Student Tasering at the University of Florida

[HisHoliness]

That's pretty much standard procedure. Two officers, one on each arm to whisk the guy out of the room.

 

[HisHoliness]

He wasn't trying to start anything, he was asking questions. There's a difference between stating your opinion, even in an 'aggressive way' and starting a riot.

Also, they didn't try to escort him out, they pulled his ass off the stage. They asked him to get off, yes, but that was before he had even finished talking. It's just sad.

Please read the incident report that Donnie posted earlier.

 

[Thebest]

Please read the incident report that Donnie posted earlier.

I did, and i think it's a load of bullshit. You think the guy who made that report would support the guy? I don't think so. 'OMG IT'S IN THE POLICE REPORT SO IT MUST BE TRUE.' Yeah, that's about the same as saying that Bush is the best president the United States has ever had.

I also think it's funny that it says he wasn't injured, even though he got tazed. That hurts. A lot.

 

[HisHoliness]

I did, and i think it's a load of bullshit. You think the guy who made that report would support the guy? I don't think so. 'OMG IT'S IN THE POLICE REPORT SO IT MUST BE TRUE.' Yeah, that's about the same as saying that Bush is the best president the United States has ever had.

I also think it's funny that it says he wasn't injured, even though he got tazed. That hurts. A lot.

The report is by several officers, and in my opinion it carries much more weight than what the video shows. Let me explain why. It is more comprehensive. It explains the conditions of the room and the actions of the kid before the camera is rolling.

You put such an emphasis on conspiracy and political slant with the officers, of which there is no evidence. While that video has been cut and edited, only showing a certain part of the action, with the intent to send a political message. This fact is undeniable. Whoever edited the video only wanted the viewer to see a certain portion of what happened.

In contrast, the officers' recollections are not politically motivated. Are you seriously linking campus security guards with governmental abuse? How can you be so narrow?

 

[GraceAbounds]

I am surprised at some of the reactions I see from you. This is America, people. The place where Sept 11 occurred. And without getting into the causes for that, the fact is that our country is extremely security conscious. You see it everywhere, the airports, sports stadiums, schools...and yes, especially at political functions. All of us have been asked to "keep an eye out". It might be considered to be a paranoid mentality, but that is the way it is and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
With that as the background, it is no surprise at all to me that this guy was handled in the manner he was. HisHoliness is right. There is a right way and a wrong way for civilized people to approach the question-answer portion of a political event. Generally, there are even "rules" that are sometimes stated to the audience before the speaker even starts. No political candidate should have to fear for his safety. Our government holds the safety of their political figures in high regard. The guy said nothing wrong, at least in the context of his actual words. But his actions, his demeanor, his disregard for authority (when asked to get on with the question), the way he raised his voice when he knew he wasn't being taken seriously...ALL of that combined to send up the red flag in the minds of security. It wasn't one thing he did that got him removed. It was the combination of signs of a potential threat to a political figure; it was the training of security to recognize when an escalation of events may be imminent. This is why we want security: to stop a tragedy before it happens. Was anything going to occur? Who knows? That point is moot. There is no way to only catch the bad guys and to only give a free pass to the good guys. They played it safe. Their actions are justified.

Great post chicka.

 

[Peter Parka]

Haven't had a chance to read this whole thread so sorry if I missed the point but its good to see them tazering someone in America rather than shooting them for once! Once again, I apologise if I've got this whole thing wrong!

 

[Thebest]

The report is by several officers, and in my opinion it carries much more weight than what the video shows. Let me explain why. It is more comprehensive. It explains the conditions of the room and the actions of the kid before the camera is rolling.

You put such an emphasis on conspiracy and political slant with the officers, of which there is no evidence. While that video has been cut and edited, only showing a certain part of the action, with the intent to send a political message. This fact is undeniable. Whoever edited the video only wanted the viewer to see a certain portion of what happened.

In contrast, the officers' recollections are not politically motivated. Are you seriously linking campus security guards with governmental abuse? How can you be so narrow?

Just so you know, I've seen the whole video, and it doesn't change anything. He was exercising his right to free speech, and he got tasered for it. end of story. And there's also no evidence of the report NOT being tampered with. So, end of story, I'm done. You can say what you want, but it doesn't change that fact that the Bill of Rights is basically being thrown out of the window now.

 

[Sneakiecat]

And there's also no evidence of the report NOT being tampered with.

And there is no evidence that is was tampered with.

 

[HisHoliness]

Just so you know, I've seen the whole video, and it doesn't change anything. He was exercising his right to free speech, and he got tasered for it. end of story. And there's also no evidence of the report NOT being tampered with. So, end of story, I'm done. You can say what you want, but it doesn't change that fact that the Bill of Rights is basically being thrown out of the window now.

At least I base my assertions on the available evidence, rather than just speculation on what is unavailable. And by all means, if you have the entire video, do share. I'm curious as hell to see it.

I have no personal stake in this, although it seems that you do. I have taken the conduct guidelines, the incident reports, and the video and considered all three in my posts and conclusions. My initial reaction to the video the first time were much like yours. But when I watched it a second time, I started to brainstorm reasons why security might ever behave like that. I bet if you put yourself in their shoes, you might be more open to other ideas. Instead, you seem hell bent on disregarding available evidence that sits contrary to your own personal bias. Dig deeper.

I was discussing this thread with a good friend of mine, and she made a few interesting remarks, which will lead up to my next - albeit somewhat unrelated question. Have you personally had any negative experiences with authority figures?

 

[Maulds]

The guy acted like a complete loon. If you start yelling and being belligerent within 50 feet of a Senator security is going to react. Tasering him while he was restrained was complete BS but had he simply admitted defeat and stopped resisting things would have gone differently.

 

[Breath]

The guy acted like a complete loon. If you start yelling and being belligerent within 50 feet of a Senator security is going to react. Tasering him while he was restrained was complete BS but had he simply admitted defeat and stopped resisting things would have gone differently.

:clap:clap:clap
This is the whole crux of the situation, Maulds. You've simplified it realistically.

The fact is that he was seen as a threat and we don't tolerate ANY "maybe he just wanted to ask a question so let him speak" scenarios.
That's BS right there if you are condoning behavior that is seen as threatening and claiming that his rights are violated because he was simply exercising his freedom of speech. What about all of the rights of the people in the audience to be kept safe? I still say this...IF he had become more of a physical threat to the point of injury, which no one can predict who will and who won't...then ya'll would be all up security's asses for failure to protect.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

He asked his questions and the staff felt that it was getting out of hand so security put an end to it. Campus security or police officers, it doesn't matter. You DON'T struggle, you DON'T resist.

He was up there rambling about events from 3 years ago which weren't relevant to anything. They had every right to pull his mic and try to get him to calm down, if he hadn't resisted he wouldn't have been tazed.

 

[All Else Failed]

He asked his questions and the staff felt that it was getting out of hand so security put an end to it. Campus security or police officers, it doesn't matter. You DON'T struggle, you DON'T resist.

He was up there rambling about events from 3 years ago which weren't relevant to anything. They had every right to pull his mic and try to get him to calm down, if he hadn't resisted he wouldn't have been tazed.

why not

 

[Breath]

why not

Because it's resistance to their right to haul your ass out of there.
Their right to remove you supercedes your right to be an asshole.

 

[All Else Failed]

Because it's resistance to their right to haul your ass out of there.
Their right to remove you supersedes your right to be an asshole.

its not their right, its a privilege given to them by whoever is in charge

its your right as a human to resist any unnecessary force against you.

 

[Breath]

its not their right, its a privilege given to them by whoever is in charge

its your right as a human to resist any unnecessary force against you.

Agreed.
But listen to this ONE MORE TIME.
The force was not unnecessary in this case, because he was seen AS A THREAT.
Read that and tell me that security doesn't have the right to deal with that.
You didn't see him as a threat.
But you're not on the security staff.
What is wrong with respecting the judgement of security at that time, at that moment and under those circumstances.
They did THEIR job.
Let it go and be grateful it didn't turn into anything worse than what happened.

Please just speak about the issue of the guy being seen as a threat and what else they were supposed to do in that circumstance if you reply.

 

[All Else Failed]

Agreed.
But listen to this ONE MORE TIME.
The force was not unnecessary in this case, because he was seen AS A THREAT.
Read that and tell me that security doesn't have the right to deal with that.
You didn't see him as a threat.
But you're not on the security staff.
What is wrong with respecting the judgement of security at that time, at that moment and under those circumstances.
They did THEIR job.
Let it go and be grateful it didn't turn into anything worse than what happened.

Please just speak about the issue of the guy being seen as a threat and what else they were supposed to do in that circumstance if you reply.

I don't respect their decision because they are the ones that initiated the struggle. He wasn't a threat at all, kerry was telling the guards to let him finish.

 

[Breath]

Ok, then...here's a life lesson for you, oh argumentative one.
If anyone else CHOOSES to react as he did at a political function, and crosses the line of what is considered to be the usual and customary expected behavior in a crowd situation, then it will be seen as threatening. Mr. Kerry didn't have the authority to tell them how to do their job.
This is a fact. You may question it. You may argue it. It doesn't change the truth of it. So I suggest that you simply accept that this is the way it is because even though you cannot understand it, it happened for the reasons I've already explained. I cannot give you any more insights on it. You either get it or you don't. Open your mind and pretend you feel threatened and you have authority to protect a crowd of people.

 

[Peter Parka]

Fuck authority! Freedom of speech, wooooohooooo!!!!!:rockon:

 

[All Else Failed]

Ok, then...here's a life lesson for you, oh argumentative one.
If anyone else CHOOSES to react as he did at a political function, and crosses the line of what is considered to be the usual and customary expected behavior in a crowd situation, then it will be seen as threatening. Mr. Kerry didn't have the authority to tell them how to do their job.
This is a fact. You may question it. You may argue it. It doesn't change the truth of it. So I suggest that you simply accept that this is the way it is because even though you cannot understand it, it happened for the reasons I've already explained. I cannot give you any more insights on it. You either get it or you don't. Open your mind and pretend you feel threatened and you have authority to protect a crowd of people.

well thats fine and dandy except they didn't have to taser him at all.