posted
It bothers me that several people have expressed the sentiment that the guy deserved to be detained and tased because he was a jerk or because he did something rude. Okay, fine, he resisted arrest, so he deserves at least to be handcuffed and questioned. At least. But someone being loudmouthed, or having a website all about themselve, or even cutting in line, should not be an acceptable reason to physically injur them or take away even a part of their freedom. Okay, so you don't like him, he's a jerk and he cut in line. Great, fine. But none of that's illegal. And none of it makes him deserve to be dragged to the ground and tased.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It bothers me that several people have expressed the sentiment that the guy deserved to be detained and tased because he was a jerk or because he did something rude.
Many people have posited that he deserved to be removed, that his refusal to leave warranted arrest, and that if he deserved to be tazed, it was for resisting the removal/arrest.
quote:Okay, so you don't like him, he's a jerk and he cut in line. Great, fine. But none of that's illegal.
Refusing to leave when ordered in this situation IS illegal.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many people have posited that he deserved to be removed
That's the part I disagree with. He deserved to be asked to move. Maybe he even deserved great disdain. But nothing he did before the officers tried to move him deserved physical or violent intervention. He did not, IMO, deserve to be physically removed. Jerkiness and line cutting do not deserve physical intervention. Violence is the last refuse of the incompetent.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They asked him to move. He answered with words. Kerry said it was okay and that he'd answer the question. He was physically and violently removed. To me, that does not follow.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:They asked him to move. He answered with words. Kerry said it was okay and that he'd answer the question. He was physically and violently removed. To me, that does not follow.
They asked him to move. He didn't move. Kerry has no power to make his trespassing not be trespassing.
He was not "violently" removed until later in the process. The mere putting hands on the man and guiding him off stage was absolutely proportional to what was going on on the stage.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeh, my point earlier was that if he had zero seconds to speak, they should have removed him immediately, rather than waiting for him to get into the speech, and then waiting until he was done. If they waited that long, why not just let Kerry answer the question?
I really don't think this guy was a threat to anyone.
And for the record, I do think he was being rude, and I don't encourage the behavior, but I am trying to empathize with the guy and figure out what he was thinking, and I don't think he was crazy or a threat.
Notice how, after he's done with the question and they start to drag him off, every word out of his mouth is related to "Are you arresting me? What did I do? What's going on? I'll leave. Don't taser me, bro'." He didn't seem out of touch with reality, he wasn't ignoring the officers and continuing to shout for political change or harass Kerry...
I mean, if they drug him out and he continued yelling at Kerri or damning American's for being ignorant sheep or something, he would have come off as crazy, but he didn't do that. He was totally aware of what was going on.
And Dagonee, the way the situation was handled may also encourage more people to do it, except now instead of attracting loud-mouth hecklers, it will attract activists and protesters. I'm not sure their action helped to prevent future copy cats at all. I feel it would have been better to just let it ride. Some people got a laugh out of it, the kid did no serious harm, and a lot of people thought he looked like an idiot/jerk, all without making the news.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: If they waited that long, why not just let Kerry answer the question?
How did they stop Kerry from answering the question?
quote:And for the record, I do think he was being rude, and I don't encourage the behavior, but I am trying to empathize with the guy and figure out what he was thinking, and I don't think he was crazy or a threat.
What he was thinking was "I am more important than everyone who stood in line to speak, the people who organized the event, and the people in the audience who came to see Kerry, not me."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's kind of awkward to answer a question while the person who asked it is yelling for help and making a big fuss about being forcibly removed. And I'm sure it was even more awkward for Kerry after the tasering.
I agree that the kid's actions were self-centered. If he had wanted Kerry to answer the question, he would have kept his mouth shut, and let the police drag him out, trusting that he'd be able to watch a recording of it later.
I still think the situation was handled inefficiently, and I feel it escalated way too quickly. And yeah, I think if they had just let it ride, things would have turned out better for all involved, and we most likely never would have heard about the incident, unless we were fans of the kid's website.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:At the 2:44 mark, he very clearly says “If you let me go, I’ll walk out of here.” They never let him go.
Yes. He said this. It's also completely irrelevant and no argument against the actions of the cops.
If he thinks that he can just say that after he's escalated it to that point, and then have the cops be compelled/forced to let him go, then he's an idiot.
I'm sure he meant it when he said he'd leave if the cops let him go. Doesn't make him not under arrest anymore. Doesn't change anything.
quote:Don’t even use “It took six officers to restrain him” as an excuse for the tasering. At the level of resistance he showed, six officers was completely unnecessary.
This and many other comments here come off as uneducated both to the specifics of law enforcement and the specifics of the encounter.
I can't comment too much on whether or not the taser was necessary or justified in this instance since I still think myself that it is a little bit fuzzy. It's best to wait for more information.
But I do want to say it is frustrating whenever people say something like "Oh, they had 6 cops there, why the heck do you need a taser?" and use this to judge them as cowards/jerks/The Man.
Handcuffing an adult who wants to resist you is not easy and 5 or 6 people is -- *gasp* -- sometimes not enough! Who are these superhuman mutant crime lords? Where do they come from? That I don't know, but I do know the force it takes to get an adult arm behind a person's back and into cuffs can do some seriously bad things to a shoulder if the arrestee is trying to wrench his arm out of your grasp or otherwise obstruct the process. Using a taser has a huge advantage in this regard and is often better for both parties involved.
Six cops or no. So sayeth those more educated in ENFORCIN' THE LAWL.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: You can't easily "de-escalate" a guy who is basically there to see how far he can push you. The little Johnny Knoxville wanna-be was cruising for a confrontation, and he found one.
Nonsense. I've been to dozens maybe hundreds of similar events. I've acted as Peace Keeper and moderator at such events dozens of times. At almost every political event with a question and answer session, there is at least one guy just like this one who tries to use the question period to make a rant on his favorite conspiracy theory. A good moderator and peace keeping team can nearly always de-escalate such a situation.
Unfortunately, as soon as the police become involved such situations nearly always escalate out of control. When an armed police officer who has been trained to suspect everyone and treat everyone as dangerous grabs hold of your arm, most people feel scared and threatened. For many people, the instinctive response to fear and threats is aggression or panic. Its not a wise response, but at moments like that people don't are likely to react on instinct and adrenaline rather than wisdom. Its one thing to say that he should have gone with the police quietly. It's an entirely different thing to do that when your scared and starting to panic. An awful lot of people who are not mentally ill, react just like this kid did when grabbed by the police.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I don't believe there was any need to remove the guy. If I were being grabbed at by anyone (police or not) when I hadn't done anything illegal (he hadn't) I would resist too. Dag is saying that he "didn't leave when they asked him to"--but after the cops first asked him to, they let him keep speaking. They ceded that they, in fact, had no right to forcibly lead him away--AND Kerry had agreed to answer his questions. Kerry may not have any power to supercede the orders of the police, but what grounds did the police have in asking him to leave IF KERRY WAS OK WITH HIM STAYING. The organizers cut off his mike because they didn't want to look bad, but it doesn't change the fact that he was merely asking a question in an auditorium. No threat to anyone. And because Kerry was trying to answer him--NOT A DISRUPTION, a dialogue! The police have no grounds to remove him, and their charge of "disturbing the peace" didn't happen until AFTER they wrongfully moved on him. "Inciting a riot" was certainly a nice "safety charge" to tell him at the scene. The fact that this is the first thing they tell him (notice they don't give him ANY reason for the arrest until then), tells me that they had no right to move on him in the first place.
If they had simply not let him speak like they should have ie "I'm sorry, there will be NO more questions", I wouldn't have issue with it--BUT THEY LET HIM SPEAK, which to me, absolves him of these charges that he had no right to be up there in the first place because he cut in line and questioning was over.
Of course, after he "resisted", the police have every right to use all the means they did to detain him, including tasing. The decision to do so was horribly stupid, and they're seeing that now. Regardless of Andrew Meyer's bad judgement in bursting to the front of the line and asking questions, it was much, much worse judgement of the officers who decided to turn to violence--who should be held to a higher standard.
It just bothers me so much that because a police officer decides it's illegal for you to stand where you are, then suddenly you have to comply and come with them or you're RESISTING. That's so backwards to me. If I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't care what an officer says, they have NO right to take me into custody, and I have every right to resist.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:what grounds did the police have in asking him to leave IF KERRY WAS OK WITH HIM STAYING.
Because Kerry wasn't the one who had the right to exclude people from the event. That was delegated to the security for the event - the police.
The guy cut in line. At that point, he should NOT get to benefit. And letting him ask the question is letting him benefit.
quote:It just bothers me so much that because a police officer decides it's illegal for you to stand where you are, then suddenly you have to comply and come with them or you're RESISTING.
It's not like the kid was standing in a public park and the cop came up to him out of the blue. The kid KNEW he was doing something wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Cutting in line is rude, but it is not illegal. Using a question session as a chance to rant is rude, but not illegal. Exceding your alotted time is inconsiderate, but not illegal.
Unless this event was highly unusal, the decision of whether someone should be allowed to "benefit" by asking a question, was the responsibility of the moderator and not the security.
If the moderators felt the young man had unjustly taken the microphone, they could have immediately interupted to inform he had not been recognized to question. If that did not work, they could have turned off that microphone immediately. The fact that the moderator did neither of those things suggests either that the moderator chose to allow the question (which is withing a moderators rights even if someone cuts the lin) or that the moderator was negligent.
I have been a moderator at debates and public forums where this precise thing has happened. I have interrupted guys like this and said, "I'm sorry but, you will need to wait your turn". and then recognized another speaker. I've interrupted ranters and said, "I'm sorry your time is up, do you have a short question?" I've been a peace keeper at such events charged with de-escalating such conflicts. I saw absolutely nothing in any of the videos shown to indicate that this incident couldn't have been resolved non-violently and with relative ease. The kid gave every indication he was finished and ready to leave when the officers grabbed him.
What the police did was I'm certain legal. It was also an example of really poor situation management. The police took a situation which had been non-violent, legal and only mildly offensive and escalated it to a violent criminal offense. That's bad for the police, bad for the kid, and bad for the public.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The guy cut in line. At that point, he should NOT get to benefit. And letting him ask the question is letting him benefit.
I'm not disagreeing with you here. However, while YOU think he should not get to speak, that was up to the moderator and JOHN KERRY--both of whom ok'ed him. And while the police exercise the RIGHT to do whatever they please (he was drunk in public, inciting a riot, and getting on my nerves--ARREST HIM), our point was that they made the wrong decision here.
quote:That doesn't cede any such thing so I don't know what you are talking about
I'm very sorry that you can't see what I"m talking about. If you ask someone to do something, they don't do it, and you allow them to keep doing it, that's kind of like you making a cession, because you're allowing them to do something you told them not to. They did this twice.
quote:It's not like the kid was standing in a public park and the cop came up to him out of the blue. The kid KNEW he was doing something wrong.
Agreed. I didn't mention the kid. My example was a hypothetical.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, Cutting in line is rude, but it is not illegal. Using a question session as a chance to rant is rude, but not illegal. Exceding your alotted time is inconsiderate, but not illegal.
Not leaving when designated security officers tell you to leave IS illegal.
And telling someone to leave after cutting in line is not only appropriate, it's something I wish they'd do more often. So many potentially interesting events get screwed up by rude jerks like this one that I basically stopped going to them by my fourth year of college.
quote:If the moderators felt the young man had unjustly taken the microphone, they could have immediately interupted to inform he had not been recognized to question. If that did not work, they could have turned off that microphone immediately. The fact that the moderator did neither of those things suggests either that the moderator chose to allow the question (which is withing a moderators rights even if someone cuts the lin) or that the moderator was negligent.
It's manipulative blackmail to make the moderator do this. This is a security problem (not a threatening one, but an unauthorized access one) and should be treated as such.
Do we know that the moderator knew he cut in line? I can't tell from the stories I've read.
quote:The police took a situation which had been non-violent, legal and only mildly offensive and escalated it to a violent criminal offense.
The police did not escalate this to a violent criminal offense.The kid is the one who escalated this to criminal.
Certainly, his escalation was in response to their attempted removal. But they escalated it from a non-violent, legal, and only mildly offensive situation to a non-violent, legal, and only mildly offensive ejection. The kid escalated it to a criminal offense.
quote:Agreed. I didn't mention the kid. My example was a hypothetical.
It seemed to me that you were stating that people who thought this kid should be removed from the stage and that resisting the removal was illegal were also saying "that because a police officer decides it's illegal for you to stand where you are, then suddenly you have to comply and come with them or you're RESISTING."
As long as you're acknowledging that the people who are advocating for this kid's removal are not advocating what you posited, that's fine.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Michael Moore came to my school in Utah and there were two incidents where people had to be removed from the venue. Before Mr. Moore even spoke ground rules for the speech were laid out in that we were informed if we started yelling or disrupting things then school security would escort us off the premises. The first interruption was a guy who stood up reached into his jacket and said he had a gun, Mr. Moore demanded security deal with him and they took him away. A few minutes later two Ralph Nader supporters stood up and started shouting and security also escorted them away. If either of them had not simply gone with security and instead started thrashing about and resisting I would be ok with police using tasers so that other patrons would not not be injured by flailing limbs.
edit: I can see why the police escorted this man from the room, he was not interested in dealing with the police, he was trying to get the entire room behind him. As soon as they tazed him you could immediately hear a woman screaming and cries of police brutality and it seems to me he was resisting until the police utilized that force in order to get the publicity and public reaction he was seeking. If he had been simply hauled off he would have had nothing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: It just bothers me so much that because a police officer decides it's illegal for you to stand where you are, then suddenly you have to comply and come with them or you're RESISTING. That's so backwards to me. If I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't care what an officer says, they have NO right to take me into custody, and I have every right to resist.
He was being escorted from the building, not taken into custody. He was arrested after he started resisting the officers, which, despite what someone said earlier in this thread, was quite violent.
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: It’s even worse when I look at the clearer video Morbo posted, because his “resisting arrest” consisted of backing away from officers, trying to run after they grab him and carry him up some stairs, and finally, weakly trying to sit up. He never strikes an officer, his “flailing” is much more controlled than I thought at first, as he’s pretty slowly just moving his arms so they can’t grab him.
Look at the part of the video when the officers first try to escort him from the building. You cannot honestly call that controlled flailing.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What the police did was I'm certain legal. It was also an example of really poor situation management. The police took a situation which had been non-violent, legal and only mildly offensive and escalated it to a violent criminal offense. That's bad for the police, bad for the kid, and bad for the public.
The police didn't even do anything violent in the beginning! They became violent after the kid became violent, which was the appropriate thing to do. The time for the kid to leave the building peacefully and free was when the police asked him to do so, not after they had to tackle him to the ground.
That said...
I'm against the use of tasers because there have been cases where tasers have killed their targets. Its rare but one innocent death from a taser outweights any potential gain from their use imo (I believe the same thing about the death penalty).
posted
When you look at the science of police apprehension, tasers when used correctly actually reduce the risk of death in the situations in which they are deployed.
They aren't used just to make things easier for the cops. They're used because they are a way to make certain immobilization needs safer for both parties, the apprehenders and the apprehendees.
You know what the taser has pretty much replaced? The baton. Do you know which one is the more lethal device? The baton.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats a good point however did batons cause more deaths than tasers when used properly? I find it hard to believe that a police officer could accidently kill someone with a baton without doing something stupid (like hitting them in the face). Tasers can kill people even when used properly.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Thats a good point however did batons cause more deaths than tasers when used properly? I find it hard to believe that a police officer could accidently kill someone with a baton without doing something stupid (like hitting them in the face). Tasers can kill people even when used properly.
You're aware that an electrical charge designed to be non-lethal can kill someone, but are unable/unwilling to imagine that blunt trauma designed to be non-lethal can kill someone?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thats a good point however did batons cause more deaths than tasers when used properly?
Police agencies that have given the devices to every officer have seen suspect injuries drop by half and officer injuries drop 70 percent. Taser deaths are widely reported due to the 'controversy' over the device, and you don't get as much attention to how often batons, also when used correctly, were more easily attributable directly to many many many people's deaths. Yes. Collapsible batons kill people easier.
Most of the reported deaths involving tasers are where a tased suspect passes away a few days later and someone makes a legal grab for the 'offending' police department. Nearly every time a taser kills someone, there is a complicating medical issue (such as the suspect being loaded with serious drugs) and the stress of the confrontation in full has killed them. People read that a taser was used in the course of an incident which ended up in the apprehended person's death, and they make the jump from circumstance to correlation to causation to sole causation.
As far as nonlethal takedown options go, stun batons and mace are both technically more lethal than tasers. All non-lethal takedown involves the risk of death. Batons are more lethal. Why the loathing for tasers? Usually, it's because people think that the tasers are pain induction tools, and they use electrocution pain to 'dissuade' or 'torture' people into submission.
Not the case, really -- the science behind tasers is not 'takedown through pain' but rather 'takedown through muscle immobilization.' That's what the electric charges are intended to do and they do it very well. The pain is a side effect of the process.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An officer wielding a baton has complete control over how hard he swings it, and pretty good control over where it lands. Properly used, a baton will never damage vital organs, ever, let alone induce a heart attack.
You can't say that about a taser.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:An officer wielding a baton has complete control over how hard he swings it, and pretty good control over where it lands.
You've unintentionally made a good argument in favor of the taser, since its use is more mechanically regulated even in chaotic situations. A baton is more unwieldy and must cause more damage to the target and put them at more risk of serious harm since you're trying to immobilize them with blunt trauma.
And since the use of a baton is variable while under the policeman's 'complete control,' there are many situations where in the heat of a takedown the weapon is used too powerfully and grievous injury results. So, you're practically making a totally good case for the taser: its regulated nature reduces the risk of misuse, intentional or unintentional. Taser wins.
quote:Properly used, a baton will never damage vital organs, ever, let alone induce a heart attack.
This would be a nice point if it were true in the least. Unfortunately, it's about as mistaken as it gets. More than one meth-head has had 'proper use' of the baton push their physiological bodies over the brink. A whack to the chest can cause cardiac arrest, easily. Many people have tragically died under easily ascertainable 'proper use' of the baton.
The baton is a cruder device of a bygone era. It is more dangerous. You are at more risk of death and injury if it is the tool used in your forceful apprehension. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:An officer wielding a baton has complete control over how hard he swings it, and pretty good control over where it lands. Properly used, a baton will never damage vital organs, ever, let alone induce a heart attack.
Then "proper use" is unattainable.
An officer swinging a baton at a person who is fighting back cannot keep it from hitting the head all the time. Moreover, blows hard enough to incapacitate can also kill.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pro- and anti-taser posters have made some good points. I would be interested in seeing study results like Samprimary mentioned.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Originally posted by NotMe:
quote:An officer wielding a baton has complete control over how hard he swings it, and pretty good control over where it lands.
You've unintentionally made a good argument in favor of the taser, since its use is more mechanically regulated even in chaotic situations. A baton is more unwieldy and must cause more damage to the target and put them at more risk of serious harm since you're trying to immobilize them with blunt trauma.
You have definitely not made the case that one blow from a baton must cause more damage than a taser shot. Since there are people who have died from being tased it's certainly not true. And if you include the pain inflicted on the . . . alleged perp (that was a weighty noun choice), most people would say that one blow from a baton causes less damage and/or pain than one taser shot. If you exclude head blows from a baton, I think even more would agree. So I contend that a taser shot has a higher minimum of pain inflicted. If a suspect could have been subdued by hand or by 1 or 2 baton blows, that would be less pain inflicted for the same end result.
Suppose for the sake of argument an average taser shot causes roughly the same pain as 5 average body, arm or leg blows from a baton. There is an obvious PR advantage, if cameras are rolling, to tase someone once rather than beat on them 5 times. Although given the protests and outrage this case has caused, that advantage may be eroding.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with this whole foolishness disappearing is that I've heard the phrase, "Don't Taze me Bro" as a catch phrase on everything from "The O'Rielly Factor" to "NPR"
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You have definitely not made the case that one blow from a baton must cause more damage than a taser shot.
One blow from a baton is reliably a much less actionable use of a baton than one discharge of a taser. It is also less reliable.
Keep in mind that we are judging the actionable use of either object in their use as a takedown weapon. The taser takes you down faster and easier and with more assured nonlethality when it is used by police in the place of batons. Hell, police using tasers are less likely to hurt a resisting perp than if they are not using weapons at all.
Also, I think I'll speak sagely on the subject of getting-thine-butt-curbed-by-a-cop: I would rather get tasered than get a full-on bullywhack from a baton. A 'proper use' of a baton can break bones, a common one being the clavicle. Two pin-pricks and 3-8 seconds of shock are vastly preferable and you won't have a mouldering yellow-black bruise (or more) for weeks.
I mean, I just can't understate this. If you think that the baton is the more 'humane' or 'safe' weapon you're just wrong and I'm trying to make this very clear.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you include the pain inflicted on the . . . alleged perp (that was a weighty noun choice), most people would say that one blow from a baton causes less damage and/or pain than one taser shot.
Depends. Solar plexus, testicles, knees, elbows, and probably kidneys might very well might deliver more damage even taking pain into account - some of those would be ahead on pain alone.
I think any broken bone would exceed the damage caused by a normal taser shot, and likely most non-lethal taser shots.
The other thing to keep in mind is that tasers also replace the use of firearms. For example, in any situation where the suspect has a knife, I think you are looking at either a firearm use or a baton use that will likely exceed taser damage.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have still not made the case that a blow from a baton must cause more damage than a taser shot. You would favor a taser shot more than a broken bone? Well, so would I so and would most people. You would favor a taser over a bruise? I would not and so would many others.
I don't think that a baton is a more humane or safe weapon. My point (which was admittedly tossed over in favor of baton vs. taser rhetoric) is that tasers are often used indiscriminately by cops when they are not needed. 4 (or however many were surrounding the suspect) should have been enough to handcuff him with out tasing or batoning. The portrayal of the taser as a "safe" weapon leads to excessive use.
quote: One blow from a baton is reliably a much less actionable use of a baton than one discharge of a taser.
I don't know what this sentence means.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You have still not made the case that a blow from a baton must cause more damage than a taser shot.
Not that anybody has to (it's irrelevant to the fact that police with tasers are safer than police with billyclubs and that takedowns with tasers are safer than police with billyclubs) but generally yes a blunt, intended impact from a baton will cause more damage than a taser.
I'm serious. I'd rather get tasered. A baton whack will hurt for at least a week, especially if it bonks me on the forearm or shoulder. It does more damage. It bruises terribly. It damages muscle and bone. It can shatter wrists or clavicles. How else am I supposed to make this case?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The other thing to keep in mind is that tasers also replace the use of firearms. For example, in any situation where the suspect has a knife, I think you are looking at either a firearm use or a baton use that will likely exceed taser damage.
I have no problem with cops using a taser instead of a gun. That makes sense. Even though there is a risk of death from tasing, it's far less than the 50% risk of dying after being shot by a cop. This study, Cardiovascular Risk and the TASER®: A Review of the Recent Literature ,which I just skimmed, is where I got the 50% stat. It seems like a balanced review.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other way to look at it is that tasers look better on the video footage than the baton. There's just no way to hit a guy with a club and not look bad doing it.
From a monetary standpoint, tasers should lead to fewer brutality losses which should decrease taxpayer expenses. Everybody wins.
Well, except the drug addicts.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Drug addicts sort of win too, because the rampaging folk like PCP addicts (the ones you see on COPS who just do not go down) are at less risk of a number of associated injuries.
Also, cops are less likely to feel like they are in a situation where they have to escalate to deadly force when they have a more or less ranged takedown weapon as an option.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sooooo the 'don't tase me bro' meme has essentially hijacked all of the discussion over this subject nearly everywhere. I'm actually kind of totally sad.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: It’s even worse when I look at the clearer video Morbo posted, because his “resisting arrest” consisted of backing away from officers, trying to run after they grab him and carry him up some stairs, and finally, weakly trying to sit up. He never strikes an officer, his “flailing” is much more controlled than I thought at first, as he’s pretty slowly just moving his arms so they can’t grab him.
Look at the part of the video when the officers first try to escort him from the building. You cannot honestly call that "controlled flailing".
I've been misquoted here. I'd appreciate an edit, Threads.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: It’s even worse when I look at the clearer video Morbo posted, because his “resisting arrest” consisted of backing away from officers, trying to run after they grab him and carry him up some stairs, and finally, weakly trying to sit up. He never strikes an officer, his “flailing” is much more controlled than I thought at first, as he’s pretty slowly just moving his arms so they can’t grab him.
Look at the part of the video when the officers first try to escort him from the building. You cannot honestly call that "controlled flailing".
I've been misquoted here. I'd appreciate an edit, Threads.
I removed the quotes but kept the phrase. Thats essentially what you said. Sorry if that offended you but I honestly see no difference between controlled flailing and "his 'flailing' is much more controlled...".
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen somebody get tasered before and imo it is much safer for both the cop and the bad guy than using batons or something. Usually people are more docile after being tasered than if they just got hit by a baton and it doesn't critically injure or kill them like a gun could potentially do. People who are being hit will most likely hit back, as it is their instinct. Tasers remove that from the equation.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This happened at the school I go to. I work at the TV station across the hall from where these yahoos work.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. I didn't think swear words were protected speech. Or fighting words.
They must have a different definition of provacative there at Colorado State than we do here in Florida. Or we're just southern enough for that. Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
that was a pretty compelling editorial article. that said, besides having the word 'taser' in it it seems completely unrelated to the Andrew incident.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know. That's what's so ridiculous. Maybe I should have posted this as a new thread, though.
I just think they missed the point completely, and in the same way many people have about the whole thing. I don't think this was a free speech issue. No one was telling him he had no right to say what he did. He just wouldn't shut up when his time was up, and he wouldn't leave when he was supposed to. And then he began resisting arrest. Of course, for the idiots at the Collegian, his rights were infringed, and so that was an opportunity to attack Bush in an extremely unprofessional manner.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Originally posted by The Rabbit
quote:If the moderators felt the young man had unjustly taken the microphone, they could have immediately interupted to inform he had not been recognized to question. If that did not work, they could have turned off that microphone immediately. The fact that the moderator did neither of those things suggests either that the moderator chose to allow the question (which is withing a moderators rights even if someone cuts the lin) or that the moderator was negligent.
It's manipulative blackmail to make the moderator do this. This is a security problem (not a threatening one, but an unauthorized access one) and should be treated as such.
"Manipulative Blackmail" You've got to kidding!! I've moderated a large number of seminars, debates and discussion panels ranging from scientific forums to political debates. I speak as one with extensive experience. THE JOB of the moderator is to regulate the flow of questions and answers. In every situation in which I have either moderated or spoken it is the express responsibility of the moderator to recognize questioners in a fair and unbiased fashion and to ensure that speakers and questioners stay within the rules and time limits prescribed. If someone is speaking out of turn, it is the moderators responsibility first and not the responsibility of security. How is it "manipulative blackmail" to suggest a moderator should moderate the discussion?
quote:
quote:The police took a situation which had been non-violent, legal and only mildly offensive and escalated it to a violent criminal offense.
The police did not escalate this to a violent criminal offense.The kid is the one who escalated this to criminal.
Dag, When the Police grabbed the kids arms, they committed an act of violence. If it had been anyone but the Police, they could have been charged with assault in most US states for that action. Since the police action was the first violent action in the encounter, the police unquestionable escalated to violence. I saw absolutely nothing in the video that would justify that escalation. There is every reason to believe that if this situation had been handled differently, the kid would have left the stage without the use of force and none of us would have heard of it.
[ September 24, 2007, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is it "manipulative blackmail" to suggest a moderate should moderate the discussion?
It's not manipulative blackmail for you to suggest a moderator should moderate the discussion. It is manipulative blackmail for this kid to force onto the moderator the choice of either silencing him, having him removed, or allowing him to abuse the process.
quote:Dag, When the Police grabbed the kids arms, they committed an act of violence. If it had been anyone but the Police, they could have been charged with assault in most US states for that action. Since the police action was the first violent action in the encounter, the police unquestionable escalated to violence. I saw absolutely nothing in the video that would justify that escalation. There is every reason to believe that if this situation had been handled differently, the kid would have left the stage without the use of force and none of us would have heard of it.
quote:Dag, When the Police grabbed the kids arms, they committed an act of violence. If it had been anyone but the Police, they could have been charged with assault in most US states for that action.
Assault does not necessarily involve violence, so the fact that this might (and it wouldn't if it were, say, private security) be assault is not proof that it was violent.
Moreover, this kid is the one who escalated it to criminal, not the police.
quote:I saw absolutely nothing in the video that would justify that escalation.
His going to the stage justified his removal, including taking him by the arms.
quote:There is every reason to believe that if this situation had been handled differently, the kid would have left the stage without the use of force and none of us would have heard of it.
There is every reason to believe that if this kid hadn't intentionally tried to make a scene we wouldn't have heard of it, either. There's every reason to believe that if he had just waited in line, we wouldn't have heard of it. There's every reason to believe that if he had left with the police, we wouldn't have heard of it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:His going to the stage justified his removal, including taking him by the arms.
B.S. If his going to the stage justified his removal, he should have and likely would have been removed immediately not after allowing him a minute and a half at the microphone.
quote: Assault does not necessarily involve violence, so the fact that this might (and it wouldn't if it were, say, private security) be assault is not proof that it was violent.
I guess this depends on your definition of violence. As a student of Ghandi, I tend to view any act of coersion rather than persuasion as violent. I recognize that is a definition that is not widely accepted. The use of physical force to inflict discomfort or injury on an individual is however a very commonly accepted definition of violence. While grabbing a persons arms with the intent to force them to move need not inflict severe injury, it is certainly causes some discomfort. It is an inherently violent act.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:B.S. If his going to the stage justified his removal, he should have and likely would have been removed immediately not after allowing him a minute and a half at the microphone.
So it's all or nothing - the minute it's justified they have to act, or it proves later actions unjustified? And not just all or nothing, but so obviously all or nothing that you can label it B.S. Right.
I know for an absolute fact that police and other's acting as site security frequently - probably the vast majority of the time - do not remove when they are justified in doing so.
quote:I guess this depends on your definition of violence. As a student of Ghandi, I tend to view any act of coersion rather than persuasion as violent.
Then he was violent by taking the microphone when it wasn't his. It was coercive, and not mere persuasion.
quote:I recognize that is a definition that is not widely accepted.
You got that right.
quote:The use of physical force to inflict discomfort or injury on an individual is however a very commonly accepted definition of violence. While grabbing a persons arms with the intent to force them to move need not inflict severe injury, it is certainly causes some discomfort. It is an inherently violent act.
No, it doesn't "certainly" cause some discomfort.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:During the forum, Meyer peppered Kerry with questions and refused repeated requests to leave the microphone after his allotted time was up. He had asked Kerry about impeaching President George Bush, why he didn't challenge the 2004 election results and whether he and Bush were in the secret Skull and Bones society as undergraduates at Yale University.
WOULDN'T LEAVE
FDLE said in its report that police use of the Taser was appropriate because Meyer refused police orders to leave the campus auditorium. Meyer clenched a chair to keep police from removing him.
The Taser was the safest way to remove him without harming Meyer or others, the report concluded.
''While I am pleased that the FDLE review is complete, we still have work to do on a separate front,'' University of Florida President Bernie Machen wrote in a statement.
``As an academic institution, it is our responsibility to continually review -- and improve-- how we foster an open environment that is also safe for our everchanging campus community.''
In the 17-page summary of the report, FDLE said it spoke with several witnesses who said that days before the event Meyer vowed to put on ''a show'' at the Kerry event.
According to the report, during a Sept. 11 Gators for Rudy [Giuliani] rally, Meyer got into an argument with another student and told a friend that ``if he liked what he had seen that he should go to the Kerry speech and he would really see a show.''
In addition, the report said that after his arrest, when Meyer was out of view of the cameras, he told officers that they did not do anything wrong and then asked ``if cameras will be at the jail.''
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Someone else in this thread did.
