Should I be furious? Or should I be dissapointed?

[Baron Max]

A couple of points:

• Provocateurs occasionally get smacked.

• This does not excuse the police; inconvenience is not an excuse for violence.​

He got zapped because he resisted the efforts of the security guards to remove him from the auditorium ...under the orders of the university authorities.

He was kicking and screaming and resisting ....should we allow all criminals to be released if they kick and scream and resist?

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

He was kicking and screaming and resisting ....should we allow all criminals to be released if they kick and scream and resist?

So that's the only other option? "If we can't taser them for being inconvenient, we have to release them"?

Max, if you insist on acting like a complete moron, you will continue to be regarded as one.

 

[milkweed]

And I can agree with that it makes sense. But I think that there are too many things we don't know about. Maybe there are some details that haven't been brought to light. Don't get me wrong I respect your opinion and it is logical and well presented however I am gonna have to say I am still a little dissapointed at the security. I can understand that sometimes in hectic situations orders can be tossed around and people make mistakes. But still that kid was just a student...I don't really know why but my gut instinct is saying that the cops over reacted.

Its not a bad thing that you feel uncomfortable seeing the film. But this was no kid, and being a student at a university doesnt give any one person a right to disrupt an assembly.

There are rules of behavior at such gatherings as this one. He was warned several times and chose to ignore those warnings. Once they get to the point of shutting off your mic, you have reached a point of no return. Your best bet is to go with security quietly and apologetic and they may decide to let you stay. But you dont get to argue your point in front of the crowd because that continues the disruption of the assembly. If you continue (which he did) you will get this same reaction from many of campus security forces across the US.

Here is an editorial on the policy at the very university where this taseing occurred.

http://www.alligator.org/articles/2007/09/19/opinion/editorials/eddy1.txt

From California:
"According to UCPD’s Taser use guidelines, a Taser may be used on a person in drive-stun mode “for pain compliance against passive resistors.”

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2006/nov/29/a-closer-look-uc-campuses-exhi/print/

 

[S.A.M.]

Its the electric thrill of following your base instincts


^^^read that somewhere in the news.

 

[Grantywanty]

Security doesnt have to enforce a law, they enforce the rules. You see and kinda hear at the beginning where security tells him to ask his question (male voice at :38 sec mark) at :45 second mark a female voice repeats ask your question/ask the question. At :53 seconds this is repeated. At approx 1:20 he is again instructed by security and you see him wave off the attempts of security at 1:40 he is told by the male security ...This way. He was instructed and did not follow the instructions. At 3:04 he tells them to "get the fuck off" at 3:11 he is tasered after still refusing to comply.

We will never know how security intended to end this because he refused to comply with valid requests. But I see MANY opportunities for this character to avoid what occurred and sit down and LISTEN to Kerry's response.

Do you know what the rules of trespass are? In my home I have to ask you to leave once. Then I can use any force nessesary to remove you. I have to show cause as the engagement accelerates if you refuse to comply. I do not have to give you a second chance to behave.

This jerk ran towards the speaker. You dont get a second chance to rush a Senator. You dont get a second chance to rush a former presidential candidate. You dont get a second chance to rush a former president.

Want more examples? A bar can refuse service to anyone at any time. They will ask you to leave and then you can be bounced out the door. This works here in the Not so Public forum at the University. The security has the authority to determine the applicable rules of this exchange between Public and Invited Speaker.

As you can see above, security did give this man every opportunity to ask a question.

1) there was no reason not to, after the mike was shut off, avoid touching him. Give him time to realize he no longer has Kerry's ear.
2) he was not trespassing and the issue is much more complex than you want to make it. Once a public personality (kerry) is invited to speak and the public is invited to listen and ask questions the property owners are not in the same position as me when someone walks into my yard. I can for example ask every white person to leave but let the blacks stay. The university cannot do this. A bar is a bad analogy. There are no freedom of speech issues. And it is also a practical area in the law. We don't really give a shit about people's right to drink in this bar right now and are more flexible. In public forums where there is supposed to be an exchange of ideas we have to be vastly more careful and err on the side of caution. And I'll bet if he'd been going on and about how great Kerry was, listing his accomplishments, he would have been treated differently.
3) they had already touched him when he moved away from them. I doubt any of them through he was moving toward Kerry. But I am sure in the trial they will express that theory.

Look. I have sympathy for the security guards. It was a tough situation. I also think the guy should have let Kerry respond to his very good questions. I thinking shutting off the mike was good and a good moment for Kerry to start anwering one of those questions. I wish he'd done that. A decisive, loud 'I'd like to answer the first of those questions from Kerry' might have shut the whole thing down. Not the security guards fault Kerry was no doubt pleased he never had to answer them. It should have taken a lot longer before they put their hand on the guy. Period. I think the law certainly allows this intelligent response on their part. What ended up happening looks terrible. No matter what spin and rights are asserted by the parties. And part of the responsibility for it looking terrible was the security/police response.

 

[S.A.M.]

Actually if you listen to the video, you can hear Kerry saying, "let me answer the question" several times.

 

[Grantywanty]

Taking 2 seconds to say that I don't see any reason to have grief over someone else's pain is taking action? So it's some kind of revolution if I go to a protest?

No, it's taking action. You seemed to care about him having a reaction and took the 2 seconds to write it up. That seemed strange. It was you reacting to him. Telling him not to bother having reactions to others. That seemed strange to me. follow your own rule.

A revolution. Hmm. Nope, no matter how I look at it that seems to be your own strange interpretation.

 

[Grantywanty]

Actually if you listen to the video, you can hear Kerry saying, "let me answer the question" several times.

Asking permission. I mean, no wonder he wasn't elected. (not that the alternative hasn't been worse)

 

[milkweed]

1) there was no reason not to, after the mike was shut off, avoid touching him. Give him time to realize he no longer has Kerry's ear.
2) he was not trespassing and the issue is much more complex than you want to make it. Once a public personality (kerry) is invited to speak and the public is invited to listen and ask questions the property owners are not in the same position as me when someone walks into my yard. I can for example ask every white person to leave but let the blacks stay. The university cannot do this. A bar is a bad analogy. There are no freedom of speech issues. And it is also a practical area in the law. We don't really give a shit about people's right to drink in this bar right now and are more flexible. In public forums where there is supposed to be an exchange of ideas we have to be vastly more careful and err on the side of caution. And I'll bet if he'd been going on and about how great Kerry was, listing his accomplishments, he would have been treated differently.
3) they had already touched him when he moved away from them. I doubt any of them through he was moving toward Kerry. But I am sure in the trial they will express that theory.

Look. I have sympathy for the security guards. It was a tough situation. I also think the guy should have let Kerry respond to his very good questions. I thinking shutting off the mike was good and a good moment for Kerry to start anwering one of those questions. I wish he'd done that. A decisive, loud 'I'd like to answer the first of those questions from Kerry' might have shut the whole thing down. Not the security guards fault Kerry was no doubt pleased he never had to answer them. It should have taken a lot longer before they put their hand on the guy. Period. I think the law certainly allows this intelligent response on their part. What ended up happening looks terrible. No matter what spin and rights are asserted by the parties. And part of the responsibility for it looking terrible was the security/police response.

Actually the trespassing analogy is just fine for this example, as is the bar, and I never brought black/white up in this because it is a red-herring.

From the F.S.U. code of conduct:

5. Offenses
The following offenses, or the aiding, abetting, or inciting of, or attempting to commit these offenses, constitute violations of the Student Conduct Code.

(h) Disruption

1. Failure to comply with a lawful order of a University official or any non-University law enforcement official.

3. Acts that impair, interfere with, or obstruct the orderly conduct, processes, and functions of the University or the rights of other members of the University community. This includes acts that occur both inside and outside of the classroom setting and may involve use of electronic or cellular equipment.

Freedom of speech is not an issue here. He was given equal access to ask a question. I have read elsewhere on the net the time allotment was 30 seconds for this particular event. He was not given 'special rights' in that he was not allowed to ask multiple unrelated questions (these were not follow-ups in response to an answer given).

From another UofFL writing on student conduct:

A responsible student recognizes that freedom means the acknowledgment of responsibility to the following: to justice and public order; to fellow students’ rights and interests; to the University, its rules, regulations, and accepted traditions;

Responsible student behavior requires observance of the Student Conduct Code, which is based on respect for the dignity and worth of each person and the requirements for successful community life.

Police, campus security, etc. are not required to be babysitters in such a setting. They already told him several times what their expectations were of him. And they do have the right to put their hands on you in exactly this circumstance. He was being removed from the mic area at a minimum and they do walk you to your seat (if your lucky) or they walk you out of the place. You follow the rules of conduct, or you will be removed by whatever means are nessesary to ensure the rights of everyone else in that room (like other students turn to ask a question, like Kerrys right to respond to a question) are not violated by brutish behavior.