General

[HP_Lovecraft]

Originally Posted by mike31c

Depends: You start yelling and screaming and start resisting police when they try to calm you down because you thought you were special by illegally parking in a handicap spot, then why not?

But what if you WERE CLEARLY handicapped, but you had your sons car, which did not have the handicap tags.

The cops told you to get back in your car and move it, but you protest because clearly you are handicap. So the cop shoves you to the ground, and you protest some more.

Then he tasers you.

That is a far better analogy.

nick

[mike31c]

yes, sounds fair to me...

In Calf. you are Required to have that tag in the car.

Not my problem if you forgot and not my problem if it was your son's car.

[Mar]

Originally Posted by mike31c

yes, sounds fair to me...

In Calf. you are Required to have that tag in the car.

Not my problem if you forgot and not my problem if it was your son's car.

Mike, although I don't know where this analogy came from, you cannot be serious?
Police have some discretionary authority...surely you wouldn't condone pushing a handicapp man to the ground over a by-law infraction or a pecuniary offence?

[Al Ray]

I have a park anywhere light, so hah

[Talfuchre]

Like Ray I can park anywhere as well.

I have a 'philosopher' sticker on my car - people just know I am mentally unstable and lost. They give me a pass.

TF

[HP_Lovecraft]

Originally Posted by mike31c

In Calf. you are Required to have that tag in the car.

Not my problem if you forgot and not my problem if it was your son's car.

I agree. My point was that PEOPLE GET ANGRY ALL THE TIME. Sometimes its justified, and sometimes it is not.

The point I had earlier was I got angry the time cops tried to arrest me for having a "sawed off shotgun" called an SL-68.
I told them in a "loud, rude, disorderly voice" to call the ATF. They did, and once they realized there mistake, they took off the handcuffs, and drove off.

The taser kid WANTED this, and he was being rude and disorderly.
But NOBODY in this entire thread has given a reason to actually taser him- A potentially fatal incident.

Police are NOT allowed to taser just to make someone do what you want. Again, that would be facism.

[Shane-O]

Originally Posted by HP_Lovecraft

I agree. My point was that PEOPLE GET ANGRY ALL THE TIME. Sometimes its justified, and sometimes it is not.

The point I had earlier was I got angry the time cops tried to arrest me for having a "sawed off shotgun" called an SL-68.
I told them in a "loud, rude, disorderly voice" to call the ATF. They did, and once they realized there mistake, they took off the handcuffs, and drove off.

The taser kid WANTED this, and he was being rude and disorderly.
But NOBODY in this entire thread has given a reason to actually taser him- A potentially fatal incident.

Police are NOT allowed to taser just to make someone do what you want. Again, that would be facism.

Nick,
I guess the biggest problem is that you dont understand how the police have to do there job. Your situation above does not make all police officers like that. The reason is that once he was asked to leave and being escorted out, he resisted and didnt comply with a police officers order. I know that sounds fascist, but it was private property and he was asked to leave, refuse that and you are now trespassing. He refused to leave peacefully, and then started fighting the police, yes trying to break free and run off is fighting/resisting, when being detained by officers. He almost gets away, that escalates the reason to get him contained, why? because even though in hindsight we know he is just a prankster, officers have to seriously consider the danger he poses to others. No one knows for sure what his intentions were, they could have been nefarious, or just mischievous. So when he's violently trying to break free from an officer, he escalates the officers reaction to cuffing him. And he resists that, and actually starts fighting and struggling to break free. So now they cannot safely cuff him, safety for him, the officers, and anyone around them. So they warn him that if he does not comply, he will get tasered. He was coherent enough to fully understand what that meant, because he said, "dont taser me". Unfortunatley that isnt a proper way to not get tased, allowing the officers to cuff you and escort you out is. He chose wrong. He got a small blast and screamed , but the key was that he was easily cuffed after that and safely escorted out of the hall. Officers have to make quick decisions and these officers did it correctly. Now if he would have tased after the cuffing, and tased multiple times, then we could be talking about abuse of force by the officers. The video that I asked you to watch, shows that he was not cuffed when being tased, and he was fighting and flailing around before that with at least one hand free. If you have never tried to cuff someone that is resisting you have jno idea how hard it is, it IS hard than people realize. The taser was used to bring a person into compliance for his safety and everyone elses. It's easy for others to say that he was harmless, and just being an ***, but the officers dont know that, and have to take his actions much more seriously. I am not gonna play the what if game, but think about it, at the moment he started resisting being escorted out, the officers have no idea what his intentions are, again they could be deadly or just annoying. Oh and to address the "Potentially" lethal taser, it safer than physically man handling the kid to cuff him. A knee to the head or neck (when struggling to cuff a person) is much more likely to do harm than the taser, when used properly (and in this case it was) a taser is safer than the alternatives.

So what would you have done as an officer directed to remove this guy? At what point are you gonna use force to safely cuff him? Remember to take into account his actions.

[Mar]

Here is a bit on tasers:

More than 150 people have died in the US after being struck by tasers since June 2001 -- 61 in 2005 alone -- and numbers are continuing to rise. Most who died were subjected to multiple or prolonged shocks. While in most cases deaths have continued to be attributed to factors other than the taser, such as "excited delirium" associated with drug intoxication or violent struggle, in 23 cases coroners have listed the use of the taser as a cause or a contributory factor in death.

In three cases in 2005, the taser was listed as a primary cause of death.

Amnesty International believes there may be more cases where the taser cannot be ruled out as a possible factor in the deaths. Recent studies have cited the need for more research into potential adverse effects from taser shocks on people who are agitated or under the influence of drugs or who are subjected to multiple or prolonged shocks.

Amnesty International's continued research into the use of the weapons, including a review of taser-related deaths since the publication of the organisation's previous report in November 2004, reveals that most who died after being shocked with tasers were unarmed men who did not appear to pose a threat of death or serious injury at the time that they were electro-shocked. The use of the taser was often accompanied by the use of restraints and chemical incapacitant sprays. Importantly, the organisation's research showed that most who died went into cardiac or respiratory arrest at the scene.

[n2extreme1]

Originally Posted by Shane-O

Nick,
I guess the biggest problem is that you dont understand how the police have to do there job. Your situation above does not make all police officers like that. The reason is that once he was asked to leave and being escorted out, he resisted and didnt comply with a police officers order. I know that sounds fascist, but it was private property and he was asked to leave, refuse that and you are now trespassing. He refused to leave peacefully, and then started fighting the police, yes trying to break free and run off is fighting/resisting, when being detained by officers. He almost gets away, that escalates the reason to get him contained, why? because even though in hindsight we know he is just a prankster, officers have to seriously consider the danger he poses to others. No one knows for sure what his intentions were, they could have been nefarious, or just mischievous. So when he's violently trying to break free from an officer, he escalates the officers reaction to cuffing him. And he resists that, and actually starts fighting and struggling to break free. So now they cannot safely cuff him, safety for him, the officers, and anyone around them. So they warn him that if he does not comply, he will get tasered. He was coherent enough to fully understand what that meant, because he said, "dont taser me". Unfortunatley that isnt a proper way to not get tased, allowing the officers to cuff you and escort you out is. He chose wrong. He got a small blast and screamed , but the key was that he was easily cuffed after that and safely escorted out of the hall. Officers have to make quick decisions and these officers did it correctly. Now if he would have tased after the cuffing, and tased multiple times, then we could be talking about abuse of force by the officers. The video that I asked you to watch, shows that he was not cuffed when being tased, and he was fighting and flailing around before that with at least one hand free. If you have never tried to cuff someone that is resisting you have jno idea how hard it is, it IS hard than people realize. The taser was used to bring a person into compliance for his safety and everyone elses. It's easy for others to say that he was harmless, and just being an ***, but the officers dont know that, and have to take his actions much more seriously. I am not gonna play the what if game, but think about it, at the moment he started resisting being escorted out, the officers have no idea what his intentions are, again they could be deadly or just annoying. Oh and to address the "Potentially" lethal taser, it safer than physically man handling the kid to cuff him. A knee to the head or neck (when struggling to cuff a person) is much more likely to do harm than the taser, when used properly (and in this case it was) a taser is safer than the alternatives.

So what would you have done as an officer directed to remove this guy? At what point are you gonna use force to safely cuff him? Remember to take into account his actions.

Thank you Shane I couldn't have said it better myself. I even made a post stating the level of the students aggressiveness. The taser is not a weapon but a controling device used to establish control of the situation and a "less lethal" means at that. Being in the Law Enforcement field everything we do is under close watch and we have to justify every action. We simply can not taser someone for laughs. As you mentioned at the point he was taser he was not only a danger to the officers, by standers and himself. Also someone said the student asked not to be tasered? It was well past that point. If someone is got shop lifting and gets got and gives it back does that mean we should just let them go. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There is a use of force matrix were by policy we are able to use a certain amount of force based on the subjects behavior. For the most part the subject always has the upper hand. Its faster to act than it is to react and there is not much we can do untill an action takes place. You dont see an officer pull someone over for running a light with his gun out but whos to say when he gets to the windo there isn't someone waiting to shoot him? The officers have every right to put their hands on the student to escort him out of the building. It is when he started pulling away and not allowing the officers to do their job that they had to take other measures to control the situation.

[Drachen]

Has anyone watched any of the other videos from this incident?

YouTube - UF Student Andrew Meyer Tasered At John Kerry Speach Video 2

That video was from a different angle, from just before the student started talking. You can tell, that from the very beginning, the student wasn't out to get answers, he was out to prove a point. Isn't the whole point of a public forum like that, to ask questions and get an answer? He started running his mouth almost as soon as he got the mic. The officers had to ask him to ask his question, or leave. That was his chance to leave without causing any trouble. Once he started to ask his questions, he didn't give Kerry any chance to answer the questions he was asking. He asked three questions, in less than a minute.

In one of the other videos, you can obviously see that he is either very paranoid about "government conspiracy", and "fearing for his life", or he's not quite all there mentally. The officers took him out of the auditorium, and down into the main lobby and he was quiet. As soon as the cameras got back on him again, he starting yelling and screaming again, and resisting arrest (trying to get his way basically).

This isn't about freedom of speech. He wasn't out to try and get answers. He didn't go there, for a serious response that just might do some good. No, he was going out to "protest" as he put it. He did a lot of protesting, and not in the right ways. Seeing how he was acting before he got on the mic, and after he was in cuffs, there's no doubt in my mind that he deserved getting tased. He should've also gotten slapped in the mouth.