Kerry rally

[nikimcbee]

=

Need I say more? :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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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. 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 in today's Germany.

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

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, 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]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I must admit, you sound consistantly fashionable in today's Germany.

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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!

And then tell me where I am wrong. Tell me what the man had done.

Official scorecard.

What made him so dangerous so you need to tazer him.

He was violently and continually resisting arrest. Also he wasn't tased, 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]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Official scorecard.

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, 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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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!

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.

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.

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.
[quote]If american polcie cant do that, they are welcomed to complete their training in Germany. Hell, even I could train them in this regard.
[quote]
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.