Thoughts on Tasering from an X cop

[The Straight Story]

So I used to be a Deputy back in the day (circa 1986). I took my job seriously, which is why I am not there anymore (I had no issue with going to IA if there with issues with other cops, and I was a friend of the director of IA as well - needless to say, I was not liked too well by some).

As I worked mostly in our county's main jail (9 floors) I had the fun of putting up with people from intake until they were safely in their cell (and then trying to quell issues where you had 20 people in a cell, which is what the ones on the 5th floor handled - aka the zoo).

It was drilled into our heads the whole issue of liability - break someone's arm, you can find yourself in court. Hit them, even if they struck out at you? Well - since you were in a position of power you might still find yourself in court. I saw both sides as I was friends as well with two attorneys who specialized in criminal defense (we played chess together at the Y).

Deputies I knew actually thrived of showing what a man they were in a battle with some drunk or disorderly person. Me, well I hated for things to get to that point.

Through it all I see now why so many DO use tasers - the idea is that you incapacitate someone who is resisting without putting yourself and the perp in danger (except as noted, those who have an adverse reaction to it) - and you lessen your liability.

Ever been in a fight with someone? I mean a real fight where you had no idea if they planned on beating you or simply trying to escape from you and your job was to arrest them (or stop them from doing what they were doing)?

It's damned scary. I had a guy one night that I was frisking decide he didn't want me doing that and attacked me. There was no option to step back with a non-lethal weapon (in jail, we carried 0 weapons) I simply had to grab his arm, slam him down, and hope to hell it worked before he could do more. I did such and we got him cuffed again (you take off the cuffs during intake and return said cuffs to the officer bringing them in).

MOST intake folks and inmates did what you asked them to do. Most people I think do the same when asked to do something by a cop.

When people DON'T do what is asked of them you have a few options - physical contact (which puts you in danger), draw a gun, use a taser, or just let em do what they want and wait it out while trying to negotiate.

I personally feel that tasers are used TOO OFTEN - but I can also grok why that is so. Lawsuits, liability, and fear of getting injured while performing the job you were hired to do by the tax payers.

If you comply with the police, you can fight another day more easily in court against them. And trust me, internal affairs (IA) does not play favorites (I was hooked up to a lie detector and grilled for some time over an incident involving a senior officer once, it sucked). If you think the cops are wrong, obey them - and then file a report and get an attorney.

Resisting does not help your cause, if you comply and get screwn over it you can take em to the cleaners if they are wrong.

I have also been a private security guard (5 years of that) and as such I represented those who employed me at their site. If you think you were unfairly told to leave, etc, do what was asked of you and then file suit - that will carry more weight than anything else.

You don't have to submit to an authoritarian person and give up your rights. You can resist - but it does not help as much as being polite, leaving and then following up with a lawsuit. Simply say OK, walk away, document it, then file - and I can guarantee you that they will rue the day they violated your rights when they have to sit in court and say 'Uh, yeah, they left when we told them to' and THEN having to explain to a court or IA WHY you made them leave (let alone the public).

People with an authority complex love it when folks resist, because they can fall back on resisting arrest/expulsion laws.

Don't give them the pleasure, when asked to leave - do so. Then let all hell break loose with your own 'taser' - the shock of a lawsuit if you were wronged :)

[L. Coyote]

1. This is reasoned discourse. You are not going to my Ignore list.

And, I'll let everyone out of my little jail soon enough :rofl:

Everyone posting a new taser thread goes on my ignore list, period. move.on DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1846870&mesg_id=1846870

[cali]

8. lol.

and let me confess that one of the reasons I did not post a thread I'd thought about posting on this, was because of my respect for you.

[LostinVA]

2. OMG

[question everything]

3. Thank you for your insights.

I think that many of us did not have issues with that jerk being hauled away but with the taser.

It was obvious that he was being subdued by 5 or 6 strong men. One or two could have sat on him while the others cuffed both his hands and his legs, and then carry him like a pig outside.

So why the taser in that specific case?

[The Straight Story]

4. IMHO

It was the fastest way to stop someone resisting without a lot of physical contact needed.

And why was the contact needed in the first place? If he felt they were in the wrong, he could have obeyed and filed a civil suit.

Maybe he thought he had no case.... :)

[superkia]

5. Depending on where you were at, it may be hard to find witnesses...

to support your claim. If their were more than one officer there and only you, good luck winning a lawsuit because from the few officers I know, you don't let your brother go down. I don't mean in murder or something like that, I mean in smaller situations where your rights were infringed on. Sometimes I think certain officers take it too far because they are frustrated that the system doesn't punish people because of overcrowding and a broken system. So sometimes its like a little street level justice.

I remember getting caught out one winter after curfew when I was around 12 or 13 and the officers that stopped us made us stand in the cold with our hands on the freezing car for over an hour, while they laughed, joked and bullshitted with each other. It started as one car, then another and another and they just hung out keeping us there. Their reasoning for doing this to 4 kids out buying sodas from the corner sodas machine, was because my cousin that was there got smart with them instead of cowering like we did to the peace officers. We had on jeans and t shirts because we had just jumped in the car and ran down to get sodas. I was 3 of us were perfectly compliant, polite and respectful and we were shown no respect from the adult peace officers. We were told to shut up we will let you know when you can, anytime we asked if we could stop touching the cold ass car.Thats just a stupid thing that happened but we all know that the power gets abused in worse ways, most of us have had it happen or know someone that has dealt with it.

Tasers have now become the new way to teach lessons to people instead of following the law and the justice system, its like vigilante justice but by peace officers.

[The Straight Story]

7. I agree on the over use of them

But I think, as noted, I can get it because when it comes down to getting physically involved in stopping someone you tend to want to do that which is less of a risk to yourself and others.

Why risk getting hurt when someone does not comply when you can use another means?

Here we had people paid to keep order at an event, and most people complied. When someone did not comply they were asked to leave, and no one was going to make it terribly physical if said person complied.

At that point in time the onus was on them to be responsible and they could have just left and shown online how they did what was asked of them and how bad and sucky it was that they were thrown out over a question.

That guy chose to escalate instead of posting his video and educating. He was not a peaceful resister, as he chose to not simply sit down and protest but to fight.

[bobbolink]

6. From someone who went to Internal Affairs because a cop who came to investigate

when my car was broken into was not only RUDE, but had PORN in his notebook, I can tell you a citizen has NO STANDING whatsoever.

I was told it was a joke..."Wassa madda lady, you can't take a joke?"

Sue? Riiigggghhhttttt....

I had nothing to resist, as *I* was the complainant, but I can tell you, I have ZILCH respect for cops after all that.

There is NO OVERSIGHT.

They do whatever the hell they want.

[The Straight Story]

9. At my division, IA was separate from the other departments

As it should be. You launch a complaint and it was taken seriously and people were investigated to the hilt.

If it is not that way now - well then, screw em :) They have been given a lot of power and should have oversight from a group outside their sphere of influence.

If THAT fails though, there is still the court system to pursue things.

[bobbolink]

12. Court is for people with $$$$.

Those of us who are poor, take the porn and other shit from cops, keep quiet, and learn to distrust and dislike cops.

[stillcool]

10. So much black and white...

always and never. So unlike reality. I understand what happens when human beings control other human beings..and the group mentality involved. It happens in foster-homes, it happens to pets, it happens in jail. It happens individually and in posse's. I think it's a part of human nature..and it needs to be guarded against, and I think there are many people in authority that understand that. On the other hand, I understand what it's like to be out of control..and to suffer the consequences. The immediacy of violence often precludes any thought process, and when faced with violence many of us are conditioned to react violently. There seems to be a critical shortage of slow-burn in this society. My answer? Behavior modification for the planet.

[The Straight Story]

13. You bring up a very interesting discussion worth having

And I think that is the root of this discussion in many ways: Black and White.

It is gray. I offered my OP as someone from another side of the fence. Neither side is always right or wrong, it is some where in the middle and we need to look at all sides for each incident (ie, judging based on that incident and not others).

The cops could have done better, so too could have the person involved.

When it is all said and done, on this one incident standing alone, I feel the guy stepped over the boundary and would have served his cause better by simply complying - if he felt the law was on his side he could have filed a case let the courts/jury decide.

Thankfully though, he was not smoking in the bar at the Olive garden while his wife was breastfeeding :)

[stillcool]

27. It's like a choice that is...

no choice at all...I have gotten sucked into taser-land and theorized every possible scenario regarding events not in evidence. A total mind-fucking I've given myself..and over what?

[hootinholler]

11. I think the use of a taser is about the equivelent to the use of a nightstick.

Would you agree?

-Hoot

[bobbolink]

14. Sounds about right to me. Except that the addition of the jolt can kill.

[hootinholler]

16. Plenty of people have been killed with nightsticks.

I think the stick causes more lasting harm, but the immediate shock I think is similar. I thin the rules of use should be similar. If it would be trouble to beat me with a stick, then what makes shocking me acceptable?

-Hoot

[bobbolink]

17. True. I'm not so sure about the "lasting harm" part.

I'm not sure, but I think heart attacks, etc., are very likely with taser.

"If it would be trouble to beat me with a stick, then what makes shocking me acceptable?"

Completely agree.

And, if it's acceptable, then the muddleclass better be ready to experience it, since repression is becoming quite fashionable.

[The Straight Story]

15. Not totally, no

A nightstick (which we were trained on) can do a lot more permanent damage (brain damage, broken bones, etc).

If people simply sat down and allowed themselves to be cuffed (ala peaceful protests) this would not be an issue.

MLK and others resisted in a peaceful manner (tasering in such cases would be damned bad IMHO) - being arrested was not an issue in such cases (ie, you wanted to be arrested and be peaceful in doing so).

This guy, in this case, could have done a lot more for his cause if he had simply sat down and put his hands on his head - now HE is the issue and not the issues he was bringing up.

Had they used night sticks he would still be in bad pain from em :)

[hootinholler]

18. It's absolutely a given that the effects are long lasting...

But situationally, I can't get my head around the use of a weapon in this case.

Why should a taser be justified if a whack or two with a stick isn't?

-Hoot

[bobbolink]

20. You know, I think you have the idea that all cops are as reasonable as you are.

"MLK and others resisted in a peaceful manner (tasering in such cases would be damned bad IMHO) - being arrested was not an issue in such cases (ie, you wanted to be arrested and be peaceful in doing so). "

There are PLENTY of cases where people WERE quite peaceful, and the cops went ape shit.

Kent State comes to mind.

Many others.

Do you remember anything about fire hoses and dogs during the civil rights marches?

You might want to consider that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Kent state, correct me if I am wrong

but those were national guardsmen, not police officers

If anything it is a prime example of why you do not put troops in that situation

Moreover, they were not even MPs

[bobbolink]

41. They were there to "keep the peace"

Same as the deputies, cops, etc.

Deputies, cops, have ALL gone ape shit on protestors, but we're not going to get any kind of recognition from that on this thread.

So, the discussion suffers, and no understanding will be gained.

Too bad.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Wrong, troops are NOT trained to deal wiht protestors

to them all problems look the same and they are not trained in a threat matrix

I realize this small but important distinction is at times hard to grasp

Having dealt with cops on a regular basis, and troops during disaster situations, I know the difference, and at times troops are shall we say amazing in some ways,

And it is their training

Or in this case, lack off

And I am not justifying the shootings by the way, but I can distinguish the small but important differences

[bobbolink]

76. Talking down to people, and letting us know you think we're stooopider than you

doesn't do much to gain you the respect you obviously want.

All the two of you have done is draw the lines between You and Us ever sharper, and create more divisions.

Why you would want to do this is beyond me.

You have succeeded in alienating even further those of us who have seen and/or experienced REAL PROBLEMS with police power run amok.

So, you can either try to back up a bit and salvage a bit of consideration and common courtesy here, or you can continue to dig the hole a bit deeper.

[northzax]

78. soldiers are trained to do one thing well

and that is kill people before those people can kill them. This is why soldiers without additional police training make awful police.

[FloridaJudy]

49. Yup. Did my share of "civil" disobedience during the sixties

And I mean "civil" in both senses of the word. Sit down, put your hands on your head, and sing "We shall overcome", if your mouth isn't too dry with fear. The crazies that threw rocks at cops or shouted insults got a lot of us peaceful protesters gassed, clubbed, and even killed. One makes your point: the other just creates a dangerous scene.

The UF student who triggered the incident was obviously into scene-creating. In my opinion, the guy was a professional jerk of a kind I was all too familiar with from my demonstrating days. But I still think the cops over-reacted. If everyone who acted like a jerk from time to time got tazered, almost none of us would make it through live without getting zapped.

[Pastiche423]

19. No

And I do not believe the woman in this story would agree either. That is, if she wasn't dead from being hit ten fucking times w/a taser:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=145x9618

[hootinholler]

22. And there are plenty of examples nationwide of deaths resulting from beatings.

Agreed that dead is dead.

-Hoot

[Pastiche423]

34. So, you believe we need more deaths?

Not enough deaths from beatings, more tasers!

Disgusting.

[hootinholler]

73. That idea didn't come from me.

Don't put words in my mouth and CALL ME DISGUSTING!

Where have I said anything even close to needing more deaths?

I asserted that the use of either taser or club is similar.

-Hoot

[The Straight Story]

28. Not in most cases I would not

A night stick to the body can do a lot more damage than a taser (although not ALWAYS).

The idea of a taser is to quickly bring down someone without permanent harm (though it can kill in some cases) thus sparing you and the offender from a physical confrontation.

I DO think cops over use the taser (and shame on those that do) and use it as a first resort. Those who do so should wind up in court.

Bottom line though is - if a cop asks you to cease and desist, do so. If they are in the wrong you have a law suit which will make a much larger statement than you resisting :)

[bobbolink]

30. It's a good thing death isn't permanent.

You keep saying "Sue", but you have yet to really reply to those of us who are telling you it takes $$$$.

You are not living in reality.

[northzax]

79. so what's your solution?

police with no ability to use force besides their fists and guns?

if you believe you have been wrongfully imprisoned, call a lawyer, you can find one in the phone book, or on TV during Judge Judy. They work on contingency, and if you have a case, they will take it, you only pay if you recover damages.

you are much less likely to do long term damage with a taser than a nightstick. yes, people die, and that is a tragedy, and anything we can do to reduce that risk is a good thing, but it's also true that there are times when police officers must restrain people who do not want to be restrained and will use violence to evade restraint. And tasers are a pretty safe way of doing that, causing the least damage to the most people.

[bobbolink]

80. Ever heard of an organization called "Cop Watch"?

They go to all demonstrations and rallies specifically BECAUSE cops go off the deep end, and hurt innocent people.

It's an organization that's there BECAUSE they've witnessed police violence. You seem to think that all cops are great, reasonable people. They AREN'T.

Many people on this thread have spoken against the idea that it will all be straightened out in a lawsuit. Instead of continuuing to beat that dead horse, you might consider what people, and people with experience, are saying.

I recounted one example where I was a victim of a crime, and the cop who came to the scene was clearly outside the law, yet there was NOTHING I could do.

Showing just a tad compassion about those things, instead of blindly supporting all cops, would create a bit more understanding, rather than creating more division between law enforcement and the rest of us.

Unless that division is what you're really after.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

21. It takes money to enter a lawsuit..

More money than most people who run into problems with the police have..

So basically your advice is useless for the great majority of people..

Other than for keeping from getting beaten, and even that isn't a sure thing.

Here is the sort of thing that we hear about all too often. And in this case it was *three* crooked cops all working together.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/report_da_plans.html



The district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., is going to press murder charges against the three Atlanta police officers involved in the shooting death of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston, our Gannett colleagues at WXIA-TV report.

D.A. Paul Howard told the officers' attorneys that he plans to take the case to a grand jury on Feb. 26, the Atlanta TV station says.

It adds that an attorney for Officer Gregg Junnier said the charges the D.A. plans include felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment and burglary.

Johnston was shot and killed inside her home in northwest Atlanta on Nov. 21 when narcotics officers tried to serve a no-knock search warrant. Johnston, armed with a handgun, was killed in an exchange of multiple gunshots. Police said at the time that she shot at the officers, who returned fire.


They also planted pot in her house after killing her to "legitimize" their raid..

[bobbolink]

24. I agree with you completely! Those of us on the bottom have NO

recourse.

Just take the abuse, and try to forget it.

Many of us have had to do exactly that.

What we're left with, though, is complete distrust of cops, and knowing we're on our own in this violent society.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

32. And I know we won't get a response from the OP

On this particular point..

[bobbolink]

35. Which I confronted. It would be nice to get an actual discussion about this.

But, clearly, those on the other side can't see us any anyone but "OTHER".

Yet, they get so upset when we've learned to see them as "OTHER".

It really is tragic.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

40. HEY... OP.. PLEASE ADDRESS THE POINT IN THIS SUBTHREAD..

But I know you won't since it will upset your nice little theory about just take the cops to court..

[bobbolink]

43. Keeping a situation from deteriorating means staying objective,

and seeing the other person as just that--a person.

I GOT NO RESPONSE about the fact that the damned cop who came WHEN I WAS A VICTIM was carrying porn.

I get NO RESPONSE about how some cops are just violent.

I get NO RESPONSE about $$$ for court.

I don't think there is objectivity here.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

47. HELLO.. THE STRAIGHT STORY... PLEASE ADDRESS THE POINT ON THIS SUBTHREAD

I know you won't though..

Just like I can't get people to answer the simple questions I'm posing on two of my OP's today..

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. he has, here is a link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1851959&mesg_id=1852696

[The Straight Story]

46. OK I will

Sorry if it took a minute.

I have entered law suits myself in the past - mine was set up like this:

If you win, we get 33%. If you lose it costs you nothing.

I won. Did not cost me a cent to file.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

55. Umm..

Let's see..

You are an LEO who obviously has contacts in the legal profession and knows how to work the system. Not to mention that as an LEO your word will have greater weight in the courtroom than a civilian..

Most of us don't have those advantages..

And lawyers won't take your case on spec unless they are pretty damn sure they can win..

One more point, I know quite a few cops keep a pin in their duty belt so they can prick someone in order to make them "resist arrest" and give the cop(s) an excuse to wale on them..

[The Straight Story]

57. No...I WAS a LEO but not when I filed my law suit against an insurance company

I found my attorney BEFORE I was a LEO (I was 19 at the time).

It never went to court as my attorney pressed them on the facts and they settled out of court (I could have won 3x as much if I had wanted to fight it for years).

I became a cop a few months later. Though I DID use that same attorney later, after I was a LEO, for other issues.

As far as 'bad cops' - yeah, I knew some. Another reason I am glad I am not in that field any longer.

I will say though that 3 of them ended up serving time over their issues (and one was a close friend when I was a cop).

If you have a case, you can find an attorney that will handled it on an contingency basis. I was unemployed when I filed my case, near being homeless at 19, with a kid on the way (though to be honest, I would not have been homeless as mom would have taken me in). I made $3.35 an hour prior to that, lost my job (because I was dating a fellow employee), and did not have a penny to file a suit.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

61. "If you have a case"

LOL..

I know damn well that in a dispute with a LEO unless you have *overwhelming* evidence on your side you are going to lose.

My daughter got falsely arrested on her 17th birthday and we had a damn good case.

You know why we didn't pursue it?

Because we couldn't afford to move out of the county and I knew full well how corrupt they are here and figured that we would be set up for a drug bust and then lose all our property even if we were found innocent.

The system is rigged and you and I both know it.

Here you go, this is the kind of shit that goes down around here..

Report: D.A. plans murder charges against Atlanta cops

The district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., is going to press murder charges against the three Atlanta police officers involved in the shooting death of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston, our Gannett colleagues at WXIA-TV report.

D.A. Paul Howard told the officers' attorneys that he plans to take the case to a grand jury on Feb. 26, the Atlanta TV station says.

It adds that an attorney for Officer Gregg Junnier said the charges the D.A. plans include felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment and burglary.

Johnston was shot and killed inside her home in northwest Atlanta on Nov. 21 when narcotics officers tried to serve a no-knock search warrant. Johnston, armed with a handgun, was killed in an exchange of multiple gunshots. Police said at the time that she shot at the officers, who returned fire.

In addition these *three* cops planted pot in the woman's house after killing her in order to legitimize their raid..

[jberryhill]

51. That's why civil rights cases....

...are one of the extremely few exceptions to the general principle that attorney's fees are not available as damages in civil actions.

I've donated time on First Amendment cases to individuals and to organizations such as Public Citizen.

Lots of lawyers do.

One of the primary firms working on the Guantanamo Bay detainee cases is a major DC corporate firm.

Somehow those protesters in Seattle managed to find a way to get a decent judgment against the city.

Go read 42 USC 1983 and 42 USC 1988 and get back to me on that, okay?

[The Straight Story]

53. Let's look at what you posted:

"The district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., is going to press murder charges against the three Atlanta police officers involved in the shooting death of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston, our Gannett colleagues at WXIA-TV report."

and your title:

"It takes money to enter a lawsuit.."

Where is the money in the link you provided? Who here is filing and how much money is being used here?

You go on to say:

"They also planted pot in her house after killing her to "legitimize" their raid.."

Is this a criminal or civil issue? If it is criminal - then no money is involved. If it was civil, no money needs to change hands either if you have an attorney working based on return (ie, you have a good case and they will get paid if you do).

[sandnsea]

23. SCOTUS cases

The auditorium was not an unlimited public forum, like a quad or other open space. The college can make rules regarding conduct in the auditorium, and even an invited speaker can be removed. Most certainly an uninvited one can as well. The student was asked to leave when he made remarks regarding blow jobs and S&B, and showed no interest in having his questions answered. He clearly resisted. The law is settled on this.

"..The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in ACLU v. Mote (2005) and courts within the 5th Circuit have found college campuses to be limited public forums. This means that they are not traditional public forums such as public streets or parks available for anyone to use at any time, but have been opened to the public for limited use. Usually in such instances an individual or group must reserve time to speak and may speak only in designated areas. When a speaker does not follow the institution’s policy concerning uninvited speakers, he can be prohibited from speaking and asked to leave the campus.
AND

..in a case concerning an uninvited speaker, Bowman v. White. The court ruled that specific parts of the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville campus were considered an unlimited public forum..."

SCOTUS Rulings Campus Speech http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speakers

[jberryhill]

52. Those are "uninvited speaker" cases...

When you are dealing with a student, a separate set of considerations applies - primarily the student's voluntary consent to whatever the institutional rules of student conduct may be.

Did you hear the campus police asking "Are you a student?"

[sandnsea]

58. They're both

They cover both invited speakers and free speach rights of students. Students have free speech rights in public areas of a public campus. But a college can set rules in areas that serve particular purposes, like an auditorium. In that instance, it doesn't matter who you are, the campus rules apply. Invited speaker, uninvited speaker, student. There's no right to free speech at any place you want to have it, at any time.

[jberryhill]

63. A further set of considerations....

Granted, I have not followed this obsessively, but one would also want to know the circumstances of the auditorium use, such as whether this was an event conducted under the auspices of the institution itself, a student group, or some other entity which, for all intents and purposes, was the "host" of the event.

[sandnsea]

65. Whoever hosted it, shut the mic

And appears to have actually directed the removal. A gentleman in a suit is seen walking past Meyers, and speaking to Kerry. I'd like to know who he is and what he had to say. It really doesn't matter, because any "host" would have to sign a contract and abide by university rules anyway.

[jberryhill]

66. One thing...

I had read was that the session was running over time. That's why I ask if some group had reserved the auditorium for a fixed time which had expired.

The situation I am thinking of is, say, a rabid homophobe showing up at the GLSBT Students meeting.... a pro-lifer showing up at the campus feminist organization meeting... that sort of thing... and demanding to similarly engage in a misguided freedom of speech exercise.

[sandnsea]

67. I don't think that was it at all

He asked his election fraud question and Kerry started answering it. But then, he went on ranting about clinton's blowjobs and skull and bones, and that's when the mic was cut off and they started telling him he had to go. Apparently there was some sort of incident before that, which is why the cops were right next to him to begin with. Even as the cops pushed him towards the exist, the senator said he would answer the question. The kid jerked away from them and started screaming. At some point they said he was under arrest, he went even wilder and was yelling at them to not touch him and get their hands off him. That's what everybody says when they're under arrest. :eyes:

I think that with 6 cops, they could have physically picked the kid up and removed him. But they're trained to use tasers, so that's what they do. If a pro-lifer had started calling women baby-killers, then I would think they would expect the cops to remove that disrupter. I also think if this had been anybody but Kerry, there would have been no reaction at all. I don't know what it is, but nobody gets quite the volatile reactions that he does. It's always been that way, long before Ohio too.

[jberryhill]

68. Oh, I've heard all that....

I'm just interested in knowing more of the context in terms of what, if any, entity was hosting the event. The line between a guest and a trespasser depends on the scope of permission by which one is a guest in the first instance.

[sandnsea]

71. Accent

a student government organization.

http://alligator.org/articles/2007/09/07/news/campus/kerry.txt

It doesn't matter whether the student was invited or not. There are two points. One, free speech does not extend to any location on the campus. Two, the university can create rules regarding inappropriate speech and remove even invited guests. Either way, the universty was within its rights because this wasn't about speech, it was about disruption.

[DaveJ]

25. Thank You!

I believe you are reaffirming my point the peace officers are not marital arts experts or pro-wrestlers capable of taking someone into custody with brute force.

If people want those types, then they are asking for a police force of brutes, which they will also continue to complain about.

It's not as simple as tasers being good or bad, it's a matter of the best option at a given moment -- risk breaking someone's arm or use a taser.

Also, thank you for risking YOUR life and limb to keep the peace. I don't know why people expect you to be ninja warriors every time you need to take someone into custody (rather than using a taser against a violent resistor), it makes no sense, then they complain if you accidental injure someone, it's crazy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Wow what a small world

I was a medic and at times we had to restraint patients for their own safety

The list of pepple who needed to be restrained ran the gamut from the drunk who needed to have a bad cut put back together, all the way to the head injury patient or the patient in the midst of a ketosis who didn't know what they were doing... or your mentally unstable patient

And yes, those struggles did not involve one or two medics, but usually me with anywhere from six to ten of my best budies.

The idea was to secure saith patient to a bed with restraints, and not get hurt in the process. Easier said than done... at the very least we got the innevitable bumps and bruises. Once I lost control of a leg and I went flying across the room.

It is a damn scary situation and people do not realize just how strong people can be.

Hell a two year old can be a struggle for a couple trained nurses with a pappoose restraint, an adult can be right down nightmarish

And yes, we also had drilled into our heads some of what now I know is the threat matrix...

And lord when I got assaulted with a deadly weapon (broken bottle) by a perp, I used my maglight in self deffense, and yes there were broken bones

In this place that incident would be seen as perp, abuse of force, et al. Fortunately cops witnessed this and were way too late to the party beyond arresting the perp

And the DA told the guy you escalate legally and we will add to the charges.

In the end there were charges filed, and he had to nurse his broken clavicle in jail and I got to tell the story, and I still have that maglite... it broke, it will no longer focus.

Oh and the reason he did that? He was afraid we were going to hurt his unconscious, almost dead buddy, on the floor, cold and wet, barely breathing due to to an OD... his friend survived...

But those who have never worked in any kind of public safety don't realize the risks

Yesterday I watched the video and went, ok maybe they've gone too far until I saw Mr. Meyer's fist, and then went... ok, seems they are doing what they are trained to do... but it is pretty gray, and most of us don't know what happened, truly. The fact that IA is now involved (High profile case) is telling, but then again... it is a high profile case

Oh and I also got the brief for VIP presence..., for those of you who go why didn't directly get involved? Free clue... President McKinley... google it up.

But the last thing you want or need is for your VIP to get involved. As in directly involved.

[The Straight Story]

36. We had a guy one night wacked out on drugs

Tore the toilet off the wall, cut himself up pretty bad. I and another deputy went in to physically stop him from harming himself (after we hit the panic button). It was a tiny cell (he was in a single cell on the 3rd floor) and we put ourselves in jeopardy to save him from himself.

If I could have tasered him I would not have had to put myself, my fellow deputy, and the inmate into the situation I did - three people battling it out in a small cell. I got his blood all over me, he almost got his arm broken, and my fellow deputy missed being cut on a major artery by about 3/4 inch.

Once more: I think it is a good tool but that is used sometimes poorly.

Better training for cops, and maybe a little more understanding from civilians would do both sides a world of good.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Yep and let me guess

that story never made it to the local paper

Ah, we had a guy on LSD.

It took 20 people to tie him down to my gurney

Off to the border we go

We shifted gurneys, and when we got ours back... it was bent.

[Ahpook]

29. This country is full of clowns

I can't wait to get out of here.

Everyone keeps making an excuse to allow this crap

Good cop, bad cop. Boots without the steel toe.

Blanket statement? NO! But listening to this football game for years is getting boring.

I can't tell much of a difference between those fucking "freepers" lately.

[tandot]

31. Thanks. My brother-in-law is a correctional officer who'll do anything

in his power to avoid conflict. However, sometimes it isn't up to him.

:hi:

[The Count]

33. yeah, those 4 cops were in real danger from that one guy who was pulling away

(without running)
Like in those two photos here:
http://www.alligator.org/articles/2007/09/18/news/campus/arrest.txt
Sure they had to defend themselves :sarcasm:

[DaveJ]

44. Okay

So tell cops to "shut up", then run around the crowd like an insane maniac. That would be a wierd but I guess it would work.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. And a quick trip to county mental

;-)

[GoneOffShore]

37. A brilliant take on tasers

Thank you.

Rationality, the antidote to emotion and "the stupid".

[smoogatz]

50. Here's the thing.

I'm a big, healthy-looking guy--a hair under 6'2", a hair over 200 lbs. I pretty much look like I could pick up the front end of a pickup truck, and when I was ten years younger I was in such good shape I might have been able to, a quarter of an inch or so. But--ten years ago I also suffered from a chronic cardiac arrhythmia, a condition which wasn't dangerous all by itself, and which came and went pretty much on its own schedule. One minute I'd be fine, the next minute my heart would be wildly out of whack and I'd feel like shit. Know how they fix those things (temporarily, at least)? They stick an electrode on your chest and another on your back, and at just the right point in your heartbeat they give you one bad-ass motherfucker of an electrical shock; it's so intense that the electrodes leave big, itchy burns on your skin that take days to fade out, but if it's done right it fixes you and you can go on with your life for awhile. If it's done wrong, though, it stops your heart or pushes you into a more dangerous arrhythmia, or it just flat fucking kills you. The electrical shock delivered by a taser is considerably more powerful than the shock the doctors give you when they cardiovert you. If somebody with my arrhythmia (and there are over two million of us in the U.S.) gets tasered, there's a reasonable chance it could kill them. In the main, people with arrhythmias don't look any different from people whose hearts are beating normally. And in fact, people die from getting tasered fairly frequently (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/12/earlyshow/main648859.shtml).

In my view, tasers are too much weapon used too frequently by cops with too little training. In the UF case, the kid was face down on the ground, surrounded by at least a half-dozen cops who didn't seem to be having that much trouble subduing him. He was resisting, but he wasn't resisting violently or aggresively, and he appeared to be about half the bulk of the two bigger cops that had their hands on him. Given what we know--that tasers sometimes kill people--it seems to me that they should be held in reserve for emergencies. The UF thing was a scuffle, not an emergency. I hope the kid sues for a bundle.

[The Straight Story]

54. And here is where you are right and where the sticking point is:

"In my view, tasers are too much weapon used too frequently by cops with too little training."

Training is one key to this (as is training on legal issues). Training people when to use a tool is key in this whole debate.

And so is, to me, understanding WHY people use the tools they have.

[smoogatz]

56. It appeared to me in the video that the cop tasered the kid to punish him

for not cooperating. Which is a form of torture. They had six cops there and they couldn't cuff one skinny kid?

Much as I respect your experience and enjoy your posts, I also don't entirely buy the legal liability explanation. Cops may think they're somehow immune from lawsuits if they taser someone, but it's my understanding that there are numerous lawsuits in the works all over the country as the result of tasering incidents. It's a question of appropriate force, and in the UF incident (and other recent campus incidents), tasering appears not to have been appropriate.

[The Straight Story]

59. If they did so to punish someone, they should get their butts sued off

I saw the video as well, and am not really excusing this one episode (though I can relate to it).

You nailed it with this: "It's a question of appropriate force" and that is what must be decided NOW - however, as someone on the other side of things I can say it is hard to determine in a split moment what is appropriate. There is often little time to think about it.

We have the luxury of sitting here later and discussing it all - but in the heat of the moment you act to save yourself. If this guy did not want all this to happen he could have easily prevented it by sitting down and being arrested (ala King and others).

Whose fault is it that he chose not to?

[smoogatz]

62. Honestly, I'm really not sure what I'd have done in his shoes.

Let's say you or I went to see Giuliani speak, and when we finally got to the Q&A mic (Mr. Giuliani, a lot of us want to know why you continue to conflate the 9/11 attacks with the U.S. occupation of Iraq—) they cut us off in mid-question, and next thing we know we're being man-handled by a couple of rent-a-cops. Would you go quietly, when you knew your rights were being violated? I'm really not sure what I'd do. Just as the cop has only a second to decide how to react, so does the guy who's being treated like a criminal for asking an "impolite" question. As you say, we have the luxury of sitting back and judging him after the fact.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. I would and then contact the ACLU

They will take that case, or any other case involving politicos (from either party) any day of the week and twice on Sunday

[oscarmitre]

72. He didn't look like a skinny kid to me.

But I have to admit that if you have four, five, six cops in reasonable shape they should be able to control a single individual. Having said that I've found myself swinging off someone's arm in the past (big bloke, opal miner). If you don't have oc spray or a taser then all you can do is wrestle and biff to get the bloke under control. But you have to stop wrestling and biffing when he's either surrendered or you have him cuffed. I didn't see enough in the video to see if the tasering was a bit early but as has been said elsewhere, he probably didn't get a full blast. I'm not familiar with tasers but I think there is one form of instrument that just gives a shock when applied, rather than the hooks in the clothing full-on and down you go shivering and shaking type of taser.

Anyway good OP.

[snot]

60. One problem is, letting him sue later for violation of his first amdt rights

is not going to get him/us a meaningful remedy, even if the courts weren't by now mostly invested with conservative 'bots. Because he'd be suing the police or the University or whoever, and at least in this case, the real damage isn't that he was tasered, it's that he was prevented from putting Kerry on the spot to answer those questions in a public forum. Since Kerry did not apparently do anything wrong himself, a court couldn't order Kerry to remedy that.

I'd still like answers to those questions.

[jberryhill]

70. "he was prevented from putting Kerry on the spot"

No right to that.

You can claim a right to speak was infringed.

You can claim a general liberty right was infringed when he was detained.

But neither a right to speak nor a general liberty right is a grant of a right to get an answer or to have anyone listen to you when you are doing your speaking.

[TheUniverse]

69. Tasers are necessary sometimes.

But when you have a kid on the ground with 4 or 5 grown officers on top of him, and the kid is being non violent, but maybe arrogant and moving around alot, then tasers are far from necessary.

[MadHound]

74. You say "file a lawsuit" like it is as easy as breathing air,

And that justice will prevail everytime. First, many people simply don't have the means to file a lawsuit. They don't have the time, the money or the resources to file a lawsuit. Secondly, when it comes down to a legal battle between a citizen and a cop, the cop has an advantage simply by being a cop. The defense attorney will make certain to pick a jury whose experiences with cops are either neutral or positive, they will praise this public servant, and the cop, simply by being a cop, walks in with an aura of righteousness that is hard to overcome.

Besides, is it worthwhile to sue over every little thing. I've gotten hassled by cops simply for walking down the street with long hair. Should I have sued? Was it worthwhile to do so? Not in my opinion, yet it was still a violation of my rights and frankly quite annoying all the same. Cops get by with this shit all across the country, everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.

You have a point, but it is a severely limited one. Many people simply can't follow your path.

[bobbolink]

77. Exactly! He's set it up so once again, the victim is WRONG

and the cops are just peachy.

Those of us who have experienced it differently can see the game for what it is.

[Solon]

75. You are assuming all Police departments are "Rational"...

When that is far from the case, in certain places in this country, you simply do NOT want to get near a cop, it may get you killed or sent to the hospital, two places that leap to my mind is LA and Miami, which, as far as I can tell, have ineffective IA departments at the very least. In fact, these police departments I mentioned act less like police and more like a street gang.

[LanternWaste]

81. I have always...

I have always (always) made it a point to be polite and civil when dealing with law enforcement, regardless of the situation. In every case but one, at the end of the day there was no harm and no foul other than me getting inconvenienced for a time. I think (at least in my case) that any incident that may have arisen was peremptorily denied due to my behavior.

I'm told this makes me an 'authoritarian' (however I have a sneaking suspicion that when I was called this, it's was by someone who probably got a ticket for speeding, couldn't get out of it, and now equates the horror of it to being in Auschwitz), so I looked up the word and understood that the pejorative was incorrectly applied-- most likely for the sake of drama and/or self-validation.



The one time that things did get hairy and I felt that I was truly wronged (rather than merely inconvenienced), I still effectively maintained my composure and dignity, and simply went to a lawyer's office the next day to see what my choices were in the matter. The lawyer made some phone calls, his secretary got back to me that very day and laid out all of my viable options.

Within the week, the charge was dropped and I received both a verbal and a written apology from the law enforcement officer, and although I had the choice of taking this further, I felt that it would simply be either greed or petulance on my part, so I accepted with grace his regret and sorrow.

But that's just me and my own experiences-- your mileage may vary...

[aikoaiko]

82. What you wrote is so plainly obvious -- it amazes me that people don't get it.