The proper way to get tazed...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Depends on your standard for the employment of force.

If you believe that police force is justified only if there exists a credible threat of grievous bodily harm (bumps, bruises, and/or a broken finger would not count) to the officers, suspect, or bystanders; then you may view this as unwarranted. You can make a credible argument that no serious physical harm was likely to occur.

If you believe that police force is justified whenever the threat of harm exists to officers, suspect, or bystanders, they you would probably condone this use of force here.


Police in the USA are allowed to use force to restrain a subject who resists arrest. They are supposed to be judicious in the amount of force used so as to minimize the potential of escalating violence and thereby increasing the risk to bystanders, suspect or themselves. Mirandizing a suspect is a necessary step prior to questioning that suspect, it is not required before an arrest is made. Police are expected to warn a suspect that violence will be used if the threatening behavior is not stopped.


All it will take to file a lawsuit on this matter is the required filing fee. Whether or not the case is tossed immediately or allowed to proceed will probably depend on the attitude of the judge. No appellate court will see anything "new" here that would require an appeals ruling.



Zak':

Voter fraud and voting mistakes occur in every election. For the most part, research indicates that it occurs at a fairly low percentage and, for the most part, about equally between both major parties. If you buy into the Kerry was robbed in 2004 scenario, you'd have to demonstrate that the fraud was both far more prevalent then believed AND far more unilateral in character.




All told, the only winner in this scenario is Mr. Meyer. "Mission Accomplished!"