UF student tased at John Kerry speech by AURaptor

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
[...]the answer is...no. [...]

Ya gotta admit, even if you don't agree with the guy, he has a sense of humor. I hurt myself laughing at this. I left a message with my lawyers' secretary, he said he'd get back to me first thing tomorrow.

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 11:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I see the jackboots are out in full force.

Eh, I'm too busy. I spent too much time on this board last week, and I got behind on my wanton oppressing of peaceful protesters and kindergarten kids.

I need to go stomp some puppies.

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 12:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"What if he's not 'just a pissed college kid'; what if instead he's a 'calculating college kid' who understands that if he wants his 'message' to get out, he's -got- to get the police to at least cuff him, and better taser him. If he doesn't get the coverage, he will in his opinion failed. What percentage of cops have (not should have, but do) the skill to get someone out without resorting to at least cuffs if not a taser under such a circumstance? Much of what I saw suggested 'theater' rather than genuine anger. Does that change what tatics you think the cops should have used?

Not really.

The key to verbal de-escalation, combined with perhaps a bit of shadowdance thrown in for positioning, is two words - "I want."

What did this guy WANT?
His questions answered ?
To provoke a response ?

Fact is, we do not know - we can assume, sure, but we do not *know*, and secondguessing that is irrelevant when proper de-escalation methods are used.. to be downright blunt about it, most cops escalate a situation without even knowing it, by invading personal space, assuming a threatening posture, and then verbally abusing or threatening, stuff virtually *Guaranteed* to escalate a situation when dealing with someone who's flaked out, be it drugs, rage, fear, or a percieved wrong done unto them.

Cutting the mic ? good response, that one.
Again, I haven't seen the video, but experience tells me they bungled the verbal - and IF he was lookin for an incident, then they walked right into it completely oblivious, which is IMOP an even *worse* gaffe than overreaction, outright incompetence on their part.

Also, the angle of de-escalation can change rapidly, because anything that triggers a fear reaction from the person you're dealing with requires an instant change in tactics - that whole me-have-bigger-club shit is the root of a whole bunch of needless problems, and something that needs to be addressed at the entry level, cause once calcified, retraining is not time-cost effective.

I do not know what was said, but ponder two potential scenarios.

#1 - "Ok guy, look, you made your point, and the property owner has asked us to escort you from the premises, and we gotta do that, so let's us take a walk shall we ? no need for any trouble or hassle, I hate paperwork, and I'm sure you don't want any hassle, so why have any, right ?"
(Offered from outside personal space, in a paternal and comforting tone, followed by edging towards the door yourself, as if it's the only reasonable thing to do...)

#2 - "Ok you fucking punk, you're gonna move or be moved, and don't try me cause I'll fuck your day up totally, asshole!"
(Snarled from inside personal space, in a threatening tone, combined with an aggressive posture while advancing into dire threat range.)

Which one do YOU think would have worked better ?
Which one do YOU think was closer to the actual approach used ?

Some of the mistakes are so common, so obvious, that there's no excuse whatever for them.
-Frem

Re-watched the original video trying to keep the 'open attitude' open...
Ok, to your two questions...
'Which one do YOU think would have worked better ?' While I believe the first question was clearly 'more right' than the second question, I'm not convinced it would have worked better.
'Which one do YOU think was closer to the actual approach used ?' Hard to say; very hard to hear the officers. I will say this; they kept their volume under very good self control. They managed to avoid the 'loud angry', and I'm confident they did a good job of staying away from the abusive language.

The 'paternal, outside of personal space thing' I do not believe was an option; the guy was hyped up and hopping about; until they laid hands on him, he appeared to be determined to 'hold the spotlight'. Maybe orienting themselves between Kerry and the student, and 'herding' the student to the exit? Of course, heaven help the cops if an audience member then got hurt.

Could they have handled it better? Probably.
Could they have handled it worse? Yes.
Could they use better training? Probably.

The problem is to go much deeper you get into theoretically. I can easily argue the position that the student would have continued to speak loudly and move erratically until restrained and forced to exit regardless of the strategy used.

Would it have better simply to have dragged him out un-tased? Honestly, I don't know; it's possible in doing so he would have been hurt worse. While I don't know if there was a way to defuse this -instance-, I do believe that what the officers did was reasonable.

What I'd love to get is someone to unlayer the audio tracks; isolate out Kerry; isolate out the student; then see if we can make out what the officers actually said. In any case, that's where I'm at pending further information.
---
Regarding the couple asking for directions getting to spend the night in jail... obviously, wrong. I tried digging around, and while they threatened to sue, I can't find anything on the web as to followup. Here's hoping the cop(s) involved get sacked.

Regarding the kid parking in the commuter lot; it sounds like the cop in question got perhaps not what he deserved; but at least he was removed from duty. Here's hoping he doesn't find his way back into law enforcement.

Regarding the 'white elephant'; my experience with the police over the years has clearly been very different from yours. On the flip side, I've spent the last 20 years in a relatively small community (50,000) about 3 hours out from NYC. The 'biggest' problem we had was probably about 4 years back, some NYC drug dealers tried to setup shop in the area. While I certainly won't be naive enough to say they are completely 'gone', they at least learned this is not a place to get away with shooting and stabbing folks; things have settled out fairly well.

In general what is problematic, take the incident with the kid in the parking lot; if he didn't have a video (audio, anyway) of the incident; what are the odds the cop would have gotten any disciplinary action, much less let go? Small to none.

In any event, I'm definitely leaning toward...
Requiring better training regarding de-escallation.
Civilian review of taser use.

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 1:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
because I am an American living in Mexico, and while Mexico isn't a third world country where they torture dissenters, it is far closer to that than the U.S. is. If the cops pull you over here, they don't need probable cause (well maybe they are supposed to have it in theory, but if so, they ignore that particular rule) and you will more often than not be given a choice between a bribe or arrest.

Plus, when they do arrest you, Mexico's justice system follows Napoleonic Law, in that the basic assumption is the reverse of the one in the U.S. Instead of "Innocent until proven guilty", with the burden of proving your guilt on the state, it is "guilty until proven innocent" and the burden is on the accused to prove their innocence. While none of this is what I would call a serious injustice, it's enough to give a body a newfound appreciation for the U.S. Justice System.

I guess my problem is that I despise ignorance and I want to rectify it when I find it, whether it's in myself, or in others. And this douchebag knows nothing about about how things really work out there and it pisses me off that he thinks he does.

Reaverman, I just can't believe your post. Umm... lets' see... the upshot seems to be that this kid had it coming to him because things are worse in Mexico???

So, we should strive to be like Mexico? Or accept that we share some of their less desirable traits?

I hope you have a chance to travel to Iceland, Sweden, Norway, or Denmark and relieve yourself of some of that macho ignorance.

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

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 1:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Except for a few zingers here and there I've been too busy to post. There's a deep division on this post between the authoritarians and the libertarians/ anarchists and I'm not surprised by who fell on whicb side of the argument.

There seems to be a rather general assumption that authoritarianism is the preferred method of creating "peace" and "order". The problem with that approach is (1) power corrupts and (2) force and pain can escalate a trivial situation into a something deadly.

But more fundamentally, the world is not always the win/lose conflict that authoritarians are mesmerized with. Conflict can sometimes be resolved by win/ win strategies, or by compromise (where everyone gets a little of what they want). In a general sense, it seems interesting that those capitalist countries with the most extreme difference in wealth have the highest incarceration rates.

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

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 4:00 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Oh, and as for playing the logic and reason angle from the pro-taser folk - unless you're assuming people have the short term memory of a goldfish, it's NOT gonna fly.

You all make your position absolutely clear in the beginning of the thread with statements indicating that those who disagree with the established order should be abused, so having done that, shown your true colors through the mask, going back to the logic and reason fantasy fools no one."

Hey Frem... That's a blanket I don't think I deserve to snuggle under. A rather rough and itchy one, too. I'm hoping none of my posts give the impression that I think folks ought to be abused, and I hope none of my posts were anything less than thoughtful.

--Anthony

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

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 4:20 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Edited to add: Oh, and bring a toothbrush. We can provide you a copy of the Koran...but good dental hygene is something you need to handle yourself.H

LOLZ...

I believe it's actually Quran, and I put about as much stock in Allah as I do the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus.

Actually... Santa Claus is pretty much just a commercialized and PG-13ized version of Allah when you think about it. Both of them get whiny weak minded children or childlike idiots to behave a certain way in return for rewards.

And having never seen Allah myself, one can only assume by looking at a lot of his followers that, like Santa, he wears a dumb hat and sports a silly looking beard too.

And FSM is just a mascot for idiot crybabies. So they can group toghether and whine about how oppressed they are. One might wonder if their God might be angry with them if they ate pasta. Take it a step further, and you might wonder if there are any Italian FSM worshipers? That life would really have to suck. Homemade Lasagna the way them goombas make it is the bomb shit. And relax there killer.... before you mount your lawsuit against me for a hate crime, I can call them Goombas cause I'm a greaseball wop myself.

I've got nothing against the Tooth Fairy though. Can't say nothing bad about toothbrushes and good dental hygene. Batman owes his life to good dental hygene... and if you know what I'm talking about, you watch way too much TV for a laywer type.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 6:42 PM

PIRATECAT

Yeh I turned down a union ralley with John Kerry in Pittsburgh but I did go to my NRA meeting instead with good ole Wayne. Nobody got tased.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 7:01 PM

Nah, that wasn't directed at you, Anthony, but rather the few who flatly stated such sentiment early in the thread - showing their true colors, as it were.

That bein said...

One of my points keeps coming back to mind, too, I stated what the law is, what our rights are, and you countered with what would really happen, perhaps cause you didn't quite get what I posted after that, the admission that things don't really work that way.

That's the core of my point though, we created courts and cops to PROTECT our laws and rights, and in practice they serve to actively DENY those to us - there's something very, very wrong with that, and I find it downright offensive that not only are other folks not much pissed about it, they accept it as a standard practice.

If you put up an electric fence to keep your cattle secure, and then lost a quarter of the herd cause the charge was high enough to harm them - you'd do something about that fence, wouldn't you ?

This is about something put in place to perform a function, in practice doing exactly the opposite, which is completely unacceptable in any other business, but law enforcement seems to get a free pass, and I want it revoked.

Civvie review boards are a hell of a good idea, although as stated, had that NOT been caught on tape, it would have been free pass time again - maybe we can use their own surveillence society against em, in our own defense, and that's worth a thought since our efforts to prevent it are matched against the brick wall of a Gov that doesn't care much what us peons think.

By positioning, yeah, a bit of subtle herding wouldn't have been amiss, and no matter that the guy didn't SEEM a threat, I damned well woulda placed an officer or two between him and Kerry, just to be on the safe side - cutting the mic was a GOOD idea given the situation, and the decency to do it AFTER he gave up reason and started ranting speaks well of who made that decision.

Whoever it was who said everyone grab a limb prolly had the best idea, they coulda easily done that and simply carried him out dispassionately without responding to his verbal onslaught, and all he would have done was embarrass himself - and let's *pretend* for a moment that they wouldn't beat him mercilessly as soon as they got him out of sight, right... they carry him to the edge of the property, set him down gently while informing him that any attempt to return WILL result in an arrest for tresspassing, and if he doesn't accept that, cuff him and stuff him, quick and clean... he doesn't get his "scene", and the officers and their actions are on far firmer ground, even if the cameras followed em out the door, yes ?

As for Hero's comments, he's just mostly pissed that if I ever do have my way in this significantly, he's out of a cushy, well paying job where the whole setup is totally in his favor 100% of the time and he doesn't have to do much, so he's protecting his own interests there.
He also has a pretty good, if warped, sense of humor too, and occasionally makes an intelligent comment as well, but then, so too does PN.

In short.
1 - Make police answerable to the community, let them decide whether the officers are serving or abusing it.

2 - Reclass the Taser as a Less-Lethal, not Non-Lethal, weapon and put it in the proper place on the force continuum (think rubber bullets).
(As a bonus, this would provide an extra measure of legal protection to an officer who DID have to use one, as he could justify it more effectively)
Sure, that would end it's use a pain compliance device, but pain compliance doesn't work, and Succotash made the best comment on that one so far.

You'd also have a counter to Taser-Trauma and ED lawsuits by pointing out that next up in the continuum is the service weapon, which is undeniably lethal.

3 - Get these guys some actual training in physical and verbal de-escalation, immediately, that's one use of tax money that will in the end SAVE money by requiring less payout to lawsuits, and less escalation means less incarceration, which is a damned expensive thing when you add in court time and the paperwork, so yeah, by all means do THAT one on my dime.

4 - Regulation over enforcement, focus on crime prevention rather than law enforcement, if there's no crime, you don't have to bust anybody, the "slide" of that focus would have to vary by community, but see also point 1.

It's not really a lot to ask of the Police to actually do the job they're assigned to do, rather than doing it in a manner that's entirely counterproductive in it's effect, leastways I don't think so.

-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

Monday, September 24, 2007 7:14 PM

Also, an interesting thought leaped out at me earlier, which might be of particular interest to some folks like HKCav and those who've discussed how we treat kids with me here before.

I was mentally chewing on the way many officers instantly go fully ballistic the very moment any sign of challenge or defiance to their will or way of looking at things is perceived, and you know, there's a dead-bang match to that kind of behavior somewhere else.

In the poisonous parenting style advocated by Dobson, Esso and the like, the cop-suspect behavior dynamic pointed out repeatedly here, is virtually identical to the parent-child dynamic of this parenting style, one proven to not only not work, but to be traumatic and abusive.

I find myself wondering if that is just one more way the social cost of such idiocy comes back to haunt us, by authority figures who emulate or act out the strategies they learned from their own parents via folk like Dobson.

No way to ever *really* know, mind you - but the thought came to mind when I realized the two behavior dynamics were virtually identical.

Could be wrong, sure.. but you know, I don't think so... really I don't.

-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

Monday, September 24, 2007 8:08 PM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Reaverman, I just can't believe your post. Umm... lets' see... the upshot seems to be that this kid had it coming to him because things are worse in Mexico???

So, we should strive to be like Mexico? Or accept that we share some of their less desirable traits?

I hope you have a chance to travel to Iceland, Sweden, Norway, or Denmark and relieve yourself of some of that macho ignorance.

WTF? LOL, okay where did you get that idea from? What I was talking about was that there are systems out there that I have personal experience with that have real injustice. My point was that before you start shouting about how America is becoming a police state, take a look around at how real police states operate, and thank god (buddah, allah, odin, whatever) every day that we live under a system where this is a big deal.

"Relieve myself of some of that macho ignorance"? WTF does that mean? If you would actually read my post, you would know what an idiot you sound like there.

[img]

[/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 10:13 PM

Umm, RM, dude - don't you get it, folks see it sliding down the crapper INTO that, and wanna stop it.

What part of that did you somehow not get ?

Link to the vid I got to run, sorta

I kinda-sorta got one of the vids to work on the machine, but it looks horrible, still, enough to go on, or rather, go off on.

And oh lawdy, imma gonna go OFF here - you were warned.
(i.e. bail now if you can't handle some profanity and nastiness...)

(okay then..)
The officer who drew his SERVICE WEAPON on this guy ? needs to be fired, IMMEDIATELY.

You don't pull and point a fucking gun at someone mouthing off, especially not WHILE two other offices had him by the arms, that's prelude to a fucking public execution and absolutely needless escalation and provocation, it appeared some of the protestors movements were in response to the gun pointed at him, AND it endangered the other two officers attempting to control the guy.

Muzzle sweeping the lot of em with finger on the trigger ? people DIE from that shit, many for no reason, like that betting pool guy they pulled a dynamic entry on, someone with their finger on the trigger sneezed, hiccuped or twitched, and now the guy is dead - rule number fucking ONE, keep yer booger hook OFF the bang switch unless yer gonna bust a cap.

Rule number TWO, only point at somethin you fully intend to shoot, was this cop gonna cap their buddies or what ?

Rule number THREE, check behind your goddamn target in case you miss or blow through, guess he didn't give a damn about the peons behind the incident, eh ?

UN-ACCEPTABLE, period.

Now, at 14 seconds in, one of the officers approaches the guy, without any discussion or verbal what-so-ever that I could detect (this machine has no sound card and I didn't see any lips moving) - steps into his personal space from his blindside and lays hands on him, clearly startling him and provoking what looked to me like a purely reflex recoil reaction (as he stopped and kinda doubletakes at 15-16) as the other officer moves in behind him.

At 17 he turns to face the officer, a natural reaction since no one likes someone looming behind them inside their personal space, and lifts his arms in a non-threatening body posture.

At 18-19 the officers respond by grabbing his arms and physically moving him, and the larger officer is clearly applying significant force, while the body posture of the protestor is shocked disbelief.

At 20 he AGAIN raises his arms, and proceeds to move towards the exit of his own violition, his stance and expression seem to indicate a desire to de-escalate.

All seems well till 22, something off-camera to the left COMPLETELY spooks the guy (officer drawin weapon perhaps?) and he freaks, the smaller officer is still guiding, but the larger one goes right for the strongarm again.
The protestors body posture indicates not just shock, but fear, perhaps abject terror, at this point he's scared completely shitless, as he backsteps and looks for an alternate route at about 23 - did they make the dire mistake of putting a cop BETWEEN him and the door, cause that quick look... is at the spot where the emergency exit would be in most theatres, he's LOOKIN for a way OUT of there, dammit.

At 24 he erupts into total panic and attempted flight from whatever has frightened him so, he's no longer responding to the officers save as a hindrance to his progress AWAY from the percieved threat.

At 27-28 he seems to regain some composure and goes again to a non-threatening, arms lifted posture, as he moves laterally again, AWAY from a percieved threat, I don't quite see where the third officer came from, but it appears to be from the aisle, which means he moved toward the officer, which he would not have done if he was intent on eluding them, and do note that he is struggling TOWARDS exiting the building, and treating the officers as a hindarance to his exit.

At 29 the new officer, with darker complexion, draws their service weapon, scaring the guy completely shitless again, he attempts to resume a non-threatening position, while the other two keep snatching his arms, his motion indicates fear and confusion.

At 31 the larger of the two officers, displaying finally at least one OUNCE of sense, orders the dark complexion officer to lower the firearm, which they comply at 34 resulting in the suspect immediately calming down and again, moving towards the door of his own violition.

At 35 we see the officer they did in fact, place in BETWEEN him and the door, advancing on the situation and boy does he look like a big and scary dude.

At 37, in spite of the original two officers having control of the situation, officer four choses to put HIS two cents in, steps into the guys personal space and lays hands on him.

At 38 the protestor recoils from THAT percieved threat, the entirety of his motion is AWAY from that big scary dude who just grabbed him, with all the mojo he can muster.

At 39-40 the protestor recovers back into a "WTF?!" body posture, clearly indicating "I WANNA LEAVE HERE NOW!" to the officer, once again moving towards the door of his own.

At 41 the protestor spots something off camera that gives him a moment of pause but he keeps moving, once again treating the grappling attempts of the officers as a hinderance between him and getting the hell out of there, his body posture indicates a willingness and desire to go.

At 43 officer four decides to apply the bumrush in spite of the fact that every time they relaxed their use of force the guy moved further towards the door, and the protestor doesn't seem to be actively resisting, just passively bitching and trying not to be pushed DOWN, he didn't set his legs, grab onto stuff, nothing like that.

At 50-51 the protestor makes a break for it, he's trying to get AWAY from them, especially officer four, the big scary dude, and get out that door, and what does officer four do ?
GRABS him, preventing his escape from the situation, the protestors body is clearly aligned with the door, he wants OUT, NOW - no bones about it.

At 52 he LUNGES for the door, with all his might, and in response, officer four, the very guy he's trying like hell to get AWAY from, wraps him like a package and then at 53-54 slams him to the to ground on that little ramp there - and the situation then goes gonzo.

At 1:00 out come the cuffs, but the situation is way too far gone at this point - they've actively hindered, then prevented, the escape of a guy who very much wanted to leave, provoked him repeatedly in every possible way, scared him shitless and then crushed him to the ground within sight of the exit... I can't see very well but I can presume he'd be kicking, flailing and screaming his head off by now, and given the situation, I can't blame him very much.

I can't see the spot where they tasered him, but I presume, since I didn't see it before, it was while at LEAST four officers were practically sitting on his ass, wasn't it ?
Nice job, applying torture to poor procedure and brutality, yeah.

Summation, they fucked it up completely, in every way IMAGINEABLE and some I would have NEVER even imagined (draw service weapon ??!!) these guys need to turn in their badges, period.

Officer 1 - The little guy of the first pair, unless they totally hosed the verbal, got the most right, was guiding instead of forcing, and had the situation under control for those few moments in between provocations when it WAS actually under control, and did not, themselves provoke, going so far as to go hands off and step back at several points, and if I may offer my opinion, seemed to find the actions of the other officers in some way distasteful unless I mistake his posture and movements.

Officer 2 - Muscle-boy, other than applying a needless amount of force, unless he hosed the verbal, didn't really provoke too much, but his constant arm-snatching and grappling confused and complicated a situation his smaller buddy seemed to have well under control if the other officers had stayed out of it.

Officer 3 - Small dark guy, he needs to go NOW, total over reaction, to the point of a drawn gun ? goddam if a civvie did that he'd be in JAIL - since I cannot logically suggest draggin them out back and delivering a horsewhipping, satisfying that such might be, I'd be content with throwing them off the force completely, there's just no words for how bad he fucked it up, none.

Officer 4 - Big scary guy, in spite of how bad Officer 3's gaffes were, here's the guy who hosed the situation, cause at 35 seconds in, if he had the fucking sense to step aside, rather than placing himself between the protestor and the exit, and had the sense to NOT provoke things, Officers 1 and 2 could have probably walked this protestor right out the door without further ado - and putting the big scary cop in BETWEEN him and the exit ?
I dunno folks, sure it could be complete, total, utter and inexcuseable incompetence, but to go there requires we assume a lack of all common sense and reason, and much as I don't like cops, even I cannot do that - he had to know what blocking the exit and laying hands on a guy already under control was gonna cause, and if he didn't then he needs to go the way of Officer 3 for pure incompetence.

They herded him alright, they herded him AWAY from the exit he very much wanted to reach, and are completely at fault in every category here, provoked and escalated it at every opportunity, even despite efforts to DE-escalate by the protestor himself.

Now, I don't have audio, since this machine has no soundcard, but from my perspective, and bear in mind both military and security training background, although not law enforcement - they totally, completely hosed it, beyond any excuse, and if *I* had ever screwed up THAT badly, I needn't have bothered coming to work the day after.

Upon instant replay, the penalty stands as called - cops fucked it up completely.

EDIT: reposting the links here so you can compare and see just how badly they hosed it yourself.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/deescalation.htm
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/contol_vs_command.htm

-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

Monday, September 24, 2007 11:51 PM

No, I guess I ain't done yet.

Thought it over a bit... fuck the taser, what these cops did, officer 3 specifically, was issue a valid, credible and undeniable DEATH THREAT as a fucking compliance measure.

What was he gonna do, blow his head off if he didn't shut up ?

That's pure fucking jackboot to the Nth degree, and being that the object of his ire was at the time firmly in the control of two other officers he don't even have the laughable pretense of fearing for his life, nope, it was a purely malicious and criminal act.

Legally, morally, past that point *ANYTHING* the guy did to escape the situation and the custody of the people who just THREATENED TO MURDER HIM, is completely justified up to and including physical harm to officers who tried to prevent his retreat.

Fuck the tasing, these guys went lightyears beyond that, and legally they've zero ground to even stand on, not after sticking a gun in the kids face, in public, on camera, in front of a shitload of witnesses, oh hell no.

And anyone who's "OK with that" can go fuck themselves.

I'm actually rather shocked that no one else brought that up or even mentioned it, are we really THAT accepting of such behavior from the street gang dressed in blue ?

-F

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:51 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

The officer who drew his SERVICE WEAPON on this guy ? needs to be fired, IMMEDIATELY.

Having read the incident report 'Tash cited earlier, I note that the officer drew a tazer, not a firearm. At the request of another officer, he almost immediately re-holstered it. Might be worthwhile to review the report.

Also, you might also want to try and find a system with audio, since the sound portion of the video is important to interpreting it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:54 AM

It's amazing how much one sees what one wants to see. How many folks have watched the video and not commented on the drawn service weapon?

For one me. Didn't see it. Re-watched it, sure enough, there it is.

Anyone else miss that, and does it affect your opinion?

I agree it was not just pulled; if the officer had the weapon clearly aimed to the floor or ceiling, I'd say it was a questionable action; but to have it at chest level to the student, which means head level to some of the audience, is simply unwise to say the least. If I was Kerry, I would have hit the deck at that point; guy has some nerve anyway.

I would say the officer with the gun out at least deserves disciplinary action; and possibly separation from the force.

Blocking the exit? I didn't catch that; if true, I think that's another bad move. What if this kid 'gets away'? Clearly he's a student at the school, pick him up later if you feel the need. I do not believe he presented a general danger to the community.

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:00 AM

DINKY

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Dinky, I think you are ill informed.

How am I ill informed? I saw several different camera angle videos, just like everyone else and I know what I saw. His mic was turned off, yes, then the cops started to move on him and a cop PULLED OUT HAND-CUFFS! They don't need hand-cuffs to escort you out, they just need to either tell you to leave or grab your arms and walk you out.

Even so, that kid didn't flip out at first, he only started to flip out after a couple of seconds of the cops making their moves. Sounds to me like they told him he was under arrest.

"Th3re !s n0 spo0Ne." -The Matricks

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
It's amazing how much one sees what one wants to see. How many folks have watched the video and not commented on the drawn service weapon?

For one me. Didn't see it. Re-watched it, sure enough, there it is.

Anyone else miss that, and does it affect your opinion?

If you read the arrest report as Geezer indicated you will see that Officer De Jesus did not draw a firearm. He drew his TAZER. It doesn’t even look like a firearm in the video. Why are you even taking Frem seriously? Isn't it obvious that he's operating purely on histrionics at this point?

Okay someone just told me that if you’re not real familiar with firearms it would be easy to confuse the grainy image in the video.

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 5:09 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Dinky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Dinky, I think you are ill informed.

How am I ill informed?

"he asked several questions beforehand with no problem"

This is the quote that made me feel you were ill informed. Because he did have problems. He was asked to give up the mic before there was an intervention. It wasn't that the 'Skull and Crossbones' question triggered a response, but rather his continued presence in flouting the conventions of the venue and the wishes of those operating it.

--Anthony

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

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 5:42 AM

He drew from the right hip, the weapon had a flash or lazer sight under the barrel, and from where I sit, and mind you I *am* familiar with firearms, it looks like a service weapon to me, was drawn from the location most police carry one, and sorry, if you drew something like that on me as a civvie during a "situation", I woulda shot you.

Get me a better picture then, a still image closeup of his hands and what's in em, cause your word carries no stock with me, and having read the police report and noted that the officers in question prettymuch lied front to back, they sure as hell don't have any credibility with me neither - wouldn't believe either of you if you told me the sky was blue, not till I checked it myself.

Picture, or stop talking - fair enough ?

Histronics my ass, I am pissed off, have every right to BE pissed off, and if I take this object as a firearm, it's quite likely the guy staring down the barrel did too, my assertion stands either way - and who's bright fucking idea would it be to make them resemble firearms deliberately, especially in the hands of a collective that would shoot a kid for holding a "realistic" toy gun ?

You can't have that both ways.

-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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 5:54 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

At Frem's urging I re-watched the video and looked for an officer drawing a firearm.

I was so entranced by the hopping, bouncing, shouting kid, that I didn't see it before.

An officer does indeed draw a dark looking pistol-shaped object with a light or some kind of attachment under the barrel. I might have considered this object to be a taser, but it does not look like the ones I've seen. The officers I've seen who carry tasers have bright yellow or neon colored taser pistols, which signal to everyone that they are not traditional firearms.

I will join Frem in questioning the actions of Officer 3. It was very inappropriate to draw his service weapon during this altercation.

--Anthony

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

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Picture, or stop talking - fair enough ?

If I showed you a picture, you’d swear it was a firearm designed to look like a taser. You’d made up your mind that these officers were SS-troops before you’d even watched the video. The incident report clearly indicates that the office drew a taser, but since that doesn’t fit your hysterical ideology, you ignore it. You’re whole position in this thread has been hysterical from the beginning.

Not that your posts haven’t been interesting. Yours are some of the most interesting on the board, but your argument is still crap.

This is a taser. The same kind used by officer De Jesus.
http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERX26.aspx

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 5:59 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

A second re-watching confirms to my mind that he drew a service weapon. After drawing the weapon, there is a moment where it appears a grappling officer turns to him and speaks to him, at which point he lowers the weapon and eventually holsters it.

If it were a taser, one would think he'd keep it at the ready in order to subdue the subject if necessary. What really seems to have happened is that he drew his weapon and even the other officers involved were like, "What are you doing, man? Put that away."

I also confirmed the dark color of the weapon, which is not typical of taser pistols.

--Anthony

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

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 6:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
A second re-watching confirms to my mind that he drew a service weapon. After drawing the weapon, there is a moment where it appears a grappling officer turns to him and speaks to him, at which point he lowers the weapon and eventually holsters it.

If you watch the video carefully and compare the weapon drawn by Officer De Jesus with the image of the X-26 Taser on the site I posted, you will clearly see the yellow tag on the side of the taser.

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 6:07 AM

For them maybe not so familiar with guns and such, this.

THIS is a taser.
http://www.defensereview.com/article550.html

THIS is a glock 17 with attached tactical light.
http://www.sniperworld.com/books/gear_7.html

And from 29-34 in the video, at NO time do I see a yellow tip on the weapon the dark complexion officer is holding.

I see what looks to me VERY much like a Glock17 with Taclight, enough so to make a shoot/no-shoot decision on someone and bust a cap, if (as a cit, not a LEO) you pulled something like that out on me during a scuffle, from the right hip, I'd have shot you for sure, and as we discussed heavily in the school shooter thread that's not a decision I would come to save in response to a credible threat of immediate bodily harm.

I also state that if you drew that on a cop, they'd shoot you too, and be justified in doing so, and where does that leave us ?

-F

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 6:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And from 29-34 in the video, at NO time do I see a yellow tip on the weapon the dark complexion officer is holding.

First of all, the Yellow tag is visible. Second, the incident report, which you continue to ignore, clearly indicates that the weapon is a taser. Third, why would a campus police officer be carrying a service weapon with a laser sight? I don’t know a single federal agent or military police that routinely carries a weapon with a laser sight.

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 6:26 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Well, I could be wrong. Here are all the stills I could pull of the officer. I also got one still that shows his belt from the left side, which may help?

--Anthony

P.S. Anyone know how to post pictures? (never mind.)

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

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 6:40 AM

Finn, I do not see whatever tag you're talkin about, and I just went frame by frame though that thing, I would need a higher resolution image to make an accurate assessment perhaps, but the object in his hand more closely resembles a Glock17 with Taclight than an X-26, which doesn't mount one - you can clearly see the taclight is on, and since when do tasers come with a taclight ?

And why should I give credence to an incident report written by (in my opinion) the offending party, after the fact, which contains unquestionable bias as well as numerous blatant falsehoods - I am going on the evidence of my own eyes.

Anthony, you missed a "T" in your links, they're htp instead of http, so they're blank X's.
I cut right to em, and in link 2 and 3 you can clearly see the object has a taclight attached, which is on and active - didn't see no taclight on the X-26.

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck - till proven otherwise, I am gonna assume it's a fucking duck, okay ?

PROVE that's a Taser.

And then, if you manage that, ponder how it doesn't much affect that the officers in question hosed this one front to back, constantly provoking and escalating the situation, acting in an abusive manner more suited to a drunken barroom brawl than resolving an incident.

SHOW me a taser with a taclight on it, at the very least, cause I ain't never seen such a thing myself - although admittedly I've been out of the field for years, but you'd think I would know since I do keep my hand in from an advisory capacity.

-F

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 6:45 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hey all,

This is the alleged taser. It does have some kind of light on the bottom. It has a lot less yellow on it than I usually see on a taser, but it does have that yellow rectangle sign on the side.

--Anthony

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

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 6:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Well, I could be wrong. Here are all the stills I could pull of the officer. I also got one still that shows his belt from the left side, which may help?

Thanks, Anthony. The clearest image of the yellow tag on the side of the taser can be seen in a frame or so before the second image you posted. I pulled off some images and when I remember my password for my webspace I’ll upload them and post them, probably tonight.

Also the X-26 has a laser sight on it. I figured that was obvious if anyone looked at the image on the site I posted, but Frem is still arguing that if you can see a laser sight it means it’s a Glock, which isn’t true.

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:05 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Well,

I'd rather be fair than right. No sense skewering someone for pulling a gun if it mighta been a taser.

--Anthony

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

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:09 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hey all,

This is the alleged taser. It does have some kind of light on the bottom. It has a lot less yellow on it than I usually see on a taser, but it does have that yellow rectangle sign on the side.

Well I suspect civilian Tasers are probably bright colours for the same reason plastic guns are -- to prevent a cop with a REAL gun from accidentally shooting you. However, by the look of the styling on this Taser it seems they have gone out of their way to make it look as "macho" as possible, probably because it's a model they want to sell into police departments. I doubt your average cop would want something that is as yellow and wimpy looking as a civilian taser.

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:36 AM

FLETCH2

This is a clearer picture but a sucky angle

The section just above the hand seems to have yellow flashing on it. The Taser seems to have some yellow there, does the Glock?

Note that from his stance this guy is right handed, but this pic shows a holsered gun on his right side and on the left side pic Anthony posted there is a pouch that could be an empty holster on the left side.

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:36 AM

Thanks Anthony - so that model has a taclight and no yellow tip, so you bagged the exact evidence I was asking for, zoom and cleanup on stills shows the taclight at a slightly recessed position, which is consistent with the picture you've posted.

Stupid as the day is long to make em like that, there never be one *ounce* of doubt whether a firearm or taser - and removing the yellow tip causes some severe problems, as we've just seen.

This is the first I have heard of that, so am I correct in assuming that's a law enforcement only model, cause no security agency I know of uses em, and in fact none would for liability reasons, cause unless it's undeniably clear it's not a firearm, most folks will take it for one.

Very well then, I'll accept that the object is a taser rather than a firearm based on the evidence you submitted - it still makes officer 3 a shithead who totally overreacted to and further provoked the situation, and I present to you that in the heat of the moment, other folks, including yon protestor, may have taken it for a firearm as well, especially when you're looking at it barrel on with the taclight obscuring a clear view of the object.

He could very well have thought it was a gun, I know WE took it for one, and that says much.

Also doesn't whatsoever change the fact that the officers in question hosed it, they did everything possible to escalate and provoke, while actively preventing the guy from leaving, as I pointed out in the frame by frame, something he very clearly WANTED to do.

Finn, if you wanna discuss something, discuss it, but acting like a shithead and throwing personal slams into everything you say just makes you look like a prat and savages your already laughable credibility - you could learn some lessons here from Anthony, although we've passionately disagreed on some points, we're discussing it instead of attacking each other - just a suggestion.

Whatever you think of my sanity, my attitude, or political stance, you have to give me that I am at least asking the right questions, without which this would be just one more unproductive tit-for-tat, of which we have too many as it is.

-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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:58 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Picture, or stop talking - fair enough ?

How about another video from a different angle?

=

Within the first few seconds of this video you see the officer on the left of the image holding the tazer, the yellow tag pretty visible against the female officer's shirt at about second 5. You can also see his service weapon in his holster on his right hip. At about 13 seconds in, he holsters the tazer on his right belly area and the service weapon is still visible on his hip.

Edit to add:

Seconds 18 to 24 or so sure looks like the officers are trying to move Mr. Meyer up the aisle to the door. When they get near (the female officer already going through the door) Mr. Meyer breaks loose and runs away from the door to the side. I don't see him trying to leave the auditorium.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

REAVERMAN

Quote:
...What I was talking about was that there are systems out there that I have personal experience with that have real injustice.

Macho. And... so what??? If you had experience with Pinochet's Chile or Iran's Savak (under the Shah) would you then be telling is that Mexico isn't so bad? Do you intend to justify one bad system with an even worse one ad nauseam?

Quote:
My point was that before you start shouting about how America is becoming a police state, take a look around at how real police states operate

The only "point" I see you making is that "you've seen things" and that makes this particular incident acceptable, somehow.

Quote:
and thank god (buddah, allah, odin, whatever) every day that we live under a system where this is a big deal.

Which YOU seem to be intent on downplaying until it's NOT a big deal, bringing us a couple steps closer to Mexico.

Quote:
"Relieve myself of some of that macho ignorance"? WTF does that mean? If you would actually read my post, you would know what an idiot you sound like there

Eh. You've had personal experience with worse. Big effing deal.

BTW, America has the highest incarceration rate in the world*. Based on that alone, I think we could be reasonably classified as a "police state". And yet despite our HUGE incarceration rate (more than the Russian Federation, South Africa, Mexico, Iran, India, Australia, Brazil, and Canada combined) along with beatings, shootings and other forms of authoritarian actions, we have THE highest murder rate (by several factors) in the developed world.

Time to get it into your heads: Authoritarianism doesn't work.

*
www.pbs.org/now/shows/322/americas-prisons.html
www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:34 PM

RUE

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

Curious if this guy WAS trespassing. All I've seen is a simple assertion he was, but no facts. Does anyone have any facts on the trespassing claim ?

Was the person a student ? If not, I'm guessing that the university is a state school. If it is, that makes it public property. In addition, MOST state university functions are open to the public - either gratis or by charging non-students a nominal fee (which is how a lot of student union-type groups make their money). Was it open to the public or did he pay for a ticket or otherwise gain 'lawful' entry' ?

You see, trespassing just doesn't wash unless you show he was actually - trespassing.

So, going on the assumption no one can show he was trespassing, and he neither took over the agenda or disrupted the question and answer session (it was all over at the time), can anyone come up with a rationale for tasing him ? Seeing he was doing nothing illegal or threatening and all.

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

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:27 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Curious if this guy WAS trespassing. All I've seen is a simple assertion he was, but no facts. Does anyone have any facts on the trespassing claim ?

Mr. Meyer was charged with Disturbing the Peace and Resisting an Officer With Violence, per the police report.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/18/offense.report.072274.pdf

The hall was being used for a school function set up by Accent Productions, identified in some news accounts as the student government's speakers bureau. The police report states that the Director of Accent was the person who asked the police to remove Mr. Meyer from the hall.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:28 PM

Rue, from what I have been able to gather, it was an open-mic event, with an intended Q&A session after - the student came on strong, but Kerry agreed to answer his questions, and they shut the mic off when he started ranting - now, that COULD have gone the way of handing the mic off and watching Kerry squirm trying to answer, and if Kerry had 2 hours, surely they coulda let this guy rant a bit - a lotta folk are very pissed off, hell, I am one of em, but it didn't go down that way... they didn't like his questions, is what it seems to me, and the officers clearly initiated hostilities by stepping into his personal space and laying hands on him, going right to the brute force approach guaranteed to escalate a dispute into a full blown situation.

If I am having a debate with a fellow citizen, heated or not, and he steps into my zone and lays his hands on me - that's assault, and imma remove him from my zone, or remove my zone from him, using violence if need be.

For mine own, I damn well would have LIKED to see Kerry TRY to answer those questions - but we can't have that, can we... folks might start asking OTHER questions not in the script, and the answers, or lack of em, might start makin people think - and they REALLY can't have that, can they ?

As for most of the audience, typical sheep, they were watching the "show", they cheered the student, and then cheered the cops when they manhandled him, nothing is more fickle than the mind of the mob... just a real life extension of watching COPS on the TV at home, yanno ?

I did try watching it on the Fremgirls laptop, and I think I hear a woman verbally laying into the cops, but the ambient noise level sucks and she could be cussing the protestor for all I know, but if someone, ANYONE, stood up and laid into those jackboots, it'd make me feel a lot better about the situation, honestly.

No Rue, I cannot come up with a rationale for laying hands on him and threatening him in the first place, much less tasering him - and from where I sit it looks like they ambush-grabbed him without so much as a verbal warning, so it's unacceptable from start to finish.

SOP when a debate moderator cuts the mic on you is to either concede the floor, or attempt to finish your point (you've seen professional politicians do this, no one grabbed THEM and hauled em out, did they ?) and then concede the floor, and who knows, given the opportunity, the kid might have handed off.. as it was, they never even gave him the chance, they were gonna shut him up, and punish him for daring to ask some hard questions, had their minds made up to do it, and by golly they were gonna do it.

They had no right to charge him with anything, not even disorderly conduct, since any political discussion is bound to get a bit heated, and he was well within the curve in that respect.

If anyone should be charged here, it's the cops, starting with assault, and following with battery, brandishing, FELONY battery (tasering), unlawful arrest and imprisonment, kidnapping, and disorderly conduct.

-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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Thanks Anthony - so that model has a taclight and no yellow tip, so you bagged the exact evidence I was asking for, zoom and cleanup on stills shows the taclight at a slightly recessed position, which is consistent with the picture you've posted.
…
Finn, if you wanna discuss something, discuss it, but acting like a shithead and throwing personal slams into everything you say just makes you look like a prat and savages your already laughable credibility - you could learn some lessons here from Anthony, although we've passionately disagreed on some points, we're discussing it instead of attacking each other - just a suggestion.

Really? That’s pretty funny, because the picture that Anthony posted, that you decided was the exact evidence that you were looking for (that I should learn from), is exactly the same picture from the site I provided you several posts up. How dumb does that make you look?

But I am glad you finally came to terms with the evidence I’d already gave you.

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:55 PM

RUE

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

From the police report

Resist officer with violence
Disturbing the peace

On the above date and time the defendant Andrew Meyer was being lawfully detained for inciting a riot and disrupting a school function

At approximately 1245 hrs., Ambassador Jett informed the audience that there would be a question and answer session and that Senator Kerry would only be answering about 6 questions, 3 on each side of the room where there were microphones set up. Senator Kerry told Ambassador Jett that he might be able to answer a couple more, time permitting. Senator Kerry was answering questions during the "question and answer stage" of his presentation when the audience was told there would only be one question left to be answered. After the question was answered, Senator Kerry stated the question and answer was over and thanked the audience for asking their questions. The approximate number of people in line asking questions was about 20, and Senator Kerry answered about 8 questions. All of the people standing in line started to dissipate and either sat back down or started to leave.
As Senator Kerry was ending his speech, a man disrupted the senator by screaming, yelling, and flailing his arms.

-----------------------------------------
By no stretch of the imagination was he even close to 'inciting a riot' nor was he 'disrupting a school function' as it was over.

So, why was there any police involvement seeing as he was doing nothing illegal or threatening ?

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

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 3:57 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
It's amazing how much one sees what one wants to see. How many folks have watched the video and not commented on the drawn service weapon?

For one me. Didn't see it. Re-watched it, sure enough, there it is.

Anyone else miss that, and does it affect your opinion?

I agree it was not just pulled; if the officer had the weapon clearly aimed to the floor or ceiling, I'd say it was a questionable action; but to have it at chest level to the student, which means head level to some of the audience, is simply unwise to say the least. If I was Kerry, I would have hit the deck at that point; guy has some nerve anyway.

I would say the officer with the gun out at least deserves disciplinary action; and possibly separation from the force.

Blocking the exit? I didn't catch that; if true, I think that's another bad move. What if this kid 'gets away'? Clearly he's a student at the school, pick him up later if you feel the need. I do not believe he presented a general danger to the community.

Hey leadb,

I appreciate the even-handed approach you take to posting on this board in general. Your ability to question your own assumptions and change your position if you see sufficient reason to do so is, well, it's actually inspiring to me. It's a real breath of fresh air. Thanks.

In the interest of giving you a better idea of where I'm coming from, I invite you to participate in a thought experiment. I wonder what new thoughts and feelings would come to you if you reviewed the video again, only this time imagining the officers were dressed in street clothes; as if they were simply 4 human beings interacting with an unruly and obnoxious 5th human being? Is this how 4 well-armed people should behave with an unarmed and emotionally overwrought individual? Is it fair? Is it helpful?

You know the old saw: With great power comes great responsibility. Well, here are 4 people given the power of life and death over this young man, and that, to my mind, gives them tremendous responsibility to the young man in their power.

We assume that most people would be appalled to see an adult brutally hurt a child in their care. But really, that isn't necessarily true at all. Many people have been hurt terribly by their own parents, but grow up seeing the spankings or beatings or the verbal denigration as normal, even necessary 'cause they were, y'know, "little hellions."

Such people might see an adult abusing a child and feel no more empathy for that child than they do for their preadolescent selves. Once they've decided that the child "deserved" the abuse--or assumed that the child probably "deserved" the abuse--after all, only very bad people would abuse a child without good reason, and very bad people are vanishingly rare, mostly in other countries or at least other neighborhoods...

I can't help being appalled at how callous several on this board have demonstrated themselves to be toward the young man who got tased. There's now a thread featuring a video of the kid's real cries of pain at being electrocuted inserted into M.C. Hammer's "You Can't Touch This" for the sake of humor. Actual cries of human suffering are a joke to some people. And we're not talking about jokes made at the expense of a vicious dictator like Saddam Hussein, but comedy derived from the improvised punishment of a confused 20-something American boy pinned to the ground and electrocuted.

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 5:32 PM

What a day in the thread; my last post was just before work; and now I've barely caught up. I see the consensus is that the officer pulled a taser, not a service weapon. While as Frem points out, it may well have escalated the situation, it is not the incredibly 'unwise' action we first envisioned.

The second 'angle' Geezer posted was also most enlightening:

=
This angle makes it very clear that there was no officer posted / hanging out between the student and the exit. This removes a 2nd what to me would have been significant error on the part of the officers. It very strongly re-enforces my earlier perception the student did not want to leave; but instead wanted 'the floor'.

Frem,
I'd really like to thank you for speaking frankly on this topic; I'm not sure at the end we'll end up agreeing, but you did get me to look at this from another angle. I think you make a very good point that it is a very poor choice on the part of the police departments to permit the use of tasers which are not clearly visibly distinct from a handgun.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
It's amazing how much one sees what one wants to see. [...]
pick him up later if you feel the need. I do not believe he presented a general danger to the community.

Hey leadb,

I appreciate the even-handed approach you take to posting on this board in general. Your ability to question your own assumptions and change your position if you see sufficient reason to do so is, well, it's actually inspiring to me. It's a real breath of fresh air. Thanks.

Thanks for the kind words. The other hard part is to then not come off as wishy washy. I hope I haven't.

Quote:
In the interest of giving you a better idea of where I'm coming from, I invite you to participate in a thought experiment. I wonder what new thoughts and feelings would come to you if you reviewed the video again, only this time imagining the officers were dressed in street clothes; as if they were simply 4 human beings interacting with an unruly and obnoxious 5th human being? Is this how 4 well-armed people should behave with an unarmed and emotionally overwrought individual? Is it fair? Is it helpful?

It's a fair question... but I don't know if the answer is helpful. My first reaction would be 'Damn, I wish I had a cell phone to call the cops.' Yes, I appreciate the irony. The fact is we as a society choose to authorize our police officers to take what actions are necessary to preserve our collective rights; the trick is when does the situation cross the point where the officers are -reducing- our collective rights. Now I can tell you Frem is likely to say we've crossed that line; and I'll say I'm starting to wonder myself. The next question to ask is what is the helpful measured response to put things 'closer to right.'

Quote:

You know the old saw: With great power comes great responsibility. Well, here are 4 people given the power of life and death over this young man, and that, to my mind, gives them tremendous responsibility to the young man in their power.

Agreed; but I will also acknowledge they have other burdens to consider, including the right of the venue owner to ask to have the participant removed.

Quote:

We assume that most people would be appalled to see an adult brutally hurt a child in their care. But really, that isn't necessarily true at all. Many people have been hurt terribly by their own parents, but grow up seeing the spankings or beatings or the verbal denigration as normal, even necessary 'cause they were, y'know, "little hellions."

Such people might see an adult abusing a child and feel no more empathy for that child than they do for their preadolescent selves. Once they've decided that the child "deserved" the abuse--or assumed that the child probably "deserved" the abuse--after all, only very bad people would abuse a child without good reason, and very bad people are vanishingly rare, mostly in other countries or at least other neighborhoods...

Yes, but of course one also needs to recognize that a 2 year old screaming bloody hell might not have had a finger laid to him and is unhappy about being denied some candy. I spent a few years as a foster parent, and I've seen enough that I also recognize there's cases where the cycle needs to be broken. Having said this, the student probably weighs in around 200 lbs; he'd be a big baby.

Quote:

I can't help being appalled at how callous several on this board have demonstrated themselves to be toward the young man who got tased. There's now a thread featuring a video of the kid's real cries of pain at being electrocuted inserted into M.C. Hammer's "You Can't Touch This" for the sake of humor. Actual cries of human suffering are a joke to some people. And we're not talking about jokes made at the expense of a vicious dictator like Saddam Hussein, but comedy derived from the improvised punishment of a confused 20-something American boy pinned to the ground and electrocuted.

Thanks for the warning; I had noticed that thread but just from the title decided I probably didn't want to spend my time reading it.
--- pretty much done responding to HK's... in general.....

So... no gun. Didn't block the escape path. Taser pulled early; cuffs pulled early.

I am still of the opinion that the student went there 'psyched' to 'confront authority'. Frem asked what the student wanted; I believe he wanted to pose as a questioner to have 'the spotlight' to give his spiel (while 'asking' questions he had no interest in hearing the answers to) and then, to ensure his message got out to as many folks as possible, provoke an arrest. He may not have anticipated the tasing; however, I believe he probably doesn't much care. I believe the second video shows he had a clear line out the door; but instead was focused on getting 'back in', and attempting to elicit as much sympathy as possible from the viewers.

In this case, the officers were asked by the venue operator to remove the student. While I do not necessarily believe this was a wise choice, I believe they were within their right to so request this. If anyone knows case law well enough to give a definitive reply, it would be good to know. If you object to the officers -even attempting- to remove the student, please be clear your beef is with the venue operator.

In this case, it is not clear to me that the officer's choices -greatly- affected the student's action. The student consistently attempt to remain at the venue despite at least at one point having a clear path to the exit. I believe he 'used' the police's missteps to attempt to gain sympathy with the audience; and under other circumstances, those missteps with the student's 'playing' of those missteps could have resulted in much worse results; fortunately those results did not materialize.

So, the question is; having declined to take the path out the door, with the student clearly determined to remain, what choices did the police have?
1) Continued holding him until they could get the cuffs on, and leave when they could? True, but it is possible that in trying to physically restrain the student they could have hurt him worse than the tasing did.
2) Simply have let him go? True; not sure what disciplinary repercussions this would have for the police; they are charged to uphold the rights of the venue operator as well as needing to handle the student properly. Heaven forbid if they had left him loose and someone got hurt.

If I'm aggravated with anyone, it is the venue operator. They need to ensure that whoever is calling the shots at an event like this understand that at political discussion like this things might get a bit heated. -Ideally- I think they should have asked the police to ensure that the student could not approach the stage (position themselves between the student and the stage) -then- cut the mic.

Having said that...
1) Bad choice having tasers easily mistaken as guns. Note: this falls back to the police 'unit' or manager for making this option available or mandatory.
2) Bad choice in pulling the taser; in many situations (if not this particular one) it could have caused serious escalation.
3) Bad choice in pulling the cuffs out as early as they were(if not this particular one) it could have caused serious escalation.

I acknowledge I have a strong assumption that the student was prepared to escalate to being arrested, perhaps not 'no matter what', but certainly he managed to do so in this case. I will agree with Frem that had the police used superior methods, it is -possible- that they could have gotten him out without genuinely harming/tasing the kid... but I doubt it. I appreciate other folks see him in a different light, which provides a radically different interpretation of the events.

Regardless of this, I would say I'd like to see
1) Civilian review of all taser use.
2) Police tasers be colored or otherwise plainly identifiable as tasers from both front and side view as such; as much for the officer's safety as for the 'perps'.
3) Police tasers have counters which cannot be reset.
4) Improved training in de-escalation techniques. While I'm not prepared to say that it would have helped with someone prepared/planning to be arrested, I can see Frem's point that the methods used in this event might well have escalated someone who otherwise might not have gone 'over the top'.
5) Can we require Venue operators to take training in identifying the appropriate times to ask for a removal? And if they don't have the training, they aren't 'entitled' to ask for it? Sigh, this probably runs into 'rights' issues where I'd have no hope on getting that one through.

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:59 PM

Thanks HK, that's a ball I was trying to roll a bit, but I guess I didn't get it across, surely not as well as you did.

I deal with this kind of callousness almost every single day, while unsurprising, it never fails to piss me off, to paraphrase Jayne.. "How can that be right?"

No, it ain't funny - never will be, and while we're talking thought experiments, watch a couple hours of Television and jot down a mark on a notepad every time the "Humor" comes at the misery or physical pain of someone else, and you will have answered why Frem hates TV and doesn't watch it.
(And I will note, adding a damn laugh track to those moments is as unfunny as the video you mentioned, for the same reasons)

LeadB, point taken, but a weapon is still a weapon - if you point one at someone as a threat, it's a pretty extreme gesture to be taking, ponder this one - if the officer had, say, drawn his nightstick and pulled his arm back in a threatening manner, would you feel the same ? or perhaps threatened him with pepper spray ? (although if he did THAT, I am quite sure that one would be addressed in the locker room by the other two officers with wet towels!) the risks are about the same, so why are folk so accepting of a Taser when it's clearly classified by even the military as a less-lethal, rather than non-lethal, device ?

At the very least, I think we agree that a Taser should be instantly identifiable as such, and should never be constructed in a fashion that it could be mistaken as a handgun - worth pondering is the thought that from the aspect of looking right down the barrel, with that light in your face, it's not so easy to make that determination as from a 3/4 angle, brightly lit studio shot like the posted here.

On a whim I asked 10 firearm-friendly type friends (aka 'gun nuts') to call "Glock or Taser" and showed em the pics.
Eight said "Glock" - so it's not just us who took it for one.

My suggestion would be diagonal red/white or red/yellow stripes of the sort associated with "DANGER, DO NOT TOUCH!" signs as the tip and a bright blue casing - easily identifiable without losing that 'authoritarian' look they like so much.

Also, imma venture the question that you could prolly answer for me, at what angle did officer four "big scary guy" actually enter the situation ?, cause in the one and only vid I got to run, he enters the picture from down the aisle in a near direct line (at that moment) between the protestor and the exit - did he move laterally down through the seats perhaps ?
Cause if so, that is possibly what sent the protestor into total spook mode around frame 22 of my play-by-play.

I stand by my call on him entering a situation already fully under control and grabbing the guy, sending it spinning back out, however - that was way out of line.

Past a certain point I don't think there was any actual logic or reason to the protestors actions, whether he went in there with intent or not, the situation clearly spiralled way out of control in great part due to the actions of the officers - if they were gonna pick him up and haul him out, or zap him, they should have just DONE it - that constant grab and release and grab some more crap really aggravated the situation needlessly, and from a de-escalation aspect, every time the guy started to chill, they did something to freak him again, the whole of the incident smacks of indecision and incompetence on behalf of the officers in question.

And again, that's a training issue, in my opinion - and negligence by those responsible for it, you'd train a first responder in first aid, you'd teach a traffic cop basic driving safety at the very least, so any officer likely to run up against a hostile or outraged member of the public needs to know how to deal with it.

I agree with much of your assessment, especially herding him towards the exit - he was obviously scared shitless of officer number four, so put THAT guy in a line to flush him out the door - even in a situation such as that, there's a process for it, he steps, you step, let him bitch all he wants, AS LONG AS HE KEEPS MOVING TOWARDS THE DOOR... a procedure officer one was actually following, "reminding" him with a minimum of force or presence every time he slowed or stopped... frankly I think officer one COULD have controlled the situation without the well-meaning interference of the other officers, you keep adding new factors to a situation in that fashion, it's *going* to go gonzo on you.

I concur with your "bad choices" list as well - but imma add in two here.

1A - Bad choice to lay hands on him and get physical without/before even asking him to leave - I didn't see it happen, and again, if it walks like a duck...

1B - Bad choice by officer four to approach a controlled situation and get aggresively physical, more than anything else, that's what sent it over the edge.

As for your "like to see" list, I fully concur with 1-4, and note that an attempt was made to establish #3, but quickly subverted when the FOP handed out leaflets (soon pasted in every police locker room) with instructions on how to fiddle or reset the counters.

They need to go with a total counter like a cars odometer, rather than one that is reset after every shift - this would also improve security on the taser stock, as in order to keep correct count they'd have to be tracked and inventoried in the same fashion as service weapons are.

As for 5, yeah, it's sticky - but in the end it's the venue owners decision on private property, and the event managers to some degree even on public... as a side note, from what I understand Kerry *agreed* to attempt to answer the guys questions, something that should have been taken into account by the officers in question - who MIGHT have had the sense to ask for the now-disabled mic back and hand it to Kerry.
Coulda Shoulda Woulda...

When the venue owner asked the cops to remove him, they shoulda got his attention and told him to leave, at the very least, before getting physical - you wouldn't just grab a drunk and fling him off YOUR property without tellin him to step off it first, would you ?

That's a key point too, you can harm someone by grappling with them, as mentioned above, so if they felt the need to go that far right up front, why NOT just zap him straight up then ?
If it was worth the grapple, it was worth the zap, yes ?

Or did they just not want it to appear like what it really was ?

Maybe decided to cause a little struggle to "justify" it first - I think BOTH sides went into that looking for an "incident", and they sure got one, the protestor wanted to cause a scene (that's what protestors DO.. protest!) the scale of which entirely debateable, but yeah, from all the evidence he meant to raise some eyebrows, sure.

The police, as a whole, entered the situation intent on kicking his ass, maybe not officer one, and perhaps not even officer two, but as a whole, they were intent on kicking his ass more than removing him, and it shows in everything they did - their conduct was right up there with one of them old school deputy dawg types provoking you to "resist arrest", they too WANTED an "incident" in my opinion, and while neither side would be technically in the right, as you pointed out the police have far, far more responsibility on that front.

Really, here's the questions...

If they had simply zapped him on the spot, instead of laying hands on him, would we have accepted that as an appropriate response ?

So why did they get physical right up front like that ?

Was THAT an appropriate response ?

If they were all civvies, and this came to court, and a judge asked you "Who started the fight ?".... how would you respond ?

You just gotta ask the right questions, is all.

-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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:37 PM

RUE

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

One of the best ways to de-escalate a situation - ask - did you have lunch today ? Do you want a sandwich ? Is there anything you need ? Can I help you with anything ? Talk with them like a human being.

Other than that, the man was holding his hands away from his body in a (blatant) sign he neither carried a weapon nor was going for one - ie he posed no threat. And I do blame the police for not knowing when they had a criminal situation on their hands that required immediate physical apprehension - or not, as the case may be. Further to characterize his actions as 'inciting a riot' and 'disrupting a school function' is mere butt-covering by poorly trained stooges who figured to make an authority happy.

I hope that man has lawyers coming out of the woodwork to help. I don't particularly want to bring grief on the University or the individual 'officers', but clearly something needs to be done so they so their job better.

As for any indication he was on private property and trespassing, I still haven't seen any actual data that he was.

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

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:00 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Being an asshole is not a tazerable offence.

Should it ever be, I can think of about 50 people I see on a weekly basis that would be tazered multiple times every day.

And I include myself on that list....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:07 AM

Hey Frem...
"Also, imma venture the question that you could prolly answer for me, at what angle did officer four "big scary guy" actually enter the situation ?, cause in the one and only vid I got to run, he enters the picture from down the aisle in a near direct line (at that moment) between the protestor and the exit - did he move laterally down through the seats perhaps ?
Cause if so, that is possibly what sent the protestor into total spook mode around frame 22 of my play-by-play."

In this view, you can see officer four is -originally- between the student and the door. He -very- calmly walks down the aisle (about sec 19) and the student doesn't seem to care. He steps past the student, and gets himself between the student and the stage; probably a good thing. This clears the path to the exit and puts more 'force' between the student and the stage. He then lays hands on the kid to 'move him along'. (about sec 23) I agree this is a bad choice; consider it added to the list.

"1A - Bad choice to lay hands on him and get physical without/before even asking him to leave - I didn't see it happen, and again, if it walks like a duck..." Neither video is helpful. I only put on my list things I considered clearly substantiated by the videos; however, I'm willing to add this to the list with a 'if this happened, it was...'

"1B - Bad choice by officer four to approach a controlled situation and get aggresively physical"
I agree this is was bad choice.

To this point this angle makes it clear that the student wasn't looking for an exit; it shows they get to the top of the aisle and instead of going for the exit, the kid looks to want to make a cut over to another aisle... and -that- is when the cops start to make a clear effort to take the kid to ground.

Hindsight: cop four should have stayed at the top of the aisle... but moved out of the way of the exit (which was at the top of that aisle). The three cops had the kid moving the right way; but anchoring a position at the cross aisle, but not in way of the exit, would have kept that from being an option when the kid hits the top of the aisle.

--out of time; will check back in later to see where the discussion goes.

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:33 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
One of the best ways to de-escalate a situation - ask - did you have lunch today ? Do you want a sandwich ? Is there anything you need ? Can I help you with anything ? Talk with them like a human being.

This may have been the best way to start. If the event director had walked up to Mr. Meyer after the mic was cut and calmly said "It's time to leave.", Mr. Meyer would have had the opportunity to go quietly. End of story and a non-event.

Based on Mr. Meyer's actions in the actual event, his past attention-grabbing stunts (as displayed on his website), and his ensuring that someone was videotaping, I suspect that going quietly was not on his agenda. If quietly asked to leave, I'm betting he would have either verbally or physically assaulted the event director, or rushed the stage, at which point the officers would have probably had to do pretty much the same as in the actual event.

Although the event director and officers could have probably responded better to the situation, note that we have the benefit of hindsight and endless replays and camera angles, and still have a wide difference of opinion about the best course they could have taken. In realtime those luxuries aren't available.

Mr. Meyer is also not blameless in the incident. His manner from the first was confrontational, (check some of the Youtube videos which show his actions several minutes prior to cutting the mic), which probably led the police to expect trouble. He also had several opportunities to calm down and de-escalate after the mic was cut, and did not.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:19 AM