From what I've read in coverage, the kid was known to be big on stunts like this, as some of the folks at the event were aware. If he asked a simple, sincere question, hey that's fine. But from some accounts, he asked a question, Kerry would start to answer, ask another question, and so forth. The kid starts to launch into what's shaping up to be a nice long-winded political diatrabe by the time the police move in.
At this point, no, no tasers should be involved.
Then he screws himself. He starts to resist. Bad boy. Never, never, never resist the police. Not only is it illegal and run the risk of facing a charge of assaulting an officer, you're going to get your ass handed to you, one way or another. It just happened that the taser was the weapon of choice in this case. I'm not a cop, nor are you, so I can't comment on what thought processes were used in choosing the taser rather than a good-ol' beatdown, but it happened.
I don't subscribe to the school of thought that a lot of the folk in our generation seem to be re-embracing of The Man and how he's trying to put us down and that the police (or fingerquote authorities, as you put it) are out there for the sole purpose of, as they used to be fond of saying, "putting us down."
There's a right way and a wrong way to make a point. The right way is to come up with an eloquent, thought-out speech, series of questions for Kerry, whatever, and to present these ideas in a civil, appropriate manner. Unfortunately, we today are so desirous of fifteen minutes of fame, that we tend to speak and act in a big, dramatic manner, worthy of a Hollywood movie. One does also have to recognize that you aren't the only one with rights. If the organizers of the event want you to stop talking, why aren't they within their rights?
The kid's behavior, as I think I mentioned in the previous comment, bears a striking resemblance to the tree loonies we had in Warren four or five years ago (minus the turning telephone poles into traps). I recall one skirmish with a couple kids up in the branches of a tree, handcuffed, screaming "DON'T HIT ME!" as the cop moved up towards them in a cherry picker. It's about attention (success), it's about making a name (of whatever type) nationally for you (success).
True, he may have been over-the-top in the way he chose to frame his argument, and true, that is definitely not the best way to promote an open and free exchange of ideas. I simply think that the University police response was also over-the-top and misguided; why not simply shackle him and remove him? Were they so drunk with power that they decided they must make a public example of him and stun him with a taser?
He likely knew that, in resisting arrest, he was committing a crime and perhaps he craved the attention he was generating, but I don't believe he was asking to be tased. Furthermore, do University police even have the jurisdiction to claim resist of arrest and mete out punishment by force? I believe that at RIT they were supposed to handle the situation as best they could, and, failing that, only then call in the local authorities who are authorized by law to use force, detain in lock-up, etc.
Camden and Rockland (iirc) have recently authorized the use of tasers, but only in very strictly prescribed dangerous circumstances. I am not saying "stick it to the man!" Police have a very important and relevant job to do, but it seems that these campus police took their jobs a little too seriously and exercised poor judgment whilst their egos were inflated. Dissent, when not violent, does not call for a beat down, or tasing, or similar such "shut up or else!" treatment; they simply could have removed him quietly from the situation and then nobody would be up in arms about any of this.
From what I've read in coverage, the kid was known to be big on stunts like this, as some of the folks at the event were aware. If he asked a simple, sincere question, hey that's fine. But from some accounts, he asked a question, Kerry would start to answer, ask another question, and so forth. The kid starts to launch into what's shaping up to be a nice long-winded political diatrabe by the time the police move in.
At this point, no, no tasers should be involved.
Then he screws himself. He starts to resist. Bad boy. Never, never, never resist the police. Not only is it illegal and run the risk of facing a charge of assaulting an officer, you're going to get your ass handed to you, one way or another. It just happened that the taser was the weapon of choice in this case. I'm not a cop, nor are you, so I can't comment on what thought processes were used in choosing the taser rather than a good-ol' beatdown, but it happened.
I don't subscribe to the school of thought that a lot of the folk in our generation seem to be re-embracing of The Man and how he's trying to put us down and that the police (or fingerquote authorities, as you put it) are out there for the sole purpose of, as they used to be fond of saying, "putting us down."
There's a right way and a wrong way to make a point. The right way is to come up with an eloquent, thought-out speech, series of questions for Kerry, whatever, and to present these ideas in a civil, appropriate manner. Unfortunately, we today are so desirous of fifteen minutes of fame, that we tend to speak and act in a big, dramatic manner, worthy of a Hollywood movie. One does also have to recognize that you aren't the only one with rights. If the organizers of the event want you to stop talking, why aren't they within their rights?
The kid's behavior, as I think I mentioned in the previous comment, bears a striking resemblance to the tree loonies we had in Warren four or five years ago (minus the turning telephone poles into traps). I recall one skirmish with a couple kids up in the branches of a tree, handcuffed, screaming "DON'T HIT ME!" as the cop moved up towards them in a cherry picker. It's about attention (success), it's about making a name (of whatever type) nationally for you (success).
Reply
He likely knew that, in resisting arrest, he was committing a crime and perhaps he craved the attention he was generating, but I don't believe he was asking to be tased. Furthermore, do University police even have the jurisdiction to claim resist of arrest and mete out punishment by force? I believe that at RIT they were supposed to handle the situation as best they could, and, failing that, only then call in the local authorities who are authorized by law to use force, detain in lock-up, etc.
Camden and Rockland (iirc) have recently authorized the use of tasers, but only in very strictly prescribed dangerous circumstances. I am not saying "stick it to the man!" Police have a very important and relevant job to do, but it seems that these campus police took their jobs a little too seriously and exercised poor judgment whilst their egos were inflated. Dissent, when not violent, does not call for a beat down, or tasing, or similar such "shut up or else!" treatment; they simply could have removed him quietly from the situation and then nobody would be up in arms about any of this.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment