made the national news. Perhaps it's because it's a mild case of excessive force by the police? Nonetheless, mild as it is, I hope the police are formally reprimanded for this.

A few notes here:

-It's a lot harder to restrain a resisting person than you folks seem to think it is. It's possible for someone struggling energetically to actually break their bones. Far better to be tased than to have 800-1200 pounds of angry cop on top of you. On top of that, since he was still able to make noise after being tased, obviously the taser wasn't set very high...

-This whole thing was staged so the idiot who got hauled out would be able to bleed all over gullible people about this and arouse unwarranted public outrage. Let's have a look at the full video of the incident, shall we?

http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=157250#videoid=157250

There's also the fact that he stopped making noise as soon as he realized the cameras were off.

So, let's recap here:

1) He was being disruptive after being previously warned by police that they would arrest him if was disruptive.
2) He refused to obey the lawful orders of the police.
3) He resisted arrest.

How exactly are the police in the wrong here again?

Not really, investigation is pretty standard in pretty much all instances like that, considering as a result of their investigation the police are given time off with pay and, should the investigation find no improper behavior, then no note will go in their file...

Hmmm, the article I saw either changed or I read it wrong. Could have sworn it said without pay.

As I said before, hindsight is 20/20. Things always look different after the fact. Was it necessary? Probably not. Could it have looked necessary at the time and under those circumstances? Possibly..

I'm really iffy on that, but then again I'm sure it was a tense situation. I wouldn't call for any legal action against these officers, but I have no problem stating my opinion that their use of the taser was not warranted.


Well, threat isn't really relevant. It has to do with property rights and a little thing called Trespassing.

Of course threat is relevant! The level of force used by the police should never be disproportionate to the threat presented by the person being arrested. If he had been at all aggressive towards the police, I might agree that use of the taser was in order, but he wasn't. He yelled a lot and tried to pull away from the police, but he never took any aggressive action towards them. He was already on the ground and surrounded by several police officers when they decided to tase him. He even pleaded with them not to do it.

A few notes here:

-It's a lot harder to restrain a resisting person than you folks seem to think it is. It's possible for someone struggling energetically to actually break their bones. Far better to be tased than to have 800-1200 pounds of angry cop on top of you. On top of that, since he was still able to make noise after being tased, obviously the taser wasn't set very high...

-This whole thing was staged so the idiot who got hauled out would be able to bleed all over gullible people about this and arouse unwarranted public outrage. Let's have a look at the full video of the incident, shall we?

http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=157250#videoid=157250

There's also the fact that he stopped making noise as soon as he realized the cameras were off.

So, let's recap here:

1) He was being disruptive after being previously warned by police that they would arrest him if was disruptive.
2) He refused to obey the lawful orders of the police.
3) He resisted arrest.

How exactly are the police in the wrong here again?

I don't know about you, but I don't want to be tased, even at a low setting. How exactly is tasing better than just been hauled off to jail? There are plenty of cases where people have died from being tased.

Even if it was a stunt, he did not deserve to be tased! He was already on the ground!

This uses an unfounded assumption that a taser is only usable when someone is intending to injure somebody else. I very much doubt this is the case.


Is there any other time when a taser would be acceptable to use? I can't think of any.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to be tased, even at a low setting. How exactly is tasing better than just been hauled off to jail? There are plenty of cases where people have died from being tased.

Link?

Is there any other time when a taser would be acceptable to use? I can't think of any.

- a criminal has actually gotten away and the police need to bring him down non-lethally

- a person is unaware of his actions but is still endangering those around him and cannot be safely approached


Yes, but as I explained earlier, I wasn't referring to the tasering, but to his removal by the authorities. I'm still unsure as to whether the tasering was or wasn't justified, and on that topic threat may be relevant, but it wasn't what I was discussing.

Yeah, saw that reply after I posted. It was what was under discussion when you entered the conversation, though. So there! =p

Of course threat is relevant! The level of force used by the police should never be disproportionate to the threat presented by the person being arrested. If he had been at all aggressive towards the police, I might agree that use of the taser was in order, but he wasn't. He yelled a lot and tried to pull away from the police, but he never took any aggressive action towards them. He was already on the ground and surrounded by several police officers when they decided to tase him. He even pleaded with them not to do it.

Yes, but as I explained earlier, I wasn't referring to the tasering, but to his removal by the authorities. I'm still unsure as to whether the tasering was or wasn't justified, and on that topic threat may be relevant, but it wasn't what I was discussing.

Link?

Here's as few:

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/01/news/top_stories/23_36_183_31_07.txt

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510302006

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=78898

http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9395

In both cased the cops can subdue him without the use of a taser.

Case 1: the cops can chase him down and tackle him

you think this is safer than a taser?

Case 2: a group of cops can approach the person and subdue him, yell at him, talk to him, etc

Did you miss the "can not be safely approached" part?

Yeah, saw that reply after I posted. It was what was under discussion when you entered the conversation, though. So there! =p

Bah! I reject your reality and substitute my own. Nyaaaaaa! :D

Is there any other time when a taser would be acceptable to use? I can't think of any.

Any time where in the old days they'd have gone to work with nightsticks instead.

I suggest you folks talking about how tasers kill people go look up how many people have died due to having nightsticks and heavy flashlights used on them by police (hint: quite a few).

In both cased the cops can subdue him without the use of a taser.

Not necessarily. And, by that logic, they can also do so in the case you agreed with.

Case 1: the cops can chase him down and tackle him

Maybe. Or maybe he got the jump on them and he's going to get away if they don't act immediately.

Case 2: a group of cops can approach the person and subdue him, yell at him, talk to him, etc

Did you miss the "cannot be safely approached" part? Sure, the police could put themselves in danger by doing so, or they can take him down non-lethally without putting anyone in danger.

- a criminal has actually gotten away and the police need to bring him down non-lethally

- a person is unaware of his actions but is still endangering those around him and cannot be safely approached

In both cased the cops can subdue him without the use of a taser.

Case 1: the cops can chase him down and tackle him

Case 2: a group of cops can approach the person and subdue him, yell at him, talk to him, etc

Any time where in the old days they'd have gone to work with nightsticks instead.

I suggest you folks talking about how tasers kill people go look up how many people have died due to having nightsticks and heavy flashlights used on them by police (hint: quite a few).

That's not really a good argument, though. "It's better than what came before it," doesn't mean that it's good, just better than what came before it. Which is sort of a "duh" situation.

That's not really a good argument, though. "It's better than what came before it," doesn't mean that it's good, just better than what came before it. Which is sort of a "duh" situation.

What would you have preferred they do? Tase him, or pile onto him to hold him down, possibly risking breaking one or more of his limbs while he struggled?

It IS possible to hurt yourself in such a manner and has happened to people being arrested before who wouldn't stop struggling. You are, in fact, strong enough to inadvertently break your own bones.

Also, it's really hard to pick up someone who keeps thrashing around or is hanging entirely limp.

What would you have preferred they do? Tase him, or pile onto him to hold him down, possibly risking breaking one or more of his limbs while he struggled?

It IS possible to hurt yourself in such a manner and has happened to people being arrested before who wouldn't stop struggling. You are, in fact, strong enough to inadvertently break your own bones.

Also, it's really hard to pick up someone who keeps thrashing around or is hanging entirely limp.

I'd rather see them hold the person down. I'd rather people have broken bones than see them die.

I'd rather see them hold the person down. I'd rather people have broken bones than see them die.

That's just a little silly too, though. Tasers have variable settings. On the lowest setting, they'll give him a good shock, and quite a bit of pain, but they definitely won't kill him.

Hell, he's able to talk after they tase him. That alone is an indication they didn't use it at a dangerous setting.

you think this is safer than a taser?



Did you miss the "can not be safely approached" part?

Yes, seeing as tasing can be lethal, and subduing someone by pinning them to the ground or tackling them can only break bones and give bruises...

Define safely approached. Does the person have a gun? A knife?

What would you have preferred they do? Tase him, or pile onto him to hold him down, possibly risking breaking one or more of his limbs while he struggled?

It IS possible to hurt yourself in such a manner and has happened to people being arrested before who wouldn't stop struggling. You are, in fact, strong enough to inadvertently break your own bones.

Also, it's really hard to pick up someone who keeps thrashing around or is hanging entirely limp.

I admit, I would rather see him tased. However, I'm not all that convinced it was necessary in this case. Largely because I don't know how these sorts of situations work.

Yes, seeing as tasing can be lethal, and subduing someone by pinning them to the ground or tackling them can only break bones and give bruises...

Define safely approached. Does the person have a gun? A knife?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser#Taser
Amnesty International has documented over 245 deaths that occurred after the use of tasers.[7] The fact that a death occurred following use of a taser does not necessarily indicate the taser was the cause of death or even a contributing factor,[8] as many of the deaths occurred in people with serious medical conditions and/or severe drug intoxication, often to the point of excited delirium. Tasers are often used as an alternative to attacking the suspect with a baton or shooting him with firearms both of which have a much higher chance of serious injury and death than the taser, even using the highest estimates of possible taser-related deaths.

That's just a little silly too, though. Tasers have variable settings. On the lowest setting, they'll give him a good shock, and quite a bit of pain, but they definitely won't kill him.

Hell, he's able to talk after they tase him. That alone is an indication they didn't use it at a dangerous setting.

Even if the setting isn't lethal, it seems like it is too easy to abuse. If anyone is being uncooperative, just tase them, even if it hurts like hell! Why bother wasting time talking with them when we can just tase the shit out of them and haul them down to the station?!

Plus, if I got tased I'd be fucking mad as hell. They had better set the setting up so I wouldn't be able fight back afterwards, otherwise I'd be going for blood.

As soon as I have a link to the police report I'll post it. Amongst other things, it indicates that a girl with a camera came in with him, and filmed him while he went on his rant. After he realized she wasn't filming him, he stopped, and when she caught up while they were taking him away, he started up again.

This is basically the equivalent of people who go to protests with slices in their cheeks from razor blades, go up to a police line and push on it, then when the cops push back, dramatically stagger away and flick the wound open so it looks like they have a huge horrid bleeding gash on their face.

Even if the setting isn't lethal, it seems like it is too easy to abuse. If anyone is being uncooperative, just tase them, even if it hurts like hell! Why bother wasting time talking with them when we can just the shit out of them and haul them down to the station?!

Plus, if I got tased I'd be fucking mad as hell. They had better set the setting up so I wouldn't be able fight back afterwards, otherwise I'd be going for blood.

Then you'd just be tased again, and be further charged for attacking a police officer. I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Then you'd just be tased again, and be further charged for attacking a police officer. I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.

busted

Then you'd just be tased again, and be further charged for attacking a police officer. I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Whoopdeedoo.

That's if I don't get the police officer with the taser first. But I can't see myself in a situation where I'd be tased, unless it was at some type of protest.

All I'm trying to say is that tasing shouldn't be used blindly and frequently. It should only be used under circumstances where someone is a threat to others, not when people are just not doing what the cops say.

Whoopdeedoo.

That's if I don't get the police officer with the taser first. But I can't see myself in a situation where I'd be tased, unless it was at some type of protest.

All I'm trying to say is that tasing shouldn't be used blindly and frequently. It should only be used under circumstances where someone is a threat to others, not when people are just not doing what the cops say.

It isn't.

There is a procedure cops are required to follow that includes the use of a taser for certain specific conditions. This is the main reason why the police involved in this are being internally investigated.

It isn't.

There is a procedure cops are required to follow that includes the use of a taser for certain specific conditions. This is the main reason why the police involved in this are being internally investigated.

Well then, that's good.

These cops should be punished. I've watched the video again, and read the article, and still I don't see how he posed a threat. Yes there was a senator in the room, but the dude wasn't acting like a threat, he was being a jerk. There are lots of people that are jerks, should they all be tased?

pah...when I was a lad we faced mounted police baton charges...

So the guy is there to doorstep Kerry....and Kerry and the crowd just sits there watching the guy get zapped...so what if it was a set up? Kerry unable to deal with a bloke (and seemingly a bird with a camera) verbally??

Seems to me that Kerry (or any other fucking pol pretty much except for Tony Benn and the Beast Of Bolsover) could have let the guy rant and then verbally cut him to size and move on...heckling and the reposte is a time honoured political tool...now all we have are tools in office.

Fucking idiots the lot of 'em.

Whoopdeedoo.

That's if I don't get the police officer with the taser first. But I can't see myself in a situation where I'd be tased, unless it was at some type of protest.

Good luck in getting the officer with the taser first.

All I'm trying to say is that tasing shouldn't be used blindly and frequently. It should only be used under circumstances where someone is a threat to others, not when people are just not doing what the cops say.

That I can agree with.

All I'm trying to say is that tasing shouldn't be used blindly and frequently. It should only be used under circumstances where someone is a threat to others, not when people are just not doing what the cops say.

I will accept that with modification. It is impossible to expect police, or any human being, to react with perfect information in the objective. It is impossible to say that a taser should be used only when necessary and expect that standard to be adhered to.

Rather, given the limitations of human capabilities, it is more proper to say that it should be used only when it is reasonably believed to be necessary at the time, as the circumstances are believed to be.

Which is pretty much exactly what the standard is. The question thus becomes not was it necessary, but did the police reasonably believe it to be necessary in the circumstances that they, at the time, believed them to be?

Good luck in getting the officer with the taser first.



That I can agree with.

Hurray!

Well then, that's good.

These cops should be punished.

I doubt they will be but they might get a warning.

I've watched the video again, and read the article, and still I don't see how he posed a threat. Yes there was a senator in the room, but the dude wasn't acting like a threat, he was being a jerk. There are lots of people that are jerks, should they all be tased?

No but then, we do not know what was going through a cops mind during this incident. Should they have tased him? Probably not but then hindsight is 20/20.

Are you insane? Of course it can be excessive and not criminal. There are degrees of everything. Disciplinary action within the department is the same as whenever anyone makes a mistake at any job -- not every mistake is a crime, even for the cops. In this case it looks like (emphasize that because none of us were there) tasering was the highest-end response in the range of popssible responses and can be perceived as excessive. So long as no harm was done to the tasee(?), the cops need to be remediated about when to use the device and have a disciplinary "black mark" on their records. They shouldn't be fired and they shouldn't be charged with a crime (unless there are similar marks on their records) because there's not enough evidence to make any kind of brutality charge.

Criminal would have been using 'sticks or drawing firearms. If these five people had trouble hauling off one person, the problem might lie in the physical requirements for those officers' positions. Regardless, you don't throw away an officer and their training without attempts at remediation and education. It could even have been their first time with a US senator in the mix -- I don't know about you, but that would make me a bit edgy.


Tazers are nearly as dangerous as nightsticks, they've been known to cause heart attacks sometimes in people with no known heart problems. I'm sorry police brutality and or excessive force are equal to assault and battery. I would never throw away a good officer, however an officer guilty of using excessive force is not a good officer and should be tossed out on his or her ass for the first offense.

Neo Art, if you hate Bush then why are you suppoting the polices manhandling of an innocent man whos only crime is asking kerry a simple question regarding his membership of a cult. It seems to be that this is more of a distraction from the main question at hand and in thus, deflecting attention away from kerry and skull and bones. I find it deeply distrubing that you and corny are spewing this 'he broke the law' rubbish as though you think the law is infallible and can do no wrong. I think you need to reevaluate your position and soon, because the shit is hitting the fan.

I am not a policeman and so have no experience in this, but intuitively I believe this just would not be true. At the very least you have a chance of scaring the person into behaving, surely.Tazed people aren't unconscious or otherwise subdued, they're just in pain.

People in handcuffs are relatively easy to maneuver around, since a minimal application of force can keep them off balance and/or cause rather excruciating pain. It's more obvious to draw the opposite conclusion; that a person already in pain is somewhat more difficult to haul around than a person not already in pain.

Regardless, I believe I can assure you with some authority that it makes no practical difference. Especially not in this case, where the number of coppers were more than sufficient to haul him off.Even if it was a stunt, he did not deserve to be tased! He was already on the ground!That's just it. It's not up to the police to decide if the guy deserves to get tazed, kicked a bit in the head or whatever. It's no more their job than it is our job to brutalize coppers on the grounds that they can reasonably be expected to be a menace to the welfare of others.

You mean the questions that he asked to kerry then went over his time, was told to stop and he did not. He continued and they cut his mic and he still was going on and then he resisted the police who tried to escort him off stage and he continued to resist.

So tell me what the cops did wrong.

They tazed him after he was subdued.

Neo Art, if you hate Bush then why are you suppoting the polices

What does Bush have to do with florida state policE?

manhandling of an innocent man whos only crime is asking kerry a simple question regarding his membership of a cult.

actually his crimes were trespassing, resisting arrest and disturbing the peace. Since you haven't figured this part out yet, engaging you in this conversation is pretty pointless at this time.

I find it deeply distrubing that you and corny are spewing this 'he broke the law' rubbish as though you think the law is infallible and can do no wrong.

Oh the law is very fallible, is quite often. Yet I don't see any fault in a law that says it's illegal to be on property that's not yours without permission. That seems like a perfectly good law to me.

And one he violated.

I think you need to reevaluate your position and soon, because the shit is hitting the fan.

uh huh, sure, I'll go ahead and think about reevaluating my position that criminals who resist arrest should not be subdued with non lethal force. I'll get right on that one.

Neo Art, if you hate Bush then why are you suppoting the polices manhandling of an innocent man whos only crime is asking kerry a simple question regarding his membership of a cult. It seems to be that this is more of a distraction from the main question at hand and in thus, deflecting attention away from kerry and skull and bones. I find it deeply distrubing that you and corny are spewing this 'he broke the law' rubbish as though you think the law is infallible and can do no wrong. I think you need to reevaluate your position and soon, because the shit is hitting the fan.

Well, there are a few reasons, I'd imagine.
One of those, and probably the most important, is that the police department of a town in florida has absolutely Fuckall to do with the Bush administration. They are enforcing a law, namely a law prohibiting trespass, that was on the books before Bush was a twinkle in his mother's eye.

Now, unless you want to argue against laws prohibiting trespass, "he broke the law" is an acceptable argument for "his sorry ass was removed from the premises."

They tazed him after he was subdued.

struggling with police while on the ground is not "subdued", and, if you read the report, at the time of the tazing the police had still not succeeded in getting him handcuffed.

He may have been on the ground, he was in no way subdued. The only ways for the police to subdue him were to either 1) tase him, or; 2) have five people physically restrain him as he thrashed around.

Now do you really, REALLY think using five people to physicaly force someone's arms behind his back is safer than using a weapon designed to specifically be non lethal at that setting?

Really? Is that your honest position?

It is just as easy to carry a cuffed hooligan off the premises as it is to taze and then carry off a cuffed hooligan from the premises.

Just for a clarity point. Said cuffed Hooligan didn't have the cuffs on both wrists until after he was tazed and stopped flailing around.

Tazed people aren't unconscious or otherwise subdued, they're just in pain.

actually no. In addition to causing a shit ton of pain, the electric current from a taser causes temporary muscle paralysis. Someone tased not only hurts like a mother fucker, he can't actually move for a few seconds. Which is just enough time to put the cuffs on him.

Which in fact does make him subdued.

According to the police there, they weren't able to handcuff him until after they tasered him:

Officers then proceeded to attempt to remove Meyer from the room, but when he resisted, they placed him on the ground and tried to handcuff him. The six officers who actually took part in holding Meyer down while he was being handcuffed reported that they were only able to get a handcuff on his right hand because he was squirming so much.

The supervising officer, Sgt. Eddie King, attempted to Taser Meyer on his chest, but he reported that his Taser would not deploy. He then instructed Mallo to Taser Meyer, and she Tasered him on his shoulder, according to one of the officer's report.

The officers were then able to fully handcuff Meyer and escort him from the building. Each of the six officers reported that Meyer yelled things like, "They're going to kill me," and, "They are giving me to the government," while he was being taken from the room.

source (http://www.starbanner.com/article/20070918/NEWS/70918007/1053/BREAKING_NEWS)

So, he was not fully subdued when they decided to taser him. Sounds like it was his own fault for getting zapped...

**ETA: dang, too slow, as this has already been brought up...**

Any time where in the old days they'd have gone to work with nightsticks instead.

I suggest you folks talking about how tasers kill people go look up how many people have died due to having nightsticks and heavy flashlights used on them by police (hint: quite a few).

By that logic if they took a knife and stabbed someone who didn't deserve to be shot it would be ok . . .

It's my position. A few bruises and sore arms are better than gambling that the person will die...even if the chance is 1 in a million.

try broken arms and ribs. And I can promise you, the odds of dying from a broken rib puncturing a lung is significantly higher than the odds of a taser killing someone.

What does Bush have to do with florida state policE?

Well, its his climate of fear that created this situation in the first place.



actually his crimes were trespassing, resisting arrest and disturbing the peace. Since you haven't figured this part out yet, engaging you in this conversation is pretty pointless at this time.

He was resisting arrest because they where arresting him for no reason. And whats this crap about him trespassing? He was a student at the univercity! And if you think screaming as you are being tasered is disturbing the peace.....



Oh the law is very fallible, is quite often. Yet I don't see any fault in a law that says it's illegal to be on property that's not yours without permission. That seems like a perfectly good law to me.

And one he violated.

As he was a student there he wasnt trespassing. Fail



uh huh, sure, I'll go ahead and think about reevaluating my position that criminals who resist arrest should not be subdued with non lethal force. I'll get right on that one.

Let me guess, youre a Republican, right?

struggling with police while on the ground is not "subdued", and, if you read the report, at the time of the tazing the police had still not succeeded in getting him handcuffed.

He may have been on the ground, he was in no way subdued. The only ways for the police to subdue him were to either 1) tase him, or; 2) have five people physically restrain him as he thrashed around.

Now do you really, REALLY think using five people to physicaly force someone's arms behind his back is safer than using a weapon designed to specifically be non lethal at that setting?

Really? Is that your honest position?

It's my position. A few bruises and sore arms are better than gambling that the person will die...even if the chance is 1 in a million.

Let me guess, youre a Republican, right?

Swing and a miss. Now let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe that being a student at a university allows you to go anywhere you want on university property at any time, for any reason?

Yes, he is a student at the university. Which makes him a guest of the university. He doesn't own it, it's not his. He may pay to attend, but his permission to attend can be revoked.

It is idiocy in the extreme to suppose that a student can't trespass on his own university, and considering I have already posted, and linked to this university's own code of conduct that specifically addresses this point, the code of conduct that he agreed to when he joined the university....you fail. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.

According to the police there, they weren't able to handcuff him until after they tasered him:



source (http://www.starbanner.com/article/20070918/NEWS/70918007/1053/BREAKING_NEWS)

So, he was not fully subdued when they decided to taser him. Sounds like it was his own fault for getting zapped...

**ETA: dang, too slow, as this has already been brought up...**

He was still on the ground surrounded by cops. How long would it have taken to get the other wrist cuffed? A minute or two tops.

struggling with police while on the ground is not "subdued", and, if you read the report, at the time of the tazing the police had still not succeeded in getting him handcuffed.

He may have been on the ground, he was in no way subdued. The only ways for the police to subdue him were to either 1) tase him, or; 2) have five people physically restrain him as he thrashed around.

Now do you really, REALLY think using five people to physicaly force someone's arms behind his back is safer than using a weapon designed to specifically be non lethal at that setting?

Really? Is that your honest position?

Considering the fact that tazers can cause heart problems, YES.

Considering the fact that tazers can cause heart problems, YES.

ok, so add you to the list of people disconnected with reality. I mean, I understand that if you believe that then this would be your position.

I just can't understand why an intelligent person would believe that a weapon that is in the extreme majority of the time non lethal and leaves no lasting damage would be more dangerous than pinning someone to the ground and physically forcing his hands behind his back.

Were you even watching the same video I was?? I clearly heard him say first that he would leave the building of his own volition

he can SAY whatever he wants, but as long as he's still evading being arrested he is still resisting arrest.

I can be repeatedly punching you in the face while yelling "I AM NOT PUNCHING YOU IN THE FACE!" but guess what?

I'm still punching you in the face.

Were you even watching the same video I was?? I clearly heard him say first that he would leave the building of his own volition, then I heard him plead, with the officer not to use the taser, then I heard him scream in agony when the officer did it anyway. The only thing he was "resisting" was the purposful infliting of pain upon him after he had given up and was willing to leave.

And his previous behaviour made it seem like he would be so trustworthy and would abide by his word.

[

Swing and a miss.


*sigh*Are you a Republician or not?







Now let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe that being a student at a university allows you to go anywhere you want on university property at any time, for any reason?

If its on the campus and there are no reason for me to assume otherwise then yes, within reason.

Yes, he is a student at the university. Which makes him a guest of the university. He doesn't own it, it's not his. He may pay to attend, but his permission to attend can be revoked.

If he was there but that means he had permission. Fail.




It is idiocy in the extreme to suppose that a student can't trespass on his own university, and considering I have already posted, and linked to this university's own code of conduct that specifically addresses this point, the code of conduct that he agreed to when he joined the university....you fail. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.


Please dont flame me. Or I'll have to report you again.

struggling with police while on the ground is not "subdued", and, if you read the report, at the time of the tazing the police had still not succeeded in getting him handcuffed.

He may have been on the ground, he was in no way subdued. The only ways for the police to subdue him were to either 1) tase him, or; 2) have five people physically restrain him as he thrashed around.

Now do you really, REALLY think using five people to physicaly force someone's arms behind his back is safer than using a weapon designed to specifically be non lethal at that setting?

Really? Is that your honest position?

Were you even watching the same video I was?? I clearly heard him say first that he would leave the building of his own volition, then I heard him plead, with the officer not to use the taser, then I heard him scream in agony when the officer did it anyway. The only thing he was "resisting" was the purposful infliting of pain upon him after he had given up and was willing to leave.

Were you even watching the same video I was?? I clearly heard him say first that he would leave the building of his own volition

he can SAY whatever he wants, but as long as he's still evading being arrested he is still resisting arrest.

I can be repeatedly punching you in the face while yelling "I AM NOT PUNCHING YOU IN THE FACE!" but guess what?

I'm still punching you in the face.

My political orientation is, frankly, none of your business.

If he was there but that means he had permission.

Which was revoked when he was told to leave

Fail.

Yes, yes you did.

Please dont flame me. Or I'll have to report you again.

Yeah, that report is going so well for you isn't it?

He was still on the ground surrounded by cops. How long would it have taken to get the other wrist cuffed? A minute or two tops.

do you know how damned DANGEROUS it is to have a person struggling with a cuff attached to one wrist?

Do you have ANY idea how BADLY someone can get hurt that way? He basically has a metal flail attached to his wrist.

Previous behavior?? You mean acting frightened and offended when he was tackled by police for asking some questions to a senator, who actually wanted to answer them?

No, more like refusing to leave after being told to. Or did we forget that part? Seriously, get over this whole "the police tackled him for talking to the senator" bullshit, it's old, tired, and frankly at this point rather stupid.

Read what happened. The police did nothing, NOTHING, until he was told to leave by the event coordinators and refused, at which point the police were brought in for the specific purpose of removing him. He wasn't arrested for speaking, and stop trying to claim he was.

He was arrested because he refused to leave after being told to, and then resisting lawful police efforts to remove him from the property that he was no longer welcome on. The police didn't give a fuck about what he had to say, their job was to remove him after he had been told to leave, and refused, that is specifically why they were brought in, so stop trying to paint this guy as an innocent victim who got attacked because police didn't like his politics.

he was a criminal that evaded a lawful arrest as he was trespassing after refusing to leave.

Previous behavior?? You mean acting frightened and offended when he was tackled by police for asking some questions to a senator, who actually wanted to answer them?

After being asked to leave and having his mic turned off the next step would have to be physically removing him. If he had calmly allowed himself to be removed in the beginning then this wouldn't be an issue. His 20/20 hindsight isn't enough