University of Florida Student Tasered Into Submission

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 19 2007, 05:45 AM) [snapback]514706[/snapback]</div>

Calling a police officer "bro" is more than enough justification for being tased.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 19 2007, 04:21 PM) [snapback]514934[/snapback]</div>

OK, your position is that since the auditorium is owned by the college, which is a government institution, they have no right to control the behavior within that auditorium.

So, if drama department of the school was performing a play in the auditorium and this guy stood up in the middle of the audience and began shouting out about the 2004 election, should he be allowed to do so in the name of Free Speech?

How about the college library? Could he cause a disruption there in the name of Free Speech without getting tossed out on his butt? After all, it's owned by the college and therefore the government.

We could go further... How about the classrooms during classes? How about the administration offices? What about the college president's office? Is it your position that the school has no right to maintain order on any of it's properties if speech of any kind is involved?

 

Good police officers are ALWAYS in a lose-lose situation dealing with violent individuals. Not enough force and the situation can end up catastophic extremely quickly. Too much force and it's called police brutality. (Only absolute perfection is allowed when shown on video.) This is actually an example of as good an outcome as possible. No blood, broken bones, or rioting occurred. Few answered the question at hand.....what could have been done better?

Pepper spray in a crowded room? This gets all over the police officers and bystanders. It does not turn violent individuals into calm people. It sometimes distracts them enough to allow forceful immobilization.

Night sticks? Horrible answer

Let him go? Not an option the police officers have.

Taser? Safe for the bystanders. Relatively safe for the police officers (some of who probably have experienced being tased). Relatively safe for the detainee from minimum injuries incured with continued violence.

Duke it out? Another horrible answer

When something violent like this happens and the resulting issue being discussed is freedom of speech, then the police officers did a pretty good job.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 19 2007, 04:21 PM) [snapback]514934[/snapback]</div>

I agree with the sentiment, but unfortunately I do not believe this is a correct statement of US law.

The US Supreme Court held that the First Amendment guaranty of free speech does not apply to private property period --- even if the private property is open to the public. That's why, without more (see discussion re California below), a shopping mall owner may prohibit leafletting and petitioning (and even the wearing of t-shirts with political messages) in its shopping mall.

But states are allowed to provide greater rights and freedoms than those provided by the US Constitution. That's why the California legislature, in its wisdom, amended the California Constitution to guarantee free speech on private property if the property is open to the public.

In the US Supreme Court case that you provided a link to, a California shopping mall owner asserted that the California Constitution violated his First Amendment guaranty of free speech by prohibiting the owner from forbidding petitioning in its shopping mall. The US Supreme Court ruled against the owner, and affirmed the right of California to provide greater free speech rights in its Constitution than those provided by the US Constitution.

 

I'm willing to accept that others will have different interpretations, but it seems to me more harm was done than would have been by letting the questions be asked, and answered.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL_Prius_Driver @ Sep 19 2007, 06:30 PM) [snapback]515058[/snapback]</div>

The problem with your analysis is that Meyer was zapped with the Taser after he was under complete restraint by the university police officers. Timing is everything. Zapping him 4+ times adds insult to injury (it won't be too hard of a stretch to get to a willful and malicious excessive use of force, which at a minimum, will increase the amount that will have to paid in damages).

One responsibility that comes with the authority to apply force up to a deadly level is to apply the correct amount of force and no more. Police departments spend a non-trivial amount of money to train their officers on precisely what that means. I don't know if the university P.D. has a similar training program, but if they don't, the damages will get even more expensive.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 19 2007, 09:27 PM) [snapback]515125[/snapback]</div>

Or, just eject Meyer from the facility (without zapping him with a Taser when he was on the ground under control of the officers). He was physically moved to the back of the auditorium without being zapped. It was only after he had been brought down to the ground that he was zapped. In fact, at the beginning of the confrontation, there was an officer who had pointed a Taser at Meyer while he was still at the microphone; there was no basis at that time for firing the Taser (Meyer was not resisting the officers). What basis is there for using the Taser once Meyer is on the ground with all arms and legs under restraint?

 

http://www.ocregister.com/column/taser-tasers-officers-1848099-police-anaheim</span>

</span>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Sep 20 2007, 12:46 AM) [snapback]515135[/snapback]</div>

The basis is very simple----stop fighting.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL_Prius_Driver @ Sep 20 2007, 06:17 AM) [snapback]515176[/snapback]</div>

At what point in your opinion should they have stopped beating rodney king - that is at what point did the police use excessive force - do you use consciousness as a guideline here - because until you have none you are still able to fight?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 19 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]514918[/snapback]</div>

I guess the only right that was violated on this guy was his right to be able to volntarily control his own muscles. The cops are very lucky this kid did not suffer any permanent damage or life threatening complications of being tasered - very lucky. Tell me, they zapped him four times?? Is that true? And still tell me why they zapped him while he was pinned on the ground and being held there with overwhelming force and complete control by the security forces? Perhaps if they had a night stick or billy club instead of a taser that would have been ok too? or why did they not just choke him into a state of unconsciousness??

If they were able to bind his hands behind his back, is that not sufficient control of the perp or security forces get a free-be and get a chance to try out new technology like a taser or something similar?

At what point did the security forces, if any, use excess force??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 19 2007, 05:41 PM) [snapback]514978[/snapback]</div>

Yes. Well maybe not tasered and arrested, but yes, he would be removed from the building. The key phrase in your scenario was "disruptive manner". If the student was breaking the rules of conduct in the classroom (in whatever way), the school has the right to ask him to leave. If he refuses to leave, the school has the right to have the police remove him. If he resists the police, they have the right to remove him forcefully.

There are legitimate questions whether the use of the taser at the Kerry speech was justified, but I still hold that it was not a free speech issue.

He was not tasered because of the content of his speech. He was tasered because he resisted arrest.
He was not arrested because of the content of his speech. He was arrested because he refused to leave the auditorium.
He was not ordered to leave the auditorium because of the content of his speech. He was ordered to leave because he violated the rules of conduct for the speech and refused to stop.
He did not violate the rules of conduct because of the content of his speech. His violation was continuing on past the time limit given to everyone and refusing to yield the microphone.

None of the actions that transpired occurred because of the content of his speech. They occurred because of his behavior.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Sep 20 2007, 08:38 AM) [snapback]515194[/snapback]</div>

If the rules of conduct for speaking involve no protesting - how are protesters supposed to be able to protest or do "rules of conduct" for an event supersede the right of free speech?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 20 2007, 08:31 AM) [snapback]515208[/snapback]</div>

He could protest outside the assembly area - i don't think he would have been bothered then. He did state a portion of his protest during the allotted time limit, as was his right.

I'll ask again, Dr B. - If you were at a Medical conference, and stood up and started talking about Iraq in the middle of a discussion group about heart failure, and refused to stop when asked, would they have security remove you from the scene? Would you see that as fair treatment?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Sep 20 2007, 09:58 AM) [snapback]515215[/snapback]</div>

So people who disrupt any scheduled event should be removed, arrested as needed and tasered once restrained?

What good is protesting outside the assembly area - is that really a protest if the people you are targeting are in the assembly area - or could that be used as a way to prevent protests?

Ans: i would look at the guy like he was a nut, i would let him speak his piece, and then we would move on. I am sure the speaker at that event would handle it better and the security people, if any were in the assembly area would also do a better job than what we saw the other day at the U of Florida. Let him say his peace - who could care less.

q? are non-verbal forms of protestation allowed in your assemblies or can they be ruled out by establishing artificial rules of conduct?

 

So I found the police report on the University of Florida website:
http://www.president.ufl.edu/incident/Offe...eport072274.pdf

After reading it, do you still think this was a freedom of speech issue, or was it a disturbing the peace issue?

There's a lot more to the report. This excerpt is from Officer Nicole Lynn Mallo. The statements of the other officers are also included.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Police Report")</div>