I don't think anyone disagrees there should be a price, but what's the right price in your mind? The fact is a tazer IS a weapon, and when you start using a weapon other than your hands on someone it becomes very scary to the public that cops are trying to serve. It shifts the perception from "subduing" to "attacking" whether that's the reality or not. This crowd went from cheering at the jackasses removal, to screaming at the cops in about 5 seconds. Bouncers at bars, concert security, and (as mentioned above) high-school wrestlers all manage to deal with folks a lot more aggressive than this kid and they do it without tazers.
Help, Help, I'm being repressed!
- Thread starter MikeD
- Start date
Well said
I am very much for our current constitutional rights, so I'm a little confused on that comment.
Never the less, they had no right to physically grab him like they did. Do you really think they couldn't have escorted that kid out of the building in any other fashion. He wasn't violent... he was a nerd!
There was nothing simple about the way they removed him, they were enraged with anger the second they grabbed his arm.
Don't you realize that it's loud mouthed geeks like him that has made this country into a (somewhat) free nation.
Without guys like that all of you cops would be dressed in military gear carrying an M16 wishing you were in a different country.
lol...sorry but in today's world which has become increasingly violent...law enforcement just can't take the chances they once use to...I think people need to stop focusing so much on the tazer...I have been hit with a tazer and I have been "subdued" with a baton...If I had the choice I would take the tazer every time....D
I'm focusing on the way they grabbed him so violently, thats where the trouble began. The tazer was after the fact
These minor disturbances do not need violence as an answer.
I have a few friends that would argue that bouncers use excessive force.
And the speaker also said, "It's ok, I'll answer." (Or something that meant the same thing. Since I noticed it the first time, I'll let you go back and watch the video for the exact words that Kerry uses...)
that was after the guy resisted....I actually saw the whole video on TV...I have yet to find an online source that shows the entire thing...D
No, it's basically the same time. You see a guy in a suit give the "cut him off motion", one of the cops grabs his arm, he pulls away, and Kerry says "It's ok, I'll answer the question." Now, if the cops do what the speaker says, there is a pretty good chance nothing happens.
It's in the youtube link in the first post...
I think the best thing about cops using the taser on people is that they often end up getting a vacation as a result.
Talk about an incentive!
Yes, they did. They were within the Constitutional standards for the use of force when they grabbed him. (Local or department policy can restrict them further, however...so they may have been in violation of their own standards.)
That's what my comment was about. Either you don't understand the Constitutional standards for use of force by police, since you say they had no "right" to do what they did, or you do understand them but you don't agree with them.
would you rather them cup his balls and gently ask him to leave? the dude was obviously not going quietly. with police force their is either action or no action. if we grab someone, we GRAB them. if we have to hit someone w/ baton we don't give 'em love taps. if someone poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm toward us or others we don't shoot to wound.
the moment we start "playing nice" in resistance situations is when we lose control of the ability to maintain order.
it's not a "jock syndrome" or "power-trip" thing, it's the fact that apprehension, fear and a weak response is a good way to get hurt or dead.
with that said, i personally would have used his left hand to scratch his right ear behind his back and lovingly walked him out. if we ever get tasers, i plan on reserving the use of it for times when going hands on is not an option.
To sum up:
-Cops wouldn't be facing all this if they'd let Kerry just answer the question.
-Cops applied a legal amount of force by Constitutional standards. They can be sued, but they'll win, and they'll have qualified immunity.
-Cops did not apply a minimum amount of force; this does not make their use of force legally inappropriate, but is obviously not helping them or their image.
-Cops could still face action from their own chain of command if they violated a use-of-force policy to which they're held at a level below the Constitutional, particularly as regards use the taser.
-Cops wouldn't be facing all this if they'd let Kerry just answer the question.
-Cops applied a legal amount of force by Constitutional standards. They can be sued, but they'll win, and they'll have qualified immunity.
-Cops did not apply a minimum amount of force; this does not make their use of force legally inappropriate, but is obviously not helping them or their image.
-Cops could still face action from their own chain of command if they violated a use-of-force policy to which they're held at a level below the Constitutional, particularly as regards use the taser.
Cool. That's what I was looking for. And I realize (to Westy's comment about bouncers) that it may actually be more painful or damaging (rotator cuff, etc.) than a tazer... for me the issue isn't about use of force, it's about baggage and perception that comes from using a weapon on an unarmed non-violent citizen.
Damn you and your fancy "logic."
I think if more law enforcement types thought like you, we wouldn't of had to start this thread.
I'm sure it can get complicated out there, but there shouldn't be a "standard procedure" when trying to subdue someone. Every situation does not have to get violent, especially when dealing with protesters.
Although I have never been tazered I think I'd rather get the shock then have maximum physical restraining force used.
I guess.I don't recall the Constitution mentioning an appropriate use of force. Maybe I missed it?
Beautiful. Like when you go to the dentist, as Dr Mengele puts the drill in your mouth, grab his balls and say "now, we're not going to hurt each other are we?".
I watched from the part when he asked about Skull and Bones to when he was tasered.
He wouldn't leave, he struggled against the police (and I noticed he was about as tall as the large black cop). Besides all the crying about "what did I do", I find when the police ask you do something, and you fail to do it and then resist, you get what you get.
I did enjoy hearing the girl scream to let him go, as well as all the complaints about police brutality.
I remember the one time I had to throw someone out of a club. He was a stranger, but we had mutual friends, and I was punched in my face multiple times. Of course, the friends I had that were not mutual, i.e. strangers to this kid, proceeded to beat the **** out of him.
If he had left quietly, there would not have been a problem. Of course, I had to throw him out because he started up with other friends of mine.
I think everyone who thinks this was brutality either did not watch the video or never had to throw someone out who did not want to leave.
Brutality is when you beat someone past the point of submission. That kid did not submit until he was shocked, then he gave up.
He wouldn't leave, he struggled against the police (and I noticed he was about as tall as the large black cop). Besides all the crying about "what did I do", I find when the police ask you do something, and you fail to do it and then resist, you get what you get.
I did enjoy hearing the girl scream to let him go, as well as all the complaints about police brutality.
I remember the one time I had to throw someone out of a club. He was a stranger, but we had mutual friends, and I was punched in my face multiple times. Of course, the friends I had that were not mutual, i.e. strangers to this kid, proceeded to beat the **** out of him.
If he had left quietly, there would not have been a problem. Of course, I had to throw him out because he started up with other friends of mine.
I think everyone who thinks this was brutality either did not watch the video or never had to throw someone out who did not want to leave.
Brutality is when you beat someone past the point of submission. That kid did not submit until he was shocked, then he gave up.
They taser them before they kill them?
Maybe passive aggression.
well said I just think to many people are posting what they think should have been done...and they really have no real experience with police and procedures...D
Not leaving makes you look fat.
thank god the supreme court uses the "reasonableness" standard.
Firmly, forcefully, and roughly if need be. But it's in their own best interests to only utilize a weapon when they themselves are being attacked or are in imminent danger of being attacked. I don't see that there's ever a need to use a weapon for compliance, unless the lack of compliance is putting the cops or others present in physical danger. Sure it makes them more compliant, but if they don't need to use it, they shouldn't.
edit: somehow didn't finish the sentence
I think you should try walking a mile in someone's shoes before you start telling them how to do their jobs. You will never really know what it's like until you try it yourself. JMHO.
Actually, yes. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest Manimal will agree with me on this- the best weapon in any cops armoury is the gift of the gab. Being able to persuade/convince someone to come quietly/stfu/ go home just by talking to them is something every good cop knows how to do. Obviously there are times when firmer methods of compliance are used but the first step should be in most cases a bit of a chat.
100%...but there's not always time to do that, and you can also develop a sense as to when talking is best bypassed.
And to be completely clear, a cop doesn't have to exhaust all lesser means before using a higher level of force.
another quality post...rep given!!
You a cop?
edit: heaven forbid we try to find ways to help cops do their job without being vilified. shame on me. I have no doubt getting an agitated asshole to comply is difficult, a real pain in the ass, but guess what? Some jobs are hard. Boo ****ing hoo. I hope folks don't sign up for the police force because they hope it's easy. I'm under no illusions about the legality here... I believe the cops were well-within the law, but if they hope to protect their image (which is vital to their ongoing safety and ability to do their jobs) then it is just plain stupid to use a weapon to gain compliance when there is no physical threat.
edit2: and for reference, I have dragged an agitated asshole out of a public place. I managed to do it without 6 friends or a tazer. Probably not a mile though... closer to 200ft.
Wow. That really got to you huh? Haven't thought up edit #3 yet? You probably think you could give an attorney advice on how to try their next case, or a Wall Street portfolio manager how to manage their accounts. BTW, I have no idea what you do nor do I care, those were just examples of how you appear to me. Bravo on pulling the "asshole" out of the public place. I wonder if you'd care to do that as part of your regular job without one to back you up. I don't. That's why I'm not a cop. But in that same turn, as I said before, I don't pass judgment on those who do because I don't know for sure that I wouldn't do the same thing in were I in their place. Police officers should be mindful of their public image, true, but they should first be concerned with their safety and ability to continue to do their jobs for the rest of the day/week/year. I bet they wanted to get the guy under control and out of the room as quickly as possible more than they wanted to "look good" while getting it done. Personally, I don't blame them, because the longer a struggle continues the higher the probability someone's going to get hurt.