...Police have an easier time finding people to ask questions about a crime...
The entire rationale for the existence of a police force is for it to act as an instrument of the state to use coercion where the state regards this as necessary. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it most certainly isn't supposed to be an easy thing. Any time a politician (or slashdot poster) makes a speech calling for more laws to "make the job of the police easier" what they are actually calling for is to make it easier for police to forcibly interfere in the lives of people who are legally considered innocent (prison guards deal with people who are no longer legally considered innocent).
The police already have the power to make any given individuals life a misery regardless of that individuals guilt or innocence if they wish to do so: This move not only gives them the capability to involve any individual in random criminal investigations purely because that individual had been at a given crime scene but provides an incentive for police to make arrests for trivial offenses, often of completely innocent people, creating police records and damaging the lives and aspirations of countless individuals solely for the purpose of expanding the police DNA database.
The phrase "you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide" assumes that every single police officer and public official never acts officially in bad faith or acts for personal or outright malign purposes.
...It's more of a shortcut to get to information they would get otherwise through other means anyway...
If this is the case then providing incentives for police to make numerous arrests for the purpose of expanding police DNA databases and expanding the ability of police to harass citizens going about their lawful business is totally unnecessary. You're suggesting that police should be able to collect DNA regardless of a criminal conviction for no better reason than to provide a shortcut? Take the long way. The job of a policeman ought to be a difficult one because of its nature. In any case, what's to respect about someone with an easy job?
"I agree with the proposition that users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence
There's something of a difference between "agreeing with a proposition" and stating that it is part of the legislation that has already been passed into law.
It's not a prospective employer calling for a reference which creates a risk to the organization badmouthing an ex-employee: It's when a friend of the ex-employee calls posing as a prospective employer for the purpose of finding out why the ex-employees last 16 job applications went unanswered.
The Secret Service is well aware that public appearances are the single greatest risk factor they have to deal with, thus, their presence at such times is overwhelming and surveillance of any and all vantage points is a fairly obvious precaution. For an assassin who wishes to actually survive the assassination and escape, attacking a motorcade with an anti tank weapon would be a highly attractive option. Given a moving target, the number of vantage points available to a would be assassin are far too numerous to contemplate surveilling every one. This only works though, if the assassin knows which vehicle in the motorcade contains his or her target.
The obvious countermeasure however, is to simply spoof the presidents phone signal such that it can be detected in each vehicle of the motorcade. Long story short, the Secret Service is going to have to adapt to the needs of their protectee. I have little doubt that the security issues involved can be overcome but we should not fool ourselves into thinking there are no issues to deal with.
The UN has representation in the general assembly for every dictatorship and rogue nation on the planet and representation for those nations on crucial committees and councils (you can include the US in that if you wish)
And THIS is the organization upon which we should be basing the first threads of a world government?
IMO, any form of world government would be a monumentally bad idea. Governments made possible the worst atrocities of the 20th century. The possibilities implicit in a government with worldwide power and authority freezes my soul with terror.
Any company that thinks it has enough power to corrupt due process is either wrong or a danger to society that should be dealt with accordingly
Under the circumstances, I'd regard denying access to all users in the.it domain as an entirely correct response to the prosecutors apparent belief that google is an internet content provider.
If Italian law requires google to accomplish the impossible, the only legal response is not to provide that content in Italy. I rather suspect however, that Italian politicians would have difficulty ignoring the situation: they must answer to their citizens after all.
Honest question - who decides what American workers get paid? Does the average for the foreign workers have to be the same as the national average? Or some other metric? Or does the company just have to pay their own foreign and American workers the same for the same position?
The honest answer: the employer supplies the average in the Labor Condition Application (LCA) that makes up part of the application for an H1-b visa. They may use any source they please and the Employment and Training Administration which processes the LCA is permitted review the LCA only for completeness and obvious inaccuracies.
I'm worried by the increasing number of stories on/. up in arms about companies bringing in *gasp* foreigners. America was founded by non-natives and our economic strength comes from the thousands of immigrants who come here for a better life by getting good jobs or starting businesses.
The problem is not all those skuzzy foreigners, the problem lies in the completely fucked immigration process. The H1-b visa is recognized as a dual intent visa: that is, the holder of an H1-b visa can have legal immigration intent (apply for and obtain the green card) while still a holder of the visa. When the H1-b program was created, the time taken to obtain a greencard was less than the duration of an H1-b visa. More recently, unfortunately, it now takes many years for applications from certain countries (i.e. India, the Phillipines, China) to be processed. This allows employers to game the system, using it to access not only cheap labor, but labor which has a significantly weaker bargaining position than American workers.
IMO, the benefits of actual immigration are indisputable. The problem lies not with dirty foreigners (many of whom are, in fact, being illegally exploited by their employers but dare not complain unless they can first obtain an alternative employer... any why complain if the problem is already solved?) but in the process and in enforcement provisions which are deliberately curtailed so as to avoid the delays which in part led to the creation of the program in the first place.
For example (all quotes below taken directly from above linked document):
The rules also say that the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has just 7 days to accept or reject an application and that they can only check for "completeness and obvious inaccuracies". Further, "ETA officials said employers can use almost any source to determine a
prevailing wage and ETA does not have the authority to verify the authenticity of the information unless officials can demonstrate that the source is obviously inaccurate on its face. According to ETA officials, even if they know a prevailing wage is incorrect, they must approve the LCA (Labor Condition Application)." nb clarification of acronym in parentheses not in original document
"...An American worker has the right to go to a company, demand the salary, related qualifications and job descriptions. If the American citizen can prove that she is qualified for that position, then the company cannot continue hiring the H1B"
It is true that an American worker can demand an investigation, however, the company is not compelled to employ that individual if the investigation is unfavorable to the employer in question. I'd in fact be quite certain that the employer would specifically not employ the complaining individual.
Most damning of all IMO is the following passage from the report:
"Although its authority to investigate is limited, there is evidence to believe that program noncompliance under the H-1B program exists. For example, even though there has not been a large number of complaints, WHD is significantly more likely to find violations in H-1B complaint cases than in complaint cases under other laws, according to WHD officials. As shown in table 1, over the last 4 1/2 years, 83 percent of the closed H-1B investigations found violations-compared to about 40 to 60 percent under other labor laws, according to Labor officials, and the amount of back wages owed to H-1B workers has been substantialâ"over $2 million, or about $3,800 per employee found to have back wages due. Finally, according to WHD officials, there are increasing instances of
program abuse in which workers are brought into the United States to work, but are not employed and receive no pay until jobs are available
(often called "benching"). Other violations have included employers withholding wages from employees who have voluntarily left for employment elsewhere. WHD's investigative findings are corroborated by a 1996 Labor Inspector General report that found 75 percent of the aliens were working for employers who did not adequately document the proper wage on the LCA and, when the actual wage could be determined, 19 percent of the H-1B workers were paid less than the wage specified on the LCA"
you have to admit the presence of large numebrs of firearms, and even rockets, did little to prevent a heavily armed military from doing basically whatever they liked.
What the Israeli military would have liked would have been the elimination of Hamas and the prevention of future rocket/mortar/suicide attacks on the citizens of Israel.
I don't know about the author of the gp post, but as neither objective has been accomplished, I'm not quite ready to admit much of anything just yet.
Care to speculate on the fate of the Palestinians if they were not armed?
What's to keep the government from "taking the guns" from a well-armed populace? The same populace? What if the government has bigger guns? They always will, because they have bigger budgets. Your well-armed populace better have fixed anti-aircraft emplacements if someone ever really launches a successful attempt at a military dictatorship in the US
All security is about giving those you are securing against a higher hurdle to clear. "airtight security" has never been invented (well, ok, it was; but the people inside suffocated). The security game has always been not so much about making violation of said security impossible as to make certain that the cost of violating the security higher than the payoff to be had from successfully violating that security.
In this context, killing 40% of your unarmed population is considerably cheaper than first disarming then massacring them. Further, disarming someone, even with overwhelming force, is a much chancier business than just murdering people who are unarmed. Witness the difficulties that the US military has faced in the recent past confronting forces with considerably less potent weaponry available than that which is available to the US military.
Is there a role for police in your world? Wouldn't any police force that could effectively protect the rights of individuals necessarily require the ability to exert superior force?
Police cannot directly protect the rights of individuals effectively or otherwise. Once again, security is about making the payoff from violating security smaller than the cost of doing so. What this means is that Police clean up the mess after someones rights have been violated, then they investigate the violation and ensure that the violator shows up in court (assuming he or she can be caught). In this scenario, hopefully, the cost of being caught and punished is greater than the payoff from violating someones rights*. Short of having a police officer on every street corner, and in every home (or a camera... hmmm, where have I seen that scenario before?) , Only citizens can protect their own rights and the rights of those people around them. Armed citizens do so far more effectively than unarmed citizens. Moreover, the fact that we are discussing the murder of 40% of a nations citizens by its government, not as a horrible hypothetical but as a grim reality is a clear manifestation of the need to protect citizens rights not just from each other, but from the government as well.
*(IMO, this is why criminals tend, by and large, to be profoundly stupid: Of the people not prevented from committing crime by their own conscience, the stupid ones assess the risk/reward equation badly)
So if the schools policy is "You may not express opinions contrary to that of University Administration" That's just fine and no violation of free speech?
1. If someone refuses to hand over their DNA, where do the police acquire the authority to seize it? Where does the government acquire the authority to permit the police to seize it?
2. Seizing someones DNA would be warrantless search and seizure: illegal in any civilized nation.
It would be interesting to live in a society with zero lies and zero crimes
3. You seriously need to watch the movie "Serenity"
Originally applied to transit police (railway police) by members of the NSW Police force on the basis that a chocolate cop will melt when the heat is turned up. Of course, it's entirely possible that the etymology goes back considerably further than that.
you can't check it, that's why it's called a "blind spot"
This is the excuse of someone who either cannot appropriately position his rear vision mirrors or whose neck is welded in the forward position.
position your mirrors for the areas that you can't look directly into and TURN YOUR HEAD for the areas your mirrors don't cover. It's a lot easier than explaining to the cops why you killed a motorcyclist.
The "blind spot" excuse doesn't mitigate your legal and moral responsibility to ensure that you maneuver your vehicle safely. Motorcyclists don't think they "own the road" as you charge: they think they own the tiny bit of road they happen to be occupying at any given point in time. Competent drivers don't whine about imaginary "blind spots"
The argument is not remotely specious. The yellow light needs to be long enough for motorists who cannot safely stop before entering the intersection to pass through. As a motorcyclist, any assurance that it will be the other persons fault if I get rear ended is not terribly reassuring. Getting killed or maimed is not mitigated by another persons legal liability.
That there are people who misuse the yellow light for convenience is wholly irrelevant to this argument.
True, "Israel's Jewish character" may become a thing on the past and Jews will have to learn to live side-by-side with muslims and see their children enter mixed marriages
Yes. Israelis are evil and they are the onliest group in the region who are bigots. There is not a single muslim anywhere in the world, certainly not in the refugee camps who would kill every Jew alive if they could.
Nope. Not a one. All that is required is for jews to sit around campfires with their muslim bretheren and sing kumbaya while eating smores and peace and happiness will abound throughout the entire planet.
You must work for the Hamas campaign.
Even assuming periodic saturation attacks which overwhelm the ability of the system to destroy incoming attacks instead of occasinal singletons , it's still going to stop substantially more than are currently being stopped and reduce the frequency of attacks since firing two or three missiles a day isn't going to accomplish much.
Additionally, compelling your enemy to coordinate his attacks increases his need to communicate... giving your intelligence apparatus the opportunity to intercept those communications. Sure, it's only a little thing but lots of little things often add up to 1 big thing.
They're expensive to buy, place, man, and feed. And once they set a precedence of putting up one in every town that takes a rocket, each town within rockets reach will demand one
If it takes funds that would otherwise be used in offensive measures, I'm not seeing the downside. Hell, defensive weapons systems designed to stop ballistic attacks are widely used to protect military assets (not that there's anything wrong with that... quite the contrary) so why shouldn't civilians who are in considerable danger also enjoy the benefits?
Protecting civilians is more or less what a military exists to accomplish. Defensive weapons systems like the ones under discussion here might well accomplish more in terms of that overall mission than any number of far more expensive offensive systems.
In any case, this is SlashDot. Technological solutions to problems is pretty what slashdot exists to discuss. Mission accomplished:)
You don't have to allocate infinite shipping resources, merely enough shipping resources to meet your obligations. That's right, shipping on time is an obligation. The arrival date is one of the measures by which some customers choose an online retailer: lying about the arrival date ought to amount to fraud.
Instead of screwing customers who don't whine, either increase your shipping resources until you can ship on time or increase the stated shipping time until available shipping resources are sufficient to your commitments.
Or, better yet, let clients prioritize their own shipping by offering higher priority shipping for a fee. Those clients who don't care when their shipment arrives are happy, and so are those clients who care enough about the arrival date to pay for an earlier arrival date.
"Mostly what he was yelling was "Help" and "Why are you arresting me?" but just after he was threatend with the taser he said "I'll walk out of here, just let me go" sounds a lot like what you were looking for."
What he needed to do at this point was to stop struggling At this point he was miles past the line where you can just get up and walk away. Ironically, had he simply allowed the cops to get him just a few more meters (i.e. out the door) rather than resisting their attempts to remove him from the auditorium, they would likely have permitted him to do just that (walk away that is).
"I think that 6 Cops using a weapon on a single student who was on the ground is just obscene. Weapons should be used to protect police officers or the public. This was not protection.. this was punishment."
He was fighting with them with the arm that was not yet cuffed and kicking at the officers with his legs. That he was on the ground does not mean that he was no threat to the police who were trying to subdue him.
>"getting kicked repeatedly by some punk while trying not to hurt him is VERY frustrating."
"Ah! I think you stumbled on the real reason. They were frustrated and lazy. The easy way out is to use a tazer."
Such lazy cops! fancy objecting to being kicked repeatedly. Damn pigs should just shut up and stop protecting their crotches from this guys perfectly reasonable kicks.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire rationale for the existence of a police force is for it to act as an instrument of the state to use coercion where the state regards this as necessary. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it most certainly isn't supposed to be an easy thing. Any time a politician (or slashdot poster) makes a speech calling for more laws to "make the job of the police easier" what they are actually calling for is to make it easier for police to forcibly interfere in the lives of people who are legally considered innocent (prison guards deal with people who are no longer legally considered innocent).
The police already have the power to make any given individuals life a misery regardless of that individuals guilt or innocence if they wish to do so: This move not only gives them the capability to involve any individual in random criminal investigations purely because that individual had been at a given crime scene but provides an incentive for police to make arrests for trivial offenses, often of completely innocent people, creating police records and damaging the lives and aspirations of countless individuals solely for the purpose of expanding the police DNA database.
The phrase "you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide" assumes that every single police officer and public official never acts officially in bad faith or acts for personal or outright malign purposes.
If this is the case then providing incentives for police to make numerous arrests for the purpose of expanding police DNA databases and expanding the ability of police to harass citizens going about their lawful business is totally unnecessary. You're suggesting that police should be able to collect DNA regardless of a criminal conviction for no better reason than to provide a shortcut? Take the long way. The job of a policeman ought to be a difficult one because of its nature. In any case, what's to respect about someone with an easy job?
Parent is almost certainly a parent. Wait... this is slashdot. Is that allowed?
There's something of a difference between "agreeing with a proposition" and stating that it is part of the legislation that has already been passed into law.
It's not a prospective employer calling for a reference which creates a risk to the organization badmouthing an ex-employee: It's when a friend of the ex-employee calls posing as a prospective employer for the purpose of finding out why the ex-employees last 16 job applications went unanswered.
The obvious countermeasure however, is to simply spoof the presidents phone signal such that it can be detected in each vehicle of the motorcade. Long story short, the Secret Service is going to have to adapt to the needs of their protectee. I have little doubt that the security issues involved can be overcome but we should not fool ourselves into thinking there are no issues to deal with.
And THIS is the organization upon which we should be basing the first threads of a world government?
IMO, any form of world government would be a monumentally bad idea. Governments made possible the worst atrocities of the 20th century. The possibilities implicit in a government with worldwide power and authority freezes my soul with terror.
I'm not kidding. It's seriously terrifying.
so how much profit is too much? Is it necessary to lose money in order to claim you can't do the impossible?
Under the circumstances, I'd regard denying access to all users in the .it domain as an entirely correct response to the prosecutors apparent belief that google is an internet content provider.
If Italian law requires google to accomplish the impossible, the only legal response is not to provide that content in Italy. I rather suspect however, that Italian politicians would have difficulty ignoring the situation: they must answer to their citizens after all.
The honest answer: the employer supplies the average in the Labor Condition Application (LCA) that makes up part of the application for an H1-b visa. They may use any source they please and the Employment and Training Administration which processes the LCA is permitted review the LCA only for completeness and obvious inaccuracies.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00157.pdf
The problem is not all those skuzzy foreigners, the problem lies in the completely fucked immigration process. The H1-b visa is recognized as a dual intent visa: that is, the holder of an H1-b visa can have legal immigration intent (apply for and obtain the green card) while still a holder of the visa. When the H1-b program was created, the time taken to obtain a greencard was less than the duration of an H1-b visa. More recently, unfortunately, it now takes many years for applications from certain countries (i.e. India, the Phillipines, China) to be processed. This allows employers to game the system, using it to access not only cheap labor, but labor which has a significantly weaker bargaining position than American workers.
IMO, the benefits of actual immigration are indisputable. The problem lies not with dirty foreigners (many of whom are, in fact, being illegally exploited by their employers but dare not complain unless they can first obtain an alternative employer... any why complain if the problem is already solved?) but in the process and in enforcement provisions which are deliberately curtailed so as to avoid the delays which in part led to the creation of the program in the first place.
According to the United States General Accounting Office the protections provided by the H1-b rules are ineffective.
For example (all quotes below taken directly from above linked document):
The rules also say that the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has just 7 days to accept or reject an application and that they can only check for "completeness and obvious inaccuracies". Further, "ETA officials said employers can use almost any source to determine a prevailing wage and ETA does not have the authority to verify the authenticity of the information unless officials can demonstrate that the source is obviously inaccurate on its face. According to ETA officials, even if they know a prevailing wage is incorrect, they must approve the LCA (Labor Condition Application)." nb clarification of acronym in parentheses not in original document
It is true that an American worker can demand an investigation, however, the company is not compelled to employ that individual if the investigation is unfavorable to the employer in question. I'd in fact be quite certain that the employer would specifically not employ the complaining individual.
Most damning of all IMO is the following passage from the report: "Although its authority to investigate is limited, there is evidence to believe that program noncompliance under the H-1B program exists. For example, even though there has not been a large number of complaints, WHD is significantly more likely to find violations in H-1B complaint cases than in complaint cases under other laws, according to WHD officials. As shown in table 1, over the last 4 1/2 years, 83 percent of the closed H-1B investigations found violations-compared to about 40 to 60 percent under other labor laws, according to Labor officials, and the amount of back wages owed to H-1B workers has been substantialâ"over $2 million, or about $3,800 per employee found to have back wages due. Finally, according to WHD officials, there are increasing instances of program abuse in which workers are brought into the United States to work, but are not employed and receive no pay until jobs are available (often called "benching"). Other violations have included employers withholding wages from employees who have voluntarily left for employment elsewhere. WHD's investigative findings are corroborated by a 1996 Labor Inspector General report that found 75 percent of the aliens were working for employers who did not adequately document the proper wage on the LCA and, when the actual wage could be determined, 19 percent of the H-1B workers were paid less than the wage specified on the LCA"
What the Israeli military would have liked would have been the elimination of Hamas and the prevention of future rocket/mortar/suicide attacks on the citizens of Israel.
I don't know about the author of the gp post, but as neither objective has been accomplished, I'm not quite ready to admit much of anything just yet.
Care to speculate on the fate of the Palestinians if they were not armed?
All security is about giving those you are securing against a higher hurdle to clear. "airtight security" has never been invented (well, ok, it was; but the people inside suffocated). The security game has always been not so much about making violation of said security impossible as to make certain that the cost of violating the security higher than the payoff to be had from successfully violating that security.
In this context, killing 40% of your unarmed population is considerably cheaper than first disarming then massacring them. Further, disarming someone, even with overwhelming force, is a much chancier business than just murdering people who are unarmed. Witness the difficulties that the US military has faced in the recent past confronting forces with considerably less potent weaponry available than that which is available to the US military.
Police cannot directly protect the rights of individuals effectively or otherwise. Once again, security is about making the payoff from violating security smaller than the cost of doing so. What this means is that Police clean up the mess after someones rights have been violated, then they investigate the violation and ensure that the violator shows up in court (assuming he or she can be caught). In this scenario, hopefully, the cost of being caught and punished is greater than the payoff from violating someones rights*. Short of having a police officer on every street corner, and in every home (or a camera... hmmm, where have I seen that scenario before?) , Only citizens can protect their own rights and the rights of those people around them. Armed citizens do so far more effectively than unarmed citizens. Moreover, the fact that we are discussing the murder of 40% of a nations citizens by its government, not as a horrible hypothetical but as a grim reality is a clear manifestation of the need to protect citizens rights not just from each other, but from the government as well.
*(IMO, this is why criminals tend, by and large, to be profoundly stupid: Of the people not prevented from committing crime by their own conscience, the stupid ones assess the risk/reward equation badly)
So if the schools policy is "You may not express opinions contrary to that of University Administration" That's just fine and no violation of free speech?
1. If someone refuses to hand over their DNA, where do the police acquire the authority to seize it? Where does the government acquire the authority to permit the police to seize it?
2. Seizing someones DNA would be warrantless search and seizure: illegal in any civilized nation.
3. You seriously need to watch the movie "Serenity"
Chocolate Cop.
Originally applied to transit police (railway police) by members of the NSW Police force on the basis that a chocolate cop will melt when the heat is turned up. Of course, it's entirely possible that the etymology goes back considerably further than that.
This is the excuse of someone who either cannot appropriately position his rear vision mirrors or whose neck is welded in the forward position.
position your mirrors for the areas that you can't look directly into and TURN YOUR HEAD for the areas your mirrors don't cover. It's a lot easier than explaining to the cops why you killed a motorcyclist.
The "blind spot" excuse doesn't mitigate your legal and moral responsibility to ensure that you maneuver your vehicle safely. Motorcyclists don't think they "own the road" as you charge: they think they own the tiny bit of road they happen to be occupying at any given point in time. Competent drivers don't whine about imaginary "blind spots"
The argument is not remotely specious. The yellow light needs to be long enough for motorists who cannot safely stop before entering the intersection to pass through. As a motorcyclist, any assurance that it will be the other persons fault if I get rear ended is not terribly reassuring. Getting killed or maimed is not mitigated by another persons legal liability.
That there are people who misuse the yellow light for convenience is wholly irrelevant to this argument.
Additionally, compelling your enemy to coordinate his attacks increases his need to communicate... giving your intelligence apparatus the opportunity to intercept those communications. Sure, it's only a little thing but lots of little things often add up to 1 big thing.
If it takes funds that would otherwise be used in offensive measures, I'm not seeing the downside. Hell, defensive weapons systems designed to stop ballistic attacks are widely used to protect military assets (not that there's anything wrong with that... quite the contrary) so why shouldn't civilians who are in considerable danger also enjoy the benefits?
Protecting civilians is more or less what a military exists to accomplish. Defensive weapons systems like the ones under discussion here might well accomplish more in terms of that overall mission than any number of far more expensive offensive systems.
In any case, this is SlashDot. Technological solutions to problems is pretty what slashdot exists to discuss. Mission accomplished
That would be protonk, to whom I was replying:
Do try to keep up wont you.
Sigh
You don't have to allocate infinite shipping resources, merely enough shipping resources to meet your obligations. That's right, shipping on time is an obligation. The arrival date is one of the measures by which some customers choose an online retailer: lying about the arrival date ought to amount to fraud.
Instead of screwing customers who don't whine, either increase your shipping resources until you can ship on time or increase the stated shipping time until available shipping resources are sufficient to your commitments.
Or, better yet, let clients prioritize their own shipping by offering higher priority shipping for a fee. Those clients who don't care when their shipment arrives are happy, and so are those clients who care enough about the arrival date to pay for an earlier arrival date.
What he needed to do at this point was to stop struggling At this point he was miles past the line where you can just get up and walk away. Ironically, had he simply allowed the cops to get him just a few more meters (i.e. out the door) rather than resisting their attempts to remove him from the auditorium, they would likely have permitted him to do just that (walk away that is).
He was fighting with them with the arm that was not yet cuffed and kicking at the officers with his legs. That he was on the ground does not mean that he was no threat to the police who were trying to subdue him.
1. we don't know why the cops followed him into the auditorium in the first place
2. asking that he leave, then forcibly ejecting him from the auditorium when he failed to comply was a perfectly reasonable response to his actions.
>"getting kicked repeatedly by some punk while trying not to hurt him is VERY frustrating."
"Ah! I think you stumbled on the real reason. They were frustrated and lazy. The easy way out is to use a tazer."
Such lazy cops! fancy objecting to being kicked repeatedly. Damn pigs should just shut up and stop protecting their crotches from this guys perfectly reasonable kicks.