Excessive For Whom?

What follows are a few thoughts on the tasering of Andrew Meyer (via ace, kos, c&l). This is, to employ a tired bloggospherean trope, "part of a disturbing trend." I'm referring, of course, to the widespread influence of the military-mindset in civilian society. While the data in support my impressions are anecdotal (and history is littered with more egregious examples of this kind of suppression), it nonetheless appears as though there has been a seismic shift in what a great majority of citizens is willing to tolerate when in comes to issues of "security." Even the thugs who beat the crap out of Rodney King constructed their defense on the premise that King posed an immediate threat to their safety. Today, it isn't hard to imagine that a defendant in a similar case would need only to substantiate the desire to eliminate risk and "secure the situation."

The explosion of private security firms (no pun-at-the-expense-of-Blackwater intended) is a likely cause of the complicity with which many of us defer to authoritatively costumed bullies. It only complicates the issue when the latitude granted to uniformed police officers in meting out violence is unquestioningly granted to any yokel with a willingness to stand idle for hours without number; and when that very latitude itself grows ever more permissive.

Political events provide an excellent forum for "security personnel" to showcase their inability to exercise discretion or treat people respectfully. In the case of Andrew Meyer (like that of Lennox Yearwood), it isn't hard to see that the decision to apply excessive force arose not from threatening or violent behavior, but rather from assessments made regarding Meyer's comments, demeanor and perceived incivility. (His unwillingness to kowtow to authority also played a crucial role in their decision to inflict a debilitating amount of physical pain.) This is important. Would they have treated an angry man this way at an outdoor rally or march? Probably not. The rules of engagement in those circumstances are fairly clear: marching protestors can pretty much say whatever they want without fear of reprisal so long as they do not deviate from designated routes or attack anyone. However, it is also true that being uncivil or loud at many events can be legitimate grounds for removal (by force if necessary). But a political event is – or should be – a little different. The Kerry event was an open forum. The purpose of the event was for the participants to engage in political speech, and political speech is often loud, contentions, overbearing, etc.; in other words, it’s unfit to be the standard for such judgments as were made by the personnel in question.

In the various online postings relating to this event, there is a strange tendency for many to see the arrest of Meyer as legitimate because he seemed to be a "jackass," an "idiot," or "annoying." Its almost as if people think those are acceptable reasons not only for tasing someone, but for governmental authorities to go around tasing people (or, the case of Yearwood, breaking people's legs). This is astonishing.

Regardless of whether we think the treatment of Andrew Meyer was appropriate, there was one person in the room who could have stopped it. John Kerry. He did nothing. This isn't astonishing at all.

UPDATE: The perpetrators are “on leave.”  That’ll show ‘em.

Comments

[yerch]

Doesn't it seem like typically you expect this sort of thing to happen under cover of darkness? It wasn't surprising that cops took out their fury on Rodney King. The only unexpected thing was that it was caught on video. One wonders if the police in the King incident would have responded differently if they had known they were on video. I imagine they would.

That's what makes these recent incidents so disturbing to me. The police and security involved at the Petraus hearings and at the Kerry speech must understand that they are on video yet that doesn't even slow them down. It's not just that people won't question authority but that authority understands that it is beyond questioning. It's like the Zimbardo prison experiment has gone national.

That is why I'm writing to inform you that I'm forwarding this seditious blog entry to the proper authorities. You will be dealt with accordingly. Have a nice day.

[pedrolino]

I completely agree with your assessment.