Why did they do this to this man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE76LQwT6qA&feature=bz301

Watch the video please, and tell me why, i dont see why.

Well you can argue against someone, but not in the form of a manic tirade during a formal speech. He didn't do anything illegal, and I think the actions of the police were too rough, but they were justified. He was resisting law enforcement and tried to escape. If he had a problem with their intentions, he could have just went with them and filed charges. The police gave him ample time to consider two options: follow, or be subdued. Anyways it's not like they did any actual damage to him.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lg9qTD6Z7zE&feature=bz301

Im sorry but the news is just annoying, Biggest wimp in america? yeah, sure.

Fox news is SUCK.

I think the taser was going overboard.
FIGHT THE POWER!

Quote from DT_Battlekruser

According to an editorial I read by someone who was present, the man involved was detained by police after essentially forcing his way to the microphone (Kerry had made clear he would not take more questions, but decided to change his mind; then the student overstayed his time on the mic), and then escaped before being tackled by six police officers and told to stop struggling or get Tasered.

In that case, he should of been escorted. However, when they have like 5 cops on him and taze him when he obviously can't do anything, that's going overboard. I understand that he was screaming, but freedom of speech still stands. He did try and resist the cops, and failed miserably and much worse happened to him. So it's a situation where if what you said is true, then I believe the cops made an "okay" decision. It's not right in some ways but you must look at him disrupting a public event, resisting cops, and screaming his ass off. The cops did their jobs, they weren't that mean.

There was really no need to taser him - they should have just dragged him off. Police use these rather nasty non-lethal detainment weapons far too much these days.

Has anyone heard about the new weapon designed by Raytheon which could see use in Iraq or as a general crowd-control tool? It's pretty nasty - essentially it's a raygun which fires out radiation at a frequency able to penetrate the skin up to a certain depth and stimulate pain receptors so that the person's skin feels like it's on fire. Essentially it could be fired at a crowd to put them all in a state of unbearable agony. Apparently hardened marines can only withstand the beam for about three seconds, and there are worries that such a powerful weapon could be abused quite badly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6300985.stm

Five strong police officers
VS
One skinny white kid

Clearly tasers were needed.
A) He has the right to ask his question
B) Despite what anyone says about the QA session being over, Jerry said so himself he wanted to take the question
C) Five police officers.
D) He didn't incite a riot, he asked a controversial question.

This is police brutality in every way. Whether or not the kid is being a jerk doesn't change his rights.

Quote

There was really no need to taser him - they should have just dragged him off. Police use these rather nasty non-lethal detainment weapons far too much these days.

Has anyone heard about the new weapon designed by Raytheon which could see use in Iraq or as a general crowd-control tool? It's pretty nasty - essentially it's a raygun which fires out radiation at a frequency able to penetrate the skin up to a certain depth and stimulate pain receptors so that the person's skin feels like it's on fire. Essentially it could be fired at a crowd to put them all in a state of unbearable agony. Apparently hardened marines can only withstand the beam for about three seconds, and there are worries that such a powerful weapon could be abused quite badly.

Yeah, I've heard about it. Basically it could have been used in places like Iraq to break up large masses up people instead of having to kill people. The only reason it didn't pass at the Pentagon was because they said it could be viewed as a cruel form of torture, essentially. (which they don't want)

Quote

Five strong police officers
VS
One skinny white kid

Clearly tasers were needed.
A) He has the right to ask his question
B) Despite what anyone says about the QA session being over, Jerry said so himself he wanted to take the question
C) Five police officers.
D) He didn't incite a riot, he asked a controversial question.

This is police brutality in every way. Whether or not the kid is being a jerk doesn't change his rights.

Best arguement I've heard so far. And, I agree with you completely.

Quote

M
-39
K
100

Five strong police officers VS One skinny white kid Clearly tasers were needed. A) He has the right to ask his question B) Despite what anyone says about the QA session being over, Jerry said so himself he wanted to take the question C) Five police officers. D) He didn't incite a riot, he asked a controversial question. This is police brutality in every way. Whether or not the kid is being a jerk doesn't change his rights.
Five strong police officers
VS
One skinny white kid

Clearly tasers were needed.
A) He has the right to ask his question
B) Despite what anyone says about the QA session being over, Jerry said so himself he wanted to take the question
C) Five police officers.
D) He didn't incite a riot, he asked a controversial question.

This is police brutality in every way. Whether or not the kid is being a jerk doesn't change his rights.

Quote

In that case, he should of been escorted. However, when they have like 5 cops on him and taze him when he obviously can't do anything, that's going overboard. I understand that he was screaming, but freedom of speech still stands. He did try and resist the cops, and failed miserably and much worse happened to him. So it's a situation where if what you said is true, then I believe the cops made an "okay" decision. It's not right in some ways but you must look at him disrupting a public event, resisting cops, and screaming his ass off. The cops did their jobs, they weren't that mean.

I hear reports say he injured two of the officers during his initial flailing, which was why they tased him.

The kid had it coming. He was told not to go into the auditorium, he was told not to take the mic, he took the mic, and was told to leave. He wouldn't leave, and the cops started to escort him out, he through a bitch fit, the cops attempted to arrest him, he resisted arrest and got tasered. GG stupid college jerk off.

Some guy got tasered, big deal. This ain't news.

Quote from CookiesLikeWhoa

The kid had it coming. He was told not to go into the auditorium, he was told not to take the mic, he took the mic, and was told to leave. He wouldn't leave, and the cops started to escort him out, he through a bitch fit, the cops attempted to arrest him, he resisted arrest and got tasered. GG stupid college jerk off.

Quote from Loser_Musician

Some guy got tasered, big deal. This ain't news.

You are both what's wrong with America.

It's not the incident itself it's the message. If I can't ask a senator if he allied with Bush for some reason and dropped out of the Presidential Campaign to gain something without being TASED, what's next? Maybe students aren't allowed to ask "why am I being punished?" anymore. We should just go along with what the government tells us to do right?

He didn't resist arrest because they didn't read him his rights, ever. There's an extended video and they never read his rights, it's only after he's tased, and downstairs away from the crowd that they tell him why they tried to arrest him. Does that sound fair? Your bias against him is unconstitutional. Whether or not he's an asshole or a conspiracy theorist or a moron does not change his rights. He was allowed to ask his question, Kerry WANTED to answer the question, it was the Police's decision to arrest him despite the fact that until they tried to do so he didn't appear as threatening at all. Maybe a little heated and excited about the question and asking a senator something point blank. But it's not like he was about to shout "LETS BURN THE PLACE DOWN" or "KILL THE CORRUPT BASTARD."

I can't even believe I'm arguing this.

Yeah.. 5 buffed up cops vs. one skinny college kid, there definitely wasn't any need for that. Tasering him in front of his friends and parents was a stupid move too, they could of at least carried him outside.

i only say their was no need to tasering him because they did it after cuffing him.Plus 5 agaisnt 1 thats like easy enough rofl.Either way its over now lol.Btw a good laugh for the day thanks .

The kid himself admitted to the police that he said they did nothing wrong.

Quote

The kid himself admitted to the police that he said they did nothing wrong.

What does that have to do with anything? I still am in total agreement with GF.

Quote from PwnPirate

Well you can argue against someone, but not in the form of a manic tirade during a formal speech. He didn't do anything illegal, and I think the actions of the police were too rough, but they were justified. He was resisting law enforcement and tried to escape. If he had a problem with their intentions, he could have just went with them and filed charges. The police gave him ample time to consider two options: follow, or be subdued. Anyways it's not like they did any actual damage to him.

I agree 100%. He WAS escorted as someone said AFTER he was asked to either ask the question or get off.

Quote

It's not the incident itself it's the message. If I can't ask a senator if he allied with Bush for some reason and dropped out of the Presidential Campaign to gain something without being TASED, what's next? Maybe students aren't allowed to ask "why am I being punished?" anymore. We should just go along with what the government tells us to do right?

He didn't resist arrest because they didn't read him his rights, ever. There's an extended video and they never read his rights, it's only after he's tased, and downstairs away from the crowd that they tell him why they tried to arrest him. Does that sound fair? Your bias against him is unconstitutional. Whether or not he's an asshole or a conspiracy theorist or a moron does not change his rights. He was allowed to ask his question, Kerry WANTED to answer the question, it was the Police's decision to arrest him despite the fact that until they tried to do so he didn't appear as threatening at all. Maybe a little heated and excited about the question and asking a senator something point blank.

But also he could have settled this with charges against the officers, instead he tried to escape law enforcement, even when they pinned him to the ground and told him to stop resisting. Also he ran out of his allotted time, and he kept ranting. If someone stands up in a movie theater near the ending and starts screaming, I think that justifies guards taking him away.

We need nuclearrabbit.