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

[MJS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.