<!--quoteo(post=1650893:date=Sep 21 2007, 01:37 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Sep 21 2007, 01:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650893"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm speculating the police had a good handle on his intentions when they first approached him, which seems to have been to create this disturbance which they feel, according to his actions and dialogue, was planned in advance.
If you plan in advance to cause a scene (such as this) at a crowded public function where a high profile public official is speaking, it could be seen as inciting a riot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's precisely that bull###### that is reprehensible to people like myself. The kid, who is *one person* is shouting his mouth off, and tbh it's not as if he's even being abusive or inciteful in his language, the most he gets to is satire in all honesty.
Police report? It'll be 2/3rds truth and 1/3rd "hmm, maybe", because they are the people being accused of mistreating this kid, which they're trying to cover up with "inciting a riot"? What did he do other than perhaps shout at the people around him to help him because he was being strong-armed away from a debate that the other person involved in was happy to partake? It all sounds like excuses, not just from them but from members of this forum too.
Man, for those that know Jeremy Paxman, good old jerry would be tazed every day if it was standard practice to deal with tough questions in the manner this has been dealt with!
Of all the evidence I've seen Kerry's blog is the sketchiest. Of course they're trying to cover their ass and play stupid, that's why they omitted so much. Did you see in there anywhere why Kerry continued to speak (and allowed Meyers to ask questions)? No. Why? They left it out.
And why do people jump in in the middle of this thread without reading what's been posted to date? <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/bash.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Does no one else think that Kerry was saying he would answer his question only to try and quell the situation in his own ways, and instead of sitting there like everyone else and gawking at the scene, continue speaking to retain, well, an image? He sounded somewhat irritated by the student when he was quick to tell him he read the book, and asking him to "get to the question", more or less. Somehow I doubt that the senator would like to carry on a public debate with someone who does so as informally as the guy who got taken out.
<!--quoteo(post=1650789:date=Sep 20 2007, 07:31 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Sep 20 2007, 07:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650789"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->False. The administration in this instance decided the forum was closed and told the police to take appropriate action to do so. It did not infringe upon his rights to free speech - speech time was over.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Incorrect. You can clearly hear Kerry continue to address the audience while the guy is being 'escorted' out. He was asked to leave because of what he was saying.
<!--quoteo(post=1650923:date=Sep 21 2007, 01:08 AM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ Sep 21 2007, 01:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650923"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Incorrect. You can clearly hear Kerry continue to address the audience while the guy is being 'escorted' out. He was asked to leave because of what he was saying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wrong. Kerry continued to speak only because of a communication breakdown between university administrators and Kerry's staff. As has already been mentioned numerous times in this thread the forum was closed yet Kerry himself had not been notified of this and he continued to speak. John Kerry was merely the guest speaker here and not the host of the forum.
<!--quoteo(post=1650758:date=Sep 20 2007, 01:02 PM:name=MedHead)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MedHead @ Sep 20 2007, 01:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Whoa now. One violent individual attempting to escape will most certainly be able to overpower multiple officers attempting to keep themselves and the individual safe from harm. If you really believe it's an issue of 1=1 in terms of how many officers are required to restrain a person, you haven't seen many videos of officers attempting takedowns. Cornered individuals will always fight harder. Desperation plays a big part in how hard a person struggles to change a situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow, you really <i>do</i> think it would take 4 adults + 1 taser to subdue one student?
<!--quoteo(post=1650972:date=Sep 21 2007, 07:17 AM:name=pardzh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pardzh @ Sep 21 2007, 07:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650972"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wow, you really <i>do</i> think it would take 4 adults + 1 taser to subdue one student?
The kid couldn't have been more than 175 pounds.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Evidently so. Rarely are tasers used unless it's necessary to alter the victim's physical state because conventional means have failed.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
edited September 2007
That is circular argumentation. "They can only do it if it is the right thing to do - They did it, so it must be the right thing to do, therefore they may do it"
Also: "Cornered individual"? Hes not a ex con with a hostage. Hes a skinny university guy. I bet the next thing is "the police had a female backup, and females are weak, we compensate with excessive force"
Due to the prevalence of American television programs and motion pictures in which the police characters frequently read suspects their rights, it has become an expected element of arrest procedure. In the 2000 ######erson decision, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda warnings had "become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture." ######erson v. United States 530 U.S. 428 (2000). However, police are only required to warn an individual whom they intend to subject to custodial interrogation at the police station, in a police vehicle or when detained. Arrests can occur without questioning and without the Miranda warning — although if the police do change their mind and decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must then be given. Furthermore, if public safety (see New York v. Quarles) warrants such action, the police may ask questions prior to a reading of the Miranda warning, and the evidence thus obtained can sometimes still be used against the defendant.
Because Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations, it does not protect detainees from standard booking questions: name, date of birth, address, and the like. Because it is a prophylactic measure intended to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, it does not prevent the police from taking blood from persons suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol without a warrant.[vague]
Currently there is a question about corrections and Miranda. If an inmate is in jail and invoked Miranda on one case, it is unclear whether this extends to any other cases that he or she may be charged with while in custody.
"Wow, you really do think it would take 4 adults + 1 taser to subdue one student?"
Yes. I've explained myself. I've had firsthand accounts from a prison guard that has stated that on multiple occasions there have been four to five police officers required to restrain an inmate, even though the collective weight of the officers far exceeds the individual assailant.
"Also: 'Cornered individual'? Hes not a ex con with a hostage. Hes a skinny university guy. I bet the next thing is "the police had a female backup, and females are weak, we compensate with excessive force"
Please to not skew my statements to fit your argument. I don't think my original comment was difficult to process, rather I think you're purposely ignoring what I've written in an effort to sound witty. He was facing arrest, and obviously didn't wan to be arrested. His determination to escape would cause him to take actions he might not normally take in a different situation. Thus, "cornered" individual. One doesn't need to have faced previous prison time to commit a crime: obviously not, because then there wouldn't be anything called a "first offense".
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1650899:date=Sep 21 2007, 01:50 AM:name=Zig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zig @ Sep 21 2007, 01:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1650899"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Side note: every day 24,000 people die of hunger, and yet we have time to sit around and cry because some kid got tased for being a little d-bag.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And yet, while these people continue to die, you apparently have time to sit on your high horse and complain about people complaining about something.
It's a great way to shut down a discussion though, assuming people fall for it.
First establish that as long as condition A exists, people are not allowed to complain about condition B. This tends to be a non sequitur, but never you mind.
Now, once this has been established you can easily quell any and all debate as long as condition A persists. If you have chosen the task for eliminating condition A well (such as ending world hunger, a task that is impossible for a single person and difficult for large groups), you have successfully established a nigh-unbreakable stranglehold on any discussion about condition B. It's free speech suppression without all the prestige loss of beating up and incarcerating innocent people!
<!--quoteo(post=1651927:date=Sep 25 2007, 11:45 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Sep 25 2007, 11:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1651927"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's a great way to shut down a discussion though, assuming people fall for it.
First establish that as long as condition A exists, people are not allowed to complain about condition B. This tends to be a non sequitur, but never you mind.
Now, once this has been established you can easily quell any and all debate as long as condition A persists. If you have chosen the task for eliminating condition A well (such as ending world hunger, a task that is impossible for a single person and difficult for large groups), you have successfully established a nigh-unbreakable stranglehold on any discussion about condition B. It's free speech suppression without all the prestige loss of beating up and incarcerating innocent people!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally I fell that the "Thats what Hitler would have said." method is just way more efficient.
Well, it DOES tend to end all civilised discussion, but since you're causing Godwin's Law to go into effect, there's a distinct loss of prestige associated with it.
I hate it when people refer to it as Godwins Law. It's so freaking stupid!
The longer a Book is, the more likely that a sentece will repeat itself. The more Bread you eat, the more likely that you will consume a carbon, that used to be part of a T-Rex. The more you swim, the more likely that you will drown. The older you are, the more likely that you have met a celebrity.
Thus said:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a mentioning of noodles approaches one.
The thing is, the examples you mention are obvious. Godwin's Law is obvious to us because we've lived with it for closing on two decades now. Back when it was formulated it was 1990. The internet was young, and unknown to most people. The WWW had been created only the year before. We take Godwin's Law for so granted that it seems like it's merely stating the obvious, but it wasn't like that back when it was formulated.
I'm not really sure what this guy is criminally guilty of. Sure he was being disruptive and obnoxious, but the situation didn't really deteriorate until the police started man handling him and finally bringing the situation to its unbelievable conclusion with the taser. At worst he was 'guilty' of being disruptive, in a public space at a public event. I don't see the aggressive and dangerous behaviour thats been mentioned here that could of 'endangered lives' - just a guy resisting what he evidently felt was wrongful arrest.
Well, resisting wrongful arrest is illegal. You can complain all you want once you're behind bars, but until then you better shut up and go limp. No wait, going limp is also illegal. You better shut up and cooperate fully. Or you'll get tasered. You don't want to get tasered, do you?
You know, irony works. Just assume your best Dr. Breen voice and call them "our benefactors." Maybe they'll laugh and let you go. Or maybe they'll benefact you in the face with a stunstick.
<!--quoteo(post=1652543:date=Sep 27 2007, 03:15 PM:name=Olmy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Olmy @ Sep 27 2007, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1652543"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not really sure what this guy is criminally guilty of.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you even bother to read the police report? <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Good luck of ever seeing a scenario like this in any European high school or University.
Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that they don't need armed police present and that even though there might be just as obnoxious people as that Andrew guy, free speech is much more respected...not to mention manners. In fact, such passion would probably be encouraged - albeit perhaps after being asked to not act like a complete tard when discussing.
Europe is a diverse continent with differing countries, differing political systems and differing amounts of personal freedom. And frankly, I'm not certain that none of the countries over here are heading down the road to a corporate police state too. The utter disregard that the political parties of Germany seem to have for the opinions of their voters concerns me greatly, for example.
I'm gonna go ahead and jump on in here. There's a few other things to consider.
First, even with a bunch of people, subduing a driven individual is pretty hard using just your hands to try and cuff them. It's a lot harder than you'd think. I think saying that five officers should ALWAYS be able to subdue a person who's going nuts without using a heavy force is a bit of an argument from incredulity. There's plenty of officers/soldiers out there who would disagree with you.
Also, what Depot said about inciting to riot is very true. I know it's used a lot by totalitarian and oppressive governments, but what happens when people start screaming like that? Your heart beats faster, you get nervous. You start getting twitchy. The lesser willed people in the crowd may get violent, too, if they get bumped or pushed, then you have chaos. Like the animals we are. And keep in mind, as they were dragging him out (before the taser) he was saying stuff like "Isn't anybody going to do anything? Help me!"
If that's not inciting a riot against the police, then I don't know what is.
So, what's left is, should people have helped him and go for the police? The answer is a resounding 'No.' Not because we should stand up for our rights, but because of several legitimate things:
- This was not a public and open forum, it was a closed forum. The forum administrators had complete control of the situation and who would and would not be allowed to speak.
- Kerry's opinion on the question and whether or not it was valid doesn't matter. He was the guest of the forum, not the administrator.
- The ONLY time you should even talk back to a police officer is if you're alone with one in a dark alley and there's no logical way to be sure that it really is a police officer and that you're not in real danger. In a crowded room, surrounded by hundreds of cameras and several police officers, you do what they say, and you do it quick. Power trip or whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. It's been like this since the dawn of the police force and it will remain like this until its dusk. You do NOT touch, speak, berate, or otherwise badger an officer of the law unless you want charges added and pain brought upon you. It's like standing in a train track and expecting the trail to derail rather than hit you. You can't blame someone else for that.
Now, if you want to be a martyr and make some kinda show to get the public to shorten the arms of the law, that's all fine and good, but you can't complain about how bad the pain was to get your martyrdom. You asked for it, and you got it.
All valid points Rob, a very good post. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Actually, you DO speak to a police officer. Specifically, you ask to see his badge. I'm no expert, but it'd be my assumption that if he refuses to show you his badge, you are justified in assuming that he is not a police officer at all and is trying to assault or abduct you, rather than arrest you. Of course, you do this right away. You also remain completely calm and you cooperate fully once he shows you his badge. There are a lot of things you're supposed to do.
<!--quoteo(post=1652901:date=Sep 29 2007, 12:15 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Sep 29 2007, 12:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1652901"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually, you DO speak to a police officer. Specifically, you ask to see his badge. I'm no expert, but it'd be my assumption that if he refuses to show you his badge, you are justified in assuming that he is not a police officer at all and is trying to assault or abduct you, rather than arrest you. Of course, you do this right away. You also remain completely calm and you cooperate fully once he shows you his badge. There are a lot of things you're supposed to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, IF you don't know for sure (these police were in a crowded room in uniform with their badges on their chests) that may be plausible. But be very careful about it, because one glimpse of an attitude that you know more about your own rights that the officer does is likely to make the officer edgy. It's just the nature of the job. These men and women put up with people who disrespect their authority for no good reason at all on a daily basis. They may try to do the "service with a smile" thing, but eventually, I think, you've just gotta grow cold inside to get the job done. So, if you're even the slightest bit of a arse about it, they'll find things to get back at you with.
Back to my original point, in this situation, the guy played with fire and got burned. It's my opinion that as we continue to disrespect officers of the law by calling them abusers of power, the more we'll see these kinds of things. Videos like this are at fault: we don't know the backgrounds of anyone involved. The suspect may have a history of stupidity. The officers may have just had two incidents were they tried to restrain someone with minimal force and people got their noses broken. Who knows? But we still see the same couple minutes of footage and draw the same conclusions about who was right and who was wrong, and the system feeds back into itself. The next time you're at a rally and things get rough, maybe you'll be the one calling the cops pigs and fascists, adding one more insult they have to endure to meet the status quo. There's a breaking point somewhere, and I'm sure we'll find it if we keep forging ahead here. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I don't think it's too weird of a theory, but I'm also not the final authority, either.
The thing is, if we accept that police officers are edgy and cold, we lose our respect for them, and fear them instead. A police force respected by the populace is a mark of a happy, free society, while a police force feared by the populace is a mark of a police state. If the police force is edgy and cold, there's something rotten, and it's not just in the state of Denmark. Maybe they're under-funded and under-staffed. Maybe they're being made unreasonable demands of. Or maybe only power-tripping sociopaths want to become police officers. Or maybe the populace is just made up of ingrates who bite the hand that protects them. But something's wrong.
Given they were campus security officers "power-tripping sociopaths want to become police officers" would probably apply. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
My bad, I forgot about that. Still, they may not be police officers, but they should both act and be treated in the same way, since they fulfill the same role. I don't know if there's a higher incidence of power-tripping sociopaths among campus security forces (that was just an example to provide a stark contrast along with "ingrates who bite the hand that protects them"), but if there is, that's rather worrying.
Well, I don't think there's been a society in history in which all members expressed nothing but respect for enforcement personnel, but that's just to be expected. I think the issue here is the ratio of respectful citizens to non-respectful ones. That obviously has something to do with the effect of law enforcement authority, but it may also have something to do with the health of the state, too.
You must please excuse my ramblings; they're just an extension of this wacky idea I have about the internet being a force multiplier for ideas and movements, bringing the traditionally fringe elements into the limelight and bloating their importance beyond even their initial scope. What's left is that arguments well-shown to be false keep getting repeated and recited while common individuals increasing either accept or reject any argument they encounter without first doing background fact checking. Sorry to get so far off topic... ^_^
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited October 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1653139:date=Sep 30 2007, 10:48 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Sep 30 2007, 10:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653139"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The thing is, if we accept that police officers are edgy and cold, we lose our respect for them, and fear them instead. A police force respected by the populace is a mark of a happy, free society, while a police force feared by the populace is a mark of a police state.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. Going back to something Rob earlier.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You do NOT touch, speak, berate, or otherwise badger an officer of the law unless you want charges added and pain brought upon you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This to me sounds like a description of a police state. I'm not sure what the law is in the US, but here, a police officer has to arrest me or he has no business in interfering in my behaviour as a law abiding citizen. He has no right to ask me where I have been, where I am going, or what I am doing without suspicion. The suspicion has to be tangible too, or he can get in trouble for that too. In a free society, the police enforce the law, they do not chaperone citizens on normal business.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's like standing in a train track and expecting the trail to derail rather than hit you. You can't blame someone else for that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it isn't like that at all. It's like expecting to live freely as a law abiding citizen and being not allowed to do so.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the police force is edgy and cold, there's something rotten, and it's not just in the state of Denmark. Maybe they're under-funded and under-staffed. Maybe they're being made unreasonable demands of. Or maybe only power-tripping sociopaths want to become police officers. Or maybe the populace is just made up of ingrates who bite the hand that protects them.
But something's wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I agree, looking in from the outside, the US police force seems to have some major problems. I think perhaps that the recent increase in police powers has allowed a very frustrated force to become more effective. In the short term they are asserting themselves more, but this will backfire in the long-term.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now, if you want to be a martyr and make some kinda show to get the public to shorten the arms of the law, that's all fine and good, but you can't complain about how bad the pain was to get your martyrdom. You asked for it, and you got it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is akin to saying that soldiers deserve no respect or honour for getting exactly what they asked for. I think it is orthogonal to American value of rewarding and honouring people who sacrifice personal gain for the greater good. And it is also sort of silly to make that comparison. If the protest is to demonstrate that pain is used in place of civil discourse, how could you possibly protest without pointing out the pain?
ninja edit: fixed the error lolfighter pointed out.
Comments
If you plan in advance to cause a scene (such as this) at a crowded public function where a high profile public official is speaking, it could be seen as inciting a riot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's precisely that bull###### that is reprehensible to people like myself. The kid, who is *one person* is shouting his mouth off, and tbh it's not as if he's even being abusive or inciteful in his language, the most he gets to is satire in all honesty.
Police report? It'll be 2/3rds truth and 1/3rd "hmm, maybe", because they are the people being accused of mistreating this kid, which they're trying to cover up with "inciting a riot"? What did he do other than perhaps shout at the people around him to help him because he was being strong-armed away from a debate that the other person involved in was happy to partake? It all sounds like excuses, not just from them but from members of this forum too.
Man, for those that know Jeremy Paxman, good old jerry would be tazed every day if it was standard practice to deal with tough questions in the manner this has been dealt with!
And why do people jump in in the middle of this thread without reading what's been posted to date? <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/bash.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Wrong. Kerry continued to speak only because of a communication breakdown between university administrators and Kerry's staff. As has already been mentioned numerous times in this thread the forum was closed yet Kerry himself had not been notified of this and he continued to speak. John Kerry was merely the guest speaker here and not the host of the forum.
Wow, you really <i>do</i> think it would take 4 adults + 1 taser to subdue one student?
The kid couldn't have been more than 175 pounds.
The kid couldn't have been more than 175 pounds.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evidently so. Rarely are tasers used unless it's necessary to alter the victim's physical state because conventional means have failed.
Also: "Cornered individual"? Hes not a ex con with a hostage. Hes a skinny university guy. I bet the next thing is "the police had a female backup, and females are weak, we compensate with excessive force"
Miranda Rights
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_rights#Confusion_regarding_use" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_right...n_regarding_use</a>
Due to the prevalence of American television programs and motion pictures in which the police characters frequently read suspects their rights, it has become an expected element of arrest procedure. In the 2000 ######erson decision, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda warnings had "become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture." ######erson v. United States 530 U.S. 428 (2000). However, police are only required to warn an individual whom they intend to subject to custodial interrogation at the police station, in a police vehicle or when detained. Arrests can occur without questioning and without the Miranda warning — although if the police do change their mind and decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must then be given. Furthermore, if public safety (see New York v. Quarles) warrants such action, the police may ask questions prior to a reading of the Miranda warning, and the evidence thus obtained can sometimes still be used against the defendant.
Because Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations, it does not protect detainees from standard booking questions: name, date of birth, address, and the like. Because it is a prophylactic measure intended to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, it does not prevent the police from taking blood from persons suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol without a warrant.[vague]
Currently there is a question about corrections and Miranda. If an inmate is in jail and invoked Miranda on one case, it is unclear whether this extends to any other cases that he or she may be charged with while in custody.
"Wow, you really do think it would take 4 adults + 1 taser to subdue one student?"
Yes. I've explained myself. I've had firsthand accounts from a prison guard that has stated that on multiple occasions there have been four to five police officers required to restrain an inmate, even though the collective weight of the officers far exceeds the individual assailant.
"Also: 'Cornered individual'? Hes not a ex con with a hostage. Hes a skinny university guy. I bet the next thing is "the police had a female backup, and females are weak, we compensate with excessive force"
Please to not skew my statements to fit your argument. I don't think my original comment was difficult to process, rather I think you're purposely ignoring what I've written in an effort to sound witty. He was facing arrest, and obviously didn't wan to be arrested. His determination to escape would cause him to take actions he might not normally take in a different situation. Thus, "cornered" individual. One doesn't need to have faced previous prison time to commit a crime: obviously not, because then there wouldn't be anything called a "first offense".
And yet, while these people continue to die, you apparently have time to sit on your high horse and complain about people complaining about something.
First establish that as long as condition A exists, people are not allowed to complain about condition B. This tends to be a non sequitur, but never you mind.
Now, once this has been established you can easily quell any and all debate as long as condition A persists. If you have chosen the task for eliminating condition A well (such as ending world hunger, a task that is impossible for a single person and difficult for large groups), you have successfully established a nigh-unbreakable stranglehold on any discussion about condition B. It's free speech suppression without all the prestige loss of beating up and incarcerating innocent people!
First establish that as long as condition A exists, people are not allowed to complain about condition B. This tends to be a non sequitur, but never you mind.
Now, once this has been established you can easily quell any and all debate as long as condition A persists. If you have chosen the task for eliminating condition A well (such as ending world hunger, a task that is impossible for a single person and difficult for large groups), you have successfully established a nigh-unbreakable stranglehold on any discussion about condition B. It's free speech suppression without all the prestige loss of beating up and incarcerating innocent people!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally I fell that the "Thats what Hitler would have said." method is just way more efficient.
It's so freaking stupid!
The longer a Book is, the more likely that a sentece will repeat itself.
The more Bread you eat, the more likely that you will consume a carbon, that used to be part of a T-Rex.
The more you swim, the more likely that you will drown.
The older you are, the more likely that you have met a celebrity.
Thus said:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a mentioning of noodles approaches one.
It's trivial and obvious.
You know, irony works. Just assume your best Dr. Breen voice and call them "our benefactors." Maybe they'll laugh and let you go. Or maybe they'll benefact you in the face with a stunstick.
Did you even bother to read the police report? <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that they don't need armed police present and that even though there might be just as obnoxious people as that Andrew guy, free speech is much more respected...not to mention manners. In fact, such passion would probably be encouraged - albeit perhaps after being asked to not act like a complete tard when discussing.
That's my take on it anyway.
First, even with a bunch of people, subduing a driven individual is pretty hard using just your hands to try and cuff them. It's a lot harder than you'd think. I think saying that five officers should ALWAYS be able to subdue a person who's going nuts without using a heavy force is a bit of an argument from incredulity. There's plenty of officers/soldiers out there who would disagree with you.
Also, what Depot said about inciting to riot is very true. I know it's used a lot by totalitarian and oppressive governments, but what happens when people start screaming like that? Your heart beats faster, you get nervous. You start getting twitchy. The lesser willed people in the crowd may get violent, too, if they get bumped or pushed, then you have chaos. Like the animals we are. And keep in mind, as they were dragging him out (before the taser) he was saying stuff like "Isn't anybody going to do anything? Help me!"
If that's not inciting a riot against the police, then I don't know what is.
So, what's left is, should people have helped him and go for the police? The answer is a resounding 'No.' Not because we should stand up for our rights, but because of several legitimate things:
- This was not a public and open forum, it was a closed forum. The forum administrators had complete control of the situation and who would and would not be allowed to speak.
- Kerry's opinion on the question and whether or not it was valid doesn't matter. He was the guest of the forum, not the administrator.
- The ONLY time you should even talk back to a police officer is if you're alone with one in a dark alley and there's no logical way to be sure that it really is a police officer and that you're not in real danger. In a crowded room, surrounded by hundreds of cameras and several police officers, you do what they say, and you do it quick. Power trip or whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. It's been like this since the dawn of the police force and it will remain like this until its dusk. You do NOT touch, speak, berate, or otherwise badger an officer of the law unless you want charges added and pain brought upon you. It's like standing in a train track and expecting the trail to derail rather than hit you. You can't blame someone else for that.
Now, if you want to be a martyr and make some kinda show to get the public to shorten the arms of the law, that's all fine and good, but you can't complain about how bad the pain was to get your martyrdom. You asked for it, and you got it.
Yeah, IF you don't know for sure (these police were in a crowded room in uniform with their badges on their chests) that may be plausible. But be very careful about it, because one glimpse of an attitude that you know more about your own rights that the officer does is likely to make the officer edgy. It's just the nature of the job. These men and women put up with people who disrespect their authority for no good reason at all on a daily basis. They may try to do the "service with a smile" thing, but eventually, I think, you've just gotta grow cold inside to get the job done. So, if you're even the slightest bit of a arse about it, they'll find things to get back at you with.
Back to my original point, in this situation, the guy played with fire and got burned. It's my opinion that as we continue to disrespect officers of the law by calling them abusers of power, the more we'll see these kinds of things. Videos like this are at fault: we don't know the backgrounds of anyone involved. The suspect may have a history of stupidity. The officers may have just had two incidents were they tried to restrain someone with minimal force and people got their noses broken. Who knows? But we still see the same couple minutes of footage and draw the same conclusions about who was right and who was wrong, and the system feeds back into itself. The next time you're at a rally and things get rough, maybe you'll be the one calling the cops pigs and fascists, adding one more insult they have to endure to meet the status quo. There's a breaking point somewhere, and I'm sure we'll find it if we keep forging ahead here. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I don't think it's too weird of a theory, but I'm also not the final authority, either.
You must please excuse my ramblings; they're just an extension of this wacky idea I have about the internet being a force multiplier for ideas and movements, bringing the traditionally fringe elements into the limelight and bloating their importance beyond even their initial scope. What's left is that arguments well-shown to be false keep getting repeated and recited while common individuals increasing either accept or reject any argument they encounter without first doing background fact checking. Sorry to get so far off topic... ^_^
A police force respected by the populace is a mark of a happy, free society, while a police force feared by the populace is a mark of a police state.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. Going back to something Rob earlier.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You do NOT touch, speak, berate, or otherwise badger an officer of the law unless you want charges added and pain brought upon you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This to me sounds like a description of a police state. I'm not sure what the law is in the US, but here, a police officer has to arrest me or he has no business in interfering in my behaviour as a law abiding citizen. He has no right to ask me where I have been, where I am going, or what I am doing without suspicion. The suspicion has to be tangible too, or he can get in trouble for that too. In a free society, the police enforce the law, they do not chaperone citizens on normal business.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's like standing in a train track and expecting the trail to derail rather than hit you. You can't blame someone else for that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it isn't like that at all. It's like expecting to live freely as a law abiding citizen and being not allowed to do so.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the police force is edgy and cold, there's something rotten, and it's not just in the state of Denmark. Maybe they're under-funded and under-staffed. Maybe they're being made unreasonable demands of. Or maybe only power-tripping sociopaths want to become police officers. Or maybe the populace is just made up of ingrates who bite the hand that protects them.
But something's wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I agree, looking in from the outside, the US police force seems to have some major problems. I think perhaps that the recent increase in police powers has allowed a very frustrated force to become more effective. In the short term they are asserting themselves more, but this will backfire in the long-term.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now, if you want to be a martyr and make some kinda show to get the public to shorten the arms of the law, that's all fine and good, but you can't complain about how bad the pain was to get your martyrdom. You asked for it, and you got it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is akin to saying that soldiers deserve no respect or honour for getting exactly what they asked for. I think it is orthogonal to American value of rewarding and honouring people who sacrifice personal gain for the greater good. And it is also sort of silly to make that comparison. If the protest is to demonstrate that pain is used in place of civil discourse, how could you possibly protest without pointing out the pain?
ninja edit: fixed the error lolfighter pointed out.