Four, five, six police officers could not remove him without tasering him? Thats ridiculous.
It was a political atmosphere........i dont think asking some political questions was truly disturbing the peace.
They could have more peacefully removed him without a friggin doubt.
I agree. The knee-jerk conservative (which I am) reaction to this is to support the police, but I don't think that that is the proper thing here.
These "security guards" are rent-a-cops, not even real police. And I think that gal who tasered him just totally got off on using her power (she's usually yelling at drunk college kids for pissing in the bushes or whatever). The guy was being an ass, hardly a crime, and yes he definitely needed to be removed.
Bottom line, it was under control at the time of the tasering (cuffed & on the ground) and he was going to be removed. That he was being an ass has nothing to do with it.
I agree. The knee-jerk conservative (which I am) reaction to this is to support the police, but I don't think that that is the proper thing here.
These "security guards" are rent-a-cops, not even real police. And I think that gal who tasered him just totally got off on using her power (she's usually yelling at drunk college kids for pissing in the bushes or whatever). The guy was being an ass, hardly a crime, and yes he definitely needed to be removed.
Bottom line, it was under control at the time of the tasering (cuffed & on the ground) and he was going to be removed. That he was being an ass has nothing to do with it.
I think they're University cops, which would be a small step up from rent-a-cops.
I agree, I don't see how 6 cops can't subdue a college kid without using a taser. All he was doing was resisting leaving, not acting violently against anyone. Don't they have some kind of training in how to subdue someone (in a pack no less) that doesn't involve a taser?
I agree, I don't see how 6 cops can't subdue a college kid without using a taser. All he was doing was resisting leaving, not acting violently against anyone. Don't they have some kind of training in how to subdue someone (in a pack no less) that doesn't involve a taser?
I posted this in the other one but I'll put it in here too
* A man booked into the jail on an outstanding traffic warrant was allegedly assaulted and subjected to an "overly invasive bodily search" and repeatedly called a "faggot." He was allegedly tasered while he was prostrate and in handcuffs.
* A woman booked into the jail in March 2003 was placed in a cell by herself in a distraught condition. A jail employee said he would taser her if she did not be quiet and calm herself. It is alleged that, while she was attempting to calm down, two guards entered her cell and one attached two taser clips to her shirt in the chest region; the other guard then activated the taser gun. According to the lawsuit, she suffered "severe burns and permanent scars to her chest and stomach" as a result of being tasered.
That's just a couple of them.
It seems that if you're issued a taser, you need no training. There is a case against some orlando police who tasered a 18 year old male who was handcuffed to a hospital bed for refusing to give a urine sample. Guess they were hoping that he'd piss himself.
Tasers are a great tool to subdue someone without injury when they are needed, but when you have a situation where the person is on the ground and cuffed, there is absolutely no need for it.
In addition to this poor buy being tasered, another consequence is that there will be an outcry against tasers, and then the police won't have them anymore. Then, police will have to use their night sticks, fists, or real guns in ALL CASES to subdue a violent resister because they have no choice.
Tasers are a great tool to subdue someone without injury when they are needed, but when you have a situation where the person is on the ground and cuffed, there is absolutely no need for it.
In addition to this poor buy being tasered, another consequence is that there will be an outcry against tasers, and then the police won't have them anymore. Then, police will have to use their night sticks, fists, or real guns in ALL CASES to subdue a violent resister because they have no choice.
I don't know about that. I think people see the usefulness of tasers, I just think they also see that they are being used without merit, without limit, and without consequence. They're being treated like toys and as a device that can be used on someone without any lasting effects, which translates into "Fuck it. I can taser you and it's no big deal". More training both with the weapon and perhaps psychologically is called for because police are abusing tasers and will lose them if they keep doing stupid shit that's uncalled for. I don't want tasers gone. I think they are needed and are better than guns. But I also want harsher regulations brought down on them.
I don't know about that. I think people see the usefulness of tasers, I just think they also see that they are being used without merit, without limit, and without consequence. They're being treated like toys and as a device that can be used on someone without any lasting effects, which translates into "Fuck it. I can taser you and it's no big deal". More training both with the weapon and perhaps psychologically is called for because police are abusing tasers and will lose them if they keep doing stupid shit that's uncalled for. I don't want tasers gone. I think they are needed and are better than guns. But I also want harsher regulations brought down on them.
I think we're in agreement. I don't want to get tasered b/c I get a speeding ticket and b/c I firmly told the cop that I wasn't speeding (while clearly not resisting and with my hands firmly in sight and on the wheel)!
The two issues I'm taking away are:
1) Tasers are useful and better than guns/nightsticks/fists for use when needed against violent resisters
2) Cops shouldn't be assholes about using them when they are not needed, and should be punished for doing so (ie, dude on the ground, cuffed, and then tasering for the fun of it or just because they can).
I think we're in agreement. I don't want to get tasered b/c I get a speeding ticket and b/c I firmly told the cop that I wasn't speeding (while clearly not resisting and with my hands firmly in sight and on the wheel)!
The two issues I'm taking away are:
1) Tasers are useful and better than guns/nightsticks/fists for use when needed against violent resisters
2) Cops shouldn't be assholes about using them when they are not needed, and should be punished for doing so (ie, dude on the ground, cuffed, and then tasering for the fun of it or just because they can).
The problem was all the cops were fucking pussies and couldn't handle the guy. If cops had to be big sonuvabitches they wouldn't have to use tasers to control some little college boy. I swear those cops must have the largest vaginas in the world (especially the 2 ladies) cause SIX of them couldn't peacefully escort this guy out without the use of a weapon.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
The problem was all the cops were fucking pussies and couldn't handle the guy. If cops had to be big sonuvabitches they wouldn't have to use tasers to control some little college boy. I swear those cops must have the largest vaginas in the world (especially the 2 ladies) cause SIX of them couldn't peacefully escort this guy out without the use of a weapon.
They handled him; he was on the ground and cuffed. And then they tasered him when they should have just taken his dumbass out of there..
He shouldn't have been approached by the cops in the first place.
Why do you think this?
I suppose Kerry could have refused to answer the Skull & Bones question and told him to sit down. The guy complies, no issue & no drama. I suspect (and I can't prove this) that the guy was wanting drama and had every intention of stirring the pot, so to speak.
If I go to class, ask the teacher a question, and the teacher refuses and tells me to sit and I start making a ruckus - I'm probably going to be removed. I don't see why this analogy doesn't work in this scenario with a Senator.
I suppose Kerry could have refused to answer the Skull & Bones question and told him to sit down. The guy complies, no issue & no drama. I suspect (and I can't prove this) that the guy was wanting drama and had every intention of stirring the pot, so to speak.
If I go to class, ask the teacher a question, and the teacher refuses and tells me to sit and I start making a ruckus - I'm probably going to be removed. I don't see why this analogy doesn't work in this scenario with a Senator.
He was a little wound up, but harmless. It was the end of the Q&A. He was the last person. If he needed to blow off a little steam verbally, so be it. Who cares?
Something that hasn't been brought up in this story at all is the fact that the questions the student gave were in large measure the frustration of the American people at our elected officials, and maybe more particularly the frustration of the Left and the pacification of the Democratic party. Kerry was and is and ineffectual putz. Why would my University pay him...what is it? around $3000 to speak on my campus?
He shouldn't have been approached by the cops in the first place.
I agree with this in that he shouldn't have been approached as early as he was by the cops. They seemed to be standing there trying to get him away when he was still asking his first question.
It ain't a good tasering unless the person is twitching and spitting up. Or looking like Belushi doing his version of Cocker when he rolls around on the floor.
Comments
I agree. The knee-jerk conservative (which I am) reaction to this is to support the police, but I don't think that that is the proper thing here.
These "security guards" are rent-a-cops, not even real police. And I think that gal who tasered him just totally got off on using her power (she's usually yelling at drunk college kids for pissing in the bushes or whatever). The guy was being an ass, hardly a crime, and yes he definitely needed to be removed.
Bottom line, it was under control at the time of the tasering (cuffed & on the ground) and he was going to be removed. That he was being an ass has nothing to do with it.
I think they're University cops, which would be a small step up from rent-a-cops.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I posted this in the other one but I'll put it in here too
It seems that if you're issued a taser, you need no training. There is a case against some orlando police who tasered a 18 year old male who was handcuffed to a hospital bed for refusing to give a urine sample. Guess they were hoping that he'd piss himself.
In addition to this poor buy being tasered, another consequence is that there will be an outcry against tasers, and then the police won't have them anymore. Then, police will have to use their night sticks, fists, or real guns in ALL CASES to subdue a violent resister because they have no choice.
I don't know about that. I think people see the usefulness of tasers, I just think they also see that they are being used without merit, without limit, and without consequence. They're being treated like toys and as a device that can be used on someone without any lasting effects, which translates into "Fuck it. I can taser you and it's no big deal". More training both with the weapon and perhaps psychologically is called for because police are abusing tasers and will lose them if they keep doing stupid shit that's uncalled for. I don't want tasers gone. I think they are needed and are better than guns. But I also want harsher regulations brought down on them.
I think we're in agreement. I don't want to get tasered b/c I get a speeding ticket and b/c I firmly told the cop that I wasn't speeding (while clearly not resisting and with my hands firmly in sight and on the wheel)!
The two issues I'm taking away are:
1) Tasers are useful and better than guns/nightsticks/fists for use when needed against violent resisters
2) Cops shouldn't be assholes about using them when they are not needed, and should be punished for doing so (ie, dude on the ground, cuffed, and then tasering for the fun of it or just because they can).
Yup, we're in agreement
They handled him; he was on the ground and cuffed. And then they tasered him when they should have just taken his dumbass out of there..
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Why do you think this?
I suppose Kerry could have refused to answer the Skull & Bones question and told him to sit down. The guy complies, no issue & no drama. I suspect (and I can't prove this) that the guy was wanting drama and had every intention of stirring the pot, so to speak.
If I go to class, ask the teacher a question, and the teacher refuses and tells me to sit and I start making a ruckus - I'm probably going to be removed. I don't see why this analogy doesn't work in this scenario with a Senator.
He was a little wound up, but harmless. It was the end of the Q&A. He was the last person. If he needed to blow off a little steam verbally, so be it. Who cares?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I agree. Plus, he was laying on the ground when they tasered him.
I agree with this in that he shouldn't have been approached as early as he was by the cops. They seemed to be standing there trying to get him away when he was still asking his first question.