Should "Bro" Have Been Tased? by Doug Wrenn

Should "Bro" Have Been Tased?

By Doug Wrenn

September 27, 2007

"Don't tase me, Bro!" Bill O' Reilly is already giving out bumper stickers with that now famous phrase. Unfortunately, that phrase will now become widely known. What it represents however will be in the eye of the beholder until all the facts come out.

Andrew Meyer, the heckler who recently caused a disturbance while Senator John Kerry was speaking at a Florida university did not patiently wait in line to speak. From the video, incessantly played and re-played on the news, it appears that he cut ahead, interrupted and created a public disturbance. That's not free speech. (Code Pinksters, take note!)

With freedom comes responsibility. In our great nation, freedom of speech especially pertains to dissent, however, there is a difference between freedom and license. Creating a public disturbance, just like falsely yelling "Fire!" in a dark and crowded movie theater is neither free speech, nor legal. It is a criminal act, and the abuse of free speech, which is license. That is why protesters usually must first obtain permits and obey certain conditions, so that their rights are as protected as the rights of the people whom such protests may impact. Meyer has his own web site and a history of doing goofy public stunts to attract attention to himself. There is a pattern here, and I doubt he obtained a permit to heckle Kerry, and mind you, I am no fan of Senator John Kerry by any means.

Then there is the issue of possible misuse of force by the police. Police are instructed to use force in an increasing scale. First, the uniform officer's presence is the primary use of force. Verbal commands come next, then restraint by hand, and then chemical agents such as mace, pepper spray, etc., then a striking weapon, such as a baton or PR-24, and last but not least, lethal force by firearm. Tasers have come out since I last donned a uniform, but I imagine they are situated somewhere between hand restraints and lethal force on the scale. Officers are also instructed that as a situation elevates, they may skip steps and go to a higher level of force as rapidly changing circumstances so dictate.

Another justifiable increase in the tactical of use of force, or the skipping of a step is when an officer is outnumbered by two or more combatants or is facing a combatant physically larger and stronger than him or her.

From the videos repeated ad nauseum on the news, what I saw were several officers, (various pundits have placed the number at four, five or six) finally struggling with Meyer. Initially, there were only one or two, and Meyer was physically resisting. Cops often get hurt by someone who is simply resisting, and now with our obsession with diversity and affirmative action, and our utter denial of simple and irrefutable human biology, we now must allow women, who are more often physically weaker than men, onto police forces. The situation is then exacerbated by the fact that once a cute 5 foot 3 inch little Barbie Doll with dimples and a gun, weighing in at a whopping 90 pounds is admitted to the force, we must also admit a short, thin physically weaker man with similar dimensions as well. Look at the videos and you will see Meyer standing over the initial cops struggling with him, including one female officer. As I heard one pundit correctly refer to it, it was like the Lilliputians struggling with Gulliver. Never mind tasers; "Gulliver" is lucky that one of those politically correct "Lilliputians" didn't blow his fool head off.

The video also shows Meyer disregarding the uniform presence, verbal commands and hand restraints of the officers. He was also towering over most of the shorter cops, with the exception of only one officer from what I saw, who was close in height and build to Meyer. Here's another little hint, someone calling police officers "bro," just like "dude," (or for that matter, "Sir" or "Ma'am" five times in each sentence) isn't typically someone who holds a whole lot of respect for police officers in the first place. In Meyer's case, his rebellious actions confirmed his disrespectful, if not disdainful words.

For those who say the cops should have been able to easily restrain Meyer, obviously they have never been in such a brawl. I have been in more such scrapes than I can remember. Cops more often than not get hurt while trying to retrain a subject without hurting him. I've also been accidentally struck and maced on several occasions by fellow officers in such a melee, especially when several officers are involved and usually in a cramped space. There are many TV cop show myths out there by the various Monday morning quarterbacks, who still question why cops don't fire warning shots or shoot fleeing perpetrators in the leg.

Tasers are considered another step to protect both officers from getting hurt, as well as the subject, and to lessen the need to escalate to lethal force. One unanswered question is whether or not Meyer was handcuffed before or after he was tased. I have heard reports stating each so far, and I have been unable to determine which is true from the video. If he was not tased, then regardless how many cops were struggling with him, if he could not and obviously was not yet contained, then the cops were justified in tasing him. A question is raised however, if Meyer was already cuffed and then tased. I say only "question," because while tasing a handcuffed subject is unorthodox to my knowledge, I was not there, and neither were most of the other critics of the cops. However, generally speaking, when a subject is handcuffed, the fight is considered over, and the use of weaponry beyond any necessary use of hands is contraindicated. The handcuff issue aside, however, from what I saw, and again, only from my limited view on the video, the actions of the officers were justified. Meyer refused to follow the numerous commands of the officers, and he was physically struggling, if not fighting with them. Few people seem to be asking the question as to why Meyer did not comply with the officers commands, just like few critics ever question why perpetrators who begin high speed police chases simply did not immediately pull over and stop their vehicle upon being so commanded by the officer using the flashing lights and audible devices on the police cruiser behind them. Whether the cops used appropriate or excessive force, one thing is for certain, this overgrown, immature brat with more gumption than sense needlessly brought it on himself. This is also just another example I so often see of college students, often enrolled on Mommy and Daddy's dime, who seem to have an excess of spare time on their hands when not fulfilling their purpose of being there in the first place, pursuing the higher studies of the three R's. (And no, "Riot" is not one of them!)

There is also the issue of a public figure and high-ranking government official, Kerry, who by his very status of being a public figure and a high-ranking public official, is feasibly subject to attack, be it by a terrorist or a lone whacko. Meyer acted aggressively toward Kerry, and the officers had a duty to respond to that threat, be it perceived or real, minor or major. They also initially had no way of knowing if Meyer had any concealed weapons on him. They also had no way of knowing his true intentions. Furthermore, it doesn't take much for a minor disturbance in a large crowded area to escalate into a full-scale riot. Law enforcement and corrections officials know that possibility all too well. It's also Sociology 101. The cops acted prudently in physically removing Meyer from that crowded auditorium as quickly as possible, not just to protect Senator Kerry, but ultimately to neutralize the overall situation for the protection of everyone present as well.

It pains me to have to feed into this insignificant and overblown ongoing media frenzy to give a clown like Andrew Meyer what he apparently seeks: attention. But I'm also sick and tired of miscreants being allowed to bastardize the true definition of the right to free speech, manipulating it from dissent to anarchy, and I'm also sick and tired of people with less than a thimble full of knowledge, which they only acquired by watching far too much television, so often, so vehemently and so wrongly disparaging the men and (and yes, for better or for worse, women) under whose protection they can and do so freely castigate.

With regard to the officers involved being placed on leave as the investigation proceeds, that is protocol. Sadly, it is also almost seems to be protocol for many law enforcement agencies and their governing jurisdictions to simply pay the shut up money to the ambulance chasing lawyers who so often falsely lodge police brutality cases against officers and their agencies because politicians and bureaucrats, like water, have no solid structure (like a backbone) and too often seek the path of least resistance. Such cases often end, not with a clarification of guilt or innocence, but with an expedient and convenient closure for all, and with daunting but legitimate questions never quite satisfactorily answered for an already often misguided, suspicious and biased public. I have no problem with truly abusive cops getting what they deserve, but I do have a problem with good cops getting their fine reputations erroneously stained, and with little to no recourse to wipe such ill perceived stains clean. (As someone once said, "Where can I go to get my reputation back?") Meyer's guilt of creating a disturbance looks pretty evident to me, at least from my viewing of the video. The only remaining question in my mind is whether or not the cops did or did not over-react by tasing him, and under what circumstances. The criminal charge on Meyer aside, if he was genuinely a victim of police brutality, then he rightly has a civil award coming to him, but if his claim against the cops is bogus, then the cops should counter-sue Meyer and make him an example, but again, such reverse pursuit of justice seldom occurs.

And that's just flat out wrong, "bro"!

Doug Wrenn