Kerry rally

[nikimcbee]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&mode=related&search=

Need I say more?:oops: :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

I've already seen all the vids, including the very complete CNBC one. It's a hard call to judge whether he should have been arrested or not. Seems very borderline.

[Skybird]

...?????

[sunvalleyslim]

I agree Avon Lady, hard to say that he should have been arrested. The problem began when he turned around and saw the uniformed police. Up until that time I can't see a reason for him to be arrested. A female officer approaches him and touches his arm. At that time he throws his arms in the air and starts yelling. At that point he is resisting and knows he has an audience. So he plays it up by yelling help and still resisting being lead away. To me he has forced the police to take some kind of action. Had he stopped struggling and yelling, the use of force would have stopped. He played this up for the cameras and audience. That's why he's yelling help, he's not expecting anyone to help but it sounds good. If he would have stopped resisting he wouldn't have been Tasered. But the film clearly shows he wouldn't stop struggling even when he is told to stop. Now the police have to control him, so they use legal means to take him into custody.
The whole problem stems from the female officer grabbing him. There should have been a dicussion with him about whatever rule he was violating, maybe about asking questions. If there was even a rule who knows. Now had he not conversed with the police or not left after being asked, then I would say this was appropriate. If not he should have legal grounds to sue.

[The WosMan]

Normally I am a big law and order guy. The problem here was from what I saw this kid had his hands in the air, had no weapons, wasn't any threat. It was a bunch of keystone kops out of control.

What I want to know is why Mr war protester himself Kerry didn't say anything to defend the kid. He is afterall a pro at protesting, throwing his medals over fences, and being anti-establishment. This kid was obviously some big lib journalist student, probably a moveon.org person but they didn't remove him until he mentioned Kerry's Skull and Bones membership. To me this further reinforces the fact that Kerry is a hypocrite who doesn't have a clue.

[bradclark1]

When you resist what the cop is trying to do you have opened yourself up to use of force. My hearing is shot and I don't know what the kid was saying but the tone was confrontational. He played it up for the camera's. He accompplished what he set out to do.

[The Avon Lady]

Normally I am a big law and order guy. The problem here was from what I saw this kid had his hands in the air, had no weapons, wasn't any threat. It was a bunch of keystone kops out of control.

What I want to know is why Mr war protester himself Kerry didn't say anything to defend the kid. He is afterall a pro at protesting, throwing his medals over fences, and being anti-establishment. This kid was obviously some big lib journalist student, probably a moveon.org person but they didn't remove him until he mentioned Kerry's Skull and Bones membership. To me this further reinforces the fact that Kerry is a hypocrite who doesn't have a clue.
I'm anything but a Kerry fan but he did say to let the guy talk. I understand his mostly complete silence afterwards as assuming the police are doing their duty. He did the correct thing and why shouldn't he.

I still believe that this is really a close call and find it hard to decide based on the videos at hand. And whether the jerk intentionally set this up as a publicilty stunt or not is irrelevant to the police's obligations to act appropriately and again I'm not saying they didn't.

If nothing further can be clarified in court, I would hope the judge would let everyone go back home with warnings and that's that.

[Skybird]

Try this in Germany, and some police authorities heads would roll. I cant understand all what he said, but what later follwed was an ammount of physcial force that in no way is justified by the "immense threat" posed by the young man.

In other words, I see the police not performing correctly here, at least to our standards, and if "law and order" means that a citizen posing no threat and in the main: is talking and raising a book, is expected to obey police commands without questioning, without hesitating, without indicating that he is wondering why, then this leaves a very foul taste in the mouth. Blind and totally submissive obedience has a very bad reputation here, and throughout Europe.

I mean, what the hell has the young man done? And is civil society under army regime since lately? In Singapore, I think it was there, you can be arrested for spitting in public. I see that as excessive, too, but not as excessive as what I see in this video.

And the tazing in the end is totally unacceptable, and excessive using of force. ***edited by skybird ***

Totally unacceptable. Over here, laws and police regulations allowing such actions would be considered as illegal and policemen following such rules wouldn't stay in service very long, and probably would be sued for physical injury (which covers the inflicting of pain).

[The Avon Lady]

Try this in Germany, and some police authorities heads would roll. I cant understand all what he said, but what later follwed was an ammount of physcial force that in no way is justified by the "immense threat" posed by the young man.

In other words, I see the police not performing correctly here, at least to our standards, and if "law and order" means that a citizen posing no threat and in the main: is talking and raising a book, is expected to obey police commands without questioning, without hesitating, without indicating that he is wondering why, then this leaves a very foul taste in the mouth. Blind and totally submissive obedience has a very bad reputation here, and throughout Europe.

I mean, what the hell has the young man done? And is civil society under army regime since lately? In Singapore, I think it was there, you can be arrested for spitting in public. I see that as excessive, too, but not as excessive as what I see in this video.

And the tazing in the end is totally unacceptable, and excessive using of force. I would expect to see such an abuse of violence in a fascist police state - not in the nation that loves to describe itself as the cradle of civil rights, democracy and as the defender of liberty.

Totally unacceptable. Over here, laws and police regulations allowing such actions would be considered as illegal and policemen following such rules wouldn't stay in service very long, and probably would be sued for physical injury (which covers the inflicting of pain).
I overall disagree with you.

I must admit, you sound consistantly fashionable (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/17/germanys-defense-minister-gets-in-trouble-for-having-common-sense/) in today's Germany. :yep:

[Von Tonner]

I mean, what the hell has the young man done? .

Precisely. Will someone who agrees with the arrest of this man please explain to me up to the point of the police stepping in (not the students reaction in response to) what he had done which was illegal and prompted police action. Is heckling in an open political debate, invited by the speaker (in this instance Kerry) illegal in the States?

In South Africa prior to our democracy, a British citizen (woman) living in South Africa attended a public political meeting and when the political apartheid candidate got up to speak she stood up and threw a bad tomatoe at him. She was arrested and deported. It made world headlines and the action by the police and government at the time was roundly condemned - and rightly so. Thank god we have moved on in SA.

Please tell me that the USA is not going down that path.

And secondly, is it unlawful to openly resist arrest by the police if you have not done anything wrong? This question in a police state of course would be meaningless.

[The Avon Lady]

I mean, what the hell has the young man done? .

Precisely. Will someone who agrees with the arrest of this man please explain to me up to the point of the police stepping in (not the students reaction in response to) what he had done which was illegal and prompted police action. Is heckling in an open political debate, invited by the speaker (in this instance Kerry) illegal in the States?

In South Africa prior to our democracy, a British citizen (woman) living in South Africa attended a public political meeting and when the political apartheid candidate got up to speak she stood up and threw a bad tomatoe at him. She was arrested and deported. It made world headlines and the action by the police and government at the time was roundly condemned - and rightly so. Thank god we have moved on in SA.

Please tell me that the USA is not going down that path.

And secondly, is it unlawful to openly resist arrest by the police if you have not done anything wrong? This question in a police state of course would be meaningless.
He's being charged with disturbing the peace (http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2007/09/state-of-florid.html), which based on the videos, is what's in question.

So, in SA, they don't arrest people for DTP? Or maybe the benefit of moving to SA is less idiots like Andrew Meyer? :hmm: ;)

[Skybird]

I must admit, you sound consistantly fashionable (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/17/germanys-defense-minister-gets-in-trouble-for-having-common-sense/) in today's Germany. :yep:
Leave the defense ministre of Germany out of this, the question of wether airplanes used for terror attacks should be legally shot down or not has nothing to do with tazering a talking participant in a public discussion.

And then tell me where I am wrong. Tell me what the man had done. What made him so dangerous so you need to tazer him. why not simply grabbing him, getting him outside - AND THEN TELL HIM WHAT CRIME HE COMMITTED. Tell me in what way this massive use of violence and implementation of pain was justified. Did he threaten the police? Had he a weapon? Was he a risk for anybody? Did he made obscene gestures? did the audience complain about him? Was there an exchange of bullets, and impacting grenades? Bloods and bones flying around? Did he say he wants to blow up the room, and has a bomb in his book? Anything? Something?

Damn, he TALKED only !

[The Avon Lady]

I must admit, you sound consistantly fashionable (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/17/germanys-defense-minister-gets-in-trouble-for-having-common-sense/) in today's Germany. :yep:
Leave the defense ministre of Germany out of this, the question of wether airplanes used for terror attacks should be legally shot down or not has nothing to do with tazering a talking participant in a public discussion.
OK! OK! You don't have to shout! :doh:
And then tell me where I am wrong. Tell me what the man had done.
Official scorecard (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/18/offense.report.072274.pdf). :cool:
What made him so dangerous so you need to tazer him.
He was violently and continually resisting arrest. Also he wasn't tased (http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2007/09/at-john-kerrys-.html), though tasing might have been justified under the circumstances. So would a good ol' fashioned billy club.
why not simply grabbing him, getting him outside - AND THEN TELL HIM WHAT CRIME HE COMMITTED.
From moment 1 he tried breaking loose and resisted. That's why. Did you bother watching the videos? The defintion of resisting arrest is no that complicated.
Tell me in what way this massive use of violence and implementation of pain was justified. Did he threaten the police?
Who says you need to reach that point?
Had he a weapon?
Head, teeth, hands and feet. Yep, remember those guys?
Was he a risk for anybody?
To an extent to the police. They don't need to have to suffer a scratch when placing someone under arrest. Nor do they need to tolerate any physical or verbal abuse.
Did he made obscene gestures?
I have no idea.
did the audience complain about him?
The audience are not the owners of the auditorium and do not make the rules. Where I come from, people around an arrest suspect don't get to vote him on or off the island. And by you?
Was there an exchange of bullets, and impacting grenades? Bloods and bones flying around? Did he say he wants to blow up the room, and has a bomb in his book? Anything? Something?
As above. You've accomplished nothing by stating what obviously didn't occur.
Damn, he TALKED only !
Everything has its time, place and limits. From the video, he overstepped his time, was asked to step away and he refused, including pushing/pulling a policeman away. He does not own the place and does not make its rules. If he doesn't like it, he should have obeyed the rules or not shown up in the first place.

All that seems to be in question here is whether he was sufficiently aware of his violating the owner's rights. I cannot tell from the video but it's a close call either way.

[Skybird]

Official scorecard (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/18/offense.report.072274.pdf). :cool:

Okay, that cleared it a bit. Should have been given toigether with the video, since the tone was so miserable - I did understand only every third word or so.

He was violently and continually resisting arrest. Also he wasn't tased (http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2007/09/at-john-kerrys-.html), though tasing might have been justified under the circumstances. So would a good ol' fashioned billy club.
That is hairsplitting. If a tazer, no matter if a distance tazer or a non-shooting tazer, is being used, it means to deliver the subject a painful dose of electricity. I had a meeting with Mr. Electricity once when I was a child. The pain was terrible. - BTW, in Germany polciemen are strong and tough enough to be able to deal with such a situation and getting the subject out of a room - without even having Tazers available.

why not simply grabbing him, getting him outside - AND THEN TELL HIM WHAT CRIME HE COMMITTED.
From moment 1 he tried breaking loose and resisted. That's why. Did you bother watching the videos? The defintion of resisting arrest is no that complicated.[/quote]

The tazing still is excessive, and I do not stop critiocising it. It was in no way necessary. Tazers should be meant as a weapon that does not seriously huirt an offender who poses a thread, and to disarm him. That'S also what they originally had been invented for. But here, and probably not only here, they are used as a disciplinary measure. It is not the police' job to decide about actual penalties. That is the job of a court, and a juidge. So I still say Tazer get abused in examples like this. And again my hint: we can do without them over here. German police union even says they do not want them, only in special units, eventually - and they hint at the negative example in America. It's the police itself saying that.

Who says you need to reach that point?

Unacceptable what you say, by basic legal principles. Maybe he had a bomb trigger hidden in the book. I think he should have been shot in both hands imemdiately. Just in case, you know. If following your logic, we immediately must arrest the complete population. so that we must not "reach that point".

Had he a weapon?
Head, teeth, hands and feet. Yep, remember those guys?

Not everyone is a second Bruce Lee. and I expect policemen to have proper training to deal with a figure like in this example without using weapons. If american polcie cant do that, they are welcomed to complete their training in Germany. Hell, even I could train them in this regard.


To an extent to the police. They don't need to have to suffer a scratch when placing someone under arrest. Nor do they need to tolerate any physical or verbal abuse.

Yes. so let's take that guy out of the room. I still do not see the need to taszer that guy. He obviously wanted to get it on camera. And they did him that favour. Clever! Ironically, last monday I was witness at court, a shoplifter who resisted arrest half a year ago and claimed to have been beaten when being defenseless (being kept down by already two guys, one of whom was me). That detective said it was self-defense, but the truth was he allowed himself getting provoked verbally. If a subject is already on the ground and hold down by two, later three people, he may struggle to get out, but effetcively is defenseless if competently being taken care of. beating him in that condition (or tazer him) is no act of self defense, but using more force than necessary. I shouted at that detectiove in that situation to get out and stay away when seing that he was loosing selfcontrol, but he didn't listen and hit the man in the face, twice. And I could not stop him since I was busy with the guy on the floor. The detective will be sentenced for physical injury now. Clever. He definetly is in the wrong business when loosing self-control so easily - by being verbally provoked. the thief I also saw at court. And I saw that he took great satisfaction from seeing that he succeeded in getting thta man into trouble - with words only!


The audience are not the owners of the auditorium and do not make the rules. Where I come from, people around an arrest suspect don't get to vote him on or off the island. And by you?

If, as I previously concluded from the video and the bad sound, he did nothing wrong, , and if even the audience did not complain about something he did, why then etc etc.



Everything has its time, place and limits. From the video, he overstepped his time, was asked to step away and he refused, including pushing/pulling a policeman away. He does not own the place and does not make its rules. If he doesn't like it, he should have obeyed the rules or not shown up in the first place.

Still, the reaction is too excessive in my eyes. It would have been enough to simply get him out, and questioning him outside. If half a dozen policeman can't acchieve that, they are either badly trained - or better seek a new job. I simply judge that on the basis of my own skills, so I do not demand too much. BTW, on TV there are often debates, and stage discussions - and if somebody gets a bit liud, or seeks attention, and oversteps his time limit - we still do not shoot him out of the saddle, but - depending on the situation - exclude him by ignoring him (or not), or catch him and lead him out of the room. If needed, the guards even carry him out of the room.

The guy got the public media attention that he probably wanted, and the police looks bad by having handled the issue the way they did. That says it all.

[The Avon Lady]

He was violently and continually resisting arrest. Also he wasn't tased (http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2007/09/at-john-kerrys-.html), though tasing might have been justified under the circumstances. So would a good ol' fashioned billy club.
That is hairsplitting. If a tazer, no matter if a distance tazer or a non-shooting tazer, is being used, it means to deliver the subject a painful dose of electricity. I had a meeting with Mr. Electricity once when I was a child. The pain was terrible.
Um, that's the idea under certain circumstances. As I said, stun, tase, club - they all hurt but they need to be put in play under certain circumstances.
BTW, in Germany polciemen are strong and tough enough to be able to deal with such a situation and getting the subject out of a room - without even having Tazers available.
Obviously there's a big difference between German and US cops!

http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/1608/wiggumhh2.gif
why not simply grabbing him, getting him outside - AND THEN TELL HIM WHAT CRIME HE COMMITTED.
From moment 1 he tried breaking loose and resisted. That's why. Did you bother watching the videos? The defintion of resisting arrest is no that complicated.
The tazing still is excessive, and I do not stop critiocising it. It was in no way necessary. Tazers should be meant as a weapon that does not seriously huirt an offender who poses a thread, and to disarm him. That'S also what they originally had been invented for. But here, and probably not only here, they are used as a disciplinary measure. It is not the police' job to decide about actual penalties. That is the job of a court, and a juidge. So I still say Tazer get abused in examples like this. And again my hint: we can do without them over here. German police union even says they do not want them, only in special units, eventually - and they hint at the negative example in America. It's the police itself saying that.
I cannot honestly say what the "rules of taser engagement are" but in principle using force to subdue a suspect is perfectly legitimate. Like I said, before tasers and stunners, there were billy clubs. Bakc then they we used and abused as well.

In this case the guy was refusing to be cuffed and continued struggling with the police who did not seem to be able to pin this guy down. Why? I don't know. I wasn't there and you cannot see clearly in the videos what's happening in the scuffle on the floor. At some point, however, enough's enough. In this case, he seemed to be quite deservant of using extra means in order to be restrained and cuffed.
Who says you need to reach that point?
Unacceptable what you say, by basic legal principles. Maybe he had a bomb trigger hidden in the book. I think he should have been shot in both hands imemdiately. Just in case, you know. If following your logic, we immediately must arrest the complete population. so that we must not "reach that point".
I'm sorry. You lose me here. One does not need to have a bomb in a book to get arrested for DTP and one does not need a bomb in a book to get tased for aggressively resisting arrest.
Had he a weapon?
Head, teeth, hands and feet. Yep, remember those guys?
Not everyone is a second Bruce Lee.[/quote]
Once again one doesn't have to be. There are plenty of instances of people being arrested who know nothing of martial arts or hand-2-hand combat who use their available means to inflict harm to law enforcers. This shouldn't be news to you. Are you trying to pretend it doesn't happen? It happens plenty.
and I expect policemen to have proper training to deal with a figure like in this example without using weapons.
I am not qualified to know whether what's shown on the video is proper or improper.
If american polcie cant do that, they are welcomed to complete their training in Germany. Hell, even I could train them in this regard.

There really is no such thing as "American Police". Each townlette, city, state, county, etc., can have their own forces, with separate offices, budgets, facilities, resoures, and most important different laws and training for them all.
[quote][quote]To an extent to the police. They don't need to have to suffer a scratch when placing someone under arrest. Nor do they need to tolerate any physical or verbal abuse.
Yes. so let's take that guy out of the room. I still do not see the need to taszer that guy.
Discussed above. I disagree in as much as I see a possibility that it was called for and, again, I'm not familiar with the rules of when tasers are allowed.
He obviously wanted to get it on camera. And they did him that favour. Clever! Ironically, last monday I was witness at court, a shoplifter who resisted arrest half a year ago and claimed to have been beaten when being defenseless (being kept down by already two guys, one of whom was me). That detective said it was self-defense, but the truth was he allowed himself getting provoked verbally. If a subject is already on the ground and hold down by two, later three people, he may struggle to get out, but effetcively is defenseless if competently being taken care of. beating him in that condition (or tazer him) is no act of self defense, but using more force than necessary.
Again, you cannot fully see what went on in the struggle on the floor in the back of the auditorium.
I shouted at that detectiove in that situation to get out and stay away when seing that he was loosing selfcontrol, but he didn't listen and hit the man in the face, twice. And I could not stop him since I was busy with the guy on the floor. The detective will be sentenced for physical injury now. Clever. He definetly is in the wrong business when loosing self-control so easily - by being verbally provoked. the thief I also saw at court. And I saw that he took great satisfaction from seeing that he succeeded in getting thta man into trouble - with words only!
Each case is different and has to be judged for its own facts and circumstances.
The audience are not the owners of the auditorium and do not make the rules. Where I come from, people around an arrest suspect don't get to vote him on or off the island. And by you?
If, as I previously concluded from the video and the bad sound, he did nothing wrong, , and if even the audience did not complain about something he did, why then etc etc.
Look up the details on the web. People are making timelines in the videos when he was told to step away, when he exceeded his time limit, how he ignored police requests and movements to stop, etc. That's why I say this case is very hard to call.

Everything has its time, place and limits. From the video, he overstepped his time, was asked to step away and he refused, including pushing/pulling a policeman away. He does not own the place and does not make its rules. If he doesn't like it, he should have obeyed the rules or not shown up in the first place.
Still, the reaction is too excessive in my eyes.
He brought it upon himself. Here's how I would have done it, based on how my parents brought me up to respect the laws and rules of society:
AVON: And furthermore, Mr. Kerry, ever since your wife introduced green and purple ketchup, our pasta dinners have............

MODERATOR: I'm sorry, your time is up.

AVON: I'm switching to Hunts, you Wafflehead!
And I'd go back to my seat. That's not what happened here. :nope:
It would have been enough to simply get him out, and questioning him outside.
Again they tried but he was unruly from the 1st second. Look at the videos again. And this is an essentially cause of this blowup and solely this jerk's fault.
If half a dozen policeman can't acchieve that, they are either badly trained - or better seek a new job. I simply judge that on the basis of my own skills, so I do not demand too much. BTW, on TV there are often debates, and stage discussions - and if somebody gets a bit liud, or seeks attention, and oversteps his time limit - we still do not shoot him out of the saddle, but - depending on the situation - exclude him by ignoring him (or not), or catch him and lead him out of the room. If needed, the guards even carry him out of the room.
They tried and failed. Interestingly, maybe because each cop individually was afraid to use sufficient physical force, out of political correctness fears. This resulted in the stunning, which makes things look even worse. I'm just theorizing because you do need to explain why so many able bodied cops could not subdue this guy. Is it fear of using force and then heading for an inquiry? In this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised.
The guy got the public media attention that he probably wanted, and the police looks bad by having handled the issue the way they did. That says it all.
Looks can be deceiving and it's about time people analyze news and events for what they are and not for how they look and feel. :yep:

[Von Tonner]

[/quote] Everything has its time, place and limits. From the video, he overstepped his time, was asked to step away and he refused, including pushing/pulling a policeman away. He does not own the place and does not make its rules. If he doesn't like it, he should have obeyed the rules or not shown up in the first place.

All that seems to be in question here is whether he was sufficiently aware of his violating the owner's rights. I cannot tell from the video but it's a close call either way.[/quote]

Well, that is not how I read it. He didn't "overstep his time". One can see a guy in a suit who, when the student talks of Clinton and "the blow job", brings his hand up and draws it across his throat. At this point the mic is switched off and the police move in. If you read the official police reports this is how it went down.

So, the initial reaction by the police had absolutely NOTHING to do with disturbing the peace at all - that came later. It was that the Accent group leader in charge (the guy drawing his hand across his throat) didn't like the tone of questioning the student was putting across. Now yes, one can question his use of the word "blow job", but even that would be silly.

So, I do not see in what way he violated the owners rights. He was given permission by the speaker to ask his question. The trouble was, nobody liked the question.

[The Avon Lady]

So, I do not see in what way he violated the owners rights. He was given permission by the speaker to ask his question. The trouble was, nobody liked the question.
IF that's true, then I agree. However, read and watch here (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/18/video-new-footage-of-the-tasing-of-the-moonbat/). I really cannot tell.

EDIT: Love your bonnet! :p

[Von Tonner]

EDIT: Love your bonnet! :p

Please Avon, I'm trying to ignore it.:lol:

[The Avon Lady]

EDIT: Love your bonnet! :p

Please Avon, I'm trying to ignore it.:lol:
You can't. I've saved it for posterity:

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/4082/81567166pm2.jpg

[Von Tonner]

EDIT: Love your bonnet! :p
Please Avon, I'm trying to ignore it.:lol: You can't. I've saved it for posterity:

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/4082/81567166pm2.jpg


Ok, how much to make it 'go away'? :)

[Skybird]

He was violently and continually resisting arrest. Also he wasn't tased (http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2007/09/at-john-kerrys-.html), though tasing might have been justified under the circumstances. So would a good ol' fashioned billy club.
That is hairsplitting. If a tazer, no matter if a distance tazer or a non-shooting tazer, is being used, it means to deliver the subject a painful dose of electricity. I had a meeting with Mr. Electricity once when I was a child. The pain was terrible.
Um, that's the idea under certain circumstances. As I said, stun, tase, club - they all hurt but they need to be put in play under certain circumstances.
BTW, in Germany polciemen are strong and tough enough to be able to deal with such a situation and getting the subject out of a room - without even having Tazers available.
Obviously there's a big difference between German and US cops!

http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/1608/wiggumhh2.gif
why not simply grabbing him, getting him outside - AND THEN TELL HIM WHAT CRIME HE COMMITTED.
From moment 1 he tried breaking loose and resisted. That's why. Did you bother watching the videos? The defintion of resisting arrest is no that complicated.
The tazing still is excessive, and I do not stop critiocising it. It was in no way necessary. Tazers should be meant as a weapon that does not seriously huirt an offender who poses a thread, and to disarm him. That'S also what they originally had been invented for. But here, and probably not only here, they are used as a disciplinary measure. It is not the police' job to decide about actual penalties. That is the job of a court, and a juidge. So I still say Tazer get abused in examples like this. And again my hint: we can do without them over here. German police union even says they do not want them, only in special units, eventually - and they hint at the negative example in America. It's the police itself saying that.
I cannot honestly say what the "rules of taser engagement are" but in principle using force to subdue a suspect is perfectly legitimate. Like I said, before tasers and stunners, there were billy clubs. Bakc then they we used and abused as well.

In this case the guy was refusing to be cuffed and continued struggling with the police who did not seem to be able to pin this guy down. Why? I don't know. I wasn't there and you cannot see clearly in the videos what's happening in the scuffle on the floor. At some point, however, enough's enough. In this case, he seemed to be quite deservant of using extra means in order to be restrained and cuffed.
Who says you need to reach that point?
Unacceptable what you say, by basic legal principles. Maybe he had a bomb trigger hidden in the book. I think he should have been shot in both hands imemdiately. Just in case, you know. If following your logic, we immediately must arrest the complete population. so that we must not "reach that point".
I'm sorry. You lose me here. One does not need to have a bomb in a book to get arrested for DTP and one does not need a bomb in a book to get tased for aggressively resisting arrest.
Had he a weapon?
Head, teeth, hands and feet. Yep, remember those guys?
Not everyone is a second Bruce Lee.
Once again one doesn't have to be. There are plenty of instances of people being arrested who know nothing of martial arts or hand-2-hand combat who use their available means to inflict harm to law enforcers. This shouldn't be news to you. Are you trying to pretend it doesn't happen? It happens plenty.
and I expect policemen to have proper training to deal with a figure like in this example without using weapons.
I am not qualified to know whether what's shown on the video is proper or improper.
If american polcie cant do that, they are welcomed to complete their training in Germany. Hell, even I could train them in this regard.

There really is no such thing as "American Police". Each townlette, city, state, county, etc., can have their own forces, with separate offices, budgets, facilities, resoures, and most important different laws and training for them all.
[quote]To an extent to the police. They don't need to have to suffer a scratch when placing someone under arrest. Nor do they need to tolerate any physical or verbal abuse.
Yes. so let's take that guy out of the room. I still do not see the need to taszer that guy.
Discussed above. I disagree in as much as I see a possibility that it was called for and, again, I'm not familiar with the rules of when tasers are allowed.
He obviously wanted to get it on camera. And they did him that favour. Clever! Ironically, last monday I was witness at court, a shoplifter who resisted arrest half a year ago and claimed to have been beaten when being defenseless (being kept down by already two guys, one of whom was me). That detective said it was self-defense, but the truth was he allowed himself getting provoked verbally. If a subject is already on the ground and hold down by two, later three people, he may struggle to get out, but effetcively is defenseless if competently being taken care of. beating him in that condition (or tazer him) is no act of self defense, but using more force than necessary.
Again, you cannot fully see what went on in the struggle on the floor in the back of the auditorium.
I shouted at that detectiove in that situation to get out and stay away when seing that he was loosing selfcontrol, but he didn't listen and hit the man in the face, twice. And I could not stop him since I was busy with the guy on the floor. The detective will be sentenced for physical injury now. Clever. He definetly is in the wrong business when loosing self-control so easily - by being verbally provoked. the thief I also saw at court. And I saw that he took great satisfaction from seeing that he succeeded in getting thta man into trouble - with words only!
Each case is different and has to be judged for its own facts and circumstances.
The audience are not the owners of the auditorium and do not make the rules. Where I come from, people around an arrest suspect don't get to vote him on or off the island. And by you?
If, as I previously concluded from the video and the bad sound, he did nothing wrong, , and if even the audience did not complain about something he did, why then etc etc.
Look up the details on the web. People are making timelines in the videos when he was told to step away, when he exceeded his time limit, how he ignored police requests and movements to stop, etc. That's why I say this case is very hard to call.

Everything has its time, place and limits. From the video, he overstepped his time, was asked to step away and he refused, including pushing/pulling a policeman away. He does not own the place and does not make its rules. If he doesn't like it, he should have obeyed the rules or not shown up in the first place.
Still, the reaction is too excessive in my eyes.

He brought it upon himself. Here's how I would have done it, based on how my parents brought me up to respect the laws and rules of society:AVON: And furthermore, Mr. Kerry, ever since your wife introduced green and purple ketchup, our pasta dinners have............

MODERATOR: I'm sorry, your time is up.

AVON: I'm switching to Hunts, you Wafflehead!
And I'd go back to my seat. That's not what happened here. :nope:
It would have been enough to simply get him out, and questioning him outside.
Again they tried but he was unruly from the 1st second. Look at the videos again. And this is an essentially cause of this blowup and solely this jerk's fault.
If half a dozen policeman can't acchieve that, they are either badly trained - or better seek a new job. I simply judge that on the basis of my own skills, so I do not demand too much. BTW, on TV there are often debates, and stage discussions - and if somebody gets a bit liud, or seeks attention, and oversteps his time limit - we still do not shoot him out of the saddle, but - depending on the situation - exclude him by ignoring him (or not), or catch him and lead him out of the room. If needed, the guards even carry him out of the room.
They tried and failed. Interestingly, maybe because each cop individually was afraid to use sufficient physical force, out of political correctness fears. This resulted in the stunning, which makes things look even worse. I'm just theorizing because you do need to explain why so many able bodied cops could not subdue this guy. Is it fear of using force and then heading for an inquiry? In this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised.
The guy got the public media attention that he probably wanted, and the police looks bad by having handled the issue the way they did. That says it all.
Looks can be deceiving and it's about time people analyze news and events for what they are and not for how they look and feel. :yep:

Wowh - your posting is longer than mine!

[The Avon Lady]

Wowh - your posting is longer than mine!
Type is cheap. :p

[bradclark1]

I mean, what the hell has the young man done? .

Precisely. Will someone who agrees with the arrest of this man please explain to me up to the point of the police stepping in (not the students reaction in response to) what he had done which was illegal and prompted police action. Is heckling in an open political debate, invited by the speaker (in this instance Kerry) illegal in the States?

In South Africa prior to our democracy, a British citizen (woman) living in South Africa attended a public political meeting and when the political apartheid candidate got up to speak she stood up and threw a bad tomatoe at him. She was arrested and deported. It made world headlines and the action by the police and government at the time was roundly condemned - and rightly so. Thank god we have moved on in SA.

Please tell me that the USA is not going down that path.

And secondly, is it unlawful to openly resist arrest by the police if you have not done anything wrong? This question in a police state of course would be meaningless.

From above:
When you resist what the cop is trying to do you have opened yourself up to use of force.

[sunvalleyslim]

And secondly, is it unlawful to openly resist arrest by the police if you have not done anything wrong? This question in a police state of course would be meaningless.[/quote]
From above:
When you resist what the cop is trying to do you have opened yourself up to use of force.[/quote]

bradclark said it right when you resist, you open yourself to a use of force. So lets start with the ecalation of force.
1st reason and verbalization....."Sir will you step outside"
2nd firm grip control..........starts failing arms
3rd control hold.......Bar arm control not allowed.....subj resists and ofcr unable to aplly hold
4th pepper spray.......inside auditorium with people, someone besides the supect is going to get the effects of the spray...might clear out the whole place
5th Nightstick/PR24.....not going to look good on the camera....Remember Rodney King....definitely going to be viewed as excessive force
5th Tazer.......probably most appropriate inside....doesn't look bad, easy to subdue resisting suspect.

Suspect was told to stop resisiting numerous times and warned that he would be tazed......He says no don't taze me, but he never stops failing around.......

[Von Tonner]

And secondly, is it unlawful to openly resist arrest by the police if you have not done anything wrong? This question in a police state of course would be meaningless.
From above:
When you resist what the cop is trying to do you have opened yourself up to use of force.[/quote]

bradclark said it right when you resist, you open yourself to a use of force. So lets start with the ecalation of force.
1st reason and verbalization....."Sir will you step outside"
2nd firm grip control..........starts failing arms
3rd control hold.......Bar arm control not allowed.....subj resists and ofcr unable to aplly hold
4th pepper spray.......inside auditorium with people, someone besides the supect is going to get the effects of the spray...might clear out the whole place
5th Nightstick/PR24.....not going to look good on the camera....Remember Rodney King....definitely going to be viewed as excessive force
5th Tazer.......probably most appropriate inside....doesn't look bad, easy to subdue resisting suspect.

Suspect was told to stop resisiting numerous times and warned that he would be tazed......He says no don't taze me, but he never stops failing around.......[/quote]

Ok look, for the record I think this students behaviour is out of line BUT.
He is a student who like many students is passionate about his beliefs, believes he and he alone can solve all the worlds problems, that anybody over 30 doesn't have a clue what they are talking about etc, etc. In short he is still wet behind the ears but believes he knows it all - like many students.

It was a political debate which by its very nature in question time could become emotionally charged. Kerry's a big boy, a seasoned politician, leave it to him to verbally spar with this kid.

The interesting thing is this. In the police reports everything this kid said is meticously recalled and noted by the police except for the one question this kid kept shouting out, and that is: "Tell me what I have done wrong?".
Why have over 5 individual policeman in their written reports detailed everything else this kid said from "blow jobs" to "don't kill me" etc failed to mention this question he repeatedly shouted out? Could it be that they themselves didn't know the answer and would rather the question not be asked. Because it looks to me as if the police did not react to this student because THEY saw him do something wrong but rather they were told to react to him by a third party who didn't like the aggressive and or politically motivated question/statement this kid was making.

Looking at this incident however, I'm asking myself the question how I would react to police forcefully interfering with me if I was convinced I had not done something wrong. I'm thinking of an incident a few years back where police stormed a residential house in dead of night only to discover that they had the wrong street number. I may be wrong but I think someone in that house was even killed in the mayem that followed when the residents understandably resisted this assualt on their property.

How many times haven't we seen police back off, not use force and try and reason with whoever it is they wish to apprehend. Why couldn't that have been done in this incident. I certainly do not support this kid in his political views. If I lived in the States I would be Republican to the core, but, damit, this was a political debate, a kid full of hot air wanting to take on a veteran poltician with even more hot air. It could have been fun.

[The Avon Lady]

It could have been fun.
"An officer, however, said in the police report that Meyer's "demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight" and that he was "laughing" and "lighthearted" on the way to jail."
- Tasered Student Has History Of Practical Jokes (http://www.local10.com/news/14138122/detail.html?rss=mia&psp=news)

:roll:

[Von Tonner]

Thanks for the link Avon.
If ever I doubt my reasoning as to why I think Kerry is a wimp I will refer back to his statement below.

"Whatever happened, the police had a reason, had made their decision that there was something they needed to do. Then it's a law enforcement issue, not mine," he (Kerry) told The Associated Press in Washington.

[Von Tonner]

Found this on defence to resisting arrest.

Defense to resisting arrest
A common defense to resisting arrest is that the officer acted with excessive force. While an arrestee is expected to comply with an officer's reasonable actions to affect an arrest, the arrestee is allowed to defend himself from unreasonable, excessive force used by the officer.

[The Avon Lady]

Thanks for the link Avon.
If ever I doubt my reasoning as to why I think Kerry is a wimp I will refer back to his statement below.

"Whatever happened, the police had a reason, had made their decision that there was something they needed to do. Then it's a law enforcement issue, not mine," he (Kerry) told The Associated Press in Washington.
What's really funny is that I have no liking of Kerry as a reliable politician yet in this case I believe he behaved very appropriately.

There is nothing "wimpy" about respecting law enforcement and not hindering them or insulting them for doing their job. Just the opposite of the arrested buffoon here.

[Skybird]

What Tonner said. I do not like the idea that whatever the police considers "appropriate" should and must be obeyed by civilians at all cost. This kind of uncritical law and order mentality reminds me of the german word "Kadavergehorsam", which originally referred to the expected blind obedience of soldiers and military contexts, but also means exactly this: blind obedience in all contexts. there is no room for that in the very idea of "democracy". Tonner mentioned "excessive force", and that'S what it is about. The incident, or others like this, must be examined, reviewed, and become the basis for correcting proecudres used by the police, so that it does not repeat. That way, the probability that a situation of using excessive force appears again, gets reduced, and by that the valdiity of the demand to comply with police demands gets raised. but the more often police demands, in the widest sense, are vunerable to criticism concerning their appropriateness, the more it is reasomnable, legal, and justified to resist them. In the end the goals does not justify all means - else you would need to accept that the man eventually would be shot dead with three officers sitting on him and holding his arms and legs down. And finally, the tazer was not used as a weapon in self defense, but as a disciplinary measure - that's how I see it. And that is totally unacceptable. It is the court's and judge's job to decide on disciplinary measures in the form of penalties, not the police's.

[Von Tonner]

It could have been fun. "An officer, however, said in the police report that Meyer's "demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight" and that he was "laughing" and "lighthearted" on the way to jail."
- Tasered Student Has History Of Practical Jokes (http://www.local10.com/news/14138122/detail.html?rss=mia&psp=news)

:roll:

And one police officer in his report writes: Witness:
Once he was outside of the auditorium he became very upset at the thought of taking the elevator. As a result of this he was walked down the stairs to the lobby of the University Auditorium. As he was walking down the stairs he stated, "People know I am here. You can't kill me."



While his colleague in his report on the same incident writes:
As the man was escorted down 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."



I must admit I have a problem with a police officer trying to be an officer of the peace and part time judge as well in attempting to link the presence of cameras with this kids action as in cause and effect: "but once the cameras made their way down.....". Now he may be right, but that is not his job. Where his colleague on the other hand keeps his own personal opinions out of his statement.

[Von Tonner]

Thanks for the link Avon.
If ever I doubt my reasoning as to why I think Kerry is a wimp I will refer back to his statement below.

"Whatever happened, the police had a reason, had made their decision that there was something they needed to do. Then it's a law enforcement issue, not mine," he (Kerry) told The Associated Press in Washington. What's really funny is that I have no liking of Kerry as a reliable politician yet in this case I believe he behaved very appropriately.

There is nothing "wimpy" about respecting law enforcement and not hindering them or insulting them for doing their job. Just the opposite of the arrested buffoon here.

In "wimpy" I am referring to Kerry's statement where he doesn't have the balls to question, condone, denounce, give insight, comment on, justify - hell anything man other than political speak lest he offend someone.
Be man enough to say "The kid deserved what he got..." or "It is a pity they didn't allow me to answer him...." or "I think it was a bit high handed..." anything that gives some indication there is a brain in his head other than a gallup poll. "Whatever happened the police had a reason..." he says. How bloody profound! On a simple incident that happened right in front of him and he was party too that is all he can come up with? And he considers himself qualified to run the most powerful country in the world and be the keeper to the free world!? God help all of us.

[The Avon Lady]

It could have been fun. "An officer, however, said in the police report that Meyer's "demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight" and that he was "laughing" and "lighthearted" on the way to jail."
- Tasered Student Has History Of Practical Jokes (http://www.local10.com/news/14138122/detail.html?rss=mia&psp=news)

:roll:

And one police officer in his report writes: Witness:
Once he was outside of the auditorium he became very upset at the thought of taking the elevator. As a result of this he was walked down the stairs to the lobby of the University Auditorium. As he was walking down the stairs he stated, "People know I am here. You can't kill me."



While his colleague in his report on the same incident writes:
As the man was escorted down 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."



I must admit I have a problem with a police officer trying to be an officer of the peace and part time judge as well in attempting to link the presence of cameras with this kids action as in cause and effect: "but once the cameras made their way down.....". Now he may be right, but that is not his job. Where his colleague on the other hand keeps his own personal opinions out of his statement.

I am totally confused. The video's of him downstairs show him shouting "they are going to kill me" or similar. So?

And one of the things usually documented in arrest reports is the suspect's behavior. If that's the way the police saw it, it may have been an obvious difference between night and day. This is not being a "part time judge". This is being a witness, submitting testimony of the event.

Try lowering your dramatism dial by 3 or 4 notches. :roll:
In "wimpy" I am referring to Kerry's statement where he doesn't have the balls to question, condone, denounce, give insight, comment on, justify - hell anything man other than political speak lest he offend someone.
Here you are raving about police being judgemental, when you want Kerry to be judgemental and you're not doing to bad yourself for one who wasn't there and can only see what the rest of us can on these videos, which still appear to be inconclusive on their own.

Judgemental indeed.
I do not like the idea that whatever the police considers "appropriate" should and must be obeyed by civilians at all cost.
Who said "at all costs"? Please point the post out to us.

[Skybird]

It was repeatedly indicated in this thread that if the police orders you to comply, no matter for what, no matter in what way, you have no right to question that or to resist, but should must follow that, else it is fully justified to brake your resitance by the means necessary. Which in this case was achieved by what I still see as excessive force, and totally unnecessary use of a tazer.

I just relativised that understanding of blind obedience in my last post. And since we start to talk in circles, i leave it to that here.

[sunvalleyslim]

Skybird,
Please tell me if you as the police officer, what would you have down to deescalate the situation once he began throwing his arms around and yelling.......and why you consider the tazer as excessive force, and what force you would have used to take him into custody.

[Skybird]

If needed - carrying him out, that's what I would have done, As AL pointed out the tazer was not meant to stun him, but left him struggling on. I do not agree on such hairsplitting, since it is the inflicting of physical massive pain anyway, and that is not proportionate to the situation as to be seen in the video. As I said I have (as a non-policeman, but regular warehouse employee) been in that situation myself. Also I had to defend myswelf in both private and professional contexts repeatedly, so I know what it feels to be in the middle of the mess. Now, okay, I have many years of experience with close combat training - but so are policemen trained as well, aren't they. I demand nothing from them I wouldn't be able to do myself, mentally and physically. The perceivable threat level does not justify the implementation of massive pain as a disciplinary measure in that situation. different it would have been if he did not resist what he perceived as an act of injustice and arbitrariness, but actively starts to attack people, or would have had any kind of weapon. Both conditions are not fulfilled. Instead several policeman were sitting right on him. If that is not enough superiority to get him out, than they are in the wrong job. I can't see the argument of self-protection available to the police, and their choice of measurements as disproportionate.

I must tell you that in germany those policeofficers probably would face massive discplinary sanctions, and eventually would get send into unlimited vacation. they would also face to be sued for physical violance, if the defense lawyer understands his job. Like that detective over here last monday, see one of my posts above. He was sentenced on Wednesday, btw, and the agency probably will get rid of him, to save their reputation. If so hot-tempered and short on self control, I think it was the wrong job for him anyway, and he probably would have been heading for even greater problems in the fuiture.

[Friedmann]

What did the guy do wrong? Speak to long at a microphone? Last time I checked that wasn't a crime.

He could have been trespassed but I didn't see the event organiser clearly ask him to leave in front of a police officer.

The police just grabbed him for no perceivable reason. Instead of calmly defusing the situation the police unnecessarily escalated the level of confrontation.

Tasers seem to be overused and are fast becoming a crutch for poor police officers.

[Von Tonner]

Skybird,
Please tell me if you as the police officer, what would you have down to deescalate the situation once he began throwing his arms around and yelling.......and why you consider the tazer as excessive force, and what force you would have used to take him into custody.

It would appear that cooler heads above might also hold the opinion this was over kill by the police.

"University of Florida President Bernie Machen said Monday's takedown, in which the student loudly yelled, "Don't Tase me, bro!" was "regretful." He asked for a state probe of campus police actions and placed two officers on leave."

[The Avon Lady]

What did the guy do wrong? Speak to long at a microphone? Last time I checked that wasn't a crime.

He could have been trespassed but I didn't see the event organiser clearly ask him to leave in front of a police officer.

The police just grabbed him for no perceivable reason. Instead of calmly defusing the situation the police unnecessarily escalated the level of confrontation.

Tasers seem to be overused and are fast becoming a crutch for poor police officers.
Even with just looking at the videos, one can see much more than that.

But let's all get some facts straight:

The Adventures of Taser Boy (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjgzNTI2ZGE3NTJkNzNmYmVmNDEyMWRmZDBlNGQ3NWI=).

[Von Tonner]

The interesting thing is this. In the police reports everything this kid said is meticously recalled and noted by the police except for the one question this kid kept shouting out, and that is: "Tell me what I have done wrong?".
Why have over 5 individual policeman in their written reports detailed everything else this kid said from "blow jobs" to "don't kill me" etc failed to mention this question he repeatedly shouted out? Could it be that they themselves didn't know the answer and would rather the question not be asked. Because it looks to me as if the police did not react to this student because THEY saw him do something wrong but rather they were told to react to him by a third party who didn't like the aggressive and or politically motivated question/statement this kid was making.

It is looking like this is more and more the case.

"University police said in a news release that officers had been summoned by the forum's sponsors to escort Meyer from the building, though organizers disputed that and said his microphone was cut off after he used a sexually explicit term."

[August]

But let's all get some facts straight:

The Adventures of Taser Boy (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjgzNTI2ZGE3NTJkNzNmYmVmNDEyMWRmZDBlNGQ3NWI=).

Betcha that gets ignored AL.

[Skybird]

But let's all get some facts straight:

The Adventures of Taser Boy (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjgzNTI2ZGE3NTJkNzNmYmVmNDEyMWRmZDBlNGQ3NWI=).

Betcha that gets ignored AL.
Not at all, since the police report also hinted at this (not that it isn't a subjective witness report, in this case, which inlcudes the possebility that the witnesses (policemen) would not report something that makes themselves look bad). But I stick to what I said. And choosen means by the police still can be excessive - even if legal by law. Then it is an "excessive law", then. Your laws allow you to by assault rifles and serious toys like that and store them in your households, which by european standards also would be seen as excessive, no matter what the laws says. Or like getting a life sentence for getting caught third time stealing a trouser in a shop (story from two years ago or so). In which case I also would critcise the law. In Germany, as I said, the police would have legal problems now. Our laws do not leave room for such excessive use of force in a relatively harmless situation like this. He would be grabbed, hold, and pulled out. Using whips, tasers or a match on the skin would have legal consequences.

And you know what? It works! We come along with doing like this.

In the end, the man got the media attention that he wanted and made the police look bad, so was it clever what the police did, or not? Like the shoplifter we had was successful in provoking our detective verbally and made him do something minor that by law counts as excessive - and for which he is now sentenced (he will have to pay damages to the thief! Now that is a laugh, isn't it), and probably looses his job, and will be booked as having a previous conviction for bodily harm. Stupid.

[Friedmann]

What did the guy do wrong? Speak to long at a microphone? Last time I checked that wasn't a crime.

He could have been trespassed but I didn't see the event organiser clearly ask him to leave in front of a police officer.

The police just grabbed him for no perceivable reason. Instead of calmly defusing the situation the police unnecessarily escalated the level of confrontation.

Tasers seem to be overused and are fast becoming a crutch for poor police officers. Even with just looking at the videos, one can see much more than that.

But let's all get some facts straight:

The Adventures of Taser Boy (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjgzNTI2ZGE3NTJkNzNmYmVmNDEyMWRmZDBlNGQ3NWI=).

I still don't see the police talking to him, asking him to leave or explaining what he will be charged with if he refuses to comply. They initiated the physical confrontation without opening their mouths once.

[Von Tonner]

What did the guy do wrong? Speak to long at a microphone? Last time I checked that wasn't a crime.

He could have been trespassed but I didn't see the event organiser clearly ask him to leave in front of a police officer.

The police just grabbed him for no perceivable reason. Instead of calmly defusing the situation the police unnecessarily escalated the level of confrontation.

Tasers seem to be overused and are fast becoming a crutch for poor police officers. Even with just looking at the videos, one can see much more than that.

But let's all get some facts straight:

The Adventures of Taser Boy (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjgzNTI2ZGE3NTJkNzNmYmVmNDEyMWRmZDBlNGQ3NWI=).
I still don't see the police talking to him, asking him to leave or explaining what he will be charged with if he refuses to comply. They initiated the physical confrontation without opening their mouths once.

Hence him yelling constantly, "Tell me what I've done wrong?" As I have noted in posts above, each and every police officer fails in mentioning this in their written reports, yet make mention of all his other utterances. It wouldn't take a rocket science of a defence lawyer to draw on logical conclusions as to why.

On another note. When is someone who is been arrested supposed to be read their rights. On being arrested or at the charge office?

[August]

On another note. When is someone who is been arrested supposed to be read their rights. On being arrested or at the charge office?

A suspect should be read his rights as soon as possible after his arrest. It's not like there is a time limit or anything but rather because anything he says before he is read them will not be admissable in court.

[Skybird]

On a nother note, it seems that the apparent believe that tasers are harmless (now that is very intensely debated, isn't it) leads to a lowering of the inhibition level (treshold?) to use this painful but "harmless" weapon more easily. I just searched
- youtube,
- google,
- CNN archive,
- NBC archic,
- the NYT and
- the WP for taser incidents -
and was stunned by the ammount of incidents were they got used negligent and in the most absurd and even dangerous contexts. A real "Verrohung der Sitten" (= "brutalization of customs and traditions"), imho.

Tasering an old women sitting in a wheel chair, to prevent her rolling away (she later died). Tasering a five year old child. Tasering a pregnant woman (in Scotland they have banned that use on pregnat women due to serious health risks of the baby). Tasering a diabetes patient who had a shock, in order to make him lay still so that he could be treated - the policeman said. Tasering a female student wh0o was in handcuffs and laid still on the ground, already had given up, a new patrol arrived, passed thoruzgh the collegaues, and fird a tazer, using it wor close to a minute watching her rolling and crying. And so many more examples of absurd, ridiculous abuse of tasers, and so damn oftehn agaisnt victims that were innocent, or were suspected of bagatelle issues. So many reports, videos on incidents that you will not believe it. On TV news this evening they referred to a new incident where a women was tasered two minutes by an obvious sadist officer and was lead around her car like a dog several time, she was totally horrified by the pain and cried for mercy which was denied (the man was suspended). and so many other incidents that show a really horrifying easiness by which tasers seem to get used by the police. Not as a weapon to disarm a danergiuzr person, but just to make their job easier. They even get used without reason in more and more cases it seems to me, just as part of the procedure, even if their is no hint that somethijng bad could happen. The ammount of abuses seems to be extremely high.

I admit that on the grounds of legal self-defense I would reserve the right to use force against such officers being so easy and excessive with tasers, if they would threaten me with them on such bagatelle incidents. Leaves a bad taste of wild, wild West in my mouth. Well, no intention to go there anyway...

It does not really improve america's already rough reputation in the world. One is also tempted to wonder oif maybe more hidden sadists are abusing the uniform than we, or better: you, may feel comfortable with. Sorry, but the question is justified in the face of so high numbers of incidents. Also one must examine in what ratio the widespread belief that tazers are always safe for health (50.000 to 190.000, even 300.000 V not having consequences...???) lowers inhibition tresholds to use them. My impression is: very massively, else the use of tasers by routine wouldn'T have become part of police culture so very quickly. Finally one must remark that critics claim tasers beeing responsible for the death of several dozen people per year.

[Heibges]

Jeez Louise! I remember seeing Tim Leary debate G. Gordon Liddy, and nobody got tasered there. Not even pepper sprayed.

Were the police real police or campus security?

[sunvalleyslim]

Avon Lady, The Adventures of Taser Boy is right on the mark. Mr. Dunphy puts it in better words than myself. The right actions were done for the right reasons. If you can't figure that out, then I know why you're not a police officer. And you know absolutely nothing about how to do police work. Having been in the position of those officers myself many times, it always looks easier when standing back observing. You only understand when you're the officer rolling on the ground, and everyone wants you to handle the "problem". Then they stand back and criticise about the way you went about it.
I have problems with the way this started and don't know who decided to grab this individual. I will agree with you that this didn't seem necessary. Verbalization should have started first. BUT after that all responsibility for everythingt rests on Mr. Tazer Boy.

[LtCmdrRat]

Guys, According NJ Law police officer has a right to arrest a person who looks at police officer without" proper respect..."

[sunvalleyslim]

Guys, According NJ Law police officer has a right to arrest a person who looks at police officer without" proper respect..."

I gotta say LtCmdr that thats about the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. That would never fly in L.A.
That's gotta be one of those old school laws, would never stand up in court today..............But I like it.............:D :D :D

[Von Tonner]

Jeez Louise! I remember seeing Tim Leary debate G. Gordon Liddy, and nobody got tasered there. Not even pepper sprayed.

Were the police real police or campus security?

Campus security, two of which have already been suspended from their duties with immediate effect.

[The Avon Lady]

I find it hard to see what else there is to discuss here that hans't been discussed.

So I'll just dance to the taser beat (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/22/battle-of-the-bands-dont-tase-me-bro-remixed/). :cool:

[Letum]

Monty Python Remix (http://youtube.com/watch?v=eNLQY3bQyaM)

Worth watching for the end ;)

[The Avon Lady]

Monty Python Remix (http://youtube.com/watch?v=eNLQY3bQyaM)

Worth watching for the end ;)
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

But worth watching for every second of it.

:up:

[The Avon Lady]

More remix fun:

http://whatisdtmb.ytmnd.com/

http://donttaser2.ytmnd.com/ heh

There are others on the same site but you get the idea. :roll:

Oh and the obligatory faux Britney Spears rendition (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wGnhHufV-Lg).

[VipertheSniper]

Can't tase this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc&mode=related&search=)
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[bradclark1]

Monty Python Remix (http://youtube.com/watch?v=eNLQY3bQyaM)

Worth watching for the end ;)
That was absolutely great! :rotfl: