Thread: Why did that guy get tased?

I just think it's kind of funny that 4 cops couldn't manage to get him out of the building, whether he was struggling or not. I'm not sticking up for the student or anything, but how is a taser justifiable when you've got 4 cops on top of one kid? With that much man (and woman) power it can't be that hard to get his arms and cuff them...

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

It can in fact be difficult for even five people to subdue one.

Is there any way you can prove this? I've never had to subdue someone, but it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult for that many officers to effectively subdue one student, unless they were all trying to do their own thing, and not working as a team.

Originally Posted by Vampyre

However, he started pushing, resisting, and calling out for help which is inciting a riot. That is why he was arrested.

That's considered 'inciting a riot'?

Originally Posted by Vampyre

If he had simply cooperated, they probably would've gone outside and they would've said something like "This is a public forum, not your time to preach. If you want to lecture people about your ideas, then hold your own forum." Then they'd probably just let him go. If they intended to arrest him from the start, they probably would've had cuffs out when they first started escorting him away. The cuffs didn't come out until he was on the floor though.

He definitely should have cooperated with the officers, but still, tasering a guy on the ground encircled by 4-5 officers is a bit ridiculous.


Edit: Fuck, I didn't mean for this too be a separate post. If someone could merge this and my previous post that would be way cool.

Originally Posted by Catbus

but still, tasering a guy on the ground circled by 4-5 officers is a bit ridiculous.

Maybe they thought he was a Ron Paul supporter lol [/joke]

Originally Posted by Catbus

That's considered 'inciting a riot'?

He definitely should have cooperated with the officers, but still, tasering a guy on the ground encircled by 4-5 officers is a bit ridiculous.

Yes, inciting a riot is encouraging others to riot or otherwise violently oppose police. Him pushing and shoving and jumping around shows that he felt the need to aggressively oppose police, and by calling out for help, he was encouraging other people to do the same. The only thing worse he could've done, would be to actually attack the officers.

Just imagine what would've happened if someone responded to his cries for help and started attacking the police. Then the police would have to retaliate against that person as well, and it would just snowball into a riot scenario.

Whether or not you think it's easy to handle someone from resisting arrest shouldn't matter. I can assure you, it's not as easy as it sounds, even with 5 people. Nonetheless, the officers tried and it failed so they proceeded to other methods. After being tased, he stopped resisting as much, and he didn't suffer any long-term injuries. Thus, the taser was effective in doing exactly what it's meant for.

Once again I must ask: "What would have been the better solution?" If you're only response is: "They should've carried him. There was 5 of them." That's insufficient, because (regardless of your opinion about how easy it should be) they tried that and it failed.

Originally Posted by Vampyre

Once again I must ask: "What would have been the better solution?" If you're only response is: "They should've carried him. There was 5 of them." That's insufficient, because (regardless of your opinion about how easy it should be) they tried that and it failed.

I'm not wholly convinced that they fully tried to simply grab his arms, cuff him, and carry him out, as all the video shows is him encircled by officers. The fact that they 'failed' to cuff him (which I'm not convinced that they did) could also be attributed to the fact that one officer had his taser pointed 'at his chest,' instead of putting his effort into securing his arms.

I dunno, the kid definitely had it coming for resisting, but I still think they could have subdued him without the taser.

Originally Posted by Catbus

I'm not wholly convinced that they fully tried to simply grab his arms, cuff him, and carry him out, as all the video shows is him encircled by officers. The fact that they 'failed' to cuff him (which I'm not convinced that they did) could also be attributed to the fact that one officer had his taser pointed 'at his chest,' instead of putting his effort into securing his arms.

I dunno, the kid definitely had it coming for resisting, but I still think they could have subdued him without the taser.

At first, they weren't trying to arrest him. They were just trying to take him outside, where they'd talk to him. There isn't more than two people holding him until he's on the floor. At which point, you can see them pulling his arms and trying to cuff him, but he keeps resisting and they can't.

If you think it's easy for 4-5 people to grab someone when they're resisting, have some friends of yours try to "arrest" you. Chances are you'll be able to resist enough that they can't unless they use something other than their hands.

EDIT: If you still think the officers' actions were over-reactive, then I guess we might as well go all the way. Next time there's a murderer under arrest, we should just give them the cuffs and ask that they put them on.

Originally Posted by Catbus

Is there any way you can prove this? I've never had to subdue someone, but it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult for that many officers to effectively subdue one student, unless they were all trying to do their own thing, and not working as a team.

I'm not wholly convinced that they fully tried to simply grab his arms, cuff him, and carry him out, as all the video shows is him encircled by officers. The fact that they 'failed' to cuff him (which I'm not convinced that they did) could also be attributed to the fact that one officer had his taser pointed 'at his chest,' instead of putting his effort into securing his arms.

I dunno, the kid definitely had it coming for resisting, but I still think they could have subdued him without the taser.

Of course there are times where it is hard to subdue one person. It is especially hard if the person is going ballistic and you are not supposed to use force. Remember that, in order to subdue someone, they ought not to use any force at all really. This brings us to the question - would it have been better if they got more physical or just used the taser?

Let us not also forget that the victim himself has admitted that the police officers did the right thing and that he was unreasonable.

~

One would think that a single taser application would have been enough to subdue a boy. They made the mistake of telling him to "get up" afterwards, which, with all due respect, is a retarded command to make after having turned someone's muscles into jelly.

Originally Posted by Invader

One would think that a single taser application would have been enough to subdue a boy. They made the mistake of telling him to "get up" afterwards, which, with all due respect, is a retarded command to make after having turned someone's muscles into jelly.

Except that he did get up...

Just for those who are against what the cops did, what do you think they should have done? Keeping in mind that Andrew himself admits he was in the wrong - I am trying to quell the argument of "they shouldn't have done anything" because even he admits he was antagonizing.

~