[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

Well, well, Kevin - believe me, situations ARE alike.

Well we will just agree to disagree then.

And as always you didn´t even answer my posting, you just picked out one small thing and started talking about that.

Because I didn't NEED to answer your "entire posting"

We simply disagree.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Well we will just agree to disagree then.

Because I didn't NEED to answer your "entire posting"

We simply disagree.

You simply ignore what you dont´t like to read. It´s like a filter, that´s somehow impressive. :-)

So let´s disagree. I go on earning my money with these kinds of training, and you go on knowing better than experts. :-*

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Wow, I don't know about you, but every post I quote I don't have a "problem" with. Some I agree with. Some I don't agree with. Very rarely do I have a "problem" with a post.

Problem = disagreement
But yeah, I've been pretty much been conditioned that if you're quoting me, it's not because you find something terribly great about my post.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I was just pointing out that most of the "nuts" were actually supporting the actions of something that happened during a event that involved Kerry. Had this been a Bush event, the thread would have turned out as one big Bush bash. And how under Bush we were losing our rights etc.

This is why I get confused. This reply has essentially nothing to do with my post, certainly nothing directly. You just picked out the word 'nut' and decided to give a little speech about Kerry.

The post wasn't meant to foster serious discussion, and honestly, I don't see how it could.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

But I tell you what Dakar. Lets make a deal. Show me at least one lefty that has a habit of making any death threats, or wished Kerry dead in this forum. And I will concede. (Not that any righty really has either.. but hey.. that was my point too)

Considering I never made that claim, I don't see why I'd do such a thing.

[design219]

You've had quite a day Dakar. Same time tomorrow?

[L'enfanTerrible]

Trying to find the words to describe my disgust with the officers actions and with the people who would defend them... As long as this mentality continues to pervade the human condition, we will never have an end to war, to violence.

But if this is natural, then why don't I feel that way? If there are always going to be two sides, what side are you on?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by CheesePuff 

When you have no idea what you're talking about, you should just shut your mouth.

In western NY, University Police Officers are just that -- police officers. Fully sworn in officers of the law, carry hand guns, and have the SAME training that any other police officer does. Do you think that this is the first time someone was tazed that shouldn't have been? What about the Florida officers that tazed that 6 year old girl?

I'm sorry.. wasn't I completely clear? Police officers are monkeys in uniform. Save your breath for someone who cares

V

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I'm sorry.. wasn't I completely clear? Police officers are monkeys in uniform. Save your breath for someone who cares

V

Your opinion. I've worked with a number of law enforcement officers who were extremely professional and dedicated to doing an often dangerous and usually thankless job. None of 'em looked like the female officer trying to get whatshisname away from the mic, either. Then there are the individuals like those at UF. Bad for Florida, bad for the students, and bad for everyone else too.

At my school, our police officers are indeed sworn peace officers, required to have all the same qualifications as any municipal officer in the U.S. And except for a bit of zealousness about speeding on campus (around very limited walkways and in parking lots), they're all very reasonable and professional. I have yet to run into anyone like these UF clowns-who real, professional officers should disown instantly. Professional cops don't need to zap someone to get him to move along, and they are procedural to a fault - which means that they actually get good busts when they have to do that, and avoid a lot of 'em through intelligent management of a situation.

[theDreamer]

The thing that I am seeing pop up (in both threads) is that he was intentionally trying to make a scene, or try to attract attention to himself.
If he would have followed the rules, this situation could have been completely avoided.

[driven]

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

The thing that I am seeing pop up (in both threads) is that he was intentionally trying to make a scene, or try to attract attention to himself.
If he would have followed the rules, this situation could have been completely avoided.

Be careful ... you'll have the crowd that will say "he shouldn't have to conform to the rules ... free speech applies anywhere and in any circumstance."

I however agree with you. (Even if I think the tazer was over the top ... and I'm not so sure the tazer should be used quite so liberally by any law enforcement.)

[climber]

Originally Posted by driven 

Be careful ... you'll have the crowd that will say "he shouldn't have to conform to the rules ... free speech applies anywhere and in any circumstance."

I however agree with you. (Even if I think the tazer was over the top ... and I'm not so sure the tazer should be used quite so liberally by any law enforcement.)

Be careful... you'll also have a crowd that apparently has never seen or heard of the idea of civil disobedience in a political forum on a college campus to make ones views heard

Obviously the guys ideas are a bit out there, and his method a bit confrontational and probably intentional. But I expect more from the Police than from this idiot. In my opinion they sunk to his level, and gave him an even larger audience in the process.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

The thing that I am seeing pop up (in both threads) is that he was intentionally trying to make a scene, or try to attract attention to himself.
If he would have followed the rules, this situation could have been completely avoided.

Well, he WAS making a show. That IS his right.
And so is the officer´s right to put him out of the place.

But it´s not their right to use violence in a way FAR over-the-top because they are badly instructed, not trained or simply not able to follow the rules they learned.

It´s a crime to give people like that a taser, which makes them more dangerous than they already are in their condition of bad knowledge and low ability.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

You simply ignore what you dont´t like to read. It´s like a filter, that´s somehow impressive. :-)

I would call that a projection on your part. At work I have less time to post and mess around. So I just reply to what is relevant, and what is realistic in the person's posts I am replying to.

So let´s disagree. I go on earning my money with these kinds of training, and you go on knowing better than experts. :-*

Weak argument. The "I know better than you because I do a certain thing" argument like you've just presented in no way discredited anything I said. It was just another lame "attack" if you will.

You seem to be making this a habit. I'd suggest you not.

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Problem = disagreement

I don't really think so. As I can disagree with someone without having a problem with them. So if two things can exist without each other...

But yeah, I've been pretty much been conditioned that if you're quoting me, it's not because you find something terribly great about my post.

No, you assume, and knee-jerk. Like you did in this thread. Then blamed it on me.

This is why I get confused. This reply has essentially nothing to do with my post, certainly nothing directly.

I assure you it does. I was showing that your prediction didn't pan out the way you claimed it probably would.

You just picked out the word 'nut' and decided to give a little speech about Kerry.

Nope. But thanks for telling me what I was doing. As if you know better than myself. Isn't that a bit on the silly side Dakar?

The post wasn't meant to foster serious discussion, and honestly, I don't see how it could.

Then why post if your reason for posting isn't to foster discussion? Are you admitting to being a troll here Dakar?

Considering I never made that claim, I don't see why I'd do such a thing.

You said your comment could have meant lefty or righty. I told you that it was nonsense because no lefty would have said something like that. You replied saying there was a lot of lefties that disliked Kerry. So I called you on your bluff to show me one person from the left that has said anything like Kerry being tazard or shot or even harmed at all.

And you replied you never made said claim. No Dakar, you never made such a claim that a lefty has made said comment. Nor did I say you did.

But you DID make a claim that you could have been talking about a lefty since some dislike Kerry. So I just asked you for any example of a lefty doing so. You couldn't come up with any.

Thus proving my original point. A lefty would have never said that, and the "nut" you were referring to would have to be tilted more to the right.

And tell us Dakar, the person's name you put in white. What "side" does he usually take?

And please keep the spinning at a minimum.

[irunat2am]

You guys should start e-arguing via pm's and save some space.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by irunat2am 

You guys should start e-arguing via pm's and save some space.

Wouldn't this have been better send in a PM?

I know this post would have been.

[irunat2am]

No.

[Railroader]

Wanna e-argue about it?

[theDreamer]

/Steps over the PM(S) argument.

The taser used was, sort of, over the top.
Today at school I spend some time between classes reading over news reports, watching more videos of the "incident" that are posted on youtube and some things popped up that I had not seen yet.

~A gentlemen by the microphone (in a suit) was the one who signaled to shut off the mic and moved the officers into position. Then the officers attempted at first to just escort him, no motion of arrest was being, but he started yelling about it AND THAT began the notion of something wrong when no reason (or wrong doing) was happening.
~It looked as though when they attempted to first put cuffs on him, first few moments in the back of the room, he began jumping again and screaming louder about "Why?" They proceeded to tell him to calm down or else, a few more officers arrived at this moment, the attempted to restrain him (*OPINION HERE) and it seemed as a joint movement of him falling down and the officers taking him down. Who actually brought him down or if during the struggle he started to fall is unknown (still).
~After on the ground they attempted to place cuffs on him again, he began to struggle again. This is where the *warning came* that if he did not stop resisting or calm down (to remove him) they were going to have to taser him. When I heard this, this is now the reason why I am siding with the officers, they gave a direct warning and told him what would happen if he did not attempt to cooperate.

After watching this footage he began the incident by yelling and stating false facts("I am being arrested). He then resisted officer orders for just being removed, now we escalate to arrest because he is dangerous and unknowing of what he may do next. Finally he was given a warning to cooperate and failed and punishment was put in place for failing to cooperate.

[KeriVit]

Is Kerry running? No one will reply cuz this thread is lost.

[design219]

Originally Posted by KeriVit 

Is Kerry running? No one will reply cuz this thread is lost.

You mean for president? No, he knows he wouldn't have a chance at this point. I'm sure he will run to keep his senate seat when it is up.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

After watching this footage he began the incident by yelling and stating false facts("I am being arrested). He then resisted officer orders for just being removed, now we escalate to arrest because he is dangerous and unknowing of what he may do next. Finally he was given a warning to cooperate and failed and punishment was put in place for failing to cooperate.

Punishment is for judges and juries.
The Police is just doing anything to make sure things that went wrong are stopped and the right people end in front of a judge.

Basic knowledge for people living in democratic nations.

Besides that: The guy asked for trouble. The police officers where highly unprofessional by showing that they have NO idea how to deal with a challenge like this. They absolutely overdid and they escalated the situation without any reason.

I described above which way WOULD have been professional.

[MindFad]

[subego]

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

Finally he was given a warning to cooperate and failed and punishment was put in place for failing to cooperate.

What Sörnäinen said. Punishment isn't in the cop job description.

Trying to justify the tasing seems self-defeating to me.

Every law enforcement agency has policies on when it is appropriate to use your weaponry. The key component of whether it's appropriate or not is escalation (something which Sörnäinen also brought up).

The only justification for tasing someone is if the situation escalates to the point where tasing them appears to be the only reasonable option.

If 5 cops let this situation escalate to where tasing this moron was the only option, they have amply demonstrated their overwhelming incompetence. End of story.

[theDreamer]

Maybe the word punishment was used incorrectly in my post, but the cops were unable to fix the situation and the student, after warnings, did not cooperate and was told what would happen if he did not stop resisting would happen. They felt it was necessary to resolve the situation as they even stated by using a non lethal weapon.

Could it have been handled differently? Maybe, but none of us were in the exact situation and we only have the raw video footage that new teams and youtube has shown us, and there could be valuable information that is missing from some of this footage.

[driven]

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

Maybe the word punishment was used incorrectly in my post, but the cops were unable to fix the situation and the student, after warnings, did not cooperate and was told what would happen if he did not stop resisting would happen. .

How is what you described different than "punishment" ?

Do this or else. Else = punishment aka consequences. It wasn't necessary to protect those around him.

A taser should be treated like a gun. Use it only as a very last resort.

[subego]

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

They felt it was necessary to resolve the situation as they even stated by using a non lethal weapon.

That's what I'm saying. They made the decision after finding 10 pairs of hands and feet, plus 5 nightsticks, unable to resolve the situation.

This means they suck as cops.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's what I'm saying. They made the decision after finding 10 pairs of hands and feet, plus 5 nightsticks, unable to resolve the situation.

Are you honestly suggesting that a nightstick is a better alternative than a taser? They had the taser on the lowest possible setting, which is basically designed to annoy people, not hurt them or knock them out. From the way it has been described, it is like touching an electric fence.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by driven 

Do this or else. Else = punishment aka consequences.

Leave or else be escorted out. So, does that make being escorted out "punishment"? You seem hung up on the word punishment, yet you want to force that to be the word used inappropriately.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by driven 

How is what you described different than "punishment" ?

Do this or else. Else = punishment aka consequences. It wasn't necessary to protect those around him.

A taser should be treated like a gun. Use it only as a very last resort.

Yeah, they really should have just beaten the guy and broken his arm to stop him jumping up and down and resisting. That would have been much more reasonable.

[Chongo]

[subego]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Are you honestly suggesting that a nightstick is a better alternative than a taser?

Depends on what you do with it.

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

They had the taser on the lowest possible setting, which is basically designed to annoy people, not hurt them or knock them out. From the way it has been described, it is like touching an electric fence.

Link? I haven't heard this, and couldn't find anything about it. I'd like to know a bit more before I make an uneducated comment.

[Edit: NM. I found it]

[driven]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, they really should have just beaten the guy and broken his arm to stop him jumping up and down and resisting. That would have been much more reasonable.

With 6 "police" if they had to do that they would have been even more incompetent than they were. 6 people could have simply carried this ignorant fool out. Heck, two of them should have been able to do that.

There are ways to restrain people without beating the crap out of them or electrocuting them or shooting them.

If it were one cop (maybe even two) verses a large crazy person maybe. By 6 "cops" against one attention whore .... give me a break.

[theDreamer]

Well it seems that, like any debate, we will not agree on this matter of how the police handled the situation.
My question to you guys is (two actually):
~What punishment should the young man receive? If any.
~What action should be taken towards the officers in question? Should any.

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

Well it seems that, like any debate, we will not agree on this matter of how the police handled the situation.
My question to you guys is (two actually):
~What punishment should the young man receive? If any.
~What action should be taken towards the officers in question? Should any.

1. He has already been punished enough I think. Getting tazed and put in jail for a bit should be good enough for him to of learned his lesson.

2. They are already being put on *paid* leave for what they did.

*Not really a punishment to me. If I were their boss I would put them on leave but with no pay until the investigation is over. Really no need to taze that kid that I saw. The security was lazy.


Alex

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

Maybe the word punishment was used incorrectly in my post, but the cops were unable to fix the situation and the student, after warnings, did not cooperate and was told what would happen if he did not stop resisting would happen. They felt it was necessary to resolve the situation as they even stated by using a non lethal weapon.

Those officers were absolute losers if they needed a taser in THAT situation. As i described above: The taser was not necessary at all, this situation was not even on the edge of being out of control, and there is no need to use any weapon, lethal or non-lethal.

It´s a scandal those people have not learned to de-escalate situations and have no idea to use force in the right way, without overdoing it and without grabbing their tasers.

They are not fit for police work. I wonder what would happen if they REALLY had to face a difficult situation.

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Are you honestly suggesting that a nightstick is a better alternative than a taser? They had the taser on the lowest possible setting, which is basically designed to annoy people, not hurt them or knock them out. From the way it has been described, it is like touching an electric fence.

Nightstick is as unnecessary as a taser if these officers were well-trained and able to do their job.

Your idea about tasering is cute, besides that. Feel free to touch an electric fence. But that´s still not the point: The usage of a potentially dangerous weapon is ridiculous in a situation like this.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

Your idea about tasering is cute, besides that. Feel free to touch an electric fence.

Had them on the farm growing up. We used to dare each other to do it. I've done it many times. Causes some involuntary muscle movements and isn't at all comfortable, but it's not what I'd call painful. Got thrown from a horse one time because I didn't see the fence (that one was only 12" high - it was for the cows) and the horse's leg touched it.

[climber]

Please show the evidence that a tazer on stun mode is never dangerous. Or even that it is no worse than touching an electric fence found on a farm.

It has been a year since I looked it up, but back then the potnetial for harm was pretty compelling.

[Sörnäinen]

And its not only a question of danger. It´s also a question of putting things even MORE to the edge.
Who is not able to control someone without a taser, is simply wrong in his job.

And by the way: If the taser was in a "fence-mode", what sense does it make to use it? Tease somebody just for cruelty or what? Ridiculous.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by climber 

Please show the evidence that a tazer on stun mode is never dangerous. Or even that it is no worse than touching an electric fence found on a farm.

Just going by what the police chief said on the news.

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

And by the way: If the taser was in a "fence-mode", what sense does it make to use it? Tease somebody just for cruelty or what? Ridiculous.

Still causes your muscles to react, which prohibits you from controlling them yourself.

[climber]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Just going by what the police chief said on the news.

Maybe you read this then.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511392004

There have been numerous people who have died directly after a taser has been used. I believe a taser combined with drugs, medical/heart conditions, etc. can cause death. I have also read the concerns of a promenant Cardiologist (specialist in eletrophysiology) that explains the problem. If the heart is shocked at the wrong time in the cardiac cycle there is a risk of ventricular fibrillation. This is called R on T phenomenon. Essentially you are forcing the heart to beat while it is still resting/repolorizing from the previous beat. Unless CPR is started immediately with a followup shock from a defibrillator, then death is certain.

Certainly a taser is much much less lethal than a gun. And when it used appropriately it is certainly better than the alternative. But never on someone who is not a threat.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by climber 

Certainly a taser is much much less lethal than a gun. And when it used appropriately it is certainly better than the alternative. But never on someone who is not a threat.

And to make that clear: This guy was not a threat at all.

[theDreamer]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

And to make that clear: This guy was not a threat at all.

My thing is though, he was resisting arrest and not letting the cops simply cuff him so they could easily escort him out.
A simple shock from this will let them complete the task of cuffing him and diffuse the situation else where.

My problem is, he was escorted to the back of the room, but the moment he hit the last row of chairs, he jumped and ran a few steps away from the officer who did have control over him, and now they have a "threat" lose which they feel needs to be shut down. He continued to jump around until he was taken to the ground where he still was resiting arrest by not letting the cops simply place cuffs on him.

The moment he pushed away from the officer and started doing his thing in the back of the room he became a threat. They had him almost of the room, but he wished to not leave and now was causing major problems. If this situation was happening outside (else where) and he attempted to jump and run around like he did in the back of the room he would have been hit even sooner without warning.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

1. He has already been punished enough I think. Getting tazed and put in jail for a bit should be good enough for him to of learned his lesson.

2. They are already being put on *paid* leave for what they did.

*Not really a punishment to me. If I were their boss I would put them on leave but with no pay until the investigation is over. Really no need to taze that kid that I saw. The security was lazy.


Alex

Are you seriously back, and blatantly copying Dakar? Impressive.

[subego]

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

he would have been hit even sooner without warning.

I think the warning he got was an accident. The sergeant stated he tried to tase him a bunch of times (hence the "don't tase me bro") but his taser didn't fire, so he ordered one of the other cops to do it.

According to the incident report, most of the cops went for their taser at some point, only to reholster it.

Seems like these guys have very loose protocol as to when it's it's okay to escalate.

[theDreamer]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think the warning he got was an accident. The sergeant stated he tried to tase him a bunch of times (hence the "don't tase me bro") but his taser didn't fire, so he ordered one of the other cops to do it.

According to the incident report, most of the cops went for their taser at some point, only to reholster it.

Seems like these guys have very loose protocol as to when it's it's okay to escalate.

When I return home this evening, I will re-watch some of the footage that I have seen and see what other conversations from the officers are going on.
The one I have seen is the women (is located at his head when on the ground) is pointing at him and her lips seem to be following the patterns of the warning message and line of. Yet without being able to clean up the audio I will be unable to tell, or without more time to listen. Also, her warning message was coming way, way before he started yelling about the taser and was still on his back, then he flipped over on his stomach and then he was finally cuffed and then was tasered.

[subego]

Here's the incident report if you want.

[subego]

After skimming the report, I want to revise my position a bit.

Most, if not all of the cops went for their tasers almost immediately, and don't seem to make any particular effort to justify it in their statements.

This leads me to the conclusion they were following the procedures they were given, procedures that state resisting arrest is appropriate grounds for taser use. So I take back the statements I made about their quality as cops. There was no reason for them to bring full manhandling powers to bear, as they knew it was acceptable to go for the taser instead.

They did contact shock him. I must admit I thought they hit him with the barbs, which I imagine most would agree would have been overkill.

Chukit brings up a good point too, in that he could have been severely injured during the arrest. I would assess this as far more likely than him having some sort of medical condition which would make the taser dangerous.

OTOH, and maybe this is the wrong way to look at it, if he had been injured, I'd kinda think he was the one responsible. Likewise with any pain they inflict by putting him in a lock.

So, is a tase any resister a good policy? Dunno. I guess I'm more sold on it than I thought.

[driven]

If that's the training they are given, then I even more strongly believe in my stance that universities shouldn't have "police" and shouldn't be armed with a taser or any other weapon. Stick with security guards and call the real police when the situation justifies it.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by driven 

If that's the training they are given, then I even more strongly believe in my stance that universities shouldn't have "police" and shouldn't be armed with a taser or any other weapon. Stick with security guards and call the real police when the situation justifies it.

Nowhere near time enough to get "real police" into place when (not if) something bad happens. Here's a fairly mild example: we have "parking enforcement" workers monitoring the lot nearest where I attend classes-it's the parking zone that one starts out with at this school, and parking there is the least expensive for the whole school. Last fall one of my classmates had her spare tire stolen from her car. Just this week, someone's car-the whole car-was stolen in broad daylight. It was noticed by the parking enforcement guy, but what could he do?

Police are indeed needed on campus, but they should be better trained than those Florida clowns. Further, my school is part of a large, statewide system, and the police here belong to that whole system, so it's a large enough organization that it's pretty well managed and immune from cronyism, which is a major problem for small police organizations.

[climber]

From the police report it is pretty clear that Kerry invited his question. It is also clear that the Police did not ask him to leave before grabbing his arm (after his time at the podium). Here is the quote "Officer Wise and I grabbed both of the man's arms and asked him to come with us out of the auditorium to speak with us." That seems to agree with my assessment that she grabbed his arm before asking him to leave.

I have participated in de-escalation training for Police officers. This case sure does not look like the model of such training.

[theDreamer]

At this point I noticed the ACCENT Supervisor walking halfway up the aisle on
the side of the auditorium and I was signaled by the ACCENT supervisor (sponsors of the
event) in reference to the individual. I was stationed at the rear corner of the auditorium
during the event. When I approached the area where the microphone was placed for
questions for the Senator, a young man was causing a disturbance by shouting loudly at the
Senator.

climber, you missed this officers report who was the first to make contact and how he was told to come handle the situation by those in charge of the event.