UF student tased at John Kerry speech by AURaptor

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

LeadB

I'll get back tomorrow I hope (tho never guaranteed). I really have to go. Accent has some rights and the police do have restrictions on use of force. see later, I hope.

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

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

In regards to the woman being tased repeatedly while trying to get up: Please start a new topic on this subject, as the two incidents are completely independent of each other.

I'll second that request. In short, it looks barbaric. Probably completely out of order.

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:03 PM

FREMDFIRMA

As for the lady given the all too common "Taser Treatment"...
I refer you to the above post relative.

"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."

And then people die, and then they blame it on "Exited Delerium" although no one has yet to show me even one single case of death from ED that did not happen in police custody, most often directly following a scuffle, pepperspraying or tasering.

For crying out loud, apply a little common SENSE here, a pacemaker uses electrical shocks to do what ? regular heart function - is it really beyond the realm of possibility that electric shocks to the chest area, especially repeated ones, could UN-regulate heart function ?

Asking me to consider a Taser "safe" (as in Non-lethal) requires that I disregard all common sense and logic, and maybe you can do that, but I can not.
It's a LESS-Lethal, not NON-Lethal, device - and used *correctly* could indeed save lives in cases where shooting someone would have been the alternative.

But can we TRUST the police to do so ?

My answer is... no - I've been on this issue quite a while, although not on this board, and without a radical revamp of police procedure in the face of resistance from the police, the FOP, police unions and other gang members and accessories to this criminal mafia, as well as both apathy from the public, and the rabid, slavering support of jackboot enthusiasts who are pro-police state mostly because they're somehow employed by it or insulated from it...

It's just not going to happen - no more than those rights taken by the Patriot Act are likely to be returned to us any time soon, in spite of promises to the contrary.
Ask any fascist just how long a "state of emergency" can last if it ensures their continued power - and while the scale is not the same, the basic principle is.

"Too much suspicion may be corrected. If you give too little power to-day, you may give more to-morrow. But the reverse of the proposition will not hold. If you give too much power to-day, you cannot retake it to-morrow: for to-morrow will never come for that purpose. If you have the fate of other nations, you will never see it. It is easier to supply deficiencies of power than to take back excess of power. This no man can deny."
-Patrick Henry

It would be far, FAR easier to remove the Taser from their use, than try to make them behave like human beings with it, recall we still have a freakin federal oversight task force HERE trying to make the Detroit police act like something other than rabid animals, and not makin not one whit of headway in that respect - putting the leash back in is gonna require at least a generation or two, IF it can be done at all.

As far as trusting a police report ?
You have GOT to be kidding me!
That's like trusting Enron to investigate their own accounting, innit ?

Turn it around - if the police caught the most notorious sleazebag in your neighborhood red-handed dealing crack, and HE got to write the incident report, would you take HIS word for it ?

I am damned glad I do not suffer under the misperception that the police are always right, or that they're somehow more noble, trustworthy, or honest than the rest of us - dude, they're PEOPLE, and people lie, cheat and steal, it's just a matter of degree.

To be brutally frank about it, no... you're NOT gonna get em to behave with a Taser in hand, we (collectively) gave em a taste of that power, that instant gratification of knowing that even if it WAS a bullshit arrest, they got their licks in, then turned a blind eye to it's use as an entertainment or punishment device (while shouting down folks like me) until it became absolutely unignorable, and now you think they're just gonna say "Oops, sorry" and behave themselves ? - in your dreams, people.

At this point you'd have a better chance of getting a 3yr old to give you back an icecream cone after he's had a couple bites, than getting the police to not abuse the Taser.

Human nature has defeated us in this, and until the core corruption that causes such abuses is addressed, the use of that device needs to be forbidden them (Bad, BAD policeman, no Taser for you till you can behave!) or at the very, very least *highly* regulated and restricted, and fully accounted for in much the same fashion that firing the service weapon is.

Remember folks, to ME, a cop is just a thug with a gun and a bunch of other toys, who has some small amount of legal authority *IF* someone is breaking the law or endangering someone else - and they're every bit as capable of abuse or criminal behavior as the next guy, only more so because they're far less likely to be taken to account for it.

No, that's not a neutral perspective, it's entirely biased in part due to long experience with one of the most corrupt police forces in existance (the BCPD) and a keen understanding of the darker parts of human nature and psychology - but you know what folks ?

I think we *NEED* that perspective in these discussions, as it shows up things that would otherwise be completely missed.

I know I am layin in harsh with this one, but I think someone HAS to.

Or it'll just get worse.

-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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:09 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Sorry Anthony, someone hadda say it.

I am with you on the policy thing, from what I saw, just to hazard a guess, they didn't even HAVE a set policy, and that's inexcuseable.

When you're gonna have an event like this, someone needs to sit the security down and explain what the ground rules are gonna be.

Private security companies do that EVERY time, record the meeting, and put it in writing to prevent liability issues, and I see no reason for uniformed police not to do the same if they are conducting security for the event.

The short form of it, summed up in three words by my former boss, who called me earlier to discuss, of all things, this exact incident...
"That was halfassed!"

Maybe they oughta hire it out next time.

-F

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:11 PM

Frem; what's a FOP? I've noticed you use that acronym a few times...

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Yeah - let's have a BIG complaint about irrational discussion.

Why don’t you look around the board and see how frequently I respond to those kinds of posts, and how often I get into conversations with the people who frequently make those kinds of posts. And then you can explain why I should make an exception for you. Discussions like that tend to devolve into the “I know you are, but what I’m I” attitudes; not unlike you blatantly ignoring any response from me and Geezer and then demanding a response from me and Geezer. So now that we’re clear.

I third Anthony’s request that we close the case on this debate and move to another thread for the other taser incident.

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Frem; what's a FOP? I've noticed you use that acronym a few times...

Fraternal Order of Police, I think is what he's talking about.

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 6:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
PPFFFWWAAAHHH!! GAAAAK! You ARE kidding, right?-SignyM

No. I am not. -Finn

Oh yeah, because the police WOULD report on paper "We blew it, man. We shoulda asked the guy to leave first BEFORE we laid hands on him, and shoulda maybe not tasered him when we had four officers on top of him". I'm not saying the police ARE lying, I'm just saying that if they screwed up they'd never report it. But you seem to think that the police are all boy scouts (or girl scouts in this case) and they always tell the truth. OMG.

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

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 7:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh yeah, because the police WOULD report on paper "We blew it, man. We shoulda asked the guy to leave first BEFORE we laid hands on him, and shoulda maybe not tasered him when we had four officers on top of him". I'm not saying the police ARE lying, I'm just saying that if they screwed up they'd never report it. But you seem to think that the police are all boy scouts (or girl scouts in this case) and they always tell the truth. OMG.

Some police are boy scouts, some are not. What that has to do with anything, I don’t know. And any rational honest person who watches the video would have to conclude that the police were trying to get Meyer’s attention. Now I can’t hear exactly what the police are saying over Meyer’s belligerent ranting, but from what Meyer said it is clear that the police want him to leave. How do you explain that? Of course, you’re not saying the police are lying; you just wanted to make some asinine comment about boy scouts, I guess. So what is your point? That you’re desperate to avoid the evidence right in front of you because of some deep seated prejudice against boy scouts?

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:07 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

We all might have to agree to disagree on this one, folks.

--Anthony

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

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:29 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
As for the lady given the all too common "Taser Treatment"...
I refer you to the above post relative.

"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."

As for the lady given the 'all too common "Taser Treatment"'
Let's ask why she was asked to leave the bar, or whose car she got into. Let's ask how cooperative she was with the Officer or why she felt it necessary to kick his back window.

Signy, we need another thread.

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 9:17 PM

HKCAVALIER

The report also refers to the boy "punching" the police repeatedly. Punching! Show me the kid even making a fist.

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Anthony, other than Finn, who I presume is just bein a jackass (pure conjecture, but if it walks like a duck...) I think we've prettymuch reached a collective agreement on the major points here, anything past that is just nitpicking.

Cops borked it, and badly, due to a combination of poor procedure and lack of proper training.

Student was an asshole.

We really do need to make some adjustments on the if/when of taser use, and probably design as well.

Investing the time, effort and funds on better training (de-escalation, confrontation and use of force) would be a wise and probably fiscally sound idea.

On these four points I think we're prettymuch all in agreement, minus the specific myriad of details no one's ever gonna agree on anyhows.

So for me, case closed.

Any further discussion of cop misbehavior or the safety and procedure of taser use really does deserve it's own thread, cause the size of this one is killin my poor little laptop here.

Barring some jerkwadism, I found the greater bulk of the discussion useful and informative, myself - would that more of these discussions would be 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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FINN

Quote:
Of course, you’re not saying the police are lying; you just wanted to make some asinine comment about boy scouts, I guess. So what is your point? That you’re desperate to avoid the evidence right in front of you because of some deep seated prejudice against boy scouts?

See the above comment about the police report which says the kid "punched" the cops. Watch the video again, Finn. Truth hurts but man up to it. I know you can. BTW- The police grabbed him FIRST far as I can tell. Female officer repeats several times something that could be "Calm down" or "C'mon out" while trying to lower his left arm, but the other cop (a hefty guy) has already grabbed him pretty tightly.

FREM: I assuming Finn is a person not a duck. I may be wrong.

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:48 AM

I'm mostly at case closed; though if anyone (and I know Rue got busy and is likely to post later on the topic (no obligation of course, just observing)) knows if, due this being open and free to the public, if Accent was even within it's rights to ask for the student to be removed. It would be an important point to me.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I don't think the discussion is over. It's not just about this incident. It's about how we,... with the support of people like Finn, Hero, Auraptor and the like... have turned into a police state.

And you have to ask- or at least I do- re we so afraid of open discussion that we can't bear to hear an unscripted question or two? Or listen to a national President speak? Someone demanded to know what horrible things would happen if you exercised freedom of speech. Well, this for example! Being tasered. Being arrested for carrying an anti-Bush sign along a parade route. Being followed by an alphabet agency. To the point where we have "Free Speech Zones. FREE SPEECH ZONES! So free speech can only be practiced with a permit, behind a chain-link fence, away from the media where it won't hurt anyone?

And as far as the USA being a "police state"- Have you looked at our incarceration rate? Highest in the world! At one point, Russia was higher (by a little bit) and so was South Africa. Not anymore! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! YEAH!!!!! I thought this county was about freedom but amazingly I woke up one day and found that we've turned into an authoritarian empire, complete with bootlickers, a phalanx of security agencies and a merc Praetorian Guard. (Halliburton).

Free speech?
Pfah!
It's turned into roadkill.
And there are those who are all too happy to peel up the pieces for dinner.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJNdemo9J31mQmqnADd561EMKuKw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:48 AM

Sig... you've had at least 3 folks say, 'sure let's discuss it in a new thread'. May I suggest you open a new thread; reference a link to this thread and any other thread you think related. Call it 'Where is free speech permitted in the US?' (Or whatever you want. Call it 'Yoda: a retrospective' if you wish ;-) ) Why?
1) this thread is currently a fairly well self-contained topic.
2) this thread is getting very long; and folks like Frem are noting some displeasure in the load time. I merely find it slightly inconvenient, but I anticipate your (very reasonable) extension of this topic is going to drive another 200 posts, minimum.

However... I won't tread on your right to speak freely here if you really wish to; I just think you'll have better luck on a fresh thread.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Leadb- I've said what I wanted. I'll let others create a new thread if interested. BTW- I appreciate your posts. What do you do for a living?

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:42 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And as far as the USA being a "police state"- Have you looked at our incarceration rate? Highest in the world! At one point, Russia was higher (by a little bit) and so was South Africa. Not anymore! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! YEAH!!!!! I thought this county was about freedom but amazingly I woke up one day and found that we've turned into an authoritarian empire, complete with bootlickers, a phalanx of security agencies and a merc Praetorian Guard. (Halliburton).

Hey Signy, I got a question for you.
Are you saying that there are a lot of people presently incarcerated that should not be or are you saying we should stop incarcerating people found guilty of crimes?

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

New thread
www.fireflyfans.net/newthread.asp?b=18

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Leadb- I've said what I wanted. I'll let others create a new thread if interested. BTW- I appreciate your posts. What do you do for a living?

That also works. I might even be the one to open the thread; but time limitations are such I want to nail down the above item before doing so.

I'm a Unix system administrator... with a focus on ensuring compliance to our corporate security rules. Which means I get to push more paper than the average system admin. Also get to play a lot of games balancing needs of the business Vs. actual security of systems Vs. written rules Vs. intent of the rules... etc.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I'm a Unix system administrator... with a focus on ensuring compliance to our corporate security rules. Which means I get to push more paper than the average system admin. Also get to play a lot of games balancing needs of the business Vs. actual security of systems Vs. written rules Vs. intent of the rules... etc.

You might be surprised how difficult it is to find a Unix system administrator. We looked for one for a long time, but no dice. So we ended up getting rid of our Unix systems, which were getting old anyway, and going to almost all Windows. Our cluster is still Linix, but no more Unix network or even Linix workstations. We just couldn’t find anyone to maintain them. This hurt too, because a lot of our software is legacy code that was written on a Unix system.

Incidentally, they’re rebuilding our windows network too, so I’ll be out of work for a week, since I don't have a Unix network to fall back on this time.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
See the above comment about the police report which says the kid "punched" the cops. Watch the video again, Finn. Truth hurts but man up to it.

I imagine it does. An honest person would have to conclude after watching the video that this kid, at the very least, was violently gesturing – which could be interpreted as punching if you’re on the receiving end of those gestures. There are several scenes when he’s on the ground and not visible, and given his behavior so far, it’s not a stretch to believe he’s punching the police.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:49 AM

Finn makes a good point; once the officers lay hands on the student, he struggles. Once struggling starts, I can well imagine that in flailing around, the student easily could have made contact with the officers which could be interpreted as a punch.

It is my -belief- he did not intend to punch the officers. I believe it is probable that one or more of the officers honestly interpreted the flailing as punches.

In any event, this is why the discussion about de-escalation etc above is so important. I believe the police didn't need to lay hands on the student -so early- and if they had not
1) it would have much better left them in the 'right' regarding this issue.
2) it is possible it never would have come to physical contact.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:33 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I my case the person WAS threatening me and my staff. Perhaps you missed the physical move in to try to get past me through the door into a secure area, and the verbal threat "I could be killing you ... or something."

The student was doing neither. Not physically or verbally threatening ANYONE. Please, find me an instance before the police moved in to physically manhandle him.

I don't have any video of your incident, so I guess I'll have to accept that you're not lying to CYA.

"drug addled patient wanders from emergency psych down the hall in the direction of the door
'you guys got anything here'?"

So how'd you know he was 'drug-addled', or was that just an assumption on your part? Might he have been out of anti-psychotics and looking for a refill? Perhaps mis-directed to the pharmacy?

"me, moving to the door to block entry and hide co-workers actions (all of whom are at least a foot and a half shorter than me)
'no, we're not the pharmancy'"

So you moved into his 'space' to block entry. Why not let him in? Don't you consider that, since you're apparently pretty tall, your action might be taken as threatening?

"patient 'casually' attempts to look past shoulder
'don't you have chemicals?'"

Never thought he was either just curious, or possibly disoriented?

"me, moving to block his view
'just like bleach and salt and stuff' (and lots of expensive equipment for specialized testing, but, no matter ...)"

What does expensive equipment have to do with anything, did he threaten to steal or damage it?

"patient, no longer quite able to be cool, fidgets with hands, tries to sidestep
'where's your security? you got no security?'"

Well, of course he's fidgity, you keep getting into his face.

"me (still blocking view of co-workers on phone to police desk at entry)
'yeah, this is a county hopital, we got county police'"

A county hospital? Isn't that a public building? Shouldn't a patient in a county hospital have the right to be there? What right did you have to call the cops on him?

"patient (losing it)
'you know I could be killing you ... or something'"

What a nice guy. He's concerned and is warning you about your apparent lack of security.

"me (assessing no weapon and an better than even match - planting feet - subtle 'just try me' attitude style) ...
patient wanders off as ...
police come thundering in the back door"

So the guy was actually no threat to you at all, left without even being asked, and you still called the po-po on him.

Seems like a possible threat right at your door evokes a different response (drugged vandal/robber/killer, worst-case scenario) than a possible threat to someone else all the way across the continent (just a harmless, incoherent, armwaving loudmouth).

Maybe you deal with 'drug-addled' patients from the psych ward all the time and based your reaction on that. Ever think that maybe the police have to deal with incoherent, armwaving loudmouths all the time and know their potential for harm?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:00 PM

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

Geezer,

"Maybe you deal with 'drug-addled' patients from the psych ward all the time and based your reaction on that."

That was a few decades ago, I've since moved on to a scientific career.

The hospital I worked at had four separate ER units - medical, surgical, psychiatric and a 'surgical corridor' for on-the-fly major surgery. Coming up the hall from the entrance were the medical ER, surgical ER, the surgical corridor, the psychiatric ER, and then our door. Ours was the last door in the hall, the hall ended a few feet further on in a closed, double-wide set of doors. On the other side of that was a surgical suite.

I'm going into this because I want to point out there was no pharmacy anywhere nearby and the Psych ER was less than 12 feet down the hall from our door.

For some reason the psych ER habitually lost their non-violent patients. (I never did for sure figure out why, though I assumed it was b/c of the legal issues about restraining or confining a non-threatening person.) Every few weeks one would come wandering our way. So we got to see quite a wide assortment of patients. Most had (illicit) drug issues - were on PCP or LSD for example. Some wanderers were alcoholics, and some were psychotic or had other serious 'mental' problems. With that one exception, the patients who wandered over were confused, distracted and aimless. A call to the ER to please come get their patient, a gentle turn in the right direction, some walk-with company to keep them from getting lost again - that's all it took.

This patient had dilated pupils, was agitated, pale and profusely sweating. And there's a lot to be said for nvbl - tone of voice, walking pace, stance - which isn't available for perusal in this case like it is for Meyer. Suffice to say Meyer was a fluff ball compared to the patient who radiated ill will without doing anything particularly overt.

So yeah, go ahead and question my experience if you want. I'm sure you think it's a clever distraction from THIS case and THIS discussion and THIS video which are actually the point.

It was nice having a trip down memory lane at your expense.

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:26 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"So yeah, go ahead and question my experience if you want. I'm sure you think it's a clever distraction from THIS case and THIS discussion and THIS video which are actually the point.

It was nice having a trip down memory lane at your expense."

Hello Rue,

First of all I don't think your actual experience or tactics were being called into question. Rather, alternative interpretations were being offered by someone in order to demonstrate that, just as your actions with this individual were justified, so might the police actions with their 'Kerry Kid.' This was obviously done in an attempt to demonstrate that the criticisms being leveled against the cops in the Kerry case could have easily been applied to your reasonable handling of the psych ward case.

I'd like to add that if you want to completely restrict the topic to THIS DISCUSSION, THIS VIDEO, and THIS CASE, then you probably shouldn't bring up alternative incidents that aren't directly related. If you do bring up such incidents, (probably to draw allegories to the current discussion), it's to be expected that others will use those same incidents to make their case. Sort of like introducing a witness at a trial. Once that witness is introduced, others will cross-examine him.

But (and this is for everyone) I really feel that this particular thread has run its course. There's certainly been enough evidence presented to give me pause and make me think. There were moments when I even reconsidered my position. However, unless there is a startling revelation or reasoning around the corner, I think further argument on this topic will only breed further argument on this topic.

--Anthony

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:35 PM

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

I wasn't going to post in this thread, but I said I would be back, and, well, here I am. And I see I'm not the only one to have posted after closing time - LeadB, Finn and Geezer being among them. Unless of course what you want is for Geezer to get his kicks in while I'm not on the board to defend myself, and then keep me from replying when I come back. ???

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:38 PM

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

"if Accent was even within it's rights to ask for the student to be removed"

Accent was within its rights to set the 'rules' for the presentation - as long as they didn't limit WHAT was said. And to an extent they did try to do that, by restricting the topics that the student was allowed to address. That said - and based on my experience of police and county dealing with 'disorderly' people - police are not allowed to physically restrain a person who is not an immediate threat to themselves or others. So Accent could have asked for the police to intervene, and the police could have asked the student to leave. But given his conduct they weren't allowed to try to physically restrain or remove him.

I intend to keep track of this as I'm interested in how it will turn out. It's encouraging that the ACLU seems have it in sight.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/09/21/free_speech/

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

AnthonyT- Track Geezer's posts for a while.

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:06 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AnthonyT- Track Geezer's posts for a while.

A good Poster tracks everyone's posts IMHO.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:13 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

What, in particular, will I be looking for in Geezer's posts?

--Anthony

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You'll know it when you see it.

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:32 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

I reviewed his posts on this thread, and found that he was in favor of the officers on this issue.

I'll check other current threads for additional insights...

--Anthony

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:39 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

I checked another thread, and found that Geezer supports the police there, too. I also got the feeling he doesn't like Senator Clinton.

--Anthony

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:46 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

I guess I'm not too bright, because I seem to be missing the point. I'll appeal to the Firefly community.

--Anthony

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:00 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
See the above comment about the police report which says the kid "punched" the cops. Watch the video again, Finn. Truth hurts but man up to it.
I imagine it does. An honest person would have to conclude after watching the video that this kid, at the very least, was violently gesturing – which could be interpreted as punching if you’re on the receiving end of those gestures. There are several scenes when he’s on the ground and not visible, and given his behavior so far, it’s not a stretch to believe he’s punching the police.

This post is amazing. This thread is full of amazing posts like this. I mean, I'm floored.

The "receiving end" of a gesture??? I'm astonished. "Interpreted as a punch?" It's a police report, not some par-blind old biddy's exaggerated ramblings! Can't we expect some level of basic accuracy in the officer's account of what happened?

"Several scenes when he's on the ground???" Uh, no. They put him on the ground once, he attempted to get up but they didn't let him and he got tased. It's on the video. On both videos.

What am I supposed to make of Finn's posts on the subject. I know he believes me to be dishonest for not seeing the altercation as he does. I find his faith in this particular police report, given the evidence presented by the two videos, shocking.

But that's the thing. Finn's faith in these cops, his faith in the decency of the Administration, his faith in this misbegotten war, all, to my mind, in stark contrast to countless pieces of evidence pointing toward cover-ups, and lies, and willful omissions, etc. is the problem we're facing in this country right now.

I could be listening to one of the jurors in the Rodney King case. "Interpreted as a punch." Seriously, if this is what Finn makes of this video, is it any surprise that he would miss the Administration's lies, the disquieting inconsistencies of the events of Sept. 11, or the monumental failures of this so-called war?

But I don't think Finn is dishonest. I don't think he's stupid. I find much of his historical knowledge enviable. He's a smart, smart man. So I'm astonished at all the things he apparently misses in these discussions here. I don't understand it.

The portion of the police report Finn himself posted states that Meyers "punched and kicked" and "continued to punch his way out of the hold...punching, kicking, and elbowing" before he was put on the ground. The idea that all the punching happened when the cameras couldn't see it, is moot if the report states he was punching and kicking from the get go. From the evidence of the two videos he simply didn't do any of that. (btw, even if some on this board are content to see the young man tased for being rude, it's obvious from the report that the officer thinks it's very important to paint Mr. Meyers as an explicit physical aggressor.)

Punching is something ya do with your fists, folks. From the evidence of the video tape, the kid doesn't make a fist, ever. If you're gonna punch someone, you need leverage, you need room to wind-up, you need to be extremely strong or have very solid footing. None of that. If you mean to fight someone, you're gonna drop the stupid book in your hand. But this kid, this obviously out-of-shape, doughy college geek clings to the book and displays his other empty hand whenever he can like a chorus girl out of "All That Jazz."

I promise you, if he had thrown even one punch, he'd have been put on the ground immediately. I've seen it happen plenty of times: you throw a punch at a cop, you're going down--they don't reason with you, they don't give you ultimatums, they get out their night sticks.

And seriously, if the kid had taken a swing on any of them, I would not be complaining to you now about his mistreatment. I'd think it was tragic, I'd hope he didn't suffer any permanent injury from the cops' response, I might get very philosophical about violence in our culture, but dayum, you don't swing on a cop and expect to be treated kindly.

But, of course, he didn't take any such swing, not while the tape was rolling. But Finn assumes he did. As far as I can tell, Finn manufactures doubt and gives the cops the full benefit there-of. And leadb, thinks Finn makes a good point. And I am floored. Just floored. Tase me now. 2 + 2 = 5

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm floored too. But somehow even when given two videos and tons of stills, some folks see only what they want to see.

The kids was rude. but he didn't attack, he wasn't a threat to anyone, he held his hands high up in the air or out to the side and one hand was occupied by paper, and he didn't deserve to be tasered. The problem is that those folks identify with the authoritarian aggressor.

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
What am I supposed to make of Finn's posts on the subject. I know he believes me to be dishonest for not seeing the altercation as he does. I find his faith in this particular police report, given the evidence presented by the two videos, shocking.

Well first of all, I didn’t say you were dishonest. I said a particular argument you made was disingenuous, because it was a based on ignoring THE central theme here, which is that the student fought against the police. Well, as I stated once before, and continue to believe, you can’t honestly ignore that. But that’s an important distinction. I’m not calling you dishonest, only a particular argument you made. And I think most people will be hard pressed to show me how you can assume this person has a right to be peaceable removed, if he is fighting with the police. It doesn’t even make sense.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Punching is something ya do with your fists, folks. From the evidence of the video tape, the kid doesn't make a fist, ever. If you're gonna punch someone, you need leverage, you need room to wind-up, you need to be extremely strong or have very solid footing. None of that. If you mean to fight someone, you're gonna drop the stupid book in your hand. But this kid, this obviously out-of-shape, doughy college geek clings to the book and displays his other empty hand whenever he can like a chorus girl out of "All That Jazz."

Actually the definition of punching is much broader then you are allowing here. Essentially, any hard strike, whether intentional or not, can be interpreted as a punch. No one is suggesting that this kid threw a WBO regulation punch, but it is clear that he was flailing and fighting with police, that much we can say for sure. If you’re one of the officers trying to control a flailing and fighting individual, and in the process one if his hands clocks you up-side the head, it would be appropriate to refer to that as a punch. It’s not that hard to understand.

And as far as manufacturing doubt, that is exactly what I’m arguing against. You’re the one trying to argue that the police are liars, based on tortured definition of the word “punching.”

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
But (and this is for everyone) I really feel that this particular thread has run its course. There's certainly been enough evidence presented to give me pause and make me think. There were moments when I even reconsidered my position. However, unless there is a startling revelation or reasoning around the corner, I think further argument on this topic will only breed further argument on this topic.

I agree. I think we’ve addressed this particular instance as completely as we can, given our resources. If anyone can think of any further discussion on this topic they should probably create another thread. I figured someone would have created a thread for the new video, but it seems interest in that isn’t as strong as I thought it was.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:56 PM

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

These last two posts are a whole shameful finale on Finn's delusions.

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:04 PM

As opposed to the delusion of confusing a grown man with a kindergarten kid.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:20 PM

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

Or impoliteness for a threat.

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

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

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:10 AM