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

[Cruentus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.