Sure, they overreacted, but so did the kid.
I agree with this. Now, the question is: will the cops be held accountable in the same way that they expect to hold the kid accountable?

I agree with this. Now, the question is: will the cops be held accountable in the same way that they expect to hold the kid accountable?
Why should they? They are public servants, he's a punk.

public servents shouldn't be held accountable???

they were all punks.

.

He didn't ask if they should be held accountable, he asked if they should be held accountable in the same way, implying that they should get fired.

Well, then, what about this incident would lead you to believe that a harsh response is justified?

Because their crimes were harsh, so should be their punishment.


Let me remind you, the kid was not seriously injured,

How would you know that? Have you examined him Dr. Napsterbater?
Define "seriously injured". Six guys piled on top of him and tasered him repeatedly. It isn't difficult to seriously hurt someone in that situation.



he was breaking procedure

What procedure exactly?


and he resisted efforts by law enforcement to do their jobs.

No question there, but he didn't start the conflict.


Sure, they overreacted, but so did the kid.

Who was responsible for starting the physical confrontation? They were.
This seems to be the misunderstanding a lot of people are having. The cops do not have a right to do anything they want to anyone who crosses their path. Some people seem to be under that mistaken impression merely because the police posess the power to do something, it gives them a right to do it.

He didn't ask if they should be held accountable, he asked if they should be held accountable in the same way, implying that they should get fired.

Of course they should get fired and tomorrow I will be communicating that to the school administrators and the board of trustees for U of F.

What an authoritarian belief system you have.

:rolleyes:

ROFL. I've never seen someone argue with themselves as much as you do.

Can you stick to reality please?

Me? Sure. You? it seems unlikely.


Are you trying to claim that the Senator was not the highest ranking government official there?

No, I'm trying to say that only a 12 year-old who was ignorant of how out government works would claim that Kerry "outranked" anyone at the speaking engagement.

Because their crimes were harsh, so should be their punishment.

What "crimes" did they commit?


How would you know that?

Probably the same way you know that the cops committed "crimes", or that Kerry "outranked" everyone else at the meeting.


Six guys piled on top of him and tasered him repeatedly.

ROFL. You just keep making it up as you go along.


It isn't difficult to seriously hurt someone in that situation.

Was he injured even slightly?


Who was responsible for starting the physical confrontation? They were.

Only in your mind.


This seems to be the misunderstanding a lot of people are having.

Mostly just you.


The cops do not have a right to do anything they want to anyone who crosses their path. Some people seem to be under that mistaken impression merely because the police posess the power to do something, it gives them a right to do it.

Another strawman to beat? Nobody made any such claim so save your fingers and waste no more bandwidth with your ridiculous assertions about what someone else thinks.

The cops have a right, and a duty, to escort disruptive people from such events if the organizers of the event request it, or if the police feel the person may be a threat to order or safety. I for one, will trust the police who were on the scene to make such a call, rather than trust someone with an imperfect knowledge of the law, who wasn't even present at the event, to make the call based on a 3:00 video. Especially if the person making the call has stated that using a Taser is "torture", they "believe" in "inalienable rights", and that a Senator "outranks" a police officer. Such statements don't inspire confidence in one's intellect.

What "crimes" did they commit?



Probably the same way you know that the cops committed "crimes", or that Kerry "outranked" everyone else at the meeting.








The cops have a right, and a duty, to escort disruptive people from such events if the organizers of the event request it, or if the police feel the person may be a threat to order or safety. I for one, will trust the police who were on the scene to make such a call, rather than trust someone with an imperfect knowledge of the law, who wasn't even present at the event, to make the call based on a 3:00 video. Especially if the person making the call has stated that using a Taser is "torture", they "believe" in "inalienable rights", and that a Senator "outranks" a police officer. Such statements don't inspire confidence in one's intellect.

**************************************

I don't feel like glossing over all that you've written
on this subject.But my gist was,you have changed yer mind.
Weren't you insisting that The Cops had NO right to take physical charge
at an event,for a mere disruptive individual.?
Er some such nonsense.
I'm glad to cede you've managed to regain control of yer intellectual
facilities for the time being.
Juts don't GOad off on a Columbia tangent,acting like a certain head of State
is more important to hear Danny a Military recruiter.

No, I'm trying to say that only a 12 year-old who was ignorant of how out government works would claim that Kerry "outranked" anyone at the speaking engagement.

The longer you continue Vile, the more childish and irrational you become about the whole topic.

You may as well admit now that you are just talking out your ass and give up.

.

You're the one who seems to be unable to grasp simple concepts, Dharma.

Once you put yourself in the position of becoming a 'person of interest' to a cop, it's a little late to hide behind the Constitution. You still have 'rights' but not until AFTER you're in custody.

Obey the laws, including not disrupting public gatherings and you'll never have to worry about anybody tasering you.

Simple concept, eh?

;)
SMW

Of course they should get fired and tomorrow I will be communicating that to the school administrators and the board of trustees for U of F.

Since you weren't even there, I'm sure they'll hang on your every word, dear.

:lolhit:

Why should they? They are public servants, he's a punk.Some exerpts from the FBI re color of law violations:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm

U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.

Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.

Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive."

Is it reasonable to have to zap someone with 50,000 volts when they're on the ground under a pile of cops? I don't think it is.

I don't think it's reasonable, I think it's excessive. Where you and I differ is the seriousness of what happened. The kid was not seriously injured, was causing a disturbance, resisted, and refused direction. He was lucky he wasn't seriously injured, and so were the cops. If he was seriously injured, then I would think the cops should be paying with their jobs.

Since you weren't even there, I'm sure they'll hang on your every word, dear.

:lolhit:
Info re complaints to the FBI:


The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.

During Fiscal Year 2005, the FBI investigated more than 1,100 color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas:

• excessive force;
• sexual assaults;
• false arrest and fabrication of evidence;
• deprivation of property; and
• failure to keep from harm.

Filing a Complaint

To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:

• all identifying information for the victim(s);
• as much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and
agency employed;
• date and time of incident;
• location of incident;
• names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
• a complete chronology of events; and
• any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.

You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district or send a written
complaint to:

Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530

FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.

I don't see here that one must be an eye-witness or the victim himself to file a complaint.

The incident was witnessed by a roomful of people, Shiloh. And it was video-taped and released on the internet. I doubt that anyone calling it to the attention of the FBI is really necessary.

But, hey! Do what you have to do!

I must have led a really law abiding life. In over 70 years I have had so few conversation with police officers that I can remember every one, that was initiated by the police:

1. At age 15, I was walking to the beach early (about 4AM) one morning. I answered their questions, and was sent on my way.
2. I've had 3 traffic tickets, spread out over the years. I showed my license, and was sent on my way.
3. I was questioned about an office break in, about 6 yrs ago. I explained that I had been at home, alone, the night it happened, and was sent on my way.

Not once do I recall feeling threatened, or harassed by the officers involve. But then I was rather polite as well.

DOES ANYONE RECOGNIZE THE TREND

Once you put yourself in the position of becoming a 'person of interest' to a cop, it's a little late to hide behind the Constitution. You still have 'rights' but not until AFTER you're in custody.


Congratulations!!! You win the Anti-American Post of the Day!

:flowers:

The kid was not seriously injured,

Thanks for your diagnosis, Dr. Napsterbater. :rolleyes:

And thank you for yours, Lieutenant Dharma.

I must have led a really law abiding life. In over 70 years I have had so few conversation with police officers that I can remember every one, that was initiated by the police:

1. At age 15, I was walking to the beach early (about 4AM) one morning. I answered their questions, and was sent on my way.
2. I've had 3 traffic tickets, spread out over the years. I showed my license, and was sent on my way.
3. I was questioned about an office break in, about 6 yrs ago. I explained that I had been at home, alone, the night it happened, and was sent on my way.

Not once do I recall feeling threatened, or harassed by the officers involve. But then I was rather polite as well.

DOES ANYONE RECOGNIZE THE TREND

Generally speaking it's Ben my experience,that Cops usually
respond in kind.They take strong cues from initial first impressions.
If someone is out of control and rowdy they may wait until a
gaggle of Cops arrive on scene and then Goose the troublemaker
with Nazi-like methods { ala Cops,the TV show}.
But If someone ISN'T actin-up in from of Cops,and act normal,
then usually Cops will respond in kind.
Let's be Real clear here.Cops AIN'T Priests.
They kinda thrive on gettin brutish.
They also like to gang gather back at the local donut shop
and high 5 each utter after special Manhunts {takedowns}.
Er....Womanhunts.Whichever is more to yer likin.
Or Their'n.

The incident was witnessed by a roomful of people, Shiloh. And it was video-taped and released on the internet. I doubt that anyone calling it to the attention of the FBI is really necessary.
I never figured you for a "let somebody else do it" kinda gal when it came to civic involvement.;)

In any event, you probably are right to some degree. An investigation has already begun, according to a buddy of mine with the Harris County Sheriff Dept. IA Office. (Looks like the law enforcement grapevine is popping on this one, just like here on AllForums.) So, we'll see if anything comes of it.

Congratulations!!! You win the Anti-American Post of the Day!

:flowers:

So, let me get this straight here... are you saying the Constitution gives you PERMISSION to break the law? That no matter what you do, you're absolved from having to deal with the police?

Every country in the world has some sort of police force. Ours may not be the best... but I'd wager it's the most regulated. By the CONSTITUTION.

You lose.

:flowers:
SMW

Every country in the world has some sort of police force. Ours may not be the best...
It is, by and large, among the best, if not the very best.:cool:

So, let me get this straight here... are you saying the Constitution gives you PERMISSION to break the law?

Nope, I did not say that.

Try again.

This time try actually comprehending what I did say.

:thumbs:
DB

It is, by and large, among the best, if not the very best.:cool:

Our police are certainly the best funded in the world.

.

Our police are certainly the best funded in the world.
Honestly, when compared to the police forces/practices around the planet, those of the US (on all levels) are among the most professional, competent and capable. This action we've been discussing would be lighthanded in much of the world, agreed?

Still, our standards must be vigilantly evaluated and problem cases, like this one, should be addressed by the very system these people are charged with supporting.

Can you stick to reality please?

Are you trying to claim that the Senator was not the highest ranking government official there?

Instead of showing off your desperation with lame attempts at insults, why don't you actually address the point for a change?

:thumbs:
DB
Oy Vey - I can't be on his side anymore. I want out.

Watching this progress has been FAR too painful.

Honestly, when compared to the police forces/practices around the planet, those of the US (on all levels) are among the most professional, competent and capable. This action we've been discussing would be lighthanded in much of the world, agreed?

Yes, I agree, but none of those places have law enforcement I would want to emulate.


Still, our standards must be vigilantly evaluated and problem cases, like this one, should be addressed by the very system these people are charged with supporting.

I agree.

.

[QUOTE=dharmabum]Nope, I did not say that.

Try again.


Wood you kindly then,juts write down on nearest napkin,exacly
what you stand fer.
And we'll see if we can arrange for a corp of grade school
newspaper apprentice to write down exactly what yer Agin.
May the Twain,s'not Meat.

[QUOTE=dharmabum]Nope, I did not say that.

Try again.


Wood you kindly then,juts write down on nearest napkin,exacly
what you stand fer.
And we'll see if we can arrange for a corp of grade school
newspaper apprentice to write down exactly what yer Agin.
May the Twain,s'not Meat.

...

Fool
-noun
1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.

Never have I seen such drivel as is being posted by Vilepagan, Borghunter, Smartmouthwoman and Napsterbater.

Vilepagan keeps saying the mike had been turned off as if that somehow justifies the actions of the campus cops. If you look at the video you will see that Mr. Meyers has finished asking his question at a live mike and is standing there listening to Senator Kerry's reply when he is grabbed by the police. Neither Vile nor Borg seem to believe that freedom of speech trumps the right of the police to use excess force in a given situation. They seem to be of the opinion that whatever force the police deem necessary is the proper amount of force. I guess thy would back the police who beat Rodney King since police should be the sole determinors of what is necessary force.

Vilepagan even posts from a site that he thinks will bolster his argument. The only problem is that it does exactly the opposite. Here is an excerpt from his posting.

"When a government decides to offer a “public comment” period at an open meeting, it provides that citizens may exercise their First Amendment rights. Government officials can limit comments to the relevant subject matter, control disruptive or overly repetitive speakers and impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech. However, when government officials create a public-comment forum, they have created a limited public forum in which greater free-speech protections apply. The government may not silence speakers on the basis of their viewpoint or the content of their speech. The government must treat similarly situated speakers similarly. In essence, the government must live up to the values embodied in the First Amendment."

Vile's first mistake is in confusing a government informational session with a college question and answer period. His second is in ignoring the above paragraph. Free speech can be abrogated when the conduct of a speaker is disruptive or overly repetitive. They are expressly forbidden from silencing speakers on the basis of their viewpoint or the content of their speech.

SMW seems to think that once the authorities, in this case, the police take an interest in a person that person loses his constitutionl rights. She also seems to think that if anyone might possibly do something wrong based on a person's speech that person should be subject to being given the bum's rush or even arrested by the police. She does not differentiate between a person inciting to riot and a person asking a perfectly legitimate question that some unreasoning person might interpret wrongly. She seems far fonder of obedience to authority that constitutional rights.

Napsterbater has voiced the opinion that the police are right because the speaker is a punk. That has to be one of the most absurd in a series of absurd statements by those who wish to absolve the police of consequences for their behavior.

Never have I seen such drivel as is being posted by Vilepagan, Borghunter, Smartmouthwoman and Napsterbater.

Vilepagan keeps saying the mike had been turned off as if that somehow justifies the actions of the campus cops. If you look at the video you will see that Mr. Meyers has finished asking his question at a live mike and is standing there listening to Senator Kerry's reply when he is grabbed by the police. Neither Vile nor Borg seem to believe that freedom of speech trumps the right of the police to use excess force in a given situation. They seem to be of the opinion that whatever force the police deem necessary is the proper amount of force. I guess thy would back the police who beat Rodney King since police should be the sole determinors of what is necessary force.

Vilepagan even posts from a site that he thinks will bolster his argument. The only problem is that it does exactly the opposite. Here is an excerpt from his posting.

"When a government decides to offer a “public comment” period at an open meeting, it provides that citizens may exercise their First Amendment rights. Government officials can limit comments to the relevant subject matter, control disruptive or overly repetitive speakers and impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech. However, when government officials create a public-comment forum, they have created a limited public forum in which greater free-speech protections apply. The government may not silence speakers on the basis of their viewpoint or the content of their speech. The government must treat similarly situated speakers similarly. In essence, the government must live up to the values embodied in the First Amendment."

Vile's first mistake is in confusing a government informational session with a college question and answer period. His second is in ignoring the above paragraph. Free speech can be abrogated when the conduct of a speaker is disruptive or overly repetitive. They are expressly forbidden from silencing speakers on the basis of their viewpoint or the content of their speech.

SMW seems to think that once the authorities, in this case, the police take an interest in a person that person loses his constitutionl rights. She also seems to think that if anyone might possibly do something wrong based on a person's speech that person should be subject to being given the bum's rush or even arrested by the police. She does not differentiate between a person inciting to riot and a person asking a perfectly legitimate question that some unreasoning person might interpret wrongly. She seems far fonder of obedience to authority that constitutional rights.

Napsterbater has voiced the opinion that the police are right because the speaker is a punk. That has to be one of the most absurd in a series of absurd statements by those who wish to absolve the police of consequences for their behavior.

Yup,seems like I'm bout THE only one qualified to screw this pesky
polish light bulb in the right socket.
Er...was dat the Left socket.
Maybe it's the middle socket,just underneath the Captain of the
Precincts desk,ford ya pass his udder desk with glass cabinet
full of Druggie stuff and a Few torn panty.

Personally I vacillate. I don't know whether to indict the cops, who, IMO, used excessive force to subdue a sober college student with a tazer (when there were 6 of those knuckle-draggers there to begin with, but I digress), or to side with the university based on a technicality (albeit, a shitty one, at that). The "open" Q&A session took place on private property which means the administrators or trustees of said property can remove anyone, at any time, for any reason, period. In short, my argument centers on the police "arresting" Meyers because he cut in line. Not for "resisting arrest" (which was a red herring, to say the least). A better way to handle the situation would've entailed asking him to leave AFTER HE CUT. If he refused, then arrest away. HOWEVER, (and here's the kicker) they ALLOWED him to ask his questions, and in the middle of Kerry's response, they decided to take him down. It was an injudicious use (and IMO, abuse) of power. It very much becomes an issue of right vs. wrong when they ALLOW him to cut, they ALLOW him to ask his questions, and THEN they decide to take him down 3 minutes after the fact. I'm pretty sure that you, too, would be surprised if a group of campus copSS grabbed your ass in the middle of Kerry's response. Your first reaction would probably be to pull away, and if that's unacceptable, then fuck them. In short, this whole situation smacks of bullshit. To cite "resisting arrest" here was, quite possibly the most egregious example of a trumped up charge I've ever seen in my life (simply due to the fact that they had no reason to approach him after the fact) (and they, themselves, nullified their ability to do so by NOT DOING SO in the first place). The kid was an asshole. The cops and admin were even BIGGER assholes. This isn't an issue of first amendment rights here - it's an issue of right and wrong. Except this was a shining example of wrong and more wrong. The university was probably within their "legal" right to do what they did. That doesn't, however, make their decision palatable.

According to The Colbert Report:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5088

(This is a great take on the issue, especially for those of us who are online-only!):cool:

Gen X-nay? Hahahahahaha!

Naomi Wolf, A Shocking Moment for Society (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/a-shocking-moment-for-soc_b_64909.html).

Today's news shows a recognizable shock moment in the annals of a closing society. A very ordinary-looking American student -- Andrew Meyer, 21, at the University of Florida - was tasered by police when he asked a question of Senator John Kerry about the impeachment of President George Bush. His arms were pinned and as he tried to keep speaking he was shocked -- in spite of begging not to be hurt. A stunning piece of footage but unfortunately, historically, a very familiar and even tactical moment.

It is an iconic turning point and it will be remembered as the moment at which America either fought back or yielded. This violence against a student is different from violence against protesters in the anti-war movement of 30 years ago because of the power the president has now to imprison innocent U.S. citizens for months in isolation. And because, as I have explained elsewhere, we are not now in a situation in which 'the pendulum' can easily swing back. That taser was directed at the body of a young man, but it is we ourselves, and our Constitution, who received the full force of the shock.

There is a chapter in my new book, The End of America, entitled "Recast Criticism as 'Espionage' and Dissent as 'Treason,'" that conveys why this moment is the horrific harbinger it is. I argue that strategists using historical models to close down an open society start by using force on 'undesirables,' 'aliens,' 'enemies of the state,' and those considered by mainstream civil society to be untouchable; in other times they were, of course, Jews, Gypsies, Communists, homosexuals. Then, once society has been acculturated to that use of force, the 'blurring of the line' begins and the parameters of criminalized speech are extended -- the definition of 'terrorist' expanded -- and the use of force begins to be deployed in HIGHLY VISIBLE, STRATEGIC and VISUALLY SHOCKING WAYS against people that others see and identify with as ordinary citizens. The first 'torture cellars' used by the SA, in Germany between 1931 and 1933 -- even before the National Socialists gained control of the state, during the years when Germany was still a parliamentary democracy -- were informal and widely publicized in the mainstream media. Few German citizens objected because those abused there were seen as 'other' -- even though the abuse was technically illegal. But then, after this escalation of the use of force was accepted by the population, students, journalists, opposition leaders, and clergy were similarly abused during their own arrests. Within six months dissent was stilled in Germany.

What is the lesson for us from this and from other closing societies, some of them democracies? You can have a working Congress or Parliament; newspapers; human rights groups; even elections; but when ordinary people start to be hurt by the state for speaking out, dissent closes quickly and the shock chills opposition very, very fast. Once that happens, democracy has been so weakened that major tactical and strategic incursions -- greater violations of democratic process -- are far more likely. If there is dissent about the vote in Florida in this next presidential election -- and the police are tasering voters' rights groups -- we will still have an election.

What we will not have is liberty.

We have to understand what time it is. When the state starts to hurt people for asking questions, we can no longer operate on the leisurely time of a strong democracy -- the 'Oh gosh how awful!' kind of time. It is time to take to the streets. It is time to confront those committing crimes against the Constitution. The window has now dropped several precipitous inches and once it is closed there is no opening it without great and sorrowful upheaval.

We also need to understand from history that the temptation at a moment like this to grow more quiet -- to stay out of the line of fire -- is the wrong choice by far. History shows categorically that if citizens do not stand up now to confront and imprison the abusers, things do not get safer -- they get much more dangerous for ordinary people, activist or not.

I was scared when I wrote The End of America -- personally scared because the blueprint I was tracing in the summer of 2006 showed clearly that protesters and critics would start to be hurt within the year. When I told a dear friend that I was scared, he gently reminded me of the history I was reading. He asked, will things be scarier for you and the ones you love if you speak up now -- or if you are silent?

We don't just need to speak up now. We need to act. It is time to rebel in the name of the flag and the founders.

Oh dear Lord, not that moonbat again!

Oh dear Lord, not that moonbat again!

I wasn't talking about you, moonie.

:thumbs:
DB

Napsterbater has voiced the opinion that the police are right because the speaker is a punk. That has to be one of the most absurd in a series of absurd statements by those who wish to absolve the police of consequences for their behavior.
You dumbfuck. Why don't you try reading it again, and then tell me my argument was that, instead of the relative seriousness of the corrective actions taken by the police.

Never have I seen such drivel as is being posted by Vilepagan, Borghunter, Smartmouthwoman and Napsterbater.

SMW seems to think that once the authorities, in this case, the police take an interest in a person that person loses his constitutionl rights. She also seems to think that if anyone might possibly do something wrong based on a person's speech that person should be subject to being given the bum's rush or even arrested by the police. She does not differentiate between a person inciting to riot and a person asking a perfectly legitimate question that some unreasoning person might interpret wrongly. She seems far fonder of obedience to authority that constitutional rights.

Frogger, I'm a little dismayed at your continued posturing against the police here. I said NO such thing. What I said was WHEN A PERSON IS BEING ARRESTED, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE ONLY RECOURSE THEY HAVE AVAILABLE IS TO COOPERATE WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICER. That's a far cry from 'once a police take interest in a person, they lose their constitutional rights.' You (and quite a few others) ASSUME the officers acted without being asked. That's your opinion, but not necessarily a fact. Again, you weren't there! Even if they DID act on their own, and they were totally out of line in doing so, that FACT will be brought up in a court of law and the citizen arrested will either be cleared of all charges and the police brought up on charges of violating his civil rights.. or the charge made against him will stand and he will receive some sort of sentence... probably probation. The time to decide whether or not his freedom of speech was violated is NOT at the scene. Otherwise, we'd be a country ruled by mobs.

I never said anything about the man being arrested for WHAT HE SAID or tried to say. He was arrested because the officers on site approached him in an effort to escort him out because he was acting against the set decorum of the meeting. Once they TOUCHED him, he started to struggle. At that point, it didn't matter if he was trying to recite the Declaration of Independence. A citizen CANNOT struggle against arrest by a police officer and expect anything other than an escalation of the incident... with the cops winning every time.

All of us who refuse to lump all police officers into the category of BAD cops here have readily admitted there are time and incidents where the cops behaved badly. This very well could've been one of those time. Nobody has said all cops always respect everyone's civil rights.

But the fact remains... the time to question whether or not the cops were right or wrong is in COURT. Not at the time of arrest.

It's amusing how many lefties honestly believe there is NOTHING a person can do that will take away his Constitutional rights. Try telling a prison guard you have the right to bear arms and see how far that gets you. Tell them you really want to vote in the next election and see if they send a van to pick you up.

People EARN the rights of the Constitution by being law-abiding citizens. Once they step over that line, those rights are limited. Step over it HARD, like killing someone, and you'll find yourself with very few rights remaining.

I am not afraid of the law, because I abide by the law. If I break the law, I expect to learn how to live with a whole other set of rules.

I'm afraid you've forgotten one key word of your topic... SOME. You seem to be taking the stand you want us to agree that ALL cops are bad.

That's simply not true. It will be interesting to see how this case comes out in COURT. Maybe once a verdict is rendered, you'll have FACTS to back up your accusations. Desk-chair judges are no more knowledgable than desk-chair politicians. What a prime example this thread has become.

SMW

Frogger, I'm a little dismayed at your continued posturing against the police here. I said NO such thing. What I said was WHEN A PERSON IS BEING ARRESTED, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE ONLY RECOURSE THEY HAVE AVAILABLE IS TO COOPERATE WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICER. That's a far cry from 'once a police take interest in a person, they lose their constitutional rights.' You (and quite a few others) ASSUME the officers acted without being asked. That's your opinion, but not necessarily a fact. Again, you weren't there! Even if they DID act on their own, and they were totally out of line in doing so, that FACT will be brought up in a court of law and the citizen arrested will either be cleared of all charges and the police brought up on charges of violating his civil rights.. or the charge made against him will stand and he will receive some sort of sentence... probably probation. The time to decide whether or not his freedom of speech was violated is NOT at the scene. Otherwise, we'd be a country ruled by mobs.

I never said anything about the man being arrested for WHAT HE SAID or tried to say. He was arrested because the officers on site approached him in an effort to escort him out because he was acting against the set decorum of the meeting. Once they TOUCHED him, he started to struggle. At that point, it didn't matter if he was trying to recite the Declaration of Independence. A citizen CANNOT struggle against arrest by a police officer and expect anything other than an escalation of the incident... with the cops winning every time.

All of us who refuse to lump all police officers into the category of BAD cops here have readily admitted there are time and incidents where the cops behaved badly. This very well could've been one of those time. Nobody has said all cops always respect everyone's civil rights.

But the fact remains... the time to question whether or not the cops were right or wrong is in COURT. Not at the time of arrest.

It's amusing how many lefties honestly believe there is NOTHING a person can do that will take away his Constitutional rights. Try telling a prison guard you have the right to bear arms and see how far that gets you. Tell them you really want to vote in the next election and see if they send a van to pick you up.

People EARN the rights of the Constitution by being law-abiding citizens. Once they step over that line, those rights are limited. Step over it HARD, like killing someone, and you'll find yourself with very few rights remaining.

I am not afraid of the law, because I abide by the law. If I break the law, I expect to learn how to live with a whole other set of rules.

I'm afraid you've forgotten one key word of your topic... SOME. You seem to be taking the stand you want us to agree that ALL cops are bad.

That's simply not true. It will be interesting to see how this case comes out in COURT. Maybe once a verdict is rendered, you'll have FACTS to back up your accusations. Desk-chair judges are no more knowledgable than desk-chair politicians. What a prime example this thread has become.

SMW

When you're right, you're right SMW. Very well said.

I would add a few points, and ask a few questions.

To those who believe the use of a Taser was excessive, or even "torture", I would ask what methods for inducing compliance is an arrestee would you find acceptable? Pepper spray? A smack with a baton? A painful arm twisting?

On the subject of demanding to know the reason for your arrest from the arresting officer. You do have the "right" to ask the officer why you're being arrested, but he/she is under no legal obligation to tell you. The only thing they are required by law to tell you is your Miranda rights. There's little point in asking because most cops in most circumstances won't tell you anyway, and there's a good reason for that.

BTW Frogger, what's with all the strawmen being created? Between you and dharma you've slain an army of scarecrows.

Naomi Wolf, A Shocking Moment for Society (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/a-shocking-moment-for-soc_b_64909.html).

There is a chapter in my new book, The End of America...

Good of you to help Ms. Wolf sell her books, Dharma. You're exactly the kind of person she targets.

History shows categorically that if citizens do not stand up now to confront and imprison the abusers, things do not get safer -- they get much more dangerous for ordinary people, activist or not.

CITIZENS DO NOT CONFRONT AND IMPRISON THE ABUSERS. We have both law enforcement and court systems for that.

Or maybe you're rallying for a total overthrow of the government? If so, please don't hide behind radical authors... be a man, just come right out and say so.

SMW

People EARN the rights of the Constitution by being law-abiding citizens. Once they step over that line, those rights are limited. Step over it HARD, like killing someone, and you'll find yourself with very few rights remaining.

Yes. Like killing someone. Or other similarly heinous crimes.

Like asking a question at a college question-and-answer session.

Yes. Like killing someone. Or other similarly heinous crimes.

Like asking a question at a college question-and-answer session.

FT, do you honestly see no fault in Mr. Meyer's behavior?

If Mr. Meyer had shouted obnoxious questions of a conservative nature, FT would be for his execution (and for the canonization of the police officers).

FT, do you honestly see no fault in Mr. Meyer's behavior?

Hmmmm.

"no fault".

I am at somewhat of a loss as to how to answer that.

I will say that I certainly do NOT see enough "fault" that justifed his being treated by the police in the manner that he was treated. He was heard to loudly tell them --"Stop! I will walk out of here!"........yet the police STILL decided to taser him..........??!?!?!?!?

To me, that is unconscionable.

What Naomi Wof said about this entire situation, and the ramifications of it, was absolutely dead on target. When ordinary people start to be hurt by the State for simply asking questions, the days of a democracy are drawing swiftly to a close.

Maybe you can tell me just WHO, in this entire nation, was so harmed by Meyer's "behavior" that he deserved to be handcuffed and tasered.........................?

Who?

"He was heard to loudly tell them --Stop! I will walk out of here!"
Just not loud enough to have been picked up by the camera? I call shenanigans.

Just not loud enough to have been picked up by the camera? I call shenanigans.

It WAS picked up by the camera.

At the original link, at the 1:20 mark on the video he CLEARLY shouts to them --"I will walk out of here!"

FT, do you honestly see no fault in Mr. Meyer's behavior?

Wood U please,for the sake of sheer sanity,just let this simple
incidence,REST.I really don't think it's all that important.
The Guy has a web site,and an agenda.He was apparently a
set-up.
Now if it were an Innocent NuN just trying to state a somber
question and was treated like a drunken sailor,that would be
different.
But this Guy,surely wasn't No NuN.And he did act like a Drunken
sailor with too many cheap beers under his belt.
I'm Glad he got belted by some security.

It WAS picked up by the camera.

At the original link, at the 1:20 mark on the video he CLEARLY shouts to them --"I will walk out of here!"
Ah, I see now. Still though, he never stopped struggling and making a scene. Had he done so, he never would have been on the ground in the first place, and he never would have gotten tazered.

Hmmmm.

"no fault".

I am at somewhat of a loss as to how to answer that.

I will say that I certainly do NOT see enough "fault" that justifed his being treated by the police in the manner that he was treated. He was heard to loudly tell them --"Stop! I will walk out of here!"........yet the police STILL decided to taser him..........??!?!?!?!?

To me, that is unconscionable.

Forgive me FT, but I didn't hear him say that, so I don't know where or when this utterance occurred.


What Naomi Wof said about this entire situation, and the ramifications of it, was absolutely dead on target. When ordinary people start to be hurt by the State for simply asking questions, the days of a democracy are drawing swiftly to a close.

I would agree with you, but I can't bring myself to see this incident as anything more than a sad demonstration by a young man out to get attention for himself. It certainly is not a harbinger of doom for freedom as we know it. :)


Maybe you can tell me just WHO, in this entire nation, was so harmed by Meyer's "behavior" that he deserved to be handcuffed and tasered.........................?

Who?

I don't think anyone was harmed. I can't predict what would have happened if he had been allowed to continue, and neither could the police.

I see it this way. For whatever reason, rightly or wrongly, Mr. Meyer was asked to leave and refused. When the officers attempted to escort him out, he reacted violently. At this point all bets were off. He was now subject to arrest, and any pleas to leave the building (if they came here or after) were simply too little, too late.

Mr. Meyer had every opportunity to avoid arrest by leaving peacefully after being asked to leave. If he believed that he was wrongly being asked to leave, and he wished to physically protest his removal at that time, he could have sat down, folded his arms, and stated his intention to stay. By violently struggling with the officers, he risked injury to himself and others, and the police are required by law to put a stop to such activity as quickly and safely as possible, even if the person is only threatening their own safety.

I would agree with you, but I can't bring myself to see this incident as anything more than a sad demonstration by a young man out to get attention for himself.All the more reason, in my opinion, to be concerned about police officers who feel they need to gang bulldog this kid, then shoot him with 50,000 volts. Anytime a potentially lethal weapon is used, the risk ought to be damn real.
It certainly is not a harbinger of doom for freedom as we know it. :)The kids actions weren't, but to allow the incompetent cops to feel good about their handling of the situation might be.
I don't think anyone was harmed.By all acounts tasering harms the victim.
I see it this way. For whatever reason, rightly or wrongly, Mr. Meyer was asked to leave and refused. When the officers attempted to escort him out, he reacted violently.He wasn't asked; he was grabbed. That is assault, in itself. The violence was onesided. How can you say that pulling your arms away from an aggressor and walking with them held purposefully in the air is a "violent" reaction?

It WAS picked up by the camera.

At the original link, at the 1:20 mark on the video he CLEARLY shouts to them --"I will walk out of here!"

You are absolutely correct, he very clearly does.

To those who believe the use of a Taser was excessive, or even "torture", I would ask what methods for inducing compliance is an arrestee would you find acceptable?

6 cops / 1 kid = no contest.

They could have simply picked him up and carried him out of the room... but it is so much easier to just taser him until he "complies". :rolleyes:

I worked in bars for years before and during college and I bounced for more than 2 years at a nightclub in Fremont, CA called the Hot Rod Cafe. I have personally picked up and carried out struggling men with only one other bouncer. Six cops should have had absolutely no problem. They had him on the floor so the hard part was over, all they had to do was each grab a limb and lift. The chick could have held the door and they still would have had one extra guy.

Tasering him into silence was an unnecessary and disgusting abuse of power.

The problem with you is that you think it is acceptable for the police to "induce compliance" by means of inducing extreme pain, rather then simply using old-fashioned blunt force. Even though you will never admit it, you and SMW are advocating torture, because you both believe that it will only ever be used on the "Others" in society.

.

All the more reason, in my opinion, to be concerned about police officers who feel they need to gang bulldog this kid, then shoot him with 50,000 volts. Anytime a potentially lethal weapon is used, the risk ought to be damn real.

The Taser when used in the way it was used in this case is not regarded as "potentially lethal", nor does it induce "50,000 volts" into the target.

"Drive Stun

Some TASER devices, particularly those used by police departments, also have a "Drive Stun" capability, where the taser is held against the target without firing barbs and is intended to cause pain without incapacitating the target. TASER defines "Drive Stun" as "the process of using the EMD weapon as a pain compliance technique. This is done by activating the EMD and placing it against an individual’s body. This can be done without an air cartridge in place or after an air cartridge has been deployed.". [12]

A Las Vegas police document says "The Drive Stun causes significant localized pain in the area touched by the TASER but does not have a significant effect on the central nervous system. The Drive Stun does not incapacitate a subject but may assist in taking a subject into custody." [13]

It is also known as "Dry taseing" or "Drive taseing".[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser#Taser


By all acounts tasering harms the victim.

See above, and I would say that while Tasering might "hurt", it's still safer than the alternatives.


He wasn't asked; he was grabbed.

You may believe that he wasn't asked to leave first, I don't.


That is assault, in itself. The violence was onesided.

It's not "assault" if the cops were making a lawful arrest.


How can you say that pulling your arms away from an aggressor and walking with them held purposefully in the air is a "violent" reaction?

I don't believe I said that.

Some thoughts by a person attending the event:

"There are many of us here who feel it was staged, something doesn't sit right with us about this. My longtime friend Nicole Mallo is the officer who tasered him and she sticks to the belief that what they did was right. She's a great person, decent and kind, and a good cop and I hate the bad press she's getting.

Contrary to many beliefs stated on the web, he was NOT completely handcuffed, he had only one cuff on when he was tased. And he was fighting, oh was he fighting. Also, Sgt King attempted to tase him first but his wouldn't work so he asked Officer Mallo to do it for him. The guy was unruly, disrupting a professional event. The person who turned off the microphone was in fact, the ACCENT speakers bureau representative, not the police. The police were strictly there for security.

The thing about the crowd cheering is right on. All you hear the pro-Meyer crowd talk about is how people yelled to leave him alone but the truth is that a lot of people cheered as they were dragging his sorry butt out of there."

http://stuckonthepalmetto.blogspot.com/2007/09/additional-info-on-taser-incident.html

6 cops / 1 kid = no contest.

Perhaps you'd feel better if they gave the kid more of a chance to fight back?


They could have simply picked him up and carried him out of the room... but it is so much easier to just taser him until he "complies". :rolleyes:

How much training have you had in subduing violent people safely?


I worked in bars for years before and during college and I bounced for more than 2 years at a nightclub in Fremont, CA called the Hot Rod Cafe.

Congratulations. How much training have you had in subduing violent people safely? What's that? None, you say? Then forgive me when I say that I think people who have received extensive training on the subject, probably know more about it than you do.


Tasering him into silence was an unnecessary and disgusting abuse of power.

The problem with you is that you think it is acceptable for the police to "induce compliance" by means of inducing extreme pain, rather then simply using old-fashioned blunt force. Even though you will never admit it, you and SMW are advocating torture, because you both believe that it will only ever be used on the "Others" in society.

The problem with you is that you can't defend your position without making false statements. This is a clear indication you've run out of intelligent contributions to the discussion.

On the use of Tasers:

"Tasers may only be used in "specific circumstances," UF President Bernie Machen said Tuesday at a news conference.

At the conference at Emerson Alumni Hall, a University Police Department document concerning the use of Tasers was passed out.

According to the UPD document, the circumstances for using a Taser include trying to avoid an officer's attempts to control a situation.

This can include people bracing themselves, pushing or not allowing an officer to approach. A person does not have to strike or harm an officer to justify use of a Taser, according to the UPD papers.

The document, titled "Use of Force," was last revised in March and also deals with other policies on violence.

The document classifies violence on a scale of one to six, with level one being intimidating body language and level six being attempts to kill or badly hurt an officer. Tasers are an accepted response to level four and above.

But officers must also take into account the person they are dealing with.

"For instance, an unarmed small framed female juvenile may be displaying level five resistance but would probably only require level three response by the average officer," it reads.

All police officers who carry Tasers receive annual training.

Any time a person is Tasered, even if it's accidental, the incident is subject to internal review.

If someone is Tasered, according to the UPD paper, paramedics will be called after that person is taken into custody."

http://www.alligator.org/articles/2007/09/19/news/campus/taser.txt

I was basically neutral on this at the beginning. After following the arguments here I think the kid had an axe to grind and should have responded in a more cooperative manner. However the police "over-handled" the situation and need to be held accountable for that. Nicely argued on each side guys, I am enjoying following the logic put forth.

Perhaps you'd feel better if they gave the kid more of a chance to fight back?

Way to avoid addressing the point I made, which is that the cops had options available to them besides tasering the kid, using pepper spray or beating him down with their batons.



How much training have you had in subduing violent people safely?

When I started as a bouncer, I did receive some training from the head bouncer, who was a former cop. I had to learn how to subdue someone and get them out of the bar without hurting them so the bar didn't get sued. I would hope that cops, even campus rent-a-cops, would have at least that much training, but it certainly doesn't appear that they have.

I know enough to know that six officers did not have to use a taser to "force compliance" from a college kid.



What's that? None, you say?

I did? Wrong again, Vile.

How much training have YOU had in subduing someone?



The problem with you is that you can't defend your position without making false statements.

Actually as evidenced above, that is clearly your tactic, not mine. :thumbs:


This is a clear indication you've run out of intelligent contributions to the discussion.

Yes, you have.

Take my advice kiddo,
:stfu


.

Way to avoid addressing the point I made, which is that the cops had options available to them besides tasering the kid, using pepper spray or beating him down with their batons.
Fully agreed. All of which, as Vile was so eager to point out, are trained in hand-to-hand combat, judo, and other various restraint techniques. But I suppose if there were 7 "trained professionals" standing around to detain this unruly college geek, then maybe they could've holstered the tazer.

You see, we do need more cops on the force.
I know enough to know that six officers did not have to use a taser to "force compliance" from a college kid.
Once again, I agree.
When I started as a bouncer, I did receive some training from the head bouncer, who was a former cop.
He meant formal training......which, IMHO, doesn't invalidate your point. Ostensibly, the cops have had plenty and still opted to zap the kid. Oh, and he wasn't some crack head; he was sober. A point I find disturbing, myself.
Take my advice kiddo,
:stfu

Ahhh, and there's the cock we all know and hate. You say shit like that, and not only do you come off like an asshole; you come off like a juvenile asshole.

Take the advice, find a new tactic.

How do you know he was sober, Prae? :p

Anyways, dharma, do you mean to tell me that you wouldn't be just as upset if they had, in your words, "beaten him down with their batons"? That sounds way more dangerous than a taser if you ask me... As for the pepper spray, I'd think there were too many people around for that. What if the peppery fumes wafted away and got into the eyes of an innocent bystander? :eek:

The Taser when used in the way it was used in this case is not regarded as "potentially lethal", nor does it induce "50,000 volts" into the target.Without knowing the medical history of the victim, no one can say that the weapon will not be potentially lethal to that specific individual. Without quoting the rest of your info, which I did find interesting, by the way, people have been known to have heart attacks behind the exact stimuli you describe. This is a dangerous, potentially lethal (although admittedly less so than a 9mm!) weapon, period. Or else the automatic reviews whenever it is discharged would not be needed.
See above, and I would say that while Tasering might "hurt", it's still safer than the alternatives.But, still, would you concede that the person who is hurt is "harmed?"
You may believe that he wasn't asked to leave first, I don't.It appears to me that the officers walked up behind him, paused, looked at each other, then stepped forward and grabbed ahold of him. He then jerked free and turned toward them...
It's not "assault" if the cops were making a lawful arrest.So then, was he being arrested before he resisted? Many here have said that the officers were simply "escorting" him out, and that the arrest was a result of his resistance.

This is important, to my way of thinking, because all that I've been saying is this: these cops were incompetent in the manner in which they addresssed the situation, using force before it was warranted, and then ultimately resorting to a level of violence out of proportion to the threat.
Some thoughts by a person attending the event:

"There are many of us here who feel it was staged, something doesn't sit right with us about this. My longtime friend Nicole Mallo is the officer who tasered him and she sticks to the belief that what they did was right. She's a great person, decent and kind, and a good cop and I hate the bad press she's getting.Hardly an objective source, huh? Her longtime friend?

The thing about the crowd cheering is right on. All you hear the pro-Meyer crowd talk about is how people yelled to leave him alone but the truth is that a lot of people cheered as they were dragging his sorry butt out of there."The mob opinion is not one I'd value a whole lot in judging what actions officers should take. I'm sure there were lots of good God fearing white folk (though not all) who completely supported turning the water cannon and dogs loose in Selma.

After following the arguments here I think the kid had an axe to grind and should have responded in a more cooperative manner. However the police "over-handled" the situation and need to be held accountable for that. This neatly sums up my take on this.

As for the pepper spray, I'd think there were too many people around for that. What if the peppery fumes wafted away and got into the eyes of an innocent bystander? :eek:

I dont know if you remember but a few years back there was an incident in a club and an officer maced a guy in order to detain him. Well the fumes where very strong and maybe went through the ventilation or something but anyways the whole club freaked out and there was a huge stampede to get out. I dont know of the injuries of the whole thing but it couldn't of been pretty... it was right around the time there was the fire at the great white show in RI.

But, still, would you concede that the person who is hurt is "harmed?"


The terms "hurt" and "harmed" are not freely interchangeable. "Harmed" connotes physical injury while "hurt" is more inclusive.

It appears to me that the officers walked up behind him, paused, looked at each other, then stepped forward and grabbed ahold of him. He then jerked free and turned toward them...
That's EXACTLY what happened.
It's not "assault" if the cops were making a lawful arrest.
So then, was he being arrested before he resisted?
BINGO! As I see it, if you touch someone without their consent or permission (or even worse yet, by sneaking up on them), then you're guilty of assault, period. If you wanna ASK me to leave the premises, then do so - but don't you dare fucking touch me for no reason there, pork chop. If I get grabbed from behind, then most assuredly, I'll swing first, and ask questions later.
Many here have said that the officers were simply "escorting" him out, and that the arrest was a result of his resistance.
A load of horseshit, IMHO. If someone grabbed your arm from behind, what would you do? Well, I don't know about you, but I'd pull away. Bam - resisting, I guess - and even BEFORE they said anything to you. There's a real neat cop trick, for sure.

That's EXACTLY what happened.


A load of horseshit, IMHO. If someone grabbed your arm from behind, what would you do? Well, I don't know about you, but I'd pull away. Bam - resisting, I guess - and even BEFORE they said anything to you. There's a real neat cop trick, for sure.

Resisting consists of a little more gray area than that black and white senerio.

The terms "hurt" and "harmed" are not freely interchangeable. "Harmed" connotes physical injury while "hurt" is more inclusive.
I looked up harm, it refered me to injure:

injure

Main Entry: in·jure
Pronunciation: 'in-j&r
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): in·jured; in·jur·ing /'inj-ri[ng], 'in-j&-/
Etymology: Middle English enjuren, from Anglo-French *enjurer, from Late Latin injuriare, from Latin injuria injury
1 a : to do an injustice to : WRONG b : to harm, impair, or tarnish the standing of <injured his reputation> c : to give pain to <injure a person's pride>
2 a : to inflict bodily hurt on b : to impair the soundness of <injured her health> c : to inflict material damage or loss on
- in·jur·er /'in-j&r-&r/ noun
synonyms INJURE, HARM, HURT, DAMAGE, IMPAIR, MAR mean to affect injuriously. INJURE implies the inflicting of anything detrimental to one's looks, comfort, health, or success <badly injured in an accident>. HARM often stresses the inflicting of pain, suffering, or loss <careful not to harm the animals>. HURT implies inflicting a wound to the body or to the feelings <hurt by their callous remarks>. DAMAGE suggests injury that lowers value or impairs usefulness <a table damaged in shipping>. IMPAIR suggests a making less complete or efficient by deterioration or diminution <years of smoking had impaired his health>. MAR applies to injury that spoils perfection (as of a surface) or causes disfigurement <the text is marred by many typos>.

Anyway, some may, of course, continue to play word games.

Anyway, some may, of course, continue to play word games.

I'm not debating the definition. I'm talking about connotations. Ignoring the connotation leads to misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation. Granted, that may be what you're trying to do here.

Here's a googled example of an individual who distinguishes between hurt and harm: http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/entry/hurt_doesn_t_mean_harm

I'm not debating the definition. I'm talking about connotations. Ignoring the connotation leads to misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation. Granted, that may be what you're trying to do here.Look at the connotations in the supplied definitions then, chief, and tell me that a taser victim is not harmed.

BTW, do your friends think you're smart, or just someone who clouds the issues to cover the obvious fact that you have nothing to offer but whining argument?

BTW, do your friends think you're smart, or just someone who clouds the issues to cover the obvious fact that you have nothing to offer but whining argument?

My friends consider me smart. But in this case, I just don't like when people misuse words in order to distort the facts. Now here's my question: Do your friends think you're a dick, or just a person who uses personal insults to try to cover up their flimsy assertions?

My friends consider me smart. But in this case, I just don't like when people misuse words in order to distort the facts. Now here's my question: Do your friends think you're a dick, or just a person who uses personal insults to try to cover up their flimsy assertions?You're such a crybaby! You start the personal crap, all the while jumping into a perfectly decent exchange, like your opinion on word usage carried any weight with me, then keep it up when you get slapped. :lolhit:

Just for drill, though, what is the flimsy assertion? That a taser victim is harmed by it?

I'll take it by your response that your friends consider you a dick. No surprise there.

I'll take it by your response that your friends consider you a dick. No surprise there.Notice you avoided the actual question and continued with the little crybaby crap! You're a class act.

(Incidently, neither of the options you offered me applied. Hey, there again you try to limit the conversation to come out your way. Word Games 101. Where'd you go to law school, Leper?)

Do your friends think you're a dick, or just a person who uses personal insults to try to cover up their flimsy assertions?

I guess Shilo can be a dick,but he knows girls who can tie knots out of cherry stems while in another girls mouth.... he is aces in my book.

Houston can be an enlightening place. :spank:

Notice you avoided the actual question and continued with the little crybaby crap! You're a class act.


Apparently, you don't know how to use the term "crybaby" either.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

cry·ba·by /ˈkraɪˌbeɪbi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[krahy-bey-bee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -bies, verb, -bied, -by·ing.
–noun
1. a person, esp. a child, who cries readily for very little reason.
2. a person who complains too much, usually in a whining manner.
–verb (used without object)
3. Also, cry-baby. to cry or complain easily or often.

You might appropriately insult me as a "sanctimonious semanticist," but a "crybaby"? That really doesn't apply at all.

When you can't distinguish between the terms "harm" and "hurt," I might downgrade you to a ninth grade ability in English. But when you can't even use the term "crybaby" appropriately, you're making third graders look advanced.

Granted, you're probably just using the term for taunting or insulting purposes, which seems to be a favorite tactic of yours. But you seriously need work on that area as well if you're resorting to "crybaby" to hurt my feelings. (See how "harm" would be awkward here?)

Apparently, you don't know how to use the term "crybaby" either.

http://dictionary.reference.com/From your link:
cry·ba·by /ˈkraɪˌbeɪbi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[krahy-bey-bee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -bies, verb, -bied, -by·ing.
–noun 1. a person, esp. a child, who cries readily for very little reason.
2. a person who complains too much, usually in a whining manner.
–verb (used without object) 3. Also, cry-baby. to cry or complain easily or often.

There you go.


...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...(Translation mine.)Again, you haven't answered the question, but persist as a crybaby.

(See how "harm" would be awkward here?)I forgot to answer this: Yes, "harm" would be awkward there. But would not be when descibing the victims of tasering.

Anyways, dharma, do you mean to tell me that you wouldn't be just as upset if they had, in your words, "beaten him down with their batons"?

Yes, I probably would be just as upset.
What I pointed out was that they had other, better options they chose not to use.


.

Yes, I probably would be just as upset.
What I pointed out was that they had other, better options they chose not to use.
If you would be just as upset, how does that make it a "better" option?

If you would be just as upset, how does that make it a "better" option?Perhaps he means that there were options other than these two which they might have used.

If you would be just as upset, how does that make it a "better" option?
That wasn't his point - the "better" option would've been to take him down in the traditional sense. There were 6 cops there, and every one of 'em is trained in judo, hand-to-hand combat, and most importantly here, they're trained to talk someone down, not to jump that person from behind - only to then cite their ass with "resisting arrest" when they pull away.

Houston can be an enlightening place. :spank:

Well I live here. I live in midtown... right across from the huge Specs liquor store and pub fiction.... If you can please point me in the direction of such females i would most definetly be in debt.

That wasn't his point - the "better" option would've been to take him down in the traditional sense. There were 6 cops there, and every one of 'em is trained in judo, hand-to-hand combat, and most importantly here, they're trained to talk someone down, not to jump that person from behind - only to then cite their ass with "resisting arrest" when they pull away.

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep saying he was "jumped" "grabbed" "assaulted" or "attacked"...from behind?

I watched the video again, and he is not approached from behind, nor is he unaware of who is grabbing him. If you watch the original video posted, his right arm is grabbed by a female officer at the :15 mark. She's standing on his right prior to this and he was speaking to her moments before so we can be reasonably certain he was aware of her presence. Forgive me Prae, but painting this as a "startle" response on the part of Mr. Meyer seems a bit thin.

On the point of using another method to induce compliance in an arrestee other than a Taser zap, do any of the methods you've mentioned entail the risk of any injury to the arrestee or the officers, and if so, how do you think this compares with the risk of injury from a Tasing?

What does surprise me is that some people here have made the claim that Mr. Meyer presented "no threat" to the safety of anyone in the hall, including himself. I honestly don't know how you can watch any of the videos posted thus far and arrive at that conclusion. Using hindsight we can say that Mr. Meyer wasn't armed, had no intoxicants in his system, and is apparently of sound mind, but the police officers on the scene didn't have the benefit of hindsight. To them Mr. Meyer was an unknown quantity. By all accounts he was asked to leave the hall and refused. When the police attempted to remove him, he resisted violently, not peacefully, although that option was certainly open to him. Is there anyone here who believes that Mr. Meyer would have been Tasered if he peacefully objected to being removed? If not, I see no alternative but to conclude that he's largely responsible for the level of force that was used to take him into custody.

Is there anyone here who believes that Mr. Meyer would have been Tasered if he peacefully objected to being removed?

When did Mr. Meyer become "violent"? Are seriously trying to claim that just pulling away and putting his arms up is "violent"?

When did Mr. Meyer become "violent"?

IMO, in the following video at about the :24 mark.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&mode=related&search=


Are seriously trying to claim that just pulling away and putting his arms up is "violent"?

I'm sorry, I can't answer a question posed with an incomplete sentence.

The mob opinion is not one I'd value a whole lot in judging what actions officers should take. I'm sure there were lots of good God fearing white folk (though not all) who completely supported turning the water cannon and dogs loose in Selma.

An amusing comparison...there was one small difference though: the douchebag was not the victim of racial bigotry.

Are seriously trying to claim that just pulling away and putting his arms up is "violent"?

I'm sorry, I can't answer a question posed with an incomplete sentence.

Yeah, right.

Since you cannot answer it, go ahead and dodge the question any way you can Vile.

The fact that you would make use of such a dodge serves to reveal the insubstantiality --IMO-- of your argument on this topic.

You keep going back to ---"Hey, but Meyer reacted violently". This is to me extremely disingenuous.

Had the police had not unjustly accosted Mr Meyer, there would have BEEN NO violent resistance...........do you see what i'm saying?

Yeah, right.

Since you cannot answer it, go ahead and dodge the question any way you can Vile.

The fact that you would make use of such a dodge serves to reveal the insubstantiality --IMO-- of your argument on this topic.

You keep going back to ---"Hey, but Meyer reacted violently". This is to me extremely disingenuous.

Had the police had not unjustly accosted Mr Meyer, there would have BEEN NO violent resistance...........do you see what i'm saying?

Good try freethinker - as many of us have mentioned earlier - if they had just left him alone and let Kerry answer his question as he was trying to do - NONE of this would have happened. But the same argument follows - he had to be stopped, and as you, me and others here have stated, why??!!

Had the police had not unjustly accosted Mr Meyer, there would have BEEN NO violent resistance...........do you see what i'm saying?
Yes, this is true. If police abandon their responsibilities and stop arresting people, there will never be any violent resistance.

Now who's being disingenuous?

Meyer's diatribe and his "questions" to John Kerry...

"I first of all want to thank you for your time. You've spent a lot of time talking to us today and want to thank you for being open and honest. You recommended a book to us earlier, and I wanted to recommend a book to you as well. It's called "Armed Mad House" by Greg Palast. And he says you WON the 2004 election. Isn't that amazing?! Isn't that amazing, you won in 2004. In fact, there were multiple reports on the day of the election of disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida and Ohio..."

A woman next to mic tells him: "Ask you question or..."

Meyer: "I'll ask my question, thank you very much I'll ask my question, I'm going to preface it. He's been talking for 2 hours, I think I can have two minutes…I'll ask my question, I'm going to inform people and then I'll ask my question. There are multiple reports of disenfranchisement among black voters on the day of the election in 2004. There was also voting machines, electronic voting machines in Volusia County Florida that counted backwards. So amidst all of these reports, of phony, bogus stuff going on, how could you concede the election on the day? How could you concede the 2004 election on the day? In this book it says that there were 5 million votes that were suppressed for you in the election. Didn't you want to be president? I'm not even done yet. I have two more questions. If you were so against Iran, how come you aren't saying "let's impeach Bush now?" Impeach Bush now before he can invade Iran. Why don't we impeach him? Impeach Bush? Clinton was impeached for what, a blow job? Why don't we impeach Bush? Also, are you a member of the Skull and Bones in college with Bush? Were you in the same secret society as Bush (mic cuts out) were you in Skull and thank you for cutting off my mic…"

I don't think he was looking for answers during this Q&A... he was looking to prosthetize.


On a lighter note.... This whole thing reminded me of this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434&mode

Without knowing the medical history of the victim, no one can say that the weapon will not be potentially lethal to that specific individual. Without quoting the rest of your info, which I did find interesting, by the way, people have been known to have heart attacks behind the exact stimuli you describe. This is a dangerous, potentially lethal (although admittedly less so than a 9mm!) weapon, period. Or else the automatic reviews whenever it is discharged would not be needed.
But, still, would you concede that the person who is hurt is "harmed?"

I would have to admit that any weapon, even a fist, can be potentially lethal. I'd be willing to bet that using a Taser as it was used here is less dangerous to an arrestee than other, more "traditional" methods of controlling a person so they can be handcuffed. I also think the "automatic reviews" are not necessarily an indicator of danger on the part of the weapon, as they could be there simply to address the fears of the general public about the weapon and the situations in which it would be used. I agree that this weapon, like any weapon, has the potential for misuse or abuse, but I don't see that here, at least not to any great degree.


It appears to me that the officers walked up behind him, paused, looked at each other, then stepped forward and grabbed ahold of him. He then jerked free and turned toward them...

I wouldn't put it exactly that way. :)


Many here have said that the officers were simply "escorting" him out, and that the arrest was a result of his resistance.

That is what I believe. Note that the first two officers who grabbed his arms were trying to walk him towards the exit rather than put on the handcuffs.


This is important, to my way of thinking, because all that I've been saying is this: these cops were incompetent in the manner in which they addresssed the situation, using force before it was warranted, and then ultimately resorting to a level of violence out of proportion to the threat.

I can't disagree more. There were two cops to escort him out of the building. Mr. Meyer is responsible for the fact that more were needed to insure his compliance.


Hardly an objective source, huh? Her longtime friend?

I wasn't attempting to be objective, merely to post an opinion by someone who was present at the event. Someone else had posted an op-ed column by someone who wasn't there, and I thought perhaps a dissenting opinion was in order. I'm not sure if you're attempting to point out something I didn't know or consider, but I did read the thing before I posted it. :)

Yeah, right.

Since you cannot answer it, go ahead and dodge the question any way you can Vile.

I don't have to dodge or answer a loaded question FT. If you think dharma's constant "Well then you must think...", or "According to you..." type statements where he deliberately misstates or misinterprets even simple arguments is a valid debate tactic, then you answer his questions. If you have any questions to ask I'll be happy to politely answer them as I have done, but If you want to make snide accusations as to my motives, or deliberately misstate my arguments, I'm not interested.


The fact that you would make use of such a dodge serves to reveal the insubstantiality --IMO-- of your argument on this topic.

You keep going back to ---"Hey, but Meyer reacted violently". This is to me extremely disingenuous.


Had the police had not unjustly accosted Mr Meyer, there would have BEEN NO violent resistance...........do you see what i'm saying?

I do, but your whole argument is based on the premise that escorting him from the building was "unjust". I disagree on that point. I also think that Mr. Meyer's choice to react violently, as opposed to peacefully, was responsible for the escalation of the violence to the point he was Tased and cuffed.

I don't have to dodge or answer a loaded question FT. If you think dharma's constant "Well then you must think...", or "According to you..." type statements where he deliberately misstates or misinterprets even simple arguments is a valid debate tactic, then you answer his questions. If you have any questions to ask I'll be happy to politely answer them as I have done, but If you want to make snide accusations as to my motives, or deliberately misstate my arguments, I'm not interested.



I do, but your whole argument is based on the premise that escorting him from the building was "unjust". I disagree on that point. I also think that Mr. Meyer's choice to react violently, as opposed to peacefully, was responsible for the escalation of the violence to the point he was Tased and cuffed.

It all comes down to brass tacks... He jumped up there with the pre determined notion to cause a scene. It was set up for him to cause a scene and a scene he got. It was a shame it escalated to the point he was tasered. He should be very thankful tonight when he goes to sleep that this all happened in a public building in day light with alot of whitenesses. Like i said before... if this would of happened in some dark alley behind a building he would of no doubt been roughed up. I have been both roughed up and tasered and I would pick the taser every time.

You fuck with the bull and you get the horns sometimes....

IMO, in the following video at about the :24 mark.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&mode=related&search=

So the answer to my question:
Are seriously trying to claim that just pulling away and putting his arms up is "violent"?

...is yes. You do think that pulling away and throwing up your arms is being "violent".

:rolleyes:



I'm sorry, I can't answer a question posed with an incomplete sentence.

Yes, you could have, but you chose to be a dick instead.
...Where is my taser?

:rolleyes:

the douchebag was not the victim of racial bigotry.You are exactly right, and your observation is exactly irrelevant. The point that was being addressed is: the reactions of bystanders do not guarantee a reasonable/objective viewpoint from which to gauge the correctness of a police use-of-force action.

Where'd you go to law school, Leper?

Yes, you could have, but you chose to be a dick instead.
...Where is my taser?

:rolleyes:

Oh my god Dharma your beinging to be such a fucker on here. I like it... I really do.... First we have truth putting his 5973 article archive and posting in his own words... (he has the font/size/color of a eight year old but hey,,, baby steps...) Now we have you actually toying with people..your one liners off of poeples quotes are starting to rival nappys!!!

I like the new you! welcome to the dark side....