NationStates Jolt Archive

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

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?

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

So you are a Republican? Gotcha, now I see where your coming from.



Which was revoked when he was told to leave

At what point in the video was he issued with an order saying he was no longer a student there?



Yes, yes you did.

Flamebait. You had your warning



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


I'm sure the moderators will act soon. Perhaps a 3 day ban will change your tune.

Why are you acting like such a dick?

And how is anything this guy did worth getting arrested? Who was he bringing harm to? How is this a better way to deal with the situation rather than allowing him to blow his gas and go along his merry way instead of making a dramatic even out of it by setting the hounds on him?

Imagine a group of strangers walked into your house and wouldn't leave when asked. Would you just let them stay, for however long they wanted, without saying anything? I don't believe many people would.

As for your first sentence. Disagreement does not constitute "acting like such a dick"

I'm sure the moderators will act soon. And if they dont, I will simply take care of it myself.

How would you do that might I ask?

No, more like refusing to leave after being told to. Or did we forget that part?

Why are you acting like such a dick?

And how is anything this guy did worth getting arrested? Who was he bringing harm to? How is this a better way to deal with the situation rather than allowing him to blow his gas and go along his merry way instead of making a dramatic even out of it by setting the hounds on him?

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.

Sen. Kerry releases statement
1:22 pm, September 18, 2007, Sept. 18, 2007
Sen. John Kerry said that through dialogue he may have been able to resolve the outburst that occurred during his speech Monday at the University of Florida.

He issued the statement Tuesday afternoon indicating his regret for the incident that resulted in police Tasering a student.

"I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention," Kerry's statement said.

"In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way," Kerry said adding he was in the process of responding to Andrew Meyer's questions when police intervened.

-- Megan Rolland/Gainesville Sun

Why are you acting like such a dick?

Why are you being deliberately obtuse?

And how is anything this guy did worth getting arrested?

he was trespassing. That is a criminal offense. You don't get to sit on someone else's property without permission. That's not how our society works. It wasn't his property, he was there by invitation, his behavior got his invitation revoked.

now whether or not his behavior should have gotten his invitation revoked is another matter entirely, and one entirely irrelevant to the discussion. That is the decision for the duly appointed representatives of the university. And a decision they made, as they had a right to do. Would you have made a different decision? Well, that's entirely irrelevant.

What is relevant is that they made it. At that point he was breaking the law. And the police have a legal duty to arrest lawbreakers. That is their job. Regardless of whether his permission SHOULD have been revoked is entirely irrelevant. It was. At that point he became a criminal. Once he became a criminal, it was the police officer's duty to remove him. That's their job.

Imagine a group of strangers walked into your house and wouldn't leave when asked. Would you just let them stay, for however long they wanted, without saying anything? I don't believe many people would.

As for your first sentence. Disagreement does not constitute "acting like such a dick"


I didnt know you were a Bush supporter, Dundee.

Wow. Nice edit.

Lucky I quoted it before he managed that

I didnt know you were a Bush supporter, Dundee.

I don't see any connection between this and Bush (about whom i'm quite apathetic). Care to enlighten me?

I also noticed that you didn't actually address anything in my post.

How would you do that might I ask?

I will request the webhosters that they disable his account.

I'm sure the moderators will act soon. Perhaps a 3 day ban will change your tune.

Wow. Nice edit.

You DO realize the mods can see the edited portion of the post, right?

The problem with that premise is that this was an event that was not taking place in my house, or even a house, or residence, or any other form of living accommodation.


Perhaps I should have widened my example to any private property you owned. An office perhaps or any other example you would prefer.

I will request the webhosters that they disable his account.

sure thing. Good luck with that one.

How would you do that might I ask?

Wow. Nice edit.

You DO realize the mods can see the edited portion of the post, right?

The reason that I edited the post was that I realized that my statement could be interpreted as a threat, which was not my intention.

Lucky I quoted it before he managed that

Heh, awesome. Kinda makes you wonder who'll be getting the rough end of the mod action now, huh?

Imagine a group of strangers walked into your house and wouldn't leave when asked. Would you just let them stay, for however long they wanted, without saying anything? I don't believe many people would.

The problem with that premise is that this was an event that was not taking place in my house, or even a house, or residence, or any other form of living accommodation.

As for your first sentence. Disagreement does not constitute "acting like such a dick"

But being needlessly combative and flippant does.

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.

Not that dangerous. Its been done years. I've never heard of anyone dying from struggling to be handcuffed. Bruises, sore wrists, arms, yes, but not death.

If he was standing up, swinging his arm and the handcuffs at police, then yes, tasing could be warranted, as he was on the ground, surrounded by cops, he would have been pinned in a matter of seconds. They tased him to punish him on the spot, which is not what cops are do. They arrest people so they can be tried, and if convicted punished.

A person on the ground, surrounded by cops is not a threat. A bruise here and there is not harmful.


Edit: Why is the time warp so crazy in this thread?!?!

Not that dangerous. Its been done years. I've never heard of anyone dying from struggling to be handcuffed. Bruises, sore wrists, arms, yes, but not death.

If he was standing up, swinging his arm and the handcuffs at police, then yes, tasing could be warranted, as he was on the ground, surrounded by cops, he would have been pinned in a matter of seconds. They tased him to punish him on the spot, which is not what cops are do. They arrest people so they can be tried, and if convicted punished.

A person on the ground, surrounded by cops is not a threat. A bruise here and there is not harmful.


Edit: Why is the time warp so crazy in this thread?!?!

I'm not actually sure there's been all that much time-warping. A poster edited his post, before someone quoted him and after someone quoted him, and there's been some commenting back and forth about that particular tangent.

Definitely a possibility. I think Dundee's Irish, I'm East Coast USA, and I'm not sure about the others here.

Then again, I'm not sure where the servers are or which ones are off, to be honest.

Wow someone knows something about me *locks doors*

Don't come any closer :p

(although to be fair i'm in Scotland but yeah Irish)

I'm not actually sure there's been all that much time-warping. A poster edited his post, before someone quoted him and after someone quoted him, and there's been some commenting back and forth about that particular tangent.

It is all over the place in this one though. Weird, must be a number of people from a lot of places posting in this one.

The problem with that premise is that this was an event that was not taking place in my house, or even a house, or residence, or any other form of living accommodation.

And yet, it was still property that was not his. What form the property takes is irrelevant, he was on property he did not have either the right or permission to be on.

That makes him a trespasser. Which makes him a criminal. And police have the legal duty and obligation to arrest criminals.

It is all over the place in this one though. Weird, must be a number of people from a lot of places posting in this one.

Definitely a possibility. I think Dundee's Irish, I'm East Coast USA, and I'm not sure about the others here.

Then again, I'm not sure where the servers are or which ones are off, to be honest.

Why are you being deliberately obtuse?



he was trespassing. That is a criminal offense. You don't get to sit on someone else's property without permission. That's not how our society works. It wasn't his property, he was there by invitation, his behavior got his invitation revoked.

now whether or not his behavior should have gotten his invitation revoked is another matter entirely, and one entirely irrelevant to the discussion. That is the decision for the duly appointed representatives of the university. And a decision they made, as they had a right to do. Would you have made a different decision? Well, that's entirely irrelevant.

What is relevant is that they made it. At that point he was breaking the law. And the police have a legal duty to arrest lawbreakers. That is their job. Regardless of whether his permission SHOULD have been revoked is entirely irrelevant. It was. At that point he became a criminal. Once he became a criminal, it was the police officer's duty to remove him. That's their job.


He was a student.

And yet, it was still property that was not his. What form the property takes is irrelevant, he was on property he did not have either the right or permission to be on.

That makes him a trespasser. Which makes him a criminal. And police have the legal duty and obligation to arrest criminals.

He was never officially revoked.

He was a student.

Which, again, according to the university school of conduct that he agreed to, that I linked to this thread, is irrelevant.

He was never officially revoked.

His permission to attend the event was most certainly revoked, right at the moment that the duly appointed representatives of the university told him to leave. At that point, he was no longer welcome.

Once he refused to leave was when the police became involved.

This is the part that bugs me. If he was a student of the university this took place at, that means that he's paying (through loans, grants, etc. given to the university) HUGE money to the school. With that in mind how can the school call it private property, and have him arrested and removed from a place the student is literally funding the existance of?

I've paid for hotel rooms and been kicked out of them (a pub crawl was to blame). What's the difference between that and this?

And yet, it was still property that was not his. What form the property takes is irrelevant, he was on property he did not have either the right or permission to be on.

That makes him a trespasser. Which makes him a criminal. And police have the legal duty and obligation to arrest criminals.

This is the part that bugs me. If he was a student of the university this took place at, that means that he's paying (through loans, grants, etc. given to the university) HUGE money to the school. With that in mind how can the school call it private property, and have him arrested and removed from a place the student is literally funding the existence of?

This is the part that bugs me. If he was a student of the university this took place at, that means that he's paying (through loans, grants, etc. given to the university) HUGE money to the school. With that in mind how can the school call it private property, and have him arrested and removed from a place the student is literally funding the existence of?

because he is paying the school for permission to attend, he does not own it. His payment to the school for permission to attend forms a contract with the school, the terms of which are codified in the student code of conduct which he agreed to when he officially enrolled in the school.

The code of conduct that I have already linked to in this thread which states quite clearly that a student will be deemed trespassing if he enters, or refuses to leave, a school sponsored event when he has already been told to leave.

Feel free to search this thread, I have already quoted and linked to that very code of conduct.

In other words, the school can have him arrested for refusing to leave even though he is a student because:

1) merely being a student doesn't give you rights to the property, it only gives you permission consistant with the agreement you formed with the school,

and;

2) he agreed to be bound to those conditions as explained in the school code of conduct when he enrolled in the school.

When was the last time you paid $30,000+ per year to stay at a hotel?

I don't see how that matters. I didn't buy the hotel room and he didn't buy the university. The amount spent has no bearing

When was the last time you paid $30,000+ per year to stay at a hotel?

once again, WHAT he pays is irrelevant, he agreed to the code of conduct when he enrolled in the school, which specifically states, effectively "we'll call the cops on you if you show up and/or remain where you are not welcome".

He agreed to those conditions when he joined up. He agreed to conditions that state "you recognize that this isn't your property and we can and will have you arrested for trespassing if you do so".

He agreed to it. Tough shit for him.

I've paid for hotel rooms and been kicked out of them (a pub crawl was to blame). What's the difference between that and this?

When was the last time you paid $30,000+ per year to stay at a hotel?

I will request the webhosters that they disable his account.

Unless what is on his web site is directed towards you, or threatens harm upon you as a person, you cannot petition his web host to shut down any web site that he owns if he is paying for it.

Thats how the law is at this point in time, and there's nothing that we, as civilians, can do to change it. Unless you become a polititian and have it changed.

Unless what is on his web site is directed towards you, or threatens harm upon you as a person, you cannot petition his web host to shut down any web site that he owns if he is paying for it.

Thats how the law is at this point in time, and there's nothing that we, as civilians, can do to change it. Unless you become a polititian and have it changed.

no no, let him try. I'm sure Comcast will be very amused. Corporate entities don't like being told what to do by private civilians.

Actually, he didn't have any kind of permission to be there, considering this was a ticketed event and he just barged in.

This is the part that bugs me. If he was a student of the university this took place at, that means that he's paying (through loans, grants, etc. given to the university) HUGE money to the school. With that in mind how can the school call it private property, and have him arrested and removed from a place the student is literally funding the existence of?

Regardless of your tuition, school property remains exactly that. School property.

You don't become a partial land owner. Nor do you suddenly get the right to walk into any room on campus you like. Therefor when asked to leave, you can't just ignore it and stay because you paid a tuition.

Actually, he didn't have any kind of permission to be there, considering this was a ticketed event and he just barged in.

oh? really? Heh, that just adds a whole other dimension to it.

no no, let him try. I'm sure Comcast will be very amused. Corporate entities don't like being told what to do by private civilians.

lol

Especially Comcast. I tried to get them to fix their internet service at one time when I lived back home with my folks, they flat out told me that they wern't going to do squat.


Ok....you all can get back on topic now...

How does allowing the situation to unfold as it did fall in line with the officer's primary duty of "keeping the peace"?

Simple. The student was breaking the law and disrupting the peace. At which point, the police's duty is to arrest them, and, should he resist, take all reasonable efforts to subdue him.

Which is exactly what they did, attempted to arrest him, and, when he resisted, used reasonable efforts to subdue him based on the circumstances as they believed them to be at the time.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm hardly a supporter of the police as a whole. I do 100-150 hours of pro bono legal work for the ACLU every year. I've seen first hand what police can do when they turn brutal.

But this wasn't it.

I'm through with this thread. We're talking in circles. Nothing said here is convincing me that what happened was right. And things said to the opposite don't seem to be having any effect on others either.

Think what you want. It was wrong, hamhanded, and by the video evidence, intentionally mean spirited as well. Police advocates obviously see it differently. But, in parting I'll ask this. How does allowing the situation to unfold as it did fall in line with the officer's primary duty of "keeping the peace"?

Damn what a fucked up school with fucked up rent a cops. Kerry even told them it was okay and he would answer the question.

The kid was an ass but deserved only to be dragged out of the place when he initially resisted removal. The tasering was completely unnecessary. It served no useful purpose since he was already subdued.

Did anyone see the Washington Posts article on this? Even though the kid made several mentions of the name of the book he was holding: "Armed Madhouse", the Washington Post said he was holding a mysterious yellow book. :rolleyes:

At least it's good that this is getting more attention on that book.

Damn what a fucked up school with fucked up rent a cops. Kerry even told them it was okay and he would answer the question.

The kid was an ass but deserved only to be dragged out of the place when he initially resisted removal. The tasering was completely unnecessary. It served no useful purpose since he was already subdued.

But that's the point, he wasn't ACTUALLY subdued. He was on the ground, but that's not subdued. He was flailing around with one hand free and the other with a handcuff attached to it.

the kid made several mentions of the name of the book he was holding: "Armed Madhouse",

Which could also add a little more to the possible publicity stunt view.

Which could also add a little more to the possible publicity stunt view.

It could, but very little as I see it. It's just not Greg Palast's M.O.

But that's the point, he wasn't ACTUALLY subdued. He was on the ground, but that's not subdued. He was flailing around with one hand free and the other with a handcuff attached to it.

If he was attacking the rent a cops I could see it... if he was on his feet kicking and punching (even just at the air) I could see it... but I can't see it as being necessary when there are two security personnel are trying to keep one scrawny little guy from resisting being handcuffed while not assaulting anyone (if he was I hadn't seen a mention of it anywhere).

There are techniques that the security idiots could easily use to subdue the guy and if they don't know them, they shouldn't be qualified to be security personnel much less carry a taser.

If he was attacking the rent a cops I could see it... if he was on his feet kicking and punching (even just at the air) I could see it... but I can't see it as being necessary when there are two security personnel are trying to keep one scrawny little guy from resisting being handcuffed while not assaulting anyone (if he was I hadn't seen a mention of it anywhere).

There are techniques that the security idiots could easily use to subdue the guy and if they don't know them, they shouldn't be qualified to be security personnel much less carry a taser.

Like what, knock him out or dislocate his arm? If he was still resisting on the ground, there isn't much farther a police officer could go using brute strength without risking much more permanent damage to the student. Wrenching his arm to cuff him might dislocate or break the limb if he isn't cooperating, and then he'd really have something to complain about.

When was the last time you paid $30,000+ per year to stay at a hotel?

When was the last time anyone paid that much for a public college? Unless we're talking about ivy league schools (which we're not), even out-of-state tuition for a public university won't get close to that.

Of course, as others have pointed out, it's irrelevant. The idea that paying tuition at a school should give you the freedom to go anywhere you want in that school at any time you want and to do whatever you want is ridiculous.

Like what, knock him out or dislocate his arm? If he was still resisting on the ground, there isn't much farther a police officer could go using brute strength without risking much more permanent damage to the student. Wrenching his arm to cuff him might dislocate or break the limb if he isn't cooperating, and then he'd really have something to complain about.

My cousin was a security guard for the House of Blues. She routinely had to subdue drunk assholes in the mood to FIGHT without the use of any devices such as handcuffs. Though she was supposed to only deal with females, but many times she was the only one around at the time some guys (bigger than her more often than not) needed to be stopped and held, as they resisted.

Amazingly she never broke or dislocated anyones limbs in the many years that she performed her duties as a security guard, nor was she ever overcome.

So you see, you don't have to be an violent asshole to people who resist getting cuffed or removed from a venue. You can subdue others bigger than yourself without damaging them.

what do you suggest they do when someone refuses to leave the mic when his 5 minutes are up?

Just like you do any other scumsucking liberal who tries to exercise his First Amendment rights. You shoot him in the head for resisting arrest. What's the problem?:rolleyes:

what do you suggest they do when someone refuses to leave the mic when his 5 minutes are up?

Look. After the police have someone restrained and handcuffed and have 5 cops sitting on him, there is absolutely no reason to taser him.

Tasers, as all weapons, are only to be used when necessary, and not to discipline someone.

P.S. I hope he sues these cops for so much money they repossess the station, sell the cruisers, and make the place into a Wendy's.

Look. After the police have someone restrained and handcuffed and have 5 cops sitting on him, there is absolutely no reason to taser him.

I completely agree. Except, as it has been pointed out numerous times in this thread....he wasn't handcuffed. He only had one hand cuffed, which does onot restrain him in any way, and, in fact, makes him more dangerous than were he not at all, considering now he has a weapon attached to his wrist.

I'm sure the liberal media will make this all into Kerry's fault. Those damn liberals!

My cousin was a security guard for the House of Blues. She routinely had to subdue drunk assholes in the mood to FIGHT without the use of any devices such as handcuffs. Though she was supposed to only deal with females, but many times she was the only one around at the time some guys (bigger than her more often than not) needed to be stopped and held, as they resisted.

Amazingly she never broke or dislocated anyones limbs in the many years that she performed her duties as a security guard, nor was she ever overcome.

So you see, you don't have to be an violent asshole to people who resist getting cuffed or removed from a venue. You can subdue others bigger than yourself without damaging them.
I find it hard to believe she didn't damage any of these large drunkards she had to subdue, but my disbelief is beside the point. We're talking about someone who is smaller than the guy subduing him, not the other way around. The officers already had the student on the floor and were trying to get him cuffed. His arms are tense and he's struggling unpredictably, meaning that if one of the officers had grabbed his arms and tried to force them together, the the student's struggles could have caused injury to himself. Tasering him, while undoubtedly painful, also got him to stop struggling long enough to be cuffed and led away without permanent harm.

I find it hard to believe she didn't damage any of these large drunkards she had to subdue, but my disbelief is beside the point. We're talking about someone who is smaller than the guy subduing him, not the other way around. The officers already had the student on the floor and were trying to get him cuffed. His arms are tense and he's struggling unpredictably, meaning that if one of the officers had grabbed his arms and tried to force them together, the the student's struggles could have caused injury to himself. Tasering him, while undoubtedly painful, also got him to stop struggling long enough to be cuffed and led away without permanent harm.

Without hypothetical harm but with very real pain.

Maybe he should get to tase all the cops who mistreated him. That seems like it would be fair.

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?

Well said Neo Art.

The fact the police claim it was warranted doesn't mean it's true.

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...**

DING DING!! Ladies and gentlemen, the taser apparently was warrented and this thread is over.

He was not arrested until after the tasing, from a legal standpoint. T oarrest someone you must inform them explicitly they are being arrested.

Further, in the video it is clear he is posing no threat to the police officers - they are sitting on him.

It is wrong to use a weapon - whether a gun or a less-lethal weapon like a taser - on a person who is not attacking you in any way shape or form.

Let me guess, youre a Republican, right?

You are nuts. Was he tresspassing? yes he was. Does not matter if he was a student or not. He violated the law and was arrested and he resisted arrest. Ergo, additional force was necessary to subdue him and it was legally applied. Get a life.

I'm sure the liberal media will make this all into Kerry's fault. Those damn liberals!

Well Kerry could have had a verbal sparring match...good practical politics...but no...anything...ANYTHING that they cannot control...or rather the politicians handlers can control is removed.

Sterile.

He was not arrested until after the tasing, from a legal standpoint. T oarrest someone you must inform them explicitly they are being arrested.


Actually that's....totally wrong.

Kerry himself had already started answering the question when the 'arrest' occured.

You can hear Kerry answering in the background as the student is being beaten and tased. Despicable.

Actually that's....totally wrong.

It is?

So what are Miranda rights for?

I didnt know you were a Bush supporter, Dundee.

So people who prove you wrong or disagree with you are Bush supporters? Thank God I do not have your thought process.

Kerry himself had already started answering the question when the 'arrest' occured.

You can hear Kerry answering in the background as the student is being beaten and tased. Despicable.

You can take arrest out of quotes, he was arrested, no silly little "" needed.

As for Kerry talking in the background, that's nice, but it's not his property and not his say who gets to stay one it. What kerry wanted is, frankly, as a matter of law, irrelevant. It wasn't his call as to who was allowed on.

It is wrong to use a weapon - whether a gun or a less-lethal weapon like a taser - on a person who is not attacking you in any way shape or form.

So you shouldn't use a weapon, whether a gun or a less-lethal weapon like a taser, on a person who is attack someone else?

Kerry himself had already started answering the question when the 'arrest' occured.

You can hear Kerry answering in the background as the student is being beaten and tased. Despicable.

Was he? Fair enough...

Shame the crowd didn't tell the security guys to calm it....

It is?

So what are Miranda rights for?

First off there is no such thing as "Miranda rights". There are Miranda warnings. Miranda dealt primarily with 5th and 6th amendment rights. Miranda warnings are thus warnings about 5th and 6th amendment rights.

And, to answer your question, custodial interrogation. Which is quite a different thing than arrest. Police are not obligated to tell you why you are being arrested, they need only probable cause for arrest. They also are not required to give you Miranda warnings at the time of your arrest.

Seriously, when you want to claim what the law says, try getting your knowledge from actual law, not what you see on TV.

He was a student.

Irrelevent.

He was never officially revoked.

irrelevent

First off there is no such thing as "Miranda rights". There are Miranda warnings. Miranda dealt primarily with 5th and 6th amendment rights. Miranda warnings are thus warnings about 5th and 6th amendment rights.

That is correct. However, it is normally referred to as 'Miranda rights'. I don't feel the compulsion to use lawyerspeak in my normal conversation.


Also I note the student is not being charged with trespassing. Which gives the hint he was NOT tresspassing.

oh? really? Heh, that just adds a whole other dimension to it.

Sure does.

Also I note the student is not being charged with trespassing. Which gives the hint he was NOT tresspassing.

The charge of trespassing depends largely on the school's decision as to whether or not he was trespassing. Trespassing is an affirmative charge, it requires an affirmative claim by the school, since they must certify that he was, indeed, on their property and was not welcome. The DA can not officially charge him unless the school consents to such a charge.

Why the school has not, at this time, consented to such a charge, is entirely their discretion, and entirely their perogative. The lack of a charge however is in no way dispositive of such a claim that it did not, in fact, occur, especially in light of the school's request that the police remove him in the first place

He was however charged with disturbing the peace, which is not an affirmative charge and merely requires a police witness.

Actually, alot of university police are not rent a cops. I know my University's cops are not rented.

most state schools in fact do not use private security, as their security is an extention of the state police. And since this was a state school, they were almost certainly real police officers.

If he was attacking the rent a cops

Actually, alot of university police are not rent a cops. I know my University's cops are not rented.

and actually i was wrong, miranda warnings do not deal with 5th and 6th amendment rights, only 5th.

The blathering idiot that didn't even really have a point to prove pretty much got what he was asking for.

I don't however, believe he should have been arrested or have charges filed against him.

Read the thread. He was NOT SUBDUED NOR HANDCUFFED.

I saw the full video. He's lying on te floor with multiple cops either on top of him or holding his limbs. He was not attacking the cops in any way at any stage of the event.

If the cops say he was "not subdued", then they are lying.

Look. After the police have someone restrained and handcuffed and have 5 cops sitting on him, there is absolutely no reason to taser him.

Read the thread. He was NOT SUBDUED NOR HANDCUFFED.

He was not arrested until after the tasing, from a legal standpoint. T oarrest someone you must inform them explicitly they are being arrested.

Further, in the video it is clear he is posing no threat to the police officers - they are sitting on him.

It is wrong to use a weapon - whether a gun or a less-lethal weapon like a taser - on a person who is not attacking you in any way shape or form.

I see you have not been paying attention.

You can take arrest out of quotes, he was arrested, no silly little "" needed.

As for Kerry talking in the background, that's nice, but it's not his property and not his say who gets to stay one it. What kerry wanted is, frankly, as a matter of law, irrelevant. It wasn't his call as to who was allowed on.

Correct because the people in charge called the cops to have him removed :)

Read the thread. He was NOT SUBDUED NOR HANDCUFFED.

He did have 5 cops sitting on him however. He would have been subdued in seconds. Furthermore he was not waving his one handcuffed arm about as a weapon, he was no threat. Tasing was not warranted.

Was he physically attacking the cops? Was he threatening them?

Sorry, if those cops are such wimps that the five of them can't deal with a single nonviolent protester without using a weapon, maybe they should quit the force and look for a different job.

Flipping burgers at Wendy's seems a good option.

most state schools in fact do not use private security, as their security is an extention of the state police. And since this was a state school, they were almost certainly real police officers.

Very interesting. Thanks for that info.

Actually that's....totally wrong.

What? You don't have to be told why you are being arrested? I thought cops weren't allowed to hold people without charging them...

What? You don't have to be told why you are being arrested? I thought cops weren't allowed to hold people without charging them...

cops don't charge anyone, with anything, ever. Cops NEVER charge someone with a crime. That is completely beyond their authority.

I saw the full video. He's lying on te floor with multiple cops either on top of him or holding his limbs. He was not attacking the cops in any way at any stage of the event.

If the cops say he was "not subdued", then they are lying.

As I said. You have not paid attention. If you were, you would have noticed he was still resisting even while on the ground. Stop watching the video and actually do something else like oh I don't know, follow up on the story with reports. Videos do not show the whole picture.

He did have 5 cops sitting on him however. He would have been subdued in seconds. Furthermore he was not waving his one handcuffed arm about as a weapon, he was no threat. Tasing was not warranted.

even though he was still struggling and was not handcuffed? Seems to me he was not subdued.

Was he physically attacking the cops? Was he threatening them?

Sorry, if those cops are such wimps that the five of them can't deal with a single nonviolent protester without using a weapon

I'm sure they could. They could have physically pinned him to the floor, forced his arms behind him, and cuffed him while he was struggling.

That, of course, has a much greater risk of injury than the taser. That's the whole point of course. What you advocate the cops should have done would have placed him, and them, in greater danger. Between tasering him with a non lethal weapon that does no permanent damage and physically forcing him to the ground and pulling his arms behind him, the taser was the least dangerous method.

But no no, keep telling yourself that a weapon designed to be non lethal is more dangerous than 5 people pinning you to the floor and wrenching your arms behind your back.

yes, but they are generally able to tell you why they are hauling your ass back to the station...

they can. They don't have to.

As I said. You have not paid attention. If you were, you would have noticed he was still resisting even while on the ground. Stop watching the video and actually do something else like oh I don't know, follow up on the story with reports. Videos do not show the whole picture.

Excuse me, but the video does not lie. People lie. If the cops are saying the guy was still a threat they lying and trying to save their asses. Doesn't matter what they say, watch the damned video and you'll see the guys was no threat!

Was he physically attacking the cops? Was he threatening them?

Sorry, if those cops are such wimps that the five of them can't deal with a single nonviolent protester without using a weapon, maybe they should quit the force and look for a different job.

Flipping burgers at Wendy's seems a good option.

Yup.

even though he was still struggling and was not handcuffed? Seems to me he was not subdued.

Did I say he was subdued?! I said he was on the ground, moments from being subdued! It doesn't take 5 cops long to handcuff one guy.

Excuse me, but the video does not lie. People lie. If the cops are saying the guy was still a threat they lying and trying to save their asses. Doesn't matter what they say, watch the damned video and you'll see the guys was no threat!

How far away is the person with camera is in relation to this episode?

Did I say he was subdued?! I said he was on the ground, moments from being subdued! It doesn't take 5 cops long to handcuff one guy.

Care to prove that?

cops don't charge anyone, with anything, ever. Cops NEVER charge someone with a crime. That is completely beyond their authority.

yes, but they are generally able to tell you why they are hauling your ass back to the station...

One cop - One! - picked him up and carried him up the aisle. Should have (could have) just kept on going, the exit was only 5 feet away. But, noooo. He had to do the whole "I'm in charge, here's where things get out of hand" routine.

You can watch it happen every night on FOX - it's pathetic. It always ends up with harmless people pleading for sanity - little kids, mothers, grandmas - all screaming because insanity with a badge just rolled up - and over - common sense. Always wtih the same stupid mantra: Get on the GROUND NOW!!!!

Poorly handled, poorly justifed, poorly argued - simply being a dick shouldn't result in supension of humane treatment. I don't care how annoying he was, electric torture is still torture and the cops are just mortals who are allowed to carry weapons - not wizards or gods - not your masters, as much as some of you desparately, desparately need them to be - because you fear disruption, the unexpected, the misperceived threat; you fear "the other" enough to hate it and wish it punished.

All you mommy and daddy "he deserved it" types, should just roll over and let jackboot hell swallow you up. "He didn't do what he was told!" " He didn't follow the rules! - SHOCK him!" If you cattle have the floor for very much longer, your overlords will have you watching nothing but 50s reruns in black and white and calling everybody "daddio".

Disgusting status quo order freaks. Individuals laugh at your subservience -and you have the shameless conceit to defend it as virtue.

How far away is the person with camera is in relation to this episode?

Right next the cops and the victim.

Right next the cops and the victim.

So that means that the camera picked up on the fact that he was still struggling with the cops while on the ground with one handcuff on his wrist.

yep. I can see why the police should not have used the tazer. :rolleyes:

Care to prove that?

I don't need to. Use your brain. Watch COPS...well, they show people on PCP running through doors, so maybe that isn't the best place...

This guy was not a body builder, not a wrestler, etc. He was not going to get a way.

I don't need to. Use your brain. Watch COPS...well, they show people on PCP running through doors, so maybe that isn't the best place...

yes I do watch Cops and you are right.

This guy was not a body builder, not a wrestler, etc. He was not going to get a way.

care to prove that with him struggling with the cops with one handcuff and still struggling?

So that means that the camera picked up on the fact that he was still struggling with the cops while on the ground with one handcuff on his wrist.

yep. I can see why the police should not have used the tazer. :rolleyes:


So what if he was struggling? He wasn't being violent. He wasn't using the handcuff as a flail, as someone said he was or could. He was simply trying to flee...that is not violent. It is not complying the cops, yes, but he was not violent, was not causing harm, and was not threatening anyone. How can you still say tasing him was justifiable? (Maybe a poll should be made about whether or not the tasing was right?)

So what if he was struggling? He wasn't being violent.

Sorry but one should not be struggling with the cops at all. especially if he has only one part of the handcuff on his arm and still struggling. The cops probably did the right thing in tazering him more for safety. Struggling with the cops is stupid. Follow the cops instructions and nothing happens to you.

He wasn't using the handcuff as a flail, as someone said he was or could. He was simply trying to flee...that is not violent.

Bingo. He was trying to flee. That's a no no.

It is not complying the cops, yes, but he was not violent, was not causing harm, and was not threatening anyone. How can you still say tasing him was justifiable? (Maybe a poll should be made about whether or not the tasing was right?)

Because he was struggling with the cops even though he was on the ground.

...

Why does it warrant getting tased? He was no threat. He was on the ground. Another minute and the other cuff would have been on him, no problems. Tasing him was an unecessary reaction to the situation.

Plus, if what you don't feel what you are doing is wrong, why listen to the cops?
Many cops are corrupt, or wife beaters. They are not all infallible gods to be listened and followed blindly. The cops exist to serve the people. We do not serve them.

...

Why does it warrant getting tased? He was no threat. He was on the ground. Another minute and the other cuff would have been on him, no problems. Tasing him was an unecessary reaction to the situation.

Apparently the cops did not think so. He was struggling with the cops and was still struggling even on the ground with cops wrestling him. Easier to subdue him than it was to wrestle his other arm around and causing much more permanent damage. Imagine the story if that happened. Then the question would be why didn't they taser him?

Plus, if what you don't feel what you are doing is wrong, why listen to the cops?

Because they are LAW ENFORCEMENT. Remember Trollgaard, the people encharge called for the cops.

Many cops are corrupt, or wife beaters. They are not all infallible gods to be listened and followed blindly. The cops exist to serve the people. We do not serve them.

exactly. And these cops serve the University and it was University officials (well the event coordinator in this case) that called them and had him removed from the premises. Not their falt that the moron resisted arrested after tresspassing in the first place.

He wasn't anyhow able of getting away. Yes, he was twitching or something. He was not actually able to get away.

He was still resisting arrest and trying not to get handcuffed.

y
care to prove that with him struggling with the cops with one handcuff and still struggling?

He wasn't anyhow able of getting away. Yes, he was twitching or something. He was not actually able to get away.

Apparently the cops did not think so. He was struggling with the cops and was still struggling even on the ground with cops wrestling him. Easier to subdue him than it was to wrestle his other arm around and causing much more permanent damage. Imagine the story if that happened. Then the question would be why didn't they taser him?



Because they are LAW ENFORCEMENT. Remember Trollgaard, the people encharge called for the cops.



exactly. And these cops serve the University and it was University officials (well the event coordinator in this case) that called them and had him removed from the premises. Not their falt that the moron resisted arrested after tresspassing in the first place.

Friends of mine were wrestlers in school, they never had or caused permanent damage. I've had my arms wrenched behind my back, and it didn't cause any damage...just sore muscles for a hour or two. Quite simply if the cops felt he was a threat they shouldn't be cops. There were 5 cops on him! He was not a threat! Wrestling his other arm around would have taken all of a minute (max) with 5 cops doing it.


Even if they are law enforcement, they are still people. People can listen to them or not. (they can choose to face the consequences by not listening, or flee, whatever)

I'm not debating that the school owners/faculty/whoever should have called the cops, but the cops used unecessary force to remove the victim.

I'm not debating that the school owners/faculty/whoever should have called the cops, but the cops used unecessary force to remove the victim.

I believe they have not done so as the dude was indeed struggling. There's a big difference with wrestling and struggling with someone who does not be arrested.

He was still resisting arrest and trying not to get handcuffed.


That is not justification for a tasering. They are only allowed to taser if they felt that an officer was in danger according to Capt. Jeff Halcomb: http://www.gainesvillesun.com/article/20070918/NEWS/709180325/1007/NEWS
Holcomb said there would be an investigation into whether the officers used force appropriately, adding that employing a Taser gun would only be justified in a case where there was a threat of physical harm to officers.


The video on this page shows an up close view of exactly how much danger the cops are in when they hit him with the taser: http://www.askmen.com/blogs/politics/tasering-fu-student-justified.html (tasering happens at point where there is 24 seconds left in the video)

Absolutely none. He was completely non-violent. At no point in this does it show the officers in any danger of physical harm. The handcuffed arm is the one he is using to prop himself up as he tries to sit up so obviously he is not using it as a flail.

These cops are pussies.

Resisting arrest non-violently is not an excuse to taser someone. Period.

So what if he was struggling? He wasn't being violent. He wasn't using the handcuff as a flail, as someone said he was or could. He was simply trying to flee...that is not violent. It is not complying the cops, yes, but he was not violent, was not causing harm, and was not threatening anyone. How can you still say tasing him was justifiable? (Maybe a poll should be made about whether or not the tasing was right?)

Because he wasn't complying.

That is not justification for a tasering. They are only allowed to taser if they felt that an officer was in danger according to Capt. Jeff Halcomb: http://www.gainesvillesun.com/article/20070918/NEWS/709180325/1007/NEWS



The video on this page shows an up close view of exactly how much danger the cops are in when they hit him with the taser: http://www.askmen.com/blogs/politics/tasering-fu-student-justified.html

Absolutely none. He was completely non-violent.

Resisting arrest non-violently is not an excuse to taser someone. Period.

We already established that it is being investigated.

We already established that it is being investigated.

Miss the point much? You keep implying that it's okay to taser someone simply for resisting arrest. That is not the case.

Because he wasn't complying.

The tasering simply for not complying is certainly satisfying but pussified on the part of the police as well as illegal.

I will further note this:

In the full video, after they get him out of the room, he starts blathering on about being afraid to give his name to the police, being "given to the government" and that they are going to kill him. So either:

-He seriously thought they were going to kill him for asking about Skull & Bones in which case he is a nut and they were completely correct in getting him away from a senator

-He was hamming it up for the camera because it was a stunt

Either way he's worthless and deserved to be tased.

Sumamba, feel free to quote the exact law that shows that police tasing someone is illegal.

The tasering simply for not complying is certainly satisfying but pussified on the part of the police as well as illegal.

You'd rather they broke the kid's wrist forcing his struggling arm behind his back to cuff him?

A bit of electric incentive to comply may be a bit more palatable than physical force.

Either way he's worthless and deserved to be tased.

Neither you nor police officers have the authority to make that call. That's for the court system to decide.

Sumamba, feel free to quote the exact law that shows that police tasing someone is illegal.

He already linked to a source for the proper use of a taser.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13067588&postcount=358

So it comes down to whether or not the student was presenting a danger to the officers.

Sumamba, feel free to quote the exact law that shows that police tasing someone is illegal.

4 posts back I quoted the captain of the police force, commenting on this case, saying that employing a Taser gun would only be justified in a case where there was a threat of physical harm to officers. It may not be a law, but it's proper procedure. Why am I responding to you anyway? You think that this kid being either mentally insane or looking for attention makes him worthless and the tasering justified.

You'd rather they broke the kid's wrist forcing his struggling arm behind his back to cuff him?

A bit of electric incentive to comply may be a bit more palatable than physical force.


I'd rather they followed proper procedure. Having 5 or 6 cops there should have been enough: two with knees in his back and applying pressure points to keep him immobile chest against the ground, two to hold his arms and one to apply the handcuffs.

As I said earlier, I would be for the use of a Taser if he was being violent and posed a threat th the officers. He didn't and the group of officers had plenty of time for the kid to tire out from struggling if they were too weak to keep him in the position needed to put the cuffs on.

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.

And the US is supposed to be lawsuit-lottery land?

And the US is supposed to be lawsuit-lottery land?

It seems like it. I mean afterall we do sue alot :D

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.

The UK police also fired eight bullets into the head of a Brazilian for wearing a jacket on the tube. I don't see why that was necessary.

The UK police also fired eight bullets into the head of a Brazilian for wearing a jacket on the tube. I don't see why that was necessary.

Amazing how police everywhere are, in fact, capable of error, isnt it?
Up until now I'd been led to believe that European police were eight foot tall benign supermen capable of using their Voice of Command to get criminals to stop.

The UK police also fired eight bullets into the head of a Brazilian for wearing a jacket on the tube. I don't see why that was necessary.

Zing. :p

@ 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.."

Indeed.

I'd rather people have broken bones than see them die.

And in this case, you neither saw someone break bones nor die.

And the US is supposed to be lawsuit-lottery land?

This is not supposed to be a US vs. UK argument.

Simply enough, if you use a taser or a gun on someone when they are not physically attacking anyone or threatening to do so, it is very likely you will get sued.

In my view, these people deserve to be sued, and Mr. Meyer deserves to win.

This is not supposed to be a US vs. UK argument.

Simply enough, if you use a taser or a gun on someone when they are not physically attacking anyone or threatening to do so, it is very likely you will get sued.

In my view, these people deserve to be sued, and Mr. Meyer deserves to win.

ignoring the argument of was it justified/was it not, because I've pretty much said all I have to say about that, I will say one thing.

Good luck suing the cops. 11th amendment. What a bitch.

Excuse me, but the video does not lie. People lie. If the cops are saying the guy was still a threat they lying and trying to save their asses. Doesn't matter what they say, watch the damned video and you'll see the guys was no threat!

I find it a little more than ironic that you're putting so much faith and trust in a video, part of that whole "technology" thing you've ranted about in previous threads.

But no, it's not like I'm applying two-facedness or anything.

Haha, well, the video shows the guys innocence. He is another victim in the culture where violence always goes downhill.

nd i'm not against technology just because its technology. Its because of the process that goes into making it, and effects on the planet.

What process would this be? The Scientific Method? You know, the one that's lead to such wonderful things as the Polio vaccine? And, you know, a whole bunch of other really good and really bad things?

Look, I'm not going to try and derail this thread, but it's more than a little hypocritical to rail on it and then put so much faith and trust in it all the same. And more than a little comical.

I find it a little more than ironic that you're putting so much faith and trust in a video, part of that whole "technology" thing you've ranted about in previous threads.

But no, it's not like I'm applying two-facedness or anything.

Haha, well, the video shows the guys innocence. He is another victim in the culture where violence always goes downhill.

nd i'm not against technology just because its technology. Its because of the process that goes into making it, and effects on the planet.

Haha, well, the video shows the guys innocence. He is another victim in the culture where violence always goes downhill.


Really?
Appearances can be decieving. I may look innocent, harmless, and relatively weak, but I could severely cripple someone in one swift movement.

The above may be a complete exaggeration/product of my ego.

Haha, well, the video shows the guys innocence. He is another victim in the culture where violence always goes downhill.

Um yea...vids do not tell whole stories.

nd i'm not against technology just because its technology. Its because of the process that goes into making it, and effects on the planet.

Which gives you the power to post on an internet chat forum? If you hate technology then why are you using a computer?

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'm sorry that what has afflicted you continues to do so.


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

You weren't flamed. The mods have repeatedly explained that to you, but you seem to not understand.

Damn what a fucked up school with fucked up rent a cops. Kerry even told them it was okay and he would answer the question.

The kid was an ass but deserved only to be dragged out of the place when he initially resisted removal. The tasering was completely unnecessary. It served no useful purpose since he was already subdued.

Did anyone see the Washington Posts article on this? Even though the kid made several mentions of the name of the book he was holding: "Armed Madhouse", the Washington Post said he was holding a mysterious yellow book. :rolleyes:

At least it's good that this is getting more attention on that book.

True, but I'm not sure this is the kind of attention Greg Palast needs. I liked his book on the 2000 election, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, and I have a CD of a speech he gave based on Armed Madhouse. He makes some pretty steep charges, and I'm convinced that they're all true to at least some degree. The problem is that psychotics and poseurs (this UF guy appears to be of the latter breed, what with his history of attention-seeking and instant calming down once the camera was off him) latch on to this like it's conspiracy theory, and as soon as your points have that stain on them, very few will take them seriously, and that, in Palast's case, is a shame.

One cop - One! - picked him up and carried him up the aisle. Should have (could have) just kept on going, the exit was only 5 feet away. But, noooo. He had to do the whole "I'm in charge, here's where things get out of hand" routine.

You can watch it happen every night on FOX - it's pathetic. It always ends up with harmless people pleading for sanity - little kids, mothers, grandmas - all screaming because insanity with a badge just rolled up - and over - common sense. Always wtih the same stupid mantra: Get on the GROUND NOW!!!!

Poorly handled, poorly justifed, poorly argued - simply being a dick shouldn't result in supension of humane treatment. I don't care how annoying he was, electric torture is still torture and the cops are just mortals who are allowed to carry weapons - not wizards or gods - not your masters, as much as some of you desparately, desparately need them to be - because you fear disruption, the unexpected, the misperceived threat; you fear "the other" enough to hate it and wish it punished.

All you mommy and daddy "he deserved it" types, should just roll over and let jackboot hell swallow you up. "He didn't do what he was told!" " He didn't follow the rules! - SHOCK him!" If you cattle have the floor for very much longer, your overlords will have you watching nothing but 50s reruns in black and white and calling everybody "daddio".

Disgusting status quo order freaks. Individuals laugh at your subservience -and you have the shameless conceit to defend it as virtue.

Woodwork squeaks, and out come the freaks.

Haha, well, the video shows the guys innocence. He is another victim in the culture where violence always goes downhill.

nd i'm not against technology just because its technology. Its because of the process that goes into making it, and effects on the planet.

The video was shot from a distance -- far enough away that you have no idea how much he may or may not be struggling once they have him on the floor by the doorway. That whole mass of people in the struggle are also in shadow and difficult to discern.

I don't know what was going on before the decision to taser was made and executed, and neither do you.

Good grief! I leave this thread for a few hours and it triples in size and New Tacoma comes in and does what he does best all over it. Sheesh.

Amazing how police everywhere are, in fact, capable of error, isnt it?
Up until now I'd been led to believe that European police were eight foot tall benign supermen capable of using their Voice of Command to get criminals to stop.

My point exactly.

This is not supposed to be a US vs. UK argument.

Simply enough, if you use a taser or a gun on someone when they are not physically attacking anyone or threatening to do so, it is very likely you will get sued.

In my view, these people deserve to be sued, and Mr. Meyer deserves to win.

No it's not, but when the US is continually admonished by Europeans for its penchant for frivolous lawsuits, it's amusing when Europeans suggest frivolous lawsuits.

And your view would be... incorrect.

Fleeing arrest is a crime. True, but it doesn't warrant being tased!

@Intagelon: I've seen a video where they were right next to the police and Mr. Meyer. When they tased him, Mr. Meyer was not moving around. One of his arms was in the air (it looked like it was being held) and the other was on the ground. he was pleading to not be tased, but the pig went and tased him anyway, when he was on the ground asking for mercy.

True, but it doesn't warrant being tased!

@Intagelon: I've seen a video where they were right next to the police and Mr. Meyer. When they tased him, Mr. Meyer was not moving around. One of his arms was in the air (it looked like it was being held) and the other was on the ground. he was pleading to not be tased, but the pig went and tased him anyway, when he was on the ground asking for mercy.

He was pleading? It had sound?

True, but it doesn't warrant being tased!

In your opinion. Then again, it's been your opinion that attacking police for arresting you is also warranted.

I suppose the civilian complaint review board, and possibly a court of law, will make the final decision on this one.

He was pleading? It had sound?

Voice-overs. *nods* :)

In your opinion. Then again, it's been your opinion that attacking police for arresting you is also warranted.

I suppose the civilian complaint review board, and possibly a court of law, will make the final decision on this one.

Police can't randomly decide what warrants using their tazers. They have a "use of force matrix" which they must follow. Tazers are secondary weapons and are only to be used for "aggressive resistance". That was not, it was hardly passive resistance.

When they tazed him, he was on the ground and cuffed. Yes he was still screaming, but screaming does not count toward "resisting arrest". He can scream all he wants, it is no threat to the police.

Police can't randomly decide what warrants using their tazers. They have a "use of force matrix" which they must follow. Tazers are secondary weapons and are only to be used for "aggressive resistance". That was not, it was hardly passive resistance.

When they tazed him, he was on the ground and cuffed. Yes he was still screaming, but screaming does not count toward "resisting arrest". He can scream all he wants, it is no threat to the police.

Yes, and I'm sure they all had time to do a team huddle, check the "use of force matrix" and see what they could and couldn't do to get the cuffs on him. :rolleyes:

I think there are bigger fish to fry, smother with tartar sauce, and then chow down on.

This is 26 pages on one kid who got tased at an event by some police.

Hardly the next world crisis here.

True, but it doesn't warrant being tased!

@Intagelon: I've seen a video where they were right next to the police and Mr. Meyer. When they tased him, Mr. Meyer was not moving around. One of his arms was in the air (it looked like it was being held) and the other was on the ground. he was pleading to not be tased, but the pig went and tased him anyway, when he was on the ground asking for mercy.

Please link to this, if you can.

Police can't randomly decide what warrants using their tazers. They have a "use of force matrix" which they must follow. Tazers are secondary weapons and are only to be used for "aggressive resistance". That was not, it was hardly passive resistance.

When they tazed him, he was on the ground and cuffed. Yes he was still screaming, but screaming does not count toward "resisting arrest". He can scream all he wants, it is no threat to the police.

Sweet murdering Buddha, how many times must people be told that HE WAS NOT CUFFED WHEN HE WAS TASERED!

Neo Art, I have no idea where your reserve of patience comes from, but you have earned high honors for still hanging in against all those who simply will not read. You rock.

When they tazed him, he was on the ground and cuffed.

As I have said, well, I don't know how many times in this thread but I'm guessing it's around 8, he was not cuffed.

In fact, they had managed to get one arm in a cuff, but not the other. This is in fact considerably more dangerous than if he was not cuffed at all, because he is still free to move, and now has a hunk of metal on a chain attached to his arm. They attempted to cuff him, he pulled away. As a result of his resistance and pulling away from the handcuffs, he could now be considered armed. Why? Because he is now effectively holding a club.

Please link to this, if you can.

Youtube has a couple of videos from different perspectives:

Near the Stage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXa6yj-A-mw)

Next to Tasering (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&mode=related&search=)

The police tried to lead the student until he makes a break for it and the officers grab him. The second video is much clearer on the student actually getting tasered.

Youtube has a couple of videos from different perspectives:

Near the Stage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXa6yj-A-mw)

Next to Tasering (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&mode=related&search=)

The police tried to lead the student until he makes a break for it and the officers grab him. The second video is much clearer on the student actually getting tasered.

The second video is the one i saw

The police tried to lead the student until he makes a break for it and the officers grab him. The second video is much clearer on the student actually getting tasered.

It also very clearly captures the police clearly informing to stop resisting arrest or he will be tasered.

It also pretty clearly shows him continue to struggle after he has one wrist in the cuff.

The second video is the one i saw

you mean the one where he was almost entirely blocked by the cop and you can barely see how he's lying? That one?

The one that doesn't show anywhere near what you say it shows?

As I have said, well, I don't know how many times in this thread but I'm guessing it's around 8, he was not cuffed.

In fact, they had managed to get one arm in a cuff, but not the other. This is in fact considerably more dangerous than if he was not cuffed at all, because he is still free to move, and now has a hunk of metal on a chain attached to his arm. They attempted to cuff him, he pulled away. As a result of his resistance and pulling away from the handcuffs, he could now be considered armed. Why? Because he is now effectively holding a club.

You should just put this on copy and paste. You Rock Neo Art.

It also very clearly captures the police clearly informing to stop resisting arrest or he will be tasered.

It also pretty clearly shows him continue to struggle after he has one wrist in the cuff.

Game! Set! Match! Neo Art.

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

Granted the whole putting the cuffs on him was a bit extreme but hte cops did warn him he would get tasered if he didn't stop squirming on them and he didn't listen. PO report states he was only fighting when the cameras were on him so I'm not taking his side on this one. He could have made it in his favor by making the cops look like real fools by arresting him for a question but fighting them just means he's as low as the original act...

I watched the footage and now I think that guy is a complete idiot.

Edit: He also sounds like a really bad actor.

I don't think he's the type of person who'd get any real sympathy considering he contributed to his own problems.

I watched the footage and now I think that guy is a complete idiot.

Edit: He also sounds like a really bad actor.

I've noticed, in conversation, that most of the people flat out siding with him never watched the video...Afterwards they still might go yeah he's still right but they are a little more hesitant. Honestly, when I heard the story I went "You got to be kidding me..." then when I saw it and listened to the cops and what they said I was definitely not on his side.

I've noticed, in conversation, that most of the people flat out siding with him never watched the video...Afterwards they still might go yeah he's still right but they are a little more hesitant. Honestly, when I heard the story I went "You got to be kidding me..." then when I saw it and listened to the cops and what they said I was definitely not on his side.

Agreed.

Agreed.

When the cop said he was going to get tasered and he still kept fighting that's on him. I've never been in that situation but if a cop is threatened to taser me you can bet I'm going to STFU and listen. I've never been tasered, I've seen on cops 300 - 400 lb. men go down in 1/4 of a second and I'm 160 so I don't imagine I'll last all that long. Consequently, I've always wanted to get hit with one just to see what it's like (yeah I don't understand it either). Regardless of whether or not you respect authority, they're authority and the less you cooperate, the worse it's going to be for you!

I've noticed, in conversation, that most of the people flat out siding with him never watched the video...Afterwards they still might go yeah he's still right but they are a little more hesitant. Honestly, when I heard the story I went "You got to be kidding me..." then when I saw it and listened to the cops and what they said I was definitely not on his side.

when I first heard the basics my reaction was "oh fuck what did the cops do now?" Then I listened a bit more and went "well, ok they were right to arrest him but they didn't have to taser him" and then found out "oh, he was resisting" and "oh, they warned him" and "oh, they couldn't get him cuffed" and after I hear everything, after I see everything, hell if I wouldn't have tasered him.

Twice.

when I first heard the basics my reaction was "oh fuck what did the cops do now?" Then I listened a bit more and went "well, ok they were right to arrest him but they didn't have to taser him" and then found out "oh, he was resisting" and "oh, they warned him" and "oh, they couldn't get him cuffed" and after I hear everything, after I see everything, hell if I wouldn't have tasered him.

Twice.

Precisely...the media is only showing it face value (and let's face it, who's surprised at that one)...the video tells it all...when it takes that many cops to hold you down (and he isn't a wrestler kind of guy you know) then you get what you deserve...kudos to the cops for not shooting him :).

What a baby. Ouch Ouch Ouch the baby screamed. He wanted to be tased in order to get on TV and it he screams like a fox catching a chicken. Where is the duct tape when you need to shut the heckler up? :headbang: The police did not use enough tazers, they should how used about 1000. :sniper:

And your view would be... incorrect.

According to these people's boss, it is wrong for police to use a taser unless they're being physically attacked.

Again and again: These people were not physically attacked nor were there under any threat of violence.

The use of a taser to discipline suspects is not only excessive, it opposes the instructions these officers were given, and as such, it is downright illegal. Should the kid be able to prove that these officers acted in opposition to their own instruction - for which he needs to only prove he was not attacking them, for wihch there are only two videos of evidence (sarcasm here.)

after I hear everything, after I see everything, hell if I wouldn't have tasered him.

They say they couldn't get him cuffed. Such a thing is not evident from the videos.

ignoring the argument of was it justified/was it not, because I've pretty much said all I have to say about that, I will say one thing.

Good luck suing the cops. 11th amendment. What a bitch.

11th amendment only protects the Federal Government. Rodney King won his suit, and his case was MUCH less clear-cut then this one.

After the riots King was awarded $3.8 million in a civil case, and used some of the money to start a hiphop music-label: Alta-Pazz Recording Company.[7]

11th amendment only protects the Federal Government.

Uhhh..

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Read that again, and take extra special note of the bolded words. It says, very clearly, the judicial power shall not extend to any suit against ONE OF THE United States.

Not THE united states. Shall not extend to any one of United States, as in, any of the states that are united. It doesn't apply to the federal government. Not in the slightest. The 11th amendment is aimed specifically at protecting the states, not the federal government.

Really, don't quit your day job.

Bah, I was thinking about Sovereign Immunity.

Regardless, you can sue the government. People sue the government all the time and win money, too.

Bah, I was thinking about Sovereign Immunity.

Regardless, you can sue the government. People sue the government all the time and win money, too.

you can sue the government in some circumstances yew, howver the government, and especially the police, has several defenses available, many of which can be utilized in this case.

you can sue the government in some circumstances yew, howver the government, and especially the police, has several defenses available, many of which can be utilized in this case.


Apparently a lawsuit is already in the works:

Meyer was arrested for inciting a riot and charged with resisting an officer and disturbing the peace.[6] He spent one night in the Alachua County Jail and was released the following morning.[6][8] His attorney, Robert Griscti, stated he will seek to have the charges dismissed.[8] Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (a free-speech group), believed that excessive force was used; he said, "I would find it highly likely that [Meyer] is going to sue."[3]

Fox News quoted two experts who believe Meyer could claim the use of excessive force in the incident. Attorney Karen Conti said Meyer has a good argument for excessive force since officers Tasered him when he was under control. Conti said, "I think the police officers were probably embarrassed that this was going on," Conti said. "I think they weren’t expecting anything like this and I think they overreacted."[3]

That's the Wiki though.

I'll just toss this out here so people can learn the exact letter of the law:

§ 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR
TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he
intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace
officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his
direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of
the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or
another.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that
the arrest or search was unlawful.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under
this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or
search.

I'll just toss this out here so people can learn the exact letter of the law:

§ 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR
TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he
intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace
officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his
direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of
the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or
another.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that
the arrest or search was unlawful.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under
this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or
search.

So it is not a defense if the search or arrest was unlawful? That is a bunch of shit.

i heard the recording made live at the event of the incident and it does sound like he might have been making a wee bit of a pain in the ass of himself. but i do think the tazering was more then a wee bit extreme and totally uncalled for.

like so much that goes on politicly these days, it seemed to me calculated to intimidate ANYONE with half a brain from thinking for them selves. and that is just plain morally unconscounable.

a polite, "you've had your ten minuets, let someone else have the mike", fallowed, if neccessary by a laying on of hands, other then fisticuffs, you know, a mass of security gently pushing him out of the way, does not seem so much like it couldn't have been done and been perfectly quite adiquite.

=^^=
.../\...

i heard the recording made live at the event of the incident and it does sound like he might have been making a wee bit of a pain in the ass of himself. but i do think the tazering was more then a wee bit extreme and totally uncalled for.

like so much that goes on politicly these days, it seemed to me calculated to intimidate ANYONE with half a brain from thinking for them selves. and that is just plain morally unconscounable.

a polite, "you've had your ten minuets, let someone else have the mike", fallowed, if neccessary by a laying on of hands, other then fisticuffs, you know, a mass of security gently pushing him out of the way, does not seem so much like it couldn't have been done and been perfectly quite adiquite.

=^^=
.../\...They did try to push him out, he wouldn't go. Then they tried to grab him, he fought back, still refused to leave. Then they tackled him, tried to cuff him. He kept stuggling, wouldn't comply with the cops instructions and allow them to cuff him, they warned him they would taze him, he protested but still wouldn't comply. They finally hit him with the tazer.

Like you couldn't see that coming a mile away. You don't follow a peace officers lawfull instructions, they're gonna get progressively more forcefull.

Bottom line, when a cop tells you it's time to leave, shut the fuck up and leave. It's usually the best option your gonna get.

Dear god, this is still going on? I thought it was winding down yesterday, only to look this morning to find 10 more pages...

Thing that gets me about this is that I've heard people already talking about how whenever cops have to use force to remove someone, the "victim" will claim brutality, even if there isn't any. Co-worker basically said he doesn't believe claims of brutality any more because of all these false claims and provoked attacks.

My concern - will the over saturation of this event in the media make it more difficult for actual claims of police brutality in the future (i.e., the old "crying wolf")?

That's the Wiki though.
With at least 3 sources. Wiki usually cites its sources.

when I first heard the basics my reaction was "oh fuck what did the cops do now?" Then I listened a bit more and went "well, ok they were right to arrest him but they didn't have to taser him" and then found out "oh, he was resisting" and "oh, they warned him" and "oh, they couldn't get him cuffed" and after I hear everything, after I see everything, hell if I wouldn't have tasered him.

Twice.

I agree entirely.

Apparently a lawsuit is already in the works:



That's the Wiki though.

oes not surprie me at all that he has file a lawsuit. However, from what I am seeing and reading, he does not have a prayer in winning.

They did try to push him out, he wouldn't go. Then they tried to grab him, he fought back, still refused to leave. Then they tackled him, tried to cuff him. He kept stuggling, wouldn't comply with the cops instructions and allow them to cuff him, they warned him they would taze him, he protested but still wouldn't comply. They finally hit him with the tazer.

Like you couldn't see that coming a mile away. You don't follow a peace officers lawfull instructions, they're gonna get progressively more forcefull.

Bottom line, when a cop tells you it's time to leave, shut the fuck up and leave. It's usually the best option your gonna get.

Hear! Hear!

With at least 3 sources. Wiki usually cites its sources.



Point. So yes a lawsuit is in the works.

oes not surprie me at all that he has file a lawsuit. However, from what I am seeing and reading, he does not have a prayer in winning.talking about a lawsuit is a win-win situation for him.

talking about a lawsuit keeps this buzz going at FOX/CNN.. the buzz is what is going to get him shitloads of money.

BTW I would not be surprised if some Legal firms would offer some pay-us-later or pay-us-nothing deal for high profile cases like this.

My concern - will the over saturation of this event in the media make it more difficult for actual claims of police brutality in the future (i.e., the old "crying wolf")?in all the other TV reports of police brutality ive seen.. nothing I had seen justified the brutality.

until today.
If anyone at all deserved to be tasered... its this one.

talking about a lawsuit is a win-win situation for him.

talking about a lawsuit keeps this buzz going at FOX/CNN.. the buzz is what is going to get him shitloads of money.

As far as I can read and as far as that wiki link states, he hasn't said anything. Some legal analysists have spoken in hypotheticals but there has been nothing specific.

BTW I would not be surprised if some Legal firms would offer some pay-us-later or pay-us-nothing deal for high profile cases like this.

That is actually pretty standard in most tort cases. Most firms will take nothing if you lose, but 1/3 of your award if you win.

*snip*
like so much that goes on politicly these days, it seemed to me calculated to intimidate ANYONE with half a brain from thinking for them selves. and that is just plain morally unconscounable.
*snip*


I am so sick of this line of reasoning. If the guy had prepared a single question statement, rather than rambling on for his entire five minutes and more -- if the guy had remained calm instead of rifling off his comments in a fashin that Kerry couldn't reply to -- in short, if the guy had remained civil and courteous instead of rabid, there would not have been a problem. He could have asked any pointed or controversial question he wanted, but he didn't want to be that way. He SOUGHT confrontatio, and that is exactly what he got when he went over his time, refused to yield when asked politely, refused to leave when asked and then resisted the police when they were summoned, as the university officials had every right to do when he kept being a nuisance.

The cops aren't there to stop you thinking for yourself. That's the talk of paranoid conspiracy theorists and people with limited social graces. You can make your point without making an ass of yourself. I've read Palast's books. I could have asked that question without getting hyperactive.

I am so sick of this line of reasoning. If the guy had prepared a single question statement, rather than rambling on for his entire five minutes and more -- if the guy had remained calm instead of rifling off his comments in a fashin that Kerry couldn't reply to -- in short, if the guy had remained civil and courteous instead of rabid, there would not have been a problem. He could have asked any pointed or controversial question he wanted, but he didn't want to be that way. He SOUGHT confrontatio, and that is exactly what he got when he went over his time, refused to yield when asked politely, refused to leave when asked and then resisted the police when they were summoned, as the university officials had every right to do when he kept being a nuisance.

The cops aren't there to stop you thinking for yourself. That's the talk of paranoid conspiracy theorists and people with limited social graces. You can make your point without making an ass of yourself. I've read Palast's books. I could have asked that question without getting hyperactive.

I am frankly stunned by the number of people who attemt to claim that somehow his "first amendment rights" were violated as if the police attacked him for something he said. It's ludicrus in the extreme

The first amendment protects your right to, for the most part, say what you want. It does not protect your right to say what you want where you want. You can blather all you want about people being in "cults" (and speaking as a Yale grad myself, the idea of skull and bones being a cult is...amusing). You just can't stand on someone else's property without permission.

Then you have the apologists for this guy who try to argue that since he was a student he had a right to be there, ignoring both the logical problem in suggesting that mere attendance at a university grants you access to all university functions with impunity, as well as the school's own code of conduct that I linked to, which he agreed to.

This guy wasn't a hero, he wasn't some brave soul standing up for his rights. He wasn't facing down "the man". He was a confrontational dick with a long history of aggitation who, when he refused to leave, became a criminal.

Now of course this doesn't, alone, mean he deserved to get tasered, even criminals have rights, but to try and turn this conversation from the only legitimate question (did the police reasonably believe the tasering was justified at the time and under the circumstances they believed him to be) into some rambling nonsensical idea about this being a demonstration of thought control because this poor innocent fellow was hauled away and brutalized by the police because they didn't like his questions is not only disingenuous, it's downright ascinine.

yes, there are legitimate questions to be asked, but framing this as some police exercise in thought control when they beat up a legitimate student who just wanted to ask the senator a legitimate if controversial question does a disservice to this event, our laws, and basic human intellect.

They did try to push him out, he wouldn't go. Then they tried to grab him, he fought back, still refused to leave. Then they tackled him, tried to cuff him. He kept stuggling, wouldn't comply with the cops instructions and allow them to cuff him, they warned him they would taze him, he protested but still wouldn't comply. They finally hit him with the tazer.

Like you couldn't see that coming a mile away. You don't follow a peace officers lawfull instructions, they're gonna get progressively more forcefull.

Bottom line, when a cop tells you it's time to leave, shut the fuck up and leave. It's usually the best option your gonna get.

There you go. When a police officer tells you to stop all those peaceable assembly and free speech shenanigans, obey. He had a perfect right to speak, but what do rights mean in the face of armed thugs.

As a rule, if someone with a gun tells you to do something, you do it. Doesn't matter whether it's a cop or a robber.

He had a perfect right to speak

not on someone else's property he doesn't.

There you go. When a police officer tells you to stop all those peaceable assembly and free speech shenanigans, obey. He had a perfect right to speak, but what do rights mean in the face of armed thugs.

:rolleyes:

There you go. When a police officer tells you to stop all those peaceable assembly and free speech shenanigans, obey. He had a perfect right to speak, but what do rights mean in the face of armed thugs.

As a rule, if someone with a gun tells you to do something, you do it. Doesn't matter whether it's a cop or a robber.

You posted that right after we shot this very point more full of holes than a Paul Verhoeven script. Are you being deliberately and obstinately obtuse or are you standing up for some "right to not read a damned thing"?

You posted that right after we shot this very point more full of holes than a Paul Verhoeven script. Are you being deliberately and obstinately obtuse or are you standing up for some "right to not read a damned thing"?

"Right to not read a damned thing" :D

"Right to not read a damned thing" :D

"I was elected to lead, not to read" ?

"I was elected to lead, not to read" ?

George?

George?

President Ah-nold in the Simpsons movie ;)
But George works as well.

They did try to push him out, he wouldn't go. Then they tried to grab him, he fought back, still refused to leave. Then they tackled him, tried to cuff him. He kept stuggling, wouldn't comply with the cops instructions and allow them to cuff him, they warned him they would taze him, he protested but still wouldn't comply. They finally hit him with the tazer.

Like you couldn't see that coming a mile away. You don't follow a peace officers lawfull instructions, they're gonna get progressively more forcefull.

Bottom line, when a cop tells you it's time to leave, shut the fuck up and leave. It's usually the best option your gonna get.

It's a shame he didn't pee all over himself when the taser hit him, that would have been due justice :).

No, it's not, but when the US is continually admonished by Europeans for its penchant for frivolous lawsuits, it's amusing when Europeans suggest frivolous lawsuits.
Not European. Israeli. And not exactly frivolous either. This is sort of like when Randy Weaver sued the government for $3,000,000 dollars for their use of excessive force that left his wife, child, and dog dead and him wounded.

This guy may have sustained far less, and his award should certainly be correspondingly less, maybe upper tens or lower hundreds of thousands. Hard enough to kick the cops in the nuts, but not so hard that it's grossly disproportionate to the incident. It's still an excessive force case, and the government shouldn't be able to get away with trampling on people's rights and let cops run rampant over people without some kind of consequences.

Not European. Israeli. And not exactly frivolous either. This is sort of like when Randy Weaver sued the government for $3,000,000 dollars for their use of excessive force that left his wife, child, and dog dead and him wounded.

This guy may have sustained far less, and his award should certainly be correspondingly less, maybe upper tens or lower hundreds of thousands. Hard enough to kick the cops in the nuts, but not so hard that it's grossly disproportionate to the incident. It's still an excessive force case, and the government shouldn't be able to get away with trampling on people's rights and let cops run rampant over people without some kind of consequences.

That would if he didn't deserve what he got but he did. If cops aren't allowed to use force to subdue someone into arrest then they serve no functionality. It wasn't excessive, it was a taser shot. They couldn't have beaten him into submission (which they are allowed to do) but instead they went for the quicker and certainly less painful way. Being punched in the gut or the face hurts a hell of a lot. Taser's aren't painless but they aren't anywhere near excessive. If they took out their night sticks and wailed on him that might have been excessive but the little twit got all that he was owed.

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.

you saw that too?
he's a horrible dancer.
but, that's why he was too busy to say, "guards, back off".
inside he was happy to get to ignore his questions.
even though he did say he'd answer the questions immediately after the mike was cut (which the cut guy started just as impeachment was mentioned).