Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Atheist soldier sues military for discrimination | Main | What should the UF police have done? »

September 18, 2007

Cops turn stun gun on student at Kerry event (video)

Live Leak has the raw footage of police Tasering a mildly disruptive student at a John Kerry event at the University of Florida:

RAW STORY has three videos of the incident. Kerry has condemned the use of the stun gun on the 21-year-old student.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00e54ef5445e8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cops turn stun gun on student at Kerry event (video):

Comments

Nothing new here. Cops love to act like jack booted thugs and push people around... because they can.

What is interesting is that this mass of people could not intimidate the cops to back off... or the US Senator or his aids did not intervene to prevent this authoritarian display.

If the even was essentially over... there was no need to taser and arrest this fella even if he was a bit out of control. Who was harmed or even threatened by it?

Please watch the long version of the video. The dude was acting like someone in the manic phase of bipolar disorder.

This dude had it coming. He refused to leave peacefully. He was disorderly and resisted the officers pleas to leave the room. He was ranting and raving like a jackass. Had he merely walked away when ordered, he could have avoided this whole scene. Instead he chose to act out and get his shit stunned. The officers did not act like "jack booted thugs". That view of this incident is clearly ignorant and uninformed.

I watched interviews of people in the crowd on the news and most of them thought the guy brought it upon himself by not leaving. The police do not have to tell you why you are being detained while they are detaining you. They tell you that after they detain you. This idiot kept asking "What did I do? What did I do?" He should have left and let them explain. Instead he repeatedly resisted and even made contact with the officers. They should have shocked his ass more!

There's no such thing as excessive force anymore. If they'd killed this guy there would have been no riots. There's only one reason we even know about this happening: Net Neutrality. And soon even that will be gone.

this young man did nothing wrong but ask a question~that kerry didnt like or want to hear~he didnt bring anything onto himself~the cops totally overreacted to this situation~andrew i pray everything works out for you~another liberal azzwipe acting like a nazi~the KID DID NOTHING WRONG BUT ASK A FREAKING QUESTION KERRY DIDNT WANT TO HEAR~PERIOD~B-MONEY GET A CLUE~POLICE CANT JUST DETAIN YOU WITHOUT A REASON MY GOD GET A CLUE ABOUT SOMETHING~YEAH ASKING A QUESTION DESERVES BEING TASHERED~I BET 10000000000BUCKS YOUR BLACK~

Nope, not black. Mexican and Irish. But if I were that proves what? A little racist Terrie? I'll take that 10000000000 bucks now.

Yes, the police can detain you with out giving you a reason while they do it. They ultimately need a reason to detain you, but owe you no explanation while they detain you. The bottomline is the goof was told to leave and he did not follow police orders. The rest is disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. It wasn't asking the question that got him tasered. It was his asshole behavior after being told to leave that did. I think you are the one who needs a clue.

The guy was not mildly disruptive, he was completely disruptive. An unbalanced and melodromatic creep, completely disrespectful to the speaker and to the rest of the audience.

I'm not even close to feeling sorry for the "student".

I would like to think that that many policemen would not have needed to use a taser.

It's noted that one of the first two officers to approach him is a female, and that two of the police officers in the overall group were female.

More female cops will probably mean a lot more tasering and the like in the future. Because there is just no way that shorter, less powerful officers will be able to control male suspects without the use of tasers or firearms.

You know its true. Now, lets all pretend to be offended!

I agree, the dude is acting out and being disruptive. Observers described his question as rambling. It's impossible to diagnose anyone on video, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were mental health issues there.

People with altered mental status are among the most frequent victims of taser abuse.

Tasers are supposed to be a non-lethal alternative to deadly force. I.e., cops are supposed to use them only in the life and death situations that would otherwise necessitate a handgun. Look at this video--the guy has already been wrestled to the ground by multiple officers when he is shocked.

I have no problem with the cops escorting him out of the auditorium for being agitated and disruptive. Maybe he even deserved to be charged for resisting the officers. That still doesn't justify torturing him into compliance with police demands.

But Lindsay, he was not cooperating and he was not allowing the officers to cuff and remove him. He continued to fight and wrestle and struggle while being subdued. Tasering was the only means to subdue this guy at that point. Unless you wanted to see the big black officer choke him out and drag him by his neck. Then you would say he was abusive and used excessive force. This kid would not leave and continued to resist. He deserved what he got.

well, phantom, my main criticism is actually on your assumptions about what "control" means.

If you believe in having a police force who serve the people, rather than a military force that occupies and colonizes us, then your definition of control has to include a high level of respect for the people the police are "controlling."

the mission should be to de-escalate, rather than incapacitate. on that note, women and small men can be highly effective in violent situations, and sometimes more effective than big people because they may not to resort to violence first but instead learn how to defuse situations. Tasers prevent this, and encourage reliance on violence and incapacitation, rather than de-escalation.

the assumption that is offensive here is that effectiveness in policing should be measured by capacity for violence and intimidation.

Its awful seeing someone tasered, you can feel the extreme pain in the more close up link that LB sent. But you're going to see a lot more of this in the future, I fear. Unless they come out with some version of a tranquilizer gun for everyday use.

Apparently this Andrew Meyer kid agrees that the cops did nothing wrong...if you believe their report!

http://www.starbanner.com/article/20070918/NEWS/70918007/1053/BREAKING_NEWS


Looks like he just wanted his 15 minutes.

Forget the "occupy" and "colonize" bullshit, and don't dwell exclusively on this one series of videos.

I'm all for negotiation and compromise. But there are times when a crazy 250 man who won't listen needs to be brought under control and restrained immediately before he harms himself or others. And the two female officers we see here will only be able to do that with a pistol or a taser.

Or a powerful, well-trained male backup.

Fact.


But Lindsay, he was not cooperating and he was not allowing the officers to cuff and remove him. He continued to fight and wrestle and struggle while being subdued. Tasering was the only means to subdue this guy at that point. Unless you wanted to see the big black officer choke him out and drag him by his neck. Then you would say he was abusive and used excessive force. This kid would not leave and continued to resist. He deserved what he got.

Lindsay was spot on, and it's hard to believe so many Americans are missing it.

Read your first sentence again. An "alternative to lethal force" should not be used in situations where lethal force would be inappropriate.

Think of the Taser as a gun. Was it necessary to "shoot" this man for his erratic, manic and I'll even give you: mentally ill acting behavior? No. At no time was he a threat to others or himself. No weapon displayed, no attacks on others.

Yes he twisted out of their clutches, and physically there was contact, but enough of a threat that you would justify using a gun? No.

That is what Lindsay is getting at, and why I come here to read:

Americans are accepting the Taser as a compliance tool, to get the subject to submit to demands even when there is no threat displayed. Wrong.

If there is no threat, you use approapriate force. Twist arms, grab wrists, put him in a two-or three-person lock hold. They should have twisted his arm back up until he was screaming like a baby, then eased up slightly, and marched him out, if necessary, before resorting to the "alternative to lethal force."

If the kid had died from the electric shock as some do, would the shooting have been justified here?

Physically, the officers need to know how to restrain and handcuff someone, just like a lifeguard must train to lift all body types from the pool onto a backback if they suspect spinal injuries. There's no "quick fix"; you have to do the work if you want the job.

Thanks for noting the mentally ill angle. We probably don't hear it when used on them to comply, like we do a young Mr. Meyer. The Taser policy, in practice, is only as good as the department. The justification of tasing, like we see here, is that if someone is acting mental, who knows what they're capable of, so their threat might be deadly (if they have a hidden weapon they can quickly access.)

But we certainly don't see anything here and I don't think they've glommed onto that defense in defending these officers.

should be "backboard"

--If there is no threat, you use appropriate force. Twist arms, grab wrists, put him in a two-or three-person lock hold. They should have twisted his arm back up until he was screaming like a baby, then eased up slightly, and marched him out, if necessary, before resorting to the "alternative to lethal force."--

Agree. Especially with that many cops, the taser should not have been needed.

But like B-Money said, if proper physical force had been used here then there would have been criticism about what some would have seen to be "brutality".

TITN, so, you are advocating for stronger physical force to subdue an arrestee? Twist an arm? What if it breaks because the guy twist so much the officer can stop the force? What about choking a guy out, with say a rear naked choke? Get him unconscious and remove. Good? Just so long as an officer does not taser a person, force should be allowed, no?

No of course not. Because as Phantom and I point out, people with scream police brutality. When a person is as uncooperative as this guy, he can hurt the officers, bystanders and HIMSELF! The taser that the right move. If the officers had tried to apply force to this guy, he would have ended up with a broken bone or two, or at least some torn ligaments in his shoulder and elbow. Instead, he got a little juice pumped in him and he is no worse for wear.

>Unless you wanted to see the big black officer choke him out and drag him by his neck. Then you would say he was abusive and used excessive force.

No, she wouldn't.


>But like B-Money said, if proper physical force had been used here then there would have been criticism about what some would have seen to be "brutality".

No, there wouldn't.

Now, since my rebuttal is based on exactly the same evidence as your arguments (nothing other than personal conviction). You should admit they have been completely refuted.

And ya know, Phantom, for a coward, yer pretty avid about pronouncing how other people should apply force.

I'm not going to read all the comments until I post this because I don't want them to influence my opinion. YET. (I'm always open to a persuasive argument, but I want to put this out there first.) Worst-case scenario, couldn't this dude have simply been carried out rather than being tasered? We've all seen non-violent protest footage from the past, and I recall seeing the cops do just that on many, many occasions. Tasering should be reserved for the AGGRESSIVE, and NOT those who are only DISRUPTIVE. Mind you, I'm still talking about a worst-case scenario, which this guy's actions fail to meet. But just to be clear AND so that no one hopefully cherry picks just a part of my argument, even if this guy was totally and completely DISRUPTIVE, he still did not deserve tasering because he was not at all AGGRESSIVE.

If we start tasering all the DISRUPTIVE, we might as well give school teachers tasers.

">Unless you wanted to see the big black officer choke him out and drag him by his neck. Then you would say he was abusive and used excessive force.

No, she wouldn't.


>But like B-Money said, if proper physical force had been used here then there would have been criticism about what some would have seen to be "brutality".

No, there wouldn't.

Now, since my rebuttal is based on exactly the same evidence as your arguments (nothing other than personal conviction). You should admit they have been completely refuted." - Dock Miles


Ah, you refuted nothing that was said. So your post was irrelavent and meaningless, kind of like you. Cheap shot, I know. I figured you deserved on for an uncalled for attack on Phantom. What's good for the goose...

John Lucid you make a solid point. But this guy was AGGRESSIVE. They attempted to remove him, he kept resisting. It was the combination of his disruptiveness and aggression that led to his tasering. Had he merely stood still and yelled or laid down, yes, they went to far. But this guy was aggressively trying to stay put.

Dock tends to kill any serious discussion. Need an ignore button, maestro.

Think that this has been a quality debate. I've sent a link to one of my Irish friends who had commented on this issue.

>Ah, you refuted nothing that was said.

Because you didn't SAY anything. You are shooting your mouth off about a theoretical situation in which you are sure how someone would respond. It has no content and you know it.

>an uncalled for attack on Phantom

Nope. He knows what I'm talking about. Those who do cowardly acts are cowards.

And, gee, last time I checked, a contribution to a "serious" discussion didn't include rabid stereotyping of female police officers as consistently, almost invariably, unable to physically subdue male suspects. (Totally irrelevant to the topic, for one thing.) Followed by some nice, gloating anticipation of the shitstorm to be unleashed. Best part of the discussion is that people ignored the egregious jab in the ribs.

"Because you didn't SAY anything. You are shooting your mouth off about a theoretical situation in which you are sure how someone would respond. It has no content and you know it." -DM

It is not shooting off my mouth. It is a post based on the over reaction already to this situation. If they had broken a bone or two or otherwise injured this guy, people WOULD be up in arms. They already are over the idiot getting tasered when he deserved it. I can only imagine the outrage if a liberal white college boy got hurt. I am sure he will sue for this and he is was not even injured.

The comments to this entry are closed.