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

[Cruentus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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'.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.