You resist arrest, and the cops have authorisation to use non-lethal methods to get compliance out of you, end of story. That's legal, and your freedom of speech argument is worthless to that, because he attempted to resist arrest.
It's not like they shot him in the leg with a bullet. They tasered him, temporary incapacitation for resisting arrest.
The Situation (I wasn't there, but from what I've heard and read):
Time was up for questions, he mouthed off that he wanted a question (yet went for 3 questions after question time), he didn't give Kerry a chance for his response to each of the questions, and then his mic was shut off. When it was shut off, he should've just realised his time was up, not got worked up and made an incident.
Instead, he runs around, "You've got no right" and stuff, the police tried to escort him out so the possibility of a dangerous situation escalating out of hand was minimised but instead he tries to resist.
So they take him away, he was warned, he didn't go quietly, he squealed about it and tried to incite a riot. So they tasered him, and he was taken away because he failed to comply with the officers.
The cops handled it pretty well, if he had a weapon, and another person had of been injured because of his actions, all you "Freedom of Speech" band wagon jumpers would be saying "The cops should've done more to stop the incident from escalating".
It's always the cops who are the bad guys, yet they did nothing but what they were allowed to do by law. That clown didn't obey the laws and thus was tasered. The cops had every right to use that amount of force to get rid of him. No more, no less. If he was beaten within an inch of his life, or shot at, then yes. But because it was only tasering, the police are within their rights
Anyone who says otherwise are wrong.
Log in to comment