The yellow book that he was waving was Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse." You don't have to be an asshole (as this guy obviously was) to get heated about the Ohio voter suppression in 2004, one of the topics in the book.

It's a great read and I recommend it.

Yes, there is an investigation into their use of force.

The taser is not a handcuff. It is meant as an alternative to a gun. If he is not enough of a threat to shoot, he's not enough of a threat to tase.

BINGO! Well put.

You ever been cuffed by the police Will?

I have. Being hand cuffed does not mean you are being arrested. It's called being detained, they secure a suspect by cuffing him. Then they proceed with whatever investigation. Once they arrest you, yes they must mirandize you. But just because you are cuffed doesn't mean you are being arrested, nor does it mean they must mirandize you, unless they start asking you questions (which is moot because if they don't, any answers would be inadmissable as they must make you aware of your rights if you are detained and asked questions).

Cops are allowed certain things. Like asking for ID, or detaining people briefly and questioning them, or in an instance where a person is being disruptive they are allowing to escort them using reasonable force. IN this instance this idiot resisted the escort and was struggling, so they opted to cuff him, at some point they took him down or he dead weighted. As clearly shown on the video he was resisting the police in their attempt to secure him, something they are allowed to do, as such tazing ensued.

No where in the legal system must they tell you why you are being arrested/removed/detained on a moments notice. Once you are safely in custody and everything is figured out they might tell you what they are taking you in for, but they do not owe anyone an upfront answer as to why they are being cuffed/detained/arrested.

This is what I thought of when I saw that video.......



Hilarious.

Starting when I was 16, I can think of about 2 dozen times when I've been handcuffed by the police.

If a police officer witnesses you commit a crime, they can arrest you on the spot. No investigation necessary. Had the man in the video been committing a crime, they would have read him his Miranda rights and arrested him, if, during or after this process, he had made any physical or vocal attempts to resist, he would have been "resisting arrest". If they don't read your Miranda rights, which include the naming of the charge, then you're not being arrested properly and you'll be set free assuming your lawyer isn't Alberto Gonzales.

They are allowed to secure a suspect first, that would mean detaining him i.e. cuffing him, and proceeding from there. He was resisting the detention and the escort from security, they were well within their rights to cuff him in the very least.

I agree with most of the people here.

Sure, he's a dumb kid, who was out of line, but to the extent that he deserved to get tasered? No.

I think the situation was blown way out of proportion and the cops should be at fault. That's violating freedom of speech. If the boy started threatening John Kerry then yes, I would definitely see how tasers would be used. But otherwise, it's completely out of line.

Another video of the event:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y3vSgJNj_c0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y3vSgJNj_c0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

At ~1:18 he is repeatedly warned to stop or he will be tased (sp?)
At ~1:59 he is finally tased, after it appears that one of his hands is cuffed and that he pulls the other away from being cuffed as well.

I am having trouble seeing how this use of the taser is unreasonable since he was warned 40 seconds ahead of time that if he did not cooperate it would be used. If someone tells me to cooperate or I'll be tased, I'm gonna do whatever they tell me to do!

From the 1:18 to 1:59 timeframe, there appear to be at least 5 officers trying to hold him down, but they are unable to get him cuffed. So I guess my question would be, barring incompetency by the police (which is possible, but since they were the only ones there it's not like there was any other alternative): what else could have been done to restrain him? They did not use batons, a choke hold, or fists (likely those are no longer allowed if Florida is like California) and it seemed that all they wanted to do was get him out of the hall to stop being disruptive - otherwise they would have tasered him with no warning. What other option do they have that they could have used?

Just for shits and giggles, we'd love to hear about the about 24 times you've been handcuffed by the police. What were you charged with each time?

You don't have to be charged with anything to get cuffed. Which is what my point was.

Something tells me that's exactly what I'm going to hear.

Is it bad that I laughed when he said, "don't tase me bro"? I think they did go overboard, but I'm not surprised by their actions. He got himself in that situation. Never defy someone in position of authority when the people they're supposed to have authority over are watching, unless you're willing to endure the inevitable pain.

I can tell you in brief about time #1. WHO protest in Seattle, December of 1999. I broke no laws and was rounded up in a group. They handcuffed a few of us at random, but let us go when they realized we weren't causing trouble. I wasn't gassed, fortunately. Had I been picked up, they would have called my parents, who would have asked why I was detained. Either way, I would have been fine.

I kind of wish he would have said this as he was being whisked away.
"Help, Help, I'm Being Repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434#

And it was totally unnessesary to tase him. Hell, it wasn't nessesary to even take him away, he wasn't a threat to anybody.

something i'm not understanding about alot of people here so maybe these questions can be answered by them.

1)If you are not breaking ANY law, do the police have the authority to impose their will by giving you an order?

2) If you believe that they don't have that authority, do you then agree that resistance to these orders, verbal and physical, is warranted? If you believe that they do have this authority, is their a personal line that you draw where you will no longer accept an order from someone with a badge?

3) if you believe you have the right to resist what you consider an illegal or invalid order from law enforcement, how far do you believe that resistance should be pursued?

It's nice to be on the same side of an issue, dk.

agreed. you and I aren't that much different, with the exception of a few ideals. of course I have a feeling that on this particular issue, you'll stop agreeing with me shortly. :wave:

I think you might be surprised how I feel about what a person should be allowed to do to defend themselves from the police. If I were attacked and tasered by the police (a la the video), I should have the right to defend myself by disabling them (read: not dead or permanently damaged, but incapacitated). Unfortunately, those right don't exist in our current body of laws, but all that tells me is that those laws need to be changed.

Actually, it is my understanding that you are able to defend yourself against excessive and unjustified use of force by the police. Edited to add: Of course, you would also have to both survive the incident and convince a jury to see it your way.

However, this kid was being an asshat and was resisting arrest.

Which is exactly the point. In a case of he said she said, the police win by default.
He wasn't being arrested. He committed no crime.

Disorderly conduct is a crime, I could think of any number of bullshit to make the point the guy was out of line.

Dude, you gotta wonder if they tased him just because they hadn't done it before and wanted to see it work in real life / non-training environment.

...or they had done it before and it possesses addictive qualities to the user.

POINT: How cool would it be to shock the crap outta somebody?

That's better than a Nerf bat!

alot of states have specific statutes declaring that deadly force in any situation is not a defense for using it against law enforcement....but quite a few still do. texas is one of them, though it is strictly limited and defined. what most states and courts fail to take in to account with LEO confrontations is that any human being has the natural right of self preservation.

lots of less than honorable cops use DC and disturbing the peace as 'catch alls' when they have no other concrete charge. This is why it is paramount that a person know ALL the laws, better than the cops do, if they plan to participate in aggressive protesting. I can tell you that if i'm not breaking any laws and you as a cop try to arrest me for DC, it's going to escalate rather rapidly and probably before you know it.

I agree that a person should have the right to defend their life, sorta. Leaving that alone, I'll let a cop treat me like shit up to a point. Maybe he or she is having a really bad day, and they do risk their lives for people. If they attack me for breaking no law, though, I should be able to stop them. I'm not interested in waiting until I've been beaten or killed. Having my family sue the police department really won't bring me back or heal me. I'm physically capable of reasonably defending myself should I be attacked. Meh.

Why does he keep stating that he's being arrested in the beginning wherein as I can see he's being escorted out.

Handcuffs do not equal being arrested.

because he's a fool. he didn't bother learning enough law to know the whens and whats, but most of all the what nots. He learned just enough to get his stupid ass in trouble.

That's pretty self-evident, dk. He was acting like a fool and being stupid BEFORE the police ever came into the picture.

I will say, though, that while you may feel that disturbing the peace is a catchall charge for the police, I think we saw an example of it on tape. If nothing else, I expect you'll agree with me that he was being rude.

That said, the taser is in the "less-than-lethal" weapon catagory. It's meant to be used in place of a gun. It was not by any means appropriate in this situation in my opinion.

hmmm I don't know that it means gun replacement to me. I think it means another tool that has it's place and we're finding that it is being used in place of a club/nightstick to poke and prod.

So this person was acting like a cow, not moving when asked, so he got treated like one.

Interesting. My perception is obviously the opposite. I tried to check out Taser International's site to see what they say (www.taser.com, but our filter won't let me in (interesting considering that this could be a potential account for me). So I looked at Wikipedia and noticed the third paragraph. There is an entire genre of less-than-lethal weapons, and the Taser is simply the most visible. There are bean-bag projectiles, rubber bullets, willravel's microwave gun, etc. that are all designed to be used INSTEAD of firearms. The nightstick has it's own issues I'll grant, but I don't see how the taser is designed to replace it when the latter leaves the recipient incapacitated.

Poke and prod? Cattle? There are better tools for that than a taser.

from the wiki link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/new...tm?bw=nb&mp=wm

The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester wasn't incapacitated for any longer than it looked like needed to subdue him. Is there a different incapacitated? Because a nightstick can make anyone quite incapacitated with correct blows to the right areas.

What are better tools? Talking didn't work. Human force of pushing didn't work. With the tools they had with them, what would have been appropriate?

Should he just been ignored like a 5 year old child throwing a temper tantrum while everyone else just tried to "enjoy" the speach?

I suffered a temper tantrum from a toddler from midnight to 1 a.m. this morning. Bad analogy Cyn. Granted, John Kerry had little or nothing to do with it, but it's still a sucky analogy as I try to keep my eyes open.

It was 5 on 1. The taser wasn't necessary. No one was being threatened. There was no threat of force from the detainee. He simply wasn't complying with their orders. If he'd had a knife or a gun, I'd have a much different stance, but when the manufacturer touts the product as an alternative to a gun, then I think the police have overstepped their bounds. They could have carried him out. They could have drug him out.

An alternative to a gun is not the same thing as a defense against a gun. I don't think anyone markets the taser as a defense against guns or knives.

It's a way to apply non-lethal (mostly) force.

sorry bro. I didn't get good rest at all last night either.

that's the crux of this discussion right? what, when, how to apply non-lethal force in order to coerce a subject to react in the requested manner.

ps. i've seen it done before, from highschool assemblies to various functions in college. sure, the dragee might get a bruise or a scrape, but i think if you ask most people which they'd rather experience, they'll take dragging to tasing. furthermore, i think if you asked what people who see the event think, i'd guess most of them (like myself) find tasing someone to be more severe.

i'm still flabbergasted that these cops, between the 5 of them, didn't think 'hey, that kid has camera right in my face and i'm getting ready to juice this kid. maybe i should hold off...naahhh!!! take this you fucking pinko punk!!!'

What about WALKING out as requested versus a tasing? Person was told if you don't move, you will be tased.

Isn't there some responsibility to the person being as will uses "civilly disobedient?" Or is their disobedience absolving them from any responsibility of their actions?

I tend to think those officials in the possession of tasers have the responsibility to use them on people they would deem to be dangerous if they were not subdued.

I'm very psychically uncomfortable with the acceptance of the use of weapons to subdue people who's only crime is civil disobedience of a political nature. People forget so quickly.

sure and what is the responsibility of the people who aren't being obedient? None?

As I look at more of the feedback from the youtube community all I can think of is the art imitating life imitating art cycle and the advent of reality TV. This guy is hamming it up for the cameras. IMO he thinks he is the visual martyr along the lines of the one man stopping tanks in Tienemann Square. Prefacing his question lining it up to make the "gotcha" moment apparent.

I agree that the guy was hamming it up, but I fully support the rights of people to be conscientiously disobedient when they feel it is right. I have no reason to believe that this guy didn't truly feel he had the right to ask those questions without being shut down. The fact that he made the most of it is irrelevant to me. It's a matter of principle.

The responsibility for those that aren't being obedient doesn't seem to matter to me. The responsibility lies with the officer. If the disobedient aren't cooperating and they aren't a threat to themeselves or others, I don't see why an escalation to taser use is appropriate under any circumstances. Again, if there were a gun or knife, things would be different; they weren't.

Those who are practicing civil disobedience have the responsibility to protect themselves from harm. If they choose to ignore that responsibility and, for example, get chopped up in the propeller of Lucifer's ship when they fall off, then the only responsible party is the protester.

It seems to me, Cyn, that you're arguing that two wrongs make a right in this case, and I just can't accept it. Yes, the guy was a rude asshole and was warned that he would be tased if he didn't comply. Yes, the police were wrong for escalating to that level of force. All that does is make everyone involved wrong. The guy was punished with the tasing. What about those who shot the darts and those that ordered it?