<p>Exactly. Unfortunately, impressionable college students see some kid lying on the ground screaming while surrounded by officers and instantly jumps to the conclusion of some kind of brutality, even when all signs point to exaggeration and/or setup on the part of the kid.</p>
<p>Sorry people, but sometimes when you cause problems in the real world, you get hurt a little bit. That's not brutality, that's real life.</p>
<p>I can't believe this one .. makes me laugh my arse off .. <a href="http://www.dont-taze-me-bro.com%5B/url%5D">http://www.dont-taze-me-bro.com</a></p>
<p>This morning students were shot on the campus of Delaware State University -- Dover.</p>
<p>Now, we have serious infringement upon the daily laissez-faire ambiance of college. Do we allow our children's civil rights to be subordinated to their safety? Do we lock more doors? Does each dorm have a separate key which prevents other dormers from entering without being allowed in by a resident of that dorm? In short, do the confines of the campus become more confining?</p>
<p>The taser incident at UF is part of something much larger. The police/security may have overreacted, but their minds are focused upon preventing incidents like those at DSU or the more known tragedy at Virginia Tech. And, as these incidents increase in number, their focus will become only more pronounced.</p>
<p>Just two days ago, I thought the UF incident was a derivative of some overzealous policing. Now, after the DSU incident, my refreshed memory and attention see what must have been the concern of the UF security personnel.</p>
<p>More incidents like that at UF will probably arise. And, unfortunately, when I visit campuses with my last college-bound child, the tours will more often discuss safety, security personnel, lock systems and blue-light boxes which are abundantly and appropriately scattered about the campus.</p>
<p>Where is the outrage from the liberal left, who are supposedly so concerned about the Bush administration trampling on our civil rights? It figures that it happened at a Kerry speech. Where is Kerry's outrage, BTW? Omigosh - could you imagine what would have happened if the hecklers at Ann Coulter speeches were tasered?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, we have serious infringement upon the daily laissez-faire ambiance of college. Do we allow our children's civil rights to be subordinated to their safety? Do we lock more doors? Does each dorm have a separate key which prevents other dormers from entering without being allowed in by a resident of that dorm? In short, do the confines of the campus become more confining?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or do we allow students the means to defend themselves from this type of incident? Civil rights subordinated to safety indeed :rolleyes: More like safety sacrificed due to the suspension of civil rights on college campuses.</p>
<p>Long story short people: tasering him was a better option than fighting to get cuffs on and potentially injuring the kid or having a police officer be injured in the process of cuffing him. If he didn't want to be tasered, he shouldn't have acted up.</p>
<p>I'm usually all for freedom of speech and tazering is usually bad and uncalled for. But this guy was seriously an a** (as I vied it on the video) and kinda deserved it imo. It's just sad that now the jerk has the attention he craved. : (</p>
<p>I would say that this is not a "freedom of speech" incident. </p>
<p>If I want to host an event with a prestigious guest, you should not have the right to disrupt it by speaking for as long as you wish in a rude tone to my guest while defaming my reputation as a host. That's "freedom of assembly".</p>
<p>I watched the film and thought that it was probably a baised view of what may have occured before the filming process.</p>
<p>They don't have to be read to you at all, if the officers don't want to officially question you. Gotta love the misconception that you can't be arrested unless read your rights lol.</p>
<p>^I never said that, the police report did. and from what i remember it was written as if they read it to him right away (maybe I'm wrong I don't feel like reading it again because this computer's slow)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Or do we allow students the means to defend themselves from this type of incident? Civil rights subordinated to safety indeed More like safety sacrificed due to the suspension of civil rights on college campuses.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good thing this isn't a question about civil rights. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom-to-do-whatever-the-hell-i-want-by-disturbing-the-peace-or-infringing-on-others'-rights-to-have-a-calm-and-rational-Q&A-session. He came in, got his yuks in, was asked to leave by those responsible for ensuring that the event was conducted in an appropriate manner, and refused. Repeatedly. He had it coming.</p>
<p>^ You should have read the post I was replying to, which was about the shooting on Deleware State's campus. I completely agree that this kid that got tased had it coming.... hell, he deserved another jolt of edison medicine for being a pansy, whiny b****.</p>
<p>If those policemen had been guarding me like that and restricting my space I would have resisted as well. And hopefully broken one of their noses. Tasing him while he was on the ground was excess. They were basically tasing him because he wasn't shutting up, he was already very subdued. Also, if you have done nothing wrong, the cops have no right to arrest you. Thus, you do have a right to resist unlawful arrest. Personally, I hope the guy sues the cops and wins a big settlement. The only thing I was disturbed about was that he yelled like a baby when he was tasered. And for those saying he was cursing at the cops, I would have spat in their face if they didn't let me go. Hopefully this will be a lesson to cops, you can't just taser an unarmed college student.</p>
<p>From the company's (Taser International) website:
"TASER devices use proprietary technology to incapacitate dangerous, combative, or high-risk subjects who pose a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens, or themselves in a manner that is generally recognized as a safer alternative to other uses of force."</p>
<p>1) Was the guy dangerous? No, since when were unarmed, skinny white boys, be considered very dangerous? Especially considering he was surrounded by six armed cops.
2) Was he combative? No, not when he was pinned down by 5 big cops. He could barely move, not to talk of fight.
3) Was he a high risk subject? Maybe when he was running into town hall, but when he's pinned down, hell no. </p>
<p>The police officer's use of the taser was criminal.</p>
<p>
[quote="FredFredBurger, post:73, topic:386536"]
Also, if you have done nothing wrong, the cops have no right to arrest you. Thus, you do have a right to resist unlawful arrest.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that it is the court's job to decide whether an arrest is lawful or not. We still have courts right? It is not the right of the offender to resist any kind of arrest, especially at the scene of the crime.</p>
<p>FredFedBurger: Absolutely he was combative. He was resisting the officers' efforts to cuff him, in spite of their warnings that he would be tasered. And so he was tasered. Personally, I'm not crying for him right now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, if you have done nothing wrong, the cops have no right to arrest you.
[/quote]
You can't honestly be telling me you think he did nothing wrong.</p>
<p>Man, I would hate to live in your ideal world.</p>
<p>I agree with everyone here who thought the guy was out of line and should have been removed (just not tasered). </p>
<p>I just hope that you all agree that the same thing should happen when a conservative is at the podium.</p>
<p>When I say nothing wrong, I mean nothing legally wrong. He was acting like a child, but seriously, is it deserving of physical punishment? The guy even said, "Don't tase me bro!" The punishment doesn't fit the "crime". And obviously UF is thinking the same thing considering they put the cops on administrative leave.</p>
<p>Thank god they put the cops on administrative lead. They deserve it and I hope they get their asses sued off. Someone mentioned the cops were right because of "years of training". I guess years of training meant 6 officers couldnt arrest someone on the floor with his hands behind his back who is unarmed.</p>