View Full Version : Student arrested, shot with Taser gun for asking a question
cameron_keys
09-19-2007, 11:51 AM
Do you know that they weren't ordered to by a higher up? There are plenty of things that we do not know before we can say they had no legal right whatsoever. Perhaps they were just following orders to get the kid out ASAP. Nothing I have seen shows any evidence in either direction.
Considering that they have been suspended and an investigation is pending...I'm going to go with they were acting independantly. If they werent ..they are going to take the fall for it anyway.
ExoticEngineer
09-19-2007, 12:02 PM
Anytime a public arrest is made into a media fest, the arresting or officers on scene are given time off and are investigated. It's procedure.
And this kid was very obviously trying to get people worked up. So yah, the cops very well could have been told, if he shows up to remove him, who kows. Cops when working a secondary location like a school or a public event are usually given instructions as well. Not just run willy nilly around the place.
I'm not trying to be snarky.
And the kid was nutso. When they got him downstairs, and were leading him out "Remember me! Ask what happened to me! They're going to take me and kill me! They're giving me to the government!!! Help me!"
Oh geez. ::)
cameron_keys
09-19-2007, 12:05 PM
Anytime a public arrest is made into a media fest, the arresting or officers on scene are given time off and are investigated. It's procedure.
And this kid was very obviously trying to get people worked up. So yah, the cops very well could have been told, if he shows up to remove him, who kows. Cops when working a secondary location like a school or a public event are usually given instructions as well. Not just run willy nilly around the place.
I'm not trying to be snarky.
And the kid was nutso. When they got him downstairs, and were leading him out "Remember me! Ask what happened to me! They're going to take me and kill me! They're giving me to the government!!! Help me!"
Oh geez. ::)
Oh I absolutely agree that the kid was nuts. Apparently hes done shit like this before(he stood outside the Harry Potter line when the book first came out holding a big sign that said HARRY DIES). HE likes the attention.
But he should have been banned from the speech then. Or stopped before he went up. AT THAT TIME...he did nothing wrong. Just because someone is a known problem doesnt mean you can manhandle and arrest them any time you want. He didnt go over his time, he didnt incite a riot, KERRY himself was asking for him to be left alone. They had no reason to grab him right then.
DJ Machismo
09-19-2007, 12:37 PM
Oh I absolutely agree that the kid was nuts. Apparently hes done shit like this before(he stood outside the Harry Potter line when the book first came out holding a big sign that said HARRY DIES). HE likes the attention.
But he should have been banned from the speech then. Or stopped before he went up. AT THAT TIME...he did nothing wrong. Just because someone is a known problem doesnt mean you can manhandle and arrest them any time you want. He didnt go over his time, he didnt incite a riot, KERRY himself was asking for him to be left alone. They had no reason to grab him right then.
With an exception being if they were ordered to, which is a point I'm trying to make just as a side note. Though I do agree with your ideas just not the absolutist nature of the statement.
Jenny
09-19-2007, 01:42 PM
Do you know that they weren't ordered to by a higher up? There are plenty of things that we do not know before we can say they had no legal right whatsoever. Perhaps they were just following orders to get the kid out ASAP. Nothing I have seen shows any evidence in either direction.
I agree - but seeing as there is no evidence of that, why would you invent excuses for them? It just makes you seem kind of like an apologist for the police - like there is also no evidence either way that one of them didn't kick the kid in the head while he was held down - I mean, you don't know that they didn't, I don't know that they did - is that a good reason to bring it to the table as a possibility? In any event - cops (if cops they are) are not allowed to assault people because they are told to by their boss. They are also not allowed to falsely arrest people because they are told to by their boss.
Sirona - you can't honestly be saying that what happened to Rodney King is alright? That if people don't obey police officers ANY treatment levied against them is just fine? They are police, not private autocrats. They have more - way more - duties and responsibilities than rights or privileges. Arguing that cops aren't a "bad breed" doesn't mean you have to be an apologist for every terrible incident. But again - looking at investigations of police violence for police is like looking in jail for convicted felons. I mean - it's there kind of by definition. It doesn't speak at all to the larger population, except to say on the most basic level available - yes this behaviour does, in fact, exist.
EE - I would suggest that there is very little that will prevent a cop getting killed while giving a traffic ticket by those so inclined. We are not likely, as a society, going to give police officers carte blanche to taser or shoot someone before approaching their car "just in case". They have to use minimum necessary force - and use of force has to be against a demonstrated threat. Again - not "just in case". I think those cops (if they are cops) would be hard pressed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension against that kid. And again - they held him down to taser him. Can I point out again that they subdued him in order to taser him??? As for whether or not they are human beings - a police officer has to be acting as a police AND arresting someone in order for someone to resist arrest (in the criminal sense). That is - he has to know that he is being arrested, that the person arresting him is a police officer in order to know that he is resisting arrest. So yes, they are human beings, but it is still relevant.
I actually think, based on this thread, that people have a very weird idea on how police should behave and what is involved in that job. The tasers as well - like, the idea that cops should decide, in a universe unto themselves, what level of force is "appropriate" (which is a much different word than "necessary") is kind of sick and fundamentally incompatible with a free and just society. I would suggest on a normative, social level that tasers, stun guns and mace were intended to reduce the use the violent force - that is, to be used as a less dangerous substitute for fists, batons and guns (which is how I think most cops use them). Not as a MORE dangerous, MORE violent alternative to non-violent force. Like - if they didn't have tasers, would they be justified hitting him with a baton as opposed to carrying him out? Then they probably shouldn't have used the taser. The fact that it leaves no permanent damage doesn't mean that it's all good - it still has to be justified. Although it also makes me think of what I said earlier about protest, of any kind, stirring up a bizarre bloodlust - the whole "Listen to reason or I'll try violence" attitude.
cameron_keys
09-19-2007, 01:46 PM
EE - I would suggest that there is very little that will prevent a cop getting killed while giving a traffic ticket by those so inclined. .
Yep. Just happened here in Miami. Routine traffic stop..guy shot 4 cops, killed one. Then he ran
They found him later that night and filled him full of bullets.
Jenny
09-19-2007, 01:54 PM
Yep. Just happened here in Miami. Routine traffic stop..guy shot 4 cops, killed one. Then he ran
They found him later that night and filled him full of bullets.And while that is terrible, I don't think it justifies police violence generally. Nor does it justify a police execution.
Also, while I don't have a callous response to that news, and I don't want to invalidate the personal experience of another poster here, I actually don't think that being a traffic cop is dangerous. Very few traffic cops are killed in the execution of their role as traffic cops. Even fewer security guards are killed in their role as security guards.
DJ Machismo
09-19-2007, 01:55 PM
Just a devil's advocate viewpoint of sorts that doesn't really like seeing people state absolutes as if they know the exact situation of the event.
We don't know the full story, therefore can only really comment on it as such. Not in the, he/she was or wasn't allowed to do what they did. We don't know why or how things got set in motion.
cameron_keys
09-19-2007, 01:55 PM
And while that is terrible, I don't think it justifies police violence generally. Nor does it justify a police execution against a student on a college campus because he made them mad.
.
OH no no no... I wasnt implying that. Just validating your point that something like that CAN happen.
cameron_keys
09-19-2007, 01:58 PM
Just a devil's advocate viewpoint of sorts that doesn't really like seeing people state absolutes as if they know the exact situation of the event.
We don't know the full story, therefore can only really comment on it as such. Not in the, he/she was or wasn't allowed to do what they did. We don't know why or how things got set in motion.
Of course we can only comment on the facts given to us. That all anyone, including the courts can do.
But to see something that by all we can tell is wrong and a violation of rights and NOT question it or speak up...it breeds a society of head turning that can be downright dangerous.
Jenny
09-19-2007, 01:58 PM
^^^
I misunderstood. I said something wrong anyway - I think I merged two sentence so it sounded like I thought the police killed the kid in the video.
DJ Machismo
09-19-2007, 02:00 PM
Of course we can only comment on the facts given to us. That all anyone, including the courts can do.
But to see something that by all we can tell is wrong and a violation of rights and NOT question it or speak up...it breeds a society of head turning that can be downright dangerous.
Being with my cop friends all the time has just taught me to never jump to conclusions unless the whole truth of a situation is known. I've seen and heard far too many stories relating to wrongful accusations in similar situations.
Jenny
09-19-2007, 02:05 PM
Just a devil's advocate viewpoint of sorts that doesn't really like seeing people state absolutes as if they know the exact situation of the event.
We don't know the full story, therefore can only really comment on it as such. Not in the, he/she was or wasn't allowed to do what they did. We don't know why or how things got set in motion.
Well, we don't have the full story as in we don't have the life stories of all the participants, and we don't have the event planning schedule from beginning to end, and we don't know what the answer to the kid's question might be. But... we do have a video of the entire incident from beginning to end, and some extra information on what happened afterward - I think that gives us enough information to intelligently discuss the facts as they stand without bringing a sea of "what ifs". Like - what if the superiors of the officers (if they are officers) explicitly told them to taser the kid, no matter what happened, to make an example to the other students? What if one of them was taking medication that made him particularly susceptible to obedience? What if the kid called the campus security that morning and arranged the whole thing as a joke? All stuff that there is no evidence on (one way or the other); no reason to assume that any of it happened, and therefore not germane to a discussion of the facts. Like if we're going to allow what we know to be contextualized by every possibility in the universe, there is not much to talk about (besides listing every possible sequence of every possible event). Or is that just me?
DJ Machismo
09-19-2007, 02:11 PM
Judging that from what I've seen the video was made to happen by the kid involved, and that its not what I would call "the full story", no I don't think the full facts are there to start making accusations as to who was allowed or able to do what at the given time.
Now on a "if this is the full truth" standpoint, its a bit of a different story.
ExoticEngineer
09-19-2007, 02:18 PM
You're right, there are a ton of different ways to look at it.
And no one would ever know all the details unless we were there. We can only react to what we percieved.
I saw a kid yelling and asking provocative questions. Intentionally stirring the pot. And no, there is nothing wrong with that. When it got to the point where authorities felt he should stop, he didn't want to, k, that's borderline.
Authorities ask him to leave, he says no.
Authorities (one) takes him by the arm and he jerks away. That's not so great.
Authorities (two of them) take him by either arm and he pulls away again. It's not looking so great now.
Four men try to walk him out and and soon as he gets to the door, the point at which they will have to break up to fit through the door he bolts AGAIN. K, at this point it seems, to me anyway, that this kid is way out of line. So, he goes to the floor, he is still avoiding them. Taken into consideration that he has not cooperated AT ALL before now, what would make the authorities think the kid would hlod still long enough to get handcuffs on him. And by the way, handcuffs do not = being arrested. So they tasered him, he held still long enough to get cuffs on him.
Was tasering the best solution. Eh, maybe. Or should one of the big guys sat on the kid to hold him still to get cuftfs on him? Risking injurty to both the kid and the officer... It's hard to say. But looking at the videos, it seems to me that the kid was not cooperating at all. And if someone were to ask me if I thought he should cooperate just because the officers asked him to, my answer would be yes.
Jenny
09-19-2007, 02:21 PM
I said we had a tape of the entire incident - I did concede that we don't have the life stories of all the participants. And while the kid asked a stander-by to tape him, there is no indication that it was edited or that it is not a full account of what occurred between the boy and the campus police ("the incident"). But if we don't have reasonable grounds to "make accusations" based on a full taped incident - what would reasonable grounds for "accusations" be? Like, at what point do I get to hurl and accusation and say "Justify Yourself!" if what we have here is not adequate? I mean - you obviously don't think that they (the campus police) need to extend him (the student) the same wide ambit of tolerance.
Saying that they may have defences against accusations is a bit of a different story. Certainly they may, as individuals or a group. (I was an English major. These textual differences are very meaningful to me). However - I will point out again that you are not allowed to taser a detainee (whether or not you have a right to detain him) because someone told you to.
kandie_kitten
09-19-2007, 02:32 PM
On the side note, I'd like to address the comment where a poster said cops are usually bad, because if you bring up cops, people will always talk about the bad/aggressive.
Well of course...people will always discuss the negtiave. The good don't make as interesting stories.
If you want to discuss good cops stories, I have hundreds. Like when I was driving home my car got a flat in one of the worst parts of Philadelphia, and a cop pulled over and helped me change the tire, giving me his jack and spare tire since my spare was flat too.
Or how my uncle, a cop, put himself in front of a child during a store robbery, and took a bullet protecting the kid.
Or the time there was a rapist running rampant at my college, and how when I felt nervous (I wa sstrippign at the time late into the early morning...the student parking lot was about a mile from my dorm), the local police station was happy to walk me back to my dorm so I wouldn't have to walk back alone.
A few isolated incidents, that are magnified, do not overwhelm or cover the amoutn of wonderful things cops do.
1. Yeah, what Jenny said. So there. LOL
2. I'm tired of all this dramatic "poor hero cops getting killed" stuff all the time. The public employees with the highest fatality rate are garbage men. But have I ever heard people appreciating those garbage men hero's putting themselves in the line of danger for your garbage? Hell no.
3. The vast majority of studies that have been done on this say that most cops are wife-beating, child-abusing assholes. I'm sure you know a nice one. I know a nice one too, and even she'll tell you that most cops are assholes.
4. My little sister (with a paralegal degree), says that tazering is all peachy keen and doesn't need justified because it's been found not to "offend hardened sensibilities" in the US. Is this true? Jenny?
kandie_kitten
09-19-2007, 04:07 PM
It's one thing to say we underappreciate trashman, fine. But the truth is, by being a cop, they DO put their lives on the line.
and I'd love to see these studies that say "most cops are wife abusing, child abusing assholes". Love it. Most cops?
I've done plenty of research on it. The highest number I found was in one town, where 40% of their force had used domestic violence. But even that was a high number, but not even half. So "most", not so much. An dyour friend says most cops are assholes? Right. Because she's met the vast majority of cops in the world. Yup. Very scientific decision.
Yes. I know a lot of cops. I will not claim to know "most". all I can say is I have never met a cop who abused his power in any way, or was cruel. Do they exist? Of course. But the truth is, being an officer is an extremely tough job, with pay that doesn't even come close to compensate. The majority do have good intentions in becoming a cop, and try to uphold the law.
Jenny
09-19-2007, 04:24 PM
It's one thing to say we underappreciate trashman, fine. But the truth is, by being a cop, they DO put their lives on the line.
I think Lena's contention was that trashmen put their lives on the line in the course of public service and, in fact, lose them more often. There are many, many, many jobs more dangerous than being a police officer.
I've done plenty of research on it. The highest number I found was in one town, where 40% of their force had used domestic violence.
Whoa! That's like... a lot! Like A LOT. Like way, way closer to "most" than anyone should feel comfortable with. (Personally, I internally edit a little - I assumed what Lena meant was "far more than the average population"; I accept the correction, but still... whoa). That is an extremely high number. This is actually giving credence to the theory, not detracting from it. Just so you know.
An dyour friend says most cops are assholes? Right. Because she's met the vast majority of cops in the world. Yup. Very scientific decision.
Okay, not for nothing, and I really don't have a hate on for cops. But where is the "science" (by which I assume you mean statistical data) on the lovefest? We're all being a little anecdotal here - and I don't think in this context it should be such a problem.
Yes. I know a lot of cops. I will not claim to know "most". all I can say is I have never met a cop who abused his power in any way, or was cruel.
Oh, come now. Where's the science? No, I'm kidding. But you see what I mean with the anecdotal presentation.
cameron_keys
09-19-2007, 04:36 PM
Yeah....I'm trying to stay on topic and not go with the good cop/bad cop thing but....
Cops are people. Some are good some are bad. Some get into the profession to help people and serve the community...some get into it because they are assholes on a power trip.
I have friends who are cops and yes, they will tell you that there are a lot of assholes abusing their power. Doesnt mean that you should judge them ALL that way. Just like I will be happy to acknowledge that there are a ton of strippers that are drug addicts. Doesnt mean we all are.
And sadly...most of my interactions with cops have been negative. I was drugged by one in the club. I've had tons of them try to get blow jobs or discounts or threaten me in the club. Generally assholes. Doesnt mean I think they all are.
But the point isnt whether cops are good or bad..the point is whether THESE cops (or security guards) acted appropriately on THIS occassion. And judging by the evidence we have..IMO..no they did not.
xdamage
09-19-2007, 04:39 PM
This is a link to a document published by the 2006 Bureau of Labor Statistics on mortality rates among various professions:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
I thought it would be valuable since it lists which jobs had the highest mortality rates in 2006 and compares them with statistics from 2005.
p.s., btw of course these statistics are about fatalities and tell us nothing about injuries in the various profession. They don't tell us about injuries due to accidents (such as construction workers face), or injuries due to intentional physical attacks (such as law enforcement faces from time to time).
ExoticEngineer
09-19-2007, 06:47 PM
Yeah....I'm trying to stay on topic and not go with the good cop/bad cop thing but....
Cops are people. Some are good some are bad. Some get into the profession to help people and serve the community...some get into it because they are assholes on a power trip.
I have friends who are cops and yes, they will tell you that there are a lot of assholes abusing their power. Doesnt mean that you should judge them ALL that way. Just like I will be happy to acknowledge that there are a ton of strippers that are drug addicts. Doesnt mean we all are.
And sadly...most of my interactions with cops have been negative. I was drugged by one in the club. I've had tons of them try to get blow jobs or discounts or threaten me in the club. Generally assholes. Doesnt mean I think they all are.
But the point isnt whether cops are good or bad..the point is whether THESE cops (or security guards) acted appropriately on THIS occassion. And judging by the evidence we have..IMO..no they did not.
Cameron, I really like this post.
cameron_keys
09-19-2007, 06:51 PM
Cameron, I really like this post.
Thanks!
ExoticEngineer
09-19-2007, 06:56 PM
Sure thing. I can see why everyone disagrees about the subject of this post here. wether they acted appropriately in THIS situation or not. But I do agree with what you said...all that other stuff, yah. ;D
Sirona
09-19-2007, 07:57 PM
Sirona - you can't honestly be saying that what happened to Rodney King is alright? That if people don't obey police officers ANY treatment levied against them is just fine? They are police, not private autocrats. They have more - way more - duties and responsibilities than rights or privileges. Arguing that cops aren't a "bad breed" doesn't mean you have to be an apologist for every terrible incident. But again - looking at investigations of police violence for police is like looking in jail for convicted felons. I mean - it's there kind of by definition. It doesn't speak at all to the larger population, except to say on the most basic level available - yes this behaviour does, in fact, exist.
What i'm saying is, if he hadn't made the decisions he did / behaved the way he did it never would have happened. I do not in any way shape or form feel bad for someone who acts like a fucktard and has something bad happen to them.
He put himself into that situation. No one made him be a scumbag criminal.
No one made him blow all those red lights and stop signs.
No one made him drive under the influence.
No one made him not pull over for the police.
He made ALL of those poor decisions.
HE put himself in that situation.
I'm supposed to feel bad for him. Sorry, I don't.
Do I think the police responded badly? Sure.
My whole point though is it never would have happened if he wasn't being an assclown.
xdamage
09-19-2007, 08:30 PM
What i'm saying is, if he hadn't made the decisions he did / behaved the way he did it never would have happened. I do not in any way shape or form feel bad for someone who acts like a fucktard and has something bad happen to them.
He put himself into that situation. No one made him be a scumbag criminal.
No one made him blow all those red lights and stop signs.
No one made him drive under the influence.
No one made him not pull over for the police.
He made ALL of those poor decisions.
HE put himself in that situation.
I'm supposed to feel bad for him. Sorry, I don't.
Do I think the police responded badly? Sure.
My whole point though is it never would have happened if he wasn't being an assclown.
A fucking men.
Jenny
09-19-2007, 09:22 PM
What i'm saying is, if he hadn't made the decisions he did / behaved the way he did it never would have happened. I do not in any way shape or form feel bad for someone who acts like a fucktard and has something bad happen to them.
He put himself into that situation. No one made him be a scumbag criminal.
No one made him blow all those red lights and stop signs.
No one made him drive under the influence.
No one made him not pull over for the police.
He made ALL of those poor decisions.
HE put himself in that situation.
I'm supposed to feel bad for him. Sorry, I don't.
Do I think the police responded badly? Sure.
My whole point though is it never would have happened if he wasn't being an assclown.
Um... okay. I'm going to point out that we have this whole system THAT THE POLICE ARE PART OF to deal with all those bad decisions. A part of that system is NOT arbitrary searches and brutal beatings. Saying "well, no big deal because of who he is" is - again - arbitrary police assault is fundamentally incompatible with a free and just society. And as for putting himself in that situation - he hardly beat himself up. He may have put himself in a situation where he broke the law - he in no way MADE the police assault him. THAT was THEIR decision. You don't need to feel bad for him if you don't want to - but refusing to acknowledge it as fairly horrifying example of police abuse and systematic racism is pretty much just putting out your own eyes.
GnBeret
09-20-2007, 12:44 AM
"The… student is shown being wrestled by six officers and dragged towards the exit… He throws his arms in the air yelling… 'get away from me' as the officers repeatedly try to remove him from the building… When [he] tries to sidestep the exit and make his way back into the hall, he is thrown to the ground and held down. 'Stop resisting' a female officer demands…
Rightly, wrongly, unfairly... whatever – with the exception of some situation &/or fact specific variations in its application, as a general rule such concepts don't matter much – at least not for purposes at issue. In this regard, at the point the cops have to resort to using physical force to make you comply with their orders, you're not only 'under arrest' (regardless of whether they tell/told you immediately/before or not), you're also 'resisting arrest'. In the instant case, they gave the guy several opportunities after that to comply and avoid actually being taken into custody and formally charged but, despite their (i) having made it absolutely clear he would not be allowed back in the room, and (ii) effectively offering to still allow him to walk away by just leaving the building, he not only defeated their efforts to expel him from the building when they got him to the door – he left the cops little choice but to take him into custody and charge him when he seriously escalated things by turning from the door and, in what amounts to a direct challenge of their ability to enforce the orders they had given him - tried to go back towards the hall. And, finally having done more than his part to make it crystal clear to the cops that he was intent on resisting at every juncture regardless of their commands and/or attempts to use what appear to be the least (or lesser) appropriate levels of physical force necessary to make him comply, he failed to heed the cop's order to 'stop resisting' even after they had him on the ground and were just trying to hold him down long enough to gain full control of and/or compliance by him. So… with the possible (difficult to know whether they were right or not) exception of erring on the side of caution insofar as either their actual authority or the timing of their decision to order him out, what, exactly would you have had the cops do?
As 'litigating' whether or not the cops' commands/orders are 'legal,' 'justified,' 'appropriate under the circumstances,' 'unconstitutional' or whatever else the person(s) towards whom they're being directed might consider them to be is an absolute impossibility at the 'street' level – for reasons which become abundantly clear when you consider situations such as these. Instead, the basic rule is (and, quite clearly has to be) that, regardless of the nature/basis of the objection, failure to comply is not only illegal in and of itself but, in addition to subjecting the person(s) who decide not to do so to arrest (and, should they resist, to being charged for that as well), it provides the cops with authority/justification to use amounts of physical force reasonably necessary under the circumstances to enforce their orders/commands. And, that being the case, assuming, for the sake of argument that this guy was correct / the cops were wrong, he nevertheless should have obeyed their order(s) and sought redress for his harm in court &/or filed a complaint with the police department seeking administrative review and/or disciplinary action re the cops' actions.
PaigeDWinter
09-20-2007, 01:13 AM
^^^That's all well and good, but how many everyday folks, students especially, do you think know the proper, legal way to deal with unfair treatment from the police?
MrChristopher
09-20-2007, 01:50 AM
Why did they grab him in the first place? That's all I want to know. I can agree/disagree with most of the explanations for the rest of the incident. WTF did they put their hands on him for, specifically, and for what reason? Is being obnoxious now a crime? Eh..it was handled badly, from every angle.
What was that other incident, a few months ago, where a guy was dragged out by cops after asking a politician "scary" questions?
PaigeDWinter
09-20-2007, 01:53 AM
See now, this whole thing makes me twitchy. Why? I remember being 13 and in a residential. I asked a very simple question, and was dragged across campus, in the dark, in the rain, and locked in a closet-sized room. Not entirely the same, but you get the idea as to why this sort of thing has my eyebrows dancing up by my hairline.
anabella
09-20-2007, 02:11 AM
I'm supposed to feel bad for him. Sorry, I don't.
Do I think the police responded badly? Sure.
My whole point though is it never would have happened if he wasn't being an assclown.
In a way, I agree with you. On the other hand, it's very possible that he might have been beaten anyway for doing far less. If he had been thrown on the ground, cuffed, thrown in a car, maybe even had his face rubbed around on the concrete a little, and then prosecuted to the full extent of the law and spent good time in jail, I wouldn't feel sorry for him. Anyone who breaks the law puts themselves in the hands of the legal system, but the police are not the executors of that law, the judge and jury are. Feeling sorry for him is the wrong way to put how I feel. I feel that he was wronged. It's hard to feel sorry for a criminal, but I feel that he was clearly treated unjustly.
As for Tasers, they can be fatal. I actually wouldn't have such a problem with this kid's treatment if the police had just dropped him on the ground, stood on his back, screamed obscenities in his face, and cuffed him. Maybe Americans in general are ok with Taser use, but I feel it should be down the list from punching and kicking. It's rare you're going to kill someone by throwing them to the ground or giving them a solid punch to subdue them. Tasering can kill. Here is an article, which may be biased since it's from amnesty international, but the stats are out there.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGUSA20060328001
Sirona
09-20-2007, 04:15 AM
Um... okay. I'm going to point out that we have this whole system THAT THE POLICE ARE PART OF to deal with all those bad decisions. A part of that system is NOT arbitrary searches and brutal beatings. Saying "well, no big deal because of who he is" is - again - arbitrary police assault is fundamentally incompatible with a free and just society. And as for putting himself in that situation - he hardly beat himself up. He may have put himself in a situation where he broke the law - he in no way MADE the police assault him. THAT was THEIR decision. You don't need to feel bad for him if you don't want to - but refusing to acknowledge it as fairly horrifying example of police abuse and systematic racism is pretty much just putting out your own eyes.
When didn't I aknowledge that the cops took it too far?
Where did I say it was no big deal because of who he is?
The guy led them on a high speed persuit because he decided driving like an ass and putting all kinds of innocent people in danger was far more important than pulling over like a normal person would.
He put himself in the situation. He chose to act like he did.
xdamage
09-20-2007, 06:12 AM
^^^That's all well and good, but how many everyday folks, students especially, do you think know the proper, legal way to deal with unfair treatment from the police?
I have to say, it's a sad thing that they don't. If those students represent our educated, then somewhere along they way our educational system failed, or they weren't listening. When I went to school this was basic stuff. Everyone understood the simple concept that legal disputes are resolved in court, not during the time charges are being made. And it was common sense, if six officers are giving you an order, you follow them, and then take the dispute to court, or possibly to the public (e.g., via the news). Fighting it out with the officers at the time of the arrest was an obvious duh, no. Do students and common people these days really not understand this anymore?
Jenny
09-20-2007, 06:16 AM
When didn't I aknowledge that the cops took it too far?
Where did I say it was no big deal because of who he is?
The guy led them on a high speed persuit because he decided driving like an ass and putting all kinds of innocent people in danger was far more important than pulling over like a normal person would.
He put himself in the situation. He chose to act like he did.
Okay - clearly I misunderstood something. Someone brought up Rodney King as an example police abuse, and your response was "he brought it on himself". I thought that was a fairly clear indication that you thought the police action and systematic racism was okay, or minor, or not a good example of police abuse because Rodney King is, in your opinion, "a scumbag criminal." If this isn't your position - and I'm fine with it, if it's not - what exactly is your point - "yes, the police were abusive in that situation, it was a clear demonstration of police assaulting a civilian and abusing their power and Rodney King should have been convicted of a crime"? If you are not using Rodney King's criminal background to be an apologist for the police, I don't see what it has to do with anything.
DJ Machismo
09-20-2007, 07:28 AM
An F.Y.I. in case this hasn't been brought up. Upon querying my cop buddies. In our area at least:
You do not have to be told: "You are under arrest." to be under arrest.
You do not have to be read your Miranda Rights, unless they are going to ask you a question, a little known fact I'm told by them.
So from the video I gather, that regardless of reason (which we obviously don't know from the video in my opinion, which is why its not sufficient evidence to make accusations) the man was under arrest (assuming they were actual cops, which I think is fair to say). Also, in addition to that, he very clearly resisted arrest, something that from what I saw certainly would deem the use of a non-lethal tazer to subdue the suspect and get him into custody and potentially keep him from harming someone due to his resistance and generally disruptive behavior.
Just knowing those two things from my buds, its very clear to me that a) resisting arrest is a valid charge, and b) that disrupting the peace is more than likely what the cause was for the initial arrest attemp, and if not, could certainly be argued that during the arrest it will become a charge. Just my thoughts on the subject.
But again, I don't think the video shows enough evidence for the general public to be making a ton of claims as to the asshatedness of anyone in the video.
As Paige pointed out, there really aren't that many people that know what the police truly can and cannot do and how to defend yourself if they happen to cross that line. Yet we expect ourselves to hold a debate here and actually get somewhat close to the events that actually happened without knowing the full story. No Jenny we do not need to know their life stories, though backgrounds do help. However we aren't even shown the full scene here as to why the police were so close to the kid when he started his question, or even a radio call into the police with orders to take him into custody based on a suspicion of guilt on a crime possibly committed earlier. We just don't know, and I know we aren't experts in the field either, though it seems like a lot of us act like we are. Myself included at times.
Sirona
09-20-2007, 07:52 AM
Okay - clearly I misunderstood something. Someone brought up Rodney King as an example police abuse, and your response was "he brought it on himself". I thought that was a fairly clear indication that you thought the police action and systematic racism was okay, or minor, or not a good example of police abuse because Rodney King is, in your opinion, "a scumbag criminal." If this isn't your position - and I'm fine with it, if it's not - what exactly is your point - "yes, the police were abusive in that situation, it was a clear demonstration of police assaulting a civilian and abusing their power and Rodney King should have been convicted of a crime"? If you are not using Rodney King's criminal background to be an apologist for the police, I don't see what it has to do with anything.
Book Guy brought up Rodney King as an example as to how all police are police because they enjoy being violent and hurting other people. I simply said his behavior and choices were what led to what happened and it's true.
The college kid that got tasered, same thing. He could very easily have cut the shit when the cops came over and told him to knock it off etc but he didn't. He could have not fought and not struggled and let them cuff him.
Once again, I don't support police brutality.
I do not in any way think police become police because they enjoy hurting people with physical violence.
:)
Jenny
09-20-2007, 08:52 AM
Book Guy brought up Rodney King as an example as to how all police are police because they enjoy being violent and hurting other people. I simply said his behavior and choices were what led to what happened and it's true.
Well... I don't see how that is a particularly useful point of view in this context. I mean the fact that a person's previous choices generally lead to a certain result, and that result is to some degree foreseeable is... well, fairly obvious and doesn't really lead to any useful conclusion. I mean, you can say the exact same thing about the police officers in questions. And like I said - he did not MAKE the police officers assault him. They CHOSE to do that. And since it is THEIR actions that in question (regarding the assault - Rodney King could have been arrested and tried for his own actions and been held accountable for those choices there), why are we focusing on HIS choices rather than THEIR'S? I think that is what I'm wondering.
The college kid that got tasered, same thing. He could very easily have cut the shit when the cops came over and told him to knock it off etc but he didn't. He could have not fought and not struggled and let them cuff him.
And they could have NOT tasered him after subduing him and pinning him to the ground. Why the exclusive focus on HIS choices? What about THEIR choices? They have them too, you know.
Once again, I don't support police brutality.
I do not in any way think police become police because they enjoy hurting people with physical violence.
:)
I fully agree. I was on board with you on this from the beginning. I see police dealing with the mentally challenged, homeless and insane around here all the time. They are mostly really good about it - and show a great deal of sensitivity, tolerance, courtesy and professionalism. However, I do think that there is something weird that happens when people protest, and it does raise some weird bloodlust. I also think that there is too much concealment and resentment against transparency and accountability in the police force (a quasi-military organization that insists it should answer to nothing except itself) that makes it look... well, bad. And that is something that most members of the police force contribute to.
Jenny
09-20-2007, 09:06 AM
An F.Y.I. in case this hasn't been brought up. Upon querying my cop buddies. In our area at least:
Surveying your cop buddies on an issue of police abuse. Classic.
You do not have to be told: "You are under arrest." to be under arrest.
Interesting. But I bet that you have to know you are under arrest in order to resist the arrest. Like I said - English major. Textual difference is kind of my thing.
You do not have to be read your Miranda Rights, unless they are going to ask you a question, a little known fact I'm told by them.
Maybe - I'm not american. I don't have exhaustive knowledge of Miranda. But it would be funny if they tried to introduce any statement that you made in the absence.
So from the video I gather, that regardless of reason (which we obviously don't know from the video in my opinion, which is why its not sufficient evidence to make accusations) the man was under arrest (assuming they were actual cops, which I think is fair to say).
Well, I don't know if it is "fair to say." I think we can agree, though, to assume it for the purpose of this thread of the conversation. And assuming that you are right that we was "under arrest" - that doesn't mean that he is resisting arrest. In order to resist arrest you have to know both that you are under arrest and that the person arresting you is a police officer. That is like, a basic element of the offence.
Also, in addition to that, he very clearly resisted arrest, something that from what I saw certainly would deem the use of a non-lethal tazer to subdue the suspect and get him into custody and potentially keep him from harming someone due to his resistance and generally disruptive behavior.
Well, I sort of maintain that the fact that he was already subdued changes that analysis a little. Like okay - you are allowed to shoot a detainee in certain circumstances (not YOU actually, but you know what I mean). You are not allowed to disarm the detainee, then subdue him, make him helpless, hold him down and THEN shoot him. Because you've already changed the circumstances in which shooting him would be a necessary response, right? I think we are saying that it is a siimilar situation. That since he was subdued and held down by a number of officers, that tasering him was not necessary. If he were in hand to hand combat, or even still in a position to resist, it might be different.
Just knowing those two things from my buds, its very clear to me that a) resisting arrest is a valid charge, and b) that disrupting the peace is more than likely what the cause was for the initial arrest attemp, and if not, could certainly be argued that during the arrest it will become a charge. Just my thoughts on the subject.
Again - not American. But I'd be interested in both the actual law and the practical applied law on charging someone with "resisting arrest" in the absence of a valid arrest.
No Jenny we do not need to know their life stories, though backgrounds do help. However we aren't even shown the full scene here as to why the police were so close to the kid when he started his question, or even a radio call into the police with orders to take him into custody based on a suspicion of guilt on a crime possibly committed earlier. We just don't know, and I know we aren't experts in the field either, though it seems like a lot of us act like we are. Myself included at times.
Well, like I said, there are a universe of "what ifs". But I'm still curious - what do you think we should have in terms of information and evidence before we can hurl accusations and demand justifications? I mean that I'm ACTUALLY interested. To me, an unedited video of the entire incident is adequate to say "This is unacceptable. If you have justifications, present them." I'm interested in what level of information you want before you can demand a justification.
Sirona
09-20-2007, 09:26 AM
Jenny,
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on things here. :)
Mastridonicus
09-20-2007, 09:59 AM
Well, I just can't swallow a few things.
1. The need for the taser when that much manpower is present.
2. Why he was given ability to be let back in. Once removed.
3. Why Kerry addressed it so helplessly. I think he would have INCREASED his ability to be recognized, this time around, as a candidate if he actually spoke out on this incident and didn't appear so backbone-less.
DJ Machismo
09-20-2007, 11:11 AM
Since when does being an English major make you an expert in the law? Just a question.
I merely don't like it when people assume its always police brutality. Innocent until proven guilty applies to our officers of the law as well.
I don't really feel like arguing my point anymore just to have someone else argue something neither of us are experts in. Just comes across as a know-it-all attitude to me. Not too cool.
On that note, I'm out.
Sirona lets go grab some popcorn.
Jenny
09-20-2007, 11:34 AM
Since when does being an English major make you an expert in the law? Just a question.
It doesn't. It makes me an expert in textual analysis. Note, how I was nice enough to answer your question while you declined to answer mine. That is, of course, your right, but it does sort of lend an inference that you... just don't know.
I merely don't like it when people assume its always police brutality. Innocent until proven guilty applies to our officers of the law as well.
That is a good and interesting point. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't really have that simple an application though. I mean, we don't prohibit police from arresting and accusing people based on the fact that they haven't been proven guilty. And after certain conduct has been shown, they have to raise a reasonable doubt or a defence to it. So I was asking - at what point do you think the police have to defend their actions if what we have here is inadequate.
I don't really feel like arguing my point anymore just to have someone else argue something neither of us are experts in. Just comes across as a know-it-all attitude to me. Not too cool.
Well there you go. I don't feel I have to know everything about a topic to discuss, ask intelligent question and expect reasonable answers. And since we're not on Jeopardy, being "right" is not really as important as the "intelligent questions" and "reasonable answers" part. Just a different approach, I suppose.
Sirona
09-20-2007, 01:52 PM
Both of my adoptive parents were cops for a bit and I have a brother from the same family who's a prison guard. I've had an enormous amount of contact with people in law enforcement and haven't found there to be a higher percentage of violent power bloated wife beaters amoung them as compared to other professions. Like someone mentioned, they're people. There's going to be abusive assholes in every walk of life and every job.
I think it's really shitty that all too often the only news you hear about police is the negative. I honestly believe the incidence of police brutality is in the minority. I do not believe it is common practice. I do believe it is what's most commonly covered by the media and therefore is seen as something that occurs far more often than it does.
You do not have to be told: "You are under arrest." to be under arrest.
I don't believe this is true, though there are exceptions in certain situations.
You do not have to be read your Miranda Rights, unless they are going to ask you a question, a little known fact I'm told by them.
This is true. If you are arrested for something simple, like a DUI or other minor infraction of the law you will probably not be read your Miranda Rights.
I think it's strange that they are charging him with resisting arrest. In other cases like this that I've seen they charge people with assaulting a police officer even when they clearly haven't. So the hands up thing maybe did him some good.
xdamage
09-20-2007, 03:17 PM
...Like someone mentioned, they're people. There's going to be abusive assholes in every walk of life and every job.
I think it's really shitty that all too often the only news you hear about police is the negative. I honestly believe the incidence of police brutality is in the minority. I do not believe it is common practice. I do believe it is what's most commonly covered by the media and therefore is seen as something that occurs far more often than it does.
This is my feeling too. The Media covers what sells TV time, and for the most part that ends up being the exceptions, not the norm.
---
Also of interest, this is supposedly the transcript of the police report:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/19/document-drop-the-andrew-meyer-taser-stunt-police-report/
Includes various testimony about Andrew's actions before the tape started rolling (and one witness claims, he played to the camera).
Casual Observer
09-20-2007, 04:24 PM
I would suggest on a normative, social level that tasers, stun guns and mace were intended to reduce the use the violent force - that is, to be used as a less dangerous substitute for fists, batons and guns (which is how I think most cops use them). Not as a MORE dangerous, MORE violent alternative to non-violent force.
This is true. Tasers are another option to reduce the use of physical force required to subdue a suspect.
Like - if they didn't have tasers, would they be justified hitting him with a baton as opposed to carrying him out? Then they probably shouldn't have used the taser. The fact that it leaves no permanent damage doesn't mean that it's all good - it still has to be justified. Although it also makes me think of what I said earlier about protest, of any kind, stirring up a bizarre bloodlust - the whole "Listen to reason or I'll try violence" attitude.
The reason tasers are increasingly common is that other methods of restraining and subduing disorderly people are inherently dangerous to both the cop and the suspect; this is why when people say, "Why didn't they just carry him out," or "Why didn't they just force him to the ground and cuff him," they don't know anything about the statistics of the resultant injuries that occur.
Some folks might not like the idea, but tasers actually reduce injuries related to combative arrest situations.
As for the self-aggrandizing attention whore that was obnoxious, rude and disorderly in a private forum and got his ass tasered for his trouble, I have zero sympathy.
Jenny
09-20-2007, 04:34 PM
This is true. Tasers are another option to reduce the use of physical force required to subdue a suspect.
Yes. But I think the word "reduce" should be pretty critical there.
The reason tasers are increasingly common is that other methods of restraining and subduing disorderly people are inherently dangerous to both the cop and the suspect; this is why when people say, "Why didn't they just carry him out," or "Why didn't they just force him to the ground and cuff him," they don't know anything about the statistics of the resultant injuries that occur.
Okay, reasonable point. This is, of course, a question of fact, but assuming that you are right - in this case they still did both.
Paris
09-20-2007, 04:45 PM
This has been on other boards. What I have learned is ........
1. This guy stages stunts all the time for notoriety.
2. Each person asking questions was given a time block, two minutes? He used his time and then refused to step down.
3. He had already asked more then one question in this open forum discussion.
4. John Kerry's 15 minutes of fame are up.
John Kerry is a pussy. Straight up. He could have shut down those cops with the twitch of an eyebrow. He could have also dismissed that student by saying that his question was asked before and Kerry had refused to answer it in the past and sure the hell wasn't going to answer it in a public university forum.
This incident is a symptom of a serious underlying problem. There are so many conspiracy theories out there because time and again we are being lied to by public officials and by the press. Our trust has been broken, and the video of a senior at UF being tasered for being an annoying twerp is culmination of the lack of trust for our leaders.
Andrew Meyer became a martyr. Plain and simple.