September 18, 2007

posted by Timothy Zick

Without good reason to do so, I'm not in the business of second-guessing what the police deem appropriate level of force, and nothing in the video amounts to a good reason to think otherwise. Of course, video isn't as dispositive as one might think: two reasonable people can watch the same tape and draw different conclusions, cf. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.

A commenter at SF presented a timeline that seems to comport with what I see in the video (in brief: the organizers announce there would be one more question from each mic; Meyer was at the end of the queue but forced his way to the front and interupted the person speaking on the other mic; The police started to grab him at that time but Kerry said he would take his question and the cops unhanded him at that time but stood close by; the student went off on a rant and was asked to leave; he failed to comply, resisted arrest, attempted to evade the police and was eventually taken down by force), and assuming that holds good, I think they reacted within the bounds.

The kid wanted attention - wanted to create a controversy - and succeeded. That seems to be the size of it.

Hi Simon,

Of Tasers, Skull and Bones, and so-called freedom of speech

The time for civility is long past. To manhandle and then taser-torture a student for asking questions, no matter how inconvenient, is evil, pure and simple.

Is true freedom of speech for the rich only? Is the USA's constitution nothing more than an "Illuminated" deception? Sadly, all of the available evidence seems to prove it!

Here is Wisdom...

I think I am with Simon, especially since the kid forced his way to the front of the line, interrupted someone else and showed no sign of ending his questioning. There is no "right" to act like that, not even nested away in some penumbra. If anything, I second guess the police for not detaining and removing him more quickly. Indeed, it is the slow, indecisive nature of their reaction that makes them look bad and the kid sympathetic. Or, so I say.

I don't think a Q & A situation usually permits speechifying. (Other clips of this event show that Andrew Meyer was at the mic for a considerable time.) By taking more time at the mic than his share, this jerk was denying others of their right to ask questions within a reasonably-alloted time. This jerk also resisted arrest as he was being escorted out of the room while disturbing the peace. This jerk was obviously looking for trouble and he found it. If he could only had mastered the skill of artfully asking a question or two, he could have relinquished the mic and waited for his answer, he could have embarrassed Kerry, and there would have been no problem.

I don't suppose it's a very interesting question whether the police were right to remove the student or detain him. That seems plausible and at least not very bad even if they ought not have done it. The question, though, is whether they should have used the taser on him. Those are, of course, very painful and sometimes cause death. They are designed to be used as non-leathal force against violent and dangerous people. It's not clear from the video whether the person in question was really presenting a threat to anyone as opposed to just not going along well. The real danger w/ tasers is that many police now use them as a come-along, tasing people who are merely not cooperating even though they are not presenting a danger to anyone, or at least not a danger proportionate to that presented by a taser. If the police were merely trying to make their job easier by using the taser as a come-along then this is pretty clearly an illegitimate use of force, just as much as if they'd punched him in the mouth. As noted, it's not completely possible to tell what happens in the video, but it's at least a case worth looking in to. I too have sympathy with the police (my father was a police officer for 30+ years and my younger brother is a police officer now) but that police officers often use excessive force is indisputable, and that they now fairly regularly use tasers in such cases is also pretty clear. What remains to be determined is if this is such a case.

Ironically, he is a journalism student, where one of the highest placements is as White House correspondent. At White House press events, you are allowed one question per organization (unless you can sneak in your followupquestion fast enough).

From my viewing--Kerry could have handled it better (don't give in to the loud guy), the security could have handled it way better (escalated to physical contact too fast), and the student was just acting like an ass.

However, I would be interested in the legal consequences of resisting arrest if you feel that excessive force is being used against you. Submit to the excessive force, and sue later (if you are able to)? Fight back for self-protection (an almost automatic reaction), then fight charges in court?

He was presenting a clear danger to himself, and to the officers around him. From the assorted camera angles I've seen, he was taken down using minimal force after extensive resistance, but kept fighting on the ground, twisting around and trying to get up after being told to stay face down and get cuffed. Then he tried to get up again (while saying he wasn't resisting--heh) and pulled his arm loose and started striking out when they tried to cuff him. That someone is outnumbered and partially under control does not make them harmless.

He was combative and belligerent and actively resisting at ALL points. When he tried to get up again (and he was obviously no weakling--he got to his knees with an officer on his back and then pulled his arm free again) the police alternative to dry-tasing him at that point was to force him back down on his face and risk injury to him in twisting his arms around for cuffing. He WAS going to be arrested and cuffed at that point--he was NOT going to be allowed to stand up and walk out after resisting arrest and swinging at the police. The alternatives at that moment were pepper spray, billy club, dog-pile, or taser. The first two were out of bounds under circumstances--too many people crowded in too tight.

Injuries most likely for him at that point from physically dog-piling him back down and into cuffs were cracked ribs or chest compression/spinal injuries from dog-piling, and/or shoulder injury/dislocation from arm-bar forced compliance. Instead, they dry-tased his shoulder to disable the arm for cuffing.

To reitirate the timeline, by the time he reached the microphone in the first place he had already jumped the queue and shaken off police attempts to stop him. That's why they were right there on top of him. Only Kerry's initial wave-off allowed him the microphone in the first place.

Lots of coverage here:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/09/dont-tase-me-br.html

My comments come from personal experience is situations like these, as well as having knowledge of the events that led up to the tasing of the student. His jumping the line, and cutting off the other speaker is what originally caused the officers to ask him to stop. At that point and time, he was, among other things, disturbing the peace. He was allowed to continue, however when he ranted on and on, the police were motioned to remove him. They would well have been within their rights to charge him with disturbing the peace. They simply asked him to leave, and as is customary, were escorting him out physically, with the hand on the arm. However his reaction to that, and his following actions of resisting and attempting to physically push off and evade the officers, was what resulted him in being charged. He tried many times to push off and strike the officers, even while ont he ground as stated above. At that time they deployed a tool at their disposal, the taser. They did not use the standard deployment, which fires 2 wired prongs that stick into the suspect. They used it to gain control of him, and deployed it in a manner that would cause the least amount of pain to him. I myself have been tasered, and after the initial burst, while feeling slightly uncomfortable, i was not in pain. It is not "taser-torture", that would require the repeated use of the taser in a manner that was meant to cause debilitating pain or injury. Also, according to the maker of the taser, Taser International, the taser has never been linked to a death that would not have occured otherwise if the taser had not been deployed. Tasers are a tool, similar to OC spray, batons, and hand-cuffs. They are all tools to gain control of a suspect, whether that control be for their safety, the safety of the officer, or the safety of those around them. They are an effective tool, therefore used by many law enforcement agencies world wide. So to put a long story short, if an officer tells you to do something or be tased, and you dont want to be tased, its best to just do it, and if its wrong, fight it later.