Taser Incident at Kerry Speech
If you haven’t seen it yet, below is the YouTube of that incident where Kerry was making a speech.
Alas, this is probably going to reflect badly on Kerry, despite the fact that he had no control over or responsibility for the event–unless one wants to suggest that speakers like him at events like that must wade into the center of frays like that and micromanage the situation. What we’re seeing here is something that ever-present videotaping and unrestricted video presentation on the web have made possible–in short, we see all the idiots in the world acting like idiots and then the aftermath that follows. This one incident is now heading the news leads only because it happened in front of Kerry.
One might be tempted to call the campus police on the charge of excessive force, but when you think about the alternatives and what they could have or should have done, I can’t really find myself faulting them too much.
It’s not just that this guy was a complete jerk-off who was obviously enjoying making a spectacle of himself and ruining the event for others (one can be fairly confident that this self-promoting clown is ecstatic over the attention the story is generating). As un-Buddha-like as it may be, one tends to enjoy seeing bozos like that carted off.
Rather, you have to look at this from a crowd-control perspective. This kid had hogged the mic well beyond his allotted time–he was allowed to go over time once at Kerry’s behest–and it was pretty clear that he was not asking a question, but rather that he was making speeches. This was pretty clear not only from his diatribe, but from the fact that when his time was more than up and someone tried to stop him, the student angrily shot back at the woman trying to talk him down, “He’s been talking for two hours, I think I can have two minutes!” and then went on about how he was going to “inform people” before asking his questions.
In short, he had broken the rules allowed in the forum, had already been asked politely to step down, and he refused to cooperate. True, after his mic was cut, he was not given an additional chance to quietly leave–instead two uniformed campus policemen started to escort him from the auditorium–but one could easily argue that he had used up his allotment of good will.
As the police are taking him out by the arms, the audience starts applauding; one can only guess that it’s because they approve of this loudmouth being taken off (a pretty safe guess, though). However, as he’s being carried away, some students can be heard saying that “he just wants to ask a question,” as if his diatribe were reasonable in the context of the town hall. That’s when he starts becoming a real showboat, screaming “HELP! HELP!” as if he’s being beaten up or something, and starts wrestling away from officers, jumping and jerking away.
Controlling someone who is out of control like that is never pretty. In this case, it was apparently the judgment of the police that he had to be tasered before he could be safely taken away. This video, which includes a segment cut from the video above, makes it a bit more clear:
In it, you can see that as the police were about to take him out the doors, he tore away from them, and they had to tackle him to subdue him. Before tasering him, they were trying to handcuff him, and he was pretty clearly resisting arrest–and frankly, by this time, he pretty much deserved to be arrested. He was not allowing the officers to cuff him, so they did what they had to.
A student or two around the action started becoming a bit hysterical, but if you discount the gross hysterics of the guy being subdued and think of what the police could be expected to do, it doesn’t really leave much room for second-guessing. They had already tried to take him out of the auditorium peacefully, and he had already torn away from them and flailed at them, several times. They had excellent cause to handcuff him, and he was not allowing them to do that.
Kerry deserves credit for at least trying to deal with the student peacefully at the outset of events, trying to let him have his say, trying to answer the question. Like I said, what was Kerry supposed to do? Sadly, Kerry’s people released a statement to the press with the wrong angle–pointing out that Kerry didn’t know the guy had been tasered until after the incident. Right-wing blogs, generally approving of what the police did, nevertheless took every chance to poke at Kerry, and jumped on Kerry’s statement, as if it were unimaginable that Kerry didn’t know what was happening. Frankly, I can fully believe it. The student was screaming theatrically throughout the whole arrest, and Kerry did not have the close-up camera view that everyone else had–he was just trying to get on with the town hall, likely doing his best to ignore the fracas. But everyone else does have the close-up camera angle, and might have difficulty divorcing themselves from that point of view and understanding that Kerry’s view was far different.
As I said, this is what you get when cameras are pretty much everywhere. Sometimes people act like idiots, and sometimes you see the police doing an uncomfortable but necessary task.
My reaction to that was different than yours.
While the guy was obviously grand standing, and while Kerry was obviously powerless to bring influence upon the police, I would have liked to hear Kerry’s answers to his questions. And from the looks of thing’s Kerry was going to answer his questions.
I think something similar to this occurred at the recent Patraeus hears in congress. Some people in the galleries got vocal and were forceably removed against their protest.
Most people are just the opposite of this guy, too timid before a mic that has excess to a powerful man and an audience. So here was a guy asking a lot of the right questions, but perhaps in the wrong way.
He should have simply asked why Kerry conceded 2004 so easily when there was evidence of wrong doing in electioneering and then stated that he had two follow up questions if he could be so permitted to ask them.
I too am wondering why two members of Skull and Crossbones were running for President in 2004 and what conflicts of interest might lie there in.
So basically the guy was a mic and attention hog and asked his questions poorely. But I take it this was at a University and he’s a college student, and they are prone to imperfect, if not exuberant delivery.
Finally, the guy was obviously a grand stander and he turned his arrest into a statement of power abuse from authorities that might not have been warrented , by either him or the authorities involved.
But having said all of that, I think this sort of thing is going to start happening more and more and more – especially where young people are involved.
We are told that the U.S. is a democracy. But on various levels it certainly not behaving as such. As someone said recently, in France the government fears the people in America the people fear their government. Elections that don’t reflect the will of the people, Presidential appearances that restrict public protest, and policies that are patently against the interest of the public tell the story of a very great and very deep dysfunction.
For those not too timid to speak truth to power, confrontations like this are going to occur more and more and more until we have something like a 1960s movement of protest.
At that point the establishment will make some of the adjustments it has to to quell the unrest, then allow some of the leading protesters into their circle of power to steal the thunder and things will quieted down – much as they did in the 1970s. Ironically, Kerry was one of those leading protesters allowed into establishments circle of power.
I don’t think that Kerry did anything wrong – the irony was that he was the main feature at the event, where once he was the on the other side trying to confront the powers that be with truth. Events moved to quickly to allow Kerry to intervene. The guy was certainly grandstanding, but by tasering him, the authorities only served to help him grandstand even more. But the questions need to be answered.
And as long as we drift along in increasingly undemocratic waters, we create opportunities for would be demagogues to stage their talents in such a manner. It seems obvious that the police could have, at the very least, forced his removal before tasering him.
Tasering is an abuse of power. I think evidence would show, that where police have access to these non-lethal methods of hurting people, that they often become trigger happy, pulling the trigger much more than they ever would consider doing with a real gun.
While I don’t really like this guy, I wish he could have asked his questions, more politely, and gotten answers and I would have liked to have heard the questions and listened to the answers. A lot of us our angry about 2000 and 2004. Something is amiss these days. I can guarantee you that more of these things are going to continue to happen, until the forces that brought Bush to power are emasculated.
And it turns out the guy was a junior demagogue wannabe.
See here: http://www.attytood.com/2007/09/meet_the_future_savior_of_jour_1.html
As one guy there writes in the comments:
“…Until I read more details about what preceded the YouTube you showed, I was willing to cut the kid some slack. It seemed odd that the campus cops were all around him at the beginning of the video, so I should have realized that we came in during the middle. Some who just see the YouTube will think “What’s the big deal? The guy was just asking a couple of questions. Next thing you know, they cut off his mike and start to carry him out.” But know I know that this idiot grabbed the mike out of turn and generally misbehaved first, then got to his questions…”
And he makes a good point, if this were a Bush rally, he probably wouldn’t be allowed in and afterwards be put on some black list somewhere for surveillance.
The post includes quotes from Counting Crows “Mr. Jones”, but when it comes to junior demagogues, I always think of Elvis Costelloes words “Two little hitlers will fight it out until one little hitler does the other one’s will…”
I’d heard that, but did not consider it confirmed until I got more info, hopefully to see a video snippet of what that was. I disregarded it initially because the clip I posted showed Kerry apparently speaking to someone else before giving the floor to him like he was an ordinary person who got his place in line in a normal fashion. But you’re right, the police presence behind him from the start is a bit of a giveaway.
I still hold that just with what we saw, the police did not go far from their rights in handling him the way they did. When the cops make it clear that you are no longer allowed in forum because of your behavior, you go with them–you don’t lash out, scream, flail about, break from their grip, ignore their warnings, etc. Just like at the airport, you can’t tell jokes about bombs. It’s OK at home or in some other places, but at the airport they’ll grab your ass and arrest you. Saying, “I was just joking” is not enough, and if you fight the police as they try to arrest you, expect to be handled as roughly as is necessary to subdue you.
I first saw on Jimmy Kimmel Live and thought is was on of his usual video jokes. Then I caught the real thing on the 4:00 a.m. news. By then some were suggested that the perp planned the incident with the goal of being tased. We may never know.
Aren’t you forgetting that the police have no right to arrest someone who isn’t breaking the law?
Look, there is always a mike-hog at a public meeting like this. You don’t send the cops in.
They cut the guy’s mike, which was appropriate. The cops didn’t even wait to see if this would have any effect. They ignored the fact that Kerry was trying to answer him.
The police were assaulting a student for the sole “crime” of being obnoxious. They are not entitled to do that.
Where did this idea come from that the only time a private citizen is permitted to speak in public is if they are saintly and non-confrontational? Ordinarily, until 2001, it’s been understood that our elective officials – including presidens – were supposed to be available to answer to all Americans, not just the ones that Bush and the police happen to approve of.
Students get obstreperous, and people who know a bit more about what’s going on than their peers tend to talk a lot. If you get into politics, you have to be prepared to deal with that. Kerry was trying to do that, but the cops interfered with his attempt. (He couldn’t tell what was happening once the student was dragged to the back, so he didn’t actually know he was being tasered.)
So quit trying to justify the cops’ behavior as an indictment either of the student or of Kerry. The cops prevented a peaceful resolution to the problem.
I don’t care how annoying or disruptive he was. Police are only authorized to use tasers when they are threatened- PERIOD. They have no right to tase even the most obnoxious protester, especially when he’s already pinned to the floor and clearly a threat to no-one.
Being a cop involves dealing with some extremely annoying people. That doesn’t give them the right to electrocute them. A schizophrenic woman in a wheelchair just got tased to death. A few weeks ago cops tased a women with an infant. These are dangerous weapons, and police are using them whenever they feel like it. They shouldn’t just be fired- they should be arrested for assault.
Soon, an Anti-Bush protester will be tased to death or to severe disability. There will be all kinds of justifications for that, too. But it won’t make it right. Its a criminal act.
Hmm. I am not familiar with the laws governing the ability of the police to use a taser in the arrest of an individual. If the law says you cannot use it in such a fashion, then it would be criminal for the police to do so–but I would want to see more than just a claim of that.
As for whether or not this person was breaking the law: there is a chain of events that took place. The guy was not arrested for mic-hogging, or for asking a question. He was arrested for disturbing the peace, a valid charge defined as “unsettling of proper order in a public space through one’s actions.” If there is a public meeting going on an you act like this guy was acting–breaking the rules of the meeting, jumping the line, acting in a rude and obnoxious manner, going over the time allotted for a speaker, denying polite requests to behave–that charge is a valid charge. (It is interesting that while many people were videotaping the event, no one has so far posted a video on YouTube showing what the guy did before he started asking questions.)
So the police take him by the arm and start to escort him out. This is their job at events like this. Not to take out people who are wearing a t-shirt or behaving within the rules, but to remove people who break the rules and disturb the peace. The guy resists. Not once, but several times. He tears away. He struggles. He jerks out of their grip, he flails around.
That’s not the thing to do. When the police have cause to remove you, you go with them. You might stand and argue, demand to be informed of charges perhaps, but if they insist that you go, then you go and press counter-charges or complaints later. Even if I believed that I was being illegally removed, even if the police were telling me to leave because of my t-shirt, if the police insist that I go, then I go–either cooperatively, or, if I feel that it is unjust and I want to make a point, then I insist they arrest me.
But you do not struggle and fight with the police. Period. Like I said, there are rules of engagement that everyone should be aware of. Not making bomb jokes at an airport is one of those. Another is, do not physically struggle with a police officer.
The police removing, subduing, and even arresting this guy are not in question. So that leaves the tasering. As I said, I do not know the laws governing this. Maybe it is illegal for the cops to use the taser like they did. If it was, then case closed.
If it was not illegal, then the question becomes, was it necessary? I would argue that the police could have a case for this. If you watch the video, several things become clear: the student was struggling with police officers, repeatedly refusing to cooperate; he repeatedly attempted to escape, and clearly was unwilling to submit, despite five or six police officers trying to restrain him; he would not allow the police officers to handcuff him–in one video, it is clear that he is squirming and maneuvering to keep them from doing this; the police repeatedly instruct him to submit to cuffing, and they clearly warn him that he will be tasered if he does not comply. He did not comply, and continued resisting arrest.
Some people claim that he was not told that he was being arrested; however, watching the video, this is very unclear. As the police escort him out, you can see that one of the officers, a woman, is clearly saying something to him, but we cannot hear it because the guy is hysterically screaming throughout. It is more likely than not that the police followed procedure on that point.
The best argument I can imagine is that it would have been possible for the police to safely remove the guy and/or cuff him without using the taser. That might be the case. The best counter-argument I can imagine is that this guy was doing everything he could to resist that, and despite clear warning which he obviously understood, he refused to cooperate and continued to deny the officers the ability to cuff him or remove him.
This is not about the politics of the speaker, or that Kerry was there; had it been a Bush rally, my feelings would be the same, and the guy was saying stuff that politically I agree with. It is about whether the rules were followed.
We’ll find out more as time goes by.
So what did the police do before tasers to subdue unruly people who were already safely held down and restrained by half a dozen people? Besides use clubs, dogs and firehoses?
I suppose they managed to deal with it without using additional violent force, assuming they were no longer deemed a threat to anyone (assuming they were a threat in the first place).
Bravo Tim Kane, Avedon, and jjrs. I’m appalled at how people allegedly on the left are supporting the actions of the officers. (And I assume the use of the word “police” and “cop” is just shorthand for “campus police”, which technically aren’t police at all. What they’re allowed to do differs from school to school, but they do not have the same enforcement privileges that police do. Some aren’t allowed to have the power to arrest. Some are basically just security guards.)
But nope, I don’t believe Kerry was going to answer his questions with any degree of earnestness. If he were, he would have answered them by now. I mean, it’s been 36 hours. He’s had plenty of time.
That would depend on the situation–how strong is the subject, and how much of a fight are they putting up? In this case, you have a strong youth who is using his strength to deny the police the ability to take him out of the auditorium. Before the taser, brute force would have been necessary–as you noted, clubs probably would have been used. And if a subject is resisting with strength, using brute force to subdue could result in injury, possibly even serious. No shock, but at the very least bruises, maybe concussion. and possibly broken bones would result. Would you rather get an electric shock, or have your arm broken? Me, I would take the shock, knowing that though it would hurt, it would be over quickly and I would recover. I’ve had a broken bone–they are not in the least bit fun.
Another element here is warning. Take an extreme example: a cop using his gun. You are in a situation where the cop has license to use his weapon against you. The cop calls out a warning that he’ll shoot, a clear warning that you understand. You fail to submit. The cop is justified in firing the weapon.
The only question remaining here is, in this situation, were the cops allowed to use their taser? They had a strong, young, healthy male subject, meaning that the chances of serious harm from the taser were close to nil. As for the dangers of tasing, there are also dangers to direct physical struggle–concussions and body blows can cause disablement and death in extreme circumstances as well. And let’s not forget that the cops are not exactly risk-free here either, and that has to be taken into consideration.
The subject was putting up a fight with all his strength, resisting a legitimate arrest. He refused to let the cops take him away, and refused to allow himself to be cuffed. When warned about being tased, he showed clear understanding of the warning, and just as clearly continued to refuse to present his hands for cuffing.
Like I said, the only real point to be cleared up here is whether the cops had the authority according to law or not. They certainly had cause.
There was no cause. The person in question was on the floor on his stomach, pinned down by several officers. Basically, they just electrocuted him because he was obnoxious and pissed them off, and they wanted to teach him a lesson. That is absolutely inappropriate. There is no justification for it, legal or moral.
The main attack on this guy is that he was obnoxious and deserved to be shut up. Its precisely situations like this that test a person’s fiber to dedicated themselves to rule of law. A principled person opposes the death penalty, even in the face of the most heinous crime. A principled person believes in free speech, even in the face of outrageous opinions that offend their own sensibilities. And a principled person opposes police brutality, not just in the case of non-violent protesters they agree with, but in the case of non-violent protesters they don’t.
You might think there’s a world of difference between this annoying kid and Cindy Sheehan, but I doubt these cops see it. If they don’t like something she says, they’ll drag her off, even if the speaker wants to keep talking to her and tells them its okay. If she resists them, they’ll attack her with tasers and fry her insides.
Jjrs:
Yes, he was pinned. But then what? They just sit there for three hours? Pinning him down was not the objective; cuffing him and taking him away was. They tased him because despite being pinned down, he continued to refuse to be cuffed and taken away. In order to force him to be cuffed, some kind of greater force would have to be used. They could tase him, which would be painful but in the case of a strong young male have no lasting effects, or they could use brute force, which could lead to other injuries more serious.
Or they could simply sit on the guy for as long as it took for him to submit, which, in this case, could have been a very long time, while he continued to scream and be hysterical, all the time completely disrupting the public event.
I disagree with your representation of what happened as an “attack”; it was an arrest. It did not turn into an “attack” because the police decided to do so; physical force became necessary because the subject resisted arrest, using physical force to do so. Similarly, the charge was not “being obnoxious,” it was disturbing the peace, which is precisely what he did. That can also be called “being obnoxious,” but that term makes it sound like there was no cause to arrest. There was.
Look, I’m pretty damned liberal, and have no love for police brutality. But I am also a pragmatist in that I will not ignore the realities of a situation, and I will not ignore the responsibilities held by both sides. You can’t just criticize the police for using force unless you can state a clear and pragmatic alternative, and/or cite laws which clearly deny them the ability to do a thing. The arrestee’s responsibilities also should not be ignored; he was more than just obnoxious, he was breaking the law and struggling with police.
Query: if a person disrupts and obstructs a public meeting, disturbing the peace, should that person not be removed? Or should a few hundred people just pack up and leave, allowing anyone who doesn’t want a meeting to take place to deny that meeting by “being obnoxious”?
Query: if a person refuses to be removed, using physical force to resist arrest, and the police are unable to remove the disruption without excessive force, what should be done? Again, this could be used to disrupt any public meeting, denying others the ability to assemble peacefully.
Query: if you are told that you are under arrest under a legitimate charge, will you resist arrest by physically struggling with police?
Query: if you are warned that further resistance will result in you being tased, will you continue to physically struggle with the police, or will you submit and challenge later using legal grounds?
It’s easy to throw out terms like “police brutality.” It’s a bit harder to actually enforce the law in light of an arrestee using physical force to resist arrest. When someone resists arrest by using physical force, it is impossible to arrest them without physical force. If they had struggled with him physically and had wound up breaking his arm, would that have been more acceptable?
Query: if a person disrupts and obstructs a public meeting, disturbing the peace, should that person not be removed? Or should a few hundred people just pack up and leave, allowing anyone who doesn’t want a meeting to take place to deny that meeting by “being obnoxious”?
Let’s ask John Kerry if he thought the person was being disruptive. It was his engagement- Kerry’s own opinion should count for something, shouldn’t it?
He specifically told the officers that he would answer the guy’s question. He called it an important question. After this incident, Kerry spoke out against the students tasering. Basically, the police decided to make the call without respect for the wishes of the speaker. I would argue it wasn’t even their call to make. It was Kerry’s, and it was clear something funny was up when they ignored his express wishes to handle the situation himself.
It’s true that people were applauding when he was first removed. I kind of was too at first, watching the video at home. He was annoying. But when they began to electrocute him, the tone in the room changed dramatically. In some videos, you can hear screams of shock.
Opinions are divided over how much everyone wanted him to leave. But the majority of opinions from people that were there that I’ve seen is that the tasering was completely uncalled for. Let’s see what students on teh campus are saying and doing about this-
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/200907Tasered.htm
Yeah, seems like everyone there was really happy the cops did what they had to do that day, nobly protecting their right to free assembly.
Query: if a person refuses to be removed, using physical force to resist arrest, and the police are unable to remove the disruption without excessive force, what should be done?
They quite clearly were able to remove him without even excessive force, or even much mild force. The video clearly shows the student being subdued and brought to the ground by several officers before tasers even entered the picture. They could easily have dragged him outside with some effort.
Query: if you are told that you are under arrest under a legitimate charge, will you resist arrest by physically struggling with police?
I’m sure the police reports will vary (the tasering offer has already submitted a report about the incident that completely contradicts what we saw on several videos) But to my recollection, he was not told he was under arrest. That was part of the problem. They just manhandled him and yanked him away -after Kerry had told them he would answer his question.
Query: if you are warned that further resistance will result in you being tased, will you continue to physically struggle with the police, or will you submit and challenge later using legal grounds?
If I’m brought to the ground for no reason and struggle out of panic when they threaten to electrocute me, yeah, there’s a good chance I would.
Let me tell you my own incident that led me to believe tasers are a threat…in my country Canada, a cop was put on probation for tasering a jaywalker. Sound pretty awful, but on closer inspection he had a sympathizable case.
He asked the jaywalker if he had ever heard of a crosswalk, and the guy just blew him off, ignored him, and kept on walking. The cop felt direspected. He took him aside, and told him to get in the police car. The guy refused. The cop told him to lean against the car. The guy complied, and the cop began to handcuff him. The guy began to turn around (resistance), and the cop tasered him. The guy fell to the ground and defecated in his pants.
I felt pretty bad for the cop, because the guy sounded like a jerk, and he was rude to a police officer. But some points stand out-
-being a cop will occasionally involve dealing with jerks. If you’re cut out for the work though, you won’t fly off the handle and try to “teach him a lesson” by arresting him over nothing. Thats not a policeman’s job or place. Just give him a ticket. If he tries to say something insulting, or refuse it, etc…then you can deal with it differently from there. But for the time being, be a professional and don’t let every less-than-respectful citizen allow you to fly of the handle and lose your cool on the job.
-jaywalking is not an arrestable offence. The guy, while a jerk, was right to refuse to get in the car (This view was upheld by the courts). Being a cop doesn’t give you the right to do things you’re not authorized to.
-you can argue that by turning around, the guy was “resisting arrest”. But as airtight as that sounds, it ignores that the officer had no right to arrest him in the first place. You could even argue that it gave him the “right to use excessive force”. But come on, that’s just silly.
I think that this situation is pretty analogous.
But beyond, all that, there’s more at stake than one annoying kid. There’s been a disturbing pattern of behavior of cops with tasers in the post 9/11 years. 70 suspects nationwide have died after being shocked by Tasers in the past five years — including 10 in August alone. Check out some of these stories-
Cop tasers handcuffed women multiple times
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMpEr-MOSyk
Unarmed 17 year old dies after being tasered multiple times
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17399364&BRD=1719&PAG=461&dept_id=25271&rfi=6
Wheelchair bound women dies after being shocked with taser 10 times
http://www.local6.com/news/14147512/detail.html
The irony is that cops were given tasers to cope with disruptive people more safely. Instead, they essentially torture- and in some cases even kill- people that irritate them.
The purpose of my question here was not to collect your impression, but rather to ask you what should have been done as a matter of pragmatic procedure. Your answer was fine except that you did not provide a solution. There are two choices: allow people to disrupt public hearings, or stop them from doing so. You answered that everyone was happy he was initially stopped, but unhappy that he was tased–but that’s not an answer to the question, “should a person be removed from a meeting if they disrupt it so others cannot peaceably assemble?” Not whether everyone was happy about how it was handled.
I don’t agree. Yes, they had him tackled; tackling is easy. Moving someone who does not want to be moved is a different thing. The fact that they had to tackle him in the first place is evidence of exactly that–tackling someone to the ground means that you cannot control them in a mobile situation. That’s why they wanted to cuff him. They tried taking him by the arm; he resisted. They tried carrying him; he resisted. He was surrounded by four or five cops and still he broke free. Four or five people had him pinned to the floor and yet he was still able to keep them from even putting cuffs on him.
This is a case where something is far more easily said than done. It’s easy to say they could have simply dragged him out. But if someone of that size and strength resists with all of his strength, it is not exactly such an easy thing to do.
Even if you will not concede that in this case, excessive force was not necessary to remove him from the room, then assume for the sake of the argument that it would. Then what?
Again, you are not answering the question–plus, I noted earlier that in the video, from an angle in the back of the auditorium, a female officer can clearly be seen speaking to the guy (we cannot hear what is said, however), not to mention that the subject unquestionably believed that he was being arrested. You are simply assuming the least probable conclusion as it supports your argument.
Assume an officer said “you’re under arrest; stop resisting.” They certainly had opportunity to do so, and it would have made ample sense in that context.
My point here is not to force an answer to win an argument, but rather to point out expected norms and procedures.
The four questions formed a range of steps which, if noted, show a procedure based on necessity that explain the actions of the officers. It’s easy to have gut reactions and to say, “they shouldn’t tase him!” It’s harder to actually run things in a pragmatic way that ensure civil order.
1. The subject disturbed the peace, disrupting the right of a few hundred people to assemble peacefully. As a matter of principle, this kind of thing has to be stopped, or the people’s right to assemble can be denied by anyone willing to go to extremes.
2. When the police arrest you, you may debate orally up to the point where the police insist on removing you, but as a practical rule of society you do not struggle physically. You may go limp, but you do not struggle. That is why the offense “resisting arrest” exists and is considered reasonable.
3. If a person uses physical force to resist arrest, the police then must take steps to counter that physical force, including the countering of potential dangers to themselves.
4. If a person is told to submit and clearly warned of a procedure like tasering, and the subject clearly understands the warning as in a case like this and yet still refuses to submit, I would hold that the police were not unreasonable in what they did, seeing it as a necessary part of the process of removing the person.
As you describe it, the case is far from analogous to the case we saw. As you pointed out, the original offense–jaywalking–is not something you can arrest someone for; disturbing the peace is. You forget they the student actually had broken the law. Second, in this case, it sounds like the guy had resisted arrest in the absolute minimal way; again, not analogous to the Kerry event, where the student had resisted in a variety of ways and many, many times, up to and including the point where four or five officers could not even cuff him after a lengthy struggle. And third, in your case, the cop gave no warning, again not analogous.
If you want to make the point that tasers are sometimes used casually when it is not appropriate, then I will fully agree with you. But this does not transfer so easily to the Kerry event.
Yes, pretty frightening–and again, not analogous. The first video is about as dissimilar to the Kerry event as you could imagine; the officer seems to be using the taser as a remote control on the woman, not even trying to use physical force to subdue her.
In the second story, if you read follow-up reports after the autopsy, it was not clear that the taser killed the suspect. The coroner ruled that his death was not due to tasering, and that he probably would have died regardless. This could be seen as self-serving for the police department, however, but it at least raises questions about whether the taser was responsible.
The third story is so far from being analogous as to be completely alien to the Kerry incident–a woman in a wheel chair tased ten times?
You’ll get no argument from me that excessive force is sometimes used by police where it is not warranted. My argument is that the force used by police was not necessarily excessive in this case.
As for the dangers of tasing, again, you’ll get my agreement that if you tase someone in questionable health five or ten times, they could die. Again, that was not the case here.
But I would also point out that almost any use of force can potentially be deadly. Does pepper spray sound deadly? Most would say not. But here’s a case from Canada where someone died from it. And if you do a search, I am certain that you could find a large number of people who have died in ordinary struggles with police, where there were not even blows to the head but simple struggling alone.
The point: the subject in this case faced little more danger from the tasing than he did from physical force necessary to overcome his strongest efforts to resist arrest.
Additionally, this person had broken the law, was resisting arrest, and made that force necessary in the first place.
The connection between those incidents and this is that quite simply, tasers were unnecessary and did more harm than good.
Your entire argument about how the police are logically compelled to electrocute a non-violent student who poses no immediate threat to either the officers or anyone else ignores some important points-
1.You have ignored the most compelling argument that his rhetoric did not constitute an offense any more arrestable than jaywalking- Kerry did not object to his question, and agreed to answer it. The police ignored his express wishes.
2.As it turns out, you are indeed incorrect in assuming the police told him he was under arrest. As video from outside the auditorium now shows, the police themselves were initially at a loss as to what the charges would be. Outside, he asks again and again, and they finally tell him he’s under arrest for “Inciting a riot” – a charge which I’m sure that even you will agree is absurd. After the fact, they trumped up some slightly more believable charges. To me, this illustrates how random and poorly thought through their actions were.
Incidentally, the police officer filing the report blatantly lied about the incident- quite stupid, considering how many people filmed it. But it further goes to demonstrate their
poor judgment and unethical behavior- http://www.collegeotr.com/university_of_florida/police_report_gives_false_information_3770
3.Removing him from the room while Kerry answered his question was a complete over-reaction in the first place. But they were clearly doing a fine job without harming him. They got him all the way to the door before he broke free. Within seconds of breaking free, he was pinned to the ground. At that point he was surrounded by several more officers.
So it’s a weak argument to claim that this would have been “impossible” without excessive force. Clearly it was possible. What you’re really arguing is that electrocuting him made their job easier.
Everything you say rests on the assumption that the police have an obligation to arrest this person, and that in the case that they meet resistance, they have every right to use as much violence and force as necessary to take down the suspect- to the point that they suffer no responsibility if the suspect winds up getting a broken arm, blinded or electrocuted.
That view is your own, and certainly not shared by all, at least not in any safe, democratic country I’ve lived in. I’d say in most views, the police exist to protect the citizenry, not to violently beat down anyone at the slightest resistance to their wishes, regardless of how harmless or non violent, or even how vague or ill-defined their supposed “crime” is.
I don’t doubt that electrocuting him made their job easier. It also made their job easier
not bothering to explain that he was under arrest. It would make their job easier still if they could hold him without trial. But fortunately, in most places other than the United States, other rights are put ahead of the police’s every convenience.
Earlier, I wrote that Police are unauthorized to use tasers except when threatened themselves. While I am proud to report that this is the standard held to their use in Canada, some research has shown that in the US guidelines for their use are quite vague, and according to the ACLU dangerously uncodified. Some police forces are only permitted to use them when the only realistic alternative would be to use a gun. That strikes me as pretty fair. Other forces are basically given carte blanche whenever they see fit, which has led to some pretty gruesome incidents.
If you were talking about an agitated crack addict wielding a knife and shouting threats, I would say your airtight reasoning would work pretty well. But you’re not. I’ve got to say, regardless of how obnoxious he was, and regardless of how certain you are that the police were within legal grounds to do what they did -or even that it was necessary-, I’ve found your lack of sympathy for what they did to him pretty callous.
Kerry was not the arbiter of the conditions of the arrest, the people in charge of the event and/or the police themselves were. Kerry was being diplomatic, but was not in authority; the call was not his to make. As I noted, this kid had broken several rules, and had effectively disrupted the event for his own selfish reasons. Not to mention the fact that the only reason Kerry was able to say he would answer the question was because they cut the guy’s mic. Otherwise Kerry couldn’t have gotten a word in edgewise–Meyer simply didn’t shut up, and wouldn’t have for quite some time had they not cut his mic. But citing Kerry’s stated willingness to answer the question does not in any way affect the decision to arrest the individual.
I do find it strange that the arresting officers initially told Meyer that he was being charged with “inciting a riot.” Very strange. However, it should be noted that by the time official charges were filed, “inciting to riot” was not one of them; although it was mentioned in one part of the police report, the same report mentioned only disturbing the peace and resisting arrest at the conclusion when the official charges were listed. Furthermore, at Meyer’s arraignment, injciting a riot is not included, rather the aforementioned disturbing the peace and resisting arrest.
None of this obviates the fact that Meyer did in fact break the law. That one of the officers at the scene gave an erroneous charge is, I believe, little more than a technicality; if not, then the courts will deal with it and Meyer can file a wrongful arrest suit. Whatever, the case, the official charges are now quite clear.
We’ll have to disagree on this, then. You seem to believe that it is a simple matter to drag a strong youth out of an auditorium when he is using his full strength to resist. At the very most, all either of us could say is that neither of us has ever tried.
I stated that I believed that what they did was necessary, but I also stated that it may have been outside their authority. I never stated that they were beyond all legal review, nor did I imply this–that is your own personal interpretation, which I do not share. The police did have an obligation to arrest the person, as they directly witnessed him violating the law. My point is that tasering may well have been the less harmful manner of arresting the subject, and I at no time stated that there would be no consequences for an injury or for death.
Yes, I have little sympathy for someone who violates the law, resists arrest, becomes physically aggressive with the police, and specifically avoids warnings by police officers in the face of a clearly stated intent to act. What a callous person I am. I’m no fan of tasering, but I also refuse to completely disregard issues such as public crowd control, preserving the general public’s right to assemble peaceably, the mechanics of bodily force, the potential safety of the arresting officers, and the difficulties involved in a legitimate arrest when a subject is using full force to resist. What an illogical person I am. Nor have I ignored the fact that there are still several facts we do not know, such as the authority police have to use the taser, or the amount of force and possible consequences of brute force to handle someone like Meyer; since my first reply to your first comment, I have been careful to leave that issue open in our discussion, and come to a final conclusion when more can be known. I have not jumped to conclusions on the basis of incomplete evidence.
If I see authoritative evidence or testimony that tasering, in this case, was criminally negligent or wholly unnecessary, then I will agree with your conclusions. But I refuse to be swayed by emotion or, no pun intended, the shock value of seeing someone being hurt.