UF student tased at John Kerry speech
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, September 28, 2007 12:10
VIEWED: 27394
PAGE 2 of 4
Quote:Police are pansies. If they're not willing to get sweaty in a non-threatening situation they don't belong on the force.
And liberals are pansies. If your not willing to get tasered you've got no business being disobiediant.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If they're not willing to get sweaty in a non-threatening situation they don't belong on the force.
For ten thousand years of human history the preferred method for taking care of a criminal in a non-lethal setting was for police to beat them with a club.
Now cops get to shock the crap out of folk.
Thats real progress.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. I don’t think assholes should be tazed either, particularly peaceful assholes. And the word “peaceful” is a dishonest characterization of the issue, but I don’t guess you can help yourself.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So in your view, whether a taser (water cannon, baton) is used on a peaceful protester is based on YOUR subjective view of whether or not the person is an "asshole"?
Also “a threat to anyone in the vicinity” is just as subjective. If someone is willing to struggle against the police because they feel they have the right to trespass or de facto eliminate all freedom of expression but their own, then I find this person to be a threat.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, the mark of a good government is not one that provides no resistance to change, but one that allows enough resistance to slow the rate for thoughtful consideration of the direction of that change.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"What we need is a combination water cannon/taser. That would be something..."
Piss on an electric fence - you get the same effect.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm not trying to say this guy was "peaceful", I'm looking at hypotheticals to see what you think of them. It would be nice if you could keep the snark down to a minimum.
No. I don’t think assholes should be tazed either, particularly peaceful assholes. And the word “peaceful” is a dishonest characterization of the issue, but I don’t guess you can help yourself.
Quote:I should have said physical threat.
Also “a threat to anyone in the vicinity” is just as subjective. If someone is willing to struggle against the police because they feel they have the right to trespass or de facto eliminate all freedom of expression but their own, then I find this person to be a threat.
Compare and contrast to hanging some nooses on a tree to scare away black folks. Which do you think deserves greater punishment: hogging a mic or hanging a noose?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Compare and contrast to hanging some nooses on a tree to scare away black folks. Which do you think deserves greater punishment: hogging a mic or hanging a noose?
And now for something completely different...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Only if you think an examination of 'what is a threat' and 'what is proportionate response' is off topic. 
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What you are doing is changing the rules after I give my answer. And concerning hypotheticals, I’ve already stated that I don’t think the tazer should be used on people if they can be subdued easily, so why would you assume I would decide that a tazer should be used on someone who is a “peaceful protestor?”
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not trying to say this guy was "peaceful", I'm looking at hypotheticals to see what you think of them. It would be nice if you could keep the snark down to a minimum.
Quote:I assume you mean something like drawing a knife, but I still would say that someone whose belief in their right to special treatment is so ardent they would resist arrest is exactly the kind of person who might become violent and become a physical threat, particularly if they are loud and hateful. The situation at the UCLA library was certainly not non-threatening from the perspective of the police, who were surrounded by numerous students some of whom seemed to try to interfere with the arrest. This is threatening for the police. You seemed to be making the assumption that there is no physical threat because the situations didn’t turn bloody, but you have no way of knowing that at the time. Just because the perpetrator is not expressing a direct intent to cause harm, doesn’t mean that won’t change quickly and unpredictably or someone from the crowd won’t jump in and the more uncooperative and irrational someone is the more likely their behavior may seem to become violent. Police are trained to maintain control of an encounter, if they feel they have lost or are losing control, they’re likely to pull out the tazer, because they feel threatened whether that’s obvious on YouTube or not. And if they don’t have a tazer, it might be their firearm they draw, which is orders of magnitude worse.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I should have said physical threat.
So the minute that you start resisting arrest and you can’t be directly overpowered and easily carried, then the tazer should come out, or at least becomes an option. In most cases, that means just about any grown man who resists arrest is subject to tazing.
Quote:The first thing I see is that this is an apples and oranges comparison. Certainly I do believe that any display suggestive of terrorist or violent intent might be worse than a public tantrum, but the inflicting of pain or physical trauma is not used as a punishment, but as a means of control, so under what conditions would control devices be used in this case? Because if it’s for punishment, it’s probably unconstitutional, or been deemed that way. You can’t inflict pain or beat someone to punish them, but you can to gain control of the situation. Consider this, if the police encounter a person in the act of preparing an illegal terrorist display or directly following the preparation and who peacefully yields to police and submits cooperatively to arrest – should the tazer be used on him simply because the police find his use of threatening or terrorist paraphernalia offensive? I think not. And while I might certainly describe this guy as an “asshole” I would also say that the police using a tazer on a cooperative perpetrator for ideological reasons would be oppressive (even if secretly some part of me found some sort of satisfaction.)
Originally posted by SignyM:
Compare and contrast to hanging some nooses on a tree to scare away black folks. Which do you think deserves greater punishment: hogging a mic or hanging a noose?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One point to bring up, ok, and imma throw right up front that it's NOT from a neutral perspective, right ?
Cops generally don't taser just once, no, they sit there like a cruel little schoolboy over an anthill with a magnifying glass, popping the switch over and over, often even giggling as they do it - we have some sick, sick bastards on the force, believe it.
With each zap, the risk of death dramatically increases, and the cops even have this bullshit medical term for it to excuse away murder by taser - Excited Delerium, or some shit, complete with a couple shills trying to make it sound like some kind of medically-accepted syndrome... yeah right, find me ONE case of death from ED that didn't immediately follow a police tasing or beating, and maybe it'd fly.
Accountability is the key - every time a cop busts a cap with their service weapon, they have to account for it, but with the taser, no such luck - even the ones that have a counter, you'll find instructions on how to fiddle or reset it taped to the back of every police locker room door if you look, and they mostly don't have to account for it anyhow unless there are witnesses.
Ponder this, if they'll do THAT shit out in public in front of large crowds, what the fuck do you think they'll do to YOU in private, with no witnesses, especially if they have racial or anger/control issues going on.
Don't forget, Detroit has a goddamn federal oversight task force practically camped out down here TRYING to make our cops act like adults instead of over aggressive 10yr old bullies, and it's not workin, and it's costing us X amount of tax bucks per day, having one fucking goon squad trying to beat another goon squad into at least pretending to behave like human beings.
No, they shouldn't have tasers, not unless every time that trigger is pulled, the process is EXACTLY like firing the service weapon, right down to the lethal force questions - and even then I am reluctant because at this time, the police have become a wholly self serving entity that is a direct threat to the very populace they were created to protect - we need to move back to community based policing, and fast, and even that might not be enough.
Too many laws, too many police, and suddently everyone's guilty of something ? madness.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
People keep sliding past the fact that the student was doing nothing threatening or illegal. Are you all saying that university security couldn't deal with a problem that every kindergarten teacher deals with every day ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SIX campus security! ONE obnoxious person.
Pity the K-garten teacher who has one aide and thirty kids to deal with! Maybe K-garten teachers really SHOULD have tasers, eh?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And you’re sliding past the fact that these are grown men not kindergarten kids. And this grown man was trespassing, which is at least a violation of campus policy and possibly state or city law.
Originally posted by rue:
People keep sliding past the fact that the student was doing nothing threatening or illegal. Are you all saying that university security couldn't deal with a problem that every kindergarten teacher deals with every day ?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There are cases of death by excited delirium that follow being sprayed with pepper spray, where no tasing or beating occurred, so I guess it flies. Woman who carry pepper spray in their purse must now get a carry license to carry a concealed weapon? Actually, the common factor in excited delirium cases is not the type of control device used by police, but that the perpetrator was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The drugs in his system accompanied with the adrenaline of resisting arrest resulted in cardiac arrest, not the tazing.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
With each zap, the risk of death dramatically increases, and the cops even have this bullshit medical term for it to excuse away murder by taser - Excited Delerium, or some shit, complete with a couple shills trying to make it sound like some kind of medically-accepted syndrome... yeah right, find me ONE case of death from ED that didn't immediately follow a police tasing or beating, and maybe it'd fly.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uh huh... show me ONE case of death from ED that didn't happen in or immediately following police custody.
ONE.
While you're doing that, you can perhaps also try to explain away the deaths of folk from it, in police custody with NO drugs in their system whatsoever, and be prepared to do it over and over.
No one's done any proper studies on this shit, cause nobody wants to face what the likely answers are gonna be - fact is, you should NOT use a Taser on anyone in any situation where you would not have fired your service weapon had that been the only option - are we clear ?
The Taser is a LESS lethal option, not a nonlethal one, and using it as a compliance device is no more sane that shooting a civvie in the foot for not showing proper respect, which is in essence, what most of these incidents are about - the cops think they're lords, and we're peons, and the lack of oversight and consequences in general has allowed this mindset to fester into the deadly social poison it has become.
I've dealt quite recently in a professional, advisory capacity with a large number of the force, and did not find a one of em who I found anything less than despicable as a human being, if I would even give em that much credit.
Anyone who WANTS to be a cop - should NOT be, period.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
Updated with useful linkage
http://peoplesgeography.com/2006/11/18/death-by-taser-the-killer-alter
native-to-guns/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Spring_2005/Aftershocks/page.do?id=1105342&n
1=2&n2=19&n3=388
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7622314
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Excited delirium existed in medical diagnoses long before it was ever used to explain the death of anyone in police custody. Excited delirium is a condition that arises from combination of drug overdose (often cocaine) and stress. It is a condition of extreme drug use, not police custody, but I don’t doubt that a certain set of excited delirium cases are related to police custody, however your claim was that excited delirium was a euphemism for supposed deaths caused by tazer use, a statement which immediately fails the idiot test because excited delirium deaths have resulted in cases where pepper spray, not tazing, was used.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Uh huh... show me ONE case of death from ED that didn't happen in or immediately following police custody.
ONE.
While you're doing that, you can perhaps also try to explain away the deaths of folk from it, in police custody with NO drugs in their system whatsoever, and be prepared to do it over and over.
Also I don’t doubt that tazers can result in death, and there are cases when it has happened, but the tazer is not a lethal weapon, and it is far safer than a baton or a kick, both of which are responsible for far more deaths. And in fact, it is safer then pepper spray, which can inflame lung tissue and make breathing difficult. What you are trying to do is equate a tazer to a firearm, which is just silly. If you're going to do that, then you must also be prepared to equate pepper spray, a baton or a fist to a firearm.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As The Tyee's article also pointed out, "researchers note that every excited delirium death is preceded by a forceful struggle with police. A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal examined the deaths of 21 people due to excited delirium in Ontario. In all 21 cases, the deceased were forcefully restrained in a prone position, sometimes with pressure placed on the neck. Twelve of them (57 percent of the total) had a psychiatric disorder.
Only a minority of them - eight out of 21 (38 percent) - had cocaine in their system.
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2004/08/06/TaserFollowup/
Doesn't mention how many of em got a little fried by the cops torture toy, or how many times, but this is rather typical, as any research will show.
Fact is, when it comes right down to it, it's russian roulette - it damned well could kill you, some unignorable chance of it anyway, and here's the acid test...
If someone pointed one at YOU, fully intending to fire it at you, and you were armed with a handgun, would you shoot them ?
Ask THAT one of a cop, and then question why it's not the same when they point one at YOU.
It's potentially lethal force, and should be treated as such, but that requires the police to consider non-police to be people, human beings, and they don't.
And that's a far, far larger problem now, isn't it ?
Chew on those thoughts a while.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If this article is citing the journal article I think they are, then none of the cases studied included the use of the tazer. So there goes that argument I guess. But several people had been sprayed with pepper spray. These deaths were caused by restraint, not the tazer, which demonstrates how far people will go to demonize use of the tazer. The reason people have such problem with it, has nothing to do with it being dangerous, which as far as control devices go, it’s about as non-lethal as you’re going to get. You’re more likely to kill someone with your fists then you are with a tazer. But people have a problem with the tazer for purely emotional reasons. They are reacting to the screams of people who have been tazed.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Doesn't mention how many of em got a little fried by the cops torture toy, or how many times, but this is rather typical, as any research will show.
Now back to the article and the cause of death of those 21 cases. Excited delirium is a condition of extreme drug use or psychiatric illness and all of these cases exhibited similar symptoms which include the insane, violent behavior accompanied by “superhuman” feats of strength. In other words these people where not “normal.” The cause of death in these cases was due to cardiac arrest that resulted from drug use and stress in some cases, but in other cases they were causes by chest and throat compression during restraint, and in other cases pepper spray may have resulted in inflamed lung tissue. None of these conditions by themselves were fatal, but when accompanied with perpetual psychotic and abnormally resistive behavior, they became fatal.
“The most striking finding of this study was that all of those who died unexpectedly during or after an episode of excited delirium had been physically restrained. In most cases the excited delirium was due to a pre-existing psychiatric illness; however, in a significant number, it was a consequence of recent cocaine use. In the later cases, the cocaine levels were similar to those found in people who were murdered or had committed suicide and had used cocaine shortly before death.”
Pollanen et al, “Unexpected Death Related to Restraint for Excited Delirium: A retrospective study of Deaths in Police Custody and in the Community,” p. 1606 JAMC 16 JUNE 1998, 158 (12)
If you resist arrest long enough and hard enough, you could die from your own efforts. The harder you resist the harder the police are going to tighten their grip. Most people don’t have the will or the strength to resist long enough and hard enough to kill themselves, but those under the influence of drugs or psychiatric illness, might.
Quote:That depends. If that someone is a police officer, most likely not. If he’s a crook or someone I might be in real trouble with if I were incapacitated, then I might, but to address the hypothetical, I would rather get tazed then kill someone, so there would have to be more than just the threat of being tazed alone for me to pull the trigger.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If someone pointed one at YOU, fully intending to fire it at you, and you were armed with a handgun, would you shoot them ?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey all,
Finn brings up some very, very good points. Central to those is this: A tazer is the safest way to subdue someone.
It's safer than wrestling, it's safer than beating.
How do six police officers remove a troublemaker?
Some have argued that the troublemaker should just be ignored.
Some have argued that the troublemaker should be physically removed or forced into restraints while he is struggling. "Why don't the officers want to sweat a little?" Well, I'd say that wrestling with someone is actually more dangerous than tazing them. You could receive a blow, intentional or not. You may cause damage to ligaments or joints. You may allow the subject to herniate himself, giving him a lifelong disability. Alternatively, if the subject is very strong, you risk all these consequences to yourself. The worst possible scenario is that a resisting, thrashing target may crack his skull or someone else's against a hard surface, causing brain damage or death.
What about the risk of heart attack? The subject may have a heart condition, and the tazer may aggravate the condition and cause a death.
But so, too, can a wrestling match aggravate a heart condition. So? What do you do?
It's not a matter of sweat, in my opinion. It's a matter of safety, for everyone involved.
The problem is, a tazer represents a total loss of control, and that's scary. Someone can punch you, and you can try to block them or punch back. Someone can wrestle you, and you can try to physically resist. But a tazer? It forces you into compliance against your will, in a way that you cannot defeat. Not with a black belt. Not with a powerful sense of will. Not by blocking it with your arm. Not by anything. If it hits you, you will involountarily be subdued (in 99% of cases.)
Every department I've heard of uses tazers against their own officers during training. If a tazer was a readily deadly weapon, there'd be a lot of dead cops. (Not to mention the large quantity of reporters that get their kicks by getting tazed on camera for silly news stories.) Deadliness of the device is not a serious issue. Some complain that a tazer is more likely to be used than a firearm because it is non-lethal. Hell yeah and thank God.
So the issue is, WHEN? When do you use a tazer?
I propose that the answer is simple.
Whenver you must use force to remove a subject, restrain a subject, or stop a subject, the best force to use is a tazer.
Wrestling him down, forcing his arms into cuffs while he struggles, punching him, beating him with a baton, shooting him? These are all less savory options.
How about the Kerry Kid? Let's dissect the event:
1) He was disruptive, breaking the rules at a social event. He far exceeded his allotted time. He asked multiple questions, made long rambling speeches, and denied the mic to other persons. It wasn't Kerry's call whether the kid should continue. The people who operate the venue, the University staff and security, get to make that call.
2) His mic was shut off, a good first step.
3) He was being escorted away from the area. So far, so good. They flanked him and led him away, nice and peaceful.
4) He began to shout, resist the lead of the officers, and jump up and down. He shouted to the officers, "I'm being arrested?! What have I done?!" followed by, "Get away from me, man! Get away from me!" All the while jumping and evading the officers.
5) The officers catch up to him at the rear of the room (he didn't get far) and force him to the ground. Here is where the kid ironically shouts, "Help! They're arresting me!" As though it was the practice of bystanders to interfere in the arrests of officers.
6) The officers give him instructions, such as to place his hands in position to be cuffed, which he disobeys while screaming.
7) "You will be tazed if you don't comply," Shouts one of the officers. The kid replies, "If you let me go I'll walk out of here." Alas, it is too late. The kid appare
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Allright, since to some people, apparently, "order" is apparently more important than petty stuff like sanity, human rights, or personal safety, let's put it in a pure financial perspective.
I propose a mandatory settlement of $100 million for any police custody death aggravated by taser, $75 million for positional asphixia death, and $50 million for ANY use of a taser that is found by an independant board to be unwarranted or excessive - and the local community who's police force is responsible fronts the ENTIRE bill.
Hows that sound to you, since it's so much safer and all, it's no *actual* financial risk, right ?
Does that finally put this idiocy into perspective - what's next, tasering folk for jaywalking, oh wait... they did that, didn't they ?
Time to face the unpleasant fact, that by constant apologism and gloryfying, our society has removed almost all consequences from cop misbehavior and thus wound up with a gang of overmacho children who believe themselves above the rest of the citizerny cause they wear a badge, whoopty - EVERY tool ever given to them gets misused, quickly and without one whit of conscience among them, go on, FIND me a cop complaining of no-knock raids *before* his dept gets in trouble for them, even if it winds up as usual amounting to a slap on the wrist.
"Probable Cause" - almost a joke.
"Plain sight/Consent Search" - absolutely a joke.
"Failure to obey police instruction" - go do some research, I personally know one girl who wound up on probation for refusing to go down on a cop over a traffic violation.
"Safety/Sobriety checkpoints" - fuck the fourth amendment, right ?
"No-knock/Dynamic Entry" - Yeehaw, bubba, we get to kick doors in, and for what, suspicion of a betting pool ? and that guy died too, cause some jackass cop with a twitchy trigger finger got too excited - oh yes, and another $100 million mandatory for wrong address/bogus charges no-knock deaths caused by the police, how bout it ?
"Asset Forfieture" - Hey, look bubba, nice car, let's TAKE it, it's not like we have to prove anything, right ?
"Taser" - Zap *giggle*, zap, zap, zap, isn't this fun Bubba, watch how they squirm!
FYI - The incident I refer to with this was two cops versus an 80 yr old woman with a diabetic condition who was trying to tell em she needed insulin or a hospital, and no, she didn't make it, but watching them fucking GIGGLE over it was the last damn straw as far as I am concerned.
And I don't think we even need to go there with hailstorms of 100+ bullets in residential neighborhoods, and maybe hitting the suspect twice, do we ? "Contagious Fire" and all that rot.
The ugly truth is that EVERY tool given to them is immediately, blatantly abused, that the police as a whole have gone rabid, so far off the leash that something has to be done, and I do not feel they can be trusted with the damned tasers unless it's treated the same as a firearm discharge - and no, I ain't happy about them carryin guns neither, but since I firmly believe that *every* citizen barring insanity or violent criminal conduct should be armed, imma have to let that one go with the caveat that us peons should be able to carry anything a cop does without question.
As for what to do with a disruptive individual on private property, if you can't answer THAT question, I call into question your powers of reasoning - if someone wanted to sit on my lawn with a sign and rant for a couple hours and was doing no harm to anyone or themselves, not like I personally, would give a shit enough to do something about it - I see no mention of crowd reaction on this story, but I think if he was booed or laughed out of there, he'd have shut up a lot quicker, honestly.
Public property is just that, public, and messing with the right to peaceably assemble and bitch up a storm is a damn dangerous course - I've only really ran into any hassle with a protest blocking the road once, and politely stepped out, told the folks yes, I have seen your message and gotten your point, whether I agree or not, and can I get thr
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think AnthonyT's summary is pretty objective and consistent with my recollection of the video. I think his conclusions are fairly well balanced.
In the incident at the Kerry speech, I suspect it will be shown the police followed protocols and will, I hope, not have any further repercussions; I believe their actions were reasonable.
On the other hand, as AnthonyT points out, a Tazer is a very debilitating weapon. It's use by authority figures should be taken very seriously. So I'm going to borrow a page from Frem:
Every use of a tazer by law enforcement should be accompanied by a similar set of forms as use of a fire arm. In this particular case, I believe the adjunct paperwork would be considered and used in the assessment of the officer's duties; which again, in -this- case will, I believe show they followed protocol.
Do I think tasers are as lethal as firearms; obviously not. However, they are sufficiently debilitating that if one -must- be used, then it should be reviewed.
I'm not so sure about Frem's suggestion regarding 'any police custody death aggravated by taser'; but certainly any case where excessive taser use occurs it should bear significant penalties.
As part of this, taser's issued to police should have counters which cannot be reset.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
I'm interested in your opinion of the theatre example versus the University example. Is the person's right to disrupt an event more important than your right to enjoy the event?
Is there any line that can be drawn in that regard? What if your example 'lawn protesters' don't move? Shall they impede you indefinitely?
This isn't idle speculation. This stuff happens. When I lived in South Florida, protesters shut down a major expressway by laying down across the road. They refused to volountarily move. Thousands of motorists were stranded for hours.
When does this 'public annoyance' become serious enough to warrant physically removing someone?
I will say this: Any use of force should require a report, and I'd be damned surprised if it didn't already.
However, when a FIREARM is fired by an officer, that officer is placed on administrative leave for 2-4 weeks while an investigation is conducted. This fact makes various crime dramas laughable. The detective who discharges his firearm while on an investigation would likely have little to do with the remainder of that investigation.
I'm not sure if the same is practical for tazers. Use of force is a much more common necessity than use of deadly force. It seems if the requirements were identical between use of a firearm and use of force, then a quarter of the police officers might be on administrative leave and under investigation at any given time. You might need to double the size of the police department just to manage it. And I suspect, Frem, that you don't really want to fund a larger police force.
If the point of your argument, Frem, is that disruptive people should never be physically interfered with... then I disagree.
If the point of your argument is that use of force should be scrutinized, then I agree.
If the point of your argument is that all use of force should be scrutinized to the same degree as the use of deadly force, then I disagree.
Disruptive individuals can be ignored until they interfere with the rights of others. Once that happens, they've broken the law, as I see it. "My rights end at the end of my nose" was a song they taught me in grade school. When I limit someone else's freedoms whilst exercising my own, I've crossed the line.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We must all remember that the police work for us, not the other way around. To that end, we give them considerably more physical tools: cars, helicopters, handguns, radios, tasers, batons, rubber bullets, tear gas, helmets, face shields, shotguns, bullet-resistant vests, ramming devices, water cannons, warrants, handcuffs, computers, spike strips, etc etc than are normally available to the average person or group of people.
When in their presence, police have the ability to force anyone to do almost anything or to stop anyone from doing almost anything (for example, stopping a legal protest.)
When you give someone that amount of power, significant legal advantage and general agreement to USE that power, the danger is that power will be used excessively especially for trivial reasons or against non-threatening persons for the sheer purpose of establishing "control", whether that level of control is necessary or not.
The Kent State shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
the Los Angeles immigration protest beatings
www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/03/1357234
the Rodney King beating
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingvideo.html
the brutal police response to the 2003 anti-FTAA protest in Miami
www.mindfully.org/WTO/2004/Miami-Vice-FTAA1mar04.htm
www.democracynow.org/static/miamimodel.shtml
WATCH THIS VIDEO:
www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=miami+ftaa+protest+police+2003+
and other shootings/beatings all came about because the police over-reacted to a situation. There has to be some brakes on using force. The "brake" in place is that the police know ahead of time that every time they pull a gun they'll wind up filling out reams of paperwork. A review process should be in place for ANY "use of force". Or else arm everybody so police can't kick the shit out of defensless citizens.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I don't think anyone is advocating misuse of force. (If anyone is, please say so.)
However, if an investigation is conducted any time a police officer has to use force, that might bog down the system a bit. (Perhaps you believe the system needs to be bogged down.)
That means if an officer forces someone into handcuffs, he'd have to be investigated. If he lays hands on a subject to force them into a direction, he'd have to be investigated. Pretty much any time he touches someone, he'd have to be investigated. I'm not sure that would work.
Now, as for paperwork, I believe that paperwork IS currently required whenever an officer has to touch someone. If I remember my time working for the police department correctly, that paperwork is called an incident report, and these incident reports are reviewed by superiors.
Obviously power can and will be abused by some of those that have it, be it the big schoolyard bully, the abusive parent, the police officer, the politician, or the pedophile priest. I don't think you can lump everyone in the category together and call them abusive. (Although it may be very tempting to do so.)
Control is one of the things police officers are tasked to do. It's a necessary part of their function.
It boils down to this... either you believe a disruptive individual needs to be removed, or you don't. At some point I think you have to draw the line, and I have.
For those that aren't aware, the Kerry Kid was asked to go before anything happened. He refused. Then he was being escorted out, and he resisted. Only after he evaded and resisted the police did he offer to go of his own free will. Unfortunately, it was too late.
Maybe you think it was the kid's right to continue to disrupt the event indefinitely. If you do think that, just say so. Then we can agree to disagree on that point.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'Any' is a dangerous word. If an officer pulls my wrists behind me, and puts cuffs on me, is he using 'force'?
However, I'm willing to agree that taser use should be reviewed; but I do not know that it would be necessary to associate an 'administrative leave' with it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If use of force could be 'reviewed' without disrupting police duties, I'll advocate it. As it is, it's supposed to be reviewed anyway, but perhaps that process could be adhered to more fully. I suspect a lot of paperwork is currently skipped or glossed over.
It's an old case of enforcing the rules you already have.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok- review use of tasers, batons (or flashlights), choke hold, weapon (rubber bullets or otherwise) tear gas... I'm sure I can think of more. PUBLIC review might help: a Civilian Review Commission.
Yes, bullies will be bullies but cops are bullies with badges and weapons, and that makes THEM need to be controlled, otherwise they just become another kind of gang.
I worked with two people who became cops. Both of these people were college graduates, one (a chemist) became a cop because she WAS a bully, and the other (a sociologist) became a bully within two years of joining a police force... to the extent that he bragged about breaking someone's tail light and them giving them a fixit ticket (Apparently that was his force's way of issuing as*hole tickets.)
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All difficult questions come down to issues of conflicting rights. Does this one guy's right to free speech over rule the rest of the meetings right to hear Kerry speak or have other questions put? If I was waiting to ask my question, is my right of a hearing superceded by this guy even if he's using more than his alotted time. If a group makes rules about public discouse, is it allowed to enforce them if someone breaks them?
Sig you think this guy should be allowed to shout hog the mic and monopolise the time with Kerry. Would you think the same if it was a skinhead shouting down a Holocaust survivor? Would you mind if, say the Christian right shouted down the Democratic presidential debates?
For a society to have intelligent discussion there has to be rules. Seems like this guy broke some of them. Do we let guy's like him disrail that discussion or do we have a right as a society to enforce our rules.
As to the "all cops are bullies" comment. Do you know all cops? I think in any field there are bullies, your chemist was a bully as a chemist and as a cop, I suspect your sociologist was as well, just that in the group he used to be in he lacked the confidence to show his true colours. Not saying that law enforcement may not attract that personality type -- in fact I suspect it does but you will find it anywhere.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Firstoff, thanks Anthony, for getting the gist of what I was tryin to put across - I come off awful harsh sometimes, but we really are watchin a slide off the deep end when it comes to police behavior, and I am substantially concerned.
Where the line is, at least in my eyes, is doing harm or intent to do harm - if someone is impeding your enjoyment of an event, that's a personal issue, and in a private venue, you take it up with the owner of the venue, and obviously on your own property it's your call.
Public property is a little more grey, but it really boils down to the concept that if you can resolve without conflict, you should not initiate one, in the above case, if they had not moved, I could have gone around via a side street - but if not, sure, you might have to call upon public enforcement, although perhaps a better thought would be a bicycle cop issuing a few tickets instead of a jackboot swat swarm slapping down everyone in sight, likely me included just for being there - police overresponse to these things is kinda nuts these days.
As for use of force, I must stress that the Taser be effectively considered a LESS-Lethal, rather than NON-Lethal, use of force and scaled more accordingly - that is a very important legal and proceedural distinction, and one that if properly rectified, would offer some protection then to officers who DID have cause to use a Taser, you see ?
As for the rest of it, police are VERY poorly trained when it comes to threat management and conflict resolution, and certain entrenched attitudes make that far far worse than it needs to be.
I don't have the article handy, as my main comp has a blown mainboard and a new one is on order, but there are some very good trainers out there that are sadly underutilized, and proper training would give officers the skills to manage a problem without the automatic "Me have bigger club, me WIN!" kind of escalation that is all too common currently.
Oh wait, I do have a copy.. here.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/contol_vs_command.htm
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/deescalation.htm
Stuff like this is CRUCIAL, in my opinion, need to know stuff, which damn well should be part of any academy curriculum, but what we have now, wellll....
Better training, better oversight, civvie public review boards, a limit to the "Blue line" interferance of established orgs like the FOP, and most especially, properly classifying the force used... that's a start, also we really need to move policing back to communities and make them have to answer to those communities for their actions.
I have my doubts as to whether it's "too far gone" or not, but that'd be a freakin start.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
All difficult questions come down to issues of conflicting rights. Does this one guy's right to free speech over rule the rest of the meetings right to hear Kerry speak or have other questions put?
No. No. By framing the debate this way, you take the taser entirely out of the equation. NO ONE here is saying the boy's actions were appropriate. NO ONE. No one is saying that he has a right to disrupt the speech. If the boy had simply been escorted from the room, this would not be news.
It is not the boy's right to "free speech" that anyone is defending. It's his right not to be tased without posing a violent threat to the officers. His right to be peacefully removed from the room like thousands of such obnoxious protesters before him, without being beaten up or tased. They tased him within a fricken YARD of the door, folks! If the officers' goal were his removal from the auditorium, they could have simply shoved him the extra five feet to the hallway.
No, their purpose was not to remove him, but to make him submit to their dominance. When police cross the line, they always do it to establish dominance. They did it to Rodney King and they did it to this kid. He did not submit to their domination of him--partially, it seems clear from the tape--because he was terrified, and yes, partially because he was a fool, i.e.: not fully aware of the awful situation he'd gotten himself into.
In case you didn't know, let me tell you it is very, very difficult to submit to being handcuffed by armed men--psychologically difficult for even very mature, stable and law abiding people, and everyone here agrees this boy was not the most mentally stable individual in that auditorium.
Quote:
Would you think the same if it was a skinhead shouting down a Holocaust survivor? Would you mind if, say the Christian right shouted down the Democratic presidential debates?
What you're implying with this is that our police officers' right to beat-up or tase people should be based on such people's opinions (or that you think SignyM believes that)! Of course a vocally disruptive skinhead should be removed from an auditorium where a Holocaust survivor is speaking, but he should not be tased or have the shit kicked out of him simply because of his odious beliefs. Again, the issue is not freedom of speech, his speech does not enter into the real issue here. The issue is his right not to be battered or otherwise physically abused by the state unless or until he poses a credible threat to those officers.
Quote:
For a society to have intelligent discussion there has to be rules.
No one disputes this. But "rules" come in all shapes and sizes. You wouldn't stand for this kid having his right hand cut off for disrupting the speech, and I decry the use of the taser in making him submit to the will of the officers.
Quote:
Seems like this guy broke some of them. Do we let guy's like him disrail that discussion or do we have a right as a society to enforce our rules.
Of course we have the right as a society to enforce rules, but HOW we enforce those rules is what differentiates our rule of law from a might-makes-right style rule of men. Far too often, the police enforce nothing more than their personal dominance over a subject. Without recourse to the courts, citizens are routinely punished ad hoc in this way for the sin only of disobedience.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is disingenuous because there is no right to be peaceably removed if the person being removed refuses to leave peaceably, which was exactly the case. Unless you are in fact arguing that this kid had a right to disrupt the peace. You can't have it both ways, unless this kid cooperates, which he didn't.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It is not the boy's right to "free speech" that anyone is defending. It's his right not to be tased without posing a violent threat to the officers. His right to be peacefully removed from the room like thousands of such obnoxious protesters before him, without being beaten up or tased. They tased him within a fricken YARD of the door, folks! If the officers' goal were his removal from the auditorium, they could have simply shoved him the extra five feet to the hallway.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
This is disingenuous because there is no right to be peaceably removed if the person being removed refuses to leave peaceably, which was exactly the case. Unless you are in fact arguing that this kid had a right to disrupt the peace. You can't have it both ways, unless this kid cooperates, which he didn't.
Disingenous? What a way to go ad hominem, Finn. And what a way to utterly ignore the substance of my post.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It’s not an ad hominem, and whatever substance your post has is dependent on getting this crucial fact right: this kid refused to leave peaceable. If you choose to ignore this, then I’m not really sure what relevance the substance of your post can have, but I’m pretty sure that you can’t genuinely ignore it. There are really only two options here, you either let this kid disrupt the entire preceding or you forcibly remove him, and that’s not the fault of the police – that condition was set by him.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Disingenous? What a way to go ad hominem, Finn. And what a way to utterly ignore the substance of my post.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hmmm. I wonder if we could get Bush to read the bit about secondary victories. I think the material is applicable elsewhere as well.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh wait, I do have a copy.. here.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/contol_vs_command.htm
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/deescalation.htm
Stuff like this is CRUCIAL, in my opinion, need to know stuff, which damn well should be part of any academy curriculum, but what we have now, wellll....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey,
What's an 'ad hominem?' I must've read that term used here a bajillion times, but have no idea what it means. It might as well be the word 'it' though for as often as it's used by everyone.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch2, I do not believe the issue is one of "conflicting rights". The REAL issue is: Who controls the (armed) controllers? It's a systems problem. Feedback loops have to be built in. The more power a system has, the more controlled it needs to be. If you issue guns, tasers, batons, warrants, badges, and support to a group, procedures need to be in place that this group doesn't abuse its power.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:These are trivial questions. My logic is not as "context sensitive" as... say... yours. I walked thru the situation from multiple aspects. approached it from several directions to see where my "line" is and why. It has nothing to do with my sympathies. IMHO the level of force that the police use must correspond to the level of force they face. It's a tough call but (1) without some sort of standard for "use of force" then the force used will be uncontrolled and (2) that's part of the job.
Sig you think this guy should be allowed to shout hog the mic and monopolise the time with Kerry. Would you think the same if it was a skinhead shouting down a Holocaust survivor? Would you mind if, say the Christian right shouted down the Democratic presidential debates?
In this particular case the "force" amounted to no more than shoving, hopping, and shouting. No punches, no kicking, no weapons of any sort. With six campus security they could have each taken a limb and had leftovers. I think what the police did was cowardly and lazy.
Quote:And for a society to have intelligent law enforcement there have to be rules. And I think it's WAAAY more important to place rules on tasering (beating, tear-gassing, shooting) people than it is on "hogging the mic".
For a society to have intelligent discussion there has to be rules.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, let's come at it from a completely different angle, since HKC has wedged that door a lil bit.
Bear with me, as I am posting from a teensy-tiny laptop that shoulda been mercifully retired years ago, till my PC mainboard comes in, spelling and formatting may not be up to snuff for a bit.
Anyhow, to the subject, from a wider angle.
Ask yourself THIS question.
What would you kill a person for ?
In the end, all government, of any kind, boils down to naked force, and the police are the instrument of government in that respect more often than not - and no matter how ridiculous, idiotic, or contrary to sense and reason the demands they enforce, in the case of resistance to those demands, the end of the force continuum is death.
Man gets parking ticket for parking in front of his house, cause city council decides they wanna run the leaf sweeper - and he didn't get the notice.
Man says screw it, tosses the ticket as idiotic.
State suspends mans license.
Some time later, cop runs the mans plates as he goes through a drive through, pulls him over.
Cop attempts to place man under arrest - man refuses to comply.
Cop threatens force, man replies with drawn weapon and attempt to escape a now lethal threat.
Cop draws service weapon and kills man.
Over a parking ticket.
The absolute end of that continuum is killing, no bones about it, so whenever someone chooses to involve the police, THAT is the decision they are making - can I have your understanding of that basic principle here ?
So, when you consider engaging the agents of the state, the question YOU should ponder first is.
"Am I willing to kill this person, over this?"
Cause it *MAY* come to that, in any case, in every case, the potential is there.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
I'm having trouble seeing past the fundamentally flawed idea of drawing a weapon on a police officer who is trying to arrest you.
It sounds like the person died for stupidity, not a parking ticket. It's true that the force continuum ends with death, but it doesn't start there. The person in your example advanced it to that end.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A real life example: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/63438.php
From jaywalker to cop-killer.
Talk about continuum of violence. Sometimes it might be helpful to step into the nazi stormtrooper cop's shoes and imagine things from his point of view.
Incidentally, the partner of the man who was shot showed remarkable restraint, refusing to fire at a fleeing suspect who had just shot his partner in the face. The safety of bystanders meant more to him than revenge.
A good example that not all officers are agents of violence or bullies. I know some officers abuse their power, but this case clearly shows officers who didn't. The entire force will probably be coached to treat even minor arrests more seriously in the future.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:These are trivial questions. My logic is not as "context sensitive" as... say... yours. I walked thru the situation from multiple aspects. approached it from several directions to see where my "line" is and why..
Sig you think this guy should be allowed to shout hog the mic and monopolise the time with Kerry. Would you think the same if it was a skinhead shouting down a Holocaust survivor? Would you mind if, say the Christian right shouted down the Democratic presidential debates?
Actually that was my point. In reality for rules to be effective they have to be universally applied. If you think this guy has the right to shout people down and that you shouldn't use force to remove him if he refuses to stand down then you have to apply those same standards to everyone. My guess is that you wouldn't want to live with the consequences of a society where such rules can be ignored.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Who said ALL officers are bullies? Not me. I think it was Fletch2.
A good example that not all officers are agents of violence or bullies.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sure. How much force, and what kind? I've already defined my notion: Use the force equal to the force that is used against you. You seem not to be able to read.
Actually that was my point. In reality for rules to be effective they have to be universally applied. If you think this guy has the right to shout people down and that you shouldn't use force to remove him if he refuses to stand down then you have to apply those same standards to everyone.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kerry watches on as innocent man is TORTURED! Well, that's the sort of headline we'd expect, if it was Bush or some other GOP/Conservative giving the speech and a student was treated that way.
Hahaha! Yeah right. Man this is what happens at Democrat conventions man, look at the Chicago Convention of 1968. They're ok with protest, just as long as it doesn't happen to them.
And John Kerry, a former protester himself, just sits up there and continues his ridiculous talking while the kid is being beaten. He's up there continuing to answer questions, he does NOT stop and yell "Oh let this kid up! This is a democracy, his opinions should be voiced, blah blah blah" - instead he ignores the kids torture and continues on with the Q&A. He, himself a protester does this. It's kind of like a protester spitting on another protester...
The moment that kid mentions skull and crossbones he was jumped on by the cops. Which was obviously wrong, he asked several questions beforehand with no problem, but a skull and crossbones question means "get the handcuffs out"??? That kid should sue them, he did nothing wrong in the first place to even be considered taken into custody! He was tasered because he resisted arrest, but he shouldn't have even been under arrest in the first place, so the taser never would have been necessary.
Normally I stay out of political topics in this forum, as they seem to continually recycle, one after another pops up with the same one sided views as the last. But for the sake of this poor kid, I had to say something in this one :D.
"Th3re !s n0 spo0Ne." -The Matricks
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dinky, I think you are ill informed.
In fact, he was asked to leave earlier.
Then his mic was shut off.
Then he was being escorted away.
Then he resisted that.
Then he attempted to evade the police.
Then they attempted to restrain them.
Then he resisted that.
Then he was tased.
Then he cooperated.
He wasn't beaten at any time. Just grabbed and held and tazed.
I also don't really think this is a Democrat or Republican issue. People care about this for reasons beyond petty politics. Although I endorse the forcible removal of this kid, I completely understand and sympathize with the position of those who do not. Getting tazed is fucking scary shit.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I gave a quick scan, and I don't see anyone answering, so I'll toss in.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hey,
What's an 'ad hominem?' I must've read that term used here a bajillion times, but have no idea what it means. It might as well be the word 'it' though for as often as it's used by everyone.
It's latin 'to the person'; basically it means attacking the person rather than the arguement.
a: The sky is blue.
b: Only idiots say the sky is blue.
Clearly an 'ad hominem' argument.
a: The sky is blue.
b: That is such a sophomoric position to take.
Harder to say; I've given up protesting that it is an 'ad hominem' since it is technically an attack of the 'position' rather than the person; however, some folks will still take offense. Obviously, shades of grey here.
And if you want more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
(If you wish to discuss more; pls open a separate thread so we don't distract too much from the topic.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I suspect if you truly dissect what the cops did here, you might find they made some mistakes; but the mistakes they made are probably fairly subtle. First, I suggest reading both of Frem's links above, they give some very good insight to what may need to be done to de-escalate; it's possible these cops didn't follow all possible angles on this one. It's also possible that what happened is -exactly- what the student wished to achieve; a secondary victory.
Originally posted by SignyM:
In this particular case the "force" amounted to no more than shoving, hopping, and shouting. No punches, no kicking, no weapons of any sort. With six campus security they could have each taken a limb and had leftovers. I think what the police did was cowardly and lazy.Quote:And for a society to have intelligent law enforcement there have to be rules. And I think it's WAAAY more important to place rules on tasering (beating, tear-gassing, shooting) people than it is on "hogging the mic".
For a society to have intelligent discussion there has to be rules.
I believe it was reasonable to cut the mike.
I believe it was reasonable for the venue owner to request the student to be removed. It is my understanding the venue owner so requested; if you have a beef with that, be clear the beef is with the venue owner. Certainly, as the venue owner, they could have made a different choice. Note: Kerry is/was -not- the venue owner.
At this point, the police then have little choice, they must remove the student or they will be in trouble with their superiors.
The police asked the student to step out; he declined. Up to the point of tasing, it appears to me that the police used reasonable force; if you disagree please advise, and we'll dissect more of the event.
At this point, the police -may- have made a mistake; they told this fellow who was not permitting himself to be cuffed that if he didn't cooperate they would tase him. At this point, the student, -loudly- advertised that he didn't want to be tased; it is my belief that is -exactly- what he wanted to provoke. Cops now at a fairly no-win situation; they apply the taser, and cuff him.
Personally, I felt the student was demonstrating 'attention seeking' behavior. While you might argue the venue owner should have chosen otherwise, the owner was within their rights to make the request. My guess is that if the choice was made was to simply ignore him; nothing more would have happened other than the student would look like a fool... one risk, the student might have escalated... perhaps jumped on the stage with Kerry (since clearly he felt he 'deserved' to 'have the floor'), then what?
Given the attention seeking behavior, I believe the student would have escalated -any- response until something similar happened as to what did. All in all, I'm not convinced the venue owner nor the police really made a mistake. The only one who knows is the student, and I doubt very much he will honestly ever state exactly how far he was prepared to escalate.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Who said ALL officers are bullies? Not me. I think it was Fletch2.
A good example that not all officers are agents of violence or bullies.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
No it was you
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, bullies will be bullies but cops are bullies with badges and weapons, and that makes THEM need to be controlled, otherwise they just become another kind of gang.
I worked with two people who became cops. Both of these people were college graduates, one (a chemist) became a cop because she WAS a bully, and the other (a sociologist) became a bully within two years of joining a police force... to the extent that he bragged about breaking someone's tail light and them giving them a fixit ticket (Apparently that was his force's way of issuing as*hole tickets.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks, Lead. So an ad-hominem attack attacks the person, and does not counter the argument.
Well hell, no wonder I hear so much about them here. That's practically half of all arguments on this board.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch2- It was an unclear statement and not the way you interpreted it. My meaning was: Bullies will be bullies, but (bullying) cops are bullies with badges and weapons. (As opposed to civilian bullies who don't have "color of authority")
So, how do you feel about "use of force"? How much? What kind? And who controls the controllers?
I'll give you all some hypotheticals to chew on. The DOD is working on various "non-lethal" means to control crowds. Some of them involve painful "heat rays" or painful sound, others are as simple as a super-slippery-spray which makes it impossible to stand. let alone run or drive. (No traction. Even works on grass)
My concern is that the more a control technique is perceived as benign, the more it will be used indiscriminately. Let's say that there is another "globalization" meetings and a demonstration of 100,000 is anticipated. Since our "powers that be" don't want to inconvenience the other "powers that be" they refuse to issue a permit for a demonstration, and eliminate the media. People gather anyway to express their displeasure, standing (peacefully) at the hotel, and are squirted with this sticky stuff where they can be hauled away to one of those Halliburton camps, where their cameras, cell phones, and videocams will be wiped and they will be kept comfortably while their cases are disposed. All very nice, nobody is hurt, but... "right to assembly" and "freedom of speech" has just been obliterated. And regular TV programming hasn't even been interrupted.
-------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes.
I believe it was reasonable to cut the mike.
Quote:Why izzit that cops are often called in on the side of PEOPLE WITH MONEY? Owners, authority figures, policy makers etc?
I believe it was reasonable for the venue owner to request the student to be removed. It is my understanding the venue owner so requested; if you have a beef with that, be clear the beef is with the venue owner. Certainly, as the venue owner, they could have made a different choice.
You know what I envision? They take a vote right then and there: ask the crowd if this guy should be allowed to continue and for how long. If the majority says "yes", he continues. If the majority says "no" then he gets the idea that his points are not appreciated and his little planned demonstration prolly won't be either. Because it was all planned, he WANTED to be tasered. Like I said, he was there to make a point and the cops did exactly what he wanted.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2- It was an unclear statement and not the way you interpreted it. My meaning was: Bullies will be bullies, but (bullying) cops are bullies with badges and weapons. (As opposed to civilian bullies who don't have "color of authority")
Well I can only respond to what you posted, I thought it was pretty clear what I read into your statement so if that was not what you intended to say you should have spoken up then.
Quote:
So, how do you feel about "use of force"? How much? What kind? And who controls the controllers?
Well ultimately all laws in a society are backed by the treat of force because you can escallate even something as minor as jaywalking into a force issue. Since I want laws to be followed then ultimately I condone the use of force to uphold them.
How much depends on circumstances and that's where things get tricky. As has been mentioned things can escallate to a point where even jaywalking could end up involving the use of force. While I don't believe that force should be used against all jaywalkers I can't say that there wont be situations where that might be nescessary. Ultimately we can't macromanage the use of force as it happens instead we have to review if it's use was appropriate after the event.
Getting back to the Kerry guy. It could be that there were other ways of dealing with this but then the guy also had the option of leaving peacably.
Quote:
My concern is that the more a control technique is perceived as benign, the more it will be used indiscriminately.
That's an interesting question but I'm not convinced that is nescessarily true. I think if you have an establishment willing to use violence to enforce its will then it will use the least amount of violence it can get away with. If in 1850 it would have sent in the army with horses and guns (see "Peterloo") it will by 1912 use policemen with nightsticks and by 1969 teargas and rubber bullets. I don't know it makes it more or less likely, I think there is a threshold that finally gets breached where public order becomes such a pressing concern to those in power that they will authorise violence to regain it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Yes.
I believe it was reasonable to cut the mike.Quote:Why izzit that cops are often called in on the side of PEOPLE WITH MONEY? Owners, authority figures, policy makers etc?
I believe it was reasonable for the venue owner to request the student to be removed. It is my understanding the venue owner so requested; if you have a beef with that, be clear the beef is with the venue owner. Certainly, as the venue owner, they could have made a different choice.
You know what I envision? They take a vote right then and there: ask the crowd if this guy should be allowed to continue and for how long. If the majority says "yes", he continues. If the majority says "no" then he gets the idea that his points are not appreciated and his little planned demonstration prolly won't be either.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Well let's take the majority idea to its conclusion. Let's say I break into your house with my 5 friends and terrorise you, the wife and two kids. When the police show up we say "the six of us vote for staying" and of course we outvote the 4 of you and as you as the owner have no right to enforce your view over that of the "majority" then the police leave....
Silly.
As a basic rule if you own something you get to decide what gets done with it. If that means that you want a person or persons to leave you have that right no matter how many of them disagree. Ownership has privillages.
As to the first question. I refer you to "the golden rule."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Obviously cannot be applied in all situations, but it might have worked in THIS one, particularly as the guy was not violent.
Well let's take the majority idea to its conclusion. Let's say I break into your house with my 5 friends and terrorise you, the wife and two kids. When the police show up we say "the six of us vote for staying" and of course we outvote the 4 of you and as you as the owner have no right to enforce your view over that of the "majority" then the police leave.... Silly.
When do property rights trump civil rights? Does a business owner have the right to search your desk? Your car? Your home? Does the owner of a venue have the right not to admit blacks? Gays? Does a corporation have the right to limit what you say on the internet regarding its product? Does an employer have the right to limit what you say about management or policies?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Dunno. In my neighborhood, I'm probably on the upper end of the 'money' thing (I probably moved into a neighborhood right on the edge of my 'scary' tolerance; things are much improved, the cops come through with the 'lights flashing' much less often than when I moved here). The only time the cops were called in to 'deal' with me, I complied before I even knew it was the police at my door. I had accidentally left my dog out (fenced in, but he barks) and it was about 2 am, and I called the dog in even before I answered the door.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Yes.
I believe it was reasonable to cut the mike.Quote:Why izzit that cops are often called in on the side of PEOPLE WITH MONEY? Owners, authority figures, policy makers etc?
I believe it was reasonable for the venue owner to request the student to be removed. It is my understanding the venue owner so requested; if you have a beef with that, be clear the beef is with the venue owner. Certainly, as the venue owner, they could have made a different choice.
Folks without money, I suspect, tend not to call the cops unless they are pretty desperate and sure they are on the 'right' side.
Let's take a real look at things... what are the circumstance when you are -aware- that cops are called. When 'important' folks are disturbed; that's 'news'. Let's say this student had pulled a similar stunt at a student council meeting. In all likely hood, the council president would have ignored the kid; but if it got out of hand, I could see the u-cops called in. Would it have made the 'news'; probably not. Would it have made u-tube? Maybe. Would it have caught our interest here on the board? Doubt it.
Quote:Yes, taking a vote would be interesting; if you could get folks to agree a vote should be taken. Even then, the venue owner would certainly reserve the right to ensure safety was maintained; however, I'm not sure this is a good idea. It gives the protesters a heck of a lot of influence. They can come in, disrupt things to the point of getting a vote taken, and then, if they are lucky, get to run the show after that. There has to be a happy compromise between letting the dissatisfied participate Vs isolating them a 1/3rd of a mile away at a sepatate 'protest site'
You know what I envision? They take a vote right then and there: ask the crowd if this guy should be allowed to continue and for how long. If the majority says "yes", he continues. If the majority says "no" then he gets the idea that his points are not appreciated and his little planned demonstration prolly won't be either. Because it was all planned, he WANTED to be tasered. Like I said, he was there to make a point and the cops did exactly what he wanted.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm having trouble seeing past the fundamentally flawed idea of drawing a weapon on a police officer who is trying to arrest you.
Fundamentally flawed my ass.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
If you do not believe the arrest to be lawful, it is your right and duty as a citizen to fully resist it, and if you witness an unlawful arrest is it your right to intervene, and in either case defend yourself as necessary, up to and including lethal force - that is the LAW.
Now, I think we can all admit the law doesn't really work that way in our totalarianist corporate oligarchy we pretend is a democracy, but the fundamental flaw lies not with the concept, but rather how our legal system and society have perverted the very foundations our country is built upon.
Folks like to say just let the cop do his thing and fight it in court later - but that doesn't help if you're dead of positional asphixia, taser trauma (aka ED) or "suicide" *nudge nudge wink* in custody, now does it, and these things are far more common than the media or blue boys would admit.
You have a right and responsibility to self-defend in the case of a false arrest, the fact that practicing that right is likely to cause you to be murdered by other members of the street gang you are defending yourself against makes it no less such a thing, it only makes it less likely to survive - and public acceptance of that is so counter-intuitive that I just don't comprehend it.
Remember that I originally come from a city (Baltimore) that has a police force so corrupt, they committed arson against their own internal affairs dept in hopes of covering it up, and is full of these overmacho children on power trips.
Case in point
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/9229472/detail.html
I find it ironic that a line from The Weapon Shops of Isher once saved me from one of these bogus harrassment arrests...
"Tell them I resisted... with a weapon."
I simply asked the officer in question - "Are you prepared to kill a man today, sir ?" - when he decided to arrest me for loitering as I walked around to the back of my apartment to get my car and drive to work, for reasons unknown.
Realizing he'd just been shadowdanced into a bad position, and pondering the legal implications of his position, he told me to "Get the fuck out of here" and got back in his car.
At no time did I threaten him, nor hand him a reason or motive to escalate, and my positioning effectively denied him the opportunity - reference the article I posted above to comprehend what had happened.
(See also within article: Five Stages)
He acted like a criminal, and I treated him as one - that badge is NOT, and should never, EVER be, a cover and shield for malicious criminal activity.
And the fact that we accept it as one just plain disgusts me.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When do property rights trump civil rights? Does a business owner have the right to search your desk? Your car? Your home? Does the owner of a venue have the right not to admit blacks? Gays? Does a corporation have the right to limit what you say on the internet regarding its product? Does an employer have the right to limit what you say about management or policies?
Are we so afraid of a little inconvenience and disruption that we applaud a guy get tasered???
Apparently yes.
Thanks Frem.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, Frem. Pretty intense.
So, if you feel that an officer is arresting you without cause, you have the right to draw a weapon on him.
He draws his weapon in response, and you kill him.
Now more officers arrive, and want to arrest you for killing the officer.
You feel the shooting was justified, so you draw a weapon on the new officers.
The new officers respond by drawing their own weapons...
Sounds like you have two choices Frem.
Either make war with the entire law enforcement agencies of the United States...
Or submit to an arrest without drawing your weapon.
So, drawing your weapon on an arresting officer still seems like a fundamentally flawed idea to me, unless you are prepared to mount an insurrection.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
When do property rights trump civil rights? Does a business owner have the right to search your desk? Your car? Your home?
Yes to the first 2 (if you are parked in a company lot.) Third one I suspect requires a court order.Quote:
Does the owner of a venue have the right not to admit blacks? Gays?
All things being equal yes, management has right to refuse service for any reason. I may not get into a club if or restaurant if I don't meet the dress code for example. In the case of black people this was used so agressively against them in the south that anti discrimination laws were passed that effectively trumped those property rights but in general if I own a venue I get to decide who can attend. This is not nescessarily a bad thing. It allows you to bar skinheads from Jewish weddings too.Quote:
Does a corporation have the right to limit what you say on the internet regarding its product?
They can probably sue you.... Remember the first amendment is binding on government not on private companies. You may not have free speech under all circumstances.Quote:
Does an employer have the right to limit what you say about management or policies?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
it appears so.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
When do property rights trump civil rights? Does a business owner have the right to search your desk? Your car? Your home? Does the owner of a venue have the right not to admit blacks? Gays? Does a corporation have the right to limit what you say on the internet regarding its product? Does an employer have the right to limit what you say about management or policies?
Are we so afraid of a little inconvenience and disruptionthat we applaud a guy get tasered???
Apparently yes.
"Does a business have a right to search your desk?"
I've always felt that if it's their desk on their premises, then yes, they can search it.
"Your Car?"
Since it's my car, then no, I don't feel they can search it.
"Your home?"
Obviously not. My property on my land.
"Does the owner of a venue have the right not to admit blacks?"
I hate to say it, but yes. If it's his property, he can admit whoever he wants.
"Does a corporation have the right to limit what you say on the internet regarding its product?"
On their website, yes. On mine or someone else's? No.
"Does an employer have the right to limit what you say about management or policies?"
Unless I'm revealing secret proprietary stuff, I don't think they should be allowed to intervene. That is, unless I'm saying it on their systems, in which case, yeah. They can censor their own private systems however they like.
"Are we so afraid of a little inconvenience and disruption that we applaud a guy get tasered???"
Hmm, I don't think I'd really applaud. It's a sad thing.
But do we care so little for our rights that we allow others to trample them rather than remove them from interfering with them?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I suspect if you truly dissect what the cops did here, you might find they made some mistakes; but the mistakes they made are probably fairly subtle. First, I suggest reading both of Frem's links above, they give some very good insight to what may need to be done to de-escalate; it's possible these cops didn't follow all possible angles on this one. It's also possible that what happened is -exactly- what the student wished to achieve; a secondary victory.
Yeah, from my perspective, they bungled it pretty good, and in more than one place, their positioning was terrible, and they completely hosed the verbal - their need to dominate the situation overwhelmed their ability to de-escalate, as often happens with poorly trained officers.
I can't see the video (just a couple still images I rounded up) on this puny laptop, but my perception, my guess - is that the primary mistake was hauling out the cuffs, which provoked the situation, cause it all seemed to change at that moment.
I am also not sure an actual arrest was even warranted either, that could have easily went on with "we're escorting you off the property at the behest of the owner, you had your say, made your point, allright ? but if you come back, we *have* to arrest you for trespassing, don't make us do that, it's a pain in the ass for both of us - have a nice day, kid."
(Reference posted article)
"The second reason You can't get there from here approach is important is it takes you out of the adversarial position. You are not the reason he can't get what he wants. You are simply the bearer of bad news. The problem is both bigger than you and not your fault. As such, kicking your ass is not going to solve the problem."
Resolves and de-escalates the situation, AND gives him a face-saving exit, and who much cares about secondary victory - this guys not a career perp, just a pissed college kid who wanted to make a statement, fine, he made it, send him home.
If comes back at THAT point, then you arrest him and charge him with trespassing, do it quick and clean - and your legal ground is solid AND your don't look like a buncha bumbling berks to the locals.
What happened, in my opinion, is that instead of using many of the tools in the toolbox, they allowed themselves to become frustrated and went straight for the hammer, a bad habit and one that shows poor or inadequate training.
Whichever officer hauled out the cuffs BEFORE they got him outside next to the squad car blew it, in my opinion - and THAT was an ego issue, they wanted to cuff him in front of the crowd to establish personal dominance over the situation, an unacceptable and unprofessional response.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony- I know five people personally... people I have spoken with and (in some cases) worked with... who have been tasered and/ or arrested by the police for no good reason. And I'm not a "criminal element", nor do I associate with such, nor am I a demonstrator.
Two guys had the police break into their homes on "bad tips". Both of those "tips" were acts of vengeance; one was a custody case and the other was a disgruntled lover. One of these guys was tasered, three times. Another guy was arrested for murder because the detective had a bee in his bonnet, and he remained in jail with an untreated electrical burn (from work the day b4) which left him disabled. A fourth was accused of robbery by a guy who was a complete nut-case. The fifth was arrested on an outstanding mistaken traffic warrant, and when she resisted (cause she hadn't a clue what was going on) she broke an officer's thumb. Now, if you can imagine.... her 6 and 8 y/o daughter are WAITING to be picked up at school. They called us in terror, and we had to keep them at our house over Thanksgiving weekend. Bad arrests more common than you suppose.
And just being held in jail is more of a punishment than you can imagine, even while your case is being processed ands bail is set (or refused).
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony, it's not how it really works, and I pointed that out - but when you compare what the LAW is, what our RIGHTS are, with what really happens...
I find it passionately offensive, and I fail to comprehend why no one else does.
The fundamental flaw comes not from the concept, but from the fact that the police force and our legal system actually deny us citizens protection of the law, and our rights.
Am I getting even that much across here ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Does a business have a right to search your desk?"
I've always felt that if it's their desk on their premises, then yes, they can search it.
"Your Car?"
Since it's my car, then no, I don't feel they can search it.
"Your home?"
Obviously not. My property on my land.
"Does the owner of a venue have the right not to admit blacks?"
I hate to say it, but yes. If it's his property, he can admit whoever he wants.
"Does a corporation have the right to limit what you say on the internet regarding its product?"
On their website, yes. On mine or someone else's? No.
"Does an employer have the right to limit what you say about management or policies?"
Unless I'm revealing secret proprietary stuff, I don't think they should be allowed to intervene. That is, unless I'm saying it on their systems, in which case, yeah. They can censor their own private systems however they like.
"Are we so afraid of a little inconvenience and disruption that we applaud a guy get tasered???"
Hmm, I don't think I'd really applaud. It's a sad thing.
-------
I hate to tell you this, but you're on the wrong side of the law in 5 of these instances.
So Fletch2- Is it a good thing that the law (and the police) back the "rights" of institutions which already have considerable power?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Fletch2- Is it a good thing that the law (and the police) back the "rights" of institutions which already have considerable power?
I think the problem is one of context, almost any law and any rule can be misapplied and almost any power can be abused. The thing is to see abuses of power for what they are and correct them not see the power itself as being intrinsically wrong.
For example. You go to the bathroom one day and when you get back to your desk your $500 PDA is missing. I doubt you would just shrug that off. If someone saw Jeff taking your PDA and 1) he denied it and 2) refused to have his desk searched I'm quite sure you would call security because you want your property back. Looked at from a high level the company is trampling on Jeffs rights, looked at from the other side, they are trying to ensure security in the workplace.
There is nothing wrong about the fact they have that power. It is if you think about it a reasonable thing for them to have, while you are on their property they have certain rights and responsabilities that they have to have the power to enforce. Now can that power be used in arbitary ways or abused entirely? Of course, but the power wasn't given to them to use in an arbitary fashion and is not intended to be used that way. Like I said in many cases we cant micromanage the use of power all we can do is review and correct missuses after the event.
As for your friends they may not be as normal as you think. I have never known a single person ever that has had an experience such as that never mind five. Either the people you think are normal have private lives a lot more interesting than you think or there are some seriously bizaare things happening in your city.
And yes if these kinds of things do happen that often and in a genuinely hap hazard way then people should be filing lawsuits and talking to newspapers about them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First of all, I think it is wrong to have very large accumulations of power. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=466&invo
l=109
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, I think it is wrong to have very large accumulations of power. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=466&invo
l=109
Am I missing something here? Are you suggesting that Fed Ex has some government appointed power of search and seizure?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, I'm in a hurry.
Let me ask you: When someone comes to your home, are you entitled to search the woman's purse? Go out to their car and snoop around for drugs or guns? If you think your neighbor has stolen something, are you allowed to go over and tear out a few walls looking for it? Can you prohibit your neighbor from talking about you?
No.
So, why do we acceded power to companies and business owners that we would not allow individuals? And then protect those "rights" with government guns?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, I'm in a hurry.
Let me ask you: When someone comes to your home, are you entitled to search the woman's purse? Go out to their car and snoop around for drugs or guns?
I'm allowed to ask to search her purse and refuse admitance if she refuses. If the price of being allowed in my home is my right to search her car then she can either submit or not enter.
This will become relevant later.
Quote:
If you think your neighbor has stolen something, are you allowed to go over and tear out a few walls looking for it?
No because that is his property.
Quote:
Can you prohibit your neighbor from talking about you?
No.
But I could sue him for slander
Quote:
So, why do we acceded power to companies and business owners that we would not allow individuals?
The thing you are missing here is how come companies have a right to do this stuff where does it come from and how is it enforced? Some basic things like trespass are enshrined in law and can be enforced by the police. However in that respect they have no more or less power than you do. If I enter your house and refuse to leave then you can call the cops and have me ejected or arrested. The right you exercised is the same right any property owner has to enforce access to his premises.
Other things like the ability to search your car come from the company security policy that you signed as part of your conditions of employment. When you agreed to work for them and HR gave you that stack of forms one of the ones you signed will be the security policy which explicitly states they have the right to search desk/locker maybe even your car.
I know this because my company was recently acquired by a larger corporation and we had to read and authorise the new security policy that explicitly added the search of cars in company lots (the old company policy didnt include that.)
So if they ask to search your car and you refuse they can take disciplinary action against you, POSSIBLY they can force the doors or break a window (unlikely.) However this is a private contract between you and them, the govenment can't enforce it. So in the absence of statute (ie you dont work on fed land airports etc) they cant MAKE you submit to a search, they can fire you for refusing.
And that BTW was the underlying point about the FED EX citation. The constitution doesnt apply to private citizens or entities, just the gov. When the FED EX people openned the package and discovered the goods they broke no laws and in fact by law were obliged to report a crime when the found it. They broke no law because you can bet that in the terms and conditions of carrage that the shipper signed there was a waiver that allows for inspection of any package they ship for any number of reasons including damage in transit.
You dont want that? Dont ship anything with them. Don't want your car searched by your employer... find a different employer.
Quote:
And then protect those "rights" with government guns?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
see above
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That one boils down to the root of many evils - Corporate Personhood.
Not gonna go there as it's somewhat off the topic, but that's the bugbear you are lookin for here.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Larger questions of corporate police function aside, I'd like to point out that the student did NOT disrupt the speech, try to control the agenda or keep anyone's questions from being answered.
He had politely waited till it was ALL OVER (including the question and answer session). Anyone who claims otherwise (which is pretty much all the pro-taser folk) are factually wrong and haven't read the police report.
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/18/offense.report.072274.pdf
So, anyone of the pro-taser group care to try again for a rationale ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. The rationale continues to be sound. He was being disruptive for which he was correctly asked to leave. He not only resisted but attacked the police, and much of his demeanor suggests that he didn’t do it accidentally. The police report states:
Originally posted by rue:
So, anyone of the pro-taser group care to try again for a rationale ?
“As Senator Kerry was ending his speech, a man disrupted the senator by screaming, yelling and flailing his arms. The man moved his way down the aisle yelling, ‘Why don’t you answer my questions, I have been waiting and listening to you speak in circles for the last two hours.’ ‘These officers are going to arrest me’. I [[]Officer Nicole Lynn Mallo[]] didn’t see any officer directly next to him until I noticed Officer Wise walking down trying to get his attention. The man was screaming and yelling obscenities until Senator Kerry told him to calm down and that he would take his question, but he needed to calm down. At that point, the man stated, ‘You will take my question because I have been listening to your crap for two hours’. The man at that point turned to his friend and said, ‘Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?’ The man was talking to a woman who was there to film him. Before asking the question, I had a chance to ask the man if he was a student and he stated, ‘I don’t have to tell you.’ I the (sic) asked him if he knew the rules to the student code of conduct and he said, ‘What?’ I informed the man that after he asked Senator Kerry the question that I needed to talk to him outside. After asking the question, the man would not let Senator Kerry finish his statement and kept badgering the senator about his beliefs, talking about ‘blow jobs’, and yelling as loud as he could as to sensationalize his presence.
“At that moment the Accent Director, Max Tyroler, asked us to take him out of the auditorium and had his microphone turned off stating, ‘He had said enough,’ Officer Wise and I grabbed both of the man’s arms and asked him to come with us out of the auditorium to speak with us. The man then lifted me up and pushed Officer Wise to avoid being taken into custody. As he pushed and kicked Officer Wise, Sgt. King grabbed him and escorted him out of the of the room, but the man pushed Sgt. King out of the way and was yelling and trying to get back down the aisle. At this point Officer Sexton, Officer De Jesus, and Officer Lamb tried to assist Officer Wise and Sgt King in getting a hold of the punching and kicking irate man while Officer Dean, Officer Passero, and Officer Spurlin were present trying to assist. The man continued to scream and yell as well as push, kick and elbow the officers attempting to take him into custody. After multiple attempts to tell him to stop resisting, the man said, ‘No’ and continued to push and elbow the officers. Only one handcuff was placed on the man as he continued to punch his way out of the hold. The officers could not get a hold of his other arm as he was kicking, punching, and elbowing into officers. After many attempts to get the man to comply, he chose to continue actively resisting the officers. I obeyed the command from Sgt. King to utilize the taser fro the continuation of non-compliance by the man. One contact tase to the man’s left shoulder was deployed for the duration of its cycle. After the cycle ended, the man was asked to comply and stop resisting and for a brief moment he did, at which time he was placed in handcuffs. After he was lifted to his feet, he kept screaming and yelling to let him go by continually pushing the officers. I read the man his Miranda rights and explained why he was being placed under arrest. As the man was escorted down the stairs with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again. Some of the comments that the man made were ‘You can’t kill me.’, ‘They are giving me to the government.’ and ‘They are going to kill me.’”
The other officers provided s
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Frem,
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I suspect if you truly dissect what the cops did here, you might find they made some mistakes; but the mistakes they made are probably fairly subtle. First, I suggest reading both of Frem's links above, they give some very good insight to what may need to be done to de-escalate; it's possible these cops didn't follow all possible angles on this one. It's also possible that what happened is -exactly- what the student wished to achieve; a secondary victory.
Yeah, from my perspective, they bungled it pretty good, and in more than one place, their positioning was terrible, and they completely hosed the verbal - their need to dominate the situation overwhelmed their ability to de-escalate, as often happens with poorly trained officers.
I can't see the video (just a couple still images I rounded up) on this puny laptop, but my perception, my guess - is that the primary mistake was hauling out the cuffs, which provoked the situation, cause it all seemed to change at that moment.
I am also not sure an actual arrest was even warranted either, that could have easily went on with "we're escorting you off the property at the behest of the owner, you had your say, made your point, allright ? but if you come back, we *have* to arrest you for trespassing, don't make us do that, it's a pain in the ass for both of us - have a nice day, kid."
(Reference posted article)
"The second reason You can't get there from here approach is important is it takes you out of the adversarial position. You are not the reason he can't get what he wants. You are simply the bearer of bad news. The problem is both bigger than you and not your fault. As such, kicking your ass is not going to solve the problem."
Resolves and de-escalates the situation, AND gives him a face-saving exit, and who much cares about secondary victory - this guys not a career perp, just a pissed college kid who wanted to make a statement, fine, he made it, send him home.
If comes back at THAT point, then you arrest him and charge him with trespassing, do it quick and clean - and your legal ground is solid AND your don't look like a buncha bumbling berks to the locals.
What happened, in my opinion, is that instead of using many of the tools in the toolbox, they allowed themselves to become frustrated and went straight for the hammer, a bad habit and one that shows poor or inadequate training.
Whichever officer hauled out the cuffs BEFORE they got him outside next to the squad car blew it, in my opinion - and THAT was an ego issue, they wanted to cuff him in front of the crowd to establish personal dominance over the situation, an unacceptable and unprofessional response.
-Frem
You've got more experience and had more time to think about the implications of the linked article than I; but this part makes me wonder...
'this guys not a career perp, just a pissed college kid who wanted to make a statement, fine, he made it, send him home.'
What if he's not 'just a pissed college kid'; what if instead he's a 'calculating college kid' who understands that if he wants his 'message' to get out, he's -got- to get the police to at least cuff him, and better taser him. If he doesn't get the coverage, he will in his opinion failed. What percentage of cops have (not should have, but do) the skill to get someone out without resorting to at least cuffs if not a taser under such a circumstance? Much of what I saw suggested 'theater' rather than genuine anger. Does that change what tatics you think the cops should have used?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:It’s not an ad hominem--
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Disingenous? What a way to go ad hominem, Finn. And what a way to utterly ignore the substance of my post.
Oh, but it is, Finn. Words don't "give a false appearance of simple frankness," people do. You're saying I'm either stupid or dishonest.
Now, who's being disingenuous? I kid, I kid!
Quote:Wrong again. Your argument depends on the draconian notion that simply resisting the manhandling of the cops constitutes a crime in need of instant (and instantly gratifying) punishment.
--and whatever substance your post has is dependent on getting this crucial fact right: this kid refused to leave peaceable.
The use of the taser was gratuitous and absolutely unnecessary to get the boy out of the auditorium. They had him practically in the doorway before they put him on the ground. And the boy's "resistance" was at no time violent or threatening to the police or anyone else. It was, on the contrary, frankly pathetic--about as "threatening" as the fuss a child puts up when he doesn't want to take a bath.
It is not against the law to disobey the whim of every cop you see, it is merely dangerous.
Quote:Jesus, Finn, you just pulled a Fletch. Your "only two options" conveniently leaves out the use of the taser. It's the taser we're all in a tizzy over--the recreational use of electric shock on a frightened boy who presented no threat except to the cops' egos. NO ONE would be complaining, it wouldn't even have made the news, if the police had simply pushed this kid out into the hall (where they could have tased him to their hearts' content off camera).
There are really only two options here, you either let this kid disrupt the entire preceding or you forcibly remove him, and that’s not the fault of the police – that condition was set by him.
But they had to punish him, humiliate him, in public. They had to make him submit to their whim because cops are always right and the guy they have at their mercy is always wrong. And it seems obvious to me that everyone who is pro-taser in this thread feels that the boy was in need of just such punishment; and for that there is no more compelling justification than your own desire.
(Edited to add: That police report does not describe what is obvious from watching the YouTube video. "Punching?" What a farce.)
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, it’s not. I’m saying your argument is stupid or dishonest. An ad hominem is not finding your argument dishonest; it’s attacking your character instead of your argument. I’ve not brought your character into question at all, just your argument.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Oh, but it is, Finn. Words don't "give a false appearance of simple frankness," people do. You're saying I'm either stupid or dishonest.
Quote:The facts are very clear. You can see them yourself in the video and read the report. If you choose to ignore them or distort them, you can’t honestly expect people not to find your argument disingenuous. But you’ve insulated yourself from the facts by presuming that anyone who doesn’t accept your version of events regardless of whether that version exist in congruence with obvious facts is attacking you personally.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Wrong again. Your argument depends on the draconian notion that simply resisting the manhandling of the cops constitutes a crime in need of instant (and instantly gratifying) punishment.
Quote:But there is no way for us to get to the issue of the taser, because you insist upon misrepresenting the principle reason for which the taser was used. I’m not going to discuss the issue of the taser with you if you insist upon defining “resisting arrest” as the “right to be peacefully removed,” since there’s no discussion to be had in that case. If such a right existed, this guy certainly willing surrendered it. No one has argued at all that anyone who is peaceably removed or a peaceful protestor or kindergarten kid should be tazed. You’re argument is as disingenuous as it was when other people tried to hoist it on the discussion. If this guy had accepted his “right to be peaceable removed” he wouldn’t have been tazed.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Jesus, Finn, you just pulled a Fletch. Your "only two options" completely leaves out the use of the taser. It's the taser …
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Resisting arrest?"
He was resisting being manhandled, there was no arrest. They had the cuffs out before there was any evidence of arrest. Now, when they have him on the ground it appears that one officer begins to speak to him and may have been reading him his rights, which then seemed to provoke the kid's, "Then what did I DO?" But by then he was pretty hysterical.
You seem to view the boy as far more calculated than I do, which is consistent with the blame you place on his shoulders for being victimized as he was (I'm not talking about his very calculated stunt of grandstanding at the mic, but his panicked behavior once the cops got ahold of him). You seem to be saying that it was the boy's fault that he was tased. That the officers were human beings with will and choice in the situation (considerably more freedom of choice--power--than the boy they mistreated), who could have gotten him out of the room without electrocuting him is irrelevant to you--they were merely the machinery of law enforcement doing what it does best.
You presume that my assessment does not fit the facts and that yours does. Several folks in this thread saw the same video I did. Several folks seem to have gotten what you got out of the incident. We have a basic disagreement and you and Fletch2 have framed the debate in such a way that anyone who disagrees with you is "insulated from the facts." Whatever.
Nice talking to you.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Exactly "resisting officer with violence," which is a felony. Whether or not he was resisting arrest is a technical issue, I guess, but Florida statute holds that there are two types of resisting law enforcement: resisting officer without violence (also called obstructing justice) and resisting officer with violence (also called resisting arrest). Specifically, he was attacking an officer.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
"Resisting arrest?"
He was resisting being manhandled, there was no arrest. They had the cuffs out before there was any evidence of arrest. Now, when they have him on the ground it appears that one officer begins to speak to him and may have been reading him his rights, which then seemed to provoke the kid's, "Then what did I DO?" But by then he was pretty hysterical.
Quote:Its consistent with the facts. In particular, that this guy only struggled when he had a camera to entertain. He is even quoted as having stated that the police were right to do what they did, while cameras weren’t around, but making hysterical statements when the cameras were visible.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You seem to view the boy as far more calculated than I do, which is consistent with the blame you place on his shoulders for being victimized as he was (I'm not talking about his very calculated stunt of grandstanding at the mic, but his panicked behavior once the cops got ahold of him).
Quote:If he had left following his disruptive behavior when he was asked to, then, in all likelihood, not only would he not have been tazed but he would not have been arrested. So yes, it does seem to be his fault. On the other hand you’re argument that the police tazed him, and arrested him, for no reason other than their own malicious desires, is completely unsupportable by the facts in this case.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You seem to be saying that it was the boy's fault that he was tased. That the officers were human beings with will and choice in the situation (conciderably more will and choice--power--than the boy they mistreated), who could have gotten him out of the room without electrocuting him is irrelevant to you--they were merely the machinery of law enforcement doing what it does best.
Quote:Just you so far. While it is true that other arguments have tried to downplay this guys behavior, you’re the only one who has accused anyone of using ad hominem for pointing that out.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You presume that my assessment does not fit the facts and that yours do. Several folks in this thread saw the same video I did. Several folks seem to have gotten what you got out of the incident. We have a basic disagreement and you and Fletch2 have framed the debate in such a way that anyone who disagrees with you is "insulated from the facts." Whatever.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"What if he's not 'just a pissed college kid'; what if instead he's a 'calculating college kid' who understands that if he wants his 'message' to get out, he's -got- to get the police to at least cuff him, and better taser him. If he doesn't get the coverage, he will in his opinion failed. What percentage of cops have (not should have, but do) the skill to get someone out without resorting to at least cuffs if not a taser under such a circumstance? Much of what I saw suggested 'theater' rather than genuine anger. Does that change what tatics you think the cops should have used?
Not really.
The key to verbal de-escalation, combined with perhaps a bit of shadowdance thrown in for positioning, is two words - "I want."
What did this guy WANT?
His questions answered ?
To provoke a response ?
Fact is, we do not know - we can assume, sure, but we do not *know*, and secondguessing that is irrelevant when proper de-escalation methods are used.. to be downright blunt about it, most cops escalate a situation without even knowing it, by invading personal space, assuming a threatening posture, and then verbally abusing or threatening, stuff virtually *Guaranteed* to escalate a situation when dealing with someone who's flaked out, be it drugs, rage, fear, or a percieved wrong done unto them.
Cutting the mic ? good response, that one.
Again, I haven't seen the video, but experience tells me they bungled the verbal - and IF he was lookin for an incident, then they walked right into it completely oblivious, which is IMOP an even *worse* gaffe than overreaction, outright incompetence on their part.
Also, the angle of de-escalation can change rapidly, because anything that triggers a fear reaction from the person you're dealing with requires an instant change in tactics - that whole me-have-bigger-club shit is the root of a whole bunch of needless problems, and something that needs to be addressed at the entry level, cause once calcified, retraining is not time-cost effective.
I do not know what was said, but ponder two potential scenarios.
#1 - "Ok guy, look, you made your point, and the property owner has asked us to escort you from the premises, and we gotta do that, so let's us take a walk shall we ? no need for any trouble or hassle, I hate paperwork, and I'm sure you don't want any hassle, so why have any, right ?"
(Offered from outside personal space, in a paternal and comforting tone, followed by edging towards the door yourself, as if it's the only reasonable thing to do...)
#2 - "Ok you fucking punk, you're gonna move or be moved, and don't try me cause I'll fuck your day up totally, asshole!"
(Snarled from inside personal space, in a threatening tone, combined with an aggressive posture while advancing into dire threat range.)
Which one do YOU think would have worked better ?
Which one do YOU think was closer to the actual approach used ?
Some of the mistakes are so common, so obvious, that there's no excuse whatever for them.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, and as for playing the logic and reason angle from the pro-taser folk - unless you're assuming people have the short term memory of a goldfish, it's NOT gonna fly.
You all make your position absolutely clear in the beginning of the thread with statements indicating that those who disagree with the established order should be abused, so having done that, shown your true colors through the mask, going back to the logic and reason fantasy fools no one.
You cannot say in one breath that such people should be beaten down with nightsticks, or hit with water cannons, or worse, and in the next breath, say "oh but the police were just doing their job.." after expressing such sentiment.
In essence, you've reduced your credibility in this thread to what it usually is around here.
Dead Flat Zero.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Man.... would I be afraid to live in Finn's world.
Oh, wait... nevermind. I love Big Brother.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, I can. I’ve made no contradiction here. I can believe that people have a responsibility to avoid violent behavior and not break the law, while simultaneously claim that police have a thankless job dealing with those people that do.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You cannot say in one breath that such people should be beaten down with nightsticks, or hit with water cannons, or worse, and in the next breath, say "oh but the police were just doing their job.." after expressing such sentiment.
Quote:Some people are. I don’t know why, really. I’m really a very nice and fluffy guy when you get past the rough manly exterior. I’m misunderstood.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Man.... would I be afraid to live in Finn's world.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, your "handle" tells us that you're authoritarian, and prone to violence, bullying, and intimidation. We understand you quite well. 
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can't believe I'm saying it, but I whole-heartedly agree with Finn, Hero, and the other Conservatives on this one. Was this a case of police brutality? No. Poor police judgement in terms of how the situation would be completely blown out of proportion and turned into a PR nightmare, maybe, but not brutality. This is instead, a simple case of student douche-baggery.
In my opinion, he should have been tased just for being the conspiracy theorist jackass that he is. I consider it electroshock therapy for the insane. The cops were well within their rights, both legally and ethically to give the little prick a well deserved shock. If it were up to me, Mr. Don't-tase-me-bro should be booted out of the country for a while. Let him live in a real authoritarian state where the cops tear his fingernails out with pliers and string his balls up with electrical wire to see how long it takes for them to catch fire, for even thinking about protesting. Then let him come back and finally see what a blessedly merciful system we've got, where getting tased for resisting arrest is considered unusual and controversial.
All in all, he deserves much worse than a simple tasering for being stupid enough to believe the crap he spews, but fortunately for him, he lives in a country where the police usually apply a reasonable amount of force to achieve their ends. Now I know that by now, some of you are dying to flame me, so I'll hand the mike over to you guys.
[img]
[/img]
"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!
Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"
- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry Reaver... I can't agree with you on that one. Way too many cops to ever justify having to taze that scrawney little shit, unless he pulled out a knife or a gun first. There is absolutely no justification for what they did. If I were in that crowd, I would have done my best to incite a riot. If that happened during a football game in Europe, those cops would have been bumrushed by a mob. Cops need to have fear of citizens too.... even the law abiding ones.
Taze me today, put me in Gitmo tomorrow.
I don't give a shit about what some third world country would do to its citizens. We're supposed to be a goddamned role model to the world. Just exactly what point during the last two administrations did that ideal get turned on its head? "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I must concur Reaver's police state is beyond pale.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wouldn't go so far as to label it's "Reaver's police state". I actually enjoy reading many of Reaver's posts, and this one just kind of suprises me is all. I'm curious to hear more about his point of view, and why he would feel that this was justified, when there were many more civil ways of handling this issue.
The police and the state need to realize that they are just as much under the microscope as the citizens now that we have cheap survilance technology and virtually a free way of showing that information to others today.
Lord (Allah, Buddah, FSM) help us if they take that away from us, considering all of those wonderful (dreadful?) new toys they're comming up with every day...... "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, I won't bother concur in with Jack's position; I'll just say I find Reaver's position extremely frightening.
Of course, feel free to discuss; never one to impede discussion ;-)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I wouldn't go so far as to label it's "Reaver's police state". I actually enjoy reading many of Reaver's posts, and this one just kind of suprises me is all. I'm curious to hear more about his point of view, and why he would feel that this was justified, when there were many more civil ways of handling this issue.
Well, I'm glad to hear that you enjoy my posts
.To be completely honest, my reaction to this situation kind of surprised me, too. It's just that I used to be just another conspiracy theory nut just like Mr. Don't-tase-me-bro (can we just call him Mr.DTMB?), but I started to look at my opinions and use some basic common sense to realize how full of shit I was. I guess because of that, i just have no respect for any conspiracy nut, because it would take only the barest sliver of rational thought on the matter to realize how wrong they are, but most never give it even that much.
Part of it is also because I am an American living in Mexico, and while Mexico isn't a third world country where they torture dissenters, it is far closer to that than the U.S. is. If the cops pull you over here, they don't need probable cause (well maybe they are supposed to have it in theory, but if so, they ignore that particular rule) and you will more often than not be given a choice between a bribe or arrest.
Plus, when they do arrest you, Mexico's justice system follows Napoleonic Law, in that the basic assumption is the reverse of the one in the U.S. Instead of "Innocent until proven guilty", with the burden of proving your guilt on the state, it is "guilty until proven innocent" and the burden is on the accused to prove their innocence. While none of this is what I would call a serious injustice, it's enough to give a body a newfound appreciation for the U.S. Justice System.
I guess my problem is that I despise ignorance and I want to rectify it when I find it, whether it's in myself, or in others. And this douchebag knows nothing about about how things really work out there and it pisses me off that he thinks he does.
I know this is a more extreme opinion than I usually have, but what can I say *shrug*, it's just what I think in this case. Maybe the tasing will shock a little sense into the bastard, but i doubt it, especially since almost every news channel out there is talking about how this is a case of police brutality, or a police blunder and how he was victimized by the big bad cops.
I feel justified in saying that the tasing was justified because I've been tased before. I know what it feels like (hurts like a bitch
), so I know what was inflicted on him. My opinion, plain and simple in four words: He deserved every volt.[img]
[/img]"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!
Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"
- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I do not know what was said, but ponder two potential scenarios.
#1 - "Ok guy, look, you made your point, and the property owner has asked us to escort you from the premises, and we gotta do that, so let's us take a walk shall we ? no need for any trouble or hassle, I hate paperwork, and I'm sure you don't want any hassle, so why have any, right ?"
(Offered from outside personal space, in a paternal and comforting tone, followed by edging towards the door yourself, as if it's the only reasonable thing to do...)
#2 - "Ok you fucking punk, you're gonna move or be moved, and don't try me cause I'll fuck your day up totally, asshole!"
(Snarled from inside personal space, in a threatening tone, combined with an aggressive posture while advancing into dire threat range.)
Which one do YOU think would have worked better ?
Which one do YOU think was closer to the actual approach used ?
Pure conjecture and highly biased considering the source.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, your "handle" tells us that you're authoritarian, and prone to violence, bullying, and intimidation. We understand you quite well.
Is an ad hominem attack all ya got left? Let's all stop and take a vote about how relevant this post was to the rest of this thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Way too many cops to ever justify having to taze that scrawney little shit, unless he pulled out a knife or a gun first. There is absolutely no justification for what they did. If I were in that crowd, I would have done my best to incite a riot.
Which video clip were you watching? The guy in question towers over the female officer. Perhaps his size was part of the reason that cuffing him was so difficult. And how would you feel when your 'riot' gets other innocent people hurt?
Why wasn't there more protest from the crowd? The anti-taser side will say it was because they all felt threatened by the police. The pro-taser side will say because they all felt threatened by the individual and wanted him removed. All we can do is speculate.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pure conjecture and highly biased considering the source.
Well freaking DUH, seems some folks have literacy issues around here when it comes to things they don't like or agree with - did I not SAY UP FRONT, exactly this ?
"imma throw right up front that it's NOT from a neutral perspective, right ?"
At least I have the decency to admit bias upfront, rather than trying to hide an agenda behind a rather tattered mask of neutrality - and I find it somewhat amusing then whenever *I* blow some part of a ridiculous or petty argument to total bits, it completely dissappears from the discussion thereafter and is never spoken of again.
But back to the point I was making, shall we poll it then ?
I was asking a meaningful question, and we all know the truth likely lies in between those extremes, but I would lay odds that if you asked everyone here, based on their experiences, which approach was closer to likely, the poll would be overwhelmingly the second one.
Frankly, police DO more often than not, escalate incidents - and depending on who they are dealing with, quite often do so unknowingly cause the curriculum of training appears to be missing some damned important tools they need to know.
I don't just mean the aggressive approach, neither - there are other failures too, regardless of the cop view that everyone not wearing a badge is a perp, the truth is that unless someone has a list of priors, you do NOT know whether you are dealing with an upstanding citizen, a wacko, or a career criminal, and making that assessment, while important, is less important than being able to handle whatever develops without it going gonzo on you.
Case examples, mister upstanding cit is gonna get real pissed and escalate if you invade his space in a threatening manner, get verbally abusive, and generally treat him like a perp - but on the other hand, if you are dealing with a crooked type, and allow him to shadowdance or box you, THAT will escalate the situation... both of which are easily prevented with the proper training.
Common Mistake #1 - entering someone else's personal space.
BIG mistake, one that makes no tactical sense whatsoever, especially considering the Tueller drill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
It tends to immediately escalate the situation, especially if the cop is physically larger than the other person.
Common Mistake #2 - assuming a threatening posture.
Often unfortunately combined with #1, this tends to further escalate the situation, and in many cases provokes a fear response - and the one thing about someone in a fear state is that there is NO predicting how they will respond, only deal with it when they do, and so you've just went from PROactive to REactive, losing control over the situation by your own actions.
Common Mistake #3 - offering direct verbal threat or insult.
This one is the worst, there's utterly no reason for it, no procedural cause for it, and call it what it is, a deliberate and malicious provocation intended to provoke and therefore justify what follows - and in essence, criminal behavior from the officer in question.
Although often overlooked, it is the linchpin and gateway to worse behaviors, unacceptable in any form, and should be an actionable offense resulting in suspension at the very least.
Common Mistake #4 - enforcement over regulation.
A police officer is first and foremost, by intent, a PEACE officer, in theory present to keep the peace and prevent crime, law *enforcement* should be a secondary consideration if not on an active case or serving a warrant.
Do you really NEED to arrest the jaywalker, since at this point he's now on the sidewalk and thus not jaywalking ?
Do you really NEED to arrest the guy on his porch with a forty for public intoxication once he's offered to go back in his house with it ?
Do you really NEED to arrest the protestor once you've removed them from the premises if they show no intention to return ?
I know that some of that decision has been removed from the officers by laws and regs, but if we canno
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Just curious; try to put yourself in the mindset you used to have; a cop tases you for spouting off on your conspiracy theories. Would this
Originally posted by Reaverman:
To be completely honest, my reaction to this situation kind of surprised me, too. It's just that I used to be just another conspiracy theory nut just like Mr. Don't-tase-me-bro (can we just call him Mr.DTMB?), but I started to look at my opinions and use some basic common sense to realize how full of shit I was.
1) Suddenly make you realize how wrong you were?
2) Drive you deeper into conspiracy theory?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Frem...
I'm definitely planning to reply; I want to watch the video over again before I do. As always, you make me think....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Pure conjecture and highly biased considering the source.
Well freaking DUH, seems some folks have literacy issues around here when it comes to things they don't like or agree with - did I not SAY UP FRONT, exactly this ?
"imma throw right up front that it's NOT from a neutral perspective, right ?"
At least I have the decency to admit bias upfront, rather than trying to hide an agenda behind a rather tattered mask of neutrality
My point being that perhaps if you framed your argument better you would get a more positive response. Your standard anti-police rhetoric takes away from any point you may have IMHO.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
- and I find it somewhat amusing then whenever *I* blow some part of a ridiculous or petty argument to total bits, it completely dissappears from the discussion thereafter and is never spoken of again.
Wanton hubris, IMHO.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, I love unsecured wireless nodes, imma currently sittin in a parkin lot behind 7-11 at the moment waiting for my timecall fare to finish up with the doctors appt.
Make sure to watch this one too.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2715792117793977759
This is the kinda behavior I am talking about, and the elephant in the room at the moment seems to be the fact that it's *extremely* common behavior - at the first sign of any resistance or defiance to their will, police generally indulge in this behavior and get a free pass for it, note just how unconcerned he was about the camera, too - just shrugged it off, cause he "knew" no one would take him to task for his behavior, that in itself is pretty chilling, isn't it ?
(Surprise surprise, old five-O learned by a decision of 5-0 that it ain't so! meh heh heh)
The key to gettin folks to think is asking the right questions, and imma repeat one of them I asked above here, in reference to this incident as well.
If they'll do THAT, on camera and in front of witnesses, in public - just ponder for a moment what they'd do off camera, without em.
Scary thoughts, eh ?
Whup, here comes my passenger, gotta go.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Taze me today, put me in Gitmo tomorrow.
Ok.
I'll need your name and address. Also, if you could just head on down to your local police department sometime between five and six this evening (after shift change and before dinner would be most helpful...thanks).
Edited to add: Oh, and bring a toothbrush. We can provide you a copy of the Koran...but good dental hygene is something you need to handle yourself.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Common Mistake #1
Not complying with Officer's directions. Often simple things like "back up", "calm down", "keep your hands where I can see them" "put the cricket bat down".
Quote:
Common Mistake #2 - assuming a threatening posture.
Assuming a threatening posture with the police is always a bad idea...Often unfortunately combined with #1, this tends to further escalate the situation, and in many cases provokes a fear response - and the one thing about someone in a fear state is that there is NO predicting how they will respond...UNLESS they are specifically trained to deal with that situation by neutralizing the threat using a club, taser, pepper spray, or at last resort, lethal force.
Quote:
Common Mistake #3
Resisting.
Once cops are going to cuff you and take you away, they're going to cuff you and take you away. Regardless of how else the underlying issues shake out, further resistance after this point has been reached is futile and can likely result in harm to the suspect or the innocent police officer just trying to do their job (you may not see them as innocent, but the Prosecutor will, and juries usually do too). You can go along quietly and likely end up in jail, or you can fight, end up hurt, maybe hurt someone else, and DEFINATELY end up in jail.
And once in a while you'll find an 'old school' Officer who see's fit to 'escort you to the floor' or perhaps slam on the brakes (if his car has a cage this can be HI-LARRY-US) or some such and then your hurt, in jail, and missing a couple teeth.
Quote:
Common Mistake #4
Your an idiot. Not you, I mean the royal you...you the guy being an idiot, not you the guy reading this post, unless your about to be arrested, like PirateNews, and your reading this post moments before the cops come busting in. In that case I mean you, but otherwise I mean the guy being arrested.
By being an idiot I mean doing something monumentally stupid. Like getting out of your car at a traffic stop and approaching the cop's car with your hands in your pockets and perhaps an angry look on your face. Or slugging a cop whose trying to break up your drunk-assed shoving match at the local concert.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Just curious; try to put yourself in the mindset you used to have; a cop tases you for spouting off on your conspiracy theories. Would this
1) Suddenly make you realize how wrong you were?
2) Drive you deeper into conspiracy theory?
Well, obviously number 2. I knew that from the start. No external force can change your mind once you're in full-on "The-government-is-out-to-get-me" mode. It's all internal. And do I care that this will drive him deeper into his insanity? No. Because everything that even vaguely looks suspicious to the theorist mind drives them deeper.
The thing is, no matter how deep into it one goes, it still only takes a tiny bit of reasoning to pull oneself out of it. So, yes, I know this makes it worse for Mr.DTMB and every theorist that watches the video. I just don't care.
[img]
[/img]"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!
Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"
- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For the moment, I'm content we agree that it will drive them deeper. Thanks for replying.
Originally posted by Reaverman:Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Just curious; try to put yourself in the mindset you used to have; a cop tases you for spouting off on your conspiracy theories. Would this
1) Suddenly make you realize how wrong you were?
2) Drive you deeper into conspiracy theory?
Well, obviously number 2. I knew that from the start. No external force can change your mind once you're in full-on "The-government-is-out-to-get-me" mode. It's all internal. And do I care that this will drive him deeper into his insanity? No. Because everything that even vaguely looks suspicious to the theorist mind drives them deeper.
The thing is, no matter how deep into it one goes, it still only takes a tiny bit of reasoning to pull oneself out of it. So, yes, I know this makes it worse for Mr.DTMB and every theorist that watches the video. I just don't care.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Your an idiot. Not you, I mean the royal you...you the guy being an idiot, not you the guy reading this post, unless your about to be arrested, like PirateNews, and your reading this post moments before the cops come busting in. In that case I mean you, but otherwise I mean the guy being arrested.
By being an idiot I mean doing something monumentally stupid. Like getting out of your car at a traffic stop and approaching the cop's car with your hands in your pockets and perhaps an angry look on your face. Or slugging a cop whose trying to break up your drunk-assed shoving match at the local concert.
So, as a lawyer you feel this irresistable urge to add a disclaimer to everything?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME