Using a taser...good or bad?
I was trying to think of the present tense of the word taser (tasing, tasering, tazering) and when all appeared as spelling errors (as does the word taser) I decided to rephrase my title.
I'd heard about University of Florida student that had recently been tasered at a John Kerry event, but due to lack of interest originally, I dismissed it. My curiosity got the best of me today while watching sXePhil videos, and I researched the event a bit. He was allowed to ask Kerry a question, but chose to use the opportunity for a diatribe about John Kerry's lack of commitment in attempting to win the 2004 Presidential Election. He concluded the rant by at least posing the question "did you even want to be [the] President?" which initially left Kerry taken aback. It was then that the police began to intervene.
The man was immediately apprehended as he left the microphone and slightly resisted, demanding to know what he did that prompted the arrest. After a short struggle with the police, pleading for them to stop and allow him to leave on his own, the majority of the officers held him down, while one insisted that he comply and yet another used their taser. The student was escorted out of the room, and brought to the exit insisting for the retrieval of his possessions, where he was asked to present identification, of which he had none. His defense was that he didn't think he'd need his wallet for this event. He further declined to give his personal information because he felt his rights were being assaulted, and rallied the people behind him to support him in this situation.
I'm conflicted as to whether I agree with the student or the police. I'm a big believer in free speech and presenting a valid argument to another individual if you truly believe in it. Action is the only way to achieve results. However, there were several aspects of this event that escalated the tension and made it worse. First of all, verbally contesting a political figure of such high standing is never a good decision. If you disagree with a presidential candidate, and you don't have a degree in politics and respect in the political community, you really don't deserve to question his (or now her) motives. And even if you do feel you're qualified from your occasional book or internet search on the subject, aggressively instigating them is not really the preferred method of argument. Resisting the police, whether they're right or wrong, is also a way to make things worse for yourself. Even if they have no right to arrest you, and you have a strong argument in your defense, you've just resisted arrest, which is a felony. Finally, if you plan on calling attention to yourself in ANY way, carry some form of identification. I bring it with me to play tennis, because there are technicalities that the police can use against you if you don't carry one. Was this guy totally in the right with what he did and how he responded? No, he wasn't. Do I blame him for emotional resistance? No, but I do wish that he had more restraint.
In his defense, he wasn't the only one to blame. Apparently, the police were arresting him for inciting a riot, which I only discovered in one video that showed the events at the doorway. By no means was this man inciting a riot with his speech. The only argument for that accusation lies in his actions during the arrest, when he called for people to help him in resisting the police. In truth, that was, in a sense, inciting a riot; however, the police had no reason originally to arrest the man. He'd not broken any law by using his right of free speech, but disrupting the proceedings of this event could be used to justify the police escorting him out, not arresting him. Furthermore, the police failed to tell him what he was being arrested for, even after he'd asked. My personal belief is that they didn't have a legitimate reason initially, and had to think of one. They should have been able to present him with a reason immediately, and should have given it to him so he would calm down. If they had a true infraction of the law to warrant the arrest, withholding it from him only excited his aggression and resistance.
Was he to blame, or was it the police? My opinion is that it's both. He acted irresponsibly, the police took unnecessary measures and used illegal force, he resisted, they refused his rights by not telling him the grounds for his arrest, he refused to present identification, etc. Usually it's liberating to see someone apprehended, but not if it impairs their rights. If he'd let the police arrest him, he would be in a great position to argue his innocence. Immature, irresponsible LEGAL action should not be punished like that, but he fought back, making him equally as guilty.
What should happen? The police officers should be suspended (if they don't lose their jobs) and the student should bargain a plea so he's not convicted of two felonies (resisting arrest and inciting a riot) since he was placed in an unfortunate circumstance that impeded his rights.
But that's just what I think...
I'd heard about University of Florida student that had recently been tasered at a John Kerry event, but due to lack of interest originally, I dismissed it. My curiosity got the best of me today while watching sXePhil videos, and I researched the event a bit. He was allowed to ask Kerry a question, but chose to use the opportunity for a diatribe about John Kerry's lack of commitment in attempting to win the 2004 Presidential Election. He concluded the rant by at least posing the question "did you even want to be [the] President?" which initially left Kerry taken aback. It was then that the police began to intervene.
The man was immediately apprehended as he left the microphone and slightly resisted, demanding to know what he did that prompted the arrest. After a short struggle with the police, pleading for them to stop and allow him to leave on his own, the majority of the officers held him down, while one insisted that he comply and yet another used their taser. The student was escorted out of the room, and brought to the exit insisting for the retrieval of his possessions, where he was asked to present identification, of which he had none. His defense was that he didn't think he'd need his wallet for this event. He further declined to give his personal information because he felt his rights were being assaulted, and rallied the people behind him to support him in this situation.
I'm conflicted as to whether I agree with the student or the police. I'm a big believer in free speech and presenting a valid argument to another individual if you truly believe in it. Action is the only way to achieve results. However, there were several aspects of this event that escalated the tension and made it worse. First of all, verbally contesting a political figure of such high standing is never a good decision. If you disagree with a presidential candidate, and you don't have a degree in politics and respect in the political community, you really don't deserve to question his (or now her) motives. And even if you do feel you're qualified from your occasional book or internet search on the subject, aggressively instigating them is not really the preferred method of argument. Resisting the police, whether they're right or wrong, is also a way to make things worse for yourself. Even if they have no right to arrest you, and you have a strong argument in your defense, you've just resisted arrest, which is a felony. Finally, if you plan on calling attention to yourself in ANY way, carry some form of identification. I bring it with me to play tennis, because there are technicalities that the police can use against you if you don't carry one. Was this guy totally in the right with what he did and how he responded? No, he wasn't. Do I blame him for emotional resistance? No, but I do wish that he had more restraint.
In his defense, he wasn't the only one to blame. Apparently, the police were arresting him for inciting a riot, which I only discovered in one video that showed the events at the doorway. By no means was this man inciting a riot with his speech. The only argument for that accusation lies in his actions during the arrest, when he called for people to help him in resisting the police. In truth, that was, in a sense, inciting a riot; however, the police had no reason originally to arrest the man. He'd not broken any law by using his right of free speech, but disrupting the proceedings of this event could be used to justify the police escorting him out, not arresting him. Furthermore, the police failed to tell him what he was being arrested for, even after he'd asked. My personal belief is that they didn't have a legitimate reason initially, and had to think of one. They should have been able to present him with a reason immediately, and should have given it to him so he would calm down. If they had a true infraction of the law to warrant the arrest, withholding it from him only excited his aggression and resistance.
Was he to blame, or was it the police? My opinion is that it's both. He acted irresponsibly, the police took unnecessary measures and used illegal force, he resisted, they refused his rights by not telling him the grounds for his arrest, he refused to present identification, etc. Usually it's liberating to see someone apprehended, but not if it impairs their rights. If he'd let the police arrest him, he would be in a great position to argue his innocence. Immature, irresponsible LEGAL action should not be punished like that, but he fought back, making him equally as guilty.
What should happen? The police officers should be suspended (if they don't lose their jobs) and the student should bargain a plea so he's not convicted of two felonies (resisting arrest and inciting a riot) since he was placed in an unfortunate circumstance that impeded his rights.
But that's just what I think...