# University of Florida Student Tazed at John Kerry Speech...



## Cruentus (Sep 18, 2007)

O.K..... THoughts?

Now discuss...


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 18, 2007)

And real quick... be honest; how many of you sick bastards chuckled a little at the clip. Come on... be honest.... :uhyeah:


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 18, 2007)

First off Mr. Kerry said let him talk so he could answer the question, The police or security gaurds took this to a level that did not need to be in my opinion. All the young man did was ask a question that his people did not like.
The young lad should have let well enough alone and just left when he was ask the first time and not try to question authority at this point and time. One must know when to pick the right moments.

And yes I chuckled


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 18, 2007)

terryl965 said:


> And yes I chuckled


 
Ha, ha...sick bastard!! :rofl: [yea, me too.  ]

Here is another clip that shows the beginning of the students lunatic diatribe in case anyone thinks that he wasn't to blame for his fate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIYTJ75U4NU&mode=related&search=


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 18, 2007)

The incident from a different angle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y90tjV_Va0o&mode=related&search=

It didn't look like the cuffs were on prior to being tazed here; and whether the cuffs were off or on when tazed makes a difference in this circumstance, I think.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 18, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Ha, ha...sick bastard!! :rofl: [yea, me too.  ]
> 
> Here is another clip that shows the beginning of the students lunatic diatribe in case anyone thinks that he wasn't to blame for his fate:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIYTJ75U4NU&mode=related&search=



I had not see that part. What I saw on television was him on the ground saying that if they take the cuffs off of him he would walk out with them. But in the clip you gave, when they first try to lead him out he pulls away and keeps trying to rant away like a lunatic.

At that point, I think he gave up his right to be taken at his word about going out quietly. I rather have to suspect that he pushed things as much as he could to get tased like he did.

And I did not chuckle...until I saw your clip. Thanks!


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 18, 2007)

Whether or not the kid (who, according to some reports has a history of what can best be described as "attention seeking behavior") should have been allowed more time to ask his question is open; I don't think he actually had a question, so much as a desire to speak on the microphone.  He was demanding the right to ramble his views at Kerry's event.  When told to shut up, he didn't take a hint.

When physically escorted to the aisle, and subsequently to the rear of the theatre, he didn't take the hint, and forced his way back in.  

When he was finally subdued, he continued to resist.  The Taser was used to "encourage" his submission.  He should be thankful.  He was fine a few minutes later; had they used batons, OC, or other means to subdue him, he'd probably be hospitalized.  

And now the University of Florida appears to be throwing the cops to the wolves of public outcry...  

If it'd been me working that -- I'd have used more force, much quicker to get him under control.  I'm pretty impressed at the restraint the cops showed. 

And -- I laughed the first time I watched it.


----------



## crushing (Sep 18, 2007)

I didn't find anything to chuckle at in those clips.  They were very disturbing.


----------



## Kacey (Sep 18, 2007)

Do I think the kid is an attention seeking idiot?  Yes

Do I think that, since Sen. Kerry said he wanted to answer his question, he should have been asked to leave?  No - he should have been allowed to listen to Sen. Kerry's response.  Had he continued to speak when Kerry was attempting to answer, then that would be different.

Do I think he should have resisted when asked to leave?  No.

Do I think that the police overreacted?  Yes, I do - they shouldn't have asked him to leave once Kerry said he'd answer the question.  Once the kid refused to leave quietly... I don't know.

Did I find any of this amusing?  No, I didn't.  The kid asked an admittedly ill-advised question at the end of a personal rant that may or may not have been related to what Kerry said during his speech, but I find the response to his actions to be excessive - on both sides.

Had Kerry endorsed - or requested - his removal, I might see the incident differently, but in the circumstances given, I think that letting his ask his question, hear the response, and then removing him, if still necessary, would have been much more appropriate under the circumstances.  That said, however, I do think that there are, quite likely, things that went on that we are unaware, including, but not limited to, other comments by this kid, the posted parameters on questions (if any), the orders given to the officers present, and so on.


----------



## grydth (Sep 18, 2007)

crushing said:


> I didn't find anything to chuckle at in those clips.  They were very disturbing.



I'm with you.... the disruptor was a selfish attention grabber, somebody willing to disrupt an event to get some air time.... but was he a threat, especially with 4 cops already on him, that merited a taser? I have to question that. This was merely a human whoopee cushion - I am surprised they couldn't have controlled and removed him more quickly without that.

Kerry just got ignored and pushed into the back ground.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 18, 2007)

No, I didn't chuckle.  It wasn't funny.  The guy asked a question during a "Question and Answer Session," Kerry said he would answer, and the kid was dragged off in handcuffs, tazed, and for what???  For asking a question?  Certainly not for "inciting to riot," which is one of the charges against him.  He didn't take a swing at anyone.  He was being held down by, what, five police officers?  They really needed to use a Tazer?

What's the problem?  Kerry didn't like the question about his and Bush's membership in Skull & Bones?  He didn't like the implication that maybe Kerry didn't question the election results because Bush was a fellow Bonesman?  Tough.  IMO, Kerry should be ashamed of himself--and I voted for him.

I am going to chuckle when I see the size of the lawsuit against the university.


----------



## grydth (Sep 18, 2007)

My bet is that the suit settles quickly and quietly. 

Though a number of us think there was an over reaction, many also will think the twerp got exactly what was coming to him....and that he was clearly resisting or even trying to provoke the cops.  This little screecher would not play well to a jury, and might find himself getting a 39c verdict.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 18, 2007)

Disorderly Conduct arrest. Big deal.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Sep 18, 2007)

I laughed 
The thing is Kerry isn't the one who has the say whether or not a disorderly person should be removed from the proceedings, the police do and he was very beligerant about not only continueing with his story (rather than question), but also forcing his way back in. Tasering might seem much, but he already showed with force that he was going to have to be forcibly removed.
So yeah, I laughed ;p.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Sep 18, 2007)

There was another tasering in a library that I was very much in the opposite position btw, this instance I believe has completely different justification, a valid one.


----------



## baron (Sep 18, 2007)

iam sorry but i must be demented i chuckled and just could not keep myself from laughing.  i thought it was very funny. he got his fifteen minutes of fame or i should say fifteen minutes of shame.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 19, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Do I think that, since Sen. Kerry said he wanted to answer his question, he should have been asked to leave?  No - he should have been allowed to listen to Sen. Kerry's response.  Had he continued to speak when Kerry was attempting to answer, then that would be different.



I think that the police on the scene had to think more about keeping people safe and take less chances. If you see the guy rant and rave about secret societies before refusing to leave and breaking out of a gentle move to get him away a police officer has to assume that he may be a mental case along the lines of the guys that shot Lennon, Reagan and others. Get the guy in cuffs until you pat him down for weapons. If they were to stop and let him "listen" before that it might have been that he reached into his waistband, pulled out a pistol and started shooting.

That is what the guys on the scene might have thought based on all the evidence they had seen and experienced. The guys right to listen to Kerry probably was not as important to them as making sure there was no shooting on their shift.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 19, 2007)

To avoid problems with law enforcement is pretty simple: Do what you are told. Don't argue. Don't move in any way that could be seen as threatening or resisting. Chris Rock did a really good bit about this...


----------



## Doc_Jude (Sep 19, 2007)

The worst bit is, due to youthful indiscretion, this kid's name will be on at least a few lists that will hound him for the rest of his life. Poor kid.

With that in mind, I hope that he gets some money out of the whole thing. I think he's going to need it


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 19, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> And real quick... be honest; how many of you sick bastards chuckled a little at the clip. Come on... be honest.... :uhyeah:


 
Are you kidding?  I laugh every time I see it.  

"Don't taze me, bro... AAAUGH!"


This appears to be a case of "Instant Idiot: Just Add Camera".
http://www.starbanner.com/article/20070918/NEWS/70918007/1053/BREAKING_NEWS



> In the 12-page report, which gives accounts of the incident from the perspective of eight different officers who were present Monday afternoon, Officer Nicole Mallo writes that Meyer would only resist officers when cameras were present.
> 
> "As (Meyer) was escorted down stairs (at the University Auditorium) with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again," Mallo wrote.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 19, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> When he was finally subdued, he continued to resist. The Taser was used to "encourage" his submission. He should be thankful. He was fine a few minutes later; had they used batons, OC, or other means to subdue him, he'd probably be hospitalized.


 
And that is a great point, and the thing about tazers that I don't think people get, because it is disturbing to see someone screaming, and then being zapped into submission. But the other side of it is that w/o the tazer resisting perps often injure themselves before they finally submit. This is not even considering the injuries that are more likely to occur through the use of other less-lethal force methods then with a tazer.

Tazers, although painful and disturbing to watch, are often the safest choice for both the officer and the arrestee.

That said; I am not one of those guys who think the police can "do no wrong," and therefore I am all for departmental rules that would prevent abuses. That is why, as an example, despite the damage a cuffed perp can do, I am still not comfortable or for the idea of tazing an already cuffed individual.

But, I don't think that this was a case of abuse at all.

C.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 19, 2007)

The other thing that sucks is the media always tells the story that they want to tell, rather then the whole story. When you watch the entire clip, one can see that the student was abusing the privledge to ASK A QUESTION by lunitic ranting for quite a long time before being asked to step away from the microphone. One can see his choosing to not comply, to the point where a very large officer had to pick him up and force him to the back of the room. One can see that he continued to not comply and continued to resist until finally tazed.

But of course, the media just shows bits and pieces of the entire video that paints a completely different picture...


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 19, 2007)

Ah but see, there we are.

It is his *privilege* to ask a question?  I think, as an American citizen it is his *duty* to ask these questions.

Whether we think they are valid or not, they are some tough questions - indeed, why did the police think these questions were so dangerous?  The questions were:

Did you know you won the election?
With the multiple reports of voting machines that actually counted backward, discounting (insert number here) of black voters, how could you concede the election on the day of the election?
This book says there were 5 million black votes for you that weren't counted, didn't you want to be president?
If you were so against the Iraq war, why did you not call for impeachment when Clinton was impeached for a blow job?
Are you a member of the Skull and Bones Society?
Here's my questions:

If a moderator had been at the microphone to encourage him to ask one question at a time, could these questions not be answered?
Is there a single person here who, if felt wrongly threatened by police, would *not* ask if they were under arrest and what law they have broken and not expect to get hammered in some way?
Is it really okay with you folks who chuckle at this video that we cannot, apparently, confront our elected officials and candidates with questions of truth, even in the face of the constitution?
Just questions - don't tase me now. :uhohh::anic:


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 19, 2007)

I dont think he was going to be arrested initially, just escorted from the property. I may be wrong there, but that was my impression. The guy pushed it into an arrest.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 19, 2007)

I'm surprised that so many of you who think so highly of the Second Amendment think so little of the First.

All Kerry had to do was to say firmly, "Officers, please let him go, I will answer his question."  and "Sir, I will answer your questions, but then you must step down, and give other people a chance." End of incident.  

I doubt he'd have been treated that way if he threw Kerry a few softball questions instead of questions about Skull & Bones.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 19, 2007)

It's not my country and not my police force and neither was I present at the incident.

That's the pre-amble to place a bona fide for neutrality on the table.

I'm English, so that means that I officially have no rights, other than those the Crown allows me (whatever the deluded general consensus of public opinion is on that particular issue at the moment).

You chaps are from a country where your Constitution is supposed to protect you from precisely what happened in the video.  It does not matter if the student was ranting and raving about Pink Hippos running the Senate, he was not a danger to others (besides getting on their nerves perhaps).  

Even accepting that he abused the 'floor' and refused when he was asked to step down, if he would not leave voluntarily and was resistive to ejection, pick him up and take him outside.  There's little one person can do if four others determine on that course of action.  It's what we used to do under similar circumstances at university if disruptive elements would not be swayed otherwise.

In my unbiased and non-LEO opinion, excessive force was used.  Someone got fed up and overstepped the mark because he could.  Whether anything will come of it is almost irrelevant because both the incident and some of the reactions I've read here are indicative of a dangerous sea-change in the political (small 'p') environment.

Dealing with crime is the righful purpose of the police, not the suppression of alternate views to those in favour with the ruling powers.  

Permit it to happen once and it will happen again.  Say nothing at that time and it will happen again.  Keep on not being outraged by it and soon enough criticising your government in any fashion will get you much worse than tazered.

Once that's happened, then the 'remedy' of the (already compromised) ballot box will cease to be even a token of your freedoms.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 19, 2007)

This isn't a First Amendment issue.  The First Amendment protects us from censorship of the things we say.  It does not promise a venue.  And it certainly doesn't give approval to hijack a forum.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Sep 19, 2007)

The moderator standing by him also instructed him that this was a place to ask questions, not tell stories etc. He then got lippy with them as he felt the need to educate everyone based off of one book that he read. And if it's printed, it must be true... I think he came for a fight, for publicity, and he got it when he refused to yield to law enforcment.

If this kid had pulled a 9mm out and started shooting after he ran back in, we'd be hearing cries of 'why didn't they stop him more forcibly before, he was obviously agitated and a threat'... and no one knew if he did or didn't. I think the LEO's were gentle.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 19, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> This isn't a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment protects us from censorship of the things we say. It does not promise a venue. And it certainly doesn't give approval to hijack a forum.


 
Exactly. You can SAY whatever you want, but you cant STAND wherever you want while you do it. Im guessing he was charged with trespass or disorderly conduct. He wasnt charged for what he said.

Id wager that is FAR from the first time something like that has happened. Its just that our instant media allows us to see exponentially more of them almost immediately.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 19, 2007)

grydth said:


> My bet is that the suit settles quickly and quietly.
> 
> Though a number of us think there was an over reaction, many also will think the twerp got exactly what was coming to him....and that he was clearly resisting or even trying to provoke the cops. This little screecher would not play well to a jury, and might find himself getting a 39c verdict.


 
I don't think there's any question that he was resisting and non-compliant; he clearly tried to force his way back into the auditorium after the cops almost had walked him out.

And I still think this was an excellent application of the Taser.  The alternative levels of force would have had a much higher chance of causing serious injury to the kid.  I've taken the hit from a Taser.  It's not fun -- but I was on my feet within seconds, and functional.  Twenty minutes later, the only "ill effects" were a couple of small red marks from where the probes were applied.  

It's unclear who made the decision that the kid's question wasn't going to be permitted.  I don't know how that was done, or whether it was right.  I'm not aware of the rules of the question and answer section; I don't know if the kid violated them or not.  It's clear that Senator Kerry appeared willing to listen to the kid, and might have answered him.  But I doubt the campus officers decided on their own to stop the kid; I suspect that one of Senator Kerry's handlers instead tried to derail the question.  That's one of the reasons that I'm not judging whether he should have been stopped.  The problem began when he WAS told to stop his question, refused to do so, and actively resisted efforts to control him and remove him from the auditorium.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 19, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> That is why, as an example, despite the damage a cuffed perp can do, I am still not comfortable or for the idea of tazing an already cuffed individual.


 
I don't believe, from what I've seen, that he was cuffed at the time the Taser was used.  It was used to get him to comply so that he could be cuffed, as I view the video.


----------



## bydand (Sep 19, 2007)

I think it comes down to the 1st amendment actually.  Just not on the side you may think I'm referring to.  Sure the 1st gives us the right to freedom of speech, but there is more to it. 


> 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.



I feel this falls right smack into what the last part of this fairly straight forward amendment address'.   "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Standing at a mic that is known to be for questions, and not following that protocol is, IMHO, purposely breaking this portion of the 1st.  And trying to disrupt a peaceable  assembly.  He has the right to address his concerns, he has the right to ask any question he wants, he does NOT have the right to decide where, when and how he is going to do so.

No, I did not chuckle when I watched the video.  I was pissed off! Not because they tazed the fool, but because they took so long to taz the fool and get him out of there.  About 10 milliseconds after carrying the idiot to the back of the room and he tries to get around me and back into the public area I would have fried him and drug his smoking carcass out the door and into jail.

Sorry for the hostility. :wavey:


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 19, 2007)

At the risk of drifting OT a bit, this is what makes law-making so difficult - interpretation.

In my previous preamble, I made clear (as if you all didn't know ) that I'm not American and nor am I an expert in American law or it's Constitution.

That said, I find it a bit chilling to discover from you chaps that what I considered one of the backbones of your freedom is much weaker than I thought.  You have the right to say what you want but no guarantee of a place to say it?  Also, that if what you have to say, or the manner in which you say it, is not to the liking of those that hear you then you are abrogating the concept of 'peaceable assembly'?

Am I right in my reading of what you fellows are saying in this regard?  

That you can have the freedom to say what you wish but that freedom may well be excercised in solitary confinement and, in a public forum, even if you offer only passive resistence you are not being 'peaceable'?  

If I was not habitually careful not to insult my hosts or their beliefs I would have some terse words to say on that; for that is an apparent freedom rather than a real one.  What I mean by that is if you wish to be defended by it you have to be somewhere where noone with force to back up their wishes is around to stop you if they disagree with what you say.

I can't have this right.  There must be other clauses and amendments which feed into the matter to inject balance.  Edumacate me someone.

Also, one final thought, if the chap had been someone of note rather than a Joe Nobody, do you reckon he'd still have been on the wrong side of a sizeable number of volts?


----------



## MJS (Sep 19, 2007)

Taken from my local paper.
http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-taser0919.artsep19,0,6916048.story

"Police tried to escort him out after he went over his time"

Benjamin Dictor, a liberal arts junior speaking for the group, called for the officers to be disciplined, Tasers to be banned on campus and the charges dropped.

"For a question to be met with arrest, not to mention physical violence, is completely unacceptable in the United States, especially in the halls of education," Dictor said"

I have not yet viewed the clip, but IMHO, if the kid was resisting at any point, then the police are well within their right to up their use of force, ie: peper spray, taser, etc.  As usual, people who weren't there or people who were but like to put the blame on the cops, should really get all the facts in order before saying who was right and who was wrong.  People tend to focus on what the cops do.  What about the suspect??  So its ok for someone to refuse to leave when asked, put up a struggle, yell, scream, etc., but the cops are not supposed to do anything more than continue to ask the kid to leave?  Sorry, but its like I always say, especially in cases like this...99.9% of headaches can be avoided if you just co-operate.  Don't be a jerk, don't fight, just do what you're asked, plain an simple.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Sep 19, 2007)

Tough call.

I wasn't there to see the entire situation, so do not feel qualified to add much, but I can see both sides to every poster's response. Won't be able to definitively pick a side until all the facts are borne out though.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 19, 2007)

MJS said:


> Taken from my local paper.
> http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-taser0919.artsep19,0,6916048.story
> 
> Benjamin Dictor, a liberal arts junior speaking for the group, called for the officers to be disciplined, Tasers to be banned on campus and the charges dropped.


Were Tasers to be banned, the less than lethal responses become a lot more violent.


----------



## MJS (Sep 19, 2007)

Interesting...now that I watched this clip, which I'll note appears to have started after he had already been speaking, there was a guy standing behind the cops who made a hand gesture, and then the cops moved in.  However, a voice was heard stating, "Let me answer his question."

In a situation like this, you really need to know the full motives of this kid.  What did he say or do before the tape started?  Was he asking sincere questions, or using that time to act like a fool, ask questions not proper for the moment, etc.  Again, I wasn't there, so its hard to speculate.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Sep 19, 2007)

Was the mic shut off, or handed to someone else? That's another option that wasn't explored.
IMO, a citizen resisted an unreasonable action by LEOs (which he probably shouldn't have done) while acting in an obviously rude manner in a (private or public?) open forum. Was he doing anything illegal? I guess that we'd have to look at the student handbook, or the college regs (he was at a college, correct?). Too many questions remain unanswered as to the legality of what he did, it may very well have been against that particular institutions regulations, bylaws, etc.
Besides, he's lucky he didn't shove his hand in his pants for a list of pre-written questions, he probably would have been shot by those Stormtroopers. Another attention seeker crushed by the Empire.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Sep 19, 2007)

MJS said:


> Interesting...now that I watched this clip, which I'll note appears to have started after he had already been speaking, there was a guy standing behind the cops who made a hand gesture, and then the cops moved in.  However, a voice was heard stating, "Let me answer his question."
> 
> In a situation like this, you really need to know the full motives of this kid.  What did he say or do before the tape started?  Was he asking sincere questions, or using that time to act like a fool, ask questions not proper for the moment, etc.  Again, I wasn't there, so its hard to speculate.



Does anyone know what the Q&A period was alloted for? Just questions pertaining to the subject matter of Kerry's speech?


----------



## MJS (Sep 19, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Were Tasers to be banned, the less than lethal responses become a lot more violent.


 
People IMO tend to make a Taser out to be so brutal.  I've spoken to a number of cops where I work, who have been Tased as part of the training, and while it is nothing to laugh about, by the actions of this kid, you'd think they were hacking off one of his legs.  Pepper spray is an option, but I think we've all heard the stories of it not working at certain times, but by the looks of it, this kid didnt appear to be under the influence of anything.  Joint locks...another option, but even they have their pros/cons.


----------



## MJS (Sep 19, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> Does anyone know what the Q&A period was alloted for? Just questions pertaining to the subject matter of Kerry's speech?


 
No idea.  I would think there was some time frame.  If its 10min per se, per person, I'd think someone would ask the speaker to remove himself if the alloted time is up.  Good point though, but like I said, the kid appears to have already been speaking before the actual recording.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Sep 19, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Were Tasers to be banned, the less than lethal responses become a lot more violent.



Yeah, then it's easier to sue the fuzz. Sounds good. 
The guy should have screamed "Rodney King!!!" or started singing "We Shall Overcome". 
That would have been great.


----------



## MJS (Sep 19, 2007)

Not to sidetrack this discussion totally, but I feel that its a relevant question.  For those that state excessive force was used, in your opinions, a) what do you feel that the officers should've done, and b) if you were in their shoes, what would you have done?


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 19, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Whether we think they are valid or not, they are some tough questions - indeed, why did *the police* think these questions were so dangerous?


 
Why were the police the ones to make this decision at all?  What business is it of theirs, what questions a citizen asks a senator?


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 19, 2007)

Okay, I finally decided to actually watch the vid rather than just discuss the 'legal' issues.

I can no longer take part in a reasoned discussion on this matter as, altho' the student was being unruly, in no way was the response of the security officers justified.  For those of you who think that it was, I cannot see how in good conscience you can believe that but, as I've said, I live in a different society and grew up under a different set of rules so I can't judge (different scale of values etc).

Last question - were they actually police or employees of the university?  It shouldn't make a difference but he'd have more chance of a successful action in the latter case I would guess.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 19, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> That said, I find it a bit chilling to discover from you chaps that what I considered one of the backbones of your freedom is much weaker than I thought.  You have the right to say what you want but no guarantee of a place to say it?  Also, that if what you have to say, or the manner in which you say it, is not to the liking of those that hear you then you are abrogating the concept of 'peaceable assembly'?



Think of it like this, if a group of people bought or rented a building to hold church services should they not be allowed to use it for that without having to give up all their time to let people make statements against religion?

People like me have a right to not believe in religion and to state why whenever we are asked. We do not have the right to make others listen. If someone owns a building, or rents it, or is using it in some way- then they have a say in how it is used- the final say. If the group in charge of this event said that this guy had to leave, then he had to leave and make his statements somewhere else. It is kind of like being banned from an internet forum. I can always tell that someone is about to be booted because they seem to be screaming about their first ammendement rights. Then they seem to go out of their way to force the moderators to get rid of them.



> I can no longer take part in a reasoned discussion on this matter as, altho' the student was being unruly, in no way was the response of the security officers justified. For those of you who think that it was, I cannot see how in good conscience you can believe that but, as I've said, I live in a different society and grew up under a different set of rules.



I think it may be because Americans have seen so many crazy people shoot their political leaders in the past, and it has not been all that long since someone shot up a school in America.

I think Dave Leverich put it best in this thread when he wrote the following.



> If this kid had pulled a 9mm out and started shooting after he ran back in, we'd be hearing cries of 'why didn't they stop him more forcibly before, he was obviously agitated and a threat'... and no one knew if he did or didn't.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 19, 2007)

MJS said:


> Not to sidetrack this discussion totally, but I feel that its a relevant question. For those that state excessive force was used, in your opinions, a) what do you feel that the officers should've done, and b) if you were in their shoes, what would you have done?


 
a) nothing.  He should have been allowed to finish asking his question and Senator Kerry should have answered.  He appeared to be asking some uncomfortable questions, and his manner seemed somewhat sarcastic, but it was a Q&A session and he should have been given the opportunity like any other.  He was not shouting profanities, he was not calling for a student uprising to lynch Mr. Kerry, he was just asking uncomfortable questions.  the police should not have been involved in deciding his questions were inappropriate.

The problem is, once the police took action, he then passively resisted them and he was sort of forced into a position of "resisting arrest".  But the police intervention should never have happened in the first place, so their should have been no arrest to resist.

b) nothing.  Let him speak.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 19, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Dealing with crime is the righful purpose of the police, not the suppression of alternate views to those in favour with the ruling powers.
> 
> Permit it to happen once and it will happen again. Say nothing at that time and it will happen again. Keep on not being outraged by it and soon enough criticising your government in any fashion will get you much worse than tazered.
> 
> Once that's happened, then the 'remedy' of the (already compromised) ballot box will cease to be even a token of your freedoms.


 

Dead-on.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 19, 2007)

Big Don said:


> To avoid problems with law enforcement is pretty simple: Do what you are told. Don't argue.


 
Just goose-step all the way to prison.  Don't ever question authority.  They are right and you are wrong.  Accept it.


----------



## MJS (Sep 19, 2007)

Looking back at my question, I now see that I did not word it the way I wanted to.  Lets start again.  If you were a LEO and had to remove someone or were placed in the shoes of the LEOs in a situation like this, what would you have done?  What amount of force would you use?  What type of force would you use?


----------



## MJS (Sep 19, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> a) nothing. He should have been allowed to finish asking his question and Senator Kerry should have answered. He appeared to be asking some uncomfortable questions, and his manner seemed somewhat sarcastic, but it was a Q&A session and he should have been given the opportunity like any other. He was not shouting profanities, he was not calling for a student uprising to lynch Mr. Kerry, he was just asking uncomfortable questions. the police should not have been involved in deciding his questions were inappropriate.
> 
> The problem is, once the police took action, he then passively resisted them and he was sort of forced into a position of "resisting arrest". But the police intervention should never have happened in the first place, so their should have been no arrest to resist.
> 
> b) nothing. Let him speak.


 
So much for the reply I typed out and then I lost it all when I hit submit.   Anyways....I see your point Mike, but apparently something caused the removal.  Was it something he said?  Was it too much heat for Kerry?  Was he speaking longer than allowed?  I don't know as I wasnt there.  I do find interesting though, the man behind the cops.  He seemed to be the one to initiate the removal.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 19, 2007)

He pushed it too far and the authorities who represented a PRIVATE entity decided he wasnt welcome there anymore. Simple enough. If he would have left (yelling his opinion the whole way even) he probably wouldnt have gotten arrested. He is the one who pushed it.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Sep 19, 2007)

MJS said:


> I do find interesting though, the man behind the cops.  He seemed to be the one to initiate the removal.



I think that we have finally identified "The Man".


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 19, 2007)

MJS said:


> So much for the reply I typed out and then I lost it all when I hit submit.  Anyways....I see your point Mike, but apparently something caused the removal. Was it something he said? Was it too much heat for Kerry? Was he speaking longer than allowed? I don't know as I wasnt there. I do find interesting though, *the man behind the cops. He seemed to be the one to initiate the removal*.


 

well, I think that man has some explaining to do.  I personally didn't see any justification for it.  Let the guy say his piece, even if he's annoying.  Our elected representatives need to hear from the People, when the People are unsatisfied with their job performance.


----------



## grydth (Sep 19, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Why were the police the ones to make this decision at all?  What business is it of theirs, what questions a citizen asks a senator?



This is an excellent point.... who, exactly, was in charge? 

Mounting evidence shows the screecher came in on a narcissistic, disruptive agenda. He is hardly a sympathetic figure, having done everything he could to disrupt a public event and provoke the cops.

However, that does not make it open season on the man.

Senator Kerry clearly was not in charge - he kept saying he wanted to take the guy's questions, even while the cops were pulling him away. Nobody paid any attention.

So WHO were the cops looking to? There should have been somebody at such an event - and if there was not, the school and the organizers have no business hanging the cops out to dry.

I have been that official.... not going to share the specific context as I still work there. I'd work out with the Security and/or Troopers ahead of time that I wanted an arrest and removal as a last resort... but I also understood  and expressed to them that if a physical _threat_ developed, authority passed instantly to them. We'd discuss signals, possible situations, room and security layout, background of the cases .... and then go to work as a team. They were protecting me with their lives, and I always looked after them.  I get the impression none of that happened here.... and that is inexcusable if it's correct. Not fair to the public, Senator Kerry or the police.


----------



## MJS (Sep 19, 2007)

I'm interested in hearing some feedback to post 50.   I mean, if someone is going to call foul on the cops, at least back it up with some justification. 

FC, I don't necessarily disagree.  If the kid was within the alotted timeframe, if he was asking relevant questions for the session, sure, then let him finish.  But, someone, who was there and witness to the entire event, not a 2+min clip, apparently felt that this kid needed to end his questions.  If anyone has any idea as to what the Q&A session was for, I think it would help determine if the kids questions were relevant, although we only saw a small portion of them.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 19, 2007)

MJS said:


> People IMO tend to make a Taser out to be so brutal. I've spoken to a number of cops where I work, who have been Tased as part of the training, and while it is nothing to laugh about, by the actions of this kid, you'd think they were hacking off one of his legs. Pepper spray is an option, but I think we've all heard the stories of it not working at certain times, but by the looks of it, this kid didnt appear to be under the influence of anything. Joint locks...another option, but even they have their pros/cons.


 
The Taser isn't fun...  In fact, on the list of things I don't want to experience again, it's about at -8.  That said -- if I had to take another ride, I know I can.  I know I can get through it.  (Though that 30 second ride on the civilian model...  YIKES!)  Pepper spray, in that environment, would have contaminated the entire auditorium.  It wasn't a practical alternative.  Joint locks are great in theory, and work great when the guy's gonna tap out.  In the real world... they're harder to apply, and much easier to get someone hurt with.  That's one of the best things about the Taser; they don't do serious, lasting harm.  The shock is delivered at between .21 and .36 milliamps.  Less amperage, and lower voltage, than a typical static shock.



Flying Crane said:


> Why were the police the ones to make this decision at all? What business is it of theirs, what questions a citizen asks a senator?


 


grydth said:


> This is an excellent point.... who, exactly, was in charge?
> 
> Mounting evidence shows the screecher came in on a narcissistic, disruptive agenda. He is hardly a sympathetic figure, having done everything he could to disrupt a public event and provoke the cops.
> 
> ...


 
I've been the security detail in various public assemblies.  Physical removal and/or arrest is always the last resort, and the call to remove someone is (barring a physical threat or violent disruption) almost always made by someone from the "event side" of things.  In other words, in a case like this, probably someone from the sponsoring group, or from Senator Kerry's staff, or both.  In this case, it remains clear that less intrusive methods, starting by simply asking him to be quiet, and escalating through the police asking him to be quiet, were tried before he was touched.  Even then, he was simply pushed or prodded to the rear, until he forced his way back in.  

Very bluntly, I wouldn't have been as patient.  Depending on the act in question, I'll ask once.  ("Sir, please sit down.")  I'll order once, often presenting an alternative. ("Sir, if you don't sit down, I'll have to remove you from the auditorium.")  And then I'l use the force necessary to obtain compliance.  Whether that's a moving you, shooting you with a Taser, or employing lethal force, it's the choice you've made by failing to comply.  That's my job; and it was the job of the University of Florida police officers (they are sworn police officers, with full police authority, as I understand it).

Once the kid escalated his "question" to the point that the people running the show asked the police to get involved -- he dictated the route it took.  All he had to do was sit down, and listen to Senator Kerry answer him, and nothing more would have happened.  

Now, I do think the staff probably could have waited a little longer, before using the police to deal with the kid.  But, given the kid's history as it's come out -- I doubt he would have given Senator Kerry time to answer.  He'd have simply rambled until something happened.  He wanted to be dragged out by the cops; had he even simply complied after that happened, there'd have been no use of the Taser.


----------



## crushing (Sep 19, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> a) nothing. He should have been allowed to finish asking his question and Senator Kerry should have answered. He appeared to be asking some uncomfortable questions, and his manner seemed somewhat sarcastic, but it was a Q&A session and he should have been given the opportunity like any other. He was not shouting profanities, he was not calling for a student uprising to lynch Mr. Kerry, he was just asking uncomfortable questions. the police should not have been involved in deciding his questions were inappropriate.
> 
> The problem is, once the police took action, he then passively resisted them and he was sort of forced into a position of "resisting arrest". But the police intervention should never have happened in the first place, so their should have been no arrest to resist.
> 
> b) nothing. Let him speak.


 
You're right on.  There was no physical threat until the authorities escalated the situation at the direction of the man in the suit with his throat slash gesture.  Fortunately, (in)security didn't incite a riot this time.

I guess we need to get back to the good ol' days of 'nice' questions like "boxers or briefs" and allow security 'forces' to determine what questions can or can't be asked.  Perhaps Kerry should have played an instrument instead of a speech and Q&A?  Maybe he should have had moles with _safe_ questions planted?

If a person asks a crazy question of a politician (assuming it's crazy), why can't we the people determine that it's a crazy question?  Why does someone else have to determine that for us?


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 19, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Ah but see, there we are.
> 
> It is his *privilege* to ask a question? I think, as an American citizen it is his *duty* to ask these questions.


 


pheonex44 said:


> I'm surprised that so many of you who think so highly of the Second Amendment think so little of the First.
> ...
> I doubt he'd have been treated that way if he threw Kerry a few softball questions instead of questions about Skull & Bones


 
O.K. there conspiracy theorists... 

1st off, unless the standards have changed since I was in school, I was always taught that when a speaker is invited to come and talk that they are a guest, hence the term "guest speaker." And to ask them a question is a privledge because they don't have to be there to answer YOUR questions in the 1st place.

2nd of all, he wasn't really asking a question. He was looking for the opportunity to rant and rave. If you all get the chance, click on the 2nd clip that I posted, and you will see that he ranted for a full 1 minute and 35 seconds before finally being asked by the police to leave, in which the whole debocle then ensued. It doesn't take 1 minute and 35 seconds to ask a question.

But, this points to an entitlement mentality that people in this day and age (many protestors especially) tend to have, and it is wrong. 'It's MY "freedom of speech" so I get to sit here and bombard a guest speaker with MY rant for AS LOOONG AS I WANT TOO, and never mind the fact that the university and the students came to hear the guest talk and NOT ME, and never mind the fact that the speaker has limited time, and other students have questions too, and so forth.

As long as I get MY FREEDOM of SPEECH Whenever I WANT IT, and on whoevers time and dime.'

That's bull-hoey.

No one is taking away the students freedom of speech, because he could have asked any question he wanted if done so in proper form and within a reasonable time frame. It doesn't matter if it is about skull and bones, or whatever, as I highly doubt the police are in cahoots with a "secret society." Furthermore, no one is saying he can't write an article, a blog, or go on the radio, or talk to whoever wants to listen ON HIS TIME.

But this point won't be understood by people who have an entitlement mentality, and think that they should be able to do and say whatever they want whenever they want without regards for anyone else.

I am all for defending the 1st amendment; just not entitlement mentalities.

:soapbox:


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 19, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> I don't believe, from what I've seen, that he was cuffed at the time the Taser was used. It was used to get him to comply so that he could be cuffed, as I view the video.


 
Right, I agree, and agree with you that the tazer was properly used in this case.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 20, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Physical removal and/or arrest is always the last resort, and the call to remove someone is (barring a physical threat or violent disruption) almost always made by someone from the "event side" of things.


 
Through my experience, it is usually a staff member from the university that moderates these things, and that individual would have been given some guidelines by Kerry's staff. But time allowed and so forth are usually determined by the university. And not always, but often students who get the privledge to ask questions are told how much time they have.

Last thing (then I'll shut up for a while  ), I just LOOVE the way the police get thrown under the bus on this one. Because of bad press, the university isn't backing the cops who were doing exactly what they were asked and trained to do. And if the student's arm broke from a joint lock or (as was mentioned) he lit the room up with a 9mm, everyone would be blaming the cops then too. 

It's real nice when we put our public servants in a lose-lose situation...


----------



## grydth (Sep 20, 2007)

Possible new fact here - I checked out another forum and one member was saying there was another video out there which shows the disruptor was throwing punches at the cops. (No link or source was provided, unfortunately.)

That might change some opinions on the appropriateness of the tazer use.

Left unresolved is whether the police should have entered the picture in the first place when Senator Kerry was clearly willing to debate the guy at this public forum. That inquiry need not be one of simply "throwing the police under the bus", but an examination of the (mis)conduct of the forum organizers and officials on the scene... and possibly a serious deficiency in the university policies.


----------



## MJS (Sep 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Last thing (then I'll shut up for a while  ), I just LOOVE the way the police get thrown under the bus on this one. Because of bad press, the university isn't backing the cops who were doing exactly what they were asked and trained to do. And if the student's arm broke from a joint lock or (as was mentioned) he lit the room up with a 9mm, everyone would be blaming the cops then too.
> 
> It's real nice when we put our public servants in a lose-lose situation...


 
Well, I'll echo what I said in post 50 once again.  I do find it interesting how people can say that the cops used too much force, etc., etc., but when the shoe is on the other foot, when the roles are reversed, nobody can seem to offer what they would do in the same situation, had they been forced to remove someone.  Whether or not you would/would not have is moot, due to the fact that it seems they didn't respond on their own, but on the direction of someone else.  How would it look if you were directed to remove someone and refused?  Probably not too good.  Whats done is done.  Like I said, I would like to hear from those who felt that too much force was used.  

9 times out of 10, the cops take a bad rap for their actions.  I'm not saying their all angels, but come on...when you're trying to escort someone out, and they fight, you can pretty much bank on being brought to the ground.  

Armchair QBing is easy to do, but being a cop is not for everyone.  They put up with alot of crap and I tip my hat to them for doing the job that they do.

Mike


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 20, 2007)

I find myself briefly drawn back in by new views.

If he was violently resistive, then that does somewhat change the complection of the actions taken by the officers, tho' I still find it hard to believe that a half dozen of them couldn't control one youngster without using a tazer.  We dealt with aggressively disruptive elements at university political gatherings by the simple expedient of four of the Uni rugby team picking up the agitator and dumping him outside.

The core question that has been sidetracked somewhat with 'worst case' scenario speculation, is why the police were 'set on him' in the first place?  

The video we first saw did seem to indicate that he was at least paused (even if just because he was out of breath ) and Senator Kerry was ready to address his questions (or loony rant depending on your point of view).  

We can of course never know if he'd've shut up and sat down after that - possibly not if he was intent only on disrupting the event.  If he didn't, especially if warned that he would be arrested for a public disorder offence, then he is from then on responsible to a larger extent for what happens to him.  That still does not absolve the authorities from behaving in a manner appropriate to the 'theat level'.

As a final note, it still bothers me that so many here (who I have come to think highly of) after watching only the first video clip, still thought that it was perfectly okay.  I fail to understand that but that's my problem, not yours.


----------



## crushing (Sep 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Last thing (then I'll shut up for a while  ), I just LOOVE the way the police get thrown under the bus on this one. Because of bad press, the university isn't backing the cops who were doing exactly what they were asked and trained to do. And if the student's arm broke from a joint lock or (as was mentioned) he lit the room up with a 9mm, everyone would be blaming the cops then too.
> 
> It's real nice when *we put our public servants in a lose-lose situation*...


 
We?  Although it sounds like you support the action that did it, I doubt you gave the order to create a confrontation when this guy was only about 90 seconds into his little question/rant thing?  I certainly didn't put them in that situation, so I am not sure what you mean by 'we'.



grydth said:


> Possible new fact here - I checked out another forum and one member was saying there was another video out there which shows the disruptor was throwing punches at the cops. (No link or source was provided, unfortunately.)
> 
> That might change some opinions on the appropriateness of the tazer use.


 
If you look at this video from that angle with one eye closed and your head at an angle. . . .     People are putting forward all sorts of 'ifs and buts' even speculating about what if the student had a 9mm!  We even have gotten to the point even on this thread where if one disagrees with the actions of the authorities then that one is a conspiracy theorist with an entitlement mentality.  Well getting poisoned much?



grydth said:


> Left unresolved is whether the police should have entered the picture in the first place when Senator Kerry was clearly willing to debate the guy at this public forum. That inquiry need not be one of simply "throwing the police under the bus", but an examination of the (mis)conduct of the forum organizers and officials on the scene... and possibly a serious deficiency in the university policies.


 
Excellent point!

Now for a conspiracy theory of my own.  I think Sen. Kerry has a signal to his event security coordinator that means, "I will act and talk like I want to continue to listen to this lunatic's rant so it doesn't sound like I want to supress his free speech, but you have security get that crazy the hell out of the room now!!!"  If only we had the right camera angle we would have seen this signal!  I understand one of Bill Belichick's  video assistants got the signal on tape.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 20, 2007)

This is nothing "earth shattering" Id be willing to be situations like this were handled pretty much the same way at Lincoln speeches as the were at this one. 

As to the force used. I dont think the taser is worse than 6 cops kneeling on you and cranking your arms around (and who knows what else). I highly recommend that everybody try forcing a resisting person into handcuffs. Id bet its not as easy as you would think. In the end its best that the person comply by taser than be forced to comply by a heard of cops.


----------



## MJS (Sep 20, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> I find myself briefly drawn back in by new views.
> 
> If he was violently resistive, then that does somewhat change the complection of the actions taken by the officers, tho' I still find it hard to believe that a half dozen of them couldn't control one youngster without using a tazer. We dealt with aggressively disruptive elements at university political gatherings by the simple expedient of four of the Uni rugby team picking up the agitator and dumping him outside.


 
I don't know the full situation you speak of regarding the rugby team.  Was the person being as uncooperative?  I don't know how those people are trained as far as restraints go, but I will say that when I worked in Corrections, the restraints that they were teaching scared the hell out of me!  I found myself, more than one time, thinking, "Umm..yeah, okay, this is going to work real well."  BTW, how would you have went about removing this kid?  What tactics would you have utilized?



> The core question that has been sidetracked somewhat with 'worst case' scenario speculation, is why the police were 'set on him' in the first place?


 
Good point, and one relevant to the thead IMO.




> We can of course never know if he'd've shut up and sat down after that - possibly not if he was intent only on disrupting the event. If he didn't, especially if warned that he would be arrested for a public disorder offence, then he is from then on responsible to a larger extent for what happens to him. That still does not absolve the authorities from behaving in a manner appropriate to the 'theat level'.


 
Highly unlikely IMHO, that this kid would've left if asked.  Interesting how you comment on the cops, but I personally don't think that this kid is doing a good job of a) acting his age, and b) giving the school a good image.  



> As a final note, it still bothers me that so many here (who I have come to think highly of) after watching only the first video clip, still thought that it was perfectly okay. I fail to understand that but that's my problem, not yours.


 
Not sure if I fall into that category of someone you think highly of (hopefully I do ).  You say that you're surprised how after watching the clip, we can think it was ok.  Well, shoe on the other foot, I too find it surprising, how after watching a clip, especially one that was started *after* the kid was already speaking, people can make a solid case of whats right/wrong.  This is the main problem with video.  How much is reliable?  I get the impression you're putting all your judgement on this short clip.  How can anyone honestly make an accurate judgement with 3 min. of evidence?


----------



## MJS (Sep 20, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> This is nothing "earth shattering" Id be willing to be situations like this were handled pretty much the same way at Lincoln speeches as the were at this one.
> 
> As to the force used. I dont think the taser is worse than 6 cops kneeling on you and cranking your arms around (and who knows what else). I highly recommend that everybody try forcing a resisting person into handcuffs. Id bet its not as easy as you would think. In the end its best that the person comply by taser than be forced to comply by a heard of cops.


 
Thank you!!!  This is why I keep asking people what they would have done, yet I havent received one answer.  Its just like Martial Arts training...we can do all the fancy moves against someone who is standing there and they work like a charm.  Try those same moves against someone moving, resisting, etc., and I'd bet they don't go as text book as you'd think.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 20, 2007)

Not to mention that LEO's rarely have the option of punching, kicking, submitting people like a MMA fighter. 9 times out of 10 its trying to subdue someone like this guy without being accused of brutality.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 20, 2007)

MJS said:


> Thank you!!! This is why I keep asking people what they would have done, yet I havent received one answer. Its just like Martial Arts training...we can do all the fancy moves against someone who is standing there and they work like a charm. Try those same moves against someone moving, resisting, etc., and I'd bet they don't go as text book as you'd think.


 
OK, I'll bite.  

If it was truly necessary to remove someone who was dangerous, then I'd say the cops did a decent job and perhaps acted appropriately.  I don't like the tazer thing, it seems like they had enough people there that they should not have needed it, but for the sake of discussion I'm willing to let it slide.

However, I remain unconvinced that it was necessary to remove this guy in the first place.  Whoever made that decision has some explaining to do, in my opinion.  If it was the cops who made the decision, then I think they overstepped their authority.  They should have absolutely no input and no control over what a citizen wishes to ask a senator.  If someone else gave the order to the cops, I think that person should be placed under the lamps and owes a serious explanation.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 20, 2007)

MJS said:


> Well, shoe on the other foot, I too find it surprising, how after watching a clip, especially one that was started *after* the kid was already speaking, people can make a solid case of whats right/wrong. This is the main problem with video. How much is reliable? I get the impression you're putting all your judgement on this short clip. How can anyone honestly make an accurate judgement with 3 min. of evidence?


 
yes, this is a good point, none of the video has capture the full story and we only see a segment from various angles.  We are all struggling to pass judgement without knowing the complete course of events.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 20, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> OK, I'll bite.
> 
> If it was truly necessary to remove someone who was dangerous, then I'd say the cops did a decent job and perhaps acted appropriately. I don't like the tazer thing, it seems like they had enough people there that they should not have needed it, but for the sake of discussion I'm willing to let it slide.
> 
> However, I remain unconvinced that it was necessary to remove this guy in the first place. Whoever made that decision has some explaining to do, in my opinion. If it was the cops who made the decision, then I think they overstepped their authority. They should have absolutely no input and no control over what a citizen wishes to ask a senator. If someone else gave the order to the cops, I think that person should be placed under the lamps and owes a serious explanation.


 
To be fair. Even if some other person gave the order, it doesnt really take the cops off the hook. If they knew no crime was committed, its false arrest regardless of who gave the order. What changes things (IMO) is if that person was an authorized representative of the University with the power to "evict" someone as a trespasser (SP?), or gave the police permission to do it in their stead, which I believe can happen  but opens up the people who do that to liability if the cops screw up.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 20, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> To be fair. Even if some other person gave the order, it doesnt really take the cops off the hook. If they knew no crime was committed, its false arrest regardless of who gave the order. What changes things (IMO) is if that person was an authorized representative of the University with the power to "evict" someone as a trespasser (SP?), or gave the police permission to do it in their stead, which I believe can happen but opens up the people who do that to liability if the cops screw up.


 

good points.  and this is the information that none of us knows with any certainty, and makes it difficult to find common ground in the discussion.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Sep 20, 2007)

From what it looks like to me, if Kerry wanted to debate the guy, then the "throat-slashing guy" that is apparently in control of the police is most definitely in the wrong. I'm sure that, after viewing the longer vid, that Kerry would have given the kid of verbal bludgeoning, everyone but the kid would have a good laugh, then they could hand the mic off to someone else. If the kid was a student, I'm equally sure that an administrator telling the kid to get off the mic or suffer administrative consequences would have had a better and less violent effect than police intervention. 

In response to #50...
The police could have used verbal methods to explain to the guy that his speaking time was over, it was time to get off the mic, and that if he con't to violate the parameters of the forum, he would be removed by police escort and possibly suffer administrative or even legal consequences. 
Were any verbal means attempted, or just immediate strong arm tactics?


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 20, 2007)

A quick answer to *MJS*'s questions above.  Student politics always tended to be a much more visceral and emotive affair than 'adult' politics when I was at University and, as such, it was not uncommon for disruptive elements to try and make a mockery of proceedings.

So, if the Conservatives were having a meeting then the Labour chaps would cause as much trouble as they could in mature ways such as heckling, asking interminable or personal questions, shouting, throwing (flimsy plastic) empty glasses et al.  Same went the other way round.  

Things got nastier around the time of the Miner's strikes and local thugs started to get in to the Students Union building during political meetings (we had no such thing as security back then, after all it was only the IRA and the European terrorists trying to blow us all to hell ).  To cope with this, the rugby team, suitably rewarded with beer (it's one of the best currencies when dealing with them) would provide perfectly adequate muscle.  Four on one, legs and arms, up off the ground and out.  They could wriggle, scream and fight all they liked, the result was always the same.  

Having seen this with my own eyes, that's one of the reasons why, even with comments here from someone with 'security services' experience, I don't see what was so difficult about just hoiking him out the door.  He's a not-quite-mature (in more ways than one) student, not a hardened prison-veteran, gang-banger or highly trained secret-terrorist.

As to how I would've handled the situation, that's an interesting one as I don't know the procedures the University has for such matters.  Lacking that, I'd go with what seems to be the straightforward approach.  Warn him about the consequences of not following the appropriate etiquette for the 'floor', maybe more than once.  

Point out the big chaps waiting in the wings and tell him he'll be escorted out if he persists in not following the 'rules'.  When it comes time for eviction, then out he goes.  No mauling him around and goading him into more physical resistance, so the big chaps can sit on him and tazer him.  Just pick him up and throw him out (checking him for weapons if you're paranoid).

Would it work?  Don't know; but I've seen it work before with people a lot more aggressive and violent than the video stooge.  Consequences?  Well, I'm from a different country where we haven't quite learned to scream 'Lawyer' as soon as we get a bad outcome for our misbehaviour, so I can't say.  In America, probably some sort of law suit for 'assault' but given that we had a Senator in the building I wouldn't put money on it.

The background point as to why the video was so 'bad' in my eyes was that it was one of the direct arms of the governments authority (i.e. the police) doing the suppressing.  I wouldn't have been half so bothered if it'd been university security guards, even with the tazer'ing (tho' that is still not good).

One is the suppression of political opinion by the government, the other is a private institution ousting a troublesome 'guest'.  Maybe it's just me but there's a world of difference between the two - one being ominous for your future freedom of expression, the other having no further implications beyond the need to behave civily at public functions.

Anyhow, over-burbling as usual.

Some very good points have come out in the past few posts and I'm happy to see no more of the disturbing elation at seeing someone roughed up and zapped.

I'll try and get to watch the other 'streams' that are coming out as it'll be easier to draw proper conclusions with fuller coverage.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Sep 20, 2007)

Actually though, the police weren't there to tell him his speaking time was over. He was asked to relinquish the microphone as it became obvious he wasn't asking questions as much as using everyone's time to try and grandstand. 

So the moderator asked him to relinquish the microphone, he yanked it away and was beligerant. At that time the person asked the police to remove him from the facilities, which he resisted greatly to the point of swinging and then running back inside. At that point, he's resisting arrest among other things. That's the point that I believe made it 'Taser-friendly' time and got him more forcibly reminded to follow the directions of the officers.

He didn't respond to verbal commands, though we can't hear them, you know the officers gave orders (they always give direction). I find it even more against this grandstanding idiot that he was quiet when the cameras were NOT on him, yet loud and 'oh help me, why did you do that' when they were on. (CNN article)

Also:http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/19/student.tasered/index.html#cnnSTCText?iref=werecommend
_""You will take my question because I have been listening to your crap for two hours," Meyer told Kerry, according to the police report of the incident"
_
_ Police noted that his demeanor "completely changed once the cameras were not in sight" and described him as laughing and being lighthearted as he was being driven to the Alachua County Detention Center.

"I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong. You were just trying to do your job," Meyer said, according to the police report.

At one point, he asked whether there were going to be cameras at the jail, according to the report._

The entire article is there, I think he knew the consequences and was obviously looking for the spotlight as a way to either get himself noticed or bring more light to some part of the subject.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 20, 2007)

Nice post. And pretty much how I see it too. Simply because politics was involved its getting overblown. If it was some drunk acting up at a keroke (sp?) microphone who got locked up people wouldnt bat an eye.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 20, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> yes, this is a good point, none of the video has capture the full story and we only see a segment from various angles. We are all struggling to pass judgement without knowing the complete course of events.


 
That's not really true. The second clip I posted is almost 4 minutes long, and captures the students diatribe from the beginning. After viewing that, what other "course of events" would really make a difference? :idunno:


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 20, 2007)

Dave Leverich said:


> The entire article is there, I think he knew the consequences and was obviously looking for the spotlight as a way to either get himself noticed or bring more light to some part of the subject.


 
And it seems that the more information that comes out, the more it supports the decision by the police to taz the student.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 20, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Nice post. And pretty much how I see it too. Simply because politics was involved its getting overblown. If it was some drunk acting up at a keroke (sp?) microphone who got locked up people wouldnt bat an eye.


 
I quite agree, other than it being 'overblown'.  

I made mention of it before that if you don't treat incidents like this one with loudly expressed serious reservations then it's just one step along a road that gets steeper and more slippery the further you go.

I can understand a natural wish not to cast the cops as the 'bad guys', their day to day job is quite hard enough after all.  To try and 'spin' the force used as _necessary_ tho' is never going to sit well with me - it's one reason why I withdrew last night as I was genuinely shocked (no puns please ) at some of the opinions expressed.

The venue and the event are what make the incident much worse than a drunk being hustled out of a bar, as has already been said, and last night I was having an eruption of "Why can't you *see* the darker implications of allowing this to go uncommented!  You're no but a hop, skip and a jump away from a crystalnacht of your own!".   So I had to let it lie - after all, altho' we live on the same planet we are sometimes in different worlds and silence is often the best way of preventing arguments between those worlds.

To wrap my ambling up, I do have to say that over here we had far, far worse officially sanctioned police brutality during the early '80's.  But we're used to being subjects.  I've said it before, you chaps are citizens of your country and I fear that the rugs been pulled from under your feet and you don't even recognise it yet.  The natural tendency is for governments to become totalitarian and one of the signs of that is the use of civilian 'law keepers' to control rather than protect.  Don't let it happen.


----------



## crushing (Sep 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> And it seems that the more information that comes out, the more it supports the decision by the police to taz the student.


 
I agree with that.  Based on CNN article link and others, the more we hear from the authorities, the more it supports the authorities decision.


----------



## Catalyst (Sep 20, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> So I had to let it lie - after, altho' we live on the same planet we are sometimes in different worlds and silence is often the best way of preventing arguments between those worlds.


 
I've read all of your posts in this Thread and they're extremely insightful. As an "outsider" looking in, you bring a fresh perspective that's most welcome. You ask some very relevant and hard questions.

When it comes to the 1st Amendment regarding Freedom of Speech, it's a balancing act that the United States Supreme Court has been wrestling with for over 225 years.

1.) You've got to balance rights with responsibilities
Freedom of Speech doesn't allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. People could get trampled and hurt in their panic to flee what they believe to be a burning theater.

2.) You've got to balance my rights with your rights
I can't just arbitrarily state untruths about Sukerkin, such as, "Sukerkin trips elderly people as they cross the street"; just because I have "Freedom of Speech". Generally, spoken untruth is slander and written untruth is libel.

3.) You've got to balance Freedom of Speech with Property Rights
If you own a restaurant and some Al Qaeda sypathizers come in and start saying hateful things about you, your family and Americans in general; you have the right to refuse them service and ask them to leave.

It's a very delicate balancing act - and each case is taken on it's own merits.

That being said - there's also the issue of Theory vs. Reality.

In Martial Arts, Theory is one thing, actually using your training in a Real Life Street situation against a fully resisting opponent is something else.

Freedom of Speech, in the political arena, kinda works the same way.
Here's a dose of reality: I have personally attended a political question and answer session (it was an election year) with a U.S. Senator from New York. The session was open to the public, but, every question was pre-approved and only trusted "party loyalists" were allowed to ask the questions. One of these loyalists who asked a question, invited me to go with them, so this is how I know what I say is true.

Needless to say, so much of the "political discourse" in this country is in reality "political theater".

Here's a link to the Manual on how the White House (Executive Branch of our Government) tries to handle political dissent / demonstration at appearances by the President.

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/presidential_advance_manual.pdf


It's a rather short read (most of the manual has been redacted and only the parts relating to political demonstrations have been released, based upon subpoena from the ACLU), but this should give you a general feel for how much "free speech" our elected leaders want from the common people at political affairs.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> That's not really true. The second clip I posted is almost 4 minutes long, and captures the students diatribe from the beginning. After viewing that, what other "course of events" would really make a difference? :idunno:


 
I have watched both of your posts and others as well.  What is not clear is exactly who gave what orders and when, if at all, that lead to the police taking action.  That cannot be seen nor heard with any clarity in any of the 4 or 5 different videos I have seen, and it remains a murky point.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> And it seems that the more information that comes out, the more it supports the decision by the police to taz the student.


 
well, I disagree with that.  Seems to me the use of a tazer should be limited to people who are clearly, or at least reasonably suspected of posing a real danger to someone.  I saw nothing about this kid that looked like he was dangerous.  With half a dozen cops on him, I think there was really no need for the tazer.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Sep 20, 2007)

Dave Leverich said:


> Actually though, the police weren't there to tell him his speaking time was over. He was asked to relinquish the microphone as it became obvious he wasn't asking questions as much as using everyone's time to try and grandstand.
> 
> So the moderator asked him to relinquish the microphone, he yanked it away and was beligerant. At that time the person asked the police to remove him from the facilities, which he resisted greatly to the point of swinging and then running back inside. At that point, he's resisting arrest among other things. That's the point that I believe made it 'Taser-friendly' time and got him more forcibly reminded to follow the directions of the officers.
> 
> ...



WOW. If that's all accurate, then screw the douche. Our rights exist for very good reasons, not for entertainment purposes. Though, sometimes there is some situational comedy in the exercising of said rights, but thats okay.

If he was being a jerk, then he deserved to get kicked out. Maybe things could have been handled differently, but they weren't. 

This kinda goes along the lines of how I feel with people using their Freedom of Speech to just be rude in public (racial or whatever). Yeah, you may have rights that are protected by the Constitution, but don't be surprised if someone gets pissed and decides to punch/kick/throw-something-at/shoot you. Human rights exist but there's no guarantee that they will always be respected. If you lack the common sense to keep your mouth shut in such an environment, then that's on you. 

Human rights and ethics don't always overrule more natural laws (Might Makes Right).


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 20, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> WOW. If that's all accurate, then screw the douche. Our rights exist for very good reasons, not for entertainment purposes. Though, sometimes there is some situational comedy in the exercising of said rights, but thats okay.
> 
> If he was being a jerk, then he deserved to get kicked out. Maybe things could have been handled differently, but they weren't.
> 
> ...


 
This was a very good post.  However, I would add that even human rights and ethics ultimately boil down to Might Makes Right.  Every law, no matter how benign, is founded on the basis that somebody will eventually put their hands on you if you break it.  That includes property law; EEOC; tax policy; etc.  A law, even one which protect human rights, that is not based on this incentive is effectively not a law.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Sep 20, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> This was a very good post.  However, I would add that even human rights and ethics ultimately boil down to Might Makes Right.  Every law, no matter how benign, is founded on the basis that somebody will eventually put their hands on you if you break it.  That includes property law; EEOC; tax policy; etc.  A law, even one which protect human rights, that is not based on this incentive is effectively not a law.



True, but most of our (U.S.) original laws were decided on & created by the majority (or elected reps), at least at one time, & are usually well thought out & not arbitrary.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 20, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I have watched both of your posts and others as well. What is not clear is exactly who gave what orders and when, if at all, that lead to the police taking action. That cannot be seen nor heard with any clarity in any of the 4 or 5 different videos I have seen, and it remains a murky point.


 
But how would that change anything about the student ranting for 1min35sec., refusing to sit down when asked, yelling and screaming and resisting the police to the point where a very large officer had to pick him and take him to the back of the room in which the student then attempts to storm down the isleway while swinging on the officers, which led to him being taken down, in which he continued to resist the cuffs being put on him which lead to the student being tazed.

So at what point do any of your "uncertainties" make a difference?


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 20, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> well, I disagree with that. Seems to me the use of a tazer should be limited to people who are clearly, or at least reasonably suspected of posing a real danger to someone. I saw nothing about this kid that looked like he was dangerous. With half a dozen cops on him, I think there was really no need for the tazer.


 
So somehow a ranting lunatic who refuses to listen to authority and chooses to resist and fight police officers is of no danger to anyone what-so-ever?

Um...yea....


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 20, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> well, I disagree with that. Seems to me the use of a tazer should be limited to people who are clearly, or at least reasonably suspected of posing a real danger to someone. I saw nothing about this kid that looked like he was dangerous. With half a dozen cops on him, I think there was really no need for the tazer.


 
If it needs a half dozen cops to resolve, it should have been resolved WITH a taser SOONER. Thats the whole point. There is ultimately less danger to all involved that way. The taser just results in some dramatic yelling/screaming. When its done, nobody is typically the worse for wear. Cops wrestling with a guy may not look/sound brutal, but the odds of injury are much higher.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 20, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> If it needs a half dozen cops to resolve, it should have been resolved WITH a taser SOONER. Thats the whole point. There is ultimately less danger to all involved that way. The taser just results in some dramatic yelling/screaming. When its done, nobody is typically the worse for wear. Cops wrestling with a guy may not look/sound brutal, but the odds of injury are much higher.


 
I think the above extremely valid point is so often missed because of people emotional and psychological reaction to seeing someone tazed. Seeing someone in extreme pain and having all control of his body siezed from him is difficult for people to see.

So emotionally and psychologically, people can't seem to wrap their brain around the fact that the suspect and officer is safer with a tazer then other use of force methods, such as wrestling with 6 cops.

I mean, we can witness here where the point has been mentioned numerous times, and yet the same people refuse to get it...

:idunno:


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> But how would that change anything about the student ranting for 1min35sec., refusing to sit down when asked, yelling and screaming and resisting the police to the point where a very large officer had to pick him and take him to the back of the room in which the student then attempts to storm down the isleway while swinging on the officers, which led to him being taken down, in which he continued to resist the cuffs being put on him which lead to the student being tazed.
> 
> So at what point do any of your "uncertainties" make a difference?


 
That IS the whole point.  It isn't clear from the videos themselves that the police should have stepped in at all.  Maybe they should have just let him rant for a bit longer and see where he was going with it.  It sounded like Senator Kerry expressed a willingness to answer the questions that were posed, altho I think he should have been more forceful in getting this message across.  While this man's demeanor was sarcastic and somewhat annoying, it was not clear to me that he was going to become a real problem.  Annoying, perhaps, but a problem, not yet.  I think SOMEBODY jumped the gun, with the result that the police took action when they should have stood back and done nothing.  So just exactly who that SOMEBODY is, remains murky, and cannot be determined from the video.

So instead of a minor irritation to liven up the session, they ended up with a major incident including a tazering and an arrest, and bad publicity, and maybe they could have avoided it all by just standing back for a couple more minutes to see where this was all going.  It might have just blown over after a brief exchange between the student and Senator Kerry, which Kerry apparently was willing to engage in.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> So somehow a ranting lunatic who refuses to listen to authority and chooses to resist and fight police officers is of no danger to anyone what-so-ever?
> 
> Um...yea....


 

well,there's a point where we can disagree. I don't believe it was necessary.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I think the above extremely valid point is so often missed because of people emotional and psychological reaction to seeing someone tazed. Seeing someone in extreme pain and having all control of his body siezed from him is difficult for people to see.
> 
> So emotionally and psychologically, people can't seem to wrap their brain around the fact that the suspect and officer is safer with a tazer then other use of force methods, such as wrestling with 6 cops.
> 
> ...


 
Not to insult anybody here and their "martial prowess". But what I have found (or at least have come to believe) is that those who have "seen the elephant" when it comes to physical confrontations dont get as worked up when they see things like this. They realize what it is really like.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 20, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> well, I disagree with that. Seems to me the use of a tazer should be limited to people who are clearly, or at least reasonably suspected of posing a real danger to someone. I saw nothing about this kid that looked like he was dangerous. With half a dozen cops on him, I think there was really no need for the tazer.


 
Actually, most agencies place the Taser or similar devices (there is another on the way to the market soon) on a level about equal to pepper spray (OC).  It's actually below going hands-on with someone who is actively resisting, and about the same as pain-compliance or nerve techniques on a passively resisting person.  Again, the Taser generally does no serious, long term harm.  Yes, incidental effects, like falling down, do cause harm, and the taser probes are darts that do cause minor puncture wounds.  They're generally treatable with anti-bacterial ointment and an adhesive bandage strip.  Obviously, it is possible for the probe to strike more vulnerable areas that require more medical intervention.  To the best of my knowledge, the Taser has never been identified as the direct mechanism of death in any of the deaths of people who have been zapped.  Consider; literally hundreds of thousands of "volunteers" have taken the ride, the same way I did.  In fact -- the RCMP folks are crazy; they've been shot with it doing all sorts of crazy things to see what happens.

The Taser allows police to gain control of a resisting subject with minimal injuries and risks to everyone.  Let me describe a few similar situations for comparison.  One night, I and a partner had to arrest a subject who was proned out, on his stomach, with his hands under his body.  He refused to surrender his hands to us.  After some struggling (my partner benches somewhere close to 300, and placed 2nd in the state in a LEO fitness competition), I delivered several open-hand strikes to the suspects tricep, which allowed me to pull his arm from beneath him.  The Taser would have bought us 5 seconds where he could not resist us to pull his arms from beneath him, without requiring strikes.  Other alternative techniques that are permissible in similar situations include head stuns, strikes to the body, and obviously carry increased risk of injury.  On another occasion, it required 4 of us to literally carry a suspect, who was already cuffed, out of an apartment, and we only succeeded after delivering a technique referred to as a "wall stun"; in short, we slammed him into the wall.  The jail medics had to check him before he could be booked; I narrowly avoided spending several hours in the ER for him to be cleared.  Two of us received minor injuries in the struggle.  Again, note that there was a much greater chance of worse injury.  That's one of the few occasions that probably would justify the use of a Taser on a cuffed subject; he was struggling that fiercely.  

I really think part of the problem here is misunderstanding of the Taser; it delivers a pretty high voltage (up to 50000 volts) at a very, very miniscule amperage, in a manner that is designed to mimic and essentially short circuit nerve signals.  It basically makes ALL the effected muscles contract, 19 times a second, for 5 seconds.  I've taken that ride; as I've said, it's no fun.  It's painful.  It's very disturbing, even when you are expecting it.  But it goes away in 5 seconds.  Within seconds, you can be up and functional.  (In fact, one guy almost came out swinging in the class!)  And it doesn't do long term harm.  It sounds terrifying, especially if you hype the voltage with little understanding of electricity.  But it's actually probably more humane than OC; OC sticks around for 30 to 40 minutes, minimum, and "revisits" later because you never get it all washed off...


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 20, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Actually, most agencies place the Taser or similar devices (there is another on the way to the market soon) on a level about equal to pepper spray (OC). It's actually below going hands-on with someone who is actively resisting, and about the same as pain-compliance or nerve techniques on a passively resisting person. Again, the Taser generally does no serious, long term harm. Yes, incidental effects, like falling down, do cause harm, and the taser probes are darts that do cause minor puncture wounds. They're generally treatable with anti-bacterial ointment and an adhesive bandage strip. Obviously, it is possible for the probe to strike more vulnerable areas that require more medical intervention. To the best of my knowledge, the Taser has never been identified as the direct mechanism of death in any of the deaths of people who have been zapped. Consider; literally hundreds of thousands of "volunteers" have taken the ride, the same way I did. In fact -- the RCMP folks are crazy; they've been shot with it doing all sorts of crazy things to see what happens.
> 
> The Taser allows police to gain control of a resisting subject with minimal injuries and risks to everyone. Let me describe a few similar situations for comparison. One night, I and a partner had to arrest a subject who was proned out, on his stomach, with his hands under his body. He refused to surrender his hands to us. After some struggling (my partner benches somewhere close to 300, and placed 2nd in the state in a LEO fitness competition), I delivered several open-hand strikes to the suspects tricep, which allowed me to pull his arm from beneath him. The Taser would have bought us 5 seconds where he could not resist us to pull his arms from beneath him, without requiring strikes. Other alternative techniques that are permissible in similar situations include head stuns, strikes to the body, and obviously carry increased risk of injury. On another occasion, it required 4 of us to literally carry a suspect, who was already cuffed, out of an apartment, and we only succeeded after delivering a technique referred to as a "wall stun"; in short, we slammed him into the wall. The jail medics had to check him before he could be booked; I narrowly avoided spending several hours in the ER for him to be cleared. Two of us received minor injuries in the struggle. Again, note that there was a much greater chance of worse injury. That's one of the few occasions that probably would justify the use of a Taser on a cuffed subject; he was struggling that fiercely.
> 
> I really think part of the problem here is misunderstanding of the Taser; it delivers a pretty high voltage (up to 50000 volts) at a very, very miniscule amperage, in a manner that is designed to mimic and essentially short circuit nerve signals. It basically makes ALL the effected muscles contract, 19 times a second, for 5 seconds. I've taken that ride; as I've said, it's no fun. It's painful. It's very disturbing, even when you are expecting it. But it goes away in 5 seconds. Within seconds, you can be up and functional. (In fact, one guy almost came out swinging in the class!) And it doesn't do long term harm. It sounds terrifying, especially if you hype the voltage with little understanding of electricity. But it's actually probably more humane than OC; OC sticks around for 30 to 40 minutes, minimum, and "revisits" later because you never get it all washed off...


 
While I have never experienced the tazer first hand, I have read enough about it that I essentially understand what it does, and I do understand the high voltage vs. low amperage issue.  So that's not my issue.

However, it's pretty clear in the video that he was already pinned down by about 4 cops when they started tazering him.  I don't know if he was cuffed already, I'm willing to suspect that he wasn't, but with four cops on him and more just steps away, it just seems like it should not have been necessary.

But all this is really moot, as my real issue is with the timing of the escalation.  I suspect if everyone had just backed down for another couple minutes and allowed the student and Mr. Kerry to exchange points, which Mr. Kerry seemed willing to do, the whole thing never would have happened at all.  That is my main issue with the situation.  I think someone was more eager than they should have been to escalate the situation.  Whoever that someone is, I think he has some explaining to do.


----------



## MJS (Sep 20, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> OK, I'll bite.
> 
> If it was truly necessary to remove someone who was dangerous, then I'd say the cops did a decent job and perhaps acted appropriately. I don't like the tazer thing, it seems like they had enough people there that they should not have needed it, but for the sake of discussion I'm willing to let it slide.
> 
> However, I remain unconvinced that it was necessary to remove this guy in the first place. Whoever made that decision has some explaining to do, in my opinion. If it was the cops who made the decision, then I think they overstepped their authority. They should have absolutely no input and no control over what a citizen wishes to ask a senator. If someone else gave the order to the cops, I think that person should be placed under the lamps and owes a serious explanation.


 
Regarding who was in charge of this event, I'm in agreement with you.  I think that knowing a) who was in charge, b) who gave the ok for the removal, c) the alotted time frame for speaking, and d) the nature of the Q&A session, are all relevant and key to the thread here.


----------



## thardey (Sep 20, 2007)

Is the main question here about whether he should have been tazered? Or is it that the Police wouldn't allow him to stay on the mike?

It seems to be two distinct questions, and if you blur them, you get a very strange picture. That is, if you smash the two questions into one, you get an argument over whether it's Ok to Taze someone for being rude to John Kerry!

Did the police act correctly in using physical force to remove the kid from the floor? Perhaps, perhaps not. That's where there may not be enough evidence for the Monday morning Quarterbacks among us. That's the free speech question.


Were the police justified in using a Tazer on a citizen who was passively (maybe actively, it's hard to see) resisting the efforts of Police to subdue him? Separate question. The use of a Tazer is not a first amendment question. It's a use of force question.

Those who would like to paint the kid as a victim, are going to do best when they use the emotional arguments of combining the fear of the Public Perception of the Tazer, with the pain, and saying it's a direct result of questioning Kerry.

Those who would paint the situation as a attention-seeking prank will do best when they focus on how the kid was abusing his question time, and it was time for him to go. That he wouldn't have gotten tazed if he had ceded the floor.

Whoever controls the argument controls the perception.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 20, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> That IS the whole point. It isn't clear from the videos themselves that the police should have stepped in at all. Maybe they should have just let him rant for a bit longer and see where he was going with it. It sounded like Senator Kerry expressed a willingness to answer the questions that were posed, altho I think he should have been more forceful in getting this message across. While this man's demeanor was sarcastic and somewhat annoying, it was not clear to me that he was going to become a real problem. Annoying, perhaps, but a problem, not yet. I think SOMEBODY jumped the gun, with the result that the police took action when they should have stood back and done nothing. So just exactly who that SOMEBODY is, remains murky, and cannot be determined from the video.
> 
> So instead of a minor irritation to liven up the session, they ended up with a major incident including a tazering and an arrest, and bad publicity, and maybe they could have avoided it all by just standing back for a couple more minutes to see where this was all going. It might have just blown over after a brief exchange between the student and Senator Kerry, which Kerry apparently was willing to engage in.



Can we all agree that it's just possible that a politician may well seem to be willing to answer and making all the right noises, while simultaneously really be simply stalling long enough for the moderator, handlers, or whoever to get the person causing the problem out of the way?  After all, I don't think any politician is going to want to end up on YouTube or the evening news for saying "Shut up; I don't want to answer your silly questions!"

Now, with that out of the way, let me address something else.  As a general rule, when you call the cops, we are there because asking nicely hasn't worked.  While there's no hard and fast rule for when we stop asking, the point comes when we will make you comply.  And we cannot lose.  As I posted a while ago, I generally will ask once, tell once, and then I will enforce compliance with whatever force is necessary.  In this case, I don't know... I suspect the campus cops just may be familiar with this particular student.  There are people that I won't ask once where I work; if I'm called in, they've been asked, and they've been told.  I know them; I know that I will have to make them comply.  I bet every cop posting here can think of several folks in that category...  And there are people on the other end, that I'm going to ask, almost beg, before I take action.  I just don't think the chief is going to think well of me manhandling a cantankerous 85 year old out of a council meeting without trying everything possible, and then some, to get them out without force...  

In this case -- I don't care whether or not the kid should have been silenced.  That's really an entirely separate question from whether the use of force in this case was reasonable.  Once the cops were asked to get him to stop, he had a simple choice:  comply, or be made to comply.  He could have simply sat down, then used his free speech rights to complain via the press, or the internet, or whatever, how Senator Kerry wouldn't answer him.  ANY policitian's appearance is an orchestrated show.  It's not uncommon for the "spontaneous audience questions" to be anything but spontaneous, and even vetted and approved before hand.  (And, every once in a while, someone sneaks in a different question when they're given the microphone!) 

Police are allowed, and often required, to use reasonable force to effect various societal goals, up to and including physical arrest of a person.  In the case of a person disrupting an otherwise peaceable assembly on private property, when those in charge of the event, exercising care, custody and control of the property request that a person causing a disruption be removed -- the police have the duty to remove that person.  Sometimes, all it takes is showing up, and silently encouraging compliance with the request to leave.  Other times, more force is required.  Again, in the instant case, not only did the person causing the disruption refuse to cease the disturbance, he actively resisted lesser efforts, and forced his way back into the area.  At that point, more force becomes necessary.

The simple truth is that you don't win by arguing or fighting the cops.  If they tell you to leave -- leave.  Argue it later.  Because at that point -- you won't win, no matter how sure you are that you're right.  You may win later -- but at that moment, you'll lose.  Follow good military advise; to paraphrase Sun Tzu, know when to fight and when not to fight, and you'll win.


----------



## MJS (Sep 20, 2007)

Perhaps one of the LEOs on here can clarify this, but I'd think that if the person in question was told repeatedly to comply, ie: move away from the mic, sit down, leave, etc, and he did not, would that fall into the resisting category?  

IMO, there comes a time when force is needed.  During my time in the prison, I was around for more than one cell extraction.  If an inmate was told to leave his cell and refused, a group of 5 COs were called in.  Once this took place, the time for talking came to an end.  The door was opened and all 5 rushed the cell, one slamming into the inmate with a shield, the others each taking an arm and leg.  He was forcefully removed.  Too much force?  IMO, no.  If you're given multiple chances to comply and you still refuse, you're bringing on more headache to yourself.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 20, 2007)

MJS said:


> Perhaps one of the LEOs on here can clarify this, but I'd think that if the person in question was told repeatedly to comply, ie: move away from the mic, sit down, leave, etc, and he did not, would that fall into the resisting category?
> 
> IMO, there comes a time when force is needed.  During my time in the prison, I was around for more than one cell extraction.  If an inmate was told to leave his cell and refused, a group of 5 COs were called in.  Once this took place, the time for talking came to an end.  The door was opened and all 5 rushed the cell, one slamming into the inmate with a shield, the others each taking an arm and leg.  He was forcefully removed.  Too much force?  IMO, no.  If you're given multiple chances to comply and you still refuse, you're bringing on more headache to yourself.


There are numerous use of force models out there.

In the model I work within, passive resistance consists of things like simply sitting there, doing nothing, either to comply or to avoid compliance.  The classic sit-in where the protestors have to be carried out is a good example of passive resistance.

Active resistance begins when a person does anything to avoid compliance.  This can include pulling away, running away, locking your arms or holding them in, and underneath you, and other similar actions.  As the level of resistance escalates, active resistance gives way to assaultive behavior, where not only are you resisting being arrested or removed, but you're actively striking at or attempting to injure the officers, not merely get away.  

This kid was at the top end of active resistance; none of the videos I've seen of it show him in behavior I see as being assaultive, other than trying to get back through the officers.  He's treading that fine line between active resistance, and low-level assaultive behavior.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 20, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> well,there's a point where we can disagree. I don't believe it was necessary.


 
I guess we can just agree to disagree on a number of points.

For one, under no circumstance would or should a student be permitted to continue an already 1min35sec disrespectful rant without being told enough is enough, but you think that he should have been allowed to continue despite the fact that he was taking up the time from the other students and the speaker. So we disagree there.

For 2, I don't think the above point even matters, nor do I think it matters who told the cops to stop the student. When one is asked to give up the mic in this type of assembly, one is faced with a choice. One can appropriately realize that he doesn't own the place, and can give up the mic even if one disagrees. This student choose instead to force himself on everyone by continueing to rant and use force and an extreme amount of active resistance to the point where he had to be physically pacified. The student made this choice regardless of the other details that you choose to focus on. 

So, I guess we disagree on that too.

C.


----------



## MJS (Sep 20, 2007)

thardey said:


> Is the main question here about whether he should have been tazered? Or is it that the Police wouldn't allow him to stay on the mike?


 
As far as I can see, both questions are being discussed.  Should he have been tasered?  If pepper spray is ruled out due to effecting the rest of the room, if a joint lock isn't working and they're having a hard time cuffing him, yes, I still say using the taser is within their right.  The male who made the hand gesture seemed to be looking at someone off camera, then the cops moved in.  I feel that its relevant to the thread, as to who ordered him removed, a time limit, if the questions were within the spectrum of the debate, etc.




> Did the police act correctly in using physical force to remove the kid from the floor? Perhaps, perhaps not. That's where there may not be enough evidence for the Monday morning Quarterbacks among us. That's the free speech question.


 
I agree that we can't/shouldn't base 100% of our decision on a clip.




> Were the police justified in using a Tazer on a citizen who was passively (maybe actively, it's hard to see) resisting the efforts of Police to subdue him? Separate question. The use of a Tazer is not a first amendment question. It's a use of force question.


 
I still say yes to that.



> Those who would like to paint the kid as a victim, are going to do best when they use the emotional arguments of combining the fear of the Public Perception of the Tazer, with the pain, and saying it's a direct result of questioning Kerry.


 
I dont feel it was a result of him questioning Kerry, but instead, being a fool.


----------



## MJS (Sep 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Ha, ha...sick bastard!! :rofl: [yea, me too.  ]
> 
> Here is another clip that shows the beginning of the students lunatic diatribe in case anyone thinks that he wasn't to blame for his fate:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIYTJ75U4NU&mode=related&search=


 
Watching this clip, at approx 40 sec, Kerry asks the student what his question is. The student opens with a ramble, Kerry asks what the question is, and the student makes a comment that Kerry had been speaking for a while, so now it was his turn to talk. IMO, it seems like the student really didn't have a serious question to ask.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Sep 21, 2007)

thardey said:


> _t's Ok to Taze someone for being rude to John Kerry!_


_

I feel a new bumper sticker coming on..._


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 21, 2007)

OK, lots of comments I agree with have been said by FC and Sukerkin.  I also agree that the Tazer is a great tool for LEOs, better then clubs, pspray, or joint locks when it comes to subduing someone.

I want to refer everyone back to Shesulsa's post, however.  These are questions that should be asked to our politicians, but they are not.

Before I make my point, I need to commend the officers who took this man into custody.  They waited a long time while he struggled and it was only when he attempted to re-enter the room did they tazer him.  I find that their restraint in a very touchy political environment is very appropriate.  Each of those guys are moms and dad and go home and have to me be American citizens so the thought of coming off like a jackboot is not something they would probably want to do.  

The comments that others would have tazed him sooner are curious in that regard.  Especially when coupled with the actions of the guy who cut this man off and initiated the escalation.  Sure the man was rude, but the emotional nature of these questions generates a lot of passion in people.  Especially when you consider that a whole lotta people feel betrayed by Sen. Kerry.

So, here's my point.  Despite carrying out orders with restraint and a fair amount of tact, I think that the police are on the wrong side.  People need to ask our politicians these questions and expose them for the lying swine that they are.  Stopping people from doing this does a disservice to America.  The nature of those questions in particular strikes at the very heart of what America means.

So, I'm curious what LEOs think about this.  Or anybody else.  What do you do when the side you are protecting is not the right side to be on?  I realize that some security arguments could be made in this situation, but I can easily imagine someone who is resisting more passively in a more classic case of mere civil disobedience being treated exactly the same.  What do you do when it is your job to sheild the bad guys?


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Can we all agree that it's just possible that a politician may well seem to be willing to answer and making all the right noises, while simultaneously really be simply stalling long enough for the moderator, handlers, or whoever to get the person causing the problem out of the way? After all, I don't think any politician is going to want to end up on YouTube or the evening news for saying "Shut up; I don't want to answer your silly questions!"


 
Possible, yes, but far from established in this case.

The whole tazer and use of force issue is really the smaller problem in my opinion.  As I stated earlier, I think that overall the tactics the cops used were probably acceptable, even tho I don't care much for the tazering.  

I just remain unconvinced that the necessity to take action against this student at all had become clear.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I guess we can just agree to disagree on a number of points.
> 
> For one, under no circumstance would or should a student be permitted to continue an already 1min35sec disrespectful rant without being told enough is enough, but you think that he should have been allowed to continue despite the fact that he was taking up the time from the other students and the speaker. So we disagree there.


 
he was obnoxious, but hadn't really done any harm.  Give him another minute to go somewhere with what he was saying, have a brief exchange and then move on.  Compare that with the circus show of an arrest, a tazering, videos all over youtube, and all kinds of bad publicity.  He hadn't threatened anyone nor done anything to try and create a dangerous situation at the event.  He was just obnoxious on the microphone.

I think it's a sad commentary on our societal values when our response to someone who is obnoxious and mildy disruptive is to escalate it into an arrest.  If this guy was really just trying to be disruptive and didn't have a real question, then he was really just looking for attention and was probably hoping for publicity thru this kind of escallation.  Instead, just let the hot air dissipate and it never becomes a real problem.  

Maybe he even had a legitimate question that might have added something positive to the event. But he never got that far.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 21, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> So, here's my point. Despite carrying out orders with restraint and a fair amount of tact, I think that the police are on the wrong side. People need to ask our politicians these questions and expose them for the lying swine that they are. Stopping people from doing this does a disservice to America. The nature of those questions in particular strikes at the very heart of what America means.


 
Some of you are seeing it this way, and I just don't see how that is. I don't see how this is an issue of 1st amendment, or politicians dodging questions when the student could have asked any question he wanted. He could also go on blogs, radio, or any medium that would hear him to complain if he didn't like the answers. But he choose to rant on someone elses time and venue instead rather then ask a question during the Q&A, which is NOT his right to do. 

So how is it that he had some sort of "right" here that needed to be protected by the police? I really just don't get where some of you are coming from...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 21, 2007)

Im going to quote a fellow MT'er from another thread.



CoryKS said:


> "Freedom of Speech" also does not promise a venue for your speech. Anybody can make a web site or issue pamphlets stating their beliefs. Your "Freedom of Speech" has not been taken from you, however, if ABC declines to give you a half hour during primetime to present your views to a national audience. If only two people read your website, and one of them is your mother, that's your own problem. And if you go into a debate organized by someone else, start an extended rant until they pull the plug on the mic and send security to escort you out, and THEN shout "Freedom of Speech" and expect them to recoil, hissing, like vampires before garlic - well, that's a tazing.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 21, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I think it's a sad commentary on our societal values when our response to someone who is obnoxious and mildy disruptive is to escalate it into an arrest.


 
Well, I think that it is a sad commentary on our societal values when an individual feels that he is entitled to inconsiderately steal other peoples time and behave however he chooses without consequence, and other people by the multitudes are willing to defend him.



> Maybe he even had a legitimate question that might have added something positive to the event. But he never got that far.


 
Right; and as I said before, we just don't agree. You think that he should have been able to continue without restraint in order to see if he had something legit to offer, and to avoid a problem. Where as I think that is totally unreasonable in this case, that there is a point where enough is enough, and that we shouldn't have to bend like that when someone immorally decides to force their will on us. 

C.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 21, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Im going to quote a fellow MT'er from another thread.


 
That's awesome...


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Well, I think that it is a sad commentary on our societal values when an individual feels that he is entitled to inconsiderately steal other peoples time and behave however he chooses without consequence, and other people by the multitudes are willing to defend him.


 
well, this isn't societal values, it's the action of one inconsiderate person.  The actions of law enforcement personnel, carried out on somebody's orders, and the general complacency of the populace are a stronger reflection of societal values.

This was a Q&A period with the Senator, at a University where this man was a student.  I think that sets a precedent that he was invited, along with all students of the University, to be there, and to ask questions.

Whether or not there were established rules of conduct in asking a question, and this guy deliberately violated those rules, remains unknown, at least to myself.  So at this time it continues to look like a guy who was obnoxious and mildly derisive got cut off from the mic before he was finished speaking, he objected to being cut off, and that was used as a reason to physically eject him, and at that point it snowballed into a fullscale arrest.  



> Right; and as I said before, we just don't agree.


 
yup, but it's interesting to hear other's take on this issue.



> You think that he should have been able to continue without restraint in order to see if he had something legit to offer, and to avoid a problem.


 
yup, i think it could have ended much more cleanly for all involved.



> Where as I think that is totally unreasonable in this case, that there is a point where enough is enough, and that we shouldn't have to bend like that when someone immorally decides to force their will on us.
> 
> C.


 
So 1 minute and 35 seconds is just way too much leeway to give a citizen who wishes to ask a Senator a question in a recognized Q& A session?  You gotta express yourself to your elected representatives in 8.7 seconds or less, or else go unheard because politicians only have time for soundbites and don't wish to acknowledge and address the complexity of many issues that cannot be summed up in soundbites?  Funny, this was one of the big differences between Kerry and Bush during the last election.  Bush was all about soundbites and scripted answers to scripted questions, whereas Kerry, at that time, seemed to recognize that many issues are in fact very complex and cannot be summed up in shallow soundbites.  I guess he's changed, and that leaves me disappointed.

And I think the citizenry must express our disgust and outrage to our politicians because THEY are the ones who are all too often immorally forcing their will upon US.  It's not the other way around.

I for one will not stand back complacently and just accept that AUTHORITY is always right and the PEOPLE must just sit and take all the crap they throw at us.  I will not be an accomplice to that.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 21, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> well, this isn't societal values, it's the action of one inconsiderate person.


 
Well, no, it's not just one inconsiderate person; it's all the people running to his defense claiming that his right to "free speech" was infringed on, thus demonstrating the entitlement mentality and level of inconsideration that society has come too.


And once again... it doesn't take as long as he took to ask a question. 1min35sec is not a question, it's a speech or a rant in it's own right.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 21, 2007)

I do see where the kernel of your position grows from, *Cruentus*, and I would normally fully be in concurrence with you that people should be responsible for their own actions.  I also fully appreciated *jks*'s points that once the police get involved, it's time to shut up and take the 'fight' elsewhere because it's gone past the 'arguing' stage (even tho' I think that that is an ominous principle).

In the case of the principles brought up for discussion by this incident (note I do not solely refer to this particular instance) I do get the feeling that this thread is not being fueled by people grasping different ends of the same discoursive stick but by people grabbing different sticks altogether.

On the one hand, there is the point that this eejut breached the accepted rules of 'sound bite politics' (or indeed general polite behaviour) and would not behave himself until out-of-proportion force was applied.

- As an extended aside, it *was* out of proportion in my opinion (and that's from someone who has witnessed mounted police charging picket lines).  Those of you who feel otherwise are entitled to your views but, from what I saw, the numpty's 'grandstanding' behaviour was little different from most student populated political events.

On the other hand, you had a probably non-elected person in a position of authority arbitrarily deciding that said numpty had spouted guff for a minute and a half too long and it was time he was taught a lesson in the realities of modern day Western politics.

If those in support of the latter point of view don't see why that's a problem, then welcome to a future where, unless your personal point of view aligns with the status quo, you can't have an effective voice.  In a country where ballot rigging has been proven without huge outcry, I suppose it's no great loss of personal freedom in the absolute scale of things.  After all, if the government isn't democratically elected and still gets to act like a legitimate legislative body, it can't matter all that much ... can it?

That last was quite a bit more confrontational than I intended, so please forgive my foreign bluntness (without tazers if you'd be so kind ) but I do genuinely feel that this is one of those out-of-the-blue events that highlight an underlying problem that has grown un-noticed for some time in the body politic of the States.

Anyhow, I keep telling myself that it's none of my business what you fellows get up to within your own borders and I think should take my own advice, however "Concerned of Hemel Hempsted" I feel about the matter.

Other than PM's, that's my last word here, I promise .


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 21, 2007)

There is nothing stopping this guy from going on television, the internet, publishing a book, going to a different Kerry speech and acting like an adult.... etc. he has no limits about his views. He was no longer welcome in a privately owned establishment. You are being overly dramatic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 21, 2007)

One of the things that I'd like people to consider is the fact that words like "rude" and "inconsiderate" and "rant" and whatnot all carry all carry a connotation of discomfort that I think that I can explain.

We've all been taught to respect authority.  We've been taught to toe the line and be good.  We've been taught to politely do what we are told.

People who don't do that, make us uncomfortable.  They make us feel like nobody is in control...and that we need to do something to get that back.

Thus, when a guy like him gets up and asked some very tough questions angrily and then prefaced them with some facts that support the asking of those questions, many people just want him to go away.  With some, probably feeling so uncomfortable that they would have made that guy ride the lightning a lot sooner just so we can go back to "normal".

This isn't a freedom of speech issue.  This is an issue of people really standing up to authority.  John F. Kerry betrayed hundreds of thousands of voters in Ohio and millions of voters nationwide whose votes were disenfranchised.  He had millions of dollars to challenge and investigate any and all cases of fraud and he gave up without committing a single cent before ANY of the details were even known...and now we have Bush.  Need I say more.  

People need to be furious about this.

Kerry needs to answer for that in public in a public forum where his slick little dodgy answers can be trampled by the assault of angry voters who care about American democracy.  IMHO, the police did a disservice to America by protecting this fraud from real criticism.  Sound Byte Politics isn't going to take this country back from the forces who are wrecking it.  It's going to take people who care and who are angry and who are really taking the time to educate themselves as to what is really going on.

The MSM isn't reporting it and people are just woefully ignorant.

This sort of thing is not going to be comfortable to watch.  People in authority need to squirm on the hooks of the people if we are ever going to get out of this mess.  The we protect them, the more we make excuses, the more we rationalize our emotions with the words I pointed out above, the worse it will keep getting.

IMHO, despite the cops' restraint and professionalism, they are on the wrong side on this one.  Removing that guy at the behest of "the man" who made the signals is only hurting our country as a whole.

And now we have the sheep out sheeping the sheep.

America is in dire need of a backbone check because we are in for a rough ride if we are going to fix this mess.

upnorthkyosa

PS - I've got nothing against the police.  We need em to deal with the real criminals out there.  :asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 21, 2007)

You guys are being SOOO idealistic about this that I would ask if ya'll were ****ing kidding me if I didn't know that you're not.

This doesn't have anything to do with a discomfort for people not respecting authority. You being way to idealistic with your arguements of free speech and soundbite politics and authority and rigged elections. I mean, fricking seriously. 

It has everything to do with behaving with the self-centered inconsideration that having an entitlement mentality brings. 

This student isn't much different then the ******* who cuts in line at the bank and yells at the people behind him that he is in a hurry, or the ******* who drives like a jerk all of the time with no consideration for others (honking at everyon else along the way), or the ******* who under-tips and complains but demands that his waitress run around like crazy at the snap of his fingers, and so on, and so on. 

Some of us are just tired of *******s, and we laugh when they get tazed. And some of us simply get annoyed when people run out en-mass defending the *******s "right" to infringe on everyone elses rights, as it makes us think that, wow.... 

there really are a lot of *******s out there.

C.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 22, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> he was obnoxious, but hadn't really done any harm.  Give him another minute to go somewhere with what he was saying, have a brief exchange and then move on.  Compare that with the circus show of an arrest, a tazering, videos all over youtube, and all kinds of bad publicity.  He hadn't threatened anyone nor done anything to try and create a dangerous situation at the event.  He was just obnoxious on the microphone.
> 
> I think it's a sad commentary on our societal values when our response to someone who is obnoxious and mildy disruptive is to escalate it into an arrest.  If this guy was really just trying to be disruptive and didn't have a real question, then he was really just looking for attention and was probably hoping for publicity thru this kind of escallation.  Instead, just let the hot air dissipate and it never becomes a real problem.
> 
> Maybe he even had a legitimate question that might have added something positive to the event. But he never got that far.


And had it gone on for another 1 minute or 3 minutes or 30 minutes... what was the point where the kid crossed the line from political debate and questioning (which I support!) to disrupting the speech?  Or does he get to go on indefinitely, depriving everyone else of the opportunity to be heard?

For meaningful discourse, you need some rules.  We have rules here on MT, both written and unwritten.  We have moderators who enforce those rules, with methods beginning at a simple reminder escalating to banning users from the site.  And that's all that happened in this instance; a moderator decided that the kid had crossed the line into being a disruption.  Gentle methods were tried; they failed.  The moderator called in the people with the ability to enforce and obtain compliance.   They did so, escalating the force used to do so as the kid escalated the force used to resist compliance.  Once the moderator called the cops in; once that happened, the cops had to do their duty, and get the kid to shut up or leave.  The kid chose to continue to resist; all he had to do was sit down, shut up, and use the free press and use his free speech rights in an appropriate forum to ask the simple question of "Why was my question so scary to Senator Kerry?"  And, had he done so effectively, he'd have been heard.

It really comes down to that simple fact.  Whether you support the moderator's decision or not -- once it was made, the kid CHOSE not to comply.  He continued to choose, again and again, to escalate how he didn't comply.  Just like someone who chooses to flee from the cops -- the outcome was his responsibility.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 22, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> One of the things that I'd like people to consider is the fact that words like "rude" and "inconsiderate" and "rant" and whatnot all carry all carry a connotation of discomfort that I think that I can explain.
> 
> We've all been taught to respect authority. We've been taught to toe the line and be good. We've been taught to politely do what we are told.
> 
> People who don't do that, make us uncomfortable. They make us feel like nobody is in control...and that we need to do something to get that back.


 
I actually don't have a problem with people questioning authority.  I encourage it -- and so do many cops I know.  But there's a time, place, and manner to do this -- and a wrong time, place, or manner.  

In a reasonable paraphrase, the Declaration of Indepence says that Governments are instituted to ensure that the People enjoy the blessings of liberty.  The underlying principles of the US Constitution include the idea of the social contract; that all of us in a society agree to curtail or limit some of our own freedoms in order that we can most freely exercise them.  The Founding Fathers recogized that outright disobedience to the law is a last resort, to be used only when more civil methods have failed.  This kid didn't try more civil methods; he essentially barged his way into the spotlight, and refused to let others in.



> PS - I've got nothing against the police. We need em to deal with the real criminals out there. :asian:


 
OK... this is off topic, but a major peeve of mine.  Please, define a "real criminal." What this kid did, in essentially taking over and disrupting a public meeting is not really any different than a gang banger claiming a street corner, and collecting "taxes" from anyone who wants to pass by.  I'm a firm believer in what's often referred to as "broken windows policing."  By paying attention, and stopping the little offenses, we stop the major ones, too.  You don't see bangers controlling streets and neighborhoods in blatant defiance of the elected government and police in Northern Virginia like you do in some other parts of the country; this is because we didn't let them get started.  And we still don't.  You want another example?  Average speeds on the highways are currently about 10 to 15 mph over the limit, and they've been climbing for years.  I doubt they'll stop.  Why?  Because traffic enforcement accepted "a few miles" over, and "a few" has become "several."  What's the big deal?  Speed is a common, often significant, contributing factor in many fatal accidents.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 22, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> For meaningful discourse, you need some rules. We have rules here on MT, both written and unwritten.


 
What if the rules are designed so that they protect people who have done something bad from facing the music?  What if the people who have done wrong make the rules?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 22, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> The Founding Fathers recogized that outright disobedience to the law is a last resort, to be used only when more civil methods have failed.


 
Other people have tried far more civil methods and have had to face only unsatisfactory answers and dodges.  Where is the line where civil disobedience becomes a neccesity?



> OK... this is off topic, but a major peeve of mine. Please, define a "real criminal."


 
Is a person engaging in civil disobedience a "real" criminal or a "technical" criminal?  Some people will see no difference, but I do.  As a person whose engaged in civil disobedience in the past and who got a lump and a ride to jail, I tend to see a big difference.

I don't think this tangent is off topic at all by the way...:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 22, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> You guys are being SOOO idealistic about this that I would ask if ya'll were ****ing kidding me if I didn't know that you're not.
> 
> This doesn't have anything to do with a discomfort for people not respecting authority. You being way to idealistic with your arguements of free speech and soundbite politics and authority and rigged elections. I mean, fricking seriously.
> 
> ...


 
Cruentus, I think the fact that you would compare someone engaging in civil disobedience to someone annoying you by cutting in like or being rude to a waitress proves my point.  CD can make everyone uncomfortable, but sometimes it is vital for our country.  And we need to learn how to just get over those feelings.

Check this out...







Are these people just making asses of themselves?  I'm sure they are disrupting a lot of people's lives...

Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoureau


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 22, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Are these people just making asses of themselves? I'm sure they are disrupting a lot of people's lives...
> 
> Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoureau


 
I enjoy reading Thoureau, so thanks for the link. 

See, I think that comparing this student to civil rights activists is more than way off base, as I think it is actually disrespectful to those civil rights activists who had no other choice but to take drastic measures. I think that comparing him to an ******* who cuts in line is far more fitting.

I am of the opinion that drastic measures like protesting or sit-ins should be a last resort for those who have no voice or medium, and who's voice has been logistically and physically oppressed. There was a time when African Americans weren't allowed to even speak of certain things in a public forum (lest they get physically hurt or prosecuted), let alone write a news article or go on the radio and talk about civil rights issues. So marching and protesting at that time made sense, because there was no other more effective choice.

That is not the case with this student. This student is not oppressed. He has a ton of different medium ranging from internet to news sources to radio and TV if they will have him (and I am sure that there are student radio shows who would hear him). And, there are a ton of people out there who hold similar views that this student has, but they do more effective things, and choose not to be inconsiderate to others (example: the BOOK that the student himself referenced).

This student is not oppressed, and in need to be "Civilly Disobediant." And not that I think that this is your intent, but if one honestly compares this ******* to civil rights activists during that movement, then I think that is really being disrespectful to those who were ACTUALLY OPPRESSED and had to resort to drastic measures because of it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 22, 2007)

How often do people really have the chance to question our public officials?  How often do we get the chance to question them AND actually debate their responses?  How often do the people REALLY get a chance to hold a politician accountable for mistakes they made?  Guess what, I'm having a hard time even finding one instance where all of this is even possible.  And if you try to do ANYTHING resembling what I wrote above, you get hauled away by the police and charged with anything they can get you on.

What isn't oppressive about that?

I see plenty of reason for some civil disobedience...

The civil rights movement dealt in large part with voter discrepencies.  So do the issues that this person brought up.  And guess what?  The people in the pictures and this guy are fighting for the very same people's right to vote and have their vote counted.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 22, 2007)

Ther HAS to be a conspiracy coming up soon. I can almost smell it. Just because some kook thinks Kerry was part of some Bush re-election plot (with a Skull and Bones connection) doesnt qualify for a sit-in.

Do we have put up with every street corner and Starbucks being blocked by protesters? Because there is a wingnut for every cause out there. let em pedal their views on every newspaper, NPR station, website etc that they want. Stand on a soapbox on the public square with a placard. This guys 1st amendment right were not violated. This guy had his chance and probably would have been able to ask his question if he had acted like an adult instead of going off on a rant till it got to the point that he was ejected. Every forum has its rules. If you want to push em be ready to accept the consequences.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 22, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The civil rights movement dealt in large part with voter discrepencies. So do the issues that this person brought up. And guess what? The people in the pictures and this guy are fighting for the very same people's right to vote and have their vote counted.


 
Well, in my view, that is totally disrespectful and innacurate to equate that student with the civil rights activists in the picture.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 22, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Ther HAS to be a conspiracy coming up soon. I can almost smell it. Just because some kook thinks Kerry was part of some Bush re-election plot (with a Skull and Bones connection) doesnt qualify for a sit-in.


 
Too late; the weirdo's have been all over it since before I posted this thread:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/210907_b_brutality.htm


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 22, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Too late; the weirdo's have been all over it since before I posted this thread:
> 
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/210907_b_brutality.htm


 

I should have known. Sometimes I dont know why I bother with this stuff. Its the same argument over different topics with the same people and personality types. I must be addicted or more bored than I realize. :shrug:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 23, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I should have known. Sometimes I dont know why I bother with this stuff. Its the same argument over different topics with the same people and personality types. I must be addicted or more bored than I realize. :shrug:


 
Sometimes I get really pissed about stuff like this.  Certain people take this or that and make it crazy and now no one takes anything that might have a shred of truth seriously.  Things really happened back in 2004 in regards to the accuracy of our elections.  Things that prompted me to organize a citizens group to help monitor our elections in 2006.  I think that Kerry's got some 'splainin' to do...


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 23, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Sometimes I get really pissed about stuff like this. Certain people take this or that and make it crazy and now no one takes anything that might have a shred of truth seriously. Things really happened back in 2004 in regards to the accuracy of our elections. Things that prompted me to organize a citizens group to help monitor our elections in 2006. I think that Kerry's got some 'splainin' to do...


 
Your not the only one who gets pissed off about stuff like this.

The problem that I have is that many people don't look at this stuff in a logical fashion. What people tend to do is develop a particular world view, then analyze incidents through those goggles, refusing to believe anything that doesn't fit into their particular worldview despite what evidence and facts speak to the contrary. 

So, if one believes (for example) that there is a deep underground conspiracy with "Skull and Bones" and secret societies at the core and that the last election was a fabrication put on by these elitists with John Kerry in full participation, then one might tend to think that this student was put down by tazer for the type of "questions" he was asking (that might otherwise blow the lid off the "conspiracy"). This is despite all the evidence that shows that this kid was tazed for nothing more then his behavior, having nothing to do with his questions or the content of what he was saying.

Although more socially exceptable, this is also no different (to provide another example) then people who believe that our 1st amendment rights are under attack by the religious right and the Bush administration, and therefore this students tazing is yet another example of someones freedom of speech being violated. This is despite all of the evidence that shows that this had nothing to do with freedom of speech, and everything to do with the students civil disobediance and borderline violent behavior. 

Some of us wish that people would simply look at the evidence for what it is, think logically, and to seek truth for the sake of itself rather then trying to support an agenda...

C.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 23, 2007)

Have there been multiple sorts of problems with our election system over the past several years?  Sure.  Was there some sort of nationwide plot to disenfranchise any voters?  No.  As with many of the various "vast conspiracy" theories, they fail on the simple fact that people don't keep secrets well.  Yes, we landed on the Moon.  We did it as a political and publicity stunt, so space exploration and development languished for decades.  Did Lee Harvey Oswald really kill Kennedy?  Yep.  And, almost certainly, on his own, for his own reasons.  (Of course, there's a whold 'nother idea if you watched the series *Dark Skies*.)

It's very simple.  Apathy.  Too few people bother to vote or participate in the system, at any level.  They'll ***** and moan -- but did they bother to vote?  Nope, they were too busy.  Or too distracted.  Or decided to listen to the blowhards that told them their votes didn't matter.

But that's beside the point, here.  This idiot kid didn't want to play by the rules of the forum.  He was given time (I tried to watch the clock in one version, that started with his question, and came up with something around 2 minutes; he was given more than a minute AFTER being asked to sit down.) to ask his question; he was asked to sit down, and he chose a pattern of events that led to his getting Tased.  He's more than welcome to bring up his points; they may well be valid.  But he's got to do it in the appropriate manner and forum.  You want to ask President Bush a question...  do it in the right place and time.  Climb the fence around the White House, and you won't even get to knock on the door.  

People are looking to blame the cops; they're looking to blame Senator Kerry's handlers, or Senator Kerry himself, or anyone else EXCEPT this kid.  It's really no different than trying to blame the cops for a high speed pursuit that ends in a crash; they didn't make the idiot break the law.  If this kid had simply tried to ask his question, even refused to be quiet till the cops frog-marched him out, he'd have brought his supposed question to the front.  Instead, his point gets lost in his stupidity.


----------



## Carol (Sep 23, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> He's more than welcome to bring up his points; they may well be valid.  But he's got to do it in the appropriate manner and forum.  *You want to ask President Bush a question...  do it in the right place and time.*  Climb the fence around the White House, and you won't even get to knock on the door.
> 
> People are looking to blame the cops; they're looking to *blame *Senator Kerry's handlers, or Senator Kerry himself, or *anyone else EXCEPT this kid*.  It's really no different than trying to blame the cops for a high speed pursuit that ends in a crash; they didn't make the idiot break the law.  If this kid had simply tried to ask his question, even refused to be quiet till the cops frog-marched him out, *he'd have brought his supposed question to the front.  Instead, his point gets lost in his stupidity.*



Bravo sir, very well said.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 23, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Was there some sort of nationwide plot to disenfranchise any voters? No...


 
How sure are you about this?

RFK jr Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Imagine if you were one of the people standing for 10 hours in the rain because Secratary of State Blackwell deliberately shorted your polling place with voting machines.  Only to watch Senator Kerry roll over without hardly making an effort to investigate a single instance of disenfranchisement.  I'd imagine that that'd piss a lot of people off.

Off Topic.  Do you really think Oswald shot Kennedy?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 23, 2007)

Quick question.  Who here has engaged in civil disobedience of any kind?  Have you ever been arrested for it?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 23, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> How sure are you about this?
> 
> RFK jr Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
> 
> ...


 
Case in point.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 23, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Case in point.


 
Like I said before, it can go both ways.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 23, 2007)

Dont take this the wrong way upnorth, you are one of the most entertaining guys around here to debate/argue with and I kinda enjoy it, but is there a conspiracy out there you DONT believe? 

Or do you do it for the fun factor?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 23, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Dont take this the wrong way upnorth, you are one of the most entertaining guys around here to debate/argue with and I kinda enjoy it, but is there a conspiracy out there you DONT believe?
> 
> Or do you do it for the fun factor?


 
Some of it is for the fun factor, but some I think have more merit then others...


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 23, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Dont take this the wrong way upnorth, you are one of the most entertaining guys around here to debate/argue with and I kinda enjoy it, but is there a conspiracy out there you DONT believe?
> 
> Or do you do it for the fun factor?


 
lol


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 23, 2007)

Weirdos?  Conspiracy theorist?  Entitlement mentality?

Yes, I do have an "entitlement mentality."  I believe I'm _entitled_ to freedom of speech because the Contsitution _entitles_ me to it.

It was a question and answer session.  The kid asked a couple of questions about Skull & Bones, and why the man who insisted he'd "fight for every vote" conceded before all the votes were counted. Uncomfortable as those questions were for Kerry, I'd like to know those answers too.

Even as Kerry was saying that he would answer the questions, the police were marching him out.  The arrest was premature at least, and probably completely unnecessary.  Sorry, if it was illegal to be an annoying *******, then half my co-workers would be in jail.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 23, 2007)

Phoenix44 said:


> Even as Kerry was saying that he would answer the questions, the police were marching him out.  The arrest was premature at least, and probably completely unnecessary.  Sorry, if it was illegal to be an annoying a$$#ole, then half my co-workers would be in jail.


 
This is the thing...

It IS illegal to be an *******, in certain places and times.  I'm going to cite Virginia law, since it's what I know best, but most states have similar statutes.  It is illegal to disrupt many types of school events, government meetings, funerals or memorial services, church meetings or services, or, "with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof...engages in conduct having a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, such conduct is directed" (18.2-415, 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended).  So... given the circumstances, I'd say there's an arguable case that, had he done this in Virginia, he could have been arrested for disorderly conduct.  I'm sure that Florida has a similar statute.

Similarly, in Virginia, there are limits on where and when you can picket.  You can't obstruct the free passage of people (18.2-404), and you can't picket in front of someone's home (18.2-419).  It's even a felony to wear a mask in public, with certain exceptions!  (18.2-422)  It could even, in theory, be illegal to teach some parts of the martial arts that many of us practice, IF the intent was to further civil disorder!  (18.2-433.2)

The bottom line, to me, remains quite simple.  This kid may have had a legitimate point.  But it's not really being discussed; instead, people are arguing about whether the jerk should have been Tased or not.  As I already said; he could have made his point by trying to ask his question, then going along peacably when the cops told him to leave -- or even requiring them to march him out, with no further resistance.  Then -- he'd be able to come forward and argue that Senator Kerry didn't want to answer the questions and had him silenced.  I think it's kind of pertinent that I haven't seen any indication that he's tried to do so...  Instead, all that's being discussed is whether the cops over-reacted.


----------



## redfang (Sep 24, 2007)

First of all, people do not get arrested for civil disobedience. People are arrested when civil disobedience becomes criminal in nature. 

Next, while I believe that use of force was justified, I also believe that the campus police on scene could have done things better. The main thing that comes to mind is I would like for them to be giving loud, verbal commands. I can hear the idiot, but not the police. They should be saying loudly what they want him to do, no for his benefit as much as for their benefit and those of the witnesses. If I'm fighting someone or using OC or whatever in a crowded venue, when my Sgt is doing a follow up investigation, I want everyone he interviews to be saying, "The officer kept telling him to stop fighting, stop resisting, to lay down, etc."

As far as whether or not the police should have removed him to begin with, under NC law, once someone with authority over the property (not the police, but the owner or an authorized rep.) tells someone to leave that property and that person refuses, they are trespassing. If they refuse to leave in my presence, they are probably going to be placed under arrest. If they refuse to comply with verbal commands, then I will use reasonable force to gain compliance.

If I went to the student's house and John Kerry was there harrassing the student and was told to leave. If John Kerry refused, I would arrest Kerry.

Now, I am an LEO, but I have also attended rallies and political events for causes I support and I have never had any trouble fully expressing my opinion and have never been arrested for it. Many protesters know exactly what will force an arrest and will purposefully get arrested for publicity sake. Fine, that's how the game is played.

If I'm working an event like a rally or protest, I want nothing more than a nice peaceful event wherein the participants can be heard. As an LEO, it is my job to uphold people's rights, and I like that about my job. But sometimes, as I said, people intend to be arrested. If that is the case, I will accomodate them if need be, and will try to do it quickly and professionally with a minimum of fuss.

I personally think the campus police were not expecting much trouble and when it happened they did not react as decisively as they should have.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 24, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Well, no, it's not just one inconsiderate person; it's all the people running to his defense claiming that his right to "free speech" was infringed on, thus demonstrating the entitlement mentality and level of inconsideration that society has come too.


 
nah, it's just a small number of us putting forth the novel idea that maybe we don't need to be in such a hurry to arrest people for the treasonous crimes of being obnoxious and belligerant.



> And once again... it doesn't take as long as he took to ask a question. 1min35sec is not a question, it's a speech or a rant in it's own right.


 
apparently some people believe that's worth arresting someone over.


----------

