Student taser victim spared electric chair

@David Wiernicki

While Robert Hill probably has it, I'd just like to point out that if the argument about him being tased was justified, since when was complaining about a computer game even comparable to someone being electrocuted for trying to express their right to free speech?

@Robert Hill

Let me explain what would have happened in the UK.

If he was being disruptive, the guy would have been asked to leave. If he was using a microphone, it would have been turned off. Let's assume he didn't co-operate, and kept yodelling.

Let's also make the unlikely assumption that a disruption was expected, and three regular police - "campus cops" are still pretty unusual - were in attendance. They would have asked the guy to leave, too. If he declined, he would have been arrested under the Public Order Act, cuffed and removed. This is stuff our officers do every day, they're good at it, and rarely need to resort to the few weapons (batons and perhaps CS spray) they carry. And it wouldn't usually need three of them, either.

Three armed and armoured cops Tasering an unarmed teen is malice and cowardice, pure and simple.

No reason for arrest?

There seems to be a couple common misconceptions here.

A: There was no reason for the arrest. It's called "Disturbing The Peace", a law enacted similar to noise level laws to prevent people from creating public nuisances of themselves, and possible starting of riots or fights. I'm not saying this was a true case of it, just that the person in question was indeed breaking the law, and was indeed eligible for arrest, whether people think it's right or not.

B: Tazer'ing was too strong a punishment. Tazers are put to use against unarmed people resisting arrest for a simple reason. Yes, there were 3 people against him, no he wasn't armed, BUT he was trying to kick and punch those arresting him. I don't care if there's 20 people going after him, I'm not going to take a chance on him kicking in my knee and doing damage that requires surgery to fix, or even cause me pain by a kick in the balls, when there's a handy, non-lethal solution. Screw everyone who says tazer'ing is wrong, why should it be all right for the police to be hurt and injured, and not the person being arrested?

C: People complain the cop had his gun drawn. A political rally, someone deliberately causing problems in it. Those are how a lot of assassination attempts starts, and politicians are popular targets. Again we go back to, why should police be expected to put their lives in immediate danger when facing an unknown situation? For all the cop knew, the guy could have had a bomb or a pistol in his jacket. The PROPER response was exactly what he did; draw his weapon until he could positively ascertain there was no deadly threat, then on seeing that, immediately holster it. Which he did.

This bullshit of expecting cops to not be armed when confronting an unknown situation is as stupid as telling a soldier he can't put a magazine into his rifle until he's been shot at. But I guess there's many who would espouse exactly that sentiment, better one of our own get killed then maybe hurting that terrorist/ enemy soldier/ gangbanger, right?

One other thing

After watching the video again, I also noticed one thing everybody else seems to have missed. If he didn't deserve the tazer'ing, why aren't any of his fellow students getting upset? Watch them, they're ignoring him or laughing at him getting tazer'ed. I'd say that says more about the whole thing than any arguments. He set the whole thing up to make the security look bad, probably hoping for a big lawsuit or a public embarassment to the college. His fellow students even knew it for what it was, and so laughed at him getting what he deserved. lol

And as soon as he realized the college wasn't backing down or going to give in to him, and he had 0 chance of a lawsuit, and as a sidenote probably 0 chance of continuing at any college if he kept it up, he backed up and apologized. That sounds more like the real reason for his apology and statement.

Yes, I'm from the US, and I admit that's one of the biggest problems we face, the frivolous lawsuit just to make money (McDonald's Coffee, "slipping" on wet floors, etc). And usually when the people in danger stand their ground, idiots like this guy just try to slink away and make people forget they existed. I say "Way to go" to the college for sticking to their guns.

Hmm, wonder if we can name this guy the Tazer War Kid? lol

he should count himself lucky

it was not the LAPD!!

Maybe not the most popular view

but I think the force was reasonable. Despite one's opinion of John Kerry, he is a public figure and as such may attract the attention of the usual glut of nutters. Andrew Meyer was making a big fuss and attracting negative attention to himself. If the cops hadn't stepped in it all could have gone horribly wrong, for which - guess who? That's right, the police - would take the blame for not stepping in sooner. He should be glad to get away with a tazering in my opinion. I suspect I don't trust the government any more or less than the average Reg. reader but I know rational behaviour when I see it, or indeed, when I don't. The police are damned when they do and damned when they don't and I think it behooves us public to consider, when we debate something, whether we are valuing the point or action that is least damaging to society as a whole, or simply pointing the finger at easy, accepatable targets just so we can be seen to be doing something, or - horrors! - just to fit in.

@Watch the videos again

Obviously you never watch those reality TV cop shows on Sky and Bravo where some small woman police office smacks a large drunk bloke to the ground and cuffs them. If they struck smack them one. Wimpy American cops...

Nobody likes Yanks anyway

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM A COUNTRY THAT ALLOWS TORTURE OF SUSPECTS? Damn Caps Lock

*sigh*

"Oh, it's just illegal to buy in stores."

Right. So that's OK, then.

We've had politicians *propose* banning games - none of those proposals have gone into effect. Because of the first amendment. That was kind of my point.

Are there plenty of ludicrous things going on with respect to terrorism? Absolutely. But they're going on in the UK too (think 'no liquids on planes', etc). And to be honest, a rent-a-cop tasing this guy is totally irrelevant to the *real* issues of freedom we have here. Focusing on it does nothing more than prevent attention to the real problem - a social mindset where security is appropriate at any cost. Every breath wasted complaining about Don't Tase Me dude helps the rest of the issues slip by.

And is the next defense for the nanny state going to be of the proposals to make pretend pedophilia illegal? And the next one going to be of drawings of sex acts most people don't like? And the next one?

We, at least, have a codified barrier. It may not be enforced adequately in some situations, but it's served us well so far. And with any luck, when we boot out our current jackass, some of these idiotic 'security' policies will go with him.

But at least I cannot be arrested for having links to web sites that are pro-islam (see other stories on The Reg). At least I cannot be arrested for pretending to be a kid on Second Life. At least I cannot be arrested for selling an adult a video game in a store. At least I cannot be arrested for playing music over 140bpm in a public place (that one's an oldie but goodie, from 1994 or so. The only response from a Brit I ever got was, "but but, they don't enforce it").

That seems to be a common response. Everything is illegal, but they don't enforce it, so it's ok.

And even now I see people responding to what I said by saying, "But the video game is bad! If you're not doing something wrong it's not a problem!"

Yes. Exactly. My point exactly.

@ Andrew Armitage

I'm not clear on your point. Are you saying that they correctly used the "least amount of force" option available to them, or that they didn't and went overboard? Define "this behaviour", as there are two sets of people behaving differently.

Redundant

To re-iterate:

First, @AC Staff Sergeant: Your CV is cool and all that, but from a Marine Sniper who has a brother who's a BUDS instructor and another that's a SEAL, my wang is bigger and purplier than yours.

Second, as a person who trains security personnel and who has an uncle who owns a small security firm. (He provides personal and property protection to professionals.) The campus cops were right to do what they did.

Is this an ideal situation? No. However, there are more than a few risks that others have touched upon.

1. It was an unsafe situation.

I have worked a lot of different events and a lot of different venues. Never, ever assume that someone who is 'acting out' is non-violent and unarmed. I haveseen several people seriously injured or killed by bypassing this assumption. Including one stabbing by pencil that resulted in brain damage and loss of sight.

No one has the right to force their will on a venue. Period. If you are asked to leave, do so and protest on public property. No, the Uni meeting room is not public property. If you do not leave, you are at least an annoyance, and upon further resistance, a threat. As you are all aware, as the need for someone to conform to a behavior becomes more urgent the conflict will escalate.

Regarding the physical stature of the security guards, had this confrontation been in the parking lot it would not have been prudent to tase the gentleman as tacticly it would have been safer to distract, restrain, and disarm him. In an environment where the person can come in contact with several people quickly and you cannot effectively surround him w/o coming within stabbing range, I would recommend the taser to someone who wasn't comfortable with risking severe injury to themselves and the perp. If you engage without the taser and the perp attempts to stab you with the pencil and you break his arm in self-defense, then you may be liable, depending on the venue and the perception of the jury. In this case, there could be little confusion as to what actually happened as the security professionals kept their distance.

If you want to protest something, there are far more effective and safer means to do so.

Personally, I would rather walk up to the guy, tell him to stop making as scene and leave quietly or I'll break his arm and drag him out, but I'd be sued out of my pants for that.

Title

If the officers were within the rules they have to work to, when tasering a student being anoying, then there is something wrong with those rules, and with the minds of those who thought otherwise and approved them.

Force used should always be appropriate. It seems the vast majority of folk agree that was clearly not the case in this incident.

The appropriate response

That would be to nuke the entire site from orbit...its the only way to be sure

@ Wierdnicki

"At least I cannot be arrested for playing music over 140bpm in a public place"

Get your head out of the clouds FFS, if you had half a clue what you were on about this wonderful second city and most of the country in which I live would have been banged up years ago. It's all about da speed garage, innit? safebrobigupyafacerespecaiiiiight?

If you want to quote stupid laws go look up the one says a pregnant woman can piss in a police officers helmet if she's desperate (and has the guts to ask). Maybe this should be applied and expanded across the atlantic too...

Forget what I said...

... everyone line up behind me (in front of David), I'll pass you the taser after I have finished....

Who's next?