Don't Tase Me, Bro

[omegablue]

What about the kid who was actually next in line; the one who Mr. Meyers cut in front of? Does his freedom of speech not count?

let´s stay on the subject

[T.A.M.]

one could make the argument that given his cutting in line, his "making a scene" at a relatively civil presentation, might warrant a "disorderly conduct" charge, but the definition varies from state to state, country to country, and I am no lawyer.

TAM:)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

There was not a thing as a disruption , but we were presented a deliberate and authoritarian use of force.


The kid pushed his way to the front of the line. How is that not disruption? I think you may not be aware of all that is known about this incident.

[T.A.M.]

Omega, your point is taken that they may (MAY) have jumped the gun. However, Resisting arrest is not OK because the arrested perceives the arrest to be incorrect. That would be for his lawyer, upon filing a law suit, and a judge to decide.

TAM:)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

let´s stay on the subject


How was that off-topic? We're talking about the tasering incident. You claim it was oppression of Mr. Meyer's right to free speech, and you claim that he wasn't causing a disruption, but you seem blissfully unaware that he had trampled over the "free speech rights" of the person who was actually next to ask questions.

You do realize that there is a limit to freedoms, don't you? Can you tell me what it is?

[PhantomWolf]

I saw Curt's post while I was at work today, and thought I'd come back to see if you'd explained yourself Phantom.

I'm going to chop your quote up a bit.

I used to carry a PR-24 and took the official training at the time. My personal feeling was that there were only a few "moves" with a PR-24 that I ever felt comfortable with (as applied to restraining a subject - not striking them).

IMO, I didn't have enough trainingg with it, except to walk away knowing, bottom line, that hitting someone in the head with it was a no-no.

The reason I put these two parts togther is cause the second is the issuse to the first. Over here we had the infamous 1981 Sprinkbok tour riots. Our police had to learn to use the PR-24 rapidly and quickly as a defensive against violent protesters, often with their own weapons. They developed a lot of techniques similar to the one you describe below, mostly hooking limbs and necks (occasionally the groin...) and pinning it, or locking it into place. They got very good at it and through the 80's and early 90's these officers trained the rest of the force. Unfortunately I think ever here we have now lost a lot of that expertise, but yes, it is a matter of training the officers to use the weapon, and as you might have noted, right from the start of my posting I have been pointing out that the major issue I see is that there is a laziness in the training of officers when they can just be given a taser and pushed out the door.

One was a move where you could slip the long end of the baton between the subjects chest and arm, and spin them around, using the short handle to lock their wrist behind their back. Variable pressure, as you suggest, could then be applied.

This is indeed an example of how it can be used, most of the techniques use similar principles of snaring, hokking and locking parts of the suspect's body including the neck and groin.

It was also a good defensive weapon to block your forearm from offensive blows. Good for a short punch to the gut with the stubby end, etc.

Yup, when all else fails it had that advatage too. ;)

[omegablue]

regardless of whether the officers were right or wrong about trying to have him leave (I personally feel he should have been allowed to continue, until his question had been asked, and perhaps answered) the fact is, that once they made that decision, they are still officers of the law. If he was wrongfully removed, than he could have protested such, filed a complaint, hired a lawyer...is that not the american way...and perhaps a more civil way.

Once he resisted arrest (and to use your own words, if you think on the contrary, than I pity you man), he was committing a crime. Then, when he became combative, he needed to be controlled, both for his safety, and for the officers.

At any point, he could have diffused the situation, and avoided the Tasing by simply SHUTTING UP and allowing them to escort him out.

Clearly, he was doing it to make a scene, a spectacle, and to get attention.

My 2c

TAM:)


I do not dispute that he was trying to make a scene. But in fact I dispute that the cops acted accordingly to an order of higher rank. Like someone says to the officer "leader" (sorry dunno the exact term for english is not my first language) via phone: "silence him now". Now, i think the guy acted wrong, he somewhat resisted, but is he wrong of being mad at this strange attitude? The guy got guts, and resisted to see where would it end. Is him right or wrong? According to which principles? Do you think there could not be rebellion against badly applied law??? This episode my friend, bring on several problems not easily to be discussed.

So reformulating my opinion, there was no reason of using brute force to silence him on his right of speech. If he did or dd not resist is for me secondary at least. In fact I think he resisted. The guy made a protest. Now everyone here agrees with the brute force applied. It is no wonder that people here would think this way.

Anyone can stab politicians with words on a democratic nation. If some politician allow himself public appearances, at least have the guts of facing these kind of provocative and why not a bit too emotional approaches.

[omegablue]

The kid pushed his way to the front of the line. How is that not disruption? I think you may not be aware of all that is known about this incident.

I´m not his lawyer, but all the cops and Kerry did let him cut off and speak. IT does not add anything to the crux of the issue. Perhaps it was the questions that placed overwhelming weight on the decision of busting him.

[omegablue]

How was that off-topic? We're talking about the tasering incident. You claim it was oppression of Mr. Meyer's right to free speech, and you claim that he wasn't causing a disruption, but you seem blissfully unaware that he had trampled over the "free speech rights" of the person who was actually next to ask questions.

You do realize that there is a limit to freedoms, don't you? Can you tell me what it is?

Am i wrong or are you kinda picking too much this little detail of him cutting the line?!?!?! There was no reaction from no one to supress his action. If I am about to speak and some retard want to forcibly take my place i simply say : "go dumbA** , whatever." Remember, Kerry let him speak and police did nothing. So no, no no no no, no "infringement on free speech" configured here as to make him to be busted.

You are acting as Kerry´s lawyer mining everywhere for would-be proofs against the stewdnt.

[omegablue]

I watch and Watch and re-watch the video all the time trying to be on the brute force supporters side and i´m just growing more and more suspicious about the attitude. There was NO HARM at all being done. Something really smells fishy.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Something really smells fishy.


Care to elaborate?

[omegablue]

How do I know? It is still a mystery. Let´s see how it ends.

At any rate that attitude is not justifiable from just what we are able to see from the videos, sorry.

[Minadin]

I watch and Watch and re-watch the video all the time trying to be on the brute force supporters side and i´m just growing more and more suspicious about the attitude. There was NO HARM at all being done. Something really smells fishy.

Actually, as far as I have learned, he was going to be removed for cutting in line, and / or other antics, but Mr. Kerry insisted that he be allowed to remain and ask his question. All of this was before the video starts, of course. But, it certainly explains why police officers were ALREADY right behind him as he began his question(s) in the videos that are available.

The guy is a douche-nozzle and deserved to be tasered. If there were a more painful and less potentially lethal method of subduing a jerk in a public forum, I would advocate for that alternative instead.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How do I know? It is still a mystery. Let´s see how it ends.

At any rate that attitude is not justifiable from just what we are able to see from the videos, sorry.


Then perhaps there's more to it than just the videos. Your earlier venom seems to indicate that you hadn't thought of that possibility. And if you had, shame on you for such an immature reaction.

[Caper]

Could you imagine if this occured while Bush was speaking?

[Garb]

V8ndctwAJmU

Not sure if anyone else has seen this video. Continues on well after he is escorted out of the assembly.

[gumboot]

Not really, it would only result in an injury -if- the restrainee caused it. When you are restrained by a baton, attempting to move causes pain, stopping that movement stops the pain, you are in total control of how much pain you feel or don't feel by your actions. With a Taser there is no such control, the restrainer is the one with the power to determine if and when you feel that pain, and they cannot mitigate or lessen that pain, it's an all or nothing deal. Note here that I'm talking about using the baton as a restraining device, not as a club to beat the restrainee. A well trained person with a PR-24 can have you on the floor and restrained and ready for handcuffs before you could decide it was time to resist, all without using it as a striking weapon, not only have I seen it done, but I have had a little practice with it, and had it demonstrated on me. I know better than to argue with a well-trained cop over here. ;)


Our police don't actually use batons any more. They have these little collapsible things that look like a car aerial and feel like they're a three inch rubber bar. Nasty. But I don't know how useful they'd be in the scenario you're describing.

-Gumboot

[Arus808]

V8ndctwAJmU

Not sure if anyone else has seen this video. Continues on well after he is escorted out of the assembly.

sorry, but this shows even more that he was a douche. the freaking lady cop was asking him to calm down and he still was being a whiny little &%$@.

"they're going to try and kill me" . what a showboat, egomaniac. these are campus police. what are they going to do? take you out to the football stadium and hang you from the scoreboard?

[robinson]

Don't know why this thread is under Conspiracy theory, but oh well. Maybe it was a conspiracy. After all, from the videos it is obvious there were people whispering orders right before the arrest. You know, the moment the first cop grabbed him.

For all you dumb nuts, and that includes the people grinning and clapping in the videos, what was done by the Police is illegal in Florida.

In America, you have these things called rights. They don't go away because you are considered an idiot, or rude or disruptive, no matter how much you are bothered by somebody, you don't get to take away their rights.

If our now world famous student had committed a crime, then the police have the right to arrest him. And to restrain him, and use reasonable force if he resist arrest.

Police do not have the right to touch you, unless they are detaining you, or arresting you. Police do not have the right to grab you and move you, or prevent you from moving, unless you have committed a crime, or are being detained because they suspect you of committing a crime. That is how it is, in the US of A.

I know, I know, it seems silly to have to explain all this, but not everybody reading is from the US, or familiar with the law.

In Florida, the law is clear about stuff.

WHEN ARE YOU UNDER ARREST?

You are arrested when law enforcement officers take you into custody or otherwise deprive you of your freedom of movement in any significant way, in order to hold you to answer for a criminal offense.

Police officers, under Florida law, are obligated to identify themselves and to advise you that you are under arrest and why, unless circumstances make it impossible for them to do so at that time.

You may, in fact, be under arrest even though no one has actually used the word "arrest" or any other comparable word. The fact that you have been deprived of your freedom of movement in some significant manner may amount legally to an arrest.

See? The moment the first officer grabbed him, he was under arrest, and the Police were required to identify themselves, state he was under arrest, and why. Obviously they were not prevented from answering his question, and stating what he was being arrested for.

CAN A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DETAIN YOU WITHOUT ARRESTING YOU?

Based upon reasonable suspicion that you may be involved in criminal activity, a police officer may require you to identify yourself and explain your presence at a particular time, without arresting you. Under Florida law the officer may not remove you from the immediate vicinity without making an arrest, unless you voluntarily accompany the officer to some other location.

See? Police are not allowed to grab you and take you somewhere, unless they arrest you, and to arrest you, they have to have reasonable suspicion, or evidence, that you have already committed a crime.

The law is different in other states, another reason to explain the law, and how it works in Florida.

CAN AN OFFICER USE FORCE WHEN MAKING AN ARREST?

The officer may employ all reasonable and necessary force to overcome resistance in making a lawful arrest. The legality of the arrest has nothing to do with whether or not you are ultimately convicted. As long as the officer has reasonable grounds for making the arrest at the time for the arrest, you cannot claim later that the arrest was unlawful merely because you were found not guilty.

Resisting arrest with violence is a felony under Florida law. Resisting arrest without violence or offering to do violence is a misdemeanor. You could be convicted of either of these crimes, even if you were found not guilty of the crime for which you were arrested.

Obstructing an officer with violence is also a felony under Florida law. Obstructing or interfering with an officer on duty without violence is a misdemeanor.

In Florida, the Police can't act as bouncers because somebody tells them to throw a student out of a student function.

If the Police ordered him to leave, and he refused, then they can arrest him. But they can't try and remove him first, he has to be arrested right then and there, and again, they are required to identify themselves, state that he is under arrest, and why.

I know, the law is a bitch man. Sucks big time, but hey, that is the way it is.

All quotes from http://www.floridabar.org/

Based on the fact that at the moment he was shocked with a taser, there were 6 officers, and he stated he would leave with them, there was no reasonable need for a weapon to be used. Obviously before he resisted being frog marched out of the hall, the Police had no answer for his obvious and legal question, "What have I done?". "Why are you arresting me?" is a reasonable and legal question to ask when the police are arresting you.

Obviously at the moment they first tried to arrest him, they had no answer to his question. No doubt this was one reason they didn't throw him to the ground and cuff him right away, but instead tried to move him out of the hall.

I didn't hear any officer yelling "UFP!, You are under arrest!", nor did any officer yell at any time during the struggle that he was under arrest. This is required for police in Florida. After that you are required to follow instructions. But by law, they had to inform him before grabbing him that he was under arrest.

Obviously, the cops screwed up. Can't really blame them though, the guys in the suits were giving them orders. Problem is, the law doesn't allow their behavior.

[robinson]

Now in the spirit of conspiracies, yes, if you watch the cops, and the two guys in suits, they are not only communicating with each other, but with somebody else in the back of the room. This is obvious from one of the videos. The suit is giving the orders, but even the cops are looking for guidance from the back of the room as well.

Conspiracy? Perhaps. But who are the two men in suits? What authority do they have to order the police to arrest somebody?

[Arus808]

Don't know why this thread is under Conspiracy theory, but oh well. Maybe it was a conspiracy. After all, from the videos it is obvious there were people whispering orders right before the arrest. You know, the moment the first cop grabbed him.

guess you aren't watching the same videos, because it was the kids who were complaining and the cops were there ALREADY because he barged his way infron of those who WERE ALREADY waitin in line to ask THEIR questions.

but, we are talking about someone who does this quite often; he's an attention seeking cry baby, and this was probably another one of his carefully planned stunts.



For all you dumb nuts, and that includes the people grinning and clapping in the videos, what was done by the Police is illegal in Florida.


actually it isn't.
Its quite LEGAL for police to escort a person of PRIVATE PROPERTY when they are doing something that will incite a riot (as seen and stated by the police in the videos). He disrupted the peace by being the boorish brat he was, and then made a scene. When asked to calm down, he began resistingl. when asked to leave, he was began wailing like a little girl. When they nearly got him out of the room, he fought against them so they did what they needed to do to subdue him without HARM to them or any other person around him.

Care to give us where in the Constitution where it states that your free speech rights are guaranteed on private property?


In America, you have these things called rights. They don't go away because you are considered an idiot, or rude or disruptive, no matter how much you are bothered by somebody, you don't get to take away their rights.

care to point out where in the constitution where your free speech rights are guaranteed on private property.

and guess, what FREE SPEECH is limited; which is why its illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater.




the rest of your post shows that
1) you are ignorant of the situation and are commenting off the cuff
2) do not know that the Meyers has a history of showboating and has a website where he posts his "pranks" and his escapades.

Its really safe to assume to that he did all of this, as plan to "grab" some fame by becoming an ass so he could get himself kicked out.

[Arus808]

Now in the spirit of conspiracies, yes, if you watch the cops, and the two guys in suits, they are not only communicating with each other, but with somebody else in the back of the room. This is obvious from one of the videos. The suit is giving the orders, but even the cops are looking for guidance from the back of the room as well.OMG give me a break. those "suits" were with JOHN KErry, or didn't you notie that he was there to give a speech and to address questions of the student body. A presidential candidate, and one who had run for president in the past. Do you honestly think he wont be traveling with some of his oWN security?

They had nothiing to do with the arrest.

And the way the kid was acting, I'd also be worried if I was on security for a potential presidential nominee.

[robinson]

Now before anybody starts freaking out, remember that you can see the fourth officer calmly walking down the corridor towards the two officers holding him, while a third points a taser at him. At that point, the police are required to state that he is under arrest, who they are, and to use reasonable force to arrest him.

By law, they are not allowed to move him, to do anything other than arrest him, using whatever force they deem reasonable, to protect him, themselves, and anyone else present. This is how the law works here.

Because he is under arrest at that point, the police are bound by law, to care for him and protect him, and ensure his safety and well being from that point on, until he is released from custody. Police are not allowed to move somebody who is not under arrest, or resisting arrest. They are required to place him under arrest, which as was made clear, comes under Florida Law in how and where that is to happen.

Unless there is some immediate danger, a citizen of the United States, residing in Florida, can't be moved without first being placed under arrest. Lets make that clear.

Can a law enforcement officer detain me without arresting me?

Based upon reasonable suspicion that you may be involved in criminal activity, a police officer may require you to identify yourself and explain your presence at a particular time, without arresting you. Under Florida law, the officer may not remove you from the immediate vicinity without making an arrest,
http://www.orlandoattorney.com/faq.html

Can a law enforcement officer detain you without arresting you?

Yes, with limitations. Under Florida law, based upon reasonable suspicion that you may be involved in criminal activity, a police officer may require you to identify yourself and explain your presence at a particular time, without arresting you. Under Florida law the officer may not remove you from the immediate vicinity without making an arrest, unless you voluntarily accompany the officer to some other location.
http://www.jenkinslaw.net/lawyer-attorney-1235831.html

See? So right from the start, something is wrong. Cops can't lay their hands on you without arresting you, and by law, if they are arresting you, they can't move you before arresting you.

Interesting times.

[robinson]

OMG give me a break. those "suits" were with JOHN KErry[sic], or didn't you notie[sic] that he was there to give a speech and to address questions of the student body. A presidential candidate, and one who had run for president in the past. Do you honestly think he wont be traveling with some of his oWN[sic] security?

They had nothiing[sic] to do with the arrest.

Are you drunk or high or something? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but what is up with the sloppy typing?

Do you know who the men in suits are? Or are you making that up? Because I read the News, and you are going to feel really bad when you find out who they are.

Obviously they were communicating not only with the Cops, but with the person who had the mic cut off. The expression on their faces, the obvious stress, when he says "blow job", it is priceless.

This is really about the use of "blow job". They freaked. It is even in the Police report.

[Arus808]

please. according to my brother in law from the jax sherrif's department, he wholeheartedly agrees that what hte police officers did with meyers was legal and within their right to subdue an individual that
1) wasn't listening to them
2) refused to abide by their commands
3) as he was being escorted, was fighting them
4) when they got near the exit, he full on fought against their hold on him
5) when he began fighting against them, he was treading on assaulting a police officer and WAS disturbing the peace.

they were escorting him out, due to his behavior that he displayed PRIOR to asking his question. When he was asked to leave, he didnt do so, so they tried to escort him out. When he refused to escorted they had grabbed him to do so. When he fought against him, he broke the law.


AGain, can you point me to where the constitution states that Free speech is protected on private property?

And i'll believe my brother in law (who knows the law) than someone who is just pulling laws and codes from an internet site and is trying to apply what "he" feels what it means.

[robinson]

guess you aren't watching the same videos, because it was the kids who were complaining and the cops were there ALREADY because he barged his way infron[sic] of those who WERE ALREADY waitin[sic] in line to ask THEIR questions.

Maybe you aren't aware of the facts in this matter. Where are you getting that nonsense from?

[Arus808]

Are you drunk or high or something? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but what is up with the sloppy typing?

im on a laptop, in bed. Typing correctly is the last thing im going to worry about. im still getting my point across.

Do you know who the men in suits are? Or are you making that up? Because I read the News, and you are going to feel really bad when you find out who they are.

im guessing. who really cares? The police officers for the campus are easily identifiable (they are wearing t he uniforms). who the suits are , it doesn't pertain to the incident, because they weren't involved.

AGAIN you are assumming something that is not present in any of the claims made by meyers or by the students there, or by the police officers on hand.

the only reports I"ve seen are the initial arrest and his subsequent release. otehr thn that, there hasn't beeen much media on it, which is a good thing. he had his 15 minutes of fame and it showed Meyers to be a douche.



Obviously they were communicating not only with the Cops, but with the person who had the mic cut off. The expression on their faces, the obvious stress, when he says "blow job", it is priceless.

care to prove that? I can easily say they weren't communicating with the cops but with the dean or whomever had arranged to have kerry present.


Its not "obvious" to anyone whom they were speaking to. YOU dont even know who was talking behind the person who wa filmin the the event.

YOU are simply guessing. As I am about the "suits". but its very safe to assume that KErry would have some sort of "bodyguard" to follow him whereever he goes.

[Arus808]

Maybe you aren't aware of the facts in this matter. Where are you getting that nonsense from?

from the media. where else? oh and by other students who were there. guess you didn't watch all the youtube videos either.

oh and did you bother to point out WHERE in the constitution it states that free speech is protected on private property?

I 've asked you three times and you've ignored it.

[robinson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Meyer#Details_of_the_event

Much as some despise the Wiki, it is a good source of information on this, with links to videos and such. Enjoy.

[robinson]

Not only will you find out who the suit is, the one giving the orders, but a better idea of what happened before the videos start.

Obviously nobody was taping Kerry up until problems started. Or they haven't posted the videos yet.

heh

Otherwise we wouldn't be in the dark about what happened. I counted at least a dozen cameras there, and have watched 6 different views of the incident on You Tube already.

It is obvious that Kerry was going to answer the questions, but the Cops, acting on the orders of the ACCENT supervisor, were not going to allow that.

[Arus808]

Maybe you aren't aware of the facts in this matter. Where are you getting that nonsense from?


guess you're not interested in facts:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297197,00.html
In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way," he said in the statement. "I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but again I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention.

http://media.www.fchornet.com/media/storage/paper921/news/2007/09/26/Opinion/Florida.Student.Acted.Out.Of.Turn-2992076.shtml
According to several witnesses and reports, the officers were already watching Meyer due to him pushing and forcing himself to the front of the student line formed to ask Kerry questions.

[Arus808]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Meyer#Details_of_the_event

Much as some despise the Wiki, it is a good source of information on this, with links to videos and such. Enjoy.


nice. care to actually point to credible links. and a video of the aftermath has been posted already, and continues to show what kind of person Andrew Meyer is.

Love his "they're going to kill me" line.

[robinson]

oh and did you bother to point out WHERE in the constitution it states that free speech is protected on private property?

I 've asked you three times and you've ignored it.

Are you trying to suggest freedom of speech is not allowed on private property? And that a Student Hall at the University of Florida is private property? So, free speech is not allowed at the University? Is that what you are trying to say?

[Arus808]

It is obvious that Kerry was going to answer the questions, but the Cops, acting on the orders of the ACCENT supervisor, were not going to allow that.

you do realie that he had a minute ot ask and get his answer.

he barged in front of other students
and asked a question that was longer than a minute.


care to POINT where in the constitution it states that free speech is protected on private property?


why are you avoiding this question?

[robinson]

I pointed out that line here -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXa6yj-A-mw - Includes a lot of footage outside, after he is cuffed, tased, under arrest.
"People know I am here, you can't kill me."
"Calm down."
"Why am I being arrested?"
"Inciting a riot."

[Arus808]

Are you trying to suggest freedom of speech is not allowed on private property?

No that is not what Im stating. Im showing that you have a severe misunderstanding on how Free Speech is used.

This isn't an incident about Free Speech, if you bothered to actually WATCH what happened, and under the circumstances of why it happened.

He had his aloted time to say what he wanted.

And that a Student Hall at the University of Florida is private property? So, free speech is not allowed at the University? Is that what you are trying to say?

If you dont know, then i suggest you take a remedial course in 4th grade history. Because you show that you dont understand what Free Speech really is, and that in this incident, his "free speech" wasn't limited or violated; his action of course, limited the FREE speech of those he CUT IN FRONT OF.


care to point out why his "free speech" overrides the free speech of those he barged in front of? What makes his "speech" any more "right" over the others in line?

[Tbone]

Maybe you aren't aware of the facts in this matter. Where are you getting that nonsense from?

You are aware, of course, that the Wikipedia page you linked has statements from several witnesses that he did cut to the front of the line.

Did you read your own reference?

[Arus808]

I pointed out that line here -

and where in that video is his rights being violated?

again, you are seemingly ignoring the facts of the incident:
the students were allowed 1 minute to ask their questions or make comments
he barged IN FRONT of other studetns
his question/comment was longer than a minute.
He was asked to leave.

he had already caused a SCENE prior to asking his question and prior to the beginning of the videos seen. that's why the police were there already.

why do you persist on ignoring what witnesses have stated about his actions that day?

[Drs_Res]

Hmmmmm. The Andrew Meyer = T.A.M. :eye-poppi

Conspiracy???? :jaw-dropp

[robinson]

Why are you ignoring the facts about how the Police acted? Your free speech strawman doesn't even matter. What the Cops did was illegal. It doesn't matter what he did, it doesn't mean his rights can be violated, nor can the Police act in an illegal manner. It doesn't matter what anybody says.

[Arus808]

sorry tbone, wrong person i replied to . thought this was a quote from rboinson

[robinson]

I'm quite aware of what the Wiki page says, or did say, when I posted the link to it.

[Tbone]

Edit: Removed.

I'm quite aware of what the Wiki page says, or did say, when I posted the link to it.

Then why did you call the claim that he barged to the front of the line "nonsense?"

[Arus808]

then why did you state this:

So please explain why you are asking me to prove this statement:

guess you aren't watching the same videos, because it was the kids who were complaining and the cops were there ALREADY because he barged his way infron of those who WERE ALREADY waitin in line to ask THEIR questions.

Maybe you aren't aware of the facts in this matter. Where are you getting that nonsense from?




If you knew the wiki page stated taht he cut in front of the others students, why are you asking me where im getting my infromation from?

[Arus808]

I think you either quoted the wrong person, or forgot that things that I quote are not included in a subsequent quote.


Yup i did, I made the correction.

[robinson]

Police Report, Statement of Officer Nicole Lynn Mallo [1]
Before asking [Senator Kerry] the question, I had a chance to ask the man [Andrew Meyer] if he was a student and he stated, "I don't have to tell you." I then asked him if he knew the rules to the student code of conduct and he said, "What?" I informed the man that after he asked Senator Kerry the question that I needed to talk to him outside. After asking the question, the man would not let Senator Kerry finish his statement and kept badgering the senator about his beliefs, talking about "blow jobs", and yelling as loud as he could as to sensationalize his presence. At that moment the Accent Director, Max Tyroler, asked us to take him [Andrew Meyer] out of the auditorium and had his microphone turned off stating, "He had said enough." 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. * * *" [1]

Police Report, Statement of Officer William L Wise [1]

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. Meyer continued his disruptive behavior at the microphone and made a statement concerning why President Clinton was almost impeached for receiving a "blowjob", at this point ACCENT staff cut the sound off to the microphone. Meyers [sic] threw his hands up in the air in disgust of having the microphone turned off.[1]

Officer Mallo says, "Max Tyroler, asked us to take him [Andrew Meyer] out of the auditorium"; while Officer Wise says, "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." Both agree that Accent staff turned off the microphone.
Wiki

An obvious conspiracy. Like I noted, you can see it happening in two of the videos.

[Arus808]

Why are you ignoring the facts about how the Police acted?

Um, the police acted in a way that was LEGAL.

Why are you ignoring that it WAS Andrew Meyers actions that forced them to act hte way they did?

Love how you just crit the police but not even bother to see how much of an idiot that Andrew Meyer was acting like.


care to point out where the police acted wrong in this ?

1) he barged his way to the front of the line (police are called because he was alreayd making a scene)
2) he took longer than the alloted 1 minute pers student to ask/comment
3) police said that he needed to leave
4) he ignored them
4) police asked him to stop and that he needed to leave
5) he ignored them again
6) police decided to take him and to escort him out
7) while he is being escorted, he is whining about being taken out
8) when he gets near the entrance, HE FIGHTS THEM. they subdue him becuse HE IS FIGHTIng. They subdue in away that doesn't hARm them nor ANYONE ELSE around them.


why are you IGNORING the actions of Andrew Meyers?



Your free speech strawman doesn't even matter.

Its not a straw man, because that is the "core" of the complaints about his "restraint" . His "free speech" being violated; so he shouldn't have been removed from the auditorium



What the Cops did was illegal.

Under what law? According to my brother in law, who is a sherrif's deparment officer in JAX, FL, he saw nothing in the police actions that were illegal.


It doesn't matter what he did,
He resisted arrest. That is illegal to do

it doesn't mean his rights can be violated,
His rights weren't violated.

nor can the Police act in an illegal manner. It doesn't matter what anybody says.


the police didn't do anything illegal.
you saying they did, doesnt mean they did.

I'll take hte word of my brother in law over someone who "thinks" they can interpret the law correctly.

[Arus808]

Wiki

An obvious conspiracy. Like I noted, you can see it happening in two of the videos.


omg...you are seeing "woo" where there isn't any.

do you even bother to READ what you are quoting?



again, why do you persist on ignoring what Andrew Meyer was doing?

[Drs_Res]

From: http://www.gainesvillesun.com/article/20070919/NEWS/709190335/1007/NEWS

Mallo was one of two officers who actually rode in the vehicle as Meyer was escorted to the Alachua County jail, and she said he told them during the ride:

"I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong, you were just trying to do your job," according to Mallo's account.

Mallo also wrote in her report that he was "laughing and being lighthearted in the car, his demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight."

She said Meyer also asked if cameras would be present at the jail.

[robinson]

So I went to the John Kerry town hall forum this morning trying to get students registered to vote. I run a student government organization called Chomp the Vote. Anyway I went inside to watch the event. Senator Kerry took the podium and began delivering a speech about the Middle East, Iraq, dimplomacy, etc. Anyway, after he was done, a university ambassador asked Kerry a few premade questions. Once that was over, Senator Kerry announced he would take questions from the students. There were two
microphones placed on each side of the aisle. One on my side and the other on Andrew Meyer’s side. Senator Kerry began answering the student’s questions from each aisle. Eventually it was announced that there would only be a few more questions answered. Since Meyer and I were both in the back of each line, it did not seem likely that our questions would be answered.

However, while Senator Kerry was responding to a student’s question, all of a sudden Meyer rushed to the microphone with cops in pursuit. At that point no one knew what was going on. Could he have a gun, a bomb? Immediately, Meyer began yelling into the microphone that he had been waiting in line forever and that Senator Kerry should “spend time to answer everyone’s questions!” Senator Kerry tried to calm the student down by telling him that he would “stay here as long as it takes to get the questions answered.” The police approached Meyer who began taunting them by saying “what! are you going to taser me? are you going to arrest me?!” The police grabbed Meyer, but Senator Kerry asked the
police to let him go and that he would answer his question. Senator Kerry finished answering the other student’s question and then proceeded with Meyer. (*This entire scene is not in any video I can find so far. This is why 2 cops are seen right behind Meyer at the start of some videos*).

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/17/student-tasered-at-john-kerry-forum/

[robinson]

At that point no one knew what was going on. Could he have a gun, a bomb?
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/17/student-tasered-at-john-kerry-forum/

Utter crap. Everyone was searched before entering the auditorium. The cops knew without a doubt he had no weapons. This is obvious from the videos as well. At no time did they act as if he was dangerous, or a threat to anyone.

[robinson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s

This is his video (shot by the girl we see in the other videos). You can clearly see and hear what occurs. The police officers that grab him do not say anything but "stop, stop." They do not say, "You are under arrest.", or any other lawful order.

Assuming a lawful authority had ordered him off the property, the law states he must be warned, told to leave, given an oppurtunity to comply, before being arrested. Remember, under Florida Law an officer can not lawfully arrest or detain a citizen, unless they suspect a crime.

If indeed he was ordered to leave, by a legal representative of the University, (we never hear this), that is legal, but he must be told to leave. If he doesn't obey, then he can be arrested.

Obviously this didn't happen.

What did happen, is pretty obvious from the multiple videos. Within seconds he was arrested, and had a taser pointed at him. The cops also did a terrible job of arresting him. As soon as he resisted, in any other situation, he would have been on the ground. That they attempted to march him out, shows the uncertainty of the situation.



Lets just assume he was a complete idiot before the videos start, that the very worst story is true. He butted in line, made a scene, was a jerk, and annoying.

Doesn't change the law a bit. Just because you are a jerk, doesn't change the law.

You can't just grab a student and arrest him without cause. If you are arresting him, then you have to say so.

It really does look like the blow job comment set them off.

[Naughtyhippo]

Ummm, aren't the cops in this drama hired by the University? Doesn't that make them legal representatives of the University?

[Drs_Res]

What makes you think that they were going to arrest him initially?

I have had people removed from my place of work by the police without having them arrested.

[Gurdur]

....This is really about the use of "blow job".

Before you claimed it was all about suppressing discussion of secret clubs and two other issues. Now it's the blow-job, is it? Make up your mind.

[T.A.M.]

I do not dispute that he was trying to make a scene. But in fact I dispute that the cops acted accordingly to an order of higher rank. Like someone says to the officer "leader" (sorry dunno the exact term for english is not my first language) via phone: "silence him now". Now, i think the guy acted wrong, he somewhat resisted, but is he wrong of being mad at this strange attitude? The guy got guts, and resisted to see where would it end. Is him right or wrong? According to which principles? Do you think there could not be rebellion against badly applied law??? This episode my friend, bring on several problems not easily to be discussed.

So reformulating my opinion, there was no reason of using brute force to silence him on his right of speech. If he did or dd not resist is for me secondary at least. In fact I think he resisted. The guy made a protest. Now everyone here agrees with the brute force applied. It is no wonder that people here would think this way.

Anyone can stab politicians with words on a democratic nation. If some politician allow himself public appearances, at least have the guts of facing these kind of provocative and why not a bit too emotional approaches.

Well this is your pov, and you are entitled, but for me, the issue of right or wrong is with respect to whether they should have forced him to leave or not. The "man handling" was started after he refused to leave, and struggled with them. That alone, is not considered appropriate conduct when authorities ask you to leave. Then, when he repeatedly struggled, pulled away, even while pinned on the ground, only then was he tased. It is difficult to separate the police actions after he resisted from the reason why they went for him in the first place, but when it comes to what was justified and what wasn't, I think it is paramount that one does take the two parts of this incident separately.

Like I said before, civil, intelligent human beings have proper channels to take up their grievances with the alleged misdoings of police/authorities...that is why the courts, both civil and criminal, are set up (among other reasons).

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Robinson:

So according to your alleged "way things are suppose to work", in your neck of the woods, if you get up in a theatre and start shouting, or making an arse of yourself, and security comes and asks you to stop...you refuse...ask you to leave....you refuse, they call the police, you are saying the police cannot force you to leave...

That is absolute BS and you know it.

He was guilty of disorderly conduct at the very least.

TAM:)

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

1) he barged his way to the front of the line (police are called because he was alreayd making a scene)
2) he took longer than the alloted 1 minute pers student to ask/comment

You know what? this is a freedom of speech issue. He violated OTHER STUDENT'S freedom of speech by barging to the front of the line, AND stole time from OTHER STUDENTS to ask their questions. What a self-righteous rule10.

[cloudshipsrule]

The police officers that grab him do not say anything but "stop, stop." They do not say, "You are under arrest.", or any other lawful order.


When they said "Stop" that became a lawful order. How do you not understand that?

[nlarosa]

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/17/student-tasered-at-john-kerry-forum/

Utter crap. Everyone was searched before entering the auditorium. The cops knew without a doubt he had no weapons. This is obvious from the videos as well. At no time did they act as if he was dangerous, or a threat to anyone.

just because he was searched before entering the auditorium doesn't mean he couldn't have smuggled a weapon of some sort.

[Arus808]

just because he was searched before entering the auditorium doesn't mean he couldn't have smuggled a weapon of some sort.

hey there are tons of ways to injure someone with just your car keys. Did they take away his car keys? how about pencils? pens? cel phones (a heavy blackberry can cause a major concussion if thrown). Damn, I cut myself severely with a plastic knife; a plastic fork can be dangerous. Damn, what about shoe laces? did they make everyone remove their shoe laces.

Lots of pseudo weapons were in that auditorium that day.

[Arus808]

When they said "Stop" that became a lawful order. How do you not understand that?

I guess in Robinson's world, if he's jaywalking and police catches him and tells him to stop when he reaches the sidewalk, he can just keep on walking.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Everyone who's seen Casino knows what a psycho with a ball point pen can do...

[robinson]

Ummm, aren't the cops in this drama hired by the University? Doesn't that make them legal representatives of the University?

Yes. If an officer orders you to do something, or stop doing something, that is legal authority. Even if they are dead wrong, and it is an illegal command, by law you have to do whatever a Cop tells you to, and if you don't they can arrest you. I quoted law to make that point clear.

What makes you think that they were going to arrest him initially?

I have had people removed from my place of work by the police without having them arrested.

In Florida the law is very clear about this issue. If the owner of a property orders you to leave, by law you must. The police will enforce a lawful order, (it is called trespass here), and if you don't comply they will arrest you. They can't shove or push or grab you without it being an arrest. They can, if they choose, not charge you, but any time a cop detains you, or moves you, without your consent, it is called arrest. It is not the same as being charged with a crime. Arrest is a legal term, it applies to detaining a person against their will. You can be arrested and not booked.

Before you claimed it was all about suppressing discussion of secret clubs and two other issues. Now it's the blow-job, is it? Make up your mind.

The "Skull and Bones"comment came after the blow job comment, you can see Accent Director, Max Tyroler, signaling for the mic to be cut off right after that phrase. This video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAVvlyVbag
allows the best view of the action going on behind Meyers. Watch the faces, especially the Accent Director, Max Tyroler, as he says blow job". The two officers are also looking back to see if the mic is going to be cut. As soon as it was, they tried to arrest him, ignoring Kerry as he says he would answer the questions.

Well this is your pov, and you are entitled, but for me, the issue of right or wrong is with respect to whether they should have forced him to leave or not. The "man handling" was started after he refused to leave, and struggled with them.

Funny, because of the multiple videos, the point of view is varied. If you don't know about what happened before the video, it looks like the cops and Accent Director, Max Tyroler, are way out of line. When in fact, they wanted him gone, and Kerry asked them to let him have his say. Which is why they are standing there all nervous and pissed while he is talking. The audio is clear on Meyer's tape,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s
and the officers did not give a command, they just grabbed him, pulled out a taser, and tried to arrest him. This was, no doubt, because of the conflict before he spoke.

It is difficult to separate the police actions after he resisted from the reason why they went for him in the first place, but when it comes to what was justified and what wasn't, I think it is paramount that one does take the two parts of this incident separately.

Why? Why would you try to separate anything? I think that those living in other countries must not have a grasp of the political and emotional climate among students in the US. Perhaps some living in the US don't as well. But, how is this discussion about conspiracy theory?

So according to your alleged "way things are suppose to work", in your neck of the woods, if you get up in a theatre and start shouting, or making an arse of yourself, and security comes and asks you to stop...you refuse...ask you to leave....you refuse, they call the police, you are saying the police cannot force you to leave...

That is absolute BS and you know it.

Yeah, but it is your BS. The Police can tell you to leave, anywhere, at any time. It may not even be legal, but they still can. If you refuse they can arrest you. If you resist arrest, they can use whatever force they deem reasonable. If you are violent and a threat, they can hurt you, beat you, shock you, even shoot you. That is how it works.

But by law, they can't arrest you without cause. That right is still in place. It isn't respected of course, but it is still the law. Yes, they can order you to leave, but they can't just grab you without saying "You are under arrest", and then they have to Mirandize you, and all kinds of legal issues arise.

He was guilty of disorderly conduct at the very least.

In the US, that is up to a Judge or Jury to decide.

You know what? this is a freedom of speech issue.

Maybe, but which issue? The questions? Speaking out of turn? Resisting arrest? Video on YouTube? The cops tasering a student? What?

When they said "Stop" that became a lawful order. How do you not understand that?

No, the female officer said stop after he resisted them grabbing his arms. By law, you have to inform somebody they are under arrest before you touch them. Please understand, it is assault to lay your hands on somebody against their will. Even for a Cop. If they order you to leave, and you refuse, they can and will arrest you, but of course in the real world there is a lot of slack. Of course a cop can grab you and throw you down a flight of stairs for being an ahole, beat you, then claim you resisted arrest as well. It happens. Cops are not perfect.

just because he was searched before entering the auditorium doesn't mean he couldn't have smuggled a weapon of some sort.

The SS might differ with you on that.


Lots of pseudo weapons were in that auditorium that day.

Lots or real weapons as well.

I guess in Robinson's world, if he's jaywalking and police catches him and tells him to stop when he reaches the sidewalk, he can just keep on walking.

Don't be dense.

[WildCat]

By law, you have to inform somebody they are under arrest before you touch them. Please understand, it is assault to lay your hands on somebody against their will. Even for a Cop.
Do you have a cite for this?

[robinson]

Yes, I already posted it twice.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Maybe, but which issue? The questions? Speaking out of turn? Resisting arrest? Video on YouTube? The cops tasering a student? What?
I elaborated right afterwards. I was being tongue in cheek stating that this guy infringed on other students right to free speech by forcing his way to the front of the line, and then taking more than his one minute allotted time to speak. Not to mention the ensuing ruckus, and the Q&A was probably cut short, or finished on time, reducing the number of questions that could have been asked.

He infringed on everyone else's rights.

As I said I was being tongue in cheek with my response.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Yes, I already posted it twice.

Ok, that's bull.

So a cop breaking up a fight has to arrest someone before pulling them off?

So all those episodes of cops where a suspect is handcuffed while being suspect of something or other, and then they search their person for anything, and THEN find drugs and THEN place them under arrest are assault? (Let's forget the 4th amendment for now otherwise an OT train wreck will ensue)

I re-read your post where you provided info without a link. You cut and pasted some info. Still.

Nowhere did it say that a cop can't touch someone to move them out of an area.

So when he swung his elbow at a cop and disregarded a direct order from a cop: (from your post)
Obstructing an officer with violence is also a felony under Florida law. Obstructing or interfering with an officer on duty without violence is a misdemeanor.

He committed 2 crimes before they tased him. I guess according to you they should have read him his Miranda before tasering?

[robinson]

I have no doubt he annoyed most people there, the applause makes that clear. Thing is, that doesn't excuse the illegal actions of the police, who no doubt would have hustled his annoying butt out of there already if Sen. Kerry hadn't asked to let him speak.

[robinson]

Ok, that's bull.

So a cop breaking up a fight has to arrest someone before pulling them off?

Grabbing a suspect IS arresting them. The quoted information I provided makes it clear the order of events, as well as the exceptions. Of course in the real world proper procedure isn't always followed.

So all those episodes of cops where a suspect is handcuffed while being suspect of something or other, and then they search their person for anything, and THEN find drugs and THEN place them under arrest are assault?

No, if a cop arrests you, it is not assault. It is an arrest. As I stated, you can be arrested, but not charged. Or you can be arrested, then charged. Arrest does not mean you will be charged with a crime.

(Let's forget the 4th amendment for now otherwise an OT train wreck will ensue)

Since this topic is not about any conspiracy theory, I don't think OT is going to be a problem. :D

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Since this topic is not about any conspiracy theory, I don't think OT is going to be a problem. :D

Well, I did start it... and soon after the link to the politics section was posted, I expected this to die off. However... The reason I posted this is in CT is that this tasered guy is HEAVILY into conspiracy theories, that Zietgeist movie, and 9/11 stuff. So I thought it was fitting. However, it eventually became a discussion about the 1st amendment after his kookiness was played out.

[WildCat]

Yes, I already posted it twice.
No, you didn't. Nowhere in the link you quoted does it say that. And you made no attempt at all to link to the relevant Florida statute. So where, exactly, does it state a police office cannot touch you prior to making an arrest?

[WildCat]

Grabbing a suspect IS arresting them.
So how can you grab a suspect without arresting him?

[gumboot]

Police do not have the right to touch you, unless they are detaining you, or arresting you. Police do not have the right to grab you and move you, or prevent you from moving, unless you have committed a crime, or are being detained because they suspect you of committing a crime. That is how it is, in the US of A.



That's not actually true. In fact you can be arrested for your own safety. You do not have to be suspected of a crime to be arrested. I think you're thinking of being charged. They're not the same thing.

-Gumboot

[Arus808]

haha. im having an IM convo with my sister, and in FL, she says that they really do not give a rat's butt about Andrew Meyer. Consensus is that he should pay his fine, do the community service and make sure this doesn't come to bite him in the butt later on in life.

She even says that Robinson is demonstrating that he knows jack about the rights that LEO's have in the state of Florida. That the officers could have HOG-tied him and carried him out to an awaiting car. that he was lucky he was able to walk out on his own two feet.

He was arrested for Resisting with VIOLENCE, which is a felony in FL.

[Nim Chimpsky]

Robinson, you're forgetting a MAJOR point here. Those officers were there for the security and safety of everybody in that venue. The event organizer, the university, had these people on hand to ensure a SAFE event for the speaker(s) and the people in the audience.

If at any time the organizers felt that safety was about to be jeopardized, it was their responsibility to take action. Andrew Meyer acted in a way that was perceived as a threat to the overall safety. The police officers present acted to protect Kerry and everyone in attendance.

They asked him politely to leave and I'm sure were just hoping that he would comply peacefully and leave the venue. By not leaving, he immediately became a physical threat to the officers and to everyone present. By disobeying an officer, he immediately broke the law and could have been immediately placed under arrest. The officers were trying to end the fracas in a peaceful manner. When AM acted up, they used an escalating amount of force that ultimately ended in the tasing.

Would you like to wager that an investigation of this incident will show that the officers acted properly given the circumstances?

[Mr. Skinny]

As I stated, you can be arrested, but not charged. Or you can be arrested, then charged. Arrest does not mean you will be charged with a crimeI think you are confusing an officer detaining a subject in order to investigate a situation further and actually arresting them on a specific charge.

[PhantomWolf]

Wow, this thread has exploded to life again.

Anyways, just for the note, last night we had our first Police Officer involved fatal shooting in 3 years. The guy apparently attacked an officer with a hammer when the police were called to a domestic. Had the Taser trial still been going, or had the been confirmed and issued to our officers, the likelihood is that this guy would still be alive.

[robinson]

For those interested in actually reading about Florida law, which obviously is going to be an issue, here is the Supreme Court on this and related issues.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2006/sc02-717.pdf
It contains numbers and case law and all kinds of cool stuff.

Much shorter, but contains the statutes,
http://www.mosesandrooth.com/Resisting.shtml

[Arus808]

Nice, your first link shows that the officers in question were within their right to tase the guy (nice that you found something that supports what we've been saying all along).



again, you seem to be IGNORING that Andrew Meyer was involved in the whole fiasco.

[robinson]

I think you are confusing an officer detaining a subject in order to investigate a situation further and actually arresting them on a specific charge.

Well, you would be wrong then. :D

[robinson]

Nice, your first link shows that the officers in question were within their right to tase the guy (nice that you found something that supports what we've been saying all along).

No, what is right will be decided by a Judge and Jury. That is how the law works in Florida. I know that sucks, but there it is. In the moment, as I stated, you are not legally allowed to resist an officer, for any reason, even if the officer is dead wrong.

But later, in court, it can be decided that the officer was engaged in unlawful conduct or arrest, and your actions in resisting can indeed be justified. The Courts, as well as many people, tend to lean towards protecting the Police over protecting your rights as a citizen.

But the use of force in an arrest is another set of laws. Reasonable force is allowed. If violence is used against an officer, violence can be used in the arrest. I would link to the law on this, but really, who cares?

The guy was a pain, so he should have been beaten, shocked, and shot. Maybe pushed down the stairs, and then charged. After all, if you don't like somebody, who cares what the cops do to them? :hb:

[robinson]

... last night we had our first Police Officer involved fatal shooting in 3 years. The guy apparently attacked an officer with a hammer when the police were called to a domestic. Had the Taser trial still been going, or had the been confirmed and issued to our officers, the likelihood is that this guy would still be alive.

Indeed. Non-lethal weapons save lives.

[Aerik]

At one point the cop says to her, deadpan, "Come on it doesn't hurt that much, we've been tased more than that during training."

Ah yes, because overweight cops who think their manliness depends on how big an ******* they are the proper testing subjects for torture devices...

[robinson]

Funny thing about tasers, they are supposed to be used to restrain people, (they cause muscle spasms and paralysis), but the way it was used on Meyers was to cause pain without incapacitating the target. More and more police have started using the guns as pain inflicting devices, not as tasers. This doesn't fire the barbs, which also qualifies as discharging the weapon, meaning there are fewer legal issues.

Actually firing the gun is different from using it to cause pain and suffering, (drive stun), and doesn't leave a paper trail in the area.

The Drive Stun causes significant localized pain in the area touched by the TASER but does not have a significant effect on the central nervous system. The Drive Stun does not incapacitate a subject but may assist in taking a subject into custody.
http://www.aele.org/taser-lvmpd.pdf

[Wartrac]

Wow, this thread has exploded to life again.

Anyways, just for the note, last night we had our first Police Officer involved fatal shooting in 3 years. The guy apparently attacked an officer with a hammer when the police were called to a domestic. Had the Taser trial still been going, or had the been confirmed and issued to our officers, the likelihood is that this guy would still be alive.

I think that's an assumption. Not knowing the specifics (like was he standing there with the hammer or actively swinging at the officer) I'm sure the taser would not have been used. It's a simple rule.....life in danger, if so it's a good shoot. Hammer to the head could leave a mark, not to mention that you could still swing it when tasered.

I have no simpathy for criminals nor people trying to cause harm to someone. To prove my point I would say with almost 100% certainty that if he did live he would be charged with attempted murder on a officer.

One more scumbag off the street.....thinning the herd if you will.

[PhantomWolf]

I think that's an assumption. Not knowing the specifics (like was he standing there with the hammer or actively swinging at the officer) I'm sure the taser would not have been used. It's a simple rule.....life in danger, if so it's a good shoot. Hammer to the head could leave a mark, not to mention that you could still swing it when tasered.

I have no simpathy for criminals nor people trying to cause harm to someone. To prove my point I would say with almost 100% certainty that if he did live he would be charged with attempted murder on a officer.

One more scumbag off the street.....thinning the herd if you will.

Not much of an assumption at all really. Our cops are trained that firearms are a very, very, very last resort and are only used if they are in immanent threat of harm. Mostly they don't even carry firearms unless it's suspected that an offener is armed. The officer would have been doing everything he could to have talked the guy down before firing, and I'm pretty sure that had they had a Taser available (the trial ended at the end of August) it would have been used. Note that I pointed out it's the first fatal in 3 years (we have had a few non-fatal ones in that time) our cops don't fire unless they really have too. Here you can almost garuentee that a police shooting was justified because they would have done everything they could to avoid it. Even the most famous of the in rescent time which lead to a private prosecution was fully justified, just the family was so anti-cop and stupid they didn't want to acknowledge it, that and there was a lot of false information floating about the community that they choose to believe rather then the truth.

eta: and I doubt he would have been charged with attempted murder here. More likely resisting arrest and attempted assualt or GBH. It's not like the States where merely pointing a gun at someone and telling them to "move over there" will gain you Kidnapping charges.

[WildCat]

For those interested in actually reading about Florida law, which obviously is going to be an issue, here is the Supreme Court on this and related issues.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2006/sc02-717.pdf
It contains numbers and case law and all kinds of cool stuff.

Much shorter, but contains the statutes,
http://www.mosesandrooth.com/Resisting.shtml
I see nothing in those links that state "By law, you have to inform somebody they are under arrest before you touch them. Please understand, it is assault to lay your hands on somebody against their will. Even for a Cop." Perhaps you could just quote the relevant part? I really don't want to have to read through 25 pages of stuff to try to determine the part you think says this.

[CurtC]

In the quotes robinson had posted earlier, I saw instructions for how cops are allowed to handle an arrest, but I did not see anything that says a cop cannot touch someone unless he is arresting them.

Robinson, your argument seems to be hinging on the assumption that a cop can't touch someone without arresting them, but no one else here has that impression. Can you support it?

I've seen you say that anytime a cop touches someone, that is an arrest, but you've also said that if a cop touches someone without arresting him that's an assault. Those two ideas conflict with each other, so it makes me think you don't fully understanding it like you're thinking you do.

[T.A.M.]

Robinson:

I agree, what he may or may not have been guilty of is ultimately up to a judge and/or jury, my "guilty" comment was my opinion only.

Likewise, though, a court of law is the place for him to voice his discontent with their conduct. He should have left peacefully, and then sued them if he felt he was being mistreated etc...not resisted arrest or resisted confinement etc...

TAM:)

[gumboot]

Wow, this thread has exploded to life again.

Anyways, just for the note, last night we had our first Police Officer involved fatal shooting in 3 years. The guy apparently attacked an officer with a hammer when the police were called to a domestic. Had the Taser trial still been going, or had the been confirmed and issued to our officers, the likelihood is that this guy would still be alive.


Actually just to be nitpicky, had the trial still been in place he would still be dead because the tasers weren't trialed in Christchurch.

Incidentally, I thought that crazy guy they shot in Henderson the other year died. Did he actually survive?

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

Actually just to be nitpicky, had the trial still been in place he would still be dead because the tasers weren't trialed in Christchurch.

Incidentally, I thought that crazy guy they shot in Henderson the other year died. Did he actually survive?

-Gumboot

I'd have to check, the last shooting I could find was Graham Burton and he, unfortunately, survived, sans a leg.

I love the ignorance of people though. I have heard a few people going on about how this is like the "Stephen Wallace shooting." Well I'd likely agree, but not in the way they mean. I read the Wallance report and that was entirely justified.

[gumboot]

I'd have to check, the last shooting I could find was Graham Burton and he, unfortunately, survived, sans a leg.

I love the ignorance of people though. I have heard a few people going on about how this is like the "Stephen Wallace shooting." Well I'd likely agree, but not in the way they mean. I read the Wallance report and that was entirely justified.


What do you expect? Our media hate our police force. Every move is watched with eagle eyes, and presented from the worst possible vantage.

I haven't read the report on the Wallace shooting, but a friend of mine at film school was friends with his family, and based on events that occurred prior to the shooting, I agree it was totally justified. Frankly I'd suggest anyone stupid enough to ignore the orders of an armed police officer (especially in New Zealand where police officers are not normally armed) should be shot on principle to keep them out of the gene pool!

(Okay that last bit was a joke... :p)

-Gumboot

[robinson]

Robinson, you're forgetting a MAJOR point here. Those officers were there for the security and safety of everybody in that venue. ...

You are making an assumption. I quoted and linked to Florida Law multiple times, clearly showing that the officers have the right to arrest and detain anyone at anytime, for any reason, and you are, by law, not allowed to resist. Even if the arrest is illegal, you still are, by law, not allowed to resist a police officer, in any way.

If at any time the organizers felt that safety was about to be jeopardized, it was their responsibility to take action. Andrew Meyer acted in a way that was perceived as a threat to the overall safety. The police officers present acted to protect Kerry and everyone in attendance.

Now there is the crux of the matter. From the video evidence, it is obvious that he was not arrested until AFTER he finished speaking/asking questions. If he was a threat, in any way, before speaking, then allowing him to stand there was poor judgment by the police. Nothing in his speech or actions we see on the video was grounds for arrest, which is why it is an issue. He neither moved nor acted until the first officer grabbed his arm. This is obvious from the video.

They asked him politely to leave and I'm sure were just hoping that he would comply peacefully and leave the venue. By not leaving, he immediately became a physical threat to the officers and to everyone present.

Now we come to the legality of the moment. From the audio on his tape, we can hear that nobody asked him anything before grabbing him. Nor was it stated he was under arrest by any officer, either before or immediately after he was physically arrested.

Now lets be clear on this matter. He was not charged with a crime, he was arrested, the two are not the same thing. Arrest is a legal term. The officers didn't need to identify themselves, this was obvious. But the moment they grabbed him, and started moving him, that is an arrest. By legal definition in Florida.

By disobeying an officer, he immediately broke the law and could have been immediately placed under arrest. The officers were trying to end the fracas in a peaceful manner. When AM acted up, they used an escalating amount of force that ultimately ended in the tasing.

Indeed, at the moment he was arrested, grabbed by the officer, he broke the law by resisting. But he was already in the act of being arrested. For what? That is the crucial issue. What was the charge at that moment? Depending on the evidence, it was "disturbing the peace", or "inciting a riot", or more likely, from the Police Report: He became inappropriately vulgar when he asked Kerry why he is not for impeaching Bush; after relating Bush's conduct in office to President Clinton's impeachment based on a "blow job".
He also accused Kerry of being a member of the "Skull and Bones" society. Shortly after that statement, the Accent staff cut off Meyer's microphone and Mallo and Wise attempted to escort Meyer out of the building.
~OFFICER DE JESUS JR, PABLO



There are conflicting reports about who made the decision, but it is obvious that he was not told to leave the building before the arrest started. Never mind that Sen. Kerry said he wanted to answer him. Somebody had given an order, and he was to be taken away.

At this point, the procedure is to order him to "come with us", or "you are ordered to leave this building", something must be said, before an arrest. Only if his actions were an immediate danger, by law, could he be arrested at this point. Refusing a command is grounds for arrest.

Assume he was ordered, and we couldn't hear it, in that case he was being arrested for a crime at this point. Because he was resisting the police are not required to tell him why. Obviously the police knew at this point they were arresting him, one officer draws her weapon and points it at him. (see video)

Would you like to wager that an investigation of this incident will show that the officers acted properly given the circumstances?

Sure. How much?

Nice, your first link shows that the officers in question were within their right to tase the guy ...
again, you seem to be IGNORING that Andrew Meyer was involved in the whole fiasco.

No, I am not ignoring anything. For the sake of discussion, lets agree he was either staging it, egging it on, or just a boorish truther who deserved to be beaten and shot. OK? Feel better? Good. We can even assume that his behavior BEFORE the video was horrible. That he was disruptive and disturbing. OK?

Did they act correctly during the arrest? No way. At the moment he resisted, he was committing a crime, and there was no doubt the officers were going to handcuff him and take him away, and charge him. No doubt at this point. About three seconds after they grabbed him. Maybe four seconds.

I would say at that point it went wrong. From a legal and police procedure point of view.

This is a crucial point.

...He should have left peacefully, and then sued them if he felt he was being mistreated etc...not resisted arrest or resisted confinement etc...

This is conjecture. Legally, yes.
If his intent was to disrupt, make a point, something, then by resisiting
he obtained a larger goal. Who knows?

My points are about how it occurred, not the motive, which is an unknown at this point. I'm talking about the evidence, conflicting as it may be.

Because they tried to arrest him at the mic, (even though they considered it "escorting him"), and he resisted, police procedure is to arrest him then and there, not attempt to move him, while he resisted arrest. This created a danger to other students, the police, and Meyers. You do NOT try to move a person resisting arrest with violence. You take him down, then and there, tase him if he is fighting, and there is any danger to the officers or others, or to himself.

After he is cuffed, and subdued, then you take him away. My view is that the Police screwed up in several ways. They attempted to remove him by force, in a crowded auditorium, rather than subdue him right away.

They either used too little force, or too much, no doubt hampered by both Kerry and the audience, as well as some confusion about what they were actually doing. Who knows?

But the fault is on them. If he was under arrest, then he should have been cuffed and safely removed. What it looks like is just bad police work. They attempted to escort him out, without ordering him out first, a mistake. Then, when he resisted arrest, they did not use enough force right away to arrest him. Then and there.

Allowing him to wave his arms, jump up and down, tear himself away from them, in the midst of a crowd of people, was dumb. Funny thing is, the officer with the taser Gun out, ready to fire, was doing what she was trained to do. As soon as a suspect resist, with violence, they shoot them and stun them. The cuff them. There is no grabbing and trying to move them somewhere else.

The officer who had her put it away, probably was in error. Dumb move.

He could have injured himself, the officer, students, all the while. It is only because of the setting they didn't follow procedure. They wanted him out of there more than they wanted him subdued. IMNSHO of course.

Of course some of this is conjecture, due to not knowing what actually happened before the video. If he had committed a crime, or was ordered to leave, then Kerry stepped in and stopped the Police, long enough to have Meyers speak. The Police were waiting for him to speak, but when he said "blow job", you can see from the Cops reaction, it was on. He was out of there, no more waiting for Kerry to answer.

Thing is, they didn't do a proper arrest at that point. In fact, it could be argued they created a danger by their actions, disturbed the assembly, by not waiting for Kerry to answer. They could have stood and waited until Kerry had answered the questions/accusations/whatever.

But you can tell from the Video, that blow job comment pushed their buttons. As well as his attitude.

So what it appears to be, is his speech, his words, caused them to grab him, which is an arrest, then force him out before Kerry could answer.

Why? What did he say that led to them arresting him? At that point, as silly as it may be, Meyers had a valid point. What did he do? Why was he being arrested?

If he was being trespassed, a valid reason to take him off the property, then by law he has to be told to leave, then arrested for failure to comply.

If he was disturbing the peace, another valid reason, he was already under arrest the moment they grabbed his arms. But instead of arresting him, they attempted to move him, which by Florida Law, is an arrest, and at the moment he resisted, (about one second in), he was a threat, and again, that is when all reasonable force is allowed.

The entire attempt to move him, no handcuffs, out of control, is not acceptable police action, except in an emergency, like a fire or other immediate danger.

From watching the video, it is only when it seems he is escaping and not leaving, near the door, that they start to really act like the police do, when they are arresting somebody. Down to the ground, hand cuffs, threats of force if he doesn't obey orders.

Of course it can be argued that when he was down front, near other students, it would have been dangerous to subdue him then. Which is probably true. In which case, the officer with the taser out and aimed, should have shot him, then and there.

Was he approaching the stage? Sort of. Could he have been deemed a threat then? Certainly. He was resisting arrest. Did the cops think he was a danger?

Obviously not. Instead of taking him down, right then and there, using the taser, (which if fired would have done a lot more than cause pain), they tried to hustle him up the walk and out the door.

Interesting bit in the Police report. The first taser they used didn't fire. I pulled my taser, turned off the safety, dropped the cartridge, put it against his left chest and pulled the trigger. It do not activate after several attempts. While my taser was still against his chest, where he could see it, he was told several times to stop resisting and turn over or he would be tased. He still would not comply, continued to struggle and yell for us to let him go. I instructed Ofc. Mallo to utilize her taser, which she did.
OFFICER KING, EDDIE J
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/18/offense.report.072274.pdf

So when he was yelling "Don't tase me Bro!", the officer was trying to, but the taser didn't work!

heh

It also points out why they couldn't cuff him. Two officers had tasers in their hands, instead of their hands on him. I've seen this before, when Cops are holding a taser weapon, they can't use their hands to restrain a suspect.

Watching the videos again, something else becomes clear. Interesting.

It is very obvious that at first they didn't want to arrest him, an out of control passionate student in a Political Forum, at a major University, in front of a US Senator.

Because he hadn't really committed any crime. What grounds would they have had at that point? You can't throw a student down, tase him, cuff him, and drag him out without being able to answer that question later. To a Judge.

No really. Think about it. If they had really done an arrest, right after he spoke, what would it be for? What was the charge?

Disturbing the Peace?

877.03 Breach of the peace; disorderly conduct.--Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0877/ch0877.htm

Hmm... is mentioning Clinton, impeachment, and blow job, in the same breath, is that illegal? I still want to hear what Kerry was going to say about it.

Damn Cops. They caused a public disturbance, and ruined a classic moment in Political debate.

Damn. I did go on and on. Oh well. Its not like I'm going to get arrested for it. :wackylaugh:

[Arus808]

first, robinson
1) are you a cop? in Florida?
2) are you a lawyer?

IF the answer is NO to both or questions, you are in no position to make a comment on what Cops if Florida can or can't do in a situation that Andrew Meyer created.

YOU AGAIN ignored that he PLANNED this.
HE wanted to get his 15 of fame, and that's what he got.
He became compliant and even joked a bit with the cops ONCE the CAMERAS were off of him.

You are showing with every post that you neither understand what cops GENERALLY do in the United States (and what they are allowed to do) and specifically what FLORIDA cops are allowed to do.


As stated, my Bro-in-law is in the Jax, FL sherrif's department. He saw no problem in how the cops at the university handled a person, who was simply there to simply just disturb the peace. For all purposes, THEY COULD Have hog tied him and it would n't BE AGAINST florida law, to get him to leave the premises.

[Minadin]

They either used too little force, or too much, no doubt hampered by both Kerry and the audience, as well as some confusion about what they were actually doing. Who knows?

But the fault is on them.


Of course! How could the fault be on anyone else, when there are going to be people who fault them whether they do, or they don't, or in your case, both instances!?

Don't you think you're going a little bit overboard here, to condemn them outright even though you can't seem to decide for yourself if the force was excessive or too reserved? Is there even a 3rd option in your world that would include the proper amount of force?

[robinson]

Arus808, Calm down. If you bother to read, you will see that I quoted law that agrees that they could and maybe should have used force to arrest him. Right away. As soon as he resisted, they could have used reasonable force to subdue him. They treated him with kid gloves, trying to get him out of the room.

It was at the point he was going to lose his audience, and broke away, that they finally threw him down, and cuffed him, before moving him out. Which is what cops are required to do, by Florida Law.

You can tell by watching the videos that they didn't consider him a threat, nor acted as if he was a big deal. The first two cops let his hands go, the third puts away her taser, and the fourth cop starts frog marching him out the door. All without taking him down, or cuffing him. This is not how cops react to a real threat, and you probably know this.

They could tell he was acting, making a big scene, hamming it up.

Take a few deep breaths, relax. It will be OK.

[robinson]

Don't you think you're going a little bit overboard here, to condemn them outright even though you can't seem to decide for yourself if the force was excessive or too reserved?

Well, the problem is, the Officers were in the middle of a political problem. Kerry had asked them to let the student speak. The Director is telling them to cut the student off. Then when he gets rude and mentions blow job, they want him out of there, right then.

Then they are trying to get him to leave, but Kerry says he wants to answer the question, meanwhile this upstart student is resisting them, while Kerry is speaking, and he is obviously an emotional student, making a scene.

What the hell are they supposed to do? Tough damn place for the cops. If they take him down and shoot him in front of the audience and Sen. Kerry, it is going to be a damn fiasco. Cameras everywhere. He isn't really using violence against them, so they can't do violence back. But he is resisting arrest.

I find it hilarious that the taser misfire allowed him to shout "Don't tase me Bro!".

[robinson]

But to the conspiracy angle, have you watched the video that show the conspiracy going on? The Police reports also show conspiracy. As well as why it is hard to believe police reports. Obviously the cops didn't get to watch the youtube videos before writing up what happened.

Compare the report with the video evidence. Interesting times.

[Arus808]

Arus808, Calm down. If you bother to read, you will see that I quoted law that agrees that they could and maybe should have used force to arrest him. Right away. As soon as he resisted, they could have used reasonable force to subdue him. They treated him with kid gloves, trying to get him out of the room.

then what is your problem? They asked kindly and started to escort him as they should have AND DID DO.

Did you miss the part where he nearly hit the officers in their heads when he began to fight when was NEAR the back of the auditorium? That's when hi actions and HIS STATEMENTs became the reason why they arrested him.

He did not comply with an officer's command, and for that, he was escorted out of the room; when he fought back, he ESCALATED the situation.

You can tell by watching the videos that they didn't consider him a threat, nor acted as if he was a big deal. The first two cops let his hands go, the third puts away her taser, and the fourth cop starts frog marching him out the door. All without taking him down, or cuffing him. This is not how cops react to a real threat, and you probably know this.

Oh i dont know, but people do some strange crap when they are cornered or faced with a this or that situation. The cops didn't treat him any differently than they would an unruly subject that they are tyring to remove form the premises.

Of cousre they didn't feel he was a threat; he was doing NOTHING that was threatening.

IT was at the time as they were escorting HIM out (and when he got near the entrance to the auditorium) that he became a threat, by nearly hitting the officers who had him, and fighting with them.

or are you going to ignore what he did?


They could tell he was acting, making a big scene, hamming it up.

Take a few deep breaths, relax. It will be OK.


Oh and because he was "hamming" it up, that excuses him from assaulting a police officer? sorry, but that doesn't fly.

[Arus808]

But to the conspiracy angle, have you watched the video that show the conspiracy going on? The Police reports also show conspiracy. As well as why it is hard to believe police reports. Obviously the cops didn't get to watch the youtube videos before writing up what happened.

Compare the report with the video evidence. Interesting times.

please. there was no conspiracy on the part of the cops or those who arrested him

The conspiracy is on the part of Andrew Meyer, a known prankster and showboater, who planned this (as judged by his statements in the car ride to the police station), that he was doing it for the cameras.

you are placing "conspiracy" on the wrong participants.

[Arus808]

For other thoughts on this subject,
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73728
http://www.policeworld.net/vb/showthread.php?t=9597
http://forums.realpolice.net/showthread.php?p=834755


As stated, I will take the word of police officers, who know their rights when escorting and subduing a person who isn't listening to them.

[Nim Chimpsky]

Robinson, you have an issue with the ORDER of events. Read post #350 from Arus, it goes like this:

1. Event on a college campus where campus is responsible for safety
2. Security present at event at the request of organziers to ensure safety
3. Person acts in a way to disrupt the event and/or compromise safety
4. Event organizers ask police to remove the disrupter (that's why they were standing behind him)
5. The police allowed him to finish to his question, when it was obvious that he would not comply with the event rules on decorum, his mic is shut off and he is asked to leave.
6. Police get his attention by grabbing his arm and escort him from the event.
7. Suspect reacts in a violent manner, disobeying an order from a police officer and has hence committed a crime.
8. EVEN THOUGH he may have committed a crime, the police were trying to resolve the issue in a peaceful manner.
9. Continued resisting, arrest is warranted and the tasing happens.


My dad was a cop for 37 years. He said that the officers acted properly.

Don't you watch cops? Hypothetical: A bar owner calls the police to remove a belligerent person from their premises. The cops show up and will speak with the beligerent person and may take him outside. If the guy complies and walks peacefully outside and doesn't resist, in many cases, they send him home. There is no arrest, no charges filed. The situation is taken care of without it.

That's what was supposed to happen in this situation had AM complied. Instead, he had an agenda and got the result he was looking for.

I would be willing to wager any sum of money that you are prepared to lose that an investigation will result in nothing (if it's even investigated).

[WildCat]

Now there is the crux of the matter. From the video evidence, it is obvious that he was not arrested until AFTER he finished speaking/asking questions. If he was a threat, in any way, before speaking, then allowing him to stand there was poor judgment by the police.
So far, we agree. And so did the police, who also did not think he was a threat.

Nothing in his speech or actions we see on the video was grounds for arrest,
Still agree...

which is why it is an issue.
Why what is an issue? He wasn't being arrested, he was being escorted off the premises.

He neither moved nor acted until the first officer grabbed his arm. This is obvious from the video.
Exactly. Problem is, he should have been moving - towards the door. Thus, the officer grabs him.

It seems you go wrong in your erroneous assumption that he was being arested when first confronted at the podium.

[PhantomWolf]

I haven't read the report on the Wallace shooting

The full police report can be downloaded from Here (http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2000/waitara-shooting/) if you decide that you want too. Quite good reading, but try and get someone that firmly wants to belive the police were in the wrong to read it. It's harder that trying to get a Twoofer to read the NIST report, and the Wallace one is only 1/50th of the length.

[TriskettheKid]

Not to bump a dead topic or anything, but there is a new update in regards to this story, in case you haven't heard:

University Of Florida Police Cleared In Use Of Taser On Student

http://www.wftv.com/news/14413428/detail.html

And the report can be read here:

http://www.wftv.com/download/2007/1024/14414374.pdf

[T.A.M.]

OMG...

Keith Olbermann is having This guy on his show to tell his story this week (or early next).

So will this spell the end for Keith O. If he allows Meyer to spout his 9/11 spew, and in any way accepts it, agrees with it, or promotes it, he will be finished.

I suspect Keith will either (A) say nothing about it, even if Meyer brings it up, or (B) will have Meyer instructed not to discuss it...

Either way it will be something to watch...

TAM:)

[fuelair]

No, what is right will be decided by a Judge and Jury. That is how the law works in Florida. I know that sucks, but there it is. In the moment, as I stated, you are not legally allowed to resist an officer, for any reason, even if the officer is dead wrong.


The guy was a pain, so he should have been beaten, shocked, and shot. Maybe pushed down the stairs, and then charged. After all, if you don't like somebody, who cares what the cops do to them? :hb:Damn straight!!!:D

[robinson]

Well, since that comment I discovered you are allowed to resist arrest, even with extreme violence, if the cops use excessive force. Best to have a video of the event, but it is legal to resist a LEO of they are violating the law, as in using violence against you without just cause.

[A W Smith]

Well, since that comment I discovered you are allowed to resist arrest, even with extreme violence, if the cops use excessive force. Best to have a video of the event, but it is legal to resist a LEO of they are violating the law, as in using violence against you without just cause.

link?

[robinson]

It's buried in another topic here. I'll try to find it. I can't recall which topic, but I think it was a debunking one.

[robinson]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3049039#post3049039

This is a complicated issue. Defining "unlawful" is an important first step. And this varies from State to State, as well as countries. But lets look at some actual facts on this matter

Tennessee statutes - 39-11-611.

Self-defense.

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified to resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:

(1) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and

(2) The person reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

-------------------------

39-16-602. Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search - Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process.

(a) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer, or anyone acting in a law enforcement officer's presence and at such officer's direction, from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force against the law enforcement officer or another.

(b) Except as provided in § 39-11-611, it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search was unlawful.

------------------

39-16-603. Evading arrest.

(2) It is a defense to prosecution under this subsection (a) that the attempted arrest was unlawful.

(b) (1) It is unlawful for any person, while operating a motor vehicle on any street, road, alley or highway in this state, to intentionally flee or attempt to elude any law enforcement officer, after having received any signal from such officer to bring the vehicle to a stop.

(2) It is a defense to prosecution under this subsection (b) that the attempted arrest was unlawful.

http://iweb.tntech.edu/cpardue/tca.html

[Cl1mh4224rd]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3049039#post3049039


Tennessee != Florida

ETA: From the website of a criminal attorney in Florida...

Can an officer use force when making an arrest?

The officer may employ all reasonable and necessary force to overcome resistance in making a lawful arrest. The legality of the arrest has nothing to do with whether or not you are ultimately convicted. As long as the officer has reasonable grounds for making the arrest at the time for the arrest, you cannot claim later that the arrest was unlawful merely because you were found not guilty.

Resisting arrest with violence is a felony under Florida law. Resisting arrest without violence or offering to do violence is a misdemeanor. You could be convicted of either of these crimes, even if you were found not guilty of the crime for which you were arrested.

Obstructing an officer with violence is also a felony under Florida law. Obstructing or interfering with an officer on duty without violence is a misdemeanor. If you believe that your rights are being violated, make it a point to remember exactly what the police officer did and then advise your attorney concerning this at the earliest possible time.


The actual page (http://www.justiceflorida.com/criminal-lawyer-attorney-1013421.html) doesn't seem to exist at the moment, but Google Cache has the Oct. 11, 2007 version: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:q8inh0TOauUJ:www.justiceflorida.com/criminal-lawyer-attorney-1013421.html+florida+laws+concerning+resisting+arr est&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[SDC]

Tennessee?? Let us be clear: there are 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Federal code, and, uh, other jurisdictions hereabouts. Please review the laws of all 50+ jurisdictions.

Seriously. Not a joke.

[robinson]

No charges filed against Meyers. He cut a deal. Full story coming.

[fuelair]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...d.student.wjxt

video from the police car dash cam of the piece of tasered fecal material

[dudalb]

Tennessee?? Let us be clear: there are 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Federal code, and, uh, other jurisdictions hereabouts. Please review the laws of all 50+ jurisdictions.

Seriously. Not a joke.

And even in Tennesee I bet you would really,really,have to have a overwhelming case to justify using violence to resist arrest.
Robinson has a problem with police in general,methinks.

[robinson]

I'm not sure which is worse, the lack of spaces after the commas, or the use of the word "methinks".

[JimBenArm]

I'm not sure which is worse, the lack of spaces after the commas, or the use of the word "methinks".
Methinks it's the former,not the latter!

[robinson]

heh

[robinson]

Officers said they arrived to find Delafield in a wheelchair, armed with two knives and a hammer. Police said the woman was swinging the weapons at family members and police.

Within an hour of her call to 911, Delafield, a wheelchair-bound woman documented to have mental illness, was dead.

Family attorney Rick Alexander said Delafield's death could have been prevented and that there are four things that jump out at him about the case.

"One, she's in a wheelchair. Two, she's schizophrenic. Three, they're using a Taser on a person that's in a wheelchair, and then four is that they tasered her 10 times for a period of like two minutes," Alexander said.

According to a police report, one of the officers used her Taser gun nine times for a total of 160 seconds and the other officer discharged his Taser gun once for a total of no more than five seconds.

A medical examiner found Delafield died from hypertensive heart disease and cited the Taser gun shock as a contributing factor, the report said. On her death certificate, the medical examiner ruled Delafield's death a homicide.

http://www.local6.com/news/14147512/detail.html

That "Don't tase me bro" thing just isn't working.

[JimBenArm]

http://www.local6.com/news/14147512/detail.html

That "Don't tase me bro" thing just isn't working.
Ah, just tase 'em again, if they don't like it.