Student Tasered after asking a question at a Kerry forum[views:37050][posts:118]______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 3:48pm - the_reverend ""] cops don't have to tell you what you did and they don't specifically have to read you your rights. |
| ______________________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 4:09pm - ArrowHead likes Pie ""] the_reverend said:cops don't have to tell you what you did and they don't specifically have to read you your rights. They are required to read you your miranda rights upon arrest. They are also required to tell you what you are being charged with after holding you for longer than a certain amount of time, I believe 24 hours. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 4:17pm - the_reverend ""] "miranda rights" are a suggestion to cops and not law which sits under the 5th amendment. |
| __________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 4:19pm - grizloch ""] ArrowHead likes Pie said:grizloch said: there is a difference between restraining someone without hurting them and breaking their legs, I dunno if youve ever had to restrain someone who was fighting back, but doing it without hurting them or getting hurt is harder than you seem to think, particularly when you have a gun and the kid has absolutely no intention of going quietly, if the kid had gotten an arm broken and the cops got kicked in the balls and there was blood and hair everywhere this would have been a much bigger spectacle on a national scale, not to mention in that room, he was tazed to stop him from struggling and getting hurt or hurting someone else, regardless of how many cops there were, thats what tazers are for if thats not what tazers are for, feel free to clue me in Interesting, but pretty false. A single cop might be justified if restraining a resisting kid, but 4-5 cops? It's not as hard as you make it out to be, especially since they are trained. Again, it's not fucking hard. Kneel on him, roll him, each cop secures an arm and leg. As for you're whining about breaking his arms, waaah. A front cuff and leg shackle would avoid that, and would be a much more intelligent second choice than a 15000 volt taser that could potentially kill someone with a heart problem. You may not know shit about restraint techniques, and that's understandable. But I WOULD expect that cops, prison guards, and Security officers should be trained and know what they're doing. no, I DO know about restraining techniques, and I DO know that ANY effective restraint has the potential to break someones bones if they are struggling hard enough or change the angle of pressure on the bone by either party repositioning their body, and I also know that the more people you add to this equation the more likely an accident is to occur, I also know that a broken bone takes way more time to heal than a 15000 volt taser that could potentially kill someone with a heart problem, I also know if I had a heart problem I probably wouldnt put myself in a position to be tased. and as for the kid "being arrested for saying something someone didnt like", your an idiot, at no point before the kid started to struggle was he being arrested, he was being escorted out of the building after saying something that was inappropriate and inflammatory and undoubtedly against the rules of the open forum (which if you have ever been to one, or tried to ask a question at one, there are clear guidelines as to what you are and arent allowed to ask or talk about- if you think thats fucked up, good for you, go get tased, or maybe grow a brain and protest like an intelligent person in a place where you have a leg to stand on) the kid was there to start trouble, and he got trouble, the cops didnt run at him with a taser because he said "skull and bones", the kid got tasered for refusing to leave a function at a state institution after breaking the rules of the forum |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 4:19pm - the_reverend ""] from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning 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. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 4:24pm - the_reverend ""] I can't wait to hear severin when I get into my car. he's a fucking douchbag. [img] |
| ______________________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 4:27pm - ArrowHead likes Pie ""] grizloch said: and as for the kid "being arrested for saying something someone didnt like", your an idiot I never said that at any point, and I do agree with your followed statements. However, he should have been removed, not arrested. Meanwhile, with regards to restraint, as I already said if he were flailing too badly to get his arms behind his back, it's pretty damned easy to just cuff him in the front and shackle his legs, without risk of breaking anything. I worked in an adult daycare center where all staff were required to know how to restrain one of our 'guests', and I recall no broken bones nor tasers in any of these incidents. |
| __________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 4:28pm - grizloch ""] the_reverend said:from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning 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. a friend of mine was arrested here on campus, I thought it was required too, and it definitely isn't |
| ______________________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 4:34pm - ArrowHead likes Pie ""] I guess so. I read that, and it seems it's only required before interrogation. However, it's common for them to read it as they cuff you, probably in case you say or do something incriminating on the way to jail? |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 4:54pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] the_reverend said:I can't wait to hear severin when I get into my car. he's a fucking douchbag. It's the only non-shock-jock "talk radio" I listen to, because it's often unintentionally funny. If there was a political show on the air where the host didn't have his head way up his ass, I probably wouldn't listen, because it wouldn't bring the lulz. |
| __________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 5:13pm - grizloch ""] Lamp said:he got cuffed because someone decided they didn't like what he was sayingthis is who I was referring to, this guy is an idiot |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 5:20pm - the_reverend ""] I've been listening to this wind bag and socially retarded callers for 30 minutes and he's talking about oj and liable. man, his callers are the worst. 30 minutes of radio means 20 minutes of commercials |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 5:21pm - the_reverend ""] can anyone else feel the sexual tension in this thread? |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 5:22pm - swamplorddvm ""] I don't know if that dude personaly, maybe he is a loud mouth prick. but as far as I know he did nothing wrong. That shit is why we need the ACLU. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 5:27pm - the_reverend ""] I want arrow and griz to meet up and tase each other's balls while the fuck each other's fag mouths. |
| __________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 5:41pm - grizloch ""] only if I could video tape it and put it on the internet |
| _______________________________ [Sep 19,2007 5:46pm - yummy ""] rev, now I think you're the only one that seems to be talking about it. You know what that means...someone's popped your pooper. |
| __________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 6:57pm - Dankill ""] http://www.starbanner.com/article/20070918/NEWS/70918007/1053/BREAKING_NEWS This kid was there to start trouble, no question. I don't care if anyone here doesn't like cops, but think of it this way. You have a kid in a public forum with a set of rules for people asking questions to John Kerry. The guy gets up and started ranting abotu a bunch of different shit. If you look at a number of different videos and accounts of the whole thing, he was pretty much in there badgering Kerry, not even really letting him answer and bringing up multiple subjects and going over the normal time people were given. When the cops tried to escort him out, he started screaming, making a scene and then resisting. You have to figure the other aspect is on part of the cops. His kid was ranting in a hostile fashion toward Sen. Kerry and would not stop. If this kid then starts to get violent in the fashion that he did, you also have to figure the cops look at it not just as preventing disruptions and then resisting police but also SECURITY FOR A UNITED STATES SENATOR AND FORMER PRESIDENTAL CANIDATE. You might scoff it off, but seriously, they don't know what this guy is gonna do after he flew off the handle like that. Maybe they went overboard with the tazer, but it could have been worse if they tried to only use unarmed physical force to restrain and cuff him. I could imagine the press if he broke a bone orgot visable bruses or cuts from this. Also, if the report in the article above is true, this kid is a total bullshit artist who was in there trying to make a show of himself and play up for the cameras. He may not have expected the tazer, but he sure as hell expected the cops to react once he started pushing them and screaming. This whole thing is bullshit. It has nothing to to do with free speech and everything to do with a disruptive prick who got exactly what he was looking for. Attention and an incident |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 7:21pm - the_reverend ""] dankill is almost verbatum repeating bill orielly. way to go! |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 7:36pm - the_reverend ""] BTW, bill's such a cocksucking fag0t that he says the kid should be convicted for um.. something, he didn't say what and left there. and PS: to dankill, if this was a "public forum" as you said, this is even more egregious a issue. I'm guessing you are wrong and it was a private forum that the public had an invitation to. |
| __________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 7:40pm - niccolai ""] The bottom line is he called the cop a 'bro'... I wish he had a pacemaker. [img] [img] [img] [img] [img] |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 7:45pm - the_reverend ""] the only thing there that rhymed with bro was dildo. |
| __________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 7:50pm - niccolai ""] bennyhillifier |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 8:25pm - the_reverend ""] huh... I'm almost a bro I guess I mean cause I think that dave matthews is chill. funny, I was just watching some derrickcomedy on college humor the other day. |
| __________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 8:35pm - niccolai ""] I was just so excited to be hanging out with the bros... I didn't even realize.. I just gave these guys 4 blow jobs. |
| __________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 9:25pm - Dankill ""] Rev, that was what I ment to say, seeing as it was hosted by a college, so it was either invite only or you had to buy tickets. And as for O'Reilly, I wouldn't know because I haven't heard his opinion on this, so if you thought I was just repeating his own thoughts, that was not the case. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 9:29pm - the_reverend ""] please clean bill's semen off your chin or I'm telling mark fucking richards you are cheating on him. |
| __________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 9:35pm - Dankill ""] Liar lair pants on fire. And I will KILL Mark if I'm lying. So, Mark, you are perfectly safe my pizza eating friend. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 9:36pm - the_reverend ""] "friend" *wink**wink* |
| _______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 11:14pm - the_reverend ""] [img] |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 11:18pm - craig nli ""] the_reverend said:"miranda rights" are a suggestion to cops and not law which sits under the 5th amendment. thats actually not true. The Due Process Clause under the 14th amendment clearly states that all detainees must be Mirandized under due process of the law. |
| ___________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 11:27pm - brian_dc ""] craig and his fancy book learnin' |
| ___________________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 11:34pm - fuck logging in ""] is it me or does this dude sound like Dane Cook? |
| ________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 11:35pm - Arist ""] http://infowars.com/articles/ps/tasers_whe...oman_dies_after_10_taser_blasts.htm |
| _______________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 11:40pm - the_reverend ""] wow.. the 4th amendment mentions none of that... Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. it doesn't mention miranda rights so.. yeah, nice try. play again if you want. |
| ________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 11:49pm - yummy ""] Pretty snazzy there. |
| _______________________________________________ [Sep 19,2007 11:56pm - ArrowHead likes Pie ""] http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0833372.html Actually it looks like the miranda rights are considered a part of due process, as evident by their namesakes case. Note: "in 2000 the Rehnquist court reaffirmed the decision as a constitutional rule that may not be overturned by an act of Congress" Thus, miranda rights is part of due process, a fourteenth amendment right. |
| _______________________________________ [Sep 20,2007 12:02am - the_reverend ""] if it were, they would write it in there. it's just culture, not law. Get another justice on there and that ruling could easily be over turned. so try again, what I said still stands. Constitutional Law != Cultural expectations. that's the whole point of the Constitution, something that is constant and about the quick flowing tides of society. If it weren't, the constitution would be so full of whiteout and holes. thankfully, in 20 or 100 years, the constitution will pretty much be the same as it was before and is now. 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 Dickerson 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." Dickerson 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. |
| _______________________________________ [Sep 20,2007 12:03am - the_reverend ""] FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickerson_v._United_States |
| _______________________________________________ [Sep 20,2007 12:08am - ArrowHead likes Pie ""] Yes. It's part of due process required to interrogate a detainee. So if they aren't going to question you, they don't technically need to read you your rights. However.... "'miranda rights' are a suggestion to cops and not law which sits under the 5th amendment." As I posted, it is "constitutional rule that may not be overturned by an act of Congress", not a "suggestion". If you read what I linked, another justice DID try to overturn it. They couldn't. |
| _______________________________________________ [Sep 20,2007 12:10am - ArrowHead likes Pie ""] From your own link: "Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision not to overrule Miranda. He disputed the notion that Miranda was a constitutional rule, pointing to several cases in which the Court had declined to exclude evidence despite the absence of warnings. Scalia described the majority's decision as an unprincipled compromise between justices who believed Miranda was a constitutional requirement and those who disagreed. He noted that the majority did not state outright that the Miranda warning is a constitutional requirement, but merely that it is "constitutionally based." Scalia further criticized the majority for implying that Congress has no power to override judicially-imposed safeguards of constitutional rights (Marbury v. Madison having settled that Congress may not override judicial interpretations of the Constitution)." |
| ___________________________________ [Sep 20,2007 2:23am - DrewBlood ""] No one deserves that kind of treatment. I haven't watched this video till just now and that was definitely uncalled for. They had him pinned ... and THEN they tased him, wtf? Its like kicking someone when they're already knocked out. |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 20,2007 4:31am - Mattkings ""] The kid who got tazed and the police officers that taze the dude both suck. In no way are either awesome. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 20,2007 8:00am - hungtableed ""] The kid probably wanted to get arrested or at least get dragged out of there for grandstanding. Look at all the attention the story got and think of how many people ended up getting to hear what he had to say to Kerry. Nice stunt. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 20,2007 8:30am - the_reverend ""] the last three posts, drewblood, mattkings, and htb are the smartest posts yet. ArrowHead, reading what you typed looks like what I've been saying is right so thanks! |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 20,2007 8:52am - hungtableed ""] Tuesday morning (before I even watched the video myself) I had heard the audio and people on the radio talking about it so much that I didn't even want to see it. I got almost as sick of this story as I am with hearing about O.J. |
| _________________________________________ [Sep 20,2007 11:31am - DestroyYouAlot ""] The whole incident was total bullshit on the part of the cops, but this kid doesn't hold a candle to Marvin Heemeyer - a true folk hero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer |
| __________________________________ [Sep 20,2007 2:46pm - grizloch ""] how many times did the cops say he was gonna get tasered? how many times did he say "dont taser me bro" nobody can argue that the kid wasnt warned, and he kept fighting |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 20,2007 6:28pm - HailTheLeaf ""] The kid was a bit antagonistic in the way that he asked the questions, he was definately looking for some attention and those questions certainly deserved it...I don't understand why they didn't just let him finish asking the 3 questions, it would've been alot easier and less retarded than cutting his mic and having pigs grab him as he's leaving anyways. I want to know if Kerry really read Greg Palast's book. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 20,2007 6:49pm - the_reverend ""] why are the cops there from the minutes he takes the mic? |