Well, we may be at least in partial agreement on this one. I agree with the police using the swarm maneuver on the guy, no question he was resisting arrest and becoming increasingly violent. Not sure that the use of the taser was warranted though. Although it was probably within the policy of the police department to use it. It looked to me that they had him down and pretty well subdued although it was hard to tell exactly from the videos.

Still though as others have pointed out here if you assault a police officer as was the case in both examples, bad things are going to happen. And, they are going to happen to you.


Aquilla

IT is quite apparent that there needs to be a radical re-working of what the police are allowed to do in this country, and I am pretty appalled at folks that are okay with police state style tactics. To beat/tased/killed over stuff like, oh, cutting in line

What is this nation coming to when police aren't held accountable for these types of abuses? We need to crack down, hard core, on the police brutality in this country. If anything, this highlights the need to re-visit the rules of engagement.

The fact that they felt it was in thier power to harm someone, swarm someone, or whatever, over PERCIEVED line cutting (considering it is not clear whether he even cut in line).

Citizens should NOT just have to automatically obey cops, this IS NOT a police state, where the police are the law, judge and jury- though some seem to think it is cool that they are.

Those police officers should be fired and sued, and it makes me madder that they are allowed to act this way, in ANY setting other than EMININENT harm to others or self.

We are over-protecting our elected officials these days- they SHOULD be shouted down on a regular basis, protestors SHOULD be able to disrupt thier day- they have been too insulated from thier just deserts too long!

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We all know the only people you think should be in jail are serial axe murderers and Republicans.....

The Freedom of Speech works both ways though. Just as ugly old shriveled up women dressed in ugly pink dresses have the right to re-live their glory days of the 1960's by shouting and acting like the whacklibs they are in a Congressional Hearing, so do the people like our elected representatives and their witnesses have a right to be heard as well. As a citizen, I also have the right to listen to what they say and I expect the police to maintain security and order so I can avail myself of that right. What happened in both cases cited here was a balancing act between affording the whacklibs their God-given right to act like the idiots they are and get their 15 secs of fame on YouTube and allowing sane people who do actually care about the issues at hand to discuss them in a public forum.

If you have to shout to make yourself heard and your only course of action to gain public attention is to make an elected official's life miserable on a daily basis, perhaps you might go to your panhandling corner and find a quarter to buy a clue. It's because people are rejecting what you're saying. You have the right to live in self-induced misery and consternation and ruin your entire day if you so choose. You don't have the right to ruin mine.


Aquilla

People of the world do not listen to this man, he is going to get you hurt, a lot.

When you are unjustly arrested do as you are told. Go to the station. Call a family member, or someone who can be trusted to call a lawyer, the press and whoever else you think needs to know your rights are being infringed. After you are free use the law against your oppressors and retain a large cash settlement possible a public apology. Or, if you like, get your shoulders dislocated and add actual crimes, like resisting arrest, to your trumped up crimes.

Trust me - you can't beat the cops physically. Even if you manage to - there's more of them and they're armed, angry and very likely to shoot you - and unlike you - they're going to get away with it.

Johnny Protester in our video here was looking for trouble and found it. No he probably shouldn't have been Tazered - but then he should have been such an idjit either.

I'll throw a third clip out there just to show the final outcome. What was unusual is that he was charged with inciting a riot when it was clear he was not the source.

To be clear, the cops were enforcing some kind of line cutting, or whatever they claim- it is pretty clear there was no disruption until the cops MADE a disruption.

There was no protest until the cops over-reacted. It was quite clear that the cops had some kind of agenda here, because he wasn't being removed from the chamber- he was being removed from the line.

Yes, we need to change the way cops are allowed to interact with poeple- they should be subjegated to more of the laws normal citizens.

Case in point is the cop that discharged his firearm to get a harmless snake out of a tree, killing a 5 year old boy- anyone else- he would be in jail- but since he is a cop, the worst he will have to deal with will be a lawsuit and loss of job.

We have given too much power, quite obviously, to our police, and they are now a law unto themselves.

Probably need to take away thier guns (joke- my grandfather used to say if a gun makes you feel like more of a tough guy- get rid of it quick)

Seriously- they do need to have thier "rules of engagement" plus really harsh penalties regarding thier physical interactions with others/ There needs to be a clear and present danger to civilians before they are allowed to lay hands on those folks.

Just listening to CNN radio on my Sirius (Howard Stern is off (again) today) and it turns out Mr. Meyer's impromptu video WAS a setup. The camera shooting the video WAS HIS! He handed it to his friends and said, "Record this."



So in this thread we have two staged events videoed and posted to the web... hmmm

Of course it was a setup as we expected from the beginning. This fool wanted to elicit as much violence as he could from the cops for the camera. I hope he goes to jail.

If this was a set up- then that makes it doubly bad- for capital police to fall into that trap is inexcusable, and the lead person should be fired, at the very least, if not charged with assault.

And why is that? If someone deliberately sets up a confrontation and then does his best to provoke a strong response s he/she can “get it on tape” – who should we charge with assault. I say the demonstrator


How about the kid who did essentially the same thing at the Kerry talk on campus – he got tasered. Should we bring up the cops on charges?

Ho about this – we put cameras in all the prisons and when some inmate goes nuts and the guards have to use force to break it up we examine every foot of the tape to see if we can fire a guard – or “charge” him/her?

Kerry thing- absolutely- you seem to be of a thought, that like republicans on this board, I only give a "pass" if it is on the other side of the aisle- not true.

It is absolutely un-American and anti-freedom and pro-police state to allow cops to have these kinds of powers. Before any physical force can be used, there should be an eminent source of danger- failure to comply is NOT an eminent source of physical danger, and when a cop over-reacts over failure to comply- then he should be brought up on felony assault charges and sent to jail.

We have a rash of this going on around this country- and it is getting worse.

In no way was a physical response needed or appropriate in this situation- at no point did that Rev or whatever present a danger to self or others- this is authority run amok, and the very definition of police brutality- just due to the fact that there was any physical response at all.

Just let him in, he had a right to be there, and he presented no danger.

Could not disagree more. Failure to comply is breaking the law – period, and if you want to tell the cops that they need to make a decision based on some complicated formula you have in mind let me know what that is.

Otherwise the law is worthless and anyone who wants in can get in and if they have a 100 pounds of C4 on them - oh well.

Try pulling this crap at airport security some time and see what happens.

Worst of all this was a set up stunt done for crass political reasons.

We are not quite a police state (yet) and failure to comply is simply not saying "how high" when a cop says "jump". C4 would be eminent threat- cutting in line would NOT be a threat of harm.

The Rev had already demonstrated he had no dangerous items on him- he had already passed through a security checkpoint. Your argument about security is moot- there was NO afront to security here.

Laws are worthless in any society where the police have become judge, jury and executionor, and, in this case, using something like "line cutting" to be a reason to use violent force. These cops should be looking at hard time for felony assault.

In a free society- failure to comply would not be a law at all- "show me zee papers" is what we have here- jackbooted thugs that get to enforce thier will simply because they can.

There is a very serious psych element to law enforcement- poeple become corrupted by that power. A landmark study was done on this, where students were playing correctional officers, and othes, prisoners. In a very short amount of time, the study had to be stopped due to abuses by the students playing corectional officers.

We have to be ever vigiliant to keep this from happening- and it is quite clear that we have the jack booted thug mentality in the capital police.

There has to be fear of criminal prosecution against LEOs in order to prevent the thug mentality from gaining a toe hold.

If you make mouthings about living in a free society- than this is a shining example of how fascist we have become.

Really?!! Really?!!

So, if you are being unjustly arrested, you should just take it?! What does that say about our rights. If you're rights are being violated, don't do anything about it in the moment?! Allow the police to violate your rights and deal with it later?! If you do something about it, you deserve the beating and the tasing?! Amazing!

Wow!

So much for the bravery that this country was founded on.

In watching this video, there was no reason this man should have been arrested. John Kerry agreed to answer his questions. The police attempted to grab him while he was asking the questions - which, again, he had been given permission to ask. Before this man had a chance to do anything violent, the police grabbed him. They had no right to arrest him. Chances are, if I was in that room, I'd have been arrested too, because there is no way I would've sat by and allowed that to continue.

OK, look if you're not even going to read the posts prior to your own you're going to miss a lot of the story. This video, shot with the Tased's own camera by a friend doesn't show the whole story. There are links in this thread to other shots of this event. You should watch them.

As for resisting arrest - by all means entspeak feel free as an American to do it. When you're flopping on the floor like a fish try to remember that I warned you that would happen. The Police can arrest you. You can fight them much more effectively with your lawyer than you can with your fists.

What are you talking about? I did read the other posts. I did watch the other videos. I understand that the police are claiming that he was lighthearted after they got out of the view of cameras. Yeah, sure, I'd be light-hearted, too, if I'd just been tased.

Do you believe that this man was attempting to incite a riot?



Hey, BA, I'll flop on the floor for freedom any day, buddy. Any day of the week. And I don't recall seeing him use his fists at all, BA. Not once. I saw a man grabbed by the police for absolutely no reason. There was no indication that this man needed to be arrested. He was allowed to speak. They cut off his mic, grabbed him and arrested him.

Well then you know that the Q & A session was being ended when Don't Taze Me Bro decided he had to ask his questions. Since you watched the other videos you noticed that police followed him across the room. Since you read the other posts you know that DTMB asked to have himself video taped, likely because he knew exactly what was going to happen. You also know that almost all of us agree he probably didn't need to be Tazered.

Do I believe he was attempting a riot? I think he'd have liked to, unfortunately he simply had no willing participants. You'll note that no one even looked at him muchless stood up. The audience looked embarrassed.




Interesting the way you've flopped from you to him. My suggestion that YOU should try resisting arrest some time was directed to YOU - I never suggested he raised a hand. And you won't be flopping on the floor for freedom - you'll be flopping on the floor for yourself. We're already free.

I am well aware that the Q & A session was being ended. I am also aware that he was told that he could speak. I am aware that he asked to be video taped. I don't believe - and there is nothing on the tape to make me believe - that he wished to be taped because of a possible altercation with police. I believe he wanted to be taped saying what he was saying and asking the questions. There is nothing that I know of on the tape to indicate otherwise.

And it's "tasered", not "tazered." Taser is an acronym for Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle.



Excuse me? Perhaps you didn't watch the same footage I did. Someone was asked to step back. People were shouting to the police to let him go, that he'd done nothing wrong. There were shouts of "police brutality."

I didn't ask you if he was "attempting a riot". I asked if you believed - and this belief would be based on the footage before the police grabbed him - that he was attempting to incite a riot. If so, how was he going about it? By asking those questions? By making those statements? How were those inciting remarks?



Interesting, nothing, BA. You mentioned fists as if it were somehow relevant. If it was relevant to me, I'd think it would be relevant to him, or would you not feel the need to give that advice in his situation. Oh, right. It wouldn't be useful.

If you're suggesting that this video shows our freedom of speech at work, I'd say you were deluding yourself.

I think you are missing the point here BA- in a free society- the cops don't have a right to beat you up for non-compliance over line cutting. A citizen should not be forced to use his resources to defend against casual police brutality. Line cutting and the force response used should land those cops in jail and without a job, and use this as a training video of how NOT to react. Assault and Battery would be the correct charge, with about a year in jail minimum, with good time.

In a free society- it is not up to a citizen to obey cops just because the cops feel like exerting a bit of authority- yes, the reality is- right now, in America, if a cop feels like beating you up- not much you can do about it. That also means we live in a Quasi- police state.

I believe you are mistaken. If a cop detains you, you aren't allowed to debate. The officer has rules and is not required to justify them to you on the spot, no matter how well you know the law, who your daddy is, or what you had for dinner. If the cop is wrong and it does you harm, physically or otherwise, you can appeal after the fact and collect your damages. This happens every day, and every day cities, counties, states, and the feds pay out settlements for false arrests and detentions. A police state would simply kill such troublemakers. It's a lot cheaper.

If every cop had to debate everyone they detained or arrested about the legality of the detention, they wouldn't have much time left to enforce the law. That might be fine if you don't want the law enforced, but I know I prefer that is it.

This doesn't make you a sheep or a victim. I amounts to a practical recognition that the police have a job to do, and that making it harder for them will not improve the situation. NO ONE is more familiar with your civil rights than a law enforcement officer, with the possible exception of a civil rights attorney, who would no doubt tell you not to antagonize police, regardless of how you feel about their actions, but rather to take legal action afterwards.

Myanmar (where is the Myanmar thread, BTW?) is a police state. When was the last time the police or army fired into crowds of peaceful protestors? When did they last loot monasteries and kill monks in the dead of night, during nationwide curfews, to prevent them from holding peaceful protests? When last did the military nullify an election? All this with NO RECOURSE. None. These people will never have a day in court, and those police and soldiers will never see justice. The impunity with which these acts are commited is as bad or worse than the acts, because it only encourages further such behavior.

Some police in "free societies" do bad things, just like anyone anywhere. It is right and proper to punish them and recoup your damages should this happen to you. It is NOT right or proper to assume that because the police have detained you, that they have shattered the fabric of our nation. The fact that you can appeal and reclaim damages is proof that this is no police state.

On the other hand, where would the COPS TV show be without drunken wife-beaters screaming about the Constitution, or running their cars into brick walls over a speeding ticket?

Cops should not be able to hold anyone for any reason that is not an eminent danger to others- that right there makes the difference- the fact that they used unreasonable force, and feel justified in doing it- because the Reve MIGHT have cut in line is police state run amok. they all should lose thier jobs over this, and be made an example of this. Right now, the cops have way to much power and ease to use violence to gain compliance. We can never be a free society until we put more checks on the polices- period. Cops should be subject to the same assualt charges as any private citizen would be for laying hands on the Rev at that point- until or unless he was striking other private citizens, or pulled out a weapon.

The state's resources are just too massive for the common citizen to have the resources to fight, and that is one of the reasons we have police out of control with thier own authority in this country- we need to take away a large chunk of that authority, and hold them accountable.

Like the cop that shot the boy in the head while trying to get a snake out of a tree- a common citizen would be sitting in jail awaiting trial on second degree murder- that cop will probably only lose his job- if even that! That example and the one that started this thread are perfect examples of the police being held to a LOWER standard than the common citizen when commiting crimes- instead of the higher standard they should be held too.

This is an excellent point. The fact of the matter is that the reverend wanted to be arrested. He had to work pretty hard at it too. If they were over reacting on this matter, then why did they allow him to bump his gums so much at them? He wanted to be arrested and trying to "juke" around them and disobey their direct orders is how he got it accomplished. Yes, he did it. If the reverend was turned away at the door without good reason, he could've taken up the matter after the fact through the legal system just as many others have done, as pointed out previously. He did try and cut in line, he did try and push his way past the officers at the 1:40 mark in the video, he did want to get arrested, thus enhancing his political activism "cred."




Valid as well, if a person doesn't believe they should be pulled over upon seeing the red and blue lights, then where does that leave us? You can make this kind of argument in every situation.



Exactly, there are proper ways to handle things, and improper ways. A proper way would be to write a scathing letter to the editor, file a lawsuit, write a letter to the commandant, bring the matter up at city hall, protest outside of city hall and have interesting placards, the options are only limited by creativity. What you should not do is disobey them and try to bully your way through the officer's way. That is never acceptable.

Not acceptable if you're white and normal looking. If you're a black political activist who can then play the "race card" and make a mountain from a mole hill... WHAMMO- it's fine.

I wonder how much press I'd have gotten if I attempted to play "red rover" with some police? Umm... none.

I don't believe it is as much about race as it is about ideology and aggressiveness of using tactics to fight "the man." Cindy Sheehan makes the news whenever she is arrested; the Chicago seven was predominantly white and male back in '68. Ditto the Indianapolis 500.