"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.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
"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.
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.
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.