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.)
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).
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).
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.
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
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
Slashdot Mirror
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.)
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).
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