[Nose Nuggets]

so im sure everyone has seen this in some form by now

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=50&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


any comments?

 

[fatcat]

dont taze be bro!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkMkGOpAF4s&mode=related&search=

^ They keep going and going...

And he has his own Shirts now to...

http://www.zazzle.com/jakegio

lol, this whole things been fun as hell to watch unfold.

 

[brucelee]

I love the MC Hammer "Don't taze me" instead of "Can't touch this". lol

 

[global]

these are two of my favorites...

http://tazeelo.ytmnd.com/

http://ghosttasers.ytmnd.com/

that situation appeared to be handled extremely poorly via all the video i have seen. i know the camera was on, etc. (and i hate monday morning quarterbacking), but those officers could have taken him down and cuffed him with little to no effort if they were more aggressive. to me it seemed like they were playing patty-cake with him until they decided to use the taser.

 

[Nose Nuggets]

since when is asking a man who is disrupting a crowed to leave completely out of the question? thats what i cant wrap my mind around. i would be in prison right now if that was me. i would have had a complete fucking freak out and bloodied at least one officer. yeah, there are funny videos, and the guy sounds like a girl when hes screaming about the taser. fuck all that. hell, if i had been in the room i would probably still be in prison right now for assaulting an officer. i saw a man verbally heckling a senator from a podium with a microphone be grabbed mid sentence, forced to the ground, tazerd, cuffed, and arrested. at no point through the 4 videos of the vent that i saw did ANYONE ask him to leave. not 1.

is freedom of speech just a slogan we throw around now?

 

[global]

i would have had a complete fucking freak out and bloodied at least one officer... fuck all that. hell, if i had been in the room i would probably still be in prison right now for assaulting an officer.

and this is the problem officers encounter daily. no offense, but that is a very poor attitude. if you are ever in that situation one day and act like you say... you will more than likely be taken to the hospital once your "rant" is stopped.

there are rules given to spectators at debates with any politician. some people choose to disobey and they are treated accordingly. it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

per my above comment, the officers should have just taken him down, cuffed him, and removed him. it was the initial lack of force which i have a problem with.

bottom line is no matter what any of us watch, none of us were there... therefore we cannot judge.

 

[Nose Nuggets]

its the fact that it went from zero to arrest with nothing else in between that infuriates me. the guy was just talking in a mic and got arrested for it. thats bogus!

 

[global]

take a look at the video again... the guy was no under arrest, but merely being escorted out of the building. just because an officer puts his hands on you and escorts you somewhere does not mean you are under arrest. now the second the dumbdumb pulled away from the officers he was under arrest (for delaying/resisting) and so the drama began.

 

[Nose Nuggets]

if you put your hands on me its assault. are you saying its not the same for a cop if he has no reason? can a cop walk up to me on the street and grab me by the arm?

 

[KingPerformance]

if you put your hands on me its assault. are you saying its not the same for a cop if he has no reason? can a cop walk up to me on the street and grab me by the arm?

If you are acting disorderly then yes, a police officer can arrest you. I think you need to look into what happened there a little closer. The thing you HAVE to remember is you can't fight an arrest while it is taking place, you can ONLY fight an arrest in court. END OF STORY. He got what he deserved; he resisted arrest and fought while on the floor so the officers subdued him. Would it have been better if they broke a finger or two "persuading" him into cuffs? Tazers take everyone from the most violent to the moderately disruptive and gives them the needed attitude adjustment necessary to complete and arrest with a minimal amount of danger to everyone involved.

 

[Nose Nuggets]

i dont think he was acting disorderly. i dont think the officers had grounds to arrest him for anything. nor did they say they where arresting him untill after the event.

tazers need to be used with severe discression. the fact that you would suggest a moderately disruptive individual would be categorized as a tazerable individual is kind of disconcerting.

 

[global]

If you are acting disorderly then yes, a police officer can arrest you.

if you put your hands on me its assault. are you saying its not the same for a cop if he has no reason? can a cop walk up to me on the street and grab me by the arm?

actually if someone put their hands on you, it would be battery, but that is besides the point. yes, an officer can walk up to you and grab you if he has reason, whether you think it is right or not. you could be a spot on match for a suspect being sought after, etc, etc.

like kingperformance said:

The thing you HAVE to remember is you can't fight an arrest while it is taking place, you can ONLY fight an arrest in court. END OF STORY.

and some people decide to learn the hard way...

 

[KingPerformance]

i dont think he was acting disorderly. i dont think the officers had grounds to arrest him for anything. nor did they say they where arresting him untill after the event.

tazers need to be used with severe discression. the fact that you would suggest a moderately disruptive individual would be categorized as a tazerable individual is kind of disconcerting.

Then either you don't know the whole story, or you have a warped sense of what is disorderly conduct. Either way, he was acting in a disorderly manner and in the process of being escorted out of the building elevated the situation on his own accord.

The use of force is an integral part of a law enforcement officer's job, particularly when arresting criminal suspects. No one disputes that police should be permitted to protect themselves and others from threats to safety, but what is often disputed is an officer's assessment of a threat and the level of force selected to counter it. As a general principle, the level of force used should be tailored to the nature of the threat that prompted its use. As a constitutional principle, (Tennessee v. Garner 1985), the level of force must be reasonable -- not the most minimal level possible, just reasonable. As a common law principle, there should be some warning beforehand by the police before force is used; however, since Amato v. U.S. 1982, this warning is only required before deadly force.

[/thread]

 

[Nose Nuggets]

it even says in your quote "As a common law principle, there should be some warning beforehand by the police before force is used" which there was not. its totally understandable that the warning is not REQUIRED. there are plenty of scenarios where a warning is not pheasable. you gave a great example, your walking down the street and you happen to look like a suspect currently being perused. however, one of them is NOT standing at a podium talking through a microphone. hell, the guy even said, "let me up and i will walk out of here". i cant believe you can defend police forcefully grabbing an individual like this. hes talking. not even offensively. hes not threating hes not cursing. hes just asking heated questions. Kerry is answering the guys questions while being tazed. IMHO this would have ALL been acceptable if the first thing they had done was say "sir, i have to ask you to leave now your being a disruption." any heat at that point and you can do what you need too. but i stand by my previous statement, and this goes for anybody. if i get grabbed by the arm at random, someones getting a shot in the mouth. if you have no questions for me i have none for you.

 

[global]

hell, the guy even said, "let me up and i will walk out of here".

he was textbook disorderly as he even looked back like he knew he was out of line and was going to envoke a reaction.

just because stupid said, "why are you arresting me" does not mean he was under arrest at that point. people just don't understand and ignorance to the law is no excuse.

he said he would roll on his stomach and cooperate, the officers let him, he did, and he resisted again. its just like people screaming, "i can't breathe!!!!"

[/thread]

 

[Nose Nuggets]

from wiki

A typical statutory definition of disorderly conduct, in this case Indiana's, defines the offense in this way:

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

and the definition of disruption can be found here

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=disruption