"Don't Taze Me Bro!!!"

[psychos2]

The moral of the story is DON'T RESIST ARREST and you will not be tazered. With all the **** that has gone on ,they take no chances. The guy could have a gun,knife,bomb,or aids.People did not like being shot,they do not like pepper spray,and now they do not like the tazer.Make up your mind. The guy was clearly out of control. All he had to do was let them hand cuff him and we would not be having this discussion. Again ,ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS LET THEM HAND CUFF HIM. He was a idiot and got what he deserved. shawn

[WormGod]

I watched the clip a few times and frankly speaking, when a cop(s) drag you away and you give the slightest hint of pulling away, you are resisting. Resisting, by most police procedure, is most likely an open window to use restraining force. Lucky for him, I guess, getting tazed and pi55ing yourself is a lot better than getting physically handled. Years ago in my college years, I was "handled" by mutliple police officers for being stupid and I was quite unruly. I showed signs of my unruliness on my body for a week after. A tazer might have saved me all of that, heh. So ya, I say this guy was lucky.

[nocturnalVX]

...ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS LET THEM HAND CUFF HIM...

All they had to do is escort him out. He said repeatedly he'd leave if they got off him. Power-crazed rent-a-cop campus security... that is all. Even if he was "out of line" or over his time limit for questions. No reason for treating anyone (no matter how annoying) like this in "The Land of the Free".

[WILLY]

All they had to do is escort him out. He said repeatedly he'd leave if they got off him. Power-crazed rent-a-cop campus security... that is all. Even if he was "out of line" or over his time limit for questions. No reason for treating anyone (no matter how annoying) like this in "The Land of the Free".

CORRECTOMUNDO

[geshaw30]

As a street cop here in Houston (for wayyyy tooo long) I'll give you my humble opinion on the video & the taser. I've watched most all of the youtube videos to try and get a different visual perspective. I've come to the conclusion that perhaps the campus police did over react based strictly on the video. However here are some thoughts to consider when passing final judgment on police actions.

First and foremost is you weren't there- and I mean right there on top of the guy trying to restrain him. It's often different than the scene actually appears. I have been bit, spit on, and threatened with all kinds of nasty transferable diseases when taking someone into custody. From as close as a few feet away you, the witness, cannot see someone preparing to set his molars and cuspeds into my wrist. The problem with this particular scenario is there appeared to be “too many cooks” trying to make the arrest. That many officers tend to get in each others way it appears that may have been a problem in this case.

The second consideration is use of force. I get no joy, bliss, or spiritual uplifting, in the use of force. In fact for all the years I’ve carried a taser on my belt I’ve never had to fire it. I’ve found the gun’s red laser sight on someone’s chest with an accompanying explanation of what might follow (aka- “ride the lightning”) is usually sufficient enough. But often times all the talk in the world cannot prevent physical interaction. Those are the bad days.

In the end it comes down to what Triathlete aptly said in the post above: my motto is I am going home at the end of the day in one piece.

[Chopper]

In the end it comes down to what Triathlete aptly said in the post above: my motto is I am going home at the end of the day in one piece.[/QUOTE]
AMEN! Maybe because I haven't seen You-Tube's versions, and I'm working off the local news coverage...What I saw was someone Yelling (not asking) accusatory questions, in a "machine gun" rapid fire sequence, not allowing for any sort of answer. Dude tried to answer...a few times, but junior was on a soapbox and was having none of it. He was at a fever pitch when he was told his time was up...he could have stepped down and it would have been over. Remember, this was a Q&A session not a public soapbox to stand and make statements. He probably could have gotten away with that, if he'd gone about it in a calm, rational manner...he was foaming at the mouth. I'm not a cop....hardly but if I had to subdue someone all whacked out like that...I'm doing it the way that is quickest and involves my body the least. Deal with knuckleheads day in and day out, I think most would zap 'em pretty quickly, when the person in question is all aggitated. It will take the uncooperative out of you pretty quickly, after all....and all get to go home.

[WyrreJ]

In the end it comes down to what Triathlete aptly said in the post above: my motto is I am going home at the end of the day in one piece.
AMEN! Maybe because I haven't seen You-Tube's versions, and I'm working off the local news coverage...What I saw was someone Yelling (not asking) accusatory questions, in a "machine gun" rapid fire sequence, not allowing for any sort of answer. Dude tried to answer...a few times, but junior was on a soapbox and was having none of it.

I'd have to say you are completely wrong. Although your interpretation is far too common. The guy had a 3 step question where the first two questions were really rhetorical, just laying out the basis for his real question. Paraphrased it went like this:

1) The election was really close - in fact based on this book here you actually won. Why did you conceded so easily?
2) If clinton could get impeached over a blowjob, why haven't you tried to impeach bush for his recklessness with respect to Iraq?
3) Is the reason you conceded and won't push for impeachment because you two are members of skull and bones? (and thus by implication sworn to always support one another in all things)

If he had let Kerry answer the first or second question, he would never have had a chance to ask his real question. Without the background of his first two points, the third question would have been meaningless.

So the smartass response is to say, "well duh, he didn't get an answer this way either" but that should cause people to ask, "why?" It's easy to join the herd and denigrate the guy for getting worked up when they started hassling him (note he only got agitated at about 1 minute in when the female officer tried to pull him back and he shook her off). But time limits at political Q&A's are guidelines not rules. If you were asking an important question don't you think you would get agitated if someone cut you off and tried to haul you away in the middle of it? The alternative is that all questions are limited to sound-bites which, in my not so humble opinion, would be a terrible way to run a political Q&A. Perhaps you disagree.

I'll take it one step further. If you believe in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to hold our politicians accountable, then his response was the right one. If he had not struggled or yelled, he would have been hauled off and locked up without a second of news coverage. That kind of thing happens all the time and usually the charges are dropped with a "no harm, no foul" kind of attitude.

Except there is harm, harm to the political process. It's really not that much different from Bush's "free speech zones" - where you can have all the freedom of expression you want, but no one can hear you.

George Bernard Shaw said, "Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men." It's important to remember that our founding fathers were unreasonable men. The ones who fought the British for independence were a minority of the population and much of the rest of populace wanted nothing to do with them, they were happy enough with the way things were and thought the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin ought to just shut up and go the hell away.

[Mark Miller]

He knew what he was doing and what was going to happen to him, (maybe not the tasering).

He could have asked his real question without using the shock value questions. Reworded he could have had two questions answered.
Like: Since you and Bush are members of skull and bones, is that the reason you conceded and didn’t push for President Bush’s impeachment for his recklessness with respect to Iraq. Then wait for the answer.


To the tasering:
It would have only taken one officer if he was not resisting.
When he was being escorted out he was still OK, until he pulled away.
He pulled away and put many people in the audience in Danger.
You may say he was not dangerous, the officers wouldn’t know either way.
Since HE pulled away it took it to the next level to where they put him down.
Was tasering necessary? Maybe, maybe not, but he would Not have been tasered if he wasn’t resisting.

[psychos2]

All they had to do is escort him out. He said repeatedly he'd leave if they got off him. Power-crazed rent-a-cop campus security... that is all. Even if he was "out of line" or over his time limit for questions. No reason for treating anyone (no matter how annoying) like this in "The Land of the Free".

After they tried to escort him out and he made the big fuss ,at that point it was too late. He went too far. They put him down and tried to cuff him. At this point he said let me go and I will leave. Well at this point that was not an option. He was told that and was told that they would tazer him if he did not stop. He went too far plain and simple. shawn