In my opinion the cops could have taken a few extra seconds to take a few more steps and then they would be completely justified. In my mind the officers would have been completely justified in tasing the student (once) if this was the case. They would just need to try to pick up the student and simply carry him out of the building. If he continued to be limp then there is no problem, he is carried out and set down out side to let him act out the rest of his little episode. After which they could report his actions and have him expelled or other have some other action taken. However if he were to start kicking and writhing and making things more difficult and obviously escalating the situation then they could and should have tased him. However tasing someone who is going limp and then ordering them to immediately get back up and then tasing him again for failure to comply is just rediculous. I don't recall exactly what happened the last time I was seriously shocked (in all likelyhood I might have been electrocuted) but when I came to, several hours had passed and much of my body ached with a debilatating pain, a pain which hindered my movement. My muscles felt like they had been pushed to their limits and were exhausted. It took days for the pain and aching to completely subside. Granted what I recieved was probably more than what that student got as I managed to trip the circuit breaker
Well the whole thing with LTL force (like, theoretically, tasers) is that it generally means that law enforcement can apply more and more brutal force without actually killing someone, and as a result tend to become much more reckless in their decisions about when applying such force is appropriate. LTL is supposed to replace lethal force, not be one more thing in the arsenal. Substitution, not addition. Well that worked out wonderfully, didn't it? If the kid would have ended up being shot in this circumstance, then yes, but something tells me that if a taser wasn't available, he'd have, at most, received a strong smack upside the head and then been dragged out (and there still would have been 'police brutality' claims, quite possibly rightly so). Not in the slightest contradicting what you said, but I figure it's worth pointing out. Pretty much a rewording of cpemma's AI quote. If nothing else, I've just signed up for an ACLU card, which in itself often makes out-of-line cops back off if they spot it when you're showing your license or whatever.
No surprise there, really. All things being equal, the best psychological predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. This is something some people appear not to understand. Just as it takes a certain mindset to make a hystrionic ass of yourself (and plenty of people have speculated on this student's frame of mind, in that regard), it takes a certain frame of mind to feel quite comfortable tasering someone five times when that person represents no danger to anyone. It also takes a certain frame of mind to think that it is acceptable behaviour... Let's reflect on that one.
I can't be the only one who has to look up Nexxo's words in the dictionary - so this will save at least one other person some trouble. Hystrionic/histrionic: 1 : deliberately affected : THEATRICAL 2 : of or relating to actors, acting, or the theater synonym see DRAMATIC Ok, so we have one officer who has a history of questionable behavior. Where were the other cops during all this? Surely at least the one with him could have said something. I hope that this guy gets more than just another slap on the wrist. One tasering *may* have been called for, but they should have just arrested him and they'd have been done with that. And for the record, very few college students are in fact "hippies". And in general, those "hippies" do stand up for interests common to all students (such as against increases in tuition and whatnot), but sometimes they work towards their group's personal goals. Individual "hippies" are not too common and usually work towards personal agendas. At my undergrad university, there is a student this year parading about denigrating the dining facilities and that they're unsuited to fit his dietary needs. After the issue was publicized and beat to death in the media, it came out that they offered him a LOT like arranging personalized shopping trips with him and having a chef cater to his individual needs. They offered to let him move from the dorms to the apartments where a dining plan isn't mandatory. The student's history came out as well and it turns out that he was known for this kind of BS everywhere and that he liked drawing massive amounts of attention to himself and his fabricated truths. What I'm saying is that the students who asked for badge numbers and what not were not "hippies". They're the kind of people who in 20 years would do the same if they saw this type of action in a supermarket or the streets or wherever. It's a "if that could happen to him, if I don't step up, next time it'll could be me" mentality. Cthippo - he took somewhat of a civil disobedience stance, but he was also calling on other people to stand with him an was going on about an injustice. It is highly likely that it was his attention to incite a protest or small riot. He then went on to scream about the patriot act between tasings. Maybe he figured that him being carried out kicking and screaming would make him seem even more victimized and thus his words would gather greater legitimacy. Maybe the cop wanted to make an example out of him to avoid a confrontation with an impromtu student protest. Even though his punishment/removal was not justified, the student was by no means an innocent victim.
Sorry, next time I'll patch in a linkie... Naah. Group behaviour. Cops will close ranks --they have to. After all, they face dangerous crap together and have to be able to trust each other with their very lives. So they will rather back their colleague up in inappropriate behaviour than challenge him in full view of the "outsider" public. Perhaps after the shift in the locker room they may criticise their colleague, but I think that it is more likely that an "Abilene Paradox" (note the linkie ) scenario ensues in which nobody will say anything so as not to be seen to dissent from the group. QFT. QFT again. I think you are right that the cops overreacted because they panicked, images of student riots dancing through their minds. De-escalation would have worked much better, though. But the student in question definitely appears to be an attention-whoring dick.
Really, I think the most important to ask is, was he actually passively resisting or was he fighting the officers attempts to make him stand? We cant determine that from the video- we know exactly what the victim will claim and quite honestly his credability will be low. Am I afraid of being tased by a cop? Well, I don't act like an ass, and I do not commit the crime of resisting arrest. If a subject refuses to respond to verbal commands than physical means must be used- such as attempting to carry him out. If he starts to fight, stronger means of physical persuasion are used. Authority is supposed to be respected- and I don't fear corrupt authority because I like the current democratically elected officials. L J
Yeah, an unarmed student can really do some damage to five trained, armed police officers... Clutching at straws here now. Let it go. As I said, don't think you are safe because you play by the rules. Because that doesn't make a bit of difference if the authorities don't.
On the contrary, it is essential to the functioning of a democratic society that authority be constantly questioned. Those in power, elected or otherwise, must be constantly challenged to show that they are deserving of the authourity vested in them. The greatest threat to our society is not anarchy, but complacency. The greatest threat to our society is people accepting what is being done in their name without challenge. If we want to continue to live in a free society we must never passively accept the word of authority but instead must always demand that they show cause for their actions.
Like Stuey, I *almost* wholeheartedly agree. My one reservation being the fact that I feel we've longsince stopped living in a free society. (hmm..dunno what key I just hit but it randomly submitted my post...anyways...have some more) The biggest problem along this line is that we have a BIG government, and a powerful one. We've got some, like it or not, pretty finely-trained people with big, powerful guns. To be completely honest, I think we're too far gone - as far as I'm concerned, the notion of democracy is essentially dead (crappy choices from either party aside, I think non-rigged elections are pretty unlikely) and it would be even harder to accomplish anything by force. Sorry cops, but if you decide to pull me over or whatever, expect a hassle. No, I don't mean to make your job any harder, but I also don't intend to toss aside my right to privacy even when I know I've got nothing to hide. If the courts decide you have probable cause to search my vehicle then by all means, but the "if you've got nothing to hide..." idea works in reverse too - "If I've got nothing to hide, why do you need to watch over me?" And Col. Sanders...for the record, a LOT of the students where I go to school are pretty conservative or, at most, moderate. I'm sure as heck not one of them, but I don't consider myself liberal either (then again, being a libertarian is more about controlling the government than the people). While I could hardly forsee a future for myself in politics, the first law I'd try to have passed is one that requires that for each new law created, two old laws must be removed. Then again, I'd just as soon have each state defect and become it's own country and have a more EU-esque model, since 300m+ people is just too many for one guy to be in charge of.
