Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nomde on September 20, 2007, 09:29:23 PM
-
(http://www.56fg.net/pictures/tazer.gif)
September 20, 2007
- Don't Tazer me Bro! In a John Kerry campus meeting, a young man asking Kerry a question became disruptive and was "escorted" out by police. During the process they scuffled and the now famous phase was blurted out ina fit of panic as the young man relized his demise. ROFLMAO, this is a classic
:rofl :rofl :rofl
The above gif was created by myself.... You can copy as desired for t-shirts etc. however, donations would be appreciated :D
-
:rofl :aok
-
Actually I saw the video clip.
He didnt become disruptive untill the cops decided they didnt like the questions he was asking and forced him to leave the microphone.
The claim is that he charged the microphone and spoke out of turn.
But I do find it interesting that dispite 3 cops standing next to him. Nobody prevented him from speaking untill he started asking questions of Kerry they (either the cops or someone who was off camera) didnt like. My best guess is somene signaled them to remove him.
Its the only explanation I can think of why they wouldnt act sooner.
IN the cops defence.
He did become disruptive once they started to escort him away from the microphone.
Now whether there were gounds for a tazing is debatable. And I've made my feelings clear in the past that I dont beleive any cops should have tazers.
But while he was resistive. He wasnt being violent in a way that was a threat to the cops.
Now should they have pinned him to the floor and cuffed him?
Possibly.
Tazing Im not so sure.
In the kids defence. Even Kerry himself stated that the kid had raised a very "valid" and important question.
Something about theis whole situation to me seems odd and not kosher.
If as is reported he rushed the microhpone ahead of his turn. Why did the cops wait so long to act dispite standing right next to the mic?
It just seemed to me that everyone was ok with him talking untill he started asking questions eitehr they, or someone else didnt like.
Only then was it a problem.
So the question has to be raised. Was he removed because he was disruptive. (Which to me based on the cops lack of initial reaction to him speaking he wasnt untill they tried to lead him away)
OR was it in reality because someone didnt like the questions?
On the flip side. As soon as he was lead away from the mic. You cna hear the audience applaud.
Now whether they were applauding the sudent being escorted away. Or the student asking the question. Is never explained
The reality shown on the film differs from the way its being reported.
-
I watched the *whole* vid and think he got what he deserved.
He wasn't asking a question, he was making a speech.
He violated the known structure of the forum and was asked to leave.
When he was asked to leave (not being arrested, just leave) he started hollering about being arrested.
When security attempted to escort him out, he actively and physically resisted. CNN's video cut out over a minute of video where he is jumping and flailing around, requiring more than 3 security officers to control his violent resistance.
So basically he got tasered for intentionally disrupting an event, refusing to leave, and very actively and physically resisting attempts to get him out the door. They weren't going to arrest him, they just wanted him out because he was being very disruptive. He fought back, so they zapped him.
What the hell did he THINK was going to happen? What a retard. 10-20 years ago, they would have started whacking him with sticks and then he'd really have something to cry about.
I have no sympathy for him. I'd like to taser him again just because it would help the cosmic karma balance.
First amendment rights do not include the obligation of the government or private organizations to provide a forum for your expression of speech. Quite the opposite, his disruption was a violation of the first amendment rights of the event organizers who had set up the event. They set up an event, and he crashed it with the express intent of disrupting it. He got off easy.
Oh yea, and Kerry is a wimp. He's too weak to really stand up for the tasered guy, and too much a politician to stand up for the event organizers who are the ones who really got screwed. He doesn't have a position on the whole thing, and that's the real reason why he didn't get elected last time he ran. People are pretty sure he has no backbone beyond the rubber band necessary for a politician to twist reality into washingtonspeak.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
But while he was resistive. He wasnt being violent in a way that was a threat to the cops.
Now should they have pinned him to the floor and cuffed him?
Possibly.
Tazing Im not so sure.
.
Yes he was violent. He jerked away from the officers and started screaming. He fought to get away from the officers the whole time. I dont know your background DRED, but trying to cuff a person hellbent on preventing it is not as easy at it seems despite the number of officers trying to do it. The taser prevents injuries to the officer and ends the situation quikly.
-
Originally posted by eagl
II have no sympathy for him. I'd like to taser him again just because it would help the cosmic karma balance.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl You owe me a new monitor, sir!
-
the krazykommies who voted for Kerry are finding out what everyone else already knew about him namely he is a horsefaced chicken**** coward. Apparently they figured he should have stepped down from the podium beat all 5 cops dizzy, hoist whinyboy up on his shoulders and stride forth to the white house all while Singing bits of the Soviet anthem and leinternational, with durka!durka!durka! Allah Akbar! tossed in occasionally and hauled the President out by the scruff of his neck cause he REALLY won in 04:rolleyes: and order White House stationary with his name on it . Even he knows he lost fair in 04 and didnt wish to make a spectacle of himself like the Mexican who tried the I didnt win the election cause they stole it trick last year.
-
http://billoreilly.com/store
Free "don't taser me, bro" sticker with any order!
-
I'm with the Officers on this one. This was obviously a staged event by the guy, and as events unfolded he modified his response to the script.
I believe the officers were notified that this guy had rushed the mic, they initially hesitated in order to organize themselves for the proper level of response. When they got the word to go, they started to remove him. That's when this guy resisted and it progressed from there.
I think had he just walked off with the officers, that would be it. He would have been removed from the event and not been tazed and arrested. I do agree the Tazing at that moment was not needed, he had 6 officers holding him down. In the officer's defense, the guy wouldn't stop struggling. So, had I been there.... I woulda tazed him repeatedly, just for making me grab his sorry ars. :D
-
The Remix version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkMkGOpAF4s)
-
The funny part is that a guy gets tasered for... mouthing off? Still, in a society where old ladies get tasered for sounding the horn in their car, we shouldn't be too surprised. Is it part of that Homeland Security thingie? Can you say "Police State"? :lol
<-- not related to Slash27
-
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/18/10649/5334
I was at the Kerry speech today, sitting 2 rows away from all the action. I'll let you know how it really went down.
The forum was going to be over at 2 pm, and Kerry spoke for so long that the Q and A portion had to be shortened. He only got through about 7 of the 50 people who were waiting to ask questions. While the final question was being read, some sweetheartbag ran down the aisle, grabbed the mic from the other side of the room, interrupted the kid who was talking, and started yelling at Kerry, demanding that his questions be heard. He started ranting about how Kerry talks in circles or something, and everyone was getting annoyed. The cops are all over him in no time and try to escort him out, but he starts yelling and resisting. Kerry insists that they let him stay and even agrees to answer his question.
After the interrupted guy's question was answered, Kerry keeps his promise and lets the angry guy talk. This is the point where people started taking their cameras and phones out. All the videos floating around youtube start around here. You can see in the videos that his questioning gets kind of inappropriate, so somebody cut his mic. Instead of shutting up, he starts yelling and making an even bigger scene. He struggled all the way up the aisle, and started violently trying to free himself. They threatened to taze him and he wouldnt stop fighting, so he got tazed. They only had to arrest him because he was causing a disruption and wouldn't leave peacefully. He wasn't being silenced for asking tough questions, trust me.
It's a shame that they had to taze the guy, but he had a chance to calm down and didn't take it. He probably didn't pose a physical threat to anybody in the room, but someone can't just hijack the floor of a forum like that and expect not to get kicked out. This wasn't some poor guy who was brutalized for trying to ask some tough questions. He's just an obnoxious guy who had a fit when there wasn't time for his questions and refused to be calm even when he was given the chance to speak. He was looking for trouble, and everyone applauded when he was forced to leave.
Nothing pisses me off more than hearing stories about power tripping cops abusing their power, unnecessarily tazing or arresting people, etc. It's a huge problem and I'm glad it's being discussed. Just don't mistake this for one of those cases."
It is also said that he had a previous run-in with the cops at the front door.
Sen. Kerry's online communications director
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/18/125041/427
-
He was an ass, but not a threat to anyone. I see tazer more and more used as an utility to punish a person for not doing as told, which is not what it was meant to be. Tazer is a non-lethal self-defence weapon and that's how it should be used!
This guy could been handcuffed and dragged outside with the force of 3, who dragged him to the back only to give shocks first.
Using tazer for other than self-defence is same as giving a non-lethal non-injuring blow to a person if they don't please someone. We can't do that, cops even less with the higher stantards. Why is such use of tazer allowed in circumstances when any other (often less painful) form of violence isn't?
-
I agree cops are getting tazer happy and protocol should be enacted to stop it. You should not be tazered for starting a scene, yelling, fighting a little bit, or not eating your vegetables. I can't remember the last time i got in a scuffle and said boy i need to get out the tazer. You might get a scratch, a bruise, some rug rash, even if the guy is resisting arrest and three guys are on him, the tazer should not be used as weapon to make it easier to subdue a guy. Tazing should be used if a guy has a weapon, or intends to do serious bodily harm. It should be one of the last options they have at their disposal before using their firearm.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Actually I saw the video clip.
He didnt become disruptive untill the cops decided they didnt like the questions he was asking and forced him to leave the microphone.
The claim is that he charged the microphone and spoke out of turn.
Dred, I think you are wrong here.
Before I start, let me say that Kerry makes my skin crawl, so this is in no way a liberal defense.
This kid took over the mic and started talking...allegedly asking questions. When he suggested the book title, Kerry responded, "I read it". The kid didn't stop for an answer to any question.
The police, acting for the hosts, attempted to remove this punk from the mic. There is no obligation for anyone to allow some dissident to hog the mic and use the forum THEY created to hear Kerry.
Truth is this - the punk's views differ from Kerry's (apparently). He doesn't have the horsepower to create a venue where he can be heard. He tried, and failed, to take over another.
Tazer him, Bro.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
This guy could been handcuffed and dragged outside with the force of 3, who dragged him to the back only to give shocks first.
Wow. Did you even watch the video of the event? 4 officers were unable to cuff the guy even after they had him pinned to the ground. He was given a verbal warning before he was tased.
Are you so clouded by your own anti-law enforcement mentality that you see things that aren't really there?
-
Originally posted by eagl
I watched the *whole* vid and think he got what he deserved.
He wasn't asking a question, he was making a speech.
He violated the known structure of the forum and was asked to leave.
When he was asked to leave (not being arrested, just leave) he started hollering about being arrested.
When security attempted to escort him out, he actively and physically resisted. CNN's video cut out over a minute of video where he is jumping and flailing around, requiring more than 3 security officers to control his violent resistance.
So basically he got tasered for intentionally disrupting an event, refusing to leave, and very actively and physically resisting attempts to get him out the door. They weren't going to arrest him, they just wanted him out because he was being very disruptive. He fought back, so they zapped him.
What the hell did he THINK was going to happen? What a retard. 10-20 years ago, they would have started whacking him with sticks and then he'd really have something to cry about.
I have no sympathy for him. I'd like to taser him again just because it would help the cosmic karma balance.
First amendment rights do not include the obligation of the government or private organizations to provide a forum for your expression of speech. Quite the opposite, his disruption was a violation of the first amendment rights of the event organizers who had set up the event. They set up an event, and he crashed it with the express intent of disrupting it. He got off easy.
Oh yea, and Kerry is a wimp. He's too weak to really stand up for the tasered guy, and too much a politician to stand up for the event organizers who are the ones who really got screwed. He doesn't have a position on the whole thing, and that's the real reason why he didn't get elected last time he ran. People are pretty sure he has no backbone beyond the rubber band necessary for a politician to twist reality into washingtonspeak.
Here are two different videos of the same event.
I encourage to watch both as they both tell a slightly different story
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/student.tasered.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/student.tasered.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&mode=related&search=)
Ok Ill agree he was making a speech, But Kerry did call on him
And later, you can hear him say in the video that the kid raised a valid question.
So to me it appears that it wasn't Kerry who had the objections to what the kid was saying. But rather the organizers who didn't like what he had to say.
Thus he didn't violate the organizers anything. You cant invite people to come up and speak in an unrehearsed forum and then not let them do so because you do not like what they are saying.
Or not expect that someone might do what this kid did. Particularly at a college.
Yes the kid was acting like a jerk spouting off. But the best move would have been to let him sputter out then answer the comments point for point when he was done.
All that aside. As you can see in the second video. and to answer someone else's comment. The cops weren't organizing for anything.
They let him talk until the mic was cut
Then yes he was resisting.
But with 4 cops on top of him at the end. There was no need for Tazing.
Particularly when it is obious that each cop including the female. Easily outweighed the kid.
I've already mentioned I am against cops having Tazers.
I've discussed this in another thread sometime back. In having that discussion. I've looked into the safety of tazers considerably.
Fact of the matter is. Regardless of what they tell you. regardless of what the trainers tell you. Tazers are NOT safe.
People have been and are dying as a direct result of tazing.
I personally do not believe in the so called "official studies" for as the last time I had looked into it. Not one single study was done. Even the "official government" studies" that could be considered even remotely independent.
These studies were done either by or were funded directly and with direct supervision by "Tazer International" The makers of tazers.
Which is kinda like expecting the mafia to investigate itself for criminal activity and actually expecting them to be honest with the results.
Fact of the matter is. Any time you introduce an electrical current to the body you are placing that body at lethal risk.
Tazers are not as advertised "Less Then Lethal Force" but instead should be redesignated more accurately as "Potentially Lethal Force"
In this case. As in the case where I originally argued against Tazers. Its use even if I did agree with cops having them to begin with (which I don't)was unwarranted at the time it was given.
The kid was wrong for resisting and in the end deserrved to be arrested.
o that point I will agree.
But The cops were equally as wrong for using the tazer at the point that they did. It was exessive.
IMO. since Pandoras box has already been opened with reguards to cops having tazers.
I would suggest and push for revising and much better training in their useage. As since there has been a rash of these types of stories. It is painfully obvious that the current training is inadequit.
On Another note.
It is pointed out int he second CNN Video on that page that two of the offecers involced have been placed on paid leave pending the investigation.
What exactly is the point of placing someone on paid leave?
Paid leave isnt a diciplinary action but rather a vacation.
I mean if your going to pay them. Whats the point in not having them work untill the invastigation is complete?
I can understand if there was a shooting involved where the officer in question might have some phsycological issues to deal with. Thereby you might not want him on the job untill it is resolved.
But in this case it just seems silly.
"You might have been a bad boy. Here take a few days off with pay till we decide."
Just seems rediculous to me.
In this case I'd keep the cops working untill the investigation is complete.
THEN if it is shown some wrongdoing was involved. Then and not before you suspend without pay.
And if it shown no wrong doing was done. You just go on.
-
Originally posted by TalonX
Dred, I think you are wrong here.
Before I start, let me say that Kerry makes my skin crawl, so this is in no way a liberal defense.
This kid took over the mic and started talking...allegedly asking questions. When he suggested the book title, Kerry responded, "I read it". The kid didn't stop for an answer to any question.
The police, acting for the hosts, attempted to remove this punk from the mic. There is no obligation for anyone to allow some dissident to hog the mic and use the forum THEY created to hear Kerry.
Truth is this - the punk's views differ from Kerry's (apparently). He doesn't have the horsepower to create a venue where he can be heard. He tried, and failed, to take over another.
Tazer him, Bro.
I agree the kid was a punk and acted like a jerk.
I agree his viws differed from Kerry
But If the forum was created only to hear Kerry. Then they should not have provided microphones for peopel to interact with him.
by providing a mic. they are inviting this type of behaviour.
To that extent the onis (sp?) is on the organisers.
A differing view of Kerrys should have been welcomed.
It seems to go on with other similar events without these types of reprecussions.
Ann Caulter for example, (who BTW is another jerk) seems to get to deal with this type of thing regularly
-
Originally posted by Fishu
He was an ass, but not a threat to anyone. I see tazer more and more used as an utility to punish a person for not doing as told, which is not what it was meant to be. Tazer is a non-lethal self-defence weapon and that's how it should be used!
This guy could been handcuffed and dragged outside with the force of 3, who dragged him to the back only to give shocks first.
Using tazer for other than self-defence is same as giving a non-lethal non-injuring blow to a person if they don't please someone. We can't do that, cops even less with the higher stantards. Why is such use of tazer allowed in circumstances when any other (often less painful) form of violence isn't?
Originally posted by LEADPIG
I agree cops are getting tazer happy and protocol should be enacted to stop it. You should not be tazered for starting a scene, yelling, fighting a little bit, or not eating your vegetables. I can't remember the last time i got in a scuffle and said boy i need to get out the tazer. You might get a scratch, a bruise, some rug rash, even if the guy is resisting arrest and three guys are on him, the tazer should not be used as weapon to make it easier to subdue a guy. Tazing should be used if a guy has a weapon, or intends to do serious bodily harm. It should be one of the last options they have at their disposal before using their firearm.
I could not argeee with both of these comments more
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Wow. Did you even watch the video of the event? 4 officers were unable to cuff the guy even after they had him pinned to the ground. He was given a verbal warning before he was tased.
Are you so clouded by your own anti-law enforcement mentality that you see things that aren't really there?
I saw it.
And to that extent shame on the cops.
I thought they were trained in "Grappling" (almost inserted an eyeroll here)
Still he was no serious threat to the cops. All that was needed was a little more effort.
Why is it every time people dissagree with a cops actions someone whines they are anti Cop or as you put it., "anti law enforcement"?
Most people arent. But they will see a wrong as being wrong . I dont think it would matter if it were a cop. or their next door neighbor.
If they see something as being wrong. They will say it is wrong.
It isnt anti cop. Its anti wrong. Doesnt matter who.
But for that matter. Cops tend to be unable to look objectivly at a situation involving other cops. Reguardless of right or wrong. Cops will 99 times out of 100 take the side of cops no matter what.
Then they wonder why alot of people dont trust them.
Which to me is every bit as bad as being "anti law enforcement"
Im not anti law enforcement. I have a friend who is a cop and personally know and like many cops.
But I am anti wrong.
And I can look at a situation unbias enough to know that cops arent always right. And if I see somethign I see as being wrong I will say so. Be it a cop tazing a kid needlessly. Or My son making an illegal turn and getting into an accident
Wrong is wrong. doesnt matter who does it
-
Agh? Seven ppl out of 50 had been to the mic until this numbnut jumped the line and took over the mic from the kid who had 'the floor'. He was the only one out of the 50 who could not abide by the rules.
He had a chance to go peacefully but continued to struggle with the cops. Be thankful one of the cops did not lose their gun and ended up in this numbnut's hand. The tazer put an end to any escalation.
Read the eye witness account posted.
Right then and there he should have been given the boot, but no, Kerry lets him spout off.
-
Fishu & Leadpig are spot on. It doesn't matter that this guy was a sweetheartbag, he was, but that doesn't change one thing: Tazers were then and are in general being used in a manner different from what they were originally described.
The tazer was THE THING for stopping the PCP-enraged crazy person who would otherwise kill a roomful of cops. Now, the use is so casual, the effect it's having on liberty is chilling.
-
The fact that so many seem to feel that it's fine for police to met out punishment for crimes is rather interesting.
shamus
-
Mace was introduced in law enforcement so that they would no longer have to use the baton.
The taser was introduced so that they would no longer have to use mace.
I am curious what you would suggest law enforcement use instead of the taser. In the case of Andrew Meyer, where "pretty please" and being tackled by 4 officers didn't bring a resisting arrestee under control. Should they have used a choke hold, or an arm bar, thus risking physical injury to the suspect or the officer? Should they have simply sat on him for 20-30 minutes until the suspect was physically unable to resist any more? Should they have called his parents?
-
Originally posted by Shamus
The fact that so many seem to feel that it's fine for police to met out punishment for crimes is rather interesting.
shamus
Yep. Like I said - a police state. Those scenes could have been from Argentina or any other right wing S America country. Remember how we all were appalled by how the banner waving guy in Tianamen Sq., China was treated in 1989 when demonstrating against communism? Now, it's suddenly OK to applaud acts of police overreaction. Welcome to the age of neocon fascist America. :cool:
-
Mickey, perhaps the REAL item of concern is that 4 police officers weren't able to control a single suspect. A tazer is not a replacement for poor training.
-
They got him to the ground and were able to control him, but they were not able to get the cuffs on him. If you watch the video he was clearly bigger than the first two officers that tried to lead him out of the building. And remember they were in the confined area between the rows of seats.
Again, how would you suggest they place him under arrest?
-
Have you personally ever tried to restrain someone who was actively resisting?
It is not surprising that 4 officers would have to struggle. I believe the tazer posed less of a threat to everyone involved than the alternative of having to physically manhandle this individual.
To put it into perspective, I would rather be tazed than to have my arm broken or receive permanent nerve damage as the result of being physically manipulated against my will.
-
Let's postulate that tazing was the right way to arrest him (though I disagree) and discuss a second issue: What specific arrestable offense did he commit? He was a *******, sure, but last I heard, that wasn't a criminal offense. If it was, most of us would be in jail.
Edit: Since when is "jac kass" w/o the space something that needs to be censored? It's a donkey.
-
He was arrested for inciting a riot and disrupting a school function. He was charged with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace.
-
being zapped is often the only real punishment these types of people receive.
looks good on them.... twitching like gumby.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Let's postulate that tazing was the right way to arrest him (though I disagree) and discuss a second issue: What specific arrestable offense did he commit? He was a *******, sure, but last I heard, that wasn't a criminal offense. If it was, most of us would be in jail.
Edit: Since when is "jac kass" w/o the space something that needs to be censored? It's a donkey.
Much like you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded building....this guy was interupting the event. THUS he was infrigning on other's right to free speech. If somone in a crowd is unruly or disruptive I think the police totally have the right to remove him from that crowd. If he resists then he is resisting arrest/disorderly conduct.
It's funny how he's screaming "dont tazer me bro" yet still resisting and giving them every reason to taze him.
This is a regrettable situation and could have been prevented by this guy not being a ******* and leaving when he was told to.
I don't really see this guys freedoms being trampled on....I see everyone elses who were behaved as having there's trambled on. This guy interupted them by being a jack bellybutton and as a result somone probably didn't get the oppurtunity to speak. Who's looking out for that guy?
-
In Ohio it's a fourth degree misdemeanor.
2917.12 Disturbing a lawful meeting.
So we have come up with valid reasons for an arrest, and we are unable to come up with a better way to subdue a resisting arrestee than with the taser. Are we done here?
-
lol
-
Having finally watched the videos all I can say is that kid was looking for a Youtube moment and a possible talk show appearance.
He made it happen by choice. I have little sympathy for him.
-
Holy crap that video is full of people who need to have "******" tatted to their foreheads. I can't really blame the police here though, since I've never tried to restrain a college blowhard. I choose to ignore them for the most part. And that's really what should have happened here. The event was over, Kerry could have just thanked everyone for coming, sat down and let had the room clear out. I mean, the killed the jackhole's mic, so it wasn't like they couldn't tell everyone to have a nice day.
I do hope that the Cop who tased him let him know that he wasn't his "bro."
-Sik
-
He was getting more beligerent as the questions turned into a rant, he should have been kicked a few times as well as tasered at a much higher voltage. He came looking for trouble, and in my opinion, he didn't get his full share of trouble!:aok
-
I find it odd how some of you omit the parts of the video that dont suit your opinion.
-
it was a Q & A forum, he tried to turn it into his own soapbox agenda.
i think his major problem is that he did not think that Kerry was liberal enough.
But you have to understand, the kid is only a journalism major, so he is not the brightest bulb on the tree.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
I find it odd how some of you omit the parts of the video that dont suit your opinion.
I just watched a Youtube link. Perhaps you can help me out here... what is being omitted?
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I just watched a Youtube link. Perhaps you can help me out here... what is being omitted?
-Sik
Nothing was omited from the video that I know of and thats not what I was refering too. Thought that was pretty obvious.
-
Originally posted by G0ALY
Have you personally ever tried to restrain someone who was actively resisting?
I've seen many guards and cops that could cuff about anyone in 2 vs 1 situation. Only PCP heads and some body builders (who are really plentiful in this constantly "growing" population of today) could give a trouble. Definitely an average school brat shouldn't be a problem.
What makes it work? They're very well trained! They got tazers too, but they hardly ever use those. It's against their ethics to use a tazer just to make it easier to cuff some skimpy idiot. Worst of all, what kind of picture would they give of themselves when having to resort to such power against an idiot? Multiple strong and trained men unable to tame an idiot? I'd be alarmed and would seriously question their ability to work in law enforcement. I don't think these guys I know would feel any better of themselves.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Nothing was omited from the video that I know of and thats not what I was refering too. Thought that was pretty obvious.
I'm just trying to figure out what you think is being omitted. You take a pretty broad snipe and I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by G0ALY Have you personally ever tried to restrain someone who was actively resisting?
Originally posted by Fishu
I've seen many guards and cops that could cuff about anyone in 2 vs 1 situation. [/B]
So, the answer is, "No".
-
Originally posted by G0ALY
So, the answer is, "No".
I'm not into the profession. The guys who I know definitely could do it. If you can't do it, then you should learn the proper techniques or pay attention at the class.
-
Goaly,
Not having ever done the job has never stopped fishu's expertise in it. He has no idea that classroom and real world differ in scope as well as degree. It allows him to render criticism of the performance of others from a lofty position of second, third and fourth hand "knowledge". He's not the only one either unfortunately. That's one of the things that polarize threads that have a LEO theme.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I'm not into the profession.
Enough said.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I'm not into the profession. The guys who I know definitely could do it. If you can't do it, then you should learn the proper techniques or pay attention at the class.
The proper technique is to the use the taser. Man-handling suspects or beating them into submission is not an approved technique (anymore). There is too great a risk of injury to the arrestee or the officer. We live in a litigious society in case you had not heard.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Agh? Seven ppl out of 50 had been to the mic until this numbnut jumped the line and took over the mic from the kid who had 'the floor'. He was the only one out of the 50 who could not abide by the rules.
He had a chance to go peacefully but continued to struggle with the cops. Be thankful one of the cops did not lose their gun and ended up in this numbnut's hand. The tazer put an end to any escalation.
Read the eye witness account posted.
Right then and there he should have been given the boot, but no, Kerry lets him spout off.
Dont have to read it. I saw the film. Kerry called on him specificaly to speak. Maybe he did cut ahead in line. but if so. Then why did the police not stop him sooner. Like before he had a chance to speak.
The way its reported. he jumped ahead in line and just started speaking. If you look at the film its obvious he not only didnt just start speaking but was called upon by Kerry to speak
-
Originally posted by myelo
He was arrested for inciting a riot and disrupting a school function. He was charged with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace.
I can buy into disrupting a school function.
But inciting a riot is far fetched at best.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I can buy into disrupting a school function.
But inciting a riot is far fetched at best.
Just telling you what the report said.
Don't flame me bro'
-
Originally posted by john9001
it was a Q & A forum, he tried to turn it into his own soapbox agenda.
i think his major problem is that he did not think that Kerry was liberal enough.
But you have to understand, the kid is only a journalism major, so he is not the brightest bulb on the tree.
Ahhh
the next Dan Rather
-
Originally posted by myelo
Just telling you what the report said.
Don't flame me bro'
Actually I was only commenting on it.
Sorry if it came off as a flame as that was not my intent.
C'mon man. You know me.
When I flame I use a blowtorch.
Not a match ;)
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I'm just trying to figure out what you think is being omitted. You take a pretty broad snipe and I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.
-Sik
People who are posting that he was not resisiting and was just trying to ask a question.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
The proper technique is to the use the taser. Man-handling suspects or beating them into submission is not an approved technique (anymore). There is too great a risk of injury to the arrestee or the officer. We live in a litigious society in case you had not heard.
Period, the end.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Dont have to read it. I saw the film. Kerry called on him specificaly to speak. Maybe he did cut ahead in line. but if so. Then why did the police not stop him sooner. Like before he had a chance to speak.
The way its reported. he jumped ahead in line and just started speaking. If you look at the film its obvious he not only didnt just start speaking but was called upon by Kerry to speak
The videos start after he had already "barged" up front (using Kerry's term) disrupted the discussion, interrupted the person who was asking a question, and would only shut up after Kerry agreed to take a question of his when Kerry was done (even though the moderator had already taken the last question and the police had already asked Meyer to leave). That is why you see Kerry specifically call on him at the beginning of the video. Google some first-hand accounts of what happened.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
The proper technique is to the use the taser. Man-handling suspects or beating them into submission is not an approved technique (anymore). There is too great a risk of injury to the arrestee or the officer. We live in a litigious society in case you had not heard.
Originally posted by Slash27
Period, the end.
Nope
IMO Tazing is the same as beating someone into submission.
And many of the same risks are at hand. Including neological disorders as well as death. Can you say ventricular fibrillation?
Some excerpts form an article..
"Taser’s lawsuits include cases against medical examiners in Indiana and Ohio who cited Taser-induced electrical shocks as the cause of death. But perhaps most striking is the case of James Ruggieri. In early 2006, Ruggieri published an article in the peer-reviewed Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers. The study, “one of the few scientific studies of Taser’s electric jolt in which the company did not participate,” as The Arizona Republic put it, concluded that Tasers were far more powerful than the company acknowledged and that the devices are capable of causing fatal heart rhythms.
Not taking the criticism lightly, the company sued Ruggieri for defamation, claiming he lacked the expertise to make such judgments, even though his story passed through the rigors of the peer-review screening process
While the number of completely independent studies on the dangers of Tasers is limited, some of the ones that do exist suggest they are anything but harmless — particularly in regards to their effects on the heart and the nervous system.
And then there are the effects of Tasers on the human brain and nervous system. Although there is very little research on this, studies have been conducted examining the effects of electrical shocks that are virtually identical to the ones delivered by Tasers. These studies suggest such shocks can cause serious, and potentialy long-term, damage to cognition and the central nervous system."
In its entirety here.
http://crunchgear.com/2007/03/07/a-crunchgear-investigation-the-trouble-with-tasers-what-the-manufacturer-doesnt-want-you-to-know/ (http://crunchgear.com/2007/03/07/a-crunchgear-investigation-the-trouble-with-tasers-what-the-manufacturer-doesnt-want-you-to-know/)
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
The videos start after he had already "barged" up front (using Kerry's term) disrupted the discussion, interrupted the person who was asking a question, and would only shut up after Kerry agreed to take a question of his when Kerry was done (even though the moderator had already taken the last question and the police had already asked Meyer to leave). That is why you see Kerry specifically call on him at the beginning of the video. Google some first-hand accounts of what happened.
Odd. The video I saw showed Kerry finish up a question on his right. then turning to the left and tell him he was next.
At which point he thanked Kerry for his time.
IF it happend the way you say.
Why did the cops not stop him and escort him out before he had a chance to speak. The are clearly standing around doing nothing untill the mic was turned off
-
"Andrew spoke up after the Dean of International Affairs had stated final question. The final question was being asked about Israel, and then Andrew got on the mic on the other side of the room, noting he was next on the mic, and then proceeded to tell Kerry that its not fair not to be able to ask more questions after listening to him for an hour, and the Dean exclusively asking Kerry questions for another 45 minutes, leaving students 25 minutes to ask questions. At that point, the officers try to subdue him, but Kerry sternly told the police officers to back down. Kerry then asked Meyer if he can finish the other question and then proceed to his. Meyer consented. After the last question was answered, Kerry asked Meyer, what is your question. Then you enter the video that has been circulating around"
From Ben Omar, who states he was sitting in the back rows.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
"Andrew spoke up after the Dean of International Affairs had stated final question. The final question was being asked about Israel, and then Andrew got on the mic on the other side of the room, noting he was next on the mic, and then proceeded to tell Kerry that its not fair not to be able to ask more questions after listening to him for an hour, and the Dean exclusively asking Kerry questions for another 45 minutes, leaving students 25 minutes to ask questions. At that point, the officers try to subdue him, but Kerry sternly told the police officers to back down. Kerry then asked Meyer if he can finish the other question and then proceed to his. Meyer consented. After the last question was answered, Kerry asked Meyer, what is your question. Then you enter the video that has been circulating around"
From Ben Omar, who states he was sitting in the back rows.
ahhh ok. that explains that then. which was one of my original questions at the start of the thread when I commented that something didnt seem kosher.
TY for clarifying that.
But like I also said. The way its being reported. and when they show on the video dont seem the same
-
Some people think the 'story' begins when the vid cameras start . They read what they what to see and ignore all else. :rolleyes: So :( .
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Some people think the 'story' begins when the vid cameras start . They read what they what to see and ignore all else. :rolleyes: So :( .
Somehow I think if Kerry was there. The cameras started well before the snippet they decided to put out there.
but using only that portion makes the story all that more interesting. Because the Tazing becomes the story.
Not what lead up to it.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Nope
IMO Tazing is the same as beating someone into submission.
And many of the same risks are at hand. Including neological disorders as well as death. Can you say ventricular fibrillation?
/[/URL]
Yeah, I think there was a page or two about it in paramedic school.:D
We have not covered any studies in CE training that mention what you have posted. The only red flags that have shown up so far are people being tased with cocaine in their system.( some people on coke were reported to have gone into v-fib but at the time it could not be proven it was the taser that caused it anymore than the persons fighting the cops before being tased) I'll hit up the EMS training Lt. about it. Our PD is about to be issued tasers soon and we will be revisting the effects of again soon Im sure. I'll let you know if I come up with some good definitive info.
-
Yay, Slash is to experiement with his clients to conduct our own scientific analysis! Don't forget the videos!
-
First we shall start with cattle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGgbzBvwGNc)
-
Cow tipping!
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Somehow I think if Kerry was there. The cameras started well before the snippet they decided to put out there.
but using only that portion makes the story all that more interesting. Because the Tazing becomes the story.
Not what lead up to it.
The tazing is the story ..the only story.
How obtuse the guy was or what his motives should have no bearing on how he was subdued, only if the force was warranted to protect the public or officer safety.
Now officer safety does not mean mitigate all risk to 0%.
Subduing and cuffing a person who does not want you to is a puckering experience , as it should be, you had better make sure that you are in the right before you do it.
A tazer allows you to force your will from out of harms way, no risk, no pucker.
I know that if I had one I would be less inclined to talk and more inclined to act, no risk, but hey I'm human .
shamus