The man had ample warning that he as going to be tazered- its not like he didnt know what was going to happen, he did it anyways.
And that would not have been the cop's fault if that happened to him, eitherthen I guarantee you would have been tazered, too. Plus you would be spending a significant amount of time in jail.
that makes no logic
OMG I just had a freaking two page response written out here, but I somehow deleted it all. I am sooo pissed off right now. Rather than retype it all let me just say this: The cops are here to protect and serve us. The cops in this situation were way out of line. The fat cop sitting on the kid had a smile on his face moments before they tased the kid. The cops also have protocols for situations like this. They escalate the amount of force until they reach the amount necessary to subdue the person. THEY HAD HIM PINNED DOWN. At this point all cops know it is not necessary to tase someone (they are technically supposed to use an armbar or other prohibitive technique at this point - according to protocol). If they had tased him while he was still on his feet resisting arrest this would have been justifiable (not ideal), but instead they waited until he was pinned down, there were at least 4 cops around, and 'till he was begging not to be tased. I mean come on. Where is the justice in this country when the people that are supposed to protect us are acting just like the people that want to oppress us. HERE IS THE REAL PROBLEM: COMPLACENCY. This guy had legitimate intentions, and he brought his questions to a Q and A. We are all becoming sheep waiting to be sheared when we sit by and let this kind of oppression occur. Look at the Bush Speech where a couple was arrested for shirts with the word "Bush" crossed out. On the back of the shirts one said "Love America, Hate Bush". The other said "Regime Change Starts At Home". The secret service moved in and arrested the couple, despite the fact that they hadn't said anything. So what happened to this couple that was wronged? Well the government knew they were wrong so they gave them 80,000$ and dropped charges. BUT, in a classic responsibility evasion maneuver, the government denied that they were out of line:
"White House spokesman Blair Jones said the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing.
"The parties understand that this settlement is a compromise of disputed claims to avoid the expenses and risks of litigation and is not an admission of fault, liability, or wrongful conduct," Jones said. " - ABC NEWS
Even more importantly than denying that they were out of line, the government did not allow this to go to trial because of our justice system. Much of our law is determined by common law, basically meaning precedence. If the government was proved to be in violation of prohibiting the first ammendment in this case, it would have been a landmark case in support of the first ammendment. By paying out the couple and dropping charges (and i'm sure with a little coaxing), the issue got pushed under the rug and forgotten about.
Back to the topic: This kid had a right to ask his questions. This kid had a right to ask why he was being arrested. This kid had a right to be free. We cannot condone the actions of the police in this issue because this has become all too commonplace. More and more civil liberties are eroded daily by the blind acceptance of the actions of "authority" figures. In order to be free we must question everything we perceive, and we must always be leary of authority.
To say that the cops are always saviours is incorrect. Sure they save lives sometimes, that's in their job description. But I can tell you from the Police ride-alongs I took when I wanted to become an officer that saving lives is far from their daily job description. Making routine traffic stops, ticketing, and chasing drugs is usually what they do. I have spoken to more officers than I care to remember and none of them had actually prevented someone from dying. Don't get me wrong, police are necessary and do much good. There are undoubtedly situations that arise where a cop saves lives, but this is what makes the news. I remember asking this one veteran cop how long it would take for police to come to my house (I live in suburbia with cops everywhere) if I made an emergency call at night (like someone breaking in). He told me to get a gun because response time is around 10 minutes. So yea, you might know someone who has been saved by a cop before, but chances are someone can break into your house, rape you, make a sandwich, and steal your CP's before the cops come. Yes that was a joke, don't take it too seriously. The majority of police are virtuous and noble in their cause, but in this case these officers got out of hand.
Please do not condone the actions of the police in this case because one day it could be you fighting for what you believe in. Would you really want someone to humiliate you (rousted him), shut you up (turned off his mic), pin you down and sit on you (while smiling), hear your pleas (still while smiling), and then taser you for a few seconds? To Protect and To Serve.
P.S. My original post was much more articulated and better written, but I mashed 3 magical buttons together and it all dissappeared. I went into the protocols of police conduct and for the record, tasing was not justified in this case. The next step in protocol would be to subdue the man through a physical technique. Tasing is actually high up on the list in protocol because of past incidents with people dying by taser. At least in San Diego that's how it is.
I... don't see why there's any need for discussion.
The cops shouldn't have approached the guy unless he wouldn't pass on the mic or was being belligerent. The guy should have gone with the cops NO QUESTION. There were hundreds of people and recording devices in the auditorium. You go with them, say "You had no reason to take me" and you have evidence. Everything is their fault and you can do any of a thousand things to protest it.
When you start resisting, you've suddenly lost your highground. Now they have a reason to arrest you. If you resist arrest, they will taze you. Tazers are "less than lethal" not "nonlethal" and they are specifically referred to as such.
The cops should never have approached the kid, but everything that follows up to them approaching him is directly the cause of his resisting. He would really have had something to rally around if he would have gone quietly. Instead he resisted which, last I checked, is a felony.
A quick way to kiss your legal highground goodbye.
I remember a cop who came to our fifth grade class to teach us DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). By the time I was in seventh grade, she had become a crystal meth addict from abusing her privileges to the evidence room and got arrested for robbing a gas station/convenience store. Lmao, the smile on my face when I heard the news and remembered how VERY anti-drug she was. I was still an innocent youth at the time and I still got a kick out of her hypocrisy.
It's the little things in life. It truly is. I can't lie though, as much as I dislike cops (I'm sure there are a few good ones who turn a blind eye sometimes....) we DO need them and I'd be the first one to call the cops if I was robbed or mugged or whatever.
Okay Est this is for you:
You don't see the need for a discussion... Well before I read this thread I was unaware of this incident so it has actually been informative. Without discussion we as humans are not communicating and are unaware.
You are right when you said the cops should not have approached him.
As for you saying that he should have gone with the cops with NO QUESTION.... Come on. This is exactly the sheepish behavior that erodes our social liberties. If he had gone quietly this situation would not have received the attention it needed. He would have been silenced, thrown out, and told to shut up about it.
If they had no right to arrest him in the first place, then it is HIS RIGHT to resist arrest. This is why the police HAVE to inform you of the reason for their arrest and read you your Miranda Rights. Yes, Police abused Miranda's personal rights and that's why it went to the Supreme Court and we now have Miranda rights.
Tasers... are not "less than lethal" as you said or "nonlethal". You may have just mistyped it, but they are referred to as "LESS lethal". The same thing is said of grenades that explode and shoot rubber balls everywhere to disperse a riot. They can easily kill you, but they are obviously less lethal than a bullet. Same thing with bean bags and rubber bullets. One of those to the head can cause an embolism or massive head trauma.
As to him having something to rally around if he went quietly? This would be perceived as him acknowleging that he was in the wrong. I gurantee you this would not have been as widely publicized had he gone quietly. Think about the people that fought against segragation. What if they had gone quietly?
Allow me to rephrase as the point isn't "why are we discussing this" but, where's the question? That is, it seems to be a pretty straightforward, by the book case.You don't see the need for a discussion... Well before I read this thread I was unaware of this incident so it has actually been informative. Without discussion we as humans are not communicating and are unaware.
Pardon me, yes that's correct. I've been camping and hiking all weekend so I'm spent.Tasers... are not "less than lethal" as you said or "nonlethal". You may have just mistyped it, but they are referred to as "LESS lethal".
When was the last time an American hesitated to sue? I'm not saying he shouldn't have ASKED why he was being taken away, it's his right to know. I'm saying that there's no question whether or not he should have gone.As for you saying that he should have gone with the cops with NO QUESTION.... Come on. This is exactly the sheepish behavior that erodes our social liberties. If he had gone quietly this situation would not have received the attention it needed. He would have been silenced, thrown out, and told to shut up about it.
I shake my finger at the cops for not telling him why they were taking him (if that was in fact the case, and I shake my finger at the kid for arresting. This type of thing crops up every now and again in the media and then we never hear about it again. I think in order to change things it'd be better for the kid to have gone (I think it was perfectly acceptable for him to ask what was going on) and then later gone through the courts. It's kind of ugly, but it'd probably hurt more to hit them in the wallet than get a few moments of media coverage which is ultimately just used for twisting the tale in to bashing Kerry or whatever.
I think we believe the same thing, just that we have different feelings about the way it should have been accomplished. As for protesters needing to physically resist to make a change: see Ghandi. This guy had a leg up on Ghandi because he has a working court system to back him.
My spiel is just that it's unreasonable for someone to resist arrest, pose a threat and then not expect to be met by force. Call me a dreamer, but I like to think that there would have been a better way to deal with this than kicking and screaming.
PS here's an interesting question: When the folks in the audience start clapping is it because the guy is being taken away or because he's resisting?
The dude was being a jerk at any rate and was just making a scene. Awkward for all parties involved, and he was stupid for resisting arrest (whether or not he deserved to be arrested). Being an over the top angry liberal is great, but let's please have some class, shall we?
I think they were clapping because he was resisting. I hope this doesn't sound sadistic of me but I started cracking up when he started screaming "OOOOWWWW OOOOOOWWWWWW OOOOWWWWWWW!!!!" It's just you expect screams, not the words "OWWWWW!!!" lmao
I agree with Sehtnepen 100%.
Watch when his mic is cut out and the police approach him. To me it looks like he got the impression his time was up and he was going to try to go sit back down in the audience. When the UPD were trying to physically escort him is when he resisted. The guy was not a threat to Kerry or anyone in the audience. Wouldn't this have been the best way to handle the situation?: "Sorry kid but you have abused your mic privileges, please return to your seat or leave." Why couldn't he have just returned to his seat? They were determined to physically escort him out and it was unnecessary especially with Kerry there saying "It's OK let me answer his question, it's important".
"Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."
I would wager that at events like that there are rules about mic usage and behavior. I agree with you, Outsiders, to the effect of the "please return to your seat or leave" as I'm sure his behavior probably had violated the forum rules; especially since they had already asked him to just ask his question which he explained that he had to preface his question, which he was allowed to do to a degree. It seems to me he was "pushing his luck" already and he was given a little leeway.
"The tragedy of life is not that every man loses; but that he almost wins."
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"