University of Florida Student Tasered At Political Rally

An anonymous reader writes "During a political rally at the University of Florida, an annoying student was tasered while attempting to ask Senator Kerry (D-MA) some questions regarding the 2004 election. Police are looking into whether excessive force was used to prevent the student from going over his alloted question period." There are also several YouTube videos available of the incident.

Comments

His name

[suso]

His name is Andrew Meyer. Some people are claiming that he is crazy and that police did things by the book. I don't know what to think. Its hard to find neutral information amongst all the people crying "foul".

I'm sure that if it had been someone else speaking besides a presidential candidate, police would not have been there and Andrew would have been just politely asked to stop talking over and over. He probably deserved to be Tasered because he was resisting arrest, but he didn't deserve to be taken away from the mic.

Re:His name

[Hijacked Public]

And I'm sure that several dozen poor people were tasered on the same day, for doing the same thing (struggling with the police), and not a single on of them gets front page Slashdot.

If any of them got 3 lines on the online edition of their hometown paper, I'd be surpised.

Re:His name

[Shakrai]

And I'm sure that several dozen poor people were tasered on the same day, for doing the same thing (struggling with the police), and not a single on of them gets front page Slashdot.

And that's a good thing? The problem that a lot of human rights organizations have with "less then lethal" weapons is that they lower the standard for when force can be applied. Whether or not he deserved to be removed from the room is a subject I'm not going to dwell on. But four officers couldn't remove one college student without using a taser? Give me a fucking break! How did they manage police work before they had tasers?

Re:His name

[vfrex]

They probably were allowed to play rough with people resisting arrest.

Re:His name

[plague3106]

He probably deserved to be Tasered because he was resisting arrest, but he didn't deserve to be taken away from the mic.

See, I have a problem with that. There is nothing wrong with resisting arrest when you've not done anything wrong. An officer saying "you were distribing the peace" doesn't cut it; this is supposed to be a free society, were we CANNOT be arrested at whim.

Re:His name

[ScentCone]

Give me a fucking break! How did they manage police work before they had tasers?

With someone who physically fights them, they physically restrain or subdue them. Absent things like tasers, that comes down to much less politically correct methods sometimes. And that results in everything from bruises to dislocated shoulders, and worse. And then people complain about THAT. What you're really asking is whether or not police should ever be able or be obligided to physically control someone's actions or presence. If the answer to that is yes, then we're just splitting hairs over the method... unless, of course, you're a cop, and perhaps you don't actually WANT to have to have a wrestling match with someone who might have an unsheathed knife in their pocket, or who might have open wounds, or who might be shockingly strong, etc.

Re:His name

[hcdejong]

but he didn't deserve to be taken away from the mic.

He'd already asked several questions, and had 'used his allotted time'. Should he have been given unlimited time, effectively doing a DOS attack on other people who had questions to ask?

Re:His name

[Gaewyn L Knight]

I would hope in this day we would be able to resist arrest for unlawful reasons. Every bit of what he did was making a scene and yes he was a complete buttwipe... but every bit of what he did was also covered 100% by the first amendment.

It's a sad day when someone heckling can be taken down with force by a police department.

Kerry just went down 200 notches in my mind by not calling those cops out for what they did right then and there.

Re:His name

[Ihlosi]

How did they manage police work before they had tasers?

Nightsticks and guns, I'd guess.

Or maybe they just saw a chance to try out their new toy.

Re:His name

[IndustrialComplex]

Was Robert Paulson...

Oh wait, he wasn't really shot, just tasered.... Does that mean we just call him Bob?

Re:His name

[erroneus]

IWTFV (I watched the full video)

What they did amounted to torture. He was pinned down and immobilized. Aside from the noise he was creating (which got WORSE, not better after the tasing) he was already completely under control. There was more reason NOT to use torture on this young man than to use it. "punishment" is not in the description of what it means to be a police or security officer.

Further, four people were all that was needed to contain this young man: two to hold him and two to clear the way for his exit. It could have been managed much more effectively and efficiently than they had done. And I'll remind all reading that they were "trained" and "prepared" for just such an incident. Their measures were premeditated -- this was not a knee-jerk reaction to an unexpected circumstance.

Re:His name

[Killjoy_NL]

Kerry actually tried to calm the people down and answered the question the guy asked when he was being tasered/assaulted.

I mean, real brave 12 cops on 1 guy who didn't do anything wrong. bastards.

Re:His name

[torkus]

Disturbing the peace...is such an insane 'crime'. It's a bullshit charge that allows police to tack on the 'resisting arrest' that they love to throw around.

Disturbing the peace could be farting in a library. It could be mowing your lawn at 8AM or when your neighbor happens to be having a 12 hour 'gathering' for ... whatever. Now granted,i'm sure there are some general definitions but if asking more questions that someone deemed appropriate at a Q&A forum is disturbing the peace...we're in trouble. Besides that, everyone WAS peaceful until the officers physically restrained HIM. Heck, the officers were even told that the question WOULD be answered.

The insanity that surrounds anything tied to a president or president-hopeful blows my mind. Freedom is speech is good...just not when it's around my presidental campaign, speech, etc.? If the people feel the need to rally, rant, chant, boo, hold signs, or whatever ... it should be allowed and accomodated. The president does work for the PEOPLE, right? Right? Erm, hello? Anyone...? Darn, i knew i shouldn't have let them put my soapbox in the basement of a barn in michigan for the FL rally. At least i got my free speech...

Re:His name

[Khomar]

He probably deserved to be Tasered because he was resisting arrest, but he didn't deserve to be taken away from the mic.

This is indeed the problem -- why did they drag him away in the first place? He was grandstanding a bit, but it was not excessive, and he had just finished his question. His "speech" lasted only one minute and thirty seconds -- not exactly a monopoly on the proceedings. If you watch the video, you see that he basically had concluded his message when the police stepped up and took hold of him. It seems that a simple touch on the shoulder and a gesture toward his seat would have been adequate to inform him that he had overstayed his welcome. Instead, they almost seemed to be encouraging him to resist by physically taking hold of him and dragging him away. He had made no threatening move toward them, and even in his initial resisting, he simply wanted them to let go.

I am not a police office or security guard, so I do not know the pressures involved, but it seems to me they could have taken better care to avoid a confrontation.

Finally, it should be noted that Kerry did say that it was "ok", and he was willing to answer the question. This incident really cannot be blamed on Kerry.

Re:His name

[suso]

See, I have a problem with that. There is nothing wrong with resisting arrest when you've not done anything wrong. An officer saying "you were distribing the peace" doesn't cut it; this is supposed to be a free society, were we CANNOT be arrested at whim.

Ok, I see what you are getting at. What I was saying that he should have know that if continued to resisting arrest that they were going to elevate it. He should have know as soon as they shut off the mic and pulled him away from the microphone that his free speech rights where being violated. Maybe in that case it would have only been covered by the local paper, but somehow a taser has a way of electrifying a story all the way to the top.

I think the people who are saying he did it because he's an attention whore are misguided. Of course he is an attention whore. But there are no laws in this country against someone being an asshole nor should there be. The moment that cops arrest someone because they think they are a jerk or because they think their opinion is lopsided is the moment they are crossing the line and denying someone freedom of speech. That's what this should be all about, the taser thing is seperate IMHO.

Re:His name

[sBox]

The guy was ranting and skipped people in line according to the girl who filmed it (she was interviewed by CNN early this morning.) Did they ask him to get to the point or relinquish the mike? It wasn't captured on tape but, again the camera was flaky according the girl who filmed it.

The tazer was overkill. But it looked more like one of those shockers and didn't really seem to affect him anyhow. The student who filmed the incident mentioned that he may have been tazered once prior to the one she captured on film but her camera was going in and out.

IMO: He was ranting and taking up more time than each was allotted. You are free to rant all you want. Rant from the crowd, outside or in the cafeteria line. It's your right to free speech. This forum had a format and he was not sticking to it. Removing is was justified in order to keep to the format civil. Removing him does not hinder his right to free speech.

Re:His name

[ScentCone]

An officer saying "you were distribing the peace" doesn't cut it; this is supposed to be a free society, were we CANNOT be arrested at whim.

So, if I stand outside your bedroom window all night beating trashcan lids together, you should have no recourse? Or, if you hold a seminar, and I decide to disrupt it continually, you should have no recourse? If an officer DOES find that you're disturbing the peace, should it be up to YOU to determine whether that's true or not? If so, do only I get to determine if I'm disturbing YOUR peace? Should I be able to enter a venue where your candidate is talking, and just stand there all day shouting him down? Let's just stipulate for a moment that you might consider "disturbing the peace" to be an actual public nuisance, and that perhaps a law enforcement officer in charge of enforcing the law that your elected officials specifically wrote to deal with that are actually called upon to enforce it. And the person who is beating trashcan lids together so that no one can hear your candidate speak simply decides that that community's law doesn't apply to them. What then? The cops have to give up and walk away, and allow the disruption to continue? No? Then what? Maybe they have to resort to actually physically moving the person away from the scene because they're too much of an asshat to show the decency to knock it off.

And if they start fighting with the officers trying to move them? Then what? The officers should decide that, well, if someone's willing to physically fight in order to maintain their ability to bash trash can lids together to prevent political speech, then, well, gosh, they should probably be left to it? Or, should the officers actually uphold the law, and stop the person from disturbing the peace? You can't have it both ways. You say you have a "problem with that." What is it you have a problem with, exactly? The right to assemble and have a civil conversation without someone taking over your event for themselves? You say you want a free society. So, I'm not free to hold an event where people get to take turns talking? You don't want freedom for everyone, just the freedom to pick and choose which other people YOU get to shout down.

Re:His name

[PFI_Optix]

He should have know as soon as they shut off the mic and pulled him away from the microphone that his free speech rights where being violated.

Not at that point they weren't. Free speech doesn't mean freedom to hijack someone else's audience or freedom to use their sound equipment. He was perfectly free to stand outside that building (assuming it's public property that he stands on) and say what he wanted to say.

Re:His name

[Applekid]

The insanity that surrounds anything tied to a president or president-hopeful blows my mind. Freedom is speech is good...just not when it's around my presidental campaign, speech, etc.? If the people feel the need to rally, rant, chant, boo, hold signs, or whatever ... it should be allowed and accomodated. You know, I've always thought THAT would be a good opportunity for a potential presidental candidate to shine head-and-shoulders above his opponents. Welcoming criticism and demonstrations and the abundant application of free speech.

It would have been a class act for Kerry to have asked those officers to ease up on the guy. Pity.

Re:His name

[eepok]

Therein lies the problem, doesn't it? All these police stations get these new toys that have the potential of making so many arrests or detentions easier than pie and make policies governing their use without the public's approval. I understand that there are certain policies the police need to keep on the down low for the sake of preventing further unruliness, but this is not one of them.

The real problem with using a taser here is that no harm needed to be done to the person to stop him from being a complete ass. Yes, he was a drama queen about being forced out. Yes, he exaggerated and narrated for the cameras every bit. We know he had a distinct motive to make a scene. However, pinning him down was unnecessary, cuffing him was unnecessary, and tasing him was simply a punishment -- something no police force is allowed to do. Punishment is for the courts.

The taser is a defensive weapon, not a tool to make the job easier.

Re:His name

[suso]

Not at that point they weren't. Free speech doesn't mean freedom to hijack someone else's audience or freedom to use their sound equipment. He was perfectly free to stand outside that building (assuming it's public property that he stands on) and say what he wanted to say.

Bullshit! He was in the auditorium at a public institution. And he was asking the question during the Q&A session or at the end of his speech, not rudely interrupting his speech.

I think people thinking that you can only protest or speak against something outside on the street is a myth propagated and enforced by those that don't want to deal with it.

Re:His name

[Yusaku Godai]

I don't think the tasering is the issue though. The issue is that he was arrested in the first place. Whether or not he was being annoying is up for debate, but since when is being annoying/asking a senator tough questions in a public forum an arrestable offense?

Re:His name

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Give me your address. I've been looking for a new venue for my official Trash-Can-Lid-Banging political assemblies where we demonstrate against the complacency of America by making as much noise as possible. I think your neighborhood would make an excellent location. We hold our public assemblies at 2am every morning. Thanks!

Re:His name

[Lurker2288]

To pose a straw man argument, if he'd been standing in that auditorium during the Q&A session and he'd just started reciting random poetry or something similarly immaterial to the purpose of the event, would it be violating his free speech to take the mic from him? Or even if he's asking valid questions, is it violating his free speech to stop him from monopolizing the speaker's time? And if he refuses to stop talking, is it 'censorship' to take the mic away forcibly?

Re:His name

[bytesex]

No. But since this is almost a private event, there should be more procedure: the organisation should decide that he is disturbing the event. Upon which the formal body that owns the place must say that he is now excluded from it, upon which the police is notified that the person must leave the premises lest he be privately charched with trespassing, after which the police must notify the person of this so he can leave. There is to be no self-motivated action by the police. Unless, of course, there is a local police law for the duration of the event that says that they can do so. But that's silly because the first route is sufficient.

Re:His name

[Binestar]

Kerry just went down 200 notches in my mind by not calling those cops out for what they did right then and there.

RTFA. Kerry wanted the guy to ask his question so that he could answer it. He specifically "I will answer his question" to the crowd and the police while the police were pulling him away.

Re:His name

[Hijacked Public]

And that's a good thing? Where did I write that is was?

My point is that ff this same kid acted a fool when a senator wasn't around, or if he was just some broke guy who didn't want to get up off the park bench he was sleeping on, no one here would ever know he ended up tased and arrested. It happens every day and the whole of Slashdot doesn't start faoming at the mouth about it. We're on to more important things like the human rights violations committed by toolbars that rate web sites.

Fine by me, though, actually. This is a geek news site and I'm here for computer stuff. But once the subject of police force is put up on the front page I think we should be consistent. Some guy died in Cincinatti last week after the cops tasered him when they showed up for a domestic dispute. I expect a headline "Man Murder Tased by Police for Talking with his Wife". (the one on this story was "...Student Tasered after Asking John Kerry a Question" before it went out)

As for the actions of the cops, they probably fit department policy. It is more difficult to subdue a person than you think, even 4 on 1. All things considered less harm probably comes to the people who get tased than not, since once the police decide to arrest you you are going to be arrested, one way or the other. I'm not making the case that they are right, and I'll readily admit that the line between police and military has been blurred.

Re:His name

[niko9]

But four officers couldn't remove one college student without using a taser? Give me a fucking break!

I am not saying that police do not abuse their authority. I am not going to debate you on your previous statements, but only on the one I italicized.

This guy seemed (video is shaky) like he was putting up quite a fight.

Have you ever tried to restrain someone who really really does not want to be restrained? Have you ever been kicked, slapped, pushed shoved by someone trying to get away? Someone you cannot hit in the head? I have --and I'm only a paramedic who can only use soft restraints and wait 'till NYPD gets to the scene with handcuffs. And remember: you have to try and restrain them without hurting them or occluding their airway, which makes the task even more difficult!

This guy was resisting arrest. I'm not debating whether it was right to arrest him in the first place. The penal law here (and in most states) in New York State states that it's illegal to resist arrest even when you think that the arrest is unauthorized.

How did they manage police work before they had tasers?

I have seen scrawny seventeen year olds give six hulky NYPD ESU cops a helluva a hard time before he was restrained. And also keep in mid that it would only take one lucky kick to the face for one of these cops to lose an eye --seen it happen before.

Put on my uniform (the one where you are not allowed to carry ANY weapons) and come back to us in a couple of years, or in my case, ten

Re:His name

[hcmtnbiker]

What they did amounted to torture. He was pinned down and immobilized. Aside from the noise he was creating (which got WORSE, not better after the tasing) he was already completely under control. There was more reason NOT to use torture on this young man than to use it. "punishment" is not in the description of what it means to be a police or security officer.

I watched the video too. And what do you believe would be the correct method of detaining someone who is resisting arrest and creating a disturbance, because if you watched the video you can be very sure he was doing both of those. The main thing police are there for is to stop anarchy. He managed to get his hands free multiple times and just before the taser. The cops attempt to get him to cooperate, yet he completely refuses. They tell him if he resists they will taser him, yet they hold off the taser until he drags the cops that are attempting to hold him to the ground, and then they still wait until he refuses to accept the cuffs and frees himself twice more. At this point the cops have two options, arm lock him, which for someone refusing the arrest would likely suffer a broken or dislocated arm, or to taser him, quickly subduing him and making their job a lot easier. And for all of you that are saying that they just used the taser because it's the new toy, that may be true, but you have to also be tasered before you are authorized to use one, they knew full well what the taser does.

Re:His name

[tbannist]

According to the article he did, several times. The police were apparently a little too busy to listen, apparently.

Re:His name

[suso]

I want you to watch a few clips of David R Grubb and then get back with me on censorship. David goes on an on about nothing related and they never take his mic away. In fact they are nice enough to make an exception one time and give him more time. But he keeps coming back and they don't stop it even if it wastes their time. Gotta love the politicians that put up with that.

From watching the video of Andrew asking questions and having been to several Q&A sessions myself for speakers, I can saw that Andrew was far from going overboard or wasting everyone's time. Kerry even started to answer his question and Andrew probably would have let him do so.

Re:His name

[Ihlosi]

And for all of you that are saying that they just used the taser because it's the new toy, that may be true, but you have to also be tasered before you are authorized to use one, they knew full well what the taser does.

Probably after you've had some sort of medical exam saying that you're quite likely to survive that. Do they give that benefit to people they taser in the field ?

Re:His name

[feed_me_cereal]

I'm sure that if it had been someone else speaking besides a presidential candidate, police would not have been there and Andrew would have been just politely asked to stop talking over and over.

You're sure? Why? Because he's a dick? Maybe you haven't noticed that this isn't the first occurrence of this sort of thing, and not all of them are on youtube. A couple years ago at OSU (columbus, OH), the city finally settled with a student who had been shot in the head with a wooden bullet. She had been unfortunate enough to walk near a party that was too large. As she was walking by, the police shot her in the head with a wooden bullet, giving her brain damage. She wasn't even on the same side of the street as the party.

And this is no shocker. Friends of mine have been maced for the horrific crime of leaving a concert. That's right. There was no altercation, just a croud of people leaving a concert. Apperantly the croud was large enough and the music weird enough to warrant a riot force to be waiting outside the venue, mace at hand. This sort of thing happened on a weekly or monthly basis in columbus.

Wake up. Just because this guy was an annoying prick doesn't mean that the cops don't taser these fucks for shits and giggles. Please don't tell me that the 4 of them didn't have his ass under control.

Re:His name

[niko9]

Yet another poster who has never EVER had to restrain anyone professionally?

I saw the whole video as well. The video is not good evidence.

Where are his hands??? You can't see 'em!! So what if he is on the ground? He is still a threat if his hands are not cuffed! Were the officers able to pat him down for a weapon thoroughly? Did the officers believe -- because of his behavior-- that this person is and EDP (emotionally disturbed person) who needs psychiatric and possibly medical help?

Torture? Ha!

Re:His name

[FrivolousPig]

So next time you have a house party with 6 friends you would like to have 24 cops show up at your door then taze you for playing your music too loud? Maybe in the states things are a little different but here 2 cops are enough and they have no problem breaking up any kind of party without needing to taze anybody. Are you telling me 4 cops couldn't restrain and remove 1 unarmed student without needing to electrocute him? They already had him on the ground tazers were originally to disable people who were armed with things like knives without needing to kill them, not to make someone shut up. ALSO, when someone grabs you unexpectedly your first natural reaction is to lay down and give up? Mine is to say get the fuck off me. Maybe he should have been removed but this is still excessive force.

Re:His name

[Lurker2288]

Well, obviously different people are going to interpret the video in different ways, which will in turn determine whether they regard his behavior as inappropriate or not. I think we can agree, though, that there is a point where such behavior becomes sufficiently disruptive as to warrant putting a stop to it. The cops (or whoever dispatched them) felt that point had been reached. The problem is that the kid then made the decision to resist, which is never a good diea (particularly in the southern US--'Cool Hand Luke' must be required viewing for all cops below the Mason-Dixon line).

Re:His name

[feed_me_cereal]

civil? Are you shooting for irony?

So, immediately grabbing, forcing to the ground, and tasering is OK for someone who is asking a long question in a "civil" forum, so long as the guy is kind of annoying? What the hell kind of protocol for a "civil" debate is that? Next time one of my friends doesn't shut up, I'll just kick his ass and tell him that's slashdot's idea of civility.

Re:His name

[FatAlb3rt]

What they did amounted to torture.

Mod: -1 Exaggerating for effect

Re:His name

[Chrisq]

with tazers they are unrestrained as they leave very little to no evidence it was used.
best not used in a room full of people and cameras perhaps.

Re:His name

[Hijacked Public]

He was asked to leave and refused, which is why he was arrested. As has probably been pointed out elsewhere, the First Amendment does not require anyone to be given any specific forum for voicing their opinion.

This sort of thing is often used as a way to circuitously stifle free speech, but I don't see a realistic way around it. According to the signs I can't go into a Target store armed, and I could claim that this is a violation of my Second Amendment rights, but I'd rather have property owners free to set the terms of use for their places.

Re:His name

[plague3106]

So, if I stand outside your bedroom window all night beating trashcan lids together, you should have no recourse?

There are several actions to take; I can get you on trespassing, or violating the noise ordinence. See, there's a difference between a blanket "officer says you're distrubing the police, so you are" and those two laws. They're also initiated at my behest, not the cop just walking by.

Or, if you hold a seminar, and I decide to disrupt it continually, you should have no recourse?

Again, trespass comes to mind.

If an officer DOES find that you're disturbing the peace, should it be up to YOU to determine whether that's true or not?

Ahh, now you see the subtle difference. The problem is the officer, having such a blanket law, WILL abuse it. I could call someone a jerk, and potentally be arrested. Should that be allowed, because you think up other annoying behavior?

Should I be able to enter a venue where your candidate is talking, and just stand there all day shouting him down?

If you do that, you can be expected to be asked to leave. If police need be involved, they can do so at the property owner's behest, for trespassing.

I want freedom for everyone, which is why I don't want such "discression" in the hands of the government. There is no need for a blanket law where basically the officer says you've violated it, and that's the end of the story. We already have ways to deal with such problems, we don't need to hand police unfettered power.

Anyway, this story is about a politician, speaking at a PUBLIC university, with the politician stating he wouldn't mind answering, and the police deciding he was a problem, even though the politican saying he wanted to answer.

There was no need for this given the situation, and if the politican didn't want to answer the question, he could certainly leave without doing so.

Re:His name

[truthsearch]

Should he have been given unlimited time, effectively doing a DOS attack on other people who had questions to ask?

Should he have been physically pulled away by police for taking less than 2 minutes to ask a question? I can see turning off the mic after 3 or 4 minutes. But physical force for just a couple of minutes is extremely excessive.

It looks in the video like the police were asked to intervene when he asked about Skull & Bones. Because of course by then everyone knows he's a lunatic. Should he have been stopped during his prior question about impeachment? Which question or what amount of time make it a DOS attack?

Re:His name

[Anonymous Coward]

"Probably after you've had some sort of medical exam saying that you're quite likely to survive that. Do they give that benefit to people they taser in the field ?"

So you're saying a taser should only be used in the field after a full medical examination of the individual violently resisting arrest? Gee, that makes sense. Ok, so you're saying a taser should never be used. What should be used? A nightstick? That breaks bones and cracks skulls. Is that better than the taser? Arm locks are good, if you want the guy's arm broken and/or his shoulder dislocated. It doesn't guarantee he's going to end up restrained and opens the police officer up to significant threat from the suspect and anything sharp that's on their person. How about the gun? Nice shot in the leg to slow the suspect down? Na, you'd never go for that.

So you're essentially saying police can't use guns, nightsticks, tasers, or physical restraint of any kind, hmm?

Wow, would I like to see nothing more than a PCP'd up wacko beating the living shit out of you with 6 cops standing around trying to figure out which method of restraining him you would find humane and reasonable.

Re:His name

[feed_me_cereal]

oops, sorry, I misread the portion of your post that I copied and pasted and conflated it with some of the others I read this morning. This is what happens when you stop drinking coffee....

Re:His name

[Gaewyn L Knight]

There is a LARGE difference between "I'll answer his question" and "Please let him stay until he has his answer"

The first is an automatic response to any tough/strange/stupid question made to a politician. The second is stating his disapproval for the situation.

Re:His name

[truthsearch]

Free speech doesn't mean freedom to hijack someone else's audience or freedom to use their sound equipment.

Senator Kerry (you know, that guy on the stage) pointed to him, acknowledged his desire to ask a question, and let him speak. Is a co-pilot hijacking a plane when the pilot hands him the controls?

Re:His name

[westlake]

But four officers couldn't remove one college student without using a taser? Give me a fucking break! How did they manage police work before they had tasers?

With the Nightstick. The Billy Club.

The essence of a successful take-down - the one that is least dangerous to bystanders, the officer, the suspect - is speed.

Get him down and you keep him down until you have him secured.

Re:His name

[xtracto]

I watched the full video before it was on slashdot too, I really could not believe what happened, as a non native english speaker I did not know what taser meant after the guy started to scream in the video and people starting shouting that they were tasering him.

Personally I found his questions interesting, and I think that there was no right for police to arrest him, I believe that Kerry should have answered his questions and defend himself in political way. This only shows me that in the USA if the government does not like your question, they will use whatever means necessary to silent you. From the video, the guy was talking nicely, using a bit of high voice to emphazise his beliefs before the police started using force. It was after that when he started shouting and resisting. But as he said, why was he arrested? he was just asking! he was arrested just because police and/or Kerry was not confortable with his questions, way to go!

And another thing that amused me was how people were just sitting there watching and it seems no one tried to help him. Howly shit, that seems quite similar to what happens in other matters in the USA when people is fucked by their government. The most anyone do is say "suck to be you" and watch.

Yet another reason to reafirm the sentiment in my signature...

Re:His name

[Binestar]

There is a LARGE difference between "I'll answer his question" and "Please let him stay until he has his answer"

The first is an automatic response to any tough/strange/stupid question made to a politician. The second is stating his disapproval for the situation.

Not so large as you imply. The only way Kerry can hear the guys question is by having him up at the podium with the microphone on. So by saying he would answer his question he is implying that the cops should let him ask it.

Re:His name

[torkus]

Oh young jedi padawan...you must learn the ways of the force.

Asking our gov't questions can't, itself, be legal - yet. But they will watch you, stalk you, invade your privacy and eventually arrest you for spitting gum on the sidewalk. That or just prevent you from asking the questions in the first place.

You have the right to ASK but you don't have the right to be within 5 miles of the person you want to ask the question to. You get to ask but you don't have the right to stay for the answer. And so on. There's always a loophole somewhere.

Re:His name

[Gaewyn L Knight]

He had already asked 3 questions... Kerry was just talking about those. Kerry was trying to calm the crowd at best... not doing anything to rectify an injustice going on in front of his face.

Re:His name

[Yusaku Godai]

*snerk* I see now, master. Asking questions clearly must pose them a physical threat. It is not a matter to be taken lightly.

Re:His name

[Rakishi]

He was asked to leave. He refused and resisted. The police decided to remove him at that point.

And another thing that amused me was how people were just sitting there watching and it seems no one tried to help him. ...Why would anyone help him? It was his fault and he was goign to get arrested for it. I mean "helping" him would mean that now you'd both be arrested. It wouldn't help anyone.

Howly shit, that seems quite similar to what happens in other matters in the USA when people is fucked by their government. The most anyone do is say "suck to be you" and watch. So what would they have done in your country? Started a riot? Set a few cars on fire? Had a nice brawl with the police?

See I guess unlike your country in the US people expect the police to most of the time not be corrupt, horribly, bastards that will torture to death anyone they arrest. It's nice to live in a civilized country, you should try it some time.

Re:His name

[Slashdot Parent]

Personally I found his questions interesting, and I think that there was no right for police to arrest him, I believe that Kerry should have answered his questions and defend himself in political way. Are you sure you watched the video? Kerry tried to answer his questions, and would have if this nut-job would have shut up long enough to give him the opportunity.

Your post implies that Kerry demanded that this kid be removed/silenced/tasered/etc. This is far from the truth. Watch the video again and you'll see.

he was arrested just because police and/or Kerry was not confortable with his questions, way to go! No, he was arrested because the police were not comfortable with his erratic and aggressive behavior. Can you blame them?

Re:His name

[torkus]

No no no. There is a difference between a private place open to the public and a PUBLIC place owned by the gov't, etc.

A privately owned public place (e.g. supermarket, mall, office building) permission to enter is assumed. It can be revolked (i.e. you can be banned from wal-mart) and then you are no longer permitted to be there. Be careful when you talk about rights.

A public place (or your own private place) is where you can ramble poetry, protest, or walk around with a sign painted on your forehead.

Given that, they could make him leave. They couldn't, however, make him shut up. Well, legally at least. And without a taser.

Re:His name

[Slashdot Parent]

but you have to also be tasered before you are authorized to use one, they knew full well what the taser does. That's a little bit of a misnomer. Most taser training does not involve taking an actual wet taser hit. They usually just tape the electrodes to the trainee, which winds up having them close together and administered in a controlled location.

In the field, the arrestee is taking a wet taser hit, and the electrodes will normally be farther apart, causing much greater discomfort. So while I agree that cops do have some idea of what a taser hit feels like, I wouldn't say they know "full well what a taser does".

Re:His name

[Binestar]

He haHe had already asked 3 questions... Kerry was just talking about those. Kerry was trying to calm the crowd at best... not doing anything to rectify an injustice going on in front of his face.

Your proof is?

Re:His name

[AxemRed]

Every bit of what he did was not covered by the 1st amendment. Everything he said was covered, but he didn't get arrested for what he said. He got in trouble because he was being lawfully ejected from the building, and he refused to leave. So, I guess you could say he was trespassing. He was also being belligerent, and some of his actions probably amounted to disturbing the peace and/or disorderly conduct. I don't think that they should have hit him with the taser, but I do think that he deserved to have his stupid ass dragged out of the building.

Re:His name

[Gailin]

I find it very telling that you consider choosing between a non-lethal, and possibly lethal method of ending a confrontation "splitting hairs".

Re:His name

[no-body]

I wonder which male human being in the same age would not have reacted in a similar fashion? Those are instinctive reactions built in human brain - flight or fight. Was he given a way out?

Police is acting on the same level - reptilian brain. There are no human beings, only prey to be dominated by a pack.

Deeply dysfunctional and woven into the US (or any other totalitarian) society - just look at their foreign policy.

Re:His name

[Geoff St. Germaine]

Well, it seems that you may not understand much of what you are talking about. First off, the 10 or 50 000 V quoted on tasers is the peak unloaded voltage (it's 50 kV for the M26 taser) . With a load like a human body it is more like 5000 V peak (1500 V average). Typically a lethal current is in the 100 mA range (sustained), and that is 100 mA through the heart. The M26 taser has an average current of around 3.6 mA. You've mentioned 500 000 ohms and that is actually close the resistance of dry skin. Also, the power output of a taser is about 7.4 W (the ADVANCED TASER M26 uses 8 AA batteries). Since the device is power limited, higher voltage results in lower current, so higher voltages are safer.

Re:His name

[gordo3000]

stun guns aren't lethal!!!! this is slashdot for cryin' out loud. (not a taser, that would have preventing him from yelling OW).

of course, he could have died from shock if they had accidentally dislocated his shoulder while trying to make him stand up and move.

I find it telling you consider a stun gun lethal when used once on a person. I'd love to see some proof of this. this isn't a full powered taser btw so pointing to valid examples of that are not going to get you brownie points.

Re:His name

[jafiwam]

Ok, I see what you are getting at. What I was saying that he should have know that if continued to resisting arrest that they were going to elevate it. He should have know as soon as they shut off the mic and pulled him away from the microphone that his free speech rights where being violated. Maybe in that case it would have only been covered by the local paper, but somehow a taser has a way of electrifying a story all the way to the top. The way to fight for constitutional rights is the court room with lawyers. The way to NOT get your rights well respected is to do it by fighting police trying to execute a lawful order.

There's no laws against being an asshole, however being asked to leave and refusing is trespassing, being escorted out by police and wiggling free is resisting arrest. Both of which can land a person in jail (for good reason).

That guy is a complete idiot. Anybody with any brains knows that the place to postulate whack job conspiracy theories is one's blog, or even Fark.

Re:His name

[ScentCone]

So next time you have a house party with 6 friends you would like to have 24 cops show up at your door then taze you for playing your music too loud?

No, ONE cop can show up and ASK you to turn it down. Just like this idiot was ASKED to participate in the event like everyone else, and ASKED to behave in a reasonable manner so that the people holding the event could make it about what the event was supposed to be about, and not about this jerk getting raising his street cred with the hot activist chicks on campus. It's when the people having the loud party refuse to acknowledge that they're being a nuisance, and continue to be a problem, that you have to escalate the response. Just like this kid, who was asked multiple times to give it a rest and allow someone else to speak, who refused to simply walk away after blathering for so long, who refused to be LED, peacefully away (hell, he could have kept shouting, if he wanted, as he walked away, but he wouldn't do that, either), and who when reached for to be led away started flailing at the police, and who continued to fight even after multiple warnings that they'd use other means to settle him down to the point where he could be peacefully handled. Do you really think that's the same as being "tazed for playing music too loud?" Obviously you haven't actually watched any coverage of this fool's behavior, or you'd realize that no one just walked up and tazed him.

Are you telling me 4 cops couldn't restrain and remove 1 unarmed student without needing to electrocute him?

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that you obviously don't know what the word "electrocute" actually means, it's apparent you've never tried to subdue and move someone who is trying to fight you off. People get hurt. This moron could just as easily have wrenched his arm out of joint, and then blamed the cops for THAT. Instead (as you would see if you actually watched the video), the less traumatic, and more civil behavior he SHOULD have been exhibiting when he was politely asked to wrap up his tantrum was much more quickly acheived - despite HIS violent behavior - and no risk of further injuries.

when someone grabs you unexpectedly your first natural reaction is to lay down and give up

Well, see, now you're just BSing and you know it. This wasn't unexpected. He deliberately set out to cause a confrontation. No one touched him until well after he'd been warned that they would. No one had to get more physical with him until HE started flailing. Again, you either haven't watched it, or you're trolling. Trolling, I'd say.

Maybe he should have been removed but this is still excessive force.

Ah! So, if he refused to be removed, what then? You have to subdue him enough to actually carry him out, right? Kicking and screaming? Fine. Have you ever actually tried to handle even one fourth of a person who is seriously trying to prevent you from doing so, and them carry them through a crowd of OTHER people? Well? Getting him to finally chill out so he could be safely moved WAS using less force.

Re:His name

[ArsenneLupin]

or who might have open wounds, ha, open sores, ha...

Re:His name

[Mr. Slippery]

He probably deserved to be Tasered because he was resisting arrest

No one "deserves" to be tasered, any more than they "deserve" to be shot or beaten. A taser is a potential lethal weapon that should not be used on anyone unless they are a threat to the safety of others - used not because some undertrained cop's sense of karma decides that someone "deserves" it, but to stop the threat.

One guy who has already been brought to the ground is not a threat to four cops. Tasering him was an act of torture, intended to cow the populace into submission to authority and/or for the sadistic gratification of the cops.

Re:His name

[MoneyT]

You haven't actually ever tried to restrain someone that didn't want to be restrained have you? A taser (or stun gun in this instance) is thousands of times safer in such a senario than wrestling with the kid.

Re:His name

[Time Ed]

You're nothing more than a cop and king of the straw man arguments, aren't you? Public political discourse is about confrontation. It always has been. The kid is outraged and who can blame him? Outrage is encouraged these days. Its been discussed too many times in this forum. Hell, I'm outraged at the state of thing. He got to ask Kerry the same questions I would have asked: "why didn't you organize to impeach Bush?"; "why did you conceded an election you appeared to win?". And the implied questions about election rigging and the war. I'm sure next time he'll have better considered how to make a point. He's young after all. He will learn.

I can't believe the number of idiots at the rally who applauded his removal. I can't believe the number of idiots who wouldn't help him gain some composure. Especially someone from the senator's staff. The senator stated he was willing to answer his questions, but no, we always have to have a show of force as a crowd pleaser.

But I really can't believe the number of freaks on this site. "He deserved it". "He's only after his fifteen minutes". Hell, one moron even went so far as to suggest he was on drugs. And the Procedure Monkeys and Decorum Puritans who want to split hairs about where to stand or who the microphone belongs to or who's in charge. All of you know as well as I that any appearance by anyone in authority is a staged affair. It needs to be interrupted. And pointed questions need to be asked. Because there's really no other place to ask them, is there?

Just to make everyone happy, throwing the kid out on his ass probably would have sufficed. The "adult" thing to do would have been the senator himself stepping over and asking the kid to take a breath, then letting him have his say.
--te

Re:His name

[jandrese]

Getting him pinned was only half of the job though, they police also had to get him out of the building without causing further injury to him, themselves, or to bystanders. I think that's where the taser came in, since it was apparent that he was going to continue to struggle once they started moving him out. Just my $0.02

Re:His name

[Johnny5000]

And I'm sure that several dozen poor people were tasered on the same day, for doing the same thing (struggling with the police), and not a single on of them gets front page Slashdot.

It's more newsworthy when the incident is caught on tape.
We probably wouldn't have heard about this guy either if it wasn't recorded.

Re:His name

[Peter Mork]

Yes, I've had to restrain people without hurting them. I was head of security for a mall. As a result, we saw people from all walks of life (including some who were not quite sane). And, some of them had to be restrained before the police could arrive. And no, we didn't have weapons. However, we never had to resort to the level of violence evident in this video.

So, I've never worn your uniform, but I have worn a uniform. When accused of "hiding behind a badge" (a pointless security badge), I've even taken it off to indicate that I'm not afraid of some punk. Based on my experiences, this incident was out of line.

Re:His name

[ReTay]

"With someone who physically fights them, they physically restrain or subdue them. Absent things like tasers, that comes down to much less politically correct methods sometimes. And that results in everything from bruises to dislocated shoulders, and worse. "

Ok to keep this on topic I have seen the entire video and it was SIX on one. ONE skinny little collage student. Is he a jerk? Sure did he need an attitude correction? Maybe.
But if SIX cops can not control one collage student THAT THEY ALLREADY HAVE PINNED ON THE GROUND they don't deserve to be cops. ONE could sit on each limb and renender him helpless. Yet they still needed to tazer him to get the cuffs on? Bunch of sadists.

"you're a cop, and perhaps you don't actually WANT to have to have a wrestling match with someone who might have an unsheathed knife in their pocket, or who might have open wounds, or who might be shockingly strong, etc."
Hi welcome to the job. If you don't like it get a different one.
And as far as the specious argument about having a wrestling match with someone with an open knife in their pocket. Police have had available to them for a long time things like stab proof vests and gloves.

This is not acceptable.

Re:His name

[niko9]

..., we never had to resort to the level of violence evident in this video.

What level of violence is that? They try to escort him out after he starts to rant. Yes, he is ranting loudly into the microphone. He then resists the officers and continues to yell. At around 1:30 (youtube video) a female office is trying to explain to him to stop resisting and yield his hands. The subject then states that he is NOW willing to walk out. Sorry bud, he had his chance. He's acting like a raving lunatic. If he was my patient I would let PD restrain him and I would definitely do a finger stick and check his glucose level. Look at approx. 01:50! He yanks his left hand free from the officers. He was told multiple times that if he keeps resisting he will get tased. At 01:59 he gets tased while the officers are still struggling to tase him. The officers are calm. No one is punching, slapping, yelling or screaming at the subject.

This is the video I am using as a time reference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&NR=1

Re:His name

[Belial6]

"See I guess unlike your country in the US people expect the police to most of the time not be corrupt, horribly, bastards that will torture to death anyone they arrest. It's nice to live in a civilized country, you should try it some time."

Well, that's not really true. It's really more that we have just accepted that the police are corrupt horrible bastards, and that the corruption goes all the way to the top, so helping someone whose civil rights are being violated will just result in our own beatings and arrest.

"He was asked to leave."

He was also told his behavior was OK by the person that presumably had authority to do that. Kerry said "It's OK, let me answer the question". So, either the police were using excessive force, given the fact that they were dealing with a man that obviously believed he had right to be there, and had been told that his presence was OK. He was also not a threat to anyone around him. If Kerry had the authority to grant access to the venue, then the police were acting WAY outside their authority in a criminal fashion. If Kerry did not have the authority to grant access to the venue, then the police should have arrested Kerry for inciting violence. If Kerry did not have the authority to grand access to the venue, then his actions were exactly what is meant when people use the example that "You are not allowed to yell FIRE in a crowded theater." So, did the police violate the law, or did Kerry?

Re:His name

[AdamThor]

But four officers couldn't remove one college student without using a taser? Give me a fucking break!

Have you ever tried to restrain anyone without seriously hurting them? It's hard to do. My sister worked with disturbed youth for a while, and had a number of stories about some 11 year old thinking that he was hard shit because it took half a dozen orderlies to restrain him. That's because nobody is allowed to sock you one in the stomach and restrain you before you get your breath back.

Most likely any of these cops could have delivered a good solid kidney punch to the guy while he was jumping up and down and yelling, and after that he would have been in no shape to continue resisting. But there are techniques for restraining someone without hurting them. Given the somewhat paradoxical nature of the task, I'll bet you can understand that they're not as effective as less restricted measures might be.

So instead of getting a couple of solid thumps and being led outside while dazed, this guy ends up with however many security types holding him down and it looks like they're kicking his ass. Maybe they are, or maybe they're just trying to hold his arms and legs in place without twisting them around and fucking up his joints or getting a sneaker to the chops.

Re:His name

[Blakey Rat]

Personally I found his questions interesting, and I think that there was no right for police to arrest him, I believe that Kerry should have answered his questions and defend himself in political way.

Kerry did answer his question, or try to. The nut-case wouldn't shut up long enough for anybody else to get a word in edgewise. Besides, he was just spouting paranoid conspiracy theories.

This only shows me that in the USA if the government does not like your question, they will use whatever means necessary to silent you.

No it doesn't. It shows that if you're a nutcase disturbing hundreds of people in an auditorium, and you struggle against the police when they try to remove you, the police will use necessary force to remove you.

What country do you live in where this does not/would not happen? Seriously, I'd like to know so I can look up a counter-example in Google News.

And another thing that amused me was how people were just sitting there watching and it seems no one tried to help him.

Help him how? By fighting the police? I guess Americans are just more civilized than you're used to-- the way we fight the police is after the arrest in the court system, we don't start brawls in crowded auditoriums.

Besides, this guy was obstructing the event and monopolizing the speaker. I would wager the other participants were happy to see him taken away, they were trying to listen to Kerry, not this crazy jerk's wild-ass conspiracy theories.

Howly shit, that seems quite similar to what happens in other matters in the USA when people is fucked by their government.

They use the court system to solve the issue? Yes, that is similar to what happens with other matters. It's called "civilization," you should try it.

Re:His name

[ScentCone]

could sit on each limb and renender him helpless.

And then what? Ask him to walk along nicely? They already DID that. You'll recall he started fighting. Carrying him, wildly kicking, through the crowd, is more dangerous ("sadistic," perhaps you'd call it), than getting him to chill out without wrenching his arms and legs while he's flailing around fighting them.

Hi welcome to the job. If you don't like it get a different one.

The job should include being injured?

Police have had available to them for a long time things like stab proof vests and gloves.

Uh huh. And that stops you from getting your femeral artery cut how, exactly? Next thing you'll be recommending is that they just wear Star Wars Stormtrooper outfits so that they have no risk of behing hurt while subduing someone who wants a fight in front of a crowd. But, as soon as police officers are armored up enough to make whatever may come their way much less of a risk, you strike me as the sort of person who would then complain that they look like armed military personnel in the middle of a civilian lifestyle. How about this: they wear their current uniforms, which are far less intimidating and provocative, and they use a quick, non-lethal technology (as they did) when someone after many repeated instructions to stop kicking and fighting just needs to be reset for a few minutes so they can get their act together. No stormtroopers running around, and fewer physical fights (which also cause injury - I don't know why you think that restraining someone who would rather fight than be walked off isn't full of all sorts of risks to everyone invovled - I can only assume you've never had to do it).

Re:His name

[Peter Mork]

As many others have noted, a taser is a weapon. I consider the administration of 20,000 and 150,000 volts to be violent. Sure, he was acting like a jerk, but acting like a jerk is not a reasonable justification for unnecessary force. I've had to escort out jerks without liberal applications of electricity.

Re:His name

[deets]

Go watch video's of Kent State in the early 70's. This guy got off very easy.

The cop's were only following procedures. See it is the liberal fucks like this asshole that take the choice out of the hands of the police. So no matter if this guy is 5'2 and 110lbs or 6'6 and 350 it is the same procedure.

Re:His name

[Jaeph]

It was certainly not torture. You're just using the word to get modded up.

He never calmed down. He kept screaming and struggling, trying to draw attention to himself. Sure, he got tired struggling with 4 cops, but he showed absolutely no signs of giving up. Yes, I heard him say he would walk out; no, it was not believable at that point, given the situation and his constant screaming and struggling.

All he had to do was shut up and do as he was told. That's it. Sorry if the use of force offends you, but it's part of the job when people *RESIST ARREST*.

-Jeff

Re:His name

[TheGeneration]

Some people are claiming that he is crazy and that police did things by the book.

If that's by the book than it is time to change the book.

You know in the UK crowds commonly "unarrest" somebody that is being unfairly detained by the police. Considering that police are often power tripping a-holes with nothing more than a high school education it's no wonder why countries with educated populations don't allow them to carry guns.

Re:His name

[TheGeneration]

The job should include being injured?

I'd say yes. They are lucky the guy the were subduing wasn't more persuasive with his fellow college students. I'm sure a riot would've taught the cops a thing or two about perspective.

Re:His name

[Alaska Jack]

Brave words, O anonymous coward.

    - Alaska Jack

Re:His name

[TheGeneration]

I watched the video too. And what do you believe would be the correct method of detaining someone who is resisting arrest and creating a disturbance, because if you watched the video you can be very sure he was doing both of those.

I'm going to guess that most of this people reading slashdot don't spend a lot of time at night clubs. A single bouncer could have EASILY handled this man WITHOUT injuring him, or themselves. They would have just pushed him out the door. That's all that had to be done. The police just needed to MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHERE THEY WERE GOING and push him out that door. SIMPLE. Instead they had 6 of them there trying to push him to the ground. The door was less than 10 feet away it looks like.

These cops are INCOMPETENT. If the purpose is to remove him from the premises... THEN REMOVE HIM. Pushing him to the ground ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING. He got louder when they did that, and more disruptive. TASERING HIM made it even worse! Now not only is HE screaming, but students elswhere sound like they are about ready to come to his aid.

They should all be fired. PERIOD. People this stupid and agressive shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons, lethal or not.

Re:His name

[Ihlosi]

So you're saying a taser should only be used in the field after a full medical examination of the individual violently resisting arrest?

No, I'm saying that the little "demonstration" under controlled conditions ("See, it's entirely harmless, yaddayadda") is not suitable for demonstrating all of the effects (including unwanted side effects) of the device and encourages liberal use of the thing even under circumstance where it is entirely unnecessary (on unruly kids, already subdued victims, and the like).

So you're essentially saying police can't use guns, nightsticks, tasers, or physical restraint of any kind, hmm?

No, I'm not saying that. You're trying to put these words in my mouth. So how much TASR stock do you own, hm ?

Re:His name

[ScentCone]

I'd say yes

So, you're exactly the kind of person that makes them have to worry about this sort of thing in the first place. You don't know any of those police officers individually, and all you know is that they have to answer to people that were elected to office and manage them. And yet you want them to be injured.

riot would've taught the cops a thing or two

Yes! That sort of sentiment really goes a long way in showing everyone else that there's no need for police officers to worry about their lives and well being while doing their jobs, protecting politicians showing up at events, stopping speeding drivers, and everything else they do. You actually WANT violence, want police to be hurt, and you say those things in a tone that suggests you fully expect that to be a widely held perspective. And then you wonder why people tasked with keeping the peace are wary of "activist" crowds that confuse the people who enforce the laws with the people who legislate them.

Re:His name

[celle]

What scares me is Kerry didn't do something about it. He above everybody else should know better(1960's) and should have got down and stopped the officers behavior since they are doing it on his watch. And he wanted to be elected, kind of scary when our leaders won't stop a constitutional violation in progress nevermind in front of his eyes.

Re:His name

[ArcherB]

The job should include being injured? I'd say yes. They are lucky the guy the were subduing wasn't more persuasive with his fellow college students. I'm sure a riot would've taught the cops a thing or two about perspective. So are you saying that police should not be allowed to maintain order? That a whiney little bitch like this punk should be allowed to take over any and every college event? Sorry, I have to call bullshit.

Also, police officers should not have to be injured and/or killed so this little child can throw his temper tantrum. Yeah, being a cop is a risky job, but that doesn't mean that they are not allowed to avoid being injured or killed.

The bottom line is that this kid got what he deserved. When police tell you to do something, you do it, end of story. If you feel you are being mistreated or your rights are being violated, deal with it later. It's common sense to know that if you try to handle it then and there, you are only going to make the situation worse for everyone, especially yourself.

Re:His name

[ArcherB]

I wonder which male human being in the same age would not have reacted in a similar fashion? Those are instinctive reactions built in human brain - flight or fight. Was he given a way out?

Uh, no. That's what being under arrest means. He could have left peacefully when he was asked, but he didn't, so he had to be removed by force.

Re:His name

[celle]

They electrocuted the kid after he was down. It's called abuse of power as was the whole situation. He was exercising his right under the 1st amendment. There's a reason why its first, for without it the rest of the amendments are meaningless.

Re:His name

[Tom]

and you struggle against the police when they try to remove you, the police will use necessary force to remove you. And the point is: This was not necessary force, it was incompetence. Two cops not able to properly restrain a student, obviously untrained in de-escalation. Once they have him on the ground, they are stuck in their training manual which tells them to get the subdued to comply, and when he doesn't their only solution is to use a weapon on him?

These cops belong back in basic training. Competent police would have used necessary force to remove him - not subdue and shock him in front of an audience. Heck, if you insist on being a brute, at least be smart enough to do it outside where people aren't filming you!

Re:His name

[ScentCone]

A good cop should be able to handle a 21-year-old kid, even if he is upset, without having to lift a finger.

You know that. I know that. The police know that. And the whiny drama queen idiot kid knows that. The thing you're leaving out is that he deliberately provoked this, and did everything possible to bring about a physical escalation so that he could enjoy the theater of it. He new he wasn't going to get hurt, and knew exactly that people who don't know what the hell they're talking about or seeing will assume that using a taser is some form of gleeful torture on the part of whoever uses is. This kid used YOU, and you've fallen for it, completely. They told him six times that he needed to stop hitting and kicking at the police. Why should one of them get to go home at the end of the day missing teeth, or with a broken nose, just so this moron can claim bragging rights? No need to, actually. A quick stun completely alters the situation, as it obviously did here. No need for clubs, no need for more injuries while he was yanking kicking and fighting in the violence HE started. Nope, it all ended just as it should: with the kid finally listening to what the officers were telling him, and him not flailing around trying to hurt them. A good cop could indeed "talk down" most people, but just like suicide bombers are hard to stop, a kid whose purpose was to show up specifically to cause a violent scene isn't going to be talked down. He was deliberately escalating it so that YOU would talk about it and feel sorry for him.

The tazer wasn't the "last resort" at all (or he'd be dead right now). It was simply the smartest way to get him to put an end to his act.

Re:His name

[TheGeneration]

Where are his hands??? You can't see 'em!! So what if he is on the ground? He is still a threat if his hands are not cuffed! Were the officers able to pat him down for a weapon thoroughly? Did the officers believe -- because of his behavior-- that this person is and EDP (emotionally disturbed person) who needs psychiatric and possibly medical help?

And yet night club bouncers manage to remove people from nightclubs every single night without the use of a weapon or a taser. In fact, often times, it takes only one of them to remove somebody. Yet these cops instead decided that the goal of removing him from the building would be better accomplished by pushing him to the ground and immobilizing him.

Okay folks, I know you Slashdotters are smart, so it's physics test time! Which object is more like to move in the direction you want: a) The one laying on the ground with 500 lbs of human weight sitting on it, or b) the one without the 500lbs on it capable of movement or c) I'm going to argue for the cops on this one no matter what you say!

For those of you who guessed letter b, you are correct. The goal of removing somebody from a room is accomplished far easier when they are standing without weight on them, and with muscular control (from not having been tasered.)

Re:His name

[ArcherB]

See, I have a problem with that. There is nothing wrong with resisting arrest when you've not done anything wrong.

Interesting theory. So if I think it's OK to beat my wife, and the police try to pull me off her while I'm slugging her in the head, are you saying that can't arrest me? If I feel that it's OK for me to beat my wife, then I have not done anything wrong, in my mind.

An officer saying "you were distribing the peace" doesn't cut it; this is supposed to be a free society, were we CANNOT be arrested at whim.

Actually, yeah you can. You can arrested and held for 48 hrs without charge.

As for being a free society, we have police officers to ensure that society remains free. Otherwise, you have anarchy. An anarchy is not a free society. This punk was trying to take more than his alloted time. He was taking away the rights of everyone else there who were willing to follow the rules. He was given a lawful order by a police officer and refused to comply. When that happens, it is the police officer's job to do whatever it takes to ensure compliance. Otherwise, we have anarchy.

Re:His name

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> like the freedom to speak your mind.

Freedom to speak your mind does not include monopolizing a forum long past when the organizers have asked you to stop and let someone else speak. They reserve the right to kick you out, thanksforplaying!

Re:His name

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Heck, if you insist on being a brute, at least be smart
> enough to do it outside where people aren't filming you!

Au contraire, if I were police, I'd prefer everything I do besides eating donuts in the car be on film. "Police brutality" complaints are legion, and film helps keep police honest, and, more importantly, allows them to defend themselves against claims of abuse.

I recall a video from a few years ago where a hippie got arrested, and claimed assault by the police. Unbeknownst to him, someone was filming it, and he clearly threw the first punch.

Re:His name

[no-body]

Uh, no. That's what being under arrest means. He could have left peacefully when he was asked, but he didn't, so he had to be removed by force.

You are incorrect, from Fox News (!) web site:
"In the clip, officers force Meyer down as the student says he will walk out of the auditorium if officers let him go." ("http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297197,00.html")

- the student offered to leave voluntarily - and what did the police do? Heard what he was saying and give him the space to leave? Nope, react as programmed automatons without higher brain.

This has been seen many times before (example: Rodney King) and far more often "not seen".

I am sure there are police officers which are serene enough not to fall into this trap but many are not and get attracted to this job.

Re:His name

[pimpimpim]

Just try to find lists of countries where tazers are allowed and where they are not allowed. I'm no expert in this, but I would say not many countries use them at the moment.

Tazers are as far as I know not used in Germany, not a very small country and with [ quote ] civilized [ /quote ] inhabitants. If you try to vehemently disrupt a meeting in a way like this, you get probably worked onto the ground (like this guy), handcuffed (like this guy), and then just guided out of the place, instead of tazered. (There is a risk of a dog biting your leg, if present, but that also counts for both countries) See, not so difficult, was it. Many countries all over the world can do without the tazer and still keep order, without substituting the tazering for shooting. Most police shooting incidents in Europe seem to happen when police officers are attacked by an armed person. That is not the moment that you would normally use a tazer, as you need to be close by for that, and thus too late to start defending yourself. Actually just thinking about it: the only practical use of a tazer, as a short distance weapon, is in those cases where the victim is unarmed.

I can understand why you don't sympathize with the guy, but no matter the cause, tazering is a heavy physical action to put on someone who did NOT DO ANY PHYSICAL HARM TO ANYONE, and you should reconsider if you want this to be commonly used against citizens in various degree of civilizedness. Also remember that the kind of behavior that passes as 'civilized' or 'disturbing' might be subject to changes, depending on the time or state. In some regions of the US it might be disturbing when two people of the same gender are kissing. Get the tazers ready!

Re:His name

[ReTay]

"How about this: they wear their current uniforms, which are far less intimidating and provocative, and they use a quick, non-lethal technology (as they did) when someone after many repeated instructions to stop kicking and fighting just needs to be reset for a few minutes so they can get their act together"

Right since when did torture ,embarrassingly incompetent behavior , sadism and inability to control some little collage kid become the standards out there?
I would weep if you were an example of law enforcement.

"Next thing you'll be recommending is that they just wear Star Wars Stormtrooper outfits so that they have no risk of behing hurt while subduing someone who wants a fight in front of a crowd"

Um no first you were the one using a ridiculous example seconded stab gear is light weight and worn under the shirt so you can not see it. Third and most importantly if you can not control one thin light weight collage student with out all the drama of that clip you have no business being a cop.

"I don't know why you think that restraining someone who would rather fight than be walked off isn't full of all sorts of risks to everyone invovled - I can only assume you've never had to do it)."

Oh boy ok how about this? He was not fighting. End of story. He was being non compliant. He never once raised a had to the officers. You want to know how *I* would of handled it? With just me for starters. I would have put one of the kids arms behind his back grabbed a handful of hair with the other and we would have be out of there. Thats it no need to torture some little kid that was sheltered from reality to much when he was growing up. At the most I would have ruffled his dignity a little. And when we got outside with out the 15mn drama that hits the news the next day. No need for all your ridiculous what ifs or maybes. You grab him and walk him out the door. Hell bouncers in most bars would have done a better job then those clowns did.

Oh and for the reccord I have made 63 felony arrests.
How many do you have?

Re:His name

[couchslug]

"The problem that a lot of human rights organizations have with "less then lethal" weapons is that they lower the standard for when force can be applied."

We should go back to lethal weapons for crowd control. The standard for application will be high, and crowds will be sufficiently intimidated by their presence that they will disperse without use of force being necessary.

Worked fine at Kent State...

Re:His name

[fbjon]

I wasn't there, judging by the video I think the audience wanted the guy thrown out. They were on the cops' side.

Re:His name

[ArcherB]

You are incorrect, from Fox News (!) web site:
"In the clip, officers force Meyer down as the student says he will walk out of the auditorium if officers let him go." ("http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297197,00.html")

- the student offered to leave voluntarily - and what did the police do? Heard what he was saying and give him the space to leave? Nope, react as programmed automatons without higher brain.

This has been seen many times before (example: Rodney King) and far more often "not seen".

I am sure there are police officers which are serene enough not to fall into this trap but many are not and get attracted to this job. That's like telling the police that you are willing to walk home when you've been pulled over for driving drunk. Sorry, but at the point where he offered to leave peacefully, he had already resisted arrest, fought to stay in the building, screamed for help (where the inciting a riot charge will stem from) and disrupted Senator Kerry's Q&A session. It was a bit late to comply at that point.

Re:His name

[ScentCone]

torture

I didn't see any torture. I saw someone who KNEW what he was doing going to great lengths to make sure he screamed like a school girl at exactly the moment needed to maximize the theatrics. A hit with a taser isn't torture.

stab gear is light weight and worn under the shirt so you can not see it

Which does nothing for your arms, groin, face, or legs. As you obviously know.

sadism

You're confusing this kid's deliberately putting himself into that scenario and launching the physical part of the conflict with someone ELSE looking for some chance to inflict pain. Sadism: BS, and you know it. Not wanting to have to deal with someone acting increasingly loopy, is more like it. And, you're still talking like they just walked up and tasered him, which you know is BS. They TOLD him they were going to, half a dozen times. All he had to do was quit being physical, problem solved.

I would have put one of the kids arms behind his back grabbed a handful of hair with the other

Just what a guy like this would be hoping for, if he could talk you into tasering him. An officer dragging a political protester by the hair is a nice second place - he'd LOVE you for that. It would also go right up on his home page.

Hell bouncers in most bars would have done a better job then those clowns did.

I've bounced, subdued, and disarmed plenty of large, drunk people. I'm not a cop, so of course no arrests personally. But I've dealt with people three times that kid's size that turned out to be big pushovers, and some very small, very scrappy people that I've watched dislocate an officer's arm, break a jaw, and nearly blind someone else while resisting being tossed out of a venue. And I HAVE watched someone get a bad guy's dislodged, hidden belt knife rammed right into their thigh, followed by some life-threatening bleeding in the middle of the fight. His vest likely would have stopped it, but... he wasn't wearing his vest on his damn leg, as you ALSO know.

Re:His name

[stewwy]

Do you agree with us .......BzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzT NO!

DO you agree with us.......Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt NO!

DO you agree with us .......BzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzT YES! FOR GODS SAKE STOP
SEZ a lot about the good OLE USA

Re:His name

[xQx]

Did you even see the video?
The guy was on a rant -- his question ended hours ago and he just wanted to hear the sound of his own voice!
When the cops finally did tell him not to take the mic back he acted like a 2 year old, all the way out he was kicking and screaming!

What he needed was a swift knee in the gut from the nearest cop so he would go quietly ... but in the days of handicams I guess the cops have learnt not to do that in public.

They were threatening him with the tazer, not using it to subdue him. A tazer to the arm is nothing more than an annoyance, usually enough to shut someone up. If they'd wanted to put him down a tazer to the back of the neck would've dropped him immediatly. ... I think the cops were showing restraint.

Did you see how many of the audience got up in arms about the cops carrying him away? I didn't see many... maybe because they knew the full context of the situation and were happy to see him carried away so someone could ask a question with the intent of having it answered?

Re:His name

[no-body]

Ah - I see your point. You are right. Somebody standing up, asking too many stupid questions too long in a Q&A session should be arrested, same as a drunk driver and teased down, when so required. Law and order needs to be followed - Jawoll!

Re:His name

[TheGeneration]

I wasn't there, judging by the video I think the audience wanted the guy thrown out. They were on the cops' side.

Like I said, the cops are lucky that kid wasn't very persuasive with the audience. You'll notice though that once the Taser action starts the crowd begins to switch sides.

And you know what, since when is resisting arrest authorization for torture and/or beating? There were six of them, one of him. You'll notice he never strikes them, he is attempting to resist by wrenching his arms free of their grasp, but he in no way on the film ever tried to assault the officers. So, where does their right to use outright violence (rather than just tactics to remove and/or detain) come into play? I saw NOTHING that indicated he was a physical threat to any of the officers. Since when is resistance an authorization for violence?

Re:His name

[fbjon]

Use of a taser does indeed turn the tide.. nevertheless, wrenching free from a security guy/officer when you're being escorted out is simply not smart. Especially if you're not about to leave by your own.

Re:His name

[ReTay]

"torture

I didn't see any torture. I saw someone who KNEW what he was doing going to great lengths to make sure he screamed like a school girl at exactly the moment needed to maximize the theatrics. A hit with a taser isn't torture."

Ok defined as
Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

Read that until it sinks in.

"stab gear is light weight and worn under the shirt so you can not see it
Which does nothing for your arms, groin, face, or legs. As you obviously know. "

Again wrong there are panels, underclothes really that cover the groin and legs and arms.
The face /shrug nothing besides a helmet but for what ever little difference it makes it is out there. But what is your face doing near a subs pockets anyway? Ewwwww....

"You're confusing this kid's deliberately putting himself into that scenario and launching the physical part of the conflict with someone ELSE looking for some chance to inflict pain."

No you are over dramatizing the kids actions in order to justify unnecessary force on some spoiled brat.
Categorically he never took a swing at anyone. The absolute only thing you can pin on him is that he was non compliant. That and he was being an ass to the senator. However in this day and age being an ass is NOT justification for getting hit with a Tazer even once. (Good thing for me.)
AND non violent non compliance is not either!!!! They had no reason to fear anything from him when he got hit by the Tazer. It was punishment pure and simple. Now go up and read that first part again.

Look boil away the bull shit and you come down two it took SIX cops and a Tazer to stop ONE spoiled little collage kid. The degree of violence was way out of proportion with the situation. And was way higher then was necessary.

"Sadism: BS, and you know it"
No seriously here I mean it. There actions fit the definition or torture above and *I* feel that only a Sadist would torture someone. Really that's it on that one.

"I HAVE watched someone get a bad guy's dislodged, hidden belt knife rammed right into their thigh, followed by some life-threatening bleeding in the middle of the fight"
Yeah it sucks but you know what? THEY AGREED TO IT WHEN THEY SIGNED UP AT THE DOOR. No one told them it would be love and crackers. It is a tough dirty thankless job. But like the military they knew what they were getting into when they took the job. This kid was a pushover and once you had him down he is out the door.
They went too far and I hope they get busted,

Re:His name

[Unnngh!]

I disagree, but am I the only one thinking that Kerry was a little at fault here? He should have smacked the kid down verbally before it got out of hand. If he failed at that, he should have told them to cut his mic and let the kid know that he couldn't answer his questions unless he shut up for a second. Then the police could have escorted him out without such a scene. If he was really crazy and kept thrashing about at that point, I doubt that people would have been so shocked at his getting tazered.
I had my doubts about Kerry as presedential material when he ran in '04, and I voted for him because I really didn't like Bush. What a mistake. If he can't control one rowdy college student in what was still at the time a civil forum, how could he control a country? What a prick, seriously, it was his forum and he should have stood up and taken charge.

Re:His name

[The One and Only]

Absent things like tasers, that comes down to much less politically correct methods sometimes. And that results in everything from bruises to dislocated shoulders, and worse.

On the other hand, tasers don't leave a mark.

Re:His name

[The One and Only]

Where the hell are passionately-held political views considered evidence of being an "emotionally disturbed person"? East Germany?

Re:His name

[The One and Only]

Besides, he was just spouting paranoid conspiracy theories.

Ah, so his expressing a particular type of political view justifies this.

It's called "civilization," you should try it.

Indeed. Assaulting someone for taking too long asking a question is "civilized" when the people committing the assault are wearing spiffy uniforms and carrying guns.

Re:His name

[The One and Only]

It appeared to me that it was the nutjob who was uncomfortable with the police's aggressive behavior.

Re:His name

[Rezell]

So cops are allowed whatever means necessary to "subdue" the purported perpetrator? Does that mean that if I refused to open my car door while being stopped for a seatbelt violation the officer is allowed to use whatever means necessary to obtain the information he so desires with complete disregard for the rights of the civilian? Wow, your post was spoken like a true county officer reservist, just pussy enough to hide behind a false idea, and hardly man enough to wear a badge full-time. You're high if you think it's okay to use whatever means necessary, when in fact, the appropriate force needed to "subdue" a civilian is nothing more than an arm behind the back and a knee to the lower spine. Tasers have killed people, and they're a function of laziness, if not out right fear by those that are supposed to keep us safe. University police, puberty police, grow a fucking spine.

Re:His name

[ScentCone]

You're high if you think it's okay to use whatever means necessary, when in fact, the appropriate force needed to "subdue" a civilian is nothing more than an arm behind the back and a knee to the lower spine.

So, what you're talking about, here, is making sure that we only hire police that can physically control anybody they might encounter. Every cop should be larger, stronger, more nimble, and more skilled than anyone they ever have to deal with, right? You're really not getting it.

There's a nice cop that works my neighborhood. She's about 5'-2", if that. I'm more than a foot taller than she is, and probably twice her weight. She could NOT subdue me in the manner you describe unless I was otherwise injured or disabled. A taser would allow her to do that. Or are you saying that if she can't wrestle me to the ground, then whatever it is I was doing that demanded arrest should just be forgotten about? Or, are you saying that we need to make sure that we fire her, and get bigger people to replace her?

Re:His name

[ArcherB]

Ah - I see your point. You are right. Somebody standing up, asking too many stupid questions too long in a Q&A session should be arrested, same as a drunk driver and teased down, when so required. Law and order needs to be followed - Jawoll!

I think you are missing the point. It was not because he asked too many stupid questions. That's perfectly fine. The problem is that when he was asked to leave, he didn't. Actually, that is not the problem. The REAL problem is that when he was getting "escorted" out, he fought. Then when they tried to arrest him, he resisted and screamed "HELP", asking for his fellow classmates to attack the police officers. Right before he they reached the door, he tried to charge back in. While they were trying to put cuffs on him, he kept fighting... and so on and so on and so on.... all the while asking "What did I do?"

Yeah, he deserved to be tazed. It's like I see people who attack police officers and get shot and the community asks, "Why did you have to shoot him?" Well, as was the case in Austin, he was on my partner and was beating the hell out of him. (By the way, the police officer that shot the "suspect" who was being arrested because of a previous warrant was fired, because she shot the man who was pummeling her partner.) My point is in that case, just like any other situation where the police are involved, first you do what the cops ask you to. If you are not smart enough to do that, don't be so stupid as to fight them when they try to force you to what they asked you to do. If you fail both of these tasks, expect the consequences. It is the job of the police to maintain order. This guy was trying to challenge their authority and disrupt that order. The officers can't just let him go when he said he was sorry, or they would have to let every who is being arrested for breaking a law go because they say they are sorry. The police have to apply the same standard to this guy as they do everyone else. He got what he deserved and the police acted accordingly.

I know you don't like it, but you can't arm, uniform and send a bunch of citizens out into the public with the job of maintaining order without actually giving them the power to do so.

Re:His name

[ArcherB]

Oh, and after you read my previous post, keep in mind that even the guy getting arrested agrees with me.

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

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

Mallo also wrote in her report that he asked, at one point, if cameras would be present at the jail. Of course, I'm sure you'll say that he did nothing wrong, right?

Officers then proceeded to attempt to remove Meyer from the room, but when he resisted, they placed him on the ground and tried to handcuff him. The six officers who actually took part in holding Meyer down while he was being handcuffed reported that they were only able to get a handcuff on his right hand because he was squirming so much. So, I guess you think that the police should have just let him go. First he doesn't leave, so they should have said, "Oh, you won't leave? Oh well, I guess you can stay. Here is the microphone back."
But instead, they try to escort him out as he is screaming "HELP! HELP!" at the top of his lungs. As you can see from the video, when he gets close to the door, he plants his feet and charges an officer. I guess you think that the cops should have simply said, "Oh, you REALLY want to stay. We're sorry, here's the microphone. Would like to hold our guns?"
Well, they didn't do that either. Since he wouldn't leave when asked, and fought back while being escorted out, they tried to put cuffs on him. Six police officers could not hold the guys arms steady enough to get the cuffs on him. Do you think the cops should have said, "OK, we give up. You've beaten us. Please allow us to leave so you can fling shit around the auditorium without interruption." Well, nope. Not these cops. They would not grant him his Constitutional dung flinging rights.
That's when the tasing came in. And even then, this guy still resisted, screaming and yelling the whole way down... well at least the part where cameras were present.

Re:His name

[jasonditz]

So police had to taser a college kid for asking an uncomfortable question of a politician "to stop anarchy"?

Sounds to me like the sort of anarchy we could use a little more of.

Re:His name

[jasonditz]

... which is why police states are bad.

Re:His name

[atamido]

I watched a video of officers from our local police department being "wet" tasered as part of their training. They were shot in the back, tasered for a bit, with people on either side of them holding them so they didn't fall to fast to the ground. Some fell slowly, others dropped like rocks, and some peed their pants. I'm pretty sure they, at least, have a fair idea of what happens to people they have to taser. It's not something I'd like to be involved in, on either side of the taser.

Re:His name

[atamido]

I'm going to guess that most of this people reading slashdot don't spend a lot of time at night clubs. A single bouncer could have EASILY handled this man WITHOUT injuring him, or themselves. They would have just pushed him out the door. That's all that had to be done. The police just needed to MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHERE THEY WERE GOING and push him out that door. SIMPLE. Instead they had 6 of them there trying to push him to the ground. The door was less than 10 feet away it looks like. Yes, a door that goes out to a hallway, then a full flight of stairs, then down the next hallway to the outside. There are a few reason that I can think of why they did what they did. 1. He was resisting at the beginning, so maybe it was policy to arrest at that point. 2. As a government official, security was probably heightened and they may have had extra policies in place. 3. As trained officers, they probably had a clue how much damage one scrawny guy can cause. (I volunteered in a nursing home and dated someone that worked in another. It can take several big guys to take down a single elderly man or women.) 4. If they wanted to get him all the way out of the building, in handcuffs was probably the safest way with the stairs and hallways. (The nut refused to take an elevator, and was yelling for people to come looking for him because they were going to "kill" him.)

I don't know what they should have done, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't at all resemble what a bouncer has to do.

Re:His name

[atamido]

No, the taser came in because just as they were about to finish putting handcuffs on him, he started resisting again. Had he continued to be violent after getting him in handcuffs, they probably would have tried to taser him again, and then maybe carry him out by his arms and legs.

Re:His name

[Tom]

I stand corrected. Film is good. Audience, on the other hand, certainly isn't. The cops goal should've been to remove him from the hall, as quickly and quietly as possible - not create even more chaos.

Re:His name

[darkwhite]

Absent things like tasers, that comes down to much less politically correct methods sometimes. And that results in everything from bruises to dislocated shoulders, and worse. Only when the police officer is woefully incompetent and has had inadequate training. And in this particular case, it's hard to overstate how inexcusable the use of any force other than simple body locks (which don't impart lasting pain or bruises) was.

Re:His name

[Psyjack]

I think the police need to get back to shooting people. Screw political correctness, quit slogging up the court system...you resist, you get holes in your skin.

Re:His name

[Lurker2288]

Without making any statement as to the overall appropriateness of the cops's behavior, it's pretty clear from the video that the four of them don't have his ass under control--after all, they wanted to cuff him, and his failure to cooperate was preventing them from doing so at the level of force they were using. Which is why they increased the level of force. In this case it was a taser, but it could just as easily have been a physical blow from either a hand or a nightstick. At this point, his resistance decreased to the point that they were able to control him, and he was cuffed and hauled off.

Re:His name

[PFI_Optix]

What reflects worst on Kerry is the fact that he continued talking as if nothing was happening.

I guess he "staid the course" pretty well.

Re:His name

[TheGeneration]

I don't know what they should have done, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't at all resemble what a bouncer has to do.

Perhaps it should, and that's the problem. In this case the police should have been acting as bouncers, not as violent thugs. The violence they committed was far more disruptive to the event than the guy himself was. Remember there is an intended outcome here of restoring order. Did the police accomplish that goal, or did they create an even bigger disruption? Looks to me as though it is the latter.

Just because an officer has a badge doesn't mean he's got a brain.

Re:His name

[atamido]

I think the difference is that the police approach it with the maximum amount of safety. First they just tried to get him out the door. Then when he became erratic they tried to get him under control. What if he'd suddenly pulled out a knife or a gun and started shooting people? The police didn't know anything at that point other than he was an erratic man resisting them, and at that point anything can happen. I've had to compile enough police videos of officer getting suddenly knifed, shot, or just generally beaten to a pulp to see why they might want to err on the side of caution.

Did you watch the video once they had him out of the classroom? Did you watch the officer speaking to him calmly and trying to calm him down? The guy was a nut job, repeatedly yelling out that they were going to kill him and for everyone to come to the police station to ask about him so they couldn't kill him. If I saw a guy acting like he'd been, I'd have gone the other direction. Fast. A call to the cops might not be a bad idea either.

Having a badge certainly doesn't mean someone has a brain. Heck, it doesn't even necessarily mean they are noble or anything. For a lot of them they weren't qualified to do much else and it pays better. Someone that is good cop material is someone that can make quick decisions in high pressure situations. (Oddly, like air traffic controllers, people that lean towards education usually fail miserably at this.) A good police department continually sends it's officers through training to reinforce the right ideas so that in those fractions of a second to make a decision, they are more likely to make the right one. Acting like a bouncer is probably never the right decision.

Re:His name

[defaria]

He should never had been arrested because he violated no law. If he shouldn't have been arrested then how could he be resisting arrest. People are supposed to have free speech in this country. He asked 2 more questions than was allowed by the rules (rules - not laws mind you). An easy, non-violent way to handle such a violation would be to answer one question then admonish him for asking 2 additional questions and tell him you will not answer them and next time pay attention to the rules! Done. No arguments, no tasers, civilized and effective. Grow up people! You don't have the right to not be offended. Geeze!

Re:His name

[TheGeneration]

You mean like this woman? Bloodied 70-Year-Old Woman Cuffed, Arrested for Brown Lawn.

The Police bloodied that terrible criminal up too.

Re:His name

[atamido]

And that has to do with the price of tea in China, how exactly? Are you trying to imply that because a policeman made the wrong choice in one situation that they must make the wrong choice in all decisions? Or something? Seriously, I don't know what you're getting at.

Still, watching that video doesn't tell me much about that particular case, so I don't know. An old woman was apparently arrested, had handcuffs placed on her (as is standard), "slipped, scraping her face and hands", and now has a lawyer who, noted for liking being in the spotlight, says it was wrong while holding up a pair of handcuffs from the 1800's. Is it wrong to handcuff anyone over the age of 60 or something, because that's the age when people magically stop being a threat to anyone and anything, and become all soft and cuddly?

I certainly don't know enough about some old lady in Orem to say who was at fault. And if that's the only part of it you've seen, neither do you. Get off your high horse man and realize that quickly passing judgment on the actions of everyone around you isn't going to get you any closer to the truth. There is usually some pretty key information you're not privy to, and a lot of experience you don't have.

Re:His name

[Descalzo]

Watch the tape. Kerry tried to respond. The kid never slowed his barrage of questions. But, as you say, that's not the point of this whole thing.

There may have been a threat to someone's safety there. Any time you have flailing limbs close to someone's face, there is a threat to someone's safety.

Re:His name

[Descalzo]

What are you saying? Say it. What levels of force would you have officers employ in a situation like this? Remember what the officers in the video tried.

Re:His name

[Ihlosi]

What levels of force would you have officers employ in a situation like this?

As much as is necessary to get the guy out the door and keep him there. That may include dragging him out and dumping him in front of the door.

But the officers in the video seem to be more interested in "making an arrest" than in keeping order. They did exactly the wrong thing by trying to arrest and handcuff the guy - he was looking for attention, and they were giving him exactly that. In fact, they helped him make frickin' international headlines. The whole thing probably turned out better for him by several orders of magnitude than the guy could have ever dreamed of !

There's such a thing as public interest. Right then, "making an arrest" didn't serve public interest. Pushing (dragging if necessary) the guy to the door and dumping him outside would have.

What do you think the guy learned from the whole thing ? "Make a scene at a public event and bad things happen to you." ... ? Wrong. He was looking for attention, and his behavior landed him the jackpot. Don't reward pathological attention-seekers by giving them more attention (negative or positive).

Re:His name

[spiko-carpediem]

Thank you.

Re:His name

[TheGeneration]

I see, so no matter what, in your mind, officers are okay to use whatever ridiculous form of coercion they have in their arsenal? That the only thing that matters is the officers safety. Whether it be a loud college student who has not in anyway struck an officer, or an old woman with brown grass, it's okay to handcuff them, to detain them, to arrest them, to put the cost of hiring a lawyer on them (I doubt either of these two qualify for public defenders.) There's more here than just the physical violence.

In the case of the student, grabbing him and pushing him out the door and blocking his reentry would have solved the problem. Hallway with stairs or not, once he was out that door, keeping him out solves the problem. No, instead they held him in the room creating a BIGGER disruption. Pushed him to the floor (making it impossible to remove him in an orderly manner mind you.) TASERED him causing a big disruption to turn into a GIGANTIC CLUSTER FUCK disruption. Now he has to go to jail, he has to hire a lawyer, he faces jail time, etc... THAT to me is far more violent than anything he did.

In the case of the old woman, she's old. She's undoubtedly not wealthy (although she well be after this trial, so good on her, I hope the cops are fired and can't water their lawn with their unemployment check, maybe they'll be arrested too!) So how do we resolve this problem? Do we put somebody who undoubtedly has arthritis in shackles and take them to jail? Apparently so in your mind. It's all justified after the fact. Really they should have just shot her execution style, it would've been justified in your mind too, after the fact. (Although I'm sure if you saw it happening as it happened you'd argue that it isn't, but after the fact you'd of course say it was, after all, she might have continued having a brown lawn, and wow, the collapse of society as a whole is sure to follow!)

Re:His name

[atamido]

I see, so no matter what, in your mind, officers are okay to use whatever ridiculous form of coercion they have in their arsenal?

No, what I said was:

I certainly don't know enough about some old lady in Orem to say who was at fault. And if that's the only part of it you've seen, neither do you. Get off your high horse man and realize that quickly passing judgment on the actions of everyone around you isn't going to get you any closer to the truth. There is usually some pretty key information you're not privy to, and a lot of experience you don't have.

If you notice, essentially every person that is posting on this story and has had training in these matters says that the officers appeared to act how they were supposed to. Either A) all of the trained professionals are wrong or B) you are wrong. Guess which one I am going with.

Re:His name

[hcmtnbiker]

So police had to taser a college kid for asking an uncomfortable question of a politician "to stop anarchy"? Sounds to me like the sort of anarchy we could use a little more of.

At what point in the video do you see him ask a question that he allows Kerry to respond to? I'll make this easier for you, there isn't a time where he allows Kerry to make any meaningful response.

Re:His name

[jasonditz]

Kerry has had almost a week though, I haven't seen any answers, have you?

Re:His name

[TheGeneration]

I'm sure you've heard of the expert fallacy. In science it is a basic tenant. I doubt it is in police service though. If an expert said it, it must be true, right? Even when it's clearly not. I'm looking at this situation without the aid of a supposed expert making justifications for the police actions, and what I see is an unnecessary use of force.

BTW: I'm glad I'm not the only one who occasionally goes back and checks for replies in ancient threads. :-)

Re:His name

[atamido]

I'm going to go with the people claiming experience, as it makes the most sense AND it matches up with my own limited knowledge.

Odd thought...

[Eggplant62]

I guess we should all be happy that the guy wasn't shot, huh?

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[SimonGhent]

> Police are looking into whether excessive
> force was used to prevent the student from
> going over his alloted question period

Perhaps they should bring in a similar policy for Oscars acceptance speeches.

Ugh...

[Daychilde]

Why do I have the feeling the internal review will come up with the answer that the police didn't use excessive force?

Look, I'm a police supporter - and I wouldn't want to be the officers in a situation like that - but come on... we're becoming a police state, and this is one of so many contributing factors.

Re:Ugh...

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Why do I have the feeling the internal review will come up with the answer that the police didn't use excessive force?

Maybe because they didn't. Did you watch the video? That dude was being a flat-out asshat, probably on purpose. Definitely enough to warrant his removal from the building. He was asked to leave repeatedly and refused. 100% justified use of force. Taser included.

Re:Ugh...

[ScentCone]

we're becoming a police state, and this is one of so many contributing factors.

I'm not really clear, here, on how you arrive at that conclusion. The whole point is that we have the freedom to assemble. You know, the freedom to hold an event where people get to do things like take turns talking, if that's the sort of event you want to hold. And someone else decides that your freedom of speech and assembly isn't important, and that he can shout you down and take over the event for his own aggrandizement and 15 minutes of annoying notoriety. It's a "police state" action when law enforcement officers actually act to enforce the laws that are written to prevent people from interfering with your events and rights? If there were no statutes covering things like disturbing the peace, then the officers wouldn't have had the grounds to ask the guy to leave, or to arrest him when he decided to ignore their obligation to uphold those statutes. But there ARE such laws, and this twit clearly knew that he went in there to provoke exactly such a reaction, and he clearly considered the rights of the people gathered there to be secondary to his own need for political theater.

History is full of loudmouths, drunks, disturbed people of all sorts. That's why disturbing the peace is a notion we all understand. But the law works FOR this clown, too. This guy can have his OWN assembly where he DOES get to talk non-stop the whole time if he wants, and if someone decides to stand there trying to shout him down, then HE gets the benefit of the police working for HIM, if that becomes necessary. If he wants to run an event where non-stop interruptions by everyone there is the actual framework of the event, then someone being a blathering jerk, in that context, wouldn't BE disturbing the peace, and there's no need for the officers to act. Save the "police state" hyperbole for when it matters, because trotting it out when someone like this deliberately seeks this sort of action and attention completely cheapens the meaning of that phrase.

Re:Ugh...

[neal3350]

Actually that taser should have have been used if they did not thing they could move him safely without it. It appeared they have more than enough to man handle him out the door. There looked like there was a clear path they could take to the door. Although I could not see how much the guy was struggling right before they tasered him. Police are allowed to use force to subdue someone. They are not allowed to then get an extra kick in or taser them EVEN IF they deserve it. So although I think this guy diserved it and asked for, it was still wrong to use the taser as a punishment instead of a restraint. I do think that he did resist arrest, maybe assulted an officer (when he charged at one). I am not defending the guy so much as wanting to police to do a better job. The taser was not even useful at the point much less necessary.

Re:Ugh...

[unsigned integer]

"The whole point is that we have the freedom to assemble."

Yeah, in a 'Free Speech Zone'. Not to nit, but you're forming your argument on something the government has been 'bending' repeatedly now.

Re:Ugh...

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree with you.

The recent tendency to put protesters over a mile away in a designated "free speech zone" completely violates the intention of the constitution. Unfortunately the constitution was created in an age when there were a lot less people. I understand that someone has to pay for the police when an obnoxious group wants to march and piss a lot of people off. Way back when, the police would have protected the property but let everyone beat on the obnoxious group which would tend to reduce their desire to march.

Re:Ugh...

[torkus]

Are you kidding? Because someone rambles about things you don't like and doesn't hop up and leave when you say BOO it's justification for using force????

He WAS in a public forum. He WAS in a place DESIGNATED for expressing opinions and having a debate. Ok, so you don't like HIS opinions and want him to leave. That's grounds for the cops immediately getting physical?

Good god, i'm going to carry a nightstick and wail on the next kid that comes to my house selling magazines when s/he doesn't leave the instant i say to.

Re:Ugh...

[ScentCone]

Yeah, in a 'Free Speech Zone'.

Wrong. You can have your OWN event, exactly like the one that was being disrupted, ANY time you want to go to exactly the same trouble and expense as those that organized THAT one. You aren't off in some corner, you're in exactly the same place, with ALL of the same rights as anyone else. "The government" isn't "bending" ANYTHING when they offer equal protection for anyone that holds an event. You're confused. You think that your right to shut down someone else's event is your freedom to assemble. You've got it exactly backwards. You don't have the right to stop them from assembling and speaking, and when it's your turn (if you choose to take one) to set up an event of the same sort, in the same place, with the same facility/safety/access considerations that anyone running such an event has to consider, you will ALSO have the police there to make sure that some else doesn't get to shut YOU down.

You're looking for the right to interfere with someone else's freedom of assembly, without consequence, even as you complain about having freedom of assembly impacted. Which is it? Do you want free speech, or do you want SOME people's free speech to be shouted down when it suits you? You want freedom of assembly, but you also want the ability to deny someone else that freedom by being able to have their event cancelled when you use a few people with chains or other devices to block or road and make the event too unsafe to continue? You want to protect freedom of assembly, and you want to USE it in order to block or prevent people you don't like from assembling? Do you even LISTEN to yourself? You can't have it both ways. Let people have their events, and you get to have YOURS - with all of the same protections and safety considerations. If you want to hold an event where the framework specifically calls for people in giant puppet masks to stand there screaming at each other, and you specifically are cool with no one who is organizing the event being able to actually run the program or allow the speakers they've invited to actually be heard, great! HAVE such an event - because you CAN, and that's freedom of assembly. But when you pretend to support that freedom, and use that facade to cover a coordinated effort to deprive someone you don't like from exercising it themselves... well, that little bit of hypocrisy speaks for itself.

Re:Ugh...

[AdamTrace]

I just wanted say say that this is one of the most well-written, insightful pieces of commentary I've read in a long time.

Thank you.

Adman

Re:Ugh...

[HartDev]

I think we should make this guy a website and go ballistic, I may not know all the facts but I think the kid had a right to ask questions when in that setting and the police did not have a right to hurt him. I will gladly make site on my hosting at www.hartdevelopments.com... if anyone would like to help you can contact me thorugh that web site.

Re:Ugh...

[sonoronos]

That's why disturbing the peace is a notion we all understand. But the law works FOR this clown, too. This guy can have his OWN assembly where he DOES get to talk non-stop the whole time if he wants, and if someone decides to stand there trying to shout him down, then HE gets the benefit of the police working for HIM, if that becomes necessary.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, this is only true in certain circumstances. The right to assembly is actually writ in law as the "Right to Assemble peaceably". If the assembly becomes, or poses what is deemed to be a physical threat, then it's tasertime, or worse.

While the term "police state" may be hyperbole, there is still a valid point being made - who determines when the assembly is no longer "peaceable"? Well, actually, that is the executive branch's decision, AKA the Law Enforcement. Hopefully you understand that.

Re:Ugh...

[ScentCone]

I may not know all the facts but I think the kid had a right to ask questions when in that setting

The question you should be asking is: "Did any OTHER kids have the right ask questions in that setting?"

Because what he was trying to do was step way outside the framework of that assembly and take time away from other people. He DID ask questions. Should the entire event have been all about the questions he wanted to ask, and the ranting HE wanted to do, to the exclusion of all other students? No? Then, how do you get a kid that refuses to take a breather and let other people ALSO have a piece of that limited time get in their own questions? Perhaps you could actually ask him to finally stop? And what do you do when he starts to become clearly irrational? Do you perhaps walk over and say, "come on, kid, let's call it a day" perhaps? What do you do when he starts flailing at the police, refuses to leave, and actually starts fighting? If you're going to give him a web site, perhaps you can have the home page actually address the rights of the OTHER people that were there? And the rights of the law enforcement officers to not have someone get violent with them when they ask him to quit being such a loon?

He DID have the right to ask questions. And he DID ask them. What's your point, exactly? That's he's some sort of martyr because he didn't think that other students, or the senator he was talking to, also had any rights? He was a petulent, tantrum-having, jerk who deliberately provoked a need to ask him to leave so that he could have a badly acted theatrical response to the need to escort him out of the scene. Make a web site if you want, but at least call it what it was.

Re:Ugh...

[celle]

You're forgetting something its called the first amendment.

Re:Ugh...

[HartDev]

perhaps he was a little overboard, but the force used was a little extreme as well. With four you would think they could move him outside

Re:Ugh...

[djchristensen]

This guy can have his OWN assembly where he DOES get to talk non-stop the whole time if he wants, and if someone decides to stand there trying to shout him down, then HE gets the benefit of the police working for HIM, if that becomes necessary.

Yes, but he'll have to wait until the Illinois Nazis are done with their march.

Re:Ugh...

[ScentCone]

You're forgetting something its called the first amendment

No, YOU are forgetting it. That amendment applies just as much (more, really) to the people who organized and were running the event as it does to any one student who decides he wants to hijack it for his own use and press coverage. If he doesn't want to let other people speak, he can hold his own event with his own rules as to how it's being conducted. In this case, the event was about allowing multiple people to ask questions. He asked his, and he didn't think it was appropriate to let OTHER PEOPLE have time. Which approach is more in the spirit of the 1st Amendment: the organizers of the event, which allow many people to talk and ask questions, or the one person who attends the event, and tries to make it all about him, to the exclusion of other people?

Re:Ugh...

[ScentCone]

but the force used was a little extreme as well. With four you would think they could move him outside

He was told, over half a dozen times, to stop fighting and kicking/swinging at the police who WERE trying to move him outside. He refused. With him kicking as hard as possible and throwing a fit, you're suggesting they should have tried to carry him through the crowd in the room? Or, after a moment's discomfort, without risk to the people trying to contain him or the people around him, he totally chilled out, and as you saw, got his act together and recognized that there wasn't any point in trying to beat on police that were to do their jobs. I have no idea if he's feeling any regret for not only making such as ass of himself but also for wasting everyone else's time so thoroughly. Further, whatever rambling point he was trying to make, philosophically or practically, is now completely tainted by the fact that it was issued from someone who appears to be either a little crazy or a lot of jerk, or both.

But mostly: I defy you to really try, with three other people, to gracefully move someone who is kicking and fighting - and to have no apprehension about doing so through a crowd when even after you've told him several times that you might have to tazer him to cool him out, and he keeps on fighting. It's much harder than you think, and police don't make enough money to have teeth knocked out, injured vertebrae, or any of the other things that can happen when someone acting that unhinged needs to be relocated. You could hire only police officers that are far larger than the average citizen, and make sure they're in riot-looking gear with joint/torso/neck protection all the time (which still wouldn't help), but then you'd just have police that plug right into every the-black-helicopters-are-watching-me conspiracy fantasy. Something like pepper spray was out of the question in a close crowd like that, and though it works, you don't want to give someone a shock to their system with a nightstick or other club if you don't have to, and you don't want to risk breaking bones or injuring joints (yours or his) by making it an Ultimate Fighting competition. The taser is effective, non-lethal, almost instantaneous, and works well on people who insist on being violent, like this guy was. He KNEW all of this, and deliberately did everything necessary to make sure that the police had to use force to counter his violence. It was part of his drama-queen approach to politics, and betrays his childish understanding of how to boost the credibility of your world view among anyone other than equally adolescent simpletons.

Re:Ugh...

[ScentCone]

You are saying you can be tasered for being annoying?

No, I'm saying you can be tasered if, while you're actually swinging, kick, and fighting with several police officers and they've said half a dozen times that if you don't just chill out they're going to HAVE to taser you, THEN you can be tasered. Now, becoming violent with police IS annoying, so if that's how you meant it, then I suppose, sure, yes.

Re:Ugh...

[Bryan Ischo]

What the fuck? Did you even read the story or watch the video? THEY **DID** MOVE HIM OUTSIDE. He wasn't hurt, nobody was hurt. He was given a painful shock with a taser, but that's exactly what made him comply. They could have twisted his arm until he complied, or beat him with nightsticks, or picked him up and carried him out (and he probably would have flailed his arms and legs, causing danger to the officers and thus inviting even harsher physical force on their part), but why should they do any of these more dangerous things when the simple option of making the guy comply by causing him harmless pain worked so perfectly well?

You should have your web hosting for something worthwhile. This event is not it. I know that people just LOVE to get their ire up by fabricating police brutality claims and such, but seriously, go do something more useful with your web site. Please.

Re:Ugh...

[Bryan Ischo]

You are a moron.

* You can be asked to stop talking because you are violating the rules of the event.

* You can be asked to leave the event because you won't stop talking.

* You can be accused of disturbing the peace if you won't leave when asked, and continue to shout.

* You can be arrested if you are disturbing the peace.

* You can be tasered if you physically resist that arrest.

Re:Ugh...

[ScentCone]

He was asking a question with a bit of bombast and enthusiasm, and it seems like the cops were just looking for someone to fight with; they harassed him just for giving some background on his question

Yeah, other than that's not exactly how it went, and you know that. Nice spin attempt, though!

these cops decided to take the law into their own hands; basically they ignored the rights of every person in that room, not just the guy they tasered

Actually it's the rights of the other people in the room to assemble and talk that they WERE defending. When someone else wants to hijack your time, and your right to assembly, then it's reasonable to ask him to stop. He didn't. Repeatedly. It's reasonable then to ask him to leave. He didn't. Repeatedly. It's reasonable then to escort him away so that other people could have a chance to speak and ask questions. He pitched a fit, and then got physical with the officers present. The physically got hold of him, and asked him to stop kicking and fighting. Repeatedly. He wouldn't. They told him that if he would cool out, they'd have to do something ELSE to make him stop kicking and fighting. Six times. He wouldn't stop. Why? Because he was getting exactly what he WANTED: a chance to pitch a screaming drama queen fit in front of cameras. He knew he wouldn't be hurt, and he knew that even getting tasered is nothing but great TV for the activist groupie crowd. So, a quick prod to again remind him to quit fighting, and he did, in fact, quit fighting. Of course, he got to keep hollaring and bitching on his way out of the room. So, they kept tasering him over and over again to tortue him and suppress his rights. Only, that didn't happen, did it?

Re:Ugh...

[Descalzo]

I once helped 3 other adults move an 11-year-old boy who was acting like that. It was crazy. It really took all for of us, and we had to have others as escorts to open doors, clear the path, etc. The child was really a danger to himself and needed to be restrained and taken somewhere safe. I came close to losing a pair of glasses and a tooth (I had one of his legs).

Shoot, even picking up my 3-year-old isn't easy when he doesn't want to be picked up. I have to chase him, corner him, grab him (I don't want to hurt him, and that takes more time/care), and carry him in such a way that his flailing limbs don't smack me.

Re:Ugh...

[Descalzo]

Well, that's the interesting question. When a group of people come together, who actually "owns" the assembly? Is it the event organizer? What does it mean to "own" an assembly of people? Control, perhaps? If I organize an event can I, in the middle of the event, decide that everyone must remove their clothes and should everyone be required to obey me?

I figure if I rent the building, invite the speakers, publicize the event, hire someone to set up the chairs, and call on who's next, I ought to own the assembly.

So how bad is it really if you just let the guy talk? Maybe twenty years from now he looks back and realizes he was impolite and feels embarrassed. Maybe someone else had some deeply insightful comment that didn't get heard. But would society crumble at its very foundations if this guy is allowed to speak? Probably not.

No more than society would crumble if a dink gets tasered for resisting police officers. In fact, I think society might indeed crumble if people were allowed to wantonly resist police officers in the performance of their duties.

The one thing I would say is that if I was John Kerry I would be very angry with how the police handled the situation because this mess is going to cost John Kerry a lot of support among the liberals that form John Kerry's base. There's going to be a lot of liberals that cut John Kerry a much smaller check when it comes time to donate because of this.

Actually, John Kerry was ticked about that. I tried to find a link for you, but I don't remember where I read it, sorry.

So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question?

[Random832]

As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., is heard to say, "That's alright, let me answer his question." ... As Kerry tells the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer struggles on the ground...
So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question?

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Hijacked Public]

Sine the word 'deserve' is going to be used a lot in this one, I'll note that if you purposely watch the Oscars, you 'deserve' whatever lunatic ramblings you are exposed to.

When someone is being an ass, don't drag them out

[nysus]

One version the story is that this guy was pushy in getting to the mic and about asking his questions even though they were out of time.

Even if that's the case, there are far better ways to handle a questioner who hogs the stage. Whoever was in charge of that event should have politely interrupted, loudly say "Sorry, we have no time for further questions," and cut the mic off. This was totally uncalled for. The University, a state institution, should get their asses sued off.

Credit where credit is due

[Nymz]

YouTube had the earliest coverage of this incident, and they still have the most complete coverage too, as linked in this earlier submission.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[plague3106]

Distrubing the peace, and resisting an officer? Two of the most BS "crimes" on record in this country. I really don't think he planned on getting arrested or tased.

Re:So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question

[Notquitecajun]

Kerry, like any other politician, probably wouldn't have given a realistic answer anyway.

Re:So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question

[MagicM]

Judging by the video, Meyer isn't even interested in any answers. He just keeps rambling on and doesn't even wait for Kerry to respond. After reading the blurb, I felt sorry for him. After watching the video, I don't anymore.

Good!

[Controlio]

This is the MTV television and tabloid journalism mentality. I can go somewhere with cameras, make a scene, and do it with no consequences. The "What did I do?!?" is answered by being disorderly in public. Disorderly conduct is illegal. It's not like he wasn't asked repeatedly to stop.

The police handled things appropriately. A man swinging his arms at police as they are trying to escort him out of a venue is a threat to the police. He wasn't, until he resisted beyond reason, under arrest. Maybe he will learn where that line is now.

And on a personal note, I wish more people like this one would be tazed. It's not like this was political activism... this was about trying to make this event about himself, and trying to draw headlines for a quick 15 minutes of fame. In turn, he will try to parlay this into a career. I hope you're happy, and got what you wanted. I know, from the video, you got what you deserved.

Re:Good!

[Scutter]

The police handled things appropriately. A man swinging his arms at police as they are trying to escort him out of a venue is a threat to the police. He wasn't, until he resisted beyond reason, under arrest. Maybe he will learn where that line is now.


He was handcuffed, on the ground, with six cops kneeling on him when he was tasered. How was that appropriate?

Re:Good!

[C60]

Actually, the police didn't handle things appropriately. At least from how the video looked. The first thing they needed to do after they told him to chill out and got such an antagonistic response, was drop him to the deck and cuff him, they had more than enough personnel to handle the situation without escalating the level of force. For those of you that are familiar with the "Use of Force Continuum", you'll notice that they skipped a major step in the Third Level of force (Control Holds & Restraints, the part where they actually cuff him) and jumped right up to the Fifth Level of force (Temporary Incapacitation, which includes tasers). The situation would have ended very quickly if they just cuffed him when they had his face on the floor, they could have picked him up and strong armed him out the back of the hall, and this incident wouldn't have been nearly as interesting to the media.

I just got out of training on exactly this type of situation (as a law enforcement officer), so I'm not just talking out of my rear. By the book, they used excessive force. However the caveat here is that every situation is different, particularly if you're the person trying to keep things calm.

Re:Good!

[Mantaar]

And on a personal note, I wish more people like this one would be tazed. It's not like this was political activism... this was about trying to make this event about himself, and trying to draw headlines for a quick 15 minutes of fame. And exactly how did this help the situation? I'm sitting right here on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. I've never heard anything special about the University of Florida, let alone this Meyer-guy. But now I know both. I know there's a guy that likes having a big show about himself and that for asking tricky questions in Florida you'll get arrested and tortured by the state officials. Fine. Another place I don't need to go now.

It may be MTV television and tabloid journalism mentality. But one thing it was surely not: democratic. A democracy is where everyone should be able to stand somewhere and ask whatever questions he likes to. Just like capitalism is where you can open your store and sell whatever stuff you like. If no one buys that crap you offer that's what you get for offering crap. And if no one listens to you or people ridicule you when you are asking your stupid questions in public then that's what you get for asking stupid questions.

When I was in 12th or 13th grade our class went to an interview with a high German politician and I started asking a lot of very uncomfortable questions. That was back then when the Iraq war started and his party wanted Germany to move in. His party was also responsible for an unbearable educational program. And I started to ask questions that made him sweat. I mean, not stupid questions like "What secret society do you work for?", but questions that really made him and his party look ridiculous and he even started to contradict the party's official statements (and his former official statements). But I was not arrested though my questions were a lot more dangerous to this politician than Meyer's ridiculous questions.

Got it?

The German guy just sat there, started watching at the clock and then invented an important appointment and pulled out. I got the applause of my class.
The American guys arrested him and inflicted pain on him where they didn't need to (THREE policemen and one policewoman are not able to arrest ONE guy without using a fancy toy? What's that? What do they do at Police Academy? The same they did in the movies? That certainly looked like one of the last episodes.) Now the whole world applauds him.

That's like, what? De-escalation? Huh?

Re:Good!

[Sfing_ter]

Well, with that logic all politicians should be tasered too... ;)
We as citizens of the united states, the ones who the country is supposed to be about, have the right to ask questions, we don't have the right to answers, but we do have the right to ask the questions. It does not take 6 cops to remove one person, something else was afoot here.

Re:Good!

[Controlio]

Ooh! I love trolls! Since you are one of only two people thus far to show a backbone and not post AC, I'll reply here.

I appreciate your read on my opinions on fascism, with your deep understanding of both my personal and political history. I am also a big fan of your reorganization of my quotes to take them out of context and make them seem far more sinister.

This has nothing to do with fascism, and everyone who makes those posts is oversimplifying to a critical degree. Forget the political aspect. If someone did this exact same thing at a corporate board meeting, a Rotarian meeting, or at a parent-teacher conference, I would expect the same kind of treatment to take place. You have to realize that a line was crossed. This was not baseline idealogic dissent. This was a staged act of disorder. He was asked several times to stop. He refused. At that point he was to be escorted out of the facility. He resisted, and not only flailed wildly at police, but began to move towards the stage. He was then placed under arrest. He resisted further, struggling against multiple peace officers. He got tazered. Forget the fact that this was a political rally... in what venue would any of this behavior be considered appropriate?

And let's take it further. You have to weigh an individual's interests against a group's interests. This event was not billed as "One obnoxious political dissonant interrogates politicians". Chances are, a lot of the other people in that auditorium were having their rights to a peaceful assembly violated by a disorderly man. It seemed obvious that not many others shared his viewpoint, due to a serious lack of vocal or physical support... up until a few people felt the tazer went to far. To each his own on that, as I feel it is justified and others don't feel the same way. But how do you feel this should have ended? The man slowly eliminated his options, one by one, by refusing to do ANYTHING he was asked in a calm manner. He had options. This wasn't an "outspokenness == tazer" situation. It was more like: if (outspoken) { { respondfromstage() } else { asktostop(); } else { asktoleave(); } else { escortout() } else { restrain() } else { arrest() } else { tazer() } }.

Luckily they didn't make it to "kill -9".

Re:Good!

[mariuszbi]

The thing about violence: when it doesn't work, better use some more!

Re:Good!

[Registered Coward v2]

I know there's a guy that likes having a big show about himself and that for asking tricky questions in Florida you'll get arrested and tortured by the state officials. Fine. Another place I don't need to go now.

Avoid Britain as well - apparently wearing coat in the tube is grounds for being shot.
And avoid using a PC in Germany unless you want the police to knock down your door at night and drag you away.

Re:Good!

[GodfatherofSoul]

But, he WASN'T handcuffed and he WASN'T restrained. Watch the video closely. They had him on the ground, but he was still struggling being deliberately loud and ornery. He's on his side and his hand is on a nearby seat and NOT handcuffed. And, all the time yelling his head off.

Re:Good!

[Controlio]

So your main argument is that it wasn't one cop versus one outspoken man? Way to ignore every other piece of the puzzle.

After he disrupted the session, and order couldn't be brought about from the stage... two officers asked him to stop, and he refused. So more officers asked him to stop. He refused. He was asked to leave. He refused. They attempted to escort him out. He refused. He was placed under arrest. He fought and resisted. He was tazed. He continued to resist. He was dragged out of the session.

He didn't have to make it to "arrest". He could have stopped at "asked to leave". He chose an option, he got the results of his choice.

Why does everyone seem to want to throw out the fact that he made multiple poor decisions here, and that there should be no consequences for doing such?!?

Re:Good!

[Critical Facilities]

He was handcuffed, on the ground, with six cops kneeling on him when he was tasered
In fairness, you can't see that on the video. It seems clear he was on the ground and that 6 cops were on him trying to handcuff him, but there is no evidence that they were able to do that without having to resort to the taser. This guy could very well have been a threat to Mr. Kerry or anyone else in the audience. This guy could have had a weapon. Why should the police have done anything other than whatever they had to do in order to ensure a potential threat was neutralized?

Look, I'm all for free speech. I'm just pointing out that he was not tasered for being "annoying" or for asking unpopular questions or even for going over his alloted time. He was tasered for acting in an erratic and potentially threatening manner in a closed environment with a member of government present and subsequently resisting attempts to remove/subdue him otherwise. You can actually see him lunge toward the stage at at the beginning of the video, would we be having this argument if it was determined that he had a gun/knife and was intending on hurting someone? Given the information at the time, the police had to assume that this was a possibility and thus had to make a major effort to ensure everyone's safety. If this guy was really on the level, he should have calmly walked with the officers (regardless of whether he thought it was fair) and not broken loose and rushed the stage.

Re:Good!

[hey!]

Well, I hate to see anybody hurt, but it wasn't clear to me that he was cuffed. It looked like they almost had him cuffed, then he managed to get his arm free, at which point he was tasered.

I don't hold with the "he was resisting arrest so anything goes" school of thought. But if he was not subdued, and he was fighting the officers, he presented a threat. It'd be a different story even if he just uncooperative and went limp.

Even the civil liberties aspect of this case is muddier than it would appear at first glance. He was attempting to hijack a public forum for his own ends. If anybody could do that, then nobody can speak or listen freely. It'd be a different story if he set up a soapbox outside the venue and the police tasered him.

There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about the state of civil liberties in this country, but this case is not in my opinion illustrative of the problem. It's a mistake to make this guy a cause celbre, because to all appearances he's a disturbed attention seeker. It's not the stuff that happens in public where everybody with a cell phone can video it that's a concern -- at least not yet. It's the stuff that happens in secret that we should be most worried about. Unfortunately we don't have dramatic video of, say, the detention of Nalini Ghuman.

Back in the first Gulf War, there was a lot of reportorial derring do that consisted of filing video reports from their hotel rooms as the bombs fell. I remember talking to a young coworker who was very excited by this, saying that it was "real news", not like that old fuddy duddy McNeil Lehrer stuff. My response was that we know bombs are falling, the fact that it is caught on video doesn't make it news. Nor is it particularly newsworthy that the bombs are falling near a reporter: they're bound to be falling near to somebody if they fall at all. It's important of course for reporters in that position to file reports as well as they can, but even more important we need to keep abreast of the big picture: why the bombs are falling, and where (other than next to the reporter's hotel) are they falling?

Video is useful because of the drama it packs, but drama is not a real measure of importance.

Re:Good!

[leomekenkamp]

Mussolini used a definition for fascism; it was something like: "Fascism is the coming together of state and corporate power.". I fail to see a connection here.

dictionary.com gives the following definition:

1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922-43.

Arresting a raving individual does not automatically equals suppressing opposition and criticism, especially in this case.

Re:Good!

[Scrameustache]

forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism There you go.

Re:Good!

[antibryce]

no, they were trying to handcuff him and he was swinging his arms around. If you watch this video you can clearly hear the cops telling him to put his hands behind his back, and see them wrestling with his arms before they taser him. You can also clearly hear the cops warning him he would be tazed.

He was resisting arrest and I don't feel any pity for him even before I factor in the knowledge that he was apparently well known on campus for doing things to get publicity.

Re:Good!

[teknopurge]

The police handled things appropriately. A man swinging his arms at police as they are trying to escort him out of a venue is a threat to the police. He wasn't, until he resisted beyond reason, under arrest. Maybe he will learn where that line is now.


He was handcuffed, on the ground, with six cops kneeling on him when he was tasered. How was that appropriate? He was NOT in cuffs. You cannot tell that in the video. You made an assumption to back-up your position. Please refrain from doing that in the future.

Re:Good!

[E 99]

He was handcuffed, on the ground, with six cops kneeling on him when he was tasered. How was that appropriate?

It's not what happened. It looks like they got one hand cuffed, and then he started struggling again, and they couldn't get the other hand. That's when they had to resort to a low power stun gun (not a taser). And it worked, as it got him quickly under control with causing any serious harm to him or the officers.

Re:Good!

[leomekenkamp]

Aha. So Stalin was a fascist? Dzjenghis Khan was a fascist? Kim Jong Il was a fascist? They all forcibly suppressed opposition and criticism...

When only one out of three conditions applies, you cannot use the label 'fascist'.

Tasers != Non-lethal

[GodfatherofSoul]

This is a growing problem with tasers. Law enforcement starts to think that they're harmless tools, which increases the likelihood of use. But, tasers are still somewhat dangerous and even lethal in some cases.

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[tgatliff]

Im wih you on this one... They should have used the night stick on him. There is nothing that says "stop it" like a lead filled pipe hitting you... In fact, I bet he would have given the mic back when he was politely asked if he know he would have had a beating coming to him...

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[Nymz]

Electrocuting people in order to control them, or torture them, is not the mark of a civilized society.

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[eth1]

This is why law enforcement doesn't generally use the term "non-lethal." I do a lot of volunteer work for our local department, and I've NEVER heard them call anything, even pepper spray, "non-lethal." The correct term is "less-lethal."

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[neoform]

Just carry some of this on you, then tell the cops you have radioactive powers and that they should keep away..!!

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[darkmeridian]

It's not. People should listen to the legitimate requests of law enforcement officers without question--such as "Put down the knife and step away from the baby!" But as long as uncivilized people are going to resist arrest, or disobey legitimate police commands, then we're going to need to electrocute them. It's better than shooting them when they refuse to put down the knife.

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[Stalyn]

How about microwaving them?

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[GodfatherofSoul]

"Less-lethal" is a newer buzz term, but non-lethal is just as ubiquitous. Here's a police officer's forum including a thread where they talk about the proper terminology. But, you'll notice that non-lethal is used throughout the threads.

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[ucla74]

Ideally in a civilized society, those commenting on it (such as the parent poster) would know the term "electrocuting" means "killing by means of applying an electrical current". Meyer wasn't electrocuted.

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[langelgjm]

It's better than shooting them when they refuse to put down the knife.

Except that this guy didn't have a knife, and was already being held on the ground by several police officers when he was tasered.

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[i7dude]

whomever modded this up should seriously re-think what they did.

the subject of the article/video, while mildly obnoxious, was tasered after being detained by several of florida's "finest". Sure, they guy went over his allotted time, he was a bit high strung, and some would probably say he was a grandstanding ass. but the only weapon i saw him carry was a book. granted, in some cultures a book is considered more dangerous than a knife. i just like to think we haven't progressed to that point in our "culture".

i doubt you'd be hard pressed to find a person who would think that holding a knife to a baby shouldn't warrant tasering. but in this case using that example detracts from the fact that excessive force was used; and that, as the grandparent put, is an indicator that we are heading down a dangerous path.

while i don't condone the students behavior at the podium, i most certainly do condemn the behavior of the law enforcement.

dude.

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[surprise_audit]

I think I see a growing market for aluminum foil underwear. I just need a couple of volunteers for testing... :)

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[celle]

You forget probable cause. There was no knife, just a student exercising his first amendment rights. Kerry, of all people, should recognize it for what it was.(ah memories, 1960s) The police officers have no authority unless there is probable cause that a law is being broken, until then they are bystanders. Maybe they should have a constitutional degree requirement for employment as a law enforcement officer.

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[hswerdfe]

But as long as uncivilized people are going to resist arrest, or disobey legitimate police commands, then we're going to need to electrocute them. It's better than shooting them when they refuse to put down the knife. This is not in the same category. put down the mic and stop asking questions.

Re:Tasers != Non-lethal

[lysse]

Or the microphone, apparently.

Inapproprate use of force?

[WPIDalamar]

I'm sure different police precints are different, but I know at least some of them consider a taser to be only slightly below a firearm and should only be used when the officer feels that either themselves or someone else is in danger. This kid was handcuffed on the floor with 3 (4?) cops on top of him, how could he be a danger to anyone?

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[Scrameustache]

This kid was handcuffed on the floor with 3 (4?) cops on top of him, how could he be a danger to anyone? I count 6 on him (including one blad black one that looks like he's at least 260lbs) and another standing around. He was not a danger, he was simply refusing to RESPECT THEIR AUTHORITAY!

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I completely agree that tasers are to replace violence or firearms and should be reserved as such and in this case it was abuse of power for absolutely no reason. It was like having a child and going "I'm going to hit you if you don't behave" and then hitting it when it opens it's mouth to protest. Sure you "warned" them, but you just belted someone when you could of easily just picked them up and put them in the back of a car and been done with.

I hope someone does(n't) die from this crap, it sure would make an interest news story when someone gets tasered for doing nothing and ends up at a funeral for it.

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[Angst Badger]

Agreed. From what I've seen and read, it was totally warranted for this guy to be arrested, but tasered? He was a nuisance, not a physical threat to anyone.

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[c_forq]

The issue is they already threatened to use the taser. They threatened to use it, he started to comply, than he called them on it, but unfortunately for him they weren't bluffing. I had a friend running from cops before to avoid a MIP charge, the police yelled "Stop or we'll shoot!". My friend stopped for a second, than realized the cops would not want the publicity of shooting a (white, affluent) minor, and called them on it - fortunately for him the cops were bluffing. Non-lethal weaponry I think forces cops to honor their threats, as the publicity will be a lot more mixed (notice all of the "the kid deserved it" posts) and in most cases not making beyond the local paper's police beat.

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[torkus]

Agreed. A tazer is still potentially deadly force and should only be used when there is danger to a police officer or bystander.

There were at LEAST 4 cops and he wasn't ATTACKING anyone (except maybe verbally), he was trying to get them to let go of him. If a cop tazers someone in this situation and they die, he should be charged with, at a minimum, involuntary manslaughter.

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[eck011219]

Several people have died from this crap, unfortunately. I agree with some of the people around here that the Taser is deemed to be non-lethal force and therefore gets used to subdue people a lot more freely than a handgun or a club. But given the number of fatalities from Tasers (the CBS story linked above counts about 70 deaths, and that was just up to 2004), it could be that the police are coming a lot closer to killing people than they think. And if they don't know the scope of the force they're imparting upon someone, they'd better not impart it. They're the ones who are supposed to be in control of themselves, you know?

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[E 99]

I suppose that's a question that will be reviewed: Under what circumstances can you use a taser. On a healthy person, it's pretty harmless. In this case, it did not look to me like they were able to get the cuffs on him until after they tasered him. Clearly, once they tasered him, they were able to get him out, whereas they couldn't before. So to me it seems justified. If you can only use the taser in a case of immediate danger, then it probably wouldn't qualify, but since they used it, chances are they don't have that rule.

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[Scrameustache]

What the fuck does his being black have to do with anything? It lets you watch the video and find him in the bunch of whities, you fucking moron.

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[FiloEleven]

Right, because it's hard to pick out a black dude in a bunch of whities, especially when he's at lest 260.

Perhaps I overreacted, but that's the sort of appositive that serves to illustrate the passive form of racism found in whites (generally American). It's not conscious, nor is it particularly malignant, but it serves to keep some measure of "us versus them" in play. I'm not calling you a bigot; it's not like you were trashing him for being black. It's just that we have a long way to go before blacks (and other minorities, but mostly blacks due to our history) are regarded as "people" rather than "those people." My apologies for jumping down your throat; I could have been a bit more gracious. In recent months I've become much more aware of this sort of thing, and the fact that it's so widespread is depressing and angering, which leads me to take an aggressive stance when I encounter it.

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[Slightly Askew]

Of course, because I've never heard anyone refer to Danny Ainge as that little white guy, or the boyfriend of an Hispanic girl as "you know, the white guy that drives the Porsche". It is a way of differentiating people when they are the minority in a situation, no different than the "bald" part of the comment. If your anger was at a statement like "There are a bunch of black guys standing outside the door" then I concede your point, that is a racist stereotype that they are up to no good. But "that black guy in accounting" is no worse than "that short guy in accounting" and your hair trigger offendability is just as much of a racism problem as actual racist comments.

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[LiENUS]

Perhaps I overreacted, but that's the sort of appositive that serves to illustrate the passive form of racism found in whites (generally American). It's not conscious, nor is it particularly malignant, but it serves to keep some measure of "us versus them" in play. I'm not calling you a bigot; it's not like you were trashing him for being black. It's just that we have a long way to go before blacks (and other minorities, but mostly blacks due to our history) are regarded as "people" rather than "those people." My apologies for jumping down your throat; I could have been a bit more gracious. In recent months I've become much more aware of this sort of thing, and the fact that it's so widespread is depressing and angering, which leads me to take an aggressive stance when I encounter it.

Absolutely right! the only problem is while blacks are "those people" to whites (such as my self), us whites are often "those people" to blacks. The door does swing both ways and its quite likely thats how it'll always be. Equalize races as much as you want, but they are historically geographically divided, its not just a social thing. It's how humans are.

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[Scrameustache]

Right, because it's hard to pick out a black dude in a bunch of whities, especially when he's at lest 260.

Perhaps I overreacted, but that's the sort of appositive that serves to illustrate the passive form of racism found in whites (generally American). It's not conscious, nor is it particularly malignant, but it serves to keep some measure of "us versus them" in play. I'm not calling you a bigot; it's not like you were trashing him for being black. It's just that we have a long way to go before blacks (and other minorities, but mostly blacks due to our history) are regarded as "people" rather than "those people." My apologies for jumping down your throat; I could have been a bit more gracious. In recent months I've become much more aware of this sort of thing, and the fact that it's so widespread is depressing and angering, which leads me to take an aggressive stance when I encounter it. I also typoed that he was bald, wanna launch into a rant about that?

You know what's prejudiced? Assuming that mentioning what he looks like has a lot of "these people" attached to it. Someone else mentioned that a female officer was talking to him before he got tasered, maybe you'd like to go tell them off about sexism? YOU have issues towards race, stop projecting them onto others.

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[FiloEleven]

Congrats on the Insightful mods. I disagree with your remarks concerning my prejudice, and will restate once again that I misread your comment, but I will give some thought to what you said of me. Now, since I'm the bad guy in this exchange according to the Mod Squad, and I did make a mistake in calling you out for something you didn't do, I'm going to shut up.

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[Dread_ed]

Maybe we should just whisper the word "black", just like we do when we say the word "terminal cancer", or "homosexual", or "AIDS", you know, since the word "black" is so inhernetly racist that it shouldn't be spoken in civilised conversations.

Or maybe, just maybe, perpetuation of racsim is predicated on hyper-sensitivity.

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[Breakfast Pants]

Unfortunately for him? He's likely to get a huge settlement out of this; way beyond his real pain and suffering. Mark my words.

Re:Inapproprate use of force?

[G-funk]

You're a fucking idiot. If there's one guy in a room of 20 regular people with blue hair, you say "the one with blue hair". If there's one black guy amongst a bunch of white guys / asians / mexicans / martians, you say "the black guy" it's not racism, it's a description. I can't be arsed watching the video, but I assume the man is black, why is it not ok to use that to describe him?

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[mwvdlee]

There's really not that much "version of story", since there's video showing him strugling against the police for a long time before a taser is used.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[butlerdi]

WTF ? You ask a question past the alloted time and you deserve to be arrested, tasered et al.... Why not just pack up and go or cut the mic off. This is just bullshit.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article - they did cut off his mic. They tried to be polite. The dumbass wouldn't listen.

Pigs.

[spocksbrain]

So four cops couldn't take down one scrawny journalism student and cuff him without using a god-damn taser? I'll be the first to admit that the kid was trying to get attention by pulling a stunt, however, the actions of these cops are nothing short of barbaric and excessive. These stories of police brutality are getting FAR to common. There is a much larger percent of are police force made up of garbage like these pigs than most people would think.

Re:Pigs.

[Uthic]

You prefer if those four cops had just beat the scrawny kid into submission, given the question you lead off your post with.

Re:Pigs.

[spocksbrain]

Police are trained to forcefully apprehend suspects if they are resisting. I am no expert on the subject, but I have seen an officer do some pretty clever arm-twisting and tripping maneuvers on COPS and other reality shows, let alone four officers on one kid.

In reponse to your snarky remark, yes, if the cops were too incompatent to cuff the student otherwise and they decided to beat the hell out of the kid with their fists then I personally would prefer that to a taser. Tasers are cruel instruments of torture and have even proven to be fatal in some cases.

Re:Pigs.

[groslyunderpaid]

I prefer that the cops tasered him, and then the crowd beat the crap out of the cops. But thats just me.

Re:Pigs.

[MoneyT]

Arm twisting and trips carry a much higher chance of lasting injury (ranging from dislocation to broken bones to death) than does a stun gun. 5 seconds of pain is considerably better than a fractured arm because the cop was twisting one way and you were twisting the other.

Re:Pigs.

[forgotten_my_nick]

What annoyed me is I would of liked to hear Kerrys excuse as to why he didn't contest the election after so much voter fraud going on.

After watching Kerry sit back as the kid got tasered he is probably as bad as Bush.

Re:Pigs.

[couchslug]

"So four cops couldn't take down one scrawny journalism student and cuff him without using a god-damn taser?"

What, precisely, should they do that is gentler? What specific human-restraint method do you consider the best?
Many police departments require officers using Tasers to be Tasered as part of training. That isn't "barbaric" or "excessive".

Tasing does not do the damage other methods can do to the person being restrained.
Joint locks, holds, etc can cause injuries and do not always have the effect of stopping resistance. Wriggling people are not easy to hold (hence the four-to-one ratio) without injuring them.

If you don't believe me, try an experiment. Have four friends try to restrain you (no strikes/hitting allowed) while you do your best to resist and break free. :)

Re:Pigs.

[Kattspya]

Can someone please mod the parent up?

Seriously, everyone complaining about the tasing while understanding that he wasn't cuffed needs to try to make someone submit. Get two of your friends, preferably stronger than you and have them try to cuff you. You will find that you can resist them for quite a while and you might also find that you yield only because you don't want your shoulder dislocated or your muscles torn. It is very easy to severely damage someone when using joint locks, pain compliance or whatever if they struggle.

I urge you to try it. It is not easy and it is not safe particularly for the subject.

Re:Pigs.

[crashfrog]

It is very easy to severely damage someone when using joint locks, pain compliance or whatever if they struggle.

On the other hand, the taser can stop your heart. Let's not pretend like it's super-safe to run high-voltage current across someone's chest, ok? Especially after 200 people so far have died after taser use.

Cops should be as reticent to fire a taser at someone as your post suggests that they should be in using direct physical force. The problem isn't what violence the cops were using. The problem is when violence is the first resort of the police.

Re:Pigs.

[Kattspya]

I would like to see a source for that number if you don't mind.

It wasn't my intention to downplay the dangers of tasers but to put emphasis on injuries that may occur if you don't use the taser. If I was in bezerk mode I would rather have the police tase me than risking my joints and ligaments.

Re:Pigs.

[crashfrog]

I would like to see a source for that number if you don't mind.

Upon checking my sources I see that it's not quite 200, it's more like 150, but here's the source:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510302006

If I was in bezerk mode I would rather have the police tase me than risking my joints and ligaments.

Berzerk mode, particularly if it's caused by drugs, appears to be precisely when taser use is potentially most dangerous to your life.

Re:Pigs.

[Kattspya]

I don't think you can draw any conclusion from the Amnesty data. The data merits further study though.

Re:Pigs.

[crashfrog]

I don't think you can draw any conclusion from the Amnesty data.

Given the choice between a sprained elbow and having 20,000 volts arcing across my torso, I draw the conclusion that I would prefer the former. You can put an icepack on a torn ligament. Icepacks don't do much for cardiac arrhythmia.

Watch it yourself

[Dan East]

I watched three different videos of this at liveleak.com. Here's one in its entirety.

The police action was completely justified.

The guy is really out there, saying stuff like "He's been talking for two hours, I think I can have two minutes." Um, he's a presidential candidate, you're not. Also note how the crowd applauds when he is pulled away from the mike.

Dan East

Re:Watch it yourself

[DirkBalognapantz]

I was a Kerry supporter, and I do believe this person was trying to cause a scene. However, I am continually troubled by the assertion that political figures should always be treated in a certain manner just because they are politicians. Just because the man ran for president, doesn't make a comment or opinion any less valid no matter how annoying or disruptive the average person may view it. We live in a democracy, not a monarchy. In my opinion, dissent is not just a part of a healthy democracy, it is a patriotic exercise. Sure, his comments are annoying and disruptive. Sure, he may not have had a strong political point to make. But this is not my place to decide, and I would prefer it not be up to the police to decide. We are becoming more and more of a police state every day. The thing that disturbs me the most is the way we have accepted it and internalized it to the point of justification. I think America is suffering from battered wife syndrome.

Re:Watch it yourself

[pedestrian crossing]

Um, he's a presidential candidate

Um, no he's not.

Re:Watch it yourself

[Yusaku Godai]

First of all, he's not a presidential candidate. He's a former presidential candidate. He *is* a senator--he serves the public. What's wrong with taking "two minutes" of his time to ask some questions? I think that some of those questions were a little unfair, and rambled over too many topics. But I wouldn't say he was a raving lunatic either.

And the crowd? A bunch of little proto-nazis as far as I'm concerned. This is UF after all.

Re:Watch it yourself

[yakmans_dad]

Also note how the crowd applauds when he is pulled away from the mike.

The wonderful wisdom of the crowd.

Re:Watch it yourself

[yakmans_dad]

And the crowd? A bunch of little proto-nazis as far as I'm concerned. This is UF after all.
The wonderful wisdom of the crowd.
Calling the crowd "little proto-nazis" gets a 3.
Making an ironic reference to them get a "Flamebait" tag.

I love the smell of consistency in the morning.

Re:Watch it yourself

[Nimey]

People were there to listen to Kerry. They weren't there to listen to the troll. That's the difference.

Re:Watch it yourself

[Yusaku Godai]

On the other hand, I take back the proto-nazis thing, based on an eyewitness account of the event here on Daily Kos: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/18/10649/5334

I still don't think that what he did was an arrestable offense, but I apparently he was being a giant asshole, and it explains why no one was in a rush to defend him.

Re:Watch it yourself

[DirkBalognapantz]

I appreciate that. You are absolutely right. I only take issue with the excessive nature of the response. It could have been handled better. Being irritated is not an excuse for a heavy handed reaction. If he was allowed to finish his rant, and Kerry had answered or asked for the next question, the guy may have stepped away from the mike.

Re:Watch it yourself

[Scudsucker]

The police action was completely justified.

Complete nonsense. Police officers only get to use force if they have probable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Being an obnoxious jerk is not a crime.

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[diersing]

There are restrictions to Free Speech (shouting 'fire' in a crowed, etc). The RIGHT to protest doesn't extend to the HOW and WHERE.

I have a right to protest, but I don't have a right to shit on the President's rug during afternoon tea.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[Verte]

Since when is being the center of attention punishable by taser?

Geez

[multipartmixed]

Next thing you know, Nixon will be calling in the National Guard to KILL students!

Oh, wait.. never mind, that already happened.

Re:Geez

[frankxcid]

How is this even interesting since it is completely false! Nixon did not call the national guard, the Ohio Governor did. How is this even relevent, Did the perp set fire to the stage?

Hog at the mic

[IndustrialComplex]

I caught a glimpse of this kid on the news before I left for work today. While I'm sure that the clip was edited for 'mainstream news', he got going on subjects that were important to him. He was determined to make his statement, and give his views to John Kerry. A statement with a question mark at the end isn't really a question.

If you have ever participated in any town hall style meeting, you generally get one or two questions, then you sit your butt down and let another person have the podium. While I respect this kid's right to expressing his views, there is a whole room full of people who also would like the chance to ask their questions. He was offered the chance to step down several times, and got riled up after they cut the mic.

Now as for the tasering, I didn't see the part between where the mic got cut and he got tased, but given his demeanor around the time his mic got cut, I don't think it was fair for him to force them to pull him off the stage. If you are going to complain about being tasered, make sure that you don't start out by giving them a good reason to be physically pulling you away from the podium in the first place.

As a disclaimer, I generally find the use of tasers to be too rampant. Some crazy guy with a sword in a mall and no pants? Sure taser him (been there, done that. On the safe side of the taser thankfully) Some 12 yr old girl who took a swing at you? Take the hit and cuff her, no taser necessary. I was punched by some 14 yr old kid who flipped out over a breakup with his girlfriend. Even then I didn't need a taser.

The kid in this video? I need to see more of the video.

If you ever want to 'resist' then I highly suggest you just go limp, don't fight back. A limp body is still damned hard to move and makes it much easier for your lawyer to defend you in court than if you run, swing, bite, yell.

Re:Hog at the mic

[elFarto the 2nd]

I watched the video, and it seems he was pinned to the floor then tasered. That seems completely over the top to me.

Regards
elFarto

Re:Hog at the mic

[Scrameustache]

The kid in this video? I need to see more of the video.

If you ever want to 'resist' then I highly suggest you just go limp, don't fight back. A limp body is still damned hard to move and makes it much easier for your lawyer to defend you in court than if you run, swing, bite, yell. The first of the two youtTube links has a pretty clear view, he's resisting and yelling, but there's 6 security people on him when they apparently taser him (though I see no taser, he just yells about a taser then goes ouch and then is taken away, so I assume the taser made him limp).

Re:Hog at the mic

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ever want to 'resist' then I highly suggest you just go limp, don't fight back. A limp body is still damned hard to move and makes it much easier for your lawyer to defend you in court than if you run, swing, bite, yell.

this is also considered resisting arrest and in situations officers will repeatedly tazer a limp person to torture them or pay them back for making them work. This happens a lot with protesters who make 2 or more cops carry them off, One who chained himself to a fence was tazered enough times that the cop had to get a second tazer as he emptied his. The man refused to unlock himself, the cop was too pig headed to get a set of bolt cutters and drag him off and was intent in teaching the protester a lesson.

http://www.ourmedia.org/node/55217
http://digg.com/world_news/Police_attack_PEACEFUL_Anti_War_Protestors_with_tasers_dogs_pepper_spray
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U9hL9Hy00pI
the internet is FULL of corrupt cops doing this to peaceful people because they are lazy.

Cops should be required to write a 12 page report for every time they pull the trigger on a tazer. If an offier tazers a person more than 3 times without good cause needs to be fired and blackballed from ever being in law enforcement ever again and possibly serve jail time, preferrably in with open prison population and let the prisoners know he is a cop.

as a cop you are public protectors, you are to PROTECT AND SERVE even the guy you are arresting based on your interpretation of the law. If any force is exerted you need to be punished HARD if it was inappropriate.

Re:Hog at the mic

[shilly]

He didn't force them to pull him from the microphone. There was no need for the police to be involved at all. Time was, when people behaved in an unacceptable but not criminal manner, old-fashioned techniques like social opprobrium were brought to bear, rather than police officers and tasers. You know, like the crowd yelling at him to sit down and shut up, or Mr Kerry saying "you've had your say, let's let someone else have the same".

Re:Hog at the mic

[dr2chase]

If you have ever participated in any town hall style meeting, you generally get one or two questions, then you sit your butt down and let another person have the podium.

And if not, we'll Taser(TM) your ass! We've got a few people who habitually run over at town meeting, this will definitely move things along. Good thinking.

Re:Hog at the mic

[trelayne]

You diatribe above is usually administered to activists who are about
to engage in civil disobedience where they know they will likely be
arrested. This is not what was supposed to happen here. Therefore, his
response (disbelief and frantic calls to let him go since he didn't do anything)
was understandable. In addition, no matter what we think of him, he clearly
believes in conspiracies and the highly unusual manner in which the police reacted
to him AFTER he asked the question about skull and bones aggravated his
belief that they were shutting him down to prevent his unraveling of a conspiracy.
I am sure he was genuinely afraid and not an attention whore as some have suggested.

So not only was the taser unjustified, but the initial attempt to subdue him
was also unjustified. They could have asked him to leave after cutting off the
mic, but there is no indication of this....only hands trying to grab him from behind.

Re:Hog at the mic

[R2.0]

"the internet is FULL of corrupt cops doing this to peaceful people because they are lazy."

The internet is FULL of electrons. Or maybe bits, if you are a CsE and not an EE.

Perhaps more precise to say "Sites on the internet are full of videos placed there by people who select them to be posted".

The internet is not representative of ANYTHING, especially volume of content vs. Real Life. For instance, the internet is full of porn filmed in public places, but I didn't see a film crew with a naked chick on the was in to work this morning.

Re:Hog at the mic

[BigAssRat]

as a cop you are public protectors, you are to PROTECT AND SERVE even the guy you are arresting based on your interpretation of the law. If any force is exerted you need to be punished HARD if it was inappropriate.

Are you sure? I just saw Transformers and the police car clearly said "To Punish and Enslave" on the side...

Re:Hog at the mic

[tcolberg]

The student who was tasered repeatedly in the UCLA library close to a year ago was resisting arrest by not moving. Despite not struggling, it seems the cops will taser you for just disrespecting them or making them work harder to arrest us. Pigs.

Re:Hog at the mic

[Hao Wu]

If this had been a Republican event, kdawson would have posted this story and claimed that the candidate was personally responsible for the tazing.

Re:Hog at the mic

[Valdrax]

Some crazy guy with a sword in a mall and no pants? Sure taser him (been there, done that. On the safe side of the taser thankfully)

Off-topic, but I have to hear this story.

Re:Hog at the mic

[c6gunner]

For "social opprobrium" to work, the guy has to:

a) care what others think.
and
b) be semi-sane.

In this case, it's quite clear that neither of those categories apply to this particular lunatic.

Moreover, in "the good old days", one of the audience members would probably have slugged him. Our grandfathers had a lot less patience for rudeness and stupidity.

Re:Hog at the mic

[darkwhite]

Wow. It's not clear from your comment, do you really endorse the use of violence on a mike hogger, or just someone you consider uncaring of what you think and semi-insane? In a public event with an open mike?

Re:Hog at the mic

[DerekLyons]

He didn't force them to pull him from the microphone. There was no need for the police to be involved at all. Time was, when people behaved in an unacceptable but not criminal manner, old-fashioned techniques like social opprobrium were brought to bear, rather than police officers and tasers.

Time was, social approbium would have brought results. These are not those times. In a society where folks wear t-shirts to the mall with obscenties on them, social opprobium is pretty much useless - because the majority of the people have already decided they'll do what they please and the heck with what people think.

Re:Hog at the mic

[shilly]

I prefer the good old days. If he pisses others off enough that they decide to chuck him out, or throw rotten tomatoes at him, all well and good -- and certainly better than involving the police.

While we're at it, I'm not sure why you think it's helpful to arrest mentally ill people.

Re:Hog at the mic

[shilly]

I'm all too aware of that, but you can either retreat behind the police and live in an authoritarian state, or have the balls to stand up to bad behaviour. I prefer the latter, and wish more people did too.

Re:Hog at the mic

[c6gunner]

I prefer the good old days. If he pisses others off enough that they decide to chuck him out, or throw rotten tomatoes at him, all well and good -- and certainly better than involving the police.

Agreed. Citizens should be encouraged to get involved in law-enforcement. It tends to create a culture of accountability, which reduces crime, and makes for a better behaved society in general. Whereas societies which discourage civilian involvement tend to end up being the exact opposite.

While we're at it, I'm not sure why you think it's helpful to arrest mentally ill people.

Because currently our only alternative is letting them run free. Given those two options, I deffinitely prefer to arrest them.

Re:Hog at the mic

[shilly]

Our only alternative to arresting mentally ill people is to let them run free?!? Why yes, you're exactly right if you ignore the existence of all mental health care, including but not limited to primary care, community care, secondary and tertiary care (medium security, high security, forensic etc), plus various therapeutic modalities eg pharmacotherapy, psychiatry, expressive therapies (art therapy, music therapy) etc etc.

It sometimes pays to think before you type, y'know.

Re:Hog at the mic

[c6gunner]

It sometimes pays to think before you type, y'know.

Yeah, it does. You should try it.

How do you propose to force a lunatic to get medical assistance?

I'll give ya a hint: it involves arrest!

Re:Hog at the mic

[RealGrouchy]

A statement with a question mark at the end isn't really a question. Yes it is?

- RG>

Re:Hog at the mic

[shilly]

I'm ahead of you on two counts: I know something about how mental health services are organised (because I help to organise them), and I know what thinking is and am capable of doing it.

You clearly know fuck-all about mental health service.

Firstly, not all "lunatics" require being forced to have treatment. Many people with mental health issues willingly volunteer to have treatment, or can be persuaded. Secondly, placing someone in a secure facility may involve the police (called "sectioning" in the UK), but frequently does not -- doctors can arrange for it to be done, and it will typically involve a couple of beefy orderlys and potentially a sedative as well. Powers of arrest are there to be used by the police for criminal matters. It's not a crime to be insane, although insane people do commit crimes from time to time, of which a vanishing minority are serious (eg 50 murders a year in the UK committed by mental health service users out of a total of 700+ murders).

Re:Hog at the mic

[c6gunner]

I know something about how mental health services are organised (because I help to organise them), and I know what thinking is and am capable of doing it.

The former may be true, but I've yet to see any evidence of the latter.

Firstly, not all "lunatics" require being forced to have treatment. Many people with mental health issues willingly volunteer to have treatment, or can be persuaded.

That's nice, but we're not talking about "many" lunatics, we were discussing this one particular crazy-ass individual, who is clearly not going to submit himself for treatment willingly.

Secondly, placing someone in a secure facility may involve the police (called "sectioning" in the UK), but frequently does not -- doctors can arrange for it to be done, and it will typically involve a couple of beefy orderlys and potentially a sedative as well.

Which is still arrest. Whether or not an arrest involves police is irrelevant - if you place someone in custody and restrict their freedom of movement and association, you are either kidnapping them, or are placing them under arrest. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you.

It's not a crime to be insane

Who said it was?

I get the feeling that you've made up an argument for me, and are now only arguing with yourself. That's not very productive.

Re:Hog at the mic

[shilly]

"That's nice, but we're not talking about "many" lunatics, we were discussing this one particular crazy-ass individual, who is clearly not going to submit himself for treatment willingly."
We might have started there but it's not where we ended. I stated a couple of posts ago: "While we're at it, I'm not sure why you think it's helpful to arrest mentally ill people."
And you replied "Because currently our only alternative is letting them run free. Given those two options, I deffinitely prefer to arrest them."
Your use of the word "them" does not refer to "one particular crazy-ass individual", it refers to "mentally ill people" in general. Looks like I remember the thread better than you do. Incidentally, you have only very limited information -- agitated behaviour at a single event while being manhandled by a bunch of police officers -- and no training, to determine whether this guy is indeed mentally ill (a "crazy-ass individual"). Do you really think that his behaviour would have warranted his being sectioned?

Re your discussion of "arrest", you've just decided to define arrest to mean what you say it means, despite the obvious difference between placing someone in a secure health centre because they are ill and placing someone in custody because they're suspected of having committed a crime. Are you denying that this is a meaningful difference? Are you honestly trying to argue that when you read my statement "I'm not sure why you think it's helpful to arrest mentally ill people", and responded by saying "our only alternative is letting them run free", you meant putting them in a secure hospital and not getting the police involved? I call bullshit -- it's clear from the context that you had the police in mind, not psychiatrists.

As for who said it was a crime to be insane, you argued that people who are insane should be arrested. I made the foolish error of interpreting that statement using the everyday meaning of the word "arrest", which involves the police, as opposed to your special definition that encompasses doctors too. And the police are only supposed to be arresting people suspected of crimes.

Re:Hog at the mic

[canesfan]

"Our grandfathers had a lot less patience for rudeness and stupidity."

You got that right bud! If you want to see this theory in action just visit any shuffle board court in Boca Raton, Florida where old guys routinely kick each others ass' for any variety of offenses such as borrowing someones dentures without permission.

Re:Hog at the mic

[c6gunner]

I wrote a detailed response, and then lost it. Since I have no intention of arguing with you any more, I'll sum it up in a few short sentences:

1) You seem to have assumed that I think every single insane person should be locked up in a prison. I never stated that, nor did I even suggest it. You've simply hallucinated motives and statements which I never expressed.

2) The lunatic in question has quite a history; I made my assessment of him based on his past actions, not only those at his "protest".

3) Police are the first line of defence, whether the criminal is sane or not. This individual broke the law. His insanity may be a defence in a court of law, but that does not mean that the police should not first arrest him in order to put a stop to his behaviour.

That's that. If you want to keep misinterpreting my statements, go ahead, but don't expect any more responses from me.

Re:Hog at the mic

[shilly]

It's your choice to walk away whenever you want. I'm not going to let your final word go unchallenged, though:

1) Rather than make assumptions about what you said, I quoted your very own posts back to you.
2) It's fascinating to know that you're prepared to continue to argue that you have the information you need to make a judgement that this chap is a lunatic, and exciting to see your allusion to your knowledge of additional facts about him that enable you -- a qualifed Slashdot poster, no less -- give an authoritative diagnosis of lunacy. Marvellous, you should be very proud of yourself.
3) Your third assertion is the best of all. I hadn't argued with you at all about this particular case -- instead, we'd been arguing about the treatment of mentally ill people in general. It's such a shame you won't be posting any more on this thread, because I'd love to hear your explanation of what law, exactly, this guy broke -- and especially whether you think he was breaking the law before the police dragged him away from the microphone, wrestled him to the ground, tasered him, and then dragged him out the hall. I suspect you thought that he broke the law because he didn't stop talking on the mic when the police officer asked him to. But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and thus countenance the possibility you had in mind something slightly less risible, a privilege you don't seem too keen to extend to him (or to mentally ill people in general).

Re:keyword: annoying!

[vfrex]

No, first he decided to preach and was warned. If he wanted to address an audience, he should organize his own speech or rally. Then, when warned to ask his question, he continued his preaching. When he finally got around to asking the "question", there were actually a string of questions. He didn't approach the mic to ask a question; he wanted to draw attention to himself and issues that he found important. That wasn't his time to take though, and he was asked to stop. He didn't stop. Did you notice how the audience cheered when the police grabbed him? He was wasting their time and making them look terrible in the process.

Resisting.. Arrest?

[Burst_R8]

It is obvious he was resisting arrest, the real problem is the lack of reason for the arrest. If they charge him what will it be with? A charge of resisting by itself won't stand (what was I being arrest for? == instant dismissal). On the other hand the cops arrested the kid without any sort of reason (He asked a loaded question, he must ber a turrerest), violated his right to free speech and tased him (Battery anyone?).

Thank god I live in the great white north :/

Re:Resisting.. Arrest?

[Tastecicles]

Here in the UK, you can be arrested for Breach of the Peace merely by swearing at an officer. OK, now protest. That's resisting arrest. Now start flailing. That's assault on a police officer. With intent. See ya in ten years.

See how easy that was?

Re:Resisting.. Arrest?

[kalirion]

Did you watch the video?

Re:Resisting.. Arrest?

[nomadic]

A charge of resisting by itself won't stand (what was I being arrest for? == instant dismissal)

877.03 Breach of the peace; disorderly conduct.--Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Re:Resisting.. Arrest?

[macthulhu]

I've been detained for "Failure to obey the reasonable request of an officer". I don't know how common that kind of law is, but in these parts (western NY) it's the easy fall back position for any cop that wants to roust you for something, or get a better look at what you're up to. I've never heard of anyone getting cited for just that, but I know plenty of people who started their encounter that way and ended up getting charged with various other crimes after the fact. It can be a lame way for the cops to hassle you, but I have seen it used many times in situations that definitely warranted it.

I do have to wonder what public sentiment would be if it were Cindy Sheehan instead of some random college student.

Re:Resisting.. Arrest?

[Slashdot Parent]

Disobeying a lawful order, disturbing the peace, and trespassing, off the top of my head.

Without question there was probable cause for his arrest.

Re:Resisting.. Arrest?

[torkus]

So wait, Are you saying that his resisting arrest was the breach of peace?

Or are you saying that, at a POLITICAL RALLY, what he said was disrupting the peace and quiet? A rally with mics and speakers so I don't see where peace and quiet come in to play.

Re:Resisting.. Arrest?

[Virgil Tibbs]

did you see that video of john reid being heckled?
where's the guns? the violence? the tasing?
oh wait, this isnt the states
heckling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxA4lmxjIbk

talking to the bbc after being ejected:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7paINhyXmk4

whats more, the heckler was a very interesting character - a muslim radical - see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Izzadeen

Presidential Candidate Kerry?

[Nymz]

I think he prefers to be called Senator Kerry, anyway it was very surrealistic to hear the crackling zaps with the kid screaming as Kerry's voice continued to drone on and on. Reminds me of that Ferris Bueller movie.

Motive? Attention, period.

[capnkr]

It is blindingly obvious that this guy got exactly what he was looking for.

The police *followed him in* - so he wasn't even supposed to be there, or had been causing a disturbance outside prior to entering.

Nonetheless, he was allowed in to ask his question - which he wouldn't do without first pontificating (loudly and insistently) on subject matter that we won't ever know if it was really related to his question. (Want to lay odds that said question goes through some serious editing and revising while he rests in the cooler?)

At any point in time after the police asked him to cease and desist with his disruption of Sen. Kerry's rally/talk, he could have quit screaming, could have stopped exacerbating the situation, could have acted like a normal, sane person, not some kook lunatic fringe idiot.

He wanted to be tasered, or in some way publicly treated like a criminal - that was obviously his intent, and then when it happened, he whined like a little wussy.

Actions, meet consequences.

He'll get his 15 minutes, and maybe a leg up on some political conspiracy commentary that he obviously wants to make.

What a fucking idiot.

Sure, mod me Troll, but this guy - he's a meatspace Troll. Geesh, what a fob.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. All annoying dissenters should be tortured into submission. Bodily harm should be inflicted in proportion to the amount of yelling that has taken place.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a pretty fucking long post you made there, attention whore. Too bad I can't taser you for it.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[yoder]

I second that. It honestly does not matter if it was a Kerry, Obama, McCain, or Bush rally, if you go in and act like this person did, you will be removed. The taser is the non-lethal weapon of choice these days so it should not be a surprise that it was used. From what we can see and hear, the guy went in to disrupt the rally, although proving intent will be difficult. He got what he wanted. Yea for him.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the only answer to obnoxious people is to physically hurt them, then you're well into police state territory. There are certainly civilized options that have not been tried here: Kerry could have explained to the student that he won't answer his question if he keeps pontificating. Someone could have turned the microphone off. Someone could have explained to him that he's going to be fined for disorderly conduct if he keeps on going. Kerry could have asked the crowd to "boo" if they want the student to stop.

There's one thing where the student was sort of right: If Kerry holds a long speech, then this particular situation does not need to be resolved in a matter of two minutes. Political discourse has to accept some overhead, even if just to allow rabid dissenters to expose their own lunacy. Making martyrs out of them is morally and strategically wrong.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[chaboud]

You're the fucking idiot.

He asked his question, in a roundabout way. He insinuated that Kerry had given Bush the election because of his Skull & Bones connection, and he asked for a response.

As someone who gave Kerry's legal fund $100 (and Black Box Voting another $100) two hours before Kerry folded, my question would have been roughly the same (though have taken less time).

The hilarious thing is that Kerry was going to answer the question (or dodge it publicly), but the cops were too busy paying off this kid's student loans for that to happen.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[Fnkmaster]

He might have deserved to be removed from the room, and I can see subduing and dragging him out if he resists. But Tasering a guy who you've already got pinned on the ground? Cops are supposed to just cuff his arms behind his back and drag him out. That's what they're trained to do. A Taser is supposed to be used to subdue a subject who represents an actual threat to the police or others around him. A guy pinned on the ground by 5 or 6 cops who is yelling because he believes he's being arrested without cause doesn't represent an actual threat, just an annoyance.

They should have dragged him off, at most, and let a judge sort it out later. Or just let him finish his damned annoying question - Kerry or the audience would have eventually cut him off. This could have been handled without using a potentially dangerous weapon on a college student.

I think the cops involved should be fired.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[delong]

He wasn't even "allowed in" to ask his question. He grabbed the mic and asked his question, uninvited.

This guy is yet another symptom of a class of Americans that have an entitlement complex and no sense of what is socially acceptable behavior.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[Dak RIT]

While the taser is meant to be a non-lethal weapon, it has caused death before, and if you've ever been hit by one, you know how immensely painful it is.

I completely agree that the questioner was out of line for the given forum and that he should have been removed; however, I do not think he should have been arrested for what was essentially a completely non-violent protest, and I think the use of the taser was just downright disturbing.

While I was watching the video I chuckled a few times at the beginning, especially after hearing all of his questions, although by the end of the video I simply couldn't believe what I saw. There need to be some serious repercussions for all of the security personnel who were involved in the incident, particularly whoever made the decision to and used the taser (if multiple suggested it then they should all be accountable for it), and we as a society need to seriously rethink the amount of leverage law enforcement personnel are given to escalate force and the training we provide them with regard to how and when it is appropriate to escalate force.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

It is blindingly obvious that this guy got exactly what he was looking for.

I think so too. I am surprised that no one has commented on his question, which was whether or not Kerry belonged to the secret "Skull And Bones Society" at Yale. The fact that he would even ask this question at all says a lot about his political views. They fall under the category of "conspiracy theorist".

He clearly resisted arrest at first. There is no doubt at all about that. I only watched one video and I can't tell from that whether or not he continued to resist at the time he was tasered. I think it could be a case of an idiot escalating a problem by not cooperating with the police. It's been years since this happened, but more than 10 years ago I was temporarily arrested along with 2 friends while police considered the possibility that we were driving a stolen car. It's a long story, but we were eventually let go when it was finally determined that the driver did own the car. And there was a very valid reason that the police thought the car might be stolen. I cooperated with the police immediately and did not resist and the cop who arrested me calmed down real quick and I had no problems of any kind and suffered no mistreatment. If you cooperate with the police, situations calm down quickly and believe me, nobody wants to deal with cops when they are hyped up and on an adrenaline rush.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[yoder]

You know, I actually agree with you that the taser was too much, but the guy went in there looking for trouble and got it. I even agree with him for asking the question. But you have to take responsibility for your own actions, and he would not stop yelling even after Kerry said he would answer the question. That tells me that the guy did not really want Kerry's answer, but only wanted everyone else to hear him. So yes, the taser was too much I'll admit, but his right to speak does not trump everyone else's.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[workindev]

While the taser is meant to be a non-lethal weapon, it has caused death before, and if you've ever been hit by one, you know how immensely painful it is.

Tear gas, nightsticks, and rubber bullets have caused death before. In fact, people have even died after just being handcuffed. I guess we should get rid of those, too?

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[Maxo-Texas]

I think any year that a policeman uses a taser, they need to have a taser used on them... just to remind them what they are doing to people.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[gordo3000]

state law in teh US, want to be able to use a taser? part of your training is being hit by one at full power.

PS this guy probably was hit wtiha stun gun on a low setting. you can tell because I know 8 people who have been tased and every single one told me you can move a muscle while it's going on, complete lock up. I've seen a couple videos of it and it looks like that is the case there as well.

oh, and not certain on fl, but you need to get hit again in NC when getting re-trained.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[datapharmer]

Please get your facts straight before commenting. I work for an independent newspaper that had journalists at this event, and let me tell you that although there is just about a consensus that he was seeking attention the reaction of the police was over the top. The mistakes of the police: not removing him sooner, taking him THROUGH the crowd instead of around it. Not handcuffing him when they first got him into custody (this is what allowed him to "escape" back toward the forum). They also waited until 6 officers were holding him on the ground by his hands and feet before they tasered him. Was he annoying - yes! Was he really a threat to anyone's life - no! Especially after the was being held down. Tasers are not "non-lethal" they are categorized as "less-lethal" which means that they won't kill people as often as shooting them will. Although some may wish to change the law, being annoying is not currently an offense where a potentially lethal force should be used. This is also a freedom of speech issue. Many students were not allowed to ask questions of Kerry - the same students whose funds were used to bring him to campus! I understand there are time restraints, but a forum should be just that - a place where students can ask questions. His microphone was turned off not just because he was over time, but because he was considered annoying by those in charge. I found his questions irrelevant and his demeanor annoying too, but others may find them pertinent. It is not our place to judge whether a question is "worthy" of being asked even if we don't agree with it. This is extremely important and is why we have freedom of speech. I also found it disturbing and telling that Kerry began answering his first questions as he was being hauled away and tasered. Why didn't Kerry ask that he leave peacefully or wait until he was removed before commenting? His reaction was very unbecoming of a Senator.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[stewbacca]

Actions, meet consequences.

PERFECT post. The video of this incident will keep me smiling for months. The audio is especially tasty...'ooooowwwwwww oooooooouch wwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.....I'm a giant puuuuuussssssssssssssy!"

Yeah, he'll get his 15 minutes. Plus, it will bolster his activist web site. I'd call it a ploy, but this is your typical know-nothing college kid trying to fight the establishment, so he believes in his cause, no matter how misguided.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[gordo3000]

I wonder if you have ever actually tried to drag someone who is resisting away from an area.

guess what, it isn't easy. It isn't even as straight forward as you may think. You have a good chance of hurting yourself in trying to drag someone kicking and screaming.

of course, there are other ways to get someone to walk where youw ant. there are long series of pain compliance techniques cops used to be taught. let me(or someone who knows them) do a few on you. then i fyou want, you can feel a stun gun at low power. I bet you'll pick the latter. most cops love the stun gun because it's straight forward, effective, and less prone to causing permanent damage when the cop has adrenaline rushing through him.

before you start talking theoretically, try to do some of these things you think are so straight forward. I promise they aren't that easy and most are MORE dangerous to the person being dragged away.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[jadavis]

I do not think he should have been arrested for what was essentially a completely non-violent protest,

There's nothing non-violent about resisting arrest.

The civil disobedience people were smart enough to follow the officers' directions when they showed up. Maybe that's why they actually accomplished something, while nobody will ever care about this guy.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[Afecks]

1. You're an asshole.

2. You don't know what he wanted.

3. What he wants doesn't change the law.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[alanshot]

They did turn off his mic. He then started yelling since the PA was no longer functioning.

I agree this person is an asshat that was looking for trouble. he got what he deserved. The police were also justified as he was refusing to cooperate. Somebody was gonna get hurt. Honestly, I prefer the idiot gets it over our officers doing thier jobs.

Here is why I think he was TRYING to cause trouble and get tasered:

We have several major issues going in our city right now like property taxes jumping 200%+ for some people. Watching the council meetings I have seen similar things happen by people who are overly amped up and get unruly and not there JUST to make a scene and disrupt. They want to make a statement, ask a question, etc but just get overcome by emotions; they arent TRYING To cause grief.

When they are asked to leave for being out of order, they are pulled forcibly (usually yelling) from the room by 1, MAYBE two officers. They are still upright and walking. They dont push the officer, they dont drop to the ground and refuse to be removed and make 5 or 6 pick officers them up and carry them as they are fighting to not be picked up, handcuffed, etc.

If this guy just wanted to make a comment, ask a question, etc. he would have been removed by the officers without the ensuing strugggle.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[xappax]

This guy is yet another symptom of a class of Americans that have an entitlement complex and no sense of what is socially acceptable behavior.

And you are yet another symptom of a class of Americans so obsessed with making everyone be pleasant and "socially acceptable" that you're willing to justify the assault and torture of people for being impolite.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[FishWithAHammer]

This guy wasn't hit by a taser at full power by any means. I don't care who you are, you won't be INTELLIGIBLE after being zapped with a taser, at least not for a few minutes.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

But Tasering a guy who you've already got pinned on the ground? When I took self defense, dropping to the ground was a recommended defensive maneuver in some circumstances ... you can do serious damage by kicking and your back is protected.

I agree that the campus security (not regular cops, these are JUST campus security) needs better training in how to get someone under control. Some of the shots from the video show unintentional holds that could have easily done damage to his arms is either he or the cop had moved wrong.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[RxScram]

Bullshit. This study by the GAO (Government Accountability Office) http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05464.pdf investigated 7 cities across the U.S. Nowhere (that I saw) in the article does it mention that the officers have to be shot by the taser as part of the training.

Now it is possible that specific states/cities might require it, but it is certainly not universal. Also, tasers are not classified as firearms by the ATF, so any schmuck can legally purchase and carry one. Again, specific states might be more stringent.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[djasbestos]

Maybe that's why they shouldn't slap a badge on just any asshole... because it *does* take a lot of physical and interpersonal skills to arrest or detain someone. And the wits to know when force is or is not necessary, and to what degree.

Nobody said their job was easy (I acknowledge that it's often difficult and frustrating), but it's one that has to be done properly, regardless of difficulty. Hence why good cops (like good mechanics and good programmers) are worth their weight in gold.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[alanshot]

"I still don't think that force is a civilized way of dealing with political dissenters, even if they are out of line..."

I take GREAT exception to your statement above.

That is the whole point. He was out of line. He was impeding on the discussion and being disruptive. end of story. Had he followed the rules, this would never have happened.

f the following had happened I would agree with you:

Student: Mr Kerry, I have a question... Do you...[insert offensive yet calm question here]?
police: come with us, you!
Student: no sir, i would rather not.
police: ZZZZZZAP!

But it didnt. he was rude, unruly, disruptive and physically resisted reasonable requests to leave. I dont care if its a political event, PTA meeting or any other public event where rules must be followed. Without rules there is anarchy.

So you wouldnt have a problem with the following scenario?:

I walk up to you on the street while you were discussing something with other people on your lunch hour, so there is a limit to the time you can take. I ask if I can make a comment and you say yes. I then start rambling, ranting, YELLING, etc. You are unable to respond or continue the discussion with the others. You start to walk away but I still continue to impede your discussion forcefully by standing in your way and yelling at you. no physical contact but you still cant proceed with what you want to do, or even leave to go to work. You are at my mercy.

Still dont want somebody to forcefully intervene?

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[PJ1216]

he didn't stop yelling because he wanted to hear the answer and the police weren't going to allow that. i don't see any reason as to why they even started taking him out in the first place. who ordered it? or did the police officers take it upon themselves to just take the guy out. everything was civil til they started pulling him away from lord knows what (you can hear him yelling the same question, "what did i do?")

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[Neuticle]

They Tazered him because he was still resisting. That means there was still a threat to the safety of the officers and bystanders. They warned him to stop, but he did not, and they could not just stop attempting to handcuff him.

At that point the cops had to escalate force to subdue him. That means "pain compliance" (i.e. beating him), or a stun-gun (Tazer the brand name actually shoots electrodes out, while a generic stun gun has fixed electrodes IIRC). What if they had used a baton instead? They may have broken a bone in getting submission, or torn something; surely he'd have had some bruises. Would we be happier if he had a broken arm instead?

Point is, he continued to resist, and police made a choice to use electricity rather than a beating.

If stun-guns prove to be too dangerous (accidental deaths and all), that just means police will have to go back to good old fashioned beatings in more situations.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[HornWumpus]

Fork sshstab

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[The One and Only]

I think so too. I am surprised that no one has commented on his question, which was whether or not Kerry belonged to the secret "Skull And Bones Society" at Yale. The fact that he would even ask this question at all says a lot about his political views. They fall under the category of "conspiracy theorist".

No one has commented on it because it is irrelevant. The minute someone's political views are relevant to how the police should treat that person is the minute we need to start a fucking revolution and put those cops against the wall.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[celle]

I see no one went to his defense even when obviously bad things were happening and the police obviously had exceeded their authority. That describes current college kids in a nutshell. Is it just him or doesn't everyone scream bloody murder when they are being abused. Obviously your turn hasn't happened yet. Self-centered blind obedience, just what the government ordered. If this had been in the sixties there might have been a good old fashioned riot. Darn, nothing but sports on the tube.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[delong]

And you're another example of a spoiled generation whose mommies never told them "no".

The guy was tazed after violently resisting security/police that were lawfully escorting him out of the public area he was disrupting with his spazztastic behavior. They should have turned it up a few notches higher.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[graffix_jones]

Here's a hypothetical...

Okay, since this was a 'public forum' meeting with a political figure, we can assume that any questions asked by students would first be vetted for content, so that the good Senator could fire off the current Democratic talking points (it's been known to happen).
Now, this journalism student presents his questions, only to have them refused for inclusion, so instead he decides to 'crash the party' and ask them anyway.
This could explain the disruption which caused the guards to follow him into the proceeding, couldn't it?

Since of course this is hypothetical (I don't know shit from shinola in this instance), would that change your mind about the incident?

I for one would applaud him were the above true. It takes guts to try to reopen the closed little world that today's politicians live in, and have them answer 'real' questions for a change.

I'm reminded of a video I saw of British students questioning Tony Blair at a discussion, and this guy's statement was like asking Kerry about the weather compared to the questions the students were hammering Blair with. Blair looked like he had been punched in the stomach a few too many times once it was over.

That's democracy in action.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[xappax]

The guy was tazed after violently resisting

Oh for real? In that case I take it back. Using a taser is definitely justified when acting in self-defense.

btw, are the officers recovering ok from their injuries? Oh wait. No officers were injured. Nor was there any point when they were in danger of being injured - unless holding your hands up or trying to run away are forms of assault.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[graffix_jones]

He clearly resisted arrest at first. There is no doubt at all about that.

How could he 'resist arrest' when at no time was he told he was under arrest? He refused to cooperate when they tried to eject him from the meeting, but I think that had a lot to do with the fact that Kerry told them to let him be and that he'd answer the question.

I for one am glad he didn't humbly submit to police authority, when he in fact had done nothing wrong other than hog the microphone and ask three questions instead of one.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[delong]

Oh for real? In that case I take it back. Using a taser is definitely justified when acting in self-defense

You have no privilege to use force against a police officer's lawful use of force. It wasn't "self defense". So lay off the crap.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[xappax]

You misunderstood - intentionally or not. I think using a taser in self-defense against a violent attacker is perfectly legitimate, and probably a great way to defend yourself. If this indeed was a case where the officer was acting in self-defense, it'd be perfectly justified.

But the officer wasn't acting in self-defense, because there was no "violent resistance". The officers were not harmed in any way or ever in danger of being harmed. This was also completely obvious to them at the time, since they had him pinned with many officers surrounding him, so there's no credible way anyone could claim they were acting in response to "violent resistance".

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[delong]

If you are resisting arrest - it is violent force. Moving your arm to avoid being grabbed is violent force. The police do not have to be in danger of harm to use a tazer or any other force to subdue a suspect. A tazer is used to subdue a resisting perp. Period. The guy was forcefully resisting arrest and the officers were privileged to use force - in this case a contact shock from a tazer - to stop him from resisting. Period. So stop defending this clown who was clearly looking to cause a scene. You're exactly the kind of useful idiot that he was looking to manipulate with this stunt.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[Fnkmaster]

Explain how you could tell he continued to "resist" (i.e. physically)? I didn't see any evidence of that. I just heard him asking why they were arresting him. If he was physically assaulting the police and they were unable to subdue him (which I find hard to believe with that many basically on top of him) then I could understand using the Taser. But I didn't see that in the video.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[Fnkmaster]

A) yes, with the help of four other people I certainly have picked up somebody who didn't want to be picked up and transported them against their will. This is not easy, but if you have numbers on your side, it's not as hard as you make it out to be.

B) I have done martial arts training. I am well aware of how to inflict pain on somebody. Those techniques have a lower fatality rate than Tasers (I realize this has been argued on both sides, but that's my opinion).

C) Police are supposed to be trained professionals. I'm sorry if they have a "hard" job, but that's part of the deal.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[gordo3000]

A) go pick someone up who with 3 large men you can't get hand cuffs on. quit ignoring the situation and acting like it's even possible. If the kid is strong enough to resist being hand cuffed then you probably are gonna have a few issues with lifting him and carrying him out while his hands are free.

B) I'm glad you did martial arts training. but I'm gonna bet you aren't very good or never did it seriously to understand the risk of the pain compliance techniques to get someone to give you their arms while keep you and others around safe. common injuries (some I've taken in order to prove that it really is how far you have to go to make them work) include: broken wrists, severely strained forearm muscles, torn rotator cuffs, dislocated(partial and full, of course) shoulder, neck sprains, broken ribs. it's too bad no one ever taught you the consequences of what happens when you use these compliance techniques or the difference between the wide range of tasers and stun guns that are available.

It is impossible to find a case of death due to the stun gun he was hit with. well, not impossible, but I have spent hours on multiple occasions trolling the web for reports of a single instance. there are tons of reports of death due to the more lethal version of the taser(the one that locks up all the muscles in your body and leaves you too weak to move properly for a significant period of time). The dangers associated with a stun gun he was hit with is burning of the skin and clothes at the point of contact. I will concede that death is possible but those are the common(by a long shot) consequences.

Re:Motive? Attention, period.

[Neuticle]

Watch the NON-camera-phone video, he wasn't merely shouting, he was thrashing about on the ground.

It isn't assaulting the police per se, but he was quite clearly struggling with the police after he was on the ground and after repeated warnings to stop. They pinned his arms, but when they moved to put the hand cuffs on they were unable to cuff him because he kept flailing his arms about.

He was still resisting and trying to break free, and thus still a danger. They could have waited longer to see if he eventually calmed down, but who knows how long that would have taken? They gave the dude PLENTY of time to stop struggling. Waiting longer would have increased the chances he had to escape or to injure himself or a restraining officer.

Tasers accidentally kill a few people with heart problems. That very small percentage makes Taser use a big problem. Barring that, I think it's a better to take a transient shock than to be beaten up*, but YMMV.

*I've been shocked by 110v, 220v, a BIG Van de Graaf, electric fences of various make, cattle prods, a defibrillator, and lightning- but not a taser or stun gun. I've also been sucker punched in the face and hit full force in the arm with a stick-ball bat (about as thick as a police club but longer) I'd rather take any shock (except lightning) over the punch or the clubbing.

Use of tazer.

[UncHellMatt]

While that kid was kind of annoying, according to the article, he did not warrant use of a taser (at least by the standards of the police station I work for). He was already on the ground, he was already under control. Once the person is down and double cuffed, that should be it, drag his sorry backside out.

Of course, I can see many times where use of a taser is more than justified.

"The argument over which is better, VI or Emacs, is perfectly val*ZZZZAP!!*GUAAAHHHHHGH!*"

Re:Use of tazer.

[RawGutts]

I looked at all the footage and he was not cuffed yet, right when they were about the put the cuffs on him, he jerked his arms back and that's when they hit him with tazzer. But yeah one can argue 4 officers were on top of him and did have control, one being a big ass 275 pound+ muscle head. :)

Re:Use of tazer.

[UncHellMatt]

That's another thing. Watching this video, those officers were either poorly trained, or ... No, I'm betting poorly trained. With four officers on him, hell even two should have been plenty, but four could easily have restrained him and gotten him cuffed. One kneels on the upper shoulder (NOT the neck or head) while another sits on his legs. Two other officers each pull the hands back. With judicious use of weight on tender body parts (not the joy department!) you can very easily convince someone to do what you're telling them. Heck, get even a ball point pen between the ring and middle finger of a hand and squeeze them together, suddenly you've got a very, very pliable arm (try it for yourself... It's ouchy).

I don't know what that university police department's policy is with regards to force, but personally if anyone here did that, they'd be fired. (I'm not a cop, BTW, but I am very familiar with at least our policy and procedures with regards to force)

Re:Use of tazer.

[E 99]

"The argument over which is better, VI or Emacs, is perfectly val*ZZZZAP!!*GUAAAHHHHHGH!*"

At least "GUAAAHHHHHGH!" is slightly manly. This guy should be ashamed for his "OWWW! OWWW! OWWW! OWWW! OWWW! POLICE BRUTALITY! I'M A PUSSY!"

Re:Use of tazer.

[dkf]

"The argument over which is better, VI or Emacs, is perfectly val*ZZZZAP!!*GUAAAHHHHHGH!*" Emacs wins again!

Re:Use of tazer.

[teknopurge]

again,

HE WAS NOT IN CUFFS!!!!

changes things, eh?

Re:Use of tazer.

[hawk]

>Emacs wins again!

OK, I give in. Adding the "taser-vi-user" command *was* a good tactical decision . . .

hawk, desperately deleting emacs from his system

Re:Use of tazer.

[Scudsucker]

changes things, eh?

Not in the slightest. Cops don't get to tase people for non-compliance.

A little misleading...

[Kal42]

The post makes it seem like the cops just tasered him to shut him up. He was clearly resisting the police and fighting with them. Maybe they shouldn't have tried to stop him talking in the first place, but once they did he can't resist like that or they'll smack him down. I have no problem with the tasering at all.

Re:A little misleading...

[Scrameustache]

Maybe they shouldn't have tried to stop him talking in the first place, but once they did he can't resist like that or they'll smack him down. I have no problem with the tasering at all. So, two wrongs make a right?
If they were wrong to drag him away from the mic, they were double-wrong to do it violently.

Re:So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question

[obarel]

"Excellent question, but this is not the issue. The issue is really ... <political drivel>"

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[yakmans_dad]

There's a range of motivation between drawing attention to rampant injustice and flashing your tits to a Girls Gone Wild camera. The egregious insanity of the Iraq War and Congressional (read Democratic) timidity in standing up to it actually deserves wider reaction than it has got. My generation definitely had self-defense in opposing the Vietnam War thanks to the draft, but the draft ended in '72, and student opposition stayed strong. It's more than a little depressing to see the current college crew sit on its collective hams.

As for the kid's other complaint -- voter fraud -- that gets trickier. There was a lot of voter suppression in Ohio in 2004, and at least one person is facing criminal charges over it. There was a Florida St. investigation into the Florida 2000 election that showed that Florida's peremptory change to its method of counting double marked ballots was the culprit in that election. (Gore would have won easily.) The GOP seems to have counted on the American impulse to "get on with it" to make off with at least one election and possibly 2. A weird fatalism about such things seems to be the chief public reaction. I'm sorry that the guy got tasered but I'm glad that he had a Howard Beale moment. There should be more.

There are restrictions to free speech

[benhocking]

There are restrictions to Free Speech (shouting 'fire' in a crowed, etc). The RIGHT to protest doesn't extend to the HOW and WHERE.

Yes, there are rightful restrictions to free speech. This is not one of those. That said, the guy was resisting arrest, and should have complied with the officers. After which, he could rightfully make all the noise he wanted about how his first amendment rights were violated.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[harryk]

I can agree that he was resisting arrest, but in this case there was no need for the arrest in the first place. Have we lost all touch with our freedoms that we think we are living in a police state that one can be arrested and detained for a non-threatening reason?

Additionally, the senator attempted to answer the student's questions, all the while the police were bent on arresting this guy. If you can make it out in the video, you can see an aid in the background signaling for the police to intervene, something that should NEVER have happened.

At what point has the police become a protector of the elected, nearing gestapo practices, instead of being a protector of the people. If anything, the police should have recognized that they should be protecting the student so that his voice could be heard. Believing contrary to the state is no cause for being silenced.

How does the saying go? ... "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!"

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[torkus]

The problem with resisting arrest is that police can walk up to you and decide you smell funny so we're going to arrest you. You, being a good citizen who has done nothing wrong but skip a shower is confused, scared, and angry that s/he is being violated for an unknown reason. Of course the reaction is to struggle.

Now you've been arrested for resisting arrest. Half the time the orig. charges don't stick, are dropped, or just didn't exist to begin with. Brilliant.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Altus]

At what point exactly did they tell him he was under arrest?

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Lord Ender]

Have we lost all touch with our freedoms that we think we are living in a police state that one can be arrested and detained for a non-threatening reason?

Umm... Yes? But we haven't "lost touch with our freedoms." There are numerous "non-threatening" things we can do that warrant an arrest. Trespassing and harassment are two "non-threatening" crimes for which one can be arrested. Would it be OK if I pitch a tent on your front lawn and live there for a while? Or would you prefer I be arrested for this non-threatening action?

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Digital Vomit]

How does the saying go? ... "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!"

I think it's actually "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to be tasered for saying it". Some guy name Voltaire said it, appropriately enough.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[oni]

I can agree that he was resisting arrest, but in this case there was no need for the arrest in the first place. Have we lost all touch with our freedoms that we think we are living in a police state that one can be arrested and detained for a non-threatening reason?

That's not the way I see this at all. At every step, he made choices that escalated the encounter.

1. He wasn't asking questions. He was making rhetorical statements. He was preaching. He was robbing other people of the chance to actually ask Kerry questions. What is the punishment for that? Simple, they take the mic away from you and give it to someone with something constructive to say. No taser involved.

2. When security (and others) politely asked him to yield the mic, he acted impolitely and continued to monopolize the event. What is the punishment for that? Simple, they escort him away from the venue. Still no taser involved. But look who made the choice to go from 1 to 2 - it's him. OK, he made his stupid little rhetorical statements. If he had just sat his privileged little ass down, that would be the end of it. But no, **he choose** to escalate from 1 to 2.

3. When security took him by the arm and gently began to escort him from the venue, he began pitching an absolute hissy fit. ok, now we're into interesting territory. You are not allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater, because that insights panic. And you are not allowed be hysterical in an auditorium for the same reason. He was shouting and waving his arms and running around the auditorium. That is completely out of line. He does not have the right to do that. What is the punishment? Simple, the police are going to restrain him for everyone's safety and forcibly remove him. Still no taser involved. And once again, it was his choice to go to step 3. When the police put their hands on him, he could have walked out of the venue and that would be the end of it. But no, he choose to escalate to 3.

4. The police get him to the back of the auditorium and the whole thing is about 10 seconds from being over and then einstein breaks free from the police and tries to run back down the isle. I'm sorry, but at that point, the consequences of all of his actions have reached the level where a taser is appropriate. The police had a duty to subdue and restrain this asshat and get him outside.

You greatly oversimplify the situation by saying, "he was resisting arrest." That's not what happened at all. Four times he escalated the situation. The police reacted appropriately each time. At any point during the encounter he could have made another choice and stopped escalating things, but he's not that smart. Fuck him. I'm sorry, but fuck him.

If I had been in his shoes, I would have asked Kerry a pithy question - I would have made my point that way. Then I would have preached rhetorically on my blog. But then, I'm not a dick.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[harryk]

I believe that in this specific case, the student did have the expected right to be heard. He was invited, along with the rest of the public, to listen to and speak (however indirectly) with Sen. Kerry. He was given the opportunity to speak at the podium (open mic) during a Q&A session.

I could agree with you that the student should/could have released the mic once his allotment of time had been exceeded (if it had, from what I can tell the student had 2 minutes, and had only used just over his first minute). But something that you're missing is that Kerry did attempt to answer his questions and, atleast in my opinion, that should have trumped any 'time' constraint that had been assigned.

Was the student being a dick, sure. Was he being obnoxious, sure. But when did that become grounds for not being given the opportunity to speak at an open forum?

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Archangel Michael]

Having been arrested for "resisting arrest", I can assure you that they don't drop charges. I'm 6'5" and was in excellent shape at the time, and there is no way that two short skinny cops could have arrested me if I was "resisting". It would have taken at least twice that amount. But that didn't stop them from putting the cuffs on me, and dragging me off to jail. It also didn't stop them from lying in court until their own stories didn't line up. luckily for me, the jury took more time to elect a foreman than it took to come back with a verdict of not guilty.

In the case of the article above, I was half expecting the person to be a right wing wacko that Kerry was trying to dodge, but it turns out the guy was a left wing wacko on Kerry's side. The story makes even less sense now. I think one of the other posters got it right .... Publicity hound seeking camera time. Welcome to your 15 minutes of fame, now go away.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[harryk]

I'm not disagreeing that he began by making rhetorical comments and statements, in fact the student himself recognizes that he's wasting time to set the basis for the question (pretty common I would think), but the student does indeed ask 2 questions and I believe begins to lead into a third when the intervention occurs. Why should I have to give up my time just because you don't want to hear what I have to say?

What I'm trying to point out is that the police intervened unnecessarily. We'll never know if the student would have politely sat down after asking his third question and listening to the Senator's answers. But it's because of that intervention that we'll never know.

I agree that I don't have the right to yell 'FIRE' in a crowd, as that can incite panic, but this is not the same thing. Yes he escalated the situation, and it could be debated whether it was necessary or not, but the point is he did have the right to ask his questions along with anyone and everyone else attending the meeting.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[veganboyjosh]

Or would you prefer I be arrested for this non-threatening action?

Arrest would probably be too extreme. A good tasering might do the trick, though.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[American Scum]

Now why isn't this gentleman's post modded higher than it is? His points are clear, concise, and well organized.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Supergood-ape]

"Of course the reaction is to struggle."

Mine isn't, mine is to call my attorney.

I guess when your natural "reaction" to getting arrested is to resist, then yeah, you might have a problem with cops.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Lord Ender]

attempting to communicate to an open forum, with invitation to the public.

I am aware of no special legal status for "open forums." If someone invites you somewhere, such as to a press conference, you are allowed to be there until they ask you to leave--at that point you are trespassing and can be arrested continuing to trespass.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Supergood-ape]

"but the point is he did have the right to ask his questions along with anyone and everyone else attending the meeting."

And so did everyone else. At what point does someone have to intervene to make sure those rights are observed equally?

See, that's the part you're leaving out in your fairy tale recounting of this incident. He certainly has the right to be heard, for his allotted time, with repercussions being that he'll be cut off if he goes over. But then what happens to all those patient, well behaved people who would like to respect the rules but are not allowed their rightfully granted access? Oh right you don't give two fucks about them, they're not throwing a tantrum.

You keep talking about what could have happened, or what he might have done, but that's bullshit. What he did do was monopolize the mic, and resist those trying to enforce fair access.

So pretending he might have gone quietly when he was given the opportunity to do so and refused is bullshit too.

He didn't get tasered because he was exercising free speech, he got tasered because he actively resisted arrest. Stop trying to turn this into something it's not.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[russ1337]

>>> "At what point exactly did they tell him he was under arrest?"

So if they were not arresting him, but forcibly escorting him from the building, could he hit them up for attempted kidnapping?

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[wasted]

...Actually, the only thing I had a problem with in this whole situation was that the police hit him with a taser. There were plenty of police to drag him out if they wanted to. A taser isn't supposed to be used as a cattle prod...

If I recall correctly, (from a friend of mine who works in law enforcement,) the taser is used to gain compliance with instructions, much as a cattle prod is used to influence cattle behavior. Comply with the instructions from the police, and the police are in the wrong if they use a taser. If you refuse to comply with instructions, the use of the taser, pepper spray, and/or baton becomes justified.

I could be wrong - I am not in law or law enforcement.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

There are numerous "non-threatening" things we can do that warrant an arrest. Trespassing and harassment are two "non-threatening" crimes for which one can be arrested. Would it be OK if I pitch a tent on your front lawn and live there for a while? Or would you prefer I be arrested for this non-threatening action?

Sure. People should be arrested for breaking the law.

Now, point to the law that makes hogging the microphone grounds for an arrest.

One other poster pointed out that "resisting arrest" appears to be becoming a rather popular reason to arrest people in the first place. Personally, I think if the cop can't even be bothered to fake the paperwork to show some reason for having arrested the person, they should be held responsible on false arrest/imprisonment/kidnapping charges.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[heelrod]

There is never a _need_ for arrest. You can be arrested for _anything_. I went in for J-Walking. That's what the paper said, but I was taken in because I pissed off the cop. Cops can make up any excuse to arrest someone if they feel you need to be taken down a peg, or they just have a hankering to flex their muscle. The details are settled later. After your in jail. That's the part that sucks. If they think you should not be there, then you are not going to be there.

I think the real problem is that cops are usually ex military. Folks that usually get off on power. If we had cops that were just regular folks, things would be different, but then again who the fuck would want to be a cop?

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[ZachPruckowski]

The problem is that at venues like that, and at campaign rallies or other large events (even concerts), the police work closely with the organizers and the event security. While they're not subservient to the organizers, they do listen to them. In fact, the organizers probably had to pay the sheriff's office (or the campus police, or whoever) for the protection. When it works, it works rather well. When it doesn't work, we get something like this.

Not that this is going to be a popular point, but when someone is holding a private event, they have the right to kick you out. This happens at football games or basketball games, and this happens at concerts quite a bit. It can happen just as easily at times at a political event. If they rent the venue and have any barrier for entry (checking student IDs, tickets, whatever), they can throw you out.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[JWSmythe]

Well, you've written pretty much what I wanted to say.

    In his actions, there was a justifiable use of force against him. He resisted several officers, and was making an effort to resist their instructions (leave).

    When they had him on the ground, handcuffed, he was now in control. Up until this point, they could have used the taser with justified force. Now that he was on the ground, in control, he was just being loud.

    I didn't hear any zapping. I didn't see the convulsions, although the video I watched (first link) did not have a clear shot of the student. He was only screaming "OW! OW! OW!".

    I typical use of force would be to control the resisting person with pressure points and positive control. Every law enforcement officer is taught them. When I went through law enforcement school in Florida, it was a long, required part of the training.

    Florida has an escalation of force matrix. It's really very simple. You are allowed to use one step above what the other person is using. If they are resisting, you may use hand-to-hand tactics. If they are resisting with force, you may escalate to non-lethal weapons (tazer, or pepper spray)

    From what I could see, it appeared they were using pressure points and positive control, which yes, would have made him say "Ow!"

    Now, if he had a weapon, and rushed the stage, they could have escalated the force to lethal force immediately. i.e., shot him before he got to the stage.

    He got hurt (Ow!), but he was being an ass. He was pushing the issue ("Are you a members of Skull and Bones?!?"), and wasn't leaving the speaker a chance to answer. Someone mentioned that he was a journalism student. A good journalist needs to ask questions, and receive answers. If he was a journalist, he would likely be fired for his actions, which I hope his teacher told him.

    When he was asked to leave the mic, he could have simply said "Thank you for your time.", and walked away, even if they did escort him from the building.

    You are right, if he had stated his question, and waited for an answer, he may have still been asked to leave, but the speaker should have simply laughed, and said "oh no, I'm not.". Diffused situation. That's up to a good speaker to know how to control his audience, but sometimes you'll have an audience member who doesn't play well (like this student).

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

> You greatly oversimplify the situation by saying, "he was resisting arrest."
And you miss point 5. :

5. Being pinned to the ground by at least 3 officers he kept on yelling, so they threatend to taze him and finally did so.

You're right, the first 4 Steps he was escalating the situation and the police acted appropriately. If the reaction to 5. had been carry the guy out of the room, it would have never made it to slashdot.

But that's not what happend. They decided to inflict great pain to a person which was in their custody. That's the scandal!

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[heinousjay]

So, I'm curious, what's the rest of the story? How did you piss off the cop? Did you do it by ignoring a lawful order? Give him a funny look? Hit him? Because really, you're leaving out the part that gives your credibility.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[gordo3000]

screaming OW can be done when hit with a low power stun gun. the problem wtih calling htem all tasers is you begin to think of something that does more than stings.

these are safer than using pressure points you learn. too much adrenaline means it goes from positive pain compliance to accidental(and usually severe) nerve or joint injuries. this causes the same amount of pain but in a controlled manner.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[bikerider7]

At what point has the police become a protector of the elected, nearing gestapo practices, instead of being a protector of the people. You totally misunderstand the purpose of policing.

Police are the private security force of political leaders, and the wealthy. Don't expect police protection if you live in a poor neighborhood next to a crack house. On the other hand, if you are a Senator, you can have the police electrocute anyone who gets in your face.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Scrameustache]

Have we lost all touch with our freedoms that we think we are living in a police state that one can be arrested and detained for a non-threatening reason? I was modded down as troll for calling this fascism, so, yes:

Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton has written that:

                * "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."[9]

Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:

                * "1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one's group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination."[10]

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[heelrod]

I just asked if his son called him on that day or not. It was fathers day. It's a mute point dude. If I had done something illegal I would have gone to jail and been "arrested" for that don't you think?

the credibility is in the fact that I was arrested for J-Walking. Which is the point that they can arrest you for any reason.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[ejtttje]

lead into a third when the intervention occurs Actually, he *finishes* the third, and is already stepping away from the mic when they move in on him. *Completely* unnecessary. Disgraceful police action.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Otto]

From what I'm reading elsewhere, the student had already raised a fuss and got Kerry to say he'd answer his questions when they said that they weren't taking any more questions due to time restraints, and then proceeded to ask two questions (which were answered) instead of just the one (like everybody else did), and was about one minute into a rant regarding freemasonry or some other crackpot conspiracy theory before security came in to get him off the microphone and let the proceeding continue. Oh, and yeah, he barged in without having (and paying for) a ticket in the first place, which was why security was there around him anyway.

This guy was creating a public disturbance. He deserved what he got, IMO. He'll also be charged and probably fined for it.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Supergood-ape]

Why would I get "30kV on (my) back" when I go with them peacefully? That's just dumb. See, YOU are the one getting tased, I'm not so stupid that I think I can argue my way out of an arrest. That kind of stupidity seems to only occur in people who also think it's natural to struggle with the police when arrested.

"Asshole."

I appreciate you signing your post.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[walt-sjc]

Mods, that's not flamebait... In fact, I can see nothing wrong with the comment or reasoning - it's dead on.

This student's behavior / attitude is what got him into trouble. It wasn't just making a comment and asking a question, it was HOW he did so, asking questions in a loud fast-paced run-on without giving Kerry a chance to respond, cutting him off when Kerry tried. It was the tone of the voice, manor of speech, body language, etc. Disruptive style behavior indicative of mental instability / hostility.

That said, it was handled POORLY. At most, he should have been simply ejected, not arrested. He got tasered for resisting arrest, which was understandable given the behavior I saw on the video.

In a very timely parallel, I went to my local city council meeting last night. During "Open Forum," we had someone who behaved EXACTLY the same. Same body language, same speech patterns, etc. He was obviously mentally disturbed by the content of his comments. How did the city council handle it? Perfectly. They listened to him with respect, let him finish his 5 minute long rant (including references to Timothy McViegh,) thanked him, and the guy left.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[heinousjay]

Well, since jaywalking is illegal in most places, getting arrested for that isn't really too much of an issue. I was just curious about what you claim to be underlying reasons. Typically, you aren't going to get hassled unless you hassle the cop first, although obviously there are exceptions.

Just saying "I didn't do nothing" hardly makes you unique amongst those who have been arrested. Prison is full of people who claim innocence nonstop. Still, cops are people too. They make mistakes, just like everyone else. I don't condemn the whole system based on that aspect.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[sail4evr]

As soon as Kerry said he would answer the question, the student was justified with staying at the mic and the police hould have backed off rather than inflame the situation. For the police to drag him off after being legitimized by Kerry is definately an act of overzealous police officers going beyond what was necessary. To then taze him after that is the very type of police state we are trying to avoid. The officer in charge was defintely not looking at the big picture there and should have called off his men. He should definately be reprimanded!

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Duffy13]

The problem is he went from being erratic but still civil, to being frantic and out of control. At that point no one present would know what his agenda is or if he was a danger to anyone at the forum. So they first attempted to remove him from the premise. Instead of allowing himself to be removed and making a show of being "quieted" he choose to fight the officers present. If you notice he even walks on his own for a bit then tries to rush past the officers again, which is an immediate danger sign, implying that he is trying to get to something/someone for specific reason. There was several minutes, starting at the podium, of him struggling with the officers before they elected to use a taser as a last resort since he would not cooperate.

This was not about a democratic discussion or freedom, he sounded like an angry zealot from his manner and actions, not a man looking for rational discourse.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Dravik]

Being tazered isn't really that painful, it is very unpleasant though. And yes I have been tazered.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[terrymr]

One remarkable thing with laws in most of the US is that the one piece of the English common law that didn't survive here is the right to resist an unlawful arrest. Seems kind of perverse when you think about it - you can be arrested for no reason and have to just go with it until they decide to release you.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[MrCrassic]

From the videos that were shown, this looks perfectly correct. For those that think that the police acted with too much brutality, compare this situation to the issue that happened a few months (a year?) back with the UCLA student who was tasered for simply resisting to show an ID.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Overzeetop]

You must be new here.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Congratulations. You have just fallen for an amateur and rather obvious publicity stunt. The guy was trying to prove your fears of authoritarianism, but all he managed to do was prove that police will not just stand idly by while you make a complete dick of yourself at other's expense.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[PurPaBOO]

At what point has the police become a protector of the elected, nearing gestapo practices, instead of being a protector of the people?

When your fine nation became a police state.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[anagama]

What will it be like when you're cast in jail despite your non-resistance? The constitution is on the outs so your lawyer might not be of much help.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[midwestnets]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297203,00.html The police aren't so sure thier behavior was right or they wouldn't be trying to scare him away with felony charges.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[rahvin112]

6 Police officers couldn't have carried him out of that stadium. With 10 they might have been able to do it but some of the police would have been hurt by him punching, kicking and possibly biting. When you can't put handcuffs on someone with 6 officers you have to do something to immobilize the subject, and based on how he was acting the guy in question wasn't feeling pain, they put him in a couple pain holds to try to force the handcuffs on and he didn't react other than getting more violent. His behavior actually makes me question whether he was on drugs, potentially PCP or Coke, as both tend to dull pain sensation.

Once someone has stepped off into "berserker" mode, like this idiot did, the police have two options: Immobilize him or kill him. They can immobilize him using various techniques, the old fashioned way, the way favored in the 60's was to take a wooden trunchen and beat him till he's unconscious or the pain causes him to submit. The newer options available to police are pepper spray and tazers, pepper spray can't be used indoors (unless you want to evacuate everyone). So the police had three total options to end the conflict, kill him, beat him senseless, or tazer him. I think they did the right thing.

There is NO reason an officer has to deliberately put himself in harms way to try to subdue a subject physically when there are technological means to do so. I expect the argument about that being part of the job description, but it isn't. Getting in fist fights with subjects isn't in the job description. Arresting subjects is in the description, if that means tazers, nightsticks, fists or a firearm are involved then the police have to choose and their obligation is to choose the one that will injure themselves and the subject the least. Regardless of what people around here think, Tazers are a very effective measure to subdue a subject that is resisting that not only protects the officers from harm, but the subject as well. The cops could have went all "LA" style (and pulled nightsticks) on the subject, but they deliberately choose a method that would defuse the situation with the least risk of harm to everyone involved. There are instances of Tazer abuse around the country, but this is clearly an appropriate use of the Tazer system.

Don't forget the person in question was likely trespassing as the event wasn't a public one or had previously been ejected, that's why the police followed him in.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Garridan]

From what I'm reading elsewhere... ...he barged in without having (and paying for) a ticket in the first place, which was why security was there around him anyway Citation, please? The video seemed pretty clear-cut to me, with respect to him ranting & asking too many questions. WTFV. He didn't rant for a minute about freemasonry. He asked the question, "were you a member of the Skull & Bones society with Bush". The rant was about election fraud, not freemason conspiracy theory.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Johnny5000]

At what point has the police become a protector of the elected, nearing gestapo practices, instead of being a protector of the people.

I think that would be January 1, 10,000 BC

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[truthsearch]

he got tasered because he actively resisted arrest.

Police are allowed to taser an individual who is under complete physical control by multiple police officers? More than one police officer was on top of him and the only problem at this point was his hands not being behind his back to be cuffed. He was tortured for resisting, not tased to be brought under control.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[E 99]

I can agree that he was resisting arrest, but in this case there was no need for the arrest in the first place. Have we lost all touch with our freedoms that we think we are living in a police state that one can be arrested and detained for a non-threatening reason?

They started, not by trying to arrest him, but escort him out. They were there to escort him out before he even started with his question, so I think we're really missing a big part of how this all started. It seems like he must have crashed the event in the first place, and was taking the mic when it was someone else's legitimate turn to speak.

They ultimately arrested him for trying to incite a riot, which he almost did, as you can see in some of the camera shots, a number of students had gotten up and were yelling at the cops and moving towards them as the kid is shouting "ow, ow, ow, ow, police brutality!"

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[EvilStein]

"I can agree that he was resisting arrest, but in this case there was no need for the arrest in the first place."

Except that if he had just walked out, things might have been fine. He started screaming "They're arresting me! WHY?! Oh gosh, what have I done?!" like a fucking tool when at that time it is clear that he was *NOT* under arrest. He was making a spectacle of himself and they were escorting him out. He started jumping around and acting like a nutjob, and it appears that he was placed under arrest *after* he started his monkey-boy antics.

This attention whore got exactly what he asked for. Also note the other "I'm gonna get some sweet footage for YouTube!" droids standing around. That's what seems to be happening. A couple people that think they're brave (they're not, actually) will yell "Why are you doing this?" and "I demand your badge number!" but for the most part people just whip out cell phones and cameras.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[jdcaron]

Yes and it's the way you may fight the things when injustice happens suddenly like that. By the way, this video remember me a lot this one : http://youtube.com/watch?v=EH6AYVn2yw4 . I don't know which one shock me the most but both of them are similar cases. Seriously, that senator is mature enough to handle any questions. So, why the agents try to handle that for him? Imagine that, if you try hard to prevent something. It might lead to an environment that lead to worst situations than expected. As an example, you decide to protect your home from criminals and finally the system is so strong that it kill accidentally young kids that overlap the fence to get their balls. My opinion on that is : let the things go as they usually go. The people is responsible enough handle the things as normal. If the guy would had been that disturbing. People would probably finally shut him by hooting.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[NitroWolf]

No, Volatire said "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

Beatrice Hall said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." in the book "Friends of Voltaire"

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[dapho]

You clearly exaggerate everything you watched, and your "arguments" (I'm more inclined to just say you were offended because you sleep with policemen) follow suit. It's ridiculous that there should have even been a counter to judge this so called escalation by. What would have been absolutely appropriate in this case is if he had been forcibly escorted out of the auditorium, not arrested for violating the attention spans of a few kindergarten dropout cops.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Puff of Logic]

Once someone has stepped off into "berserker" mode, like this idiot did, the police have two options: Immobilize him or kill him. "Berserker mode"? Please, this was a college kid waving a book and ranting about politics in the style normal to college-level political passions. Short of producing a weapon, he was at worst guilty of extreme rudeness, the sort of thing that can be quite easily be dealt with using basic social disapproval. I think a lot of people underestimate the effect of having one's peers react badly to one's actions.

What I find abhorrent is the idea that physically removing someone from a microphone is somehow a reasonable response in a civilised country. What's so bad about refusing to proceed until he yields the floor? Is "fairness" to other speakers really a justification for the application of force?

This was a complete over-reaction, and my viewing of the video did not make evident any tangible threat to the speaker or audience that would justify an escalation to force. And, unlike most of the people posting to this topic, I say that as a person with real-world law enforcement experience.

Shameful.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[2names]

No, because there is an intermediate step between "free to go" and "arrested" and that is called "detained." Police are allowed to "detain" anyone they want for just about any reason. It is usually left up to the officer's discretion as to whether someone should be detained. Any lawyers out there want to clarify this? Am I way off base?

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[bberens]

Granted I didn't RTFA but I wonder if he was resisting arrest or the cops yelled "STOP RESISTING!!!" as they repeatedly tasered his lifeless body on the floor.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[jwilty]

The posted comments have degenerated into two separate issues: 1) Should the police have intervened in the first place? This discussion centers on the rights of the individual in society and should not bring in issues related to the use of the taser. 2) Was the police force excessive? Arguments should not involve what the subject was doing when the police intervened. Once they asked him to leave, he resisted. Discuss the harms/benefits of using the taser on a person who is resisting arrest, but don't bring up the cause for the arrest, it makes no difference - only the actions of the person and the threat to police/other people after the process has been initiated are relevant.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Supergood-ape]

"Police are allowed to taser an individual who is under complete physical control by multiple police officers?"

He wasn't, so what does that question have to do with this case?

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Supergood-ape]

"What will it be like when you're cast in jail despite your non-resistance?"

I imagine it will be pretty crappy, like most jails are.

"The constitution is on the outs so your lawyer might not be of much help."

THAT is the best you could come up with? I respectfully disagree (which is my way of saying that was a pretty ridiculous response).

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Scrameustache]

From what I'm reading elsewhere, the student had already raised a fuss and got Kerry to say he'd answer his questions when they said that they weren't taking any more questions due to time restraints, and then proceeded to ask two questions (which were answered) instead of just the one (like everybody else did), and was about one minute into a rant regarding freemasonry or some other crackpot conspiracy theory before security came in to get him off the microphone and let the proceeding continue. Oh, and yeah, he barged in without having (and paying for) a ticket in the first place, which was why security was there around him anyway.

This guy was creating a public disturbance. He deserved what he got, IMO. He'll also be charged and probably fined for it. John Kerry's office just sent this statement from the senator: In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way. I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but again 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. I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of answering him when he was taken into custody. I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured. I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[oni]

the only problem at this point was his hands not being behind his back to be cuffed.

Yeah. They couldn't get his hands behind his back. They tried to, but they couldn't. If they had cuffed him, then they would have picked him up and carried him out. But they couldn't get him cuffed until they tasered him.

He was tortured

Please don't dilute that word by throwing it around in such a nonchalant manner.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Supergood-ape]

"In the context of a lecture, it is either the speaker's or moderator's job to do that. Not the police's."

I can see why you posted AC, because that's exactly wrong and I wouldn't want something that wrong following me around either.

This is EXACTLY what the police are there for, and no it isn't the speaker's job (he's there to speak) or the moderators (his job description does not include physical intervention on unruly guests) it's the cops.

No, you couldn't be more wrong about that.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Seumas]

One good way to piss a cop off is to say that you don't have any identification or refuse to present your identification. We've unofficially fallen into the "show me your documents" police state. Worse, as this video demonstrates, police HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE ABOUT THE LAW.

Police are not lawyers or judges. They often infringe on your rights; often because they don't know any better. Police are nothing more than thoughtless henchmen. All you can do is follow whatever they command of you and hope that someone up the chain sets things right.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[oni]

Rights are rights in virtue of our freedom from government, not from others.

So, I have the right to walk on the sidewalk. Does that mean I have the right to deny others the use of the sidewalk? If the police come along and say, "sir, please allow others to walk on this sidewalk" are you going to say that my right to use the sidewalk is really a freedom from government and therefore the government doesn't have the right to ask me to move?

I doubt you'll say that if you're trying to pass on the sidewalk.

The same thing happened here. When he entered that auditorium, he entered into a contract with everyone there. Part of the contract says, "you will be quiet while Kerry talks." Part of the contract says, "you will queue up to ask questions, instead of just shouting questions." Part of the contract says, "you will ask a question and then let someone else have a turn."

Part of the government's job is to enforce contracts. That's what the security people did here. Then this guy choose to escalate the situation. He was frankly quite immature. It saddens me that so few people see that.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[truthsearch]

But they couldn't get him cuffed until they tasered him.

Please google for "taser standard operating procedure" and show us one instance where tasing while under control is allowed. He was pinned to the ground.

Please don't dilute that word by throwing it around in such a nonchalant manner.

Being unnecessarily shocked with electricity by a government force is a form of torture in my view. Please don't ignore the word because you feel the force was necessary when S.O.P. states it's not.

If this weren't a case of excessive force it wouldn't have about 1000 comments already. The consensus is quite clear that there was a problem here.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[psykocrime]

That said, the guy was resisting arrest,

Good for him. He hadn't done anything criminal, and he *should* resist arrest.


and should have complied with the officers.


Bullshit. A cop is just another punk-ass bitch with a little tin badge, a gun, and a taser. They aren't
special, and if they're infringing your rights, you should resist them with every means available to you.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[SeaCrazy]

You put the Volt in Voltaire!

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[synthespian]

Interesting.

I mean, what the fuck? In the U.S., the police comes up to you and says your time's up when asking a question in a forum is up and then, if you delay a bit, they arrest you based on not complying with a police officer who was asking you to comply with what law, you say? Oh, then the officer proceeds to arrest the man for "resisting arrest"? This is so fucking devoid of logic! What was the law being broken? The law that says you must comply when being asked to comply, of course! Not complying with a police officer that admonished you that you were not complying...with him...and that you should, (but based on what LAW?) will get you arrested!

So, to make things clear: the law being broken was not the law that was broken when the officer asked him to comply with the law, because no law was broken. The law that was broken was the law that says you must comply when an officer asks you to comply with him or her when asked to comply with the law. The law that was never broken was the first that led the officer to require compliance. But then the citizen broke a SECOND law when he did not comply with the officer when asked to comply with the FIRST law that the officer acted upon to order the man to comply. If a law wasn't being broken, the officer would not ask him to comply with the law. THEREFORE the man broke TWO LAWS, and such a dangerous individual MUST be TASERED. LEST they risk a TERRORIST ATTACK from such a dangerous person, better to handcuff and put him to jail! Hell, he's lucky they don't send him to GITMO!

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[alienw]

Oh, come on. The guy was trying to be a disruptive douchebag. You can tell just from all the commotion he created as he was removed by the cops. It's one thing to ask a legitimate question. The guy launched into an incredibly long, whiny, and disrespectful tirade with no end in sight, and then resisted attempts to remove him, effectively disrupting the entire event. Free speech and hooliganism are quite different concepts, and you seem to be unable to distinguish between them.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[raehl]

Now, point to the law that makes hogging the microphone grounds for an arrest.

It isn't. Not leaving when the people in control of the property you are on ask you to leave is grounds for arrest. Yes, everyone has rights to free speech. But people also have property rights, and when I ask you to get your ass off my property, that trumps your right to free speech.

He was asked to leave. He didn't. Everything after that was standard procedure.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Gigaflynn]

he might have been resisting arrest, but who wants to be arrested for speaking?
this isn't communist russia we're living in.

Those cops should have been the ones arrested

but we'll probably get air-striked if we complain...

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[wsuschmitt]

I was outraged when I first saw this on Headline News this morning, but my outrage soon turned to disgust, which gave way to mild amusement when I started seeing the story, from literally different angles, on FOX News and CNBC. The guy was an ass, and you can see that the audience didn't want to deal with him anymore and were clapping as the police led him away. This post puts the actions and consequenses together plainly and concisely. HE escalated the consequences for his actions 4 times. Time #4 was cause for use of a taser. No guns were pulled, no bullets were fired because he didn't show an action that needed those consequenses. Great post!

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[moxley]

You should try watching videos of the event, which are available. There is a crappy one and at least one high quality one. Your synopsis is incorrect.

The student made no mention of freemasonry. He asked a relevant and important question about Kerry's early concession of the election (which was fishy and exactly what Kerry promised his supporters he would NOT do); now that time has passed and there have been findings from several independent investigations that indicate tampering, official misconduct, and disenfranchisement (among other things).

  Yes, he was annoying, but he was also full of passion and emotional. If Kerry didn't have a problem with it, they why do you? If he violated the rules, fine - but the way this was handled, tasering someone who is on the ground was over the top and excessive.

A lot of people talk about asking the tough questions, and about stopping what is happening in our country; but most people just type stuff like this on the net. At least this kid had the balls to actually try to ask some tough questions. It's too bad he wasn't more eloquent

The second question he asked (and what he appeared to be attacked for right after asking by the police) was about which year Kerry was a Skull and Bones member.

Skull and Bones is not a "crackpot conspiracy theory" - both Bush and Kerry have admitted that they were Bonesmen. These people go on to the most powerful positions in the country, actually, in the world.

This is a secret society, to which members swear a lifelong oath that is supposed to be held before all else. There is really only one need for this sort of secrecy - a secrecy that still binds our 'president' to this day.

If you want to know what Skull and Bones is, I highly recommend the book "Fleshing out Skull and Bones," http://www.fleshingoutskullandbones.com/

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[jackspenn]

Actually this is a clear case of where courts have ruled that speech can be limited. Let me explain. It is illegal to pass a law that says NAZIs cannot hold a rally in your small town, because that singles out a specific group. But it is perfectly exceptable for the same town to pass a law that says you must keep your events below a certain db after 10PM to 6AM. Why? Because such a law applies to all parties and groups equally. So before you say his freedom of speech was violated, ask yourself did he get less time or was he unfairly treated in comparison to others waiting to ask questions? That answer is "no", they had to stop at a minute, he had to stop at a minute.

OK, so now the observations:

1). The police failed to give a reasonable warning of what would happen if he did not leave and they seemed to be a bit excessive, nothing to sue over, they should drop charges, kid should not press his luck and let it go.

2). Kerry is not a leader, a leader would not have mumbled (and he did mumble), a leader would have been assertive and said "Hey, police knock it off, I am going to answer his question provided he is quite and willing to let the next person ask their question when I am done, if at any point he resumes being loud and disorderly, then you have permission to take him out side and prevent him from reentering, no need to beat him, no need to charge him, his punishment is just that he will have to leave."

3). It shows how weak people are and why America is becoming a land of pussies. Listen, I think it is insane to suggest that Kerry won on 2004, hell I think it is insane that people think Gore won in 2000. I think that kid was a bit off balance shall we say, but unlike all those liberals in the crowd or the old women who talked rather then acted, I would have gotten up and acted, I would have gotten between the cops and the kid and asked both the be cool. I have been beaten a few times by either the police or the civilian in such situations, but I act when I think things are out of line, I believe the cops did not have to go so hard after him, I believe they are pressing a harsh charge of resisting arrest, when they could have let him go. Again, they guy is an idiot, Kerry lost in '04, Bush one fair, and it is a libertarian who hates liberals that would have stood up in that room, while all the liberals sat idle, which is what liberals do, sit and do nothing, sit and bitch and sometimes smoke stuff and play in a band.

- Eric

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Creedo]

Would it be OK if I pitch a tent on your front lawn
So, YOU were the little peeping tom I had to chase away! Stay off my lawn, dammit! /joke

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[hswerdfe]

Disruptive style behavior indicative of mental instability / hostility. obviously :
  1. your qualified to make that diagnosis
  2. have enough information to make it

any way you sound like you have never been to a real QA or debate or all candidates meeting, etc...
The format of about half of the "Questions" from the public is :

Long hurried rant about subject X and why Candidate A and B suck at this issue, terminating in the moderator repeatedly yelling "TIME", or a hurried question in the last 5 seconds.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[antibryce]

Looks like it was after they hauled him out.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[hswerdfe]

1. He wasn't asking questions. He was making rhetorical statements I am not going to argue about the rest of your post but.
This is what actually happens at political debates, QA sessions, etc...

When the opportunity comes for the public to ask questions, the moderator usually has to assign a time limit before hand.

The "Questions" from the public often take up 99% of there 2min time limit with a rant about something, in an effort to "Frame" the question, followed by the mic being cut off, or a hurried question at the end.

in reality real news journalist do this also, its just they usually don't have a hard 2minute barrier to deal with.

This is done (in part) because politicians don't answer the question being asked. They answer the question they wish was asked on a related topic. The ability to "Frame" the question properly makes it harder for them to avoid or duck the question.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[oni]

When you enter that auditorium do you enter into a contract with me to do what I want you to do?

Only if it's your auditorium and/or your event. Allow me to correct your analogy. If you set up a Nude Dancing for John Kerry event and I show up, then I am agreeing to at least accept nude dancing for Kerry. If I go to your event (of my own free will) and then start shouting about how Jesus is going to send you to hell, what are you going to do?? Of course, you're going to ask me to leave because I've violated the contract.

Is that really so hard to understand?? If I refuse to leave, you're going to ask security to escort me out. Is that hard for you to understand? If I then fight with security and begin waving a bible above my head, then security is going to pick me up to carry me out. And if I keep fighting, I'll get tasered.

was this really a majority rules decision

Nothing that I said had anything even remotely to do with "majority rules."

What about the rights of the minorities?

exactly. Why should HE be allowed to monopolize and dominate the event and prevent others from asking Kerry questions? He shouldn't be allowed to do that. Why are you arguing this point??

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[walt-sjc]

1. your qualified to make that diagnosis

Why yes, yes I am. It doesn't take a PHD is psychiatry to identify someone who is not behaving like a normal well-adjusted person would behave.

2. have enough information to make it

I've seen the videos. Someone who is mentally stable, non-hostile and rational does not behave that way. You think otherwise??? The guy was ranting and raving and then started kicking and screaming. He didn't get arrested for just "talking fast." If he would have gone quietly they probably would have just ejected him.

All the other people in that forum didn't act in a way that got them arrested and tasered, but he did.

any way you sound like you have never been to a real QA or debate or all candidates meeting, etc...

That is a pretty ridiculous conclusion given my above comment.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[American Scum]

Which is exactly what I was thinking about slashdot, but... Not that it would happen, but if every citizen was to be required to be a cop for two years of their life - what measures and brutalities do you think would happen, and at what rate, while they figure out how to go home uninjured or, better yet, living, throughout each shift? We'd probably have a good amount more tazered and bullet-shot citizens.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[oni]

show us one instance where tasing while under control is allowed.

I'm sure it's not allowed.

Also, they aren't allowed to taser people an the international space station.

(in case you don't get my point, you're supposed to say, "but, but he wasn't on the space station!!" to which I reply, "and he wasn't under control - no cuffs = no control. That's the bottom line. You're just going to have to deal with it.)

Being unnecessarily shocked with electricity by a government force is a form of torture in my view.

Oh, I agree with you. And I'll be really angry just as soon as you show me an example of someone being unnecessarily shocked (with electricity, thanks for adding that clarification, that was really useful and added a lot to the conversation because it makes it crystal clear that you aren't referring to being shocked by a goatse image).

This guy was not unnecessarily shocked. He was unnecessarily rude and childish. The shocking was used to make him stop moving so they could cuff him. All of that was his choice. The police did nothing but react to him. Just deal with it.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[k1e0x]

Bullshit. A cop is just another punk-ass bitch with a little tin badge, a gun, and a taser. They aren't
special, and if they're infringing your rights, you should resist them with every means available to you.
-- Amen.

Sorry to get all Godwin on ya.. but should the Jews have resisted the Nazi's legal orders to arrest them?

If cops are abusing your rights they are no different than thugs.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Supergood-ape]

He was resisting, which by default means "not under control".

So no, brave little AC, I'm not claiming anything, I don't have to.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[orgelspieler]

We should start a movement for an Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the right to resist unlawful arrest. Actually, I'm flabbergasted that this wasn't explicitly included in the original Bill of Rights. I suppose the due process clause and prohibition of illegal seizures sort of imply that there should never be any unlawful arrests in the first place.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[lena_10326]

. It also didn't stop them from lying in court until their own stories didn't line up. luckily for me, the jury took more time to elect a foreman than it took to come back with a verdict of not guilty.

The public image of police has been on a downward slide since the 60's. There is good reason: too many abuses of power.

But... what can we expect when we blessed them with ultimate power? We placed ourselves in a position of subservience when we gave them their mandate and skirted our responsibility to police ourselves.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[walt-sjc]

There are many laws in different states that may apply. Disturbing the peace, public nuisance, disorderly conduct, etc. Not sure what laws Florida has, but I'm sure they have something.

As I stated in another post, I feel that the police handled this case poorly. In a very similar situation at a city council meeting last night, the irrational citizen ranted and raved for about 5 minutes while the councilors calmly and respectfully listened. When he finished, they thanked him and he left. No arrest, nothing, even though the police were present.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[psykocrime]

One remarkable thing with laws in most of the US is that the one piece of the English common law that didn't survive here is the right to resist an unlawful arrest. Seems kind of perverse when you think about it - you can be arrested for no reason and have to just go with it until they decide to release you.

That is exactly why more people need to understand that "the law" or "the constitution", etc., do not define your rights. Your rights are your
rights, period, end of story, full-stop. If you are guilty of no crime, the police have NO authority to arrest you, detain you, or otherwise
fuck with you unless YOU grant it too them. Now here's the rub: most people are willing to grant the police that (temporary) authority if they
believe they are innocent, because they believe they can get a lawyer, have their day in court, and be acquitted. And 9 times out of 10, that may
be the best approach. But it's still a must to remember that the police have no intrinisic authority whatsoever, and if they violate your rights, you
have every right to resist in any and every way possible.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[PJ1216]

1. He wasn't asking questions. He was making rhetorical statements. He was preaching. He was robbing other people of the chance to actually ask Kerry questions. What is the punishment for that? Simple, they take the mic away from you and give it to someone with something constructive to say. No taser involved. he stated that he was setting up background information. thats *not* a rhetorical statement.

3. When security took him by the arm and gently began to escort him from the venue, he began pitching an absolute hissy fit. ok, now we're into interesting territory. You are not allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater, because that insights panic. And you are not allowed be hysterical in an auditorium for the same reason. He was shouting and waving his arms and running around the auditorium. That is completely out of line. He does not have the right to do that. What is the punishment? Simple, the police are going to restrain him for everyone's safety and forcibly remove him. Still no taser involved. And once again, it was his choice to go to step 3. When the police put their hands on him, he could have walked out of the venue and that would be the end of it. But no, he choose to escalate to 3. Did you watch the video? there was nothing gentle about it. if he was so obnoxious, how do you contend they could get him one foot from where he was by doing nothing more than "gentle." Also, at no point was he running around. He was always surrounded by officers being forcefully removed all the while saying if they let him go, he'll leave quietly. Also, he was placed under arrest well before being put to the ground. He was placed under arrest before he even got to the back of the auditorium. You can hear the one officer telling him he's under arrest. he reacted frantically asking what did i do and at the same time saying if you let me go i'll leave. *THEY* chose to escalate it. He offered to leave quietly, but they wouldn't allow it.

4. The police get him to the back of the auditorium and the whole thing is about 10 seconds from being over and then einstein breaks free from the police and tries to run back down the isle. I'm sorry, but at that point, the consequences of all of his actions have reached the level where a taser is appropriate. The police had a duty to subdue and restrain this asshat and get him outside. He was restrained before getting tasered. Asshat.

If I had been in his shoes, I would have asked Kerry a pithy question - I would have made my point that way. Then I would have preached rhetorically on my blog. But then, I'm not a dick. You may not be a dick, but you're a non-dick who doesn't mind when people's rights are trampled on. If it was SO clearly his fault, i highly doubt Kerry would be continually saying "i'll answer the question, its an important question" nor would you hear the crowd yelling at the police to stop or yelling "police brutality." Personally, i was sickened when I watched that. Anyone who can watch that and blame the victim has bigger problems going on.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[apt142]

That said, it was handled POORLY. At most, he should have been simply ejected, not arrested. He got tasered for resisting arrest, which was understandable given the behavior I saw on the video.

Given his behavior, I wonder if simple ejection would have been enough. He was obviously upset and figuratively foaming at the mouth. The officers probably figured that if he's putting up this much of a fight on the way to the door, he's likely to be persistent in causing a disturbance after the initial ejection. That's probably when they slapped the cuffs on him. I'd be surprised if any of the officers thought the charges would genuinely stick.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Alaska Jack]

Wrong on so many levels.

The "contract" is actually between the speaker and the host -- in this case, the University. The speaker agrees to come to campus. In return, the host agrees to maintain and enforce certain forum rules. If they did not do this, the speaker would not agree to come to campus, and everyone loses: The speaker loses an audience, the host loses an opportunity for education (their reason for existence), and the audience loses a chance to learn.

"Doesn't it bother you just a little to have the police deciding what people can say and what they can't?"

Disingenuous. The police don't decide WHAT you can say -- they enforce rules relating to HOW and WHEN you can say it. I.e., no screaming obscenities at the candidate, speaking out of turn, etc.

You need to keep in mind an important distinction. This was not public property, like a sidewalk. Different rules apply.

(And I should note that even on a sidewalk, the police can still arrest you for disorderly conduct.)

    - Alaska Jack

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[psykocrime]

He was unnecessarily rude and childish.


So what? Those aren't crimes in and of themselves.

The shocking was used to make him stop moving so they could cuff him.

They had no valid reason to cuff him in the first place. Even if you accept that they had a valid reason
to physically remove him from the venue, they were doing a pretty good job of herding him towards the door
before throwing him to the ground and tasering him. All they had to do was keep doing what they were doing, move
him outside, and then not let him back inside. No arrest was necessary or warranted, and no tasering was necessary.

All of that was his choice. The police did nothing but react to him. Just deal with it.

He was - from what I saw - moving along with the herd of cops, towards the door. Once that was the case, no
further escalation by the cops was necessary unless he had begun to strike at them, or brandish a weapon, etc.

Once they threw him on the ground, they were well into "excessive use of force" and he would have been justified
(and anybody intervening on his behalf would have been equally justified) to defend himself by any means necessary.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[AudioInfecktion]

The lesson here is that neither party cares about the citizen, regardless of political orientation, sympathies, etc. They only care about satisfying their lobbyists, and raking in the treats from it. It's time to start voting for individuals that care about representing your interests. A party line vote is throwing your vote away, even if your party wins. Registering for a party just lets them know that they do not have to earn your support or even attempt to represent you.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Maxo-Texas]

He was saying that the original charges of "smelling funny" are dropped and they keep the "resisting arrest" charge (which would not have occurred in the first place without the bogus charge they were using to arrest you on).

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[oni]

He was - from what I saw - moving along with the herd of cops, towards the door.

bullshit. Watch it again. The black cop has to just about pick him up. He fights that cop all the way to the back of the auditorium - and here's a key point: had he just let the black guy carry him outside, that would be the end of it. But no, watch carefully, he jumps away from the black guy and then turns and runs back toward the crowd. That's when they finally tackled him and the female cop pulls the taser. Even there, he could have just chilled the fuck out and they probably would have just cuffed him, taken him outside, maybe made him sit in a car for a while, then let him go.

You really need to watch the video more closely.

At 44 seconds the one cop picks him up to carry him out.

At 50 seconds he breaks away from the cop and tries to run back toward the crowd.

You're just so wrong about this. Everything that *he* did earned him that tasering. He is 100% at fault.

Those aren't crimes in and of themselves.

correct. And he wasn't arrested for that. The punishment for being a rude asshole and taking up other people's Q and A time was that he his mic was cut. That's it. That's all that had to happen.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[psykocrime]

Why do you fear mongering liberals continue to twist everything into a 'police state' and gestapo/nazi reference.

They're probably just trying to offset the fear-mongering fascists who have turned this country into
a Nazi / Gestapo style police-state.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[bussdriver]

I have seen hundreds of similar situations and they are handled correctly. let them rant out their time; even turn off the mic; sometimes you can get them to SIT DOWN etc.

Telling him he was under arrest is was only made an upset person more upset. He is likely NOT a nutcase there are millions of seriously upset people in the country right now for good reason. Stupid way to handle the situation; the cops should be soundly reprimanded.

The most STUPID thing you can do is to treat a highly motivated (usually upset/anger is why they are highly motivated) individual in a way that disrespects their cause while punishing them for it by being removed or even worse arrested. Quite often the cause they fight for has been elevated to a selfless level so you can expect selfless actions (which in popular contexts are considered heroic.) Telling him he was being arrested would set off a large number of people.

I have seen 100s of people go into rants wasting everybody's time and ONLY went they are unpopular does the mob mentality to abuse the person sets in.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Supergood-ape]

"and show us one instance where tasing while under control is allowed. He was pinned to the ground."

And that, I'm afraid, is where your ignorance is exposed.

At NO time has "pinned to the ground" ever been the same thing as "under control". It's nice to pretend like one is the other to further a hyperbolic rant, but reality is something else entirely.

Pinning a guy to the ground doesn't magically make him cooperative and safe to handle. As I've told others, people get seriously hurt when they make that mistake, which is why professionals who make it their job to control people who can't control themselves (of which I was one in a past job life) would dismiss your statement out of hand.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Fallingcow]

I imagine the framers had no idea that people would cede that right by failing to assert it, and just thought that it would always be assumed. They *had* just led an armed uprising, after all. The use of force against illegitimate exercises of power was something that they may have thought to be obviously just, and something that would be protected by any just government by default.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[heelrod]

Everyone in prison is innocent. Just ask them.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[MisterMoney]

torkus: "...Now you've been arrested for resisting arrest. Half the time the orig. charges don't stick, are dropped, or just didn't exist to begin with. Brilliant."

and WHY were you arrested for 'resisting arrest'? because you were a MORON and resisted arrest. brilliant.

if/when the cops decide that you are going to go with them, you WILL go with them. it is YOUR decision as to how - beaten or not. telling them that you just want to go home now doesn't make them let you go.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

If you go back and watch the video again with the audio, the asshat asking the question was saying "If you stop holding me down I will walk out of here peacefully."

As four police were holding him down. He admitted that he lost and was willing to be escorted out to a waiting cruiser to go to the station and be handled. But that's when the cop pulled out his tazer and, after Our question asking buddy said "please don't taser me" they TAZERED HIM AS OTHER POLICE OFFICERS HELD HIM DOWN.

So you see, he was offering to go peacefully. And they tazered him.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Jafafa Hots]

"It was HOW he did so, asking questions in a loud fast-paced run-on without giving Kerry a chance to respond, cutting him off when Kerry tried."

He's obviously just using the professional style of interviewing and question asking that he's seen on Hardball and The O'Reilly Factor.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building."

Kerry must have left the building as he was talking, because I could hear Kerry talking as the kid said "Don't tazer me, bro." and also during HIS SCREAMS OF PAIN FROM BEING TORTURED.

so, yeah. That's 99% bullshit.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Archangel Michael]

so, what was my original charge they arrested me on? That is the real question, since the charge on the arrest report was "resisting arrest" I didn't even have to smell funny.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Scrameustache]

"was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building."

Kerry must have left the building as he was talking, because I could hear Kerry talking as the kid said "Don't tazer me, bro." and also during HIS SCREAMS OF PAIN FROM BEING TORTURED. He was all the way on the other side of an auditorium and there was a crowd between him and the incident. And the kid started screaming as soon as the cops grabbed him, so it's not like he knows the difference from "help help I'm being oppressed" and "help help I'm being electrocuted" just by ear.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Archangel Michael]

"I would've thought you'd be a bit more sympathetic to somebody who, to my viewing, was being arrested for asking a question somebody didn't like."

My "sympathies" have nothing to do with my post at all. I didn't state my sympathies one way or another. However since you mention it, I'll point out that I originally thought it was going to be a right wing nut job, but when I read further I found out it was a left wing nut job, which is surprising to me.

As for people yelling, shouting down or otherwise trying to prevent others from speaking (typically done by leftwingers) I have little sympathy for them in general. They are nothing more that bullies and spoiled brats. When the tables are turned on them, they cry foul (censorship/freedom of speech rights etc). Mostly they can dish it out but cannot take it themselves. Hypocrites.

In the days of old, someone would punch the guy in the nose and it would be over. These days punching a guy in the nose, even if he deserves it for being A-Hole will land you in jail yourself. The result is more people are embolden to be A-holes because even if there are police around, nobody CAN do anything to stop them from BEING an A-hole.

I agree with your comment on being Tazered, as it isn't an appropriate use of non-leathal force. I'd prefer breaking the guys nose by the first cop with a night stick. I guarantee you that whatever point he was trying to make isn't/wasn't worth a bloody nose to him. He was just being an A-hole thinking nothing bad was going to happen to him.

Oh, and btw, his "freedom of speech" wasn't trampled anymore than the person who was waiting behind him was by his ramblings. Freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to listen to him pontificate indefinitely.

Unlike the guy in the video, (who had four or more police on him) I was arrested by one cop with his partner watching. There was no resisting on my part, while there definitely (rightfully or wrongfully) was resistance by him. While the cops may have been A-holes, so was this guy, he could have left, untazered, at any time.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Alaska Jack]

"Suppose some guy stands on a street corner every day for a year with a large sign that says "Impeach Bush". Now suppose the police make a rule that he can only say "Impeach Bush" exactly once a year (WHEN) and he can only say it in an email directly to Bush (HOW). According to you, there's no difference. In both cases, the guy was allowed to express his opinion."

Nice try, but wrong. Here's the train of thought.

1. Absolutely unrestricted speech/behavior has some severe drawbacks. (Yelling fire in a crowded building, libel, etc.)

2. On the other hand, we don't want to restrict the free flow of ideas.

3. So we decide that what restrictions we place on speech must be limited and reasonable.

4. Q: Oh yeah? Who decides what is "reasonable"? You?

5. A: No. That's what we have judges for.

A judge is someone with no interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of any particular scenario. Their sole responsibility is to ask "Are the restrictions in question limited and reasonable?"

Naturally that puts the decision in the hands of a human being, and is thus prone to error. But it's the best we can do.

"If a few extra minutes of everyone's time meant that this guy got what he really really wanted, I don't see the problem."

Interesting. I see so many problems with this -- philosophical and practical -- it's difficult to know where to begin. First of all, it's MY time. What gives him the right to hijack it? Multiply the time by the number of people in the room, and you've stolen hundreds of man-hours.

Second, your theory of "intensity of desire" is legally quite novel. I don't find the woman walking outside particularly attractive. But if I find her REALLY REALLY attractive, would that make it OK to conk her over the head and take her home? No? Ok, what if I found her REALLY REALLY REALLY attractive?

Third ... well, you get the picture.

Respectfully,

Alaska Jack

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Supergood-ape]

That never happened, and claiming otherwise when it's there in video is pretty fucking pathetic.

RIGHT BEFORE he gets tased, he snatches his arm out of the grasp of the police and tries to sit up, despite being told repeatedly not to.

I notice you leave this obvious act of resisting arrest out when trying to portray this asshole as a victim.

Also, he NEVER "admitted that he lost and was willing to be escorted out to a waiting cruiser to go to the station and be handled." that's just fiction, plain and simple.

What, did you think we couldn't watch the video too?

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Grim Beefer]

Why are we breaking down his actions into numerical steps, when the core issue is that the police overreacted in the first place? This is like getting the cops called on you for being unruly in class, or being way too loud in a crowded theater. Obnoxious, sure, but is it really something that should involve the police? The speaker guidelines are just that, guidelines, as I don't think they'd be tazering Al Gore if he went over his alloted two minutes in a rude way. The police were the ones that brought physical violence into the equation, and the student is being blamed for "resisting arrest"? I think you have every right to "resist" those that violate your body, and whether or not they wear a badge should be irrelevant. As far as I know, it isn't yet illegal to be an asshole. If you want to charge him with a crime, however, you can easily ticket him after he ends his puerile rant.

There are a lot of interchangeable posts here detailing how he broke the law, blah, blah, blah, but I think they're all pretty heartless and draconian in spirit. It's discouraging to see people blindly support state power, no matter how thuggish it appears. The state is not always right, even if it has the law in its' back pocket. The university wouldn't exist without taxpayer revenue, despite its' status as "private property". I would argue, for this reason, that he has more of a right to rant at a university than in other so called private properties, like Wal-Mart. We tolerate far more obnoxious rantings on television every day, because they have the money to force people to put up with it. People that are claiming that he has every equal right to host his own lecture are conveniently leaving the power resulting from the inequality of wealth out of the equation. Such explosions of frustration are to be expected in a society where dissenting voices are marginalized. Duh.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Glonoinha]

That wasn't bullshit. It was just flip-flopping.
According to Kerry, he was for the Tazering before he was against it.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Seismologist]

Agreed...

However I believe the authorities (campus police, event security, etc.) shouldn't behaved in ways that only enticed Meyers even more to act more ridiculous. This is similar to a parent and a little child...

What "should" have happened is the following:

1. Event staffer should have been proactive, and shouldn't have let Meyers cut in line... This is the first cause of things getting out of control because there is no control upfront.

2. Kerry was willing to entertain his ramblings, Kerry isn't some ordained priest or a king, and from the video, it looked like Kerry was willing to respond like a true politician. It is not as if he wasn't used to this sort of thing given his position, etc.

3. Even in the escalation erratic behavior on part of Meyers, you don't defuse the situation by springing into action, making the situation worse and egging Meyers on (I can only assume he was on an adrenaline trip at this point). You don't try to grab the jumper, that would make the person jump. I've seen the cops in my town (Seattle) just confront the "subject" by standing calmly and asking questions in a normal voice.

4. My last point is that all the police had to do to defuse the "situation", a situation caused by more aggravation is to act in a professional manner. To accomplish this the police simply had to say something on the order of "Sir, leave the venue, I have reason to believe that you may cause harm to the audience, to you, and to me. Please come with me outside."

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Glonoinha]

Sometimes a motherfucker just needs to be heard. Got something on his mind, picking at him day and night and it won't relent - he needs to vent. Let it out, takes about 1 minute of someone's time and once he has had his say ... he's deflated. Empty. Drained. Devoid of energy. A guy can have delusions of grandeur about what's going to happen once the truth is known, think that the people of power will take this information and do something with it - but if they don't, at least he tried. If he carries it forever it will eat him inside out, because he never got a chance to be heard.

I know.

I carry mine, afraid to say my one minute of truth, lest they arrest me for resisting arrest and pretty much fuck my life up even more than it already is.
At least I'm not as fucked as this guy. What's the world coming to, when I feel empathy for a rabid Kerry supporter?

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"Also, he NEVER "admitted that he lost and was willing to be escorted out to a waiting cruiser to go to the station and be handled." that's just fiction, plain and simple."

If you had watched the video, you'd know that you're tehwrongz. He said "Stop holding me down and I will walk out peacefully." (or something to that nature) right before they tazered him. He wasn't expecting to be let go, but he was willing to be escorted out to a police car and dealt with outside... if the police would only STOP HITTING HIM.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Glonoinha]

That's kind of like saying rape doesn't hurt much, if you don't resist.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Glonoinha]

If you were talking to someone and four cops walked up and started physically taking you into custody with no warning or pretext, you'd go frantic too. Particularly if you had been a law-abiding citizen up until that point, and had NO CLUE why you were being arrested and taken down / walked off.

Historically speaking, that's textbook Nazi / KGB behavior. And the victims generally never recovered.

That isn't supposed to happen in America.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Glonoinha]

If four cops grab you, you're arrested. Don't let the fact that they hadn't actually said the words 'you are arrested' fool you - if a cop puts his hands on you in an unsocial fashion, you are under arrest and doing anything (including doing nothing) will be trumped up in charges of resisting arrest, disturbing the peace, and inciting a riot.

Honestly I'm surprised they didn't charge him with that last one, inciting a riot. Fucking slacker cops - the cops in my 'hood would have totally done it, just to screw the guy for life.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[The One and Only]

I didn't hear any zapping. I didn't see the convulsions, although the video I watched (first link) did not have a clear shot of the student. He was only screaming "OW! OW! OW!".

You only hear a large "zap" from a single discharge. That's not how tasers work, nor how they sound. There was sort of a low ticking/crackling sound. I certainly recognized it as the report of a taser.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[celle]

No he wasn't resisting arrest. He was dragged off by campus cops with questionable authority. As I have said before if you don't defend your rights at the time of the violation then doing it later matters little as you've already lost them. You've just described being muffled and locked away like most police states.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[The One and Only]

I'm not sure how well that would work in practice. How many people, upon being arrested, immediately concede the point that they're being lawfully arrested?

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[celle]

Just because you don't know what he's talking about doesn't mean he's wacko. Who knows he may know more than you. Wow, paying for a ticket to see a public official on a college campus where a lot of kids don't have money. The logic. Public disturbance is a name for "we don't like what you doing so we're going to lock you away". Kind of reminds you of a police state doesn't it. Funny how he's a member of the public, but can't see a public official on a college campus both of which he's paying for.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[wasted]

That's kind of like saying rape doesn't hurt much, if you don't resist.

I don't agree. In this case, the person could have obeyed the law, and suffered no mental or physical harm. In your example, the mental harm is going to happen in any case, and the lack of resistance does not guarantee that no physical harm will occur.

I know that a lot of folks aren't real fond of the police. That doesn't make it smart, legal, or within one's rights to resist arrest.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[celle]

You missed the first one, security could have backed off and let him have his due. Discussion is a part of an open forum. As he was not a threat and Kerry wanted to respond. It doesn't matter if he was preaching, rebels often do, doesn't make them less right even if the public doesn't want to hear. The kid refused to be taken, nice to see some kids still have some balls as I have been seeing less and less of it and more butt kissing. The kid might have been a little radical(point of view) but he is still entitled his say. Blogs are just about meaningless from sheer numbers. He had something he thought was worth pointing out and wanted some truth from the only person who could give it. A blog wouldn't be all that useful in that regard.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[superdude72]

I can agree that he was resisting arrest, but in this case there was no need for the arrest in the first place.

Did you watch the long version of the video? First, he grabbed the mic when it wasn't his turn to speak. Then he went on this long rant which was a statement, not a question. Then he wouldn't let Kerry answer and started into a second and third question. He wouldn't leave when his mic was cut off. He was clearly disturbing the peace. Then when they tried to arrest him he resisted arrest. This dude is clearly deranged. A bipolar narcissist, probably.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[pete6677]

When did the guy offer to leave quietly? Lets see, it was after he flailed his arms at the officers and blatantly resisted, and before he started resisting again on the ground. He had no intention of leaving peacefully. Quite the opposite, he was acting for the cameras to get maximum effect for TV. The asshat got what was coming to him.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Maxo-Texas]

What is asserting is that once you resist arrest, the original charge doesn't matter.

Doing a little googling, he appears correct (at least in New Jersey and probably in most united states)

http://www.njlaws.com/resisting_arrest.htm

Key phrase: It is not a defense to a prosecution under this subsection that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest, provided he was acting under color of his official authority and provided the law enforcement officer announces his intention to arrest prior to the resistance.

Apparently (via Wiki) this is not the case in Denmark where the person is presumed guilty unless they resist or at least protest their innocence loudly on arrest.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Duffy13]

Actually I have, and I was drunk as hell at the time and I still managed to not act like an idiot. When an officer tells you to do something that is not hazardous to your health, such as arresting you or escorting you from the premise, you do it. You do not fight them regardless of whether you think you are right, you do what they say and cooperate, the moment you fight them you define yourself as a threat, they cannot take chances. It sucks but unfortunately if you are acting irrational the odds of having a discussion concerning your actions are slim to none. If they mishandle you, you get to have them fired or worse, send them to jail depending on what they did. Especially if you have many witnesses.

What you are referencing with your Nazi/KGB reference (btw Godwin's Law, you lose) is when you are picked up and disposed of with no questions, trials, process, etc... I think we can all agree that this is not the case here.

I am amused that such a large portion of people automatically hate cops either for no reason, or because cops somewhere acted irresponsible. I by no stretch of reason claim all cops are good or that no cop has acted wrongly, but in most places and situations it's your own fault if something happens to you, and if they acted wrongly you do have legal recourse. This case was his own fault, if he would have cooperated and went along with the cops he would have been escorted out and he would now be granted credibility to his statements. Instead he fought them. Unfortunately you cannot make exceptions when you do not know a person's motivation. For a group of people touting free-speech and rights, you seem to dispose of due process and civil discourse.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Glonoinha]

He was a sober guy talking at the mic and four cops bum-rushed him. They startled him - and he spooked. I'd say with good reason. Hold a cat in one hand and a dust-buster in the other, spark up the dust-buster (a medium sized hand-held vacuum cleaner, for the foreigners) and see how the cat reacts - time to arrest and tazer the cat, or was it just instinct reaction?

As for the KGB reference, I've spent time in Russia in the early 90's (just after the wall came down) and I have talked to the families, so yes I speak with a little authority on the subject. When the cops start abducting people that say the wrong things, particularly when people defend those cops, it is a slippery slope. Regarding Godwin's Law - nothing would make me happier in my life than to be totally wrong on this issue. I pray for us both that I was wrong and that I did, in fact, lose this discussion.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[PJ1216]

i believe it was when he was saying, "let go of me and i'll leave".
 
plus, even if he was acting for the camera, it still doesn't justify what occurred. just because you think he was "asking for it" doesn't allow them to give it to him. Even if it all was a big stunt, the campus cops acted completely inappropriately. It looks like they probably had problems with him in the past and let their emotions control them. something a cop should *never* allow to happen.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Duffy13]

I'll let the main argument go since it requires more then what the videos have shown and eyewitness "reports" may not be reliable at the moment.

I do not disagree about the KGB thing, I know it's true. However you must remember that we are talking about either a system with no checks, or a system that is entirely corrupt. While I agree it's a slippery slope scenario, almost everything is if you think about it, in this specific case you are also assuming that the Judge will find him guilty of "disagreeing". My guess is he will probably get off with a slap on the wrist for resisting arrest or disturbing the peace, whichever happens to be lesser, and some community service. Now, if this sort of thing starts happening and the judges streamline the process and the appeals system is removed, then I think you have a valid point and if it was, I would take up your call to arms.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[djchristensen]

Is "fairness" to other speakers really a justification for the application of force?

If by "force" you mean being taken by the arm to be led out of the building, then sure, it was justified.

It's pretty clear from the video that the student escalated the level of force by resisting being led out of the building.

There are two aspects to this discussion that seem to be getting blurred. There is what happened before the student pulled away from the officers and there is what happened after. Anyone who disagrees with what the officers did after are not really being objective, or they don't understand anything about proper police procedure.

The decisions by the forum organizers and/or the police leading up to that are reasonable to debate or question. What would likely have happened if they had left the guy alone? Probably he would have ranted for a while longer. Either the crowd would have reacted with annoyance, in which case he would likely have run out of steam, or perhaps the crowd would have begun to cheer him on. At the very least, that would have been the end of any civilized discussion.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[kcelery]

"Publicity hound seeking camera time"

There should be a technical terminology for this. It happened too often in the modern age of video coverage.

Sometimes when people protest, they act peacefully. But when a reporter came along with a camera shooting at him, suddenly the guy act hyperactively for drawing the attention of the reporter, there should be a term to describe such acting. Instead of calling him "PHSCTing" there should be a better word.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Supergood-ape]

"If you had watched the video, you'd know that you're tehwrongz"

I did and I'm not. Saying you think I'm wrong doesn't make it true.

"He said "Stop holding me down and I will walk out peacefully." (or something to that nature)"

Ah, so you think he said something, but you don't know what it is. I know what it was, and it wasn't that. Also, you conveniently ignore my point that IMMEDIATELY before he gets tased, he's trying to sit up and repeatedly snatches his arms away from police.

So your claim is that what you think you heard proves me wrong and you right, but you ignore what he DID. Your claims are based on what (you think) he SAID, while ignoring what he actually visibly DID.

"He wasn't expecting to be let go, but he was willing to be escorted out to a police car and dealt with outside"

Then why did he continue struggling? Why sit up when you're told not to? Why snatch your arm away if you're willing to cooperate? People who are cooperative don't disregard instructions with 4 police officers on them, they do as they are instructed. He didn't. He was, by no definition other than your, cooperative. Snatching your arms away is not cooperative. Fighting to sit up is not cooperative.

So stop lying about that, because we can all watch the video and SEE what he did.

You can make as many claims as you want about what he said, but his easily visible actions prove you're full of shit.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Archangel Michael]

One man's "excessive force" is another man's "reasonable restraint"

Again, we've moved from someone getting punched when they are being an A-hole, thus learning that being an A-hole has consequences, to no consequences for being an A-hole, and people learning the extent they can be an A-hole is far greater than the public's ability to stop them.

Is it right that someone needs to be punched to stopped them from being an A-hole? Perhaps not. But then again someone being an A-hole isn't right either. I think if you ask someone to stop being an A-hole and they don't stop, that escalation is in order, which is exactly what I saw in the video.

On a side note, does anyone have "Don't Taze me Bro" t-shirts and bumperstickers yet? I want one.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[orgelspieler]

I suspect you're right. I wonder what they would have thought about denying habeas corpus rights to non-citizens, and warrantless wire-tapping.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[orgelspieler]

You have a point. At first I was going to suggest that the cops would need a warrant for every arrest, and then it's clearly lawful. But it would be hard for the cops to get a warrant as they're chasing a carjacker down the freeway, or something urgent like that, where innocent people are in immediate danger.

In practice it might just keep cops from slapping a resisting arrest charge on somebody if they don't have any other legitimate charges. I don't know that it would actually reduce the number of unlawful arrests or tasings. (is that a word?)

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Glonoinha]

"Inciting a riot" is a felony. Regardless of the sentencing (even if the judge lets him off with a slap on the wrist for it), if that one sticks he becomes a felon and loses the ability to vote or own a gun. You read that right - LOSES HIS RIGHT TO VOTE. Meaning - he's not going to be changing the system from either direction.

The most chilling thing was the implicit threat to all the people (other students, friends) that stood by watching but horrified to do anything lest they too have their lives destroyed by trumped up charges. THIS is what made it so scary, because that was what made the KGB business so scary. Speak up = disappear. I'm not a first person observer of that whole Nazi / Jew thing, but if I had to guess - I'd guess it was the same atmosphere. Throw another Godwin in the mix, I honestly hope I am wrong and I lose this conversation. Because life is going to suck big-time if I am right.

I watched the videos, one student said something and the cop barked her down - 'Shut Up!' Implicit follow-on sentence was, of course, '... or we destroy your life too.'
Scary. I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, on several different camcordings. I'm a pretty hardcore pro-government and pro-rules kind of person, which makes it so much harder for me to take this slant - when the staunchest of Repub's / Shrub supporters are scared, something is definitely wrong.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Glonoinha]

Know what's funny?
I wonder if, at the end of that day, any of Rosa Parks' friends / family asked 'So why didn't you just go to the back of the bus?'

For some reason that strikes me as hilarious right now, in a dumb sort of way.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Ihlosi]

and people learning the extent they can be an A-hole is far greater than the public's ability to stop them.

I think what we have here is someone who learned that being disruptive can get them all the attention they crave and even more, up to making national (or even international) news. If that isn't a job well done ...

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Duffy13]

No Godwin since we are actually discussing the correct topic now. Since my last post I have watched several videos and finally with sound (was at work before). I still come to the same conclusion, he was out of line by a long shot and quite possibly dangerous not knowing anything else about him. I believe he had no reason to act as he did, but as your amusing Rosa Parks comment prods, it will be up to others to decide that, mainly the judge. Now if we/student still disagree with that verdict he can go to endless appeals. The thing here is that there is a process and the process will be followed, we must have faith in that, if we do not then there is no point to any of our deliberations except to indicate that we should be looking into which other country we would like to live in or buying an Idiots Guide to Revolutions.

As for people standing aside, well, what do you want them to do? They do not know his agenda, while they may base level feel bad for him, why should they risk themselves for his stupidity? Helping him would do him nor you any good in this case. It would have made things far worse most likely. Also, for those engaged in trying to control this crazy kid, "shut up" indicates I'm busy and don't wanna/need listen to you right now. As an interesting note you implicitly added 'or we destroy your life too.', no offense but to me that betrays a certain level of guilt or paranoia. Also this all happened within the span of 1 min 30-odd secs. I do not think they had time/inclination to discuss things. They had to respond to what was in front of them, not what might or could be.

What was in front of them was a guy who was getting progressively angry and eventually yelling and overriding the person he was supposed to be speaking too. When they requested for him to knock it off he looked at them and basically said fuck off. When they decided he was acting unreasonable they tried to remove him before he did something stupid or dangerous, and thus the rest we have discussed at great length.

Re:There are restrictions to free speech

[Otto]

Citation, please? The video seemed pretty clear-cut to me, with respect to him ranting & asking too many questions. WTFV. He didn't rant for a minute about freemasonry. He asked the question, "were you a member of the Skull & Bones society with Bush". The rant was about election fraud, not freemason conspiracy theory. Perhaps you should have watched the unedited videos.

Taser-happy cops

[jollyreaper]

Tasers can kill people. They should not be used in lieu of muscle and control holds, they should be used when the only other option is lethal force and the cop feels he can use a weapon of less than lethal force to subdue the individual without putting himself or the lives of others at risk.

Cops will taser anyone these days.

Re:Taser-happy cops

[YrWrstNtmr]

They should not be used in lieu of muscle and control holds,

People have died using those methods, too. And far more injured.

Re:Taser-happy cops

[jollyreaper]

They should not be used in lieu of muscle and control holds, People have died using those methods, too. And far more injured. I don't have the statistics on that, but if tasers are less lethal than normal police tactics, they would not seem so barbaric in comparison, though one would certainly question the normal tactics. Do you have any numbers on this?

Re:Taser-happy cops

[Nymz]

Useing devices that electrocute people in order to control them, or torture them, doesn't seem right in a civilized society. I can't imagine how they use the devices when they know no one has a camera rolling.

It's times like this that I appreciate citizens, armed with cameras, that posted this incident to YouTube as linked in an earlier submission.

Re:Taser-happy cops

[Slashdot Parent]

Tasers can kill people. A 21 year old college student? Not likely, and anyhow the cops tried several times to escort him from the hall peacefully. The choice to make the officers use force was his own.

Given the choice between getting tasered and a classic police style beat-down, I'd choose the taser. I wonder if anyone ever asked Rodney King if he wished police carried tasers back in the early 90s. Would have saved him one fractured skull, no?

Re:Taser-happy cops

[YrWrstNtmr]

No, I don't have any specific numbers. But there have been several people who died while being subdued. One case in Cincinnati a few years ago, a 400lb man was fighting back with two cops. Turns out he attacked the cops (high on crack) and died of a heart attack, not from any of the blows the cops had to land to subdue him. But if he wasn't fighting, he wouldn't have had the heart attack.
And as far as injury, 3-4 large men with night sticks would seem to be very liable to cause an injury (broken arms, cracked skulls, etc).

One of the problems with tasers is making it strong enough to stop a 350lb male who is high on drugs, while not making it too strong to immediately stop the heart of a 90lb woman.

The best answer, of course, is don't resist. And hire better cops.

Re:Taser-happy cops

[jollyreaper]

One of the problems with tasers is making it strong enough to stop a 350lb male who is high on drugs, while not making it too strong to immediately stop the heart of a 90lb woman.

The best answer, of course, is don't resist. And hire better cops. I think the better cops part is key. I've had some people who know what they're doing demonstrate the kind of moves you use to make someone real cooperative about not making a scene and leaving the vicinity. They walked me through the motions of how it's done and damn, at full speed you don't even realize what's going on until you're nailed.

Re:Taser-happy cops

[Abcd1234]

And as far as injury, 3-4 large men with night sticks would seem to be very liable to cause an injury

Jesus christ, since when did subduing someone involve "3-4 large men with night sticks" clubbing the fuck out of someone? How would *that* not also be excessive use of force??

Re:Taser-happy cops

[YrWrstNtmr]

When the subject is fighting back, which happens quite a lot...what would you have the police do?

Re:Taser-happy cops

[Abcd1234]

I would think, in a situation where there's four trained policeman on one suspect, they would be able to subdue the individual *without* having to crack their skull with a baton, or electrocute them with a taser. But, hey, maybe I'm just expecting too much...

Re:Taser-happy cops

[hawk]

>I wonder if anyone ever asked Rodney King if he wished police carried tasers
>back in the early 90s. Would have saved him one fractured skull, no?

No. He *was* tasered *twice*, and still continued resisting.

Unfortunately, my daughter witnessed an event a couple of months ago here (Las Vegas) in which a woman with a knife and a baby was pepper sprayed, shot multiple times with bean-bag shotguns, and tasered (hit at least twice, one of which slightly dazed her allowing the police to snatch the baby). She laughed these off, dancing, mocked the police, then attacked a motorist--at which point the police fired the first shot. She was shot a second time--fatally--when she shouted, "you shot me!" and charged the police with the knife.

The family insists that this was all the police' fault, as she never uses drugs (contrary to the post-mortem tests). Others have criticized the police for not having glue guns, not having nets, and not snatching the knife from her hands. Oddly, I didn't hear the usual suggestion that they should have shot the knife out of her hands, though some suggested that she should have been shot in the arm instead of the chest.

While our police are criticized for their shootings, this is one of only a couple in which they shot first (annother involved a cop being dragged from a car hijacked by the handcuffed suspect).

hawk

Re:Taser-happy cops

[Slashdot Parent]

That's a pretty amazing story. Also, had no idea the King was tasered, but I was able to confirm that as well.

Crazy stuff. Thanks for that.

Re:Taser-happy cops

[hawk]

Gladly. And the bit that I forgot: she made threats to kill the baby to the police (my daughter heard them), but that part never made it into the newspaper, for some reason . . .

hawk

Re:Taser-happy cops

[YrWrstNtmr]

No matter how well trained you are, you can't 'fight' someone without the risk of injury. They're trying to use the Taser to maintain a little distance, and not actually have to grapple with the person.

Re:Taser-happy cops

[Scudsucker]

The choice to make the officers use force was his own.

Um, no. That was made by the cops when two of them grabbed his arm and started to haul him out.

Re:Had it been a Republican rather than Kerry

[bogie]

Oh please. We (meaning liberals)don't need make crap like that. If we want to discuss how evil the GOP is all we have to do is talk about the million+ dead in Iraq. Have fun living with that on your conscience.

I don't want to excuse the cops, but...

[PFI_Optix]

This guy created the scenario. He's the one who set things up so that the cops would have any justification at all to use a taser.

He asked his questions. He was told to leave. He resisted. When they tried to physically remove him, he resisted more. The cops decided to use the taser (presumably) because his behavior left them unsure of whether he was dangerous or not. And let's not forget that it is clearly heard in that horribly-shot video that they warn him a number of times that he would be tased.

He said what he wanted to say and Kerry was answering the question...why did he resist? Why not just walk out when told to leave? Because he's an attention whore and WANTED this to happen.

Re:I don't want to excuse the cops, but...

[uncledrax]

You can clearly hear (at least on the You Tube video here) the police warning and informing the student if he continues to resist he will be tazed (tased?). I'm sorry.. but if you don't want to be tazed, comply. It's pretty plain that orginally he was just being removed.. but he stepped up the level of physical involvement by resisting, and continued to resist. Once the kid got tasered, he was alot easier to move and there's no evidence that he was maltreated once they picked him up.

If accounts are accurate and he did 'run into the room', he's luckly all he got was a tasering.. Secret Service probably definately have detained him / had UF police detain him, and could have cited cause to incapacitate him there and then.

Now, I think once Sen. Kerry said 'I'll answer the questions' that the handlers should have just told the guy to shutup and listen or leave.. they didn't, and the kid put up a stink.. .. and now because of some 20 year old kid, I gotta worry about dodging ABC News vans all day here in town..

The ABCNews article doesn't seem to accurately cover what I saw in the YouTube video.. i guess it's just proof that most journalism sucks anyhow..

Re:I don't want to excuse the cops, but...

[RicoX9]

It's like feeding a troll. He WANTED it to happen. All they had to do was use their brains just a LITTLE. Take him outside. He wanted the attention, and got what he was after. They could have defused the situation by taking him another 15-20 ft and through the door. The tasering was completely unnecessary.

Re:I don't want to excuse the cops, but...

[stewbacca]

They were TRYING to take him outside, if you didn't noticed the female officer leading him away by the elbow, but he decided to make a scene, fight with cops, and got his sorry ass tasered for his efforts.

Re:I don't want to excuse the cops, but...

[xnickmx]

He asked for it. Totally asked for it. By being really annoying. I mean REALLY, REALLY annoying. Did you see how annoying he was? That was the most annoying thing you could ever do - ASKING STUPID AND ANNOYING QUESTIONS. They should have tased him earlier. In fact I wish police would tase people when they honk their car horns, or if they talk too loudly or have bad breath. Nothing shuts people up like tasing them. And they deserve it. Because they are so annoying. People should just stop being so annoying, then police wouldn't have to tase them. I mean really, just stop being such jerks and the police will leave you alone.

Re:I don't want to excuse the cops, but...

[torkus]

So "please leave" has to turn into physical violence in under 3 minutes? There was NOTHING else that could have been done? Nothing at all...

Or did they consider Kerry's time to be so important as to justify the immediate and violent removal of someone who they felt was not making the best use of his time? No like anyone ever said "all men are created equal" ... maybe politicans are not considered men anymore?

Re:Had it been a Republican rather than Kerry

[eclectic4]

"Imagine how busy the talking heads would be discussing how evil the GOP is for killing students."

Yeah, it's called the Iraq war, and they talk about it all the time...

A little bit of writing you should read

[scubamage]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Just curious, but how can some of you so callously be willing to deprive someone of the rights that so many people fought and died for? Because he was causing a scene? Big deal, its his right. Because he's press? Big deal, its his right. Numerous times people in the crowd cry out to do something, which any decent lawyer will state is proof that the police were using excessive force. On top of that the officer tells the camera holder to stop recording - at a public forum. You keep saying he got what he deserved - what happens the day when you ask a question and they don't like it? I just hope every soldier in Iraq can smile, knowing that videos like this demonstrate what freedoms they get to dodge bullets for. Thanks for protecting the police state.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[UncHellMatt]

A very, very valid point. Where DO you draw the line?

Personally I find hate groups such as the KKK abhorrent, but does that mean they should be shut down and not allowed to protest or rally? No. Even they deserve the liberty to gather, to say their opinions and gather in protest. It is, of course, a double edged sword: freedom of speech means freedom for everyone.

Counter protesting KKK with clowns is by far the best way to deal with those smegheads: http://asheville.indymedia.org/article/107Clowns

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for a great comment. Let's face it, the tasering was done simply for the officers' convenience.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[MarkovianChained]

"Just curious, but how can some of you so callously be willing to deprive someone of the rights that so many people fought and died for? Because he was causing a scene? Big deal, its his right." Then go to the airport and shout "BOMB!" After all, it's your right to cause a scene.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[SterlingSylver]

A mic in front of you at a rally gives you the right to ask a question. If you use that right to be an idiot, the people in charge of the rally have the right to ask you to leave. If you do not leave, they have the right to have you escorted out. If you continue to make a scene, the authorities called in to escort you out have the right to grab you by the arm to drag you out. If you flail about and put them at risk, they have the right to use force in excess of arm-dragging and ear-boxing to defend themselves and get you out of the building/park/situation. No police state here.

Don't confuse the right to free speech with the right to be an asshole with no limits. It doesn't give you the right to disrupt a gathering with no consequences. If this guy wanted to protest and claim that Skull & Bones was behind whatever it was he was claiming, he could have protested outside the event and made his point.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[k_187]

Freedom of speech is not a freedom to be heard and/or given an audience. He can say whatever he wants to whoever wants to listen. He doesn't have the right to hijack someone else's venue and force his views down other's throats.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[CheshireCatCO]

As far as I know, no one ever "fought and died" for the rights of someone to disrupt legitimate activities of others, such this town-hall meeting. In fact, one might as well note that *this* guy was denying others their rights to free speech (he jumped in line and hogged available time, effectively filibustering others) and their rights to assembly by disrupting the proceedings.

No, you do *not* have unlimited rights to say what you want, where and when you want, as loudly as you want. (The SCOTUS has ruled on this on a number of occasions, so there's little room for a reasonable argument to the contrary.) Either you lack any understanding of the law (and the Constitution) or you're being astonishingly disingenuous.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[gwait]

The word peaceably does not describe this moron's demeanor.
I agree with the sentiment that he wanted to end up on youtube, and that tasering was unwarranted.

If I'm in a situation where the police - who do have responsibility to keep the peace - tell me to stop, or else,
I'd stop, unless I want the "else" to occur.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[westlake]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Just curious, but how can some of you so callously be willing to deprive someone of the rights that so many people fought and died for? Because he was causing a scene? Big deal, its his right.

It is not his right.

You seem to have glossed over the part about the people's right to meet in peace.

Free speech - meaningful political debate - cannot exist without formal or informal Rules of Order. The freedom to remove from the hall the disruptive and abusive.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[E 99]

So the constitutional right to freedom of speech make the Disturbance of Peace laws invalid? No, I don't think so. This kid could have said whatever he wanted outside without depriving the people in the forum of their turns to speak. Fortunately, the constitution DOESN'T prohibit organized forums with rules.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[yakmans_dad]

Interesting threshold: violate Roberts Rules of Order? Get tasered.

I'd love to see if that flew in, say, the British Parliament during the Q&A of the Prime Minister. "Officer Hastings, that backbencher is getting rowdy. Give him 50,000 of the best and make it snippy."

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[c6gunner]

Well, let's see in how many ways you're wrong:

1) This has nothing to do with Congress, so the passage listed doesn't apply.
2) "Peaceably assemble" does not mean "act like an idiot".
3) "petition the government" does not mean "harass them and refuse to hear their answers".
4) In a police state, he wouldn't have had the chance to ask any questions to begin with.

and, finally

5) When attending any function held on private property, trespass laws take precedence. The owner or his lawful representatives have the right to eject you at any time, with no reason given. And if you resist, they have every right to place you under arrest, and use force if necessary.

In summation: you're an idiot who's ignorant of his rights, and totally oblivious of his responsibilities. People like you are why this idiocy happens in the first place - you think you have the right to act like a moron anywhere you want at any time, and are utterly shocked when the cops dare to stop you. Your ignorance is the reason that cops HAVE tazers.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[Maxo-Texas]

There is an interesting and subtle point here.

Did the clowns have a permit?

Was the officer escorting them selectively enforcing the law?

Personally- I think law officers being reasonable is preferable to them strictly enforcing the law but it does teeter totter on the edge of bad things (you never know when your group is going to get the law while the other well liked group is going to have the law ignored).

I admire the clowns for anticipating the things the klan would say and pre-preparing clever jokes.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[celle]

Thank you, some sense for once.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[ScrewMaster]

Even they deserve the liberty to gather, to say their opinions and gather in protest.

I wouldn't say that groups such as the KKK deserve that freedom, exactly ... they've done nothing to earn it. Quite the opposite, in fact. Nevertheless, as a pragmatic matter (and the Founders were nothing if not pragmatic) it is their right under the Constitution. Take it away from them, distasteful as they are, and you take it away from us all.

If there's one thing that the Founders understood with crystalline clarity it is this: that line you've just drawn will eventually become a noose. Best not to draw the line.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[Inthewire]

Peaceable assembly is not the right to be free of distractions - it's the right to assemble in a peaceful manner. IOW, the gubmint can't break up your gathering simply because you've gathered.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[N3wsByt3]

"Freedom of speech is not a freedom to be heard and/or given an audience"

Ok, so, when he chinese police arrest some dissident and say to him he's free to say whatever he wants in his cel, they are respecting his free speech too?

"He can say whatever he wants to whoever wants to listen."

In a public forum, he can actually say it to who doesn't want to listen. Forbidding anything else would be ludicrous. I mean, do I want to listen to some pro-iraq-war people who are marching in front of my house? No. Could I then, following your reasoning, forbid it? Should the moslim community be allowed to forbid the making of cartoons, because they don't want to see them?

If you don't want to listen, then don't listen. In a public place, you can't deprive someone of his free speech because you don't want to listen to it; that would amount to NO free speech. In the case of this Kerry-debate I'm not sure how far the public analogy goes; maybe it was on university grounds or the organisation was in the hands of Kerry&co. In that case, it for THEM to draw the line (and one with no exesive violence, at that). Note, however, that Kerry was *willing* to answer the question. He actually said to the cops when they started moving "it's allright, I will answer that". But the cops didn't listen. So, what? THEY decide when the alloted time for a question is passed? They decide such a thing warrants arrest?

People can be annoyed and I'm sure a lot of those people there didn't want to listen to his questions - but does that give anyone the right to arrest him? According to your reasoning, it does. Needles to say this is impossible to maintain, since you will ALWAYS have those that don't want to listen to someone else. Heck, then republicans could arrest every democrat that opens his mouth. As a general rule, the "free speech is only ok to people who wants to hear you" is completely absurd when applied consistently.

"He doesn't have the right to hijack someone else's venue and force his views down other's throats."

You can't force a view by asking questions. The only thing that does that efficiently is propagnda. The USA media are quite good at that, actually, so maybe one should arrest the guys from FOX-news? You're using a lot of emo-laden hyperbole (hijacking, forcing,...), but the fact is, he was asking questions, and that's free speech, and that's protected by the constitution. Nowhere is it mentionned you can only have free speech to people who like your viewpoint. The importance of free speech is the most apparent if you can also use it when people DO NOT want to hear it. Otherwise, minorities would NEVER be able to protest against anything the majority doesn't want to hear.

Re:A little bit of writing you should read

[N3wsByt3]

"No, you do *not* have unlimited rights to say what you want, where and when you want, as loudly as you want."

That's a non-argument.

The police does *not* have unlimited rights to arrest someone, where and when they want, as violently as they want, neither.

Such statements are completely nonsensical and unhelpful. The question is, what free speech was used? And the fact is, he was asking questions, not shouting 'fire' (to use the much abused counterclaim). Annoying questions? Perhaps. Above his alloted time for asking them? Perhaps.

But was it still free speech according to the constitution? Yes. Does asking annoying questions warrant an arrest? No.

Being 'disruptive' (note, btw, that Kerry DID want to answer his questions) is no reason to revoke the right of free speech, let alone arrest someone for it. I'm sure a lot of republican politicians find the protests against the war in Iraq disruptive too...so, should we follow your reasoning consistently, then?

There are limitations to free speech indeed (as with yelling 'fire' in a theatre), but those are restricted and pretty narrowly defined. I'm quite sure the supreme court didn't rule that asking questions on a public forum that disturbs some of the other spectators is sufficient cause to loose your rights of free speech.

So your counterargumentation really doesn't amount to much in this case.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[PriceIke]

Did anyone actually watch the video? This moron was hopped up on drugs, if you ask me. I think the cops had the exact same read on him. He was belligerent and refused to cooperate when he was asked, REPEATEDLY, to leave. He seemed to think that because he was at a mic to ask a question of Kerry, that gave him carte blanche to spew random garbage for as long as he wanted. He was wrong. When he was asked to step aside, he started making a scene. When security tried to move him aside, he acted like he was being arrested and made a GREATER scene. HE escalated the scene, not the police.

I do think the use of the taser was unnecessary. He had probably six cops on him by the time that happened. If he was actively resisting their attempts to be put in cuffs, why does it take more than six cops to force him to comply? Tasering only made him scream like a little bitch and get other students to feel sorry for him. Not the smartest move.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[Gaewyn L Knight]

Um... excuse me... but cops or not. If someone is forcefully restraining me against my will and I have done NOTHING illegal to deserve it then you better bet I am going to resist.

The guy was a heckler... he should have been dealt with as such. He even said outright that he would leave... but they never asked him to. They instantly went to brute force tactics.

A state university, public property, public forum and every bit a 1st amendment issue... NOT something that should have been dealt with by force without a HUGE amount of diplomacy first.

Re:Don't "F" Around . . .

[Sfing_ter]

Senator of the United States of America of the People, By the People, For the People.
He is no more than a citizen that got picked (short straw?), by people in his state to represent their interests, lets not put royalty status on shit-heels, that would be like allowing trolls to post without calling them Teamkilling Fucktards.

And by the way, the word is "FUCK", if you need help I suggest watch Deadwood. You will also learn about politics ;]

r u guys nuts?

[darkeye]

I got almost sick watching the video, the obviously wanton brutality of the police.

but what is even more distrubing seeing the posts here that align with this police action.

you guys are so much in a police state by now, you even agree with these acts.. man...

Re:r u guys nuts?

[PFI_Optix]

There's a right way and a wrong way to protest and resist police in a scenario like this.

He did it the wrong way and gave the police an excuse to use this level of force. Without being able to see exactly what happened, I can't say whether this would qualify as brutality or not...but there was clearly a struggle, and when you fight back you make it easy for the cops to say they believed they would be in danger if they were to wrestle you into restraints.

Re:r u guys nuts?

[russotto]

If you protest and resist the "right way", your story ends up on the back page of the student newspaper, probably as a one-liner in the "in brief" section which reads "Charges were dropped against a protester at the Kerry townhall meeting".

If you try and protest and resist in the ways the authorities approve of, you find that somehow, you never get heard at all. That is, after all, the reason those ways are approved of.

Re:r u guys nuts?

[PFI_Optix]

Tell that to the civil rights movement. They brought about change by passive resistance: the cops simply had to do all the work. Even when assaulted by police, they stuck to their guns and did not resist. What did it get them? The sympathy of a nation.

Tasing someone who quietly refuses to stand up is brutality. Tasing someone who is actively resisting being handcuffed is...questionable. One could easily argue that it's not necessary the vast majority of times it's done...but cops are trained to anticipate the worst. Using a taser allows them to stand off and issue orders without having to wrestle with the offender and not risk their lives. Yes it's used too much, but I'm not entirely convinced this particular instance qualifies as brutality. They had a potentially volatile situation and may have done too much to prevent it getting worse.

Re:r u guys nuts?

[russotto]

Tell that to the civil rights movement. They brought about change by passive resistance: the cops simply had to do all the work. Even when assaulted by police, they stuck to their guns and did not resist. What did it get them? The sympathy of a nation.

The system adapts. What worked once will not work again.

Re:r u guys nuts?

[darkeye]

your response is a prefect example of what I'm saying: you guys even agree with this kind of policing action. moreover, you even create an argument to support it - thus, this kind of behaviour is already internalized.

this is really sad.

I'm pretty much sorry for you all.

Re:r u guys nuts?

[PFI_Optix]

I don't necessarily agree with it. My point is this guy invited the abuse. Different behavior on his part would have meant different behavior by the police; they didn't use the taser because of what he said or who he was, they used it because when they tried to remove him (which they were apparently instructed to do) he actively resisted to the point of them not being able to cuff him without a fight.

Could they have pinned him and forced both arms behind his back, cuffed him, and carried him out? Certainly. Could they have done serious physical harm to him in the process, or been harmed themselves? Yes. Did they view the taser as the safest way to deal with the situation? Apparently. Were they right? I don't know. I wasn't there.

We're so quick to scream brutality and abuse of power whenever cops do stuff like this, we need to take a step back and consider their motivations. They weren't looking to torture they guy...they just wanted to get him out of the room.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[roscocoltran]

So what are the policeman gonna give for an excuse about this operation ? "A caucasing guy, 1m80, was talking for too long in a mic. I was an obvious terrorist attempt to blah blah... we had to react to this threat" ?

Re:keyword: annoying!

[vfrex]

He was granted the opportunity to get the attention of a US senator and to ask a question. He was granted the attention of the senator and every person in the room. If he had asked a question as intended, there wouldn't have been a problem. But he abused the grant he was given by preaching to the audience. When asked to stop, he refused. When asked to leave, he resisted. He fought hard in a crowded room, and the police did what they felt they needed to.

Says much about the politician

[ddbsa]

Yeah, I've always said that politicians are ALL in the pocket of the companies that donate to them...
and don't give two shits about regular people...
but to actually watch some college kid speaking out get dogpiled and tased...
while Kerry simply tries to talk over the whole thing ...
(distracting from the brutality and wrongness instead of trying to correct it...
really brings it home how fucked up things have gotten.

don't deserve freedom

[jgarra23]

It makes me sick that those students didn't rise up against those security guards. Yea yea, you can throw all your bullshit "he deserved it", "your country was founded on this n that" bullshit at me but you know as well as I do that it doesn't stick when we are discussing things situation by situation. Fuck those students, fuck the police, fuck John Kerry. Andrew Meyer didn't deserve what he got and I hope he makes the most of it & knows what kind of a police state he really lives in.

Re:don't deserve freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the problem is that those of us who are against police brutality don't really want to make this idiot a poster child. Tasering was excessive, but if had to happen to anybody, I'm glad it was him.

Re:don't deserve freedom

[jjohnson]

Where's the +1 Common Sense mod option when you need it?

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[Protonk]

Wait, what?

So because you say that "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" doesn't amount to free speech, suddenly it follows that there must be limits to protest in terms of how or where it is conducted? The 'fire' example is meant to exclude 'physical speech and action' with no corresponding content and that has other unambiguous meanings--shouting fire, waving a plastic gun around in order to promote gun safety, sending out press releases that there is cyanide in the water in order to promote water safety.

the hemming in of the how and where of protest has been more aligned pragmatically with the rise of television than with any detatched legal scholarship.

And, "shitting on the presidents afternoon tea" violates a dozen other laws unrelated to 1st ammnd. rights. Of course I can't come into Nancy Peloisi's living room in order to convince her to impeach Bush, that would be breaking and entering. Here we are talking about public figures in public roles in areas open to the same.

Linux Question

[LifesABeach]

Does the Taser use Embedded Linux?

Re:Linux Question

[clickety6]

Does the Taser use Embedded Linux?

With the level of pain it causes, it has to be a Windows Embedded device, surely?

Re:keyword: annoying!

[butlerdi]

Perhaps, but it still seems a bit over the top, especially in a university setting. It was speech ... only speech .. to which was countered with threat of arrest , arrest and then tasering.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[flannelboy]

But if you listen to what he is saying, he does say "I will get up and leave". In other words, there is a very large potential that no force at all was necessary.

Here in lies the problem. Once the police start using force, the natural reaction of any human being is to react back. Particularly if you are being arrested for really not doing any wrong. (Remember, it isn't a crime to be an a*hole. And it isn't a crime to talk loudly or obnoxiously.)

Once the police resorted to force, this outcome was inevitable.

So the question one has to ask is "did the police need to resort to force against this person?"

Probably not ...

Watch the video

[benhocking]

Right after they cut off his microphone, they started arresting him. It looked (to me) like he might have quit right after they cut him off.

Re:Watch the video

[j00r0m4nc3r]

I don't think they were arresting him at first, just removing him from the building. I think he earned the actual arrest later on by resisting.

Re:Watch the video

[ahodgson]

Since when can cops assault you without placing you under arrest?

Other Motives

[Protonk]

+5 insightful?

He's a journalism student, therefore he's going to only protest in order to dray attention to himself? Does that make any sense?

OH! I just found out he was in a high school science class, but never got to touch the Van De Graaf machine. I think that his REAL motive was to feel 200,000V against his skin.

electron whore!

Re:Other Motives

[Protonk]

Oops. Low amperage devices.

Potential Whore!

Assault and battery

[conureman]

Above (beneath) the law. I for one, welcome our blue-suited overlords.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[MidVicious]

...a journalism student... Really, what was his motive??? Attention Whore?

Yeah so... taser him... damn journalists and their annoying questions.

Give me a break.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[hasbeard]

I am not a policeman, but consider this. The goal of the policeman in such a situation is to end the situation as soon as possible. The longer the suspect continues to resist, the more chance someone will be injured (including the suspect). If a policeman tells you to stop struggling, or to come peacefully, you should do it.

"Dont taze me Bro!"

[revco_38]

Local radio was already talking about T-shirts with this logo emblazened on them. So sad.

Physical intimidation without going batshit

[swb]

I sometimes wonder if physical intimidation isn't actually more effective than "high tech" stuff like Tasers and mace. Back in the old days, cops knew exactly how to hit people to gain compliance with minimal physical impact -- they knew where it hurt. Guys who took a baton to the solar plexus or a rabbit punch certainly knew that obeying made sense.

Now I'm *not* talking about insane, Rodney King style beatings where baton blows are delivered windmill style, but directed physical blows designed to inflict maximum pain on non-compliant subjects.

What's most disturbing about this video is how utterly ineffective a mass of cops are at subduing a single person, despite having him on the ground. Why couldn't they handcuff him? How did it ever become necessary to hold him down and taser him?

Re:Physical intimidation without going batshit

[Slashdot Parent]

Alternation between compliance and noncompliance. As soon as they thought he had given up and would leave peacefully, he'd flip out anew.

Watch the video again. You'll see.

Re:Physical intimidation without going batshit

[spocksbrain]

At one point they had him on the ground, and instead of cuffing him when they had the chance: they shot him. I don't see what the issue is here? If he is not physically complient in the first place, that is grounds for immediate arrest.

Re:Physical intimidation without going batshit

[Slashdot Parent]

From the video, it looked at first like the officers were not trying to arrest him at all. They just wanted to eject him from the hall and consider the matter dealt with.

Once they decided to cuff him, he managed to wriggle free twice. At that point, the disturbance was really getting out of hand, and it was getting down to nightsticks vs. taser. They chose taser, and genius boy Andrew Meyer was probably spared any lasting injury because of that choice.

Re:Physical intimidation without going batshit

[MoneyT]

There was a video recently the made it's way around youtube of some LA cops that did just that. They had a suspect on the ground who was continuing to attack the officers and they used quick, calculated blows (in this case to the guy's head) get him to comply so that they could cuff him. The reaction was about the same as it is here. The problem is, violence is ugly, and no one likes to see it. But forced compliance, whether via taser or blows or holds is all violence. I would bet if you took a set of videos containing reasonable use of force and unreasonable force in compliance situations, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference except in extreme cases.

Re:Physical intimidation without going batshit

[darkwhite]

But forced compliance, whether via taser or blows or holds is all violence. I would bet if you took a set of videos containing reasonable use of force and unreasonable force in compliance situations, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference except in extreme cases. That is ignorant bullshit. Anyone trained in self-defense knows ways of restraining an opponent without causing severe pain, and a properly trained police officer should know dozens of them. Using a taser in this situation is not just ludicrously overkill - it should be a criminal offense. When you see five officers - or however many there were holding that kid - unable to properly restrain him or walk him out, you know that they're all absolutely incompetent.

This is just one set of videos showing what is an obviously inexcusable abuse of force. The problem is that while this event got a lot of exposure and the responsible officers will probably be punished, there are many cases in which nothing will happen.

Re:Physical intimidation without going batshit

[MoneyT]

That is ignorant bullshit.

I'm glad you think so, but honestly, when was the last time you saw a video posted online with the headline "Cop does picture perfect takedown" and you thought to yourself "That was a perfectly reasonable display of force"? The fact of the matter is, we are programed to reject violence in any form and police takedowns and restraints are always violence, your first reaction is (and should be) abhorrance.

Anyone trained in self-defense knows ways of restraining an opponent without causing severe pain, and a properly trained police officer should know dozens of them.

Anyone trained in self defense also knows the following:

1) The longer any fight continues, the more likely someone is to get seriously hurt.
2) No matter how many picture perfect practices you've done of any particular move or combinations thereof, when the fists start flying, theory goes out the window.
3) Even the simplest and safest of moves can cause severe injury or death if applied in the wrong spot or at the wrong time.
4) No one who doesn't want to be restrained or held is going to coperate with you to ensure that your holds don't harm them, and them twisting in one direction while you twist in the other is a great way you break something.

Using a taser in this situation is not just ludicrously overkill - it should be a criminal offense.

Actually, I thought it was a pretty good response. They tried walking him peacefuly out the door, he fought back. They tried wrestling him to the ground and restraining him and he continued to fight back. They tried rolling him over and cuffing him and he continued to fight back. You'll notice they couldn't maintain control over his hands, you'll also notice that each of those officers was armed. The longer they fight with him on the ground, the more likely someone will get hurt, or in a worst case scenario, that he will get a hold of one of their guns. They needed to get him restrained and under control quickly, and he was absolutely refusing to cooperate, the taser was applied like a stun gun, which means it's localized pain rather than a full body shock , and it was used exactly as it should have been, in a short burst to shock him into cooperating so they could properly cuff and restrain him. You'll notice after that shock, it's all over. His cuffed, gets up under his own power and they walk him out.

When you see five officers - or however many there were holding that kid - unable to properly restrain him or walk him out, you know that they're all absolutely incompetent.

This kid looked to be about 6' and maybe 175lbs or so. Get one of your friends who's built like this, and then get 3 or 4 of your buddies and a pair of handcuffs. Now, try and arrest your friend and do it all without hurting him. No weapons, no blows, and no holds that cause pain. You will find that the only point that you can get the cuffs on your friend is when he stops fighting with all his might because he's afraid that something is going to break or dislocate. That is how retraints and compliance holds work, on fear (and application) of serious and severe pain and injury.

Re:Physical intimidation without going batshit

[darkwhite]

Thanks for the great reply.

when was the last time you saw a video posted online with the headline "Cop does picture perfect takedown" and you thought to yourself "That was a perfectly reasonable display of force"? A long time ago, but of course, abuse gets highlighted, as it should be. Doing your job properly doesn't attract a whole lot of attention, and most cops I interact with are extremely professional, very cool dudes.

the taser was applied like a stun gun, which means it's localized pain rather than a full body shock , and it was used exactly as it should have been, in a short burst to shock him into cooperating so they could properly cuff and restrain him. You'll notice after that shock, it's all over. His cuffed, gets up under his own power and they walk him out. At what cost? Why couldn't they apply wrist and elbow techniques? I think taser - even in "stun drive" capacity, which as someone elsewhere in the discussion pointed out is an oxymoron - is a cruel device designed to elicit extreme pain, as opposed to some pain and much fear of further pain as proper incomplete applications of locks do. As such it should only be used when the subject is a real threat, not a hypothetical "he's thrashing on the floor and might grab our guns" threat. At least one of the officers was as heavy as the subject, so he could have applied restrained force effectively.

This kid looked to be about 6' and maybe 175lbs or so. Probably heavier.

Get one of your friends who's built like this, and then get 3 or 4 of your buddies and a pair of handcuffs. Now, try and arrest your friend and do it all without hurting him. No weapons, no blows, and no holds that cause pain. You will find that the only point that you can get the cuffs on your friend is when he stops fighting with all his might because he's afraid that something is going to break or dislocate. That is how retraints and compliance holds work, on fear (and application) of serious and severe pain and injury. It's almost impossible to physically restrain someone without inducing either pain or fear of pain. The distinction here is between using a taser as a cruel and unprovoked escalation to very severe pain, as opposed to a properly applied compliance technique which uses little pain and much fear of further pain.

Re:Physical intimidation without going batshit

[MoneyT]

I guess I just don't see the taser use being over the top. Of the options availible, the way he was thrashing and fighting, especialy the way he was doing it in bursts where he would seem to finaly cooperate and then go back to fighting with all his strength, I certainly wouldn't want to try most of the holds I know to get him to stop. Too much of a risk that once he was in that hold, he'd do something stupid and break or dislocate something, then not only do you have him being a drama queen, but you also have lasting injury on top of it. The nice thing about the taser is it does exactly what you want (to stun him into compliance) without a risk of severe bodily harm. Certainly his risk of death by taser is many times lower than risk of injury with holds the way he was thrashing about, and a lower risk of bodily harm from open or closed hand strikes to try and stun him.

The other option I suppose is OC, but with that many officers on the ground and the crowd gathering around, OC runs too high of a risk of injury to someone else as well as the kid.

Yes, I agree they could have continued wrestling him, but I think it was far more appropriate to stun him to end the conflict quickly rather than prolong it. Personaly I feel there would have been too much risk of injruy to prolong that conflict.

I concur...

[Junta]

I think I've seen entirely too much footage absolutely convincing me that with the deployment of Tazers, that some of the police use it too readily. I remember seeing footage where a guy was asked to turn around, complied, asked to put his hands behind his back, he did. They cuffed one arm and couldn't quite reach the other wrist, and in trying to pull the other arm closer, they make some comment about 'stop resisting, just let us cuff', and then within five seconds of no obvious struggling, they taze. The worst he could have been doing was holding his arm stiff, but he wasn't actively doing anything and had appeared to be very compliant to that point.

I couldn't watch the video with sound up, so I don't know when the Tazing occurred, but it is safe to say people have been Tazed by police with much less justification than this guy.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[p3d0]

The guy is a journalism student. He knew that his actions were going to get publicity. He knew what was going to happen if he acted out. Really, what was his motive???

Attention Whore? Uh, yes.

Sorry, what was your point? That this means he deserved to be tasered?

Re:Democrats and brutality

[TomorrowPlusX]

Democrats? Come on. This did happen with John Kerry present, but I don't think you can talk about Democrats denying civil liberties as if Republicans haven't been doing it since 2001. Both parties are lergely made up of shitbags. Don't pretend your party is innocent.

He was very agitated

[Ranger]

and on the verge of becoming hysterical. It was no wonder the cops reacted the way they did. Maybe the cops used excessive force but needed to get him under control. When the guy asked the skull and crossbones question he'd gone off the deep end into tinfoil hat land.

Re:He was very agitated

[mdsolar]

Did you notice the police were breathing down his neck while he was speaking? Take a look at the videos again. Not too surpising he was nervous.

Re:He was very agitated

[forgotten_my_nick]

Think he was just chancing his arm after getting a cheer on the first question. S&B is common knowledge, not tinfoil hat land. Just a rich boy frat.

Re:He was very agitated

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"Did you notice the police were breathing down his neck while he was speaking? Take a look at the videos again. Not too surpising he was nervous.

One eyewitness (you tube user fozzymandias, who posted his video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAVvlyVbag&mode=related&search= ) states: "this guy basically comes running in with 4 or 5 cops in tow and says he has been running around trying to get in to ask a question and the cops are going to arrest him for it. they almost do it then but Sen. Kerry says he will answer it. he [Kerry] then answers a previous question someone else asked (i cut that part out because it isnt important to this video) then the guy asks his questions and when he is done all hell breaks lose." You can see another person filming next to the mike (hers is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s ). It doesn't look like anyone filmed his arrival.

So he wasn't there through the whole speech ... he wasn't asking about the speech, he had his own agenda, and it involved the book and Skull and BVones and ___, and ___, etc. Watching that video you can see as Kerry tries to shut his preamble about the book down with "I have a copy" and "I've read it." You can see him turning to talk to the cops, who are probably saying, please come with us. Then you see someone in the back of the room signalling the sound man to cut the mike, which is the usual way to deal with these ranters.

Re:He was very agitated

[demachina]

"When the guy asked the skull and crossbones question he'd gone off the deep end into tinfoil hat land."

How so?

Skull and Bones is a tiny fraternity full of powerful and wealthy people, with a bent for secrecy and power. Bush and Kerry ARE both members. What ARE the odds that two Bonesmen would end up running against each other for President of the United States, like 1 in a 100,000,000. His line of reasoning is a bit far fetched but certainly plausible, that Skull and Bones maneuvered two of its members in to the same presidential race so they had a lock on the most powerful political office in the world. Voters were kidding themselves they were choosing the president when it could have been decided by Bonesmen when they manuevered Kerry in to the Democratic nomation.

In particular there did seem to be concerted effort by the power elite to destroy Howard Dean who was a populist candidate the power elite dreaded making it to the White House. In to the void left by Dean stepped the ultimate power elite, establishment candidate, John Kerry, who in the general election was such a horrible candidate that he managed to get Bush reelected. I think there is almost no disputing George W. is one of the worst Presidents the U.S has ever had. It wasn't as obvious in 2004 as it is now, but a lot of people were finally figuring it out. But a lot of people still voted for Bush because Kerry seemed worse. Its mind boggling Bush got reelected and Kerry IS the one to thank for it. The U.S. will be lucky to recover from the devastation 8 years of Bush/Cheney have done to it.

So the guy is suggesting Kerry was a stalking horse of a sort, and was just elevated to the Democratic nomination to insure that Bush won the election. Bush was so bad he almost lost even running against the world's worst candidate in Kerry. Continuing the line of reason the Republicans still had to rig Ohio to win, Kerry knew it was rigged he didn't contest it because the puppetmaster Bonesmen pulling the strings told him not to because George W. was their chosen man of the two, after all he gave them all huge tax cuts and Bonesmen like their money, and he was handing out billions of our tax dollars to all their well connected corporations in a hundred different barrels of port.

Again, far fetched but plausible, and Universities used to be places where you taught people to think out of the box, not places you taser people for mentioning the name of a secret society that would rather not have its name mentioned. Bonesmen DO pull strings, all the time, and have an influence on our world disproportionate to their numbers. When you are pulling strings on the world stage you generally do prefer its done quietly.

Re:He was very agitated

[1729]

Skull and Bones is a tiny fraternity full of powerful and wealthy people, with a bent for secrecy and power. Bush and Kerry ARE both members. What ARE the odds that two Bonesmen would end up running against each other for President of the United States, like 1 in a 100,000,000.

It's even worse than that: the last two presidents were state governors when they were elected. What are the odds of that? There are at least 100,000,000 Americans who are old enough to run for President, and only 50 of them are currently serving as a state governor. So the odds are about 1 in 20,000,000 that a governor would be elected in a given election. And the odds of two being elected in a row: at least 1 in 400,000,000,000,000. This is unbelievable! You've uncovered a conspiracy!

Re:He was very agitated

[demachina]

Funny, unfortunately its not an even remotely valid analogy. Someone elected governor has already cleared an extremely difficult political gauntlet exactly like the one they have to clear to get elected President. Making it to governor means you are vetted by your party, you have the ability to raise money, you can run the political machine necessary to get elected and you are electable at least in the microcosm of one state. People who want to be President are usually going to run for governor, Congress or be be a General just to prove they have the chops, its a logical, almost mandatory progression. The odds of two governors getting elected president back to back is probably more like 1 in 20. No conspiracy.

To get in to Skull and Bones the only gauntlet you've cleared is you got in to Yale, and you are probably the offspring of an affluent and powerful family. It says nothing about your political ability, intellect or anything else. George W. got in and he has shit for brains and was a coked up, drunken no good at the time. His own family didn't think he would amount to anything, they were betting on Jeb. It just shows how broken the American political system is that a spoiled rotten, preppy rich kid and Bonesman,can milk his family name and his rich friends to get elected President.

I should correct something in my previous post, the odds of two Bonesmen running against each other for President isn't anything like 1 in 100,000,000 because a relatively small ruling elite much of it coming out of places like Yale dominates most of the levers of power in this country, and manipulate into voting for the people they put up. They get a disproportionate number in to the centers of power, far more than they deserve, at least 1 to many in the case of George W.. I think Howard Dean went to Yale too so it was a trifecta. I don't think he is a bonesman....which is why he didn't even make the cut....

You could argue that making it through Ivy league schools is a relevant factor in winnowing the field to qualified candidates, but again the fact that George W made it through that gauntlet shows its more about powerful connections and not about having.....a brain.

Re: idiot

[IndustrialComplex]

So four was too many? How about 3?

A thumb to the eye will quickly blind you. A flailing arm can easily break your nose. A bite from a human is very likely to cause a severe infection. Knuckles can crush bones in your face, or break a tooth.

Would you risk these injuries?

How would you subdue a person to prevent this harm from happening to you? Or them? The chance of injury for either the detainee or the police is greatly reduced when you have enough bodies. One per limb seems to make sense to me.

The guy is lucky; in the 60's he would be shot

[WindBourne]

Literally. Kent state anyone.

Mod parent up

[ArcSecond]

You are 100% right. The best way to "resist" is to comply without making it easy for them to do their job. Offer no resistance, go limp, and go to the station to get booked.

If you aren't prepared to get arrested, don't get involved in protesting, period. Find something safer to do, like writing angry letters or singing folk songs. If you go up against The Man, you better have your end-game figured out. A lawyer on speed-dial is also a good idea.

Wants His 15 Minutes

[devildog820]

Being a UF student, I have heard plenty about Mr. Meyer before this. He causes problems and does things to get attention. Meyer knew he could cause a scene and once the police got involved he saw an opportunity. He took that opportunity and has now achieved the national attention he sought.

First, this was an event open to the public, but not a public forum. Rules were in place for questioners. He was being led out because he would not relinquish the microphone after being politely asked. He started going peacefully, then began struggling with the campus police which caused them to treat him as hostile. He tried to run back to the microphone and that's when they pinned him down. He started screaming and writhing because the police were holding him down, but he started the tussle. They used the TASER to subdue him without twisting arms other more forceful methods.

The police probably overreacted, but Meyer was at fault. Kerry did ask the police to let him ask the question and he answered it even as they took Meyer away.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[superbeeny]

So if Mr. Meyer is a known 'dissident' why were the police not more controlled in their actions, surely they must have known that their actions would have been closely watched, it begs the question...."Why on earth taser an unarmed student when you have six officers pinning him down????" It's obvious they didn't think and demonstrated the "Shoot first! Ask questions later" mentality that seems to becoming more and more prevalent in today's society. I'm quite disappointed by the reaction of the senator, it will hardly endear him to his voting demographic.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[DocSavage64109]

You think he should have reacted in a knee-jerk fashion and spoke out against the officers? That sounds incredibly short-sighted. In fact, I think this just goes to show that Kerry actually things about the repercussions of actions before carrying them out. Answering that final question was a clever move.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[SwordsmanLuke]

They used the TASER to subdue him without twisting arms other more forceful methods. The thing is, in most states, police are *required* to use joint locks and other physical methods way before they are supposed to even consider using a taser. Why? Because Tasers *can* kill people. That much electrical current can disrupt your heart and cause cardiac arrest. At worst, a joint lock may dislocate (or, rarely, break) a joint if the victim is really resisting. While certainly painful, it's a *hell* of a lot less likely to kill a person than tasering them.

The point is, though, that the police do not have the authority - even when someone is twisting and panicking during arrest - to taser him until he presents a danger to those around him. Mr. Meyer was not lashing out at the police, he was not trying to strike them or otherwise injure them. He *was* resisting arrest, but not violently.

Finally, have you ever been tasered? I can assure you, it hurts *much* worse than a properly applied joint-lock. What the police did was deliberately inflict serious pain with a potentially lethal weapon on a man who was very nearly under their control - for their own convenience, not safety.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[midwestnets]

He causes problems and does things to get attention. More people should cause problems and do things to get attention. Instead of listening to "bought and paid for" politicians or the mainstream media, we should be listening to each other. No doubt, he had an agenda. No doubt, he resisted the cops. No doubt, he is looking for attention. The police are allowed to "set us up" to behave wrongly. That is the definition of a "sting." Why shouldn't we get behind someone who "sets them up" and they behave wrongly.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[poot_rootbeer]

They used the TASER to subdue him without twisting arms other more forceful methods.

Using the taser IS a more forceful method of subduing him than twisting his arm, though.

Twist his arm, the worst-case outcome is that his arm gets broken. Put a shitload of voltage through him, though, and there's an outside chance you'll stop his heart and kill him. Which is a more appropriate application of force?

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[superbeeny]

I've been looking for a response from Kerry, haven't found one as yet (if someone can link one I would be grateful). Another thought that occurs, mostly from reading the readers responses on this discussion, is that if six officers are not enough to subdue and remove one student then perhaps we should look at their overall competency. I think their use of the taser was for their convenience and to exact some sort of revenge on the student for actually making them work ;)

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[devildog820]

He causes problems and does things to get attention.

I should have clarified. What he does is hardly ever constructive or even purposeful. Which is his right, but it's my right to be annoyed by him and his antics. I agree that people should get their voices out, but they should accept the consequences of their actions.

The mainstream media you refer to is the one distorting the story by only showing Andrew Meyer's side. How many people on Slashdot saw the original post or read a blurb about it and immediately thought of Rodney King or other examples of actual police brutality?

You are not defining a sting, but "entrapment." Police officers get caught in stings just like civilians do. Police officers also get videotaped abusing the public, but I don't agree that this is one of those times.

I am eating crow about the TASER. I thought that it was more like a stun gun, I didn't realize that it a) caused so much pain and b) could stop your heart. I know stun guns don't feel great, but they don't compare to a TASER.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[mdielmann]

If you do non-constructive things that irritate and inconvenience me, should I be allowed to punch you in the head? The nature of a free society is that you can be a jerk and the authorities are still required to follow the law. Would you have been okay with it if they'd applied the nightstick instead of the taser? How about a few boots? From everything I'm hearing, we have a student who's a chronic ass and some cops or rent-a-cops who don't know how to do their job. Since being an ass isn't illegal and assault is, I'd like to know your justification for defending the cops.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[devildog820]

Read my last comment. I am not defending the use of the taser. However, the cops tried to lead him away quietly because he violated the rules that questioners must follow. This was not Meyer's venue, despite the fact a student group sponsored the event. He became physical with the cops and they responded in kind. Cops have the right to defend themselves (again, the taser was unnecessary, but not Meyer's removal).

Meyer just wanted to protest Kerry and didn't even let Kerry answer the question, he just kept cutting Kerry off. UF has plenty of places to protest legally without a permit (including right outside of the venue where this was), why didn't he go out there and demand answers when Kerry came out?

As to the fact that the cops don't know how to do their jobs, that's not true, they just overreacted and will probably be disciplined. I would have understood if it was only one or two cops, but several of them should have been able to put cuffs on him and remove him.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[devildog820]

Because some people aren't following the thread of this discussion, I am posting this again. I do not support the use of the taser on Meyer. Again, I do not support it. I was mistaken on what the effects of it were. I do support the removal of Meyer from the premises as he was causing a scene at a private student event, not a taxpayer one. He struggled, so he gets a forceful response. Too forceful though.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[mdielmann]

Alright, I'll accept all of what you said there with the exception of the last paragraph. When you fail in your job by breaking the law, more than just discipline should be considered. How about charges? Just because they're allowed to carry tasers doesn't give them a pass if they use them inappropriately. Even without charges, dismissal should be considered. When you stand around and let your co-worker break the law, discipline should be a minimum. You can't tell me that one of those cops couldn't have stopped the other from using it. At least one of them wasn't too busy to stop doing his job. If it was the group leader who used the taser, that's even more serious, IMO.

The attitude that people can be given power over others and not be held responsible for their use of that power is the cause of far too many of the atrocities humanity has suffered. If people can't handle the power, remove it from them.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[devildog820]

I agree with that. I use the word discipline rather liberally. I include dismissal and even criminal or civil charges when I say they should be disciplined.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[Inthewire]

Well, now, that's bullshit.
Twist his arm, it breaks, then in his struggles the broken bone severs an artery, causing massive bleeding, leading to blood loss, shock, death.

Pretty farfetched, yeah, but it can happen.

Both approaches have a non-zero chance of causing death.
One approach has a much higher chance of causing serious damage, with the additional possibility of endangering others.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[darkwhite]

They used the TASER to subdue him without twisting arms other more forceful methods. Taser is by far the more violent, forceful, painful, and cruel method than arm twisting, much less a proper arm lock. These police officers' actions are inexcusable, and the officer who fired the taser should serve jail time. "Probably overreacted" my ass. I don't care who you assign "fault" to, any police officer tasering a non-violent subject needs to serve jail time.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[N3wsByt3]

"Both approaches have a non-zero chance of causing death."

Perhaps, but the non-zero chance is far greater with a tazer then with the possibility you just described. So, essentially, nothing of what the parent poster tried to point out has been countered by your counterargument. The tazer is still the more forceful and dangerous option, and thus it isn't the most appropiate application of force by a long shot.

Whether locking an arm has more chance of injuries, I don't know, but in most normal minds, the chance of death is deemed far worse than a chance of getting an injury.

I'm not sure what the use of your post was, exept maybe making the rather pedantic point that there is a theorethic possibility that locking an arm could break it, etc. and potentially kill a person. And yes, this IS pedantic, because one can reasonably assume most people know that any use of force could *potentially* cause somebody to die, if enough unlucky factors pile up. A policeman could even just speak to you, and you could startle to death if you have a weak heart.

EVERYTHING could lead to someone dying, if you take enough unlikely events into consideration. It hardly makes for a compelling argument.

Re:Wants His 15 Minutes

[Sinbios]

>> Put a shitload of voltage through him, though, and there's an outside chance you'll stop his heart and kill him.

That depends on the kind of taser used, and in this case it was the localized pain version, since it's evident that he wasn't paralyzed afterwards and could walk fine. So no, there isn't any chance of stopping his heart unless they put the taser RIGHT OVER HIS HEART. These tasers don't "put a shitload of voltage" through the body, it merely makes the stretch of the body immediately between the two electrodes part of the circuit. Since there is a voltage difference between the two electrodes, current passes from one electrode to another while travelling through the part of the victim's body which connects them, which causes localized pain in that part of the body.

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[samkass]

The point, though, is that while this guy has the right to protest, he has no constitutional right to barge in on the rally and shout down the speaker at length. Because, guess what? Kerry has the right to assembly as well. While I'm not sure whether a taser was necessary (although I'm not going to second-guess the police in this case), I think it's obvious the police violated nobody's constitutional rights.

There are *four* lights

[benhocking]

But four officers couldn't remove one college student without using a taser?

Actually, but the time he was tasered, I think there were six officers. Two more walked in as the original four were maneuvering him up the aisle. (You can see this best in the first YouTube video linked.)

Re:There are *four* lights

[torkus]

Hell, if you watch *ONE* of them carried him most of the way out.

They're too busy enforcing their 'authority' to worry about doing their JOB.

Re:There are *four* lights

[MoneyT]

Their job is to maintain authority and resolve the situation as quickly and as safely as possible. To all parties involved, a stun gun is considerably safer than a wrestling match.

Freedom of speech?

[GBC]

It certainly looked like the police over-reacted. Surely awkward questions and ranting are to be expected at a university talk like this? What warranted them taking this guy down?

From what I could see there was little effort on the part of the police to deal with and disarm the situation verbally. Instead, they went straight into physical confrontation mode (and then messed that up!).

What I want to know is what the hell Senator Kerry was doing while all this was happening. I expect once he realises footage is available online, there will be a press release from him. Let the arse-covering commence!

Taze Them All!

[Anonymous Coward]

And on a personal note, I wish more people like this one would be tazed. It's not like this was political activism... Hear hear! Taze them all, it's not political activism, it's a disturbance in my day to day life. One time, I was watching Full House and it was interrupted by some Chinese dude that wanted to get run over by tanks! And then you know what happened? THE TANK FUCKING STOPPED. I was like, well, squish him, I'm missing DJ & Michelle's jokes!

Ugh, these people are drama queens! It's not like there's a fine line between police brutality and rights to free speech and demonstrating. Just always favor the police and get the thing fucking over with. Who cares, it's never going to be me there.

Re:Taze Them All!

[kharchenko]

wish I had some points to mod you up!

Re:Taze Them All!

[celle]

Obviously you've never read the constitution or have any idea of its meaning. Self-serving people like you are the reason for the current collapse in civil rights among other things. Get off the couch and realize there's a real world out there. When police(blackwater) overreact in Iraq(warzone) its sad, when police do it here(law/peaceful) its a constitutional tragedy. I worry it's becoming time for the ammo box.
What was it: When they came for the others I said nothing because I wasn't one of them. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me.

Re:Taze Them All!

[markbt73]

The problem with sarcasm these days is you can never go far enough over the top for people to realize you're kidding.

Your "+5 Insightful" mod does worry me a bit, though...

Re:Taze Them All!

[dfenstrate]

It's amusing you've shut down so much of your mental facilities that you're unable to distinguish between a child throwing a temper tantrum and a man standing alone in front of tyranny.

It's sad that you get modded up for it, because it shows that there are plenty of people on slashdot who are also incapable of making the distinction.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[torkus]

Christ, they should try this in congress.

You talk past an allotted time, you get tazered. That would sure clean the idiots who babble on about nonsense. "FOR TEH CHILDREN....!!!!!11!!111oneoneone"

"I'm sorry senator, we're tired of hearing you. Please step down"
"Sorry, but i'm not releasing the floor until you address my issue with shoe laces poisioning parakeets in indonesia"
"Ok, we warned you. Go get em boys"
"Ahh what..ZZZZzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzz..noooo...ZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzz...please...ZZZZZZzzzzZZZZZzzzz..."
"And on to the next topic. Discuss raises for the senate."

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Gryle]

Because a person being tasered by the police should be of interest to everyone. From what I can tell, the student was tasered for resisting arrest, but it's still an interesting story because it was done at a political rally. Nerds pride themselves on being the most informed people on the planet and that should include current events as well.

Re: Neutral information?

[morgan_greywolf]

Its hard to find neutral information amongst all the people crying "foul". No, it isn't. It's on videotape, from numerous different cameras. Watch it the video from CNN here and decide for yourself if this guy was crazy or if the police did things by the book.

Sounds more "Republican" to me

[Etrias]

Seems to me that this is something the democrats like to do. They'll whine about this kind of thing for political points but then as soon as they have control of a situation, they'll use the threat of force and application of excessive force to deny civil liberties. This is not too surpising given their voting record on unconstitutional legislation to destroy civil liberties.
Wow, thanks for the stupidest comment I've heard all day. Now I know I can go the rest of the day and not hear anything as asinine as that...it's like the rest of my day is free!

Seriously, this was a police matter, not the dems in a back room saying "go get that guy". The real point that should be taken here is that tasers are used too often in situations where it's largely under control by the police who think they will not cause any harm to the perpetrator.

Re:Sounds more "Republican" to me

[mdsolar]

I didn't hear Kerry protest the arrest. He's long since left the real stuff of his reputation bleaching behind him.

Re:He got what he wanted

[Reverend528]

this is 'an anoying stupid kid getting his ass kicked' issue.

Yes, and if we take away their ability to kick stupid kids asses, what incentive will there be for anyone to become a police officer?

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[z_gringo]

I agree completely. Thanks for articulating exactly what I would have done a far worse job of trying to say.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[vfrex]

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the fact that he was zapped. It was a dangerous move; they probably didn't know whether he had a heart condition, and frankly, it looks terrible for the police there. However, its not the first time I've seen college police botch restraining someone. A drunk, belligerent maybe 120 pound female friend of mine, who could barely stand on her own, required 4-6 university cops to drag down and handcuff. I'm not surprised that the cops in this video had trouble getting this guy under control. He looked relatively well built, and in a crowded room of people, its not like they have much room to work with. He continued to struggle, even as he realized that he could be tasered.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[IndustrialComplex]

At the point where you have to tell the police "I'll get up and leave." It is probably already too late. At that point, he was probably being placed under arrest and thus he did not have the right to 'get up and leave'. He was going to be taken to the station and charged, then likely released pending a court date.

You can't just call a 'do over' once the police have you on the ground. My advice is to do your best to avoid being placed on the ground by the police. And if you are on the ground, you are going to be charged with something.

Democracy

[kalman5]

And this is the democracy that USA want to export? No thank you.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[torkus]

Great. We now have police telling people they're asking too many questions and arresting people for it.

4 of them couldn't remove him without a tazer? And then they had to arrest him? God...take him outside, dump him on the ground and close the doors. But let's be realistic - anyone who disagrees with the police state must be arrested.

What's the alternative?

[Nymz]

Should police have two different sets of procedures? No tasering people in public because they might get caught on camera? When you use such electrocution tools on a regular basis, sometimes you will forget.

I'm just glad that this was able to get out so quickly on YouTube as seen in this earlier submission.

False spin

[Anonymous Coward]

"A man swinging his arms at police as they are trying to escort him out of a venue is a threat to the police."

Actually, he was holding his arms up in the air to show he was not a threat.

And these police are pretty incompetent. But I guess that's all anyone gets nowadays. Notice the fat cops, not in shape, and the woman cop, who doesn't have enough strength to do more than pull a trigger on a gun.

Cops already have the mentality that "I AM THE LAW, SO YOU WILL RESPECT ME", and when you put somebody who doesn't know how (or isn't strong enough) to properly restrain somebody, you get tasers and bullets.

But the key portion of this is that they didn't have the right way to deal with somebody being boorish or idiotic other than arresting the guy.

I'm beginning to think that a "Robocop" wouldn't be a bad idea. They need to have smarter cops, better trained, who don't let their own anger cloud their judgement.

On the other hand, this is florida, which even has a special category in fark.com, so I guess I didn't expect any better.

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[Anonymous Coward]

Please answer the following question:

Is a protest a protest if no one is there to hear it?

Gotta Love the Hypocrisy

[leadsling]

Reading through these comments, it amazes me how many of them are along the line of "He deserved it" or "He tried to provoke it". If that had been President Bush or Vice-President Cheney that this incident occurred to, I would have seen the word "Nazi" in many forms at least 200 times by now in these comments. This underlines the point that the vast majority of US campuses support free speech, as long as it is left speech.

Amazing

[mattr]

I'm frightened by all the people (90%?) saying the kid got what he deserved being tazed.

What utter bullshit! You guys seem to forget, this was a political rally in a university! What the heck do you think academic freedom is supposed to be about anyway? I remember pretty well when they had that killer Meir Kahane get invited to Cornell U. when I was there, I wish there had been more people like this kid. Maybe he's immature, and a hundred other things but he has balls and he is a presumably a student paying for an education, paying to have Kerry come and to have the privilege to talk back to the Senator. If there is one place that kids MUST NOT BE TAZED it is at political rallies in universities. The idea that a kid has to be educated by corporal and potentially lethal punishment as to where the neocon-sensitized line is in public discourse, is utterly repellent. You expect undergrads to be immature. They are growing their minds. Kids are shown video of how political disobedience and political rallies are often done by people who are getting frog walked away by cops. It is assumed rubber and metal bullets are the province of Myanmar or past South American regimes. Tazers do not feature in the media they are pseudo-educated with, as far as I know they are only on-campus. I think there can be worse things than an unruly but passionate and basically harmless kid talking long. I doubt that is illegal either. And I senators expect this sort of thing. Unless you see someone rushing at the Senator with a knife there is no reason to taze. I'm sorry, I am almost entirely nonpolitical and never was on campus either but there has to be a line drawn. I cannot agree at all with the jerks who say the kid got what he asked for. Imagine what the scene would have been like 10 years ago when tazers were not the fad. This is BAD. It is educating people to be mice. Or if you still don't get it, it is educating people to buy Microsoft, they can't go wrong and what's good for them is good for you. Need I go on? The idea that there needs even to be an investigation is utterly bizarre. This country has gone quite insane, I'm sure.

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. This was done simply for convenience, because they got tired of dealing with the situation. Deliberate, gratuitous violence should make people feel very uneasy, but we don't seem to care anymore.

Re:Amazing

[k2enemy]

What the heck do you think academic freedom is supposed to be about anyway?

The freedom to pursue knowledge and do research without interference from the institution you're associated with. I do not understand how academic freedom is relevant in this matter.

While I don't think he should have been tazed, he had an opportunity to voice his opinions and questions in a civil, rational way. I understand the importance of disobedience in order to be heard from under oppression, but it looks like he skipped right to disobedience in order to get attention for himself, not his opinions or beliefs.

Re:Amazing

[ElephanTS]

Just a note of support - I totally agree. He was not dangerous, just passionate and young. He may have made a scene and gone too far but that isn't a justification for 50,000V. The taser seemed to be given as punishment which is not the police's role. These kinds of stories always remind me of some of the SciFi I used to read. What makes it dystopian is that people then queue up to say it was justified, unaware that these and other incidents like it set frightening precedents. Extrapolating from where we are now I can easily imagine a future where the guy is carted off to a reprogramming camp to 'learn' why he shouldn't behave that way and is never seen again, or comes back a chemically controlled zombie. And still people would say "he deserved it - look what he did!". In other countries these things have happened in the past but no-one sees the similarites?

And your last point: yes, there is an insanity that is spreading through the population. I don't know where it will end but it won't be good. Sooner or later people will be saying 2+2=5 and 'loving it'.

Re:Amazing

[JerryLove]

"If there is one place that kids MUST NOT BE TAZED it is at political rallies in universities." - This is one of the most rediculious statements I've ever heard. What does the venue have to do with reciprocial force? Can I assume that you feel students should never be shot there either? What should we do if a student begins to spray the house with machine-gun fire? Of course, the location is entirely irrellevent to such a silly claim. There's no more right to resist arrest in one location than in another. "The idea that a kid has to be educated by corporal and potentially lethal punishment as to where the neocon-sensitized line is in public discourse, is utterly repellent." - So when someone is fighting with you, you should get hit while trying to start a dialogue? He forcibly resisted and force was used to create compliance. This is SOP for every police agency everywhere. No other method actually works. "Deserved" has nothing to do with it.

Re:Amazing

[sckeener]

This country has gone quite insane, I'm sure.

It has been that way for awhile. Back during the Republican convention for Bush Sr in Houston, the police marched a peaceful AIDS protest into a dead end alley and blocked it off. Then after keeping the protesters trapped (My ex-wife remembers a 60 year old mother of an AIDS victim being prevented from leaving)the police charged in on horseback...right over a die-in (a form of protest where you lay on the ground.) Needless to say people got stepped on...

Ultimately nothing came of it...my ex-wife was the most credible witness because she wrote everything down immediately afterwards and sought medical treatment for where the police baton hit her. She had bone bruises which took months to heal. Oh and btw, she had taken some training on what to say if such an event happened...namely getting hit by police...she was told that she had to verbally say that she was being hurt to the person doing the hitting...guess what...he hit her again...knocked her glasses off making her blind as a bat...

The reason nothing came of it... it was at night and the badge number on the riot gear is in reflective tape....You need a good light source and not really be stressed to see it...

Other people that were more seriously hurt didn't want to testify because they were from out of state....

I was impressed with Sheila Jackson-Lee, who at the time was on Houston City Council. She was one of a few that wanted an inquiry and more details.

Another interesting bit, a couple of Republican friends of my ex-wife were at the convention as attendees and over heard some police officers talking about beating up some queers that night. They didn't think any of their friends would be there, so they didn't tell anyone until afterwards.

To quote Reverend Martin Niemoeller:

"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."

Re:Amazing

[xnickmx]

I agree - I'm disgusted by most of the comments. Saying he is an "attention seeker" and "wouldn't give up the mic" - so that is a good reason to taze him? Simply escort him out of the building. Why did they need to hold him down, cuff him and then taze him? You can hear him asking why he was being arrested and then telling the officers that he will leave, but they continue to use more force. But because he is in "tin-foil hat land" and asking about skull and bones he must be a loon and therefore should be shocked.

Re:Amazing

[stewbacca]

The taser was not "punishment", rather "enforcement". The kid wouldn't shut up, wouldn't leave, then wouldn't stop resisting. The cops are supposed to do what exactly? Say, "yeah, you are right kid, get back up there and badger the Senator some more!".

Re:Amazing

[E 99]

If there is one place that kids MUST NOT BE TAZED it is at political rallies in universities. The idea that a kid has to be educated by corporal and potentially lethal punishment as to where the neocon-sensitized line is in public discourse, is utterly repellent. You expect undergrads to be immature. They are growing their minds. Kids are shown video of how political disobedience and political rallies are often done by people who are getting frog walked away by cops. It is assumed rubber and metal bullets are the province of Myanmar or past South American regimes.

The rule of law should exist as much on campuses as anywhere else. He wasn't tasered as a means of education, he was tasered so they could get cuffs on him. The point of "civil disobedience" is to disobey unconscionable laws or rules, with the full expectation of paying the consequences. The rule that everyone gets a chance to speak is not unconscionable, and even if it were, if he's determined to disobey it, he should accept the consequence of being kicked out. If he refuses to be kicked out, he should accept the consequence of physical force. If he learns that there are inevitable consequences for actions, I guess his education won't have been for nothing.

Re:Amazing

[ElephanTS]

They had him under control, they could have just led him out and warned him, booked him, wahtever. No one was in any physical danger which is meant to be the reason for the taser. So in that way it was used as a punishment and to reinforce the power structure. Obviously the guy was being a pain in the ass but these things happen at political meetings. If he'd been waving a knife around I'd understand but he was just shooting his mouth.

Re:Amazing

[Zapped.Info]

Indeed...the country has gone insane and the sane ones will be branded insane by the insane as they are given "shock therapy" until their thoughts become too jumbled to think. I am outraged by what I saw here! I want to do something! But then I think, what can I do? There isn't a peaceful solution because peaceful solutions are dealt with clearly; with violence. From what I understand, we have always lived in this police state, because matters like this couldn't not reach the open air so quickly and if they did, would be dis-believed. If tazers are "non-lethal force" then perhaps a tazer rally should be held at the University. Ooops wait a sec...If you had 1000 students marching with tazers, then they would be dealt with; with bullets. There are diseases in which the immune system begins to attack the body: That is what's happening here. The police involved need to be criminally prosecuted. The man was begging not to be tortured and they still zapped him: repetively. That is not only criminal, it is sick minded. Violence is NOT the answer, but I can't help but to dream about shoving an electric probe up the %#! of those cops with the switch super glued to "on"

Re:Amazing

[n6kuy]

> > What the heck do you think academic freedom is supposed to be about anyway?

> The freedom to pursue knowledge and do research without interference from the institution you're associated
> with.

Is THAT what it is?

I thought "academic freedom" was all about justifying being an asshole, because you're on campus.

This kid got an education, all right.

Re:Amazing

[nate nice]

They didn't put him under arrest until after he was manhandled and electrocuted. He asked what he was being held for and they didn't give an answer. He was being kidnapped and rightfully wanted to escape. I'm not sure how he was resisting an arrest when he wasn't put under arrest until later.

They finally got him to the ground and had him cuffed and then they decided they needed to electrocute him. He wasn't a threat to anyone. He was under control. But they electrocuted him because they are fascist pigs.

The fact you could possible agree with him being electrocuted is sick. Those things are for people that pose a real PHYSICAL threat and cannot reasonably be detained. He couldn't have possibly posed a real threat with all the police that were there (he had no weapons and it isn't reasonable to believe he did by that point) and they basically had him in the bag.

Just because a guy is resisting arrest doesn't mean he should be electrocuted. If a cop has to take a fist to the jaw to get a guy down, then so be it. It's their job. The guy will then be charged with the serious crime of hitting an officer and the courts won't take mercy on him.

These were fascist pigs who didn't follow procedure at all. I hope they get shot.

Re:Amazing

[n6kuy]

You used the word "electrocuted" several times.

Rest assured that had been electrocuted, there would have been no need to arrest him.

Re:Amazing

[workindev]

Interesting how your perception of who is "insane" isn't the people who were laying down on the ground in front of charging horses and then complaining about being trampled.

Re:Amazing

[teknopurge]

They finally got him to the ground and had him cuffed and then they decided they needed to electrocute him. He wasn't a threat to anyone. He was under control. But they electrocuted him because they are fascist pigs. Wrong. They tased him BEFORE they got the cuffs on. He was squirming so much they were unable to cuff him.

Re:Amazing

[Abcd1234]

Wrong. They tased him BEFORE they got the cuffs on. He was squirming so much they were unable to cuff him.

Wait wait... so now it's okay to taze a prone suspect because he makes it difficult for you to put on the cuffs? IOW, it's okay for fucking lazy cops to use a tazer in lieu of proper arrest procedure? Well... that's just awesome.

Re:Amazing

[teknopurge]

Wrong. They tased him BEFORE they got the cuffs on. He was squirming so much they were unable to cuff him.

Wait wait... so now it's okay to taze a prone suspect because he makes it difficult for you to put on the cuffs? IOW, it's okay for fucking lazy cops to use a tazer in lieu of proper arrest procedure? Well... that's just awesome. Yes - it has always been ok. They spent the better part of 60 seconds trying to get him into cuffs. Would you rather they break his arm trying to get the cuffs on?!?!?!

They followed proper procedure:

-They asked him to leave, he refused.
-He created a public disturbance, he was placed under arrest.
-He refused arrest, physically, and disobeyed commands from a police officer.
-The police spent more time then they should have, IMO, trying to force him to comply. Their methods did not work so they decided to use another....

You have to do what police say. If they are in the wrong, that is for a judge to decide, not you.

Re:Amazing

[Quiet_Desperation]

The fact you could possible agree with him being electrocuted is sick.

What part of "I do wish he *hadn't* been tazed" did you miss?

These were fascist pigs who didn't follow procedure at all. I hope they get shot.

Can you even grasp the irony of that?

Re:Amazing

[nate nice]

Maybe the part that said you wished he hadn't been tazed because it's going to give him publicity. You don't wish he wasn't tazed, you wish he wouldn't get publicity. You find nothing wrong with him being tazed, so long as it doesn't result in publicity. You even went as far as to suggest he deserved it because he "causes trouble".

You are a sick, fascist pig.

And where's the irony in hoping the fascists get shot? I'm hoping they get shot for pulling crap like this. I don't wish any governing body to gather them up and kill them in a power play. I hope these guys keep messing with people until they mess with the wrong guy and get shot. Oh wait, never mind. I hope they don't because then they will just generate sympathy for fascist pigs like themselves.

Now that's irony!

Re:Amazing

[blueskies]

Why would that be insane if Police are known to not ride over people? Next you'll be saying people getting hit in the crosswalk are insane for crossing the street with the walk signal. I mean they are in the street where cars drive, right? Why should they complain about getting hit by cars? OMFG.

Then again you might be a little slow to understand what passive resistance is since you are suggesting that it is a good policy to do violence to people that are passively resisting.

Re:Amazing

[workindev]

If you "passively resist" in front of a charging horse, there is a good chance that you'll get kicked by a horse, just like if you "passively resist" in the middle of the street, there is a good chance you'll get hit by a car. The only person to blame in that situation is the moron who is lying down in the middle of the street, not the person driving the car or riding the horse. Don't want to get hit by a car? Don't lay down in the street. Simple huh? Take your "passive resistance" to your own driveway and I guarantee you won't get run over.

Re:Amazing

[AK Marc]

He violated the rules of a public gathering and was asked to leave. He chose to continue to violate those rules and "disturbed the peace." When escorted out, he faught with the police. While fighting with the police, he was tasered.

Do you think that is an accurate description of the events? If not, what do you think is inaccurate? If that is an accurate description, what do you have objections to? Was it being asked to leave, or the treatment after? I see that you are making a complaint, but it goes off on a tangent about what people do elsewhere and whether the last action by the police is justified given the first action by him. Yes, people have been tasered for something nonviolent, but not until they show violence. He was being escorted off and faught back. He showed violence, and was met with violence. He wasn't tasered for talking, he was tasered for running then fighting when taken to the ground. So I ask again, which part do you object to and why?

Re:Amazing

[skogs]

I am afraid of your dense stupidity, and those that share it.

Actions have consequences: He was a moron and got taken away for his obviously planned unruly behavior.

Actions have consequences: The security staff will be scrutinized beyond all sensibilities by morons like yourself that sit in front of computers and have no legal or criminal enforcement experience.

Actions have consequences: The entire country is being taken over by people that don't want to feel threatened, don't want to be put in the corner, and don't want any responsibility for their actions. Those people never got sent to bed without supper, never got a spanking for disrespecting their elders, and never grew the self-control and intestinal fortitude to eat meat or do anything they think is unconscionable except tear each other down and point fingers and say it is everybody else's fault. Thats right. Here in America, you aren't at fault for anything - you are always a victim and worth somebody else's tax money to fight for you.

---

ps - my this topic certainly has gotten a lot of comments. Not exactly News for nerds...or things that matter. This is quite possibly the biggest dupe of slashdot ever. Ask yourself this: Would anybody really care what the answers to that babbling idiot's questions would be if he hadn't caused such a scene? The only reason this is being talked about is because he was a complete moron in public - way to play into his plan. You've all been duped by a 20 year old with too much spare time on his hands at the beginning of the semester. He and his idealistic brethren thought up this plan some evening last week while drinking beer and eating pizza....cheap pizza.

Re:Amazing

[1729]

Those people [...] never grew the self-control and intestinal fortitude to eat meat or do anything they think is unconscionable

Things I've learned from your post:
1) Vegetarians lack the self-control necessary to eat meat.
2) It's wrong to avoid doing unconscionable things.

Are there any other deep thoughts you'd like to share?

Re:Amazing

[blueskies]

If you "passively resist" in front of a charging horse, there is a good chance that you'll get kicked by a horse, just like if you "passively resist" in the middle of the street,

Actually that isn't true. If you and a large number of friends clog up a city street, there is a good chance you won't get hit by a car. There are laws against running over pedestrians in the street--even if they aren't supposed to be there.

Re:Amazing

[skogs]

"they think"

Sigh. Relative morality is not really any morality at all. All situations can be 'better understood' as the superior enlightened like to say. Others may sometimes call the same 'understanding' things like enabling, guilt-avoidance, unethical, @$@, and other fine insults with real character trashing qualities.

For any free society to be successful, there must exist not only individual liberty, but also individual responsibility.

This fine moron, and anybody arguing for him, understands individual liberty just fine, but not so much the responsibility. Break one, and unfortunately the other will probably be broken on your behalf or on the behalf of those around you.

----- Next time, don't bother wasting the electricity used to store the bits used to express your opinion. Trolling and flaming are sort of stupid...especially in a topic as over-posted as this one. Reading the letters and the words and not understanding the truth and principles behind them are obviously a problem you have. Try working on those critical thinking skills and take a few morality and ethics classes at your local community college.

Re:Amazing

[1729]

Sigh. Relative morality is not really any morality at all. All situations can be 'better understood' as the superior enlightened like to say. Others may sometimes call the same 'understanding' things like enabling, guilt-avoidance, unethical, @$@, and other fine insults with real character trashing qualities.

Huh? I have no idea what your point is. I understand that you're disputing what makes something "unconscionable", but answer this: should people do things that they think are unconscionable? Maybe you could enlighten those of us who don't have access to your copy of What's Right and What's Wrong: A Complete Reference.

 

Next time, don't bother wasting the electricity used to store the bits used to express your opinion. Trolling and flaming are sort of stupid...especially in a topic as over-posted as this one. Reading the letters and the words and not understanding the truth and principles behind them are obviously a problem you have. Try working on those critical thinking skills and take a few morality and ethics classes at your local community college.

Lessee . . . you rambled incomprehensibly and said some really dumb things. I pointed this out. Therefore, I'm a troll who can't think critically. Did I get that right? If I agree with you and say that everything you write is correct and insightful, will that mean that I've learned to think critically?

As for ethics and morality courses: are you serious? Really? Can you even take a course in "morality" at a community college? I know colleges offer ethics courses -- I had to take one as an undergrad -- but morality?

Thanks for the advice, though.

Re:Amazing

[mattr]

Thank you very much for your excellent comment. I'm very sad to hear about what happened to your wife.

I'm particularly worried about how we have been seeing tazing in universities lately. From what you said it seems the public needs more protection against rabid security and police officers, perhaps starting with requiring more visible identification, public announcement of the name of the officer in charge, and investigations into all incidents of violence on the unarmed and the political.

Matt

Re:Amazing

[DerekLyons]

What the heck do you think academic freedom is supposed to be about anyway?

It's not freedom to be heard and/or given an audience. It's not freedom to hijack someone elses venue for your own purposed. It's not freedom to be an asshat and disrupt proceedings not your own.
 
 

You expect undergrads to be immature. They are growing their minds.

 
Actually, until the last few decades the exact opposite was true - college students were expected to be more mature than others their age. College students were held to a higher standard than adolescents in the same way that adolescents were held to higher standards than children.
 
 

This country has gone quite insane, I'm sure.

Indeed it has. When people can excuse asshattery as 'freedom' and immature behavior as 'growth' with a straight face, something has gone very wrong.

Re:Amazing

[Quiet_Desperation]

You are a sick, fascist pig.

And you are an ideologial moron who read something into my post that wasn't there.

You are also yet another dumbass kid who tosses the word "fascist" around with NO comprehension of what it really means, and how it insults the endless millions of victims of History's *real* fascists.

OK, I'm done with you.

So what???

[leehwtsohg]

I agree that he was highly annoying, and maybe even prevented others from asking questions and Kerry from answering.

But so what?
Should he have been shot? That would have also solved the problem. In the head, or knees?

Luckily this is not for you (and sadly also not for me) to decide. There are rules as to when to use tasers. And "highly annoying guy shouting loudly" doesn't cover it. He was of no danger to anyone, and was on the floor.

You don't "deserve" being tasered. A taser is not a punishment, and you can not be punished by a policeman, only by a judge/jury. A taser has defined aims - to protect others from harm, if other less violent means will not serve the same purpose. The policemen should be punished.

Re:So what???

[MPAB]

I agree that he was highly annoying, and maybe even prevented others from asking questions and Kerry from answering.

But so what?
... So this guy's freedom of speech is worth more than the others'?
Why has it become the norm to support anyone that shows lack of civility and etiquette, or even plain violent behavior?

Re:So what???

[leehwtsohg]

This is not about freedom of speech. It is about being tasered.
It is simple: no danger - don't taser.

Re:So what???

[grasshoppa]

It is simple: no danger - don't taser.

If the cops involved felt he was a danger, then they had every right to taser him. Personally, I would have done it a few times ( but then, I'm not a cop ).

A taser is a non-lethal compliance device. As such, if a perp isn't giving the complaince requested, he should have been nailed. It was either that, or a full body tackle from the cops ( which is even more risky to the cops. Does he have a used needle on him anywhere? ). Tasers are the best alternative.

Re:So what???

[FatAlb3rt]

A taser is not a punishment

You're right. It's a pain compliance tool. Research tasers - this isn't the barbed style that incapacitates you for a few seconds - it's the localized stun mode designed to get the guy to shut up, listen, and comply. Not a lot different from the cop putting his knee on the back of your head as he cuffs you or locking out your wrist.

He was looking for a bleeding heart reaction - you've been played.

Re:So what???

[harryk]

For your reading pleasure:

Taser S.O.P.:C.Authorization to use:
C.1 To control a dangerous or violent subject when deadly force does not appear to be justified and/or necessary;
C.2If attempts to subdue the subject by other conventional tactics have been, or will likely be, ineffective in the situation at hand; or
C.3If there is reasonable expectation that it will be unsafe for officers to approach within contact range of the subject, see also the Use of Force continuum,

Attachment A.. D. Prohibitions:
D.1The TASER may not be used on individuals who can be controlled by voice command or direction.
D.2The TASER may not be used as punishment or retaliation.
D.3 TASERs will not be used in conjunction with O.C. Spray.
D.4Handcuffed prisoners should not be tased without extenuating circumstances.

Re:So what???

[Stonent1]

So if I start posting goatse, hot grits, ascii depictions of parrots and genetalia and I get modded down, should I start screaming about slashdot being a fascist police state? What happens when two people have conflicting rights? His right to free speech and my right to peacefully attend a political Q&A with a former presidential cantidate and not worry about lunatics? How would everyone have answered if a right wing person took control of the room screaming and yelling? Or what about if this guy then suddenly produced a weapon and assassinated Senator Kerry?

Re:So what???

[Binkleyz]

As such, if a perp isn't giving the complaince requested

First off, "A perp"?? Really? Are you a cop or do you just play one on TV?

Secondly, being bodily removed from a question and answer session for asking an admittedly obnoxious question (but one that JK explicitly said he wanted to answer from the stage) is hardly an example of "requesting compliance" (or complaince, in you-speak).

At what point were the cops in danger? Was he going to use the microphone in his hand as a weapon? Maybe he was going to hit them with the book?

This was a plain use of non-proportional force on the part of these campus police officers. They should be ashamed that they are mirroring the tactics used by Bush and his Secret Service to remove people attempting to express any view not in step with his world view (http://tinyurl.com/27cg7a).

Re:So what???

[AxemRed]

I have to agree. Police seem to break out the taser whenever someone pisses them off, regardless of whether its use is warranted. Even watching COPS on TV, I have seen them taser suspects for not immediately following an order. A taser is not a cattle prod. It is a replacement for the club that police officers used to use. And it should only be used in cases where it would have previously been appropriate to use a club. It would not have been acceptable to smack this guy in the head with a club, so it shouldn't be acceptable to shock him with a taser either.

Re:So what???

[StringBlade]

I'm not sure what the point of your post is. It is definitely informative, but the guy in question was on the floor subdued by about 7 officers and he was handcuffed prior to being TASERd. The only thing wrong was he wouldn't shut up and was being very obnoxious.

The officers should have removed him (in handcuffs) from the hall instead of TASERing him on the floor like they did.

Re:So what???

[harryk]

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. My post was a reply to the parent. My point was that the student did not fall within the criteria for being tasered.

Re:So what???

[gordo3000]

do you know how police offers used to be trained to get compliance? I've gone through it.

it's too bad you think this is too much but the old way of doing it would have hurt the guy a lot more. it turns out when a large kid doesn't want to move when you tell him, it's a lot safer to just use pain compliance(for the kid and cop). the other option, if the training was there, was either a very painful joint lock on teh wrist(which can lead to permanent/ multiple weeks of damage) or a few nerves located under the ear.

I've moved people and been moved with those two. I promise you, feel that and hten a low power stun gun(this wasn't a full taser, if you can scream during the tasing, it's a low power stun gun) and I bet you'll start believing in the benefits of the taser. most cops I know love the taser because now they have a simple, less destructive way to get pain compliance that requires far less training than joint locks and pressure points(the two above can cause a broken wrist or dislocated jaw if adrenaline gets a bit out of control).

Re:So what???

[djasbestos]

...my right to peacefully attend a political Q&A with a former presidential cantidate and not worry about lunatics?

You enjoy no such right. But the issue is that the "lunatic" still enjoys 8th amendment protections, as well as the fact that the police are not allowed to punish him: that's what the court is for.

How would everyone have answered if a right wing person took control of the room screaming and yelling?

I don't think you can really assume political affiliation, at least based on what I saw in the video. I thought he was Republican-ish and I still felt sympathy in spite of that.

what about if this guy then suddenly produced a weapon and assassinated Senator Kerry?

What if he didn't. Oh yeah, he didn't. What if a brown person in a turban was sitting next to you on the airplane and suddenly whips out a bomb remote?!?!

Re:So what???

[Omnifarious]

Ahh, so torturing people into being obedient to authority is how we should be doing things now? Yet another authoritarian asshole. I'm compiling quite a list from this story.

Re:So what???

[Binkleyz]

How about letting him just finish his question? Wouldn't that have been easier and less dangerous for everyone involved?

Kerry wasn't asking for him to be removed (In fact, he said from the stage that he wanted to answer the question..), so I don't really see why they had to take ANY action against this kid.

Re:So what???

[Omnifarious]

I've gotten enough 'pain compliance' in my life to make me want to rip the throat out of the cop who uses it on me.

Re:So what???

[zstlaw]

Maybe if this fellow wasn't kicking and fighting while held on the floor tasering wouldn't have been deemed necessary. You see the whole pile move as he tries to lash out again and again. At that point the police could have used more physical force or tasering. The police are just doing a job and getting kicked repeatedly by some punk while trying not to hurt him is VERY frustrating.

The kid really is lucky. After the first swing on an officer (you can see it before he gets taken down) the officers could have clubbed him. As far as I could see the police were all very well behaved.

They tried to talk him down. They tried to escort him peacefully. When he resisted escort they restrained him. When he broke free of his restraining officers they restrained him with a couple bigger officers. When he broke free again and started lashing out at officers they took him down to the floor. Then on the floor he kept kicking and lashing out as they tried to talk him down. All of the violence was initiated by this punk.

I am a huge proponent for free speech, but he was preventing others from having a chance to speak and provoking the police at every turn. He might even have been paid to create an incident, but it appears the incident was all his fault. He will have a fine, and his "resisting arrest" could get him time if any of those officers were hurt. They were just trying to do their job and this nutjob attacks them. How would you like to have their job? You are being polite as possible and you get attacked by a screaming lunatic who shoves your friend and then nails you in the head with a wild swing.

Those policemen and women did a damn fine job. I am sorry that he had to be tasered, but when several policemen are having trouble restraining someone who is lashing out there are very few choices left.

Re:So what???

[E 99]

C.2 If attempts to subdue the subject by other conventional tactics have been, or will likely be, ineffective in the situation at hand;

There you go. They had been trying to subdue him on the ground by conventional tactics for several minutes unsuccessfully. So the taser was justified. Case closed.

Re:So what???

[mfrank]

Because he was at the end of the line of people asking questions, then he rushed the stage to the front of the line and started going nuts. He was being highly disruptive before he ever asked a question.

Re:So what???

[ls -la]

I'm not sure what the point of your post is. It is definitely informative, but the guy in question was on the floor subdued by about 7 officers and he was handcuffed prior to being TASERd. The only thing wrong was he wouldn't shut up and was being very obnoxious.

The officers should have removed him (in handcuffs) from the hall instead of TASERing him on the floor like they did.

For your reading pleasure:

Taser S.O.P.:C.Authorization to use:
C.1 To control a dangerous or violent subject when deadly force does not appear to be justified and/or necessary;
He was being obnoxious, but obviously neither dangerous nor violent.

C.2If attempts to subdue the subject by other conventional tactics have been, or will likely be, ineffective in the situation at hand; or
He was *already* physically subdued.

C.3If there is reasonable expectation that it will be unsafe for officers to approach within contact range of the subject, see also the Use of Force continuum,
As he basically had 4 officers sitting on him , this does not apply either.

Therefore the officers had absolutely no justification for using the tazer. They had no justification for arresting him in the first place either, but that's not the immediate issue.

Attachment A.. D. Prohibitions:
D.1The TASER may not be used on individuals who can be controlled by voice command or direction.
D.2The TASER may not be used as punishment or retaliation.
D.3 TASERs will not be used in conjunction with O.C. Spray.
D.4Handcuffed prisoners should not be tased without extenuating circumstances.

Could anyone tell for sure whether he was already handcuffed? If so, it's a violation of 4, and if not, those are incredibly weak and incompetent officers. There were FOUR of them trying to handcuff him.
Prohibition 2 may come into play here as well.

Sure, this guy might have been a jerk in the way he asked his questions but the police's actions in this situation are one of the most sickening abuses of power I have seen or heard of in the US. I seriously hope that each and every one of them is charged with criminal abuse of power (or whatever the legalese would be), thrown off the police force, and never allowed to return.

Re:So what???

[Skreems]

Asking an animated question and then voluntarily leaving the microphone is not an invitation to violence. He only kept making noise after that point because the police grabbed him. And as long-winded as his question was, it was a legitimate question, not a confrontational rant.

Re:So what???

[ls -la]

The problem is that he was done with his questions, Kerry was about to answer them, and only THEN did the police try to "escort" him out with no justification. I would have fought too.

Re:So what???

[Stonent1]

My point is the police have no way of knowing this man's intentions. And because the speaker is rather high-profile, they have to protect the senator at all costs otherwise their career would basically be over. My opinion of the person in question was he was probably a former Kerry supporter, based on his question about why did Kery concede the election when there were still about 5 million votes that hadn't been counted. I'm sure other people there had questions for Kerry as well but they didn't start ranting and raving.

Re:So what???

[xappax]

it's the localized stun mode designed to get the guy to shut up, listen, and comply.

"Stun" is a funny word to use in the context of tasers. The definition of that word is "To daze or render senseless", "To overwhelm or daze with a loud noise.", or "To stupefy, as with the emotional impact of an experience; astound."

None of these are what a taser does. A taser causes pain in extreme amounts, and that's about it. It's not designed to "stupefy" you, or make you "dazed" or "senseless", it's designed to make you feel pain, with the intention being that you will choose to do what you're told in order to avoid feeling more pain.

Tasers are torture devices, and defending their use in non-threatening situations is advocating torture.

Re:So what???

[Foundryman]

> if other less violent means will not serve the same purpose. The policemen should be punished.

Exactly. I got pulled over the other day for doing 57 mph in a 45 mph zone. If it's ok to taser some jerk for being loud then the next thing you know officers will start deciding it's ok to shoot out my tires for exceeding the speed limit....

Re:So what???

[djasbestos]

True, but I'd think he wouldn't bother with the question if he intended to kill him (unless he were REALLY stupid, which is not a stretch of the imagination given the incident). And if he were into theatrical assassinations, I'd hope there was at least one cop who was worth a damn on the draw. And from personal experience, I know that drawing a gun from your pocket is a lot slower than from a holster (even a concealed one).

The kid was out of line, but the degree of action the police took was as well.

Re:So what???

[fataugie]

Another straw man argument.

The facts are, he created a disturbance (not up to mine or your interpritation, but the orgianizers), he was asked to relinquish the floor and he refused. When he was asked to leave, he resisted. At that point, he was repeatedly warned. He continued to resist so he was tasered.

Numerous times, he had the chance to avoid the taser and he opted not to comply. Fuck him. I have no sympathy for idiots who get what they ask for.

Re:So what???

[pla]

C.1 To control a dangerous or violent subject when deadly force does not appear to be justified and/or necessary;

You forgot the precursor - "Have a suspect of some kind, relevant to an actual crime".

The guy did nothing (legally) wrong in the first place. Every human has both a right and an obligation to resist wrongful arrest with as much force as it requires. This guy, while rude and boorish, attended a PUBLIC event and tried to use it for precisely its superficial purpose - To ask questions.

Illustrating hypocrisy has not, to the best of my knowledge, become a crime yet.

Re:So what???

[Chosen Reject]

Was he going to use the microphone in his hand as a weapon?

You never can tell how deadly microphones can be.

Re:So what???

[theelectron]

He was *already* physically subdued.

It didn't look like he was handcuffed by the time they tased him. And I wouldn't consider someone 'subdued' by the police until they are either calm , handcuffed, or completely immobile. He was neither, as you could easily wee in the video. Sure he couldn't walk, but watch the police move as he pushes and kicks them. He was pretty hopped up on adrenaline at that point and it is probably pretty difficult to handcuff someone who is moving wildly, so they used the taser to subdue him long enough to handcuff him. It looks like a textbook example by their rules of when to use a taser to me.

Re:So what???

[Dravik]

Tazers are designed to send electrical pulses through your body at a specified frequency such that is disrupts your body's abilities to control major muscle movements. It is very uncomfortable but not hugely painful.

Re:So what???

[synthespian]

t's the localized stun mode designed to get the guy to shut up, listen, and comply.

Oh, gee, thanks for informing that. So, he was screaming like he was because he's a drama queen, right?

Can we use tasers on granny too, if she scream she's anti-war? It's non-lethal, right? Like waterboarding, right?

You are pathetic.

Re:So what???

[iminplaya]

The policemen should be punished.

Stand them in front of a taser firing squad

Re:So what???

[Jarjarthejedi]

Why in the world was this modded informative? Tasers are not designed to cause pain, they're designed to overload the body's nervous system in order to prevent any and all voluntary actions from being usable. The pain they cause is a secondary effect of the body not liking having extra electricity overload it's nervous system.

If Taser's really worked by only causing pain then you'd see a lot more cases of 'Subject TASER'd but continues fighting'. Enough adrenaline can override even large amounts of pain and if the gun really worked how you profess it does then all I'd have to do to avoid being affected would be to get hyped up on some drug that makes you either not feel pain or just ignore it completely (can't remember what it's called but one of my friends was on some doctor prescribed drug while his arm was in a cast that he described as 'Feeling the pain but not caring about it').

Let me make this utterly and completely clear. Tasers do not work that way. Tasers do not cause pain in order to cause the subject to stop, they cause pain as a side-effect of the process they use to make the subject stop.

Once more, with feeling, Tasers do not intentionally cause pain, they cause a nervous system overload that also happens to cause pain.

Cause - Nervous System Overload
Effect - Target cannot control their voluntary muscle groups for a period of time or loses some control over their voluntary muscles
Side-Effect - Brain interprets signals it receives as pain

Re:So what???

[AuMatar]

IF the known side effect of all uses of the item is pain, then its designed to cause pain. Thats like saying a bullet isn't designed to kill people, its designed to stop them from moving, and death is a side effect.

Re:So what???

[ls -la]

4 cops on him. One for each leg, one for each arm. He should not have been difficult to subdue reasonably. And there *is* still the matter that there was no reason to subdue him in the first place.

Re:So what???

[Danga]

Maybe if this fellow wasn't kicking and fighting while held on the floor tasering wouldn't have been deemed necessary. You see the whole pile move as he tries to lash out again and again. At that point the police could have used more physical force or tasering. The police are just doing a job and getting kicked repeatedly by some punk while trying not to hurt him is VERY frustrating.

Maybe if they let him HEAR the answers (since Kerry said he wanted to answer the students questions) to his questions this whole thing would have turned out to be nothing. Anyway, yeah the kid was obnoxious but he was NOT violent or a threat to anyone and only should have been tazered if he had shown threat of violence. The only "lashing out" he did was to get the officers hands off him so he could stand up and listen to the answers to his questions.

The kid really is lucky. After the first swing on an officer (you can see it before he gets taken down) the officers could have clubbed him. As far as I could see the police were all very well behaved.

He never swung at any of the officers, what he did was throw his arms up to break the hold they had on him. There is a HUGE difference between taking a swing at an officer and flailing around trying to get loose. I agree the officers seemed to be behaved until of course the tazering occurred.

They tried to talk him down. They tried to escort him peacefully. When he resisted escort they restrained him. When he broke free of his restraining officers they restrained him with a couple bigger officers. When he broke free again and started lashing out at officers they took him down to the floor. Then on the floor he kept kicking and lashing out as they tried to talk him down. All of the violence was initiated by this punk.

Both sides are at fault but I still think they should have just let Kerry answer the student and then if the student didn't shut up they could have escorted him out. At one point the student even said he would leave if they let him up, did they do that? No, they tazered him instead and charged him with a felony, that is a crock of shit.

I am a huge proponent for free speech, but he was preventing others from having a chance to speak and provoking the police at every turn. He might even have been paid to create an incident, but it appears the incident was all his fault. He will have a fine, and his "resisting arrest" could get him time if any of those officers were hurt. They were just trying to do their job and this nutjob attacks them. How would you like to have their job? You are being polite as possible and you get attacked by a screaming lunatic who shoves your friend and then nails you in the head with a wild swing.

Don't sign up for a job you know is going to have you deal with people such as this if you will be bothered by it. The guy NEVER ATTACKED THE COPS you moron. If anything it was the cops who initiated the arms flailing around by trying to restrain him before Kerry answered his questions.

Those policemen and women did a damn fine job. I am sorry that he had to be tasered, but when several policemen are having trouble restraining someone who is lashing out there are very few choices left.

Those policemen and women should be investigated and punished for what happened. Especially the one who actually tazered the kid. The kid was already subdued by about 6 cops, tazering was not needed and to me it looks like they only did it to get him to shut up. He was not a threat (do you see anyone around him taking off running scared?) and should not have been tazered. The only time anyone in the audience seemed scared was when the poor guy got tazered.

What a shitty thing to happen on the anniversary of the Constitution getting signed. Someone at a political Q&A session is not allowed to ask questions and hear the answers to his questions and ends up getting tazered and charged with a felony. This is a sad day indeed.

Re:So what???

[blueskies]

getting kicked repeatedly by some punk while trying not to hurt him is VERY frustrating.

Ah! I think you stumbled on the real reason. They were frustrated and lazy. The easy way out is to use a tazer.

Re:So what???

[Dr Damage I]

>"getting kicked repeatedly by some punk while trying not to hurt him is VERY frustrating."

"Ah! I think you stumbled on the real reason. They were frustrated and lazy. The easy way out is to use a tazer."

Such lazy cops! fancy objecting to being kicked repeatedly. Damn pigs should just shut up and stop protecting their crotches from this guys perfectly reasonable kicks.

Re:So what???

[Dr Damage I]

1. we don't know why the cops followed him into the auditorium in the first place

2. asking that he leave, then forcibly ejecting him from the auditorium when he failed to comply was a perfectly reasonable response to his actions.

Re:So what???

[zstlaw]

>Maybe if they let him HEAR the answers

and

> If anything it was the cops who initiated the arms flailing around by trying to restrain him before Kerry answered his questions.

Ok. A few things that you don't seem aware of. First the kid bust into the event trailing cops. The event was already full when he arrived he dashed in and pushed his way to the front of the line and asked a series of questions some of which had already been asked. They were already waiting to drag him away because of him crashing the event.

Below taken from video link 2:

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

>He never swung at any of the officers

Second 52 of first video link on story. Listen for the impact of the hand with the book. Right as he ran at the officer. Also where is the hand with the book in that frame? The kid did a great job of throwing up his hands and screaming "I never did anything" "Help" and "They are arresting me" but notice how he ACTIVELY resists by breaking holds on him again and again.

He fought out of getting cuffed twice. He was warned to stop resisting arrest at 1 minute into that same video. What are they going to do? After that warning they restrain him, warn him again at 17 seconds later. He breaks free again, they restrain him again, he breaks their holds again.

They warned him 3 times that I hear over a crappy video recorder several feet away. Only after multiple warnings to stop resisting arrest do they tazer him and only AFTER he breaks their holds for the 4th time after being taken down.

> you moron.

Oh, your argument is much more enlightening now. ;-P

Police brutality is horrendous. But this was not brutality. Yes it would have been better to use submission holds but maybe the police were not highly trained in hand to hand or this kid could have been one of the roughly 10% of people who are just immune to joint locks. The kid was deliberately making a scene. He knew what he was doing in how he acted. Watch his behavior it is a calculated balance of proclaiming how innocent he is even as he provokes response again and again.

It might have been better to drag him out physically but I think that would have had more chance of him getting serious bruising and/or friction burns. It is easy to make the call when I am sitting in the office sipping coffee. Much harder when you have a kid fighting off police officers repeatedly. The police wanted him out so the event could go on and he was resisting them in every way possible.

I will not second guess a very restrained police presence in light of his behavior. Some people are trained in how to make a scene or to resist arrest. Maybe he was just naturally talented at breaking free but if anything I think the kid was trying to set up the confrontation in hopes of getting media attention and/or a lawsuit. I wouldn't even discount this having being "staged" in the hopes of a lawsuit / media attention.

I knew a fellow who trained the NYPD in close combat fighting several years back. I could see no pain-locks or take downs used on the kid. They were trying to take it easy on him. I feel bad that the police had to go through this. I bet they will be even more restrained next time. Two are on administrative leave and yet I see nothing untoward in their behavior except for possibly using a tazer depending on local policy towards tazer use.

Remember the Virginia Tech shooting, everyone asked "Why are the police not more active in stopping crazies?" and "They could have been more aggressive and stopped the killings" But then you see a kid being restrained with a tazer and people call for the police to be fired.

I wish they didn't use tazer, I bet the officers involved wish they hadn't too. But don't be fooled, that kid knew what he was doing. It wasn't nearly as innocent as people seem to think.

Re:So what???

[blueskies]

You are already assuming that they are incompetent Cops and can only think to choose between tazering the student or protecting their crouches. You are insinuating a much worst statement against the cops then i was.

Re:So what???

[sethstorm]

So if I start posting goatse, hot grits, ascii depictions of parrots and genetalia and I get modded down... People can still see it, but it is tagged. Now if your posts were deleted, and you were banned with any (given) personal information revealed on all your posts- that would only leave the private entity excuse. By the way, you forgot Poland, ...In Soviet Russia, and the other memes.

What happens when two people have conflicting rights The law takes care of that one nicely. After that, it's money.

How would everyone have answered if a right wing person took control of the room screaming and yelling? Depends on if they're from Seattle, if their rant discusses the Middle East, and/or hold some position in a Right Wing Media Network. However, they announce enough of their position on their (usually closed in) medium of choice that they limit their screaming and yelling to their bully pulpit.

Not that I wouldn't mind seeing Charlie Johnson (or someone of similar political bent) try to disrupt something and receive what the law allows in full view of the public - it's that they stick to where they have message control.

The right-wing groups already have plenty of opposition trying to disrupt them.

Or what about if this guy then suddenly produced a weapon and assassinated Senator Kerry? While it cannot be discounted, the likeliness (in this part of the world) is slim. Even though he may be from Yale, and perhaps the Skull & Bones, he hasn't done much to stir up anything beyond just the usual background noise.

To think of it, it's being dressed up as an incident of a moonbat that fired his rage in the wrong direction.

Help! I'm being oppressed!

[hansamurai]

I honestly expected the guy to yell out "Help! I'm being repressed" as he was carried out of the room.

"Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, didn't you?"

Re:Help! I'm being oppressed!

[atamido]

That was honestly the first thing that came to my mind.

Cuffed and then tasered...

[realsilly]

Ladies and Gentlemen, while I'm sure there is more that meets the eye to this video that shows a very disgusting display of police domination, we still have a Constitutional guarantee of our freedom of speech. He was neither hurting anyone or making threats while on the mic.

He wasn't even totally acting outrageous when the mic was turned off. He was somewhat forcefully escorted out of the room and then being arrested. We need to know, what was his crime for the Arrest to take place. Why, when there were approximately 3 to 5 officers holding this young man on the ground did they then feel there was a need to Taser him.

Where was his aggressive crime that threatened the life of another that would warrant the need for a Taser? According to the limited video, there was none visible.

This appears to be a gross abuse of police force. Many more people should be outraged.

Why is this country so great? It is because men and women before us stepped up to the podiums throughout history to cry out against government, and political individuals. This is why this country is great. But now it appears that to speak out is a crime by the very act of opening your mouth. This is just wrong.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[workindev]

He wasn't even totally acting outrageous when the mic was turned off

What part about pushing, hitting, pulling, yelling at, and resisting 3-4 uniformed officers in the middle of a crowded auditorium is not "totally acting outrageous"?

This guy isn't a victim. He is a criminal who broke the law in front of a half a dozen police officers.

A Constitutional guarantee of our freedom of speech is not a Constitutional guarantee to force our voice on people who don't want to listen.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[stewbacca]

This appears to be a gross abuse of police force. Many more people should be outraged.

Actually, it appears to be a kid who doesn't know when his turn is finished and doesn't understand if you fight with a campus cop, you'll get tased, bro.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[E 99]

Why is this country so great? It is because men and women before us stepped up to the podiums throughout history to cry out against government, and political individuals. This is why this country is great. But now it appears that to speak out is a crime by the very act of opening your mouth. This is just wrong.

Are you serious? People have made their own podiums, or have spoken at public podiums IN THEIR TURN. Do you actually imagine George Washington filibustering against the rules at the Continental Congress? In that case, NO ONE spoke twice until EVERYONE in the place had spoken once! This country was NOT made great by egomaniacs rushing podiums or trying to forcibly take the right to speak from others, as this young man did.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[mahart]

Looking at one of the videos I believe he got tasered because he wasn't letting them put the cuffs on:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=657_1190085332

2:45 - He gets put on his stomach and the officers try to pull his hands together behind his back (one officer per arm it appears)
2:51 - Right before they put the cuffs on he starts moving and yelling "Why are they arresting me"
3:00 - He starts flailing his arms around yelling "Get the F off me" and one of the officers says "Tase him"
3:08 - Taser used and shortly after the cuffs were placed on him

It does take a lot of effort even with multiple people to cuff someone who does not want to be...

Oh and aside from all this I think they should have simply thrown him out of the auditorium. But if you are getting arrested regardless whether its right or not you don't struggle like that.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[DaveV1.0]

You, dumb-ass, you do not have a constitutional right to go into someone else's meeting and suppress their free speech rights and that is exactly what this asshole did.

One may have the right to free speech, but you don't have a right to an audience and you don't have the right to disturb someone else's peaceful assembly.

That is why he was arrested.

YOUR RIGHTS DO NOT OVERRIDE ANYONE ELSE'S RIGHTS.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[Altus]

Given that Kerry repeatedly stated that he would answer the students question and given that this is HIS event and really nobody else's event. I think you might be a little out of line here. Kerry found his questions worthy of comment. Once he said that the student should have been released so that he could have heard the answer to the question he asked. If he was still causing a disturbance after that, sure get him out of there, but don't try to frame this as taking over someone else's event when the guy who actually matters here was willing to answer the questions.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[jafiwam]

Needs to be said....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oykH9o-oOjc

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[DaggertipX]

This is a joke, right? He was ON THE GROUND restrained by several officers. They had complete control over the situation, and when they tazed him he was in no position to harm anyone.
Was the kid being an ass? Yeah. Could they have booked him on resisting arrest? Probably (although I don't feel he was a risk to anyone, and wouldn't agree with it if they did). Did they use excessive force : absolutely. Every officer involved deserves some form of disciplinary action.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[ucla74]

Why does his "freedom of speech" trump the others' freedom to peaceably assemble? Why does it trump, say, Kerry's freedom of speech? It doesn't.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[realsilly]

As soon as Kerry allowed this young man to speak, then he was permitted a Freedom of speech formum.

Someone else dictated a courtesy standard of the general 1 or 2 questions and you sit down. This young man was permitted to speak. In that sense he did not stomp all over someone elses freedom of speech.

Regardless of my true view on the subject, this is just an arguement for arguement sake.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[realsilly]

His actions did not warrent tasing.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[realsilly]

The Podium statement is a figure of speech that I used to remind people that by fighting, standing up against, speaking out against political figures or governments is what this country was found upon.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[realsilly]

"You, dumb-ass, you do not ..."

Classy...

Kerry opened the floor to the student, which then permitted him his Freedom of Speech.

My point isn't about whether I agree with the student, or his behavior. It is against tasing for something that was not a violent crime.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[Brandybuck]

It was also a semi-private auditorium. Owners get to make the rules in private places. If you make speech I disagree with (or yell and flail your arms about like this jerk), then I have the right to eject you from my property. Unfortunately, university campuses are in a very gray area. But surely the microphone hogging antics of this nut can be restricted by the university.

Of course, there was no need to tazer him. Hauling his ass out of the auditorium was sufficient.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[workindev]

No, he was on the ground, but he wasn't restrained. He was still rolling around and flailing, despite repeated warnings that he would be tased. He was not restrained in handcuffs and escorted out until after he was tased. The officers didn't have control over the situation until after force was used.

Re:Cuffed and then tasered...

[DerekLyons]

Ladies and Gentlemen, while I'm sure there is more that meets the eye to this video that shows a very disgusting display of police domination, we still have a Constitutional guarantee of our freedom of speech.

Indeed we do have such a Constitutional guarantee. But that right does not include the right to hijack someone else's venue for your own purposed nor to be an asshat and disrupt proceedings not your own.
 
 

It is because men and women before us stepped up to the podiums throughout history to cry out against government, and political individuals. This is why this country is great. But now it appears that to speak out is a crime by the very act of opening your mouth. This is just wrong.

What is making this country ungreat is people who confuse freedom to speak (which is protected) with some assumed right to be an asshat on someone elses dime (which is not, and should not be, protected).

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[sam_handelman]

I think you might be looking back in time through rose-tinted glasses.

  The opposition to the war on college campuses is less *militant* than it was back in the 60s, but opposition to the war is more complete than it was even in 1972. So, yeah, no-one is blowing up draft boards, but there aren't any draft boards to blow up, as you say. However, there is actually less support for the war - perhaps you are editing out all the people at the pro-nixon rallies, but they were sizable.

  Anyway, in 1972, the Vietnam War had been going on for, what, 12 years? Compared to the 5 years we've been in Iraq? Apples and Oranges.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Zironic]

If you look at the video they first try to remove him rather peacefully by just grabbing him by the arms and moving him. Then he starts screaming and resisting so they start to push him towards the exit.

Once they're near the exit he tries to break through them towards the podium so they wrestle him to the ground. Once there he keeps trying to get loose and keeps screaming.

Then they tell him repetedly.

"Stop resisting or you will get tased"

After he keeps resisting for a while they just give up and tase him.

he was CLEARLY resisting arrest and making a scene. When I read the summary I was on his side but after the Video...

would this happen in 1960s???

[cheekyboy]

It wouldnt, really....

Sure he might be anoying but let him finish, and if after 5minutes he doesnt, ask nicely to leave.

Anything more is insanity.

People are humans, this isnt some game, he could have had a heart condition and died, since when did USA turn into Nazi anger enforcement? Too much WWF and MTV? Sack everyone, legalize spider mans girl friend ;)

Re:would this happen in 1960s???

[gordo3000]

you're right. actually in the 60s it was attack dogs and fire hoses where I'm from. man, wish they hit this guy with a fire hose up close... I hear crushed ribs are great for your health.

Argument Against Non-Lethal Weapons

[GlitchCog]

This is why I don't like non-lethal weapons in the hands of police. Drawing a lethal weapon means you've thought about the ramifications and decided it's necessary, or at least decided before hand that the situation might require deadly force even if you have to draw too fast to think. Tasers don't do that. You can pull them out for anyone and not have to worry about all that paper work for killing an innocent person. And here it's basically being used as a method of coercion.

ZAP "Put your hands behind your back or we'll inflict massive pain on you a second time." ZAP
I don't think we should have law enforcement determining when someone is worthy of doses of pain for non-compliance. It seems to me that cops, who frankly aren't known for their level headedness while arresting people, seem to err on the side of resisting arrest a little too often.

Is it worth saving a real violent criminal's life by giving the cops the power to pain him into submission rather than shooting him in the head if it means they also get to pain all the non-criminals they come across?

Expect to see many more instances of old women, protesters and children being abused by the police because they have a gun lite rather than a real gun.

Re:Argument Against Non-Lethal Weapons

[Rakishi]

He was resisting arrest and moving about when eh was tasered AFTER multiple attempts to subdue him in other ways. The alternative to him getting tasered would have probably broken his arm if not worse.

This is why I don't like non-lethal weapons in the hands of police. Well we better cut of their arms and leg and heads as well, those are all non-lethal weapons as well.

Mod parent up!

[hasbeard]

Mod parent up! Why should the cops have to wrestle with this guy? That prolongs the situation. And the long the situation is prolonged, the more likely someone (especially the person being arrested) is likely to get hurt.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Mr. Slippery]

Why should the cops have to wrestle with this guy?

They already did! They had him on the ground.

A taser is a potentially lethal weapon. Its use is justified only when someone is a threat to the safety of others. One guy on the ground is not a threat to four cops, or to anyone else.

Re:Mod parent up!

[rkanodia]

Not that it applies in this situation, but 'one guy on the ground' can be quite a danger to anyone. There was a video making the rounds a while back of a man who had a heart attack after a struggle with police in the parking lot of a White Castle. Even after he was wrestled to the ground, clubbed in the legs, and tasered repeatedly, he was still a threat. He stood back up multiple times, lashing out constantly, and at one point managed to flatten one of the 13(!) cops with a punch to the jaw.

Of course, he was on PCP, and weighed about 380 pounds...

Re:Mod parent up!

[Supergood-ape]

"One guy on the ground is not a threat to four cops, or to anyone else"

Having wrestled with my share of autistic clients while working at a group home, I can say with certainty that you're full of shit.

You're not under control until you're under control, which doesn't mean thrashing about, fighting, and actively trying to escape. People get hurt when they make the mistake of assuming someone is in control when they aren't like you did.

The fact that there were four cops on the guy reinforces just how much effort was required to get this guy to comply, when he could have done so in the first place and saved a ton of trouble for everyone.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Mr. Slippery]

You're not under control until you're under control, which doesn't mean thrashing about, fighting, and actively trying to escape.

"Under control" is not the issue; "being a threat" is the issue. Potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, is justified only to end a threat, not to bring someone "under control".

Trying to escape from an assault does not make one a threat.

when he could have done so in the first place and saved a ton of trouble for everyone.

Yes, I'm sure it would be so much more convenient everyone if people didn't make a fuss when cops trample their rights.

Or, you know, the thugs with badges could have respected the man's free speech rights and saved a ton of trouble for everyone.

Re:Mod parent up!

[rickwood]

I'll bite. It's really quite simple. Modern police evolved across millennia from ancient officials who were charged with uploading the peace and public order. The ancient symbols of this office were a shield and a baton. The peace officer was expected to use these defend himself and restore order with a minimum of harm to anyone.

One presumes that by and large, most of these men executed their office faithfully and did not abuse their authority, just as our police do today. One further presumes there were no small amount of bullies and sadists among the police, just as there are among police today. Associations of police chiefs will sometimes claim they are in an arms race against the "criminal element". They use said rhetoric to justify their escalation of hostilities with just about everyone, up to and including elderly grandmothers.

I honestly believe it can be traced back to the day that someone decided he was no long a "peace officer" but a "law enforcement officer". The former stares down a disruptive participant in a town hall meeting until he leaves of his own accord, perhaps "mindlessly", but for calculated effect, twirling his baton if the situation warrants. The latter "gives an order" to a person who seemed to be committing no unlawful act, calls for backup and escalates the situation until the crime of resisting arrest has been committed, and then adds fuel to the fire by tazering a more or less helpless subject.

Even if this man is mentally deranged, which given his manner of speech is a strong possibility, unless he is a threat there is no cause to injure him in any way. I suppose that we should be grateful for the tazer, since in former times they might have just shot the poor sap or given him some broken bones at the very least. Equating "potential threat" with "imminent threat" or "immediate threat" is intellectual laziness and should not be tolerated, if only for the reason that obviously almost everybody is a "potential threat".

There's a reason police to this day wear a shield pinned to their chest instead of a sword. Sadly I don't think the ancient and honorable meanings of the symbol and its reason are widely taught in police academies. The "us" versus "them" mentality has to stop, or there will be no peace worth preserving nor any freedom to speak of worth defending.

Re:Mod parent up!

[ArcherB]

"Under control" is not the issue; "being a threat" is the issue. Potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, is justified only to end a threat, not to bring someone "under control".

First of all, a person who is "not under control", is a potential threat.

Trying to escape from an assault does not make one a threat.

So are you saying that anyone should just be allowed to run from the police? A person running away is not a threat, so why should police be allowed to use force if a person is running away.

And with that set of rules, how can the police legally arrest anyone. Once a policeman tries to arrest you, all you have to do is scream, "I'm not a threat!" and run away. The police can do nothing, under your rules.

Or, you know, the thugs with badges could have respected the man's free speech rights and saved a ton of trouble for everyone.

So it is within this guy's free speech rights to shout down a candidate a political rally? Why do his free speech rights outweigh everyone else's? Is it the person who shouts the loudest gets the most rights? That the tactic brownshirts used!

Re:Mod parent up!

[Shakrai]

I've seen people get tagged with tasers before. The screaming & crying is just an attention whore tactic.

C'mon over to my house and I'll taser you and see if you scream.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Mr. Slippery]

First of all, a person who is "not under control", is a potential threat.

Really? Remarkable. Then I must assume you, and anyone else I see who is not in handcuffs or otherwise under the complete control of police, to be a threat? That's called paranoia, my friend, and if you really feel that way you should seek professional help.

A person running away is not a threat, so why should police be allowed to use force if a person is running away.

If there are specific facts that give probable cause to believe that a person has committed a serious crime (not a mere nuisance which is abated by the person leaving, but a theft or assault), then that person can be considered a probable threat to the safety of others, and force commensurate with the threat may be used.

So it is within this guy's free speech rights to shout down a candidate a political rally?

Well, this guy didn't shout down anybody, as you'd know if you bothered to watch any of the videos.

A microphone was provided for questioners. That's an invitation to speak. To revoke the invitation, you turn off the mic and ask the person to leave. You don't suddenly grab him and start dragging him away; that's assault.

Is shouting at a political event within free speech rights? It may be rude, but this isn't a movie, it's a political event. Especially when you are petitioning a government official for redress of your grievances, you're within your rights up until the point where the hosts of the event ask you to leave.

Re:Mod parent up!

[atamido]

Trying to escape from an assault does not make one a threat.

So are you saying that anyone should just be allowed to run from the police? A person running away is not a threat, so why should police be allowed to use force if a person is running away.

I think that in most areas, a person that is running away, not holding a weapon, and not showing any evidence of assaulting anyone, is not deemed a threat. Pretty much all the police can do is run after them and try to corner them. They certainly can't shoot at them. Once they are cornered, or in custody, but still resisting, then they can use force as the person has become a potential 'threat'.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Descalzo]

Trampled his free speech rights? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't give a wet slap about what he was saying, they just wanted him to say it somewhere else.

Re:So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question

[Lurker2288]

The problem is that 95% of /. will only read the blurb and we'll be deluged with "OMG POLICE BRUTALITY!!!1!"

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Ihlosi]

Then they tell him repetedly.

So if they'd told him repeatedly "Stop resisting or we'll pump you full of lead.", they would have been justified in doing so ?

The taser isn't the issue

[Yusaku Godai]

Just from the perspective of the police officers, I don't think that the use of the taser was completely unjustified. He was resisting arrest, flailing around uncontrollably. They seemed to use it on a low setting as it didn't even seem to affect him much. Fine, whatever.

The issue is that he was being arrested in the first place. What the hell? Was he being annoying? Maybe--that's debatable I think. But since when is it an arrestable offense to harangue a public official in a public forum? That's what it's *there* for. Not everyone has to be nice, or even polite. If Senator Kerry had felt that this guy was taking up too much time with his "question" (which he was), then he could have asked him to sit down and shut up so that he could answer. But arrest him? No, I would like to know what he did that was arrestable.

Going limp not recommended

[zavyman]

If you ever want to 'resist' then I highly suggest you just go limp, don't fight back. A limp body is still damned hard to move and makes it much easier for your lawyer to defend you in court than if you run, swing, bite, yell.

A past slashdot article would disagree with that advise. Also see, for example, information about the UCLA taser policy.

UCLA Police Policy Section 301.24 (Pain Compliance Techniques) gives officers the right to use a Taser in drive-stun capacity to attain compliance from passively or aggressively resisting individuals "when the officer reasonably believes that the use of such a technique appears necessary to further a legitimate law enforcement purpose."

Re:Going limp not recommended

[IndustrialComplex]

I don't mean to suggest that you won't get arrested, charged, or tasered. But if someone manages to record you getting tasered, and you were just sitting there, or completely passive, it will at least net you some points on the blogs when the video hits youtube.

And it will allow your lawyer to say things like, "And here we see a completely passive person being needlessly tasered by over-aggressive police."

Instead of this: "Well, you can see from the angle that my client wasn't actually trying to punch the cop in the face, but was just waving to some friends behind the cop."

Re:Just a Preview of the Oscars

[KiltedKnight]

Can we include anyone who uses the 30 seconds for any political pontification? Thanking "the little people" is one thing... using a forum like that to force your political views on the world is another. Taser them and mod them -1 Offtopic.

Nice.

[Ihlosi]

passively or aggressively resisting individuals

"Walk this way or we'll taser you."
ZAP!
"Get up or we'll taser you."
ZAP!
"Get up or we'll taser you."
ZAP!
"Get up or we'll taser you."
ZAP!
(repeat until batteries are empty)

The story isn't about a kid, it's about the police

[Nymz]

After reading the blurb, I felt sorry for him. After watching the video, I don't anymore.

No one is saying the kid wasn't disrupting the forum, what is in question is the fact that six officers felt threatened enough to justify electrocuting him. I'm just glad regular citizens, armed with cameras, were able to upload this incident as linked in an earlier submission.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[ILuvRamen]

If they're so concerned about question asking time, they should have tased that stupid senator that went on for 7 and a half minutes without actually asking general Patraes a question lol. I would have tuned in to see that.

Oh, I think...

[tkrotchko]

I think this stuff happens all the time, and happened as much before. I think the big difference is: (1) widespread use of video cameras in phones (2) Ease of distributing via Youtube and other video distribution sites.

This will all be for the good eventually because it forces society to see what really happens without the filter of a reporter or large media. That in turn will force society to deal with what is appropriate use of force.

I mean, I think the kid was a jerk, but at the same time, the police forgot what they were trying to do... get the kid out of the room and stop the disruption. Remember those old time westerns were the bouncer throws the guy out the swinging door into the street? That probably would have been a better way to deal with him.

On the other hand, it does bring up the issue that politicians should have to face uncomfortable questions directly from citizens without protection from bouncers.

This is far from simple questions raised in this video.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[Verte]

He might be annoying, but he's clearly harmless. When -how many?- police officers have a single person pinned down and sooking like a baby, and still feel the need to abuse some power, how do you justify that?

Slashdot - The land of the deaf and blind

[Umuri]

You know, this is one of the more amusing parts of slashdot, when two long standing and long defended beliefs of the system come into clash.
The problem is, neither side reads what the other writes, even though they all say the same thing.

Belief #1 - Stupid people should get what they deserve.

The guy was a moron, he went out there with the intent to cause a disturbance, and did things he KNEW would get the police on his tail, in order to get his 15 minutes of fame.

Belief #2 - Repression of free speech is bad, no matter the reasons.

The guy was a college student and wasn't hurting anyone, he shouldn't have been touched. Police are barbarians and you all live in a police state.

Now, what both sides usually say at SOME POINT in their posts:

The police acted out of hand and tasers should NOT have been used, reguardless of how much of a moron the guy was being, which he was. They should have found peaceful means.

See slashdot! If you stop and read others posts, you really aren't arguing as much as you think you are!

Yes the kid was out of line, no one here is saying he wasn't, that i've seen post so far.
Yes the police were out of line, no one here is saying they weren't, that i've seen post so far.

Tasers shouldn't be fucking used like they're the harmless way to immboilize anyone, and surely 4 policemen are enough to restrain a person without injury if they are a threat to others.

But seriously, the two fear mongering sides need to shut up and be intelligent. This isn't police state tactics, this is just a normal case of badly trained police using a taser out of jurisdiction.

If this were a police state, you never would have heard about this. Or that that kid existed. Even the senator was trying to help the kid calm down by answering his question. People were happy the annoyance was gone, not that the kid was tasered.

Re:Slashdot - The land of the deaf and blind

[Catbeller]

"If this were a police state, you never would have heard about this. "

No. In police states, the police are GLAD to let people know what happens when you get out of line. Police states aren't secret societies.

"People were happy the annoyance was gone, not that the kid was tasered."

Precisely. Police states aren't foisted on societies. The society has to be sick first, THEN the police state and the torturing beings.

And, BTW, the kid will have permanent damage to his brain and nervous system.

And, also, would you have been happy had those "rioters" in the 2000 Dade county recount been tasered? They turned out to be campaign staffers pretending to be rioters. Somehow, they managed to shut down the recount and not be arrested, and certainly weren't tasered. Betcha lots of people would have sued and the news media would have been scandalized, even after it turned out they were fake "citizens". But a liberal college student, well, fuck the hippy, right?

Re:Had it been a Republican rather than Kerry

[that IT girl]

As opposed to the million + and way more that are dead because of Saddam? And all the people who are glad we got rid of him?

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[Lurker2288]

You're right. One person should be allowed to cause as much disruption as he wants without regard to the rest of the audience who might want a chance to ask their own questions. And it would have been so much better to give him a nice bop on the head with a nightstick, like in the old days. Or maybe just a few quick punches to loosen him up. And after that, they should have completely regarded due process--you know, the part of the legal system where they formally levy action against you, thus giving you the chance to seek legal redress in court for any inappropriate behavior.

And man, those UoF cops are TOTALLY fascist pigs just trying to crush resistance and maintan the status quo. Break out zee jackboots! Long live zee Floridian Reich!

Technology (Taser) is the solution for everything

[rebmemeR]

OK, OK, the student was annoying. But the police were stupid to use a taser. They didn't need to use that much force. Very bad publicity, probably just the scene the student intended to create. Don't they train police in aikido? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikido

As the posts here prove....

[budword]

America isn't the land of the Brave and the home of the Free anymore. You don't get arrested and tasered because you are annoying some fat people with a badge. He was a danger to no one. There was no reason to resort to force. The people who choose to become cops are very keen to protect their "Authority", so this sort of poor judgement isn't unexpected or even unusual, among the portly who wear blue. The shocking part of this story is the number of people who are OK with this happening to a dumb kid threatening no one. You should be ashamed. America isn't America anymore.

Re:As the posts here prove....

[JerryLove]

Your statement has nothing to do with the events. You get cut off for exceeding your time. You get pulled off for refusing to leave. You get taken to the ground for trying to pull away when being pulled off. You get tazered for resisting while being restrained. Feel free to find the one you consider unreasonable and I'll discuss it with you.

Re:As the posts here prove....

[DaveV1.0]

Why do you think he has a right to disturb that peaceful assembly? Do you think his right to speak his mind overrides their right to peaceably assemble and speak their minds?

You seem to confuse being free and brave with being an asshole.

That makes you a dumb asshole.

Re:As the posts here prove....

[budword]

I don't believe they have a right to use violence to stop someone from being a non-violent asshole. And the peaceful assembly you refer to was disturbed when the asshole in question was physically assaulted. Society, American society at least, doesn't have the right to use violence just to stop a dumb kid from speaking. Violence is a last resort, used to stop further violence, not just to make you feel better because you want as asshole to get whats coming to him. Just so I understand, everyone else there had the right to say what they wanted, but this dumb kid gets assaulted because the rest of them didn't like that he took too long to say what he wanted ? Freedom of speech just for the rest of them huh ? Or as long as YOU like what he has to say ? I bet you can't even see the irony. In one sentence you defend their freedom of assembly and speech, and in the next you defend the use of force to stop speech you don't won't to hear. Dumbass. People like you are a threat to our Freedoms.

Re:As the posts here prove....

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

I have to say that I totally agree with you. US isn't the same anymore, at least that's the impression I have gotten. A few years ago, I still planned that one day I would enroll to a good US university and study an MBA degree. Now I have to say that I don't anymore want to go to study in US, and this is mostly because of US seems more and more like an police state.

Before you go on and start to tell me about your constitution and the freedom it guarantees, I just have to say that I know your constitution, and I really admire, but.. The big but is that even thought in paper you are the land of the free, in practise your freedoms are limited. You have a police force that uses force without hesitation, you have prosecutors that do anything to get a conviction be it right or wrong, and lastly it seems that most the citizens don't care about that because bad things don't happened to good people.

I should also add that in this case, and in previous cases in example the UCLA tasering of student, are just shocking. First of all, in Finland nor in other European countries, we don't have anything remotely like campus police that was in action here. We don't have armed police nor guards in our universities. Also when we have an very important person visiting, like in example an EU commissioner or minister, they may have their own body guard but definitely no police waiting for action.

It's just so weird to watch out how things are in US. I'm sorry, but as long as your country acts like an police state, I really wouldn't want to come there. I also hope that one day you get your act together and decide to go back and be reasonable again. I really hope that.

Re:As the posts here prove....

[DaveV1.0]

The assembly was disturbed when the asshole tried to take it over. You are wrong, society does have the right to use violence to defend itself and it's people against assholes who would oppress others and that is exactly what this asshole was doing. He was oppressing others.

Tell me, what should they have done, just let him rant. Or do you suggest the people peacefully assembled should have turned their forum over to the asshole? That would be allowing him to take away their right to peacefully assemble, their right to free speech, and their right to associate with whom they choose.

There were two choices. Remove the asshole, with force if necessary, or let him take over their assembly. The choice is simple.

Now pay attention, shithead. One has the right to say what one wants but one does not have a right to an audience. Once they decided they didn't want to listen to him, he was impinging on their freedom. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE PEOPLE LISTEN TO YOU OR TO TAKE OVER SOMEONE ELSE'S ASSEMBLY.

The sooner you realize that your right end where other people's rights begin, the sooner you will realize that other people have rights and freedoms too.

Re:As the posts here prove....

[budword]

Society does not have the right to use violence just because this dumb kid is rude. You are an out and out fascist. That choice is only simple to simple people. There are non-violent ways to deal with rude people. Even the crowd ws dismayed by the actions of the police. Even the police knew they had gone too far, by asking people in the crowd to stop recording. Exactly why do you think they didn't want any video evidence ? There is no law against being rude. No one has the right to use violence against a non violent kid who is guilty of nothing more than talking too much. You don't have to right to be protected against ever hearing a rude person. That non-existent right isn't backed by the right to use violence, to prevent you from, OMG, rudeness. I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't guarantee a right to be free from having to suffer a rude asshole, so much so that you or the police can kick his ass. You are a whinny liberal thug. Just let the rest of us know if you manufacture any more "rights" for yourself you feel you can defend with violence. Jackass. Oh look, I was rude to you. Should the police have the right to tase me ?

Re:As the posts here prove....

[DaveV1.0]

There is a law against disturbing the peace. Look it up, dumb-ass. You are manufacturing rights for yourself and the asshole. You do not have the right to force your opinion on others. That is called disturbing the peace.

What is amazing is you are so stupid you can't even keep your insults to me. Am I a "an out and out fascist" or am I a "whinny liberal thug"?

You are little more than an ignorant, selfish, rude asshole. You deserve to have your ass kicked and so did that little asshole.

And, yes, the police should tase your stupid ass.

Re:As the posts here prove....

[budword]

Ahhh.....I see. You're 12. What the hell does "keep your insults to me" mean ? Keep them consistent maybe ? Please have your Mom read over your post before you click the submit button. Oh, you mean it's inconsistent to call you both a fascist and a whinny liberal. You seem to have aspects of both, which is more your inconsistency than mine buddy. First, you give yourself the right to be protected from rudeness. (Whinny liberal.) Then you give yourself the right to protect yourself from rudeness with violence. (Whinny liberal with some fascist violence.) By the way, talking for too long isn't disturbing the peace. It's just stupid and rude. Getting assaulted for being rude makes you the victom of people choosing to disturb the peace. Just a quick history lesson, as I don't believe you read much. Fascism is neither conservitive nor liberal. http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism?cat=biz-fin Best hope no one with a badge happens to both think like you and find you rude, or he'll be able to defend he right to be protected from your rudeness with violence. You don't fight wind with clubs. (If you Mom isn't right there to translate, that means don't fight words with violence.) It's morally wrong. That's the difference between us and evil. The fact you are not capable of seeing that proves my point.

Right...

[C10H14N2]

Yet with nightsticks and guns the threshold for beat-down rises slightly above "being annoying."

Re:our generation

[roadkill-maker]

you see, your oldtimey notions of integrity and civil responsibility are gone! It's a new thing, a new age of ME! Back in my day sonny, we cared about people... and by care, I mean we sepereated them by race.

Here's a video of exactly that situation

[Nymz]

They zap the guy, he falls to the floor unable to get up, zap him again, and again, and again... UCLA Police Taser Incident

I'm so glad that citizens, armed with cameras, are able to capture these incidents and post them as seen in this earlier submission.

Re:The story isn't about a kid, it's about the pol

[yoder]

They didn't electrocute him, they tasered him. Two VERY different things.

"Don't Tase me, bro"

[circletimessquare]

classic! ;-)

captures the zeitgeist, the spirit of the moment in the usa right now

somebody more enterprising than me: start your t shirt company now, it will be on every student's chest in 2 months

"Don't Tase me, bro"

oh man, instant classic

ranks right up there with "Where's the beef?" from the 1980s

and "Can't we all just get along?" from the 1990s

"Don't Tase me, bro": catchphrase for the 2000s

Re:"Don't Tase me, bro"

[ck42]

I can't get that out of my head! Don't taze me bro! That's absolutely hysterical! I love it!

If they weren't arresting him...

[benhocking]

Then what was he resisting that would be an arrestable offense?

Re:If they weren't arresting him...

[gordo3000]

well, it was his choice:

1) calmly comply with the officers and possibly diffuse the situation by not sounding like a 12 year old screaming for a video game

2) walk out with the officers while yelling about freedom of speech

3) create a scene at which point you will be arrested for doing just that.

you know, sometimes a cop will let you get away without being arrested if do you just calmly do what they feel is necessary for order to return to the situation(in this case, a situation they were told to keep safe and cordial for everyone involved). just like you can talk a cop out of a ticket or talk one into letting you sleep off your alcoholism in a cell for the night rather than possibly go to jail for a DUI, cops are reasonable if you are.

Now, if you think they should have just arrested him right now for disorderly conduct and dragged him away then you are basically saying the cops should have less leeway in how strict they are with enforcing certain laws. The arrestable offense was acting like he was going to walk out (after being pushed towards the door) and then flailing away with his arms, trying to push through the cops to get back towards the mic.

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[Altus]

my understanding is that he was there legitimately and was called upon to ask a question, now he may have asked a question that is highly charged and he may have gone over his alloted time, but that is not the same as barging in and shouting down the speaker at length.

They whispered it in his ear after cutting the mic

[benhocking]

Seriously, I have no idea what legally constitutes "arresting". If they weren't technically arresting him, then I suppose he wasn't technically resisting arrest. Naturally, IANAL.

Watch the video

[Slashdot Parent]

Watch the video and see if that changes your mind at all.

I'll leave it at that.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[pthor1231]

Not judging what the cops did, but in regard to the "I will get up and leave" statement, he had already been asked, multiple times, to leave, be quiet, etc, and he didn't comply with those requests. Why should anyone believe that he is going to do something now?

Re:Democrats and brutality

[mdsolar]

I'm not sure about my party because we don't have enough power to have been tested. We are usually on the receiving end of this kind of stuff: http://www.progress.org/2004/debates08.htm together with the libertarians. Generally our folks are arrested for attempting to assert free speech rights. Since the Green Party has non-violence among its Ten Key Values: http://gp.org/tenkey.shtml and many of our activists are women our party is probably better at avoiding police brutality than some, but it is mainly democrats that attempt to deny us our civil rights.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Fred_A]

Their tazers are purposed for this kind of action (where life is not at stake, but the subject is becoming more and more combative). Tazers keep things FROM getting dangerous. They're harmless disabling tools. Except tazers are not harmless and are quite painful. They could have just grabbed and cuffed the guy. Much less fun then watching him wriggle under high voltage, granted, but much more civilized (although the police typically doesn't care much about that side of things). But they had to have their fun and play with their toys, endangering someone who wasn't a threat (although he might have been acting like a complete cretin) in the process.

I think many different issues are being justiposed

[JerryLove]

This made news, of course, because the man was tazered. Since that had nothing to do with his purpose being there, nor his questions, I think it's a mistake to treat them together. At the risk of reversing the chronology:

The police asked him to leave. He refused to comply with a lawful order (that alone is actually a criminal offense). The police then grabbed him and forcibly removed him from the stage. So far so good. But then he struggles with police...

Now this is an important general point, because it ties into the entire mentality of the process. The police did not stand there and pull him one way while he pulled anoother to see who would win a tug of war. When you resist, you are taken to the ground and immobilized. This is because working with a struggling suspect is dangerous for everyone involved. You can't know you will win, you can't know if it will escelate, you can't know what the collateral will be. The primary focus is to bring the suspect under control as swiftly as possible. Reciprocity of force is called "fighting" and leads to mass melee.

To that end he was taken to the ground. On the ground he is still resisting despite orders to stop. You can see the resistance in these quick surges of movement initiated by him. Policy for resisting on the ground is identical to resistaing standing... you don't play tug-of-war indefinately; you act to force cooperation. There are basically two methods: Hog-tying (which can be difficult and dangerous on a resisting suspect) and tazering (with the primary goal being to gain compliance). He resisted and he was tazered.

People like to listen to what's being said: It's irrellevent. "I didn't do anyhing" and "I'll cooperate" meaning nothing more than it would if the police said "we aren't tazering you". The question is "did he cooperate", and I can see in his movements that he did not.

On the other subject: Was he there to ask an honest question? No, he was not. Just like with his actions later, he started with the pretense of cooperation ("I'd like to thank you"), but his actual actions were quite different. He "recommended a book" which Kerry said "I've already read". The answer was ignored to continue the rant. He wasn't really asking a question, he was making a speech.

And his mic was cut off, not for what he said, but because his time was up.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[haystor]

You do realize that cuffing a guy against his will is a lot more dangerous to everyone than a taser, right?

Well, he is a journalism student....

[ChePibe]

and that seems to be their MO now a days - looking for sound bites and doing anything to cause a scene.

He should do well out there.

Here is information regarding the use of stun guns

[Supergood-ape]

In the state of Florida.

Warning PDF!

http://www.flsenate.gov/data/Publications/2007/Senate/reports/interim_reports/pdf/2007-109cj.pdf

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[sonamchauhan]

They wouldn't, but they didn't.

Re:People like this guy cause the Police State

[PhxBlue]

When people act like idiots, authority steps in. When enough people act like idiots, other people imitate them, and soon you have a population that needs the Nanny State or Police State, which seem to be the same thing.

Umm, no. What you need in that case is a society that holds the people accountable for their actions, and a government that reflects that society. But people have to get completely sick of the whole "poor me" victim mentality in this country before we see any substantial change.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[sumdumass]

Yes, they tell him repeatedly, do as we say or we will punish you. Or was it, you represent no threat that the 6 officers right here cannot handle and if you do, the other four standing around can help so we will punish you. Or was it You seem to know you will go free for free speech exceptions so we are going to punish you first.

Ok, I know they said stop resisting or we will taser you. But what gives them the right to inflict harm and pain on a person who while was resisting, wasn't a threat to the officers involved or the people around them? Just because an officer gives an ultimatum doesn't mean they have the right to enforce that ultimatum. They were doing quite well with this person without the use of pain inflicting weapons.

As a matter of fact, if the officers would have just stated your being removed for being unruly or your being arrested for what ever trumped up charge and acted a little more profesional, the guy might not have resisted in the non violent and non threatening way he did. All your life you are trained directly or indirectly to not put yourself in the situation where you are being subdued by a gang of thugs against your will. His resistance at this point is nothing more then instinct coming through and it is evident that while instinct was stopping him from being comfortable with 6 officers wrestling him to the ground and handcuffing him, there is no indication that he was a threat to anyone but senator Kerry's ego. And even that threat had been removed once they took the mic from him.

This is merely an instance of police abusing their position of supposed authority and when that authority was challenges, they decided it was best to punish the perp to make sure he payed knowing the courts wouldn't. This is police justice at it's best keeping the little boys network alive and well. It doesn't matter what they told him they would do, what matters is what they did. Waiting until you have a non violent- non threatening person otherwise subdued to inflict the pain and punishment that was intended by the tasering of him only show the intentions of these officers as malice in original thought and practice. They made this boy pay for what he has done, probably because they know a judge wouldn't. simply sad if you ask me.

And yes, I'm one of the first to yell "he deserved it". But watch more then one clip and think about what is right and wrong I the process. My guess is that the kid is lucky that there were a few girls shouting to remind the police that there were witnesses to their actions or he would have gotten a lot worse. And I guess the bigger question is, why was there only a few brave girls doing so and not the entire audience? They don't have to get physically involved, but simply asking why or what is going on would be enough to let the police know that they are being watched and obvious abuses like this won't go unnoticed. So lets give it to the brave girls coming to the defense of an asshole idiot who was chastising a giant douche bag.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[shilly]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow the link. Just because someone's obnoxious and won't sit down and shut up when they're asked to, how is that any business of the state? It's not like he's endangering anyone's safety.

Try the FBI for accurate statistics

[SuperBanana]

Your source is the "Officer Down Memorial Page." Try sourcing the FBI instead.

2005 accidental deaths, total of 67 deaths for the year. 39 in automobile accidents, with another 11 struck and killed by vehicles and another 4 killed in motorcycle accidents. That's 54 out of 67.

Felonious deaths? 55 TOTAL.

When one specific cause of accidental deaths matches the entire category of felonious deaths, yeah- I'd call that "overwhelming."

Less than lethal weapons are not good

[Beached]

Just another reason why these "less than lethal" weapons are bad. They give an expectation that the target will not be harmed. However, if the officers had to pull their guns they would have had to think about the consequences.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[FatAlb3rt]

...and I have done NOTHING illegal...

I guess you missed the part about him not following orders from a police officer.
And resisting itself is illegal.

This is like coming up to an intersection where there's a cop car diverting traffic and you ignore him. Then cry foul when an incident arises...

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[plague3106]

And none of that would have happened if the police didn't try to force him to move. If the politician didn't want to answer, he could simply have left. He actually stated he would be willing to answer the question as well, so the police (and event organizer) should have taken his cue.

Electrocute or Electroshock

[Nymz]

They didn't electrocute him, they tasered him. Two VERY different things.

Taser is a registered trademark.
Electroshock sounds like that primitive method of therapy.
Electocute sounds like you are assaulting someone with electricty, and there are many cases of people dieing from being electrocuted to death.

Re:Electrocute or Electroshock

[Random832]

Right. Many people don't realize that it is NOT a native word for being shocked, it is a portmanteau of "Electric" and "Execute".

Re:Electrocute or Electroshock

[illegalcortex]

I would recommend rather than going by what you think a word "sounds like", you go by what it means .

electrocute
-verb (used with object), -cuted, -cuting.
1. to kill by electricity.
2. to execute (a criminal) by electricity, as in an electric chair.

If you are looking for a non-trademarked word, just say "shocked."

You people hand wring over the wrong things

[Quiet_Desperation]

You worry about cops with tazers?

You should be concerned about the continuing paramilitarization of the police as part of the War On Drugs.

http://reason.com/topics/hitandrun/226.html#listing

Some of the folks in these reports would have been glad to see tazers instead of military grade weapons and men in body armor telling a young handcuffed women on the floor they were going to put a bullet in her head.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[AxemRed]

Maybe, but if so, the police played right into it.

I have always looked at the taser as a replacement for the club that police used to use. And being a replacement for the club, I think that it should only be used in circumstances that would have previously warranted using the club. So in any situation that the police have the itch to use their taser, they should ask themselves, "Would it be acceptable to smack this guy in the head with a club?" And if the answer is no, then the police shouldn't use a taser either.

Re:So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question

[lucifig]

He kind of looks like Dane Cook to me. That reason alone is enough to warrant a good taserin'.

Here's a suggestion...

[ChePibe]

How about a little individual responsibility?

At any point in this hypothetical person's protests, he could conceivably do the same thing: go home, calm down, or go do something much more relaxing. Why wouldn't he? Can you imagine conditions under which you might become upset and act out for long periods of time?

Personally, I couldn't possibly care less. I am a home owner who lives peaceably and doesn't bother other people. All I expect is the same - leave me be and do not make my home unlivable.

As a society, instead of tazing people when the starbucks, mcdonalds, youtube, myspace, and slashdot don't seem to make their problems go away, maybe we would do better to regard their behavior as indices of a much larger problem.

Or perhaps people have lost all sense of self-control and are now firmly of the belief that acting like screaming 5-year olds to gain attention is appropriate?

I have not made my mind up about taser use on this particular case, but these arguments that it's some sort of greater societal problem are nonsense when it comes to individual actions. Do not try to blame society for your own shortfallings. Do not try to pin your idiotic behavior on an election lost nearly 3 years ago that this kid may not have even been old enough to vote in. Moral of the story in this case is don't rush up screaming and acting like a madman to a national politician and then resist arrest. Never resist arrest. You're a fool to resist arrest. We have a judicial branch to handle false arrests after all, and if he wants to object to his arrest that would've been the place to do it. Now, even if he isn't guilty of any other crime, he's most certainly guilty of resisting arrest and refusing to obey the orders of a peace officer. This kid's an idiot.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[problah]

"Moral of the story in this case is don't rush up screaming and acting like a madman to a national politician and then resist arrest."

Running up to Kerry? I saw him go as far as the questions podium. I didn't see him run up directly at Kerry.
Regardless of the fact that he asked too many questions, and spent out his time, and was manic, the police overreacted. The guy was obviously responsible, as he left his wallet at home. He knew what he was doing, and he figured there would be a good chance he would be arrested without breaking the law.

Not to mention, listen to the video. You hear the officer charge him with inciting a riot, while the county records listed his charge as resisting arrest. No charge of iciting a riot was filed, which would definately make this a false arrest. Inciting a riot it a felony, and could have been downgraded to resisting, but there was NO listing of the original charge. I smell lawsuit.

I agree, the kid was a dumbass for acting the way he did, and as the police were already behind him, he did make some noise before cutting his way up to the podium, but he did NOTHING to warrant an arrest until after detainment procedure began (The second the office laid her hand on his arm to grab him, is the beginning of detainment).

This is why there needs to be a willful compliance law, that allows a person to say "Please do not touch me as I have not been charged with anything, nor broken any laws. I will cooperate peacefully, but if you violate my personal space again, I will be forced to defend myself.". Of course it needs to be worked out a little better than that, I'm sure.

It's crazy that we probably need more laws to protect us from the police.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[ChePibe]

You hear the officer charge him with inciting a riot, while the county records listed his charge as resisting arrest. No charge of iciting a riot was filed, which would definately make this a false arrest. Inciting a riot it a felony, and could have been downgraded to resisting, but there was NO listing of the original charge. I smell lawsuit.

Last I heard, a police officer can't charge anyone with anything - that's for a prosecutor to do. A police officer can make an arrest under whatever statute or common law principle he or she wants to, but it is ultimately up to the prosecutor and the prosecutor alone to actually file the charges.

This is why there needs to be a willful compliance law, that allows a person to say "Please do not touch me as I have not been charged with anything, nor broken any laws. I will cooperate peacefully, but if you violate my personal space again, I will be forced to defend myself.". Of course it needs to be worked out a little better than that, I'm sure.

Uh, no.

If you want to defend yourself against the police, you do that in court. Your argument would allow anyone to treat the police as if they were a simple citizen. They are not. They have been set apart by government and have special privileges and responsibilities. This isn't a television show, you know.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[Belial6]

So, when the police are anally raping you with a plunger, you are supposed to calmly wait until they are done before you file a civil lawsuit in court?

I understand that this guy was not being raped, but making the blanket statement that "If you want to defend yourself against the police, you do that in court." is just wrong.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[fataugie]

It's not like the dipshit was just standing there and the cops rushed him and started tasering him....he initiated the conflict with his actions.

He is totally responsible for the escalation resulting in his tasering.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[problah]

Yes... because he wouldn't shut up. If he wants to do that, he needs to go somewhere where he is allowed to speak his mind without getting arrested.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[problah]

You are correct. I should have watched what I was typing.

A police officer can not institute a false arrest. If a PO arrests someone for an action such as inciting a riot, that is what it needs to be filed as in county, and can be downgraded by a prosecutor/judge later. You are correct.

Maybe it should be more like a television show. We are being taught to be domicile, and let others control us. Now we can only get out our aggression by watching a guy in a movie do what we want to do in real life, but have been trained to be afraid to do.

We're all a bunch of pussies, and we let the government get away with bullshit. Some people say "Yay Let';s go along with it because we're controlled", and other say "This is wrong, let's fight it...by silent protest in the parking lot across the street from the convention center which has the sign stating free speech is allowed here."

woot...

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[posterlogo]

You know, on the whole I'm really opposed to the heavy-handed tactics of police officers. I don't think he should have been tased. However, I'm a little embarrassed to say I was glad to see him dragged kicking and screaming from the room. He acted like a little bitch, and his website supports the idea that he was just some jackass looking for a publicity stunt rather than someone who thoughtfully cared about the issues he brought up. He makes it harder for the rest of the ACLU types who patriotically stand for our rights. I only wish he'd have been cracked across the face with a nightstick instead.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[fataugie]

Well, actually because he was violating the rules set forth.

Freedom of speech is not the Right to be Heard. He can go to the local park, street corner, his own front yard, where ever and feel free to babble on at length. He does not have the right to be heard. There is no right to hijack a forum so his comments can be heard.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[Belial6]

Watch the video again. Kerry gave him permission. "It's Ok. Let me answer the question."

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[fataugie]

It's not up to Kerry at that point. Kerry isn't in charge of running the show, he's just the "talent".

The student was asked to leave. I don't care if Kerry asked him to finish his speech for him at that point....it's too late.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[problah]

So even if Kerry hadn't accepted his questions, and given permission, it's an arrestable act to ask questions at a forum?

Also, please validate the rules set forth, that also state you can be forcefully removed if you do not follow them. That would make it all better for me, as he would be in agreement with these rules by entering the property.

Make sure it says forcefully, or non-lethally, or hell, even violently.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[fataugie]

Don't be ridiculous. He asked his questions, his time ran out and he continued. They gave him a bit more time, and he persisted. Then, they sought to remove him so the forum could progress. He decided to be a drama queen and resist.

If I was the one arranging things like this, I would indicate the course of action and the penalties for disobidience. However, I wasn't in charge of this so I guess you'll just have to wait until they call me :-)

Bottom line, don't resist when given a lawful order and have been warned over and over. You're not allowed to cry and snivel about what you knew was coming.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[problah]

So raising his arms above his head, while shouting "What are you doing? I'll leave." Insinuates resistance?

It should have never gotten to the point where the officers decided to start manhandling him. He asked his question, Kerry said he would answer it, at which point the kid said "Ok." And then the officer grabbed him. I would have torn her fucking face off, but that's only because I'm violent. He stepped back, said get off of me, while raising his hands in the air.

That's why I said there needs to be a point where the citizen wisens up, doesn't move and says, "I will cooperate and leave, but you need to stop touching me, or I will defend myself". If he decides to have a go at it again after that, take his ass down. Shove a boot up there while you're at it.

I know he didn't do so hot by continuing to fight, but they didn't do so well either jumping him with four people, and then tazing him when he's already on the ground. I don't think anyone is necessarily right here, but it was handled very poorly from the officers.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[Belial6]

Then Kerry should have also been arrested. By telling the guy it was "OK", he was encouraging the man. He was pulling the classing "Yelling fire in a crowded theater". Kerry clearly appeared to be an authority at the venue, and he claimed authority when he told the police not to arrest the man.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[fataugie]

OK, I think we're pretty close then with our opinions. I'd be right there with you if they decided his question was off base a la Stuttering John or something like that.

I thought the reason they put hands on him was his time had ended, he asked another question which Kerry said he'd answer and then they were going to escort him from the mike. At that point, he escalated the issue.

I think we just disagree over which point he should have been removed, am I right?

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[fataugie]

And they didn't listen to them, did they? So I guess he didn't carry any weight.

To his credit, he was trying to keep the situation from getting out of control. The kid was a drama queen and was hoping for it to get out of control. That's why he was screaming like a woman....to draw attention to himself and the situation HE created.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[celle]

Your responsibility is to protect your legal rights, especially when the law is being misapplied by law enforcement. If you wait for a judge to reinstate them it's too late. It's our right as constitutional citizens to refuse and challenge if the law is being applied improperly. Police only have authority to give orders when the situation calls for it, it didn't. It was a public forum for a public official who answers to us and to the questioner. If the audience cheered it just proves how superficial the audience was.(college kids often are especially in this day and age) I hope he sues the pants off the local government and turns it into a PR nightmare.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[problah]

I think that's about the jist of it. I understand needing to remove someone, but jumping his ass with a grip of people, and then electrocuting him is uncool, and there are no laws in place that can allow defense on site by the citizen legally. It's all up to how the officer perceives it at that point.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[celle]

Appropriateness is irrelevant. You embarrass me. Don't forget to submit when the come for you.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[Belial6]

You did not reply to my post. Reread it, and perhaps you will understand what was written.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[fataugie]

Seems pretty simple to me. I disagree with your assertion. I understand it completely and disagree with your conclusion.

Kerry said I'll answer him and the cops ignored Kerry. Kerry doesn't pay their salary, the University does.

Try re-reading my post leaving your biases aside and see if it makes more sense.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[Belial6]

Ok, to spell it out for you. Kerry incited the guy to resist the cops. He told the guy that he didn't have to leave. When a US Senator tells you that you don't have to leave one of his political events, it is reasonable to believe him. It is irrelevant whether the cops believed him or not, just the same as it would have been irrelevant if the cops in a theater believe the guy yelling "Fire!".

So, clearly your comment that the cops didn't listen to Kerry shows you did not understand the comment put forth.

It is also not a guarantee that Kerry is not the person that pays the cops to be there. I know I don't know who pays for police security at events like this. I would assume that most people don't know for sure. It could be Kerry, it could be the University, or it could be a shared cost. Either way, saying that the guy should have known that Kerry didn't have a say in whether he could stay or not is simply silly.

So, it comes down to, if Kerry really had no say, he was committing a crime by telling the guy he could stay. The police should have arrested him.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[fbjon]

And then the officer grabbed him. I would have torn her fucking face off, but that's only because I'm violent. Don't ask any question at my Q&A's, please.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[fbjon]

However, I'm a little embarrassed to say I was glad to see him dragged kicking and screaming from the room. He acted like a little bitch, and his website supports the idea that he was just some jackass looking for a publicity stunt rather than someone who thoughtfully cared about the issues he brought up. Nothing to be embarrassed about. Some people are dicks, and it comes naturally to them.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[fataugie]

So, clearly your comment that the cops didn't listen to Kerry shows you did not understand the comment put forth.

Are you stupid or just slow?

My initial comment was that he wasn't in charge, he was invited but the UNIVERSITY is in charge. The cops didn't listen to Kerry BECAUSE HE HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER THEM.

Jesus Christ, I can't believe that is so hard to fathom on your end. He can say stay, he can say go....he wasn't the one giving orders. Did it look like the cops were looking to Kerry for instructions? It didn't to me. Kerry could have said anything he wanted to at that point, it was too late, the die had been cast.

I never said the guy should have to know who paid the cops...it doesn't really matter. The fact is, they tried to enforce a lawful order and the douche bag decided to resist....game over.

To try and equate someone yelling FIRE to Kerry saying "It's OK, I'll answer his question" is silly and a failing in logic.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[posterlogo]

Wow. You're brilliant. Let's just use Slashdot to sling insults. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I see you have lot in common with the jerk who got tasered.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[fbjon]

It is my opinion that while he may have been unfairly tasered and manhandled, he was being a dick. Being a dick isn't something unusual in itself, anyone's capable of it, but being a dick while being escorted out of somewhere is a Bad Idea.

Also, it's annoying.

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[problah]

Heheheh, I'm getting too old to be a trouble maker. I've just managed to retain my violent nature. 0]

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[problah]

I thought I saw the female officer looking towards the stage, and even though Kerry didn't make any set motion, except for his allowance, the aid behind him seemed to be motioning to the cops to take him, at which point they did. Is the aide in charge?

I dunno, I'm sure it will all get smoothed over like this shit usually does. 0] He said she said, the student is a student after all. Whether you're on a podium asking rhetorical questions, or whether you're standing in the middle of the street of a square, standing in the way of a Chinese government tank, you're still wrong. 0]

Re:Here's a suggestion...

[fataugie]

Whether you're on a podium asking rhetorical questions, or whether you're standing in the middle of the street of a square, standing in the way of a Chinese government tank, you're still wrong

Not necessarily. If the cops walked up and tasered him at the mic, I would be right there with you. In this instance, the student was clearly seeking attention and made things ten times worse.

He could have walked out and complained to the University, but he chose to jump around like a lunatic and disrupt things. Even Kerry in his statement said he barged his way to the mic.

The cops do things wrong from time to time like everyone else, I just don't think this was one of those times.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[Gaewyn L Knight]

It's only "resisting arrest" if they are arresting you for something. Not once (at least from the 3 camera feeds I have seen) did they verbally ask him to "Please leave the auditorium" or "Come with us". They instantly went to a physical response.

He was at worst a heckler... he should have been dealt with by turning the mic off and a funny response from Kerry... nothing more unless he attempted to endanger or harm someone else. The first amendment specifically states that all peaceful gatherings are covered under it and until the cops started getting physical there was NOTHING endangering or "unpeaceful" about this meeting.

Those crazy cops

[johnm_10]

It seems the ego's of cops has once again caused them to make fools of themselves causing this to become a media circus. If they simply strong-armed him out the door like bouncers at a club, they would have had the moral high ground and he wouldn't now have national attention. I don't know why they think they can punish people with tazers, he was already cuffed and on the ground, this is obvious brutality. Its also obvious they will get a free pass and have it found to be justified because they are apparently superhuman and can do no wrong.

Re:Those crazy cops

[jjohnson]

Actually, you could play that video for training purposes because it was a textbook example of force levels and their proper application.

First, they verbally warned him to leave. He wouldn't. Then, they touched him--not grabbed, just laid their hands on him and warned him again. He wouldn't stop. Then, they grabbed him, and warned him again. He continued talking. Then, they tried to physically move him out of the auditorium. He struggled against the movement. Then, when he tried to escape their grasp, they physically subdued him and cuffed him. He continued to struggle, at which point the possibility of injuring himself became significant--a dislocated shoulder from pulling against cuffs is very possible. When he refused to calm down after being cuffed, they threatened to taser him if he didn't stop struggling. He didn't. So, they tasered him. After that, they picked him up and he walked out calmly under his own power. They weren't punishing him with tazers--he took them to that level of force ladder by refusing to comply until they got there. Once he stopped struggling, they stopped tazing.

The point of the extended escalation is to provide every opportunity for an arrestee to stop struggling and comply with the officer, and they always move up the force ladder in single steps so that every step is the justifiably minimal escalation. It's that dickhead's own fault that he got tazered. I salute those cops for doing a difficult job calmly, professionally, and with perfect procedural correctness, in the face of a bunch of drama queens like yourself who can't imagine that someone in a polo shirt at a university might run afoul of the law of their own volition.

Re:Those crazy cops

[johnm_10]

He was not struggling when he was saying "Don't tazer me bro". Get your facts straight.

Re:Those crazy cops

[jjohnson]

Watch the video again. Even while handcuffed and held down by four cops, he manages to twist his body more than 90 degrees and raise his head and torso to say "don't tazer me, bro". That's struggling, and that's why he got tazered.

He could have avoided getting tazered if he'd just gone limp instead at that point.

Re:Those crazy cops

[johnm_10]

Begging is not struggling. He appears to be following instructions to me, of course it's difficult when you have different cops barking different instructions. He wasn't told to go limp, he was actually rolled over by the police. Reminds me of the Elio Carrion incident. Even the eyewitnesses saw that the police were out of line. He didn't do this but if I thought someone was going to taze me I would instinctively try to avoid it. Of course that would make a sadistic bastard like jjohnson probably enjoy pulling the trigger even more. He actually just layed there and took it calmly. jjohnson, why are you trying to spin this anyway? You can't convince people to ignore facts that are in plain view on the video.

Re:Those crazy cops

[jjohnson]

I could be wrong about him twisting his body. It might have been the cops doing it. But my plain view of the video is that he fought the cops up until they tasered him, at which point he got up and walked out under his own power.

Personally, if the cop said "I'm going to tase you if you don't lie still", I'd lie still. That's just me, though. Then again, once the cops asked me to leave, I'd have walked out calmly with them. It would never have gotten to that point with me.

It's easy to call me a sadist and accuse me of trying to spin this. It's harder to imagine that Meyer might have just been a jerk who participated in his own tasering by being stubborn and aggressive and refusing to recognize that it was time for him to leave, and that the cops had a legal obligation to make him do so. He was given every opportunity to avoid tasering; he refused them.

Re:Those crazy cops

[johnm_10]

Of course he was a jerk, that is obvious. Unfortunately for him the cops were bigger jerks. I didn't see one bit of physical resistence once they started to put the cuffs on him. Voicing his protest is not resistance, and it is certainly no reason to tazer him. Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

Mindless use of power

[Lucas123]

Other than your obvious prejudice and disdain for professional journalists, who by the way bring you all the news that you use to form most of your opinions about the world, this kid didn't deserve to get tasered. The police tasered him because they reacted emotionally and not professionally to the situation. The student was already on the floor, and all he was doing at that point was yelling. The tasing was the easy answer to a problem that proved difficult for police ill-equipped to deal with the situation and intimidated by a powerful senator and his staff. The police are there to protect and to serve the public in general, not just powerful politicians.

Police are looking in to excessive force???

[Maxo-Texas]

You think?

Holy crap.

Re:I think many different issues are being justipo

[Watson Ladd]

I think it's legitimate to give a few sentences of background for the benefit of the audience if you are asking a question at a public event. Kerry read the book, but did everyone else?

Re:So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question

[truthsearch]

He just keeps rambling on and doesn't even wait for Kerry to respond. After reading the blurb, I felt sorry for him. After watching the video, I don't anymore.

So you didn't watch the video. He prefaced his questions and asked three in about 2 minutes (or so), and then didn't listen to the answer because he was forcefully removed. Kerry said, "I'd like to answer that question" as he was being taken away. So how, exactly, was he supposed to wait for Kerry to respond? The police didn't want to wait.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[InsaneProcessor]

Let's see....You want to risk the lives of everyone there by using deadly force against someone who is not using deadly force. You want to have the tax payer fork over the expenses for medical, and legal fees for using deadly force when not necessary. I tell you what, you stand right behind the guy when the cops pull out there pistol and he happens to duck just when the trigger is pulled.

Some people are born idiots and can't help themselves. Others are just lazy and become that way. Which are you?

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[torkus]

Who said he barged in? It was a Q&A. At a rally. He was permitted mic time. Someone decided he took too much and didn't like the way he was questioning. Now, I'm not going to say he has a RIGHT to ramble on using the mic. In fact, i'm going to bet it was a public gathering in a publicly open PRIVATE facility. So no, he had no RIGHT to speak one word to begin with. He had no RIGHT to be admitted even. Bush has proved that in the past by refusing entry to those who didn't support him at his speeches, etc.

That said, arresting him was completly uncalled for. The escalation in violence I blame on the police. Their training is to DEFUSE situations. Protect the peace. Strong-arming and arresting someone for not taking kindly to being strong-armed and arrested is curcular logic at best. This is why I hate cops. If they did their JOB and followed their TRAINING they could have gotten him out of there with a lot less fuss, no arrest, no drama, no TV, no youtube, no news story. Their (police) actions caused far more of a disturbance than the guy did. They caused far more of a disturbance than calmly making him leave could possibly have. He's a journalism student, not a crack-head ex-con. Even Kerry was more of an adult about it - he at least offered to address the question. In my mind that makes the cops wrong from that instant on.

Again, cops are there to protect the peace. If the GUEST SPEAKER is willing to address the question I would expect the police to take a break from pushing the guy around. At least stop long enough for Kerry to answer and then kindly tell the person his time is done and to sit down or leave *OR* the police will be forced to escort you out. Escort out, not gang-tackle, tazer and arrest.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[vfrex]

So that I understand what you are suggesting, you don't think security personnel should interfere unless someone could be physically harmed? If someone protests in this fashion, as long as they are non-violent, they should be allowed to conduct their business?

The key is the tasering

[hellfire]

This is a media clusterfuck. The guy should have been removed, he should have been arrested, he should have been dragged out. He should NOT have been tasered.

The guy wanted to cause a scene and wanted to get tasered. The officers should not have given him the satisfaction. If not for the tasering, this would not have made national news, and would not have crossed a line.

The truth of it is that the officers should be reprimanded somewhat severely (suspensions, formal marks in their permanent record, but not fired) and the guy should be kicked out of any organizations involving media he's in on campus, and perhaps some media majors in his class should be allowed to beat him for a while for being a dick.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Maxo-Texas]

Some how I think those estimates were based on an actively (and possibly armed) resisting suspect.

I do not think historically that journalism students have whipped out a knife at a political rally when the police attempted to arrest them.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[elrous0]

I thought it was sad that a whole group of cops couldn't simply drag out a kid that looked to weigh all of 180 lbs. If there are several of you and you still have to taser an unarmed 180-lb kid, it's time for your department to hit the weight room and lay off the fucking donuts for a while. Pussies make for shitty fascists.

Anything to do with his Skull and Bones Question?

[rubberbando]

From the article, they seemed to make one of their first points about him asking about Kerry and Bush being 'brothers' in the 'Skull and Bones'. It makes me wonder if they are using that to try to make him (the student) look like some crazy conspiracy theorist or perhaps push that conspiracy theory out into the open.

#1 Rule of Skull & Bones is that you do not talk about it
(otherwise we have you tasered or most likely in my case, modded into oblivion) :P

No excessive force

[theonetruekeebler]

Watch the whole video -- not just the one that starts with "are you a member of a secret society?" and ends with an arrest. Watch the one that starts at the beggining. The guy came in, already being followed by police and disrupted the hell out of a meeting. He made a great effort to become the center of attention long before he got to the mic and long after his privilege to do so ran out. Hell, it looks from here like the police were actually nice enough to let him ask his question, which he parleyed into a two-minute rant about nobody cares but him.

He disturbed the peace and resisted arrest. And yes, disturbing the peace is an arrestable offense nearly anywhere. When the officers very calmly and professionally took him by the arm, he began to fling himself about while shouting and continuing to disturb the peace, and was finally dragged down as he continued to wrestle violently.

Here's where it gets a little tough-love: When you arrest someone you put them in handcuffs. When someone's struggling violently while you're putting them in handcuffs, well, you'd be amazed how many people will keep fighting until they break their own wrist or dislocate their shoulder. And if they keep getting their hands free, like this guy, what will they have in their hands next? A knife? A gun? This is a guy struggling violently against arrest, remember. Just because he's wearing a polo shirt instead of a hoodie doesn't make him harmless. So you, the arresting officer try a number of things, like telling them to stop resisting, like immobilizing them with judo-style holds, like letting the sheer weight of a pile of officers hold him face down. And when none of that works, and all of that was tried, you make him stop struggling. The old school of policing is a swift poke to the solar plexus with your truncheon, since somewhat deprecated. Slightly newer school is mace or pepper spray, but with sitting nearby, the chance of by-stander injury is too great. The Taser was the right way to go.

Anyone who wants to pout about that this guy has a right to be heard, well, not exactly. You may have a right to speak, but you have no right to force me to listen by grabbing a microphone and disrupting the orderly proceedings of my meeting. That very same Amendment grants the rest of us the right to assemble peaceably.

Re:No excessive force

[jjohnson]

Fucking great analysis.

Re:No excessive force

[spoco2]

A great response... I've been looking around trying to find out what happened BEFORE the videos I've seen, because, yeah, having a contingent of police standing behind him already spoke to there being more to this.

There is some great spin going on here, as is often the case with these youtube videos of 'the man doing me wrong'... They have a habit of not showing the extra info that would make the majority go "Oh, I see... he was being a dick".

I shall have to hunt down that longer video.

Re:No excessive force

[theonetruekeebler]

A useful eyewitness report over at Daily Kos says basically the guy that was being a serious PITA. It also corrects me on a couple of points on when the police became involved but makes clear that this kid was being a self-centered, disruptive jerk.

A local paper has some updates, including notes from the police about how markedly different the student's behavior was when there was or wasn't a camera pointing at him, also that one of the videos circulating on YouTube was shot with the student's own camera.

Re:People like this guy cause the Police State

[Catbeller]

Electrocution without trial for the crime of speaking out of turn has generally not been held to be the American way. But for righties, it apparently now is. Until they become the loony minority.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Obviously, far be it from you to actually watch the video, he was only tasered after they DID turn the mike off, and he kept screaming. *Something* had to be done about this.

Welcome...

[scsirob]

.. to the United States of Arabia.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[networkBoy]

Add to that the gold standard for subduing a combative individual prior to the Taser was a nightstick...

My father in law is a cop. I know from listening to him that most cops resort to Tasers only as a last resort where the suspect is likely to cause officer injury. Though in his case (county PD on assignment at a uni) they use zip ties more often than handcuffs because they are faster to deploy and less likely to cause officer injury (in combat situations).

The mistake the cops made was getting involved in this the way they did. Once he started making a scene they fought back. If they had informed him that they expected him to "behave properly" or some such else he would be arrested and let him walk back they could have jumped him from behind once his guard was down. He would have easily given them his back and that's all they needed to get an arm bar. once they had that they had control.
-nB

Re:Ow! Ow! Ow!

[Catbeller]

Europeans: gaze upon the naked Republican in his glory.

Re:Technology (Taser) is the solution for everythi

[Johnny5000]

Don't they train police in aikido? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikido

I should hope not.. Aikido is not very effective against a resisting opponent.

He was excited

[Joebert]

There was no need for any of that, it was a good question & the kid had every right to be excited about being face to face with Kerry for an answer.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[Gaewyn L Knight]

Sorry I missed reading your traffic intersection part of the comment....

Here is my reply to that:

The TRAFFIC law specifically states that you must follow the guidance of an officer of the law when you are in a vehicle on public roadways. That is part of TRAFFIC law. An officer of the law can not come up to you at any moment that you are just standing in a public sitatuation and tell you to "Get on the ground" without first having a warrant for your arrest or stating that you are under arrest for "probable cause of committing a crime". When a cop pulls your over they have probable cause and can investigate they sitatation. If the cop feels at any time during an "investigation" that you are endangering him/herself or the public they can also put you under restraint and use necessary force.

There was no probably cause of a crime, no investigation of a crime, there was no public endangerment, the cops were just heavy handed and STUPID!

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[James_Duncan8181]

"You're right. One person should be allowed to cause as much disruption as he wants without regard to the rest of the audience who might want a chance to ask their own questions. And it would have been so much better to give him a nice bop on the head with a nightstick, like in the old days. Or maybe just a few quick punches to loosen him up. And after that, they should have completely regarded due process--you know, the part of the legal system where they formally levy action against you, thus giving you the chance to seek legal redress in court for any inappropriate behavior."

Are you actually suggesting that the police should not aim to completely regard due process?

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Chris Mattern]

I don't believe he planned on getting tased, no. But I think if he didn't plan on getting arrested, he decided he wanted to be once he was there.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[ReTay]

"The student deserved to get zapped. He went in with the intention of causing a scene and being the center of attention. Mission accomplished."

Oh this is good so every time you annoy me I can hit you with a Tazer?
Look I understand that the kid was being a shit. And that he was grandstanding with Kerry. But Tazers are NOT a joke. I have used them on someone legally and lawfully. Once several times. It is never a joke. The pain they feel is real. And I really hope you never have to find out the hard way.
Tazering is not spanking for adults. And I feel that cops tend to use it as a spanking.
I also believe that kind of cop should be forced to follow behind mounted units with a broom for the rest of their time on the police force.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[shilly]

I'm sure there are specific instances where that might be not appropriate, but it strikes me as a pretty good rule of thumb, yes. Can you suggest a general objection?

Your emotions will hint at the truth.

[AnarchyAo]

What did you feel when you heard the helpless plea of a man, screaming "NO! Don't taser me - I said don't!" "Ahhhhhhhh!" I, for one, felt both sympathetic to Andrew Meyer and resentment for the police. If you didn't feel this while watching the video, you're just as insensitive as the police that did this. Unarmed and already pinned to the ground by three police officers, use of a taser was without a doubt excessive - your emotions confirm this when you feel sorry for this young man as he's shocked repeatedly.

Re:Your emotions will hint at the truth.

[jjohnson]

He missed several opportunities to comply with being removed from the auditorium; he fought with them continuously for (by the video clock) two minutes before the taser was even threatened.

So, my gut reaction to the video was thinking "dumbass got what he deserved". I thought the cops were quite reasonable in their paced escalation of force. By the time the taser came out I was already so irritated with him being a grandstanding douchebag that I was actually slightly happy to hear him whimper.

That doesn't make me insensitive. It makes me a mature adult who has a sense of responsibility for his own actions and the consequences of same.

Re:Your emotions will hint at the truth.

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Color me insensitive. I thought, "fuck, what a pussy." He whined the whole time, minutes, had plenty of opportunity to comply yet didn't. Whether you think the police were right or wrong, you have to be a complete moron to try to resist as they're putting you in handcuffs. What, did he think they'd let him go the 32nd time he said, "get off me"?

He could have settled down when he saw the taser. "Don't taser me!" Yeah, the taser in your chest is a hint you should just stop moving right then and there.

Actually, I'm not insensitive...it did bring out feelings. I thought it was pretty funny.

He fought the law and the law won.

Game over man!

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[harryk]

It would seem that you didn't watch any of the video. The guy was actually question why didn't Kerry raise more of a stink, if there was so much scandal and fraud surrounding the 2004 election. It was actually a valid question, and one that Kerry did attempt to answer while the kid is being tasered in the back of the room.

They did warn him...

[FiloEleven]

If you watch the video, you'll hear one of the cops say (paraphrased) "If you continue to struggle, you will be tased," to which the kid replies, "Let me go and I'll walk out the door."

The problem is, he had already struggled against the officers for a minute or two. Once you start fighting the cops, you're going for a ride downtown. He missed his opportunity to peacefully leave the building.

I cannot say whether or not the taser was excessive force. I'm inclined to side with the police in this one, though. He was causing a disturbance and resisting officers' attempts to remove him. He was given fair warning that he'd be tased, and he continued to fight. What did he expect would happen?

Re:They did warn him...

[AnarchyAo]

He's a college student, he thought the police would be more understanding. Obviously, this kid is not your consistent trouble-maker, he didn't think flailing his arms and yelling to make a scene for the better good of amplifying his passion for arguments sake would lead to him being physically abused by the police.

Re:They did warn him...

[jjohnson]

I think the grandparent was being ironic.

Re:The story isn't about a kid, it's about the pol

[Kasis]

Completely agreed. If this idiot got in my face I would punch him, but I'm not a police officer. The police officers already had him restrained and then they tasered him. That's all that matters.

Pain Compliance

[Slashdot Parent]

How did they manage police work before they had tasers? They used (and continue to use) other pain-compliance methods, many of which resulted in injuries (dislocated joints, severe bruises, etc.) and deaths (asphyxiation due to hog-tying, etc.). I wonder if Rodney King ever secretly wishes that police carried tasers back in the early 90s. Would have saved him one fractured skull, no?

As a parent, I am exposed to many parent/child conflicts. My unscientific observation is that when parents abuse their children, it tends to be when they do not feel that they have any other method to gain compliance from their children when compliance is required. Under pressure to gain control of whatever situation, they get angry and frustrated and their children pay the price. Parents who know how to achieve control without resorting to violence will typically do so. Very few people actually enjoy hitting their children ("This is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you... yadda yadda yadda").

I draw a parallel to police use of force. If the cop knows that he can easily achieve control of a given situation using his taser, he is less likely to become angry and frustrated. Anger, frustration, and perceived threats to an officer lead to injured and/or killed arrestees.

Summary: I agree that we shouldn't have a posse of taser-happy cops electrocuting anyone who looks at them funny. But on the other hand, I think that those who long for the good 'ol days of billy clubs and beat-downs are not old enough to remember the good 'ol days of billy clubs and beat-downs.

Re:The story isn't about a kid, it's about the pol

[E 99]

No one is saying the kid wasn't disrupting the forum, what is in question is the fact that six officers felt threatened enough to justify electrocuting him. I'm just glad regular citizens, armed with cameras, were able to upload this incident as linked in an earlier submission.

Yes. You can see six officer struggling with him for several minutes trying to get cuffs on him. After they tasered him, they were finally able to do so, and escort him out. (At that point, all his energy was being put into saying "ow, ow, ow, ow, police brutality.") My only hope is that at trial the bailiff is armed with a taser as well, as it looks like he'll need it.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[djasbestos]

This is the same as with the taser incident at UCLA several months ago...there were half a dozen cops or more who had control of him and used the taser for pain compliance and not to stop a threat. He was pinned by several officers. There's no excuse for using it on him in that situation where they clearly had control of him.

At least the nightstick can be used to do pressure points which stop hurting instantly when they stop pushing. That would have been warranted (the guy is clearly not without fault, but the police didn't need to taser him).

What a Maroon!

[Detritus]

If you resist arrest, you are going to get smacked down by the police, and this idiot was definitely resisting arrest. If you think the taser is inhumane, would you rather go back to the "good old days" when you would get popped with a blackjack or baton? I'd much rather be tased. Even if you are being arrested on questionable grounds, that doesn't give you the right to resist arrest and assault police officers.

What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[Nymz]

"Put down the knife and step away from the baby!" But as long as uncivilized people are going to resist arrest, or disobey legitimate police commands, then we're going to need to electrocute them.

The subject was down on the ground, handcuffed, and had six officers sitting on him, and you're going to tell me he was a threat? In case you haven't seen the actual incident (no knife, no baby) there are some YouTube videos linked in an earlier submission.

Re:What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[zstlaw]

Rewatch the video. The police officers were failing to get cuffs on him because he was resisting. The cuff was on one hand but they couldn't get both wrists because he was resisting physically.

Re:What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[inquisitive_cherub]

The subject was NOT handcuffed when he was tasered. He was tasered because he refused to be cuffed and refused to comply with officers' entreaties.

Re:What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[knight24k]

The subject was down on the ground, handcuffed, and had six officers sitting on him, and you're going to tell me he was a threat? In case you haven't seen the actual incident (no knife, no baby) there are some YouTube videos linked in an earlier submission.

Excuse me? He was NOT handcuffed when he was tasered. They were attempting to handcuff him and he was resisting. He was warned, several times, that if he did not stop resisting he would be tasered. He acknowledged this threat and continued to resist. ONLY after being tasered were they able to handcuff him and lead him out. This punk got what he deserved. He continued to resist and was the SOLE cause of the escalation to being tasered.

I suggest you go watch it again and listen closely to what the officers are saying to him. They tried to peacefully lead him away from the mic and he got combative. He escalated to being placed under arrest and then resisted further. They tried to handcuff him using physical force only and could not. He was warned repeatedly to stop resisting and got tasered for his trouble. The police officers showed IMMENSE restraint, but had no other choice.

And for those claiming First Amendment violations, your rights stop where mine begin. He has every right to have his own event to voice his opinions. He has NO right to disrupt someone else's event. He orchestrated this confrontation IMO. He could have easily and peacefully left the mic but chose not to.

Re:What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[parcel]

ONLY after being tasered were they able to handcuff him and lead him out. Can't watch the video since youtube is blocked at work, but were six (theoretically) trained police officers really unable to cuff a single college student? If the student is convicted of resisting arrest, will he be deported back to Krypton?

Re:What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[knight24k]

Can't watch the video since youtube is blocked at work, but were six (theoretically) trained police officers really unable to cuff a single college student? If the student is convicted of resisting arrest, will he be deported back to Krypton?

Restraining anyone is difficult at best when they don't want to be restrained. You really only can get one officer on each limb, which is what appears to be how they did it. One was trying to talk to him and get him to stop resisting and the last one probably was the one that fired the taser when he refused. He never stopped fighting and resisting the police until he was tasered. If he had complied they would have been able to handcuff him and lead him away. It appears that they were able to get one arm handcuffed, but he continually fought against them preventing the other arm being restrained.

The fact that he was warned repeatedly that if he did not stop resisting he would be tasered is lost on everyone. He had every chance to defuse this situation and elected to escalate instead.

Re:What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[blueskies]

OMFG. That was the funniest comment i've read on ./ in a while.

Re:What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[parcel]

The fact that he was warned repeatedly that if he did not stop resisting he would be tasered is lost on everyone. I don't think that's lost on most people... I believe the question is whether or not the use of force was appropriate.

It sounds like he was clearly restrained, it was just getting the cuffs on that was a problem. Had the cops warned him repeatedly that he was going to be shot if he did not stop resisting, and then killed him when he refused, I doubt there would be much argument that excessive force was used.
 
Which was what I was getting at with my original question... is a taser an acceptable use of force when police are having difficulty cuffing someone who has already been subdued and is no longer a threat? It sounds more like a convenience than a necessity. Prior to tasers, would they have just let him go? shot him? or just kept working at it until they had him in cuffs? My guess is the latter.

Re:What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[knight24k]

It sounds like he was clearly restrained, it was just getting the cuffs on that was a problem. Had the cops warned him repeatedly that he was going to be shot if he did not stop resisting, and then killed him when he refused, I doubt there would be much argument that excessive force was used.

He was not clearly restrained. He was clearly still fighting. He was putting himself and the officers in risk of further injury. Should the officers just allow him to continue to fight and possibly injure either themselves or others just because this person refuses to be arrested? As for being shot, officers do in fact warn offenders that they will shoot if they are armed and advancing. It is hardly a similar situation to simple resisting. The force applied was appropriate to the level of resistance he was putting forth. Had he been armed your scenario above may well have played out as you indicate with him being shot instead of tasered. The longer he continued to resist the higher the possibility that either himself or the officers would be injured. Then we would be here yet again wondering why the officers did not take steps to prevent his or their injury.

Which was what I was getting at with my original question... is a taser an acceptable use of force when police are having difficulty cuffing someone who has already been subdued and is no longer a threat? It sounds more like a convenience than a necessity. Prior to tasers, would they have just let him go? shot him? or just kept working at it until they had him in cuffs? My guess is the latter.

Hardly. Prior to tasers they would have pulled out the nightsticks and beat him into submission a la Rodney King. That or used choke holds which might lead to brain damage or death. The fact is that restraining someone who is continuing to resist is an ugly business. Since you have not seen the video yet you don't have the necessary information to see that he was clearly not subdued and still fighting with the police. The student orchestrated this confrontation. He escalated it multiple times to produce this result. He fought with police and continued to fight even after being wrestled to the ground. Even after being warned he would be tasered he continued to fight. What exactly are the police supposed to do?

These types of attitudes are what hamstring the police. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't being second guessed by people who have never worn a police uniform. If you think it is so easy to keep a person restrained who does not want to be, try it then come back and tell us how you fare. They can't use a nightstick because that is too brutal, they can't use a taser because that is torture, even though they have to be shot themselves before they ever use one. They give the suspect every opportunity to stop resisting then still get raked over the coals when they get a non-lethal end to the confrontation.

If you feel it was an unacceptable escalation I would love to hear how you would have handled it considering 6 officers were unable to keep this young man down long enough to get two arms handcuffed. Once you are able to view the video I think your opinion will change.

Re:What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[AK Marc]

It sounds like he was clearly restrained, it was just getting the cuffs on that was a problem.

If he wasn't restrained with cuffs, then the wasn't restrained. And you do know that a number of people have died from being restrained, right? In fact, more than have died from being tasered. Hold a struggling person down until he stops struggling. More than one cop has turned them over after to find that they suffered asphyxia. Tasering is safer than holding them on the ground until they stop resisting.

Re:What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[RobBebop]

People should listen to the legitimate requests of law enforcement officers without question--such as "Put down the knife and step away from the baby!" In case you haven't seen the actual incident (no knife, no baby) there are some YouTube videos linked in an earlier submission.

I would also argue that "Stop talking and step away from the microphone" is NOT a legitimate request. Not in a free society as long as the person at the microphone is not trying to incite a mob, at least.

Re:What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[parcel]

Once you are able to view the video I think your opinion will change. I was just now finally able to watch them. It's too bad that the one with the best angle was the shakiest..

It honestly looked to me like he had given up resisting at that point... he had managed to turn around and partially sit up, but looked immobile at the time of the tase. Regardless, it's not like I've ever had any experience in the matter, and it sounds like you either are or were an officer and have firsthand knowledge, so I'll take your read over mine.
 

These types of attitudes are what hamstring the police My attitude towards the police has only come from my personal experience... there seem to be a great many officers in my area that do not act in accordance with the powers they have, which i've personally experienced several times. Not that there aren't good cops as well... after being harassed and prevented from leaving a public park by plainclothes officers that refused to show any form of identification (they claimed they didn't need to because of the patriot act - they turned on the siren of their unmarked car, and claimed that was all the identification they needed), I drove straight to the nearest state police satellite office, where a very kind and understanding state trooper made certain that they were in fact county officers.

So, I may not have been a goody-two-shoes kid, but i certainly wasn't a bad one either. Yet, i've had enough run ins with cops abusing their power that I have a natural distrust, and it seems that when providing and authorizing the kind of force available to police, we'd better be damn sure that this force is used only when appropriate and necessary to the situation. I do truly believe that there are many good officers out there who go to work every morning willing to give their lives to save mine. But their power does unfortunately seem to be abused frequently enough to warrant a scrutinizing eye.

Re:What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[darkmeridian]

The grandparent post was arguing that it's always unfortunate that our uncivilized society has to use the Taser at all. I'm arguing that there are valid instances of electrocuting people into compliance.

Re:What knife, and what baby??? Hyperbole

[Nymz]

The grandparent post was arguing that it's always unfortunate that our uncivilized society has to use the Taser at all. I'm arguing that there are valid instances of electrocuting people into compliance.

1) No, not all instances, the GP post SPECIFICALLY said in order to control and torture people.
2) No, not arguing, you are useing a 'red herring' to divert attention from the issue of excessive force used against zero threat.
3) Yes, 1+2=you are a troll, now move along to easier pastures.

What if the police hadn't been there?

[carandol]

The guy was behaving like many politicians behave. They drone on beyond their alloted time, trying to get their point across. It happens at political rallies, it happens in the senate, it happens in the UK parliament, it happens when politicians are interviewed on TV and radio. Usually, there are no police present to taser them into silence. Presumably, the only reason police were present on this occasion is because John Kerry is "important". If the police hadn't been there, the guy would have blathered on for a while, the audience would have gotten restive and possibly started booing and hissing, the guy would eventually have shut up, Kerry would have answered the question, and everyone would have gone home saying what an idiot that guy was. End of story. If being self-important and opinionated is an arrestable offence these days, better get the police round to the White House immediately.

Silence Pleb!!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

What utter bullshit! You guys seem to forget, this was a political rally in a university! What the heck do you think academic freedom is supposed to be about anyway?

Alas sir, Universities are no longer the resorts of the wealthy or even the upper middle classes. I fear nowadays every unwashed savage and inbred scoundrel is offered a seat in once privileged institutions, and we must face facts with regards to the liberties we extend to the masses, nay?

You expect undergrads to be immature. They are growing their minds.

Indeed. Where once the proud chins of regal manhood held sway, now the infantile masses congregate. Many modern universities have even allowed foreign races and, horror of horrors, women to permeate our halls of learning. I can only shudder to think of the present state of manys the house Drawing room, defiled as it must be with perfumes and pagan artifacts.

It is educating people to be mice.

Exactly! I see that you too extol the virtues of applying the second level educational model to our overstressed third level system. Oh what wonders roll calls, detentions and adult authority shall work upon the wild and heathen masses. I mean, otherwise they'll just go about educating themselves. The idea...

Goodness, a good "tazering" will do them good I say! A bit like the old electric jolts in Bedlam, what-what! Taste of the old cane on raw buttock, but for the modern age! (Meanwhile of course, respectable persons such as ourselves should do all in our power to keep our children's private universities free from decadent the influences that have beset our once proud public colleges.)

The outcome was entirely within his control

[brokenregime]

Meyer, is it? He appeared at a public discussion that, for obvious reasons, had rules ... so that many might participate within an allotted time, certain constraints were necessary.

I watched the whole video on this. From the very outset, it was clear that this guy felt somehow entitled to make his own rules. Not content to ask "a question" and listen to "an answer," he felt entitled to lecture on historical facts of the 2004 election prior to his question, which he clearly said was not his only one. This demonstrated to me a willful disregard for the necessary civilized constraints imposed on the event and clearly entitled someone in authority over the event (organizer, Kerry aide, etc.) to call for the man to be disinvited. Many people tried to politely stop him from monopolizing the event.

When he failed or refused to submit, the police instructed him to go and attempted to escort him from the premises. He defied an order of duly-appointed and -empowered police and resisted them. I will grant that the police are not always right. But in our society, we have empowered them as the keepers of the peace. One big law that's always been on the books is that, when the police give you an order, right or wrong, you follow it or suffer the consequences. Redress of any violation that order might have committed can be had in the proper forum. Resisting police is an invitation to be subdued (or worse), and anyone who claims otherwise is being naive.

I watched the entire video, and I saw not one single event of cooperation with the authorities from this man. He did everything in his power to resist them, short of giving an officer a bloody nose or pulling a gun.

Someone in authority over the event had the power to invite this man (and everyone else) to attend, just as you can invite friends over to your house. This same someone had the authority to disinvite and insist that he go, just as you have with guests who become unwelcome for any reason. At the point he failed or refused, he became a trespasser. At the point where he failed or refused to comply with a police order to exit, he broke another law. At the point where he attempted to break free from the grasp of police and began flailing at them, he broke at least one or two other laws.

He created cause to arrest him, yet refused to submit to arrest. For their own safety and the safety of any other attendees in proximity, the police had a duty to subdue a man who gave every indication that he would refuse to be subdued and would not follow lawful orders. I heard *many* opportunities by officials and police at that event given for him to calm down and comply, and he *would* *not* *do* *it*. He had the power to stop his physical oppression at any time and did not exercise it. If I had behaved similarly under similar circumstances, I would expect the authorities to react similarly.

If, instead, in his raving insistence on being heard, he wrestled himself free and in flight back to the microphone (or wherever), knocked someone to the ground, grievously injuring them, the story might be how the police were so negligent not to protect other attendees. For all anyone knew, he could have been carrying a weapon or anything. To subdue him was an absolutely necessary first step, and he could have acquiesced at any time and avoided most of the drama and trauma.

He did this, not the police. Give the guys a break.

Re:Get the full story

[Catbeller]

All Michelle Malkin will give you is herpes, son. That's not a reputable news source.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[flannelboy]

Actually, I didn't hear the police asking him to leave. I just saw them forcing him to leave. I'll watch again, but I think they went straight to force.

4 rent-a-cops vs. auditorium of citizens... wtf?

[Kartoffel]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Re:God help us All.

[Catbeller]

The day is here and past. Now what? Do we fight, or do we leave? Canada is gearing up to become a police state under its new leader. France ditto. Where do you go?

I recall that President. Clinton was heckled frequently. I don't recall anyone getting electrocuted. They got to have their say.

Police states are a sickness that grow with public approval.

Re:Harmless Idiot

[AnarchyAo]

You are absolutely correct. He was already subdued, the taser was used to silence him.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[djasbestos]

They don't have to get physically involved...

They would have been justified in doing so: it is lawful for citizens to stop an unlawful arrest. The police (or at least the officer wielding the taser) assaulted this student when they used excessive force (watch the video: he was under control). Of course, a full-scale melee probably wouldn't have been a good outcome, but it would eventually be found legal in a fair court, though I personally wouldn't feel too confident sitting in the defendant's chair when being accused of assaulting a police officer even if it were justified. And if six cops need a taser to control one sober person, how do they expect to control drug crazed / drunk people without shooting them dead? Is this the kind of police force we want in the country that's the supposed "leader of the free world"?

Re:The story isn't about a kid, it's about the pol

[parcel]

Yes. You can see six officer struggling with him for several minutes trying to get cuffs on him. After they tasered him, they were finally able to do so, and escort him out. Tasers definitely need to be used more frequently in this kind of situation. I mean, I'm a software developer... when the users get testy, a tase here and there would definitely make my job easier. I'm sure there are many other situations where a tase would make other jobs easier as well!

Faraday cage (Conductive undergarments)

[KudyardRipling]

Would conductive fiber undergarments render tasers ineffective?

Re:Faraday cage (Conductive undergarments)

[rebmemeR]

Perhaps. Highly conductive material could allow a much greater current to flow than intended. I imagine that tasers must be designed to quickly shut off when such a condition is detected. If not, that would be negligent, because high current flow could generate a lot of heat at the contact point, perhaps enough to burn the victim. I guess if a taser doesn't work, the police can pepper spray you, which by the way, is more painful than a taser.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[vfrex]

I do object to that as a rule of thumb. I'd imagine that there were hundreds of students with legitimate questions to ask. For example, if I were there, I'd like to ask him a tough question on why the big dig in Boston suffered such extensive delays and shortcomings, and ultimately led to the death of a young woman. I would be very angry if someone made the CHOICE to disrupt the assembly, removing precious time for people to ask legitimate questions. We have a crowd of students who made the choice to take time out of their busy schedules to hear the senator speak. The event security realized early in the situation the individual's destructive attempt, and asked him to stop. Even John Kerry seemed agitated by his preaching. I guess that isn't particularly general, so let me try to abstract that a bit. Given an assembly where a powerful person is speaking and answering questions in a structured manner, the lack of order cheapens the experience. If one person elects to protest outside the rules to make his voice heard, why shouldn't the next person, and the next, and the next? If rules aren't enforced, we'd simply have a mob of individuals shouting.

People focusing on wrong thing here

[brunes69]

People are focusing and commenting on the wrong thing both here and in other forums discussing the topic.

The question is not weather or not it is justified to taser someone who is resisting arrest. It is not even is it justified to taser this guy who was obviously already subdued.

The question is **why the hell is this guy being considered resisting arrest inthe first place**. What justification was the original arrest under? The police are not supposed to be able to arrest you for speaking out of place in a public forum!

I don't care how annoying the guy was being, or what he was doing that was out of line (storming the mic, etc). Campus security could get involved and escort the guy off the premises, but he shouldn't be arrested for speaking his mind! The police who were there (likely for Kerry security) should not have even been involved in the entire incident.

Re:People focusing on wrong thing here

[jjohnson]

It's simple, really: he was disturbing the peace by refusing the relinquish the microphone after a question, which justified his removal from the auditorium; by refusing to comply with the removal, he justified the use of force to remove him; by struggling for two fucking full minutes against the use of force to remove him, he was resisting arrest. Once he was physically subdued, he continued to struggle, and was clearly told to stop struggling or he'd get tased--we know he understood this threat because he said "don't tase me" while he continued to struggle, as if cops in the performance of their duties should listen to the guy telling them to stop performing their duties on him.

Note that the every stage of this, he was the one in the wrong. At any time he could have complied and walked out, albeit with officer assistance at the end. It's looks bad on youtube, but that video is a training manual in the proper escalation of force levels. I'd commend those officers in doing their job properly.

Re:People focusing on wrong thing here

[Anonymous Cowpat]

"It's simple, really: he was disturbing the peace by refusing the relinquish the microphone after a question"
Simple solution, shut the microphone off at the amplifier. After that it's his ABSOLUTE RIGHT to continue to speak. That's what the first ammendment is for. (public university, university cops/real cops, counts as government)

"which justified his removal from the auditorium"
If anyone who speak out of turn from the chairman can be removed, then there's no discussion, only a generous opportunity to agree with the chairman

"by refusing to comply with the removal, he justified the use of force to remove him"
This is moot, since removing him was not justified

"by struggling for two fucking full minutes against the use of force to remove him, he was resisting arrest"
Being removed is not being arrested, resisting being removed (if the removal was legitimate, which it wasn't) may constitute trespassing, but he would have to be then arrested for that and resist that actual arrest.

"Once he was physically subdued, he continued to struggle"
Struggling with no chance of sucess is not a threat. No threat, no further use of force necessary.

"and was clearly told to stop struggling or he'd get tased"
So they may threaten anyone with anything, and be held completely blameless if they carry it out. What if they got an axe and threatened to cut off a limb, would it still be ok for them to do it, so long as they told him first?

"as if cops in the performance of their duties should listen to the guy telling them to stop performing their duties on him."
It is not their duty to use excessive force.

Every single escalation was the result of those 'in authority' exceeding their authority, and then being too pig-headed to back down. He could have complied and walked out, but then what would his right to free speech be worth? (You have the right to free speech, but if you don't shut up, we're going to escalate this situation until we get to taser you). This video is a demonstration of the fact that most public disorder is caused by the police. These officers should recieve the harshest punishment available.

Re:People focusing on wrong thing here

[MoneyT]

Simple solution, shut the microphone off at the amplifier.

They did. He continued.

After that it's his ABSOLUTE RIGHT to continue to speak.

But it is NOT his ABSOLUTE RIGHT to continue to speak in that exact spot in front of those people. All of those people also have the first amendment right to peacefully assemble, and he was depriving them of that right by disrupting their peaceful assembly. He wasn't just counter protesting outside, he was using their equipment, their time and their resources to speak his message. That is not protected by the constitution. You have the right to speak, not the right to use someone elses property to do so, and not to prevent others from speaking while you do so.

If anyone who speak out of turn from the chairman can be removed, then there's no discussion, only a generous opportunity to agree with the chairman

In a private gathering, yes, that is essentially the truth. The only thing your right to speech gives you is the right to speak and hold your own gathering, it doesn't give you the right to speak at someone else's gathering.

This is moot, since removing him was not justified

Sure it was, he violated the ABSOLUTE RIGHTS of all the other people there by refusing to surrender the mic, disturbing their assembly and preventing others from speaking. The police are there to preserve everyone's rights, not just the loudest.

Being removed is not being arrested, resisting being removed (if the removal was legitimate, which it wasn't) may constitute trespassing, but he would have to be then arrested for that and resist that actual arrest.

Once he was trespassing, any further resistance is resisting arrest, as the only result of violating a trespass order is to be arrested.

Struggling with no chance of sucess is not a threat. No threat, no further use of force necessary.

One lucky kick or punch is enough to maim or kill any of the cops or even himself. Until he was in cuffs, he was a threat, PERIOD.

It is not their duty to use excessive force.

it is their duty to keep the peace and resolve the situation as quickly and safely as possible. A drawn out wrestling match is not safe.

Every single escalation was the result of those 'in authority' exceeding their authority, and then being too pig-headed to back down. He could have complied and walked out, but then what would his right to free speech be worth? (You have the right to free speech, but if you don't shut up, we're going to escalate this situation until we get to taser you).

Every escalation was the result of the kid. He created a disturbance (escalation 1) he refused to leave when asked (escalation 2) he refused to leave when escorted out (escalation 3) he actively resisted his escort and ran back through the crowd to the podium (escalation 4) he continued to actively resist the police when they stopped him and attempted to arrest him (escalation 5), even after being warned that continued resistance would result in him being tased, he continued to fight police (escalation 6). Every time the situation got worse, he had a chance to leave. He refused, he payed.

Re:People focusing on wrong thing here

[jjohnson]

Simple solution, shut the microphone off at the amplifier. After that it's his ABSOLUTE RIGHT to continue to speak. That's what the first ammendment is for.

They did shut off the mic; he stood there and continued to yell.

It is NOT his absolute right to continue to speak in that place at that time. The first amendment prevents the government from censoring you; it does not prevent them from removing you from a peaceful assembly when you're disturbing it. Your right to free speech does not allow you to sit next to me in class screaming in my ear.

If anyone who speak[s] out of turn from the chairman can be removed, then there's no discussion, only a generous opportunity to agree with the chairman

Pretty much. As I said, your right to freedom of speech does not require everyone to provide an audience for you, to allow you use their microphone at their forum.

This is moot, since removing him was not justified

Yes it was, both legally and morally. As I said, my right to free speech does not permit me to stand on the sidewalk outside your bedroom window ranting all night.

Struggling with no chance of sucess is not a threat. No threat, no further use of force necessary.

Here you're just being ignorant. As someone else pointed out, struggling while in handcuffs can lead to serious injury for yourself such as a dislocated shoulder. He can also kick and headbutt within a limited range. Until you're holding still, you're a threat. And struggling with no chance of success is still failing to comply with a lawful order to leave a place.

So they may threaten anyone with anything, and be held completely blameless if they carry it out. What if they got an axe and threatened to cut off a limb, would it still be ok for them to do it, so long as they told him first?

This makes zero sense. First, I didn't say they could threaten anyone with anything; threatening the use of the tazer was well within police guidelines on the use of force and procedure for applying escalating levels of it.

It is not their duty to use excessive force.

You're correct. In this case, the force wasn't excessive. It was ugly to watch, but that's mainly the drama of tazering (you're aware, aren't you, that standard training for the tazer involves being tazered? That every one of those cops had been tazered themselves so they knew exactly what suffering they were causing?). They were following well established procedures.

Every single escalation was the result of those 'in authority' exceeding their authority

This is what it really comes down to: You're sympathetic to the guy who was clearly in the wrong by law, so the cops doing their job properly are pig-headed and brutal. There's no free speech issue here, just a drama queen who got busted.

This video is a demonstration of the fact that most public disorder is caused by the police.

Pure, unfiltered horseshit. Meyer had no right to disrupt a peaceful assembly with his loony rantings about skull 'n bones conspiracies, and many opportunities to comply and walk out without incurring force by the police.

Re:People focusing on wrong thing here

[Bryan Ischo]

If you do not agree with the reason for your arrest, you are free to fight it in court.

You are not free to fight the cops who are arresting you.

Did I really have to explain that to you? Can you please not waste our time any more by asking questions the answer to which are painfully obvious?

Re:People focusing on wrong thing here

[Mike610544]

The question is **why the hell is this guy being considered resisting arrest inthe first place**. What justification was the original arrest under? There was no "original arrest." They tried to remove the guy from the room because he was being disruptive. It's only after he became physically combative that they arrested him. Over 50% of the highly moderated comments in this thread seem to support the view that it's ok for one jackass to arbitrarily dominate the discussion at this type of an event. Should some crazy guy just get to yell crazy shit the whole time to the exclusion of people who have legitimate questions and are willing to follow the rules? Also, these same people seem to advocate that the police should be kind and gentle to people who are actively resisting them. Someone earlier made the point of how quick and easy it is to gouge out an eye; if someone resists after you clearly say "Stop resisting or I will tase you", I say tase away.

Re:People focusing on wrong thing here

[Anonymous Cowpat]

he wasn't 'using their microphone', it was off, you said it yourself. So you have the right to free speech, but most move on when exercising it if asked by the police. What if they move you on every other word until you're up a mountain? Still enjoying that free speech? "The first amendment prevents the government from censoring you; it does not prevent them from removing you from a peaceful assembly when you're disturbing it." Since when does removing you from an assembly because you're speaking NOT constitute censorship. In this case peace should not be confused with quiet, disturb should not be confused with hijack (in a verbal sense). You're right, if you don't want to provide someone with an audience, you can leave, or stay and ignore them. You do not legitimately accomplish the non-provision of an audience by preventing someone from speaking. You don't like someone or what they're saying? YOU keep away form them, don't expect them to be taken away from you. Something leading to serious injury for yourself is your own problem, it does not entitle the police to use a less-lethal-than-a-gun-but-still-pretty-dangerous weapon on you to get you to stop. If they want to put people in handcuffs, they can take the minor risk to their own health that a person MAY, against all the odds, get a very hard kick in on their temple or gut. And if threatening to cut a limb off WAS in the police guidlines, would it then be ok? There has to be a line drawn somewhere and tasers are already over it. I'm aware that standard training in tasers involves being tasered for a shorter period, in a gym, surrounded by colleagues, standing up, over a mat and with people to catch you. I'm also aware that the training for the use of CS gas involves being sprayed with a 3% solution, which entitles the police to carry a 5% solution to fire at the public. Why do you cling to this bizarre idea that if unnecssary brutality is a 'well established proceedure' it's ok? And you're sympathetic to the police becaue they act without consideration of right and wrong, and only in consideration of what someone has told them that they may do. If being 'in the wrong by law' means that you're fair game for this sort of treatment, then the law is wrong. I will not support brutalisation supported solely by a wrong law. Did Meyer use aggresive force first? No. Then my point is proved.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[torkus]

NO. Police DO NOT handle punative action. That's up to the legal system.

You speak to his intentions. Maybe his intention was to ask heated questions that were not the "norm" for policical rallys. Maybe his intention was to poke at Kerry for as long as he could get away with. Maybe his intention really WAS to cause a scene.

NONE of that "deserves" having 6 cops tackle you and then a tazer shot. At worst, it deserves an appearance ticket for disturbing the peace (which i think is a BS charge to begin with).

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Cornflake917]

So if they'd told him repeatedly "Stop resisting or we'll pump you full of lead.", they would have been justified in doing so ? No, they wouldn't. However, ending someone's life is a lot more serious then causing a few minutes of pain. Your example is a poor one.

Not intended as a troll

[athloi]

Over years of experience, I've come to see this. Unreasonable, helpless, clueless and stupid people provide an opportunity for those selling the product known as Control. When the controllers find a healthy group of people, they have no entrypoint, like a disease facing unbroken skin.

But even one weak person who can be convinced that they can't run their own lives and need a controller means that soon, the controller gives the incompetent person an advantage over others. Then more people declare incompetence and seek shelter under Control. The controllers get powerful.

They may take the guise of religion, politics, business or indie rock bands, for all I know, but they prey on weakness by using it as a weapon against normal people, for the purpose of more control.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[C0y0t3]

Freedom of Speech?

Re:So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question

[Trent Hawkins]

he went on to answer a question that was asked earlier and ignored the guy completely.

Higher-quality video from i-reporter at cnn.com

[AnarchyAo]

Check it out: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/student.tasered.ap/index.html

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Socguy]

No, lethal force could not have been justified; neither the officers nor the public were in any physical danger. What he failed to do was comply with the directions of an officer. When an officer tells you that you have to do something, you must do it. If you feel that the officer was in error then you argue your case in front of a judge. Today officers carry tasers. 20 years ago they would have clubbed him.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[kabocox]

Even if that's the case, there are far better ways to handle a questioner who hogs the stage. Whoever was in charge of that event should have politely interrupted, loudly say "Sorry, we have no time for further questions," and cut the mic off. This was totally uncalled for. The University, a state institution, should get their asses sued off.

I just had the perfect idea for future debates. Ask a question within 30 seconds. If it isn't a valid question, you get shot with a taser. If the person debating evades the question or doesn't actually answer the question, that person gets hit. It would bring life and ratings back to US political debates.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[torkus]

He may have acted in a less than stellar manner.

However the police ostensibly have this thing called "training" on handling "difficult" situations. Did they honestly think violence was the ONLY option available to resolve the situation? I'm pretty sure their "training" includes doing everything else first before resorting to a physical altercation. Their job is to uphold the law, not bash someone's head in because s/he is annoying someone.

If he tried to approach kerry or threatened him or similar then i would support their actions as being done to protect someone from physical harm by necessary means.

Obedience or beatdowns, those are the choices

[Scrameustache]

This has nothing to do with fascism, [...] It seemed obvious that not many others shared his viewpoint, due to a serious lack of vocal or physical support... up until a few people felt the tazer went to far. To each his own on that, as I feel it is justified Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting laws and a strong, sometimes brutal militia or police force for enforcing them.[15] Fascism exalts the nation, state, or group of people as superior to the individuals composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, leading to a cult of personality and unquestioned obedience to orders (Führerprinzip). Fascism is also considered to be a form of collectivism.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[knewter]

Oh, please. The question lasted no longer than a minute, first off, since the whole 'question-to-taser' clip is like three minutes long. That's a justified time span for asking a question. And he didn't preach, he was trying to give some context to the question so that the people present might understand why it was relevant (the underlying claim being 'you gave the election to your buddy.') It was speech, and it should have been free.

I'm not saying that the organizers didn't have the right to perform whatever kind of crowd control they felt necessary. I think the proper response would have been to simply take him out of the room. There were four to six cops. Me and any one of my friends could have taken that guy out of the room in an orderly fashion. He wasn't resisting arrest, he was taking advantage of a public forum. He didn't strike out at a cop or anything, and he was going with them. He just happened to be yelling while it happened.

Truth is, acting out at a public forum doesn't justify being pinned down and tased, and yes these cops could have removed him without using a taser. Also, if it was actually a somewhat open Q&A session then I think the question was legitimate. I've been to plenty of speaking events at my university where questions were more hostile than this.

I'm just so sick of everyone's neatly organized spoon-fed lives.

soviet tactics

[zmichalka]

After watching this twice, I'm reminded of a court case in Russia regarding the sinking of the Kursk submarine back in 2000 where the mother of one of the sailors was demanding answers. Like something out of the soviet union from a few years back, they quietly came up behind her, stuck her with a needle in her arm and she passed out. wish i could find the video for that... i saw it on French channel 4 i think. If america is the beacon of freedom in the world, it's pretty damn dark.

I shouldn't have watched the video

[jjohnson]

Before I saw the video, the righteous indignation here at the police state tactics of a bunch of university rent-a-cops was compelling. We are indeed living in a fascist state, I thought.

Then I watched the video, and found that I had zero sympathy for that dickhead. It was two full minutes before the taser was even threatened. Two minutes in which he struggled with the cops, in which he tried with all his strength to escape them to run back to the microphone for more attention from the crowd. Two minutes of yelling "Help!" as if he was being wronged by being removed from the microphone, as if the gathered students might join him in a glorious revolution. Two minutes of pure, textbook, resisting arrest.

Then the taser came out. And he was clearly told to stop struggling and stand up, or he'd be tasered. Did he say "okay, I'll stand up"? Did he stop twisting and squirming? Did he recognize that his stage time was over and it was time to leave? No. He kept yelling like a self-righteous little bitch who doesn't understand that his parent's college money doesn't buy him camera time. And so he got tasered.

Note that after he got tasered, he stood up and walked out just like he could've before the tasering. Also note that the crowd didn't rise up in protest, or even complain from their seats. They actually applauded his initial removal from the mic. If a bunch of people who sat there and watched it didn't protest, why is your youtube take on the issue somehow more compelling?

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[midwestnets]

If a bunch of people who sat there and watched it didn't protest, why is your youtube take on the issue somehow more compelling? Did you ever see that video of the Colorado Buffaloes getting five downs at the one yard line agaisnt the Missouri Tigers? It was ovbiously incorrect. It gave the Colorado Buffalo's a National Championship. There were five referees watching it. There were 48,000 Tiger fans watching it. Notice the crowd didn't jump up in protest there either, but everyone did when we saw the video. Video tape isn't bad. On a side note: I'll bet, if Meyers would have had last years Sear's Trophy over his head ready to throw, then we would have seen a crowd reaction.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[stewbacca]

Wow. That was even worse than the obligatory car analogy. And I actually LIKE football.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Also note that the crowd didn't rise up in protest, or even complain from their seats. They actually applauded his initial removal from the mic. If a bunch of people who sat there and watched it didn't protest, why is your youtube take on the issue somehow more compelling? You must have watched an edited video, because what I heard was at least one woman screaming at the police - telling them to stop it and in turn being threated by the police too. Furthermore, if the approval of the crowd really means ANYTHING at all as to the legitimacy of his questions, I heard at least as many people applaud some of his questions, as I heard applaud when they cut his mike.

He kept yelling like a self-righteous little bitch who doesn't understand that his parent's college money doesn't buy him camera time. And so he got tasered. And here we have the root of your problem - you don't like what he had to say, and you think the police the are the ones who should punish him for it. It's hard to imagine a more un-American set of values than that.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[jjohnson]

Actually, I have no clue what he said--I came into the video at the point he was being asked to leave. All I caught was some crap about skull and bones. If it's my politics that are suspect, that's your wrong assumption... If I could, I'd be a Democrat, and the only reason I didn't like Kerry in 2004 was that I thought he was too mainstream a candidate, too DLC. I'd have preferred Dean. I'm looking forward to the 2008 royal rogering of the Republican party, which is richly deserved.

I don't think the police should punish him for what he was saying. I was pleased to see a self-righteous asshole run smack into reality because his hubris told him that his blather was more important than it was.

Perhaps I am giving the police too much leeway to use force to remove an inappropriately disruptive element. If so, it's because I have zero sympathy for someone who had every opportunity to avoid what happened to him. His tasering was a direct result of his choices.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[JerryLove]

And here we have the root of your problem - you don't like what he had to say, and you think the police the are the ones who should punish him for it. It's hard to imagine a more un-American set of values than that.

And the root of yours is ignoring the fact that he physically resisted arrest for several minutes and was tazered because of his unlawful resistance. It had nothing to do with what he said at the podium.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And the root of yours is ignoring the fact that he physically resisted arrest for several minutes and was tazered because of his unlawful resistance. It had nothing to do with what he said at the podium. I was responding to what the OP said. But if you want to go down that path, since when is application of potentially lethal force an acceptable response when the subject is unarmed and down on the ground?

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I don't think the police should punish him for what he was saying. I was pleased to see a self-righteous asshole run smack into reality because his hubris told him that his blather was more important than it was. Apparently you don't see the contradiction between your first sentence and your second.

Perhaps I am giving the police too much leeway to use force to remove an inappropriately disruptive element. If so, it's because I have zero sympathy for someone who had every opportunity to avoid what happened to him. His tasering was a direct result of his choices. It's all her fault that she got raped, did you see what she was wearing? Since when is the use of a lethal weapon justified because someone talked out of line?

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[Seismologist]

... Two minutes of yelling "Help!" as if he was being wronged by being removed from the microphone, as if the gathered students might join him in a glorious revolution. Two minutes of pure, textbook, resisting arrest...

Being arrested for:

a) Not sticking with the "usual" fluff questions.

b) Being annoying?

c) Making a scene (move along folks, nothing here to see)?

d) Being arrested in anticipation of resisting arrest?

Let me know when you get hauled off "for resisting arrest" because I'll be there in protest.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[jjohnson]

Apparently you don't see the contradiction between your first sentence and your second.

There is no contradiction between my two sentences. You and others are pushing the line that he was tasered because he disrupted the event, spoke badly to Kerry or whatever. He wasn't. He was tasered because he resisted arrest. Had he not resisted arrest (i.e., when the cops grabbed him, had we walked peacefully out of the auditorium with them) he wouldn't have been tasered. His tasering was a direct result of his choice to fight the police trying to remove him, at which point the use of force was justified. His words played no part in his tasering; they merely preceded it in the sequence of events, and assigning causality to that precedence is the fallacy known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

My pleasure at seeing him get tasered had nothing to do with what he said either--I'm still unsure what point he was trying to make.

It's all her fault that she got raped, did you see what she was wearing? Since when is the use of a lethal weapon justified because someone talked out of line?

An irrelevant analogy, and a really cheap, ham handed attempt to emotionally slant the issue in your favor. Rape is always wrong. The application of force by police, including lethal force, is justified or not depending on the circumstances.

Second, tasers are not lethal weapons. That people have died from them does not make them lethal, either (and in point of fact, tasers have caused far fewer deaths than police choke holds, one of the reasons tasers are favored by police). People have been smothered with pillows--does that make a pillow fight a duel to the death?

Lastly, he wasn't tasered because he talked out of line. Talking out of line got him removed from the event, a circumstance he chose to fight. Had he left at that point, he wouldn't have been tasered.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[kajumix]

Also note that the crowd didn't rise up in protest, or even complain from their seats. They actually applauded his initial removal from the mic. Why would the crowd need to rise? I am sure you'd agree that he has rights by law, regardless of whether the crowd endorses or not

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

There is no contradiction between my two sentences. You and others are pushing the line that he was tasered because he disrupted the event, spoke badly to Kerry or whatever. You yourself were the one pushing that line, when you said things like, "I was pleased to see a self-righteous asshole run smack into reality because his hubris told him that his blather was more important than it was."

Now that you are changing your story, I guess our disagreement is over.

My pleasure at seeing him get tasered had nothing to do with what he said either--I'm still unsure what point he was trying to make. The fact that you don't understand his 'blather' is irrelevant, btw. What matters is that you didn't like that he was 'blathering.' Now you say that 'blather' does not deserve a "smack into reality." Ok.

Second, tasers are not lethal weapons. You are so far off the chart with that one that it calls your entire perspective into question.
Taser's own website refers to them as "less lethal" Please don't tell me you think that "less" means "not."

An irrelevant analogy, and a really cheap, ham handed attempt to emotionally slant the issue in your favor. Rape is always wrong. The application of force by police, including lethal force, is justified or not depending on the circumstances. You call it emotional because you prefer to avoid the issue, I call it simple and to the point.
Lethal force is never justified as a response to non-lethal force. Period.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[jjohnson]

You yourself were the one pushing that line, when you said things like, "I was pleased to see a self-righteous asshole run smack into reality because his hubris told him that his blather was more important than it was.".... Now that you are changing your story, I guess our disagreement is over.

I never pushed that line, and I'm not changing my story. My pleasure at seeing a jerk suffer the consequences of his own jerk behavior is independent of the cop's justification for tasering him.

What matters is that you didn't like that he was 'blathering.' Now you say that 'blather' does not deserve a "smack into reality." Ok.

See above. I've always said that he deserved tasering because he resisted arrest. My pleasure is just a two-fer.

Taser's own website refers to them as "less lethal"

Taser has to refer to them as less lethal because they can't claim that they're non-lethal when they have caused deaths. The fact remains that deaths by taser are far fewer, per use, than chokehold or beating deaths by police. That's why police have adopted them wholesale.

You call it emotional because you prefer to avoid the issue, I call it simple and to the point.

It's logically irrelevent. It's a non-starter. The police were justified in using force to remove Meyer. No one is ever justified in raping someone.

Lethal force is never justified as a response to non-lethal force. Period.

I agree. Too bad tasers aren't lethal force. The whole point is to avoid lethal force, and they're more successful at that than older police options like batons.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I never pushed that line, and I'm not changing my story.
See above. I've always said that he deserved tasering because he resisted arrest. My pleasure is just a two-fer. Well, whatever then. I can only see the words you write, not the ones in your head. I won't bother requoting your own contradictory words to you a second time.

Taser has to refer to them as less lethal because they can't claim that they're non-lethal when they have caused deaths. The fact remains that deaths by taser are far fewer, per use, than chokehold or beating deaths by police. That's why police have adopted them wholesale. You are mistaken. The reason they are being adopted is because they are less lethal than guns.
I mean, come on "less lethal than beating deaths" well, they would be wouldn't they? If you really know that chokeholds have a far higher higher fatality rate than taser usage, I'd be impressed. You really seem to think that tasers are an appropriate method of coercing a non-violent individual. I suspect you'll never be dissuaded of that.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[qyiet]

I've got to call bullshit on a lot of your arguements here.

First up

It was two full minutes before the taser was even threatened On the video I watched the taser was threatend at 1:20. But he only tried to get free from the (large) officer at 0:50. Before that he was going with them and more or less co-operating. He was just co-operating loudly and rudely. Yelling suff can make you look like a dick, but it is definately not resisting.
Second Up

...was clearly told to stop struggling and stand up, or he'd be tasered. Did he say "okay, I'll stand up"? Mostly what he was yelling was "Help" and "Why are you arresting me?" but just after he was threatend with the taser he said "I'll walk out of here, just let me go" sounds a lot like what you were looking for.
Third

Also note that the crowd didn't rise up in protest, or even complain from their seats. As soon as he was tased(sp?) you can quite clearly hear the crowd respond with several members yelling "stop" and "why are you doing that?"

I've got a feeling you are a troll given how your points are easily disputable. But if you arn't then I've got to say that I think that you just didn't like him because he was loud,and rude .

I think that 6 Cops using a weapon on a single student who was on the ground is just obscene. Weapons should be used to protect police officers or the public. This was not protection.. this was punishment.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[jjohnson]

You really seem to think that tasers are an appropriate method of coercing a non-violent individual.

There's actually a lot of grey in that general assertion, though I'd generally say that, no, tasers are not appropriate means of coercing non-violent individuals. However, Meyer was not non-violent. He was being walked out--that was non-violent--when he lunged to get away from the cops; from that point on he was violently resisting arrest by struggling. Even that didn't immediately trigger the taser--it was a minute later in the video when they warned him. Note that: warned him first to comply. They didn't start tasering him as they walked; they tasered him after he struggled to get away for more than a minute, and after warning him that they would if he didn't stop struggling.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

he lunged to get away from the cops; from that point on he was violently resisting arrest by struggling Violently resisting is not the same as actively resisting. He didn't attack anyone, nor did he threaten to. No attack, no violence. And warning someone doesn't give the police a free pass to use excessive force - lethal or not.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[jjohnson]

Violently resisting is not the same as actively resisting.

No difference to me. Actively resisting arrest also justifies a tasering, IMHO. Passive resistance would not justify it; a sit-in broken up by tasering would be excessive force. But using a taser to subdue someone actively struggling against four police? Justified.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[jjohnson]

What do his rights have to do with it? He actively resisted arrest, which permits the police to use reasonable force to subdue him. They followed their standard force escalation ladder. It wasn't until after he was tased that he stopped resisting.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[Dr Damage I]

"Mostly what he was yelling was "Help" and "Why are you arresting me?" but just after he was threatend with the taser he said "I'll walk out of here, just let me go" sounds a lot like what you were looking for."

What he needed to do at this point was to stop struggling At this point he was miles past the line where you can just get up and walk away. Ironically, had he simply allowed the cops to get him just a few more meters (i.e. out the door) rather than resisting their attempts to remove him from the auditorium, they would likely have permitted him to do just that (walk away that is).

"I think that 6 Cops using a weapon on a single student who was on the ground is just obscene. Weapons should be used to protect police officers or the public. This was not protection.. this was punishment."

He was fighting with them with the arm that was not yet cuffed and kicking at the officers with his legs. That he was on the ground does not mean that he was no threat to the police who were trying to subdue him.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[jjohnson]

Excellent, let's clear up some bullshit.

On the video I watched the taser was threatend at 1:20. But he only tried to get free from the (large) officer at 0:50.

In the first linked youtube video, he starts to struggle at 24 seconds, pulling out of their grasp; at 27 seconds he's actually free of their grasp before they grab him again. That's the start of actively resisting the officers carrying out their lawful duties.

At 42 seconds he starts jumping up and down yelling "help". At 52 seconds he's yelling "get away from me man" and trying to pull away. By 1:06 they've got him on the ground and are telling him to put his hands behind his back. 1:17 is the first clearly audible threat of "you will get tased if you don't co-operate." The actual tasing doesn't occur until 1:59, timed as the first audible "ow".

So,you're correct, it was not two minutes. He was threatened after a little less than a minute. He was tased at one minute and 35 seconds after he initially started resisting. The "two minutes" figure came from looking at the timer on the video, seeing 1:59, and thinking that he got away with being a dick for two minutes before the taser was used.

He still actively resisted them for a full minute and a half before the taser was used.

after he was threatend with the taser he said "I'll walk out of here, just let me go" sounds a lot like what you were looking for.

As any cop will tell you, once the cuffs are brought out, you no longer have the option of saying "Okay, okay, let's just forget this whole thing and I'll walk out of here." At that point, his best option was to go limp and wait for instructions from the police.

As soon as he was tased(sp?) you can quite clearly hear the crowd respond with several members yelling "stop" and "why are you doing that?"

I heard one voice clearly protesting. OTOH, at the moment of his tasing, you can see the guy in the orange shirt smiling and laughing. I'd say it's clear that the crowd wasn't all on his side.

I've got a feeling you are a troll given how your points are easily disputable. But if you arn't then I've got to say that I think that you just didn't like him because he was loud,and rude.

I'm guilty of hyperbole, not trolling. You're right, I don't like him because he was a jerk. That's irrelevant to the officer's justification for using the taser on a subject who was clearly, actively resisting arrest.

I think that 6 Cops

It was four cops. Whoops, a factual inaccuracy! There goes all your arguments!

using a weapon on a single student who was on the ground is just obscene.... This was not protection.. this was punishment.

On the ground he continued to squirm and fight them putting the cuffs on. He had a clear choice: comply. Stop resisting, let them put the cuffs on, and walk out with them. He was warned that he would get tased if he didn't, and he chose to continue a useless struggle against them. That's why I have zero sympathy for him. It wasn't protection or punishment, it was forcing compliance from someone being actively non-compliant, someone already being physically restrained to prevent his escape.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[qyiet]

He still actively resisted them for a full minute and a half before the taser was used. It looks like we have a definition difference here for Resisting Arrest. Seeing as we were using "pure, textbook, resisting arrest". According to wikipedia the only actions shown in the video that would constitue resisting arrest was attempting to elude police officers. Seeing as he didn't attempt run away at all when he first shruged the officers grip. So the first point in time you could say that he was first eluding when he tried to break away at the 50 sec mark. So by jjohnsons numbers 25 secs from resistance to threat and another 45 secs till use. jjohnsons first statment of 2 mins till the tazer was threatened was miles out

I heard one voice clearly protesting. OTOH, at the moment of his tasing, you can see the guy in the orange shirt smiling and laughing. I'd say it's clear that the crowd wasn't all on his side I heard at least one voice of protest from each gender. One of the voices was so shocked it was borderline hysterical. There was one person smileing and laughing as though he was watching jackass, that hardly backs up your origional point of "the crowd didn't rise up in protest, or even complain from their seats ".

It was four cops. Whoops, a factual inaccuracy! There goes all your arguments! *sigh* 4 Cops escorted him up away from the mic, 2 more joined when they took him to the ground. Have a quick headcount at 1:08. I never claimed that all your arguments were invalidated, just you had factual errors

That's why I have zero sympathy for him. It wasn't protection or punishment, it was forcing compliance from someone being actively non-compliant, someone already being physically restrained to prevent his escape. Renaming what they did is about as useful as renaming DRM to Digital Consumer Enablement. The tazer was used to inflict pain to obtain compliance on someone already physicaly restrained. That seems a lot like punishment to me. Sure the cops needed to get him out of the room, but there was absolutly no need to use a weapon to do it. Much in the same way you don't need to beat a child with a stick to make them go to bed when they don't want to. It's an inappropriate level of force for the task.

I'm guilty of hyperbole, not trolling. You're right, I don't like him because he was a jerk. That's irrelevant to the officer's justification for using the taser on a subject who was clearly, actively resisting arrest. I apolgise if my trolling statment offended you. I would prefer it if you were trolling because the fact you think the actions shown on that video were justified scares the hell out of me.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[jjohnson]

According to wikipedia the only actions shown in the video that would constitue resisting arrest was attempting to elude police officers.

We'll have to disagree on this. Wikipedia also says "Using or threatening to use force against an officer during an arrest". I'd call struggling to escape the use of force against an officer; the fact that he's not trying to punch an officer doesn't mean he's not forcibly opposing the officer's actions, and in court, I bet the video would be a clear demonstration that, from a legal standpoint, he's guilty of resisting arrest.

However, if this site is to be believed, resisting arrest in Florida is simply:

Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10

Which Meyer was pretty clearly guilty of.

that hardly backs up your origional point of "the crowd didn't rise up in protest, or even complain from their seats "

I've already acknowledged that my original post contained a lot of hyperbole. However, here's another dissenting view:

I was at the Kerry speech today, sitting 2 rows away from all the action. I'll let you know how it really went down.

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

After the interrupted guy's question was answered, Kerry keeps his promise and lets the angry guy talk. This is the point where people started taking their cameras and phones out. All the videos floating around youtube start around here. You can see in the videos that his questioning gets kind of inappropriate, so somebody cut his mic. Instead of shutting up, he starts yelling and making an even bigger scene. He struggled all the way up the aisle, and started violently trying to free himself. They threatened to taze him and he wouldnt stop fighting, so he got tazed. They only had to arrest him because he was causing a disruption and wouldn't leave peacefully. He wasn't being silenced for asking tough questions, trust me.

Someone else who was present wasn't laughing at a jackass style stunt; they thought he was being disruptive and deserved to be forcibly removed, and when he resisted, was tased (which the author doesn't seem to disapprove of). This anecdote also makes Meyer look more disruptive generally, and long past the point of patient tolerance, given that he'd already seized a mic from someone else.

The tazer was used to inflict pain to obtain compliance on someone already physicaly restrained. That seems a lot like punishment to me.

When I think of punishment, I think of deliberately causing a negative consequence for someone in response to something they've done. In the case of forcing compliance, the subject gets the choice of receiving the negative consequence or complying. Crucial difference, that, I think: All he had to do was stop struggling. And lest this seem bloodyminded, keep in mind that it's less bloody in practice than chokeholds or batons or pepper spray. It looks dramatic, but has far fewer aftereffects. And as the eyewitness above reports, he was still struggling when he got tased, which is what I saw on the

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[JerryLove]

I was responding to what the OP said. But if you want to go down that path, since when is application of potentially lethal force an acceptable response when the subject is unarmed and down on the ground?

OK. "Since the beginning of police organizations". Simply taking someone to the ground in the first place is "potentially lethal force". People have died of injury, exacustion, respitory failure, cardiac failure, and any number of other health problems related to being pinned on the ground. Also: How long would you like them to sit there struggling with him? Twenty minutes? An hour? What would you do with the increasingly agitated crowd, and the fact tha tthey are continuing to cause a disruption to the meeting in general. There is no police agency that will simply fight indefinately with a struggling perpitrator, nor should they; and there is no way to control the actions of a resisting person which is not "potentially lethal". The tazer is a relatively safe weapon, certainly far safer than the batons which it replcaes. I've been tazed, as has any poclie officer in Florida who wields a tazer. Not all uses are justified, but this one appears to be.

Re:I shouldn't have watched the video

[JerryLove]

I mean, come on "less lethal than beating deaths" well, they would be wouldn't they? If you really know that chokeholds have a far higher higher fatality rate than taser usage, I'd be impressed. You really seem to think that tasers are an appropriate method of coercing a non-violent individual. I suspect you'll never be dissuaded of that.

In 5000 taserings by the county of LosAngeles, there was only one taser-related death (http://www.keme.co.uk/~mack/Electronic.htm) which was a man with a severely debilitated heart who had OD'd on PCP. There were two deaths from batons, and one from a choke-hold. This is especially interesting in considering how much more often tasers are used than choke holds these days.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[xeno-cat]

No, they asked him several time during his speech to sit down and he brushed them off. Thats all the "He spoke for 2 hours I can speak for two minutes" and "Yes thank, I'll ask my question and two other questions I have thank you...etc etc.".

The guy was asked to stop, than cops tried to escort him, than he started running around with his arms up. Than he started going crazy. Even after they had him on the ground he was still trying to get up.

I do think the situation could have been handled better. It's obvious in hind site how things *could have happened better*. But, I don't think any of the cops expected that he would be such an insane jackass and they lost control. It seems to me like he figured he was a white rich kid and so he was entitled to do whatever it was he was trying to accomplish. When things went from "academic" to "reality" he started to get scared and was in disbelief that he would get cuffed and taken away. That "reality gap" between what he wanted and what the police were doing is why he got tased. I do not think that taser was called for, but that does not mean he did not deserve to get escorted out of the building. All the commotion was caused by his resisting of, not being arrested, but simply being asked and than forced to leave.

Kind Regards

I hate these articles

[Don853]

But somehow I always read the comments to see what sort of crazies will come out of the woodwork...

Re:They whispered it in his ear after cutting the

[Altus]

If he did hit a cop then pretty much all bets are off. I didn't see that in the video but I only watched one of them (with the sound off since I'm at work) hence my question about them placing him under arrest. Clearly they did, but its not clear when they did.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[torkus]

Hell, if someone wanted to be HONEST they would have cut him off and say "No one here cares about what you're rambling about. Please take it somewhere else or find people who do care. Good day. Please sit down quietly or you will be asked to leave"

Instead they use the cops to attack him because they're too afraid of offending someone and ruining the policital bla bla bla

Re:So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question

[sgholt]

Yup...Kerry didn't have the answer other than the truth(which he certainly would not tell)...which be that there was no credible reason to impeach Bush. That is why it is not being done, never was going to be done and if tried it would clearly show that it was a tactic to discredit, not actually address a crime.

The tazer was overkill...Kerry's offer to answer the question was too late (probably part of his "plannnnn...").

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[Supergood-ape]

"Who said he barged in? It was a Q&A. At a rally. He was permitted mic time. Someone decided he took too much and didn't like the way he was questioning"

If you can explain what the functional difference is between barging in and shouting versus monopolizing the mic then I'll agree you have a point.

Cowards can never be safe enough

[Catbeller]

A society of cowards and a leadership that promulgates fear to stay in power. That's it in a nutshell.

No matter how many speakers you taze, no matter how many KB&R detention facilities you build, no matter how many radio trackers and bugs you put on your kids and employees, no matter how many strip searches and drug tests you all inflict on each other, the basic problem, the one creating these new police states, is that you are all conditioning yourselves to be cowards, and cowards are never safe enough. The level of security you are demanding not only for your persons, but to keep your tender ears from hearing things be said you do not wish to hear, is infinite. The number of people you need to kill overseas to feel safe is impossible to limit. And the more you squeeze those you fear, the more they will hate you and rise up against you, thus making you more afraid and more demanding of more police and more locks and more cameras. I understand Miami cops are now carrying military weaponry. Yet no one feels any safer.

Cowards die a thousand deaths. True cowards kill a thousand people to not die those thousand deaths, and yet still die those thousand times. Stupid people are always afraid, and you can't cure stupid.

Re:Cowards can never be safe enough

[otis wildflower]

Oh please. Drama much? You sound like a German in her 6th year of undergrad.

And yes, I don't think it's right to start tasering college students for spouting their n00bish beliefs (the sort of stupidity that hard-earned wisdom gained in the real world beats right out of you). Grownups should listen patiently, chuckle, and Move On to dealing with the real world as it is.

In my perfect society, the USA would have open immigration, but IFF we could trade dopey college students and other hairy, smelly pinko hippie delusionals for hardworking brown and yellow people one-for-one. That is, we'd accept 1000 Indian IT workers or Mexican contractors, but only if we get to exile 1000 Columbia or Antioch students to, say, Venezuela, Myanmar or North Korea. And only if the immigrants convert to Americanism, downgrading their ethnic identity to be on par with being, say, an Irish- or Italian- or German-American (seasonal festivals, holidays, cuisine, interesting slang).

Re:Cowards can never be safe enough

[celle]

Very much agreed. It's nice to see sense, to bad from the most of the posts theres so little of it.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[michaelepley]

Agreed. At most, this guy was an obnoxious, heckler (and I think even that description gives in way too much to some people's fragile sensitivities). At most, prior to the police engaging him physically, he was trespassing, in that once asked to leave private property even invitees must do so at the first opportunity. Yet, from the article, we find "Police recommended charges of resisting arrest with violence, a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor." Trespassing is not even mentioned. Why? Because there are enormous free speech issues raised here. First, this is political speech, the most strongly protected variety of speech. Second, even though this is quasi-private property (arguably public property since it was a state university and open campus), it is highly likely to fall under the Supreme Court's definition of a "public forum" wherein even laws against trespassing give way to first-amendment free speech concerns. If malls and parks fall under this classification, certainly a "town hall" forum at a public university does. And as the original post also indicates, there is very little indication from the video that he was even warned to leave, meaning that he couldn't have been trespassing. From my viewing of several of these videos, it appears the police restrained him and tried to forcefully remove him literally seconds after the microphone was cut off. Almost regardless of what transpired in that time, it was hardly sufficient to talk to the man, judge whether he would comply voluntarily, or give him the opportunity to do so. Until he actually did something violent or actually did disturb the peace (and I have a hard time believing going over one's alloted question time by even 1 minute rises to that standard), arrest appears unjustified. And I haven't even gotten to the tasering yet. Conclusion: Sounds like a really good section 1983 lawsuit to me.

Watch the videos

[benhocking]

At what point did they ask him to leave? He was asked to get to the point and to cede the microphone, but I never heard them ask him to leave. Immediately after cutting his microphone, the campus police started to arrest him. It appeared (briefly) that he was about to shut up right before the cops tried to arrest him.

Re:Watch the videos

[Lord Ender]

Don't put words in my mouth. I was arguing with the assertion that arrests for "non-threating" crimes constitute a "police state," to use the original poster's words.

Re:Watch the videos

[Shihar]

If as soon as they cut the mike and the police started to take him away he had simply turned and left, he would not have been arrested. The police started to escort him away, and instead of going quietly and getting thrown to the curb for acting like an ass hat despite multiple attempts to get him to please respect the hundred other people there, he decided that it would be a good idea to start fighting the police. Hell, if he had just calmly stepped down he probably could have talked the police into letting him stay. Instead he went from ranting even after the mike was dead to screaming and fighting police. Not surprisingly, he was ejected.

Look, if you are on private property, act like an ass, and police come to escort you away, just quietly walk out. You won't be arrested, they will just throw you to curb. Start yelling and fighting with the police and you just turned a polite escort out the door into trespassing and immediately move onto resisting arrest.

The police should not have zapped the guy, and the police should get in trouble for it. That said, zapping this ass hole was the only injustice committed. If you go to a public forum and are asked to please respect the rules of the forum, just do it. There are a few hundred other people who came too who are also respecting the rules. If everyone had acted like this ass hole, the forum would have been 2 hours of hyperventilating nut jobs ranting, and a few minutes of a nearly president sitting there saying nothing. Go, respect the rules, or expect to get ejected so that people who came to listen can actually listen. Want to rant like a fucking idiot? Sit on the sidewalk and yell at people as they come out of the building. You won't get arrested... then again, most people will happily walk on past instead of being held captive in their seats wishing to god you would just shut the fuck up so that Kerry could talk.

Read the A/C carefully

[benhocking]

He mentioned hitting the officer's fist with your face. I'd like to think that most juries wouldn't convict you for that.

Re:Read the A/C carefully

[corifornia2]

I miss read the parent... I thought it said he bruised the officers face... I was also correcting the guy as to what charge he would receive for that... I think the cops should be killed by Jesus.

Should they be?

[LordZardoz]

Exactly how much force should the police be allowed to use in this kind of situation. Taser to subdue a threat, yes. Was he a threat? I do not think so. (I do think he was an idiot though).

END COMMUNICATION

Re:Should they be?

[Some_Llama]

"Exactly how much force should the police be allowed to use in this kind of situation. "

When i was involved in a citizen's arrest (stopping someone who had beat and robbed an old man, i picked the kid up and held him in a bear hug) I was told by the cop that i was legally allowed to use whatever force was needed to hold the person in custody. But just that amount of force.

He explained it a little bit more saying basically if the person isn't trying to get away then you shouldn't be using force.. once the person stops fleeing you stop the force.

does that help?

Re:Should they be?

[fbjon]

The one thing people are missing is: The guy is an obvious troll. One would think slashdotters would recognise one when they see one (in the video), but it seems half of the comments bit the bait here...

Anyway, they may have cut him off prematurely, and a taser was perhaps too much force, but on the other hand he was shouting and flailing like a stuck pig all the way out, so I don't think it was way out of line.

Re:Should they be?

[OakDragon]

The guy is an obvious troll.

And the cops' tasers are just their way of applying moderation (-1 Troll).

Good thing he wasn't Flamebait.

(Seriously considering changing my sig to "Don't taser me, bro!")

Re:Strike Three

[Homr Zodyssey]

If you RTFA, you'll see that Kerry was actually asking the cops to leave the kid alone.

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[snoogans126]

The police seemed to intervene way too quickly, Kerry said, "It's OK, let me answer his question" there didn't seem to be much in the way of trying to politely get him to sit down or leave, it seemed to go awfully quickly to arrest. The kid shouldn't have tried running back down the aisle, but he seemed pretty freaked out over being hasted so much over what appeared to be nothing, and the police were blocking the door. They had him on the ground, he was yelling what did I do, followed by please somebody help me (a seemingly reasonable plea considering the way he was being treated). I heard him say, if you let me up I'll leave, If they had done so and he didn't leave, then I'd say using greater force would have been warranted. He was on the ground restrained by not less than 6 officers, and could clearly be heard saying please don't tase me, while being held on the ground.

He was reasonably well restrained when they tasered him, therefore is wasn't an attempt to subdue him, it was an attempt to punish him.

The police were very lucky that the guy seemed quite annoying, had they assaulted someone a bit more likable, other students might have tried to help him, which likely would have evolved into a riot, and of course the police would probably have blamed him for that too, when the trigger point was obviously them overreacting. That video was hard to watch, I couldn't imagine trying to sit there and just watch such an injustice happen. Although, obviously it's best that no-one tried to help, with all the video cameras running, there's no way the police can hide from what they've done. I'd like to think that whoever actually used the taser and whoever should have been in charge won't be cops much longer. If someone is willing to taser someone who is being held on the ground in a room full of cameras, just imagine what they'd be capable of when they think no-one's watching.

Better Video

[Pitr]

The first video posted shows the first quarter of the guy being tazered. I'm seeing a lot of, "this guy deserved it" posts, but try saying that again after watching this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyvrqcxNIFs

He's cuffed, and being dragged by 4 guys. He's been tazered so much he can't move, and they keep saying "get up or we'll tazer you again". I count at least 4 LONG tazings, after the original video stops, before I just stopped watching, and I was only half way through.

Whether or not he deserved the initial response from the first video is ambiguous, but he was CLEARLY a victim of police brutality, and excessive force in the second.

Re:Better Video

[teknopurge]

please mod parent down. This video is from a different year, not to mention different event.

Re:Better Video

[Pitr]

Whoops, my bad. Looked/sounded the same though...

Re:Better Video

[bjprice]

That is video footage of a student being tasered at UCLA for not showing his ID card in the library. The story we were discussing is the guy at the University of Florida...

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[Protonk]

Kerry's right to assembly doesn't enjoin anyone else from 'barging' in to also speak. That's the whole notion of a "free market of ideas" (although I hate that phrase).

Here's a 'safe' example. Let's say there is a KKK rally in your town. Unconstitutional response: Bar them from marching. Constitutional response: Allow them to march, but allow counterprotests to occur. Then see who shows up in greater numbers/with greater force of ideas.

It's pretty clear from the law that wherever possible, assembly rights are meant to be non-rival (meaning that my right to speak is not meant to prohibit your right to speak as well).

Slashdot == Cop Haters

[Cornflake917]

It seems that every time there is an article involving a cop, there has to be a crowd of people cry and screaming that the cop was abusive, evil, mean, power-tripping, etc.

Where are the stories about when cops save peoples lives, help keep our families safe, or even respond to domestic disturbance calls and have to deal with two morons fighting each other? You'll never see one of these as an article on slashdot.

I'm not saying all cops are good, but they definitely aren't all bad. I've been caught doing illegal things in my life and I easily could have been arrested, but when I treated the cops with respect they usually just let me go. People give cops so much crap these days, yet they have to do such a dangerous job, I'm surprised more of them don't become bitter.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't question authority when it needs to be questioned, but the cops did nothing more than their job at that rally.

Rights?

[DaveV1.0]

When are you people going to learn that your rights do not trump the rights of others?

Kerry and his supporters were peacefully gathered and exercising their right to free speech. This jackass came in and disturbed their gathering. He does not have a right to do that.

He trampled their right to free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. He doesn't have a right to do that.

Neither his rights nor your rights over ride the rights of others. Your rights end where the rights of others begin. His right to free speech ended when they decided they didn't want to listen to him and he was disturbing their assembly. You have a right to free speech, but you do not have a right to an audience and can not force other to be an audience against their will.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Skreems]

Tasers are usually issued to law enforcement with the strict instruction that they should never use it if they wouldn't use a gun in the same situation.

Re:Technology (Taser) is the solution for everythi

[rebmemeR]

When various of your joints are locked to the verge of damage, you are going to cooperate. Haven't you ever watched UFC?

That's what they tried at first! WTFV!

[Valdrax]

Except tazers are not harmless and are quite painful. They could have just grabbed and cuffed the guy.

Did you watch the video? They had him on the ground and were trying to cuff him, but he was struggling against it. As you should be able to see, it's a lot harder for multiple people bigger than the person they're trying to arrest to actually cuff a guy. Watch the video. They can't get his arms into position even with a guy on each limb.

The lady warned him quite calmly that if he didn't stop resisting that they were going to have to taser him nearly a full minute before they did (see 1:10-1:20 on the first link).

Tasering him was the only way to make him stop struggling short of beating him senseless. Which method of incapacitating him would you prefer?

Frankly, I see nothing here but proper police procedure being followed. The cops:

1. Tried to gently lead him away. He tried to break free while continuing to cause a disturbance.
   
   1. One officer brandishes a weapon but puts it away once he determines the student isn't an armed threat.
      
   2. At this point it is clear that he isn't going to go peacefully.
      
2. Tried to pin him on the ground and cuff him in accordance with standard procedures for restraining a suspect who is putting up a struggle.
   
3. Warned him in advance that they'd have to taser him if he continued to resist. He did.
   
4. Tasered him just enough to get the cuffs on and then led him away.

Does anyone have a better suggestion of what to do with someone causing a public disturbance other than just not bother trying to prevent it?

Serious question

[tacokill]

So, is tasering for "punishment" something we should accept as a society? It sure seems to me that a lot of police officers these days are using their tasers as a form of punishment when whatever situation does not go to their plan. You see it A LOT in passive resistance situations (ie: sitting in front of a bulldozer used to mean they hog-tied you and carried you off. Now, it means they taser you until you move on your own.)

I ask in all seriousness because I sure see a lot of it.

"Do what we say or we'll use the taser."
"Sir, if you don't then we are going to have to taser you"

Is this how we want tasers used? Has this ever been tested in a court?

Re:Serious question

[FatAlb3rt]

Maybe I'm just growing more jaded toward our society in general, but it seems that as a whole, everyone seems to be gravitating to the Me First attitude, where it's all about Me. Rude drivers who cut to the front of the line, instant gratification whores (what do you mean that item is out of stock? I want it now!!), people who just don't think the rules apply if they're not happy. Here's a guy that thinks he can waltz into an auditorium and act like a lunatic.

Why are we afraid of a good, old-fashioned ass whooping? That's why he needs, IMHO. His right to air his grievances is fine as long as he doesn't encroach on other people's rights. And he did. He got tased - and instead of hobbling around for a few days with bruises and a black eye, he's no worse for the wear. Perhaps he should be thankful that's all he got...

Re:Serious question

[MoneyT]

Somehow, I would rather be stunned for a few seconds than tied up and forcefully carried off. Never mind the rope burns, the risk of dislocated joints and broken bones were I to be dropped is quite considerable in being tied up and hauled off. If I can leave under my own power, I'd much rather do that. Then again, I'm not the type of person who puts myself into situations where the options are tie me up or hit me with a stun gun.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[jkiller]

This would bring a whole new element to filibustering making it completely worthwhile. I'm setting my tivo to stun.

Re: idiot

[torkus]

Funny though...THEY were grabbing HIM. They were in no danger other than the danger they caused by getting physical.

Getting the word out

[lymond01]

It's unfortunate the student didn't allow Kerry to answer his questions properly. Resisting arrest and making a stand to get your point across is an American privilege, but you need to let people know you have a point, and aren't just a nutcase. He didn't accomplish much here.

Throw the book at Kerry

[mdsolar]

What the kid was asking about was why Kerry caved on the election. He was citing evidence uncovered by Greg Palast that Florida was stolen in 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast. That was the book he was waving. People in Ohio have been convicted for election fraud: http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2379. Asking Kerry why he caved might be awkward for Kerry but it is an important question.

Re:Throw the book at Kerry

[DaveWick79]

Kerry didn't seem bothered by the question at all - in fact he was calmly answering the question while the student was getting tased in the back.

Re:Throw the book at Kerry

[terrymr]

It may be awkward for kerry but this wasn't his doing - he's telling the cops to "leave him alone - let me answer his question" if you watch the video.

Re:Throw the book at Kerry

[mdsolar]

All I was able to hear was the lame crack about the kid not being available to swear him in. What did he say?

Re:Throw the book at Kerry

[mdsolar]

Not quite "leave him alone" but "That's alright." When I looked at it again, an office first came forward when he mentioned vote suppression in Florida. Perhaps the officer was concerned owing to personal involvement?

Re:Throw the book at Kerry

[terrymr]

Could be - it seems odd that they acted the way they did.

Re:Throw the book at Kerry

[Scrameustache]

All I was able to hear was the lame crack about the kid not being available to swear him in. What did he say? "I think if everybody would just... calm down (garbled) this situation would just (garbled garbled garbled) I'll answer his question and, em, you know, unfortunately he's not available to come up here and swear me in (laughter). Ah, let me just say this, because it's a very important question (garble garble TASER)"

Starting at 1:25 in the first youTube link.

Re:Throw the book at Kerry

[E 99]

People in Ohio have been convicted for election fraud: http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2379.

No, that story claims that people have been convicted of neglecting their duty by performing machine counts instead of manual counts. That's a whole lot different than election fraud. And the only basis I see for Greg Palast claiming that Kerry won Ohio instead of Bush, is the idea that the exit polls results should be considered to be more accurate than the actual vote. Which is of course absurd.

Re:Throw the book at Kerry

[Mr. Slippery]

is the idea that the exit polls results should be considered to be more accurate than the actual vote. Which is of course absurd.

Actually exit polls are widely used to detect election fraud. See the 2004 Ukraine elections, for example.

When as much hanky-panky occurs in an election as did in Ohio in 2004, and when large numbers of people are unlawfully denied their right to cast a ballot, the reported "actual vote" is meaningless.

Re:Throw the book at Kerry

[mdsolar]

Actually no, the Ohio convictions resulted from the way a recount paid for by the Green and Libertarian Parties was screwed up. Basically Ohio ripped them off. The evidence from Florida was what Palast found.

Oblig. Python

[jon287]

"Help Help I'm Being Repressed! come see the violence inherent in the system!"

historical myopia

[circletimessquare]

things are not getting worse. remember kent state in the 60s? national guard shooting protesters to death? or how about pinkerton thugs in the 1800s breaking up unionizers?

things are not getting worse. things aren't GOOD, but they aren't getting WORSE. this whole notion that we are all going to hell in a handbasket betrays a lack of knowledge of what things really were like historically. if anything, i would say this kind of thuggery is getting less common

so please, folks, complain about police thuggery. be my guest. but to come out and hysterically claim things are getting worse reveals that you AND the tazer happy security personnel are out of touch with reality. the personnel overreact in one way, and you overreact in another

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[thegnu]

So if they'd told him repeatedly "Stop resisting or we'll pump you full of lead.", they would have been justified in doing so ?

As others point out, this is a crappy rhetorical question that has no bearing on reality. However, I want to point out that there ARE situations in which an officer says the above and is justified in doing so, such as a situation involving violence or the threat of violence (drop the gun, or we will open fire).

A tazer is designed for situations in which officers can't restrain the person without causing physical harm to the person or risking harm to another greater than the harm that could be caused by the tazer. So they were justified in this situation, and I'm sure everyone's glad nobody got shot.

Re:Strike Three

[Cpt_Kirks]

What is wrong with politicians from MA?

- People die in the big dig tunnels.
- They can't handle the Mooninite.
- Now students are getting tasered when asking them questions.

You forgot:

- Women drown when accepting car rides from them.
- Women get raped when partying with them.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[kestasjk]

Yeah, if I'd have been there I'd have grabbed two cops by their collars and flung them against the wall. The other officer would have taken his gun out and fired a shot, but I'd have caught it in my teeth and spat it back at him.
Then I'd grab one of the remaining three officers by the foot and swing him around my head, and use his body as a cudgel to batter the other two officers into submission.

Then I'd have got excused by a fair jury and been given a purple heart for protecting that poor numbskull's God-given right to give a long, irrelevant rant against the speaker's will.

Re:No, wait- really?

[jjohnson]

I missed the part of the video where Kerry comes down of the stage, punches the guy in the neck, kicks him in the knee, and then holds the tazer to his genitals while screaming "suck it, bitch! suck it!"

Re:keyword: annoying!

[PriceIke]

That's what I'm saying. The police overreacted by tasering him. Personally I think TWO of them should have been able to remove him from the premesis without needing the rest of them to budge. I guess this was a big guy who was physically resisting calm attempts to move him along, but police should be trained to deal with situations like that without needing the whole squad.

The fact that he said "Don't tase me, bro!" and THEN got tased to me is evidence of drugs. He did not need tasing if he was calm and cooperative. If he was still putting up a fight with 6 cops on him, dude was high on something.

Quote from the article for clarity

[Scrameustache]

I can agree that he was resisting arrest, but in this case there was no need for the arrest in the first place. Have we lost all touch with our freedoms that we think we are living in a police state that one can be arrested and detained for a non-threatening reason?

That's not the way I see this at all. At every step, he made choices that escalated the encounter.

1. He wasn't asking questions. He was making rhetorical statements. He was preaching. He was robbing other people of the chance to actually ask Kerry questions. What is the punishment for that? Simple, they take the mic away from you and give it to someone with something constructive to say. "He apparently asked several questions he went on for quite awhile then he was asked to stop," university spokesman Steve Orlando said. "He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off, then he became upset."

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

So when you ask a question, and the person to whom you asked the question wants to answer, you should submit to the uniformed thugs who have decided that they didn't like your question and they want you out of the public forum?

In Soviet Russia, or 21st century USA?

Re:Quote from the article for clarity

[djchristensen]

I would suggest you attend a "citizen's police academy" in your area if there is one. Find out what it's like to be a cop and what kind of stress they have to deal with. If you really watch the video, you'll see that the cops reacted (rather appropriately, in my opinion) to escalating physical behavior by the student.

If at the point where Kerry said he would answer the question, the student had simply put his arms up in a gesture of conformance, the situation would have calmed and I suspect Kerry would have answered the question. The police weren't trying to arrest him initially, he brought that upon himself by resisting.

As for the taser, there were three or four cops nearly on top of the guy trying to control his arms. Those arms were within reach of several guns, and his behavior was combative enough that the cops can't take any chances of him grabbing one. They are trained to respond as they did and use minimal physical force to maintain their own safety. This idiot will be left with the memory of the pain from the taser, but no physical scars.

So I'll say it again, try and walk a mile in a cops shoes before condemning them for tasering this guy. You can argue that the situation was mishandled at the beginning, but you would have to concede that the student was at least as responsible for it getting out of hand.

Re:Quote from the article for clarity

[Scrameustache]

take your ridiculous hyperbole to digg where it belongs. [...] and you know it. Are you really so retarded [...]
That's not what happened at all. You're just wrong. There's no other way around this. You're just completely wrong. [...] The kid was a douche. That is the fact, and nothing you can say changes that. [...] Where exactly do you get off making a statement [...] It's doublethink. Your statement is doublethink. [...] It's doublethink. And you should be ashamed of yourself. STFU&DIAF, troll.

Re:Quote from the article for clarity

[oni]

hmm, that's not a very effective response.

Just to review, here's what happened in our conversation:
1. you made a statement that was patently false. You claimed that the police didn't like the content of the kid's questions.
2. I called you on that ridiculous statement.
3. unable to formulate a rational or logical response to me, you tell me to DIAF.

nice.

lawyer

[scolbert]

$20 this kid wants to be a lawyer and his Dad is already one. in fact I heard that his Dad is part of OJ's new dream team... i mean Britney Spears divorce lawyer. LOL!

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[efalk]

Failure to be meek and obedient is not a crime. He *hadn't* done anything wrong and the police *were* out of line.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[djasbestos]

Wow, you must be a lot stronger than I am.

They're not tasering him for being obnoxious.

[Valdrax]

Since when is being the center of attention punishable by taser?

It's not. However, violently resisting police who have no gentler means of subduing you is the real issue here. It's not being used as a means of punishment; it's being used as a tool to subdue.

There has to be a means for law enforcement to make sure the people face responsibility for their actions without being unduly injured in the process. Would you rather we return to the days using of nightsticks and fists to deal with people trying to wrestle themselves away?

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[Otto]

Please answer the following question:

Is a protest a protest if no one is there to hear it? Yes. And it's no longer a protest when you interfere with everybody else's rights to do it. Then it's not only annoying, it's no longer protected speech.

You have the right to speak.
You do not have the right to force others to listen to you.

My view

[ls -la]

I posted much of this in another comment, and this is so far down the list it will probably be seen, but I just have to vent on this.
This is one of the most sickening abuses of police power I have seen in my lifetime. First of all, the police started to try to arrest/remove him just as he finished and Kerry said he'd answer his questions. The police had no cause to remove or arrest him at that point. That's why he struggled against them. I would do the same thing, refuse to be arrested without cause. The police were clearly overstepping their bounds and by this point just wanted to follow through to show they could arrest him. Why? Because he resisted when they tried to arrest him without basis. Circular reasoning, and abuse of power. They tasered him because he wouldn't shut up. Do I have to be quiet any time a police officer wants me to be? NO! It was a huge abuse of power. I hope this guy will get a good lawyer, get cleared of the circular charges, and get a large settlement from the city for excessive use of force and wrongful imprisonment. I think it is also necessary that the police officers get what they deserve, a lifetime ban from being allowed guns and tazers, and not being allowed to be police officers. The police department or court system needs to set a precedent here that abuse of power such as arresting on grounds of resisting a baseless arrest will not be tolerated, and tasering a student because he wouldn't be quiet is excessive use of force.

Re:My view

[jjohnson]

This is what you get when you take your information from a youtube video: a completely wrong analysis of the situation.

Note that the audience applauded when he was removed from the mic. He'd already been up there for a long time, asking multiple questions and refusing to relinquish the mic. The organizers asked him to do so, and he refused. They cut his mic, after he'd had longer than anyone else on it, and he kept going. The police told him he had to leave, and he kept going. They tried to escort him out by touch, and he kept going. They got a grip on him to escort him out, and he kept going. They tried to move him towards the door, and he fought to get back to the mic. They subdued him, and he continued to struggle. It was two full minutes of resisting arrest before they even brought out the tazer.

Legally, the cops are totally in the clear. This was textbook escalation of force levels. He was trespassing from the moment the organizers told him to leave, long after their (and the crowd's) patience had worn out with him. He didn't comply with orders to leave, so they used force to remove him. He struggled against the force being justifiably used to remove him, so he was resisting arrest.

At every stage in the confrontation, he could have complied and ended the situation, and didn't. The use of force is usually ugly, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Re:My view

[mabu]

Note that the audience applauded when he was removed from the mic.

Also note that nobody in the audience was threatened by the guy. Nobody moved away from him. His actions, however animated were not constituted as a threat to anyone, and certainly not worthy of the amount of force used.

Also note this is FLORIDA. This is the state where they passed a law saying it was OK to shoot someone if they look at you the wrong way.

Many people do not believe in this notion that one should always unconditionally bow to authority. The world would never ever change if people followed your bad advice. Sometimes the status quo needs to be challenged to improve things. If the guy wants to ask Kerry a few extra questions, he doesn't deserve to get assaulted over it, regardless of whether or not he violated some petty, trivial rule of politeness.

Re:My view

[jjohnson]

Also note that nobody in the audience was threatened by the guy.... His actions, however animated were not constituted as a threat to anyone,

He wasn't removed because he was a threat, he was removed because he was disrupting a peaceful assembly.

Many people do not believe in this notion that one should always unconditionally bow to authority.... If the guy wants to ask Kerry a few extra questions, he doesn't deserve to get assaulted over it, regardless of whether or not he violated some petty, trivial rule of politeness.

And they're correct not to believe that. But this was not a situation where bowing to authority was the wrong course. This was a situation where the police were justified in removing someone who'd overstayed their welcome and been asked to leave. He hadn't violated some "petty, trivial rule of politeness", he was actively preventing the event from continuing by asking far more questions than allowed, and headed into silly conspiracy theory territory about Yale and Skull 'n Bones.

From that point on, resisting the lawful order to leave justified the limited use of force; resisting that force justified escalating levels of force.

Look past all the drama and shrieking and rending of garments over the use of force and walk through what happened here. A student tried to turn a peaceful Q&A into a platform for his ranting about politics, and was told to leave because he was disrupting the event and preventing it from proceeding. When he refused to comply, he was forcibly removed, and at the end of it, walked out under his own power, albeit in cuffs and under the control of the police. The use of force is rarely as pretty as it is in martial arts movies, but don't let the drama of it get in the way of reasoning about it calmly.

Re:My view

[mabu]

Where was he asked to leave?

All I see are cops grabbing at him.

This is a public university. Granted, you can probably stand anywhere, at any time, and do just about anything and be in violation of some law or rule. That doesn't make it right, legal, constitutional or appropriate.

Dude, I guess it's going to have to happen to you before you'll realize it. Not all of us are so naive. Some of us recognize that this is not a good thing. It's not a case of a situation getting out of hand. It's an excessive use of authoritarian power. Just because they may have the ability to do so, does not make it right.

You must be a lawyer, the way you divert attention away from the real important issue and argue over technicalities.

Re:My view

[jjohnson]

Give me a break.

You know what I saw? I saw someone cut to the front of the line, grab the mic, start asking questions, and not stop asking questions. I saw someone refuse to leave when asked by the organizers. I saw them cut off the mic, and cops surround him and tell him it's time to go. I saw him fight with police, and continue fighting after they'd subdued him. I saw the appropriate use of a taser to force compliance, which it did--he got up and walked out under their control, no worse the wear for having been tasered.

It's not technicalities, it's common sense. If you cause a disruption you'll be asked to leave. If you won't leave you'll be forcibly removed. If you resist forcible removal, more force will be applied. Anyone not grandstanding for victimhood would have recognized that he'd made as much of his point as was going to be made, and would have walked out with the police.

Re:My view

[Inthewire]

STFU, shill. Florida passed a law that recognized the right to defend one's self without first having to evade assault.

Re:My view

[mabu]

Like I said before.. your response to the civil rights movement might have been something like, "It's that black bitch, Rosa Parks own fault for not moving the back of the bus. Those are the rules! She got what she deserved."

I bet had you been in Germany during WWII you also would have suggested the Jews deserved to get shot for not getting on the train like they were told.

History is littered with people who defied what they considered to be inappropriate authoritarian rule, and you can bet your ignorant ass, it starts with a lot of trivial, seemingly insignificant conflicts like the one this story is about, and grows larger from there. It's a shame people like you aren't smart enough to see that.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Cpt_Kirks]

When an officer tells you that you have to do something, you must do it.

So, if you are a young woman, and the nice officer tells you to take off your pants, lie down and spread your legs in his back seat, you should just do it, right?

This whole, "THE LEO IS ALWAYS RIGHT" bullshit is, well, bullshit. Face it folks, the cops are out of control. And it is only getting worse and going to continue getting worse.

Stupidity

[Shadowebs]

This really is a simple matter.

He went on way too long, and was monopolizing the mic. The event organizers asked him to stop his tirade, he refused multiple times. The decision then was made to remove him. Police gave him every opportunity to cooperate. He didn't.

Regardless of whether you believe the police removing him was legal or not (in my mind there is no question it was, and the only ones claiming otherwise didn't take the time to find out the full story before spouting off, but this is /. after all) when the police give you an order, you follow it. He was yelling out "What did I do wrong" over and over, but while doing that, he was fighting them. You submit, and THEN you have the opportunity to ask your questions and discuss it with them. And if after that, you feel you were mistreated, or your rights violated, you have avenues available to pursue that.

But you do NOT resist the police under any circumstances. Resisting, and fighting, and honestly, he was lucky that was all he got off with. All of you saying that the cops should not have had any problem subduing him without the tazer have never known anyone in law enforcement obviously. He was resisting, and in the process of resisting could have caused injury to any of those officers, or even caused more severe injury to himself than the stunner would cause. He was experiencing an adrenaline rush, and in that state, as the police well know, would be reacting with a force greater than he normally would. Had this been before the use of non-lethal stunners, tazers, and other tools available to law enforcement now, he would have been billy clubbed and had more severe physical force used against him, most likely causing greater physical injury to himself, and possibly to the offices.

This guy went into the event with the INTENT of creating a scene, and trying to get himself arrested to play into his own agenda on his website and support his little paranoid agendas.

Bottom line, don't resist the police, follow their orders, and then afterwards you have the means to protest the police actions.

Re:Stupidity

[mabu]

John Kerry wanted him to stay there while he answered his question. He stated as much in the video. Your claims don't have that much merit.

This is not a case of someone "going too far". If wanting to spend more than two minutes asking a government representative a few important questions that will affect yours and everyone else's future, is going too far, then we need to look around and ask ourselves what kind of country we live in? There's a difference between decorum and facism. And I suspect those of you who think this guy went too far, are way too lawful to be helpful in combatting the serious problems our nation is facing.

Re:Stupidity

[stewbacca]

Asking questions about secret societies, blow jobs, impeachments and easily discounted voter recount theories hardly count as "a few important questions that will affect yours and everyone else's future".

Unless, of course, we are all lining up for free BJ's in the Oval Office.

Re:Stupidity

[Shadowebs]

What I said about his behavior is not a claim, it is a fact, substantiated by not only the video, but by witnesses statements in interviews to the press. You clearly have no idea just how long he was going on, and no, John Kerry did not want him to stay. John Kerry told the audience he would answer the question, there is a big difference. This man was not asking a question, he was going on a tirade. And he went to the event WITH THE INTENT to do so, he stated it on his website in advance of the event.

THESE ARE FACTS, and are not disputable.

So sorry that the facts do not support your predisposed viewpoint.

But like I said, if he felt he was being wronged, the PROPER course of action was to co-operate with the police and take appropriate actions afterwards. It is NEVER acceptable to act the way he did. NEVER.

Re:Stupidity

[DigitalSorceress]

Yes, and the over-reaction to his silly crackpot questions will only serve to bolster the opinions of the black-helicopter crowd that they're right... However, if stuff like this keeps on happening, I'm going to start to wonder if they're not right too.

Re:Stupidity

[stewbacca]

You seem to be making the incorrect assumption that many others are making. He was not tasered because he asked stupid questions. He was tasered, because he didn't, a) shut up when told to, b) leave when told to and c) stop resisting when told to.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[fataugie]

That's a straw man arugment and you know it.

The fact is, the freakin clown was asked repeatedly to follow instructions by the cops, he refused so he got what he had coming.

  Screw him, they should have tasered his nuts so he wouldn't comtaminate the population with his offspring.

Re:Had it been a Republican rather than Kerry

[feed_me_cereal]

Are you positing that we've made it a better place? Because, if you can even compare more than 20 years of brutal dictatorship by none other than Saddam Hussein to 4-5 years of occupation by the USA... there's a major problem there.

I've always been all for making places like Iraq a better place, but if you don't recall, that is *not* why we went there, and it's certainly not what we achieved.

Of course they will; they know police procedures.

[Valdrax]

Why do I have the feeling the internal review will come up with the answer that the police didn't use excessive force?

Because this was nearly a picture-perfect, by-the-book arrest. They followed all procedure properly and only used the taser in a situation in which (a) it was authorized, and (b) the subject was clearly warned that it would be a consequence of continuing to make their arrest otherwise impossible.

Anyone who even in the slightest bit familiar with police procedures as well as the difficult balance between the safety of the subject and the safety of the officers would come to the same conclusion.

Re:Strike Three

[PunkOfLinux]

I saw the video on CNN. Did the police even tell him what he was being taken away for? If not, isn't that a violation of his rights? If you are being arrested/detained, don't you have the absolute, irrefutable right to be told what's going on?

How did they manage police work? Wrong question...

[smitth1276]

How did they manage police work before they had tasers?

How did morons like this idiot practice their ass-hattery before they had police with tasers to provoke and YouTube to distribute the planned video?

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[fataugie]

So the cops are supposed to know somehow his major is? Was he or was he not resisting? What are they supposed to read into that? How do they know how far he's prepared to go?

If you think this kid deserved to get tasered ...

[corifornia2]

I hope your children die, because they deserve to not have shitty parents like you.

Re:Had it been a Republican rather than Kerry

[feed_me_cereal]

You're right, they have meetings every tuesday. Osama bin Laden brings the punch and pie.

It's not difficult to see how we keep ending up in this mess when there's so many people in this country who think the way you do. I suppose you were a big fan of the vietnam war, too, since you're so concerned with saving us from communists. As long as you're blaming things on "the libs" and "commies", you might want to remember who it was in the middle east that we armed to fight against the commies, and what they've been up to in the last 10 years.

Because he physically resisted police?!?

[JerryLove]

Because, when being led from the podium he physically attempted to overpower the police and escape back towads the podium. Once on the ground, he can be seen struggling against police there as well. You are propigating a false assertion. He was not tazed for anything he said or did while at the mike.

Re:Because he physically resisted police?!?

[brunes69]

You're still ignoring the original question.

Why were the police involved in removing a student speaking at a private gathering on a university campus?

The only reason the police were even there would be because of Kerry. The only people who should have even been involved in the incident are campus security. Police have no business escorting a citizen from anywhere just for asking someone some questions, unless the owner of the property asked them to leave and they refuse. I saw no one at any point ask the student to leave, they just shut off his mike, then the cops grabbed him and placed him under arrest.

Re:Because he physically resisted police?!?

[JerryLove]

Why were the university police, who were in attendance, the ones who removed a student remaining at the podium after his time had expired? I'm confused as to who you thing should have removed him if not the police? The police are, in fact, campus security (it's the campus police department).

Re:Because he physically resisted police?!?

[stewbacca]

They were campus police. They have police jurisdiction for things that happen on campus. No wonder the majority of the posts on here supporting this idiot come to the faulty conclusions they do; they don't see facts and decide to make up their own minds about what happened.

Re:Because he physically resisted police?!?

[jjohnson]

Because at the point that he was asked to leave and refused, he was trespassing and disturbing the peace, and the legal avenue for removing him was the best option for everyone involved, including the student. You didn't see anyone ask him to leave because 1) you didn't watch the extended video that showed the organizers asking him to relinquish the mic, and 2) you didn't hear the cops standing around him for 20 seconds saying "sir, you have to leave now" because the mic was shut off.

Re:Because he physically resisted police?!?

[brunes69]

Are you telling me that in the US campus "police" (aka security guards - they DO NOT have "police jurisdiction on campus", they are nothing above rent-a-cops) are allowed to carry tasers??? Thank god I never attended school there.

Re:Because he physically resisted police?!?

[JerryLove]

Your statement is completely and demonstrably false. Campus police are sworn law-enforcement officers working for the State of Florida (http://police.ucf.edu/)

Violence is required?

[Scrameustache]

Tasering him was the only way to make him stop struggling short of beating him senseless. Which method of incapacitating him would you prefer?

Frankly, I see nothing here but proper police procedure being followed. The cops: Tried to gently lead him away. He's talking with Kerry, Kerry wants to answer him. Under what authority, under what law is it proper to try to prevent him from engaging in consensual debate in an open and public forum?

Why do you offer me a dichotomy of beating someone with stick or electrocuting him when he's an attention whore at a debate? Is there no room for "let him talk until the person he talks to is done talking to him"?

Re:Had it been a Republican rather than Kerry

[ahodgson]

Oh, is that why you're there? I thought it was WMD? Or was it 9/11? Oh, wait, maybe it was oil ... err no, that can't be it.

Re:Had it been a Republican rather than Kerry

[feed_me_cereal]

Imagine how busy the talking heads would be discussing how evil the GOP is for killing students.

Imagining is fun for you people, isn't it?

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[Rogerborg]

He was going to be taken to the station and charged

With?

Re:Strike Three

[Bayashi Maru]

RTFA - John Kerry was willing to answer his question. This has more to do with police mentality than the geographic region. This is getting more common all over.

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[tom's a-cold]

In the US now, it would be more like shouting "fire" in a burning theater.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Maxo-Texas]

You've seen the video. He's a young college student with no obvious places to conceal a weapon.

Did the guy in any way seem like a serious danger to several policeman?

Is your default policy now that the police should be free to taser anyone who fails to comply quickly?

Re:Strike Three

[ericartman]

In my experience no, no you don't. You don't even have to be charged for 24 hours. Oh and if you INSIST on knowing before you go you can be charged with interfering with an officer, resisting arrest, and what ever else they can make up on the way to the station. IANAL but that has been my experience. Cart

Re:Strike Three

[Bobby Mahoney]

But if you watch the behind-the-scenes video I saw, then you would see Kerry explaining to said cops about how the phrase "Leave that Kid Alone" was actually code for "Taser that annoying son of a bitch."

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[Rogerborg]

In the version I saw, he didn't get tasered until he called a cop "Bro". If that doesn't deserve a tasering, then nothing does.

He was NOT yet handcuffed. Rewatch the videos.

[Valdrax]

Note that shortly before he was tasered (1:49-1:52 on the first link), he had his right arm free that an officer was trying to work into position to handcuff. He then lifts himself up to beg not to be "tased" on his other arm.

It's quite clear that they tasered him because they couldn't restrain him. Note that while he's being tasered, they work his arms into position and then release him from the pin they have on him. Afterwards, he's shown being led away with his hand cuffed behind his back.

If they were already cuffed behind his back, you couldn't have seen his right arm in front of his body before he tried to sit upright. While there is a possibility that he was cuffed in the six seconds before the shock was delivered, it's inconsistent with the motions of the cops during the shock (where they struggle with arms and then release).

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[flanle]

word I've seen my fair share of COPS. 2 guys could have easily taken that dude down. What is the world coming to....

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[MageWyn]

I agree completely. Thanks for articulating exactly what I would have done a far worse job of trying to say.

It is a good thing that you didn't try then. You'd have ended up getting tazered!

why not just shoot him 8 times the head?

[Scrameustache]

While the taser is meant to be a non-lethal weapon, it has caused death before, and if you've ever been hit by one, you know how immensely painful it is.

I completely agree that the questioner was out of line for the given forum and that he should have been removed; however, I do not think he should have been arrested for what was essentially a completely non-violent protest, and I think the use of the taser was just downright disturbing.

While I was watching the video I chuckled a few times at the beginning, especially after hearing all of his questions, although by the end of the video I simply couldn't believe what I saw. There need to be some serious repercussions for all of the security personnel who were involved in the incident, particularly whoever made the decision to and used the taser (if multiple suggested it then they should all be accountable for it), and we as a society need to seriously rethink the amount of leverage law enforcement personnel are given to escalate force and the training we provide them with regard to how and when it is appropriate to escalate force.

Tear gas, nightsticks, and rubber bullets have caused death before. In fact, people have even died after just being handcuffed. I guess we should get rid of those, too? Yes, I think you should get rid of the idea that it is okay to use night sticks, tear gas and rubber bullets on peaceful participants of an open debate, no matter how loudly incoherent they may be.

SERIOUSLY, I really, really think you need to stop thinking it's ok to do that.

Re:why not just shoot him 8 times the head?

[workindev]

Peaceful? Did you watch the video? The guy is pushing, shoving, hitting, and screaming at police officers trying to get to the microphone. That isn't "peaceful" under even the most generous definition of the word. Not only that, a US Senator was only a few feet away from this maniac who clearly had no intentions of obeying police orders. He needed to be removed. Period.

Re:why not just shoot him 8 times the head?

[Scrameustache]

Peaceful? Did you watch the video? The guy is pushing, shoving, hitting, and screaming at police officers He did not hit anyone, first of all, secondly he's pushing and shoving as a reaction to the police grabbing him and tryoing to force him away from the person attempting to answer his question.

Re:why not just shoot him 8 times the head?

[workindev]

Heh. So when he violently swings his elbow and arms so that the female officer goes flying back off balance, he didn't hit her? I guess he was just playing patticake, right? And no matter what you seem to think, pushing and shoving is never an acceptable or legal reaction when the police grab you for whatever reason, even if somebody else is trying to answer your question.

Just because "taser" sounds cooler...

[fishnuts]

and just because he said "don't tase me, man!" doesn't mean it was a taser.

I know I'm being pedantic, but imagine how you'd react if the news article stated that this scrawny white guy was subdued by 8 officers instead of two or three? What if he was accidentally shot during the incident by an accidental discharge of a sidearm but it was reported that he was shot at point blank range by an officer's shotgun? This guy was being overly dramatic, and because of bad reporting, it was made out to sound like they almost killed him or rendered him paralyzed.

All the officers were trying to do was escort him away from the microphone and out of the room. They were completely within the boundaries of their job when he decided to resist them, prompting them to use a stun gun to subdue him instead of possibly inflicting physical harm on him with a choke hold or arm-bar.

If he were actually hit by a taser, it would have been from a distance, and only if he appeared to be an imminent physical threat to the police officers. Police officers reserve tasers for violent, cranked-out ex-cons who can't be subdued any other way.

Re:Just because "taser" sounds cooler...

[Jabrwock]

"and just because he said "don't tase me, man!" doesn't mean it was a taser."

I guess you missed the classic "tztgzgzttgzgzzgzggt" noise in between the screaming... :)

The crowd heard it too, which is why they started getting upset. Before that, he was just some loon getting pulled away from the mic...

Facts on the video

[lou_soyur]

I've seen a variety of comments on the video that don't seem to sync with what actually happened: (note: these observations are based off the one of the video links

1. "There was no need to arrest him.": We don't know at what point he was being arrested and at what point he was being removed from the area. Officers can remove you from involvement and not arrest you. The only basis for the belief that he was being arrested are his immediate cries that "What are you arresting me for!" (0:15)
2. "He was in handcuffs when we was tazed.": No he is not. At 1:55 when he asks not to be tazed you can clearly see he has pulled free from the officers and is holding onto a chair.
3. "He was pinned down by the X number of officers.": He was not pinned. He initially complies and rolls onto his stomach. (1:35) After a few seconds of struggle he rolls back over and grabs onto a chair (1:52)
4. "He wasn't warned.": At 1:15 he is warned by two officers that he needs to stop resisting, and he continues to scream and fight. One officer is heard to clearly say "you will be tazed if you do not comply"

If we are going to debate the cause and effect, as well as the ultimate "correct actions" of the officers, we should at a bare minimum get the details correct and not follow gut reactions.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[n6kuy]

No.

Freedom of Speech is when you go get your own soapbox, not when you try to bully someone else off of theirs.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[fataugie]

No, you assume the cops are supposed to know somehow he's a journalism student and poses no threat. Are the cops supposed to wait until someone gets hurt? What if you were attending the event and were standing in the crowd near them. What if the guy got violent and you ended up getting hurt becuase of it? Would you have the same view? The cops are trying to maintain order and gave him a lawful order to follow. He was given plenty of chances to avoid the taser, he chose not to comply. Tough shit for him. Taser him into compliance.

What would you call it?

[Nymz]

Ideally in a civilized society, those commenting on it (such as the parent poster) would know the term "electrocuting" means "killing by means of applying an electrical current". Meyer wasn't electrocuted.

If you shoot someone with a gun, is it murder or attempted murder?
It's the same with electrocution and attempted electrocution. Too many people are dying.

What are you guys watching? He was not deserving.

[graffix_jones]

I keep seeing comments that he deserved what he got, and I find that frightening.

I must've watched a different video, because the video I watched had this chain of events:

1. He's standing at the microphone waiting patiently for Kerry to finish his speech.
2. Kerry finishes and calls on him to speak. The guy thanks him for his time in addressing the students.
3. He holds up a book and recommends Kerry read it, because it states that he actually won the 2004 election.
(Kerry states he 'has' read the book)
3. Question #1: (after a statement leading into the question... he's a journalism student after all) How could you concede the election with so many unknowns in relation to disenfranchisement of voters and improper vote counts?
4. He gets a bit upset at a security officer trying to cut him off before he even gets to the question stated in point 3.
5. Question #2: Why not impeach Bush before he invades Iran, since Bill Clinton was impeached over a blowjob?
6. Question #3: Is Kerry a member of the Skull and Bones society, along with Bush?
7. The officer then shuts the microphone off halfway through his last question/statement. (by this time it's been 1 minute and 30 seconds of him at the mic).
8. Then he gets upset that they shut off the mic before he was completely finished, but not combative at all, then they grab him and attempt to eject him from the proceeding.
9. He pulls himself away from the guards once Kerry states that everything's OK and that he'll answer the question(s), but he still shows no signs of combativeness.
10. It pretty much devolves into a melee from here.

I really see nothing here that warrants his treatment, nor justification for the tazering. The fact that some people feel it was justified makes me glad that they're not police officers. Even the cops replying to this thread are saying that the guards were out of line... that should say something.

Eyewitness Account

[_KiTA_]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/18/10649/5334

Essentially, this jackass ran up, forced the mic out of someone else's hands, was being escorted out when Kerry said he could stay, (this is about when the cameras started rolling), then he started asking inappropriate questions, so they cut his mic, then he just starts screaming like a jackass and tries to force himself on the stage, so TAZER TAZER TAZER and he gets to go away.

Fun stuff.

Re:Eyewitness Account

[AdamTrace]

That's a good account, and tells a lot more of the story than the YouTube videos do.... Thanks.

Adman

Re:Eyewitness Account

[spoco2]

Yeah, see... we need a video of the entire thing to start being watched as much as the wonderfully 'cut down' and trimmed to make it look different to what it was...

Thanks for the account, the fact that police were already standing behind him did seem a little iffy.

Thread over

[benhocking]

Golden. I think you need to change your sig to something like:
I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to be tasered for saying it. – Voltaire
Alternatively, you could cite it to Allesandro Volta.

A safe means of preventing violent resistance is.

[Valdrax]

Under what authority, under what law is it proper to try to prevent him from engaging in consensual debate in an open and public forum?

Causing a public disturbance. His mike had been cut-off, and he continued to yell. Just because Kerry was answering does not mean that he wasn't causing a disturbance. Furthermore, when he tried to break away and run around, he was no longer merely engaging in consensual debate.

(You can get an idea of how well he was received by the crowd in their initial reaction to him being led away.)

Why do you offer me a dichotomy of beating someone with stick or electrocuting him when he's an attention whore at a debate?

You're deliberately conflating two issues to attempt to create a false dichotomy:

1. Should he be removed from a venue for being "an attention whore" at a debate?
   
2. What kind of force should an officer use with a suspect who refuses to cooperate?
   

He is not being tasered for being "an attention whore." He is being tasered for trying to wrestle his way free of the police. The distinction is important. Had the cops just tasered him immediately before trying other means to lead him out, you would have a point. However, the police followed procedure to try lesser methods of force before resorting to the taser. It was his physical resistance to arrest that got him zapped.

My question to you was, "What should the police do when they have a suspect who refuses to let himself be arrested?" What is you answer to that?

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[atomicdoggy]

No, they aren't. Guns are used when lethal force is necessary to stop an imminent threat. Tasers are a control device, like a baton.

Re:That's what they tried at first! WTFV!

[false_cause]

Tasering him was the only way to make him stop struggling short of beating him senseless.

You know, up until just a few years ago it seemed like the police were able to restrain struggling suspects without always having to beat them senseless.

But when is this "justified" for bigger reasons?

[King_TJ]

I'm not trying to take sides one way or the other, at this point in time. But it occurs to me that this sort of thing is exactly how the American Revolution got started. When the "redcoats" took the first shot at one of the "unarmed, innocent Yankees" - it's pretty much known historical fact that things didn't quite go down that way. According to witness testimony and police records dug up by historians long after the fact (saw much of this on the "History Channel", FYI), it was much more a situation of some radicals harassing the British guards, throwing rocks at them, spitting on them, and so forth - for perhaps as long as an hour or so straight, before one of them finally "snapped". Then the story was twisted around to make them look as bad as possible.

Not sure exactly what this student's real "motive" was here, but it's certainly arguable that today's political conventions and "Q&A sessions with the public" aren't quite as "free and open" as they should be. Look at the situation at Wash. U's campus in St. Louis, MO when Libertarian *candidate* Michael Badnarik was arrested during their presidential debates in 2004! Sure, he wasn't "invited" to be there either, but doesn't that seem wrong in and of itself, really??

wtf?

[circletimessquare]

i thought we were talking about thugs tasering/ shooting/ beating students and malcontents

why the hell are you talking about gw bush?

can you stay on topic please?

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Dravik]

Having someone pinned to the ground does not mean you have control of them. It only means you have stopped their movement. It is very difficult and dangerous to try and move someone who is actively resisting. The only actual options are to get some level of submission from them or to render them unconscious. Shooting and or beating this guy until unconscious was not an option so a method to acquire submission was required, thus the tazer.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[atomicdoggy]

Well, since he was actively resisting them putting cuffs on him, would you prefer the beat the shit out of him until they can get him under control (leaving bruises, broken bones, etc)? Or use the taser which stops hurting as soon at they stop? Face it, once the arrest begins, crying like a little bitch while still resisting is NOT going to stop them.

What's your better suggestion?

[Valdrax]

Does it say that you are just trying to enforce the rules of questioning, or does it say you are using jackboot thugs to control information and thought processes?

Okay. I'll ignore the ranting to focus on the one intelligent question you asked.

I'll turn it around: how do you suggest the rules of questioning be enforced when you have someone who isn't interested in letting the speaker actually answer their questions and who is just using the event as a political ranting opportunity?

What do you do when they refuse to play by the rules of civility?

Re:What's your better suggestion?

[Valdrax]

As long as we aren't physically endangering them we are protected by our right to question them. even if some panel of moderators or the police don't like it.

So are you saying that the balance of the law should be set in favor of the most obnoxious actor? That it should be okay if anyone wants to get up and yell questions at a candidate and let no one else ask any? What if multiple people decided to follow this tactic and started trying to yell over each other? Sooner or later one of them would attempt to, if I may use a term of the art, "avail themselves of self-help" to make sure that they were heard.

One of the major purposes of the law is to prevent people availing themselves of "self-help" (i.e. violence) to have their way. People are not allowed to be disruptive at a public forum to prevent situations where multiple people want to be disruptive as well as to serve the purpose of encouraging public forums to exist.

Your solution is unworkable because it would discourage public forums from existing in the first place due to safety concerns. Also, what candidate would want to subject themselves to every fringe lunatics' rant everywhere they go? They'd never be able to address the substantive issues if everyone with enough gumption to rant was allowed to, and if owners of a forum were prevented from stopping them from being disruptive.

The law is ultimately pragmatic. This is why you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and it's why you can go around doing things like this.

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[Zombywuf]

True the listener is allowed to walk away. When armed thugs drag the speaker away you're playing a different game.

Why didn't Kerry intervene from the podium!

[Zapped.Info]

Kerry could have easily gestured with a hand, or made a statement something like: "That's ok, let the young man speak his mind," before this reached the level it did. There are so many things Kerry could have done to be pro-active. Kerry now strikes me as the type of person that would just sit back and smile while a Nazi storm trooper shoves his boot up your $#@. A TRUE LEADER would have not have let this happen and would have led those around him to prevent it. Kerry was the leader speaking...His actions of continuing to speak and stating, "That's ok," show what he is all about...It seems Kerry is actually a spineless jellyfish, following the tide.

Agreed.

[PorkRollEggCheese]

Just another self-righteous, attention whoring, smart-ass college kid out to "make a difference." The only thing he was missing was the GoldenPalace tatoo/t-shirt/forehead branding. Pretty transparent attempt at making the news, f'ya ask me.

Nothing to see here, please move along.

Re:That's what they tried at first! WTFV!

[lsllll]

Did you watch the video? They had him on the ground and were trying to cuff him, but he was struggling against it. As you should be able to see, it's a lot harder for multiple people bigger than the person they're trying to arrest to actually cuff a guy. Watch the video. They can't get his arms into position even with a guy on each limb.

I call BS. Are you telling me that six officers, having gone through training on how to subdue subjects via various means (bending hand forward, twisting arm behind and so on), can't overcome one person for the three seconds that are needed to cuff him? If that's the case then I can see why they used a taser.

There was no reason he should have gotten tasered. Taser, while effective, can be lethal depending on the subject's health condition (See Wikipedia's Electroshock weapon controversy).

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[commodore_dude]

Erm... no obvious places to conceal a weapon? I carry a gun every day (not a cop, just a citizen exercising my right), concealed, and you would not know it just by looking at me. And that guy was wearing baggier clothes than I do. Given the examples of public figures being killed, you could make an argument that the officers present figured that any guy who is acting erratically and not following their orders might try to hurt the senator. Unless you genuinely believe your life is in danger, it's just not a good idea to do anything except comply with instructions from an LEO. No, it's not always right, but if the officers were in the wrong, no doubt some lawyer will be chomping at the bit to sue the shit out of their department.

Here's a video of the whole thing

[fluxrad]

this video clearly shows the whole incident, from beginning to end. The guy was getting out of control and wouldn't relinquish control of the microphone (plus, his questions were a little loopy). From the video, it's pretty obvious the police were going to escort him out (the first cop just places her hand on his back and tries to show him the door), but he resisted. After another 30 seconds or so of waiting on this guy the cop decides it's time to be a little more direct, and she starts to move him out.

More importantly, once they wrestle this guy to the ground (after about a minute of his resisting arrest) they tell him numerous times that if he doesn't place his hands behind his back and comply with the officers' requests that he's going to be tased. So only after the guy refuses to leave the microphone, after he resists arrest, and after he refuses to comply with directives given to him while he's on the ground do the officers taser him. From the officers' standpoint it very much looks like, absent tasing, this guy just isn't going to comply at all - even in handcuffs. I'm sorry, but what's the story here?

As a side note, it's pretty clear this guy was not in full posession of his faculties. At the end of the video, he starts ranting about how the other students need to be sure to "ask about the guy who was arrested at the Kerry rally" because he fears that he's going to be killed. He also refuses to give his name to the police (and as we all learned in Hibel v. Nevada, you may not have to show ID, but you do have to identify yourself to police officers).

Anyway, this is a non-story. Watch the video. Crazy guy resists arrest; Crazy guy gets tased.

Re:Here's a video of the whole thing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

(and as we all learned in Hibel v. Nevada, you may not have to show ID, but you do have to identify yourself to police officers). That would false. Hibel v Nevada ruled on the constitutionality of a state law that required a person to identify themselves when asked. Similar laws exist in only 29 states, maybe less now since Hibel.

More importantly, once they wrestle this guy to the ground (after about a minute of his resisting arrest) they tell him numerous times that if he doesn't place his hands behind his back and comply with the officers' requests that he's going to be tased. WTF? Taser use is supposed to be restricted to a response to physical threat. The guy was on the ground, unarmed, no indications of violence and restrained by about 6 officers. People regularly die from being tased, so much so that they are classified as "less lethal" not "non lethal" weapons. Tasers are not cattle prods to be used to enforce compliance.

The guy was getting out of control and wouldn't relinquish control of the microphone (plus, his questions were a little loopy). Loopy? I guess I must be a nutjob because I've had the same questions myself - just why the hell did Kerry concede so quickly when so much of the election was in question? This guy seemed to think it was a skull & bones thing, maybe it was, not that Kerry would ever admit to it in public if it were.

I think Kerry did the country a huge disservice by conceding. Never mind all the bad policy that continued in Bush's 2nd term -- the US voting system is flawed, with way too much opportunity for corruption. Flaws only get fixed when they get attention. At the very least he could have stuck it out for a week. There was plenty of time to get things sorted out before the next inauguration.

Re:Here's a video of the whole thing

[fluxrad]

That would false. Hibel v Nevada ruled on the constitutionality of a state law that required a person to identify themselves when asked. Similar laws exist in only 29 states, maybe less now since Hibel.

Actually, it would be true. The ruling in Hibel v. Nevada actually cites case Florida case law as well:
 
 

Hayes v. Florida, 470 U. S. 811, 816 (1985) ("[I]f there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information");

So while it might be false in some places, the law certainly applied to this guy in Florida. But that's neither here nor there, I just thought it was funny that this guy clearly had a misunderstanding of what he was and wasn't legally allowed to do.

WTF? Taser use is supposed to be restricted to a response to physical threat.

I'm not sure where you read this. I haven't seen any paper on the internal policies of the police dept. in question. Can you provide a link to the department documentation?

The guy was on the ground, unarmed, no indications of violence and restrained by about 6 officers.

I think the video shows otherwise. The gentleman was clearly resisting arrest and refused to place his arms behind his back so he could be cuffed. More importantly, assuming he was still resisting arrest after being cuffed, exactly how do you propose the police move him to the squad car? Do they then hog-tie him and carry him? My guess is that goes against officer safety policies, and my bet is that you'd be up in arms about that, too.

Meh. This will all play out in court. The guy has an arraignment date, and I'll bet you $20 he's convicted of at least disturbing the peace.

Re:Here's a video of the whole thing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm not sure where you read this. I haven't seen any paper on the internal policies of the police dept. in question. Can you provide a link to the department documentation? Not got the time to dig that up for you. You are the one who seems to think that use of a lethal weapon is OK.

The gentleman was clearly resisting arrest and refused to place his arms behind his back so he could be cuffed. More importantly, assuming he was still resisting arrest after being cuffed, exactly how do you propose the police move him to the squad car? 1) Resisting does not mean violence. He was not even close to being violent.
2) How do you think police moved resisting people before tasers? Do you think that tasing people is so common that it is used every time someone in handcuffs squirms around and won't stand up?

Re:Here's a video of the whole thing

[sholden]

2) How do you think police moved resisting people before tasers?

They hit them with their night sticks until they ceased resisting. And then carried them out, dropping them to beat them some more if they resisted again in the process.

Re:Here's a video of the whole thing

[lysse]

once they wrestle this guy to the ground (after about a minute of his resisting arrest) they tell him numerous times that if he doesn't place his hands behind his back and comply with the officers' requests that he's going to be tased

s/tased/executed/ - still ok?

Re:Here's a video of the whole thing

[r2rknot]

I think you based how valid this act is on what the speaker is saying. So long as his speach was not of the 'unprotected' type (think cursewords) he could say about anything he wanted. In fact, turning off the mic and arresting him, BECAUSE of what he had to say is a direct volation of his first amendment rights. Not saying thats why they dragged him off. But in your post, you imply that was a good enough reason, which it is not. Police are to use the lowest level of force required. They cut the mic, waited a scant few seconds while he made a few backward steps to the Senator, made a grab at him. He raised his hands (universal signal of 'I am not a threat'), two people in uniforms grabed his arms and walked him about 15 feet before another came to assist. They go another 20 or so feet when another two came. They wrestle him to the ground. At one point in one video you can hear them asking him to stop resisting, to which he replies he will leave if they left him go. At that point, since he has shown no threat greater than refusing to leave the vicinity, they should have said OK and escorted him (hands off but close by) outside. Saying "If you don't stop, I will shoot you in the leg" would not be justicifation in shooting him in the leg if he did not comply, subsituting 'taser' for 'gun' changes nothing. The lowest level of force they truely needed was prehaps forceably turn him over, cuff him and carried him outside. Your post de-humanized the student in an attempt to make the actions used aginst him acceptable. They are not.

Re:Here's a video of the whole thing

[horza]

they tell him numerous times that if he doesn't place his hands behind his back and comply with the officers' requests that he's going to be tased

Are you for real? A taser is a potentially lethal device that is to be used to protect an officer or member(s) of the public from immediate danger. Torture by electrocution shouldn't be used to "teach someone a lesson". You cannot threaten someone with something that you have no right to do. I'd like to carry around a cattle prod with me, and jab every person that gets in my way or annoys me, but I don't as we have rules in place that I believe enables us to best function as a civilised society.

Phillip.

Re:Here's a video of the whole thing

[antibryce]

What's nuts is that the police incident reports mention that when cameras weren't present the guy was calm and even apologized at one point.

If you watch that video when he is taken downstairs you can see a bit of this. He stops yelling until the camerawoman catches up and he sees her. Also note that the camera for that video was his, and he gave it to the girl holding it asking her to tape him asking questions.

So he may not be nuts in the way he appears, but he's clearly nuts in how much attention he seems to have wanted.

Re:Here's a video of the whole thing

[supadupa]

i agree to what fluxad said. The situtation escalated because of the students behavoiur towards the officers!

Standard Procedures For Jew Execution?

[irritating environme]

Godwin's time - Execution of Jew Authorization:

1. Determine that prisoner is Jew
2. Determine if Jew is still worthwhile for forced labor
3. Determine if Jew is attractive enough for rape
4. Determine if new shipment of Jews is coming in and room needs to be made
5. Determine if Jew will make a delicious stew
6. If Ammunition is Low, Kill Jew with Bayonet or strangling
7. Otherwise, use low-caliber ammunition at close range. Try to kill multiple jews with single shot to conserve ammo

Just because it's a regulation doesn't make it right.

Re:So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question

[jagdish]

He just keeps rambling on and doesn't even wait for Kerry to respond.
According to that logic, Mr Ten Questions be tasered multiple times.

Re:That's what they tried at first! WTFV!

[synthespian]

I find it odd that, these days, US Americans argue the technicalities of everything political, often missing the entire point (such as: were there any weapons of mass destruction?). In this case, the point would be: he was arrested precisely because of what? Because he was overtime?

Since when police men mediate college debates in the U.S. telling people their time is up? Since 9-11? This is fucking laughable...My God, people, you are really confortable with a police state, aren't you? I'm actually used to a civilian with a microphone saying somebody's time is up.

Fortunately, the US institutional design was the work of enlightened men and such an abuse typically will have its right unfolding in terms of consequences (like the guy suing whoever is reponsible for a hefty sum). But, oh my, how confortable the US police is about arresting the ordinary citizen.

a Taser is a weapon

[TRRosen]

a Taser is a weapon and a weapon should only be used in response to a threat.

Resisting and being loud and annoying are not threats. Police had the guy outnumbered 5-1, he had no weapons and dude....that one big cop could have picked him up and tossed him out the door by himself.

Police today are using the Taser as a work saver. Has the world really gotten to the point where its ok as long as they don't kill him.

By the way have you noticed in all these incidents its allways the little cop with the Napoleon complex thats using the taser

Re:a Taser is a weapon

[jjohnson]

This was a textbook application of escalating levels of force, with the tazer near the top. Notice that it took two full minutes of the student struggling with all his strength before they even threatened to use the tazer. At that point, yes, the tazer is a work saver, saving the hospital the work of fixing his (and the cops) bruises, scrapes, dislocated shoulders, and torn ligaments.

As someone else posted above, get four friends and try to cuff a fifth who's fighting with all his strength to not get cuffed, and then carry him 100 yards. I think you'll find that tazering saves everyone a lot of grief. It looks ugly and dramatic, but it's actually a lot safer and quicker for everyone involved.

Re:a Taser is a weapon

[deets]

This to the family of the man that was choked to death by police when resisting arrest. They could not taser him, so they killed him.
I bet the next time someone tells this asshole they are going to taser him he will listen.

Re:a Taser is a weapon

[Apotsy]

Has the world really gotten to the point where its ok as long as they don't kill him.

I guarantee you there is a frightening percentage of people who would have found it okay even if they had killed him.

Re:a Taser is a weapon

[Robb]

I agree, it took quite a while until they got to the taser. The young man in question easily could have avoided the situation. When dealing with security they are trained to not back down so once they have made a decision you no longer have any options but to obey or they will make you obey. If they don't then they aren't actually much good as security. I'm sure it could have been handled better but once it started escalating and the man in question resisted and continued to resist the end was inevitable. Had he chosen to be taken away quietly he may have gotten his question answered since Kerry didn't seem to have a problem with it. However, physically resisting security is pretty dumb.

I wonder whose sentence is longer?

[snsh]

Which will be longer, this guy's sentence in jail, or Kerry's sentence in response to the question?

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[Hubbell]

So if a guy is waving a gun around pointing it at people and the cops have their guns drawn, and he says "if you put your guns down I'll put mine down" they should just do it? I'm sorry, you don't tell the cops how the situation is gonna go, they tell you.

Re:That's what they tried at first! WTFV!

[Lurker2288]

To the contrary, before Tasers were available, if a suspect was struggling, chances are pretty good the official police response was to beat him senseless.

The thing about Tasering is that it's a bit less nuanced than good ol' whuppin.' For example, a cop who is striking you with his fist can decide how hard to punch, where to hit you, whether to hit you multiple times, etc. A less resistant subject might only need a quick sock, or an arm bar, in order to be controlled; a more resistant subject might get beaten pretty badly with a night stick. The Taser, on the other hand, is usually pretty definitive. You get zapped, you stop struggling (usually).

So, are Tasers better than more physical means of controlling suspects? Depends. No doubt there are police agencies studying this even now.

Appropriate use

[hotsauce]

If an offier tazers a person more than 3 times without good cause needs to be fired and blackballed

If an officer tazers a person one time without good cause, he needs to be blackballed. A tazer is the equivalent of punching someone in the face, hard. It is an assault.

Sadly, even /. is full of Americans cheering on the use of police violence. And more of these supposedly non-lethal tools simply give the police more powers of assault. I've seen non-violent protesters pepper-sprayed several times. Without the pepper-spray, all the cop would have been able to do was arrest them. But they knew that wouldn't stick. Now they have a new power. And it doesn't look as bad as 12 cops with batons beating a guy on the ground.

Scientific Conferences

[ceoyoyo]

I am DEFINITELY going to recommend that we have one of those guys with tasers at the next conference and make one a permanent fixture in the department seminar series. Go over your presentation time? Zzzzzapppp!

Re:Technology (Taser) is the solution for everythi

[Johnny5000]

When various of your joints are locked to the verge of damage, you are going to cooperate. Haven't you ever watched UFC?

I've watched it and participated in mixed martial arts.
There's not a lot of aikido used in UFC.

Most aikido training doesn't include fighting against someone who is trying to injure you, which is where the problem lies.
All too often, the uke in aikido training is cooperative,
to the detriment of the practitioner.

That's not to say that aikido is completely without value, but for grappling, something like Brazilian jujutsu generally has more effective training techniques.

Re:That's what they tried at first! WTFV!

[Valdrax]

I call BS. Are you telling me that six officers, having gone through training on how to subdue subjects via various means (bending hand forward, twisting arm behind and so on), can't overcome one person for the three seconds that are needed to cuff him? If that's the case then I can see why they used a taser.

I posted elsewhere about this. It's pretty clear that he was still unrestrained and struggling when they tasered him if you watch closely enough.

As for your second paragraph, I again state that it's better than hitting him with a baton. A taser directly incapacitates the muscles without causing any permanent damage in the vast majority of cases.

Re:A safe means of preventing violent resistance i

[Scrameustache]

His mike had been cut-off, and he continued to yell. Just because Kerry was answering does not mean that he wasn't causing a disturbance. Who decides what constitutes a disturbance? He was talking to someone who wanted to reply to him, and enforcers tried to physically remove him from the discussion by force.

Under the authority of what law, precisely, were they acting? What gives them the right to pick him up and move him out of the public debate in which he was engaged? Some invisible authority decided they didn't like his questions, and therefore he's causing a disturbance? What the hell?

The story *is* about the kid. He forced it.

[nick_davison]

what is in question is the fact that six officers felt threatened enough to justify electrocuting him He was made verbally aware that his self-important diatribe wasn't going to be allowed to continue but he revelled in pushing the issue.

He can be seen physically struggling, flailing all over the place, long after they initially try to remove him.

He can be heard being repeatedly warned to stop resisting arrest or face being tasered.

He can be heard acknowledging the threat of the taser - it's not like he was surprised with it - and continues apparently getting his rocks off at being a poor, abused protester.

Every single step of the way, he did his utmost to try and act like a martyr, to try and force the situation to the next level of confrontation. He was consistently warned of what the consequences would be if he continued to escalate things to the next level and, every time, he chose to do so as part of his self important crusade.

Yes, there were six officers trying to restrain him - and they tried purely physical force for quite some time. The reality however is that you can't fit all that many people around one person, they get in each other's way, someone who's resisting will leverage any moment where a grip's temporarily eased to flail back out. There comes a point where, after giving multiple warnings, the next level of restraint becomes appropriate.

If you look at him jumping around and all the rest of it, what would have happened had he leapt in to the seating, fallen, and broken a bone, gouged his eye on the corner of a seat, broken the neck of a girl he landed on? At that point, everyone would have been bitching that not enough force was used in restraining him, allowing the situation to get even further out of hand.

All things considered, he was a little bitch who was determined to make things as dramatic as possible. He was given repeated warnings about how each level would get worse for him and he chose to go there anyway. They did what they could to restrain him with the minumum of force (first verbal, then physical, finally electrical, never with a firearm) and only escalated as he refused to respond to both the current level and the threat of the next level.

I'm normally the first liberal to complain about brutality - but he deliberately chose that path. They acted with restraint, only elevating as he forced the situation.

Re:The story *is* about the kid. He forced it.

[Random832]

Yes, that much effort was required to restrain him. The real question is, what was he doing that was so bad such that it was worth that much effort to restrain him. If all someone is doing is talking, rather than, say, physically threatening the senator, then it's morally better to just let them do their thing rather than turn it into a violent physical confrontation. What if, due to the police's actions, the incident had turned into a riot?

Re:The story *is* about the kid. He forced it.

[Mr Jazzizle]

I think this is where the real story should be -- I can understand plenty of college liberals being predetermined to resist arrest, but why was he being arrested? Was his commentary and continued questions that terrible that police would chose to step in and physically restrain him?

This doesn't belong on Slashdot

[schwit1]

This is not DIGG!

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Obfuscant]

Tasers are usually issued to law enforcement with the strict instruction that they should never use it if they wouldn't use a gun in the same situation.

What? In both the city and county where I live, officers are not authorized to carry a taser until they've been through a taser class, which includes them being shot with a taser themselves. I doubt that anyone who is shooting classmates with a taser has been told that they shouldn't do it unless they would use a gun in the same situation.

Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[Zapped.Info]

If I didn't know better I'd say you're a part of somebody's propiganda machine. This was a POLITICAL rally! Was it not? The microphone shouldn't have needed to be "wrestled" away from him. There is this thing called an off switch? Ever heard of it? Cooler heads could have prevailed, but clearly only the brainless were present. What should have happened: There should have been a moderator or director. The moderator should be able to kill anyone's mic based soley on the rules of the Q&A. Microphone goes dead, nobody can hear student. (of course he'll still be yelling, but that is HIS RIGHT in this country) Kerry could have then responded to the issues presented and the moderator could simply turn up his microphone to drown out the yelling protestor. When Kerry was done answering the question, go on to the next question...IF by some reason there was NOT another microphone, then simply invite the new questioner up on stage to use Kerry's mic...hindsight 20/20, but our leaders are supposed to have foresight! IMHO everyone there was brainless...I don't think you'd run into this sort of thing at a Libertarian rally...at least they think for themselves.

Re:Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[fluxrad]

Oh come off it. First off, you don't know better. Maybe I am part of someone's propaganda machine. Second of all, this is really clear cut. The guy was disruptive, the police tried to escort him out peacefully, he refused, so the level of force against him escallated. How should things have gone? Easy. He should have left when the police asked him too and then immediately filed a civil suit against the police for violation of his first amendment rights.

Of course I don't really think any of his rights were violated. He was pretty clearly disturbing the peace. My guess is that, had he been compliant and left when the officers asked him to leave he would have been ticketed at worst. He could have then fought the ticket and the police dept. in court (this being a nation of laws and all that). So you can talk about cooler heads prevailing, but that's exactly what the guy should have been thinking about. Resisting an officer's directives, even if you believe them to be in the wrong, is a quick way to get your ass hauled off to jail - and rightly so. It bears repeating: this is a nation of laws, and the court system - not forcefully resisting a police officer - is the correct way to redress grievances.

This is where you can reply that the court system is like, corrupt, man!

Re:Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[Zapped.Info]

Ok...so where do YOU draw the line? What good is "Free Speech" if an officers is alway there to DIRECT YOU to shut-up? Ok...So you comply...you get a "Ticket," you go to court, but you probably don't know that you have the right to a jury trial, because you can't afford and attorney and you're found guilty for some type of trumped up misdemeanor and all for what? Because you spoke your mind in a public forum? Predicating your questions? Again I ask YOU. Where do YOU draw the line? At what point do YOU decide to fight back? Or perhaps you fall into one of the aforementioned categories. Seriously...answer the question...WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE!?!?

Re:Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[deets]

His right?
So If I stop on the sidewalk (public land) in front of your house and start yelling, with or without a PA, that is my right? No matter how much it bothers you and anyone else, you will just sit there and say "Oh gosh, look at that guy excerising his rights! Good for him!"
I really doubt that. Also, I can come to your place of work and just start screaming questions at people and there is nothing anyone can do, because it is my right?

Re:Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[fluxrad]

Where do I draw the line at what? Violence?

Generally my line of thinking is that, if a federal law were passed tomorrow and was upheld by SCOTUS outlawing all firearms, I would probably begin to procure as many said firearms as I could. Absent that, and given my studies and beliefs on political science (re: Locke, Hume, et al), I would work within the framework of the U.S. legal system. As I've said, we are a nation of laws - no man is larger than that (insert your obligatory Bush jab here).

but you probably don't know that you have the right to a jury trial, because you can't afford and [sic] attorney...

You do realize that, if police intend to question you at all, they are required to read you your "Miranda" rights. One of the rights they read you says, "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you." Though I should also note here that, for many petty offenses, you actually don't have the right to a jury trial (many traffic tickets are an example). The laws vary from state to state.

Also, I think someone forgot to tell you that the freedom of speech is not unlimited (see: incitement, disturbing the peace, hate speech, etc.)
 

Re:Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[n6kuy]

> ... you go to court, but you probably don't know that you have the right to a jury trial...

What? How do be educated enough to get into a university and not know this?
I know public school education is pretty awful these days, but come on...

Re:Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[Zapped.Info]

We are a nation of laws, written by special interest groups and corporations. The laws written are usually designed to do one thing: Take away the rights of the people. When I ask, "Where do you draw the line?" What I am asking is... At what point of your freedoms being trampled, or in this case zapped, do you put up a fight? You infer that I don't know what I'm talking about in your opening statement. Perhaps I don't know the law as I should, but that is because the law has become such a complete perversion of what is was meant to be: FOR THE PEOPLE. Am I condoning anarcy? NO! Am I suggesting super-radical solutions YES! Here's an idea...Let's erase every law from the books and refer to it as Old-Law and start over with New-Law and judges that know how to turn on a computer: This time actually abiding by the U.S. Constitution, when we create those laws. You should know that any law written that countermans the Constitution, is NOT a law. The only reason I must obey illegal laws (how's that for double think) is because of the tazers and death-rays, poised at my back. This student, almost a child, should not bear the burden of being all knowing: That is why he's in school! Teaching students their political boundaries with tasers is absurd! I'm sure this could have been handled WORSE, but not by much. Using MOB tactics to control students, in a supposed "Higher Education" setting...BRILLIANT!

Re:Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[Zapped.Info]

Your argument is pointless and has no foundation. Every example you mention is not a OPEN venue, as this was, for expressing political opinion via Q&A. It seems to me you are arguing simply to argue. Your comment doesn't even justify a response, but you got one, so be happy with it and stop by your local army recruiter's office: They'd love to have you on staff: Given your ability to reason on such a logical level.

Re:Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[Zapped.Info]

Well, let's see...There's a Senator in the news who was bullied/tricked into pleading guilty to lewd conduct charges because he was told it, "would go away." How educated is he? So my guess is, a nervous student, worried about his record, is probably going to go with the flow and that usually amounts to a plea of guilty.

Re:Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[deets]

I don't think this was an "open" venue. He was asked to leave and did not.

Re:Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[rhizome]

Second of all, this is really clear cut. The guy was disruptive, the police tried to escort him out peacefully, he refused, so the level of force against him escallated. How should things have gone? Easy. He should have left when the police asked him too and then immediately filed a civil suit against the police for violation of his first amendment rights.

Well, how about they let the guy finish his question like Kerry wanted? I think it's important to note that there was a point after which the police were out of control, cutting themselves off from outside influence.

Re:Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[Scudsucker]

Second of all, this is really clear cut.

A clear cut case of police overreaction followed by brutality, yes.

The guy was disruptive, the police tried to escort him out peacefully, he refused, so the level of force against him escallated.

Excitedly, but orderly, exercising your free speech rights is not justification for law enforcement officers to drag you away from a microphone.

He was pretty clearly disturbing the peace.

What's clear is you need to watch the video again. Kerry offered to answer his question.

Re:Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[LostInTaiwan]

Generally my line of thinking is that, if a federal law were passed tomorrow and was upheld by SCOTUS outlawing all firearms, I would probably begin to procure as many said firearms as I could.
Pure macho fantasy. All of the gun owners who stands up to the US government are either dead or in jail so don't tell us about how you will stand up for your rights when they take away all the firearms. Why not start earlier, before they restrict you down to that unassembled 28" 20 gauge shotgun, locked in the police station. I love my firearms and they will probably work well again street thugs but in a democracy I rather stick to voting and non violent protests. You think it's okay for you to disobey SCOTUS regarding firearms, but it's not okay for someone to speak up and push the boundaries of free speech? You do know that without free speech your firearms are pretty much useless you like suicides or prisons or just chaos. . . . Just a reminder, the UCLA police officers who was trigger happy with his taser got away with it. . . . . I hope this UF incident will have a different outcome.

Re:Brainless mob, led by spineless idiot.

[Zapped.Info]

I suspect he was asked to leave at the discretion of the police officers. I doubt they were commanded. I believe they acted on their own accord, asking him to leave and had no authority to do so. Given it was private property and the student was not asked to leave by a proprietor, he was under no obligation to take orders from the police, unless a staff member of the University asked him to leave, first and or instructed the police to escort him out. I think we'll find that wasn't the case and that the police acted on their own accord, outside of the scope of their job. We'll see what happens when all the electrical smoke clears.

Re:Democrats and brutality

[djasbestos]

Pffft, seen what happens to dissidents when the President is there? Whisked away. "Loyalty Oaths", etc.

Perhaps not "Republicans", but I tend to shy away from partisanship. Both parties do it, and both are scumbags for it. I think this case, however, was more of an over zealous police problem than a democrats-keeping-you-down problem.

Re:What are you guys watching? He was not deservin

[stewbacca]

Ooh ooh, I can answer question #2 for the kid.

Question #2: Why not impeach Bush before he invades Iran, since Bill Clinton was impeached over a blowjob?

Because invading Iran is looking more like it will be the prudent thing to do in light of the current situation, and infidelity is not a characteristic deemed worthy for the position of President of the United States.

Then I would have tased the kid for such stupid questions anyway.

Re:Roll over on your rights.

[E 99]

Do you still have the freedom to speak if someone tells you to "SHUT UP!"? - What if the government tells you "SHUT UP! thats not "allowed here." The answer is you only have the rights you are willing to fight for. You only have the freedom if you say "NO, I WILL NOT SHUT UP!" - and nobody stands up for their rights anymore because THIS is what happens to them.

If that was the kind of society we lived in, then only the loudest, most obnoxious people would ever get to be heard. Fortunately, it is not, and we can have forums with rules, where people can take turns speaking, and those who want to disrupt them can be removed.

Luckily UF

[brjndr]

I'm glad this shit didn't happen at Berkeley.

As an alum I can only imagine the fucking chaos this would have created.

I've heard a speaker at Berkeley say it's not an real speech there unless it get interrupted by a shouting protester.

I've heard it's required to validate the speakers parking.

He has no case.

[Valdrax]

Since when police men mediate college debates in the U.S. telling people their time is up? Since 9-11? This is fucking laughable...My God, people, you are really confortable with a police state, aren't you? I'm actually used to a civilian with a microphone saying somebody's time is up.

They did; they cut his mike as anyone who watched the videos would know. The man refused to cooperate and kept yelling. Now what?

Fortunately, the US institutional design was the work of enlightened men and such an abuse typically will have its right unfolding in terms of consequences (like the guy suing whoever is reponsible for a hefty sum).

The man has absolutely no case. He was violently resisting arrest, and the police followed proper procedures for escalating the use of force without skipping over any steps. They attempted to remove him without cuffing him, they attempted to cuff him by physically restraining him when that didn't work, and then they tasered him after ample warning when physical restraint wasn't working.

The arrest was by the book, and it's easily seen that he wasn't tasered until it became necessary. I doubt that a jury would convict the officers once the laws were laid out before them, and the officers would mostly likely win an appeal if they were convicted. I'd hate to be his attorney; he's completely screwed based on the ample video evidence of his crimes.

Good idea...

[tm2b]

I'm betting that most of the people commenting against this haven't been to Gainesville, FL.

If they can taser one UF student, why can't they taser them all?

Re:If you think this kid deserved to get tasered .

[stewbacca]

If my kid turns out to be the shitbag this guy is, then I hope I kill myself first.

His crime: being rude to government.

[k1e0x]

Too true, His crime was "being rude".

"This guy is yet another symptom of a class of Americans that have an entitlement complex and no sense of what is socially acceptable behavior. " Here in America we enforce "socially acceptable behavior" with force by non-lethal, but extremely painful weapons?! Why not just beat them with billy clubs its the same damm effect?

It's just sick how people think anymore, this country is doomed not because of government officials.. its doomed because the people haven't a clue what a right means anymore.

Re:Democrats and brutality

[TomorrowPlusX]

My mistake! I assumed you were one of Slashdot's conservative horde. I apologize.

Idiot defenders of the status quo

[mabu]

I just want to point something out. The guy may have been rude, but he didn't deserve the treatment he got.

You people that think he did. You are wrong. You are part of the problem. Would you have said Rosa Parks deserved what she got because she should have moved to the back of the bus?

The ability to speak out in our society is a sacred right, and whenever there's any "gray area" the end result should always bow in favor of freedom, not decorum or lawfulness. Those of you who disagree are clearly and simply misguided. And of course, the irony is people who don't think anything was done wrong here will be the first ones to whine like a baby, even worse than this guy, when their personal rights are infringed, perhaps by a draft, and at that time, it will be too late because idiot defenders of the status quo will have belittled earlier activists who were looking out for their interests. Wake up.

Re:Idiot defenders of the status quo

[jjohnson]

You're wrong. This was a textbook case of the proper application of escalating levels of force, giving him every opportunity to comply and stop the escalation. As for his right to be there, he had a right to use the mic for a limited time, which he did. He then didn't relinquish the mic long after the organizers and crowd had lost patience with him (notice how they applauded when the police started the removal)?

This isn't a free speech issue. My right to free speech doesn't permit me to disrupt your event.

Re:Idiot defenders of the status quo

[mabu]

The guy wasn't at a state department dinner.

He was at a forum where people ask politicians questions.

You can't find a forum of this nature where people don't go over time.

In any case, getting arrested is way over the top. Trying someone's patience is not against the law, otherwise in this case, you would be arrested.

Re:Idiot defenders of the status quo

[jjohnson]

He didn't go over time, he went so far over time that the organizers cut his mike and asked him to leave. He refused and continued yelling, which triggered the forcible removal.

At any time up to and including that, he could have simply left and avoided arrest. The cops would have walked him out and he'd have been free to go his way. It was when he struggled mightily against his forcible removal that he earned an arrest.

Re:Idiot defenders of the status quo

[Zed2K]

Except they didn't give him a chance to leave on his own. The organizers cut his mike and then boom he has goons trying to pick him up and carry him off. Constantly he says that he will leave just let him leave but they never once give him a chance. It goes from force to piling on with numerous rent-a-cops to taser. This kid needs to get a lawyer and defend his rights which were clearly violated.

What is the point of a Q/A session with a politician if the only questions allowed are just like everything else that they answer? That is not called a debate, thats a press conference. No wonder people don't vote and are totally fed up with all our officials.

Re:Idiot defenders of the status quo

[jjohnson]

They gave him lots of chances to "just leave", before they cut his mic, after they cut his mic, and before they walked him out. Hell, even as they were walking him out, he could have just gone along willingly. He didn't start saying "I'll leave" until they had him on the ground and cuffed, at which point he was saying "let me go and I'll leave." (at which point he was struggling to escape) Sorry, but when you've escalated the situation to the point where the cops have subdued and cuffed you, you're guilty of resisting arrest and you're going to the station. You can't back out at that point by promising to be co-operative.

It may seem like his rights were violated because you're reacting to the drama of the tazering, but what the cops did was textbook and they won't get into any trouble.

Re:Idiot defenders of the status quo

[mabu]

You're obviously not watching the same video that we are.

After they shut his mic off, he is not allowed to leave. Police are there grabbing ahold of him. Even as Kerry clearly tells him to stay there so he can answer his question. That's way out of line.

Re:Idiot defenders of the status quo

[jjohnson]

You're seeing what you want to see. When the police grab him, it's for the purpose of walking him out, which he could have done. Instead, he walks ten feet, and then lunges back to the microphone.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[bjorniac]

I do NOT have to follow orders from a police officer at all times. I have to do so in certain situations, traffic is one of them. But if I'm walking along a street and a cop says "Stand there for ten minutes" without any reason, I do NOT have to obey him. The police ONLY get to order me around in VERY SPECIFIC situations. And they have NO right to arrest me when I've done nothing illegal.

Try this...

[sig226]

For those who think it's easy to control a ranting idiot:
Get 5 of your friends, choose a reasonably healthy male of about the
same size as the guy in the video and try to politely put cuffs on him
with him resisting:
The rules,
  you cannot bruise him or hurt him in any way.
  and he can do whatever he wants short of throwing a punch.

I think if you do this you'll find a new found respect for the
police officers.

Re:Try this...

[darkwhite]

You don't have much training in self-defense or lock techniques, do you?

Let's just say that it's absolutely possible to restrain an untrained person one-on-one in the situation you describe without any strikes or kicks. Moreover, you can usually do it in no less than five different ways.

And I have no respect for police officers who are too lazy to remember and apply proper techniques when they outnumber a subject FIVE TO ONE, choosing to use a taser instead. In fact I have nothing but disgust for them, and I think they should serve jail time for their actions.

Wrong Forum

[deets]

Didn't he know Kerry is a Democrat? Everyone knows you're only allow to disrupt Repulicians and get cheered/praised. What a fool!

University's statement

[Ron Harwood]

http://insideuf.ufl.edu/2007/09/18/prez-statement/

"Two officers involved in the incident have been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation."

Re:Roll over on your rights.

[k1e0x]

But can they be arrested for committing a crime? What crime?

Can they be tazed?

If they don't shut up.. can they be shot?

To what end will we go?

Government has no right to silence this man ever, only the property owner can remove him, (and for any reason) and if that owner is the state.. then he is allowed to speak. "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech."

NO LAW means NO LAW. Period.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[2names]

I watched the video. Here is what I saw:

• Kid goes up to mic
• kid tries to give (somewhat lengthy and preachy) background info on upcoming question
• kid finally gets to his question
• cops start grabbing kid
• speaker (Sen. Kerry) says he will answer the question
• kid LAWFULLY resists cops (it is not illegal to be annoying)
• cops go into Nazi mode
• kid gets tasered

Did I miss anything?

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[forkazoo]

I just had the perfect idea for future debates. Ask a question within 30 seconds. If it isn't a valid question, you get shot with a taser. If the person debating evades the question or doesn't actually answer the question, that person gets hit. It would bring life and ratings back to US political debates.

You know, I think this event is an abuse of power, and excessive force. But, if everybody in the debate knew what they had agreed to, I would have absolutely no problem watching the debates just as you suggest. Can we also do something to candidates who use logical fallacies during a debate, or outright lie. Maybe arm a bunch of historians and skilled debate referees with paint guns in the front row. You would get an on-person score card for honesty while you watch them talk.

Re:What are you guys watching? He was not deservin

[teknopurge]

Your account is wrong and taken out of context. You are missing the part where he bullied his way in front of the mic. He was tased becuase he would not comply and allow the officers to cuff him.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[JimDaGeek]

You are trying to justify the actions of the "officers" after the fact. The fact being, is that the guy was being removed for asking a question that someone didn't like. What happened to free speech? This was a public setting, it wasn't invite only.

Basically this guy asked a question, then one of the cops grabs his arm and tries to remove him. That is what caused the guy to get upset. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be a sheep that does whatever a cops says. Another problem is that there are 10's of thousands of laws on the books. BS laws that the cops can use to justify their actions in almost any situation.

Disturbing the peace? What kind of BS law is that. That law is too wide-open and can be applied to almost any situation. This guy was being peaceful until cop(s) started to remove him. I watched the video too, and did not see the guy do anything wrong prior to the cops trying to remove him for exercising free speech. Again, it wasn't until the cops tried to forcefully remove the guy by grabbing his arm and pushing him toward the exit that he reacted.

I will say that I think once there were a bunch of cops pushing and grabbing him, he should have just allowed them to handcuff him and then he could have sorted it out later with an attorney.

Re:Partial trascript of the guy after he's tasered

[E 99]

This is some of what he said after being tasered. Someone modded this "troll" so I'm reposting it.

There are people that know I'm here. You can't... you can't... kill me.
Oh my God, you're giving me to the government. They're giving me to the government! They're giving me to the government!
Everyone who was here today, will you please go to the police station -- ask them, where's the guy who was arrested at the protest. Ask them where's the guy who was arrested today at the John Kerry rally. They're going to try to kill me. They're going to try to kill me.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Mr. Slippery]

Are the cops supposed to wait until someone gets hurt?

No, they're supposed to wait until there is a clear and present danger of someone getting hurt. A man who has shown no signs of intent to violence and who is already restrained on the floor, is not a threat.

He was given plenty of chances to avoid the taser, he chose not to comply. Tough shit for him.

You know, you sound like the abusive husband who tells his buddies, "I gave her every chance, but the bitch wouldn't listen. Tough shit for her."

Re:Roll over on your rights.

[k1e0x]

I'll ask you.. Did it look like the property owner asked them man to leave? OR did the cop say your under arrest?

HELP! My 1st amendment rights are being abused!

[E 99]

In the parent post I state nothing but the simple fact that they arrested him for trying to incite a riot, and someone mods it "troll." WTF?! Police state! Police state!

7 Police Officers Can't Handcuff the Guy???

[chazard]

The guy looks about 190lbs and one of the officers basically carried him up the stairs, but somehow they couldn't handcuff him?? He also offered to walk out the door, but then they tackled him and with 7 people on him, decided to tazer him!!! Seems like a great example of abuse of force!! If the guy was armed, or was threatening them probably would have been justified, but he was asking them questions, getting no answers and then was tazered and tossed in jail. Makes people question the New Hampshire license plate slogan. C

Re:7 Police Officers Can't Handcuff the Guy???

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

The guy looks about 190lbs and one of the officers basically carried him up the stairs, but somehow they couldn't handcuff him??

The big cop is "bouncing" him along to the door - you can see him getting behind the screamer then start muscling him to the back where there's room - but all you have to do to bounce someone is have a good torso grip and be big. Getting arms under control is not as easy.

Re:Strike Three

[Scrameustache]

Did the police even tell him what he was being taken away for? If not, isn't that a violation of his rights? If you are being arrested/detained, don't you have the absolute, irrefutable right to be told what's going on? "Inciting a riot"

Court records show that Meyer was booked on a felony charge of resisting an officer and a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace. That's not what the officers told Meyer after he was shocked and taken into custody. "You're under arrest for inciting a riot," a female police officer said at the time.

Why the qualifier?

[stewbacca]

You are an asshole if you can't see that.

You should have stopped after "asshole".

Re:Why the qualifier?

[DaveV1.0]

Because if he can see that, then he is just a troll.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[JimDaGeek]

...and poses no threat

Am I the only one that has a problem with this mentality? Cops are now trained to think of everyone as a possible threat. What BS. That basically translates to all citizens are threats and need to be handled in a much more forceful manner than needed.

In the video, the guy did not appear to be a physical threat at all up until the police started to grab him and push him towards the exit. In this situation, it was the cops that caused the potential for a dangerous situation. Most humans do not like to be grabbed at and pushed around for no reason, and especially for doing something as non-threating as just asking a question like this guy was doing.

Re:No, wait- really?

[WheelDweller]

Then you might have missed the part where, despite his cries for mercy (being the decades-old protester that Kerry is) he merely kept on prattling while this guy was being given the business. His message is important; the rough handling of a peon, is not.

Kerry is a man with no ideas. I seriously don't know why anyone would trust him with the simplest of tasks, much less take him seriously in a presidential bid.

"The Christmas of 1968 in DaNang is burned into my memory..." while in his book, Winter Soldier, he clearly didn't MAKE IT to DaNang for Christmas. That is, if you can FIND a copy- he's legally yanked all the copies off the shelf before the election. The guy's a professional boob. And the problem is that a great number of these people are either running our government, or trying to. Bob Dole, anyone? "WhichaWay" McCain? You see what I mean.

These people are good at one thing: getting elected. How could we think they're any good at running a single hospital, much less an entire nation's healthcare, when they don't *know* what nurses do, even. Hillary, for example, spent a day in a hospital "learning just what it is nurses do." John Edwards, though, is good a suing them!

I'm not making this up; this stupidity is rampant in American politics. We need term limits. 20 years lifetime for any elected position, in any combination.

Or, we'll keep having stupid laws and repressive federal laws, and geezers like Byrd fumbling with papers and spouting his dementia. "pretty...pretty...pretty". I wouldn't trust him to hold a DOOR for me, much less run a state or country....yet, he keeps getting elected.

Why then, when we distrust the government so much ($600 toilet seats, security breaches, etc) why would we knowingly hand over what might be our last freedoms for health care?

Wake up!

How would you rather it be?

[Valdrax]

Who decides what constitutes a disturbance?

The courts decide. If what he did did not constitute a disturbance, then he will be set free on those charges. Ultimately, Florida's statutes, its courts, and federal courts set those rules. Whether refusing to follow the rules of a debate and attempting to hijack it counts or not is up to them to ultimately decide.

However, officers have the discretion to arrest someone for what they suspect is a crime in statutes where the language is vague, and "public disturbance" is one of the single broadest catch-all charges -- broad enough that this person was by no means in a gray area. It was quite clear that the people running the debate felt that he was being disruptive by the fact that they turned off his mike and that he was preventing the public event from going forward.

The law has just as much interest in keeping public events from being disrupted as it does in preventing people from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

He was talking to someone who wanted to reply to him, and enforcers tried to physically remove him from the discussion by force.

Just because Kerry stated that "his question was important to answer" doesn't mean that he was engaging him specifically in a debate nor that he wanted to. Plus, what was Kerry supposed to do, just ignore all his questions? That would've looked like he was running away from a critic; he had no choice but to (at least sort of) answer his questions.

Does that really matter? Would you rather the rule be that he gets taken away as soon as Kerry decides he doesn't want to answer him (putting Kerry in the bind that he has to keep answering his questions until he's done or effectively be responsible for the man's arrest if he continues to ask more questions), or simply that he never get taken away no matter how obnoxious he becomes in breaking the rules of the forum?

Where do you think the balance of the law on a public disturbance should be?

Ditto on Garridan's citation request

[benhocking]

Oh, and yeah, he barged in without having (and paying for) a ticket in the first place, which was why security was there around him anyway.

I've seen no evidence for this claim.

Re:Ditto on Garridan's citation request

[Otto]

Watch the videos. Read the reports by people who were there. The police follow him in directly from the entrance, where he came in. He was not there for the speech at all, he was there to make a scene.

Re:Strike Three

[PopeRatzo]

Not just police mentality. The objection to any dissenting opinion starts at the White House and works its way down. Perhaps you heard about the Bush Administrations policy book on how to deal with any dissent, from holding a sign to wearing a t-shirt, that might occur when the President travels away from the safety of the White House. "Roving bands" of thugs are instructed to surround anyone wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt and use any tactic, up to and including force, to remove them from the audience. They are told to surround the dissenter so that the media doesn't see that there was anything but love for Dear Leader.

So a beat cop would probably think he's doing the right thing as soon as some college student suggests that the 2004 election was anything but a landslide for the Leader of the Free World, to pull out his handy non-lethal order-keeping handheld device and teaching the dirty hippie a lesson in civic obedience.

This is the way things work in our democracy. No wonder there is some resistance from the people of Iraq when Bush says we're going to "spread freedom" to their country.

I know we're all trying to make a living so we can pay for our credit cards and health insurance, but it might be high time for a little public resistance to this nonsense.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[dapho]

This is like coming up to an intersection where there's a cop car diverting traffic and you ignore him

Uhm, no, this is nothing like that. If you ignore a cop at an intersection in a big metal box then you ARE putting peoples lives at risk. You are actually causing a disturbance because you are failing to follow SAFETY restrictions, not SPEECH restrictions.

I don't know what half of you posters are even fucking thinking. Is this an early April Fools?

Scary

[jhRisk]

Some of your responses are as frightening as the rent-a-cops' actions themselves. Anyway, I believe the problem started when there was no "reasonable period of verbal instruction from the authoritative parties" asking that he leave the premises. They immediately resorted to physical violence after shutting off the mic by grabbing him that way and thus THEY escalated the matter from there. He MUST be verbally instructed to leave and given the opportunity to do so. I'm sorry but EVERY ONE OF YOU would be pissed if you did nothing wrong and were treated that way. Want to argue that he DID do something wrong? Fine. Then you'd be pissed if you were loitering or jaywalking (which is technically illegal) and was treated that way from the start.

Also scary... I wonder how many of you would have looked at this video COMPLETELY differently IF it was:

1. NOT a guy rather a girl... and how about an attractive girl?
2. NOT an annoying hyperactive person rather someone more even-tempered... and how about a soft-spoken person?
3. NOT presented in such a tabloid fashion rather substantive and less controversial... and how about if it was presented alongside another aid-like person carrying the book and other materials?

I wanted to provide a link to that minister who was tasered recently while attempting to participate/protest Petraeus' testimony to Congress but "taser" is such a hot topic I can't find it. Point is that it was a similar circumstance but because he was a "man of the cloth," older and somewhat soft-spoken it was an "outrage."

What that kid is and did makes him ANNOYING but not a THREAT. We may want to TAZE anything that's ANNOYING much like that which is a THREAT but it doesn't make it right and is quite scary to see "authority" fumbling with.

four dead in ohio

[mlwmohawk]

In the 60's the national guard fired bullets into a crowd of demonstrators.
In this century they beat you up and taser you.

Make no mistakes, the police are the jack booted thugs protecting the father^^^^^^homeland.

Anyone who says the police are in anyway justified in abusing this person deserves to live in fucking 1930's Nazi Germany. I apologize for the godwin-esque reference, but these are extreme times and the extreme descriptions fit.

Political rallies *ARE* emotionally charged. 6 guys in riot gear and tasers are not a civilized response to passionate speeches and hogging a microphone in a college political rally.

If we are not careful, our "free speech zones" will be the basements and closets that were necessary under Hitler and Stalin, if we have not reached that point already.

If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention.

There are restrictions to free speech? - BULLSHIT!

[k1e0x]

Yes, there are rightful restrictions to free speech There are not.

There is not such thing as a limited right the concept is impossible.

We believe in unalienable or intrinsic rights. These rights are not created by man and can not be surrendered. We believe that our rights come from the natural state of man (or from god). No King, Emperor, or even popular majority can "bestow" a right upon you with their magic scepter, thus they can not take them away with their magic "laws".

Man can not impose a limit on a natural right.. You have a right to speak. You don't have a right to be heard, you don't have a right to be in a building owned by others, you don't have the right to disturb people with your speech, but you absolutely have the right to ask your government a question in a public forum even if that question is silly without being ARRESTED by law enforcement. (They didn't even ask him to leave, they grabbed him and arrested him.)

A limited right is not a right as all because it implies that government can remove this right, and any government or group of men can not remove a right. (They can only infringe upon them and call their actions just.) Since they do not bestow them, they can not remove or limit them.

The comes down to the age old statement. "You don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater." - It's bullshit, you have EVERY right to yell fire in a crowded theater, and if there is a fire it may even be a good idea.. if there is not, then you are responsible for using your right in a dangerous way (such as when discharging a firearm.) If people get hurt you are responsible for that and they may indeed press legal charges against you.. but you will not be arrested for speaking.

There are NO restrictions on rights.. only the included responsibility to use them in a safe manner.

John Kerry's Response

[kozmonaut]

From Kerry's Blog: http://www.johnkerry.com/blog
JK: "A good healthy discussion was interrupted"
by Rick Albertson on September 18th, 2007

Senator Kerry made the following statement in response to the arrest of a student at the University of Florida:

        In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way.

        I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but again 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.

        I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of answering him when he was taken into custody.

        I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured.

        I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted.

Re:John Kerry's Response

[Maxo-Texas]

I find it intriguing that he does not answer one of the questions raised by the student.

This is the problem with debates and political q&a's today. You asked "Why did you vote for bill 1234" and they answer "I firmly believe in a happiness for everyone and strong families" which has nothing to do with the question.

Re:What are you guys watching? He was not deservin

[dapho]

What's even more frightening is how long it took them to come up with a plausible excuse for why he was being arrested. 'Inciting a riot', and that was a good ten minutes after they had initially arrested him for resisting arrest. If we're going to keep these policemen in employment, we'd better at least start looking for smarter ones. We may not have a balance of justice any better than we do now, but at least the cops will know what they're arresting people for.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[Belial6]

Let me add that the guy was given permission to behave that way. When the cops first started trying to escort him out of the building, Kerry clearly says "It's OK, let me answer the question." So, either Kerry should have been arrested for the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater", or the guy had a legitimate right to be there, and the police were committing an illegal act by removing him.

so what?

[m2943]

Does anyone have a better suggestion of what to do with someone causing a public disturbance other than just not bother trying to prevent it?

Yes: the police officers should only intervene when either there is a clear and present danger, or when asked to do so by the organizers (in which case the organizers have to assume responsibility for the actions).

The guy clearly was no danger to anybody: he had no weapon and he wasn't threatening anybody. He didn't seem insane or otherwise disturbed. He was speaking at a free discussion forum. And Kerry wanted to answer his question.

A political debate is not an opera or a movie theater, where it's clear that people can and should be removed if they spoil the enjoyment of the show by others. Political debates get heated and adversarial, and police must sit on their hands. If they can't tell the difference between a corporate event and a political debate, they have no business wearing the uniform.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[psykocrime]

The guy is a journalism student. He knew that his actions were going to get publicity. He knew what was going to happen if he acted out. Really, what was his motive???

What does that matter? It was excessive force, regardless of what his motive was.

Don't put words in my mouth

[benhocking]

I never said you said anything — how was I putting words in your mouth? It seems that you are inferring that I was inferring that you were inferring they asked him to leave — or at least that's what I'm inferring from your "Don't put words in my mouth" comment.

That said, regardless of your intent, the point remains that they didn't ask him to leave, so that particular argument is not relevant to this particular instance. Did the poster you responded to actually need to add "without being asked to leave" when he talked about the guy "attempting to communicate to an open forum, with invitation to the public", or could that not have been inferred from the context?

Re:keyword: annoying!

[PriceIke]

Kid LAWFULLY resists cops? Being annoying is one thing. Physically resisting being handled by cops is only going to get your ass kicked. The cops were doing their JOBS, up until the tasering happened.

Also, the kid was not giving a lengthy and preachy background on his question. He was there to give his own speech, and had hijacked the question mic to do it. He was very sensibly and calmly asked to leave and he refused, and then put up a fight while screaming and whining. What happened after that is not the result of some Nazi police state. HE was at fault for acting like some kind of vigilante martyr and escalating the situation into the ass-whooping that he wound up with.

The tasering of course will allow for him to sue, and probably win a nice chunk of change. All for being an asshole hopped up on drugs.

Or, as I like to put it

[Sycraft-fu]

"The right to freedom of speech does not imply the right to be heard."

You are free to spend all day, every day, screaming about how evil I am. However you are not free to do so in my living room. You are free to put up a website about what an asshole I am, however you are not free to take over my website and do it there. You have the right to express yourself, but that doesn't mean you have the right to disrupt other people.

And yes, the same does apply to public property. You have a right to be there, and a right to use it, but it has to be done in such a way as to not interfere with MY right to be there, and use it. That means that if me and my friends are having a rally you are free to attend, free to stage your own rally, but not free to try and push me off stage and take over. In a situation like this it means you are free to be there and get in line for questions, but not free to just take over and demand that you be allowed to set the whole agenda.

All rights have to be maintained in a balance simply because we can't have your rights infringing on mine or mine on yours. The idea that you should have an unlimited right is pretty much contradictory to a free society. Sure it is great for YOU if you can do whatever you want, but what about for the others that you trample on in exercising those rights?

In the case of freedom of speech it's pretty clear: You can speak all you like, and that means all forms of expression including making a website, publishing a book, making a video and so on, but you cannot force that speech on others. You can't force me to listen what you have to say, or force me to allow you to use my property to say it. To do so is to infringe on my rights.

Relax People, It's Not That Bad

[Eradicator2k3]

I can understand how many of you are feeling, but if you re-read the summary or the headline you'd see that it was, in fact, a University of Florida student that got tasered. What a relief!

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[fataugie]

No, they're supposed to wait until there is a clear and present danger of someone getting hurt. A man who has shown no signs of intent to violence and who is already restrained on the floor, is not a threat.


Was he or was he not resisting? If he wasn't resisting, he wouldn't have been on the ground. DO you think they tasered him just for the fun of it? To show off? If so, then why didn't they taser him once the cuffs were on?

That's pretty sad.

[sonoronos]

It seems to me that the idea here is that vocal, unruly, rebellious or obstinate students are the ones that pose the most threat to the student body, teachers, staff, and property. From an administrative perspective, I'm guessing that the Campus Police are being told to enforce and project an image of authority, mostly to prevent strange things from happening or people from disturbing the peace. I'm not sure if I'm willing to debate that issue, since oftentimes it's an incident-by-incident judgement call and ultimately the UFL will reap what it sows.

What I find really sad about this incident, however, is that it shows how ineffective the established campus protection system is at preventing real violence from happening. In the latest string of school shootings - Columbine, Heritage, Santana, Rocori, Red Lake, Platte Canyon, Weston, Henry Foss, and most recently VT - the simple fact of the matter is that violent crime was perpetrated suddenly and without warning. There was no "angry rant" before pulling out a weapon and killing someone. The violent confrontations are premeditated - these aren't "crimes of passion", so to speak.

It reminds of David Owen's New Yorker Article which talks about how large floodlights installed in unmonitored locations, designed originally to prevent crime, actually do nothing at night but making it easier for real criminals to see what they are doing. One arguably positive effect is that you prevent a lot of dorked-up but probably harmless people from loitering in an open parking lot. One big problem is that you also provide plenty of light for a gang of hardened criminals to bash a door lock, open a loading door, and steal as much as they can in as short an amount of time as possible.

The idea is that creating generic enforcement policies doesn't really prevent people who are truly intent on committing a crime from doing nefarious things. Tasering a protestor might be textbook law enforcement, but it still doesn't make me feel safer when I walk onto a college campus. In some ways, it makes me feel more unsettled.

Re:Technology (Taser) is the solution for everythi

[psykocrime]

When various of your joints are locked to the verge of damage, you are going to cooperate. Haven't you ever watched UFC?

There almost certainly is not a single high-level (or maybe even low-level) UFC level fighter whose base style is aikido. Aikido *might* be an effective style *if* they trained full-speed against resisting opponents like brazilian jiu-jitsu practitioners or wrestlers, but as it's commonly taught and trained, aikido is almost useless. Some of the "come along" holds are used by cops and bouncers to move drunks around, but that's about it.

Nobody helps the guy either

[Control-Z]

I think if the cops tried this around here they'd have the whole crowd to fight off. At least I hope so, you gotta wonder about sheeple these days.

I'd probably get arrested trying to help the guy.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[fataugie]

When he's asked to leave the mike after asking numerous questions and having his time run out, he was resisting, was he not? At that point, he starts to look more like a threat. Pushing for no reason? Did his time not run out and he was asked to leave? Did he not start to resist? Would you call that being pushed around for no reason?

I would agree with you if the cops started harrassing people in the crowd for no reason. Did you see the cops grab anyone standing there doing nothing?

Neither did I.

So I guess your argument is not really valid, is it?

Re:Strike Three

[Brian Gordon]

I'm sure the court can strike that down, but they can certainly arrest the guy for whatever they want. IMO the police went way over the line arresting the guy for taking too long, but it's true that he was acting pretty crazy and violent once they started to take him away and at that point it was certainly causing a disturbance.. it seemed like he was just waiting for the police to do something to totally flip out and overreact. It's a QA session, you can't just keep talking, he must have expected the police to do something and then act like it's police brutality.
It's horrifying though to see everyone sit there cooly watching the guy get tasered over and over. If they had all rushed the police the crowd could have helped him.. regardless of whether the police were doing the right thing, the crowd should have tried to save the guy.. this is frighteningly close to people being too afraid to do anything when their neighbors are dragged away by the gestapo, and the threat is clear in the video "stay in your seats or you'll be tasered and arrested too."

One thing I want to know?

[psykocrime]

What has happened to the back-bone of the American people? Look, if that shit, or the similar incident at UCLA, had gone down in the 1960's, you can get some cops would have gotten beat the fuck down.

Now, people just sit in their chairs, mind their business, and maybe - if they're really radical - film the incident so they can put it up on youtube. But where are the people willing to come to the aid of these people who are being abused by cops? Where the the American people with the balls / back-bone to physically intervene when someone is being punished for no reason?

How can people just sit back and watch this shit happen? When did our nation become nothing but passive sheep who blindly follow instructions and obey "the man" just because he's "the man?" This is pathetic, just pathetic.

Re:One thing I want to know?

[jjohnson]

Your blinkered politics prevents you from seeing another option: The people who were there, actually witnessing the whole thing (not just the youtube money shot that's got you all hotted up), thought that the cops were justified and properly restrained in their behavior, except insofar as Meyer continually escalated the situation by refusing to comply with what they all thought was lawful and appropriate behavior by the police.

Re:One thing I want to know?

[psykocrime]

No, asking the kid to step down from the microphone when he went over his time is fine, and I can't see anybody having a problem with that. But it was what happened afterwards that's the problem. They were doing a fine job of moving him out of the area, and there was no need whatsoever to throw him down on the ground, and even less need to taser him. He was outnumbered as it was, and did not appear to be armed with any sort of weapon.

What happened was a travesty and anybody who sat back and watched that shit happen without lifting a finger to help should be ashamed of themselves.

Re:One thing I want to know?

[jjohnson]

Really? Because, when I watched the video, what I saw was him fighting as hard as he could to get out of their grasp and get back to the mic, which is what triggered flooring and cuffing him. And even then, held down by four cops and cuffed, he was still struggling, to the point that he was able to turn his body 90 degrees and lift his torso and head to say "don't tazer me, bro".

Of course, after the tazer, he got up and walked out quite willingly. He could have done that before the tazer and avoided it, but he didn't.

Re:One thing I want to know?

[psykocrime]

Really? Because, when I watched the video, what I saw was him fighting as hard as he could to get out of their grasp and get back to the mic,

Obviously you watched a different video than I did then. What I saw was him try to jerk away from the cops in the direction of the microphone once, about 10-15 seconds into the video. And you can certainly argue that the cops had no business initiating force on him by physically grabbing him in the first place, which is what really set this all off. There is no reason why police should not be expected to utilize diplomacy and tact in dealing with people who are "in the wrong" in a vague sense, but are not posing a threat to anyone. If they had just gathered around him, and explained nicely "hey, the organizers say you're being disruptive, we'd like to ask you to leave" this whole situation probably could have been avoided. Never mind the fact that Kerry starts trying to answer his question, which implies that at that point in time "the organizers" are actually OK with him and his question.

which is what triggered flooring and cuffing him.

No, by the time he was thrown down on the floor and cuffed they already had him up at the top of the steps and not too far from the exit.
All they had to do was continue moving him outside and it would have been a done deal. There was NEVER any valid reason for the takedown, the cuffing, or the tazer.


And even then, held down by four cops and cuffed, he was still struggling, to the point that he was able to turn his body 90 degrees and lift his torso and head to say "don't tazer me, bro".


Good, once they took him down they had clearly gone overboard and he *should* have resisted, with every ounce of strength in his body. If he'd fucked up one or more of the cops at that point, it would have been justified as self-defense.

Re:One thing I want to know?

[jjohnson]

And you can certainly argue that the cops had no business initiating force on him by physically grabbing him in the first place, which is what really set this all off

You can argue it, but you'd be wrong. He was asked to leave by the organizers; he didn't. He initiated force. They cut off his mic; he started yelling to be heard. The police surrounded him and told him to leave with them; he kept yelling. At that point, there were two options: forcibly remove him, or continue with, as you put it, "diplomacy and tact".

Why should they use diplomacy and tact? He didn't stop struggling until they tasered him. Do you really think that 30 or 60 more seconds of "pretty please" would have made any difference except to delay the event that much longer?

by the time he was thrown down on the floor and cuffed they already had him up at the top of the steps and not too far from the exit.

10 feet from the exit of the auditorium, 100 yards from the police car in which they were going to take him away. Carrying a struggling person 100 yards isn't easy and is likely to result in further injury. It wouldn't have been a done deal once he was out of the auditorium.

If he'd fucked up one or more of the cops at that point, it would have been justified as self-defense.

Maybe in your "fight the man" worldview, not in mine. He was in the wrong from the point that the organizers cut his mic, and the police followed a carefully defined escalation procedure that gave him plenty of opportunity to calm down and walk out. Until his lunge at the mic, they probably wouldn't have arrested him at all, and leaving by the doors would have been the end of it.

To put it in libertarian terms, he's the one who initiated force by refusing to leave. If I come and sit in your living room and refuse to leave after you've asked me, am I not initiating force against you? At that point, while it may be nice to try diplomacy and tact for a while, it's by no means incumbent on you to be nice to me in response.

Yes, I do have a better suggestion:

[frAme57]

Let the guy ramble on and make an ass of himself. Then let Kerry give whatever answer he chooses.

Even if "proper police procedure" was "being followed", I see no good reason for police action in the first place. So he was a loudmouth attention whore who was basking in the glory of the senator's presence for a minute or two. Big deal. Maybe Kerry would have gotten an answer out; maybe the crowd would have shouted him down until he shut up; maybe everybody would've collectively shrugged at the guy and walked out of the hall.

The cops' excuse that he was inciting a riot is nonsense: it takes a lot more than that to make people get up and riot. And the charge of "resiting arrest" is also crap. If a group of cops walks up and begins surrounding you and you back away, asking them what they want, should they now be able to take you down and restrain you for "resisting arrest"?

I think the cops acted without cause & without a clear goal. Then when they thought they had lost control of the situation, they overreacted. On top of that, they cut the guy off right when he was asking about Kerry's membership in Skull & Bones. The conspiracy theorists will get a lot of mileage out of that.

Re:Yes, I do have a better suggestion:

[Valdrax]

Let the guy ramble on and make an ass of himself.

For how long? The guy spoke out of turn by breaking in the line and started using the mike as a platform to "inform people." Should the rule of law be balanced in favor of obnoxious actors by preventing forum organizers from having enforceable rules?

And the charge of "resiting arrest" is also crap. If a group of cops walks up and begins surrounding you and you back away, asking them what they want, should they now be able to take you down and restrain you for "resisting arrest"?

That's not what happened here, but I'd have to answer, "No." What happens in such a situation when the cops do want to detain a person is that they order them not to move and/or attempt to seize them. If you attempt to continue backing away at that point, you're definitely resisting arrest by attempting to flee.

Now what this guy was doing went a little beyond that. They already had a hold on him when he attempted to break free and flee. That's textbook resisting arrest right there. When an officer detains you, you do NOT attempt to get out of detention without permission. Your magic words are, "Am I free to go now?" If they do not answer in the affirmative, then you do not attempt to leave unless you wish to be guilty of resisting arrest. The crime is on the books to discourage chases and fights with the police, and it's meant for both the safety of the officer and the safety of the perpetrator.

Re:Strike Three

[psykocrime]

regardless of whether the police were doing the right thing, the crowd should have tried to save the guy.. this is frighteningly close to people being too afraid to do anything when their neighbors are dragged away by the gestapo, and the threat is clear in the video "stay in your seats or you'll be tasered and arrested too."

Well said, friend.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[2names]

"Physically resisting being handled by cops is only going to get your ass kicked."

If I haven't done anything illegal (which, from the video, this kid had done nothing illegal) you can bet your ass I will physically resist being handled by the police. The police are supposed to be DEFENDING assholes like this kid. They are supposed to work for the people. Granted, the kid overstayed his welcome and was acting like an idiot, but that does not give the police the right to physically restrain and then taser him.

More footage

[uniqueme]

A video that shows what happened to Andrew Meyer after the police pulled him out of the hall: http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=157250

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Mr. Slippery]

However, ending someone's life is a lot more serious then causing a few minutes of pain.

Which is why a potentially lethal weapon such as a taser should not be used unless a serious threat exists.

And even causing someone a few minutes of pain is not justified if no threat exists. If someone who has shown no violent intent is restrained on the ground, there's no threat; just wait it out until everyone's calmed down. If it takes ten minutes, a half hour, whatever.

This was cops getting off on their authority, torturing a helpless man. It's why if cops are going to have tasers, so should civilians, so we can stop police brutality through direct action.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Skreems]

No. Tasers are only to be used to prevent bodily harm to an officer. Same as a gun.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[ehrichweiss]

"No, you assume the cops are supposed to know somehow he's a journalism student and poses no threat."

If they don't know *that*, they're not doing their jobs correctly. Ever heard of a quick frisk? They're allowed to do it "for officer safety" even for people they aren't planning to arrest.

Was his arrest a violation of the First Amendment?

[hasbeard]

You seem to be making a statement that this young man was arrested for using his First Amendment Rights. But are you sure that was the case? The police may have simply intended to pull him away from the mike because they thought he was being disrupted (or even because they had been asked to intervene). If he had complied, maybe they would have taken him out to the hall, told him to cool down, and sent him home. That is not an arrest. However, Mr. Myer did not comply with the requests of the police. As another poster here pointed out Mr. Myer seemed to be the one escalating the incident. He was not arrested for what he said at the microphone but how he acted after being asked to leave.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[PriceIke]

The cops were defending the rights of everyone else in that room, including John Kerry's. This kid did not have the right to commandeer someone else's forum for his own speechifying. It would appear that you and I are just not going to agree on this one. And my money is on it being ILLEGAL to physically resist police, no matter whether you think they're wrong or not. They're the cops and they're doing their jobs.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Mr. Slippery]

It is very difficult and dangerous to try and move someone who is actively resisting.

Then don't move them while they're actively resisting.

There's not a time limit here. He's down, he's not a threat. Let everybody's adrenaline rush wear off. Maybe a new cop arrives who can talk to the suspect as a neutral party.

Instead, cops have to show off their authority, make it clear to all present that no one may question their actions without them breaking out the agonizers. It's about instilling fear, not about removing a threat.

Re:That's what they tried at first! WTFV!

[lsllll]

You missed my point. What I was trying to say was that the incompetence of the six officers to subdue him (He wasn't a pro wrestler or even big by any means) doesn't justify their having used a taser.

I would ask that of him

[Solandri]

Just curious, but how can some of you so callously be willing to deprive someone of the rights that so many people fought and died for? Because he was causing a scene? Big deal, its his right.

No it's not his right. By exceeding his allotted time, he's the one callously willing to deprive others of their right to speak out to the Senator. If this had been some right-wing nut-job rambling on and the campus police hadn't acted, the Slashdot story probably would've been something like "Police inaction allows protester to deprive others of their right to speak to Senator Kerry."

IMHO this is not a free speech issue at all. By continuing to speak past his allotted time, he was depriving others of their right to speak. So the free speech aspect of it cancels out entirely IMHO. The only thing at question is whether the police use of force was appropriate in dealing with the violation of the rules of the event.

Re:No, wait- really?

[jjohnson]

My point was: what does Kerry have to do with any of this, except that his presence provides you an excuse to launch your own diatribe about how the Democrats will destroy America?

Re:Strike Three

[JonTurner]

>>Kerry was actually asking the cops to leave the kid alone.
Technically, yes, but with all the enthusiasm of Willy Wonka... "No, stop, don't go in there."

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[fataugie]

That's insane. They were trying to remove him and he resisted. You think he's going to stand still for a frisking? Once he starts resisting, the time for niceties has passed. Now he's a potential threat.

Note the word Potential. You think they would have reacted differently if they thought he had a gun? I do.

Re:Technology (Taser) is the solution for everythi

[rebmemeR]

Then do you miss the point? Whatever fighting styles you want to draw from, there are simple holds which a target isn't going to escape, especially with 4 cops on 1 guy...unless the guy is trained in MA and gets violent. Then you need to get serious.

Re:Strike Three

[hasbeard]

He could easily have saved himself by calming himself down. Apparently you heard something I didn't in the video because all I heard was the police telling people to get away (for their own protection and so as not to interfere with what was happening).

Do something about it

[coldincalifornia]

More than having an intellectual wanker-fest on slashdot, how about we let some people know tasering the kid was wrong?
president@ufl.edu (university president)
updinfo@admin.ufl.edu (university police dept)
http://www.police.ufl.edu/media/Citizen%20Complaint.JPG (police complaint form)
ag.mccollum@myfloridalegal.com (florida attorney general)
support@johnkerry.com (john kerry's contact email)
http://www.trustees.ufl.edu/about/ (trustees of the university of florida)

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[snoogans126]

What gun? Since he was in a public session with a former presidential candidate I'd imagine that he'd been patted down and wanded just to get in the door, so he wasn't really a threat to the public or the officers. So the gun analogy really isn't relevant.

If someone is waving a gun around, they wouldn't be fooling around with a taser they'd shoot them. Someone waving a gun around is a danger to the officers and to the public, this kid was a nuisance at best.

If someone did have a weapon the police would presumably tell said individual to drop or put down the weapon, an appropriate response would be OK, I'll put down the gun. Well, it seemed like they very much wanted the kid out of the auditorium, he indicated he was willing to leave.

It seemed to me he started with disbelief at what they were doing, it seemed silly, because the authorities initial reaction was so out of line with logic, he then moved realization that they were while irrational quite serious ("help me", "OK, I'll leave").

For all of that, I could say that I disagreed with their actions, but wouldn't call them wrong. But then... The kid was on the ground, with an officer on top of him, and 5 others surrounding him, and the only thing remotely threatening was his attempt to defend himself. The kid was on the ground, restrained not going anywhere, and indicating he was willing to leave and then he was tasered, while helpless. The tasering was clearly done as a punishment not a method of restraint.

All that being said, I believe that most cops are good, and trying to do the right things for the right reasons, in the face of overwhelming challenges. But, I also think that they should be held to a higher standard. If they screw something up at work, the consequences can be far worse than a normal person screwing something up at work, and I don't think that anyone who would use a taser in the manner shown in that video meets that higher standard.

Who knew...

[toby]

...that a device designed to incapacitate people might be dangerous?!?!

Up next! Bombs considered harmful to Iraqi and Afghan children!

Re:So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question

[MagicM]

Who asks three questions in a row? What kind of person would do that? Do you think that would make for an easy-to-follow and to-the-point answer?

Re:Had it been a Republican rather than Kerry

[deets]

As opposed to the 100 million dead in USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.
Have fun with that on your's.
Actually, going by your math, I guess that would be 1.2 billion.

What if they didn't have tazers?

[soccerisgod]

As I understand it, the tazer is supposed to be a replacement for lethal force. Does this mean that if they didn't have tazers, they would have gunned him down for being annoying? I just don't understand it.

Re:What if they didn't have tazers?

[grassy_knoll]

As others have mentioned, without tazers nightsticks are the next level up from open-hand techniques ( which didn't seem to work in the video ).

Figure the tazer, while certainly not fun, saved this journalism student from bruises / broken bones.

Re:What if they didn't have tazers?

[soccerisgod]

Ah, but you do know that tasers are far from non-lethal, yes?

(2) Since tasers were first used in 2001 by law enforcement agencies in the USA and Canada, more than 260 people have died after being shocked with the weapon. Fifteen such deaths have been reported in Canada. In the USA, coroners have listed taser shocks as a cause of death or a contributory factor in more than two dozen cases in the past two years. While no such findings have yet been made in Canada, Amnesty International believes a link between deaths and taser shocks cannot be ruled out.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR200022007

Re:What if they didn't have tazers?

[grassy_knoll]

Tazers are more properly called "less than lethal".

Like nightsticks. Rodney King lived, after all.

Unlike nightsticks, tazers seem to leave less damage. Like nightsticks there's still the capacity for injury / death.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[alienw]

Tasers are quite safe, and are very useful. First, they protect police officers from getting injured. Second, they are quite effective at subduing criminals. Third, they teach whiny douchebags like this guy a painful lesson.

I am not sure why you think the guy was subjected to some undue risk. We aren't talking about nightsticks, plastic bullets, or pepper spray, all of which can actually injure people. A small electric zap on the skin surface is about as safe as you are going to get, and it's unpleasant enough to actually be effective.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[hswerdfe]

um.
He asked 3 questions in a public forum.
At a microphone, provided for people to ask questions.

Re:That's what they tried at first! WTFV!

[djchristensen]

But they definitely had him in control, had him partially cuffed and were well on their way to having him completely cuffed when they Tasered him

Look again at the video. While they had him on the ground trying to cuff him, and well before he was tasered, he managed to partially twist and get an arm in front of him. In that position, he can easily grab at an officers weapon, and his legs also become dangerous. He was obviously struggling with all his might. You be the cop, what would you do?

Po-TAY-to, Po-TAH-to

[benhocking]

There are NO restrictions on rights.. only the included responsibility to use them in a safe manner.

Which is exactly what I'm saying. If you want to argue semantics, you'll have to try the next floor. It's just down the corridor from abuse.

Enough blame to share with all involved here.

[Neanderthal Ninny]

That guy started well enough but when into a rant about something that cannot be changed and would be a waste of time changing since the presidential election is in 2008. He did go over his alloted time so he should have stopped at that point but he wanted to press his point and refused to leave even asked gently at first and they allow them to do this for a few minute he kept on ranting about that book. The police took him with him struggling and still ranting and the police should have restrain him better since he appeared to still be moving freely after they had him. Restrain without using weapons of any kind, tasers and PR-24's included, is the normal procedure. After properly restraining him, they should have moved him to another location out of the auditorium to minimize the impact of the existing forum. In short the guy should have made his point in the alloted time and the police should have better restrained him after his refusal to stop to allow others to speak. I'm one of those defend free speech is a right to everyone but without using that free speech to harm or to interfere anyone.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[atomicdoggy]

Sorry, go take a look at some police training documents/classes, the continuum of force is probably a good place to start. A taser is a method of force that is much less than "deadly force" and is used when deadly force is not necessary/justified, but force is necessary to apprehend the suspect/poor mistreated whiny ass, whatever you wish to call him/her.

Honestly I would rather get hit with a baton

[LukeCage]

Everything I've heard about tasers leads me to believe that they are basically like being electrocuted. Which, if you've ever had happen, is like having a full-body smackdown applied to you that doesn't leave a mark.

Honestly if I had a choice between being wacked in the body with a baton a few times or taser'd I would probably choose the baton, at least then people would realize that the police actually hurt me. We've all been hit by something before, but very few of us have been electrocuted (I have, it sucks and hurts real bad).

Also I think the officer would have to consider their use of force more, how many people would have felt bad for Rodney King if he were repeatedly taser'd? Think about that a minute.

Re:Honestly I would rather get hit with a baton

[jjohnson]

Rodney King *was* repeatedly tasered--that's the reason that the cops gave him the beatdown they did (and the initial jury found the cops not guilty of excessive force). What the video clip of King's beating showed was him knocked down and getting hit--it didn't show him charging out of his car, getting hit with four tasers, and keep coming. The police testified that, because of that, they thought he was on drugs, necessitating a physical takedown.

Personally, I'd rather be tasered than batoned. After multiple baton hits, the hurt last for days or weeks, assuming nothing gets broken or torn inside (not a safe assumption). Tasering hurts like hell, but it's over when the button is released.

Re:Honestly I would rather get hit with a baton

[jhRisk]

Unless you direct a baton strike to the head it's HIGHLY unlikely you'll die from it. A taser on the other hand because of the electrochemical nature of our bodies introduces the possibility of DEATH each time it's used.

Also, a baton would NOT be used on say an extremely frail person since it's immediately evident the damage would be far worse than on a "normal" human body. You can throttle the force used and use a number of other things to control the situation. ANY amount of electricity on the other hand has the potential to stop your heart and when coupled with an arythmia or a number of other IMPOSSIBLE to see conditions it's LETHAL.

Re:Honestly I would rather get hit with a baton

[jjohnson]

Tasers kill far fewer people than police choke holds and batons, which is part of the reason that the police prefer them and adopted them so readily. And your example of a frail person is disingenous: If a cop chooses not to baton a frail person, he can also choose not to taser him.

There's also the fact that, while a baton, or a physical takedown, may not kill you, it will certainly cause durable injuries. Bruises, sprains, twists, dislocations, and torn ligaments are all common injuries to both suspects and police following a purely physical subdual.

Yes, the taser hurts like hell. But then it stops. Note that, immediately after his tasering, Meyer is suddenly very compliant to the cop's orders. That's the whole point of it.

BTW, using caps for certain words is a scare tactic, not rational debate.

Re:Honestly I would rather get hit with a baton

[n6kuy]

> Everything I've heard about tasers leads me to believe that they are basically like being electrocuted.

I'd much rather be tasered than electrocuted.
A person who's been electrocuted will never be arrested again, I assure you.

Re:Honestly I would rather get hit with a baton

[LukeCage]

You are right, I misused the word "electrocution" as a synonym for "electric shock", thank you for pointing that out. I should I known better.

Re:Honestly I would rather get hit with a baton

[LukeCage]

Possibly my favorite part of your post: "Yes, the taser hurts like hell. But then it stops. Note that, immediately after his tasering, Meyer is suddenly very compliant to the cop's orders. That's the whole point of it."

So you're saying that the point of tasering him is to produce compliance through physical pain? There's another word for that. It's called "torture".

Re:Honestly I would rather get hit with a baton

[jjohnson]

You're right, it is torture. If the videos from Abu Graib included a soldier tasering a innocent Iraqi to tell him all the names of terrorists he knows, it would provoke a hue and cry from the public like nothing the naked pyramid did.

The only sense in which the taser is justifiable as a compliance tool is in comparison to existing police methods like batons, pepper spray, choke holds and the like. All of those would also be easily considered torture when seen in an Abu Graib video--repeated pepper spraying, being beaten with a baton, or constantly choked into submission.

In comparison to those methods, tasering is far less physically harmful, so it's a relative step forward in police use of force. I can only say that we generally view compliance-by-pain as circumstantially justifiable, while interrogation by pain as never justifiable. Until we can figure out a better way to achieve compliance by non-compliant subjects of lawful actions by police, I don't see an alternative. If they'd beaten Meyer with batons until he walked out under his own power, it'd be much, much worse for Meyer, assuming he was able to do so.

Re:Honestly I would rather get hit with a baton

[jhRisk]

I searched but found no statistics on tasers. Nevertheless, it'd be an unfair comparison as we have no way of tracking their numbers, usage and other critical details since tasers are relatively new in comparison. In terms of their adoption I have no idea for sure but doubt it was because they're less lethal. A baton alone is highly unlikely to be lethal when used properly; you don't hit someone in the knee and they die. A taser on the other hand can kill even when used as intended. If used properly there is almost zero chance for death in standard take-down maneauvers with a baton. A taser on the other hand can kill even at low voltage, regardless of physical condition, location of strike, etc. It's literally a crap shoot that you'll kill the person and we're still studying the long-term effects it has on some people. To me it's just another one of those cases where we're working in absolutes... it's not immediately harming me long-term so I guess it's ok. The little research that has gone into it is government-funded and thus biases IMHO. Quotes like "None of the taser victims had serious long-term effects, whereas 50% of those with bullet wounds did." are hilarious... who compares tasers to guns? http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673601059505

I was making a point about law enforcement devices themselves and thus it's under the assumption they're being used properly. That's also why chokeholds are irrelevant to my point. If a cop or any person actually wants to kill someone they can and will irrespective of the device. However, why would we want devices in law enforcement that are guaranteed to introduce a probability of death, usable by any person, require almost no effort... it's scary to me as it's almost like a compromise between a baton and a gun but that everyone can quickly and easily use. This especially makes sense in light of research studies (e.g. they're often compared that way.) The problem is law enforcement is often under too much pressure and this "apparent" easy way out is being misued.

Sorry to scare you with the caps.

Re:Democrats and brutality

[mdsolar]

Flamebait? Democrats have a long history of brutal repression of free speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention#Protests_and_police_response. The person who declared the state of emergency at Kent State was a democrat as well: http://speccoll.library.kent.edu/4may70/8.html. Bull Connor was a democrat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Connor. I'm now inclined to suspect that the police officer who stepped towards the kid early instigated the scene, but don't cut Kerry too much slack. He voted for the patriot act: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313.

Lady in the pink, you're not f**king helping.

[gowen]

He was being a dick, and he was resisting the police rightfully removing him from an orderly public meeting. The right of free speech doesn't give you the right to shout everybody else down at a public meeting. A taser may be an over reaction, but really, they should've just had him walking spanish out of there.

But here's what I'd say to this child:

I know you believe in your cause, and I know you want to be heard. BUT YOU'RE NOT HELPING.
Do you think it helps Greg Palast if his most prominent supporters make the 9/11 Truthers look like rational human beings?
Do you believe acting like a prick make people more or less sympathetic to your viewpoints?
Does shouting make your arguments sound more or less cogent?
Do you think picking a fight with police officers (because that is what you did) and then crying when then they forcibly remove you makes you Rosa Parks?
Does disrupting a civilised debate with your simplistic and childlike "impeach Bush"isms make you seem like a friend or enemy of democracy?

Or are you just an attention whore?

And bear this is in mind: I'm on your side, politically [Well broadly; I'm nothing like as big a dick as you]. People closer to the middle ground are really going to think you're a kook.

So, I'm sorry you got tasered (though you brought it on yourself), but in the future, SHUT THE FUCK UP, BECAUSE YOUR EGOMANIACAL BEHAVIOUR IS DAMAGING THE CAUSES YOU BELIEVE IN.

Re:Lady in the pink, you're not f**king helping.

[ShnowDoggie]

Did you see the video? Clearly the police were out of line. He was at the podium for only 1 minute and 40 seconds. He was not out of control. His question was not really more than a rant. But that is no cause for arrest. The fact that he was tasered only makes it worse.

So what did you do before tasers?

[fantomas]

Out of curiousity, what did you do with folk like this before tasers?

I agree that the guy was clearly up for creating a scene and a bit of an idiot, but really interested to understand what other techniques you have in place (apart from electrocution) to deal with typical mouthy students. I mean, every university has got a character like this.

A lot of people would say the mark of a good politican is how they deal with the awkward heckler at a public meeting.

If this guy was a known character in university, why didn't the other guys heckle him to shut up?

Re:So what did you do before tasers?

[Bryan Ischo]

Before tasers? Probably one of two things would have happened:

1. It would have taken the cops alot longer to get him cuffed and out of there. Notice that he was up and out a few moments after being tasered. Without the taser they probably would have struggled for a while longer to get him cuffed, then struggled to get him to his feet and walking out. All the time they would have been allowing him to continue breaking the law by resisting arrest.

2. They would have gotten out the nightsticks and beat him silly.

Neither would have been better than what actually happened.

Re:Strike Three

[Anonymous Coward]

He was acting like a raving lunatic.

People stayed in their seats because the police were trying to remove a raving lunatic.

They were told to stay in their seats to maintain order. They weren't threatened. If they started to rush the police, it would have seemed like he not only was a loon, but had conspirators.

The crowd had no real incentive to help the guy. He came in with the intent to cause a disturbance. He proceeded to cause a disturbance by breaking the rules of the forum, so no one questioed him being escorterd out. Once he started causing a significant disturbance to the police and people around him, they had no reason to intervene, because he was acting like a criminal.

The people did what they should have. The police did what they should have.

This is nothing like the Gestapo pulling people out of their homes at night because of who their mother was. This is nothing like someone being arrested in the middle of the night from publishing a disenting opinion in a paper the day before.

You are terribly incorrect to have even likened it to real suppresion. It gives people that actually worry about such suppresion less credibility. You having said that, and it getting modded up will give credence to people that allow said travesties to happen, saying easily "Must have been another loon..."

Billy clubs and a 38 revolver.

[DigitalReverend]

And that's a fact.

Also above someone mentioned joint locks that is a method of restraining an individual, it is not a method of subduing them. The FL kid needed to be subdued.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[sunderland56]

he was CLEARLY resisting arrest

Was he under arrest? I can't hear or see an officer saying "you are under arrest".

If he was under arrest before being tazered, what was the charge?

If he was not under arrest, how can they now charge him with "resisting arrest"?

Philosophically speaking, how can you be arrested solely for resisting arrest??

Idiot

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Being a UF student clearly doesn't imply that you have a brain in that thick skull of yours. Six cops holding him down, hand-cuffed, and he still needed to be tasered? You should write a letter to your mayor asking why your cops are such pussies. You should also write in your diary asking yourself why you're so afraid to go against the grain, or why you think people who speak up (whether they look like idiots or not) should be shut down; maybe you'll realize that you're just scared of people paying attention to you, whereas this guy clearly is not.

Fucking moron. Do us all a couple favors: Don't breed, and don't vote.

Re:Idiot

[devildog820]

Wow, what a winner you are. Clearly my thick skull holds a much larger brain than yours because I read the all the comments before making a hotheaded post. I already wrote in another post that I was eating crow over the taser thing. I assumed it was more like a stun gun or mild shock. That's what I get for assuming.

Now, I can tell you read none of the story because you would know that the cops are employed by the University and not the city, that he wasn't completely handcuffed (only had it on one hand) when they tasered him, and that he was violating the rules at a privately organized event. He was asked nicely to leave and to take his protest outside onto public grounds. This was not a taxpayer event either.

I appreciate anyone going against the grain. I was outraged when Bush's crew had protesters who weren't disrupting an event manhandled and ejected. I am outraged that you have to sign a loyalty oath to get into Republican events. However, THIS student wrestled with the cops as they were trying to remove him from the premises after he was told several times that his time was up and had the microphone turned off by the student group. He could have protested right outside the venue and yelled at Kerry as he was leaving, or he simply could have asked his questions and followed the rules for the event. I hope he and others keep up protests like this, lest we lose our right to protest. That does not excuse his behavior though.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[C0y0t3]

He had the floor...

He was bullying John Kerry by asking some difficult questions? He got drug out, tasered, and arrested - and you aren't concerned? There was no 'inciting a riot' or even disrupting the q/a period at the point which they intervened... Kerry even ANSWERED the god damned questions while the kid was in the hall being tasered. The kid was being an ass, and obviously passionate, but that should not get you drug out of the room, or arrested, or tasered, or anything else - it should get you told by the speaker to sit down and shut up and I'll answer you, or booed by the audience; it's not time to call in the jackbooted thugs to drag the opposition away from the microphone. It more than a little disapponting in several ways.

If you don't want difficult questions, don't open the floor for questions; pick your planted shills from the audience to APPEAR to answer openly. Works for everyone else...

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[slashdotmsiriv]

He should have not been arrested/contained at the first place! He had every right (freedom of speech anybody?)
to resist his unlawful arrest.

If one day you wake up and you see US Marines entering the White house with tanks and arresting the elected
president, you will sit there doing nothing, because it would be perceived as not abiding by the imposed
military rule? Why do you think the constitution allows Americans the right to bear arms?

Re:Strike Three

[lena_10326]

They cut off his mic and he didn't take the cue so the campus police asked him to leave. It's apparent when the guards approached him. When he resisted, he became a trespasser, which is a crime in USA. Police can taser you if you're trespassing and resisting their effort to remove you from private property. His resistance escalated the police response to tasering; it was his fault.

The audience did not rush to his aid because it's apparent many were applauding the police, which implied they perceived the student to be a disruption. They were right not to rush to his aid because doing so would have disrupted a legal arrest, which is also a crime. He was charged with disrupting a public event, which appears to be the case if you watch the video.

Had it been on a public sidewalk, I think the guy would have a civil right's case, but since it was on campus, the campus police acted within their rights. Acting like an idiot and not liking the response is not a civil right's violation.

You are right about the public's fear of gestapo-like police, but I didn't see it in the video. It's really too late to be concerned about that though. Police have the power, you don't. We as a nation gave it to them a long time ago. We all just have to live with it... or work toward changing it.

Re:A safe means of preventing violent resistance i

[mikewolf]

first of all, this is NOT a public venue. This is a discussion being held at a public university, and may possibly have open attendance, but as far as i know, unless the moderator of the discussion or the host of the discussion thinks he is being disorderly and asks the police to step in, they have NO authority. Given it is on a college campus and these are college cops, maybe they technically have the authority to intervene, but how would you feel if this was your college/university? Is the next step to have cops in the classroom to arrest people with dissenting opinions?

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Dachannien]

Perhaps they should bring in a similar policy for Oscars acceptance speeches.

Or presidential debates.

You is "Re-TAR-do"

[k1e0x]

Yes, there are rightful restrictions to free speech. This is not one of those.

There are NO restrictions on rights.. only the included responsibility to use them in a safe manner.

Which is exactly what I'm saying. If you want to argue semantics, you'll have to try the next floor. It's just down the corridor from abuse.

Oh really? It looks like your doubling back on your statement now. Perhaps you would explain to me these "rightful restrictions" on the freedom to speech. (It looks to me like you have a sketchy grasp of what a right even is in the first place.)

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[ehrichweiss]

They do it all the time to people resisting far, far more than he did, so what's your point?

Re:No, wait- really?

[WheelDweller]

The point is, just like all politicians, he stayed on stage, fumbling for an answer to his question, even though Kerry has been in the shoes of the ravaged man for decades. The Left looks to these people to be 'enlightened', but obviously, they're not.

If they were, one word from Kerry could have stopped the security force in it's tracks. The diatribe was about how this is typical.

WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO BEFORE YOU COMMENT

[mathx]

this is getting pretty tiring. watch the whole video WITH SOUND UP AT FULL before you comment. I dont care if you're at work and cant. If you cant, then dont comment or get a new job. Link is here. WATCH IT. THEN comment. Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE76LQwT6qA

Stop lying

[Supergood-ape]

""Under control" is not the issue; "being a threat" is the issue. "

When you've already demonstrated you'll ignore instructions from police and actively resist them in a public place, you are a threat. And frankly, whether you agree or not makes not one bit of difference.

"Potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, is justified only to end a threat, not to bring someone "under control"."

Nope. And again, whether you agree or not means nothing. Stop presenting your opinion as fact, it's not. Also, he had already demonstrated to be a threat, so it's ok by YOUR standards anyway.

"Trying to escape from an assault does not make one a threat."

No, but actively fighting the police does, and since he did that, and didn't try to "escape from an assault" I really have no idea why you'd type this.

"Yes, I'm sure it would be so much more convenient everyone if people didn't make a fuss when cops trample their rights."

Maybe they wouldn't have to pretend their rights got trampled if they didn't A) break the law and B) ignore a lawfuly given instruction.

"Or, you know, the thugs with badges could have respected the man's free speech rights and saved a ton of trouble for everyone."

They did, he got his time, just like everyone else was supposed to. Maybe if this asshole hadn't broken the law and failed to respect EVERYONE ELSE'S rights, he wouldn't have been in this situation.

Lastly, save the hyperbole guy, it's works when you're sitting around stoned eating cheetos with your buddies in the dorm, but I'm not stupid or stoned, so knock it off.

If you have a real argument make it, but save the "thugs" "torture" and "assault" bullshit for your friends, I'm not disconnected enough from reality to swallow it.

Re:Stop lying

[Mr. Slippery]

When you've already demonstrated you'll ignore instructions from police and actively resist them in a public place, you are a threat.

"Actively resist?" No one was actively resisting. Actively resisting would have been hitting, choking, biting, or otherwise using force, not merely pulling away from one's assailants.

Apparently by your standards, followers of Gandhi or King who raised their arms to block the blows of clubs would be a "threat".

"Potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, is justified only to end a threat, not to bring someone "under control"."

Nope. And again, whether you agree or not means nothing.

So under what sort of ethical system is potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, justfied in the absence of a threat?

Maybe they wouldn't have to pretend their rights got trampled if they didn't A) break the law and B) ignore a lawfuly given instruction.

Meyer didn't break any law; the cops were the criminals here.

There was nothing "lawful" about the behavior of the cops at any point. He asks his question about "Skull and Bones", and they simply grab him and start to drag him off. No verbal request to leave. That's an assault.

And let me point out that under the Bad Elk precedent, a citizen has the right to resist illegal arrest by any means necessary. As recently as 1948, the Court noted in it opinion that " One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases." However, the court has been less friendly to this right (and most other rights) in more recent times.

I know, you've been so conditioned into playing "follow the leader" that you'll find the idea of a right to stand up to LEO abuses inconceivable...

If you have a real argument make it, but save the "thugs" "torture" and "assault" bullshit for your friends, I'm not disconnected enough from reality to swallow it.

See, that's exactly what I mean. Inflicting great pain to get someone to do what you want is torture. That you would question that electric shock to get someone to shut up qualifies as torture shows you've been so conditioned that you can't think straight.

Supergood-ape, with your unquestioning obedience it seems you would have made a fine slave-catcher back in the day. And I'm sorry to see that.

Re:Stop lying

[Supergood-ape]

"No one was actively resisting."

Bullshit, it's in the fucking videos.

I don't know why you think you could pawn this lie off, but anyone who watches the videos will see him resisting VERY actively.

And yet there you are, lying about it as though we didn't have multiple videos to watch.

"Supergood-ape, with your unquestioning obedience it seems you would have made a fine slave-catcher back in the day. And I'm sorry to see that"

OOOH look an insult. Well, if I wasn't sure I was right before, this pathetic attempt sealed it. It's like a written admission that you know you're full of shit.

I suppose my response would be, why the fuck should I care what a liar like you has to say about anything?

Re:Stop lying

[Sancho]

I'm not the guy you were having the argument with, but I thought I'd chime in.

The point in the video at which they use the taser is very much a lull in the action. He's on the ground, there are 4 cops on him, and he's screaming, demanding to know why he's being arrested. Now others have pointed out that just being on the ground doesn't mean that the cops are in control, but it's really hard to wrap my head around the idea that tasing him was acceptable at this particular point in the situation. While he may have still been a threat, he was much less active than he was at earlier points in the video when they didn't tase him.

Re:Stop lying

[Wabbo]

I confused. At what point was he actively fighting the police? He was walking down the aisle while they grabbed his arm and then tried to pick him up. I couldn't see what he was doing when they had him pinned on the ground (I went back and counted, there were six police, not sure why others have said four) but it sure didn't look like figthing. That generally involves physical violence that can hurt or indirectly hurt someone. In the mean time Kerry was asking the police to calm down and, as they tazed the guy,answering his questions. Don't the police need to have deem him a thread to be able to arrest him in the first place? From my where I'm standing it looks like you're skipping over this point and talking about this situation as though it started after the arrest occurred , when in fact that is not the entire picture here.

Re:Stop lying

[Mr. Slippery]

Bullshit, it's in the fucking videos.

Uh, no. At no point does the victim attempt to strike, choke, or otherwise fight against his assailants in resistance. No active resistance.

Anyone who watches the videos will see that he does not actively resist; only tries to pull away and retreat from the attacking cops, as any sane human being would retreat from an unwarranted assault. Retreating is not resisting.

But I won't call you a liar; I suppose that once you've made up your mind that the cops are always right, it messes with your vision and you start to see things that just aren't there. It's a shame, really.

Re:Stop lying

[atamido]

Retreating is not resisting.

Ummmm... yes it is. If the police are arresting you, you're supposed to let them. If they were in the wrong, then you try to take legal action against them (although in many situations you are just screwed). It's not a very good system, but that's the way it is. When the officers weren't able to get the man under control initially, they wrestled him to the ground. The next step is to place handcuffs on him to restrict his movements. At this point he was continuing to resist. If he continues to "resist" their efforts to place him under "restraint" (ie, handcuffs) then tasering him is the next option to quickly exhaust his body so they can move his arms into position.

In the old days the standard method would have been to beat him until he was exhausted to the point that they could force him to comply. Really, him getting tasered is not that bad in comparison.

The problem is that with him continuing to resist them, they are kind of stuck. They can't sit there all day with him on the ground until he complies. They are all exposed, and they don't know if one of his nutty friends will do something drastic. There is also the chance that he might get more violent. He has already resisted arrest and shown himself to be erratic, so they have to take him in.

The real issue is whether or not the officers should have been screwing with him in the first place. Kerry pretty much said to leave him alone. At the same time, presidential candidates are big targets, so law enforcement take their security pretty seriously. Removing him was probably a good thing. They probably could have dragged him outside and told him to get lost, but maybe they had a different policy in place. Who knows? I'm sure an overly long and tedious investigation will go over the events time and again. Maybe he will get off, maybe the officers will get off, maybe people will lose their jobs, who knows? One thing is for certain, this prick doesn't the time of day from anyone.

Re:Stop lying

[Mr. Slippery]

If the police are arresting you, you're supposed to let them. If they were in the wrong, then you try to take legal action against them

Read the Bad Elk decision, which notes "If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest." The Court explictly noted as recently as 1948 that "One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases." However, it is true that the Court has been less friendly to this (and most other rights of citizens) in more recent times.

Not, to be clear, that I'm suggesting shooting cops in a situation like this, as happened in the Bad Elk case.

But, that's beside the point. Fleeing is not actively resisting arrest - especially if a person has not been lawfully arrested. Fleeing may, depending on local statute, constitute a form of offense that is placed under the heading resisting arrest, or it may be an offense under seperate heading, but it is a very different offense than active resistance, i.e. fighting against cops.

And pulling away from an assault by cops who don't first announce an arrest and give a reasonable chance to comply, which seems to be the case here, isn't even fleeing. It's instinctual human behavior, which cannot be criminalized.

They can't sit there all day with him on the ground until he complies.

All day? No. A couple of minutes, until everyone's adrenaline has had a chance to cool? Sure. This isn't some maniac who was waving a knife and presenting a clear and present danger to public safety - in which case I'd say taze him as much as needed. This was a guy accused of hogging the mic. (And unjustly at that, since the speaker didn't object.)

He has already resisted arrest and shown himself to be erratic, so they have to take him in.

Nonsense. He asked some perfectly valid questions, drawing applause from some in the audience, and even Kerry wanted to answer. Yes, he was somewhat nervous - many people are nervous about public speaking. Suddenly, in the middle of his final question, he was seized from behind. Rather than defending himself by striking his assailants - which many people would have done instinctively - he maintained enough calm to simply pull away and challenge them verbally. That's not erratic or dangerous. The cops then continue to escalate the situation by pointing a taser, a potentially lethal weapon, at him.

While they've got him pinned, he asks them to just let him leave. The sane thing to do is form a cordon behind him, let him up, and walk him outside, write him a citation for the "disturbing the peace" charge, and everyone goes home happy.

At the same time, presidential candidates are big targets, so law enforcement take their security pretty seriously.

Kerry's running for President again? News to me.

Re:Stop lying

[Supergood-ape]

"No active resistance"

He snatched his arms away and fought to sit up, while being told not to. That sure as hell isn't passive resistance.

Look up the word active so you can see why you're wrong.

"But I won't call you a liar;"

Because you can't. YOU on the other hand have lied repeatedly, as in the first part of this post.

Re:Stop lying

[Mysohni]

This was a forum on a college campus. Why did the cops get so ruffled when some questions were asked? Didn't they expect that someone would have aome questions that they didn't agree with or though were "out there"?

Shame on us as Americans for allowing this to happen!

This is about our rights and freedoms, and I really don't see how someone asking two minutes worth of questions hurt anybody. So what if nobody else agreed. Without people challenging the status quo where would we be?

I didn't see any threat to anyone by this student.

Re:Strike Three

[PJ1216]

the crowd did start trying to interfere once he started getting tasered. you can hear shouts telling him to stop, shouts of police brutality, and another officer telling people to get back (possibly from people trying to physically interfere, but its hard to tell).

Re:Strike Three

[Chris whatever]

Shit Kerry should have gone down and help the kid, that would have been a major political move in his favor, no instead he stood there watching, trying to look compose while those assholes tazed him.

i agree that the guy was becoming more and more panicked and well, when police take you down on the floor, the last thing you want to do is fight them, even though they are in the wrong.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[fataugie]

Sure they do....after they're in cuffs which he wasn't. Watch Cops sometime and tell me how many are frisked while not in cuffs AND are resisting?

I'll save you the trouble and tell you....none.

The SOP (standard operating procedure)is to get control of the situation. The cops didn't have control so they're not going to do anything at that point other than get control.

Re:No, wait- really?

[jjohnson]

So, in other words, nothing really.

I am impressed, though: you didn't blame this directly on Bill Clinton.

Re:Strike Three

[apt142]

If they had all rushed the police the crowd could have helped him.. regardless of whether the police were doing the right thing, the crowd should have tried to save the guy..

Have you ever seen a large group of people react to a violent situation? One of two things happen: Nothing. Or total carnage.

There is rarely any middle ground. Had the crowd gotten involved you would likely be reading a headline like "Crowd Beats Policemen to Death" followed by some commentary on how they still haven't located all of their body parts.

That's a movement I'd join

[benhocking]

We should start a movement for an Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the right to resist unlawful arrest.

Absolutely. I think it's crazy that you can be (legally) penalized for resisting an arrest that had no original merit. That said, unless you're willing to suffer the consequences (see also: civil disobedience), the best path right now is to allow yourself to be arrested and then fight back legally. (I'm assuming that you have no reason to fear extraordinary rendition. Some people do have a reason to fear that, and I would consequently recommend a different course of action for them.)

Re:That's a movement I'd join

[orgelspieler]

So how do we get some traction for this idea? First, we need people to poke holes in the suggestion (see below) and shore those up. Then we need some PR, and I don't mean a MySpace page for "Amendment XXVIII". During an election year it could be easier to get attention if we could get a candidate to bring up the suggestion. Otherwise it will be way off the radar.

If exceeding your "allotted time" is a crime...

[GPS Pilot]

If exceeding your allotted speaking time is a crime, we should have seen arrests take place at just about every debate of presidential candidates.

In making the arrest, the officers also disobeyed Senator Kerry, who said "that's all right, let me answer his question."

What kind of a monster tases a student immediately after the student, who was clearly not a threat, begs "don't tase me!" ?

Regardless of whether this student had a history of practical jokes, this is as clear an example of police-state tactics as I've ever seen. Meyer is charged with disturbing the peace, but I viewed the video, and things were quite peaceful before police forcibly dragged him away from the microphone. When police momentarily released Meyer's arms, he can be seen sticking them straight up in the air (the submissive posture assumed by someone being held at gunpoint).

Re:If exceeding your "allotted time" is a crime...

[gordo3000]

When police momentarily released Meyer's arms, he can be seen sticking them straight up in the air (the submissive posture assumed by someone being held at gunpoint).

except he didn't get on their bad side until he tried to run back into the forum after starting to walk out. Generally that can get you in trouble simply because you are indicating you were using false pretenses to get the cops to be less strict with you. at that point there is a good chance you will try something stupid so they will arrest you to remove you from the building.

Re:Roll over on your rights.

[mikewolf]

that is the important point! finally someone else gets it.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[ls -la]

He was going to be taken to the station and charged

With? "Disorderly Conduct"
Or something similar that you don't actually have to break the law to get charged with.

Re:A safe means of preventing violent resistance i

[Valdrax]

Given it is on a college campus and these are college cops, maybe they technically have the authority to intervene, but how would you feel if this was your college/university? Is the next step to have cops in the classroom to arrest people with dissenting opinions?

I would have a major problem if he were arrested for having a dissenting opinion. He was instead arrested for being disruptive by refusing to follow the rules of the forum which had little to do with his opinion. He abused the mike as an opportunity to get on a soapbox instead to ask a question, he asked multiple questions instead of one, he went over time, and he continued to try to speak after his mike was cut.

Please do watch both videos before commenting further, and do try to come up with an analogy that has something to do with what he actually did instead of leaping straight into speaking about arresting people for having controversial opinions. You serve no purpose in engaging in such non sequiturs.

governement should require electrofied keyboards

[peter303]

Then shock the fingers of people they disagree with.

A lot of this could done by simple pattern recognition. For example a phrase with "Hillary" and a positive adjective, or "Cheney" and a negative adjective.

I used to bounce at a punk club

[uqbar]

I'm only 5'7. I and one other guy together could handle some pretty scary and violent characters and get them out of the club - without weapons or even handcuffs. That six highly trained professionals could not handle this kooky kid who probably has never fought in a real fight ever boggles the mind.

Sorry but I don't buy it. Yeah the kid was obnoxious and a problem. But the problem was handled poorly all the way around.

Re:I used to bounce at a punk club

[DigitalReverend]

Dude I have bounced at many different types of clubs, and you are a fool if you think the situations are even close. Bouncing is easy, the people you are bouncing are usually drunk and are very pliant even if they struggle you just let loose and they usually hit the ground all by themselves.

Also where is the number 6 coming from, I saw 4 cops in the video and a kid who wouldn't listen to a lawful order.

Personally, this kid got what he deserved. If his parents would have raised him properly to respect authority when he was little, maybe with even giving him the occasional spanking when he got out of line, he wouldn't be acting like a spoiled little 3 year old brat when he's 21.

Re:I used to bounce at a punk club

[b0s0z0ku]

If his parents would have raised him properly to respect authority when he was little, maybe with even giving him the occasional spanking when he got out of line, he wouldn't be acting like a spoiled little 3 year old brat when he's 21.

You mean, raised him to be a good little goose-stepping German...

-b.

Re:Strike Three

[Enlightenment]

Crazy and violent? Were we watching the same video?

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Maxo-Texas]

I suppose you have a good point.

Prior to video, this kind of thing probably happened constantly. I know my cop relative is a curious hybrid of hero and thug. He puts his life on the line to protect people while at the same time he gleefully relates stories about abusing his power and intimidating them and getting away with it because he is the law.

I would prefer that they restrain him since he wasn't hopped up on drugs or posing a serious threat to them. It seemed to me that they had him overpowered and decided to go for harsher measures just for grins or because they were hyped up and just went for it. It feels fascist to me as does the near blind support for them doing this.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Maxo-Texas]

Well I do not carry a weapon so I will defer to your superior expertise in this area.

I can see how you could make those arguments but given where we were 30 years ago (when we were reacting to the police and government abuses of the 1960's) and where we are today (where we appear to be headed back to the worst of the 60's and beyond) it stinks to me. It seems like one more nail in the coffin on democracy and one more step towards fascism and feudalism.

My thoughts

[kurtis25]

1) No politician should dare accuse anyone of rambling while pretending to ask a question. Least they forget what they've done to the Supreme Court nomination hearings. 2) My math teacher could have used a time limit on asking a question. 3)I'm going to have to side with the kid. If I'm asking a rambling question (or even a pithy question) and the cops come up and grab me I'm probably going to thrash around a bit. 3) I'll fight back even more if anyone forces me to the ground. 4) I'm most certainly going to yell out something about not being tased. 5) I'm deffinatlly going to sue when I get grabbed, forced to the ground and tased. At some point the question needs asked as to when the cops ceased to be authority and turn into vehicles of harassment. If they forcefully remove someone after being told the person can stay is there the expectation of authority still. If Kerry did tell the cops to let him stay or anything to that effect at what point can / should the student be allowed to flail his arms at the officers who are still restraining him. I would guess this student felt harassed when the cops continued to attempt to remove him and he flailed his arms to get them off of him. This action no doubt escalated the cops restraints leading to the tasering. If this is the case the issue lies not with the tasering but with the underlying actions of the cops.

Re:Strike Three

[Maxo-Texas]

The only issue that i have with the "campus" argument is that the republicans have been defining away all public space to the point that the only public space to protest is now miles away in some cases. I would say that a student would have a reasonable expectation that they could protest on a campus where they were a student.

Otherwise, I agree with most of what you say.

Re: Strike Three - Meyer Missed

[JuarezTraveller]

I'm not sure what Meyer was trying to prove with his Skull and Bones question to Kerry. Other members of Skull and Bones were William Howard Taft, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, all conservative Republicans.

Ever watch CSPAN?

[DarkTempes]

Quite frequently senators who are supposed to be asking questions make a bunch of general statements, and then never ask or possibly ask a question. They frequently go over time as well. I think there was a case in point recently of a certain female California senator with regards to General Petraeus. Hell, people do it on live television interviews all the time as well. They don't get as unrefined as this kid did and the kid was obviously being a jackass but i'm pretty sure the situation was handled incorrectly. They wouldn't have physically restained a senator and then tried to drag him out of the capitol building.

Re:Strike Three

[MaggieL]

Ah, so it's *Bush's* fault that a persistent heckler was tasered by campus cops at a Kerry event.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[JimDaGeek]

I watched the video and did not hear or see anyone tell him his time was up. I saw his mic cut when he asked a question that someone didn't like/approve.

What are you basing your statements on? Did you see a different video that showed more of what happened prior to the incident? The video that I watched on Youtube just doesn't back up your statements. If there is a video that backs up what you are saying, please post the link.

Re:Strike Three

[Enigma2175]

Whether or not they were justly arresting him, they certainly used excessive force. Six officers had him pinned to the ground for about a minute before they tazered him. There was plenty of backup, they should have put the cuffs on him and led him away. Instead, an officer pulled a weapon and after the suspect pleaded "don't tazer me, man!" the officer used the weapon. There was no cause to use the weapon, six trained officers should be able to apprehend even the strongest suspects without using a weapon. It was an egregious display of police brutality, made even more severe by the pettiness of the offense. He had exceeded his allotted time for his question.

This is but a public display of the reality of police departments around the country. The US is rapidly becoming an authoritarian police state. I doubt John Kerry is the person to remedy that situation, but that is another discussion altogether.

Fine, but does that including tasering the guy?

[cheros]

I mean, how many cops does it take? Why did they have to taser him when he was already down?

Because that would look better than using a stick/baton, and leave less bruises and blood?

A taser is not a toy, it delivers a shock to the nervous system. I'm not sure you can control the length of such a shock, but I think even the shortest spark could have been enough as a warning - if it's controllable I think they went on for quite a bit too long as well.

In principle, a taser is violence. It just looks less like it because the pain is invisible. What would the reaction have been if one of the officers started beating him with a stick?

I think the whole taser usage is a bit too easy under the excuse that it's not lethal. Well, neither is a baton, and neither are to be used other than in emergency or under personal threat. I didn't see a knife on the guy, nor a gun. Just a big mouth.

Re:Fine, but does that including tasering the guy?

[jjohnson]

Why did they have to taser him when he was already down?

Because even down and cuffed, he was continuing to struggle. At the point they threaten the taser, he actually twists his body 90 degrees and raises his torso. They were instructing him to lay down so they could lift him up. He could have done that. Instead, he continued to squirm.

Because that would look better than using a stick/baton, and leave less bruises and blood?

It doesn't look better, but the fact that it does leave less bruises and blood is an argument in favour of the taser. It causes pain that disappears when the button is released, and no injury; by comparison, physical takedowns and subduals leave bruises and stand a good chance of worse injuries, like sprains, dislocations, and torn ligaments. Police favour the taser for exactly that reason.

I'm not sure you can control the length of such a shock

The shock is delivered while the button is depressed. They did go on quite a bit, but from what I could tell, they stopped when he went limp (not limp paralyzed, I mean limp not struggling anymore).

In principle, a taser is violence.

Yes, it is. Much more focussed, effective violence with almost no aftereffects. Far superior, in principle, to batons and fists and pepper spray or mace.

I think the whole taser usage is a bit too easy under the excuse that it's not lethal.

This is the first useful point someone has made when arguing against the cop's actions. I think it's true to a degree. However, this incident does not support that argument in general.

Tasered == Electrocuted

[mevets]

Just doesn't sound as innocuous....

The whole point of nonviolent protest

[Neuticle]

IS TO REMAIN PASSIVE! This dip-shit's thrashing around could have injured a cop or an innocent bystander. He was putting people in danger by struggling and at that point subduing him was the right thing to do. Was it right to stun-gun him? Maybe not, but the alternative was to hit him with baton or fist until he stopped trashing about. I've been hit by lightning, and I'd take a beating over that. I'm not sure a I'd take a beating over a taser, which I've heard is more like a cattle prod (which I've also experienced)

I watched the videos and heard this dude screaming like a kid having a tantrum. I HIGHLY doubt the cops were completely mute. Even people close to the camera got drowned out at times. It's highly probable that the cops were speaking in less hysterical voices and it just wasn't picked up by the camera.

As for the rest of it, I saw him clearly resist the officers attempts to remove him. He was kicking and screaming and thrashing about. That is undeniably resisting arrest, which is illegal even if you are being arrested for a crime you didn't commit. The place to fight it is in the courts, and if it is truly unjust the ACLU will probably jump up to defend you.

Nonetheless, if a cop puts his hand on you and you start trashing about like a spaz, they are going to take you down. If you continue to struggle once they have you subdued, they can't just let go of you until you are "cooperative".

This dick was trying to cause a violent confrontation. Gandhi would be ashamed of this tool.

Re:The whole point of nonviolent protest

[necro2607]

"Nonetheless, if a cop puts his hand on you and you start trashing about like a spaz, they are going to take you down."

If a cop randomly puts his/her hand on me for no reason without explaining why and/or saying something like "you are under arrest for ___", I'll gladly, as is within my rights, tell them to get their hand the hell off me, and move away accordingly. Just because they're an "officer of the law" doesn't mean they are ABOVE the law and can just manhandle whoever they want without just cause and/or explanation.

I imagine that's not really what you were getting at, but taken literally as you wrote it that would be a pretty bad situation in our society, where we could just be grabbed and tackled down and apprehended for whatever random not-neccesarily-justified reason.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[fataugie]

I watched it again and I didn't see or hear anything about his time being at an end so I'm going on what the news reports are saying.

But, you can't say that the question was unwelcome/unapproved, etc. I don't know.

I did see the jackass try to have it both ways. He resists, then he throws his arms up and acts suprised. Then he struggles more, then he acts surprised. He struggles more and gets thrown to the ground. Then he says he's ready to walk out. He had quite a few chances to walk out, and he decided to be an ass hat.

The tasering was quite short, he's a drama queen and he knows cameras are rolling.

Re:What are you guys watching? He was not deservin

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

There is an eyewitness account that says the guy came in the building with the cops already after him, barged to the head of the line and interrupted someone who was asking a question.

This video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&NR=1 taken from near the rear of the auditorium by a Gainesville Sun reporter shows the protestor being bulldozed toward the door by a really big campus cop (that's an effective technique of you have the beef to do it), after he's already refused to leave and broken free of the two who he kept brushing off as he asked his rhetorical questions ... and he fights free of the big guy, heads back into the group of cops and keeps yelling.

Hey AC

[Supergood-ape]

You didn't read my comment, you read the quote I was replying to. Good thing you posted AC...

R.I.P. freedom of speech, liberty, democracy

[Scrameustache]

Who decides what constitutes a disturbance?

The courts decide. If what he did did not constitute a disturbance, then he will be set free on those charges. Ultimately, Florida's statutes, its courts, and federal courts set those rules. Whether refusing to follow the rules of a debate and attempting to hijack it counts or not is up to them to ultimately decide.

However, officers have the discretion to arrest someone for what they suspect is a crime in statutes where the language is vague, and "public disturbance" is one of the single broadest catch-all charges So if someone says something a cop disagrees with, the cop has all the rights to stop the person from expressing his opinions freely, and then subject that person to frivolous legal procedures?

What's wrong with you?

What's the time limit anyway?

[prxp]

I counted about one and a half minutes before the student was taken by force. What was the time limit, anyway? I think 2 minutes is little time already, let alone less than that. Even though the limit might have been less then the one and a half minutes he used, he clearly asked for 2 minutes, and his request was granted since he was allowed to keep on speaking. If speaking that long was that offensive, why didn't they just cut off the mic? Why didn't they interrupt the student the minute he asked for the 2 minutes? Again, why didn't they cut off the mic, for Christ sake? This sort of thing isn't supposed to be handled by police force. That's why taks usually have a mediator, or at least someone that controls the sound system. Whoever was responsible for coordinating this talk did a really lousy job at least.

Re:What's the time limit anyway?

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

why didn't they just cut off the mic?

They did, right in the middle of his Skull and Bones question (it's obvious on other videos, not the close-up one where the photographer's camera was picking up well) ... and he kept ranting. He had already shrugged off a couple of requests to leave when the cops started to escort him out of the room.

I think they should have just declared the speech over, turned out the lights, and left the building, leaving him ranting into a dead microphone in a dark room.

Re:Partial trascript of the guy after he's tasered

[Antiocheian]

The parent is quite interesting, and not a troll.

Did the audience protest?

Re:So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question

[grumpygrodyguy]

Judging by the video, Meyer isn't even interested in any answers. He just keeps rambling on and doesn't even wait for Kerry to respond. After reading the blurb, I felt sorry for him. After watching the video, I don't anymore.

Here's an alternative perspective for you:

ShutterGeek: Does anyone else think that guy was mentally disturbed? I mean real world, clinically paranoid? At the end of the video he seemed to honestly believe that they were going to take him somewhere and kill him for disrupting a speech.

Yes.

Paranoid Schizophrenia statistically occurs in 1 of every 100 people. For males, onset commonly occurs in the early 20s...

Sadly when someone develops this disease they are usually the last to know about it, and by the time someone tells them what's going on they think they're being 'conspiricized' against.

I'm sure this was a very traumatic event for everyone in that room, especially for the kid...the whole event occured because he kept getting more and more scared as his delusional fantasy 'came true' in front of him. He probably thought the cops were trying to prevent him from revealing the 'top-secret connection between Kerry and Bush'. Listening to him you can tell he has a very elaborate theory he's trying to expound. I'm sure it was terrifying for him.

A lot of people in this thread are saying he deserved what he got because he was acting like a 'tard'. The problem is, he very likely is sick and needs help...hopefully he'll get it. There's so little tolerance and understanding in this society about this kind of thing...but sadly we don't have 'schizophrenia detectors' yet...it's usually events like this that have to occur before someone is identified as having the disease...and it's a terrible debilitating disease. So please don't judge this guy too harshly...because his behavior is being directed by a physical illness, one that he has no control over and doesn't even know he has.

OT

[Scrameustache]

I disagree with your remarks concerning my prejudice, and will restate once again that I misread your comment, but I will give some thought to what you said of me. Thank you.

I did hesitate to include the easiest visual cue to find the person I was pointing out because I expect empty, angry comments like yours to come up whenever something vaguely resembling that sentence is uttered, but I'm not letting letting that brand of reactionary racism force me into auto-censure.

Yes, there is such a thing as the "angry black cop" prejudice, but DAMN, boy, parse the text to see if it's actually expressed there before assuming it is!
Just because I point out the fact that the refrigerator-sized cop I'm talking about is black doesn't mean that I'm perpetuating the stereotype! I didn't say he was violent, I'm just saying that when a guy that size, with training, is tackling you, you are contained.

What you did was just as bad as what you were suspecting me of doing it, it's just the polar opposite, the pendulum's other peak, the other side of the same coin. People, you see, are capable of naming a person's race or ethnicity without implying a discrimination based on that characteristic. Hell, you're not the first to take an innocent remark out of context, but I hope you'll give it a seconds thought before jumping to conclusions next time.

P.S. Yes, the first time they gave that alien species the same gorram racial divides as us they gave that one, lone, black Vulcan a cop job and made him, coincidentally, the first angry vulcan. THAT is the stuff you're angry about, and I hate that too.

Re:Strike Three

[lena_10326]

The only issue that i have with the "campus" argument

There is no argument. Campus property is not public property. Now, if the university were a publicly funded university (and University of Florida is), I can understand why someone would expect the property to be public property, but I don't believe it is. The land was given by government grant.

the republicans have been defining away all public space to the point that the only public space to protest is now miles away in some cases

Republicans expanded the free speech zone. Democrats enacted them. I don't see it as a single party issue. It's more of a whoever is in power at the moment issue.

I would say that a student would have a reasonable expectation that they could protest on a campus where they were a student.

A student would probably expect that, but he or she would be wrong. In the past, Universities have been tolerant or supportive of student protests, but that doesn't mean one should be ignorant that they are allowing you to protest--rather than you exerting your right to protest.

Plus, one has to consider the context of the protest. Is the point of the gathering to protest? Or is the point to debate? Protesting a debate is a disturbance. I don't fault the university for not supporting protests inside university events. What if he was protesting the chess team tournament? How about the Dungeons & Dragons club? Same deal.

strange event

[pauly_thumbs]

I have done some public speaking in my day and have been heckled and it's not a pleasant experience ... however one must realize that people have the right to heckle, are entiltled to their opinion and Being Heckled builds a lot of characher if you handle yourself properly ... look at the guy who played Kramer -- bad move after being heckled saying the N word ... then he had to go to Vice Principal Jesse Jacksons office to get paddled :)

Now Kerry handled himself well ... he is heckled all the time i am sure (US senate) but the Administrators of the Event did not know how to handle a heckler ...

See when I was being heckled no one came to my rescue ... no cops ... loose organization ... most folks were stunned and a little scared (heckler was BIG) so ... i had to just be cool... and was rewarded in the end with a lot of pats on the back "you did a good job pauly_thumbs", being cool under pressure and criticism.

If they threw the heckler out on me I would never have had the chance to shine... and Kerry really missed that chance, but then the story would have never made it this far.

The use of force was def. excessive they will have the crap sued out of them.

Not against his "rights," he's just a dumbass.

[baboo_jackal]

If you are being arrested/detained, don't you have the absolute, irrefutable right to be told what's going on?
Think about what you said for a second, except put it in the context of a different kind of criminal instead of a clueless naive college student. Let's say a suspected violent rapist is in the middle of being arrested, and he's fiercely resisting. Should the police stop what they're doing until they can explain to rapist why he's being arrested to the rapist's satisfaction? What, do you expect the rapist might, once his suspected crimes have been explained to him, stop and scratch his chin and say, "OMG!! I guess that if you think I've done that, I can totally understand why you'd want to arrest me!"

I can guess that the general direction of this conversation on Slashdot will be mostly about how police are probably evil and how this kid's and our own right are trampled every second, etc., etc. But let me offer a really simple explanation of why he got zapped:

From this article:

"Stop resisting," a female officer demands. "If you let me go, I'll walk out of here," Meyer replies
Once a police officer has his or her hands on you and they're trying to get you to do something or go somewhere, you've managed to do something stupid that's gotten you pretty much past the point of verbally reasoning with them. The simple truth is that he's an idiot for letting it get to that point. I guarantee you there were plenty of points in this situation where he could have changed his behavior that would have prevented him from getting tasered. For example, let's go back to the quote. Why didn't he "I'll walk out of here" BEFORE the police felt the need to physically remove him?

Ding, dong, he's a dumbass. That's why. He acted like the cops were his mommy and daddy and that, no matter how close he got to actually getting spanked, he could whine his way out of it.

Re:Strike Three

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I live in western MA and we're nothing like Boston. I'd go so far as to say nobody west of Worcester is anything like the people from Boston.

Re:Strike Three

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

He said "Stop holding me down and I will walk out peacefully." That was about 15-25 seconds before they tazered him.

And once they DID tazer him I heard a LOT of people yelling "STOP" at the cops.

Re:Harmless Idiot

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

You are absolutely correct. He was already subdued, the taser was used to silence him.

It didn't work ... he keeps yelling all the way out the door.

asking questions or giving monologue?

[amigabill]

In the youtube video I saw, it seemed he wasn't so much asking questions as he was delivering a monologue. There were a coupel things that would look like questions in there, but he never stopped talking until the cops started dragging him away before the taser was brought out.

To those saying that liberals are a bunch of whining airbags because he was tased due to resisting arrest, even though he wasn't really asking questions to be answered, why was he put under arrest? Is being a microphone hogging idiot really that big of an offense to deserve being arrested for it?

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[Hubbell]

You obviously missed the entire point of my post. He said the guy claimed he would get up and comply if they let him go, AFTER he had already proven he was a fucktard. I'm sorry, the police have authority, not you, once you fuckup like he did, you don't get to tell them what's gonna happen, hell you don't get to in the first place.

He was NOT willing to leave. He refused to comply when asked to leave, then when they tried to make him leave he freaked out causing a scene. He then resisted arrest nonstop, was warned to stop or get tazed, he chose to get tazed. He is a crazy attention whore and nothing else, and got what he was asking for.

Re:Strike Three

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"The police did what they should have..."

Except they didn't. Once he was on the ground being held down by 4 cops, they should have handcuffed him and dragged him out. Instead of doing that, once he was held down and saying he would PEACEFULLY WALK OUT if they stopped holding him down they tazered him. At which point many members of the crowd started yelling at the police to stop. At that point the police were torturing him to try to get him to STFU.

Re:Strike Three

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

In Kerry's defense, that's how he ALWAYS speaks.

"Don't touch that it's hot!" sounds the same as "I might get my eggs scrambled for breakfast."

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[slapys]

http://xkcd.com/301/

Watch the videos again, you missed stuff

[Scrameustache]

If at the point where Kerry said he would answer the question, the student had simply put his arms up in a gesture of conformance He did EXACTLY that (@1:53 until 2:00 at which times both his arms are forced down) and the cops rushed him all the more. Then the largest of the bunch picked him up football-style and carried him all the way to the back of the auditorium, and the rest is taser history.

Re:Watch the videos again, you missed stuff

[zeet]

Your interpretation - from my view, he was just trying to get his arms out of the way so that they couldn't be used as handholds to escort him out, since he was taller and larger than at least one of the involved security staff. Disclaimer: no sound on this computer, so I was watching it silent. He looks to me like a person trying to escalate a situation.

Re:Watch the videos again, you missed stuff

[Scrameustache]

Your interpretation - from my view, he was just trying to get his arms out of the way so that they couldn't be used as handholds to escort him out, since he was taller and larger than at least one of the involved security staff. Disclaimer: no sound on this computer, so I was watching it silent. He looks to me like a person trying to escalate a situation. Yeah, you're judging with incomplete information.

He waits his turn, he speaks only when spoken to. He starts with an explanation of facts, is then interrupted by the cops off camera, he tells them "I'll ask my question", he asks his question, his microphone is cut off mid sentece. He says an ironic "thank you for cutting my mic" and is immediately physically forced away from the microphone.

Read that again.

He was asking a question at an open forum and the police proceeded to physically remove him from the premise rather than let him hear the answer to his question.

Kerry asks the officer to let him be so he can answer his question. The officers escalate the conflict, the guy attempts to break free, asks what he has done to warrant this treatment, he is simply told to not resist. Kerry keeps saying he wants to answer the question.

When the kid tries to break free, the crowd applauds.

When he's manhandled down the corridor, people in the audience ask "what are you doing!?"

Kerry keeps saying he wants to answer the question, the kid keeps asking why he's being treated like this, he is only told not to resist, and the escalation of violence is entirely the police's doing.

Re:Strike Three

[Bill_the_Engineer]

They cut off his mic and he didn't take the cue so the campus police asked him to leave. It's apparent when the guards approached him. When he resisted, he became a trespasser, which is a crime in USA. Police can taser you if you're trespassing and resisting their effort to remove you from private property. His resistance escalated the police response to tasering; it was his fault.

If you overlook the fact that he was an invited attendee to a public event that featured an open microphone to ask questions to a senator who works for and on behalf of the public. Also the event was held on property owned by the public within the state of Florida in trusted to a public educational institution for which he was a paid student. Sure I can see where your argument makes sense.

Anyway, I don't think people are questioning the fact that the student may have been disruptive. I am alarmed in the manner the situation was handled and am hesitant to send my child to that college, which is a shame since I reside close enough to University of Florida to give them consideration. I think the level of violence that was reached by the police deserves investigating and steps should be taken to prevent this from happening again.

Re:Strike Three

[Maxo-Texas]

I'm happy to concede it was the democrats since I think both parties are bought and paid for by large corporations and have been for the last 20 to 25 years.

What the democrats invented, Bush mastered however.

A little hyperbole and a little not.

[Valdrax]

So if someone says something a cop disagrees with, the cop has all the rights to stop the person from expressing his opinions freely, and then subject that person to frivolous legal procedures?

Morally no; legally yes. Effectively, you can be arrested for just about anything. However, the law sanctions cops who abuse this power. That's what the courts are for -- to sort the mess out later, and the courts take a very dim view of those who attempt to settle the matter without the involvement of the courts (by, say, trying to avoid arrest in the first place).

If an officer comes to arrest you on a frivolous charge, you better comply if you don't want to end up on the bad side of laws that give the cop the benefit of the doubt like laws against resisting arrest which are genuinely designed for both the protection of the officer, of the suspect, and of bystanders.

Later, if it turns out that you've been unlawfully detained (such as for simply expressing an opinion that an officer didn't like), then you stand a chance of winning in court. That's where civil rights organizations step in, and that's why they try to provide "legal observers" with video cameras at political events and protests. Unfortunately for this guy, I think the video evidence strongly favors the police.

What's wrong with you?

What's wrong with me is that I've got a bit better of a perspective of what the law actually is instead of what a lot of people wish it was.

I also have the maturity to recognize that society has a legitimate need to keep this sort of nonsense from happening. People shouldn't be allowed to be disruptive (especially when they've already been given an ample and fair chance to air their grievances without preventing others from exercising their right to have their say), and they shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves whether they should be arrested or not since people are notoriously unobjective about the matter.

Re:A little hyperbole and a little not.

[Scrameustache]

That's where civil rights organizations step in, and that's why they try to provide "legal observers" with video cameras at political events and protests. Unfortunately for this guy, I think the video evidence strongly favors the police. Watch a better video than the ones posted in the blurb, and come back to me and that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s

Kerry did nothing...

[Nozsd]

What bothered me even more was that Kerry just stood there [presumably] on stage like nothing was wrong. They needed so many officers to handle this one kid that it might as well had been a SWAT team. Yes, he seemed rude and obnoxious but that doesn't matter. Then, AFTER they wrestled the kid to the ground, with officers on his back, they said if he doesn't comply he'll get tased. That's like someone breaking your legs and threatening to tase you if you don't sit down and behave. Kerry just stood there, he didn't even raise his voice to make sure officers can hear him when he said he would answer the boy's questions. Well kid, I guess you now have an answer as to why he conceded; he's a fucking pussy.

Stop modding people up when they lie!

[Scrameustache]

He was acting like a raving lunatic. [...] He proceeded to cause a disturbance by breaking the rules of the forum, so no one questioed him being escorterd out. No he was not! And Kerry himself objected to his removal!

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

Kerry finishes a question, points to him, and says "Sir?".
During his question, the guy is interrupted, and at the end of his question, his mic is cut, and police immediately grab him and proceed to forcibly remove him from the premises. At that time, Kerry is asking the police to let the guy be while he answers his question. The police PREVENT KERRY FROM ANSWERING with their actions, and when the kid starts to fight them off THEN the crowd applauds him.

The Kid waited his turn, politely asked a question when he was invited to do so by Kerry, his question was interrupted as soon as he said something controversial, his microphone is then cut and he's immediately removed from the microphone area, and Kerry cannot answer the question because the officer's action are causing a disturbance in the proceeding.

THAT is what the videos show. That is what Kerry's official statement says happened.

Re:The story isn't about a kid, it's about the pol

[rizole]

Interesting...I never thought of it that way. I'm a kindergarten teacher and there are times when the pesky little blighters act like the kid at the rally and well...like you said...a tase would certainly make my job easier.

Re:Strike Three

[hasbeard]

Let me ask you, how were the police supposed to know what he was going to do if they let him up? I think by that time he had lost his chance to leave on his on volition.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[Tom]

If you look at the video they first try to remove him rather peacefully by just grabbing him by the arms and moving him. Grabbing someone's arm is not peaceful and should not be the very first step. The video shows them moving in and almost immediately grabbing him. Send those cops back to training camp. You can grab someone after you've given him at least a full sentence of the "come with us or we'll use force" kind. You do not move in and immediately grab someone who is unarmed and not threatening anyone with physical violence.

I'll even tell you why: Because lots of people have automatic defensive responses to being touched. Many simply don't like being touched by strangers, and will react like he did - arms flailing, yelling, causing a stir. Others will react with violence. You - whether you're a cop or a citizen - don't know how some stranger "ticks". Initiating physical contact without establishing verbal and eye contact first is just plain stupid.

More of the story on the Daily Kos

[restive]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/18/10649/5334

Re:Strike Three

[Wavicle]

He said "Stop holding me down and I will walk out peacefully." That was about 15-25 seconds before they tazered him.

He was already being arrested for numerous offenses at that time. You don't get to walk out scot-free because you suddenly decide that if the police start acting according to your wishes, you will suddenly become an upstanding citizen.

We wouldn't be able to have public forums like this if everyone exercised their rights in this manner. He may not have liked that they ordered him to leave, but given the manner in which he entered the building, the loaded questions plied with accusations and his response to having his mic cut off (after asking 3 questions instead of one) I think they were well within his right to escort him from the building.

Once he resisted that escort and began yelling and screaming, he entered the "you can be taken into custody for disturbing the peace" realm.

You may wish to argue that "escort" doesn't mean taking his arm, but taking his arm to escort him out is not excessive use of force by the police.

And once they DID tazer him I heard a LOT of people yelling "STOP" at the cops.

Tazing is not all roses and gum drops. Some people will become upset by it. The footage I have seen the guy is continuously struggling to get his hands away from the cuffs (by grabbing the railing bars) and disobeying a lawful order to comply. The police do not have to expose themselves to the risk of getting this guy's elbow in their eye. They can use the taser to compel his compliance.

They didn't have to. Restraint is arrest.

[Valdrax]

At what point exactly did they tell him he was under arrest?

An officer can detain you without formally arresting you pretty much at will if they have a reasonable suspicion that you are in the middle of committing a crime. They can even perform a limited search (such as a pat-down but no looking inside your belongings) without violating Fourth Amendment rights. This is known as a Terry stop.

A stop turns into an arrest the moment that the officer attempts to restrain you such that you cannot flee, either verbally or by physical force. "You are under arrest," is one way to do it, but physically restraining the suspect is another. You don't have to be told anything if they're actually trying to handcuff you -- you are already being arrested at that point. Note that despite what TV may have taught you, you don't usually get your Miranda rights read to you until you're about to interrogated.

In short, don't disobey an officer, and for God's sake don't try to wiggle your way of the grasp of one or six of them. Speak with an attorney if you want to know more, or look up info on the ACLU's, NLG's, or any number of protest groups' websites. Most of what I said should be accurate for most jurisdictions, but it may or may not be for your own, so don't take what I say as legal advice for your situation.

Oscar speeches

[jas_public]

You know, this gives me an idea for the next Oscar award presentations. The next time some Hollywood windbag goes over his allotted time at the podium... Zzzzzzzap!

MOD PARENT DOWN!

[Scrameustache]

He wanted to be tasered, or in some way publicly treated like a criminal - that was obviously his intent, and then when it happened, he whined like a little wussy.

Actions, meet consequences.
He'll get his 15 minutes, and maybe a leg up on some political conspiracy commentary that he obviously wants to make.

What a fucking idiot.

Sure, mod me Troll, but this guy - he's a meatspace Troll. Geesh, what a fob. Why is that not at -1:troll where it ought to be?
It's a long tirade of lies and insults! Damn! There's no insight in there, nothing informative. Just lies and judgments.

He is a professional heckler.

[funwithBSD]

Read his stuff here:

http://www.freewebs.com/newforum/bioandpersonalstories.htm

"Andrew Meyer is a University of Florida columnist who finds writing about himself in 3rd person to be both pretentious and strange, but will complete the exercise nonetheless. Andrew tries (keyword:tries) to write mostly whimsical nonsense columns about nothing in particular, yet occasionally finds himself angry enough to rain down fire and brimstone on an unsuspecting politician or celebrity. Andrew has been compared to Dave Barry on numerous occasions, but is arrogant enough to dislike this comparison, as he finds Barry mildly amusing, yet highly overrated. Andrew realizes that he is starting to ramble, as he is wont to do, and will end his bio thusly."

" I pissed off Ken Griffey, Jr. Before I explain how, let me repeat that for a second: I pissed off Ken Griffey, Jr. So here's what happened:"

He is an attention whore who was pushing the line. He seems to have forgot that there are some serious implications when you are heckling a senator, not a baseball player.

Re:Was his arrest a violation of the First Amendme

[harryk]

Just for conversation sake, wouldn't you consider being asked to leave, atleast in this setting, the same as being silenced?

My initial point, which perhaps I didn't make very clear, is that outside of this guy being a jerk in front of his peers, he hadn't really done anything wrong. He was passionate about the topic, and perhaps he was causing a disruption, but a verbal one.

But with that in mind, I'm glad he was that passionate. If an authority, not an individual, told you to be quite, or to leave because you were causing a stir, I would be concerned that this was a form of oppression. What if our country's founding fathers had sat quietly because they didn't want to cause a commotion. We wouldn't be sitting here under the same flag we have today. I think what I'm trying to say is that as a people we are too silent. We simply accept the rule of authority for the sake of authority and the status quo simply because it is status quo, rarely questioning the logic or the merit behind it. Shouldn't we be questioning authority at every turn to ensure that for one, the power isn't being abused, and that enforcement has been used for good, and not for tyranny?

I think I'm still failing to get my point across. The student was being asked to leave, after receiving the attention of Sen. Kerry, who was (apparently) willing to talk with and answer the students questions. The police should NOT have intervened. There simply wasn't a need for it.

I can prove that I am right

[Scrameustache]

Just to review, here's what happened in our conversation:
1. you made a statement that was patently false. You claimed that the police didn't like the content of the kid's questions. In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s at 0:42 the officer interrupts him to tell him they do not approve of what he is saying: He says "there were multiple reports of disenfranchised black voters" and the Florida cop interrupts him and repeatedly says "ask the question, just ask the question".

So when I say that they arrested him because they didn't like the content of his question, I say something true that I can back with proof.

Re:I can prove that I am right

[oni]

you really are some kind of moron if you think a bunch of cops are standing around listening to what questions people ask and when whey hear, "disenfranchisement" they swing into action and start tasering. I mean, seriously. If you honestly think that the cops just decided among themselves that the content of his question was inappropriate, then you are delusional. You just can't possibly be sane.

Those cops are making minimum wage. They don't give a flying fuck what questions people ask. Hell, one of the cops was black. If anything, he probably agreed with the question.

So no, there is no possible way that the cops "just didn't like the content of his question." That is a ridiculous statement.

Re:Strike Three

[lena_10326]

If you overlook the fact that he was an invited attendee to a public event that featured an open microphone to ask questions to a senator who works for and on behalf of the public. Also the event was held on property owned by the public within the state of Florida in trusted to a public educational institution for which he was a paid student. Sure I can see where your argument makes sense.

The university is state funded, but the property is not public property. It is granted to the institution by the government. You do not have rights to the property, because it's not a public park.

Paying tuition is meaningless regarding this debate. A student can be banned from campus if the student violates campus rules. No refunds.

Re:Strike Three

[Scrameustache]

it's apparent many were applauding the police, which implied they perceived the student to be a disruption. They applaud HIM when he resists the arrest. They asks the cops "what are you doing!?" when they drag they off, and they applauded him while he was making his opening statement, all of which is very clear in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s

Re:Strike Three

[PopeRatzo]

Ah, so it's *Bush's* fault that a persistent heckler was tasered by campus cops at a Kerry event.

No, it's because every two-bit authoritarian thinks it's OK to shut up anybody who's saying anything they don't like.

That's Bush's fault.

Re:Here's a crazy idea - competent police!

[Bryan Ischo]

The reason that the "21-year-old white kid" (nice subtle racism there by the way - you imply that if he wasn't white it would be less surprising that the cops wouldn't be able to control him) didn't obey the cops is because he knows that he is no real physical danger. It is precisely because cops can be so easily disrespected with only minor consequences (yeah whiners here and elsewhere will claim that he was brutalized but as far as I know he was not injured in any way) that people like this do it.

The reason that it took 3 or 4 cops is that it is very difficult to subdue someone without hurting him or yourself. If cops were allowed to do whatever was necessary to subdue the victim, the first thing they'd do is probably punch them in the nose. A hard enough hit would make most people drop and cover themselves from further abuse, pretty effective. Is this what you would advocate? Sounds like it, because this kind of overt violence is the only way that I can see a single cop having a good chance of subduing a victim who is intent on physically resisting - that or smacking them in the face with a baton, or shooting them.

Whether or not you agree with what the cops are doing, they have every right to arrest you and use force in doing so. If I was in a situation like that involving the cops I would definitely comply with any reasonable orders they would give. I can sue later if need be but physically confronting a cop is not good for anyone involved and is just stupidity.

If you resist arrest you are an absolute idiot whose only solace will be the supporting comments of similar idiots on public internet forums.

That's a MUCH better vid, but it's worse for him.

[Valdrax]

Looks worse for him than I'd thought. His body language and facial expressions more clearly show that he was not prepared to yield the floor, and this video actually captures the voices of the people asking him to stop. It also gives a clearer view of his expression when the mike is cut at 1:40. He clearly gets agitated and speaks angrily to the officials behind him while waving the book. It's pretty clear from this video that he was going to continue to be disruptive, so the officers did not err in leading him out.

Now look around the 2:44 mark. You get a pretty good view of how difficult he was making it for three people to put his arms together. You can clearly see the other half of the cuff is still free a couple of seconds before the taser hits him. (There's a reflection from the cuffs at 3:06 right before the shock at 3:08.) You can hear the ratcheting sound of other cuff being secured at about 3:17.

As far as I'm concerned, this is only more favorable to the police. It shows more clearly how he intended to continue to be disruptive by better showing his body language and his immediate reaction to the mike being cut, and it gives a far better view of how he was struggling against being cuffed.

textbook my ass

[Scudsucker]

They tasered him *after* he was on the ground with half a dozen officers on top of him. Using it then was textbook police brutality, not tactics.

Re:textbook my ass

[jjohnson]

There were four officers, not six. And while on the ground, he continued to struggle to prevent them from cuffing him.

Do you think they wanted to use the taser? Do you think every cop is not aware how it looks? Do you honestly think that if they felt like they had full control of him and that he was co-operative, they still would taser him?

Re:textbook my ass

[rhizome]

There were four officers, not six. And while on the ground, he continued to struggle to prevent them from cuffing him.

"DUHHHH, BOSS SAYS I HAVE 2 SUBDUE PPL WATEVER IT TAKES WHENEVER THEY DO SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE. I DUN WANT OTHER COPS 2 THINK I'M A PUSSY."

Re:textbook my ass

[Scudsucker]

There were four officers, not six.

You need new glasses.

And while on the ground, he continued to struggle to prevent them from cuffing him.

Irrelevant. Cops use tasers as an alternative to shooting someone, not for noncompliance.

Do you honestly think that if they felt like they had full control of him and that he was co-operative, they still would taser him?

They DID have control of him and they DID taser him. And tasers are notorious for being used by lazy cops on nonviolent suspects.

Re:Strike Three

[Miguelito]

> He said "Stop holding me down and I will walk out peacefully." That was about 15-25 seconds before they tazered him.

Which was after he'd already been physically resisting them. Police are taught (for their, and the general public's own safety) to subdue a person once they physically resist. The person has already shown they're not going to follow directions, why should you believe them now?

That said... did they go to far? A court will likely decide and policies might be changed. But in a situation like this, you are legally supposed to do what a peace officer says. If anyone ever gets into a situation like this you should do what they say, and deal with any wrongful issues later... sue if it makes you happy. Once you physically resist, you're only giving the police an excuse that they might've not had before.

I know people that have been taken into custody by police before and were almost immediately let go, because they cooperated. One was a match to a suspect in the area (he had the same type/color jeep and was the same physical description). He went through the whole exercise of, "Driver, exit your vehicle with your hands up... driver walk 4 steps back... lie down.." and was cuffed. As soon as they realized he wasn't the suspect, they apologized, explained why it had happened, and let him go. In any of these cases: you fight, and you're going to go down, and possibly to jail for resisting.

Will this lead to camera ban?

[glutinous]

I wonder if events such as this will lead to having camera-recording being banned in certain events? I doubt it, but just a thought...

Re:keyword: annoying!

[Bryan Ischo]

I cannot believe that people who otherwise sound intelligent are using arguments like yours to defend someone who was obviously wrong. Let's examine the sequence of events shall we?

1. Kid attends Kerry's public speaking function. No problem here.

2. Kid waits until he is allowed to address a question to the speaker. No problem here.

3. Kid doesn't ask question but makes statements. He is not following the informal rules of the event but nobody has a real problem with it.

4. Kid extends beyond his 40 second question period and is asked to wrap it up. Slight problem because he's already violated the rules of the event but this is not a problem the police need to or do get involved with. This is between the forum moderator and the kid.

5. Kid keeps talking. A minute or more has passed. He is allowed to ask his three questions, despite going over his time. Still nobody has a problem (despite the audience clearly getting sick of the guy), because he is supposedly done; he's stepped away from (or maybe been tugged away from, I can't tell) the microphone. Still no problem, if the kid walks away at this point the event continues and his "questions" get answered.

6. Kid physically forces his way back to the microphone and attempts to continue talking. Now there is a problem. This kid has initiated a confrontation with the event moderators and therefore with the police, who are there to enforce order in the proceedings. Nobody asked or made the kid do this; he was not goaded into it or given no way out. He had a clear way out of this - to walk away - and he refused. At this point he is disrupting the event, which is a problem. Yeah Kerry said he'd answer his question, but he didn't ask to allow the kid to stay at the microphone. I don't think you can read too much into the speaker saying "It's OK" - I think that only really reasonable interpretation is that he's just trying to calm the kid down, to let him know that his question will be answered, to get him to stop causing a problem. But the kid doesn't even seem to acknowledge what Kerry has said. And Kerry isn't in control of this function anyway and doesn't have authority to tell the police what to do.

7. Officers attempt to physically move him away from the microphone and out of the event. They escalate the physical confrontation pretty quickly because they assess that asking him to comply will have no effect. I think this is a reasonable assumption given his unwillingness to follow previous requests to complete his question and leave the microphone area. The kid is now causing real problems.

8. The kid resists the physical attempts of the police to remove him, and continues to resist. All he had to do was comply, to leave the area. The officers have every right to ask him to leave - he is "disturbing the peace" of the event. And they have every right to force him to comply. The kid continues to cause problems by, instead of just walking out and dealing with the police in a civilized manner, he physically resists them. Once he starts physically resisting them, he is clearly breaking a law - resisting arrest.

9. Police attempt for several minutes to subdue him and get him to follow their commands, and complete the arrest, but he continues to physically resist. Police eventually threaten to and then do use a taser to get him to comply. Guess what - it works. Seems like a perfectly reasonable choice to me; if it hadn't worked them I suppose one could question whether or not it was the right choice. But without physical harm to the kid, they get him to comply, complete the arrest, and escort him out. How can you argue that the taser was not appropriate here, when it filled its role perfectly?

I honestly think that the police acted *completely* appropriately in this situation. The kid was causing problems, and was removed with no harm to anyone. The taser caused him pain but this was the safest means of getting him to comply with the completely justified orders of the cops, and he brought it on himself.

Can you explain exactly how the police removing a person who is disturbing others is "illegal"?

Re:The story isn't about a kid, it's about the pol

[chengmi]

I'd go for electrodes on the keyboard... gives a whole new meaning to BSOD...

what a crock

[Scudsucker]

At no point did he push, hit, or yell at the officers beyond "leave me alone" and "don't taser me". The police were unjustified in their actions from start to finish, and deserved to be hit with a huge lawsuit. And the cop who tasered him when he was on the ground with half a dozen guys on top him should not only lose his job, but go to jail for assault.

Re:what a crock

[workindev]

Did you even watch the video? He visibly yanks the officers holding on to his arm several times. The last time he yanked so hard that he lost his balance and fell to the ground. He forcibly hits the female officer with his elbow while he is trying to break free and return to the microphone. Even after he was on the ground you can see him rolling around and pushing the officers away while they are trying to handcuff him. It wasn't until after they tased him that they were able to get the handcuffs on both hands and control the situation. I don't see how you could argue that the use of force was not justified. Before the use of force, suspect is unrestrained, disrupting a public event, and refusing to comply with police orders. After the use of force, suspect is restrained and escorted out of the room. It's as simple as that.

The only unfortunate thing about this situation is that this dweeb is getting exactly what he hoped for -- nationwide attention. He clearly wasn't trying to get John Kerry to answer his questions, otherwise he wouldn't have kept interrupting him every time Kerry tried to answer him.

Re:what a crock

[Scudsucker]

Did you even watch the video?

Did you? Watch it again. He does try to break free, but by moving away from the officers. Once again: he did not hit, shove, or threaten the officers.

He forcibly hits the female officer with his elbow while he is trying to break free and return to the microphone.

I just watched the video again four times. You are imagining things.

Even after he was on the ground you can see him rolling around and pushing the officers away while they are trying to handcuff him.

Too damn bad. Cops taser people as an alternative to shooting them, not for noncompliance.

No doubt, the kid is an ass. But being an ass is not a crime in this country, and the first amendment isn't to protect non-controversial speech.

Parent is nothing but lies, modded up!?

[Scrameustache]

What he did do was monopolize the mic He had the mic for exactly 1 minute and 30 seconds total, including the times when he was interrupted by the police just after he mentioned disenfranchised black voters. After this exact 1.5 minute, he was physically removed by the police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s
Kerry gives him the go ahead after finishing another question, he starts talking at 0:10, and the microphone is cut at 1:40.

How can you say that is monopolizing the mic?
Stop trying to turn this into something it's not.

Re:Parent is nothing but lies, modded up!?

[Supergood-ape]

"How can you say that is monopolizing the mic?"

Because it was. Could anyone else effectively use said mic for the time he was present in the room? NO!

So your attempt to make the actual time he spent in front of the mic the issue, instead of the time he monopolized its use, is transparent. You know very well he prevented anyone from effectively using their time as allotted, hence "monopolizing the mic"

"Stop trying to turn this into something it's not."

You mean like a free speech issue? Deal.

As an aside, I'd prefer if you didn't respond to anything I post, I have yet to see anything from you that's worth reading, and you bore me by regurgitating the same ridiculous points while failing to absorb information from those who refute you.

Re:Parent is nothing but lies, modded up!?

[Scrameustache]

"How can you say that is monopolizing the mic?"

Because it was. Could anyone else effectively use said mic for the time he was present in the room? NO! He waited for Kerry to finish answering another question.
Then Kerry turned to him and said "sir?", and then he proceeds with his own question, but is not allowed to finish because of a third party's interruption.

And to you, this is him preventing everyone else from asking questions?
How did Kerry know what question to answer if everyone was prevented from asking anything while he was in the room? Magic?

As an aside, I'd prefer if you didn't respond to anything I post Right back at you.

Re:Parent is nothing but lies, modded up!?

[Supergood-ape]

"And to you, this is him preventing everyone else from asking questions?"

No,but the screaming and fighting with the police was. I like how you pretend we didn't see that in the video, because it completely refutes you and moots your point, so you ignore it.

"As an aside, I'd prefer if you didn't respond to anything I post
Right back at you"

Then why did YOU just respond?

Re:Democrats and brutality

[mdsolar]

'S OK. Democrats get carried away with abuse of power. We tend to notice it more since it is directed towards us. Republicans tend to just as corrupt these days, but it used to be that with them it was not so personal. Now that we've got some of them convicted for their abuses, I expect we'll get more heat from them too. They play as a team.

Re:Strike Three

[crystalattice]

If anyone ever gets into a situation like this you should do what they say, and deal with any wrongful issues later... sue if it makes you happy.

My military supervisor said the same thing when our command forced all the military people to attend a funeral; civilians had the option to go but weren't obligated. The problem the military people had was that we were apparently being used as an additional honor guard in addition to the regular honor guard. If we had been asked to go, that was fine. But being forced to go was another matter.

Back on topic, my supervisor said that you essentially can't do anything until after the fact. You can be threatened all you want but until your rights are violated, it's all just talk. After your rights have been violated, then you can start notifying the press, writing your Congress critter, or whatever you feel will give you justice.

In this instance, the guy was being a jackass. He was deliberately provoking Kerry and it's not like Kerry sicced the hounds on him. If the guy was smart, he would have asked one question then came up again and again to ask his other questions.

Were the cops right in tasering him after they dragged him to the floor? I don't think so since he was already effectively subdued. But they are "rent-a-thugs" working as campus cops, not true police officers. I don't know what the requirements are to be a campus cop, but I don't imagine they have the same training as a police academy.

Re:That's a MUCH better vid

[Scrameustache]

His body language and facial expressions more clearly show that he was not prepared to yield the floor, [...] It shows more clearly how he intended to continue to be disruptive by better showing his body language and his immediate reaction to the mike being cut, and it gives a far better view of how he was struggling against being cuffed. Continue to be disruptive??????

How was he disruptive to begin with? By asking a question to a person who was asking for questions and who plainly states that it is an important question and that he wants to answer it?
In what insane bizarro world is that being disruptive?

It's about having the balls to do the right thing

[dhavleak]

Kerry did answer his question, or try to. The nut-case wouldn't shut up long enough for anybody else to get a word in edgewise. Besides, he was just spouting paranoid conspiracy theories. You didn't get the point then. Meyer's questions could be summed up as him telling Kerry "I agree with your stance (on said issues) -- but why didn't you have the courage and conviction to follow your own stance? Whether it was the Florida vote counting, or giving Bush the power to wage war in Iraq? You could have been president, and you could have helped prevent a war -- why didn't you try harder?"

Fair question. He needed more than his allotted time to pose the question - that's fine. The time limit should not be used as an excuse to stifle political debate. And violating your time limit as an excuse to taser someone? That's completely insane.

Ironically, this incident just brought out Kerry's lack of guts even further. He could have got down from the stage and intervened. There's no way the cops would have continued to manhandle the dude if he had done so. Instead he remained at the mic meekly saying stuff like "that's alright, I'll answer his question". That only illustrated his point further.

And it's extremely valid -- Bush hasn't just succeeded in waging war because of his administration's guile and politics of fear. He's also managed it because the Democrats have shown complete spinelessness at every point along the way when they had a chance to do the right thing, or to keep the administration in check. His (Meyer's) point to Kerry was that it isn't enough to have the right stance, or have the right intentions. You have to have the courage to act on your convictions as well, especially when so much is at stake

Besides, this guy was obstructing the event and monopolizing the speaker. I would wager the other participants were happy to see him taken away, they were trying to listen to Kerry, not this crazy jerk's wild-ass conspiracy theories. You seriously missed the point. The Skull and bones thing is just a veiled way of asking "Was there some reason you did not act when you had the chance to prevent a war?". The reason could be anything - not just some alliance with Bush through skull and bones. There could have been all kinds of lobbying (invisible to us voters), including bribes, and you should also factor in vote bank politics (i.e. not wanting to take too strong a stance because then ppl will think that he's soft, even in spite of 9/11). i.e. Is Kerry willing to sit silent (or just pretending to oppose without acting to oppose) when there's a war brewing, for the sake of not alienating voters? He certainly was willing to be an observer to the unnecessary force being used just 20 or so yards in front of him.

And dude -- you need to get some perspective. Monopolizing the speaker, and obstructing an event are, well, rude things to do. I'd gladly put up with a bit of rudeness if our politicians finally get put on the spot to account for their spinelessness. The rest of the country should as well. Tasering the dude was simply not ok.

And lastly -- listen to the audio of the clip more closely. You'll hear many many people yelling at the cops to let Meyer go, asking what he did wrong, etc. From their treatment of Meyer its understandable that people from the audience would be scared to intervene beyond yelling stuff at the cops or in his support. The one person with sufficient authority to actually stop the situation from spiraling out of control was Kerry, and he did nothing. This whole situation is a very good metaphor for the inaction and gutlessness of the Democrats over the last 7 years.

This situation where you can't ask your politicians a question, can't put them on the spot in any kind of way, and have to stick to the rules of the forum (10 second limit to ask questions, no rebuttals, etc.) are basically approaching situations in communist countries. The forum itself is designed to stifle dissent, and make it easy for politicians to avoid answering tough questions. And deviating from the rules of the forum results in brutality..

Kerry was even on his side.

[Anonymous Coward]

In both videos you can hear Kerry saying "No thats alright, I'll answer his question". Kerry himself didn't want it to happen.

I don't mean to comment on anything that happened after the police started escorting this kid out.

What I will comment on is a severe lack of tolerance of the actions of others. So what if they get a little loud and venture into crazy theories while running a few *seconds* over their alloted time?

He wasn't a threat to anyone and IMHO likely would have passed the (CUT MIC) on to the next person much quicker than the spectacle created *by the police* getting involved.

Belligerence works both ways. Throughout history riots that have left people dead and serious injured have had their roots in the same displays of mutual lack of tolerance and respect.

Four Cops?

[rpbird]

A long time ago in a bar far, far from here....a buddy of mine was acting like a jerk. Two bouncers picked him up, carried him outside, and told him to go home. Four cops can't pick up a college kid, carry him outside, and tell him to get lost? They gotta zap the guy? Did they think he had a knife or something? When did being a jerk become a felony? If it has, I'd better warn my friends.

Re:Strike Three

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"You don't get to walk out scot-free because you suddenly decide that if the police start acting according to your wishes, you will suddenly become an upstanding citizen."

l2readingz. That's not what he was implying. He was going to walk out with the police and be arrested and booked if they STOPPED ASSAULTING HIM. And right after that, while he was being held down when they could have simply handcuffed him and dragged him out.. because he was being loud because he didn't enjoy his beating that's when they TORTURED him to "ensure compliance."

Re:The end of democracy or Kerry's political caree

[mdsolar]

But what would they be taught in those classes? People should know civics before they get to college, you need to work at an earlier age.

"Less than Lethal" means it can kill

[rpbird]

People have died from taser shocks.

"It is possible that tasers or any other high voltage device could cause cardiac arrhythmia in a susceptible minority of people, possibly leading to heart attack or death in minutes by ventricular fibrillation (which leads to cardiac arrest and if not treated immediately to sudden death).....People susceptible to this outcome are sometimes healthy and unaware of their susceptibility....
Between June 2001 and June 2007, there were at least 245 cases of deaths of subjects soon after having been shocked using Tasers...."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_weapon_controversy]

Any method used to subdue can kill. Does rude or obnoxious behavior deserve this kind of response? Whatever happened to picking a guy up and carrying him out? Or putting a wrist lock on him and walking him out? Or just talking the guy out? A couple years ago, a crazed individual, thinking I had insulted him in the parking lot (to this day I don't who he was or why he was so angry), followed me into a bookstore and began to threaten me and scream obscenities. I'm just an ordinary guy, but I talked him out of the store and into the street. Frustrated at his inability to provoke me, he wandered off. Taser first is not the way to go.

Re:"Less than Lethal" means it can kill

[gordo3000]

great source, a wikipedia article which has actually got about 20 tags for "citation needed". shall I go edit the page now and say something completely different? Wikipedia is good, but use a bit of care when citing it as it is always a work in progress.

again, find something on a stun gun. it is different from a taser as most people know them. they cause local pain and only minimally effect the nervous system, which is why he could scream in pain and then walk out.

Re:"Less than Lethal" means it can kill

[Gailin]

http://www.google.com/search?&q=stun%20gun%20related%20death

or

http://www.thought-criminal.org/2007/09/03/coroners-create-national-database-to-track-stun-gun-related-deaths

I didn't realize using Google was beyond your abilities.

Re:"Less than Lethal" means it can kill

[gordo3000]

now go look up teh difference between being hit with a 50k volt taser (your references) and a stun gun. one burns the skin, the other incapacitates your muscles from responding.

I didn't realize you were incapable of doing proper, accurate research on a topic. the first step is understanding the difference between the wide range of "tasers" that are used by law enforcement. I'm glad you've now shown that many people use the 2 terms interchangeably and therefore, a blind google search leads to articles about the taser vs. what this kid was hit with.

Re:"Less than Lethal" means it can kill

[rpbird]

Way to miss the point. There are a variety of means of subduing someone or diffusing the situation before going to a "less than lethal" weapon. "Less than lethal" can kill (this includes bean bag guns, rubber bullets, every variety of taser and stun gun, and pepper spray - since you're such experts, you go find the citations - who knew the term paper police were active on slashdot?), other techniques should be used first. I have seen the video of this confrontation, and this guy was resisting, but they had him under control. How about a little common sense? Why the cops didn't put cuffs on him and march him out to the patrol car I don't know. There would have been no controversy, they would have put him in a holding cell for an hour until he cooled down, and then they'd just let him go. Now, it's law suits, people losing their jobs, the college looking bad, etc., etc. As to my slashdot critics, well, in my experience, when someone focuses on the technical minutiae of an article while ignoring the main point, it means they've run out of arguments. The cops were wrong to taser the guy. Just being a jerk is not a qualification for being tasered.

Let's make two big piles of articles, one for and another against, and the highest pile wins. Never mind common sense or science, highest pile wins.

Re:"Less than Lethal" means it can kill

[gordo3000]

you're right. so how about you go learn about the different methods of getting someone who is resisting to comply. guess what, it isn't as easy as just putting cuffs on their wrists. It may be hard to imagine, but you can resist almost as effectively while hand cuffed (and seeing as how the kid wasn't letting them cuff him, how about you show me a nice, not-painful way to force someone).

you seem to think there is some large difference between a stun gun and the shoulder locks required to both force someone to submit to being cuffed or some of the wrist locks that you can use which would get a person to walk out (there are pressure points as well that some cops learn).

you're right, if safety terms they are a world apart. if the cop makes a small mistake, the kid's wrist could break, shoulder dislocate, or rotator cuff get injured. that is serious damage. how about before you start trying to argue the reason to use certain pain compliance methods in different situations you actually go learn how each one works and the real dangers of each; maybe even feel what they are like. most people who have the choice suddenly realize why many cops prefer stun guns: They don't want to cause any permanent damage or long term injuries!*

now it's obvious you are biased against tasering someone. that's fine but then just say you feel these stun guns are equivalent to the tasers that immobilize someone. no person trained in how the two work(or who have felt both) would agree but you can have your opinion about the tools available to a cop; this doesn't mean that your opinion is what a cop should base his use of these tools on. A cop should base his decision to use any of the things in his repertoire on experience with each tool, good science as to it's safety, and the situation.

it seems your argument wouldn't fit in a common sense or science pile. science is what my argument is based one. common sense would be an argument based on the cop considering the public perception of his actions(kind of what you were talking about). but we need a third pile for your argument: one where we put all the arguments that ignore the details of the situation when it suits them. let's ignore the fact that he wasn't cuffed until after he was tasered because he was resisting. let's ignore the fact he didn't comply with multiple verbal commands from the cops. and let's ignore the fact of what it actually takes to make someone physically comply with your commands and what tools actually exist that can be used.

*I'm sure there are a few cops out there that just want to try out their new toy. cops can be childish as well as professional. I even know a couple who said they were that childish when they first started.

Re:Strike Three

[curious.corn]

This video says it all: the guy was making a sort of statement, one in favour of Kerry as in "you're our man, why didn't you fight for us?" and people in the public were already clapping hands.
Before he could finish off, thugs shut him off and carried him away, he made a fuss, a middle aged hippie woman stared incredulously and the zapper fired. At that point an off scene female voice demanded explanation expressing strong dissent and she was told to keep off as in "...or else, you're next..."
Fine, bravi... we had G8 Genova, authorized demonstrators got batoned with the "tonfa", a kid was shot in the head and a dormitory raided in chilean style. It's the same idea: either march or rot... where's democracy? In war declaration preambles? :-(
e

They should have helped him? Are you NUTS?

[Chas]

He was making a public nuisance (and ass) of himself!

The police tried to escort him away from the mic. He kept acting out and fighting with them.

What the fuck do you THINK is going to happen when you fight with police?

The reason why nothing more came from the crowd (other than some silly little girls screaming over "the horror" of it), was because the police were in the right here.

Had this dumbshit kept his cool, and not tried to fight, he would have had his question answered AND wouldn't have gotten tasered for fighting with police.

Gestapo my ass. Godwin called. He wants his law back.

He offered to leave...AFTER fighting

[Chas]

Two words "TOO LATE!"

You don't fight with the cops, struggle with them, make a nuisance of yourself, then expect them to just let you walk away.

Re:Strike Three

[lena_10326]

They applaud HIM when he resists the arrest. They asks the cops "what are you doing!?" when they drag they off, and they applauded him while he was making his opening statement, all of which is very clear in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s

I watched it so that makes 3 angles I've seen. "They" did not ask the police "what are you doing!?". He asked them "what the f-ck are you doing?". And, the audience applauded a full 4 seconds before he asked the question as they began escorting him down the aisle. He resisted and went toward the stage where Mr Kerry was standing, which was not a smart move. Any unexpected movement toward the senator will be construed as a potential threat.

Also, if one were to witness a civil rights violation and applauded thinking one is supporting the victim, then one is an idiot. Sorry.

By the way, police do consider the words you use when assessing whether or not you're going to present a threat or resistance to them when removing you from the building. The student chose his words very poorly.

Re:Strike Three

[lena_10326]

Oh yes. I forgot, thanks for that particular link. It demonstrates my point even more than the other clips.

Let's try not to be reasonable

[subnomine]

What's with all the Insightful, Informative, and Interesting comments? When a student gets taser'd its FUNNY. Entertain me!

Incident was caused by the initial police action.

[Jace Harker]

Speakers like this show up all the time in town meetings. They're annoying and a little kooky-sounding, they take too long, and sometimes they don't even ask a direct question. The same people sometimes show up on radio call-in shows.

In both cases, there is a universal standard response: The speaker or moderator interrupts the person, thanks them for their "question", and proceeds to answer it. In extreme cases, the person might have their mike cut off or be booed by the audience.

It's very clear from the video (link below) that the student fell squarely into this category. He had waited to be called on by Kerry, had asked a long and rambling question, and under a moderator's pressure was wrapping it up. The situation was entirely calm, and John Kerry was about to assert control and answer the question.

Then the police tried to grab the student and take him away.

Needless to say, the situation immediately escalated. You may blame the student for not going quietly, but I think you're missing the context. Although he sounded a bit loony, the whole situation was well within "town hall meeting" norms until the police acted. His knee-jerk "get away from me" reaction came out of sheer surprise. I would be shocked if a police officer grabbed me in such a situation.

Your perception after watching the video may be "dangerous wacko gets grabbed by police", but the situation did not become dangerous or wacko until after the police committed assault.

The real, broad danger from this incident is that it reinforces the idea that the initial police action in that situation was reasonable. It was not.

This YouTube video shows the whole incident from close up in excellent detail.

Re:That's what they tried at first! WTFV!

[celle]

How about not violating his civil rights first.

Re:Partial trascript of the guy after he's tasered

[Queltor]

Left-wing delusion? No. According to his Facebook page, his political leaning is Libertarian.

This was more like a rabid fear of government.

student tasered

[writerlady]

John Kerry remarked AFTER the incident that it was too bad that a healthy discussion was cut off. Where was Kerry during the mangling and tasering? He never said stop, let him go, by your leave or kiss my foot. At least the student had some hot passion for what he was saying; Kerry, as usual, was tepid. Has he forgotten his own Anti-Vuetnam-war protests and witnessing to Congress? I wonder if those security officers were trained in Tiananmen Square. Writerlady

Re:student tasered

[writerlady]

I'm sorry I've lived long enough to see what has happened to my country. I remember when we had government; now, we just have politics, ruled by a madman.

Re:Strike Three

[The One and Only]

They cut off his mic and he didn't take the cue so the campus police asked him to leave.

No, they grabbed him the second the mic was cut off. Watch the video again.

The last question was a Family Guy joke

[horza]

When the guy asked the skull and crossbones question he'd gone off the deep end into tinfoil hat land.

I thought the question was pretty funny. It's a Family Guy reference, when Chris goes to private school and his grandfather initiates him into the "skull and crossbones society" of which all the US political leaders have been members. Bush would have got the reference and maybe found it amusing, as he is a Simpsons fan and surely watches Family Guy, but I'm not sure Kerry would have got it. Admittedly a bit of a nerdish joke and not particularly appropriate for the forum.

Phillip.

Re:Strike Three

[MaggieL]

So, Bush is responsible for Hugo Chavez. Sure, that makes sense too.

Re:That's what they tried at first! WTFV!

[The One and Only]

It was the police who created the disturbance. He was at a public forum asking Senator Kerry three questions. He was guilty of nothing more than going a little over his time and excessively prefacing his first question. After he was already finished asking the third question, the police grabbed him and tried to forcibly remove him from the premises. Putting your hands on someone in that fashion is assault, and you can't exactly complain that the victim of an assault is "creating a disturbance" when he shouts things like "get the fuck off me!" and "help!".

A legal perspective Under the circumst

[ResearchedResponse]

Meyer was arrested (seized):
Under the circumstances here, Meyer was seized (arrested). He was both physically restrained and, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable innocent person would not think he was free to terminate the encounter with the police. Therefore he was arrested (seized) under both definitions.

Seizure with excessive force is unconstitutional:
One kind of Constitutionally unreasonable arrest is one with excessive force, in other words, police brutality. Therefore the next question is whether the police used excessive force in arresting Meyer.

Florida law limits the use of force by police:
Florida law allows the use of force when a person is resisting a lawful arrest. See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05
An arrest is only lawful when the police have probable cause to think that the suspect has violated the law. Therefore the question is whether the police reasonably believed that Meyer had committed some crime.

Police only allowed to use force for "lawful arrests:"
The crime(s) of which Meyer was accused (other than resisting arrest) are
apparently (depending on which newspaper article you read) inciting riot or obstructing an educational institution. A quick skim of those laws convinces me that it is unlikely that Meyer violated either one. See the text of these laws at: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0877/SEC13.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0877-%3ESection%2013#0877.13

This arrest was not lawful, so the force was illegal:
Therefore the police were not entitled to use force against Meyer because the lacked probable cause to think he had violated the law. In the absence of probable cause, the arrest is not a "lawful arrest," and therefore force is not authorized under Florida law. Therefore the police's use of force was illegal. Furthermore, Florida law expressly makes the use of force unlawful in such situations, stating that "a law enforcement officer . . . is not justified in the use of force if the arrest is lawful and known by him or her to be unlawful." See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC051.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%20051#0776.051

Even if the arrest was lawful, the force was excessive:
Further, even if we assume that Meyer had violated some criminal law, such that the police were entitled to use some force in the arrest, they are only entitled to use force reasonable under the circumstances. See the applicable Florida law on the use of force. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05

In this case Meyer was trying to avoid arrest but he threatened nobody. That is, Meyer was just yelling and trying to get away (by flailing around, yelling, and trying to walk away and evade the police's grasp). He didn't bite, kick, have a weapon, etc.

Therefore under the circumstances, the use of the taser was excessive force. Since excessive force was used in accomplishing the seizure of Meyer, Me

Re:Strike Three

[Wavicle]

That's not what he was implying. He was going to walk out with the police and be arrested and booked if they STOPPED ASSAULTING HIM.

I don't get that he was implying he'd walk out peaceably to be arrested, however that point is moot. He had moved himself beyond that option by resisting lawful arrest. You don't get to dictate terms once you start resisting.

they could have simply handcuffed him and dragged him out

I strongly disagree with that. The video clearly shows him struggling, reaching for the railing and hanging on. The "simple" procedure you refer to involves prying one hand off while holding another. As can be seen from the video, there was nothing simple about it. He was being quite forceful in resisting arrest.

because he was being loud because he didn't enjoy his beating

I did not see anyone beat him. I know you are being willfully free with your definitions, but 'beating' to the average person implies striking.

that's when they TORTURED him to "ensure compliance."

You really enjoy slinging that word around. It belittles the real suffering victims of torture have endured to call a single tazing by that word. I suggest you re-read how international law defines it. By your definition there there is a humanitarian crisis everyday at high schools all over the country - far more damage is done in schoolyard fights than was done here. Don't disrespect the people who have really been tortured by comparing it to this.

Re:Strike Three

[Brian Gordon]

He wasn't really moving toward kerry. When he started to pull away he must have noticed immediately the alarm that the police officers showed and realized he was basically backpedaling toward the stage, so he immediately threw up his hands and turned into an aisle.

Yeah he was clearly trying to get the crowd to help him (technically inciting a riot I suppose), but even though it's against the law it's not like they can really expect him to do otherwise. He clearly thought that his rights are being violated in a major way; nobody would just go down without a fight if they were as upset as he obviously was. It's like the international war code on POWs which actually says it's a war crime to punish POWs for trying to escape, since "come on, you really don't expect them to sit there like good prisioners do you?"

Re:Strike Three

[Brian Gordon]

The lady jumping up and screaming "WTF TASER? ARE YOU CRAZY? !!!" is what I would have expected out of all of those students. If the police want to get ripped to pieces then they'd do stupid stuff like tasing a student for taking too much time. The crowd knows what they have to do but only that one woman has the guts to do it.

Re:Strike Three

[lena_10326]

No, they grabbed him the second the mic was cut off. Watch the video again.

They verbally warned him before they grabbed him, oh that's right.. you didn't watch the other video showing what happened 60 seconds before. Watch this video. After cutting off the mic, they grabbed his arms to escort him out of the building, which was not an overbearing response. They tasered him long after after he initiated resistance.

Scan to 0m:41s (warning) and then 1m:47s where the female officer is clearing speaking to him saying "stop". Her voice was below the mic levels on the other two clips on youtube, but picked up on that clip because the camera was closer.

The rules were clear: 1 question then relinquish the mic. The student asked more than 4 questions without giving Kerry a chance to answer and spewed an endless nonsensical diatribe. Clearly against the rules of the debate session.

I don't form opinions willy nilly. I really do look at the evidence, which showed he was in the wrong. If you're going to ask me to watch the video again, then I ask you to cut the bias.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[jemenake]

How did he deserve it?

I agree. This whole scene is one where everyone was erring on the side of idiocy. For starters, the student was being a moron by soapboxing instead of asking a question and going over his time. Okay, so the cops have to haul him out. If he had gone peacefully, then would have ushered him out and told him to stay out and there would have been no arrest. But the kid decides to make even more of a scene. Okay... well, that ups the ante, and the cops are going to really arrest you. Dork!

While this was going on, I think Kerry had a golden opportunity to stick up for freedom of speech (even when it devolves from lip service to, [gasp!], heated political dialogue) by shouting "Unhand that man!" and telling the dork that "I'll answer your question, but only if you can calm down". Instead, you can hear him blabbing about how it's a "good question", and carrying on as if there isn't a takedown happening 50 feet away.

Lastly, the police were idiotic by not carrying him out. They had him pinned, and they could have cuffed and/or zip-tied him and just carried him out the door... but they wanted the people to see the complete subduing process. You can see the female officer bend over to him and command him to calm down before they have to use further measures. Now, I should add that, for MOST of this altercation, there was an officer all set to taze him, but didn't. They wrestled him toward the back. Pinned him. Told him to calm down. They even WARNED him that, if he didn't calm down, they'd taze him (which is why you hear him yelling "Please don't taze me"). And he wouldn't shut up.... so they tazed him. But they should have just dragged his ass out the door like sack of potatoes.

Idiots all around.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[feed_me_cereal]

You obviously didn't watch the video. The moment his mic gets cut off, the cops are behind him, grabbing him.

Re:Strike Three

[lena_10326]

He clearly thought that his rights are being violated in a major way; nobody would just go down without a fight if they were as upset as he obviously was.

He was just an ignorant attention seeking kid. I'm sure he's getting a lesson on the legal system. The press this story is getting will ensure he does no time.

I, like many others, felt the tazering was unnecessary, but it's my contention the police did nothing legally wrong even if it was ethically over the top. You can't blame police for operating within the rules we set for them. If we don't like it, then we are to blame for giving them this power.

Police ought to consider who and what the person is (a misguided student) as well as where before tazering or shooting. Prior to 1990, police would have simply pushed him to the ground, pulled his arms back, and put the hand cuffs on. Of course, that's the problem with "ought to", since "ought to" is in no way a mandatory requirement.

Dont zap people, don't be a shit head

[Shihar]

This is not a speech issue. You can legally be tossed to the curb from private property in the US for pretty much whatever reasons the property owner decides. In this case, the school had set up a forum and asked people to please keep their damn questions short. Having been to many such forums, I appreciate the fact that they cut his mike. Nothing is more irritating then coming to listen to someone speak, only to have some ass hole give a 5 minute speech before finally asking a question.

They first asked him to please ask a question. He refused. They waited. They again requested he ask a question and sit down. They waited. He refused. They then finally cut the mike to give him a hint. They asked him to please step down and let Kerry answer. At this point he again refused. Being on private property, they started to remove him with not intentions of arresting him. At this point, he started to resisted being ejected... and that is the point where he committed a crime. You can't resist being removed from private property. Once you do, you are trespassing. Even then, I imagine they probably would not have bothered to go any further then throw him to the curb, but he CONTINUED to resist until they had half a dozen offers trying to hold the asshole down.

Everything up until this point is 100% a-okay. You can legally eject people from private property for acting like an ass hat, and you can arrest them if they continue to act like an ass hate and not leave. The only questionable thing in the entire incident is the tazering. He probably should not have been tazered because it was an escalation of force that was probably not needed. For that, this incident should certainly be looked into. Everything other than the tazering though is fine. Act like a shit head in a public forum on private property, refuse multiple requests to respect the forum, refuse to leave when asked, resist when forcibly removed, well, a pair of handcuffs and a slap on the wrist from a judge is what you win.

Moral of the story? Police; don't zap people unless it is needed. Lunatics ranting in a public forum; respect the rules of the forum and don't act like a shit head.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[kie]

is that you Chuck?

Kerry and courage

[mdsolar]

You know, I think you've got this pretty close to right. Now, Kerry was running to run the war better, not to end the war so it does not make much difference if he won or lost on that issue, but asking him why, when he had asked people to vote for him, he didn't stand up for those who did is a fair question. You do need to graft on some spine to these guys every now and then to get them to do anything and questions like the ones posed are one way to do that. Here is another beating where people were trying to lend some intestinal fortitude to democrats facing General Petreaus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiradcejA6o. This happened on the 11th. Notice that the first quick move was a shove from behind by the Capitol Police. After that they pounce, but like bullies everywhere they picked the fight.

So far as I heard, only Senator Webb said much against the General, and that was just to correct him about which unit (his son's) had done a particular bit of work. The proper response to the President's veto of the last funding round was to not fund at all. They caved. Now, we have the police beating on anyone who lets them know about their failure.

Lawful requests of an officer must be obeyed

[Neuticle]

You're right I wasn't implying that the police should have ultimate, unchecked power, but when a police officer gives you a lawful direction, you are obliged to comply.

I've seen a second, better quality video from a better angle, and I still can't make out what the cops say as they first touch him, but I from the looks on their faces I'd guess it was something like "Ok buddy, time to leave." or "You need to leave the premises now". Those would be lawful directions from a police officer.

When the police first touch him it is not a submissive hold: the police touched, then took hold of his arms and gently tried to move him down the isle. He complied for a few steps, and if he had continued like that we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately, he started thrashing about trying to break free. That was where he became a danger, and escalation of force was needed to control him. He never complied with the officers until AFTER he was tasered, and they warned him it would happen if he didn't stop struggling. Also he was trying to incite the crowd to his defense, which further escalates the situation. If you watch the video below, he seems mentally unbalanced, e.g. worrying about "the government" killing him after being cuffed.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20070917/BREAKING/70917014

Re:That's a MUCH better vid

[Valdrax]

How was he disruptive to begin with? By asking a question to a person who was asking for questions and who plainly states that it is an important question and that he wants to answer it?

A) He wasn't asking questions that he wanted answered so much as he was preaching/"informing."
B) He wasn't really interested in Kerry's answer. "He's been talking for two hours. I think I can have two minutes."
C) He wasn't yielding the mike when asked to and was belligerent with the person asking him. (See B)
D) He was asking more questions than he was allotted and blocking the ability of others to speak.

What sort of "insane bizarro world" is this NOT being disruptive? This is a Q&A session, not a city council meeting. Getting on your soapbox and refusing to yield the mike is not playing by the rules.

Note that he was mostly likely going to simply be led out and barred from the premises instead of being arrested before he started to resist. The police frankly don't want to waste their time arresting someone for being a bit of a jerk; they're just there to keep the peace. I've worked election rally events before, and people who were just noisy protesters didn't get arrested; they just got kicked out (like when two of our guys dressed up in Disney character suits to draw attention to our governor's shady land deal in Florida). This guy made his own mess by being a pain.

Re:Strike Three

[pete6677]

Why would Kerry want to go help someone who was intent on disrupting and hijacking the forum? I know the kid has free speech rights, but so does everyone else who attended that forum. Why should one person be able to dominate the discussion, and without regard to the moderator's requests to yield the floor?

Re:Strike Three

[emtilt]

But they are "rent-a-thugs" working as campus cops, not true police officers. I don't know what the requirements are to be a campus cop, but I don't imagine they have the same training as a police academy.

I am a UF student, and I just wanted to point out that this is entirely incorrect. The UFPD is a fully accredited police department; they aren't rent-a-cops. Every cops is a certified law enforcement officer; they have the same training as any typical city police department.

And the issue isn't so much the guy's removal from the forum, but, rather, it is that the taser use was probably excessive. Though tasers are 'non-lethal,' they can cause health problem, injuries, or death. Further, they cause extreme pain. They shouldn't be a go-to answer whenever something doesn't go perfectly; they should be a last resort before traditional firearms and similar dangerous control methods. There were six cops on the one guy, and the guy posed no serious threat, despite his resistance. Even worse, he was already essentially completely subdued when they tased him. In my opinion, this is inappropriate taser use.

Re:No, wait- really?

[Inthewire]

Fuck, *I* have to bring this up? Kerry tried to call off the police. It didn't do any good, but he did try.

Re:Strike Three

[The One and Only]

That's the same video I watched. At 1:40 the mic is cut, at 1:41 he acknowledges it and begins to walk away, and at the same moment, despite him stepping away from the mic (and, having asked his third question, apparently wrapping up), he was grabbed by the arm. Look closely. He wasn't pulled away from the mic--he was walking away of his own free will and then he was grabbed. I don't know about you, but in my view, physically assaulting someone by grabbing them by the arm because they took too long prefacing their questions is not a reasonable response--especially if you wait until after they finish to do so.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[HeroreV]

Tasers aren't supposed to be used to stop people from squirming around and making noise. They're only supposed to be used to stop people who pose a threat of harm to others. This kid was most definitely not posing any kind of threat to anyone.

He escalated, police responded

[Neuticle]

The police came up to him and grabbed him. They never asked him politely to step back or to walk with them.

?Why not walk up to him and calmly say, "Sir, we have to ask you to leave the building."?

I've seen a second, better quality video from a better angle, and I still can't make out what the cops say as they first touch him, but from the looks on their faces I'd guess it was something like "Ok buddy, time to leave." or "You need to leave the premises now". Regardless of what they said, the officers were calm and not abusive.

The police could have stopped for two seconds and asked him calmly to follow them, or said anything to him. Instead of treating him like a person, they treated him like an animal.

From my perspective the police started out quite calmly. When the police first touch him it is not a submissive hold: the police touched, then took hold of his arms at the elbow and gently moved him down the isle. Things were all very civil at this point, even if he was still shouting his head off (he was so loud the police officers were quite in comparison, but I doubt they were whispering). Nobody was being treated like an animal. Mr Protest complied for a few steps, and if he had continued walking out with the officers, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Unfortunately, he started thrashing about trying to break free. He escalated the situation! That was when he became a danger, and parallel escalation of force was needed to control him.

The guy's attempts at resisting were not putting anyone in any significant danger. He was obviously already overpowered with ease

He broke free of the officers once, and was flailing about crashing into people. It looked to me like he might have taken a swing at one of the cops, and he definitely pushed them. Combined with his lunatic screaming, that is a dangerous situation.

ALL they had to do was hold him down until he agreed to stop squirming

Even after they had him on the ground, he continued to fight, kicking and swinging his arms, preventing the officers from hand-cuffing him. He was NOT under control, and prolonging that situation would have created a greater danger to the officers and others.

Fact is, he never complied with the officers requests for him to stop fighting until AFTER he was tasered. They warned him that he would be tasered if he didn't stop struggling and he was given plenty of time after the warning to comply before they zapped him. After that they were able to cuff him and lead him away.

Also, the whole time he was trying to incite the crowd to his defense. When the police are fearful that a crowd will turn mob that further escalates the situation.

Others have mentioned that the police followed him into the building. I don't know if that's true, but it implies they know something more about him. If you ask me, he seems mentally unbalanced, e.g. worrying about "the government" killing him after being cuffed, and rambling incoherently.

Re:That's a MUCH better vid

[Valdrax]

In what sort of "insane bizarro world" do all actions occur in a vacuum independent of context?
You seem to believe in very black and white rules that have no real reflection in reality, which is messy and complicated.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[ryblo_f]

I thought that the applause was an audience member's enthusiastic response to when Mr. Mayer brought up a valid concern over alleged racial discrimination involved in the 2004 election irregularities. Look, he was most definitely causing a disturbance, that's plain to see. I think what he was doing probably falls somewhere between Protected Speech and Civil Disobedience. He definitely should not have physically struggled against a uniformed officer, though; that's a fight for the courtroom. I think Mr. Meyer was entirely within his rights as a citizen and duties as a patriot to cause a (nonviolent) disturbance with the goal of bringing attention to social injustice. Isn't this the spirit for which we honor patriots like Rosa Parks?

Re:Taser should not replace training and ability

[Inthewire]

FYI, I've been both a corrections officer and a police officer

Times are tough, brother. I'm sure you'll find work.

Re:Strike Three

[lena_10326]

And he walked away backwards while facing the police? What you saw was actually just a minor shoulder turn (1:42)...perhaps to turn around and walk away, or perhaps not. There's no way to know. At that point in time it was too late, the police had already made the decision to escort him from the building.

Police have the legal right to physically assault someone providing resistance. If this disturbs you, then you ought to start writing congressmen.

Re:It's funny

[Inthewire]

So you're not just a nut, you're a dangerous nut. Thanks for the heads up.

I think the real story here is...

[swalker42]

how empty the auditorium is. It didn't look like a very big auditorium either. I guess it really didn't matter if Kerry answered the question - no one cares.

Re:That's what they tried at first! WTFV!

[Mike610544]

Who should enforce when someone's time is up? That guy wasn't following the rules and wouldn't listen to your proposed "civilian with a microphone." Should we just let him bloviate endlessly?

Re:The story isn't about a kid, it's about the pol

[atamido]

The police officers already had him restrained and then they tasered him.

No, the police officers had him on the ground. They tasered him because he wouldn't let them put handcuffs on him. IE, they were trying to further restrain him, but he was resisting. They warned him several times that he would be tasered if he didn't let them hold his arms.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[atamido]

An officer of the law can not come up to you at any moment that you are just standing in a public situation and tell you to "Get on the ground" without first having a warrant for your arrest or stating that you are under arrest for "probable cause of committing a crime".

I think, and don't quote me on this, that in a lot of areas it isn't legal for them to tell you that, but if they do then it is illegal for you to refuse. Essentially, you have to comply with the illegal request, and then try to take legal actions afterwards for what they did. Weird, eh?

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[atamido]

It seems to me like he figured he was a white rich kid and so he was entitled to do whatever it was he was trying to accomplish. When things went from "academic" to "reality" he started to get scared and was in disbelief that he would get cuffed and taken away.

When I saw the video, I was immediately reminded of that scene from the Holy Grail with Dennis.

Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Simple attention getting, nothing more.

Re:Strike Three

[The One and Only]

What you saw was actually just a minor shoulder turn (1:42)...perhaps to turn around and walk away, or perhaps not. There's no way to know. At that point in time it was too late, the police had already made the decision to escort him from the building.

And it's that very decision I'm questioning. If they just stared at him for a second to see if he would indeed walk away, this incident might not have happened. Instead they grabbed him.

Police have the legal right to physically assault someone providing resistance.

He was doing no such thing.

Re:Strike Three

[darkwhite]

You are right about the public's fear of gestapo-like police, but I didn't see it in the video. It's really too late to be concerned about that though. Police have the power, you don't. We as a nation gave it to them a long time ago. We all just have to live with it... or work toward changing it. Your shortage of cognitive skills is troubling.

Clarification: arrest; "unlawful" v "excessive"

[ResearchedResponse]

Clarification: what legally constitutes an arrest; "unlawful" vs "excessive" force.

CLARIFICATION: what legally constitutes an arrest.

The Meyer situation raises the problem of police brutality. This raises troubling 4th amendment unreasonable search and seizure issues. The 4th amendment to the Constitution literally bans "unreasonable searches and seizures." So the question becomes, was tasering Meyer an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Constitution? First, we need to know if what the police did to Meyer was a seizure.

Basically, a person is seized when the suspect either (A) submits to assertion of authority or (B) when there is physical force. For example, the fatal shooting of a fleeing suspect by a cop is a seizure. If you read the Supreme Court cases, you see that the legal community tends to use the term "seizure" instead of the lay term of "arrest." I'll use "arrest" to help make the rest of this explanation clearer.

To repeat, a person is seized when the suspect either (A) submits to assertion of authority or (B) when there is physical force.

Under the US Supreme court case of Florida v. Bostick in 1991, one is not seized if a reasonable person in that person's situation would have felt free to decline officerâ(TM)s request or otherwise terminate the encounter with the officer. This case also establishes that a "reasonable person" is a "reasonable innocent person."

Determining whether a person has been seized (AKA arrested) can be tricky. The US Supreme court case of US v. Mendenhall in 1980 established a totality of circumstances test to determine whether a person has been arrested (seized). Factors to consider under the Mendenhall test include threatening presence of several officers, display of weapon by officer, physical touching of citizen, use or language or tone of voice indicating compliance possibly compelled.

Personally, I feel that unless doing so immediately interferes with the officer's duty, the officer should be legally required to answer the question "Am I under arrest?", however, I am not aware of any such legal requirement (such a law could be hidden in any of Constitutional, Federal, State, County, or City legal domains).

References:
Florida v. Bostick
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1717.ZS.html

US v. Mendenhall
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZS.html

CLARIFICATION: "unlawful" vs "excessive" force

Police force is *unlawful* if the police know they are committing an unlawful arrest, ie the police know Meyer is not breaking a law.

Police force is *excessive* if the police use more than reasonable needed. Specifically, the law states "[the law enforcement officer is justified in the use of any force] reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest". For the full text of the Florida law on use of force in arrests see: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05

Legally, "unlawful" force and "excessive" force are two separate questions.

The remedy for unlawful force may be criminal (ie the officer goes to jail), the remedy for excessive force is civil (ie Meyer can sue the police officer for money).

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[lkeagle]

YES, the cops ARE supposed to wait. Not until someone gets hurt, though. They're supposed to wait until there is a credible threat to public safety. I watched this kid from every angle that someone was recording from, and at no point were the police ever justified in removing him.

This was a public forum. You have a time alloted for your question. That's time for *your question*, not for the senator's answer. Just like in the senate, when you are given the floor, you're allowed to use it *however* you please. Go ahead and read Dr. Seuss, if you want. This kid has the right to do exactly the same. It's a valid political statement, and in a public forum it's very common.

It seems to me that the only person in that room qualified to determine whether the kid's statements were worth consideration was Mr. Kerry, and he stated that the question was very important and that they should let the kid go so he could answer it.

Tough questions are part of college debate

[student4ever1]

Asking pointed questions is part of college. In my many years of college and part-time continuing education I've been in protests.

I happened upon a Latino-American group complaining about lack of Latino representation in an upcoming PBS World War II documentary tonight and had to ask them why in over a hour of talking, the lack diversity they mentioned was Latinos, Latinos, Latinos, Latinos, and Latinos, they mentioned Native Americans just once, and they never mentioned anyone else, ever. No one like the Chinese Americans who came to work on the Transcontinental Railroad (setting for the tv series Kung Fu) or Filipino Americans like Leo Giron from "little Manilla" Stockton California who was dropped into occupied Philipines as special forces because he looked like fit in there, or Jewish-Americans, or any other of many groups I named.

And like Kerry before the police jumped on the guy asking real questions, they were willing to entertain a discussion with me so we went on for 20 minutes, then I stayed to talk to people individually after the meeting. They didn't drag me away after a minute and a half, and a minute and a half is not "going on and on". I took many of them over 30 minutes to finally get it, they their one race isn't the only one in diversity. The grandson of the only Mexican-American to be awarded a Navy Cross, the person they wanted interviewed in an upcoming PBS documentary, was there, and he had to agree with me that diversity is more than one group. He's half Chamorro (the people from Guam). The entire clip of the guy asking real questions then getting grabbed by police is less than 4 minutes. They give him mere seconds to react, not enough time for a person new to the experience to comprehend the dynamics of the changing situation and definitely not the 30 minutes you slashdot posters get to pontificate analytically about what "he should have done".

The reason 90% of the people at the meeting applauded when the police led him away is because of the self-selection that takes place at them: people who go to meetings are interested and fans of that being presented. So 90% of the people in the room were Kerry fanboys. At the meeting I was at tonight, there was one white guy, one black lady, and every single other person was Latino, specifically, only Mexican Latino.

I may work full time understanding computers with an M.S. in software engineering, but in my counseling classes we learn that a counselor that gave someone so little time to react to changing situation would lose their license. The police's language "Let's Go" is incompletely specified phrase structure tree and would tip off a counselor as being a sign of limitations in a client's model of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational-generative_grammar). Did you notice, they didn't say to him which direction to go, yet as English speakers you know that the destination or direction is a standard parameter of the verb "go"? That's why he asked "Are you arresting me?" and backed away. They didn't have grounds to arrest him at that point and didn't tell him they were only evicting him from the event, which is all they would have been doing. I've watched a Bolivian in tears be evicted from a then first lady Hillary event asking why she and her friends couldn't get foreign work visas in the U.S. when all the local business needed help. Here, the police created the situation by not telling him directly which way to walk and that he was being kicked out. Ambiguous body language and assuming the other person can read your mind is not admissible in court, yet I'm sure he'll be told he was the sole contributor to the situation.

The sad part is really the comments and commentors here. In articles about Microsoft installing updates without your permission, you lambast being the mainstream and using non-open source Microsoft products in this virtual world, bits onto a slashdot platter, where your words really don't matter. Yet when someone in the real world asks questions off the mainstream,

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[fataugie]

Why don't you give this a read and tell me what you think.

The official in charge said enough, so that's enough. They were at the end, he was rambling and making statements instead of asking a direct question, they gave him additional time and still he rambled. Eventually, he ran out of time. He escalated the issue by resisting. The cops were on his ass from the beginning because he rushed the mic after hearing they were cutting off questions, and by God he wanted to get his in.

This wasn't a performance on a street corner. This was an event in a controlled setting with rules. They didn't touch him because of what he said but rather because of how he acted.

Just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. There is no right to a forum for your opinion. UF isn't required to allow you to speak as long as you want.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[RockDoctor]

Police are looking into whether excessive force was used to prevent the student from going over his alloted question period

Perhaps they should bring in a similar policy for Oscars acceptance speeches.

Students are in a state of learning, without having actually claimed particular competence at <whatever>, so a certain amount of leeway should be allowed for their learning the arts of rhetoric and/ or pedagogy. Neither are simple arts and do require both training and practice.
Professional actors on the other hand ... yep, bring out the tasars and lets watch those suckers writhe in unendurable agony on the ground.
[What to do about the people winning Oscars for backstage technical wizardry ... hmmm. They should certainly be discouraged from rambling on endlessly, but since they're "backstage" people they should get a modicum of slack too, tempered to be appropriate to the fact that they are (generally) more mature people than students. Not tasars, but bull whips, trapdoors, or the well-exercised custard pie.]

When tasars were introduced into the UK (for use only by firearms officers, as an alternative to assaulting someone with a highly-lethal weapon), a publicity stunt was arranged involving a police sergeant being tasared on-camera by his colleagues. The guy struggled through the rest of his piece-to-camera after the hit, but he was clearly struggling hard to maintain his balance, his train of thought and his reasoning ability and had to receive medical attention afterwards (still with the cameras rolling). A pretty good advert for the tasar's effectiveness, but also a recommendation for how to control the lunatic fringe of legitimate users - you'd be a lot more proportionate about using a tasar on someone if you knew that you'd be getting hit the same number of times later, by your colleagues. Or even by the tasared party.

Remember the video of some guy getting tasared a dozen times for returning his library books late (or something equally serious) and the police threatening to tasar the people videotaping their assault - now imagine the the same cop getting tasared a dozen times later that day before he's allowed back onto the streets with a tasar again. How likely is he to over-use it next time?
Tasars were introduced as an alternative to using highly-lethal weapons in confrontations. As such, someone who is expected to use one should equally be prepared to get hit by one (since they're designed to be low-lethality). And you'll find the occasional S&M freak, but they'll be pretty obvious. And they'd make good videos.

A personal perspective

[ResearchedResponse]

I feel Mr. Meyer discredited himself by accusatorily asking his questions. Despite the uncharismatic delivery, the questions asked were relevant and important, and the context he gave helped clarify the question.

I feel the police should have spent a bit more time using their mouths (and minds), before resorting to using their hands (and taser). While Mr. Meyer was not physically or verbally threatening anyone, or trying to leave (or "evade arrest" if you are the prosecution), the police had no need to escalate to physical force.

I feel that unless doing so immediately interferes with the officer's duty, an officer should be legally required to say "You are under arrest" (or "You are being Terry stopped and frisked"). At the very least, they should be required to answer "Am I under arrest?" when the question is asked. However, I am not aware of any such legal requirement, but such a law could be hidden in any of Constitutional, Federal, State, County, and City legal domains.

I feel the charge of "disrupting a public event" is unreasonable. What Mr. Meyer may be not widely known, and how he said it unpersuasive, but they *were* important questions given with context, which Kerry acknowledged and answered. That's protected (political) speech, at a political event, on a public University campus. If our government does not tolerate (important yet uncharismaticly delivered) political questions there, then it is no longer "our" government. I feel the police overreacted, and I expect the police and their superiors should announce official apologies. The police involved should potentially facing criminal and civil charges. (FYI: "inciting a riot" is not the official charge, despite what the officer said.)

Re:keyword: annoying!

[shilly]

As the other poster pointed out, you appear to confuse "irritating" with "illegal". Of course it's rude not to allow other people the chance to question a politician, but it's ridiculous for it to be an arrestable offence.

Re:A message to all fascists

[Bartas]

yeap! I agree 100% with you. The incident is horrible but the support these pricks give to the officers is outrage... Whats next guys? Shooting your children for adverse ideas? I cannot see any continuity between incidents like this and your constant use for work "freedom".

Re:Strike Three

[djchristensen]

As has been said more than once just in this thread, he had at least one had free and was grabbing a seat or railing. That gives him plenty of leverage to twist and maybe use his legs. What happens if he grabs one of the officers weapons (taser or gun)? The cops can't take that chance. I see the only alternative at that point to have used substantially more physical force, likely causing injury of some sort. Perhaps just whacking his hand with a baton would have been sufficient, but that would have left a potentially serious physical injury. A couple of minutes after he was zapped, the pain is only a memory. Witness his behavior in the video that shows him after being led down the stairs. He's obviously not still suffering any effects from the stun gun/taser.

Re:Had it been a Republican rather than Kerry

[that IT girl]

I don't know about that last part. There have always been the extremist groups, but now more places have water, electricity, schools, etc. Some good has come from it, many lives have changed for the better. I try to look at the bright side...

Re:So, did Kerry ever actually answer the question

[Lurker2288]

Is that same 'condition' responsible for the other practical jokes/stunts he advertises so openly on his website (www.theandrewmeyer.com, I believe it was)? Did schizophrenia cause him to hand his video camera to the girl next to him (who spoke to CNN about it after the fact) and saying "make sure you film everything."

While the 1% prevalence of schizophrenia is accurate, the only study I turned up in a quick search classified only about 35% of the enrolled schizophrenics as being of the paranoid subtype (Fenton et al., 1997). The bulk of patients with schizophrenia are dominated by negative symptoms (as opposed to the positive symptoms associated with paranoid subtype); they lie in bed all day, they're largely disconnected from reality. Not exactly what seems to be going on here.

As for his fear, well, if I was being manhandled by a pack of cops, and one of them started threatening to taser me, I'd be pretty freaked out, too. But I think it's a huge, huge stretch to claim serious mental illness here.

Re:That's a MUCH better vid

[Scrameustache]

B) He wasn't really interested in Kerry's answer. "He's been talking for two hours. I think I can have two minutes."
C) He wasn't yielding the mike when asked to and was belligerent with the person asking him. (See B)
D) He was asking more questions than he was allotted and blocking the ability of others to speak. He has two minutes for his question, they interrupt him before he has used it, then forcibly remove him before Kerry can answer it, and you say HE wasn't interested in the answer? Seriously, get your head out of your ass and consider for a second that your prejudice in favor of the police is making you ignore reality.

parent = troll

[Scrameustache]

you really are some kind of moron [...] you are delusional. You just can't possibly be sane. [...] That is a ridiculous statement. troll

Re:Strike Three

[N3WBI3]

"regardless of whether the police were doing the right thing, the crowd should have tried to save the guy"

Save the guy? Hes not even in jail he was disturbing the peace and resisting arrest, the police overreacted when the physically touched him before asking him to leave but when they took his arms to escort him out he should have went (probably would not have even been arrested). Instead he physically resisted forcing the police to subdue him in the middle of a crowded auditorium talk to any police or security officer and they will tell you this is about their worst nightmare.

If they had all rushed the police the crowd could have helped him.

Ahhh to to 'save' the kid who is resiting arrest from the physical abuse he is getting lets physically abuse the cops who are just trying to do their job.

this is frighteningly close to people being too afraid to do anything when their neighbors are dragged away by the gestapo

Huh? People perform political protest against the establishment in this nation all the time! Marches on DC, marches in major cities? I find it really funny when on one hand many in the anti war movement brag about how big their protest are in cities like DC, NY, LA, Chicago, and MSP and later claim its 1984.

and the threat is clear in the video "stay in your seats or you'll be tasered and arrested too."

given the fact that a police officer is *most* vulnerable in a crowded venue when they are focused on subduing one person that was a reasonable warning.

Re:Strike Three

[N3WBI3]

"He said "Stop holding me down and I will walk out peacefully." That was about 15-25 seconds before they tazered him." You dont get to tell the police the terms of your arrest, this kid resisted from the point the shut off the Mic to the point he was on the floor. Why would he do otherwise if they let him up? He very well could have bolted or resisted again causing the police to have to re-subdue him which could have resulted in more injury to one of them or the kid himself.

Nelson

[ebvwfbw]

I expected to hear someone say "Ha ha" in the background as he is being zapped. Especially in a college crowd.

Recognizance?

[macduffman]

Any lawyers out there? What does it mean when someone is released on their own recognizance? I read that about OJ the other day, and now it's in TFA.

Try being practical.

[Valdrax]

He has two minutes for his question

That's a key false assumption. Where do you get the idea that he has two minutes to ask a question? Have you ever been to a Q&A session? Most actual questions instead of rants should take less than 15 seconds to ask.

Go ahead. Think of a question you might ask John Kerry, and speak it out loud while timing it. This guy could've asked any one of his three questions in a few seconds if he was really interested in the answer:

"Why did you concede the election on election night when reporters like Greg Palast have reported on the massive election fraud that was going on that night?"
"If you're opposed to war in Iran, why aren't you pushing for the impeachment of the President before he send us to war there?"
"Were you a member of the Skull & Bones society that Bush belonged to?"

Of course, he wasn't really interested in getting an answer -- he was interested instead in suggesting that Kerry threw the election because he didn't really want to win -- perhaps because he and Bush were both Skull & Bones members. That's why he somewhat tauntingly said, "And he says you won the 2004 election. Isn't that amazing?" The reason he was asking three questions was basically to accuse Kerry of not opposing Bush being in office because they are members of the same secret society.

Anyone with the ability to actually read a situation would see the same. You're deliberately pretending that this was a simply conversation between a concern citizen and John Kerry completely outside of the context of what the forum was for to shore up a weak argument that has no basis in the actual reality of the situation. He was abusing the mike during a Q&A to put forth an agenda, and he behaved poorly when he was asked to do what he was given the mike for and when he was cut off by the moderators. End of story.

Seriously, get your head out of your ass and consider for a second that your prejudice in favor of the police is making you ignore reality.

Consider that your ignorance of the law and your bias against police have put you in the position of supporting behavior that should not be allowed to become the rule of thumb for how forums must be run because it would destroy them. You're so intent on blaming the cops that your honestly being an apologist for someone who was abusing the forum.

Try thinking for two seconds about the ramifications of what the world would be like if it worked the way you think it should instead of how it does. Try thinking about the idea of preventing the enforcement of rules of how to fairly share the mike and facilitate all people getting a chance to ask a person questions. What would even be the point of having a Q&A session if it became nothing but a vehicle for people to rant and hog the mike?

The law usually weighs on the balance of allowing an activity that benefits the community to continue. This is a fine example of it doing so.

Re:For the record

[feed_me_cereal]

I'm not 100% sure we're talking about the same incident, do you have a reference? Strangely, I haven't been able to find one on the incident I mentioned (I looked before I posted), so though I recall it more as I described, I may have been misinformed, but I also know that things like this happened more than once (though, with the riots, surely many were justified). I don't remember hearing about her losing an eye at all, so I'm wondering if it might have been a different case.

the polices action prevented civil discourse

[Scrameustache]

Anyone with the ability to actually read a situation would see the same. You're deliberately pretending that this was a simply conversation between a concern citizen and John Kerry completely outside of the context of what the forum was for to shore up a weak argument that has no basis in the actual reality of the situation. He was abusing the mike during a Q&A to put forth an agenda, and he behaved poorly when he was asked to do what he was given the mike for and when he was cut off by the moderators. End of story.
[...]
The law usually weighs on the balance of allowing an activity that benefits the community to continue. This is a fine example of it doing so. Kerry's opening statement: "To make sure that is really is a dialogue, I'm gonna try to shorten my comments up front and see if we can't lengthen the amount of time that you all get to ask some questions."

The official position of the host of the event is that the microphone was cut due to use of profanity, but you can listen carefully to the video I already provided to see and hear that no profanity was used.
Also, the host and the police are both saying that they're "not it" when it comes to initiating the removal of the student.

The university does not think that this is a fine example of allowing an activity to continue, their official position is that civil discourse and dialog did not occur, and that this is regretfull for them. They will review their protocols, which they wouldn't do if they were confident that they were clear of any wrongdoing.

parent is a troll

[Scrameustache]

"As an aside, I'd prefer if you didn't respond to anything I post
Right back at you"

Then why did YOU just respond?

Re:parent is a troll

[Supergood-ape]

Oh I get it, I'm a troll because I hurt your feelings.

I guess resorting to name calling when you're not capable of winning through facts bite you in the ass again. Hence, my request that you stop responding to my posts.

And you still didn't answer my question.

Re:Strike Three

[lena_10326]

It's not my concern if your comprehension is lacking. You add nothing anyway.

parent proves he is a troll

[Scrameustache]

Hence, my request that you stop responding to my posts.

And you still didn't answer my question. q.e.d.

Re:parent proves he is a troll

[Supergood-ape]

"q.e.d."

Inappropriate usage.

OOPS!

I still like that I out debated you and crushed your arguments so I'm a troll.

That's more of an affirmation that you know I'm right than pretty much anything else you could do.

Thanks.

Re:parent proves he is a troll

[Scrameustache]

I'm a troll. obviously

Re:parent proves he is a troll

[Supergood-ape]

"That's more of an affirmation that you know I'm right than pretty much anything else you could do.

Thanks."

Again.

real news gathering

[celle]

Has anyone thought that the guy was using a confrontational technique, something that isn't used to the publics demise versus the current kissass, to get Kerry to say more than canned comments to questions. After all, he is studying journalism. It may smell staged but maybe that was the intent to get more than the canned crapola that politicians normally put out by knocking them off balance.

Re:It's funny

[Master of Transhuman]

You're welcome.

If one is going to be considered a nut, it's better to be a dangerous nut than a harmless nut.

Resisting arrest in practice

[benhocking]

Well, in practice, I imagine it would work much like it does today, with one important difference: if the arrest was found to be invalid, then they can't charge you with resisting arrest. The police are already prevented from applying lethal force (including batons) to prevent you from escaping, so when you resist arrest, either you're successful or you're not. If the arrest was valid, then in addition to the original charge, you're guilty of resisting arrest.

A question that this brings up is: what makes an arrest invalid? Is a not guilty verdict sufficient, or is there a different level required, e.g., predominance of the evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt?

Re:Resisting arrest in practice

[The One and Only]

But such a law would make it all but inevitable that people would resist arrest, which would lead to even more draconian police tactics. To answer your question, the law already has rather detailed standards on when an arrest is or isn't lawful--generally there has to be probable cause and a warrant, although with provisions for emergencies. You can be rightfully arrested without ever being convicted--if you couldn't, there wouldn't be any point in arresting you until after you were convicted, which is just not how the system works at all.

Start locally

[benhocking]

First of all, AFAIK, there's no reason that a local or state jurisdiction can't create such a rule. Although the constitution doesn't currently grant us the right to resist unlawful arrest, it doesn't deny us that right, either. So, think nationally, act locally!

Would it make it inevitable?

[benhocking]

First of all, your answer about lawful arrest makes sense. Based on this definition of lawful arrest, I'm fairly certain that a large majority of arrests are lawful. Initially, just because this law is new, it would encourage some people to resist arrest. Once it became clear that this law only protected you from unlawful arrest, I don't think it would change much. I suppose you can divide arrests up into 3 categories: clearly lawful, borderline, and clearly unlawful. Pulling that a number out of my, um, belly button for that last one, I'd guess that less than 1% of arrests fall into the clearly unlawful category. Presumably, we want people to be able to resist here. Clearly lawful are arrests where there's a warrant or someone is caught pretty much red-handed committing an obviously unlawful act. (Speaking over the alloted time limit does not qualify, needless to say.) After a brief "getting acquainted with the new law" period, no one should resist these after the law that wasn't already resisting them before the law. Borderline cases are either where a police officer has less reason to believe that the person they're arresting is the perpetrator of the crime, or there's less reason to believe that what was perpetrated was a crime. Of these borderline cases, some are lawful and some are not. Those that are not lawful, again, we want people to feel free to resist. So the question would become: how many of these lawful borderline cases are there, where people would feel wrongfully encouraged to resist lawful arrest? My guess is that this is also a very small percentage of arrests, but I could be wrong. Some of the borderline cases the come to mind are protest rallies, but I don't think people will be resisting police any more (or less) than they already do at such rallies. Granted, this entire rant is argued purely from conjecture.

Re:Would it make it inevitable?

[The One and Only]

No, what will happen is resistance will rise during the "adjustment" period, the police will go to a policy of immediate incapacitation and overwhelming force, and no one will be able to resist arrest at all.

You're making it hard to play nice

[benhocking]

First of all, when you accuse someone of being retarded, it's probably a good idea to (a) preview your post, and (b) make sure you don't confuse words like "your" and "you're".

Secondly, what you're calling an "included responsibility to use them in a safe manner", I'm calling a "restriction on your rights". This is known as using different words to convey the same meaning, or an issue of semantics. If you want to call me "re-tar-do" for using the words I used, keep in mind that I'm in pretty damn good company, including Supreme Court justices, law professors, and other legal experts.

Re:You're making it hard to play nice

[k1e0x]

Different words have different meanings.

An "included responsibility to use them in a safe manner" is self policing.
(Government) "restriction on your rights" is tyranny.

Fuck you, your Supreme Court justices, your law professors, and your other legal experts.. that want to "limit" rights and place them in "context". You should tell your *buddies* the Constitution tells the Supreme Court what IT is.. not the other way around.. A jury should interpret the law and thus they have the final say in the laws our politicians write.. not the courts interpreting the law and judges instructing the juries.

Ahh.. Why is it those who claim to be so smart are often the biggest buffoons?

You might be right

[benhocking]

This is why it would make more sense to start locally. (See my comment up a few threads about that.)

Re:Strike Three

[crystalattice]

Interesting. At the universities I've been to, the campus cops were simply hired goons with minimal training and no law enforcement capabilities, other than what the university could give them. If an incident like this had happened, they would have been required to call the city PD.

15 Minutes? Rather 1 minute 50

[N3wsByt3]

I've read a few posts of you before responding, and you seem reasonable enough. :-)

Ok...I'll be honest. I saw most of the footage on youtube, and here's what I think: the guy was pretty wacko, most of his questions were largely irrelevant (though the skull and bones IS actually true), and yes, he made a big scene when the cops got at him: he was clearly an attention-seeker.

But still, I can't really agree with some of your (and others') arguments.

An annoying idiot or not, and on private property or not, ultimately, he didn't resort to violence: the only thing he did was asking questions and being annoying about it. You say: "I agree that people should get their voices out, but they should accept the consequences of their actions." Well, ok, but the consequences of asking annoying questions and going above your alloted time *should not be* getting arrested and tazed. Certainly not seen the fact that the one he asked those questions to (Kerry himself, thus) said: "That's ok, I'll answer that" when he saw the cops move in towards the guy. I mean, if *he* said that to them, shouldn't the cops have shown a bit more patience?

Also, to be honest, I find the argument used by many 'he got what he deserved' slahdotcrowd a bit unfair; the "he was distrubing and going above his allotted time"....well...meh. One can see for oneself on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s : frankly, I've seen a lot more 'disturbing' in a lot of meetings and debates I went too. He actually starts with thanking Kerry, he recommends a book, and he asks two questions, and says he should have 2 minutes if Kerry had 2 hours... it's hardly anything that really qualifies as creating havoc or even a disturbance of any importance. and for the 'allowed time'...from the point where he starts talking till the moment he gets arrested he used exactly...1 minute 31 seconds. Heh. Looking at some of the posts who says he deserved it, one would think he was taking up precious hours in which no-one else could use their right of free speech. For f- sake! It was less then 2 minutes; hardly a huge deprivation or denial of others to use their right on free speech.

My point is: he didn't really do anything exessive. He didn't 'take' the word (as some claim), he was given the word by Kerry himself; so one hardly call that disruptive. The cops didn't really 'ask him gently to leave'; the first time they speak up, the police woman said he needs to ask a question, after he talked 40 seconds or so. Well... is that for her to decide? Kerry doesn't mind. And then, he DOES ask his questions, and the mic gets cut off. I mean, it's hard to imagine it really deserved all this - I rather get the impression the 'disturbance of peace' is rather a convenient excuse as oposed to this 'inconvenient truth'; they just didn't like what he said and how he said it. There was very little actual 'disturbance' noticable, unless you call his rather bold remark to that policewoman a disturbance on itself.

And even if they did feel the irresistable need to decide his free speech rights were revoked...shouldn't they have handled it differently? I mean, the question was already asked by then, and Kerry was already answering it. What exactly, WAS the problem at that time? I even thought cutting off his mic was uncalled for, let alone arrest him and taze him.

All in all, even though I don't doubt the guy is seldom constructive (at least his questions weren't all that constructive), it looks to me more of a case where the police didn't like his brazen attitude and his response about the "I think I'm allowed two minutes after his two hours" to the policewoman, than anything else. I mean, c'mon; he wasn't REALLY a disturbance. Kerry didn't think so neither. To get smacked down by 6 cops and getting tazed is just...way overboard. If he had taken the word himself, talked for a long time without letting anyone else speak, was violent or agressive towards Kerry or other people...I wou

Re:15 Minutes? Rather 1 minute 50

[devildog820]

Good points, but I still don't agree with some of the assessment.

The campus police help with events where the speaker is controversial. Especially one where the speaker receives all manner of threats. When one of the "Simpsons" showrunners came, they were nowhere in sight. :) They have to deal with attendees who do not follow the rules. Usually they just eject the students from the venue and never bring charges or even record it.

Kerry wasn't able to answer Meyer's questions because Meyer kept cutting him off with, I think, the intent of being removed by the cops. Meyer knew the rules and knew that the police would try to force him to leave once he got very vocal and didn't listen to their directive to ask the question and sit down. Kerry did start to answer once the mic was cut, which was done by ACCENT (the student group) and not the police. Also, the police started to eject him which was SOP and he fought against them. This caused the violence, not his questions. However, the cops way overstepped their authority when using the taser.

As a final note, I read the police report and I believe it when they said he didn't struggle or yell unless a camera was on him or the public was watching. I think that should be considered when discussing this incident. All that being said, yours is one of the most well thought out and rational posts I've read on the subject. :)

Re:15 Minutes? Rather 1 minute 50

[N3wsByt3]

"The campus police help with events where the speaker is controversial. Especially one where the speaker receives all manner of threats."

Well, I would think they would help whereever their help is needed. But 'help' should not be overprotection, whether the speaker is controversial or not, and received threats or not. The guy himself wasn't a threat, and didn't make any threats...in fact, I had the impression he was actually PRO Kerry. And Kerry himself said to the cops it was ok and he wanted to answer the question...so I don't see how that argument really makes a difference. It's not because a speaker is controversial that you have to overreact on a guy who's a bit cocky with his questions and goes 30 seconds over his allotted time.

Normally, one could expect the police to assess the level of threat someone poses. I think you will have to admit he wasn't a threat to Kerry, and in fact, wasn't violent towards anyone at all.

"They have to deal with attendees who do not follow the rules."

And there is a rule that states you can't ask the questions he asked, or ask them in the manner he asked? Is there a rule that one can't ask anything controversial or in a controversial way? (The speaker himself was controversial, after all ;-) Was there really a rule broken, about how much time a questionner was exactly allowed? And even if there was, is that reason enough to escort a person out of the building?

I have problems with such broad argumentation like "you have to follow the rules" because I doubt he broke any official rules, which means at most he potentially broke some social rules - which are highly subjective and beg the question whether those rules weren't too severly interpreted to begin with.

"Kerry wasn't able to answer Meyer's questions because Meyer kept cutting him off"

Ok, that's one I put in the same bunch as "the disturbance" he caused and the "deprivation of other peoples' right of freedom of speech". As one can see in the vidclip, those two things are minimal to non-existant. Going 30 seconds ovber your time (if there was an offcial time-limit to begin with), is hardly depriving others from their right to speak in any *real* way. "Cutting him off"...ok, where exactly did Meyer really 'cut him off'? Can you point to the exact timeframe on the vid? Because, frankly, I don't see that (and I've run it 5 times already). He doesn't listen to Kerry when he says he already has (read) the book, but that's not cutting him off. And once Meyer starts asking questions he actually doesn't interupt Kerry once, because Kerry wasn't saying anything then. (You can check it on the vid itself; M asks the questions one after another, but nowhere is the voice of Kerry to be heard, so you can't "cut off" someone who isn't speaking.

Later on, Kerry does start to answer his questions, and M doesn't listen anymore...but that's because he's getting hackled by 6 cops and being tazed. It would be a bit sadistic to call his shrieks when being tazed 'cutting off the explanation of Kerry'.

"and didn't listen to their directive to ask the question and sit down"

This isn't true neither. Look attentively at the clip. The woman-policeofficer asks hims to ask his questions, and he does. He's brazen in his answer to her, and not overly polite, true, but he isn't aggressive towards her. But he DOES comply with her request, and starts asking his questions - which were asked in a rather exited manner, true - but surely there is no rule against that too?

That's what I find the most annoying about most of the counter-claims; they are almost all exagerated to a large degree, just to try to make the case he really deserved what was comming to him. Well, he didn't. And not only about the tazing. The only thing he did was asking his questions in a controversial way - that does NOT warrant getting his mic cut off, nor getting escorted out of the building, nor getting arrested, nor getting tazed.

It's true things escalated to the tazing point - and he coul

Re:15 Minutes? Rather 1 minute 50

[devildog820]

Just a brief answer, because I have a bunch of stuff to work on this week. Ugh.

He wasn't a threat to Kerry obviously. The police have plenty of experience with this guy and others like him and should not have treated him as likely to harm the speaker. However, snap judgments have to be made and this was a bad one. Plus, the cops don't want to let it seem like they are letting things get out of control (which I don't agree with, but that's the way they work).

There are rules governing questioners at these events. Or, at least, the moderator says there is. You ask one question and sit down, the mic is not provided for protestors or ramblers. Otherwise, those people will take up all the time. Protestors are free to yell and chant at will, just outside.

I was not there, I am going on accounts provided by several friends, who were at the Auditorium. In the video, he does finally ask his question and that's when they grab him. I think that the cops had already decided to eject him and it was poor timing on their part that they did it when he was asking an actual and important question.

His shrieks, however staged, were not cutting off Kerry.

At the beginning of the Q&A session, the rules are stated. That segment hasn't appeared in any video posted online so far. His mic did deserve to be cut because he asked more than one question and it took prodding from a cop to get him to ask that one. All the other stuff was caused because he refused to be ejected by the police. Whether or not they were right in ejecting him, once he fought they could fight back. Not torture him though.

Absolutely, the police took it way too far. They probably got mad at him because they knew he was making them look foolish or something along those lines. The charges all stem from when he fought back and not from his asking tough questions to Kerry. The saddest thing is that his antics overshadowed the more important explanation of Kerry's actions in 2004.

Re:15 Minutes? Rather 1 minute 50

[N3wsByt3]

"Just a brief answer, because I have a bunch of stuff to work on this week. Ugh."

Yeah, I know what you mean. There's just an article on /. about social life versus the web. ;-p

"There are rules governing questioners at these events. Or, at least, the moderator says there is. You ask one question and sit down, the mic is not provided for protestors or ramblers. Otherwise, those people will take up all the time. Protestors are free to yell and chant at will, just outside."

He wasn't protesting, he wasn't yelling (untill they arrested him, I mean), and he wasn't chanting. In fact, he was rather supportive of Kerry. He did sort of rambled (at least in his manner of speaking), though it wasn't really incoherent what he said (contentwise). Besides, he already got the mic (AND the nod from Kerry) by then. He did ask more then one question.

Ermm...ok...now, that's not all that dramatic, is it? So he sounded a bit excited and asked a question too much. I wouldn't exactly consider that police-invoking-material.

The "takes up all the time" is an interpretation of a hypothetical possibility if a whole row of actual ramblers who yell, chant and protest would be trying to get the mic. It has no substantiation in this actual case. While he sounded a bit hyped up/excited, what he said wasn't really all incomprehensable neither, and, more importantly, he actually followed up on what he said. When the woman-cop asked him to ask his question, he did. He actually said in front he had two more questions: sure, that was maybe one too much, but there is no indication he would have kept at it and asked another one, and another one, etc., and let's face it; two questions will not take up 'all the time'.

In fact, I don't think it's all that weird. I remember (even official) press-conferences with other politicians - Bush even - who generally allowed each journalist two questions. Occasionally, only one was allowed, but sometimes a journalist would ask two anyway; I've never seen a journalist been dragged out the room for asking an extra question, though. It's not unreasonable for people to ask more then one question, after they've followed a debate or whatever for hours. Even with a rule, it sounds rather unreasonable to me to drag someone out of a building because he asked a question too much.

And well...basically, that was probably the only real rule he broke - contrary to all the claims I see in a lot of the posts saying he deserved it.

"His mic did deserve to be cut because he asked more than one question and it took prodding from a cop to get him to ask that one."

Well, the cop did prod, but I don't know if it *needed* a prod of a cop. I think it did more bad than good. When I compare it to some of the other debates and press-conferences I've seen where someone asked more then the allowed questions, then the speaker himself says something like "I'm going to answer that the short way" or "I'm only going to answer the first" or something. Normally it's left up to the speaker or his spokesman to decide how to deal with an extra question.

I mean, really; I can't remember ANY debate, meeting or pressconference where a journalist or such was escorted out of the building for asking an extra question. I do remember an instance where the mic was cut off, after someone was unwilling to leave the mic and kept shouting "you're an asshole" to the speaker. And I think that was, indeed, warranted. And thus, I come back on (the lack of) tolerance: he asks a question too much, and that warrants his mic being shut off, EVEN if the speaker himself indicated he had no problems with it? Sounds like a pretty poor judgement to me.

I would at least have waited to see if

1)he would keep himself to the 'I have two questions' he said in front
2)Gauged the reaction of Kerry and see if the speaker had any problems with it
3)Look at whether or not M was creating havoc, being violent, posing a threat, etc.

THOSE are reasonable things to loo

Ah, looks like he really was pulling a stunt.

[EvilStein]

The police reports are available.

Regardless of what you think of the source (Michelle Malkin) there are scans of each page of the police report.

Multiple reports say that he was generally calm & quiet - except when other people (especially ones with cameras) were around.

Check some of the other links. Seems that the guy is well known for trying to stir up shit.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[brkello]

Yes, that's brilliant! Good thing there isn't an IQ test to get on to Slashdot.

The guy did escalate it. He resisted arrest. He refused to stop struggling and fighting and to stop it from escalating further (getting cops, the good guys, injured), they zapped the jerk. If he didn't resist arrest, then the situation wouldn't have happened.

But I love your idea...let's taser the people who risk their lives to protect stupid people like you. I hope someone tasers your balls so you can't reproduce.

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[lkeagle]

Wrong,

I have the right to be heard.

You have the right not to listen.

These are sometimes mutually exclusive.

This does not mean that he broke the law, which means he can't be arrested. The police may have authority, but it's their responsibility to use that authority only when absolutely necessary. This isn't Iraq, and they're not the army, and that kid did not do anything that deserved being dragged out of the room and tased. If the police walked up to me, grabbed me, and told me I was under arrest for no apparent reason, I would be just as paranoid and incredulous, if not more so.

His question was relevant, and I would have wanted to hear the answer straight from the horse's mouth as well. He may have gotten a little worked up about it, but he still did nothing that warranted that kind of treatment. I don't care if you think the kid was the most annoying asshole you've ever seen. I don't care if he was only there to deliver political rhetoric. I don't care if he got agitated and swung his book around. The point is he was not threatening or harming anyone in the building, and therefore the police had no right to react as they did.

I still think that there is more to this story. The police had to have been signaled in some way to react how they did, and I refuse to believe that it was the kid's statements and antics that were the cause. Kerry graciously tried to defuse the situation by offering to answer his question, and the mic was already off. At that point, the police had absolutely no reason to continue. Look at the people in the audience, do they look in any way threatened to you? Watch the video, do you actually think that the kid was trying to attack the police?

All I saw was a guy who rightfully had no understanding why people were grabbing him and carrying him out of the room. I would resist, and I bet you would too.

Re:Strike Three

[redcane]

I didn't see the police give him a chance not to resist. I didn't notice them ask him to leave, they just started dragging him. I think in that situation I'd feel my rights had been violated, even if I felt I had been an annoying prick. Also, why shouldn't he have his questions answered in the first place? He seemed a little wound up, too much coffee or whatever, but he was in the right place to ask questions of Kerry. I don't see how you can be told your disturbing the peace if you've been invited to ask questions and take up the offer. I really don't agree that police need to be so forceful up front. While at first he complained (verbally, like as in free speech) that they were taking him away, I don't really see that as grounds for him being arrested or removed. I find it very ironic they originally told him he had been inciting a riot, as I somewhat expected that people would have been jumping on the police to help him by the end of that video. The way I see it is, you don't get to arrest someone for being a jerk. You can't be resisting if the police tell you to do something they haven't the right to ask you to do. If they have the right to ask you to stop being a jerk, then it really is a police state. I have to say though, with the percentage of the US population that is prison, it isn't really a surprise that law enforcement officers are so quick to arrest someone.

Re:Strike Three

[redcane]

Yeah, sure, the outspoken loud guy who fights with words is likely to grab the gun of a law enforcement officer..... If a law enforcement officer can't keep control of his/her weapon they should not be a law enforcement officer. With 4+ officers, they had one person per limb. They could have restrained him with their hands, not weapons, if it came to that. I just don't think I'd really consider that to be resisting arrest, compared with the sort of fight some people put up, and a tazer should not be used so lightly. Here in Australia, the police have to call an ambulance if they use pepper spray, because of potential harmful effects. I imagine a tazer would be the same deal.

Re:Strike Three

[redcane]

"we are to blame for giving them this power."
Well, sort of. I didn't give police any power. I've never had the candidate I've voted for get voted in, nor anything except the lower half of my preferences (preferences are a joy of Aussie voting!). And I've watched the world get worse as I voted to move it the other way.
I don't think a reasonable person (is that legal jargon?) would believe that the student posed a real legitimate threat to anyones well being. Obnoxious, loud, perhaps he was, but I think they could have dealt with him more diplomatically than that. I'm not even really sure on whose decision the officers approached him?

Re:Move over Geraldo.

[supadupa]

LOL! Funny idea, just imaging officers teasing down brad pitt or michael douglas :D

Re:Strike Three

[djchristensen]

Check with your local police force and see if they have a "citizen's police academy" that you can attend. I assure you you would come away with a whole new respect for what an officer goes through, and you wouldn't so cavalierly assume they could just grab his arms and be done with it. My wife went through such a program and it significantly changed her appreciation for their job.

I just don't think I'd really consider that to be resisting arrest

That's just ridiculous. Anything other than doing exactly as the officer asks is resisting, regardless of whether you agree with why they are there in the first place. It doesn't matter if he is trying to punch them or just refusing to be handcuffed. How can an officer possibly know how far this person is willing to go in his resistance? They have to assume the worst, for everyone's safety. What if they had backed off and the guy rushed the stage, putting Kerry at risk or maybe forcing them or Kerry's security to shoot him. What would you be saying, then?

parent keeps proving he is a troll

[Scrameustache]

Again.

Re:parent keeps proving he is a troll

[Supergood-ape]

"That's more of an affirmation that you know I'm right than pretty much anything else you could do.

Thanks."

Again. x2

Re:parent keeps proving he is a troll

[Scrameustache]

"That's more of an affirmation that you know I'm right than pretty much anything else you could do.

Thanks."

Again. x2 troll x2? Nah, more like, what, times 6?

bored now.

Re:parent keeps proving I hurt his widdle feewings

[Supergood-ape]

"troll x2? Nah, more like, what, times 6?"

I agree, and it's nice of you to finally admit it.

"know you destroyed my argument now."

FYP, and it's nice of you to admit that too.

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[josh61980]

Good idea, but lets have the part about the debater altered to. "If he cannot provide a direct answer to the question he gets hit in the face". It would keep politicians from giving rambling answers that don't actually convey any information.

Self referencing joke?

[benhocking]

Why is it those who claim to be so smart are often the biggest buffoons?

Because they're frequently not aware when they've made self-referencing jokes? :D (You really make it hard to resist.)

Re:Self referencing joke?

[k1e0x]

Man, you sure are an arrogant twat.

Your just going to have to accept the irony that this high school dropout turned rave promoter understands the concept of liberty and freedom better than you do.. and if you don't agree with that.. you can keep trying to make a sensible argument that there are rightful restrictions to free speech that the government may impose on people. There are no such legitimate restrictions, nor does the government even possess the authority, as I've explained there are no limits on natural rights although .. you can continue to illogically believe that you rights come from your government.. many do.

Your wrong, no wiggling out of it, you can't twist your words or intent to make it right, just go lick your wounded pride and piss off now alright.. you'll know better next time.

The confidence (or lack thereof) of bureaucrats.

[Valdrax]

Kerry's opening statement: "To make sure that is really is a dialogue, I'm gonna try to shorten my comments up front and see if we can't lengthen the amount of time that you all get to ask some questions."

Are you assuming that he meant so that each individual got longer to ask questions instead of that more people should get to ask questions? If so, it's not supported by what he said there, and the behavior of the moderators and the crowd should make pretty clear that that's not how they interpreted it. It's a huge stretch to argue that that's what he meant.

The official position of the host of the event is that the microphone was cut due to use of profanity, but you can listen carefully to the video I already provided to see and hear that no profanity was used.
Also, the host and the police are both saying that they're "not it" when it comes to initiating the removal of the student.

Yeah, that's not surprising. They're trying pathetically to cover their own asses in the face of the controversy. The profanity bit is obvious nonsense, and was probably put out by some idiot in their administration who didn't have all the facts and thought that they could eliminate debate with that. They should've just simply stuck to the facts of the event since they're strong enough to give probable cause for taking him away.

The university does not think that this is a fine example of allowing an activity to continue, their official position is that civil discourse and dialog did not occur, and that this is regretfull for them. They will review their protocols, which they wouldn't do if they were confident that they were clear of any wrongdoing.

Of course they're not confident of that. They've got a blue bajillion people who are viewing these events in the same light as you, right or wrong, howling for their jobs to be taken. Chances are, they're not familiar with the rule of law on this situation; they're administrators, not attorneys. With that kind of uncertainty combined with numerous people shouting that they were wrong, is it any wonder that they're essentially cringing in a corner before public anger?

I doubt that they had the sense to consult with an attorney before putting out press releases; they just went with their gut instinct which told them that all this negative publicity means that they're in trouble. Don't take the scrambling of bureaucrats to cover their rear ends as any sort of evidence of anything.

crypto-fascism

[Scrameustache]

Kerry's opening statement: "To make sure that is really is a dialogue, I'm gonna try to shorten my comments up front and see if we can't lengthen the amount of time that you all get to ask some questions."

Are you assuming that he meant so that each individual got longer to ask questions instead of that more people should get to ask questions? If so, it's not supported by what he said there, and the behavior of the moderators and the crowd should make pretty clear that that's not how they interpreted it. It's a huge stretch to argue that that's what he meant. Considering that he was trying to answer the question, that he said it was an important question, it's a huge stretch to assume the contrary.

And since you're arguing that asking a question that is longer than 15 seconds is an offense worthy of police intervention and arrest, I don't think you're in a position to lecture anyone about how to interpret events.

Twisting words shows a lack of integrity.

[Valdrax]

Considering that he was trying to answer the question, that he said it was an important question, it's a huge stretch to assume the contrary.

I've already addressed this. He couldn't simply ignore the question without looking bad, especially as an incident had just started. Give five seconds thought to the alternative of Kerry choosing to just go onto the next person while the guy was dragged away.

Of course he wasn't going to answer his implied accusations -- he was merely going to use the same pat answer he gave for the past 3 years to anyone about why he conceded. It's the standard politician's dodge. You don't ignore a question; you just give a half-answer that allows to change the subject. Pay more attention to politics, and you'll be more familiar with this.

And, no, it's not a huge stretch to assume the opposite. Imagine that if he gave a normal speech, 10 people would get to ask questions. Now assume that he gives double that time. Is he really expecting 10 people to be given a chance to get up on a soapbox or for 20 people to get to ask questions? Just think for two seconds about that.

And since you're arguing that asking a question that is longer than 15 seconds is an offense worthy of police intervention and arrest, I don't think you're in a position to lecture anyone about how to interpret events.

There's no gold medal award for selective interpretation of what you read. Stop trying to compete for it. The "give people more time" thing was bad enough. You do nothing but reveal your lack of intellectual integrity by trying to twist what I said to mean that 15 seconds is a hard limit. This is debate tactic used by people that have no logic to support their own arguments.

Geez, you sound like a right-wing radio show host.

High school dropout?

[benhocking]

Oh, so perhaps I should have explained what the word "semantics" means? (This is just a joke, I don't really think you're stupid.) Is that where the whole confusion arises? Again, we're saying the same freakin' thing, it's just a matter of what words we choose to use to express it. If you're concerned about the rights of those words, then you've been inhaling a little too much at those raves. ;)

Let me ask you this, just to make sure I am not the one misunderstanding you. When you talk about our "increased responsibility", do you think that it would be reasonable to charge someone with a crime if they shouted "fire!" in a crowded theater (where there was no fire) and that people got hurt due to that false claim? If so, the only difference between our points of view is semantics, and life's too short to get yourself worked up over semantics.

Finally, I'm either arrogant or licking my wounds, but I can't be both. (Personally, arrogant is probably more correct as I'm having a hard time not laughing out loud.) Think about why that is, OK?

Re:High school dropout?

[k1e0x]

do you think that it would be reasonable to charge someone with a crime if they shouted "fire!" in a crowded theater (where there was no fire) and that people got hurt due to that false claim? If so, the only difference between our points of view is semantics, and life's too short to get yourself worked up over semantics. There are some vague points here that you leave out likely because you are not even aware they are important. What crime would they be charged with? ..also who would make that charge?

No, it is not reasonable. They should not be charged with "a crime" given the details you listed. The government can not charge you with a crime for speaking, but an attendee could file a personal injury case against them and they can then prove their injuries are the result of the accused actions. The owner of the property could also lay a claim on any money that was lost due to refunds.

Re:keyword: annoying!

[N3wsByt3]

I hate this kind of crap. You're a typical example of the 'he deserved it' posters that just invent or hugely exagerates the facts just so you can 'substantiate' your claim, when, in fact, there is little to no basis for it.

"He was belligerent and refused to cooperate when he was asked, REPEATEDLY, to leave."

Not true. If you REALLY would have watched the vid in an unbiased manner, you would have noted that he was asked ONCE - by the policewoman - to ask his question. Which he did. Nowhere can be seen or heard they warned him of anything afterwards. In fact, all vids from all angles from all cameras I've seen thusfar (and I watched more then once each one), show two cops came at him *without* any warning.

"He seemed to think that because he was at a mic to ask a question of Kerry, that gave him carte blanche to spew random garbage for as long as he wanted."

Untrue. As can be clearly seen in the vid, he commenced with thanking Kerry for his talk, recommended a book, and asked him his questions. while he was talking fast and in an exited way, this does not make it into 'random garbage' - which is a useless subjective interpretation anyway. I could as well say it was deep insightfull philosophy, but that would be a lie too. Fact is, he was coherent and what he said pertained to Kerry, so it was relevant at least to sopme degree, instead of random garbage, as you say.

More-over, the much used "he takes all the time" is just a lame argument. No, he didn't. One can easily count it on the vid: from the moment he starts talking, untill they arrest him, it takes exactly 1 minute, 31 seconds.Wow! What a deprivation of time! Lucky you didn't use hyperbole with the "as long as he wanted", seen the fact that the cops intervened after a minute and a half already. I'm sure you feel like he would have taken all the time of the world, but there is absolutely no basis for those wild claims. Facts are facts, and he talked for less then 2 minutes, and he already was ending his second question (of the two he said in front he was going to ask). If he would have kept at it after these two questions, maybe you would have a point - but now you're just taking your own bias and making them into facts of argumental value - which is bullocks.

"HE escalated the scene, not the police."

Untrue; by the time the mic was cut off, you see him starting to withdraw, UNTIL the cops came to him to physically restrain him. Whether he was arrested at that time or not, I don't know, and neither do you. He wasn't PROPERLY arrested, that's for sure. And maybe they weren't going to arrest him, but escort him out of the building, but even that was unwarranted, because he hadn't really done anything wrong, unless you consider being brazen in your answers and questions enough reason to be dragged out the building by a bunch of cops?

If they had just reacted to what Kerry told them when he saw them moving towards them ("It's ok, I will answer that question"), NONE of it would have happend. Mind you, I agree he was seeking attention with his shrieking and shouting when they arrested him, but by then, the police had *already* overreacted and made things escalate.

I think the problem is rather that you don't like him and his behaviour (see your 'little bitch' remark), which may be understandable, but doesn't make your arguments any less biased, nor your claimed facts more true.

I'm sure the cops didn't like his tone and attitude neither. But that doesn't give them the right to do what they did. The only ACTUAL rule he broke, was that he asked two questions instead of one...hardly something that warrants police intervention, and rather ironic since Kerry himself wanted to answer his questions.

Re:Strike Three

[Scudsucker]

And he walked away backwards while facing the police? What you saw was actually just a minor shoulder turn (1:42)...perhaps to turn around and walk away, or perhaps not. There's no way to know

Judging by all his succeeding actions, of course we know: he was trying to move away form the officers.

Police have the legal right to physically assault someone providing resistance.

Not when they have no basis to make an arrest, they don't.

Re:Strike Three

[Scudsucker]

you dont get to tell the police the terms of your arrest

And cops don't get to arrest people without probable cause. These cops did not have probable cause.

Re:Strike Three

[Scudsucker]

Police are taught (for their, and the general public's own safety) to subdue a person once they physically resist.

They're also taught to make arrests only when they have probable cause. These cops didn't.

Re:Strike Three

[Scudsucker]

He was already being arrested for numerous offenses at that time

Being an ass is not a crime. The cops had zero justification for the use of force.

Re:Strike Three

[untaken_name]

I like your style.

Off-topic, is that istockphoto actually you? If so, you could be my sex object any day. :)

Re:Had it been a Republican rather than Kerry

[gordo3000]

except now it's become a religious state with massive infighting between groups and the deterioration of women's rights across the country as it turns to more classic islam. The great part about Sadam is while he was a dictator, at the very least he wasn't religious at all.

we took a dictatorship that ruled brutally and replaced it with a breaking theocracy. worse yet, we made sure to arm both sides (the formerly oppressed and former leaders) by not having a proper plan to quickly reintegrate the armed forces which were mainly Sunni. In doing this we basically created hte perfect climate for a brutal civil war out of which another dictator could easily rise up. And now the problem is he'll be religious, and the only thing worse than any given person is that same person who is an extremist in a religion.

I'm not saying Sadam was a good person. But we went their with the wrong goals and now only in those few areas that are completely homogenous have we been able to provide any increase in quality of life. The repressed Shiites are not fighting militias in the streets and leading groups to wipe out Sunni's in their neighborhoods while the Sunni's do the same thing.

I try to look at the bright side when I had homework on a saturday or now when I have to go to work on a sunday afternoon for a few hours, but when people's lives are being ruined you should just look at it honestly. It doesn't do much good to see the silver lining while a country is inching closer to civil war and we have to realize that is our fault(and this includes every single American because it is still our country doing it).

Re:When someone is being an ass, don't drag them o

[gordo3000]

I woudl say they were perfectly legitimate and he knew why he was being removed. He basically complied with their attempts to remove him once the large black officer came over and pushed him he started walking. He was an idiot to create a scene and try to push the officers away, flailing his arms, to run back into the forum(after almost reaching the door!)! That is what got him arrested rather than just removed and told to go cool down and quit ranting like a child.

A civil lawsuit can only take you so far

[benhocking]

The crime they would be charged with would depend on local laws. Presumably, it would be something like reckless endangerment or possibly even manslaughter, depending on the circumstances.

The government can not charge you with a crime for speaking, but an attendee could file a personal injury case against them and they can then prove their injuries are the result of the accused actions.

If the attendee is dead, he can't really file a personal injury suit, though, right? Sure, it's possible his family or estate could do so, but what if he has no family and never created a legal estate?

You say the government cannot charge you with a crime for speaking, so let's try a different example: what if you are guilty of speaking of state secrets to a foreign power? For example, what if you tell country X (keeping it deliberately vague, but assume country X wishes us harm) how to bypass a particular security system so that they can sneak a dirty bomb into the country? Would civil suits be appropriate here, too?

Re:A civil lawsuit can only take you so far

[k1e0x]

If the attendee is dead, he can't really file a personal injury suit, though, right? Sure, it's possible his family or estate could do so, but what if he has no family and never created a legal estate? Everyone has family, friends or even in the most extreme, and unlikely case an employer, that can file the suit in the case of death. I don't like the idea of the state filing charges because the state is not actually the one harmed. If there is no victim to a crime.. I'm not sure we can say a crime even occurred.

You say the government cannot charge you with a crime for speaking, so let's try a different example: what if you are guilty of speaking of state secrets to a foreign power? For example, what if you tell country X (keeping it deliberately vague, but assume country X wishes us harm) how to bypass a particular security system so that they can sneak a dirty bomb into the country? Would civil suits be appropriate here, too? Sorry I'm going to rant here.. because I believe that the CIA and other secret government agencies are quite un-constitutional and are an affront to a free society governed by the people.

There are no checks and ballances on the CIA, their budget, personnel and documents are secret

We now know that the CIA was involved in several assassinations of foreign heads of states and many more planed assassinations including a planed one of Castro, not to mention the attempted overthrow of his country with the Bay of Pigs invasion.. since when does our nation murder foreign leaders? .. well according to the CIA's Crown jewels we do it all the time.

CIA involvement lead to the rise of Saddam Hussein, they also installed the Shaw of Iran. and how about Osama Bin Laden? He is also a creation of the CIA.

How about the Gulf of Tonkin, or the bombing of the Marines Barrack in Lebanon? The list is endless. ..and what if this is true? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt

No, the CIA and other secret government agencies are quite illegal. They have done us far more harm than good, the CIA has created more enemies then we can count.

However to answer your question, just look to the constitution.
Article 3, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

create a scene at which point you will be arrested

[benhocking]

create a scene at which point you will be arrested for doing just that

I was merely referring to the specific charge of "resisting arrest". If they weren't arresting him then he wasn't resisting arrest. Right?

I suppose you could say that they weren't arresting him initially, but were merely trying to escort him out. He caused a scene (i.e., "disturbed the peace"), at which time they tried to arrest him, and he resisted then. At some point, however, they had to have been arresting him for him to be guilty of resisting arrest. It was really more a definitional statement than a value judgment. Personally, I think both sides acted poorly here. The guy was a bit of a loon, the cops were too quick to escort him out (they had just shut off his microphone, and he appeared to have stopped talking), he reacted poorly to the escort, and (one of) the cops overreacted to his reaction by tasering him. (I think it's important to point out that (AFAIK) only one of the six cops tasered him.)

Re:Obligatory ShieldW0lf post

[Otto]

Calling them "thugs" doesn't make it true.

Furthermore, those "thugs" did the absolute correct thing. He was being removed from the auditorium for trespassing and causing a disturbance. He resisted, committed assault on at least two uniformed officers, and got his ass tased for it.

He *should* have gone to jail for assault. Had I been one of those officers, I would have pressed charges.

Sadly, this is not true

[benhocking]

Everyone has family, friends or even in the most extreme, and unlikely case an employer, that can file the suit in the case of death.

No, everyone doesn't. It's sad, but there are people who are so completely disenfranchised that they have none of these. As for the CIA, you'll get no disagreement from me – they've done some quite horrific things. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't state secrets that should be kept – for example, how to create nuclear weapons, or how to smuggle dirty bombs into our country. (Granted, the percentage of state secrets that are legitimate are probably less than one-tenth of one percent, but that's a different story.)

However to answer your question, just look to the constitution.

Article 3, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

So, then you agree that the First Amendment did not affect Section 3?

Re:Sadly, this is not true

[k1e0x]

You might get me to agree there are crimes that the state can present to the people, but I just don't really like that reasoning. I don't really believe in the legitimacy of the government much and look at it as its something man just made up one day to control others. Since government is fictions and does not really have anything combined with the fact that there is no one person that controls government. I'm not essentially sure it can morally press charges against someone else in the event of another's death unless.. it could lay some sort of claim on that dead persons life.

So, then you agree that the First Amendment did not affect Section 3? It does not affect it "really" as I don't believe we should be able to have the secrets in the first place. Also the first amendment comes after it, and it needs to be in a time of war, lastly it would have to have resulted in an actual crime such as the death of people.

If all of that applies.. then yes, treason is probably an acceptable charge.

It all depends if we are talking legally or philosophically.. Legally, we can apparently break our own laws and arrest people for anything we want any time we want. We call it legal and everything is cool.. The important question is should we? Philosophically I don't even really believe in this government thing or the ability to really be a traitor to it.. so not even the Constitution applies philosophically.. There was at one time some smart men who understood liberty, and they though it was a good idea to have a tiny limited government.. and if that's as bad as government has to be.. then I suppose I'm ok with it.

Re:The story isn't about a kid, it's about the pol

[Sinbios]

He was NOT electrocuted. Electrocution implies current passed through his heart. Obviously the taser only caused localized pain restricted to the tased area since he could walk fine afterwards.

Hypertensive Heart Disease

[Nymz]

He was NOT electrocuted. Electrocution implies current passed through his heart. Obviously the taser only caused localized pain restricted to the tased area since he could walk fine afterwards.

I see you haven't stated your credentials, but perhaps you do know more than experts like this medical examiner from Wheelchair-Bound Woman Dies After Being Shocked With Taser 10 Times On her death certificate he stated the cause of death as hypertensive heart disease, and a homicide.

Not everyone that gets shot with a gun dies, but does that mean it wasn't attempted murder if they can walk away? My dictionary defines electrocution as 'to kill or execute by electricity', so if someone dies after being electrocuted 10 times it's murder, and if they survive it's attempted murder. Either way it's excessive force when used to silence a loud student.

Re:Hypertensive Heart Disease

[Sinbios]

Try reading your own sources.

That article says she basically had a heart attack, probably from the pain of being shocked. You yourself quote heart disease as the cause of death, not electrocution. If we do follow your defintion of "to kill or execute by electricity" (the ONLY way electricity can kill directly is if current passes through and stops the heart, unless you stick your head into a giantass transformer and it blasts your head clean off) here, she was SHOCKED ten times, she was not "electrocuted" ten times. Just like how the guy in this story was not electrocuted, merely shocked, which is certainly not excessive force when used to force a violent student resisting arrest to comply.

If I stick a pin in your toe and you fall off the roof it's murder. If we're sitting in a bar and I stick you in the arm with a pin is it attempted murder? Murder is almost entirely about intent, anyway, so I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that the cops did not attempt to murder this student here.

Re:Hypertensive Heart Disease

[Nymz]

Murder is almost entirely about intent, anyway, so I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that the cops did not attempt to murder this student here.

I guess we should just agree to disagree.

The policy is to not discharge a gun or taser gun unless there is an immediate threat to yourself or another. From the video footage, I did not see any immediate threat from a loud student that was on the ground, handcuffed, with 5 police officers sitting on top of him. But then I also didn't consider a woman bound to a wheelchair so threatening as to require being electrocuted/shocked/tasered/fried/whatever ten times.

If an officer chooses to violate policy then I consider that evidence of intent.

Philosophically speaking...

[benhocking]

I throw up my hands. :) When it comes to questions of philosophy, things become much harder to argue. Things that seem to make sense in an ideal world (Marxism, Ayn Rand's philosophy), don't always work so well when you factor in human foibles. That said, I definitely do not dispute the fact that our government goes far overboard in all kinds of offenses. I would have no beef in striving towards a Libertarian ideal (a la Ron Paul) on the understanding that we'll never actually achieve it.

Re:Philosophically speaking...

[k1e0x]

Well yes, if we can reduce government even a little that would be good. No, your not going to see a total anarcho-capitalism system take over the day after Ron Paul gets elected.. but yes, you might see a little more money in you wallet and fewer vice cops out there.

Just keep in mind that there is no crime unless someone is hurt and the goal of justice is not so much to punish.. but to try to have the guilty repair the damage done to the victim (if possible).

Re:Strike Three

[N3WBI3]

1) The event organizers *asked* the police to remove him 2) When one happened and he did not leave he was trespassing, they had more than probable cause they had the kid committing an offense

The goal of justice

[benhocking]

I agree that the goal of justice is not to punish. However, I'd argue that first and foremost the goal of justice should be prevention of harm where possible. Failing that, reparations comes second. Also, I don't want anyone lowering taxes without balancing the budget first. (This is a big gripe I have with the current batch of Republicans—starting with Reagan. They spend more than Democrats, tax less, and hence run up record deficits.) Of course, Ron Paul would only be able to veto, not write, bills that tax or spend. That said, the veto can be a very useful tool when applied judiciously.

Re:The goal of justice

[k1e0x]

Prevention would be nice, I don't know how practical it is. How do you know someone will commit a crime until they do, we cant put people in jail for crimes they *might* commit.

As I see things.. the tax level is almost irreverent now, the big danger today is inflation and the devaluation of the dollar as the government just prints the money to pay the bills. Today when we need to spend 190 Billion for a war or natural disaster or whatever.. there is no "taxing" done.. the government just calls up the Federal Reserve and the guy on the other end of the phone types in 190B into their account. The creation of new money into the system is legal counterfiting, it makes the value of our money drop.. and it's actually worse than that.. the 190B is not a "gift" it's a loan from the Federal Reserve bank to the government and the duty to pay belongs to the American people.. Our debt is so large now that our taxes barely pay the interest on it. Every year Ron Paul questions the Chairman of the Fed on this..

http://www.youtube.com/v/xTBrJNipytg
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulBernankeHearingQ&A071807.mp3

Well.. heh.. This is a long complicated issue.. you have to look into it more on your own.

Re:Strike Three

[Scudsucker]

When one happened and he did not leave he was trespassing

You have to give someone a chance to leave first. They didn't.

Re:Strike Three

[N3WBI3]

They turned off his mic and tried to escort him out by taking his arm, at which point he resisted. The amount of force used at the time when he resisted was not anywhere near unreasonable, he could have just walked out then but he physically resisted..

Prevention

[benhocking]

It's definitely possible to go overboard on prevention (e.g., Minority Report), but I'm thinking here of things like incarceration. That does not help with restitution, but it does contribute (over the short term at least) to prevention. (A) This person won't commit that crime again while in jail (usually), and (B) the jail term can act as a deterrent to those contemplating such a crime.

As for going beyond our budgets and printing up funny money, I agree completely.