Sorry I took so long. I was meaning to get back in here last night but forgot.
Admittedly, I haven’t checked the links in this thread. I have seen footage of the guy being asked to step away from the mike because his time was up (between :45 & :52 in that clip). He refuses, shouting something about Kerry having spoken for two hours and wanting his say.
There are now what claim to be eyewitness accounts that indicate that the tape does not tell the whole story. If this is the case, we will have to wait for more evidence. Still, it did look bad.
ambushed, you are making your conclusion that the officers responded correctly based on post-facto knowledge that the responding officers did not have. That’s illegitimate if we’re discussing the appropriateness of their response.
Whether you think they were right or not, they certainly had no pre-knowledge that the guy was going to fight until he got tasered. More importantly, if they make that assumption with every disturbance they respond to, they will end up “tasing” everyone, because, why not, they’re just going to fight until they get tasered.
We do not know that. Some eyewitness accounts seem to indicate the fella was making an ass of himself in the back of the hall before the video started. That might be why all those policemen were right behind him when they tried to nab him.
So we can imagine that the guy was right on the verge of being arrested for being noisy or whatever, but the police tried less-confrontational techniques before the YouTube clip.
Of course, they also might not have, but we need more information.
Did he tell them they were going to have to taser him? If he did, then I think they were justified. If he did not, then I think they jumped the gun on the taser.
But I am not maybe the best decider, because I think tasers are overused generally.
I think it’s more likely that the police already knew that he was out of control before the videos start, so they were nearby in order not to arrest him, but to escort him out. When SiA asked him to leave and he didn’t, the police now have the duty to forcibly escort him out. When he resisted and became violent, he was subdued. When they tried to cuff him and he pulled his left arm free and turned up onto his side, he was then a threat to everyone present, and use of the taser was appropriate.
Someone being held on the ground by six cops becomes a threat to everyone present by freeing one arm and turning on his side? That’s a bit paranoid, isn’t it?
nonsense. we dont know if he would have left, or how far he would have pushed it…my logic is fine.
Listen to the audio on the video. A LOT of the people there were screaming for the cops to stop and let him go. Since then there have been protests and outrage from people who were there and other students. That is what he was shooting for and he wouldnt have gotten it if they had let things play out.
Which was EXACTLY what he was baiting them into doing. He wanted them to drag him out and make a scene so they would look like they bad guys. He got his wish, and the “apropriate authorities” fell for it, hook line and sinker.
And a really silly one at that, because my assertion wasn’t reckless.
Good thing we aren’t talking about icebergs.
That is my understanding, yes. In fact, the officer in charge discovered his taser was not fuctioning properly so he had to get one of the others to do it.
OK then. If that is true, then I have less of a problem with the use of the taser in this instance. I still don’t think he represented any real danger.
Might I ask where you arrived at the understanding that he told the officers that he would not stop until they used the taser on him? I just haven’t seen that anywhere. The head officer’s taser not working is not evidence that the kid announced his intention to be tasered.
Something like “You’re going to have to taser me” is less compelling, because they would not have shot him if he said “you’re going to have to shoot me”.
Not in the least. Remember, the cops don’t know that he was creating this scene for effect, at that point he’s simply an out of control individual, and just prior to him turning on his side he had clasped his hands together underneath him to prevent the cuff from going on. Suppose his hand had emerged with a gun or a knife that he had had tucked into his waistband? Would he be a threat then? Cops have to think that way, anything else leads to dead cops and dead civilians. Not every time or even most of the time, but some of the time, so worst case scenario must be assumed.
The guy was a jerk, but he wasn’t a danger to himself or others. Tasering was definitely not warranted IMO. When are people going to start standing up against things like this? I’d have probably got arrested myself trying to help the guy.
It comes right down to this – he was being a loudmouthed jerk at a forum with a public official and he didn’t leave when he was told. He annoyed a group a people for, what, 15 minutes or so.
These are not grounds for tasing. I don’t care whether you manage to manipulate that into a “resisting arrest” situation or not.
There are things that are too minor for cops to get involved in. If the “Someone in Charge” had asked the cops to do something, they should have said, “We’ll step in if he does something more than act like a jerk; until then, we’re just going to let you handle it.” There might be some point at which it is justified to pick him up by the shoulders and toss him out. But unless he did something substantially more threatening than what he was doing, in no case should this have escalated into a “resisting arrest” situation.
But they are grounds for having him escorted out, forcibly if necessary.
And if, during that, he begins acting violently and wresting himself away from the police doing the escorting, that is grounds for him being tackled and cuffed.
And if, during attempted cuffing, he wriggles loose again and seems to be a threat, that is grounds for tasering.
Remember, he escalated the situation at every step. He is the responsible party. It’s disingenuous to claim that he was tasered for being annoying.
I agree with everything you say. And to follow up, FL law does have two classes of resisting arrest:
Everyone that is blaming the kid is also right, but they seem to justify the use of a taser gun to force compliance. As I said, I disagree with this, and I also believe it is against policy. Tasers should only be used to protect an officer’s safety, and as this guy was on the ground with six officers holding him down, no threat was present…
I agree with this post. It’s much less of an exciting soundbite than the opposite side’s “he was Tasered for asking important questions,” but it’s the truth.
The kid was creating a public disturbance (stealing the mic at a public forum) and trespassing (refusing to leave after causing said disturbance) and refusing to comply with police orders and resisting arrest, and that’s enough grounds for physical action. The cops should not have Tasered him (police officers should not even be equipped with Tasers), and their actions were a little over-the-top, but not wildly so. The cops should be disciplined appropriately for overreacting, but I don’t think they should lose their jobs over this. It was a very quick, high-pressure sequence of events in a crowded room in the presence of a U.S. senator. They should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Only takes one arm to grab an officer’s gun. In this case he might have accidentally shot one of his admiring fans. It’s standard practice to resolve a physical confrontation as quickly as possible. As has been pointed out over and over again, getting tased is much less harmful than a pile-on. I would estimate this guy at 6’3 and 200 lbs. If he’s a couch potato then he’ll have the strength to bench press 200 lbs with his arms and well over 500 lbs with his legs.
To successfully handcuff him without breaking something it takes a couple of people on his back, one on each arm and a couple to hold his legs. His face is forced to the floor and both arms yanked back behind his back. It’s painful.
I can’t emphasize how bizarre his behavior was. Charging up to a microphone in front of a US Senator gives an added momentum of urgency when he demonstrates his inability to control himself.
No, this is exactly what I mean by “manipulating” it into a resisting arrest situation. Nothing he actually did … nothing … justifies tasering as a reasonable response. I don’t care if he kept them busy the rest of the evening. Until he took some action that could reasonably seen as actually harming someone, he has not threatened anyone.
And that’s why I say that he should never have been approached by armed officers unless and until he began presenting a genuine physical threat. The problem is that the people who were tasked with dealing with him were carrying guns and tasers in the first place. They should not have had those weapons at hand upon first approach to a blowhard.
Looong time lurker. Just had to finally reg so I could get this rockin’ username! “Don’t tase me, bro!” If that guy weren’t such a knob, he’d be my favorite guy ever!
acsenray, if I understand your points correctly, it can be distilled down to, “err on the side of caution,” yes? I concur.
However, we disagree on the issue of, caution from whose perspective? Caution in ensuring that as few possible injuries occur? Caution in ensuring that there’s the least likely pain or injury felt by the alleged perpetrator? Caution in ensuring the least likely injury to innocent bystanders? Or caution in ensuring the least likely injury to the officers?
When the poop hits the fan, I want the cops that are in the vicinity to have whatever tools will be necessary for the job, regardless of how it escalates. Should some nutbar be flailing about with a gun, I don’t want the cops to be saying, “hey bro, can you hold on a minute whilst we go and grab the guns that we don’t carry until there’s evidence of physical threat?” ESPECIALLY if I’m in that room.
It’s a lovely thought that we can all live in a land of rainbows and chipmunks, and our peace officers only need a flashlight and a map to direct lost travellers. It’s also unbelievably unrealistic and naive. Having officers unequipped to handle any situation will lead to a high incidence of dead cops. And possibly dead me. And possibly dead you or your family!
I agree that policy should be to err on the side of caution. To jab a taser into the knob’s ribs is the height of caution, in my estimation.
Ah hell…tase him again, bro!
Paul, my friend, in reading your posts since you arrived here, I have found you to be a particularly intelligent, fair-minded, and thoughtful man. Which is why I’m so baffled by this post of yours. It seems out of character for you to so cavalierly gloss over the subtleties and intricacies of such a complex issue as moral philosophy, vis a vie my posts to which you are responding here.
I’m going to repeat the following from my post in question:
First, how can you possibly argue that someone is legally and/or morally culpable if they perform an instructed task that, to the best of their knowledge, is not immoral?
Let me offer you the following scenario, from: Morality and Authority (emphasis mine)
(I substituted the word “instruction” for “advice” to avoid extraneous side-issues).
But according to you, “It is not a legal nor a moral defense to say Someone in Authority told you to do something.”
Or let’s revise the Milgram setup thusly: In this example, harmful and even lethal electric shocks are actually used, and the experimenter has the hidden goal of murdering the innocent victim. Instead of a labelled control box, let’s make it completely bare and unlabeled, with no indication at all that the box delivers shocks or anything harmful. Let’s also completely sound-proof the victim’s room, and most importantly, the investigator will always lie and assure the subject that nothing harmful will happen no matter what. So all we have is someone in a lab coat who orders the subject to throw some unlabeled switches, which he does. The result is the killing of an innocent victim. According to your twice-repeated moral judgment, the subject IS morally responsible for inflicting harm, even though he had no knowledge that he was doing anything immoral. Again, according to you, “It is not a legal nor a moral defense to say Someone in Authority told you to do something.”
Now let’s look at the second aspect of my response:
The scenario: A staff doctor instructs a 21 year old man to have sex with a 12 year old girl, and he does, which is statutory rape in that state. But the man and girl are inpatients in a mental hospital and the man has the mind of a 2 year old child, and thus is incapable of performing the requisite moral reasoning to know or even suspect his act was immoral and illegal. But according to your twice-repeated moral judgment, the man IS morally responsible, since “It is not a legal nor a moral defense to say Someone in Authority told you to do something.”
Going back to my earlier post:
To which you responded in part by writing:
The issue and scenario wasn’t about the morality or lack thereof of legal, state-sanctioned executions. I thought that was implicit in the context of my post, but let’s explicitly put aside the issue of whether or not ANY legal, state-sanctioned execution is moral or immoral, or murder or not, in which case the above scenario is just another example like those I’ve provided earlier in this post. The executioner had no way of knowing he was killing an innocent victim in this case. Why would you suppose God (assuming you’re referring to the Abrahamic God, who approves proper executions under His Law) “would judge [him] as a murderer”?
To bring this all back to the topic at hand, I again submit that any cop would indeed have a complete moral defense by saying Someone in Authority told them to do something, as long as what they did was not itself immoral to the best of their knowledge and moral reasoning ability. Which is the proposition you’ve been arguing against with me.