In essence...when an officer speaks...it is the voice of "God" at that moment in time...and any disobediance of the officers verbal commands...is resisting and one will almost always be convicted of resisting if the matter goes to trial.

If he circumvented security then first of all, that was a failure of security. And if they let him stand there quietly like they do before he approaches the microphone, someone better be fucking FIRED for incompetence right off the bat. Maybe all 4 or 5 police/security should be. Evidently ALL of them knew he was there after breaching security right? So instead of taking him down for breaching security, they let him stand and wait for the microphone? Why? More incompetence?

Hmm.. there's plenty to this that seems so clearly WRONG so far.

Maybe the national guard will be called back from Vietnam to restore order on the nations university campuses.


oops.. meant Iraq.. forgot what century it was for a sec.

furthermore, if they really felt he was a security threat (because he allegedly didn't go through security to be checked) then they should have gotten him out of there much sooner. If he HAD been a lunatic with a gun and ready to shoot someone things would obviously have been even worse.

Exactly. Incompetence.

Why do people think he had a right to speak?

FACT: There have been over 80 taser deaths in the U.S. since 1999.

I attend a lot of political speeches, and there are frequently such protestors and disruptions. One would have expected that the police/security should have met prior to a lecture by someone as polarinzing as Senator Kerry, to discuss a strategy for handling such disruptions.

Kerry, and most public speakers are generally adept at handling hecklers. It appeared he was ready to start addressing the questions, but the police/security were already trying to remove the questioner, which only exacerbated the situation.

This made it into a free speech issue, as far as the questioner and his supporters are concerned.

Obviously this individual was worked up and anit-authoritarian. The police used force right from the get go, when it may have been possible to defuse the issue more peacefully.

The heckler strikes me as the type that would have gone on harranguing Kerry, regardless of what he said, and at that point maybe he should have been escorted out. I believe more people would have been supportive of the police in that instance. I believe he would have lost a lot of his emotional piss and vinegar after Kerry started answering his questions.

I'm also surprised that they didn't hustle him all of the way out of the room, but instead pounced on him at the back of the auditorium. That could have led to a far worse crowd control situation, as evidenced by the reaction of one girl near the end of the video.

The fact that no charges were placed against the individual is not surprising. How he asked his question, and the disruption he caused was deplorable, but he only made himself look bad in doing so - that is not a criminal act warranting arrest. A person with a subdued approach could have asked the same question and not much would have been made of it.

In the end, I think the police used excessive force, and had no apparent reason to use a potentially lethal weapon such as a taser gun.

ADG

So a few months back a student walks on VT, kills several students and there is an outrage as to Campus security and response time. A student at UF bypasses a security check, dissrupts a forum, doesn't comply with the rules and is quickly subdued without further incident and there is an outrage.

WTF do people want these days?

Is this supposed to be funny? Because it is. I agree that it is an issue that must be addressed. Having said that, this kid did not address the issue in the proper fashion. It was a question and answer period. Not a "lets see how much bullshit we can spew before the cops come" period.

The tv and pop media have addressed the issue and no one did anything about it. Why bother years after the fact. We may as well start talking about Vietnam again too.

The bottom line here is that this kid was not in the right place for what he did. If he wants to voice his concerns he should choose an appropriate stage, that unfortunatly for him was not the one.

it's completely irrelevant how stupid the guy was and how much he was in the
wrong.....6 cops carried him to the back of the room, threw him on his back
the guy clearly gave up when he realized he was gonna get tazered and they
still shot him.......victim is under control....no need to tazer him. Regardless
of what crime he has committed. Cops don't have the right to revenge or
getting even.....at least not in a democracy. :2 cents:

Watch his right hand. He's still struggling before they zapped him.

Once again...nice try at misinformation and spin. He was still not complying with verbal commands and this is resisting by legal definition. You and others seem to believe that resisting must involve physicality but it does not.

not many people showed up to hear Kerry speak.

I'm surprised it took this thread 3 pages before someone raised that point. :D





Btw as I've already said, I'm no fan of cops/security on power trips either.

All I'm saying is when you get yourself into a situation like that, you get what you get. Instead of complaining about it after why not try acting differently in the first place and avoid bringing it on?

No way in hell they were going to allow that twit to monopolize the mic and babble on with question after question loaded with accusations and conspiracy theories, all the while not letting the guy on stage a chance to answer any of it. Absolutely he should have been tossed out, and if you resist, well... what can I say.

Resisting arrest is rarely if ever a smart idea.

Something to complain about.

Do you even know what the fuck a democracy is? It's 51% of the people telling the other 49% what they can and cannot do. So if 51% of us think it's ok he got tazerred then it makes it ok.

If an officer simply told one to shut up and one does not this is a violation of the law (usually interferring with an officer in the lawful perfomance of his duty but it could be one of several other charges) and the officer can arrest you and if you continue to be non compliant with his verbal commands you are now guilty of resisting...and in most states...if not the majority...an officer can use whatever non lethal force becomes necessary to get you to comply...which includes tasers...non lethal bullets...clubs etc.

Thanks for letting us know you don't :thumbsup

On a different note, if the actions of the security staff are later deemed to be use of excessive force, that tazering could be the best thing to ever happen to that kid.

I would not be at all surprised if he were to sue the university and win a huge settlement to the tune of millions.

Wouldn't be the first time some idiot made bank over such an incident.

He of course is correct...but there is not now and there has never been a Democracy as a form of government. The US is a Republic with a Representative Democracy.

lots of issues at play here ..

to start off with regardless of who was right or wrong.

the police should have stated what he was arrested for . it would have been very simple.

YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO LEAVE THE PREMISES. IF YOU DO NOT YOU WILL BE ARRESTED FOR TRESSPASSING.

YOU ARE NOW UNDER ARREST FOR TRESSPASSING..

very simple . he would have zero argument , and would have looked like an idiot if he refused.

IF he had done that THEN he would have a great argument for being asked to leave because of his question.

He of course can sue even if the officer is deemed not to have used excessive force...but probably would not fare well at a trial...but the University could settle without going to trial just to avoid further embarrasment...but of course it would not be to the tune of millions.

Rodney King was an idiot and he fared quite well...to the tune of millions...if I remember correctly.

Once again CD...througout this thread you have proved to be the voice of reason and common sense. :thumbsup

Here is a longer version of the video, picking up where the police confront the student:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7NWukZhsiBw&NR=1

After asking several more times why he is being arrested, he is finally informed by a police officer that he is being arrested for "inciting a riot".

WTF? I am not defending the kids stupid attitude/behavior, but c'mon - "inciting a riot"?!?

He was later charged with something entirely different, indicating that the police themselves didn't have a good answer at the time, to his question as to why he was being arrested - which begs the question, if they did not know why they were arresting him, why were they arresting him?

If you go back and watch the first video posted, when the student is asking questions, you can see a few students walk out, and most students are sitting looking at him, many with smiles on their face or laughing. I certainly didn't see a riot developing, just a person excercing their free speech rights in a rather ridiculous manner.

I also noted in viewing the first video a second time, that a big police officer grabbed the kid in a bear hug and carried him most of the way to the exit (the kid was not putting up much resistance, just waving his book and continuing to ask why he is being arrested).

There are much more effective ways, that law enforcement is trained for, to remove people that are non-violently resisting arrest than what was shown on the tapes.

The student was overly emotional, but if you simply listen to the words in his questions, he was not inciting a riot.

I should note that he was ultimately charged with disturbing a public function and resisting arrest with force.

ADG

Kerry, even said the questions he asked were okay, and he was going to answer them. I guess the campus police were to busy trying to get the guy to shut up to hear him.

I think you meant "free society" - because a democracy really doesn't have a lot to do with your point.

And the U.S. is, ideally, a "free society."

But - as a side note - contrary to popular belief, the U.S. is not a democracy... nor has it ever been a democracy... it's a Republic.

:2 cents:

He literally became the idiot when he refused the officer's verbal commands...as they did not want to arrest him...but when he resisted their verbal commands he became guilty of resisting.

When a Police Officer gives you an order - you comply. You can always litigate later, but you comply. What a fucking moron.

I love when stuff like this happens in crowds. Listen to the background noise. Sounds like the monkey house at the zoo.

APE KILLED APE!!!!

Why didn't the great war hero and leader of men take charge of the situation and tell the cops to back off..... instead of standing there like a dummy???:question

I really love the US freedom of speech :helpme

Here is a Russian version: https://youtube.com/watch?v=B06TFfzTILA - no stun gunning there perhaps because Putin doesn't like "the freedom of speech" I think :)

I may have missed "Shooting cops in the head." on the Bill of Rights.

my audio wasnt very high so i didnt actually hear any verbal commands.

all i heard was "cmon" and "stop resisting" i didnt hear any clear charges or commands .. but like i said i didnt have my audio very high , you couldnt hear much besides the guy.

if they asked him to leave and told him what would happen if he didnt then he is an idiot and deserved what he got, he would have had a much stronger argument if he had just calmly left ..

It has been reported that he was asked to step away from the microphone more than once and refused...then the microphone was cut off and he still refused...but I don't think the tape of the incident began at the initial point of the incident.

That sucks. They shouldn't have tasered him. You can see that fat police guy smiling when they all have him on the ground. Do you think he'd be smiling if 4 of his fellow officers were injured in the 'struggle'?

i really cant see what all the fuss is about...except that Orwell was about 23 years off target...

The simple fact is that one must comply with the verbal commands of an officer...even if the command is as simple as shut up...or one is in violation of the law. The officer does not have to initially go into any explanation of why he is commanding you or what the consequences may be if you do not comply. If you are told to shut up and you do not...you are in violation. If at a later point the officer is deemed to be in violation of law or regulations then one has a cause of action.

This was not a free speech issue. If he was in his own house then you could call it a free speech issue. Or if he had organized his own forum and invited Kerry you could call it a free speech issue.

This was different. He was attending someone else's forum and didn't play by their rules. They asked him to leave and he didn't. He also resisted the escort out. He fucked up plain and simple.

Is that anything like reading "My Pet Goat" to a classroom full of children while america was under attack?

sissy nancy boys always wanna take down the guys who actually have balls

simply not true..

a police officer cannot arrest you for not shutting up if he says "shut up", he has to have a reason to arrest you such as "causing a disturbance" and it would be proper procedure to inform someone of such..

regardless even if it was proper police procedure i dont think the majority of americans want police to arrest people for asking a question .. police are there to PROTECT AND SERVE not to just dole out arbitrary punishment. I think its completely reasonable to want have police state their request and what will happen if they don't comply..

we have all heard this many times either in real life or on cops. they say "stop ___" or you will be arrested for ____" if they dont comply they are arrested..

i have never seen a cop say " don't stand near that pole" and someone say " why" and then they get tackled and arrested.

the guy overreacted and was an idiot , that is not in question , i think anyone can agree on that ,, but its not unreasonable for them to answer him when he asks why ..

O'rly? Following the logic above, we had an outstanding freedom of speech in the USSR. The one was allowed to say: "Fuck Lenin and Brezhnev! Fuck KGB!" if he/she did that on his own kitchen, but he/she would be arrested for saying the same thing in a public place (e.g. some forum).