UF student tased at John Kerry speech by AURaptor

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I believe it was reasonable to cut the mike.

Yes.

Quote:
I believe it was reasonable for the venue owner to request the student to be removed. It is my understanding the venue owner so requested; if you have a beef with that, be clear the beef is with the venue owner. Certainly, as the venue owner, they could have made a different choice.

Why izzit that cops are often called in on the side of PEOPLE WITH MONEY? Owners, authority figures, policy makers etc?

You know what I envision? They take a vote right then and there: ask the crowd if this guy should be allowed to continue and for how long. If the majority says "yes", he continues. If the majority says "no" then he gets the idea that his points are not appreciated and his little planned demonstration prolly won't be either. Because it was all planned, he WANTED to be tasered. Like I said, he was there to make a point and the cops did exactly what he wanted.

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

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2- It was an unclear statement and not the way you interpreted it. My meaning was: Bullies will be bullies, but (bullying) cops are bullies with badges and weapons. (As opposed to civilian bullies who don't have "color of authority")

Well I can only respond to what you posted, I thought it was pretty clear what I read into your statement so if that was not what you intended to say you should have spoken up then.

Quote:

So, how do you feel about "use of force"? How much? What kind? And who controls the controllers?

Well ultimately all laws in a society are backed by the treat of force because you can escallate even something as minor as jaywalking into a force issue. Since I want laws to be followed then ultimately I condone the use of force to uphold them.

How much depends on circumstances and that's where things get tricky. As has been mentioned things can escallate to a point where even jaywalking could end up involving the use of force. While I don't believe that force should be used against all jaywalkers I can't say that there wont be situations where that might be nescessary. Ultimately we can't macromanage the use of force as it happens instead we have to review if it's use was appropriate after the event.

Getting back to the Kerry guy. It could be that there were other ways of dealing with this but then the guy also had the option of leaving peacably.

Quote:

My concern is that the more a control technique is perceived as benign, the more it will be used indiscriminately.

That's an interesting question but I'm not convinced that is nescessarily true. I think if you have an establishment willing to use violence to enforce its will then it will use the least amount of violence it can get away with. If in 1850 it would have sent in the army with horses and guns (see "Peterloo") it will by 1912 use policemen with nightsticks and by 1969 teargas and rubber bullets. I don't know it makes it more or less likely, I think there is a threshold that finally gets breached where public order becomes such a pressing concern to those in power that they will authorise violence to regain it.

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I believe it was reasonable to cut the mike.
Yes.
Quote:
I believe it was reasonable for the venue owner to request the student to be removed. It is my understanding the venue owner so requested; if you have a beef with that, be clear the beef is with the venue owner. Certainly, as the venue owner, they could have made a different choice.
Why izzit that cops are often called in on the side of PEOPLE WITH MONEY? Owners, authority figures, policy makers etc?

You know what I envision? They take a vote right then and there: ask the crowd if this guy should be allowed to continue and for how long. If the majority says "yes", he continues. If the majority says "no" then he gets the idea that his points are not appreciated and his little planned demonstration prolly won't be either.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Well let's take the majority idea to its conclusion. Let's say I break into your house with my 5 friends and terrorise you, the wife and two kids. When the police show up we say "the six of us vote for staying" and of course we outvote the 4 of you and as you as the owner have no right to enforce your view over that of the "majority" then the police leave....

Silly.

As a basic rule if you own something you get to decide what gets done with it. If that means that you want a person or persons to leave you have that right no matter how many of them disagree. Ownership has privillages.

As to the first question. I refer you to "the golden rule."

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Well let's take the majority idea to its conclusion. Let's say I break into your house with my 5 friends and terrorise you, the wife and two kids. When the police show up we say "the six of us vote for staying" and of course we outvote the 4 of you and as you as the owner have no right to enforce your view over that of the "majority" then the police leave.... Silly.

Obviously cannot be applied in all situations, but it might have worked in THIS one, particularly as the guy was not violent.

When do property rights trump civil rights? Does a business owner have the right to search your desk? Your car? Your home? Does the owner of a venue have the right not to admit blacks? Gays? Does a corporation have the right to limit what you say on the internet regarding its product? Does an employer have the right to limit what you say about management or policies?

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

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I believe it was reasonable to cut the mike.
Yes.
Quote:
I believe it was reasonable for the venue owner to request the student to be removed. It is my understanding the venue owner so requested; if you have a beef with that, be clear the beef is with the venue owner. Certainly, as the venue owner, they could have made a different choice.
Why izzit that cops are often called in on the side of PEOPLE WITH MONEY? Owners, authority figures, policy makers etc?

Dunno. In my neighborhood, I'm probably on the upper end of the 'money' thing (I probably moved into a neighborhood right on the edge of my 'scary' tolerance; things are much improved, the cops come through with the 'lights flashing' much less often than when I moved here). The only time the cops were called in to 'deal' with me, I complied before I even knew it was the police at my door. I had accidentally left my dog out (fenced in, but he barks) and it was about 2 am, and I called the dog in even before I answered the door.

Folks without money, I suspect, tend not to call the cops unless they are pretty desperate and sure they are on the 'right' side.

Let's take a real look at things... what are the circumstance when you are -aware- that cops are called. When 'important' folks are disturbed; that's 'news'. Let's say this student had pulled a similar stunt at a student council meeting. In all likely hood, the council president would have ignored the kid; but if it got out of hand, I could see the u-cops called in. Would it have made the 'news'; probably not. Would it have made u-tube? Maybe. Would it have caught our interest here on the board? Doubt it.

Quote:

You know what I envision? They take a vote right then and there: ask the crowd if this guy should be allowed to continue and for how long. If the majority says "yes", he continues. If the majority says "no" then he gets the idea that his points are not appreciated and his little planned demonstration prolly won't be either. Because it was all planned, he WANTED to be tasered. Like I said, he was there to make a point and the cops did exactly what he wanted.

Yes, taking a vote would be interesting; if you could get folks to agree a vote should be taken. Even then, the venue owner would certainly reserve the right to ensure safety was maintained; however, I'm not sure this is a good idea. It gives the protesters a heck of a lot of influence. They can come in, disrupt things to the point of getting a vote taken, and then, if they are lucky, get to run the show after that. There has to be a happy compromise between letting the dissatisfied participate Vs isolating them a 1/3rd of a mile away at a sepatate 'protest site'

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:54 AM

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

Fundamentally flawed my ass.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

If you do not believe the arrest to be lawful, it is your right and duty as a citizen to fully resist it, and if you witness an unlawful arrest is it your right to intervene, and in either case defend yourself as necessary, up to and including lethal force - that is the LAW.

Now, I think we can all admit the law doesn't really work that way in our totalarianist corporate oligarchy we pretend is a democracy, but the fundamental flaw lies not with the concept, but rather how our legal system and society have perverted the very foundations our country is built upon.

Folks like to say just let the cop do his thing and fight it in court later - but that doesn't help if you're dead of positional asphixia, taser trauma (aka ED) or "suicide" *nudge nudge wink* in custody, now does it, and these things are far more common than the media or blue boys would admit.

You have a right and responsibility to self-defend in the case of a false arrest, the fact that practicing that right is likely to cause you to be murdered by other members of the street gang you are defending yourself against makes it no less such a thing, it only makes it less likely to survive - and public acceptance of that is so counter-intuitive that I just don't comprehend it.

Remember that I originally come from a city (Baltimore) that has a police force so corrupt, they committed arson against their own internal affairs dept in hopes of covering it up, and is full of these overmacho children on power trips.

Case in point
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/9229472/detail.html

I find it ironic that a line from The Weapon Shops of Isher once saved me from one of these bogus harrassment arrests...
"Tell them I resisted... with a weapon."

I simply asked the officer in question - "Are you prepared to kill a man today, sir ?" - when he decided to arrest me for loitering as I walked around to the back of my apartment to get my car and drive to work, for reasons unknown.

Realizing he'd just been shadowdanced into a bad position, and pondering the legal implications of his position, he told me to "Get the fuck out of here" and got back in his car.

At no time did I threaten him, nor hand him a reason or motive to escalate, and my positioning effectively denied him the opportunity - reference the article I posted above to comprehend what had happened.
(See also within article: Five Stages)

He acted like a criminal, and I treated him as one - that badge is NOT, and should never, EVER be, a cover and shield for malicious criminal activity.

And the fact that we accept it as one just plain disgusts me.

-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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

When do property rights trump civil rights? Does a business owner have the right to search your desk? Your car? Your home? Does the owner of a venue have the right not to admit blacks? Gays? Does a corporation have the right to limit what you say on the internet regarding its product? Does an employer have the right to limit what you say about management or policies?

Are we so afraid of a little inconvenience and disruption that we applaud a guy get tasered???

Apparently yes.

Thanks Frem.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 8:03 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Wow, Frem. Pretty intense.

So, if you feel that an officer is arresting you without cause, you have the right to draw a weapon on him.

He draws his weapon in response, and you kill him.

Now more officers arrive, and want to arrest you for killing the officer.

You feel the shooting was justified, so you draw a weapon on the new officers.

The new officers respond by drawing their own weapons...

Sounds like you have two choices Frem.

Either make war with the entire law enforcement agencies of the United States...

Or submit to an arrest without drawing your weapon.

So, drawing your weapon on an arresting officer still seems like a fundamentally flawed idea to me, unless you are prepared to mount an insurrection.

--Anthony

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

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

When do property rights trump civil rights? Does a business owner have the right to search your desk? Your car? Your home?

Yes to the first 2 (if you are parked in a company lot.) Third one I suspect requires a court order.

Quote:

Does the owner of a venue have the right not to admit blacks? Gays?

All things being equal yes, management has right to refuse service for any reason. I may not get into a club if or restaurant if I don't meet the dress code for example. In the case of black people this was used so agressively against them in the south that anti discrimination laws were passed that effectively trumped those property rights but in general if I own a venue I get to decide who can attend. This is not nescessarily a bad thing. It allows you to bar skinheads from Jewish weddings too.

Quote:

Does a corporation have the right to limit what you say on the internet regarding its product?

They can probably sue you.... Remember the first amendment is binding on government not on private companies. You may not have free speech under all circumstances.

Quote:

Does an employer have the right to limit what you say about management or policies?

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

it appears so.

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 8:11 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
When do property rights trump civil rights? Does a business owner have the right to search your desk? Your car? Your home? Does the owner of a venue have the right not to admit blacks? Gays? Does a corporation have the right to limit what you say on the internet regarding its product? Does an employer have the right to limit what you say about management or policies?

Are we so afraid of a little inconvenience and disruptionthat we applaud a guy get tasered???

Apparently yes.

"Does a business have a right to search your desk?"

I've always felt that if it's their desk on their premises, then yes, they can search it.

"Your Car?"

Since it's my car, then no, I don't feel they can search it.

"Your home?"

Obviously not. My property on my land.

"Does the owner of a venue have the right not to admit blacks?"

I hate to say it, but yes. If it's his property, he can admit whoever he wants.

"Does a corporation have the right to limit what you say on the internet regarding its product?"

On their website, yes. On mine or someone else's? No.

"Does an employer have the right to limit what you say about management or policies?"

Unless I'm revealing secret proprietary stuff, I don't think they should be allowed to intervene. That is, unless I'm saying it on their systems, in which case, yeah. They can censor their own private systems however they like.

"Are we so afraid of a little inconvenience and disruption that we applaud a guy get tasered???"

Hmm, I don't think I'd really applaud. It's a sad thing.

But do we care so little for our rights that we allow others to trample them rather than remove them from interfering with them?

--Anthony

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

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 8:11 AM

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

Yeah, from my perspective, they bungled it pretty good, and in more than one place, their positioning was terrible, and they completely hosed the verbal - their need to dominate the situation overwhelmed their ability to de-escalate, as often happens with poorly trained officers.

I can't see the video (just a couple still images I rounded up) on this puny laptop, but my perception, my guess - is that the primary mistake was hauling out the cuffs, which provoked the situation, cause it all seemed to change at that moment.

I am also not sure an actual arrest was even warranted either, that could have easily went on with "we're escorting you off the property at the behest of the owner, you had your say, made your point, allright ? but if you come back, we *have* to arrest you for trespassing, don't make us do that, it's a pain in the ass for both of us - have a nice day, kid."

(Reference posted article)
"The second reason You can't get there from here approach is important is it takes you out of the adversarial position. You are not the reason he can't get what he wants. You are simply the bearer of bad news. The problem is both bigger than you and not your fault. As such, kicking your ass is not going to solve the problem."

Resolves and de-escalates the situation, AND gives him a face-saving exit, and who much cares about secondary victory - this guys not a career perp, just a pissed college kid who wanted to make a statement, fine, he made it, send him home.

If comes back at THAT point, then you arrest him and charge him with trespassing, do it quick and clean - and your legal ground is solid AND your don't look like a buncha bumbling berks to the locals.

What happened, in my opinion, is that instead of using many of the tools in the toolbox, they allowed themselves to become frustrated and went straight for the hammer, a bad habit and one that shows poor or inadequate training.

Whichever officer hauled out the cuffs BEFORE they got him outside next to the squad car blew it, in my opinion - and THAT was an ego issue, they wanted to cuff him in front of the crowd to establish personal dominance over the situation, an unacceptable and unprofessional response.

-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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 8:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Anthony- I know five people personally... people I have spoken with and (in some cases) worked with... who have been tasered and/ or arrested by the police for no good reason. And I'm not a "criminal element", nor do I associate with such, nor am I a demonstrator.

Two guys had the police break into their homes on "bad tips". Both of those "tips" were acts of vengeance; one was a custody case and the other was a disgruntled lover. One of these guys was tasered, three times. Another guy was arrested for murder because the detective had a bee in his bonnet, and he remained in jail with an untreated electrical burn (from work the day b4) which left him disabled. A fourth was accused of robbery by a guy who was a complete nut-case. The fifth was arrested on an outstanding mistaken traffic warrant, and when she resisted (cause she hadn't a clue what was going on) she broke an officer's thumb. Now, if you can imagine.... her 6 and 8 y/o daughter are WAITING to be picked up at school. They called us in terror, and we had to keep them at our house over Thanksgiving weekend. Bad arrests more common than you suppose.

And just being held in jail is more of a punishment than you can imagine, even while your case is being processed ands bail is set (or refused).

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

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 8:15 AM

Anthony, it's not how it really works, and I pointed that out - but when you compare what the LAW is, what our RIGHTS are, with what really happens...

I find it passionately offensive, and I fail to comprehend why no one else does.

The fundamental flaw comes not from the concept, but from the fact that the police force and our legal system actually deny us citizens protection of the law, and our rights.

Am I getting even that much across here ?

-F

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 8:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"Does a business have a right to search your desk?"
I've always felt that if it's their desk on their premises, then yes, they can search it.

"Your Car?"
Since it's my car, then no, I don't feel they can search it.

"Your home?"
Obviously not. My property on my land.

"Does the owner of a venue have the right not to admit blacks?"
I hate to say it, but yes. If it's his property, he can admit whoever he wants.

"Does a corporation have the right to limit what you say on the internet regarding its product?"
On their website, yes. On mine or someone else's? No.

"Does an employer have the right to limit what you say about management or policies?"
Unless I'm revealing secret proprietary stuff, I don't think they should be allowed to intervene. That is, unless I'm saying it on their systems, in which case, yeah. They can censor their own private systems however they like.

"Are we so afraid of a little inconvenience and disruption that we applaud a guy get tasered???"
Hmm, I don't think I'd really applaud. It's a sad thing.

-------

I hate to tell you this, but you're on the wrong side of the law in 5 of these instances.

So Fletch2- Is it a good thing that the law (and the police) back the "rights" of institutions which already have considerable power?

---------------------------------

Always look upstream.

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 9:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

So Fletch2- Is it a good thing that the law (and the police) back the "rights" of institutions which already have considerable power?

I think the problem is one of context, almost any law and any rule can be misapplied and almost any power can be abused. The thing is to see abuses of power for what they are and correct them not see the power itself as being intrinsically wrong.

For example. You go to the bathroom one day and when you get back to your desk your $500 PDA is missing. I doubt you would just shrug that off. If someone saw Jeff taking your PDA and 1) he denied it and 2) refused to have his desk searched I'm quite sure you would call security because you want your property back. Looked at from a high level the company is trampling on Jeffs rights, looked at from the other side, they are trying to ensure security in the workplace.

There is nothing wrong about the fact they have that power. It is if you think about it a reasonable thing for them to have, while you are on their property they have certain rights and responsabilities that they have to have the power to enforce. Now can that power be used in arbitary ways or abused entirely? Of course, but the power wasn't given to them to use in an arbitary fashion and is not intended to be used that way. Like I said in many cases we cant micromanage the use of power all we can do is review and correct missuses after the event.

As for your friends they may not be as normal as you think. I have never known a single person ever that has had an experience such as that never mind five. Either the people you think are normal have private lives a lot more interesting than you think or there are some seriously bizaare things happening in your city.

And yes if these kinds of things do happen that often and in a genuinely hap hazard way then people should be filing lawsuits and talking to newspapers about them.

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

First of all, I think it is wrong to have very large accumulations of power. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=466&invo
l=109

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

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, I think it is wrong to have very large accumulations of power. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=466&invo
l=109

Am I missing something here? Are you suggesting that Fed Ex has some government appointed power of search and seizure?

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, I'm in a hurry.

Let me ask you: When someone comes to your home, are you entitled to search the woman's purse? Go out to their car and snoop around for drugs or guns? If you think your neighbor has stolen something, are you allowed to go over and tear out a few walls looking for it? Can you prohibit your neighbor from talking about you?

No.

So, why do we acceded power to companies and business owners that we would not allow individuals? And then protect those "rights" with government guns?

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

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, I'm in a hurry.

Let me ask you: When someone comes to your home, are you entitled to search the woman's purse? Go out to their car and snoop around for drugs or guns?

I'm allowed to ask to search her purse and refuse admitance if she refuses. If the price of being allowed in my home is my right to search her car then she can either submit or not enter.

This will become relevant later.

Quote:

If you think your neighbor has stolen something, are you allowed to go over and tear out a few walls looking for it?

No because that is his property.

Quote:

Can you prohibit your neighbor from talking about you?
No.

But I could sue him for slander

Quote:

So, why do we acceded power to companies and business owners that we would not allow individuals?

The thing you are missing here is how come companies have a right to do this stuff where does it come from and how is it enforced? Some basic things like trespass are enshrined in law and can be enforced by the police. However in that respect they have no more or less power than you do. If I enter your house and refuse to leave then you can call the cops and have me ejected or arrested. The right you exercised is the same right any property owner has to enforce access to his premises.

Other things like the ability to search your car come from the company security policy that you signed as part of your conditions of employment. When you agreed to work for them and HR gave you that stack of forms one of the ones you signed will be the security policy which explicitly states they have the right to search desk/locker maybe even your car.

I know this because my company was recently acquired by a larger corporation and we had to read and authorise the new security policy that explicitly added the search of cars in company lots (the old company policy didnt include that.)

So if they ask to search your car and you refuse they can take disciplinary action against you, POSSIBLY they can force the doors or break a window (unlikely.) However this is a private contract between you and them, the govenment can't enforce it. So in the absence of statute (ie you dont work on fed land airports etc) they cant MAKE you submit to a search, they can fire you for refusing.

And that BTW was the underlying point about the FED EX citation. The constitution doesnt apply to private citizens or entities, just the gov. When the FED EX people openned the package and discovered the goods they broke no laws and in fact by law were obliged to report a crime when the found it. They broke no law because you can bet that in the terms and conditions of carrage that the shipper signed there was a waiver that allows for inspection of any package they ship for any number of reasons including damage in transit.

You dont want that? Dont ship anything with them. Don't want your car searched by your employer... find a different employer.

Quote:

And then protect those "rights" with government guns?

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

see above

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 12:08 PM

That one boils down to the root of many evils - Corporate Personhood.

Not gonna go there as it's somewhat off the topic, but that's the bugbear you are lookin for here.

-F

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 2:36 PM

RUE

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

Larger questions of corporate police function aside, I'd like to point out that the student did NOT disrupt the speech, try to control the agenda or keep anyone's questions from being answered.

He had politely waited till it was ALL OVER (including the question and answer session). Anyone who claims otherwise (which is pretty much all the pro-taser folk) are factually wrong and haven't read the police report.

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

So, anyone of the pro-taser group care to try again for a rationale ?

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

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, anyone of the pro-taser group care to try again for a rationale ?

No. The rationale continues to be sound. He was being disruptive for which he was correctly asked to leave. He not only resisted but attacked the police, and much of his demeanor suggests that he didn’t do it accidentally. The police report states:

“As Senator Kerry was ending his speech, a man disrupted the senator by screaming, yelling and flailing his arms. The man moved his way down the aisle yelling, ‘Why don’t you answer my questions, I have been waiting and listening to you speak in circles for the last two hours.’ ‘These officers are going to arrest me’. I [[]Officer Nicole Lynn Mallo[]] didn’t see any officer directly next to him until I noticed Officer Wise walking down trying to get his attention. The man was screaming and yelling obscenities until Senator Kerry told him to calm down and that he would take his question, but he needed to calm down. At that point, the man stated, ‘You will take my question because I have been listening to your crap for two hours’. The man at that point turned to his friend and said, ‘Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?’ The man was talking to a woman who was there to film him. Before asking the question, I had a chance to ask the man if he was a student and he stated, ‘I don’t have to tell you.’ I the (sic) asked him if he knew the rules to the student code of conduct and he said, ‘What?’ I informed the man that after he asked Senator Kerry the question that I needed to talk to him outside. After asking the question, the man would not let Senator Kerry finish his statement and kept badgering the senator about his beliefs, talking about ‘blow jobs’, and yelling as loud as he could as to sensationalize his presence.

“At that moment the Accent Director, Max Tyroler, asked us to take him out of the auditorium and had his microphone turned off stating, ‘He had said enough,’ Officer Wise and I grabbed both of the man’s arms and asked him to come with us out of the auditorium to speak with us. The man then lifted me up and pushed Officer Wise to avoid being taken into custody. As he pushed and kicked Officer Wise, Sgt. King grabbed him and escorted him out of the of the room, but the man pushed Sgt. King out of the way and was yelling and trying to get back down the aisle. At this point Officer Sexton, Officer De Jesus, and Officer Lamb tried to assist Officer Wise and Sgt King in getting a hold of the punching and kicking irate man while Officer Dean, Officer Passero, and Officer Spurlin were present trying to assist. The man continued to scream and yell as well as push, kick and elbow the officers attempting to take him into custody. After multiple attempts to tell him to stop resisting, the man said, ‘No’ and continued to push and elbow the officers. Only one handcuff was placed on the man as he continued to punch his way out of the hold. The officers could not get a hold of his other arm as he was kicking, punching, and elbowing into officers. After many attempts to get the man to comply, he chose to continue actively resisting the officers. I obeyed the command from Sgt. King to utilize the taser fro the continuation of non-compliance by the man. One contact tase to the man’s left shoulder was deployed for the duration of its cycle. After the cycle ended, the man was asked to comply and stop resisting and for a brief moment he did, at which time he was placed in handcuffs. After he was lifted to his feet, he kept screaming and yelling to let him go by continually pushing the officers. I read the man his Miranda rights and explained why he was being placed under arrest. As the man was escorted down the stairs with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again. Some of the comments that the man made were ‘You can’t kill me.’, ‘They are giving me to the government.’ and ‘They are going to kill me.’”

The other officers provided similiar reports.

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:45 PM

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

Yeah, from my perspective, they bungled it pretty good, and in more than one place, their positioning was terrible, and they completely hosed the verbal - their need to dominate the situation overwhelmed their ability to de-escalate, as often happens with poorly trained officers.

I can't see the video (just a couple still images I rounded up) on this puny laptop, but my perception, my guess - is that the primary mistake was hauling out the cuffs, which provoked the situation, cause it all seemed to change at that moment.

I am also not sure an actual arrest was even warranted either, that could have easily went on with "we're escorting you off the property at the behest of the owner, you had your say, made your point, allright ? but if you come back, we *have* to arrest you for trespassing, don't make us do that, it's a pain in the ass for both of us - have a nice day, kid."

(Reference posted article)
"The second reason You can't get there from here approach is important is it takes you out of the adversarial position. You are not the reason he can't get what he wants. You are simply the bearer of bad news. The problem is both bigger than you and not your fault. As such, kicking your ass is not going to solve the problem."

Resolves and de-escalates the situation, AND gives him a face-saving exit, and who much cares about secondary victory - this guys not a career perp, just a pissed college kid who wanted to make a statement, fine, he made it, send him home.

If comes back at THAT point, then you arrest him and charge him with trespassing, do it quick and clean - and your legal ground is solid AND your don't look like a buncha bumbling berks to the locals.

What happened, in my opinion, is that instead of using many of the tools in the toolbox, they allowed themselves to become frustrated and went straight for the hammer, a bad habit and one that shows poor or inadequate training.

Whichever officer hauled out the cuffs BEFORE they got him outside next to the squad car blew it, in my opinion - and THAT was an ego issue, they wanted to cuff him in front of the crowd to establish personal dominance over the situation, an unacceptable and unprofessional response.

-Frem

Frem,
You've got more experience and had more time to think about the implications of the linked article than I; but this part makes me wonder...
'this guys not a career perp, just a pissed college kid who wanted to make a statement, fine, he made it, send him home.'
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?

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 4:22 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Disingenous? What a way to go ad hominem, Finn. And what a way to utterly ignore the substance of my post.
It’s not an ad hominem--

Oh, but it is, Finn. Words don't "give a false appearance of simple frankness," people do. You're saying I'm either stupid or dishonest.

Now, who's being disingenuous? I kid, I kid!

Quote:
--and whatever substance your post has is dependent on getting this crucial fact right: this kid refused to leave peaceable.

Wrong again. Your argument depends on the draconian notion that simply resisting the manhandling of the cops constitutes a crime in need of instant (and instantly gratifying) punishment.

The use of the taser was gratuitous and absolutely unnecessary to get the boy out of the auditorium. They had him practically in the doorway before they put him on the ground. And the boy's "resistance" was at no time violent or threatening to the police or anyone else. It was, on the contrary, frankly pathetic--about as "threatening" as the fuss a child puts up when he doesn't want to take a bath.

It is not against the law to disobey the whim of every cop you see, it is merely dangerous.

Quote:
There are really only two options here, you either let this kid disrupt the entire preceding or you forcibly remove him, and that’s not the fault of the police – that condition was set by him.

Jesus, Finn, you just pulled a Fletch. Your "only two options" conveniently leaves out the use of the taser. It's the taser we're all in a tizzy over--the recreational use of electric shock on a frightened boy who presented no threat except to the cops' egos. NO ONE would be complaining, it wouldn't even have made the news, if the police had simply pushed this kid out into the hall (where they could have tased him to their hearts' content off camera).

But they had to punish him, humiliate him, in public. They had to make him submit to their whim because cops are always right and the guy they have at their mercy is always wrong. And it seems obvious to me that everyone who is pro-taser in this thread feels that the boy was in need of just such punishment; and for that there is no more compelling justification than your own desire.

(Edited to add: That police report does not describe what is obvious from watching the YouTube video. "Punching?" What a farce.)

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Oh, but it is, Finn. Words don't "give a false appearance of simple frankness," people do. You're saying I'm either stupid or dishonest.

No, it’s not. I’m saying your argument is stupid or dishonest. An ad hominem is not finding your argument dishonest; it’s attacking your character instead of your argument. I’ve not brought your character into question at all, just your argument.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Wrong again. Your argument depends on the draconian notion that simply resisting the manhandling of the cops constitutes a crime in need of instant (and instantly gratifying) punishment.

The facts are very clear. You can see them yourself in the video and read the report. If you choose to ignore them or distort them, you can’t honestly expect people not to find your argument disingenuous. But you’ve insulated yourself from the facts by presuming that anyone who doesn’t accept your version of events regardless of whether that version exist in congruence with obvious facts is attacking you personally.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Jesus, Finn, you just pulled a Fletch. Your "only two options" completely leaves out the use of the taser. It's the taser …

But there is no way for us to get to the issue of the taser, because you insist upon misrepresenting the principle reason for which the taser was used. I’m not going to discuss the issue of the taser with you if you insist upon defining “resisting arrest” as the “right to be peacefully removed,” since there’s no discussion to be had in that case. If such a right existed, this guy certainly willing surrendered it. No one has argued at all that anyone who is peaceably removed or a peaceful protestor or kindergarten kid should be tazed. You’re argument is as disingenuous as it was when other people tried to hoist it on the discussion. If this guy had accepted his “right to be peaceable removed” he wouldn’t have been tazed.

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 5:34 PM

HKCAVALIER

"Resisting arrest?"

He was resisting being manhandled, there was no arrest. They had the cuffs out before there was any evidence of arrest. Now, when they have him on the ground it appears that one officer begins to speak to him and may have been reading him his rights, which then seemed to provoke the kid's, "Then what did I DO?" But by then he was pretty hysterical.

You seem to view the boy as far more calculated than I do, which is consistent with the blame you place on his shoulders for being victimized as he was (I'm not talking about his very calculated stunt of grandstanding at the mic, but his panicked behavior once the cops got ahold of him). You seem to be saying that it was the boy's fault that he was tased. That the officers were human beings with will and choice in the situation (considerably more freedom of choice--power--than the boy they mistreated), who could have gotten him out of the room without electrocuting him is irrelevant to you--they were merely the machinery of law enforcement doing what it does best.

You presume that my assessment does not fit the facts and that yours does. Several folks in this thread saw the same video I did. Several folks seem to have gotten what you got out of the incident. We have a basic disagreement and you and Fletch2 have framed the debate in such a way that anyone who disagrees with you is "insulated from the facts." Whatever.

Nice talking to you.

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
"Resisting arrest?"

He was resisting being manhandled, there was no arrest. They had the cuffs out before there was any evidence of arrest. Now, when they have him on the ground it appears that one officer begins to speak to him and may have been reading him his rights, which then seemed to provoke the kid's, "Then what did I DO?" But by then he was pretty hysterical.

Exactly "resisting officer with violence," which is a felony. Whether or not he was resisting arrest is a technical issue, I guess, but Florida statute holds that there are two types of resisting law enforcement: resisting officer without violence (also called obstructing justice) and resisting officer with violence (also called resisting arrest). Specifically, he was attacking an officer.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You seem to view the boy as far more calculated than I do, which is consistent with the blame you place on his shoulders for being victimized as he was (I'm not talking about his very calculated stunt of grandstanding at the mic, but his panicked behavior once the cops got ahold of him).

Its consistent with the facts. In particular, that this guy only struggled when he had a camera to entertain. He is even quoted as having stated that the police were right to do what they did, while cameras weren’t around, but making hysterical statements when the cameras were visible.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You seem to be saying that it was the boy's fault that he was tased. That the officers were human beings with will and choice in the situation (conciderably more will and choice--power--than the boy they mistreated), who could have gotten him out of the room without electrocuting him is irrelevant to you--they were merely the machinery of law enforcement doing what it does best.

If he had left following his disruptive behavior when he was asked to, then, in all likelihood, not only would he not have been tazed but he would not have been arrested. So yes, it does seem to be his fault. On the other hand you’re argument that the police tazed him, and arrested him, for no reason other than their own malicious desires, is completely unsupportable by the facts in this case.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You presume that my assessment does not fit the facts and that yours do. Several folks in this thread saw the same video I did. Several folks seem to have gotten what you got out of the incident. We have a basic disagreement and you and Fletch2 have framed the debate in such a way that anyone who disagrees with you is "insulated from the facts." Whatever.

Just you so far. While it is true that other arguments have tried to downplay this guys behavior, you’re the only one who has accused anyone of using ad hominem for pointing that out.

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:19 PM

"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
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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:25 PM

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.

You cannot say in one breath that such people should be beaten down with nightsticks, or hit with water cannons, or worse, and in the next breath, say "oh but the police were just doing their job.." after expressing such sentiment.

In essence, you've reduced your credibility in this thread to what it usually is around here.

Dead Flat Zero.

-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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:29 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Man.... would I be afraid to live in Finn's world.

Oh, wait... nevermind. I love Big Brother.

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

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You cannot say in one breath that such people should be beaten down with nightsticks, or hit with water cannons, or worse, and in the next breath, say "oh but the police were just doing their job.." after expressing such sentiment.

Yes, I can. I’ve made no contradiction here. I can believe that people have a responsibility to avoid violent behavior and not break the law, while simultaneously claim that police have a thankless job dealing with those people that do.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Man.... would I be afraid to live in Finn's world.

Some people are. I don’t know why, really. I’m really a very nice and fluffy guy when you get past the rough manly exterior. I’m misunderstood.

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 8:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, your "handle" tells us that you're authoritarian, and prone to violence, bullying, and intimidation. We understand you quite well.

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

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

Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:42 PM

REAVERMAN

I can't believe I'm saying it, but I whole-heartedly agree with Finn, Hero, and the other Conservatives on this one. Was this a case of police brutality? No. Poor police judgement in terms of how the situation would be completely blown out of proportion and turned into a PR nightmare, maybe, but not brutality. This is instead, a simple case of student douche-baggery.

In my opinion, he should have been tased just for being the conspiracy theorist jackass that he is. I consider it electroshock therapy for the insane. The cops were well within their rights, both legally and ethically to give the little prick a well deserved shock. If it were up to me, Mr. Don't-tase-me-bro should be booted out of the country for a while. Let him live in a real authoritarian state where the cops tear his fingernails out with pliers and string his balls up with electrical wire to see how long it takes for them to catch fire, for even thinking about protesting. Then let him come back and finally see what a blessedly merciful system we've got, where getting tased for resisting arrest is considered unusual and controversial.

All in all, he deserves much worse than a simple tasering for being stupid enough to believe the crap he spews, but fortunately for him, he lives in a country where the police usually apply a reasonable amount of force to achieve their ends. Now I know that by now, some of you are dying to flame me, so I'll hand the mike over to you guys.

[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 12:41 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sorry Reaver... I can't agree with you on that one. Way too many cops to ever justify having to taze that scrawney little shit, unless he pulled out a knife or a gun first. There is absolutely no justification for what they did. If I were in that crowd, I would have done my best to incite a riot. If that happened during a football game in Europe, those cops would have been bumrushed by a mob. Cops need to have fear of citizens too.... even the law abiding ones.

Taze me today, put me in Gitmo tomorrow.

I don't give a shit about what some third world country would do to its citizens. We're supposed to be a goddamned role model to the world. Just exactly what point during the last two administrations did that ideal get turned on its head?

"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 2:30 AM

I must concur Reaver's police state is beyond pale.

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 2:36 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

I wouldn't go so far as to label it's "Reaver's police state". I actually enjoy reading many of Reaver's posts, and this one just kind of suprises me is all. I'm curious to hear more about his point of view, and why he would feel that this was justified, when there were many more civil ways of handling this issue.

The police and the state need to realize that they are just as much under the microscope as the citizens now that we have cheap survilance technology and virtually a free way of showing that information to others today.

Lord (Allah, Buddah, FSM) help us if they take that away from us, considering all of those wonderful (dreadful?) new toys they're comming up with every day......

"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 3:26 AM

Ok, I won't bother concur in with Jack's position; I'll just say I find Reaver's position extremely frightening.

Of course, feel free to discuss; never one to impede discussion ;-)

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 3:51 AM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I wouldn't go so far as to label it's "Reaver's police state". I actually enjoy reading many of Reaver's posts, and this one just kind of suprises me is all. I'm curious to hear more about his point of view, and why he would feel that this was justified, when there were many more civil ways of handling this issue.

Well, I'm glad to hear that you enjoy my posts

.

To be completely honest, my reaction to this situation kind of surprised me, too. It's just that I used to be just another conspiracy theory nut just like Mr. Don't-tase-me-bro (can we just call him Mr.DTMB?), but I started to look at my opinions and use some basic common sense to realize how full of shit I was. I guess because of that, i just have no respect for any conspiracy nut, because it would take only the barest sliver of rational thought on the matter to realize how wrong they are, but most never give it even that much.

Part of it is also 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.

I know this is a more extreme opinion than I usually have, but what can I say *shrug*, it's just what I think in this case. Maybe the tasing will shock a little sense into the bastard, but i doubt it, especially since almost every news channel out there is talking about how this is a case of police brutality, or a police blunder and how he was victimized by the big bad cops.

I feel justified in saying that the tasing was justified because I've been tased before. I know what it feels like (hurts like a bitch

), so I know what was inflicted on him. My opinion, plain and simple in four words: He deserved every volt.

[img]

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 4:31 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
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 ?

Pure conjecture and highly biased considering the source.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, your "handle" tells us that you're authoritarian, and prone to violence, bullying, and intimidation. We understand you quite well.

Is an ad hominem attack all ya got left? Let's all stop and take a vote about how relevant this post was to the rest of this thread.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Way too many cops to ever justify having to taze that scrawney little shit, unless he pulled out a knife or a gun first. There is absolutely no justification for what they did. If I were in that crowd, I would have done my best to incite a riot.

Which video clip were you watching? The guy in question towers over the female officer. Perhaps his size was part of the reason that cuffing him was so difficult. And how would you feel when your 'riot' gets other innocent people hurt?

Why wasn't there more protest from the crowd? The anti-taser side will say it was because they all felt threatened by the police. The pro-taser side will say because they all felt threatened by the individual and wanted him removed. All we can do is speculate.

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 6:30 AM

Pure conjecture and highly biased considering the source.

Well freaking DUH, seems some folks have literacy issues around here when it comes to things they don't like or agree with - did I not SAY UP FRONT, exactly this ?

"imma throw right up front that it's NOT from a neutral perspective, right ?"

At least I have the decency to admit bias upfront, rather than trying to hide an agenda behind a rather tattered mask of neutrality - and I find it somewhat amusing then whenever *I* blow some part of a ridiculous or petty argument to total bits, it completely dissappears from the discussion thereafter and is never spoken of again.

But back to the point I was making, shall we poll it then ?
I was asking a meaningful question, and we all know the truth likely lies in between those extremes, but I would lay odds that if you asked everyone here, based on their experiences, which approach was closer to likely, the poll would be overwhelmingly the second one.

Frankly, police DO more often than not, escalate incidents - and depending on who they are dealing with, quite often do so unknowingly cause the curriculum of training appears to be missing some damned important tools they need to know.

I don't just mean the aggressive approach, neither - there are other failures too, regardless of the cop view that everyone not wearing a badge is a perp, the truth is that unless someone has a list of priors, you do NOT know whether you are dealing with an upstanding citizen, a wacko, or a career criminal, and making that assessment, while important, is less important than being able to handle whatever develops without it going gonzo on you.

Case examples, mister upstanding cit is gonna get real pissed and escalate if you invade his space in a threatening manner, get verbally abusive, and generally treat him like a perp - but on the other hand, if you are dealing with a crooked type, and allow him to shadowdance or box you, THAT will escalate the situation... both of which are easily prevented with the proper training.

Common Mistake #1 - entering someone else's personal space.
BIG mistake, one that makes no tactical sense whatsoever, especially considering the Tueller drill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
It tends to immediately escalate the situation, especially if the cop is physically larger than the other person.

Common Mistake #2 - assuming a threatening posture.
Often unfortunately combined with #1, this tends to further escalate the situation, and in many cases provokes a fear response - and the one thing about someone in a fear state is that there is NO predicting how they will respond, only deal with it when they do, and so you've just went from PROactive to REactive, losing control over the situation by your own actions.

Common Mistake #3 - offering direct verbal threat or insult.
This one is the worst, there's utterly no reason for it, no procedural cause for it, and call it what it is, a deliberate and malicious provocation intended to provoke and therefore justify what follows - and in essence, criminal behavior from the officer in question.
Although often overlooked, it is the linchpin and gateway to worse behaviors, unacceptable in any form, and should be an actionable offense resulting in suspension at the very least.

Common Mistake #4 - enforcement over regulation.
A police officer is first and foremost, by intent, a PEACE officer, in theory present to keep the peace and prevent crime, law *enforcement* should be a secondary consideration if not on an active case or serving a warrant.
Do you really NEED to arrest the jaywalker, since at this point he's now on the sidewalk and thus not jaywalking ?
Do you really NEED to arrest the guy on his porch with a forty for public intoxication once he's offered to go back in his house with it ?
Do you really NEED to arrest the protestor once you've removed them from the premises if they show no intention to return ?
I know that some of that decision has been removed from the officers by laws and regs, but if we cannot trust them to do their job, then they shouldn't be cops - it's these kind of decisions we're paying them to make, and they need to be able to make them.

There's more to it, mind, but I gotta go to work in a minute and have to close up here.
Thing is, I may hate police - but my primary issue here is that they do their job effectively and correctly, in short, do what they are paid to do.

If the guy you hired to mow your lawn mowed your flowerbeds instead and then damaged your fence joyriding on top of it - you'd be a little pissed, so why is it then acceptable for police to bungle their job as badly, and get a free pass ?

Stuff like this is unacceptable, period.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/ stlouiscitycounty/story/EF3667C80165B68086257353001498DC?OpenDocument
(spaced to avoid screen stretch)

To the credit site, that officer WAS answerable to his community, and was fired by a 5-0 decision of the Township Aldermen - that kind of civilian review would go very far to putting the brakes on this kind of behavior, make then ANSWER to the community they serve.

It's not a lot to ask, is it ?

-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 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
To be completely honest, my reaction to this situation kind of surprised me, too. It's just that I used to be just another conspiracy theory nut just like Mr. Don't-tase-me-bro (can we just call him Mr.DTMB?), but I started to look at my opinions and use some basic common sense to realize how full of shit I was.

Just curious; try to put yourself in the mindset you used to have; a cop tases you for spouting off on your conspiracy theories. Would this
1) Suddenly make you realize how wrong you were?
2) Drive you deeper into conspiracy theory?

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 6:39 AM

Hey Frem...
I'm definitely planning to reply; I want to watch the video over again before I do. As always, you make me think....

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 8:17 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Pure conjecture and highly biased considering the source.

Well freaking DUH, seems some folks have literacy issues around here when it comes to things they don't like or agree with - did I not SAY UP FRONT, exactly this ?

"imma throw right up front that it's NOT from a neutral perspective, right ?"

At least I have the decency to admit bias upfront, rather than trying to hide an agenda behind a rather tattered mask of neutrality

My point being that perhaps if you framed your argument better you would get a more positive response. Your standard anti-police rhetoric takes away from any point you may have IMHO.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
- and I find it somewhat amusing then whenever *I* blow some part of a ridiculous or petty argument to total bits, it completely dissappears from the discussion thereafter and is never spoken of again.

Wanton hubris, IMHO.

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 8:20 AM

You know, I love unsecured wireless nodes, imma currently sittin in a parkin lot behind 7-11 at the moment waiting for my timecall fare to finish up with the doctors appt.

Make sure to watch this one too.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2715792117793977759

This is the kinda behavior I am talking about, and the elephant in the room at the moment seems to be the fact that it's *extremely* common behavior - at the first sign of any resistance or defiance to their will, police generally indulge in this behavior and get a free pass for it, note just how unconcerned he was about the camera, too - just shrugged it off, cause he "knew" no one would take him to task for his behavior, that in itself is pretty chilling, isn't it ?
(Surprise surprise, old five-O learned by a decision of 5-0 that it ain't so! meh heh heh)

The key to gettin folks to think is asking the right questions, and imma repeat one of them I asked above here, in reference to this incident as well.

If they'll do THAT, on camera and in front of witnesses, in public - just ponder for a moment what they'd do off camera, without em.

Scary thoughts, eh ?

Whup, here comes my passenger, gotta go.

-F

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 8:22 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Taze me today, put me in Gitmo tomorrow.

Ok.

I'll need your name and address. Also, if you could just head on down to your local police department sometime between five and six this evening (after shift change and before dinner would be most helpful...thanks).

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

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 8:51 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Common Mistake #1

Not complying with Officer's directions. Often simple things like "back up", "calm down", "keep your hands where I can see them" "put the cricket bat down".

Quote:

Common Mistake #2 - assuming a threatening posture.

Assuming a threatening posture with the police is always a bad idea...Often unfortunately combined with #1, this tends to further escalate the situation, and in many cases provokes a fear response - and the one thing about someone in a fear state is that there is NO predicting how they will respond...UNLESS they are specifically trained to deal with that situation by neutralizing the threat using a club, taser, pepper spray, or at last resort, lethal force.

Quote:

Common Mistake #3

Resisting.

Once cops are going to cuff you and take you away, they're going to cuff you and take you away. Regardless of how else the underlying issues shake out, further resistance after this point has been reached is futile and can likely result in harm to the suspect or the innocent police officer just trying to do their job (you may not see them as innocent, but the Prosecutor will, and juries usually do too). You can go along quietly and likely end up in jail, or you can fight, end up hurt, maybe hurt someone else, and DEFINATELY end up in jail.

And once in a while you'll find an 'old school' Officer who see's fit to 'escort you to the floor' or perhaps slam on the brakes (if his car has a cage this can be HI-LARRY-US) or some such and then your hurt, in jail, and missing a couple teeth.

Quote:

Common Mistake #4

Your an idiot. Not you, I mean the royal you...you the guy being an idiot, not you the guy reading this post, unless your about to be arrested, like PirateNews, and your reading this post moments before the cops come busting in. In that case I mean you, but otherwise I mean the guy being arrested.

By being an idiot I mean doing something monumentally stupid. Like getting out of your car at a traffic stop and approaching the cop's car with your hands in your pockets and perhaps an angry look on your face. Or slugging a cop whose trying to break up your drunk-assed shoving match at the local concert.

H

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 9:19 AM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Just curious; try to put yourself in the mindset you used to have; a cop tases you for spouting off on your conspiracy theories. Would this
1) Suddenly make you realize how wrong you were?
2) Drive you deeper into conspiracy theory?

Well, obviously number 2. I knew that from the start. No external force can change your mind once you're in full-on "The-government-is-out-to-get-me" mode. It's all internal. And do I care that this will drive him deeper into his insanity? No. Because everything that even vaguely looks suspicious to the theorist mind drives them deeper.

The thing is, no matter how deep into it one goes, it still only takes a tiny bit of reasoning to pull oneself out of it. So, yes, I know this makes it worse for Mr.DTMB and every theorist that watches the video. I just don't care.

[img]

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 9:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Just curious; try to put yourself in the mindset you used to have; a cop tases you for spouting off on your conspiracy theories. Would this
1) Suddenly make you realize how wrong you were?
2) Drive you deeper into conspiracy theory?

Well, obviously number 2. I knew that from the start. No external force can change your mind once you're in full-on "The-government-is-out-to-get-me" mode. It's all internal. And do I care that this will drive him deeper into his insanity? No. Because everything that even vaguely looks suspicious to the theorist mind drives them deeper.

The thing is, no matter how deep into it one goes, it still only takes a tiny bit of reasoning to pull oneself out of it. So, yes, I know this makes it worse for Mr.DTMB and every theorist that watches the video. I just don't care.

For the moment, I'm content we agree that it will drive them deeper. Thanks for replying.

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Your an idiot. Not you, I mean the royal you...you the guy being an idiot, not you the guy reading this post, unless your about to be arrested, like PirateNews, and your reading this post moments before the cops come busting in. In that case I mean you, but otherwise I mean the guy being arrested.

By being an idiot I mean doing something monumentally stupid. Like getting out of your car at a traffic stop and approaching the cop's car with your hands in your pockets and perhaps an angry look on your face. Or slugging a cop whose trying to break up your drunk-assed shoving match at the local concert.

So, as a lawyer you feel this irresistable urge to add a disclaimer to everything?

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

Monday, September 24, 2007 10:25 AM