This video shows a clearly obnoxious and possibly unstable individual who hounds court security with a series of nonsensical statements about not being a person. The court staff shows considerable restraint and professionalism until the man is tasered for trying to get into a court area with a camera.
In the view, the man insists “I don’t have a last name. I don’t have a first name either. I got a name, my name is Robert. You can call me Robert.” He then draws a nonsensical distinction in saying “I’m not a person. You deal here with persons, of which I am not. I’m a man.” When he denies being a citizen of the United States, but admits to being a citizen of Idaho, he then refuses to produce his license on the grounds that “My person does [have one]. I don’t. And I don’t wish to create joinder with you.” He was soon joined with a taser.
I am highly sympathetic to the court security in such a situation and I do not contest the right to keep out cameras. However, I wonder why a taser was used rather than simply restraining the man and possibly arresting him. Once again, the man is clearly rude and seems a bit off. However, we have previously discussed how tasers have become the first response in such situation and used almost casually. This man was clearly in the wrong in trying to get in despite the warning. However, he took one step and was tasered by the officer. These tasers can be deadly in some circumstances and are similar in the legal level of force to the use of a police baton. Where officers (of which there were at least four here) once physically restrained such individuals, they often now use tasers.
What do you think?
Thank you professor for reminding everyone that, according to the police themselves, the taser was originally intended as a replacement for the baton. You should ALWAYS visualize and rhetorically ask “Would a baton have been appropriate in this situation” when a taser is used.
Also, I am pleased that so many commenters far have indeed framed their responses in this context, both pro and con.
Said nick from an orifice usually not used for talking.
And what Darren and OS said.
mkahill, Firstly bettykath can speak for herself. Are you her attorney? Secondly, where in the hell do you get victimization based on my simple declarative sentence referring to bettykath and not myself. This is a tired meme by people who either lack the intelligence or wit to respond w/ anything else. It also has a healthy dose of projection. Finally, how does “from the comfort of her own home” constitute ridicule; you’re projecting that on bettykath. When someone talks out of their ass w/ unequivocal statements like bettykath I’ll call them on it. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
In some instances, using the Taser is preferable to a scramble in the hallway where someone could really get hurt. I am with Darren on this one.
My youngest son worked for a time as as uniformed security/correctional officer at the maximum security unit at a large state hospital. He worked there after he got out of the military and was going to college. The forensic maximum security unit at the hospital housed people that could not even be managed at the state penitentiary. My kid was 6’6″ tall, weighed about 300 pounds, worked out regularly and was a black belt in Shotokan karate and Tae Kwon Do. He never needed an extraction team to get someone to come out of their cell and no one ever got hurt, although if he had to go in and get an inmate out of their cell there was usually some pain involved.
His little sister is also a CO, but she is only 5’3″, so how she manages confrontations is a different story. The way to handle a confrontation depends largely on the officer’s physical condition and skill set. Many bailiffs are semi-retired and in about the same physical condition as the customer greeter at Wal-Mart.
If a citizen is trying to pick a fight, then they should know the officer is going to finish what the citizen starts.
Citizen of the World and I share the opinion of the political alignment of this person. There are many subgroups of this mindset but in general we call them “Constitutionalists” here.
Here are some insights into this incident. The mindset that is of this person is that their are sovereign persons, meaning that essentially in their form of thinking, they are not subject to any jurisdiction of the state. Many of them, if not most, subsecribe to the belief they have the right to resist any requirement of the government they choose.
This issue goes beyond just having twisted or bizarre interpretations of the constitution or political views. I won’t get into details that I cannot disclose but I ask that you take my word for it that these people can be dangerous and this is well known in certain areas of the country amoung LEOs.
When these bailiffs were assessing this person, I am certain they knew of his risk. Then coupled with his actions of persistently resisting their orders to not enter the court room with the camera it began escalating.
There are also a couple of elements that might not be noticed. When he calls out “don’t touch me.” this is indicative based upon tone of voice and body language that a fight will ensue upon going hands on with the person to arrest him. I know that readers of this might argue that anyone can say that having not want of being arrested but this person is displaying evidence of it being more than that.
Another element that is not clear from the video is after the bailiff tells the man to get back as he is pointing the taser at him is whether or not this person made a furative movement such as reaching into a pocket suddenly or taking a fighting stance. That might have elicited the bailiff lighting him up when he, but I do not know. If the bailiff could articulate this to be the case, given all the people around the area if a weapon was going to be produced the tasing would have been golden.
There is also the possibility that if the two bailiffs had not controlled the man and he, albeit unlikely, went on a rampage afterward that might have been a concern. This rarely happens but would be something to consider.
I would concede that I probably would have told the guy to leave the court house or he would be arrested for Disorderly Conduct since he was interfering with the court process by detaining the bailiffs which would have delayed the court from beginning its day and trying to push by the officers and in the process violating a court order to have no cameras. And if he refused I would have hooked him up. But I would put it at probably 50% or higher he would have resisted arrest to some degree. Generally you could have looked at your partner, conveyed what was to happen, then went on both sides of him and grabbed a wrist each and double arm barred him against a wall and cuffed him up.
But then again I did not see what the bailiffs did. This was in my view probably could be justified upon an examination of all the evidence but I might not have pulled out the taser at the point the bailiff did.
bettykath, Shouldn’t write an opinion disagreeing with nick spinelli without expecting ridicule. Wait for it. Oh no, he’s been victimized again.
I know someone who is not a person. She is a mother and she is a woman and she was a litigant. The law in Iowa says that a “person” can file an appeal of an agency finding and when she did so, the court informed her that when the law said “person” it did not refer to her.
Shortly thereafter, the agency itself was a “person” in another context. We found that laughable but were too busy crying to give it full effect.
Frankly w/ a reasonable response.
Interesting that JT, who has expressed grave doubts about the over use of tazers in general does not appear to have a problem with it to protect the court.
I can’t watch the video at the moment so I won’t offer an opinion but the line of when to use force & how much force to use is never really very clear. This sounds like one of those gray area cases. I’m not trained to deal with this crap & have very little experience trying to. My hope would be that the court officers are well trained and that they only do this appropriately.
Says bettykath from the comfort of her own home.
The guy wasn’t a danger to the guards or anyone else, just an annoyance. He wasn’t going to get past the guards. Abusive use of their got a new toy. Causing hurt is just icing on the cake for them. What if we all had a taser to deal with annoying people?
Like all things with our Police, as regulated by politicians. We are sold on one idea but the real motive is not reveled till much later and then its too late and politicians refuse to do anything about the abuse.
This is another incident of “Freemen on the Land” or “Sovereign Person”. It’s proponents argue that all statute law is contractual in nature, therefore if one states they do not wish to be a party to a contract, that contract cannot be enforced against them (or laws don’t apply, in this case). Really, it is an attempt to get out of debts owed by these people and uses legal jargon as baffle-gab make their point. They enjoy being pains in the butt.
I wish he said, “Don’t tase me bro.” Having worked in a prison long before tasers, I conclude this was warranted. Having wrestled w/ psychologically disturbed inmates who weren’t properly medicated, I know how difficult it can be to restrain them.
Some courthouses do not even allow cell phones since they all have cameras. They have been used by gang memebers to photo witnesses as intimidation. It’s very legit to ban personal cameras in the courtroom. There’s a record of everything that transpires in the courtroom.
From your description of his language, he appears to be a Sovereign Citizen, or some variation. They can be very dangerous to LEOs and officials.
“What do you think?”
In this case … four guards to one looney … they did not need the Taser risk.
It looks Orwellian.
Which the government does not need more of.
The court staff was right in using the taser. Nobody was hurt. The man was clearly a trouble maker or out of his mind.
http://goo.gl/iynLv
I struggle to find where “being obnoxious” is against the law and warrants having 50,000 volts of electricity sent through your body.
Imagining the scenario without badges or uniforms would put the police officer in prison for assault with a deadly weapon.
The current police culture is their likelihood of injury is to be avoided at all costs.