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

[crushing]

And it seems that the more information that comes out, the more it supports the decision by the police to taz the student.

I agree with that. Based on CNN article link and others, the more we hear from the authorities, the more it supports the authorities decision.

 

[Catalyst]

So I had to let it lie - after, altho' we live on the same planet we are sometimes in different worlds and silence is often the best way of preventing arguments between those worlds.

I've read all of your posts in this Thread and they're extremely insightful. As an "outsider" looking in, you bring a fresh perspective that's most welcome. You ask some very relevant and hard questions.

When it comes to the 1st Amendment regarding Freedom of Speech, it's a balancing act that the United States Supreme Court has been wrestling with for over 225 years.

1.) You've got to balance rights with responsibilities
Freedom of Speech doesn't allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. People could get trampled and hurt in their panic to flee what they believe to be a burning theater.

2.) You've got to balance my rights with your rights
I can't just arbitrarily state untruths about Sukerkin, such as, "Sukerkin trips elderly people as they cross the street"; just because I have "Freedom of Speech". Generally, spoken untruth is slander and written untruth is libel.

3.) You've got to balance Freedom of Speech with Property Rights
If you own a restaurant and some Al Qaeda sypathizers come in and start saying hateful things about you, your family and Americans in general; you have the right to refuse them service and ask them to leave.

It's a very delicate balancing act - and each case is taken on it's own merits.

That being said - there's also the issue of Theory vs. Reality.

In Martial Arts, Theory is one thing, actually using your training in a Real Life Street situation against a fully resisting opponent is something else.

Freedom of Speech, in the political arena, kinda works the same way.
Here's a dose of reality: I have personally attended a political question and answer session (it was an election year) with a U.S. Senator from New York. The session was open to the public, but, every question was pre-approved and only trusted "party loyalists" were allowed to ask the questions. One of these loyalists who asked a question, invited me to go with them, so this is how I know what I say is true.

Needless to say, so much of the "political discourse" in this country is in reality "political theater".

Here's a link to the Manual on how the White House (Executive Branch of our Government) tries to handle political dissent / demonstration at appearances by the President.

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/presidential_advance_manual.pdf


It's a rather short read (most of the manual has been redacted and only the parts relating to political demonstrations have been released, based upon subpoena from the ACLU), but this should give you a general feel for how much "free speech" our elected leaders want from the common people at political affairs.

 

[Flying Crane]

That's not really true. The second clip I posted is almost 4 minutes long, and captures the students diatribe from the beginning. After viewing that, what other "course of events" would really make a difference? :idunno:

I have watched both of your posts and others as well. What is not clear is exactly who gave what orders and when, if at all, that lead to the police taking action. That cannot be seen nor heard with any clarity in any of the 4 or 5 different videos I have seen, and it remains a murky point.

 

[Flying Crane]

And it seems that the more information that comes out, the more it supports the decision by the police to taz the student.

well, I disagree with that. Seems to me the use of a tazer should be limited to people who are clearly, or at least reasonably suspected of posing a real danger to someone. I saw nothing about this kid that looked like he was dangerous. With half a dozen cops on him, I think there was really no need for the tazer.

 

[Doc_Jude]

Actually though, the police weren't there to tell him his speaking time was over. He was asked to relinquish the microphone as it became obvious he wasn't asking questions as much as using everyone's time to try and grandstand.

So the moderator asked him to relinquish the microphone, he yanked it away and was beligerant. At that time the person asked the police to remove him from the facilities, which he resisted greatly to the point of swinging and then running back inside. At that point, he's resisting arrest among other things. That's the point that I believe made it 'Taser-friendly' time and got him more forcibly reminded to follow the directions of the officers.

He didn't respond to verbal commands, though we can't hear them, you know the officers gave orders (they always give direction). I find it even more against this grandstanding idiot that he was quiet when the cameras were NOT on him, yet loud and 'oh help me, why did you do that' when they were on. (CNN article)

Also:http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/19/student.tasered/index.html#cnnSTCText?iref=werecommend
""You will take my question because I have been listening to your crap for two hours," Meyer told Kerry, according to the police report of the incident"

Police noted that his demeanor "completely changed once the cameras were not in sight" and described him as laughing and being lighthearted as he was being driven to the Alachua County Detention Center.

"I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong. You were just trying to do your job," Meyer said, according to the police report.

At one point, he asked whether there were going to be cameras at the jail, according to the report.

The entire article is there, I think he knew the consequences and was obviously looking for the spotlight as a way to either get himself noticed or bring more light to some part of the subject.

WOW. If that's all accurate, then screw the douche. Our rights exist for very good reasons, not for entertainment purposes. Though, sometimes there is some situational comedy in the exercising of said rights, but thats okay.

If he was being a jerk, then he deserved to get kicked out. Maybe things could have been handled differently, but they weren't.

This kinda goes along the lines of how I feel with people using their Freedom of Speech to just be rude in public (racial or whatever). Yeah, you may have rights that are protected by the Constitution, but don't be surprised if someone gets pissed and decides to punch/kick/throw-something-at/shoot you. Human rights exist but there's no guarantee that they will always be respected. If you lack the common sense to keep your mouth shut in such an environment, then that's on you.

Human rights and ethics don't always overrule more natural laws (Might Makes Right).

 

[CoryKS]

WOW. If that's all accurate, then screw the douche. Our rights exist for very good reasons, not for entertainment purposes. Though, sometimes there is some situational comedy in the exercising of said rights, but thats okay.

If he was being a jerk, then he deserved to get kicked out. Maybe things could have been handled differently, but they weren't.

This kinda goes along the lines of how I feel with people using their Freedom of Speech to just be rude in public (racial or whatever). Yeah, you may have rights that are protected by the Constitution, but don't be surprised if someone gets pissed and decides to punch/kick/throw-something-at/shoot you. Human rights exist but there's no guarantee that they will always be respected. If you lack the common sense to keep your mouth shut in such an environment, then that's on you.

Human rights and ethics don't always overrule more natural laws (Might Makes Right).

This was a very good post. However, I would add that even human rights and ethics ultimately boil down to Might Makes Right. Every law, no matter how benign, is founded on the basis that somebody will eventually put their hands on you if you break it. That includes property law; EEOC; tax policy; etc. A law, even one which protect human rights, that is not based on this incentive is effectively not a law.

 

[Doc_Jude]

This was a very good post. However, I would add that even human rights and ethics ultimately boil down to Might Makes Right. Every law, no matter how benign, is founded on the basis that somebody will eventually put their hands on you if you break it. That includes property law; EEOC; tax policy; etc. A law, even one which protect human rights, that is not based on this incentive is effectively not a law.

True, but most of our (U.S.) original laws were decided on & created by the majority (or elected reps), at least at one time, & are usually well thought out & not arbitrary.

 

[Cruentus]

I have watched both of your posts and others as well. What is not clear is exactly who gave what orders and when, if at all, that lead to the police taking action. That cannot be seen nor heard with any clarity in any of the 4 or 5 different videos I have seen, and it remains a murky point.

But how would that change anything about the student ranting for 1min35sec., refusing to sit down when asked, yelling and screaming and resisting the police to the point where a very large officer had to pick him and take him to the back of the room in which the student then attempts to storm down the isleway while swinging on the officers, which led to him being taken down, in which he continued to resist the cuffs being put on him which lead to the student being tazed.

So at what point do any of your "uncertainties" make a difference?

 

[Cruentus]

well, I disagree with that. Seems to me the use of a tazer should be limited to people who are clearly, or at least reasonably suspected of posing a real danger to someone. I saw nothing about this kid that looked like he was dangerous. With half a dozen cops on him, I think there was really no need for the tazer.

So somehow a ranting lunatic who refuses to listen to authority and chooses to resist and fight police officers is of no danger to anyone what-so-ever?

Um...yea....

 

[Blotan Hunka]

well, I disagree with that. Seems to me the use of a tazer should be limited to people who are clearly, or at least reasonably suspected of posing a real danger to someone. I saw nothing about this kid that looked like he was dangerous. With half a dozen cops on him, I think there was really no need for the tazer.

If it needs a half dozen cops to resolve, it should have been resolved WITH a taser SOONER. Thats the whole point. There is ultimately less danger to all involved that way. The taser just results in some dramatic yelling/screaming. When its done, nobody is typically the worse for wear. Cops wrestling with a guy may not look/sound brutal, but the odds of injury are much higher.

 

[Cruentus]

If it needs a half dozen cops to resolve, it should have been resolved WITH a taser SOONER. Thats the whole point. There is ultimately less danger to all involved that way. The taser just results in some dramatic yelling/screaming. When its done, nobody is typically the worse for wear. Cops wrestling with a guy may not look/sound brutal, but the odds of injury are much higher.

I think the above extremely valid point is so often missed because of people emotional and psychological reaction to seeing someone tazed. Seeing someone in extreme pain and having all control of his body siezed from him is difficult for people to see.

So emotionally and psychologically, people can't seem to wrap their brain around the fact that the suspect and officer is safer with a tazer then other use of force methods, such as wrestling with 6 cops.

I mean, we can witness here where the point has been mentioned numerous times, and yet the same people refuse to get it...

:idunno:

 

[Flying Crane]

But how would that change anything about the student ranting for 1min35sec., refusing to sit down when asked, yelling and screaming and resisting the police to the point where a very large officer had to pick him and take him to the back of the room in which the student then attempts to storm down the isleway while swinging on the officers, which led to him being taken down, in which he continued to resist the cuffs being put on him which lead to the student being tazed.

So at what point do any of your "uncertainties" make a difference?

That IS the whole point. It isn't clear from the videos themselves that the police should have stepped in at all. Maybe they should have just let him rant for a bit longer and see where he was going with it. It sounded like Senator Kerry expressed a willingness to answer the questions that were posed, altho I think he should have been more forceful in getting this message across. While this man's demeanor was sarcastic and somewhat annoying, it was not clear to me that he was going to become a real problem. Annoying, perhaps, but a problem, not yet. I think SOMEBODY jumped the gun, with the result that the police took action when they should have stood back and done nothing. So just exactly who that SOMEBODY is, remains murky, and cannot be determined from the video.

So instead of a minor irritation to liven up the session, they ended up with a major incident including a tazering and an arrest, and bad publicity, and maybe they could have avoided it all by just standing back for a couple more minutes to see where this was all going. It might have just blown over after a brief exchange between the student and Senator Kerry, which Kerry apparently was willing to engage in.

 

[Flying Crane]

So somehow a ranting lunatic who refuses to listen to authority and chooses to resist and fight police officers is of no danger to anyone what-so-ever?

Um...yea....

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

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I think the above extremely valid point is so often missed because of people emotional and psychological reaction to seeing someone tazed. Seeing someone in extreme pain and having all control of his body siezed from him is difficult for people to see.

So emotionally and psychologically, people can't seem to wrap their brain around the fact that the suspect and officer is safer with a tazer then other use of force methods, such as wrestling with 6 cops.

I mean, we can witness here where the point has been mentioned numerous times, and yet the same people refuse to get it...

:idunno:

Not to insult anybody here and their "martial prowess". But what I have found (or at least have come to believe) is that those who have "seen the elephant" when it comes to physical confrontations dont get as worked up when they see things like this. They realize what it is really like.

 

[jks9199]

well, I disagree with that. Seems to me the use of a tazer should be limited to people who are clearly, or at least reasonably suspected of posing a real danger to someone. I saw nothing about this kid that looked like he was dangerous. With half a dozen cops on him, I think there was really no need for the tazer.

Actually, most agencies place the Taser or similar devices (there is another on the way to the market soon) on a level about equal to pepper spray (OC). It's actually below going hands-on with someone who is actively resisting, and about the same as pain-compliance or nerve techniques on a passively resisting person. Again, the Taser generally does no serious, long term harm. Yes, incidental effects, like falling down, do cause harm, and the taser probes are darts that do cause minor puncture wounds. They're generally treatable with anti-bacterial ointment and an adhesive bandage strip. Obviously, it is possible for the probe to strike more vulnerable areas that require more medical intervention. To the best of my knowledge, the Taser has never been identified as the direct mechanism of death in any of the deaths of people who have been zapped. Consider; literally hundreds of thousands of "volunteers" have taken the ride, the same way I did. In fact -- the RCMP folks are crazy; they've been shot with it doing all sorts of crazy things to see what happens.

The Taser allows police to gain control of a resisting subject with minimal injuries and risks to everyone. Let me describe a few similar situations for comparison. One night, I and a partner had to arrest a subject who was proned out, on his stomach, with his hands under his body. He refused to surrender his hands to us. After some struggling (my partner benches somewhere close to 300, and placed 2nd in the state in a LEO fitness competition), I delivered several open-hand strikes to the suspects tricep, which allowed me to pull his arm from beneath him. The Taser would have bought us 5 seconds where he could not resist us to pull his arms from beneath him, without requiring strikes. Other alternative techniques that are permissible in similar situations include head stuns, strikes to the body, and obviously carry increased risk of injury. On another occasion, it required 4 of us to literally carry a suspect, who was already cuffed, out of an apartment, and we only succeeded after delivering a technique referred to as a "wall stun"; in short, we slammed him into the wall. The jail medics had to check him before he could be booked; I narrowly avoided spending several hours in the ER for him to be cleared. Two of us received minor injuries in the struggle. Again, note that there was a much greater chance of worse injury. That's one of the few occasions that probably would justify the use of a Taser on a cuffed subject; he was struggling that fiercely.

I really think part of the problem here is misunderstanding of the Taser; it delivers a pretty high voltage (up to 50000 volts) at a very, very miniscule amperage, in a manner that is designed to mimic and essentially short circuit nerve signals. It basically makes ALL the effected muscles contract, 19 times a second, for 5 seconds. I've taken that ride; as I've said, it's no fun. It's painful. It's very disturbing, even when you are expecting it. But it goes away in 5 seconds. Within seconds, you can be up and functional. (In fact, one guy almost came out swinging in the class!) And it doesn't do long term harm. It sounds terrifying, especially if you hype the voltage with little understanding of electricity. But it's actually probably more humane than OC; OC sticks around for 30 to 40 minutes, minimum, and "revisits" later because you never get it all washed off...

 

[Flying Crane]

Actually, most agencies place the Taser or similar devices (there is another on the way to the market soon) on a level about equal to pepper spray (OC). It's actually below going hands-on with someone who is actively resisting, and about the same as pain-compliance or nerve techniques on a passively resisting person. Again, the Taser generally does no serious, long term harm. Yes, incidental effects, like falling down, do cause harm, and the taser probes are darts that do cause minor puncture wounds. They're generally treatable with anti-bacterial ointment and an adhesive bandage strip. Obviously, it is possible for the probe to strike more vulnerable areas that require more medical intervention. To the best of my knowledge, the Taser has never been identified as the direct mechanism of death in any of the deaths of people who have been zapped. Consider; literally hundreds of thousands of "volunteers" have taken the ride, the same way I did. In fact -- the RCMP folks are crazy; they've been shot with it doing all sorts of crazy things to see what happens.

The Taser allows police to gain control of a resisting subject with minimal injuries and risks to everyone. Let me describe a few similar situations for comparison. One night, I and a partner had to arrest a subject who was proned out, on his stomach, with his hands under his body. He refused to surrender his hands to us. After some struggling (my partner benches somewhere close to 300, and placed 2nd in the state in a LEO fitness competition), I delivered several open-hand strikes to the suspects tricep, which allowed me to pull his arm from beneath him. The Taser would have bought us 5 seconds where he could not resist us to pull his arms from beneath him, without requiring strikes. Other alternative techniques that are permissible in similar situations include head stuns, strikes to the body, and obviously carry increased risk of injury. On another occasion, it required 4 of us to literally carry a suspect, who was already cuffed, out of an apartment, and we only succeeded after delivering a technique referred to as a "wall stun"; in short, we slammed him into the wall. The jail medics had to check him before he could be booked; I narrowly avoided spending several hours in the ER for him to be cleared. Two of us received minor injuries in the struggle. Again, note that there was a much greater chance of worse injury. That's one of the few occasions that probably would justify the use of a Taser on a cuffed subject; he was struggling that fiercely.

I really think part of the problem here is misunderstanding of the Taser; it delivers a pretty high voltage (up to 50000 volts) at a very, very miniscule amperage, in a manner that is designed to mimic and essentially short circuit nerve signals. It basically makes ALL the effected muscles contract, 19 times a second, for 5 seconds. I've taken that ride; as I've said, it's no fun. It's painful. It's very disturbing, even when you are expecting it. But it goes away in 5 seconds. Within seconds, you can be up and functional. (In fact, one guy almost came out swinging in the class!) And it doesn't do long term harm. It sounds terrifying, especially if you hype the voltage with little understanding of electricity. But it's actually probably more humane than OC; OC sticks around for 30 to 40 minutes, minimum, and "revisits" later because you never get it all washed off...

While I have never experienced the tazer first hand, I have read enough about it that I essentially understand what it does, and I do understand the high voltage vs. low amperage issue. So that's not my issue.

However, it's pretty clear in the video that he was already pinned down by about 4 cops when they started tazering him. I don't know if he was cuffed already, I'm willing to suspect that he wasn't, but with four cops on him and more just steps away, it just seems like it should not have been necessary.

But all this is really moot, as my real issue is with the timing of the escalation. I suspect if everyone had just backed down for another couple minutes and allowed the student and Mr. Kerry to exchange points, which Mr. Kerry seemed willing to do, the whole thing never would have happened at all. That is my main issue with the situation. I think someone was more eager than they should have been to escalate the situation. Whoever that someone is, I think he has some explaining to do.

 

[MJS]

OK, I'll bite.

If it was truly necessary to remove someone who was dangerous, then I'd say the cops did a decent job and perhaps acted appropriately. I don't like the tazer thing, it seems like they had enough people there that they should not have needed it, but for the sake of discussion I'm willing to let it slide.

However, I remain unconvinced that it was necessary to remove this guy in the first place. Whoever made that decision has some explaining to do, in my opinion. If it was the cops who made the decision, then I think they overstepped their authority. They should have absolutely no input and no control over what a citizen wishes to ask a senator. If someone else gave the order to the cops, I think that person should be placed under the lamps and owes a serious explanation.

Regarding who was in charge of this event, I'm in agreement with you. I think that knowing a) who was in charge, b) who gave the ok for the removal, c) the alotted time frame for speaking, and d) the nature of the Q&A session, are all relevant and key to the thread here.

 

[thardey]

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?

It seems to be two distinct questions, and if you blur them, you get a very strange picture. That is, if you smash the two questions into one, you get an argument over whether it's Ok to Taze someone for being rude to John Kerry!

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.


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.

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.

Those who would paint the situation as a attention-seeking prank will do best when they focus on how the kid was abusing his question time, and it was time for him to go. That he wouldn't have gotten tazed if he had ceded the floor.

Whoever controls the argument controls the perception.

 

[jks9199]

That IS the whole point. It isn't clear from the videos themselves that the police should have stepped in at all. Maybe they should have just let him rant for a bit longer and see where he was going with it. It sounded like Senator Kerry expressed a willingness to answer the questions that were posed, altho I think he should have been more forceful in getting this message across. While this man's demeanor was sarcastic and somewhat annoying, it was not clear to me that he was going to become a real problem. Annoying, perhaps, but a problem, not yet. I think SOMEBODY jumped the gun, with the result that the police took action when they should have stood back and done nothing. So just exactly who that SOMEBODY is, remains murky, and cannot be determined from the video.

So instead of a minor irritation to liven up the session, they ended up with a major incident including a tazering and an arrest, and bad publicity, and maybe they could have avoided it all by just standing back for a couple more minutes to see where this was all going. It might have just blown over after a brief exchange between the student and Senator Kerry, which Kerry apparently was willing to engage in.

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!"

Now, with that out of the way, let me address something else. As a general rule, when you call the cops, we are there because asking nicely hasn't worked. While there's no hard and fast rule for when we stop asking, the point comes when we will make you comply. And we cannot lose. As I posted a while ago, I generally will ask once, tell once, and then I will enforce compliance with whatever force is necessary. In this case, I don't know... I suspect the campus cops just may be familiar with this particular student. There are people that I won't ask once where I work; if I'm called in, they've been asked, and they've been told. I know them; I know that I will have to make them comply. I bet every cop posting here can think of several folks in that category... And there are people on the other end, that I'm going to ask, almost beg, before I take action. I just don't think the chief is going to think well of me manhandling a cantankerous 85 year old out of a council meeting without trying everything possible, and then some, to get them out without force...

In this case -- I don't care whether or not the kid should have been silenced. That's really an entirely separate question from whether the use of force in this case was reasonable. Once the cops were asked to get him to stop, he had a simple choice: comply, or be made to comply. He could have simply sat down, then used his free speech rights to complain via the press, or the internet, or whatever, how Senator Kerry wouldn't answer him. ANY policitian's appearance is an orchestrated show. It's not uncommon for the "spontaneous audience questions" to be anything but spontaneous, and even vetted and approved before hand. (And, every once in a while, someone sneaks in a different question when they're given the microphone!)

Police are allowed, and often required, to use reasonable force to effect various societal goals, up to and including physical arrest of a person. In the case of a person disrupting an otherwise peaceable assembly on private property, when those in charge of the event, exercising care, custody and control of the property request that a person causing a disruption be removed -- the police have the duty to remove that person. Sometimes, all it takes is showing up, and silently encouraging compliance with the request to leave. Other times, more force is required. Again, in the instant case, not only did the person causing the disruption refuse to cease the disturbance, he actively resisted lesser efforts, and forced his way back into the area. At that point, more force becomes necessary.

The simple truth is that you don't win by arguing or fighting the cops. If they tell you to leave -- leave. Argue it later. Because at that point -- you won't win, no matter how sure you are that you're right. You may win later -- but at that moment, you'll lose. Follow good military advise; to paraphrase Sun Tzu, know when to fight and when not to fight, and you'll win.

 

[MJS]

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.