A student was tasered while asking John Kerry some questions, what do you think about it?
Police Brutality? What do you think?
- Thread starter Danger_Dave
- Start date
That video was awesome. I think more people should get tazed for being annoying.
In Fact.
I nominate myself to be the all time tazer guy, and I would like to decide who is being annoying enough to get tazed.
On a side note. Getting tazed is really not that big of a deal. It looks worse than it is. I had friends in college who played a game for an entire year.
They would sneak up on, and taze each other.
You get used to it pretty quick.
I would take a tazer shot over a baton in the face any day.
In Fact.
I nominate myself to be the all time tazer guy, and I would like to decide who is being annoying enough to get tazed.
On a side note. Getting tazed is really not that big of a deal. It looks worse than it is. I had friends in college who played a game for an entire year.
They would sneak up on, and taze each other.
You get used to it pretty quick.
I would take a tazer shot over a baton in the face any day.
3 thoughts...
1. He got tased for resisting, not for his question
2. It's hard to see the whole scuffle, but it seems to me they could have subdued him and cuffed him without the taser seeing as there were about a dozen officers and he wasn't really attempting to fight, he was just trying to pull away
3. Regardless, it was pretty funny
1. He got tased for resisting, not for his question
2. It's hard to see the whole scuffle, but it seems to me they could have subdued him and cuffed him without the taser seeing as there were about a dozen officers and he wasn't really attempting to fight, he was just trying to pull away
3. Regardless, it was pretty funny
I diden't hear any of them reading him his rights or saying why he was arrested, so unless those things occured before the video, he's pretty much free to go isent he? Ive seen another video too, starting earlier than that one, it started while he was on the podium talking nothing suggested he was actually being arrested. If you are going to arrest someone, tell them why.
And honestly, I'm pretty sure I could singlehandedly get him to the ground, cuff him and carry him out of there without using a taser.
however, the guy was pretty dumb for not just leaving quietly in the first place..
And honestly, I'm pretty sure I could singlehandedly get him to the ground, cuff him and carry him out of there without using a taser.
however, the guy was pretty dumb for not just leaving quietly in the first place..
You can be "detained" or escorted out without being arrested and read your rights
Miranda v. Arizona (Federal Supreme Court case in which brought the "Miranda rights" in the states): It is not required to advise a suspect of his/her rights UNLESS the officer and/or officers are going to ask incriminating questions that pertains to the alleged crime arrested for. (one of a few prerequisites).
In addition, Carroll v. Wyoming,(Federal Supreme court case: there is not a set period of time to advise a suspect why he/she is being arrest for; timing is dependent on circumstances, and can be done while being booked into jail).
Last edited:
Wow that's bad journalism saying "he got tazed for asking difficult questions".
Anyway, that's a big, strong guy. The cops there probably aren't strong and well trained enough to easily control him. It is very difficult to do any sort of arm lock if the guy is actively resisting and struggling.
But even if they might be able to do it. The guy was resisting and agitated. Why should a cop, just doing his job, giving the guy ample warning and chance to comply, risk getting elbowed in the face and perhaps breaking his nose or losing a few teeth? A guy that big, or anyone for that matter, if he doesn't let the cops put the cuffs on him, warning him and then tazering him is totally fine in my book.
Anyway, that's a big, strong guy. The cops there probably aren't strong and well trained enough to easily control him. It is very difficult to do any sort of arm lock if the guy is actively resisting and struggling.
But even if they might be able to do it. The guy was resisting and agitated. Why should a cop, just doing his job, giving the guy ample warning and chance to comply, risk getting elbowed in the face and perhaps breaking his nose or losing a few teeth? A guy that big, or anyone for that matter, if he doesn't let the cops put the cuffs on him, warning him and then tazering him is totally fine in my book.
I was a police officer for 12 years in North Kansas City, Kansas: No walk in the ballpark. At 5' 7" 185 (at the time) I had to carry some "reasonable" balls.
Even when I was hit with a pool cue and my teeth laying on my uniform chest, the bigger dude went to jail and I handcuffed him and put him in the car myself. (by the way, I was knocked "out" for a bit, just prior)
I have no comment on the video, not enough information.
Even when I was hit with a pool cue and my teeth laying on my uniform chest, the bigger dude went to jail and I handcuffed him and put him in the car myself. (by the way, I was knocked "out" for a bit, just prior)
I have no comment on the video, not enough information.
Wow. The guy cried like a little bitch lol... my bro has a tazer (not 1 that shoots) and we used to do it to eachother all the time. Like gorgeon said, it's really not that bad and my brother's is pretty powerful.
The commentators are retarded. He didn't get tazed for asking a question, he got tazed because he was resisting arrest like gooch said. Look at this angle you can see he doesn't stop resisting at all...
Plus there weren't 19 cops like the other guy said. Doesn't matter if there were 50 cops. If they try for 2 minutes to subdue and cuff the guy, and it doesn't work, they need to try other means to get him subdued. They even warned him 'stop resisting or you will be tazed' what does he do? resists some more. Stupid.
I wish the black cop that just picked the guy up and walked him up the aisle just laid him out. That woulda been great for this little SOB.
Police brutality, no. Retard that got what he deserved, yes.
The commentators are retarded. He didn't get tazed for asking a question, he got tazed because he was resisting arrest like gooch said. Look at this angle you can see he doesn't stop resisting at all...
Plus there weren't 19 cops like the other guy said. Doesn't matter if there were 50 cops. If they try for 2 minutes to subdue and cuff the guy, and it doesn't work, they need to try other means to get him subdued. They even warned him 'stop resisting or you will be tazed' what does he do? resists some more. Stupid.
I wish the black cop that just picked the guy up and walked him up the aisle just laid him out. That woulda been great for this little SOB.
Police brutality, no. Retard that got what he deserved, yes.
A couple people have noted that he got tased not for asking a question, but for resisting arrest - but does that matter if there was no sound basis for which the officers could arrest him? He was well within his First Amendment rights in asking a strange question. He did not use foul language, inciting words, or any gestures that would indicate a violent intent, or any bad intent whatsoever other than asking a weird question in a public forum. They had no basis to arrest him! I smell a lawsuit for violation of this dude's civil rights.
Free speech and 1st ammendment priveledges have several limitations and restrictions (tasting the circumference and experience of this world [US] really brings this home to a person who has a difficult time learning differences of the "basic" meaning of the ammendment).
Yes, it matters if there is "Probable Cause" to effect an "arrest".
A police officer must have "probable cause" whether conducted "in view" or associated circumstances, to violate the persons 4th ammendment right.
(4th Ammendment: "Search and Seizure" ammendment, right against seizure--and apprehending a person is an apprehension of freedom; even when a police officer stops a vehicle for say, a stop sign violation, it is actually a seizure in the eyes of the law; however, the "probable cause" for the stop is the alleged stop sign violation).
In addition, even if witnesses and the suspect himself deam the arrest illegal (many street lawyers around the states), this in inself is not a "legal" reason to resist or obstruct legal process in the several supreme court decisions.
There is not enough info in my opinion to make a valid and cognitive determination: too many unknown associated circumstances, and the "totality of the environment" is missing.
Last edited:
I've never been tasered, but the sound of that guy screaming was very disconcerting. Was it really necessary that 6-8 big cops not only held a student down but tasered him? I'm not trying to argue a point, that was actually a question. I don't actually know anytihng about when cops are supposed to use tasers or whatever.
There are some very important things being missed by members in reference to "probable cause" of police making contact with the person in the first place:
First there are mutual rights in existence "causing a conflict" (think: persons right to speak, to a point; and the audience and speaker right not to be annoyed or badgered during a peaceful meeting, and its possible a audience member made a complaint--but we dont know this, do we?)
At the end of the video it specifies that the audience was getting upset and the person had been loud throughout the speech--this IS "probable cause" to at least make contact with the person, therefore an exception to 1st ammendment, and the right to ask the person to leave the premises--willingly or unwillingly. If unwilling, then the law states: "only the application of force reasonably necessary to effect the arrest is to be applied", and this will be legally determined.
First there are mutual rights in existence "causing a conflict" (think: persons right to speak, to a point; and the audience and speaker right not to be annoyed or badgered during a peaceful meeting, and its possible a audience member made a complaint--but we dont know this, do we?)
At the end of the video it specifies that the audience was getting upset and the person had been loud throughout the speech--this IS "probable cause" to at least make contact with the person, therefore an exception to 1st ammendment, and the right to ask the person to leave the premises--willingly or unwillingly. If unwilling, then the law states: "only the application of force reasonably necessary to effect the arrest is to be applied", and this will be legally determined.
Last edited:
sounded to me like the audience was cheering for the guy. There is another video of tihs on break, where you can hear audience members screaming "police brutality" and "OH MY GOD!"
but thanks for the explanation!
but thanks for the explanation!
Audience reaction was against the person prior the stimulus of police reaction (which brought legal "probable cause"), and then the audience succumb to the "environmental" reaction (which is a "tainted" reaction) after the reaction of the police.
The audience reaction after the reaction of police relevent "to the point" is irrelevent to the legal matter.
Im not making an opinion on the video when I say this: Sometimes "public opinion" on police brutality is obscurred (though admittingly some bad apples make it real obvious it is "police brutality"), largely due to being uneducated in criminal law and balancing this with an understanding of the police side of the fence in its application. (im educated in both)
My point still stands
The audience reaction after the reaction of police relevent "to the point" is irrelevent to the legal matter.
Im not making an opinion on the video when I say this: Sometimes "public opinion" on police brutality is obscurred (though admittingly some bad apples make it real obvious it is "police brutality"), largely due to being uneducated in criminal law and balancing this with an understanding of the police side of the fence in its application. (im educated in both)
My point still stands
Last edited:
I don't like siding with cops just because they're cops, but in this case it was justified "force". Tazers come in all kinds of different volatges and administrations, but in this case I'm willing to bet their tazers are not on the high powered end. Tazers are just meant to stun, and like goergen said, tazering is not as big in the force spectrum as getting hit with a baton.
They could have restrained him and carried him out, or cuffed him, but they are campus police and are probably untrained.
I don't really care, either way. The kid was being a bitch and no one died. It's not like this **** was anywhere close to LAPD Rodney King status.
They could have restrained him and carried him out, or cuffed him, but they are campus police and are probably untrained.
I don't really care, either way. The kid was being a bitch and no one died. It's not like this **** was anywhere close to LAPD Rodney King status.
What kind of strength are the tazers? This might cause confusion between the different nationalities on here as I've seen the ones being introduced to the UK being used and they are serious business, they are designed to make the victim incapable of resisting arrest (or standing up) and have even been accused of causing deaths.
Either way, I think it's clear that the original response from the Police was a serious over reaction which made the situation worse, a bit of common sense Policing was required. But the guy started acting like a complete jerk and Police are always likely to be super cautious with a politician in the room
So for me;
Police brutality - No
Poor Policing - Yes
Dumb-ass student - Definately
Last edited:
I've just read loads of stuff about this case and what's interesting is the students lawyer claims the boy was tasered after he was handcuffed.
If that's true (and that's just an 'if') then I'd change my view and say it was brutality because the kid was already restrained
(although I'd have loved to taser that attention seeking idiot myself
)
If that's true (and that's just an 'if') then I'd change my view and say it was brutality because the kid was already restrained
(although I'd have loved to taser that attention seeking idiot myself
)There are many problems with this particular video. I'll name the ones I feel are big.
1) The guy wanted to provoke an attack from the police. He gave the camera to an unknown person. Clearly he wanted a reaction.
2) The cops were right in removing him. The question is did they have to use a taser? I don't think they did since it seems like six cops would have been able to restrain him.
3) We're talking about university cops. They're on the same level as mall security with the exception they carry guns and usually take 911 calls from a 1 mile radius of the campus. In other words: the job is boring. So they're always looking for action from the smallest things. Ever got a ticket in your university? I bet if you argued about it with the cop, he would arrest you on the spot.