Student Arrested, Tasered at Kerry Event

Lord Relvenous · Post by **Lord Relvenous** » 2007-09-20 03:13am

Flagg wrote:
General Zod wrote:
Flagg wrote: Yeah, pretty much what I'd have done. If he continued not to comply once outside, hit him with pepperspray.
How is pepperspray not as bad as tasers? It's not as if the active ingredient in the spray is going to stop burning after you stop spraying him.
It doesn't have 2 prongs that lodge under your skin requiring EMS to remove them. I also don't recall pepper spray being sold to the public as something that would only be used when the suspect would otherwise be shot.

Dude research is important. You are thinking of a taser gun, not a taser. A simple taser does not lauch anything into the victim's body. It is just a direct high voltage, low ampere current between two prongs mounted on the taser.
Pepperspray is not a direct weapon. Every police officer trying to subdue him would have gotten a dose of it, albiet slightly abated by distance, but still you try not to cause harm to the authorities if you can help it.
He had to be subdued. After you have a suspect on the ground, you never move them until you have them completely under control. Which they did not. He was not cuffed, he refused to get his hands into the proper position to be cuffed, and he had already attempted twice to break away from police officers. He was not under control, and therefore measures had to be taken. Three options are really viable when presented with a resisting suspect in close quarters: Pepperspray, which for reasons stated above is inappropriate; Physical measures such as chokeholds, which are risking for the officer attempting to subdue the suspect as they give the suspect more leverage than when they are pressed onto the ground by multiple officers; or a taser, a temporary, nonleathal device which has no element of risk for the arresting officer, and is very effective in submission.

Do the math. Even without Meyer's previous actions, his actions while held by the police officers justifies, and calls for a taser. The sheer act of not surrendering your hands to handcuffs justifies a taser becuase officers do not know what weapons you might have on you which you could access during a struggle, say out to a vehicle.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-20 03:26am

Lord Relvenous wrote:
Flagg wrote:
General Zod wrote: How is pepperspray not as bad as tasers? It's not as if the active ingredient in the spray is going to stop burning after you stop spraying him.
It doesn't have 2 prongs that lodge under your skin requiring EMS to remove them. I also don't recall pepper spray being sold to the public as something that would only be used when the suspect would otherwise be shot.

Dude research is important. You are thinking of a taser gun, not a taser. A simple taser does not lauch anything into the victim's body. It is just a direct high voltage, low ampere current between two prongs mounted on the taser.
Pepperspray is not a direct weapon. Every police officer trying to subdue him would have gotten a dose of it, albiet slightly abated by distance, but still you try not to cause harm to the authorities if you can help it.
He had to be subdued. After you have a suspect on the ground, you never move them until you have them completely under control. Which they did not. He was not cuffed, he refused to get his hands into the proper position to be cuffed, and he had already attempted twice to break away from police officers. He was not under control, and therefore measures had to be taken. Three options are really viable when presented with a resisting suspect in close quarters: Pepperspray, which for reasons stated above is inappropriate; Physical measures such as chokeholds, which are risking for the officer attempting to subdue the suspect as they give the suspect more leverage than when they are pressed onto the ground by multiple officers; or a taser, a temporary, nonleathal device which has no element of risk for the arresting officer, and is very effective in submission.

Do the math. Even without Meyer's previous actions, his actions while held by the police officers justifies, and calls for a taser. The sheer act of not surrendering your hands to handcuffs justifies a taser becuase officers do not know what weapons you might have on you which you could access during a struggle, say out to a vehicle.

Retard, a TASER is a fucking gun that shoots out 2 prongs that go into your skin and deliver an electric current through wires attached to the weapon. What you're thinking of is called a "stun gun". Some TASERs can be used as stun guns. I do not know if this was the case here. If he was only shocked, and not actually shot with it, then I can't say I have much of a problem with it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-20 03:31am

I don't know why people are using the example of bouncers as safe conduct relative to the tasers. People have been injured by bouncers while being ejected from bars on numerous occasions. I even recall there was a case of one woman in Britain who was left partially paralyzed. There have also been cases of people who died while being sat on and handcuffed.

The fact is that there are no ideal solutions when you're dealing with some asshole who refuses to submit.

Napoleon the Clown · Post by **Napoleon the Clown** » 2007-09-20 05:13am

Flagg wrote:
General Zod wrote:
Baal wrote:The taser has definitely become an abused solve all situation.

Pigs seem to use the "less dangerous" factor of tasers to just use them instead of the tried and true method of actually talking to people.
Did you bother watching the actual video or even reading the rest of the thread before waltzing in?
I did and I don't see why the TASER was necessary. I totally understand why they dragged him out because the guy was obviousely being a disruptive twat, but they had 4+ officers holding him down.

I way probably sixty pounds less than the twat in the video. I wouldn't consider myself to be especially capable of defending myself. I have some martial arts experience. Enough to possibly surprise the hell out of someone, but not enough to give me any illusions of being "badass". But even scrawny ass me could hurt at least one of even six cops if they tried carrying me out. Get one leg free and I can kick all the hell over. Ribs, knees, etc. Get even one hand free while standing and I can start using that free hand to hurt people. Even off arms alone adrenaline makes people dangerous. Ever heard tales of the person lifting a car off a loved one? It doesn't even take that to have the strength necessary to hurt one or more person, even if out numbered. Fuck, a person could take a bit out of a cop that's trying to restrain them. Literally bite a chunk of the person off. If someone is giving six cops fits, especially when one could pass as a bouncer, than you need to do something to calm them the fuck down. So would you prefer that the cops get hurt and the dumbass gets his shoulder wrenched out of socket over him getting a nice brief 10,000 volt wake-up call?

Flagg, have you ever seen someone have a seizure while someone else tries to restrain them so they don't hurt themselves on something dangerous in the environment? Or been given a first hand account? It's far harder to restrain someone that's thrashing around then it is to stop them from moving in one continuous direction. The fucknugget was given plenty of warning. He refused to comply. He was posing a threat to the officers and anyone else that got close to him. Sorry if you're under the impression that you should wait injuries to take place before taking strong actions to stop the threat.

There's a happy medium when it comes to preemptive use of force. Tasering the dumbass without having attempted to subdue him in a more calm manner would have been an extreme, just as your fucktarded notion of waiting until he becomes an immediate threat to the entire room is. His act of struggle threatened his and the officers' safety. Just when the fuck is it justified to taser someone?

Napoleon the Clown · Post by **Napoleon the Clown** » 2007-09-20 05:14am

Ghetto edit: Just noticed I used the wrong spelling on "weigh"... Oops.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2007-09-20 10:41am

Durandal wrote: If four people sat on me while I was handcuffed, I'd sure as hell count myself as subdued. I might scream and carry on or maybe try flailing around a little, but I sure as shit wouldn't get anywhere.

Most people would submit to the cops, and even more would absolutely submit with four of them sitting on them. That kid didn't. Sure the cops had more control over him on the ground but he was hardly subdued. So, you nor I would equal the worse case senario where the cops must have something other than brute force to control an individual.

When he resisted before, he wasn't in handcuffs.

Even hog tied he could still flail about, though it would be better to have the arms and legs controled. What definition of 'subdued' are you working with here? Controling one aspect of a person fighting back does not necessarily equate to controling most or all.

That's what the handcuffs are for. Have two officers grab his arms and drag him out. If his feet were kicking around, then cuff his damn ankles. Or have the other two officers restrain his legs and carry him out like a deer carcass. Not hard. And one of the officers was a pretty damn big guy who looked like he belonged on the Chicago Bears' defensive line. I doubt he would've had too much trouble.

Like a deer carcass? That's the point, you assume if he's hog tied he'll submit. According to what I've seen, with four cops sitting on him he was still trying to resist. What the hell makes you assume he'll automatically stop resisting with two sets of cuffs on?

Oh, and in the video I saw, that Defensive Line looking cop could only pick him up and move him a few feet at a time because the guy was wiggling and flailing around. That was with the cops arms around the upper arms of the kid, controling those arms kind of like cuffs would, and picking him up, thus negating his legs a bit, and the kid was still making it extremely difficult to move him.

If you honestly think that one big guy would be insufficient to safely eject you from a premises, I suggest you go to your local night club and get in a bouncer's face. If he himself can't get you out, one of his buddies will help, and you'll be out on your ass in no time flat. And you won't have been tazed.

Well, again in most cases I've seen bouncers eject people, most go willingly (and thereby they are subdued) and those that don't bouncers use some considerable force to remove. Ask yourself, would these cops be in the same position they are now if they used physical force like a bouncer to eject the guy?

Oh give me a break. He was right by the damn door. They would've had to move him all of 5 feet.

You've obviously never had to deal with someone who will go to extremes not to be moved or otherwise fucked with.

Anyway, I don't get it. You seem to be saying you'd rather the cops go badass on him to subdue him rather than a taser. How the fuck is a baton choke hold or even a couple good hits with a baton better than a high voltage shock?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-09-20 10:53am

Flagg wrote:As an aside, don't TASERs have an option for direct contact discharges, where the prongs aren't launched into the suspects skin? I wouldn't have a problem with those being used to gain compliance.

The type of taser you're complaining about tend to be very obvious when they're used. I saw no evidence of the gun you're describing in the video, so unless you'd care to provide something a bit more substantial you don't really have anything. (They do show him being shocked after all).

the wicked prince · Post by **the wicked prince** » 2007-09-20 11:16am

Seemed overly dramatic and lame while resisting arrest. My main beef

He was brash and confrontational while asking, and looked like to me and no doubt could look like to security he was about to abuse it for a wild eyed soapbox, but I find nothing wrong with what he said in actuality, the questions themselves. Nor with being bold in principle, but he did not go about it too well

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2007-09-20 11:53am

Flagg, Durandal,

You are arguing that it is better for the police to physically manhandle suspects than to use a taser, is that correct?

Stuart · Post by **Stuart** » 2007-09-20 02:30pm

Knife wrote:Anyway, I don't get it. You seem to be saying you'd rather the cops go badass on him to subdue him rather than a taser. How is a baton choke hold or even a couple good hits with a baton better than a high voltage shock?

I think its worth noting that a Taser isn't considered the alternative to whaling on somebody witha baton. It's the alternative to putting a cap in his ass with a sidearm. If the SoB's right arm is free, no matter how many cops are sitting on him, that's a life-threatening situation. If he's packing a compact piece (for example a .380 Walther PPK which is small and flat) he could yank it out and start shooting. It's possible, I'd guess its happened.

My guess would be that chummy was lucky, if he had tried this stunt on Capitol Hill or in the presence of the USSS, he'd have been turned into swiss cheese.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-09-20 02:35pm

Durandal wrote:Drag him out of the room, close the door and throw him i

In the back of a squad car? There were at least 4 cops all practically on top of the guy. He was cuffed. He was already subdued. Yeah, he was yelling and screaming, but how is that anything new and interesting? Perps yell and scream when they're being dragged out in cuffs all the time.

They had one hand in cuffs, the other they couldn't restrain. They told him to comply or he'd be tased, and they used the taser on his shoulder in order to restrain and cuff the loose arm, rather than twist or manhandle him.

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-09-20 02:39pm

Stuart wrote:If he's packing a compact piece (for example a .380 Walther PPK which is small and flat) he could yank it out and start shooting. It's possible, I'd guess its happened.

When I posted the story I was aware that the University of Florida bans guns on campus, but not whether they have any effective means of enforcing that (e.g. metal detectors) or whether any special precautions had been taken for this event. I've checked and as far as I can tell the answer is no and no, so him having a weapon was a real possibility. After seeing the videos I have zero sympathy for this nut anyway. That said, with four police officers holding on him I would've thought the chances of him getting a weapon out and fired would be pretty low anyway.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-20 02:43pm

It's pretty sad the way the media has been completely on his side in this matter. If someone tells you that your turn is over and you start physically pushing and shoving against officers who try to enforce that, that's a hugely different situation than "being tasered for having a big mouth", which is how the media is spinning it.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2007-09-20 04:25pm

aerius wrote:After watching the full video, I was kinda hoping the cops would drag him out back and give him the full Rodney King treatment.

Or one electrode on each ear for some serious TASER ECT...

Andrew_Fireborn · Post by **Andrew_Fireborn** » 2007-09-20 05:03pm

Darth Wong wrote:It's pretty sad the way the media has been completely on his side in this matter. If someone tells you that your turn is over and you start physically pushing and shoving against officers who try to enforce that, that's a hugely different situation than "being tasered for having a big mouth", which is how the media is spinning it.

Amusingly, it's a perfect storm of spin.

The sterotypical Left wants to spin this as Abuse of Power by the police, ala Rodney King, and the Right, since it involved Kerry, want's to paint it as him having paranoid security and wanting to stifle free speech.

Still, Kid got what he earned. Still love that the people applauded when he got rushed by security. (Enough to even counter his one 'friend' who started screaming about it at the very end.)

Do wish they'd have shocked him again when he started 'ow'ing... But that would be abuse, and the officers are going to have enough problems already. (Normal force use review procedure, AND the full media spin machine's attention...)

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-20 07:24pm

Let me state my position clearly. I think that for the most part the cops handled this appropriately. If they used a TASER like a stun gun and simply zapped him to get compliance then I don't have any issue with that.

My problem would be if as they held him down, another officer shot him with a TASER, sending 2 spiked barbs into his body that would then need to be pulled out by an EMT.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-09-20 07:36pm

Durandal wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Flagg wrote:I did and I don't see why the TASER was necessary. I totally understand why they dragged him out because the guy was obviousely being a disruptive twat, but they had 4+ officers holding him down.
What would you have done to get him to comply?
Drag him out of the room, close the door and throw him in the back of a squad car? There were at least 4 cops all practically on top of the guy. He was cuffed. He was already subdued. Yeah, he was yelling and screaming, but how is that anything new and interesting? Perps yell and scream when they're being dragged out in cuffs all the time.

Carrying someone out like you're suggesting is dangerous for the person resisting because they can be dropped, or a control technique can be applied to hard.

By the way, how is he after being tasered? I've heard the only damage he sustained was from the bumps and bruises that occured because of the hands on contact.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-09-20 07:39pm

Flagg wrote:
General Zod wrote:
Flagg wrote: Yeah, pretty much what I'd have done. If he continued not to comply once outside, hit him with pepperspray.
How is pepperspray not as bad as tasers? It's not as if the active ingredient in the spray is going to stop burning after you stop spraying him.
It doesn't have 2 prongs that lodge under your skin requiring EMS to remove them. I also don't recall pepper spray being sold to the public as something that would only be used when the suspect would otherwise be shot.

EMS are required to remove them for liability reasons. Not because they are deeply embedded in the skin.

Umm tasers aren't suppose to be used in lieu of deadly force, and if the public is being sold them for that purpose then I feel very bad for someone that must defend their life with a taser.

Tasers are great when they work, but if you miss then you're fucked in a deadly force situation. If somehow the person is able to remove them before being shocked, or before you can get away you are fucked.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-09-20 07:43pm

Durandal wrote:
That's what the handcuffs are for. Have two officers grab his arms and drag him out. If his feet were kicking around, then cuff his damn ankles. Or have the other two officers restrain his legs and carry him out like a deer carcass. Not hard. And one of the officers was a pretty damn big guy who looked like he belonged on the Chicago Bears' defensive line. I doubt he would've had too much trouble.

That's dangerous for many reasons. Go ahead and try it on one of your friends. You'll be surprised at just how strong human legs are. Besides, again you are trying to substitute physical contact which will likely result in bodily injury over something that only leaves two puncture wounds.

If you honestly think that one big guy would be insufficient to safely eject you from a premises, I suggest you go to your local night club and get in a bouncer's face. If he himself can't get you out, one of his buddies will help, and you'll be out on your ass in no time flat. And you won't have been tazed.

It's not about what is sufficient. It's about what is the safest for the officers, and the subject. The above is not the safest.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-20 07:45pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Flagg wrote:
General Zod wrote: How is pepperspray not as bad as tasers? It's not as if the active ingredient in the spray is going to stop burning after you stop spraying him.
It doesn't have 2 prongs that lodge under your skin requiring EMS to remove them. I also don't recall pepper spray being sold to the public as something that would only be used when the suspect would otherwise be shot.
EMS are required to remove them for liability reasons. Not because they are deeply embedded in the skin.

Umm tasers aren't suppose to be used in lieu of deadly force, and if the public is being sold them for that purpose then I feel very bad for someone that must defend their life with a taser.

Tasers are great when they work, but if you miss then you're fucked in a deadly force situation. If somehow the person is able to remove them before being shocked, or before you can get away you are fucked.

That's how they were sold to my area in FL when they got them.

They can be usefull if a suspect has a knife and you have enough backup so that someone can get to the side and use the TASER while the Officer to the front holds a gun on them. But yeah, I'm not using a TASER on a fucker with a gun and I wouldn't expect a cop to either.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-09-20 07:50pm

Stuart wrote:
I think its worth noting that a Taser isn't considered the alternative to whaling on somebody witha baton. It's the alternative to putting a cap in his ass with a sidearm. If the SoB's right arm is free, no matter how many cops are sitting on him, that's a life-threatening situation. If he's packing a compact piece (for example a .380 Walther PPK which is small and flat) he could yank it out and start shooting. It's possible, I'd guess its happened.

No, it is not. The taser is not an alternative to deadly force. When a deadly force scenario presents itself then you use deadly force. There isn't a department in the nation, that I know of, that teaches the use of a taser in lieu of deadly force.

A taser is meant to offer a safe way of subduing physically resistant subjects. A lot of injuries occur to both subject and officer due to physical force, so the taser offers a way around that.

My guess would be that chummy was lucky, if he had tried this stunt on Capitol Hill or in the presence of the USSS, he'd have been turned into swiss cheese.

Your guess is wrong. If they did that then the lawsuit against those organizations would be legendary.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-09-20 08:01pm

Flagg wrote:
That's how they were sold to my area in FL when they got them.

They can be usefull if a suspect has a knife and you have enough backup so that someone can get to the side and use the TASER while the Officer to the front holds a gun on them. But yeah, I'm not using a TASER on a fucker with a gun and I wouldn't expect a cop to either.

If you have enough backup, and someone has it out sure. However, the person the subject w/ the knife is charging at should be going through the motions to kill the subject.

If the person with the taser misses you're fucked. You only get one shot with those things before you have to replace it with a new cartridge. Also, here's an excellent article regarding knives at under 21ft.

Knives

As you can see missing with a taser would be very bad.

Pulp Hero · Post by **Pulp Hero** » 2007-09-20 09:07pm

How much of a news "controversy" would this be if it were just some random dem senator?

The news really seems to want to paint Kerry in a bad light, from the clips I have seen.

Sean Mulligan · Post by **Sean Mulligan** » 2007-09-20 11:47pm

Lord Poe wrote:
"Agreed. This attention-whoring motherfucker was resisting arrest. He was asked to stop, didn't, was being escorted out after he failed to comply, resisted like crazy, was TOLD that if he didn't stop resisting, he'd be tasered. His response? "I'll walk out of here!" And he STILL resisted. Then his ass got tasered. In fact, its my opinion that he he put up such resistance so he WOULD be tasered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

I'm fucking sick of assholes like this.

I thought the guy meant that if they let him up he would leave the room. What difference does it make whether he was a douche or not. They had no reason to arrest or detain him. He was just taking to long to ask a question. That happens and Q&A's all the time and is no big deal. Kerry was willing to answer the guys question and Kerry later said that he could have handled the guy on his own. The police should have kept their hands to themselves like he told them to. They had no reason to taser him, he was on the ground and handcuffed. I also thought he made some good points about the 2004 election even if he could have expressed himself better. The attack on Meyers was an attack on all of us and I am very concerned about what this incident portends for civil liberties in America.

Sean Mulligan · Post by **Sean Mulligan** » 2007-09-20 11:54pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:He's definitely a truther. I saw him last week with a "Bush Orchestrated 9/11" sign on September 11th. This guy is a total moron and fucknut. And then there's the hysterical know-nothings who "protested." I swear, this group of idiots makes it really difficult for genuine reform and progressivism to be credible. Fuck them.

So what if he was a truther? He made some good points on the 2004 election. The police had no reason to arrest him and they should have taken their hands off of him when he told them to. The attack on Meyers was an attack on you and all Americans. At least Meyers was asking question unlike his fellow students who appeared to be brain dead zombies. We need more people like him. Stop blaming the victim. I hope that scumbag cops go to jail.