Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
> 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.
simon
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.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
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.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
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.
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.
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.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
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?
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.
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
Better known as 318230.
I have a right to protest, but I don't have a right to shit on the President's rug during afternoon tea.
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.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
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.
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.
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
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!*"
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
"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.
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.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
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?
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
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.
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?
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.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
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.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
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.
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.
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.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
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?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
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.
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?"
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
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.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
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...
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.
A past slashdot article would disagree with that advise. Also see, for example, information about the UCLA taser policy.
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.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
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
Birth is the leading cause of death.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
You do realize that cuffing a guy against his will is a lot more dangerous to everyone than a taser, right?
t
They wouldn't, but they didn't.
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.
...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...
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.
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.
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
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.
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.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
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
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
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.
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!
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
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.
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.
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
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
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.
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.
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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
If you RTFA, you'll see that Kerry was actually asking the cops to leave the kid alone.
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.
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
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:
- Tried to gently lead him away. He tried to break free while continuing to cause a disturbance.
- One officer brandishes a weapon but puts it away once he determines the student isn't an armed threat.
- At this point it is clear that he isn't going to go peacefully.
- 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.
- Warned him in advance that they'd have to taser him if he continued to resist. He did.
- 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?If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
"Help Help I'm Being Repressed! come see the violence inherent in the system!"
To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
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?
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
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.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
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."
!#&*
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).
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
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.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
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.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
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
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.
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.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
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."
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..."
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.
Camping on quad since 1996.
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.
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.
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
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.
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.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
> 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.
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
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
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.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.