University of Florida Police Brutality

[Reaver]

At the "town hall"-type speeches that I've been to, normally there's a time limit on the questions asked by the public. Generally, it's to keep things concise, and not have people giving their own treatsie under the guise of asking a question. It's usually not exercised, unless people get long-winded. This guy falls into that category, and from the video you showed, it looked like he got snippy when the woman was telling him to wrap it up.


But he was kind of half-hearting an actual question. If you watch the video, he goes on a rant about the 2004 elections. So technically, he was being a disruption.


True, but he had already started his "why didn't you dispute the election" and "black disenfranchising" rant. Look, I think that these are perfectly reasonable questions to be asking too, but this was just an inapprorpiate time to be asking. These questions have been raised a million times before--did he think Kerry, being asked it for the million-and-first time was just going to break down and go "You know what? You're right. The 2004 election was fixed! And OJ killed Nicole! And I stole the Lindbergh baby!" Come on, the guy was being a douche. Not a "shoot the guy with a taser"-douche, but a douche nonetheless.

Why should it matter whether Kerry's been asked the question a million times?
If you're trying to prove that the kid was a douche then sure he's a douche, but just because you're a douche doesn't mean you don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. The questions were valid, regardless of how many times they've been asked. Has anyone ever asked John Kerry the same question in a similar fashion (i.e. at conference like this) and were they cut off too? The reason why he was going on even though Kerry said he already read the book was because he was prepping the audience, since they probably didn't know what it was about.

If there was a time limit on the speech, then by all means. But let's see where it's documented so as well. If we're going to prosecute someone legally, with fines, let alone taser them let's see where it's written.

Still no excuses for all the other things I've mentioned.

Edit: Total talking time excluding being interrupted by the police officer: 73 seconds.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

This is my first problem with what happened, why was his mic cut off? What did he do wrong at this point, completely ignoring how the rest of the story unfolded?

At the "town hall"-type speeches that I've been to, normally there's a time limit on the questions asked by the public. Generally, it's to keep things concise, and not have people giving their own treatise under the guise of asking a question. It's usually not exercised, unless people get long-winded. This guy falls into that category, and from the video you showed, it looked like he got snippy when the woman was telling him to wrap it up.

He wasn't disrupting what was going on, he was given a chance to ask a question by being allowed to step up to the mic and ask a question just like everyone else if they wanted to.

But he was kind of half-hearting an actual question. If you watch the video, he goes on a rant about the 2004 elections. So technically, he was being a disruption.

If you pay close attention, he was asking the question while a female police officer interrupted him. He was exorcising freedom of speech, he wasn't yelling or using profanity at this point.

True, but he had already started his "why didn't you dispute the election" and "black disenfranchising" rant. Look, I think that these are perfectly reasonable questions to be asking too, but this was just an inapprorpiate time to be asking. These questions have been raised a million times before--did he think Kerry, being asked it for the million-and-first time was just going to break down and go "You know what? You're right. The 2004 election was fixed! And OJ killed Nicole! And I stole the Lindbergh baby!" Come on, the guy was being a douche. Not a "shoot the guy with a taser"-douche, but a douche nonetheless.

EDIT (No such thing as a "treatsie", Conc. Learn to spell, dickface.)

[Jeenyuss]

don't tase me bro

i thought that was funny too.

[Reaver]

If you've watched some of the video's, I recommend you watch this video to get a better grasp on the story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE76LQwT6qA

This is my first problem with what happened, why was his mic cut off? What did he do wrong at this point, completely ignoring how the rest of the story unfolded? He wasn't disrupting what was going on, he was given a chance to ask a question by being allowed to step up to the mic and ask a question just like everyone else if they wanted to. If you pay close attention, he was asking the question while a female police officer interrupted him. He was exorcising freedom of speech, he wasn't yelling or using profanity at this point.

At this point the mic is cut off, and they begin moving him along using force.
When they place their hands on his arms and begin escorting him out (gently in the beginning), what warrants them to do this? Even if we were to assume at this point in time that they're merely planning to escort him, and not arrest him, what is the reasoning for doing so?

I think what was really happening here was the fact that he was asking controversial questions. Because they didn't agree with him asking these questions they cut off his mic, which was a huge mistake.

When they begin escorting him he does resist a little but you can also hear the police officer saying "stop stop stop." Even though they made it clear what he was supposed to do in order to avoid escalating the situation, they didn't do enough. He should have been told why he was being escorted (or arrested, since it wasn't made clear to him). I'd still like to know why he was even being escorted or arrested at this point. He's made a few mistakes resisting being escorted (or arrested), and also using some vulgar terms (he said "blowjob" at one point during his question, I'm not sure if that's alright or not) but the police officers have made a much bigger mistake. He didn't seem like a total jackass, he did thank Kerry for his time, and when they tried to get him off the mic the first time he did say "thank you," albeit in a harsh tone.

He did say "what are you arresting me for?" before it escalated too much. As police officers they have a responsibility at this point to clarify if he's being arrested or not. This is EXTREMELY important, because if he's being arrested then he must have done something illegal at this time, in which case they should be stating his rights. And even more importantly, then it's apparent to him that because they're arresting him, if he doesn't comply then he's resisting arrest which is illegal. Later on, it's obvious they're arresting him and he is resisting arrest, the discussion on this part of the story has already been addressed in this thread.

[stark]

The police do not have to tell you the crime for which they are arresting you, though they probably will

- The American Bar Association

[Tone]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/wkmg/2007091....1pYtHUezpx0QC

Wheelchair-Bound Woman Dies After Being Shocked With Taser 10 Times

Wed Sep 19, 9:38 AM ET

A Clay County woman's family said it's seeking justice after their loved one died shortly after being shocked 10 times with Taser guns during a confrontation with police.

The family of 56-year-old Emily Delafield said it would take the Green Cove Springs Police Department to court, according to a WJXT-TV report.

In April 2006, officers with the police department said they were called to a disturbance at a home in the 400 block of Harrison Street just before 5 p.m.

In a 911 call made to the Green Cove Springs, Delafield can be heard telling a dispatcher that she believed she was in danger:

Dispatcher: And what's the problem?

Delafield: My sister is waiting on my property.

Dispatcher: Your what?

Delafield: My sister (inaudible) is on my property trying to harm me.

Officers said they arrived to find Delafield in a wheelchair, armed with two knives and a hammer. Police said the woman was swinging the weapons at family members and police.

Within an hour of her call to 911, Delafield, a wheelchair-bound woman documented to have mental illness, was dead.

Family attorney Rick Alexander said Delafield's death could have been prevented and that there are four things that jump out at him about the case.

"One, she's in a wheelchair. Two, she's schizophrenic. Three, they're using a Taser on a person that's in a wheelchair, and then four is that they tasered her 10 times for a period of like two minutes," Alexander said.

According to a police report, one of the officers used her Taser gun nine times for a total of 160 seconds and the other officer discharged his Taser gun once for a total of no more than five seconds.

A medical examiner found Delafield died from hypertensive heart disease and cited the Taser gun shock as a contributing factor, the report said. On her death certificate, the medical examiner ruled Delafield's death a homicide.

The family said it plans to sue the Green Coves Springs Police Department now that it has all the reports regarding their loved one's death.

"We're going to try to compensate the estate and the family and try to get justice," Alexander said.

He said he believes the evidence weighs heavily in favor of Delafield's family and that justice will be served.

"I think that this evidence is going to show, along with some of the evidence we've collected outside of here, that there is no reason Emily Delafield should have died that day," Alexander said.

He said he plans to file a notice to sue sometime before the end of the year.

[stark]

For instance, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) use-of-force continuum provides five levels of potential subject actions, and corresponding officer responses that range from cooperative controls, such as verbal commands, when dealing with compliant subjects up to deadly force, such as firearms, when dealing with assaultive subjects that pose a threat of serious physical injury or death. n54 Some use-of-force policies also have the officers consider factors such as subject sizes and age, the number of subjects, the proximity of weapons, potential risk of injury, experience of officers on scene, and influence of drugs or alcohol in determining the reasonableness of force. n55 There is no universally accepted use-of-force policy, however, and the guidelines often vary in their specificity. n56

Overall, the majority of law enforcement agencies in the United States place Tasers in the mid-range n57 of the use-of-force continuum scale. n58 What constitutes [*365] mid-range use of force, however, varies with law enforcement agencies. For instance, some law enforcement agencies allow an officer to deploy a Taser when they perceive the situation as potentially harmful. n59 These situations include, for example, instances in which a subject attacks or threatens to attack an officer or another person by fighting or kicking. n60 Police officers can also use neck restraints, batons, and other impact weapons in these situations. n61

Other law enforcement agencies permit the use of Tasers when a police officer perceives the situation as volatile, as when a subject is defensively resistant. n62 This includes situations in which the subject is actively resisting arrest, but not physically assaulting the officer. n63 Police officers can also use hair/joint takedowns, pepper sprays, and temporary restraints at this level. n64

Generally, the lowest level of force that police agencies allow the use of Tasers is when an officer perceives the situation as tactical, as when the subject is passively resistant. n65 This occurs, for example, when a subject refuses to comply with police officer's verbal commands, but does not interfere with the police officer and presents no physical threat. n66 This level on the force continuum is the most controversial for Taser deployment, and generally, no other forms of physical force are appropriate. n67

Taken from the Journal of Law and Health

Anyways, there's a pretty straight-forward federal guidelines as to how they percieve the use of tasers shall be regulated. Clearly, this kid falls under the FLETC continuum guidelines.

[GuruMeditation]

i expect many euro opinions on this matter

The euro opinion is that you guys have it easy.

You don't know a fucked up police force until you've dealt with the French version of it.

[Scoop]

Kerry has since "condemned" what happen in that video

and it is true that kerry won the 2004 election, the vote fraud is proven. look at exit polls VS actual results, they match in paper ballot only states but have huge differences in machine diebold states...you even have the data control of paper-ballot only states/ plus all the other scandals that went on like denying blacks votes.

and it is true that bush and kerry are both members of scull and bones, and that secret society did infact produce a disproportionate number of Congressmen, presidents, big CEOs, and powerful people, for being a society that admits only 15 members per year in a country of 300 million people

this is serious enough to break no law by asking a few questions for a few moments.

Scull and Bones is a death cult where its members masturbate in coffins and become indoctrinated to be ultimately loyal to each other and their agenda. e.g. kerry must be the 2004 nominee, and he must not challenge the election results with bush, fellow bonesman - they must stage it to look like he tried a little then he gives up, because Bush was to be prez.

Tone make a thread with a shitload of info on the skull and bones please. Id love to read it.:wub:

[Tone]

Yesterday at a John Kerry forum a student was asking a question about Kerry's involvement in the Skull and Bones. His mic was cut due to profanity (allegedly) and he began shouting out. The cops all grabbed him and were pulling him out. The rest you can see for yourself in the video here. He was tasered for about 7 seconds.

We had a bunch of student protests today on brutality etc. Pretty fucked up.

Kerry has since "condemned" what happen in that video

and it is true that kerry won the 2004 election, the vote fraud is proven. look at exit polls VS actual results, they match in paper ballot only states but have huge differences in machine diebold states...you even have the data control of paper-ballot only states/ plus all the other scandals that went on like denying blacks votes.

and it is true that bush and kerry are both members of scull and bones, and that secret society did infact produce a disproportionate number of Congressmen, presidents, big CEOs, and powerful people, for being a society that admits only 15 members per year in a country of 300 million people

this is serious enough to break no law by asking a few questions for a few moments.

Scull and Bones is a death cult where its members masturbate in coffins and become indoctrinated to be ultimately loyal to each other and their agenda. e.g. kerry must be the 2004 nominee, and he must not challenge the election results with bush, fellow bonesman - they must stage it to look like he tried a little then he gives up, because Bush was to be prez.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

I have to disagree with you fundamentally, freedom of speech should never be undermined just because we live in a 'structured' and 'civilised' society. It's a right we've gained (as western cultures) through political progress, democracy and constitutions. It's a right so many people lack and a right so many people fight for. Do not take it for granted, it's a luxury.

I don't take it for granted. But there ARE limits to "free speech" in any modern society. There HAVE to be. You're kidding yourself if you think societies work when absolutely anything goes.

You also infer that just because people have the ability to say what they want, they necessarily will. People don't always exercise their civil rights to the maximum all the time, that's absurd. It's like saying that freedom of religion would necessarily mean everyone would be religious. You entertain the somewhat simplistic idea that unless something is legally implemented the opposite will definitely occur: it won't.

I don't think that everyone would, and didn't say that. But it only takes one shithead to spoil it for everyone. And yes, there ARE those people out there who spout things that fly in the face of all reason. What you're talking about is an ideal world in which you don't have people who say shit just to get people riled up. Reality check: those people DO exist. There's probably more of them than you'd like to believe. Shit, there's at least two of them on these message boards alone.

The reason that I get so pissed about it is like I said before--I feel that dumb people ruin true and total free speech for the rest of us.

Edit - Also, I agree with Face that campus police should not be armed.

[Facetious]

Gen pretty much said everything I was going to say, only he thought it out more and said it more effectively than I was going to. It seems to me that this guy was trying to cause a scene, but it's no excuse for the behavior. The fact that these campus police didn't have the presence of mind to go through any of the normal protocol for arresting someone is bad enough. The fact that they tasered him is worse. The fact that they did both of those things while they were being videotaped is frightening. Clearly, they had no knowledge of what they were supposed to do in this situation and thought they were doing the right thing. We saw it at Virginia Tech, and we're seeing it here, campus police should not have any authority to do anything, and certainly should not have any sort of weapons. When you do nothing but boost your ego by fucking with casual drug users and drunks all day, you lose your ability to deal with real (or at least sober) threats apparently.

[genocidal]

Tell me when you hear the officers say, "Sir, you're under arrest for x" (and yes phat, they are required to tell you what you're under arrest for when they detain you, not at the station). They don't, they just put their grubby hands on him. How the fuck can you resist arrest when you aren't under arrest?

Also Kim, there is something called judgment that most humans are assumed to have. He wasn't a threat when 4 officers were on top of him and 2 or 3 more were standing right there. I don't care if you're Jackie goddamn Chan - if you're 170 pounds and 4 fatasses are on you then you aren't going any where.

Read my fat post where I cite the actual laws on taser usage.

[Kim]

When the guy resisted arrest, the police knew that they had to take him down. The police had to hold him down somewhat in order to administer the taser, because as observed from his behaviour, it would be a danger to the other police officers as well.

That being said...I believe the taser should only be used if the suspect on hand was armed, because the taser is pretty much like a handgun, without the high fatality rates. However, that could be subjective as well, because what if they were a martial artist trained in close combat with the capacity to kill.

[Money]

i expect many euro opinions on this matter

haha gen, only smart thing to do would be to ignore them gj