[subego]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

It maybe they were following orders...

According to the report, they didn't instantly touch the guy. Ofc. Wise told him to stop yelling or he would be escorted off the premises. He didn't stop yelling. Is this not exactly what you described as the first step?

Also, does not your observation that they were focused on their tasers support my argument?

You can replace "following orders" with "doing things by the book". My regrettable phrasing aside, you don't see that if my deductions are correct, your ire is both misplaced and wasted on the cops?

The focus should be on UF policy.

[Sörnäinen]

The policy may be part of the problem.

And now let´s still have a look: They did NOT talk to him, you can see that on the videos. There was talking before they cut of his microphone, but next step was touching him. It´s so obvious that i do not get what we are discussing about? Watch the videos, you can clearly see it.

Besides that they are not able to touch in a way that controls him. They push him around in a way that you can see they are not educated at all. THAT may be a problem of policy, too. If the whole training they received is focus on using the tasers, that´s a big problem. They have no sense for teamwork, and they have no idea how to grab or carry the guy in a way that is less noisy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

They did NOT talk to him...
There was talking...

Why does this strike me as inconsistent?

[Gator Lager]

you tube is great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc

[brassplayersrock²]

it's over, y'all can't change what happened. things are going to be different when there is a next time. the kid got zapped put into jail, the security people are on paid leave, and here we are bitchin' at eachother for something that we cant change. just digitally shake hands already, and put it to rest.


i still don't think that it's fair for the security to have paid leave


Alex

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

i still don't think that it's fair for the security to have paid leave

It's called "due process." They're not working in situations where they might do bad things, but they're not losing money because of something they may be exonerated for. It is standard practice for police officers under investigation for improper behaviors to be put on paid leave. "Innocent unless proven guilty" and all that.

[brassplayersrock²]

*does that you're right/gotcha toungue click with the finger pointed in your direction thing*

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

it's over, y'all can't change what happened. things are going to be different when there is a next time. the kid got zapped put into jail, the security people are on paid leave, and here we are bitchin' at eachother for something that we cant change. just digitally shake hands already, and put it to rest.

You could say that about pretty much any discussion in the world.

[brassplayersrock²]

and it'll still be true

Alex

[climber]

Originally Posted by subego 

According to the report, they didn't instantly touch the guy. Ofc. Wise told him to stop yelling or he would be escorted off the premises. He didn't stop yelling. Is this not exactly what you described as the first step?

You are missing something here. Yes the report shows what you say, but It also goes on to say that Wise began to escort him outside when Kerry intervened to allow the question. He was then escorted back to the microphone to do so. This is important because he went from being unwelcome to welcome at the podium for questions. At some point during that question the officials decided they had enough. No problem except they should have provided the guy a chance to leave on his own before putting their hands on him. The officers did not do that. Or at the very least they only tried for maybe two seconds.

Originally Posted by subego 

The focus should be on UF policy.

Absolutely, these and many other departments are using the taser when it is not needed.

[theDreamer]

No problem except they should have provided the guy a chance to leave on his own before putting their hands on him. The officers did not do that. Or at the very least they only tried for maybe two seconds.

Was it their choice to remove him or as him to leave?
The officials in charge cut him off, the officials in charge signaled the cops to come forward, *assumption* they probably told them to remove him immediately.

[climber]

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

Was it their choice to remove him or as him to leave?

Absolutely. it was their right to decide he was no longer welcome. If he refused to leave it would be criminal trespass. Funny how they have not charged him with that.

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

The officials in charge cut him off, the officials in charge signaled the cops to come forward, *assumption* they probably told them to remove him immediately.

They can immediately respond physically if and when he is a physical threat to someone else (or himself). The video is pretty clear, that his worst offense at that point (prior to being grabbed by the officers) is being a verbal jackass. But I do not think anyone would claim Kerry was in danger by his stupid rants.

Otherwise it is reasonable to allow him the opportunity to leave on his own accord. Maybe he would...maybe not. He was being a quite a tool. We will never know because the officers did not try. If he had still refused to leave after another verbal warning then they could and would have arrested him for trespassing.

Perhaps it is the officers fault for allowing him to speak at the mic (regardless of what Kerry said). It sort of excused/rewarded all of the poor manors and abusive language that had already happened.

[subego]

Originally Posted by climber 

You are missing something here. Yes the report shows what you say, but It also goes on to say that Wise began to escort him outside when Kerry intervened to allow the question. He was then escorted back to the microphone to do so. This is important because he went from being unwelcome to welcome at the podium for questions. At some point during that question the officials decided they had enough. No problem except they should have provided the guy a chance to leave on his own before putting their hands on him. The officers did not do that. Or at the very least they only tried for maybe two seconds.

Wise says they made the choice before the microphone was cut: "I leaned over to Ofc. Mallo and we made the decision that Meyer would be escorted out of the auditorium after his statements/questions due to his overall demeanor and actions." So this supports what you said.

But I'm still not sure how being invited back to the podium somehow obviates the warning to stop yelling and causing a disturbance. Being invited back to the podium doesn't mean you have been invited to continue to do what the cops have explicitly told you to stop doing. Right?

Originally Posted by climber 

Absolutely, these and many other departments are using the taser when it is not needed.

Ironically, after saying the focus should be the policy, I'm having less and less of a problem with it, that is, a tase all resisters policy.

I'm looking at this from the perspective of citizen safety, not that the cops need more ways to beat people down. I think (mainly because through most of history there has been no other option) we sweep under the rug that the expectation someone will comply with being arrested is totally contrary to human nature. If someone points a gun at you and screams "put up your hands", your instinct is to cover your face. If a cop is trying to aggressively subdue you (which may be completely appropriate under the circumstances), the law expects you to lie down and take it. In reality, people put in this situation run for their lives (which is most certainly appropriate under the circumstances).

A blanket taser policy is certainly one way to get around this, not that it doesn't have a downside.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

So a guy jumping up and down and trying to resist arrest is not a threat? Anywhere else he would be tackled for his actions towards the officers and taken down much more....

Exactly. They tazer people now because tackling them usually ends up hurting more than one person.

The guy wasn't GOING to leave peacefully. HE WANTED a scene like a tackle one. They didn't give him one.

It doesn't matter. This thread proves one thing. No matter what they would have done, someone would complain.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why does this strike me as inconsistent?

Because you cut of my sentence before the word "BEFORE" and all the following stuff.
Read sentences to the end, that will clear your questions.

[driven]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

For Pete's sake, you could say that about anything. People die from preexisting conditions just by being exposed to peanuts. That is not a valid argument. Maybe the fella suffered from brittle bone syndrome and grabbing him could have been deadly!

I can't say I've ever heard of anyone dying from brittle bone syndrome, but I can't say I've ever heard of that condition either. So, who knows?

I still don't think that a weapon had to be used.

However: Now that this is over ... I'd like to see that tool locked up for a while.

[driven]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

i was doing a joke driven. But, since you asked, according to wiki, drive stun and a cattle prod are in fact pretty much the same thing, just in different forms. Drive stun is used without the barbs being shot out, so the shocking instrument has to be right on the victim like a cattle prod if I understood the article correctly.

Electroshock weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Alex

I realized it was a joke. I just thought it was funny that what they actually did do was in essence use a cattle prod on him.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

Because you cut of my sentence before the word "BEFORE" and all the following stuff.
Read sentences to the end, that will clear your questions.

No. It's still inconsistent.

They did NOT talk to him, you can see that on the videos. There was talking before they cut of his microphone, but next step was touching him.

Here. I put the irrelevant parts back in.

You say "[t]hey did NOT talk to him", the next sentence begins with "[t]here was talking". If they did NOT talk, then how is there talking?

Are you sure this is the point you are trying to make?

[driven]

Another taser incident in Ohio. After watching this, I'm more convinced that the taser has no place in law enforcement.

YouTube - Warren Police Officer Tasers Handcuffed Woman Multiple Times

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are you sure this is the point you are trying to make?

Okay, i make it very simple.

There was talking BEFORE the activity of the officers. It seems the officials told the guy that his questions were not wished, while carry wanted to answer the questions,

The OFFICERS didn´t talk, and they didn´t use any deescalation techniques, they just pushed the situation over the top from the beginning. Worse: Then they lost control over the situation as well as over their opponent. Ridiculously bad job they made.

subego, if you saw the videos, there is no chance of misunderstanding me further. If you don´t want to understand what i mean, it makes discussion senseless, don´t you think?

[Sörnäinen]

Hell, this is another example for officers tasing people already on the ground:

YouTube - PITTSBURGH POLICE TASER GIRL

You can clearly see they are LAZY. Perhaps it would be easier for them to work if they weren´t that incredibly FAT. Isn´t there any weight limit for police officers in the United States?

Okay, sorry, maybe i am not correct now. It just makes me really angry to see people doing so BAD in their job and still being defended by civilians in a thread like this.

[Chuckit]

The fact that the officers subdued the guy with technology rather than physical force makes little difference to me. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[driven]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The fact that the officers subdued the guy with technology rather than physical force makes little difference to me. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

That's fine ... in the event that they actually need subduing.
That point is clearly what's up for debate in some of these issues. To tase someone when there is no need to is nearly as bad as Mike Vick electricuting dogs.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

subego, if you saw the videos, there is no chance of misunderstanding me further.

With what you have added, this is a fair statement, I do understand what you mean now.

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

If you don´t want to understand what i mean, it makes discussion senseless, don´t you think?

This is obnoxious prattle. Sure, I don't want to understand what you mean, that's why I asked for clarification. Twice.

Whatever. I haven't watched the video with the specific intent of seeing if this part of the report is true, so I'll take a look and see if it corroborates the officer's statement. It's not like your behavior is going to alter my interest in the truth of the situation.

Either way, I hope that in the future you'll give me the courtesy of letting me respond to your answer before you make judgments about my motivations.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by driven 

That's fine ... in the event that they actually need subduing.
That point is clearly what's up for debate in some of these issues. To tase someone when there is no need to is nearly as bad as Mike Vick electricuting dogs.

I saw the video with the guy jumping around and kicking. He didn't seem already subdued to me. If somebody were screaming and kicking at you, would you consider him cooperative?

[driven]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I saw the video with the guy jumping around and kicking. He didn't seem already subdued to me. If somebody were screaming and kicking at you, would you consider him cooperative?

Actually I was refering to several other videos that were posted here since then. But yes, the guy was kicking and screaming. There were 6 officers there who should have been able to resort to something short of electric-shock treatment.

That said: Was he kicking and screaming before or after being grabbed or touched?

[theDreamer]

Was he kicking and screaming before or after being grabbed or touched?

Technically? Both.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I saw the video with the guy jumping around and kicking. He didn't seem already subdued to me. If somebody were screaming and kicking at you, would you consider him cooperative?

Chuckit I think we both know this isn't about reality now. It's about some people just not admitting that maybe they were wrong with their first knee-jerk reactions. So now it's about the ego. And ego doesn't listen to facts/reason.

If they'd have hurt this guy by bringing him down, he would have sued. This is a regular occurance that the police have to deal with.

With the tazer, it's pretty clear what contact was made and what was not. And it's pretty darn effective.

BTW it's also channel policy that when I and Chuckit agree, it must be factual.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is obnoxious prattle. Sure, I don't want to understand what you mean, that's why I asked for clarification. Twice.
(...)
Either way, I hope that in the future you'll give me the courtesy of letting me respond to your answer before you make judgments about my motivations.

Fair enough, you are right, i was not discussing in a correct way.
My apologizes for that - in these kinds of discussions it´s sometimes important to step back and read again without instantly snapping at somebody else.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Chuckit I think we both know this isn't about reality now. It's about some people just not admitting that maybe they were wrong with their first knee-jerk reactions. So now it's about the ego. And ego doesn't listen to facts/reason.

Kevin, you are always great.

So YOUR point of view is reasonable, and anybody else just has an ego-problem? :-D

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

So YOUR point of view is reasonable, and anybody else just has an ego-problem? :-D

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

Fair enough, you are right, i was not discussing in a correct way.
My apologizes for that - in these kinds of discussions it´s sometimes important to step back and read again without instantly snapping at somebody else.

One thing commendable about you Sörnäinen.

There have been people posting in here for YEARS that cannot bring themselves to do or make a post like that.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

One thing commendable about you Sörnäinen.

There have been people posting in here for YEARS that cannot bring themselves to do or make a post like that.

If i make a mistake, i admit it and change. Also my points of view.

This is, if somebody really wants to discuss and to develop himself, too. What YOU definitely don´t do - at least as far as i know you yet.

So - surprise me!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

Fair enough, you are right, i was not discussing in a correct way.
My apologizes for that - in these kinds of discussions it´s sometimes important to step back and read again without instantly snapping at somebody else.

It's all good.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

What YOU definitely don´t do - at least as far as i know you yet.

Now you need to start working on the baseless character assassinations.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Now you need to start working on the baseless character assassinations.

My "assassinations" are never baseless.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

My "assassinations" are never baseless.

Now that is a good quote.

[besson3c]

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

My "assassinations" are never baseless.

I said character assassinations. And yes they are.