University of Florida Student Tazed at John Kerry Speech...

[jks9199]

Perhaps one of the LEOs on here can clarify this, but I'd think that if the person in question was told repeatedly to comply, ie: move away from the mic, sit down, leave, etc, and he did not, would that fall into the resisting category?

IMO, there comes a time when force is needed. During my time in the prison, I was around for more than one cell extraction. If an inmate was told to leave his cell and refused, a group of 5 COs were called in. Once this took place, the time for talking came to an end. The door was opened and all 5 rushed the cell, one slamming into the inmate with a shield, the others each taking an arm and leg. He was forcefully removed. Too much force? IMO, no. If you're given multiple chances to comply and you still refuse, you're bringing on more headache to yourself.

There are numerous use of force models out there.

In the model I work within, passive resistance consists of things like simply sitting there, doing nothing, either to comply or to avoid compliance. The classic sit-in where the protestors have to be carried out is a good example of passive resistance.

Active resistance begins when a person does anything to avoid compliance. This can include pulling away, running away, locking your arms or holding them in, and underneath you, and other similar actions. As the level of resistance escalates, active resistance gives way to assaultive behavior, where not only are you resisting being arrested or removed, but you're actively striking at or attempting to injure the officers, not merely get away.

This kid was at the top end of active resistance; none of the videos I've seen of it show him in behavior I see as being assaultive, other than trying to get back through the officers. He's treading that fine line between active resistance, and low-level assaultive behavior.

 

[Cruentus]

well,there's a point where we can disagree. I don't believe it was necessary.

I guess we can just agree to disagree on a number of points.

For one, under no circumstance would or should a student be permitted to continue an already 1min35sec disrespectful rant without being told enough is enough, but you think that he should have been allowed to continue despite the fact that he was taking up the time from the other students and the speaker. So we disagree there.

For 2, I don't think the above point even matters, nor do I think it matters who told the cops to stop the student. When one is asked to give up the mic in this type of assembly, one is faced with a choice. One can appropriately realize that he doesn't own the place, and can give up the mic even if one disagrees. This student choose instead to force himself on everyone by continueing to rant and use force and an extreme amount of active resistance to the point where he had to be physically pacified. The student made this choice regardless of the other details that you choose to focus on.

So, I guess we disagree on that too.

C.

 

[MJS]

Is the main question here about whether he should have been tazered? Or is it that the Police wouldn't allow him to stay on the mike?

As far as I can see, both questions are being discussed. Should he have been tasered? If pepper spray is ruled out due to effecting the rest of the room, if a joint lock isn't working and they're having a hard time cuffing him, yes, I still say using the taser is within their right. The male who made the hand gesture seemed to be looking at someone off camera, then the cops moved in. I feel that its relevant to the thread, as to who ordered him removed, a time limit, if the questions were within the spectrum of the debate, etc.

Did the police act correctly in using physical force to remove the kid from the floor? Perhaps, perhaps not. That's where there may not be enough evidence for the Monday morning Quarterbacks among us. That's the free speech question.

I agree that we can't/shouldn't base 100% of our decision on a clip.

Were the police justified in using a Tazer on a citizen who was passively (maybe actively, it's hard to see) resisting the efforts of Police to subdue him? Separate question. The use of a Tazer is not a first amendment question. It's a use of force question.

I still say yes to that.

Those who would like to paint the kid as a victim, are going to do best when they use the emotional arguments of combining the fear of the Public Perception of the Tazer, with the pain, and saying it's a direct result of questioning Kerry.

I dont feel it was a result of him questioning Kerry, but instead, being a fool.

 

[MJS]

Ha, ha...sick bastard!! :rofl: [yea, me too. ]

Here is another clip that shows the beginning of the students lunatic diatribe in case anyone thinks that he wasn't to blame for his fate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIYTJ75U4NU&mode=related&search=

Watching this clip, at approx 40 sec, Kerry asks the student what his question is. The student opens with a ramble, Kerry asks what the question is, and the student makes a comment that Kerry had been speaking for a while, so now it was his turn to talk. IMO, it seems like the student really didn't have a serious question to ask.

 

[Doc_Jude]

t's Ok to Taze someone for being rude to John Kerry!

I feel a new bumper sticker coming on...

 

[Makalakumu]

OK, lots of comments I agree with have been said by FC and Sukerkin. I also agree that the Tazer is a great tool for LEOs, better then clubs, pspray, or joint locks when it comes to subduing someone.

I want to refer everyone back to Shesulsa's post, however. These are questions that should be asked to our politicians, but they are not.

Before I make my point, I need to commend the officers who took this man into custody. They waited a long time while he struggled and it was only when he attempted to re-enter the room did they tazer him. I find that their restraint in a very touchy political environment is very appropriate. Each of those guys are moms and dad and go home and have to me be American citizens so the thought of coming off like a jackboot is not something they would probably want to do.

The comments that others would have tazed him sooner are curious in that regard. Especially when coupled with the actions of the guy who cut this man off and initiated the escalation. Sure the man was rude, but the emotional nature of these questions generates a lot of passion in people. Especially when you consider that a whole lotta people feel betrayed by Sen. Kerry.

So, here's my point. Despite carrying out orders with restraint and a fair amount of tact, I think that the police are on the wrong side. People need to ask our politicians these questions and expose them for the lying swine that they are. Stopping people from doing this does a disservice to America. The nature of those questions in particular strikes at the very heart of what America means.

So, I'm curious what LEOs think about this. Or anybody else. What do you do when the side you are protecting is not the right side to be on? I realize that some security arguments could be made in this situation, but I can easily imagine someone who is resisting more passively in a more classic case of mere civil disobedience being treated exactly the same. What do you do when it is your job to sheild the bad guys?

 

[Flying Crane]

Can we all agree that it's just possible that a politician may well seem to be willing to answer and making all the right noises, while simultaneously really be simply stalling long enough for the moderator, handlers, or whoever to get the person causing the problem out of the way? After all, I don't think any politician is going to want to end up on YouTube or the evening news for saying "Shut up; I don't want to answer your silly questions!"

Possible, yes, but far from established in this case.

The whole tazer and use of force issue is really the smaller problem in my opinion. As I stated earlier, I think that overall the tactics the cops used were probably acceptable, even tho I don't care much for the tazering.

I just remain unconvinced that the necessity to take action against this student at all had become clear.

 

[Flying Crane]

I guess we can just agree to disagree on a number of points.

For one, under no circumstance would or should a student be permitted to continue an already 1min35sec disrespectful rant without being told enough is enough, but you think that he should have been allowed to continue despite the fact that he was taking up the time from the other students and the speaker. So we disagree there.

he was obnoxious, but hadn't really done any harm. Give him another minute to go somewhere with what he was saying, have a brief exchange and then move on. Compare that with the circus show of an arrest, a tazering, videos all over youtube, and all kinds of bad publicity. He hadn't threatened anyone nor done anything to try and create a dangerous situation at the event. He was just obnoxious on the microphone.

I think it's a sad commentary on our societal values when our response to someone who is obnoxious and mildy disruptive is to escalate it into an arrest. If this guy was really just trying to be disruptive and didn't have a real question, then he was really just looking for attention and was probably hoping for publicity thru this kind of escallation. Instead, just let the hot air dissipate and it never becomes a real problem.

Maybe he even had a legitimate question that might have added something positive to the event. But he never got that far.

 

[Cruentus]

So, here's my point. Despite carrying out orders with restraint and a fair amount of tact, I think that the police are on the wrong side. People need to ask our politicians these questions and expose them for the lying swine that they are. Stopping people from doing this does a disservice to America. The nature of those questions in particular strikes at the very heart of what America means.

Some of you are seeing it this way, and I just don't see how that is. I don't see how this is an issue of 1st amendment, or politicians dodging questions when the student could have asked any question he wanted. He could also go on blogs, radio, or any medium that would hear him to complain if he didn't like the answers. But he choose to rant on someone elses time and venue instead rather then ask a question during the Q&A, which is NOT his right to do.

So how is it that he had some sort of "right" here that needed to be protected by the police? I really just don't get where some of you are coming from...

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Im going to quote a fellow MT'er from another thread.

"Freedom of Speech" also does not promise a venue for your speech. Anybody can make a web site or issue pamphlets stating their beliefs. Your "Freedom of Speech" has not been taken from you, however, if ABC declines to give you a half hour during primetime to present your views to a national audience. If only two people read your website, and one of them is your mother, that's your own problem. And if you go into a debate organized by someone else, start an extended rant until they pull the plug on the mic and send security to escort you out, and THEN shout "Freedom of Speech" and expect them to recoil, hissing, like vampires before garlic - well, that's a tazing.

 

[Cruentus]

I think it's a sad commentary on our societal values when our response to someone who is obnoxious and mildy disruptive is to escalate it into an arrest.

Well, I think that it is a sad commentary on our societal values when an individual feels that he is entitled to inconsiderately steal other peoples time and behave however he chooses without consequence, and other people by the multitudes are willing to defend him.

Maybe he even had a legitimate question that might have added something positive to the event. But he never got that far.

Right; and as I said before, we just don't agree. You think that he should have been able to continue without restraint in order to see if he had something legit to offer, and to avoid a problem. Where as I think that is totally unreasonable in this case, that there is a point where enough is enough, and that we shouldn't have to bend like that when someone immorally decides to force their will on us.

C.

 

[Cruentus]

Im going to quote a fellow MT'er from another thread.

That's awesome...

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, I think that it is a sad commentary on our societal values when an individual feels that he is entitled to inconsiderately steal other peoples time and behave however he chooses without consequence, and other people by the multitudes are willing to defend him.

well, this isn't societal values, it's the action of one inconsiderate person. The actions of law enforcement personnel, carried out on somebody's orders, and the general complacency of the populace are a stronger reflection of societal values.

This was a Q&A period with the Senator, at a University where this man was a student. I think that sets a precedent that he was invited, along with all students of the University, to be there, and to ask questions.

Whether or not there were established rules of conduct in asking a question, and this guy deliberately violated those rules, remains unknown, at least to myself. So at this time it continues to look like a guy who was obnoxious and mildly derisive got cut off from the mic before he was finished speaking, he objected to being cut off, and that was used as a reason to physically eject him, and at that point it snowballed into a fullscale arrest.

Right; and as I said before, we just don't agree.

yup, but it's interesting to hear other's take on this issue.

You think that he should have been able to continue without restraint in order to see if he had something legit to offer, and to avoid a problem.

yup, i think it could have ended much more cleanly for all involved.

Where as I think that is totally unreasonable in this case, that there is a point where enough is enough, and that we shouldn't have to bend like that when someone immorally decides to force their will on us.

C.

So 1 minute and 35 seconds is just way too much leeway to give a citizen who wishes to ask a Senator a question in a recognized Q& A session? You gotta express yourself to your elected representatives in 8.7 seconds or less, or else go unheard because politicians only have time for soundbites and don't wish to acknowledge and address the complexity of many issues that cannot be summed up in soundbites? Funny, this was one of the big differences between Kerry and Bush during the last election. Bush was all about soundbites and scripted answers to scripted questions, whereas Kerry, at that time, seemed to recognize that many issues are in fact very complex and cannot be summed up in shallow soundbites. I guess he's changed, and that leaves me disappointed.

And I think the citizenry must express our disgust and outrage to our politicians because THEY are the ones who are all too often immorally forcing their will upon US. It's not the other way around.

I for one will not stand back complacently and just accept that AUTHORITY is always right and the PEOPLE must just sit and take all the crap they throw at us. I will not be an accomplice to that.

 

[Cruentus]

well, this isn't societal values, it's the action of one inconsiderate person.

Well, no, it's not just one inconsiderate person; it's all the people running to his defense claiming that his right to "free speech" was infringed on, thus demonstrating the entitlement mentality and level of inconsideration that society has come too.


And once again... it doesn't take as long as he took to ask a question. 1min35sec is not a question, it's a speech or a rant in it's own right.

 

[Sukerkin]

I do see where the kernel of your position grows from, Cruentus, and I would normally fully be in concurrence with you that people should be responsible for their own actions. I also fully appreciated jks's points that once the police get involved, it's time to shut up and take the 'fight' elsewhere because it's gone past the 'arguing' stage (even tho' I think that that is an ominous principle).

In the case of the principles brought up for discussion by this incident (note I do not solely refer to this particular instance) I do get the feeling that this thread is not being fueled by people grasping different ends of the same discoursive stick but by people grabbing different sticks altogether.

On the one hand, there is the point that this eejut breached the accepted rules of 'sound bite politics' (or indeed general polite behaviour) and would not behave himself until out-of-proportion force was applied.

- As an extended aside, it was out of proportion in my opinion (and that's from someone who has witnessed mounted police charging picket lines). Those of you who feel otherwise are entitled to your views but, from what I saw, the numpty's 'grandstanding' behaviour was little different from most student populated political events.

On the other hand, you had a probably non-elected person in a position of authority arbitrarily deciding that said numpty had spouted guff for a minute and a half too long and it was time he was taught a lesson in the realities of modern day Western politics.

If those in support of the latter point of view don't see why that's a problem, then welcome to a future where, unless your personal point of view aligns with the status quo, you can't have an effective voice. In a country where ballot rigging has been proven without huge outcry, I suppose it's no great loss of personal freedom in the absolute scale of things. After all, if the government isn't democratically elected and still gets to act like a legitimate legislative body, it can't matter all that much ... can it?

That last was quite a bit more confrontational than I intended, so please forgive my foreign bluntness (without tazers if you'd be so kind ) but I do genuinely feel that this is one of those out-of-the-blue events that highlight an underlying problem that has grown un-noticed for some time in the body politic of the States.

Anyhow, I keep telling myself that it's none of my business what you fellows get up to within your own borders and I think should take my own advice, however "Concerned of Hemel Hempsted" I feel about the matter.

Other than PM's, that's my last word here, I promise .

 

[Blotan Hunka]

There is nothing stopping this guy from going on television, the internet, publishing a book, going to a different Kerry speech and acting like an adult.... etc. he has no limits about his views. He was no longer welcome in a privately owned establishment. You are being overly dramatic.

 

[Makalakumu]

One of the things that I'd like people to consider is the fact that words like "rude" and "inconsiderate" and "rant" and whatnot all carry all carry a connotation of discomfort that I think that I can explain.

We've all been taught to respect authority. We've been taught to toe the line and be good. We've been taught to politely do what we are told.

People who don't do that, make us uncomfortable. They make us feel like nobody is in control...and that we need to do something to get that back.

Thus, when a guy like him gets up and asked some very tough questions angrily and then prefaced them with some facts that support the asking of those questions, many people just want him to go away. With some, probably feeling so uncomfortable that they would have made that guy ride the lightning a lot sooner just so we can go back to "normal".

This isn't a freedom of speech issue. This is an issue of people really standing up to authority. John F. Kerry betrayed hundreds of thousands of voters in Ohio and millions of voters nationwide whose votes were disenfranchised. He had millions of dollars to challenge and investigate any and all cases of fraud and he gave up without committing a single cent before ANY of the details were even known...and now we have Bush. Need I say more.

People need to be furious about this.

Kerry needs to answer for that in public in a public forum where his slick little dodgy answers can be trampled by the assault of angry voters who care about American democracy. IMHO, the police did a disservice to America by protecting this fraud from real criticism. Sound Byte Politics isn't going to take this country back from the forces who are wrecking it. It's going to take people who care and who are angry and who are really taking the time to educate themselves as to what is really going on.

The MSM isn't reporting it and people are just woefully ignorant.

This sort of thing is not going to be comfortable to watch. People in authority need to squirm on the hooks of the people if we are ever going to get out of this mess. The we protect them, the more we make excuses, the more we rationalize our emotions with the words I pointed out above, the worse it will keep getting.

IMHO, despite the cops' restraint and professionalism, they are on the wrong side on this one. Removing that guy at the behest of "the man" who made the signals is only hurting our country as a whole.

And now we have the sheep out sheeping the sheep.

America is in dire need of a backbone check because we are in for a rough ride if we are going to fix this mess.

upnorthkyosa

PS - I've got nothing against the police. We need em to deal with the real criminals out there. :asian:

 

[Cruentus]

You guys are being SOOO idealistic about this that I would ask if ya'll were ****ing kidding me if I didn't know that you're not.

This doesn't have anything to do with a discomfort for people not respecting authority. You being way to idealistic with your arguements of free speech and soundbite politics and authority and rigged elections. I mean, fricking seriously.

It has everything to do with behaving with the self-centered inconsideration that having an entitlement mentality brings.

This student isn't much different then the ******* who cuts in line at the bank and yells at the people behind him that he is in a hurry, or the ******* who drives like a jerk all of the time with no consideration for others (honking at everyon else along the way), or the ******* who under-tips and complains but demands that his waitress run around like crazy at the snap of his fingers, and so on, and so on.

Some of us are just tired of *******s, and we laugh when they get tazed. And some of us simply get annoyed when people run out en-mass defending the *******s "right" to infringe on everyone elses rights, as it makes us think that, wow....

there really are a lot of *******s out there.

C.

 

[jks9199]

he was obnoxious, but hadn't really done any harm. Give him another minute to go somewhere with what he was saying, have a brief exchange and then move on. Compare that with the circus show of an arrest, a tazering, videos all over youtube, and all kinds of bad publicity. He hadn't threatened anyone nor done anything to try and create a dangerous situation at the event. He was just obnoxious on the microphone.

I think it's a sad commentary on our societal values when our response to someone who is obnoxious and mildy disruptive is to escalate it into an arrest. If this guy was really just trying to be disruptive and didn't have a real question, then he was really just looking for attention and was probably hoping for publicity thru this kind of escallation. Instead, just let the hot air dissipate and it never becomes a real problem.

Maybe he even had a legitimate question that might have added something positive to the event. But he never got that far.

And had it gone on for another 1 minute or 3 minutes or 30 minutes... what was the point where the kid crossed the line from political debate and questioning (which I support!) to disrupting the speech? Or does he get to go on indefinitely, depriving everyone else of the opportunity to be heard?

For meaningful discourse, you need some rules. We have rules here on MT, both written and unwritten. We have moderators who enforce those rules, with methods beginning at a simple reminder escalating to banning users from the site. And that's all that happened in this instance; a moderator decided that the kid had crossed the line into being a disruption. Gentle methods were tried; they failed. The moderator called in the people with the ability to enforce and obtain compliance. They did so, escalating the force used to do so as the kid escalated the force used to resist compliance. Once the moderator called the cops in; once that happened, the cops had to do their duty, and get the kid to shut up or leave. The kid chose to continue to resist; all he had to do was sit down, shut up, and use the free press and use his free speech rights in an appropriate forum to ask the simple question of "Why was my question so scary to Senator Kerry?" And, had he done so effectively, he'd have been heard.

It really comes down to that simple fact. Whether you support the moderator's decision or not -- once it was made, the kid CHOSE not to comply. He continued to choose, again and again, to escalate how he didn't comply. Just like someone who chooses to flee from the cops -- the outcome was his responsibility.

 

[jks9199]

One of the things that I'd like people to consider is the fact that words like "rude" and "inconsiderate" and "rant" and whatnot all carry all carry a connotation of discomfort that I think that I can explain.

We've all been taught to respect authority. We've been taught to toe the line and be good. We've been taught to politely do what we are told.

People who don't do that, make us uncomfortable. They make us feel like nobody is in control...and that we need to do something to get that back.

I actually don't have a problem with people questioning authority. I encourage it -- and so do many cops I know. But there's a time, place, and manner to do this -- and a wrong time, place, or manner.

In a reasonable paraphrase, the Declaration of Indepence says that Governments are instituted to ensure that the People enjoy the blessings of liberty. The underlying principles of the US Constitution include the idea of the social contract; that all of us in a society agree to curtail or limit some of our own freedoms in order that we can most freely exercise them. The Founding Fathers recogized that outright disobedience to the law is a last resort, to be used only when more civil methods have failed. This kid didn't try more civil methods; he essentially barged his way into the spotlight, and refused to let others in.

PS - I've got nothing against the police. We need em to deal with the real criminals out there. :asian:

OK... this is off topic, but a major peeve of mine. Please, define a "real criminal." What this kid did, in essentially taking over and disrupting a public meeting is not really any different than a gang banger claiming a street corner, and collecting "taxes" from anyone who wants to pass by. I'm a firm believer in what's often referred to as "broken windows policing." By paying attention, and stopping the little offenses, we stop the major ones, too. You don't see bangers controlling streets and neighborhoods in blatant defiance of the elected government and police in Northern Virginia like you do in some other parts of the country; this is because we didn't let them get started. And we still don't. You want another example? Average speeds on the highways are currently about 10 to 15 mph over the limit, and they've been climbing for years. I doubt they'll stop. Why? Because traffic enforcement accepted "a few miles" over, and "a few" has become "several." What's the big deal? Speed is a common, often significant, contributing factor in many fatal accidents.