University of Florida Police Brutality

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

- The American Bar Association

[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.

[Jeenyuss]

don't tase me bro

i thought that was funny too.

[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.)

[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.

[GuruMeditation]

because Euros are used to being sheep to their governments

....

hang on, an American just said that?

[stark]

After looking at ther longer version, it looks as though those officers were probably told to get this kid off the mic, as he took entirely too long, they told him to hurry up, he did say "blowjob" and as he kept rambling on, mostly with no questions, it doesn't even look as though they cut him off from that particular question, just his droning all together. One of Kerry's boys or the security supervisor probably radio'd those two individuals to get him out of there (and as it was in a private place... a college campus, they have that right). They were simply telling him to gtfo and were guiding him (there was no real initial force). Then he started tweaking out, rather then not making a scene and walking civilly with the officers, in which if he did so, he would not have been tasered nor thrown to the ground, handcuffed, or arrested. I said earlier they DON'T HAVE to tell you why they are arresting you while they are, however the intent was to simply escort him out, and he caused the arrest upon himself.


Edit: and they technically don't have to read them them the miranda warning until they begin question the individual about the crime (or if he starts talking about it, they do so he is informed of those rights).

[Facetious]

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

This is really the question in my mind. I'm too lazy to look it up and the wording on that is far too casual for me to take seriously. If they didn't have to tell him why they were arresting him AND he was attacking them (to me it looked like he was trying to escape, not attacking them) then their use of force was justified.

Still though, at no point did he get a stern warning, he was asked to leave and then forcefully taken out. It would have been far more appropriate to have a middle ground in there somewhere.

[Tone]

we must arm all the public with automatic weapons and handguns they carry loaded at all times

[Tone]

see my 2005 thread, "The Police State"

http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthread.php?t=20480

[Money]

we must arm all the public with automatic weapons and handguns they carry loaded at all times

Welcome to Houston, TX


or Texas as awhole

[Sleepy Weasel]

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.

People get their mics cut all the time at question and answer sessions in colleges, even at non political events. I went to a john cleese talk in college and about 10 people had the mic cut on them because they got too long winded, there are normally lines of people waiting to ask questions and you're supposed to keep it to a reasonable short question so everyone gets time to ask a question. They usually have strict time limits on these things and if you go over like 30 seconds you get cut off... not to mention this guy was obviously just using the format as a platform to give a rant. It's a privledge to get to come to these events and ask questions, they have no obligation to let you ramble on and badger the person giving the speech.

So yeah, absolutey nothing wrong or unusual about cutting his mic.