US student brutally tazored... for asking questions

Post Reply New Topic

Interesting. Are there any more details on this?

I know it's a touchy subject but if this were, lets say, in a mall or where there were a lot of witnesses/bystanders it's really the their (our) civic duty to physically stop the cops by whatever means necessary. Get enough angry people to pile onto them it won't take but seconds to get the cops subdued enough. What would follow after the dust has settled is anyone's guess, though. The biggest problem would be to get people moving in that direction quickly since we've been brought up to be sheep.
It's not an easy problem to tackle legally. Not with the way things are going nowadays, anyway.

A small point to make:

He wasn't tazed for asking a question. He was tazed for disorderly conduct. Whether you think that deserves a tazing or not is a valid discussion, but the logic in the arguements here are weak.

There was a set of rules that everybody had to follow during this event, and for good reason. There needed to be some sort of order, and there needed to be security measures in place due to the presence of a prominant U.S. Senator. The student ignored the protocol, and wasn't asking questions as much as he was embarassing a political figure for his website.

He wasn't tazed after any of his rabble-rousing. (How many of you really think his motivation was to ask pointed intelligent questions as opposed to harassing Sen. Kerry?) He was being disorderly, and was told to leave. Repeatedly. He escalated the conflict by resisting, and he knew a tazing was imminent (Don't taze me bro!) yet didn't stop his hysterics. The tazer is used as a non-lethal device that produces no long-term effects, yet enables the police to gain control of the situation. What you think of that is the main arguement, not whether someone was tazed for asking a question. It's a classic straw man argument--to invent a scenario that doesn't exist in order to denounce one that does.

And to those of you who like to take this opportunity to post American flag swastickas, implying that the U.S. has become some totalitarian dictatorship: If this were anything resembling Nazi Germany, the kid in Florida would have been shot on site. Actually, the execution would have been delayed until they could get more people to watch it. And you'd be next for writing about it on the web.

To sum it up, he has the freedom to be a jerk, and ask whatever questions he wants. He doesn't have the right (and nobody ever did) to expect that the rules of a civic engagement don't apply to him, and affect others.

I'm not stating a political opinion, I just wish discussions were based more on sound logic than hysteria. I'm sure that tazers have been used inappropriately (as have nightsticks, fists, and anything else you can think of). But the fact remains that many people are still alive because they were tazed instead of shot when their actions got out of the control of the police.

Saw the video, don't know what to think ...

One website said it was a set-up, and this chap has a website...

Seems he got hustled off the mic when asked about "Skull and Bones."

Yank police continue to frighten me, quite violent, very un-predictable. They all need to come here to the UK and learn some manners...

He was NOT conducting himself in a disorderly manner. He asked 3 questions (as promised) then indicated that he would like to sit down to hear the answer. It was clear that he was ending and seemed about to leave after the mic got cut, before he was dragged off. He did appear flustered whilst talking; this is unsurprising as he had been physically harrassed whilst trying to speak!



He asked a perfectly valid questions of a supposedly democratically elected representative.

I do not think that democratically elected representatives, much less former presidential candidates should have some sort of immunity from being potentially embarassed.



I find the bias in this comment disturbing. In a conflict where aggressive force is being used by one side, it is the aggressors who are directly cause that escalation.



See above, you would probably not notice it yourself but when i read the above i sense a strong undertone of political bias, even if opinions are not being overtly stated. But then i suppose thats inevitable when people debate from significantly different paradigms. Im sure you feel the same way.

Psych,

My point was, if he was tazed for asking a question, then he would have been hit immediately. He had ample opportunity to not be tazed, but he chose a different path. The issue of excessive force is a valid one; the issue of physical harm as a result of asking an unwanted question to a political leader isn't relevant in this situation.

Nowhere did I say that Kerry shouldn't be embarassed.

As to the bias in the comment about his resistance escalating the confrontation, please be clearer in pointing it out. What side do you think I'm taking? Honestly I don't care either way about any of the participants. I do care about logically sound debating, and that's the point I was trying to make.

I have no love for the police, but the truth of the matter is, if you're in a situation that is potentially dangerous, and the police are issuing orders, the first thing you should do is to comply, and worry about the rest later. Their first prioity is to ensure order, and if the big mean policeman is yelling at you, then you just have to swallow it. He wasn't tazed initially, he was given ample warning, and told numerous times that he was to leave the stage. The police are the authority at that moment (in ANY country, this isn't unique to the U.S.) and he chose to fight back, with predictable results. Agree or not, that's how law enforcement works. I've been on the wrong side enough to know how to shut up, swallow my pride, and stay out of jail. If a police officer has a tazer pointed at me, and tells me to leave, I would have to be in a mindset unable to process rational decisions in order to chose the tazing over leaving. And someone in such a mindset surrounded by students and prominent government officials should be subdued to prevent serious injury to anyone.

And there are reports that he cut in line, and went over the pre agreed allocated time for student questions. I don't have a link at the moment, but I've read it. Possibly CNN or something.

Again, I'm not approaching this from a political angle, I don't have an agenda, or love or hatred for any participants. Just because I agree with something doesn't indicate a bias. If I had a bias, then to what am I biased? All I'm saying is that the he wasn't tazed for questioning, he was tazed for disorderly conduct, or if you have an anti-police bias, then I'd allow that he was tazed for the lesser offense of just being a jerk.

I agree with the disorderly tazing, but, if, as some have suggested that the police were just tazing him because he was an obnoxious jerk, then I disagree with the tazing. But in either situation, he was tazed for something other than asking a question. And that's my point, I strongly disagree with those who suggest that tazing is a response to unwanted political expression. I would fight harder than anyone against such a system, and in this case, I don't think it applies. If it did, he wouldn't have had ample opportunity to prevent the escalation of the situation, he'd have been whacked immediately.

One more thing: thanks for the intelligent, and pointed comments. I truly appreciate the opportunity to discuss issues rationally, and logically, and without resorting to name calling, or ridiculous hyperbole and exaggeration (i.e. Nazis or something like that). Certainly there's no animosity on my side; people look at issues differently, and as long as it's done in a respectful manner, then everybody comes away with a little better insight.

If you were tased I bet your memory of it would be “long-term”.
The police already had control of the situation. Obviously.
The guy wasn’t a hulk and there were 4 cops on him while he was face down and restrained well enough so that he wasn’t going anywhere or hurting anyone.



Again, they had control. It wasn’t about control it was about; “We’ll show you, you little prick”. At that instant we go from a legitimate police device for stunning someone to gain control to torturing someone that they already have under control. What next?

First point: Given the choice of a tazer or a 9mm, then I'll take the tazer 10 out of 10 times. Long term unpleasant memories are preferable to permanent death.

Second point: Please attribute my quotes accurately. Again, it's a straw man argument. (You're arguing against a point I didn't make). You took my claim on tazers in general, and applied it to this specific case. As I've said, the possibility that the police were thinking "We'll show you" is a valid point in this case, and is hard to prove or disprove. But are you disagreeing with the fact that tazers are an advancement in law enforcement technology? I was speaking in general (and I thought it was clear) about how tazers are used to subdue out of control people. This case is debatable, which I fully agree, but given the all too common scenario of drug addled gang members, or drunken good ol' boys, the tazer has allowed the police to control situations with far fewer fatalities.

Ok, i see what you mean. He was arrested for asking a question, and then tazored for resisting that arrest. I agree that the title i gave the thread is misleading.



Your idea of what constitutes 'the laws of civil engagement' would seem to be quite different to mine, this maybe an example of a type of political bias imo, although perhaps not in the left vs right sense that you might have had in mind.

Decades ago, there was a tradition of 'heckling' when politicians made a public appearance in the UK. I think this was quite healthy - there was a certain honesty about it and its a sad reflection of our times that public appearances seem to be staged media event, with vetted (perhaps even paid) participants. Yes, this is a different time/place and there are physical security consideration, however i dont think these apply here.

If you dont mind it'll be much easier to me illustrate further if i use an exerpt from this post, rather than your original;



This is perhaps as much an ideological as a political bias. You rightfully point out that a rational, average mind should expect to be met with violent force if they do/dont say certain things or take a certain course of action/inaction. Thats true, they should expect it to happen, however they neednt accept that it will happen - 'thats how law enforcement works', iyswim.

Like yourself, i would probably choose to 'shut up and stay out of jail' in many situations, however i admire people who disregard the consequences and follow their intuition about what is right, or have the bravery to speak out knowing they will soon be punished. We owe people like that a great deal, perhaps every political freedom we enjoy (depending on your relative social class).

I dont think resisting arrest is to 'fight back', although this may be a semantic slip rather than an indication of political/ideological bias. It looked to me like he was trying to escape and/or retain some dignity, rather than cause injury.



well, thats CNN. I read somewhere that certain cameras show the police appeared to move in after instruction from some 'men in black'. Both allegations (if true) cast a new light on the event.




likewise

A gentleman of advanced years was removed from a Labour Party conference not long ago foe heckling and being disruptive. For shouting "rubbish." after Lord High President KIng Blair said something or other. Doesnt matter what really, hes old news now. But this war veteran was hustled from the room by several burly guards in a very similar fashion to how this young man was removed.

First Rule-- never heckle at a partisan meeting. Only do it at mixed ones. They dont like it, and dont like being questioned. At worst this kid was filibustering, and was hassled almost from the moment he got up. His mike was cut, his questions went unanswered. "Inciting a riot?" ROFL.. American cops have a f****d up view of what a Riot is then. Though werent these student rentacops?

And tazering him.. regardless of WHY they thought they were doing it.. was uncalled for. He was in no position to resist, escape, or do anything else apart from call out. Yeah, they could have shot him.. and then they would probably have had an actual riot on their hands.

Every scrap of evidence I've ever seen seems to suggest that american police and security services overreact in a vastly inapporopraite way. Dont call them sir? Theyre pulling a gun on you.. DARE to not IMMEDIATELY DO EXACTY WHAT you're TOLD NO MATTER WHAT you're ACTUALLY DOING.. you get shot. I once saw a guy have a gun pulled on him for holding a can of beer in a car. Yes, drinking and driving is a crime, but he wasnt drunk yet. He was effectively sober, simply holding a can, readily and easily recognisable as a can, that was stated on the video to be a can of beer, and not in any way shape or form a threat or threatening gesture.. and hes pointing a GUN at this guy????

Mentals.

And my little fascist adornment of this thread fits quite well, i thought. You have to look at it with the quote though. This is how it begins, when the circle turns again. First you cant ask questions in a public forum, then its California Uber Alles.

Unless of course you work for the BBC.

More tasers in the news:

Man Tasered for refusing to lift hand off Quran

s**t. I thought we had the right to freedom of speech? Those cops could have handled the situation better. Is brutal force really the answer? They should be prosecuted, but I doubt they will because society is f****d up. Ok I think I'm going to have to leave this planet. I can't stand the people who run it.

Well the thing is first this kid jumps up and lunges for the stage, giving the cops the impression he's going to attack the speaker. Second, he monopolizes the convention until the cops try to move him. Third, this bub appartently has a history of disrupting conventions. Fourth, he starts to ask these questions and interrupts the speaker as he tries to answer him. Fifth, he starts thrashing as the cops trys to move him. I agree the tazer was unnecessary. Still, there's a major problem with conventions: No one gets to talk as much as they like since its too short. In the ancient days of Athens, conventions could go on for weeks without anyone deciding anything.

First point: Police brutality and arrogance certainly isn't a situation unique to the U.S. It's an unfortunate side effect of the need to have aggressive, highly charged dominant personalities responsible for the maintenance of laws. John Lennon would be a terrible police officer, and if an entire force were to be staffed by him and his clones, then that city would immediately be overrun with every type of human vermin you can imagine. (pun intended) This doesn't excuse or defend police officers acting outside the law, but I'm just saying that the type of people required to do that job can also be expected to lose control of their emotions. Again, I don't excuse it, but it's a human nature problem, not an American one. Jerks come from the U.S., Germany, Africa, Asia, and even the U.K.

And you made no mention of the police shooting the beer holding guy, so what's the problem. You claim he was "effectively" sober, but while he's still sitting in his car there'a no way for the police to determine that. Empirical evidence of the beer would tend to lead to a conclusion that he was more likely intoxicated. Police are run over constantly, in the U.S., driving a car at an officer in an attempt to escape is considered assault with intent to murder, and the police are generally justified in using deadly force. If merely pointing a gun at somebody can prevent that from happening in the first place, then I would claim that that's pretty cheap insurance. And the video doesn't show the beer holder's criminal record, perhaps he has a history of assault. Perhaps there was a report of an armed robbery, and the car fit the description.

I have no love for the police, I've been harassed and fined plenty. But I also understand the larger context of the work they have to do, and I grit my teeth and chalk it up to the variances of human nature. Once more--I'm not justifying illegal or unethical behavior, it should be punished harder than for a civillian, but being a jerk, arrogant, and powermad are actually beneficial qualitied for a person responsible for keeping me from being robbed.

That's part of what vexed me about the video, is that most of the sheeple (sheep-people) were just standing around, ignoring the whole thing, as if they were in another dimension or something. You're right, the government has most people well-trained. That's us saying to the government, "Do whatever you want to us -- we'll accept it."

I liked the part where, later out in the lobby, the female cop is shouting at the man to "CALM DOWN!! ! CALM DOWN!! !" while he's just standing there looking half-dead. She's the one who's screaming. And every time he calmly asserted his rights, she yelled back him, clearly angered that he wasn't being reprogrammed by this very abusive and traumatic experience. I hope he sues them for everything they're worth. Clearly, it's the only way to get through to them.

Exactly. If four trained cops can't hold down one thin man after they have him on the ground and surrounded, they need to hit the gym a little more and the doughnuts a little less.