UF student tased at John Kerry speech by AURaptor

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So in your view, whether a taser (water cannon, baton) is used on a peaceful protester is based on YOUR subjective view of whether or not the person is an "asshole"?

No. I don’t think assholes should be tazed either, particularly peaceful assholes. And the word “peaceful” is a dishonest characterization of the issue, but I don’t guess you can help yourself.

Also “a threat to anyone in the vicinity” is just as subjective. If someone is willing to struggle against the police because they feel they have the right to trespass or de facto eliminate all freedom of expression but their own, then I find this person to be a threat.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 7:36 AM

Yes, the mark of a good government is not one that provides no resistance to change, but one that allows enough resistance to slow the rate for thoughtful consideration of the direction of that change.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 7:38 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"What we need is a combination water cannon/taser. That would be something..."

Piss on an electric fence - you get the same effect.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 7:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
No. I don’t think assholes should be tazed either, particularly peaceful assholes. And the word “peaceful” is a dishonest characterization of the issue, but I don’t guess you can help yourself.

I'm not trying to say this guy was "peaceful", I'm looking at hypotheticals to see what you think of them. It would be nice if you could keep the snark down to a minimum.

Quote:
Also “a threat to anyone in the vicinity” is just as subjective. If someone is willing to struggle against the police because they feel they have the right to trespass or de facto eliminate all freedom of expression but their own, then I find this person to be a threat.

I should have said physical threat.

Compare and contrast to hanging some nooses on a tree to scare away black folks. Which do you think deserves greater punishment: hogging a mic or hanging a noose?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 8:03 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Compare and contrast to hanging some nooses on a tree to scare away black folks. Which do you think deserves greater punishment: hogging a mic or hanging a noose?

And now for something completely different...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 8:24 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Only if you think an examination of 'what is a threat' and 'what is proportionate response' is off topic.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not trying to say this guy was "peaceful", I'm looking at hypotheticals to see what you think of them. It would be nice if you could keep the snark down to a minimum.

What you are doing is changing the rules after I give my answer. And concerning hypotheticals, I’ve already stated that I don’t think the tazer should be used on people if they can be subdued easily, so why would you assume I would decide that a tazer should be used on someone who is a “peaceful protestor?”

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I should have said physical threat.

I assume you mean something like drawing a knife, but I still would say that someone whose belief in their right to special treatment is so ardent they would resist arrest is exactly the kind of person who might become violent and become a physical threat, particularly if they are loud and hateful. The situation at the UCLA library was certainly not non-threatening from the perspective of the police, who were surrounded by numerous students some of whom seemed to try to interfere with the arrest. This is threatening for the police. You seemed to be making the assumption that there is no physical threat because the situations didn’t turn bloody, but you have no way of knowing that at the time. Just because the perpetrator is not expressing a direct intent to cause harm, doesn’t mean that won’t change quickly and unpredictably or someone from the crowd won’t jump in and the more uncooperative and irrational someone is the more likely their behavior may seem to become violent. Police are trained to maintain control of an encounter, if they feel they have lost or are losing control, they’re likely to pull out the tazer, because they feel threatened whether that’s obvious on YouTube or not. And if they don’t have a tazer, it might be their firearm they draw, which is orders of magnitude worse.

So the minute that you start resisting arrest and you can’t be directly overpowered and easily carried, then the tazer should come out, or at least becomes an option. In most cases, that means just about any grown man who resists arrest is subject to tazing.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Compare and contrast to hanging some nooses on a tree to scare away black folks. Which do you think deserves greater punishment: hogging a mic or hanging a noose?

The first thing I see is that this is an apples and oranges comparison. Certainly I do believe that any display suggestive of terrorist or violent intent might be worse than a public tantrum, but the inflicting of pain or physical trauma is not used as a punishment, but as a means of control, so under what conditions would control devices be used in this case? Because if it’s for punishment, it’s probably unconstitutional, or been deemed that way. You can’t inflict pain or beat someone to punish them, but you can to gain control of the situation. Consider this, if the police encounter a person in the act of preparing an illegal terrorist display or directly following the preparation and who peacefully yields to police and submits cooperatively to arrest – should the tazer be used on him simply because the police find his use of threatening or terrorist paraphernalia offensive? I think not. And while I might certainly describe this guy as an “asshole” I would also say that the police using a tazer on a cooperative perpetrator for ideological reasons would be oppressive (even if secretly some part of me found some sort of satisfaction.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 1:19 PM

One point to bring up, ok, and imma throw right up front that it's NOT from a neutral perspective, right ?

Cops generally don't taser just once, no, they sit there like a cruel little schoolboy over an anthill with a magnifying glass, popping the switch over and over, often even giggling as they do it - we have some sick, sick bastards on the force, believe it.

With each zap, the risk of death dramatically increases, and the cops even have this bullshit medical term for it to excuse away murder by taser - Excited Delerium, or some shit, complete with a couple shills trying to make it sound like some kind of medically-accepted syndrome... yeah right, find me ONE case of death from ED that didn't immediately follow a police tasing or beating, and maybe it'd fly.

Accountability is the key - every time a cop busts a cap with their service weapon, they have to account for it, but with the taser, no such luck - even the ones that have a counter, you'll find instructions on how to fiddle or reset it taped to the back of every police locker room door if you look, and they mostly don't have to account for it anyhow unless there are witnesses.

Ponder this, if they'll do THAT shit out in public in front of large crowds, what the fuck do you think they'll do to YOU in private, with no witnesses, especially if they have racial or anger/control issues going on.

Don't forget, Detroit has a goddamn federal oversight task force practically camped out down here TRYING to make our cops act like adults instead of over aggressive 10yr old bullies, and it's not workin, and it's costing us X amount of tax bucks per day, having one fucking goon squad trying to beat another goon squad into at least pretending to behave like human beings.

No, they shouldn't have tasers, not unless every time that trigger is pulled, the process is EXACTLY like firing the service weapon, right down to the lethal force questions - and even then I am reluctant because at this time, the police have become a wholly self serving entity that is a direct threat to the very populace they were created to protect - we need to move back to community based policing, and fast, and even that might not be enough.

Too many laws, too many police, and suddently everyone's guilty of something ? madness.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 1:42 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

People keep sliding past the fact that the student was doing nothing threatening or illegal. Are you all saying that university security couldn't deal with a problem that every kindergarten teacher deals with every day ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 2:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SIX campus security! ONE obnoxious person.

Pity the K-garten teacher who has one aide and thirty kids to deal with! Maybe K-garten teachers really SHOULD have tasers, eh?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 5:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
People keep sliding past the fact that the student was doing nothing threatening or illegal. Are you all saying that university security couldn't deal with a problem that every kindergarten teacher deals with every day ?

And you’re sliding past the fact that these are grown men not kindergarten kids. And this grown man was trespassing, which is at least a violation of campus policy and possibly state or city law.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
With each zap, the risk of death dramatically increases, and the cops even have this bullshit medical term for it to excuse away murder by taser - Excited Delerium, or some shit, complete with a couple shills trying to make it sound like some kind of medically-accepted syndrome... yeah right, find me ONE case of death from ED that didn't immediately follow a police tasing or beating, and maybe it'd fly.

There are cases of death by excited delirium that follow being sprayed with pepper spray, where no tasing or beating occurred, so I guess it flies. Woman who carry pepper spray in their purse must now get a carry license to carry a concealed weapon? Actually, the common factor in excited delirium cases is not the type of control device used by police, but that the perpetrator was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The drugs in his system accompanied with the adrenaline of resisting arrest resulted in cardiac arrest, not the tazing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 5:59 PM

Uh huh... show me ONE case of death from ED that didn't happen in or immediately following police custody.

ONE.

While you're doing that, you can perhaps also try to explain away the deaths of folk from it, in police custody with NO drugs in their system whatsoever, and be prepared to do it over and over.

No one's done any proper studies on this shit, cause nobody wants to face what the likely answers are gonna be - fact is, you should NOT use a Taser on anyone in any situation where you would not have fired your service weapon had that been the only option - are we clear ?

The Taser is a LESS lethal option, not a nonlethal one, and using it as a compliance device is no more sane that shooting a civvie in the foot for not showing proper respect, which is in essence, what most of these incidents are about - the cops think they're lords, and we're peons, and the lack of oversight and consequences in general has allowed this mindset to fester into the deadly social poison it has become.

I've dealt quite recently in a professional, advisory capacity with a large number of the force, and did not find a one of em who I found anything less than despicable as a human being, if I would even give em that much credit.

Anyone who WANTS to be a cop - should NOT be, period.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
Updated with useful linkage
http://peoplesgeography.com/2006/11/18/death-by-taser-the-killer-alter
native-to-guns/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Spring_2005/Aftershocks/page.do?id=1105342&n
1=2&n2=19&n3=388
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7622314

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Uh huh... show me ONE case of death from ED that didn't happen in or immediately following police custody.

ONE.

While you're doing that, you can perhaps also try to explain away the deaths of folk from it, in police custody with NO drugs in their system whatsoever, and be prepared to do it over and over.

Excited delirium existed in medical diagnoses long before it was ever used to explain the death of anyone in police custody. Excited delirium is a condition that arises from combination of drug overdose (often cocaine) and stress. It is a condition of extreme drug use, not police custody, but I don’t doubt that a certain set of excited delirium cases are related to police custody, however your claim was that excited delirium was a euphemism for supposed deaths caused by tazer use, a statement which immediately fails the idiot test because excited delirium deaths have resulted in cases where pepper spray, not tazing, was used.

Also I don’t doubt that tazers can result in death, and there are cases when it has happened, but the tazer is not a lethal weapon, and it is far safer than a baton or a kick, both of which are responsible for far more deaths. And in fact, it is safer then pepper spray, which can inflame lung tissue and make breathing difficult. What you are trying to do is equate a tazer to a firearm, which is just silly. If you're going to do that, then you must also be prepared to equate pepper spray, a baton or a fist to a firearm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 6:38 PM

As The Tyee's article also pointed out, "researchers note that every excited delirium death is preceded by a forceful struggle with police. A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal examined the deaths of 21 people due to excited delirium in Ontario. In all 21 cases, the deceased were forcefully restrained in a prone position, sometimes with pressure placed on the neck. Twelve of them (57 percent of the total) had a psychiatric disorder.

Only a minority of them - eight out of 21 (38 percent) - had cocaine in their system.

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2004/08/06/TaserFollowup/

Doesn't mention how many of em got a little fried by the cops torture toy, or how many times, but this is rather typical, as any research will show.

Fact is, when it comes right down to it, it's russian roulette - it damned well could kill you, some unignorable chance of it anyway, and here's the acid test...

If someone pointed one at YOU, fully intending to fire it at you, and you were armed with a handgun, would you shoot them ?

Ask THAT one of a cop, and then question why it's not the same when they point one at YOU.

It's potentially lethal force, and should be treated as such, but that requires the police to consider non-police to be people, human beings, and they don't.

And that's a far, far larger problem now, isn't it ?

Chew on those thoughts a while.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 7:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Doesn't mention how many of em got a little fried by the cops torture toy, or how many times, but this is rather typical, as any research will show.

If this article is citing the journal article I think they are, then none of the cases studied included the use of the tazer. So there goes that argument I guess. But several people had been sprayed with pepper spray. These deaths were caused by restraint, not the tazer, which demonstrates how far people will go to demonize use of the tazer. The reason people have such problem with it, has nothing to do with it being dangerous, which as far as control devices go, it’s about as non-lethal as you’re going to get. You’re more likely to kill someone with your fists then you are with a tazer. But people have a problem with the tazer for purely emotional reasons. They are reacting to the screams of people who have been tazed.

Now back to the article and the cause of death of those 21 cases. Excited delirium is a condition of extreme drug use or psychiatric illness and all of these cases exhibited similar symptoms which include the insane, violent behavior accompanied by “superhuman” feats of strength. In other words these people where not “normal.” The cause of death in these cases was due to cardiac arrest that resulted from drug use and stress in some cases, but in other cases they were causes by chest and throat compression during restraint, and in other cases pepper spray may have resulted in inflamed lung tissue. None of these conditions by themselves were fatal, but when accompanied with perpetual psychotic and abnormally resistive behavior, they became fatal.

“The most striking finding of this study was that all of those who died unexpectedly during or after an episode of excited delirium had been physically restrained. In most cases the excited delirium was due to a pre-existing psychiatric illness; however, in a significant number, it was a consequence of recent cocaine use. In the later cases, the cocaine levels were similar to those found in people who were murdered or had committed suicide and had used cocaine shortly before death.”
Pollanen et al, “Unexpected Death Related to Restraint for Excited Delirium: A retrospective study of Deaths in Police Custody and in the Community,” p. 1606 JAMC 16 JUNE 1998, 158 (12)

If you resist arrest long enough and hard enough, you could die from your own efforts. The harder you resist the harder the police are going to tighten their grip. Most people don’t have the will or the strength to resist long enough and hard enough to kill themselves, but those under the influence of drugs or psychiatric illness, might.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If someone pointed one at YOU, fully intending to fire it at you, and you were armed with a handgun, would you shoot them ?

That depends. If that someone is a police officer, most likely not. If he’s a crook or someone I might be in real trouble with if I were incapacitated, then I might, but to address the hypothetical, I would rather get tazed then kill someone, so there would have to be more than just the threat of being tazed alone for me to pull the trigger.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2007 8:55 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hey all,

Finn brings up some very, very good points. Central to those is this: A tazer is the safest way to subdue someone.

It's safer than wrestling, it's safer than beating.

How do six police officers remove a troublemaker?

Some have argued that the troublemaker should just be ignored.

Some have argued that the troublemaker should be physically removed or forced into restraints while he is struggling. "Why don't the officers want to sweat a little?" Well, I'd say that wrestling with someone is actually more dangerous than tazing them. You could receive a blow, intentional or not. You may cause damage to ligaments or joints. You may allow the subject to herniate himself, giving him a lifelong disability. Alternatively, if the subject is very strong, you risk all these consequences to yourself. The worst possible scenario is that a resisting, thrashing target may crack his skull or someone else's against a hard surface, causing brain damage or death.

What about the risk of heart attack? The subject may have a heart condition, and the tazer may aggravate the condition and cause a death.

But so, too, can a wrestling match aggravate a heart condition. So? What do you do?

It's not a matter of sweat, in my opinion. It's a matter of safety, for everyone involved.

The problem is, a tazer represents a total loss of control, and that's scary. Someone can punch you, and you can try to block them or punch back. Someone can wrestle you, and you can try to physically resist. But a tazer? It forces you into compliance against your will, in a way that you cannot defeat. Not with a black belt. Not with a powerful sense of will. Not by blocking it with your arm. Not by anything. If it hits you, you will involountarily be subdued (in 99% of cases.)

Every department I've heard of uses tazers against their own officers during training. If a tazer was a readily deadly weapon, there'd be a lot of dead cops. (Not to mention the large quantity of reporters that get their kicks by getting tazed on camera for silly news stories.) Deadliness of the device is not a serious issue. Some complain that a tazer is more likely to be used than a firearm because it is non-lethal. Hell yeah and thank God.

So the issue is, WHEN? When do you use a tazer?

I propose that the answer is simple.

Whenver you must use force to remove a subject, restrain a subject, or stop a subject, the best force to use is a tazer.

Wrestling him down, forcing his arms into cuffs while he struggles, punching him, beating him with a baton, shooting him? These are all less savory options.

How about the Kerry Kid? Let's dissect the event:

1) He was disruptive, breaking the rules at a social event. He far exceeded his allotted time. He asked multiple questions, made long rambling speeches, and denied the mic to other persons. It wasn't Kerry's call whether the kid should continue. The people who operate the venue, the University staff and security, get to make that call.

2) His mic was shut off, a good first step.

3) He was being escorted away from the area. So far, so good. They flanked him and led him away, nice and peaceful.

4) He began to shout, resist the lead of the officers, and jump up and down. He shouted to the officers, "I'm being arrested?! What have I done?!" followed by, "Get away from me, man! Get away from me!" All the while jumping and evading the officers.

5) The officers catch up to him at the rear of the room (he didn't get far) and force him to the ground. Here is where the kid ironically shouts, "Help! They're arresting me!" As though it was the practice of bystanders to interfere in the arrests of officers.

6) The officers give him instructions, such as to place his hands in position to be cuffed, which he disobeys while screaming.

7) "You will be tazed if you don't comply," Shouts one of the officers. The kid replies, "If you let me go I'll walk out of here." Alas, it is too late. The kid apparently doesn't realize that when you try to evade the police, they ARE going to take you into custody. At the very least you will be detained and questioned. Yet the kid is trying to bargain his way out of the situation. He doesn't seem to know he already crossed the line.

8) "Why are they arresting me?! Can someone do something here?! What did I do?! Get the fuck off me, man!" All the while still struggling to deny the officers the ability to place restraints on him.

9) The famous line, "Don't taze me bro! I said don't taze me! Don't!" He could follow instructions. Instead he orders the cops not to taze him while continuing to resist and disobey.

10) After being tazed and shouting "Ow! Ow! What did I do?!" he becomes rather compliant. He is stood up, and he walks with the officers.

Now, what were the alternatives?

1) Some people say he should have been ignored. He should have been allowed to ramble on, ask as many questions as he wanted, and generally continue in a disruptive manner to derail the event? Worst case scenario? A ruined event.

So... does this kid have the right to ruin an event? If you were watching a good movie, and this kid stood in the front of the theatre and created an intentional disruption, what would you want done? Nothing? Would you sit there and let him spoil your movie experience? Would you call the theatre management and tell them about this disruptive character? What would they do? Ask him to leave? And if he didn't? Call the police? But people say that the police should ignore him. So he ruins the movie, refuses to go, and nothing happens. His right to disrupt your experience is more important than your right to have it, apparently.

2) The Police could forcibly remove him, and if he resists, forcibly restrain him. This will involve a wrestling match that could cause injury to the kid or the officers.

I don't see that either of these alternatives are preferable. I've watched this video and I've considered the matter carefully. A one-sentence headline pretty much sums up my feelings about it:

"Disruptive asshole tries to evade and defy officers, is tazed and removed from scene safely."

News at 11.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 6:23 AM

Allright, since to some people, apparently, "order" is apparently more important than petty stuff like sanity, human rights, or personal safety, let's put it in a pure financial perspective.

I propose a mandatory settlement of $100 million for any police custody death aggravated by taser, $75 million for positional asphixia death, and $50 million for ANY use of a taser that is found by an independant board to be unwarranted or excessive - and the local community who's police force is responsible fronts the ENTIRE bill.

Hows that sound to you, since it's so much safer and all, it's no *actual* financial risk, right ?

Does that finally put this idiocy into perspective - what's next, tasering folk for jaywalking, oh wait... they did that, didn't they ?

Time to face the unpleasant fact, that by constant apologism and gloryfying, our society has removed almost all consequences from cop misbehavior and thus wound up with a gang of overmacho children who believe themselves above the rest of the citizerny cause they wear a badge, whoopty - EVERY tool ever given to them gets misused, quickly and without one whit of conscience among them, go on, FIND me a cop complaining of no-knock raids *before* his dept gets in trouble for them, even if it winds up as usual amounting to a slap on the wrist.

"Probable Cause" - almost a joke.

"Plain sight/Consent Search" - absolutely a joke.

"Failure to obey police instruction" - go do some research, I personally know one girl who wound up on probation for refusing to go down on a cop over a traffic violation.

"Safety/Sobriety checkpoints" - fuck the fourth amendment, right ?

"No-knock/Dynamic Entry" - Yeehaw, bubba, we get to kick doors in, and for what, suspicion of a betting pool ? and that guy died too, cause some jackass cop with a twitchy trigger finger got too excited - oh yes, and another $100 million mandatory for wrong address/bogus charges no-knock deaths caused by the police, how bout it ?

"Asset Forfieture" - Hey, look bubba, nice car, let's TAKE it, it's not like we have to prove anything, right ?

"Taser" - Zap *giggle*, zap, zap, zap, isn't this fun Bubba, watch how they squirm!

FYI - The incident I refer to with this was two cops versus an 80 yr old woman with a diabetic condition who was trying to tell em she needed insulin or a hospital, and no, she didn't make it, but watching them fucking GIGGLE over it was the last damn straw as far as I am concerned.

And I don't think we even need to go there with hailstorms of 100+ bullets in residential neighborhoods, and maybe hitting the suspect twice, do we ? "Contagious Fire" and all that rot.

The ugly truth is that EVERY tool given to them is immediately, blatantly abused, that the police as a whole have gone rabid, so far off the leash that something has to be done, and I do not feel they can be trusted with the damned tasers unless it's treated the same as a firearm discharge - and no, I ain't happy about them carryin guns neither, but since I firmly believe that *every* citizen barring insanity or violent criminal conduct should be armed, imma have to let that one go with the caveat that us peons should be able to carry anything a cop does without question.

As for what to do with a disruptive individual on private property, if you can't answer THAT question, I call into question your powers of reasoning - if someone wanted to sit on my lawn with a sign and rant for a couple hours and was doing no harm to anyone or themselves, not like I personally, would give a shit enough to do something about it - I see no mention of crowd reaction on this story, but I think if he was booed or laughed out of there, he'd have shut up a lot quicker, honestly.

Public property is just that, public, and messing with the right to peaceably assemble and bitch up a storm is a damn dangerous course - I've only really ran into any hassle with a protest blocking the road once, and politely stepped out, told the folks yes, I have seen your message and gotten your point, whether I agree or not, and can I get through so I can get to work - and they cleared the lane for me, golly gee, and didn't even need a nightstick, taser, and six buddies, did I ?

Sometimes you gotta step way back, get some perspective, and look at this madness for what it is from far enough away to ask the right damn questions - but most folk are too damn drowned in it to see past a single action.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:00 AM

I think AnthonyT's summary is pretty objective and consistent with my recollection of the video. I think his conclusions are fairly well balanced.

In the incident at the Kerry speech, I suspect it will be shown the police followed protocols and will, I hope, not have any further repercussions; I believe their actions were reasonable.

On the other hand, as AnthonyT points out, a Tazer is a very debilitating weapon. It's use by authority figures should be taken very seriously. So I'm going to borrow a page from Frem:

Every use of a tazer by law enforcement should be accompanied by a similar set of forms as use of a fire arm. In this particular case, I believe the adjunct paperwork would be considered and used in the assessment of the officer's duties; which again, in -this- case will, I believe show they followed protocol.

Do I think tasers are as lethal as firearms; obviously not. However, they are sufficiently debilitating that if one -must- be used, then it should be reviewed.

I'm not so sure about Frem's suggestion regarding 'any police custody death aggravated by taser'; but certainly any case where excessive taser use occurs it should bear significant penalties.

As part of this, taser's issued to police should have counters which cannot be reset.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:55 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Frem,

I'm interested in your opinion of the theatre example versus the University example. Is the person's right to disrupt an event more important than your right to enjoy the event?

Is there any line that can be drawn in that regard? What if your example 'lawn protesters' don't move? Shall they impede you indefinitely?

This isn't idle speculation. This stuff happens. When I lived in South Florida, protesters shut down a major expressway by laying down across the road. They refused to volountarily move. Thousands of motorists were stranded for hours.

When does this 'public annoyance' become serious enough to warrant physically removing someone?

I will say this: Any use of force should require a report, and I'd be damned surprised if it didn't already.

However, when a FIREARM is fired by an officer, that officer is placed on administrative leave for 2-4 weeks while an investigation is conducted. This fact makes various crime dramas laughable. The detective who discharges his firearm while on an investigation would likely have little to do with the remainder of that investigation.

I'm not sure if the same is practical for tazers. Use of force is a much more common necessity than use of deadly force. It seems if the requirements were identical between use of a firearm and use of force, then a quarter of the police officers might be on administrative leave and under investigation at any given time. You might need to double the size of the police department just to manage it. And I suspect, Frem, that you don't really want to fund a larger police force.

If the point of your argument, Frem, is that disruptive people should never be physically interfered with... then I disagree.

If the point of your argument is that use of force should be scrutinized, then I agree.

If the point of your argument is that all use of force should be scrutinized to the same degree as the use of deadly force, then I disagree.

Disruptive individuals can be ignored until they interfere with the rights of others. Once that happens, they've broken the law, as I see it. "My rights end at the end of my nose" was a song they taught me in grade school. When I limit someone else's freedoms whilst exercising my own, I've crossed the line.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 8:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

We must all remember that the police work for us, not the other way around. To that end, we give them considerably more physical tools: cars, helicopters, handguns, radios, tasers, batons, rubber bullets, tear gas, helmets, face shields, shotguns, bullet-resistant vests, ramming devices, water cannons, warrants, handcuffs, computers, spike strips, etc etc than are normally available to the average person or group of people.

When in their presence, police have the ability to force anyone to do almost anything or to stop anyone from doing almost anything (for example, stopping a legal protest.)

When you give someone that amount of power, significant legal advantage and general agreement to USE that power, the danger is that power will be used excessively especially for trivial reasons or against non-threatening persons for the sheer purpose of establishing "control", whether that level of control is necessary or not.

The Kent State shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

the Los Angeles immigration protest beatings
www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/03/1357234

the Rodney King beating
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingvideo.html

the brutal police response to the 2003 anti-FTAA protest in Miami
www.mindfully.org/WTO/2004/Miami-Vice-FTAA1mar04.htm
www.democracynow.org/static/miamimodel.shtml

WATCH THIS VIDEO:
www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=miami+ftaa+protest+police+2003+

and other shootings/beatings all came about because the police over-reacted to a situation. There has to be some brakes on using force. The "brake" in place is that the police know ahead of time that every time they pull a gun they'll wind up filling out reams of paperwork. A review process should be in place for ANY "use of force". Or else arm everybody so police can't kick the shit out of defensless citizens.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 9:16 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I don't think anyone is advocating misuse of force. (If anyone is, please say so.)

However, if an investigation is conducted any time a police officer has to use force, that might bog down the system a bit. (Perhaps you believe the system needs to be bogged down.)

That means if an officer forces someone into handcuffs, he'd have to be investigated. If he lays hands on a subject to force them into a direction, he'd have to be investigated. Pretty much any time he touches someone, he'd have to be investigated. I'm not sure that would work.

Now, as for paperwork, I believe that paperwork IS currently required whenever an officer has to touch someone. If I remember my time working for the police department correctly, that paperwork is called an incident report, and these incident reports are reviewed by superiors.

Obviously power can and will be abused by some of those that have it, be it the big schoolyard bully, the abusive parent, the police officer, the politician, or the pedophile priest. I don't think you can lump everyone in the category together and call them abusive. (Although it may be very tempting to do so.)

Control is one of the things police officers are tasked to do. It's a necessary part of their function.

It boils down to this... either you believe a disruptive individual needs to be removed, or you don't. At some point I think you have to draw the line, and I have.

For those that aren't aware, the Kerry Kid was asked to go before anything happened. He refused. Then he was being escorted out, and he resisted. Only after he evaded and resisted the police did he offer to go of his own free will. Unfortunately, it was too late.

Maybe you think it was the kid's right to continue to disrupt the event indefinitely. If you do think that, just say so. Then we can agree to disagree on that point.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 9:21 AM

'Any' is a dangerous word. If an officer pulls my wrists behind me, and puts cuffs on me, is he using 'force'?

However, I'm willing to agree that taser use should be reviewed; but I do not know that it would be necessary to associate an 'administrative leave' with it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 9:29 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

If use of force could be 'reviewed' without disrupting police duties, I'll advocate it. As it is, it's supposed to be reviewed anyway, but perhaps that process could be adhered to more fully. I suspect a lot of paperwork is currently skipped or glossed over.

It's an old case of enforcing the rules you already have.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 11:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ok- review use of tasers, batons (or flashlights), choke hold, weapon (rubber bullets or otherwise) tear gas... I'm sure I can think of more. PUBLIC review might help: a Civilian Review Commission.

Yes, bullies will be bullies but cops are bullies with badges and weapons, and that makes THEM need to be controlled, otherwise they just become another kind of gang.

I worked with two people who became cops. Both of these people were college graduates, one (a chemist) became a cop because she WAS a bully, and the other (a sociologist) became a bully within two years of joining a police force... to the extent that he bragged about breaking someone's tail light and them giving them a fixit ticket (Apparently that was his force's way of issuing as*hole tickets.)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:12 PM

FLETCH2

All difficult questions come down to issues of conflicting rights. Does this one guy's right to free speech over rule the rest of the meetings right to hear Kerry speak or have other questions put? If I was waiting to ask my question, is my right of a hearing superceded by this guy even if he's using more than his alotted time. If a group makes rules about public discouse, is it allowed to enforce them if someone breaks them?

Sig you think this guy should be allowed to shout hog the mic and monopolise the time with Kerry. Would you think the same if it was a skinhead shouting down a Holocaust survivor? Would you mind if, say the Christian right shouted down the Democratic presidential debates?

For a society to have intelligent discussion there has to be rules. Seems like this guy broke some of them. Do we let guy's like him disrail that discussion or do we have a right as a society to enforce our rules.

As to the "all cops are bullies" comment. Do you know all cops? I think in any field there are bullies, your chemist was a bully as a chemist and as a cop, I suspect your sociologist was as well, just that in the group he used to be in he lacked the confidence to show his true colours. Not saying that law enforcement may not attract that personality type -- in fact I suspect it does but you will find it anywhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 2:08 PM

Firstoff, thanks Anthony, for getting the gist of what I was tryin to put across - I come off awful harsh sometimes, but we really are watchin a slide off the deep end when it comes to police behavior, and I am substantially concerned.

Where the line is, at least in my eyes, is doing harm or intent to do harm - if someone is impeding your enjoyment of an event, that's a personal issue, and in a private venue, you take it up with the owner of the venue, and obviously on your own property it's your call.

Public property is a little more grey, but it really boils down to the concept that if you can resolve without conflict, you should not initiate one, in the above case, if they had not moved, I could have gone around via a side street - but if not, sure, you might have to call upon public enforcement, although perhaps a better thought would be a bicycle cop issuing a few tickets instead of a jackboot swat swarm slapping down everyone in sight, likely me included just for being there - police overresponse to these things is kinda nuts these days.

As for use of force, I must stress that the Taser be effectively considered a LESS-Lethal, rather than NON-Lethal, use of force and scaled more accordingly - that is a very important legal and proceedural distinction, and one that if properly rectified, would offer some protection then to officers who DID have cause to use a Taser, you see ?

As for the rest of it, police are VERY poorly trained when it comes to threat management and conflict resolution, and certain entrenched attitudes make that far far worse than it needs to be.

I don't have the article handy, as my main comp has a blown mainboard and a new one is on order, but there are some very good trainers out there that are sadly underutilized, and proper training would give officers the skills to manage a problem without the automatic "Me have bigger club, me WIN!" kind of escalation that is all too common currently.

Oh wait, I do have a copy.. here.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/contol_vs_command.htm
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/deescalation.htm
Stuff like this is CRUCIAL, in my opinion, need to know stuff, which damn well should be part of any academy curriculum, but what we have now, wellll....

Better training, better oversight, civvie public review boards, a limit to the "Blue line" interferance of established orgs like the FOP, and most especially, properly classifying the force used... that's a start, also we really need to move policing back to communities and make them have to answer to those communities for their actions.

I have my doubts as to whether it's "too far gone" or not, but that'd be a freakin start.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 2:46 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
All difficult questions come down to issues of conflicting rights. Does this one guy's right to free speech over rule the rest of the meetings right to hear Kerry speak or have other questions put?

No. No. By framing the debate this way, you take the taser entirely out of the equation. NO ONE here is saying the boy's actions were appropriate. NO ONE. No one is saying that he has a right to disrupt the speech. If the boy had simply been escorted from the room, this would not be news.

It is not the boy's right to "free speech" that anyone is defending. It's his right not to be tased without posing a violent threat to the officers. His right to be peacefully removed from the room like thousands of such obnoxious protesters before him, without being beaten up or tased. They tased him within a fricken YARD of the door, folks! If the officers' goal were his removal from the auditorium, they could have simply shoved him the extra five feet to the hallway.

No, their purpose was not to remove him, but to make him submit to their dominance. When police cross the line, they always do it to establish dominance. They did it to Rodney King and they did it to this kid. He did not submit to their domination of him--partially, it seems clear from the tape--because he was terrified, and yes, partially because he was a fool, i.e.: not fully aware of the awful situation he'd gotten himself into.

In case you didn't know, let me tell you it is very, very difficult to submit to being handcuffed by armed men--psychologically difficult for even very mature, stable and law abiding people, and everyone here agrees this boy was not the most mentally stable individual in that auditorium.

Quote:
Would you think the same if it was a skinhead shouting down a Holocaust survivor? Would you mind if, say the Christian right shouted down the Democratic presidential debates?

What you're implying with this is that our police officers' right to beat-up or tase people should be based on such people's opinions (or that you think SignyM believes that)! Of course a vocally disruptive skinhead should be removed from an auditorium where a Holocaust survivor is speaking, but he should not be tased or have the shit kicked out of him simply because of his odious beliefs. Again, the issue is not freedom of speech, his speech does not enter into the real issue here. The issue is his right not to be battered or otherwise physically abused by the state unless or until he poses a credible threat to those officers.

Quote:
For a society to have intelligent discussion there has to be rules.

No one disputes this. But "rules" come in all shapes and sizes. You wouldn't stand for this kid having his right hand cut off for disrupting the speech, and I decry the use of the taser in making him submit to the will of the officers.

Quote:
Seems like this guy broke some of them. Do we let guy's like him disrail that discussion or do we have a right as a society to enforce our rules.

Of course we have the right as a society to enforce rules, but HOW we enforce those rules is what differentiates our rule of law from a might-makes-right style rule of men. Far too often, the police enforce nothing more than their personal dominance over a subject. Without recourse to the courts, citizens are routinely punished ad hoc in this way for the sin only of disobedience.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It is not the boy's right to "free speech" that anyone is defending. It's his right not to be tased without posing a violent threat to the officers. His right to be peacefully removed from the room like thousands of such obnoxious protesters before him, without being beaten up or tased. They tased him within a fricken YARD of the door, folks! If the officers' goal were his removal from the auditorium, they could have simply shoved him the extra five feet to the hallway.

This is disingenuous because there is no right to be peaceably removed if the person being removed refuses to leave peaceably, which was exactly the case. Unless you are in fact arguing that this kid had a right to disrupt the peace. You can't have it both ways, unless this kid cooperates, which he didn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 3:03 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
This is disingenuous because there is no right to be peaceably removed if the person being removed refuses to leave peaceably, which was exactly the case. Unless you are in fact arguing that this kid had a right to disrupt the peace. You can't have it both ways, unless this kid cooperates, which he didn't.

Disingenous? What a way to go ad hominem, Finn. And what a way to utterly ignore the substance of my post.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 3:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Disingenous? What a way to go ad hominem, Finn. And what a way to utterly ignore the substance of my post.

It’s not an ad hominem, and whatever substance your post has is dependent on getting this crucial fact right: this kid refused to leave peaceable. If you choose to ignore this, then I’m not really sure what relevance the substance of your post can have, but I’m pretty sure that you can’t genuinely ignore it. There are really only two options here, you either let this kid disrupt the entire preceding or you forcibly remove him, and that’s not the fault of the police – that condition was set by him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh wait, I do have a copy.. here.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/contol_vs_command.htm
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/deescalation.htm
Stuff like this is CRUCIAL, in my opinion, need to know stuff, which damn well should be part of any academy curriculum, but what we have now, wellll....

Hmmm. I wonder if we could get Bush to read the bit about secondary victories. I think the material is applicable elsewhere as well.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 5:42 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hey,

What's an 'ad hominem?' I must've read that term used here a bajillion times, but have no idea what it means. It might as well be the word 'it' though for as often as it's used by everyone.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 6:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch2, I do not believe the issue is one of "conflicting rights". The REAL issue is: Who controls the (armed) controllers? It's a systems problem. Feedback loops have to be built in. The more power a system has, the more controlled it needs to be. If you issue guns, tasers, batons, warrants, badges, and support to a group, procedures need to be in place that this group doesn't abuse its power.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 6:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sig you think this guy should be allowed to shout hog the mic and monopolise the time with Kerry. Would you think the same if it was a skinhead shouting down a Holocaust survivor? Would you mind if, say the Christian right shouted down the Democratic presidential debates?

These are trivial questions. My logic is not as "context sensitive" as... say... yours. I walked thru the situation from multiple aspects. approached it from several directions to see where my "line" is and why. It has nothing to do with my sympathies. IMHO the level of force that the police use must correspond to the level of force they face. It's a tough call but (1) without some sort of standard for "use of force" then the force used will be uncontrolled and (2) that's part of the job.

In this particular case the "force" amounted to no more than shoving, hopping, and shouting. No punches, no kicking, no weapons of any sort. With six campus security they could have each taken a limb and had leftovers. I think what the police did was cowardly and lazy.

Quote:
For a society to have intelligent discussion there has to be rules.

And for a society to have intelligent law enforcement there have to be rules. And I think it's WAAAY more important to place rules on tasering (beating, tear-gassing, shooting) people than it is on "hogging the mic".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 6:46 PM

Ok, let's come at it from a completely different angle, since HKC has wedged that door a lil bit.

Bear with me, as I am posting from a teensy-tiny laptop that shoulda been mercifully retired years ago, till my PC mainboard comes in, spelling and formatting may not be up to snuff for a bit.

Anyhow, to the subject, from a wider angle.
Ask yourself THIS question.

What would you kill a person for ?

In the end, all government, of any kind, boils down to naked force, and the police are the instrument of government in that respect more often than not - and no matter how ridiculous, idiotic, or contrary to sense and reason the demands they enforce, in the case of resistance to those demands, the end of the force continuum is death.

Man gets parking ticket for parking in front of his house, cause city council decides they wanna run the leaf sweeper - and he didn't get the notice.

Man says screw it, tosses the ticket as idiotic.

State suspends mans license.

Some time later, cop runs the mans plates as he goes through a drive through, pulls him over.

Cop attempts to place man under arrest - man refuses to comply.

Cop threatens force, man replies with drawn weapon and attempt to escape a now lethal threat.

Cop draws service weapon and kills man.

Over a parking ticket.

The absolute end of that continuum is killing, no bones about it, so whenever someone chooses to involve the police, THAT is the decision they are making - can I have your understanding of that basic principle here ?

So, when you consider engaging the agents of the state, the question YOU should ponder first is.

"Am I willing to kill this person, over this?"

Cause it *MAY* come to that, in any case, in every case, the potential is there.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:01 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Frem,

I'm having trouble seeing past the fundamentally flawed idea of drawing a weapon on a police officer who is trying to arrest you.

It sounds like the person died for stupidity, not a parking ticket. It's true that the force continuum ends with death, but it doesn't start there. The person in your example advanced it to that end.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:15 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

A real life example: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/63438.php

From jaywalker to cop-killer.

Talk about continuum of violence. Sometimes it might be helpful to step into the nazi stormtrooper cop's shoes and imagine things from his point of view.

Incidentally, the partner of the man who was shot showed remarkable restraint, refusing to fire at a fleeing suspect who had just shot his partner in the face. The safety of bystanders meant more to him than revenge.

A good example that not all officers are agents of violence or bullies. I know some officers abuse their power, but this case clearly shows officers who didn't. The entire force will probably be coached to treat even minor arrests more seriously in the future.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:28 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Sig you think this guy should be allowed to shout hog the mic and monopolise the time with Kerry. Would you think the same if it was a skinhead shouting down a Holocaust survivor? Would you mind if, say the Christian right shouted down the Democratic presidential debates?
These are trivial questions. My logic is not as "context sensitive" as... say... yours. I walked thru the situation from multiple aspects. approached it from several directions to see where my "line" is and why..

Actually that was my point. In reality for rules to be effective they have to be universally applied. If you think this guy has the right to shout people down and that you shouldn't use force to remove him if he refuses to stand down then you have to apply those same standards to everyone. My guess is that you wouldn't want to live with the consequences of a society where such rules can be ignored.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
A good example that not all officers are agents of violence or bullies.

Who said ALL officers are bullies? Not me. I think it was Fletch2.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Actually that was my point. In reality for rules to be effective they have to be universally applied. If you think this guy has the right to shout people down and that you shouldn't use force to remove him if he refuses to stand down then you have to apply those same standards to everyone.

Sure. How much force, and what kind? I've already defined my notion: Use the force equal to the force that is used against you. You seem not to be able to read.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 8:11 PM

DINKY

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kerry watches on as innocent man is TORTURED! Well, that's the sort of headline we'd expect, if it was Bush or some other GOP/Conservative giving the speech and a student was treated that way.

Hahaha! Yeah right. Man this is what happens at Democrat conventions man, look at the Chicago Convention of 1968. They're ok with protest, just as long as it doesn't happen to them.

And John Kerry, a former protester himself, just sits up there and continues his ridiculous talking while the kid is being beaten. He's up there continuing to answer questions, he does NOT stop and yell "Oh let this kid up! This is a democracy, his opinions should be voiced, blah blah blah" - instead he ignores the kids torture and continues on with the Q&A. He, himself a protester does this. It's kind of like a protester spitting on another protester...

The moment that kid mentions skull and crossbones he was jumped on by the cops. Which was obviously wrong, he asked several questions beforehand with no problem, but a skull and crossbones question means "get the handcuffs out"??? That kid should sue them, he did nothing wrong in the first place to even be considered taken into custody! He was tasered because he resisted arrest, but he shouldn't have even been under arrest in the first place, so the taser never would have been necessary.

Normally I stay out of political topics in this forum, as they seem to continually recycle, one after another pops up with the same one sided views as the last. But for the sake of this poor kid, I had to say something in this one :D.

"Th3re !s n0 spo0Ne." -The Matricks

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2007 8:49 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Dinky, I think you are ill informed.

In fact, he was asked to leave earlier.
Then his mic was shut off.
Then he was being escorted away.
Then he resisted that.
Then he attempted to evade the police.
Then they attempted to restrain them.
Then he resisted that.
Then he was tased.
Then he cooperated.

He wasn't beaten at any time. Just grabbed and held and tazed.

I also don't really think this is a Democrat or Republican issue. People care about this for reasons beyond petty politics. Although I endorse the forcible removal of this kid, I completely understand and sympathize with the position of those who do not. Getting tazed is fucking scary shit.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hey,

What's an 'ad hominem?' I must've read that term used here a bajillion times, but have no idea what it means. It might as well be the word 'it' though for as often as it's used by everyone.

I gave a quick scan, and I don't see anyone answering, so I'll toss in.

It's latin 'to the person'; basically it means attacking the person rather than the arguement.
a: The sky is blue.
b: Only idiots say the sky is blue.
Clearly an 'ad hominem' argument.

a: The sky is blue.
b: That is such a sophomoric position to take.
Harder to say; I've given up protesting that it is an 'ad hominem' since it is technically an attack of the 'position' rather than the person; however, some folks will still take offense. Obviously, shades of grey here.

And if you want more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

(If you wish to discuss more; pls open a separate thread so we don't distract too much from the topic.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In this particular case the "force" amounted to no more than shoving, hopping, and shouting. No punches, no kicking, no weapons of any sort. With six campus security they could have each taken a limb and had leftovers. I think what the police did was cowardly and lazy.
Quote:
For a society to have intelligent discussion there has to be rules.
And for a society to have intelligent law enforcement there have to be rules. And I think it's WAAAY more important to place rules on tasering (beating, tear-gassing, shooting) people than it is on "hogging the mic".

I suspect if you truly dissect what the cops did here, you might find they made some mistakes; but the mistakes they made are probably fairly subtle. First, I suggest reading both of Frem's links above, they give some very good insight to what may need to be done to de-escalate; it's possible these cops didn't follow all possible angles on this one. It's also possible that what happened is -exactly- what the student wished to achieve; a secondary victory.

I believe it was reasonable to cut the mike.
I believe it was reasonable for the venue owner to request the student to be removed. It is my understanding the venue owner so requested; if you have a beef with that, be clear the beef is with the venue owner. Certainly, as the venue owner, they could have made a different choice. Note: Kerry is/was -not- the venue owner.
At this point, the police then have little choice, they must remove the student or they will be in trouble with their superiors.
The police asked the student to step out; he declined. Up to the point of tasing, it appears to me that the police used reasonable force; if you disagree please advise, and we'll dissect more of the event.
At this point, the police -may- have made a mistake; they told this fellow who was not permitting himself to be cuffed that if he didn't cooperate they would tase him. At this point, the student, -loudly- advertised that he didn't want to be tased; it is my belief that is -exactly- what he wanted to provoke. Cops now at a fairly no-win situation; they apply the taser, and cuff him.

Personally, I felt the student was demonstrating 'attention seeking' behavior. While you might argue the venue owner should have chosen otherwise, the owner was within their rights to make the request. My guess is that if the choice was made was to simply ignore him; nothing more would have happened other than the student would look like a fool... one risk, the student might have escalated... perhaps jumped on the stage with Kerry (since clearly he felt he 'deserved' to 'have the floor'), then what?

Given the attention seeking behavior, I believe the student would have escalated -any- response until something similar happened as to what did. All in all, I'm not convinced the venue owner nor the police really made a mistake. The only one who knows is the student, and I doubt very much he will honestly ever state exactly how far he was prepared to escalate.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 23, 2007 4:52 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
A good example that not all officers are agents of violence or bullies.
Who said ALL officers are bullies? Not me. I think it was Fletch2.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

No it was you

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Yes, bullies will be bullies but cops are bullies with badges and weapons, and that makes THEM need to be controlled, otherwise they just become another kind of gang.

I worked with two people who became cops. Both of these people were college graduates, one (a chemist) became a cop because she WAS a bully, and the other (a sociologist) became a bully within two years of joining a police force... to the extent that he bragged about breaking someone's tail light and them giving them a fixit ticket (Apparently that was his force's way of issuing as*hole tickets.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 23, 2007 5:15 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Thanks, Lead. So an ad-hominem attack attacks the person, and does not counter the argument.

Well hell, no wonder I hear so much about them here. That's practically half of all arguments on this board.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 23, 2007 5:51 AM