Two things I'd like to say.

[mmonk]

Tasering is excessive force in the case of political discourse or "heckling". Accepting the practice as a readily available method of dealing with verbal dissent is a bad or dangerous assimilation of unAmerican ideas.

Kerry is not to blame.

[Rhiannon12866]

1. I agree with you. This guy may have been annoying, but he was not a danger to anybody.

I suppose that I would approve if somebody was a real danger, threatened someone else with harm. But Kerry didn't seem to have a problem with this guy and he was no threat to anybody there, just pissed them off because he wouldn't shut up when they came to hear Kerry. There would have been much less severe ways of getting him to desist.:-(

And I also agree that Kerry was not to blame. I've watched several videos of what transpired and I believe that Kerry didn't know what was going on in the back of the room...:shrug:

[lonestarnot]

2. Thank you!

[ljm2002]

3. Yours is the most...

...sensible post I've seen on the incident so far. Thank you! And especially thank you for reminding people -- Kerry was not an instigator, he was not in a position to intervene, and he did as well as anyone could have in that situation IMO.

[mmonk]

4. Thanks

[EFerrari]

5. Agreed!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. Your First Point Doesn't Relate To This Case.

He was tasered for his aggressive and violent resisting, not because of being a heckler. To frame it in the way you did is quite disingenuous.

It is up for debate, however, whether the tasering was necessary even in spite of his aggressive resistance, since he was pretty well subdued already.

[WilliamPitt]

7. Game. Set. Match.

Brevity is...wit.

A lesson I have yet to learn. :)

Perfectly said.

:toast:

[mmonk]

12. But you used it

with "Game.Set.Match" perfectly in your reply (brevity).
Thanks

[cali]

14. Wrong. Completely wrong. Have some more brevity.

He wasn't tasered for his big mouth. He was tasered for his disruptive behavior and resisting arrest. They should have handled it without tasering, but their actions to subdue didn't stem from his speech.

[mmonk]

20. Tasering was a method of subduing him.

When we think nothing of removing a person for disruptive speech and resisting, which is subject to the eye of an arresting person, by casually pulling out a taser and shooting 50K volts through someone's body, then the assililation I mentioned has taken hold. If the person was a violent threat to the officers or people around him, or fleeing a crime scene, I could see it. Otherwise, the traditional methods of hand or arm locks and such would suffice.

[cali]

23. How do you know how many volts they used?

I made clear that I believe the tasering was not indicated, but your use of the word "casually" indicates you don't have a grasp on what was happening. He was flailing about, trying to resist arrest. Nothing casual about that scene.

[mmonk]

27. We can agree to disagree.

I tend to be more of a civil libertarian. I think if it weren't a political event, he would have been carried off with his arms restrained behind his back. Volts are shot through one's body attacking the nervous system. That makes a person completely unable to protect themselves from whatever anyone decides to do to them. Therefore, it's general acceptance for any application bothers me.

[pacalo]

8. I agree!

[Kelly Rupert]

9. Your first point has nothing to do with the situation.

He was tasered for resisting arrest, not for heckling.

[mmonk]

16. Resisting is a gray area.

Was he violent? Was he fleeing the scene of a crime? Could he be subdued in a traditional manner? Was he armed?

[Kelly Rupert]

18. For the sake of this argument, it doesn't matter.

There are two arguments here. The first is that the tasering infringes on free speech. The second is that it was excessive force in arresting a resisting person.

You've just shifted from the first to the second.

(For the record, I agree it was excessive force.)

[mmonk]

19. I'm not shifting. I said in matters of political discourse.

You are giving the official reason given for tasering him.

[Kelly Rupert]

28. So do you believe he would have been tasered

had he simply gone quietly as soon as the police asked him to leave?

[mmonk]

34. I'm about to post clarification.

I did not intend this course for the thread.

[cascadiance]

10. Speaking of tasering, I wonder if the NRA would ever champion our rights to own them!

If they are the champions of the "right to bear arms", and part of that justification is to defend ourselves from government opression, then it seems that they might want to ask for that.

I'm not saying that doing this would be a good idea, since personally I don't like these things, used by either private citizens or police, unless extreme situations warrant it.

But with the more casual use of tasers by police and security forces all over the place, at some point those being pushed around by them (especially if they are misused in many occasions), might feel that they are justified in carrying them themselves for self defense. Certainly would be better for them to do this than to have handguns for "self defense" in that the other person would not be killed if they used them in "self defense".

I just wonder if this would ever get discussed at some point, the more and more tasers are commonly used each day.

Maybe I shouldn't be posting this. Because part of me would dread the day if people next to me were carrying tasers they could use on me if they disagreed with me, like they did when they beat up Carlos the other day. Things could get nasty. On the other hand, perhaps a healthy discussion now of this before it gets talked about in real terms is healthy so that we can all delineate the down sides of such to prevent it from happening, and perhaps in so doing also come up with reasons why the police and security forces shouldn't be so cavalier in using them in incidents like this too.

[skygazer]

11. Civilian versions of tasers have been available for years

Recently they came out with a cute little pink one. :eyes:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-08-little-taser_x.htm

[mmonk]

13. Some people out there definitely do not need them

and would provoke problems.

[skygazer]

15. I tend to think that nobody out there needs them

My gut says that the people who are going to actually believe they need a taser for self-defense are going to be the last people I'd want to see carrying them.

[cascadiance]

17. I agree, but the more the police start using it "casually", the more the public will want them too!

That is the concern I have. And like you said, anyone carrying them on the street next to you, thinking they are a "non-lethal" means for them to enforce their ways will have something infinitely more dangerous than just their own fist in their hands.

The casualness we have towards police and security using them should be asked these questions. Because their casual use is going to encourage casual ownership of these by civilians too.

[Kelly Rupert]

32. So let the public have them.

Seriously. Do people go around spraying Mace in each other's faces to cut in line? No. If someone is going to attempt to inflict violence on someone, they're going to use a gun.

Guns are freely available in our country. I'm not sure why anyone would oppose public availability of a safer alternative.

[Greyhound]

24. So, you are the arbiter of who needs what?

[Kelly Rupert]

29. I strongly disagree.

If "personal-defense" paranoiacs were to buy tasers instead of guns, the accidental-firearm-death rate would drop. A taser is just as capable of disabling an attacker as a pistol is.

What do you mean by "provoke problems?" Attacking someone with a taser is assault and battery just as much as attacking them with a baseball bat.

[cascadiance]

40. I think the issue is that it IS assault

What do you mean by "provoke problems?" Attacking someone with a taser is assault and battery just as much as attacking them with a baseball bat.

If people treat it as an OK way to wield their will over others in a way that they wouldn't have used a gun (since a gun most certainly can have fatal consequences), then we will have more taser incidents than we would have had gun "accidents". Though perhaps if someone had a taser instead of a gun and didn't kill someone as a result of confrontation, that would be a good thing, but if far more incidents happen where people would get tasered when otherwise just a few loud words were spoken in anger to each other, that would be a bad thing.

That is why I hope that guy sues those cops for assault and battery. Because that was FAR MORE assault and battery (as was what happened to the reverend the other day in congress than what Bob Filner did at the airport a month ago.

We need to have a lot more firm rules of what governs the use of these things, so that there's no question where someone is going over a line of acceptability when they use them. There's the more obvious line that makes it more clear what is acceptable use of real guns and what isn't (though people abuse that too). But with tasers, some people are treating them as "dart guns" or something like that.

When someone is carrying a taser for example, and a cop confront them to arrest them, might a cop also use a real firearm to subdue them if the person pulls a taser on the cop or on someone else? That's a real possibility and a situation that it might be hard to fault the cop for doing if they felt that the other person using a taser could lead to life threatening consequences.

[bunny planet]

21. Well said and true

[Greyhound]

22. This happened in Florida, right?

What more explanation do you need?

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. Hmmm....took longer for the slam Florida comment than I anticipated.

Of course I've been pretty busy for the last couple of days so it is entirely possible I've missed quite a few of them. ;)

[Greyhound]

26. It is the most policed state I've ever been in, and they do seem to

tolerate an awful lot of abuse. Not that they are alone by any means, California and Texas are both also renowned for their excusing excessive force on the part of their LEOs.

[ThomCat]

30. Agreed and agreed.

The cops should face discipline for what they did. And the cops are fully 100% responsible, not Kerry.

[Bassic]

31. Agreed, and

agreed.

[me b zola]

33. Short, sweet, and to the point

...and I agree completely.

This is the first thread that I have reponded to regarding this matter. I am learning that when these huge flamefests occur that if I sit back and wait eventually someone will post what I think about the subject. Thanks.

[DaveJ]

35. I look forward to that day

I can just tell police to "shut up" and fight them off so they can walk away with their tails between their legs. We will surely be living in a freer nation when my ideas are considered more important, as long as I am bigger and louder than anyone else in the room.

:sarcasm:

[mmonk]

36. A clarification.

I'm against the use of tasers for non criminal behavior whereby there is no threat to the arresting officer or public safety. I'm against their use as a primary control device over someone exercising their political dissent or engaged in civil disobedience. General acceptance of them for this purpose can set dangerous precedent to our rights.

[DaveJ]

37. Resisting arrest threatens the officer's safety

People seem to think they should have pro-wresting ninja skills necessary to take people in but they are frail people like all of us who want to come home at the end of the day unharmed. They should not have to deal with people fighting them in the first place.

[Kelly Rupert]

38. That's great, but it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.

It was not a primary-control device; the student was asked to leave after his dissent became disruption, and he resisted arrest.

This was not even close to civil disobedience. Don't pull that shit.

[mmonk]

39. When people at protests don't volunteeringly leave

such as sitting in the street and not moving, they are resisting arrest. Whever you don't agree to be arrested, it is considered resisting arrest. If you say no, you are resisting arrest. Anyway, I think tasering is too loosely used and when mixed with political events, carries a different tone. You've hijacked my thread and taken it off the issue and tone of my opinion that it was being excessive, so be happy.