[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pne /img/forum/go_quote.gif hmm, using hundreds of thousands of volts to mess up your bodies nervous system with a device whose long term effects are unknown with cases of death documented. You're right, tying someone up isn't any less lethal.

Yes, because dying of heart stoppage is worse than dying of asphyxiation.

Read the law enforcement and medical literature on the subject. Many police forces have stopped using the hogtie position because it greatly increases the risk of death from positional asphyxiation. Instead, they've shifted over to the similar hobble technique, where the ankles and wrists are not tied together.

Course, you wouldn't know it reading the news...

Also, after watching the video, I noticed they used the Taser in drive stun mode. Now I don't understand the fuss at all.

/Drive stun (contact) mode is the non-lethal mode (vs less than lethal). Instead of attacking the CNS, which is what makes the firing mode so effective, it just run electricity along the skin between the probes for use as a pain compliance technique like any cheap stun gun.

 

[Redo]

http://www.zazzle.com/don_t_tase_me_...85764176860877
http://www.zazzle.com/don_t_tase_me_...79653385552559


Clip of the year, "Don't Tase Me Bro!!!", ahahahaha.

By the way, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, insighting riots, you know this guy had it coming. He was escorted to leave after not complying with the debate, resisted, put all his force against the security not to leave, and a non-lethal approach was used.

He had it coming and that was the funniest arrest I've ever seen. What's funnier is the pseudo rights people seem to think the guy has.

 

[Marados]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif after not complying with the debate, resisted, put all his force against the security not to leave, and a non-lethal approach was used.

First off, a taser shouldn't be used when someone is 'not complying', especially when they're not even breaking any laws. That's not the idea of a non-lethal weapon - their purpose is to, as someone said earlier, save lives.

Secondly, he was down on the ground. What could he have done that was a threat to officers? If he posed a threat and started attacking officers, then that might have been justifiable - instead, he simply struggled and made things difficult for the police. As I said, he was on the ground, quite harmless, when they tasered him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif What's funnier is the pseudo rights people seem to think the guy has.

I think he has the right to actually know what he's being arrested for. I think he has the right to not be subject to excessive force.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marados /img/forum/go_quote.gif First off, a taser shouldn't be used when someone is 'not complying', especially when they're not even breaking any laws. That's not the idea of a non-lethal weapon - their purpose is to, as someone said earlier, save lives. Secondly, he was down on the ground. What could he have done that was a threat to officers? If he posed a threat and started attacking officers, then that might have been justifiable - instead, he simply struggled and made things difficult for the police. As I said, he was on the ground, quite harmless, when they tasered him. I think he has the right to actually know what he's being arrested for. I think he has the right to not be subject to excessive force.

He did break laws. He was told to stop talking and let Kerry answer his question, Kerry tried to answer his questions, and he wouldn't stop talking. They told him to stop, he said "no, he got to talk for 2 hours now it's my turn". They told him to leave, tried to escort him, and he did not want any part of it. This is where it turned into a crime. He could have complied and been escorted out like countless other peaceful protests/rallies/stances have gone.

He resisted more and more, was using full body force against the security, was disorderly, and could have started a riot. He was told what he was being arrested for after he submitted (which came through force). The security obviously could not subdue the man, and had no way of restraining him.

I'm sorry, he looses. He had his chances for a peaceful demonstration and chose to go the criminal route. Every person in the audience had a right for a peaceful debate, he chose to not comply and use force against security.

 

[rxc]

Was he really tazered? I see like 3 cops holding him barehanded the whole time and if he really was tazered the cops holding him would also feel it.

 

[Marados]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif He did break laws. He was told to stop talking and let Kerry answer his question, Kerry tried to answer his questions, and he wouldn't stop talking. They told him to stop, he said "no, he got to talk for 2 hours now it's my turn". They told him to leave, tried to escort him, and he did not want any part of it. This is where it turned into a crime. He could have complied and been escorted out like countless other peaceful protests/rallies/stances have gone.

What law is this?


Quote:

and could have started a riot.

If anything, the people sounded far more worked up when he got tasered.


Quote:

The security obviously could not subdue the man, and had no way of restraining him.

Well, seeing as he was on the ground with a good number of people on top of him, I'm pretty sure he was subdued. And they would have had cuffs.

Quote:

I'm sorry, he looses. He had his chances for a peaceful demonstration and chose to go the criminal route. Every person in the audience had a right for a peaceful debate, he chose to not comply and use force against security.

Not every criminal activity, nor does not complying with what security want, justify using a taser.

He was being an A hole and making a scene. That's it. He wasn't a threat to anyone, he just threw a tantrum. They overpowered him, which is shown by the fact that he was on the ground, and then decided to shock him because he was screaming.

Screaming and making a scene does not justify the use of a non-lethal weapon.

Edit: It's clear that the security guards have hand cuffs. They did nothing more than torture.

 

[archosman]

Here's better angle of the incident...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNLQY3bQyaM

 

[sugarinthegourd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif He did break laws. He was told to stop talking and let Kerry answer his question, Kerry tried to answer his questions, and he wouldn't stop talking. They told him to stop, he said "no, he got to talk for 2 hours now it's my turn". They told him to leave, tried to escort him, and he did not want any part of it. This is where it turned into a crime. He could have complied and been escorted out like countless other peaceful protests/rallies/stances have gone. He resisted more and more, was using full body force against the security, was disorderly, and could have started a riot. He was told what he was being arrested for after he submitted (which came through force). The security obviously could not subdue the man, and had no way of restraining him. I'm sorry, he looses. He had his chances for a peaceful demonstration and chose to go the criminal route. Every person in the audience had a right for a peaceful debate, he chose to not comply and use force against security.

x2

 

[luidge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marados /img/forum/go_quote.gif What law is this? If anything, the people sounded far more worked up when he got tasered. Well, seeing as he was on the ground with a good number of people on top of him, I'm pretty sure he was subdued. And they would have had cuffs. Not every criminal activity, nor does not complying with what security want, justify using a taser. He was being an A hole and making a scene. That's it. He wasn't a threat to anyone, he just threw a tantrum. They overpowered him, which is shown by the fact that he was on the ground, and then decided to shock him because he was screaming. Screaming and making a scene does not justify the use of a non-lethal weapon. Edit: It's clear that the security guards have hand cuffs. They did nothing more than torture.

X2 The guy didn't even break any law at first, ordering someone to stop is not creating a law against wich you are responsable later for being tazed! Yes he resist against the cops because he didn't had broke any law at all and if i had been in the same situation i would have resist to, since i wouldn't have done anything bad except trying to expose my idea on a subject when my time was over. Next inciting a riot is ********, it was in a close room with people don't paying him much attention and the guy wasn't screaming for violence or something. Ok he act like a nervous breakdown girl but that ain't enough in my book to physically treaten somebody.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marados /img/forum/go_quote.gif What law is this? If anything, the people sounded far more worked up when he got tasered. Well, seeing as he was on the ground with a good number of people on top of him, I'm pretty sure he was subdued. And they would have had cuffs. Not every criminal activity, nor does not complying with what security want, justify using a taser. He was being an A hole and making a scene. That's it. He wasn't a threat to anyone, he just threw a tantrum. They overpowered him, which is shown by the fact that he was on the ground, and then decided to shock him because he was screaming. Screaming and making a scene does not justify the use of a non-lethal weapon. Edit: It's clear that the security guards have hand cuffs. They did nothing more than torture.

It turned into a crime when he resisted and started fighting the security. The security has the obligation to remove people who are outright disorderly. Rules of the event is very separate than laws, which is why it wasn't a crime at first. It turned into a crime when he started using physical force against the security. Noncompliance is one thing, if he would have gone limp they would have just dragged him out and sent him on his way. But he used his entire body force against the security.

Subdued on the ground and getting him out of the event is another story. You may be able to pin somebody in the corner, but you cant necessarily get them to go somewhere. Talk to some people that work in jails or law enforcement about subduing out of control people.

What exactly justifies tasering?

"A national law enforcement organization recommended Wednesday that police use Taser stun guns only on people who actively resist officers and for only five seconds at a time."

"The recommendations suggest that only one officer use a Taser on a suspect at any one time and that only a five-second charge be used before police re-evaluate the situation." - news source

Hand cuffs aren't magical devices that stop people from fighting. In this case specifically, handcuffing is worthless based on how he was fighting security.

And no, this isn't torture. This is some ****** picking a fight and loosing.

 

[ingwe]

The whole world is watching!

 

[skudmunky]

heres another camera which shows more of his opening questions, but then cuts right to the taser scene without any of his totally not complying with the police officers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yJFA...elated&search=

what an idiot.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif What exactly justifies tasering? "A national law enforcement organization recommended Wednesday that police use Taser stun guns only on people who actively resist officers and for only five seconds at a time." "The recommendations suggest that only one officer use a Taser on a suspect at any one time and that only a five-second charge be used before police re-evaluate the situation." - news source

There's no doubt "non-lethal" technologies like tasering has saved lives compared to lethal forms, but is there any doubt non-lethal forms escalate in use because they're non-lethal? Look at the recent history of torture (and on that note the danger of using shifting "law" as a measure of right/wrong). And I'm not sure citing a 2005 article of a recommendation from the Police Executive Research Forum and quoting the manufacturer "no deaths have been directly caused by the device alone" (while news of another dying since this thread was started has come to light) and that "long-term studies into the effectiveness of Tasers are needed" proves much. If I was a cop I'd not want broken fingers or worse happening all the time while I was apprehending people, but every action has a risk and none if this needed to happen. The campus cops never had to escalate the situation. Anyone think of turning off the mic if he was such a bother?

Or am I too old school? [Note: Mic was cut, my bad, and then first cop immediately moved on him for what?]. Or did the Presidents "Virginia Tech" reference mean the "talker" had super secret larger plans of death and destruction?

Is there any other outcome of this than the campus/internal affairs will investigate, and of course by their structured rules of engagement from the police perspective, find the cops innocent of wrongdoing and justified. Then the campus will pay through the nose for this "innocent and justified" action against someone who's not a cop and whose rights were violated independent of "proper police action"? I say make 'em pay big and have the schools president (who has since talked in such absolutes) status suffer appropriately.

Police are suppose to escalate violence one step to end it. A lot of theory and laws are based on this. Say all you want, effectively talking in a [dead] mic to tasering isn't one step. I assume many of you are for tasering UCLA students for being in a library too?

When did Americans get so weak that they're scared of everything and cheerlead all actions which could potentially stop all imagined worse case scenarios? It's like we're living in 24 and functioning on the lowest common denominator. Did the world really change that much in the last half a decade? Man, we live in such strange, sad times. Everyone pick up a copy of Barry Glassner's The Culture of Fear and then lets talk.

 

[ingwe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif <snip very good stuff> When did Americans get so weak that they're scared of everything and cheerlead all actions which could potentially stop all imagined worse case scenarios? It's like we're living in 24 and functioning on the lowest common denominator. Did the world really change that much in the last half a decade? Man, we live in such strange, sad times.

x2
Well said sir.

 

[bundee1]

For everyone who opposes what the security officers did, how would you have handled it? Would you have let him keep talking? At what point would you escort him out? While you were escorting him out and he was pushing and running away from you what would you have done? When you tried to restrain him and he was yelling for people to help him what do you think he meant? What if 5 or 6 people stepped up to help him? Do you think he meant for people to confront the police? Wouldnt that be inciting a riot? While he is on the ground and resisting and flailing around what would you have done?

Did anyone listen to his questions? They were nonsense? He didnt even let Kerry speak. This was all a stunt and he deserved it.