Worried about 2A? 1A just went bye bye..

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think the cops should have tried to arrest/take him down, but he certainly did nothing to help his own position.

When arrested he should have complied, rather than resisting.

The cops though should not have tried to arrest but rather have firmly marched him out instead of getting involved in a wrestling match.
 
Taser S.O.P.:C.Authorization to use:
C.1 To control a dangerous or violent subject when deadly force does not appear to be justified and/or necessary;
C.2If attempts to subdue the subject by other conventional tactics have been, or will likely be, ineffective in the situation at hand; or
C.3If there is reasonable expectation that it will be unsafe for officers to approach within contact range of the subject, see also the Use of Force continuum,

Attachment A.. D. Prohibitions:
D.1The TASER may not be used on individuals who can be controlled by voice command or direction.
D.2The TASER may not be used as punishment or retaliation.
D.3 TASERs will not be used in conjunction with O.C. Spray.
D.4Handcuffed prisoners should not be tased without extenuating circumstances.



Actually it was posted on slashdot and not this site. This is what someone posted, I assume it is the university policy or the state's policy (probably state).
 
OK, so....where's the part that you interpret as meaning, "only allow to use a tazer if the person is a physical threat to them or others"?
 
The guy apparently had a long history of deliberate attention-getting through negative behavior and speech at UF.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/17...n-kerry-forum/

Read down towards the bottom.
Click to expand...


It wouldn't matter if the guy was Adolf Hitler. Police are suppose to handle each situation equally given the facts. Unless they had knowledge that he has become violent and tried to attack others .... their force was unreasonable.




No police manual saids "An officer may use force not exceeding the person's level of obnoxiousness". Instead, an officer may only use reasonable force to subdue individuals ... and that force can be greater if the individual poses a threat.



There was no reason for the police to assume the guy on the ground .... with 3 cops on top of him and another 2 watching .... was a physical threat to anyone.
 
OK, so....where's the part that you interpret as meaning, "only allow to use a tazer if the person is a physical threat to them or others"?
Click to expand...

C1 and C3 seem clear to me. People who are dangerous, violent, or pose a threat if you get near them would all be consider a physical threat.
 
So geek, what do you do when the Klan uses "passive resistance" to keep non-whites from attending high school?
Click to expand...

That's not passively resisting in the sense of not facilitating your own arrest.

That is -gaming- the parameters of passive resistance to effect an illegitimate use of force, using passive resistance as a figleaf, (as I mentioned) and you are quite right to use the air quotes around "passive resistance".

If they were truly passive, they wouldn't be at the shoolyard gate, nor would they be selective about who they let pass.

The scenario you describe is an -active- use of force, even though it's nerfed.
 
The first amendment is not dead, you just don't get the benefit of it until you take it to a state or federal appellate court or higher. Therefore, as a pragmatic matter, the 1st amendment - or any amendment, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution only when one is willing to get the higher court to ratify your excercise of it.
 
C1 and C3 seem clear to me. People who are dangerous, violent, or pose a threat if you get near them would all be consider a physical threat.
Click to expand...
You seem to have some basic logic problems here. The fact that a subset of the rules for Taser usage specifies "physical threats" in no way means that is the ONLY situation in which Taser use is allowed. If it did, there'd be no reason to have a C.2, would there? Also, your reading of C.1 is flawed. It says "dangerous OR violent", not "dangerous AND violent". The perp can be "violent" without also being "dangerous".
 
I saw no violation of any rights, just a idiot overstepping the bounds of common decency and receiving his just rewards.
 
Also, your reading of C.1 is flawed. It says "dangerous OR violent", not "dangerous AND violent". The perp can be "violent" without also being "dangerous"
Click to expand...


That's nice.... but I don't see any evidence of him being dangerous OR violent OR a threat to anyone (including the police handcuffing him). He is on the grown, being handcuffed, with five officers. And the officers still felt they had the authority to use a less lethal weapon?


Give me a break, this is a violation of that statue that was posted on slash-dot. The police wanted to get the situation "over with in a hurry" and made a bad choice. It doesn't matter how obnoxious an individual is as long as he isn't a threat or a danger.
 
I saw no violation of any rights, just a idiot overstepping the bounds of common decency and receiving his just rewards.
Click to expand...



I think the conversation has turned into a question of excessive force. Once he crossed the line of decency, he gave up his "right" to ask a question and the police/university have every right to ask him to leave. But using such force to stop obnoxious behavior seem to violate the police's own policy about using such a weapon.
 
Look, if the police are called to get someone to leave a place where he does not have a right to be, it's their job to get him out.

If someone is sitting on my front porch, not bothering anyone, but sitting there where he doesn't belong, and I call the cops to get him out, it's their job to remove him. If he resists, or makes it hard for them to do their legitimate jobs, he can expect more force to be used than if he cooperates and walks out on his own two feet. If he makes a big fuss, then resists, then does it some more, he can expect more force than that.

Sitting on the porch wasn't a huge crime. Trespassing, that's all. Not even that, if he really didn't know he wasn't supposed to be there, like he thought it was his friend's house but got the address wrong. But resisting the lawful efforts of the cops to remove him turned into an offense that justifies more force. Simple.

It's not about free speech, if you read more details of the story.
 
I have my own opinions of the "gentleman's" intent, and that is where it will remain. My intent for finally posting is to redirect to a point where there may be a sucessful legal challenge. In the 2nd video, Kerry can clearly be heard saying,

"It's okay, I'll answer the question."

However, the officers did not stop. For Kerry's part, the questioning, regardless of theatric intent, was not yet out of control, and Kerry was intent on responding. To that end, and in light of the quote, I question the forced removal. Where the removal ended is a different matter.

Why did the police not stop when Kerry said,

"It's okay..."?!
 
Fact is, Kerry said:

It's okay.

Kerry acknowledged him, and Kerry thusly legitimated the event and actions. Furthermore, Kerry was intent on responding. I believe we will see some savvy attorney take issue with this.

Kerry felt NO fear. Kerry tried to stop the police will be the argument.

Should it be the argument, debate will abound.
 
That's nice....
Click to expand...
OK, I'll assume that you're conceding the point regarding the fact that the existence of C.1 & C.3 did not mean that "only" physical threats could be dealt with via taser.

but I don't see any evidence of him being dangerous OR violent...
Click to expand...
You didn't see him flailing around, physically resisting arrest? That's violent behavior. In any event, you're *still* ignoring C.2, which does not specify any of the things you listed. Why is that? Are you just pretending that the rule doesn't exist because it's inconvenient for your position?

OR a threat to anyone (including the police handcuffing him). He is on the grown
Click to expand...
The "grown"?

, being handcuffed, with five officers. And the officers still felt they had the authority to use a less lethal weapon?
Click to expand...
The number of officers is irrelevant. And they are *attempting* to handcuff him, but have not been able to. If you actually watched the video you'd know that they didn't tase him until after he flipped over on his back, preventing the cops from cuffing him, as they were attempting to do when he was laying face-down.

Give me a break, this is a violation of that statue that was posted on slash-dot.
Click to expand...
Only if you insist on ignoring C.2 as though it didn't exist...which you seem to be intent on doing...or imagining some prohibition that isn't listed.

Sorry, but you're just making up "facts" that you wish existed, but do not.

It doesn't matter how obnoxious an individual is as long as he isn't a threat or a danger.
Click to expand...
It matters if he continues to resist arrest. He wasn't tasered for being obnoxious.
 
Fact is, Kerry said:

It's okay.
Click to expand...
Fact is, it doesn't matter what Kerry said. Kerry wasn't in charge of security, or even the event itself. He was just a speaking guest.

Kerry acknowledged him, and Kerry thusly legitimated the event and actions.

Furthermore, Kerry was intent on responding. I believe we will see some savvy attorney take issue with this.

Kerry felt NO fear. Kerry tried to stop the police will be the argument.

Should it be the argument, debate will abound.
Click to expand...
See above. Kerry's actions are irrelevant.
 
last i checked

kerry was the invited speaker did his wife buy him the college? junior aknowledged himself he'd already beeen involved with the cops he "took" the mic after he got his panties wadded when the q&a ended without him getting his turn. the cops asked him to cool it then the college cut his nic. juniors tantrum escalated. i'll bet momma never spanked her baby boy he needs to learn same lesson my 5 year old did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
Howard Dean will own you!
Replies
1
Views
474
geekWithA.45
G
H
  • Locked
The Most Hated Family in America!
Replies
11
Views
885
Art Eatman
A
F
  • Locked
Want to make a difference?
Replies
0
Views
303
Fawkes
F
H
  • Locked
Take the Highroad...
Replies
2
Views
416
Nekron
N
Z
  • Locked
News Vid: Death of Habeas Corpus
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
3K
Gunfire
G
Back
Top