Boy did you take away all the wrong lessons from that video. I've been following the story since the beginning.

Freedom of speech was not an issue here, as the video's title alleges. The question is whether the guy had freedom to disrupt an event. When the Q&A session was coming to a close he pushed his way to the mike and started ranting hysterically. Listen to his tone (and pitch) of voice even as he begins asking the questions. If you can hear him speak and not think he's unhinged, let alone unhinged for no good reason, you probably need professional help. It wasn't just that he saw the cops moving in; they were already told to move closer after he barged his way up there. He's shouting, even screaming in a high strained voice, and won't let Kerry even begin to answer his questions. Note also the sensantionalist tone he gets going there; I've heard 9/11 conspiracy theorists who sound more rational. This is not the voice, nor the words, of a sane man in a moderately stressful situation.

After he began screaming his rant at Kerry, the people who organized the event said to the police officers present that he'd gone on disturbing the peace long enough, and they cut off his mike. The cops moved in at the signal of the event organizers, and tried to move him away calmly, but he would have none of that and kept flailing about and kicking the officers. When they asked him repeatedly to comply, he got more and more violent with them. Eventually they got one handcuff on, and at that point they had to get the other one on at any cost (otherwise it would basically be a weapon), and the only way to subdue him was to tase him.

But there's more background here that should make any reasonable human being lose faith in the student's credibility. First, note that he had friends filming him the whole time; he went out of his way to make sure of it. After his arrest, he calmed down while he was being walked down the stairs after cameras were no longer present, but when they got into sight of more cameras he started pitching a fit again. In the squad car, police reported that his entire attitude changed, he joked around with them, and said they were just doing their job--then he asked if cameras would be present at his booking. Attention whore much? You bet. It turns out this guy has been known for publishing several histrionic screeds in his school paper as well. If you look at the video again with all this in mind, his questions and his tone of voice make a lot more sense. So too does his constant screaming that the police are going to kill him; either he'd have to be literally insane to believe that or he was putting on a show.

So what we have here is an obnoxious twit who wanted to get national attention, and did. Nice of you to do him the favor of feeding his ego.

Lummox JR

That was cool.

eh, you know, if the police just killed anybody that publicaly commited a crime on tape people would stop doing it =P

That's what he gets. Did anyone see that cop smiling? I rofl'd.

DarkView wrote:

Because freedom of speech clearly means you're allowed to say anything, anywhere, to anyone, at any time.

No, that is exactly what freedom of speech means. You are allowed to say anything, anywhere, any time to anyone you want to without fear of being executed. Of course you are going to have to be ready to accept the effects and response of what you say.

A good example is where I live, if you curse in public you can be fined for it. That isn't to say people will run up to me and stop me from doing it, but the fine is in place as a way to encourage people from not doing it.

Jamesburrow wrote:

My thing is they didn't read his rights to him or anything, they just went up their and grabbed him and preceded to tase him. Its possible different states have different laws, but here in TN, until they mirandize you, you are not officially under arrest and they can not just walk up and grab you unless public safety is a concern (which, it did not appear to me that it was).
So, rights or not, he was not technically under arrest, so he could not be considered as resisting arrest, so that tasering would be considered police abuse. Maybe its different there though <_<

It's different everywhere, including TN. You're completely wrong about requiring Miranda rights before an arrest. Miranda rights are required before questioning, and even then only before questioning that is admissible in a court of law. Typically Miranda is read during the arrest for that reason, and in fact they did read him his rights during the arrest. All a cop has to say in fact is "You're under arrest for ____" or something like "Stop or I'll arrest you."

Good gads man, did you really think that criminals just had to stand around listening to a spiel before they could legally be arrested?

Lummox JR

Apparently, PIF.

Jp wrote:

Do you think he was a criminal? Attention-seeking idiot, maybe. I don't know enough to come to a conclusion that way, and I haven't looked at the video. But criminal? Nothing that's been mentioned about him here seems criminal to me.

Where I used the word "criminal" I was obviously talking about general arrest procedure, not this specific case.

The basic principle of self defense is that of proportional response. If someone in a bar punches you, you don't kill them.

"Proportional response" is a lot of BS, really. Appropriate response, okay, but not "proportional". Clearly it's not appropriate to kill a random guy who attacks you in a bar unless you feel he's actually threatening your life. Shooting a burglar on the other hand usually isn't proportional but most rational jurisdictions consider it appropriate under a wider (though certainly not unlimited) set of circumstances.

Police should work similarly - proportional response. You don't shoot someone who just tries to run away. You don't taser someone who's just flailing around, even if he might have gotten a decent flail. If the guy was just being an attention seeking idiot, I wouldn't expect him to hit someone all that hard, anyway. Beyond that, how many police are we talking about? How many people does it take to subdue someone without using a dangerous weapon that is actually forbidden in many countries as a torture device?

Um, did you even read any of this thread? They had to tase him to get him to stop flailing because at that point he already had one hand in a cuff, and a person waving an arm around with one handcuff attached can do damage with the other cuff. He wouldn't comply in spite of repeated verbal warnings--and once the arrest was underway, he had an obligation to comply whether he thought it was fair or not. It does take several people to subdue a wildly struggling man, contrary to what you seem to be implying (i.e. that it's an easy thing for a trained professional to do). It is not acceptable to simply let the guy struggle indefinitely and possibly injure one of the officers.

And a taser itself is not necessarily a torture device, any more than a leaky faucet is. It can be used in that fashion, but that doesn't mean that's its only use. Its purpose is to non-lethally disable someone without hitting them or shooting them. Most places that ban stun guns ban them from civilian use only, although that too is questionable on Second Amendment grounds in the US. Nevertheless, the cops here waited until they were absolutely sure they had no other decent choice before tasing him, and they made equally sure that he had ample warning and lots of chances to avoid it.

Lummox JR

Nothing that's been mentioned about him here seems criminal to me.

I don't know much about the case, but this seemed kind of dodgy:

"tried to move him away calmly, but he would have none of that and kept flailing about and kicking the officers. When they asked him repeatedly to comply, he got more and more violent with them. Eventually they got one handcuff on, and at that point they had to get the other one on at any cost (otherwise it would basically be a weapon), and the only way to subdue him was to tase him."

If you're a cop, let alone a cop in a room with a United States Senator, you have to err on the side of caution. The Senator gets the presumption of innocence over the guy who is screaming, kicking, and resisting arrest.

If you're a civilian, and you act in a way that concerns the police, you have a choice: cooperate, or don't. To me, cooperating seems like the reasonable option, whether the cops are armed with "a dangerous weapon that is actually forbidden in many countries as a torture device" (cue organ sting), a nightstick, or just old-fashioned fists and boots. I've had a few run-ins with the cops in my day, and while some cops were more pleasant than others, none of them saw fit to tase me. Why? Because I didn't puff out my chest for the benefit of a friend videotaping my valiant stand-off against The Man. If you try to show the cops you're a hard-ass, the cops will respond accordingly, because they want to live to the end of their shift, just like anyone else.