I'm really curious to see Kerry's response. Democrats really court the police unions.

Clearly it's excessive force. Is that even really up for discussion? Pulling your arm away is actively resisting? You wonder why some people have a negative opinion of cops? So if your wife got in an argument with a cop, pulled her arm away, then got tazed, you'd be ok with that? BS

Drag him out of the room and write a ticket. I'm no veteran of political speeches, but I would guess that outbursts happen quite often.

Freedom of Speech does not give someone the right to be an A$$.

you say the cops instigated the situation.....there wouldn't have been a situation if the guy just calmy asked his question instead of ranting and raving and swearing....in a public forum....with a politician who probably gets threatened by some kind of whacko on almost a daily basis in the room.

he was fine while he was being escorted to the back of the room but once he tried to shake off the cops and make a run for it he got exactly what he deserved.

Cops are like IT Guys.....you don't even know they are there until something goes wrong, and they get no credit for all the time that things are going right.

Thats what they were trying to do....Charlie Chucklehead was making it difficult

This kid got exactly what he wanted. Set-up from the start. I'd like to know what went on outside before he came in.

The zapped the intern on ZLX, NOT FUNNY, and replaying it over and over.

I'm with you. There are a lot of nutjobs out there and cops are the ones who usually have to handle them. The minute someone starts resisting arrest, cops have to make a decision as to what type of force to use. They don't know if someone has a concealed weapon on them. If somone is going to resist, they are already acting in a threatening manner and who knows what they are going to do next. I'd hate to see a cop hurt or killed while trying to protect good citizens because they underrestimated what an idiot like this guy was going to do. This pansy, loudmouth, liberal punk just wanted to get attention for his "cause" and knew the consequences of his actions. He probably has never had to do any real work in his life and doesn't care about cops or firefighters or anyone else who puts their lives on the line to protect rectum heads like him.

Oh, and the part where he was screaming at the end was precious. I hope all of his buddies got a kick out of him screaming like a little baby. He probably pissed his pants when the cops threw him on the ground. And if he didn't then, I'm sure he did when they threw him in the jam with the real bad guys.

I reread my comments, and want it to be clear that my "you" was meant to be generic, and that I was arguing the issue, not directly speaking to any poster.

Here's the music video: :laughs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkMkGOpAF4s

Too many details not known to know if he had a right to even be in the room. Just cause kerry is a Senator , doesn't mean that someone didn't arrange this thing for a private or invited audience. george bush is preaident but i have no right to walk into his next speach or whatever without a ticket! If he did have the right to be in the room , did he have the right to take up the whole time for his questions and commentary or do other people have the right to participate? Who decides that. If the police decided to shut him up , that is wrong. If someone truly in charge of this event said your time is up , leave , and he didn't , then the police should get him out.

On the other side , is the taser safe to be using it on people to shut someone up. The police like to say its not lethal but people have died. He could have died. If he had died , would his death have been justified for any reason seen on the tape. I think not.

I guess my opinion is that a court will hear why he is charged with some crimes and decide guilt or innocents. Another court will hear his civil suit to decide if he was abused and if he was , he will get money.

There is no doubt in my mind that if potentially lethal force is ever used by law enforcement , either a criminal or an officer must subsequently be charged with a crime. If either is found not guilty , the other needs to be charged and face a jury. Let the courts with full knowledge after gathering evidence decide the matter.

My gut feeling is that upon his refusal to leave when asked , the campus police should have formed a protective curtain between him and Kerry and the real police should have been called to deal with the guy , Predeiction , he gets charged and convicted of some minor crime to make sure the civil suit goes away. All the campus police officers rolls in this will be reviewed and the person or persons responsible for the use of the taser are let go for exercising poor judgement.

Who guards the guards .. wait until they get him off camera.. nighstick to the ribs I bet ..

John Kerry had every oppurtunity to take charge of the situatioand diffuse it. What did he do? He prattled on and pretended not to notice. Lost my vote for all time, too. Even if he walks barefoot across Cape Cod Bay. Lunkhead!

Actually,yes it does.Why you might ask?Nothing that student did or said could cause harm to another.He didn't yell "FIRE",he asked legit questions and those questions should have been asked by every American right after the last election.

100% violation of that young idiot's 1st Amendment rights.To argue otherwise means you don't understand the Bill Of Rights and defending those that treated him the way he was treated re-affirms that.If you believe that kid was wrong and the cops/security were right,god help us all because the United States of America is truly doomed.

The kid refused to follow the rules of the forum, specifically refusing to stand in line like the other students to ask his questions. He instead chose to rush towards the podium. At that point he is subject to ejection. When an officer takes his arm to lead him away he pulls away. He now is resisting an officer who is lawfully ejecting the student. His only right at the point is the right to go to jail. The Freedom of Speech does not allow one to break laws in the process.

Excellent try......but no.

Think about what you just said..."forum rules".Constitution does not have a clause for "forum rules".This kid violated no constitutional laws,
none.

Oh and btw the stupid "boobtube" video doesn't really show ALL of what happened,it only shows what happened AFTER said student followed the "forum rules".He was asking questions LONG before the boobtube vid.

Oops.

Using that premise anyone of us at any time may barge into a public meeting, take over the microphone, talk over who is actually designated to be speaking at the time and if any one tries to prevent us from causing that type of disruption we can simply push them aside (resist) and we are protected by the freedom of speech.

Way wrong. I'm not basing his behavior solely on the video clips but also on the witness accounts.

I saw the whole video, and no matter what you claim happened, he resisted arrest. Can't anyone just let the police extract them from a situation without making a scene? This kid wanted to make a spectacle of himself and he did. In the course of doing that, he got himself roughed up a little by some police who probably were trained to act accordingly when threatened. Sorry kid, but you brought this on yourself. Next time you bring a video camera and try to make a funny video for your website, remember what happened here. It's too bad that people can't respect the rights that were given to them a long time ago, when the world was a different place. The freedoms given to us all in the Constitution should be respected and not used as a jumping pad for idiotic behavior. Don't hide behind your Constitutional rights when you yourself are breaking the law.

I'm sure that there are a lot of anti-law enforcement and anti government people that think this kid was wronged. Whatever your political views are, he broke the law. He is not some martyr trying to change the world. He's a trouble maker looking to get some attention and knows that videos on the internet are the way to do it.

He had the microphone and wouldn't give it up so anyone else could participate in the discussion. The incident started because the moderator asked him to give someone else a chance to ask question and/or exchange ideas with Kerry. When he refused to allow anyone else to participate, and in that regard allow anyone else to express thier thoughts, (;ie, see everyone elses freedom of speech issues here), the moderator asked two officers who were on duty there to get the kid to relent. He is a well-known wise-ass in this regard and likes putting on a show. The big mouth tried to take over, not incite a riot, the assemby with his antics. He attempted to control everyones quality of life. Kerry was being polite when he said let him speak, because he just didn't want this arrest to occur while he was speaking.

When you resist officers they are taught/trained by thier superiors to distance themselves and then spray or tase you now. When I came on you wrestled with them or whatever. Officers now are trained to physically interact with someone at little as possible. I can tell you getting tased or sprayed is better than a Kell light smashing into the side of someones head and causing a forty stitch gash as a result. Oc spray and tasers are almost a direct result of the lawsuits generated as a result of the Kell light/skul interactions. Thirty-three almost thirty-fours years and I never wacked anyone with a flashlight.

This kid is a professional wise-ass that got arrested. He was on film because thats what he does. He goes to these meetings and acts-up. If he was punched by the officers, kicked, hit with an object that officers are not allowed to carry then you might have a beef about thier actions.

One more thing the more officers that hold down someone like this the less likely they or the arrestee will be injured. If what the officers were doing was so outrageous why didn't all the people jump up and start complaining, not just the girl with the putz.

Once you pull away, raise your arms, and refuse to submitt, then your destiny is no longer in your hands. Someone else is writing the outcome to this book at that point. As far as "what if it was a woman, (my wife)or someone smaller in stature", its all up to the person who is interacting with the officer, not the officer. And there are many levels of force to use. There are no routine citizen/police officer interactions. To say that any interaction is routine is to label all citizens robots that are all programed exactly the same. It wouldn't surprise me to find out the kid has some psych issues of delusion, or something along that line. He acted like he feels he has some parity with Kerry. Almost like hey I am standing here I am sure you all know Kerry will want to talk with me.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?f=msnhome

not to hijack but I guess this would be okay to some of also.

Swimmer - I hear you on most of your points. Well stated,by the way.

You said that you never hit anyone with a flashlight. Ever tase or spray anyone? Would you be more likely to tase than to hit?

Here's the thing. We are supposed to be policed by fellow citicens who are protecting and serving socitey. To me, the idea of police walking around electrocuting anyone who doesn't "submit" is very 1980's sci-fi, and terribly un-American. I can't imagine that the framers of the constitution would have approved of this type of law enforcement. Why don't we all just wear shock collars and give police remote controls, that way they aren't limited by the range of the taser? Do you see what I'm getting at here? So it was done in reaction to lawsuits - great, some lawyer figured out that you can't prove how much pain you were in (unlike visibly obvious stitches). This is just one more thing that makes us a little less free.

What was the original crime here? Talking. The police (plural) attempted to restrain the person, and he resisted being restrained - so they electrocuted him. If people don't have the right to speak out without being electrocuted, what right do they have?

I'm not saying the situation didn't warrant some type of intervention, but the question is one of degree. There were enough cops to grab a limb and carry him right out of there.

Where's my 50
 

Hitting someone with a flashlight in policing is tantamount to shooting someone. The only time either, (hitting with a flaslight or shooting someone), is acceptable when the use of force necessary to subdue someone includes causing serious injury or death because you fear for your life.
I refuse to be trained to use the Taser for several reasons. One being 56 years old it just might cause my heart to stop. Tasing someone is part of what is called in police training "the use of force continuum". Someone resists an officer has the right to use force one-step higher than the "lawbreaker uses" uses. Simple resisting, might just get a response of greater physical force. It might result in spraying, which couldn't be done in the auditorium where Kerry was speaking, because a mass casualty response by the local EMS people would have been necessary. The spray would have wafted into everyone's tear ducts. I have sprayed people with OC spray who started fighting when an attempt at taking them into custody failed, because they didn't want to be arrested. In my almost 34 years on the job I haven't had to wrestle with many, but when a close interpersonal contact was necessary it never lasted long. I wrestle rather well. Very few people I ever arrested ever needed medical attention, very few. Probably less than the fingers on one hand. Respect breeds respect even in this forum.
Moving on.....to say that everyone might as well wear collars I believe is to reason that we are all lawbreakers that need to be harnessed in. I don't think you are a lawbreaker and I know many people here and I know they aren't. I don't believe that when it comes to free speech with regard to this instance the tasing was unreasonable. The tasee had his turn at the microphone and was ask to relinquish the microphone so someone else could speak with Kerry. The liberal democrat who hired the audtorium and arranged to have Kerry there was in charge. The officers were probably there as security for the college and moved on the wise guy only after the liberal person in charge wanted the officers to take over of the situation. It wasn't an open air event staged in public (say outside on the quadrangle), it was inside a hired hall. You don't get to tell someone what your going to do in a hall they hired. One of the officers was female, and female officers can use a higher level of force earlier than than male counterparts, because they simply cannot be expected to subdue people as quickly or safely as thier male counterparts. The free speech issue cease to exist when the wise ass became disorderly and resisted the officer intentions to remove/calm the situation. The w-a enjoyed the interaction with the officers until he was tased. I believe listening to him, he also wanted to be tased. He saw it coming, he could have ceased his acting out at any momemt up until he was tased. He could have went limp and let them cuff him, butt he didn't. And his friend got it all on film just as they planned.
Tasing at first was introduced as a substitute for shooting someone. I always had difficulty with this theory, because in training your taught that if someone is 21' from you and attacking you only have a maximum of 1 1/2 seconds to react. Now if someone is attacking you with a knife, from 21' away and if I have a choice of what I am going to save my life with, am I going to choose a taser that shoots two little darts at someone and not all that accurately or am I going to choose a Glock that I have fifteen chances of stopping someone with. This is all under the God forbid I ever have to do either with theory.
Basically, what I am saying is that newer officers, officer that have been hired in the last ten years have been trained to spray/tase lawbreakers earlier, sometimes almost immediately, in thier officer/lawbreaker interaction, than older officers. Older officers, still use thier charm/wit/good looks, seriously, and when that fails, you do what you have to do.

Maybe Swimmer can clear up one point for me.

I'm not anti police in any way. My next door neighbor , who was a police officer all the time I knew him , essentially taught me 'serious" fishing.
My question...
Shouldn't the officers say "You are under arrest" before trying to get physical?
I just don't think the person is resisting arrest if he hasn't been placed under arrest.

I guess In this case i would look for

1. the officer walks up and tells the guy to leave the mic. if he refuses , the officer says leave or you will be arrested for tresspassing 9or disturbing the peace or whatever). If he still refusses , the officer says you are under arrest and then grabs him to escort him out. If he then fights , he's resisting arrest.


i just don't understand why they simply start ganging up on him when no one has placed him under arrest. He even asks "Am I under arrest?" No weapon , no violence to that point.

This part i don't get. Please enlighten us.

My friend got arrested for public intoxication and disturbing the piece following soiree down Broadway in Winter Hill. Only problem, he was butt-*** naked, all 230 lbs of his black ***. The cops did not tase him. These cops were old school, not college security, these guys didn't flinch one spell. To say my good friend was resisting arrest is an understatement, he was cursing like a 2nd grader, slinging heavy wood. These cops took him down, all muscle. We need more cops like those, not these taser wielding chumps. There were like 5 cops on that frat boy, were they scared or something. The guy doing the tasing looked a little sadistic, even with 4 other cops holding him down. I think the taser was a bit much.

Weak argument at best.

Blindly following "the law" has lead to terror,death and destruction throughout the world.At what point do laws become absurd?China has laws but were the students in Tienamin Square "wrong"?What about Tibet and their religious freedoms?Both must be wrong and all must be arrested.Oh and the ultimate example:Our Revolution,we broke the King's law so I guess all Americans should be punished.

Oh and as far your dumbass reference to martyrdom the only martyrs these days are muslims and they be looking pretty stupid these days.
Btw fyi you kinda gotta DIE to be a martyr.

Oh and before you lambaste me for questioning the "law"...Loyal US citizen and war vet.

In the end this kid asked 100% legit questions,albeit in a fairly stupid way but the none the less legit questions that should have been answered.

AMERICANS......QUESTION THE LAW!!!QUESTION EVERYTHING!!!ASKING
QUESTIONS IS WHAT MADE US GREAT!!!BEING BLIND IS WHAT IS BRINGING US DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boy Basswipe, thanks for straightening me out. I appreciate that you are a vet and thanks for serving your country. I mean that from the bottom of my heart. But, I think you may be using hyperbole a bit with your references to Tienamen Square, Tibet and our own Revolution (as I did with my reference to him trying to be a martyr). Those situations took place in other places and or in very different times. Our society has changed a lot since 2001, and I think law enforcement officers and many other people are a little bit more on edge. We live in a world and a country full of unstable people who pull crazy stunts every day. If you saw my early posts to this thread, you would have seen how I feel. I am all for people having freedoms and rights, but not at the expense of putting others in danger. This jerk asked his question and then tried to monopolize the forum. He was asked to step away, and didn't. The police then physically tried to remove him and he resisted and flailed his elbows at them. At that point, the police had to make a quick decision on how to subdue him. He became a threat to them and in my opinion they acted accordingly.
Again, this kid brought a video camera with him to film his "stunt" so he was not just another citizen who went to hear Kerry speak. If it was somone else who just asked a question (whether I thought it was legitimate or not) and got upset because they didn't get an answer, I wouldn't expect them to just sit down, but I also wouldn't expect them to pull what this kid did.
Also, don't refer to my reference as "dumbass" and then go on to compare a college speaking engagement with Tienamen Square. That's absurd. You can think my argument is weak, but it is my opinion. I have never served in the military as you have, but you probably have never had a knife held up to your throat by someone who was not mentally stable. Believe me, it changes the way you look at people. As far as our country being brought down, I would blame it not on being blind as you say. I would blame it on a country where being politically correct has taken precedence over being safe and protecting our country.

Wow don't even know how to respond to that other than you just don't get it.

Its not about laws.Its about changing people's attitudes and core philosophies.

A perfect example is the 2nd amendment as our fore-fathers interpreted it to which I'm a firm believer.Under YOUR belief system we should have laws to govern it,pro or con.What I believe is change how people feel:killing is wrong.

If everybody can leave their houses without fear of being shot and I can leave mine with my AR-15 without fear of being arrested then that's how it should be.

Feel free to substitute any one of our 1st ten Amendments and the argument is just as legit and just.

AMERICANS DON'T BE BLIND!

Like I said you just don't get it.My referance to other countries and their laws is 100% applicable.Blind faith is just that:
blind faith.

PS.This continuing referance to martyrs is dumb-ass.If you want to be a martyr you must accept the fact that you're going to die for your cause.No point in even bringing it up a second time.

Basswipe - in my last post I agreed that my "martyr" reference was hyperbole - excessive exaggeration used to make a point. Your "dumbass" comment was disrespectful and not relevant to my earlier post. I know the kid is not a martyr, but I believe he has a complex nonetheless. As for me getting it, I do get that I am expressing my opinion like others have done here and you can attack me and question my intelligence if you want to. You do not know me though, so you should refrain from questioning what I know or don't know. You say that this is not about the law, but to me it is, in the context of what the police did. The kid disobeyed a police order (which is against the law in FL) and then resisted arrest. They used the force that they thought was necessary, whether you agree or not. To compare this situation to Tienamin Square, the American Revolution and Tibet is something I don't agree with. By doing so, I think you are either implying that the kid is an agent of change or you are severely diminishing the importance of the other events. They are just not even close to being on the same level. Do I think that the police or government are always right? No, but I respect our country and I respect our laws. I do agree with your statement that peoples attitudes and core philosophies must change if the world is going to change. But, I also believe that laws must be enforced so that we can grow as a nation.
As far as this particular issue, let's just agree to disagree. I do appreciate some good back and forth debate, and hope that you were not offended by anything I wrote here. I didn't make it personal, nor did I question your intelligence. I am following up with a pm so that you may understand where I am coming from a little better.

He was resisting and lucky he only got tazed.The video clearly show him resisting and he fought back a couple times.I would have most likely pinned him down and zip tied him.Then Drag him out.Quick and effortlessly.The officers in that video need some lessons on restraining or something because they all fail in that aspect.I think he got off easy.If I was doing that on the side of the road yelling and kicking at the cops I would be beaten and bruised.He got off easy!Tazers are funny!