[evilking]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecclesand /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes...it is a damn good thing that I'm not a cop...for you.

OK, I'm sorry, it was personal attack. I'm going to leave it though since it highlights this vigilante "Jack Bauer" way of thinking, "they're all criminals so ****** 'em". This cannot be the correct attitude for the police service to take.

 

[Dzjudz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by will75 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Quote: Originally Posted by facevelga A person isn't 'resisting arrest' if he isn't being arrested for something. Semantics. He resisted the police. It's a no no.

Lol, semantics? Must be American if you say something like that. Without there being an arrest, there is no resisting an arrest. When a cop randomly says to somebody, "come over here now", doesn't mean that you are obliged to...

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzjudz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lol, semantics? Must be American if you say something like that. Without there being an arrest, there is no resisting an arrest. When a cop randomly says to somebody, "come over here now", doesn't mean that you are obliged to...

This is getting far off track. This isn't some random guy on the street the police started to order around... It's not like they barged in and singled out some random person just because they wanted to...

 

[Samgotit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzjudz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lol, semantics? Must be American if you say something like that.

You can't be that stupid?

 

[Dzjudz]

I'm sorry, but being tazed for not willing to be hauled out of a room by 6 people when overstepping your time-limit? What's wrong with turning off the microphone? Excessive to say the least.

And excuse me for my 'you must be American' reference, it was more of a comment to the 'American way': Guantanamo: fair trial? Semantics...
The whole rule of law is based on what the government can and cannot do. This (tazer incident), IMO clearly oversteps the boundaries.

But that's a bit too much off-track and political here, I agree.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzjudz /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm sorry, but being tazed for not willing to be hauled out of a room by 6 people when overstepping your time-limit? What's wrong with turning off the microphone? Excessive to say the least.

Again, you're missing a good 4-5 minutes of escalation there. It's not going over your time limit to being thrown down and tased, there's a bunch inbetween.

 

[Samgotit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzjudz /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm sorry, but being tazed for not willing to be hauled out of a room by 6 people when overstepping your time-limit? What's wrong with turning off the microphone? Excessive to say the least. And excuse me for my 'you must be American' reference, it was more of a comment to the 'American way': Guantanamo: fair trial? Semantics... The whole rule of law is based on what the government can and cannot do. This (tazer incident), IMO clearly oversteps the boundaries. But that's a bit too much off-track and political here, I agree.

I guess you can.

 

[ecclesand]

It's obvious there are some folks on this forum who agree that the only correct course of action that the security (police) should have taken was harsh words.

Those same folks, oddly enough, feel it necessary to verbally attack America. Bad form and completely unnecessary...and a certain waste of my time.

 

[will75]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzjudz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lol, semantics? Must be American if you say something like that. Without there being an arrest, there is no resisting an arrest. When a cop randomly says to somebody, "come over here now", doesn't mean that you are obliged to...

You are both unique and creative. Generalizing and attacking Americans as a whole when you don't agree with them. You are very progressive and enlightened.

He was in the wrong and breaking the rules. The cops were called and asked him to stop. That could have ended it right there. He kept going and was struggling to get away. So, the bottom line is he was RESISTING the police. That is against the law. Like it or don't like it. It's SEMANTICS because you were hung up on resisting ARREST when he wasn't under arrest. He was RESISTING and that's what's important.

Good day.

 

[ingwe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by will75 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are both unique and creative. Generalizing and attacking Americans as a whole when you don't agree with them. You are very progressive and enlightened. He was in the wrong and breaking the rules. The cops were called and asked him to stop. That could have ended it right there. He kept going and was struggling to get away. So, the bottom line is he was RESISTING the police. That is against the law. Like it or don't like it. It's SEMANTICS because you were hung up on resisting ARREST when he wasn't under arrest. He was RESISTING and that's what's important. Good day.

So, you're anti-semantic?

What's important is tasering was inappropriate in that situation.

 

[will75]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ingwe /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, you're anti-semantic? What's important is tasering was inappropriate in that situation.

LOL. Actually, I love the subject of General Semantics. Go Chomsky!

 

[tru blu]

On so many levels, it's odd and unfortunate. Not very well-trained security personnel. An obvious rabble-rouser. It's clear that it was going to take more force than the security folk wanted to exhibit on camera to handcuff the guy, but then the question becomes, "What are the alternatives"? They certainly couldn't bruise him up a bit like they might have if he was a real criminal on the street.

And believe it or else, that is the point: That he's not a criminal, someone who is doing something illegal and is by extension a danger or threat to other people. I feel tazering was excessive—especially when the number of security personnels exceeds the number of limbs; most humans only have four—and I also fault John Kerry for not truly helping to defuse the situation. Much of the time I was watching I kept thinking, "Where's Kerry? Why isn't he saying anything?" Then, at some point, Kerry decides to start answering the question? That would be high comedy if the whole wasn't so tragic.

 

[bhd812]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru blu /img/forum/go_quote.gif On so many levels, it's odd and unfortunate. Not very well-trained security personnel. An obvious rabble-rouser. It's clear that it was going to take more force than the security folk wanted to exhibit on camera to handcuff the guy, but then the question becomes, "What are the alternatives"? They certainly couldn't bruise him up a bit like that might have if he was a real criminal on the street. And believe it or else, that is the point: That he's not a criminal, someone who is doing something illegal and is by extension a danger or threat to other people. I feel tazering was excessive—especially when the number of security personnels exceeds the number of limbs; most humans only have four—and I also fault John Kerry for not truly helping to defuse the situation. Much of the time I was watching I kept thinking, "Where's Kerry? Why isn't he saying anything?" Then, at some point, Kerry decides to start answering the question? That would be high comedy if the whole wasn't so tragic.

What could Kerry do? first off he was not going to loose his composure and scream for the people to stop..that would not of done nothing. second he could not get off the stage and go up to the situation at hand..that's not only a huge security risk on him but now his security is going to get involved but also he could be arrested for getting in the middle of an officer from doing their job.
the only person who could of helped the situation any is the person who created it..which is the kid that got tazered...
security had tazer guns pointed at him almost right at the start but gave him a chance to walk out on his own..

 

[tru blu]

I'm actually not sure what Kerry could have done, but…I don't know…under the circumstances losing one's "composure" doesn't seem like such a weird thing. If he'd lost his composure a little more in 2004, he might just be President.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru blu /img/forum/go_quote.gif If he'd lost his composure a little more in 2004, he might just be President.