Thats what it boils down to, yes.

I support whatever force is necessary to control the situation and effect compliance with University policy and rules, or the arrest of anyone who refuses or resists.

I don’t believe that’s a constitutional policy. I don’t believe an LEO has authority to use violent force to “effect compliance with” any policy or law.

I would revise it to “I support whatever force is necessary to control the situation or secure the arrest of anyone who resists.”

I would further define “to control the situation” as “to secure the safety of the officers, bystanders, and subject.”

Bottom line: violent force should only be used LEOs in response to violent force, or the credible threat of violent force.

If the kid had a bone to pick, he can do it like everyone else…through the University’s grievance system or our court system.

It looks like he’s well on his way to doing so.

If the LEOs are wrong, they’ll be subject to the same court system.

No doubt. This is all just an academic exercise. The system is handling it, so we’re just throwing ideas around while we wait for the actual results.

I support whatever force is necessary to control the situation and effect compliance with University policy and rules, or the arrest of anyone who refuses or resists.

If the kid had a bone to pick, he can do it like everyone else…through the University’s grievance system or our court system.

If the LEOs are wrong, they’ll be subject to the same court system.

“Seeing the quantity of students vs. the quantity of security officers,
I’d say it was an uneasy position for the officers given the immediate
circumstances, and their actions were completely justified.”

As it is… it turned out like it should have.

Lobo, Am I to understand that you support the use of violent force against a non-violent suspect?

Well, so far I agree with you.

The situation is really not as debatable as everyone has made it. If you omit the rights and responsibilities of the University, what the law states, the rights, duty and obligation of LEOs and the rights and responsibilities of the student, you have a debate. As it is… it turned out like it should have.

Its not unusual for LEOs to be accused of being “judge, jury and executioner”.

In this case they apparently are expected to be cops, psychologists, and attorneys.

Just remember… “if you have the law on your side…”

Many sources clearly point out that he was already handcuffed when he was tasered.

I believe he claims to have been tasered 5 times, 3 of which were on camera to some degree. It appeared to me that he was handcuffed during at least two of them.

Did he go limp? … from what I understand it does not temporarily paralyze anyone.

I didn’t mean to imply that it was involuntary. I just meant that he didn’t appear to be exerting any effort.

How would you suggest the cops remove the screaming crybaby from making a drama scene in a library without some kind of physical force?

Force was clearly required, but nonviolent force would have been sufficient. It did not appear that he was resisting (no thrashing, kicking, etc), so all they had to do was drag him. That’s a pretty typical scenario during protests.

The rest doesn’t matter, ultimately.

Did he go limp? I think that may be the real question. From what I’ve been reading, the taser was not used in its full power mode. Even if it was, from what I understand it does not temporarily paralyze anyone. Even if it were to do that, there were long gaps of time between each shock. Plenty of time for the political protester to have a temper tantrum.

If it turns out that he was temporarily, physically disabled from the shock, then I will concede I was wrong. I don’t think that is the case.

We have to remember that the beginning of the video was not the beginning of the event. Unfortunately we’re left with he-said she-said for the initial spark.

1) This wasn’t just a standard ID check. It was a ‘random’ ID check in which they went straight to the guy with dark skin. He asked that if his ID was checked then everyone else should be checked too. They refused. At least two interviews show this. One on Countdown and another on Democracy Now. Yes. Both lean left. That doesn’t provide any reason for ignoring the statements.

2) He had ID and is a valid, current student. He refused to show it. See point 1.

“I just think anyone jumping to the conclusion of blaming the cops are taking the easy way out. I think from the grainy video that a judgement like that isn’t really full. I think we should hear both sides of this.”

Always both sides should be heard. Simply, however, violent physical force was used in response to non-violent, passive resistance. It seems to have conformed to the school security guidelines, but that doesn’t make it legal. Many police agencies expressly exclude passive resistance as a valid target for pain inducing countermeasures for a reason.