I saw him handcuffed at the end, show me where he was zapped after being handcuffed. I watched the video.Gokul43201 said:WOW! All you folks think it isn't excessive force to repeatedly zap the dude AFTER he's been handcuffed?
But that's just a strawman. The question is whether it was really necessary to repeatedly zap the student after he was handcuffed?twisting_edge said:They're a big step ahead of all those people who believe a stun gun immobilizes the victim even before it is even used.
Clearly visible right in the middle - 3:14Evo said:I saw him handcuffed at the end, show me where he was zapped after being handcuffed. I watched the video.
Evo said:I saw him handcuffed at the end, show me where he was zapped after being handcuffed. I watched the video.
That occurred to me as well. It is tough to prove whether or not it was a premeditated stunt, but it seems from the video like once it got going he decided to use it to its fullest potential.chroot said:The more I think about it -- especially after watching the video again -- the more I suspect this person planned this "civil disobedience" to make the greatest possible ordeal. I don't know whether or not it was premeditated, planned weeks in advance, but I think that, once the situation got going, he decided to make a political statement instead of just accepting that he broke and rule and needed to leave. He stretched out his own removal as long as he could, on purpose.
- Warren
I've had up-front and very personal interactions of almost precisely this nature with a wider variety of law-enforcement services than I'd care to admit. The bizarre policy constraints they follow in unusual situations are very real.Gokul43201 said:And do you really think they were following some rule that required cops who have already handcuffed a student to then "encourage" him to walk out on his own steam?
Did you watch the video? You don't need to take anyone's word for it except his!:JasonRox said:The school is saying what the lawyers told them to say.
Even if they didn't follow the guidelines, they would just say they did.
The point isn't to unlimp him, the point is to coerce him into doing what they told him to. The fact that it didn't shows just how motivated he was to resist.Stunning him won't unlimp him.
Watch the video. Clearly, handcuffing a person alone does not necessarily end resistance.Gokul43201 said:WOW! All you folks think it isn't excessive force to repeatedly zap the dude AFTER he's been handcuffed?
Odds are pretty good that physically dragging him out of the building would have caused physical injury. Zapping him coerce him to walk out under his own power causes no actual injury whatsoever. It's the same reason your mother spanks you on the ass - it hurts, but causes no injury whatsoever. Yeah - no injury whatsoever = "nothing".JasonRox said:I rather not endure that moment of pain, and I'm sure you wouldn't either along with many others.
You make it sound like its nothing.
The dude was handcuffed for crying out loud. The next step is to to grab his two arms and march him out.twisting_edge said:I believe a student that does not immediately leave when threatened with a stun gun by a police officer can safely be categorized as "unusual". A student who does so repeatedly would be even more rare.
Care to tell that to the students who were presumably there to study?0rthodontist said:It doesn't matter how many "warnings" a police officer gives to an unarmed man, if all the man is doing is protesting and making a scene.
You're wrong. Go back and look at it again. They picked him up and carried him downstairs. No taser. He was just yelling his head off the whole time. Watch it, repeatedly. NO TASER. Not once after he was handcuffed.Gokul43201 said:Clearly visible right in the middle - 3:14
So? If a man is so stupid he tells an armed police officer to f-off, what does that mean for the physical situation that the police officer must deal with? Nothing. It just tells them that the student does not want to move on his own, so he must be handcuffed and carried out. It is not a physical threat. Police officers should never "retaliate" with physical force against a purely verbal assault.russ_watters said:cops: get up!
him: f-off!
Seems pretty straightforward to me...
He was not handcuffed when they were asking him to leave.Gokul43201 said:The dude was handcuffed for crying out loud. The next step is to to grab his two arms and march him out.
Conveniently ignore Orthodontist's last sentence.Edit: Put in the quote.twisting_edge said:Care to tell that to the students who were presumably there to study?
Tell me, precisely how long is "long enough"? Should the police department send a six man delegation to argue with him all night long if he continues to refuse to leave the building? All the fellow has done is protest and make a scene after all.
Oh, I forgot: he was also trespassing. Oops. My bad.
Yeah, as a matter of fact, it does. Police have the responsibility to use force to arrest a person if necessary. That includes painful coercion. You can't just allow someone to be resist - even if they are resisting while in handcuffs.0rthodontist said:It doesn't matter how many "warnings" a police officer gives to an unarmed man, if all the man is doing is protesting and making a scene. The guy acted like a fool and was clearly trying to emotionally incite the police officers. That does not justify the officers retaliating with a stun baton. The student presented a difficult, challenging, but nonviolent situation and there was no reason to do anything but handcuff him and carry him out.
Since he was not acting as ordered, it wasn't a purely verbal assault, was it? That is physical resistance. That just verbalizes it: it translates into 'I am physically resisting you'.0rthodontist said:So? If a man is so stupid he tells an armed police officer to f-off, what does that mean for the physical situation that the police officer must deal with? Nothing. It just tells them that the student does not want to move on his own, so he must be handcuffed and carried out. It is not a physical threat. Police officers should never "retaliate" with physical force against a purely verbal assault.
Also, the shock was the most non-physical, non-harmful form of restraint possible. I guess Orthodontist, you'd prefer that they kick his ribs in instead?russ_watters said:Since he was not acting as ordered, it wasn't a purely verbal assault, was it? That is physical resistance. That just verbalizes it: it translates into 'I am physically resisting you'.And what of the other people in the area? They were getting rowdy as well.
Because that last sentence is just an emotional appeal stating an opinion. The first sentence was something that could more easily be refuted.Gelsamel Epsilon said:Conveniently ignore Orthodontist's last sentence.
Okay, no need to get confrontational. If I started it, I apologize - I was just reacting from disbelief, and I was never attacking you personally.twisting_edge said:He was not handcuffed when they were asking him to leave.
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? No policeman would ask someone to leave after handcuffing them.
You can't carry them out the door, if you are a group of several police officers? I agree that police have the responsibility to use force, but they have the equally important responsibility not to use excessive force.russ_watters said:Yeah, as a matter of fact, it does. Police have the responsibility to use force to arrest a person if necessary. That includes painful coercion. You can't just allow someone to be resist - even if they are resisting while in handcuffs.
Shocking the student in front of those gathered can only have made the crowd situation worse, and I think the officers may have been lucky that the crowd stood back as it did. The best thing is to quickly carry the student out, not leave him in the same spot as the crowd continues to grow, shocking him over and over while probably a hundred students look on.Again, watch the video - the other people around were verbally combative. If I had been one of those cops, I'd have been nervous that the guy might be able to incite the crowd into physically confronting the police. He needed to be forceably removed from the area as fast as possible.
And being young, naive and having no clue as to what is happening, I guess that means something?Gelsamel Epsilon said:The other people were getting rowdy because they perceived the police's actions as being outside reasonable force.
You don't know what the policy is, do you? Perhaps their orders are not to create a situation where the kid stands criminal charges. Just get him out. Do not involve real law officers and real prosecution. Ever think of that?0rthodontist said:You can't carry them out the door, if you are a group of several police officers? I agree that police have the responsibility to use force, but they have the equally important responsibility not to use excessive force.
Shocking the student in front of those gathered can only have made the crowd situation worse, and I think the officers may have been lucky that the crowd stood back as it did. The best thing is to quickly carry the student out, not leave him in the same spot as the crowd continues to grow, shocking him over and over while probably a hundred students look on.
The kid was unarmed. The shock was unnecessary--the most non-physical, non-harmful form of restraint was just to grab his hands and force him into a pair of handcuffs, then grab his arms and/or torso and drag him out the door. There were two or three trained police officers there. The only danger they were in was from the crowd, and shocking the student instead of dragging him out quickly only made the crowd situation worse.Evo said:Also, the shock was the most non-physical, non-harmful form of restraint possible. I guess Orthodontist, you'd prefer that they kick his ribs in instead?
I've never been picked up that way, but I suspect that picking someone up by their bicepts when their hands are handcuffed behind them would be extremely painful and perhaps cause damage to the shoulder.0rthodontist said:You can't carry them out the door, if you are a group of several police officers? I agree that police have the responsibility to use force, but they have the equally important responsibility not to use excessive force.
Evo...did you watch the bit around 3:14?Evo said:You're wrong. Go back and look at it again. They picked him up and carried him downstairs. No taser. He was just yelling his head off the whole time. Watch it, repeatedly. NO TASER. Not once after he was handcuffed.
Evo said:And being young, naive and having no clue as to what is happening, I guess that means something?
Care to tell that to the students who were presumably there to study?
Tell me, precisely how long is "long enough"? Should the police department send a six man delegation to argue with him all night long if he continues to refuse to leave the building? All the fellow has done is protest and make a scene after all.
Oh, I forgot: he was also trespassing. Oops. My bad.
The student presented a difficult, challenging, but nonviolent situation and there was no reason to do anything but handcuff him and carry him out.
And the shouting about the Patriot Act had nothing whatsoever to do with that, did it? In fact, the shouting of "get your hands off me!" that starts the video had nothing to do with it? All that yelling and screaming had nothing to do with upsetting the people around him?Gelsamel Epsilon said:The other people were getting rowdy because they perceived the police's actions as being outside reasonable force.
Nope, I see him being grabbed, with his hands cuffed and being picked up and carried. That's why he yells. There is no ...handcuffing...taser... Don't you see them grabbing him under the arms and then he yells?Gokul43201 said:Evo...did you watch the bit around 3:14?
The guy is being zapped. You hear a sharp scream and his legs go flying up from under him. At the same instant, you see both his hands clearly cuffed behind his back. He IS being tazed after he was cuffed.
You'd think so, but it really isn't that hard if you think about it...0rthodontist said:Russ, you may make a good point. I don't know how best to carry someone who is resisting, without injuring them. In this case I would guess that they could grab the student around his torso and lift him off the ground, and maybe have another officer grab his legs, but I really don't know. I would assume that a trained police officer would or should know the best way.