<!--quoteo(post=1650712:date=Sep 20 2007, 10:33 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Sep 20 2007, 10:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650712"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can you cite some of them? I'd like to see them myself. If you can't submit this information to the discussion it is probably best that you leave it out of the discussion completely. So what you are saying is that John Kerry himself has no right to answer questions asked of him just because he is on a schedule. The version of the story I read from a witness claims that he waiting in line and asked his question when his turn arrived. However, because this is heresay, I'm not expecting it to be taken seriously, just like I won't take your heresay seriously either. Wait, was he flailing before or after he was man handled to the ground? Because what I see in the video simply does not match your version of events.
I'm wondering if we are watching the same footage. I see a guy resisting physical restraint and I see him lying calmly there going "don't tase me bro" and then suddenly I hear the *click*click*click* of a taser. So although the guy had resisted physical restration it is NOT the case that he was flailing wildly and threatening the police officers. The guy is definitely an ass, but he didn't deserve to be tasered, and john Kerry deserved the chance to respond to his question, as he seemed keen to do.
The funny thing is that your suggestion of whacko nutjob conspiracies is now extended to kerry's blog - "his blog, of course, failed to mention this"
Come on man, admit it, they tasered a guy when it was not necessary to do so and now the "eat willy" camp are trying to rewrite history.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have no clue if what's been reported on the news (both local and national) in the form of videos is available other than what's linked in my first post. if you want to see any additional footage feel free to Google it.
I am saying that John Kerry was totally unaware the forum was closed or the time frame. The UF administration knew and the police knew, which is why they approached Andrew Meyers. News footage showed Andrew Meyers "butting in line" ahead of several others. If you consider this heresay so be it.
I've stated and re-stated that I saw different videos on the television all day yesterday. Where or if they can be located online is unknown to me. In the video you watched above it does not show him acting as wildly as I saw. Different cameras and angles show different perspectives.
John Kerry not only didn't have the time for any additional questioning, he was unaware of this (blame that on HIS staff). If this was the case of course he'd try to respond.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
It is, by definition, heresay until you cite the reference. All we have to go on is your word. I'd rather observe the evidence myself, thank you. Note, I am not saying you are wrong, just that I prefer to see it with my own eyes. In particular, what you tried to do was to prevent any further discussion on the topic based purely on a second hand report you made yourself. It just isn't conducive to a productive discussion at all. If you're going to mention evidence in an effort to focus the discussion then you really need to elaborate more.
Of course, if you didn't want people saying this stuff, it probably would have been wise to not start the topic <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
If the forum was closed it was not the kid they needed to grapple with and taser in the back of the room, it was simply to inform John Kerry and his team that the time was up and that he could go. Nothing would stop it quicker than letting him leave...unless of course he wanted to answer the questions in which case yet again...why is their the need to do anything more than cut the kids mic?
And the video we just watched has the camera on him all the way to the back...where exactly does he magically break out into this magical act of erratic violent behaviour?
At best this is just a case of pure incompetence on behalf of a ###### university administration and an ill-trained campus police foce, at the worst it's simply over the top brutal behaviour to someone that didn't pose a threat to anyone and wasn't breaching the peace for nearly long enough to employ the tactics against him.
it was pretty clear no one wanted to listen to the kid. he was not the speaker the audience was there to see. when they started taking him away, the audience cheered. critical failure on this attempt at rabble-rousing. though if kerry was actually willing to answer the question, I don't know why they felt the need to drag him away, let alone taser him... though it looked like he didn't intend to stop ranting anytime soon. if he honestly just wanted to ask Kerry a question, he should have done so in a clear and concise way. instead, he made it clear he was just desperate for an audience to listen to his ranting.
on the other hand, I think I know how he feels. people are so apathetic about politics these days. no one really cares about anything. I watched some of the Live Earth concert online a couple months ago. Melissa Etheridge tried to get people riled up about the sorry state of the nation's politics. you could hear crickets chirp - the audience couldn't care less, they just wanted to be entertained. If this were the 60's, the white house would probably be burning right now.
<!--quoteo(post=1650688:date=Sep 20 2007, 08:35 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Sep 20 2007, 08:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650688"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The videos I watched all day yesterday show yes, a couple of the officers were indeed in harm's way, he was flailing his arms wildly and kicking like he was on drugs. It was all so obviously staged.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> OMG THE DRUGS ARE MKAIN ME FLAIL I CANT CONTROL MYSELFS
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1650580:date=Sep 19 2007, 08:39 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Sep 19 2007, 08:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650580"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unfortunately this video shows but a small part of how violent he became. The University of Florida is 70 miles from here and various videos have been shown all day on the local news. A couple of times you could see him flailing wildly, and the cops nearby were actually in danger.
What pisses me off to no end is the mounting evidence that he staged this whole production. It was obviously planned in advance and two or three of his friends were in on it. He was heard saying, "Are the cameras rolling?" etc. the moment the police approached him. A twelve page police report was recently released and I imagine its contents will be on the late news.
I'm not against free will, but this creep deserved everything he got.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was an unarmed man, tazers are supposed to be used as an alternative to lethal force, not to calm someone down.
Maybe the donut shop was closing? There is no video of him flailing about. The entire scene from when he started speaking to when he was first tased is available for viewing. A couple of times he broke out of a police officers grasp, so he was definitely resisting being manhandled, but HE WAS NOT BEING ARRESTED, so he was not resisting arrest. He also wasn't flailing, he was just being evasive of their grasp.
For the record, I think this guy was an ass and he was show boating and all, and I do think it would have been fair to remove him from the premises if he was disrupting kerry's schedule, but I do not think it was okay to manhandle him to the ground while Kerry seemed interested in engaging him in discussion and I certainly think it was an over-reaction to taser him for it, especially when he was already grounded by 6 ( yes SIX ) police officers. They held the taser to his chest to shut him up, and when the guy continued to make a scene they tasered him. I can't possibly know the motive, but I do not accept that it was in self defence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Going back to my previous reference to the lady who died after being tasered 10 times ( Note: it is not a know if or how much the tasering contributed to the hearth attack ). This article just showed up on digg.com:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Following upon the widely reported tasering of University of Florida student Andrew Meyer the other day, it is important to note that this was not a random or unusual occurence. Many commentators have mentioned the taser attack by police on a student at UCLA who wouldn't show his I.D., back in November 2006.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sixty-one people died in 2005 after being shocked by law enforcement agency TASERs, a 27 percent increase from 2004's tally of 48 deaths, finds an Amnesty International study released today<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
seeing a daily mail reporter being the test subject / victim to what is arguably one of the sickest and sadistic (not to mention neat) inventions ever has really cheered my day up
What exactly about the use of a taser makes it more violent than grabbing and shoving a person to the floor, especially if that person continues to resist? Using fists and muscle to subdue a person causes longer lasting damage to the victim, and also increases the risk of damage to the police officer, either through the victim breaking free of the blows being landed causing damage to the police officer's body. Beating someone down is also incredibly exhausting, and I really wouldn't want to have a bunch of fatigued officers coming to my rescue because they had to beat someone down an hour before.
People, in their continued distaste of police officers seem to be ignoring the individual that caused the police to deal with the situation. There is nothing I see in the video to make me believe they were arresting him, but rather just making him leave. He then resisted, and because of it caused them to arrest him.
Resisting arrest is a crime, and whether one likes it or not, it gives the officers the sanction to increase force to subdue an individual committing that crime. The only way to increase force without lasting physical effects is to use a taser. The police officers have a limited supply of weapons to use to subdue an individual. Tasers are great because they immediately subdue the individual without causing harm to the police officers and little harm to the victim. The individual being shocked usually submits quickly, and is fine within a few minutes.
EDIT: BAH! I ranted again. I removed some stuff to avoid sounding so heated.
Using physical force is always a lose/lose scenario, there's no "good" way to do it. Sometimes it's necessary, and tasers incapacitate with as minimal risk to the victim as possible. They're not harmless, that much seems to be a certainty by now, but they are still less harmful than any other means of physical force available to a police officer. Of course, due to the risk to the victim, the pain and the deprival of basic rights associated with it, physical force should never be resorted to unless necessary.
The point of this discussion is not so much whether the police officers used the right kind of physical force, but whether they should have used physical force at all. It's fortunate that they tasered him rather than pummel him (or worse), but was the tasering warranted?
<!--quoteo(post=1650579:date=Sep 19 2007, 11:36 PM:name=Liku)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Liku @ Sep 19 2007, 11:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650579"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're going to be such an ignorant butthole and keep going "I didn't do anything! I didn't do anything!" like a 5th grader, someone needs to shut you up. Disturbing the lecture and crying like a ###### gets his point across, then good show.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1650743:date=Sep 20 2007, 12:22 PM:name=MedHead)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MedHead @ Sep 20 2007, 12:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know if I should blame the ignorance surrounding the use and existence of tasers or people's continued support of criminal behavior over having to follow rules, but it would seem that police are almost always going to be blamed for taking action against those who disturb the police (or worse). It saddens me, but I guess I should expect it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The taser never should have come out in that situation. You seriously think the four of those officers couldn't handle one kid? They had him on his stomach, and from that position, if a suspect can generate enough movement to prevent four adults from restraining him, <b>those adults are idiots and/or terrible at their job</b>.
I guess that's my estimation of the majority of law enforcement, though. Don't get me wrong, there are some police officers out there handling some tough ###### in the big cities that have my respect, but this is just petty abuse of their power to use tasers and sloppy performance on the job. Until the day that a police officer actually does me some good in my life, these initial reactions to stuff like this will probably not change.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1650747:date=Sep 20 2007, 12:35 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Sep 20 2007, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650747"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Using physical force is always a lose/lose scenario, there's no "good" way to do it. Sometimes it's necessary, and tasers incapacitate with as minimal risk to the victim as possible. They're not harmless, that much seems to be a certainty by now, but they are still less harmful than any other means of physical force available to a police officer. Of course, due to the risk to the victim, the pain and the deprival of basic rights associated with it, physical force should never be resorted to unless necessary.
The point of this discussion is not so much whether the police officers used the right kind of physical force, but whether they should have used physical force at all. It's fortunate that they tasered him rather than pummel him (or worse), but was the tasering warranted?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Would you rather be electrocuted or beaten with a stick? I'd take the stick, but I think you're right in saying that neither was warranted in this case. Part of the argument is that since the taser offers minimal risk to the cop it will be used more often than physical force which could also put the officer in harm's way. However the officer is more likely to use force when it's not going to adversely affect him/her even when it's not necessary. I want our police officers to be safe, but not at the expense of my rights.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
"We got him on the floor." "His arms and legs are secured!" "Taze him just to be sure, I have seen enough skinny guys take on 6 officers laying down in my lifetime!" "Taze him till he stops groaning!"
Seriously, do they just kick in the door at the gathering for insecure people, and slap a couple of badges on them?
<!--quoteo(post=1650740:date=Sep 20 2007, 11:54 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Sep 20 2007, 11:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650740"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He was an unarmed man, tazers are supposed to be used as an alternative to lethal force, not to calm someone down. Agreed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm afraid most SRO's (school resource officers) would disagree with you, in addition to the school boards that employ them.
<!--quoteo(post=1650741:date=Sep 20 2007, 12:04 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Sep 20 2007, 12:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650741"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Going back to my previous reference to the lady who died after being tasered 10 times ( Note: it is not a know if or how much the tasering contributed to the hearth attack ). This article just showed up on digg.com:
<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/19/14057/0584" target="_blank">http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/19/14057/0584</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Reportedly over 200 people have died from taser attacks. I'm guessing a large percentage of them would have died from a gunshot wound, had the officer not had a taser.
<!--quoteo(post=1650743:date=Sep 20 2007, 12:22 PM:name=MedHead)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MedHead @ Sep 20 2007, 12:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...] People, in their continued distaste of police officers seem to be ignoring the individual that caused the police to deal with the situation. There is nothing I see in the video to make me believe they were arresting him, but rather just making him leave. He then resisted, and because of it caused them to arrest him.
Resisting arrest is a crime, and whether one likes it or not, it gives the officers the sanction to increase force to subdue an individual committing that crime. The only way to increase force without lasting physical effects is to use a taser. The police officers have a limited supply of weapons to use to subdue an individual. Tasers are great because they immediately subdue the individual without causing harm to the police officers and little harm to the victim. The individual being shocked usually submits quickly, and is fine within a few minutes. [...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well stated MedHead, I wholeheartedly agree. <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/notworthy.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<!--quoteo(post=1650750:date=Sep 20 2007, 12:39 PM:name=pardzh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pardzh @ Sep 20 2007, 12:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650750"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The taser never should have come out in that situation. You seriously think the four of those officers couldn't handle one kid? They had him on his stomach, and from that position, if a suspect can generate enough movement to prevent four adults from restraining him, <b>those adults are idiots and/or terrible at their job</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoa now. One violent individual attempting to escape will most certainly be able to overpower multiple officers attempting to keep themselves and the individual safe from harm. If you really believe it's an issue of 1=1 in terms of how many officers are required to restrain a person, you haven't seen many videos of officers attempting takedowns. Cornered individuals will always fight harder. Desperation plays a big part in how hard a person struggles to change a situation.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited September 2007
I gotta admit I am confused. I got a very different image of things from the video that I watched then <b>puzl</b> and <b>locallyunscene</b> seem to.
My take on things: First up, I only watched the 1 shaky-cam video, and only watched it once, and can't watch it currently due to internet problems. (any one have an unedited video that is on Google videos, as I seem to be able to load that up currently)
1) The people running the venue wanted him out (this is not Kerry, Kerry is a guest at the venue, the people who run the venue have the say in what actually happens). 2) It looks like he WAS asked to leave before they tried to forcibly eject him. (I saw him respond to someone off camera that he would not leave, or somethign to that effect). 3) After refusing to leave they did use force to make him comply. He did NOT have the right to stand up there and talk about what ever he wanted, and, technically, the decision to eject him was not in the hands of Kerry, but in the hands of the people that run the venue (they have every right to eject some one that they do not want there, and it is the job of the Police to do things like that). 4) He definitely DID resist the Police, and that actually IS a crime. If a cop asks you to do something, you do it. Sure, you can talk back to them, but only with in reason. Yes, you can demand your rights, and you SHOULD! However, this guy was not having any of his rights revoked (no, free speech does not cover what you can/can't say in a private venue), and thus the police asking him to leave was fine. The police FORCING him to leave was also fine. 5) He KNEW he was about to get zapped, and yet it looked like he continued to resist. Normal procedure that I know of for escalating the level of force used generally involves a verbal warning to "Stop or I will do XXX" unless there is no time. Hell, it looked like he continued to resist even AFTER getting zapped.
Again, I only watched the shaky-cam video once (and can't re-watch it now due to internet problems), however it looked like he was asked to leave, resisted the police (somethign he shouldn't have done), and continued to resist even after being warned off with being Zapped.
So, few random points: <b>locallyunscene</b>: Tasers are NOT an alternative to lethal force in the states, they are used in situations where normal physical force is not working, but anything that is likely to cause permanent damage is not called for. I understand that tasers are only an alternative to lethal force in the UK, but I know that is not the case in the US, they basically replace things like mace (as it is not all that effective).
So as far as I saw, the Police acted as they were trained.
Now, the question is if the training and approved use of stun-guns/tasers IS appropriate. I think that is what <b>puzl</b> is getting at. Honestly I don't know, as I don't see enough facts on either side (and I can't Google them up currently due to lack of Google).
61 deaths attributed to Tasers. How many of those were due to incorrect use? Using them on a child/elderly/infirm individual? Over using them? 40 shocks is wrong, stun guns generally take 1 shock to be effective, that is why they ARE better then things aerosol deterrents. You can't ignore your muscles contracting, you will fall down, and that is generally all that is needed. And how many of those were because no one present knew how to/Did not administer CPR? (honest questions, I would like to know the answers to them). That Amnesty article is from 2005 with mentions of an independent study that they wanted. Did it ever happen? What were the results? Did AI just stop caring? Maybe they DO need to be pulled from police use. Maybe they need to have similar restrictions as firearms do. But we wont know with out any actual facts.
This case LOOKS to be exactly where tasers are designed to be used. Some one the police could not restrain, obviously coherent enough to know what was going to happen to him, and fit enough (21 year old male that is vigorously resisting multiple police officers) to withstand a zap.
Ninja Edit to follow up on what MedHead just said: Police are supposed to keep EVERYONE involved from being harmed, that includes the suspect, the officers, and those surrounding the area. I Could probably have stopped this guy by my self. How? By kicking him in the knee, punching him in the floating rib, elbow to the back of the neck, and then a knee to the face. Now, we have a subdued suspect, and me in LOTS of trouble <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> subduing some one with out causing lasting damage is kinda hard. I LOVE the idea of stun guns, that pain ray thing, and other such nonlethal, quick acting alternatives to physical force. Only problem is that it looks like we need better rules governing their use, and more research into the ACTUAL effects of them.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited September 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1650760:date=Sep 20 2007, 01:05 PM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DiscoZombie @ Sep 20 2007, 01:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650760"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->that ray-gun is horrifying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It apparently isn't. The entire point of it is that it causes MASSIVE amounts of pain with 0 real effect. Is this is true? No clue, but if it is, then it is a good thing in my book.
bugger it, can't read the link from depot from here. (My intar webs suck)
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited September 2007
Okay, I haven't seen anybody here defend this guys behaviour. the point is that after the guy was disabled, on the ground, with SIX cops on him he was no threat to anyone. There was no need to taser him. This point has been made many many times and yet we're still talking about drug induced arm flailing and dangers to public and police. Watch the video again carefully. he is on the ground subdued, and no danger to anyone. I don't believe he ever was a danger to anyone, he simply resisted being subdued.
The guy is obviously rude and disruptive, nobody is disputing that. The transition from engaging in a discussion with Kerry to being tasered is very quick and not once did it look like he was a threat to anyone. I'm sorry, but if cops feel threatened by a guy like this then I don't understand how they can handle a real danger. If we can't expect the police to subdue someone who is already on the ground and under a very reasonable amount of control without using physical torture, then things are a lot worse than I thought.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I Could probably have stopped this guy by my self. How? By kicking him in the knee, punching him in the floating rib, elbow to the back of the neck, and then a knee to the face. Now, we have a subdued suspect, and me in LOTS of trouble biggrin-fix.gif subduing some one with out causing lasting damage is kinda hard. I LOVE the idea of stun guns, that pain ray thing, and other such nonlethal, quick acting alternatives to physical force. Only problem is that it looks like we need better rules governing their use, and more research into the ACTUAL effects of them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but would you have needed to do that after you had him lying on the floor with 5 other people helping you to hold him down?
<!--quoteo(post=1650764:date=Sep 20 2007, 01:15 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Sep 20 2007, 01:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650764"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It apparently isn't. The entire point of it is that it causes MASSIVE amounts of pain with 0 real effect. Is this is true? No clue, but if it is, then it is a good thing in my book.
bugger it, can't read the link from depot from here. (My intar webs suck)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> well, I don't know about you, but people being able to inflict unbearable agonizing pain and panic over a half mile radius with a simple device is pretty chilling to me. sounds like the sort of thing you could enslave humanity with.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1650769:date=Sep 20 2007, 01:30 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Sep 20 2007, 01:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650769"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Okay, I haven't seen anybody here defend this guys behaviour. the point is that after the guy was disabled, on the ground, with SIX cops on him he was no threat to anyone. There was no need to taser him. This point has been made many many times and yet we're still talking about drug induced arm flailing and dangers to public and police. Watch the video again carefully. he is on the ground subdued, and no danger to anyone. I don't believe he ever was a danger to anyone, he simply resisted being subdued.
The guy is obviously rude and disruptive, nobody is disputing that. The transition from engaging in a discussion with Kerry to being tasered is very quick and not once did it look like he was a threat to anyone. I'm sorry, but if cops feel threatened by a guy like this then I don't understand how they can handle a real danger. If we can't expect the police to subdue someone who is already on the ground and under a very reasonable amount of control without using physical torture, then things are a lot worse than I thought. Yes, but would you have needed to do that after you had him lying on the floor with 5 other people helping you to hold him down?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Intarwebs are fixed, I will be rewatchign the various videos now.
The video (which is obviously edited) shows that the taser was already present before the video showed him tasered (listen to the woman standing near the microphone of the camera). By this video alone, we don't know what he did to cause him to be tasered.
You're using hindsight to determine that he was of no danger to anyone. You are fortunate enough to have the luxury of being in your comfortable chair, watching a video of the event, rather than being on the floor attempting to put a stop to a public disturbance with a growing group of people protesting the arrest.
Resisting arrest is a crime. Resisting arrest also means the officers must escalate force to subdue the individual.
Finally, just because a person is put in handcuffs doesn't mean that person will no longer resist or attempt to escape.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--quoteo(post=1650764:date=Sep 20 2007, 06:15 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Sep 20 2007, 06:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650764"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It apparently isn't. The entire point of it is that it causes MASSIVE amounts of pain with 0 real effect. Is this is true? No clue, but if it is, then it is a good thing in my book.
bugger it, can't read the link from depot from here. (My intar webs suck)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Says the PR department of whoever made it. It's very likely to occur mental damages and/or painful memories that will last potentially forever. I still jerk sometimes when I think of the dentist trip I had a while back.. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1650773:date=Sep 20 2007, 06:38 PM:name=MedHead)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MedHead @ Sep 20 2007, 06:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650773"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->puzl: The video (which is obviously edited) shows that the taser was already present before the video showed him tasered (listen to the woman standing near the microphone of the camera). By this video alone, we don't know what he did to cause him to be tasered.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Obviously the taser was present before it was applied. Watch it again. He is on the ground, subdued by six police. He is struggling a little making it hard for them to cuff him. There is no drug induced flailing. There is no observable attempt to do harm to anyone. He is simply making drama out of the situation. The taser is produced and held to him for a number of seconds ( long enough for him to exclaim "don't taser me bro" more than once ) and then suddenly the taser is turned on. Maybe I'm missing something, I'm perfectly willing to admit I am wrong if I misread the situation. I'm not against tasers in principle, I just think these cops totally over-reacted.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're using hindsight to determine that he was of no danger to anyone. You are fortunate enough to have the luxury of being in your comfortable chair, watching a video of the event, rather than being on the floor attempting to put a stop to a public disturbance with a growing group of people protesting the arrest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is true of everyone in this topic. Why do you single me out? Are you saying that only the police have a right to bear judgement on themselves?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Resisting arrest is a crime. Resisting arrest also means the officers must escalate force to subdue the individual.
Finally, just because a person is put in handcuffs doesn't mean that person will no longer resist or attempt to escape.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he wasn't being arrested. In order for him to be arrested the police have to delare their intent to do so. I believe they also have to read him his miranda rights in the US. I'm still reading through the artcile depot linked, so maybe it'll reveal something.
Comments
So what you are saying is that John Kerry himself has no right to answer questions asked of him just because he is on a schedule.
The version of the story I read from a witness claims that he waiting in line and asked his question when his turn arrived. However, because this is heresay, I'm not expecting it to be taken seriously, just like I won't take your heresay seriously either.
Wait, was he flailing before or after he was man handled to the ground? Because what I see in the video simply does not match your version of events.
I'm wondering if we are watching the same footage. I see a guy resisting physical restraint and I see him lying calmly there going "don't tase me bro" and then suddenly I hear the *click*click*click* of a taser. So although the guy had resisted physical restration it is NOT the case that he was flailing wildly and threatening the police officers.
The guy is definitely an ass, but he didn't deserve to be tasered, and john Kerry deserved the chance to respond to his question, as he seemed keen to do.
The funny thing is that your suggestion of whacko nutjob conspiracies is now extended to kerry's blog - "his blog, of course, failed to mention this"
Come on man, admit it, they tasered a guy when it was not necessary to do so and now the "eat willy" camp are trying to rewrite history.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no clue if what's been reported on the news (both local and national) in the form of videos is available other than what's linked in my first post. if you want to see any additional footage feel free to Google it.
I am saying that John Kerry was totally unaware the forum was closed or the time frame. The UF administration knew and the police knew, which is why they approached Andrew Meyers. News footage showed Andrew Meyers "butting in line" ahead of several others. If you consider this heresay so be it.
I've stated and re-stated that I saw different videos on the television all day yesterday. Where or if they can be located online is unknown to me. In the video you watched above it does not show him acting as wildly as I saw. Different cameras and angles show different perspectives.
John Kerry not only didn't have the time for any additional questioning, he was unaware of this (blame that on HIS staff). If this was the case of course he'd try to respond.
Of course, if you didn't want people saying this stuff, it probably would have been wise to not start the topic <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
And the video we just watched has the camera on him all the way to the back...where exactly does he magically break out into this magical act of erratic violent behaviour?
At best this is just a case of pure incompetence on behalf of a ###### university administration and an ill-trained campus police foce, at the worst it's simply over the top brutal behaviour to someone that didn't pose a threat to anyone and wasn't breaching the peace for nearly long enough to employ the tactics against him.
Guess I'm fortunate though that I'm "local" and have all of the latest facts.
If I'm able to document any of what I've said I'll certainly post it here.
on the other hand, I think I know how he feels. people are so apathetic about politics these days. no one really cares about anything. I watched some of the Live Earth concert online a couple months ago. Melissa Etheridge tried to get people riled up about the sorry state of the nation's politics. you could hear crickets chirp - the audience couldn't care less, they just wanted to be entertained. If this were the 60's, the white house would probably be burning right now.
OMG THE DRUGS ARE MKAIN ME FLAIL I CANT CONTROL MYSELFS
What pisses me off to no end is the mounting evidence that he staged this whole production. It was obviously planned in advance and two or three of his friends were in on it. He was heard saying, "Are the cameras rolling?" etc. the moment the police approached him. A twelve page police report was recently released and I imagine its contents will be on the late news.
I'm not against free will, but this creep deserved everything he got.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was an unarmed man, tazers are supposed to be used as an alternative to lethal force, not to calm someone down.
<!--quoteo(post=1650714:date=Sep 20 2007, 10:38 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Sep 20 2007, 10:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650714"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->pwned.
Maybe the donut shop was closing?
There is no video of him flailing about. The entire scene from when he started speaking to when he was first tased is available for viewing. A couple of times he broke out of a police officers grasp, so he was definitely resisting being manhandled, but HE WAS NOT BEING ARRESTED, so he was not resisting arrest. He also wasn't flailing, he was just being evasive of their grasp.
For the record, I think this guy was an ass and he was show boating and all, and I do think it would have been fair to remove him from the premises if he was disrupting kerry's schedule, but I do not think it was okay to manhandle him to the ground while Kerry seemed interested in engaging him in discussion and I certainly think it was an over-reaction to taser him for it, especially when he was already grounded by 6 ( yes SIX ) police officers. They held the taser to his chest to shut him up, and when the guy continued to make a scene they tasered him. I can't possibly know the motive, but I do not accept that it was in self defence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed.
This article just showed up on digg.com:
<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/19/14057/0584" target="_blank">http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/19/14057/0584</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Following upon the widely reported tasering of University of Florida student Andrew Meyer the other day, it is important to note that this was not a random or unusual occurence. Many commentators have mentioned the taser attack by police on a student at UCLA who wouldn't show his I.D., back in November 2006.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sixty-one people died in 2005 after being shocked by law enforcement agency TASERs, a 27 percent increase from 2004's tally of 48 deaths, finds an Amnesty International study released today<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=482560&in_page_id=1965" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1965</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thank you thank you thank you thank you
seeing a daily mail reporter being the test subject / victim to what is arguably one of the sickest and sadistic (not to mention neat) inventions ever has really cheered my day up
People, in their continued distaste of police officers seem to be ignoring the individual that caused the police to deal with the situation. There is nothing I see in the video to make me believe they were arresting him, but rather just making him leave. He then resisted, and because of it caused them to arrest him.
Resisting arrest is a crime, and whether one likes it or not, it gives the officers the sanction to increase force to subdue an individual committing that crime. The only way to increase force without lasting physical effects is to use a taser. The police officers have a limited supply of weapons to use to subdue an individual. Tasers are great because they immediately subdue the individual without causing harm to the police officers and little harm to the victim. The individual being shocked usually submits quickly, and is fine within a few minutes.
EDIT: BAH! I ranted again. I removed some stuff to avoid sounding so heated.
Of course, due to the risk to the victim, the pain and the deprival of basic rights associated with it, physical force should never be resorted to unless necessary.
The point of this discussion is not so much whether the police officers used the right kind of physical force, but whether they should have used physical force at all. It's fortunate that they tasered him rather than pummel him (or worse), but was the tasering warranted?
Person never shot by taser spotted.
The taser never should have come out in that situation. You seriously think the four of those officers couldn't handle one kid? They had him on his stomach, and from that position, if a suspect can generate enough movement to prevent four adults from restraining him, <b>those adults are idiots and/or terrible at their job</b>.
I guess that's my estimation of the majority of law enforcement, though. Don't get me wrong, there are some police officers out there handling some tough ###### in the big cities that have my respect, but this is just petty abuse of their power to use tasers and sloppy performance on the job. Until the day that a police officer actually does me some good in my life, these initial reactions to stuff like this will probably not change.
Of course, due to the risk to the victim, the pain and the deprival of basic rights associated with it, physical force should never be resorted to unless necessary.
The point of this discussion is not so much whether the police officers used the right kind of physical force, but whether they should have used physical force at all. It's fortunate that they tasered him rather than pummel him (or worse), but was the tasering warranted?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you rather be electrocuted or beaten with a stick? I'd take the stick, but I think you're right in saying that neither was warranted in this case. Part of the argument is that since the taser offers minimal risk to the cop it will be used more often than physical force which could also put the officer in harm's way. However the officer is more likely to use force when it's not going to adversely affect him/her even when it's not necessary. I want our police officers to be safe, but not at the expense of my rights.
"His arms and legs are secured!"
"Taze him just to be sure, I have seen enough skinny guys take on 6 officers laying down in my lifetime!"
"Taze him till he stops groaning!"
Seriously, do they just kick in the door at the gathering for insecure people, and slap a couple of badges on them?
F The P0-LICE.
Also: Manhandle?
Agreed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm afraid most SRO's (school resource officers) would disagree with you, in addition to the school boards that employ them.
<!--quoteo(post=1650741:date=Sep 20 2007, 12:04 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Sep 20 2007, 12:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650741"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Going back to my previous reference to the lady who died after being tasered 10 times ( Note: it is not a know if or how much the tasering contributed to the hearth attack ).
This article just showed up on digg.com:
<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/19/14057/0584" target="_blank">http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/19/14057/0584</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reportedly over 200 people have died from taser attacks. I'm guessing a large percentage of them would have died from a gunshot wound, had the officer not had a taser.
<!--quoteo(post=1650743:date=Sep 20 2007, 12:22 PM:name=MedHead)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MedHead @ Sep 20 2007, 12:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]
People, in their continued distaste of police officers seem to be ignoring the individual that caused the police to deal with the situation. There is nothing I see in the video to make me believe they were arresting him, but rather just making him leave. He then resisted, and because of it caused them to arrest him.
Resisting arrest is a crime, and whether one likes it or not, it gives the officers the sanction to increase force to subdue an individual committing that crime. The only way to increase force without lasting physical effects is to use a taser. The police officers have a limited supply of weapons to use to subdue an individual. Tasers are great because they immediately subdue the individual without causing harm to the police officers and little harm to the victim. The individual being shocked usually submits quickly, and is fine within a few minutes.
[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well stated MedHead, I wholeheartedly agree. <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/notworthy.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Whoa now. One violent individual attempting to escape will most certainly be able to overpower multiple officers attempting to keep themselves and the individual safe from harm. If you really believe it's an issue of 1=1 in terms of how many officers are required to restrain a person, you haven't seen many videos of officers attempting takedowns. Cornered individuals will always fight harder. Desperation plays a big part in how hard a person struggles to change a situation.
My take on things:
First up, I only watched the 1 shaky-cam video, and only watched it once, and can't watch it currently due to internet problems. (any one have an unedited video that is on Google videos, as I seem to be able to load that up currently)
1) The people running the venue wanted him out (this is not Kerry, Kerry is a guest at the venue, the people who run the venue have the say in what actually happens).
2) It looks like he WAS asked to leave before they tried to forcibly eject him. (I saw him respond to someone off camera that he would not leave, or somethign to that effect).
3) After refusing to leave they did use force to make him comply. He did NOT have the right to stand up there and talk about what ever he wanted, and, technically, the decision to eject him was not in the hands of Kerry, but in the hands of the people that run the venue (they have every right to eject some one that they do not want there, and it is the job of the Police to do things like that).
4) He definitely DID resist the Police, and that actually IS a crime. If a cop asks you to do something, you do it. Sure, you can talk back to them, but only with in reason. Yes, you can demand your rights, and you SHOULD! However, this guy was not having any of his rights revoked (no, free speech does not cover what you can/can't say in a private venue), and thus the police asking him to leave was fine. The police FORCING him to leave was also fine.
5) He KNEW he was about to get zapped, and yet it looked like he continued to resist. Normal procedure that I know of for escalating the level of force used generally involves a verbal warning to "Stop or I will do XXX" unless there is no time. Hell, it looked like he continued to resist even AFTER getting zapped.
Again, I only watched the shaky-cam video once (and can't re-watch it now due to internet problems), however it looked like he was asked to leave, resisted the police (somethign he shouldn't have done), and continued to resist even after being warned off with being Zapped.
So, few random points:
<b>locallyunscene</b>: Tasers are NOT an alternative to lethal force in the states, they are used in situations where normal physical force is not working, but anything that is likely to cause permanent damage is not called for. I understand that tasers are only an alternative to lethal force in the UK, but I know that is not the case in the US, they basically replace things like mace (as it is not all that effective).
So as far as I saw, the Police acted as they were trained.
Now, the question is if the training and approved use of stun-guns/tasers IS appropriate. I think that is what <b>puzl</b> is getting at. Honestly I don't know, as I don't see enough facts on either side (and I can't Google them up currently due to lack of Google).
61 deaths attributed to Tasers. How many of those were due to incorrect use? Using them on a child/elderly/infirm individual? Over using them? 40 shocks is wrong, stun guns generally take 1 shock to be effective, that is why they ARE better then things aerosol deterrents. You can't ignore your muscles contracting, you will fall down, and that is generally all that is needed. And how many of those were because no one present knew how to/Did not administer CPR? (honest questions, I would like to know the answers to them). That Amnesty article is from 2005 with mentions of an independent study that they wanted. Did it ever happen? What were the results? Did AI just stop caring? Maybe they DO need to be pulled from police use. Maybe they need to have similar restrictions as firearms do. But we wont know with out any actual facts.
This case LOOKS to be exactly where tasers are designed to be used. Some one the police could not restrain, obviously coherent enough to know what was going to happen to him, and fit enough (21 year old male that is vigorously resisting multiple police officers) to withstand a zap.
Ninja Edit to follow up on what MedHead just said:
Police are supposed to keep EVERYONE involved from being harmed, that includes the suspect, the officers, and those surrounding the area.
I Could probably have stopped this guy by my self. How? By kicking him in the knee, punching him in the floating rib, elbow to the back of the neck, and then a knee to the face. Now, we have a subdued suspect, and me in LOTS of trouble <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> subduing some one with out causing lasting damage is kinda hard. I LOVE the idea of stun guns, that pain ray thing, and other such nonlethal, quick acting alternatives to physical force. Only problem is that it looks like we need better rules governing their use, and more research into the ACTUAL effects of them.
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=482560&in_page_id=1965" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1965</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that ray-gun is horrifying.
<a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/19/document-drop-the-andrew-meyer-taser-stunt-police-report/" target="_blank">Document drop: The Andrew Meyer Taser Stunt police report</a>
[edit] Very well stated post Thansal, and I agree with everything you said. [/edit]
It apparently isn't. The entire point of it is that it causes MASSIVE amounts of pain with 0 real effect. Is this is true? No clue, but if it is, then it is a good thing in my book.
bugger it, can't read the link from depot from here. (My intar webs suck)
The guy is obviously rude and disruptive, nobody is disputing that. The transition from engaging in a discussion with Kerry to being tasered is very quick and not once did it look like he was a threat to anyone. I'm sorry, but if cops feel threatened by a guy like this then I don't understand how they can handle a real danger. If we can't expect the police to subdue someone who is already on the ground and under a very reasonable amount of control without using physical torture, then things are a lot worse than I thought.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I Could probably have stopped this guy by my self. How? By kicking him in the knee, punching him in the floating rib, elbow to the back of the neck, and then a knee to the face. Now, we have a subdued suspect, and me in LOTS of trouble biggrin-fix.gif subduing some one with out causing lasting damage is kinda hard. I LOVE the idea of stun guns, that pain ray thing, and other such nonlethal, quick acting alternatives to physical force. Only problem is that it looks like we need better rules governing their use, and more research into the ACTUAL effects of them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but would you have needed to do that after you had him lying on the floor with 5 other people helping you to hold him down?
bugger it, can't read the link from depot from here. (My intar webs suck)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, I don't know about you, but people being able to inflict unbearable agonizing pain and panic over a half mile radius with a simple device is pretty chilling to me. sounds like the sort of thing you could enslave humanity with.
The guy is obviously rude and disruptive, nobody is disputing that. The transition from engaging in a discussion with Kerry to being tasered is very quick and not once did it look like he was a threat to anyone. I'm sorry, but if cops feel threatened by a guy like this then I don't understand how they can handle a real danger. If we can't expect the police to subdue someone who is already on the ground and under a very reasonable amount of control without using physical torture, then things are a lot worse than I thought.
Yes, but would you have needed to do that after you had him lying on the floor with 5 other people helping you to hold him down?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Intarwebs are fixed, I will be rewatchign the various videos now.
The video (which is obviously edited) shows that the taser was already present before the video showed him tasered (listen to the woman standing near the microphone of the camera). By this video alone, we don't know what he did to cause him to be tasered.
You're using hindsight to determine that he was of no danger to anyone. You are fortunate enough to have the luxury of being in your comfortable chair, watching a video of the event, rather than being on the floor attempting to put a stop to a public disturbance with a growing group of people protesting the arrest.
Resisting arrest is a crime. Resisting arrest also means the officers must escalate force to subdue the individual.
Finally, just because a person is put in handcuffs doesn't mean that person will no longer resist or attempt to escape.
bugger it, can't read the link from depot from here. (My intar webs suck)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Says the PR department of whoever made it. It's very likely to occur mental damages and/or painful memories that will last potentially forever. I still jerk sometimes when I think of the dentist trip I had a while back.. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
The video (which is obviously edited) shows that the taser was already present before the video showed him tasered (listen to the woman standing near the microphone of the camera). By this video alone, we don't know what he did to cause him to be tasered.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Obviously the taser was present before it was applied. Watch it again. He is on the ground, subdued by six police. He is struggling a little making it hard for them to cuff him. There is no drug induced flailing. There is no observable attempt to do harm to anyone. He is simply making drama out of the situation. The taser is produced and held to him for a number of seconds ( long enough for him to exclaim "don't taser me bro" more than once ) and then suddenly the taser is turned on. Maybe I'm missing something, I'm perfectly willing to admit I am wrong if I misread the situation. I'm not against tasers in principle, I just think these cops totally over-reacted.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're using hindsight to determine that he was of no danger to anyone. You are fortunate enough to have the luxury of being in your comfortable chair, watching a video of the event, rather than being on the floor attempting to put a stop to a public disturbance with a growing group of people protesting the arrest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is true of everyone in this topic. Why do you single me out? Are you saying that only the police have a right to bear judgement on themselves?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Resisting arrest is a crime. Resisting arrest also means the officers must escalate force to subdue the individual.
Finally, just because a person is put in handcuffs doesn't mean that person will no longer resist or attempt to escape.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he wasn't being arrested. In order for him to be arrested the police have to delare their intent to do so. I believe they also have to read him his miranda rights in the US. I'm still reading through the artcile depot linked, so maybe it'll reveal something.