edited: Tasering at Club Nationals Afterparty

I may have missed this somewhere, but was the cop there already as security or was he called in?

That could determine if he's at fault or not. If he was there on security detail and simply saw some people go into the restroom he very well could have acted a little rough and would likely be placed on administrative leave (ie: desk job) for a short time....that's probably the worst that will happen to this guy, that and maybe a loss of pay/demotion.

Now, if the cop was actually called in by someone such as the owner or bartender (do we know?) he would come into the situation with whatever the caller said. If the owner or bartender said "dude following woman into ladies restroom" that could be taken as "dude attempting rape in the ladies restroom". That kind of shit happens all the time at bars or other parties. You never hear about the girl who got raped out in the open, it's either in a bathroom or bedroom away from other people. Now, the cop could be coming to the scene thinking some dude is trying to rape someone or pursuing someone with that intention. If that's the case, which I'm almost certain will be his defense, then he has every right to use non-lethal force. The problem here is the type of non-lethal force being used. Again, police departments have seemingly switched from brute force to tasers and moreso with this cop being well outnumbered.

Now, it doesn't matter jack what you told the cop, if the cop thinks you are attemping a crime such as rape he will take you down, throw you down, or in this case taser you. It all depends on if he was actually called in or not or if he was just sitting there as hired security. If he was there as security he should have known more of the details early on. Also, we don't know what he's faced in the past. He very well could have intervened on a similar situation in the past where he walked into some dude trying to a rape a girl in the restroom. Again, if he does the bar runs a lot I'm sure he has. So, he sees a guy go into the ladies restroom and he goes in thinking something bad is going to happen. Again, it doesn't matter what you say because he's not going to trust you.

In all likelyhood after all is said and done the case will be dropped once it is discovered no actual crime took place beyond going into a women's restroom. The cop will probably take some sort of administrative leave for a short time to calm down the masses with pitchforks. Hopefully the charges will be dropped, if not then the guy will probably get off with probation.

Alan

There were a number of mistakes by the hotel staff.

No one at the doors collecting the ticket, no one telling people not to rbing bags of beers into the room. The a lady for the hotel goes around and try to tell people they couls't habve their own beers in the room...after she get upset with people have the3ir own beer someone from the hotel calls the police...then the police start removing people with beers in bags...then polcie just stay in room and hall way looking for trouble makers.

Before the Taser came out...someone form the hotle or polcie or party should have turned off the music, turnrned on the lights and say.. "Everyone needs to get the beer out of the room except the one sold or given away (one free ticket) at the bar" Also, say Mr. Police are here so don't do anything dumb....then turn the lights back down and turn on the music.

It is my opinion some of the guest were stupid...but the htoel staff and polcie were stupid by not taken some action earlier before the tasering

Nice find. I think the problem is that the effect of tasers is highly dependent on the physiology of the target. Variables include weight, percent body fat (which insulates from the electric charge) and even hydration and electrolyte balance. So while the effect on a 220 lb male with 20% body fat might be stun, it could do much more harm to say, a 150 lb dehydrated runner with low body fat.There have certainly been enough taser-related deaths for it to be classified as a potentially lethal weapon. I would think that a blast of pepper spray would be more than sufficient in most cases.

Canuckster wrote:

Apropos of our discussion regarding appropriate force:

"[t]he RCMP will restrict its use of tasers, just days after a critical report said the national police force was firing the stun guns too often.

The Mounties say they will more clearly define use-of-force terminology and limit taser use to situations where 'a subject is displaying combative behaviours or is being actively resistant.'"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071214.wtaserrcmp1214/BNStory/National/home

Alan, you make these long, seemingly well thought-out posts, but that does not mask the fact that you're retarded.

It doesn't matter what the cop thought before he went into the bathroom. He went in and saw a guy talking calmly to some girls. He certainly did not see anyone getting raped, so he had no reason to think anyone was being raped.

Furthermore, the person who was tasered was not in the women's bathroom, you idiot. So your rape argument holds zero bearing here.

I can't believe there are people on this message board who think you are smart.

Any update on the legal matters?

We have set up a fund to help Mike with his legal fees, which could be pretty high. If you would like to help out a fellow runner who does not deserve what has befallen him, you may do so by sending a donation to the Mike Gerber Legal Defense Fund c/o Regions Bank, 100 Kedron Drive, Peachtree City, Georgia or alternatively you can mail your check made out to the fund to me at 114 North Cove Drive, Peachtree City, Georgia 30269.

We really would support any help you can give Mike.

Thank you.

I don't understand why there are any charges still being filed against Mike Gerber, perhaps trying to cover their a**** because they are vulnerable to being sued big time when he's out, which I hope he does and cleans up big time.

There is no excuse for thugs and goons tasering or using pepper spray or any other kind of brutality on innocent law abiding Americans.

If the thugs wanted to arrest someone they could guide them gently to a patrol car and have them sit in the back seat, then release them at the station or the scene.

The United States was created as a Republic, not a democracy but is fast becoming a fascist state because of the latter. The world democracy is not found anywhere in the founding papers of this country. Note the United States is a Republic not a democracy. 99 percent of the people do not have the right to try and tell the other 1 percent what to do or how to live.

Notice in the pledge of allegience, "and the Republic for which it stands" - NOT a democracy. TPTB want people to think this is a democracy so they can keep stealing our assets with illegal taxes.

Benjamin Franklin said, "A democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for dinner.

"A Republic is a well armed sheep."

not anymore wrote:

You make them sound guilty. According to you.

1. You were not in the bathroom so none of us have any idea how the actual conversation in the bathroom went.

2. We do know that he did not belong in the bathroom.

3. We also know that Mike had no idea what went down in the bathroom.

4. We also know that Mike (no matter what his intentions were) stepped into a situation that he did not belong and he had no idea what happened in the bathroom.

You my friend will make an excellent witness for the DA.

You raise some fair points. But I'm not convinced that I'll be helping the DA convict on the charges of "assault of an officer" felony and "resisting arrest" which is really the point now, no?

I'm not going to waste my time arguing over the finer points of the bathroom incident. It's correct that I cannot comment on that interaction. It's not even my concern. I understand if you dissaproved of those in the bathroom and feel the police handled that appropriately. You probably have some good points and should be sharing your thoughts to the police if they were charging Sam with a minor crime (and that's pushing it) amid this uproar.

Yes, the police have a tough job and most of the time they get it right. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes and I know they have to react first sometimes.

The issue at this point is with someone's life being possibly and pointlessly affected with no warrant though. Looks like the media is beginning to pick this up. You think they're going to cover just another tasing if they didn't think there's a bigger story here?

And if you were there and really think Mike was handled properly, I can't help but see you as any more than worthless scum. And I'll say that under my real name (in my e-mail) unlike just about everyone else here. You're welcome to shoot me your thoughts.

old and grouchy wrote:

Why do other civilized nations seem to be able to control their citizens without such displays of force (yes I know most countries have examples of abuse of police power, but does Canada, France, Sweden, or England (for example) have police forces whose number one goal seems to be intimidation first, ask questions later)?

You mean France, where there are recurring race / ethnic riots that have to be put down with riot police? Or in England where routine soccer matches turn into deadly brawls?

For all of the shit posted above, I'm sure we can agree that a jury could not find the guy guilty of anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

QED

The chicken wing guy wrote:

You probably have some good points and should be sharing your thoughts to the police if they were charging Sam with a minor crime (and that's pushing it) amid this uproar.

WHAT UPROAR?

There is a bunch of needle neck geeks out to defend anonter needle neck geek anonymously over a "running site message board" that no one outside of this little geekdom is even aware of. How many of you guys are marching on City Hall? Where is the "National" story? Has Craig Masback, or anyone else in a position of importance, stepped in to back your situation. There is absolutly no uproar. A DUI for a local city councilmen would create far more buzz.

Here is an article for you -

Cases in which police, prison guards and other law enforcement authorities have used excessive force or other tactics to violate victims' civil rights have increased 25%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-Copmisconduct_N.htm

Nothing in that surprises me. Here is the problem. When a black man is traveling 25 mph over the speed limit and is pulled over and claims racial profiling, he provides a disservice to everyone that has been true victims. This kid is not without fault. If he truly wants sympathy, he needs to first say "I acted like an idiot" and then the police waaaaay overreacted.

I think he would then win over almost all of the critics.

Instead people either try to defend his actions by calling them noble (which is idiotic as it was none of his business) or they say that he disn't do anything wrong. HE DID. and so did the cop.

We have got ourselves a BINGO.

hey ole timers wrote:

Nothing in that surprises me. Here is the problem. When a black man is traveling 25 mph over the speed limit and is pulled over and claims racial profiling, he provides a disservice to everyone that has been true victims. This kid is not without fault. If he truly wants sympathy, he needs to first say "I acted like an idiot" and then the police waaaaay overreacted.

I think he would then win over almost all of the critics.

Instead people either try to defend his actions by calling them noble (which is idiotic as it was none of his business) or they say that he disn't do anything wrong. HE DID. and so did the cop.

Bingo Hall wrote:

We have got ourselves a BINGO.

No we don't. We barely even have a "B" in fact.

What the hell does this have to do with black people playing the race card by wrongly claiming racial profiling?? Zero, zip, nada. All I see happening here is that some of the hard-core cop defenders are backing off a bit on their initial assessment of the situations (but they will of course stop short of admitting that cops are fully to blame here).

And most people are not calling the guy who got tased "noble", NOR is the guy trying to gain "sympathy" from anyone. Instead most posters are simply saying that this Mike guy did what most people would do in that situation: he saw a friend getting totally manhandled by police for what appeared to be no good reason and simply stepped up and said "whoa, relax, he didn't do anything." For all this Mike guy knew, the cop might have thought that the kid in the bathroom had attacked a woman or something severe like that (the cop was sure acting like it). So what's wrong with saying to a cop who is wailing on a friend who had hardly done anything wrong "hey, why the hell are you beating on him for, he didn't do anything ?" Nothing that I can see (maybe the cop had thought the guy in the bathroom had done more than just be in there).

As others have pointed out, if a cop grabbed your friend out of his car for driving 5mph over the speed limit, whipped him to the ground, and shoved his face to the cement I would HOPE your natural reaction would be to say to the cop: "hey, what the hell are you doing?" And if you got tased for doing that, and your head split open, and you were charged with several felonies, I would guess you sort of deserved it because you "acted like and idiot" ? suuuure.

Going in the girl's room is immature. That's about it. Asking a cop and telling him "what are you doing?! He didn't do anything " as he beats on your friend for such a simple immature action isn't "acting like an idiot" but is a natural, normal, acceptable reaction, and one that should NOT be met with severe force by an officer. There's your BINGO.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

did what most people would do in that situation: he saw a friend getting totally manhandled by police for what appeared to be no good reason and simply stepped up and said "whoa, relax, he didn't do anything."

1. I WOULD NOT do what Mike did in that situation. If my male friend, intoxicated or not, was dumb enough to screw around in the women's bathroom, I wouldn't have any problem with the police forcefully throwing him out. Especially if he was being "smart" with them. Plus, I know better not to get in a officer's way, let alone question him, when he is in the middle of an incident.

2. You say "appeared to be no good reason". The key word there is "appeared". As it turns out, the police probably did have a good reason. Mike didn't know this, so he had no right to question the police. There are situations where the police have the right to use force. And for all Mike knew (nothing), this could have been one of those situations. Yet he still made the conscious decision to question the officer.

Understand that there are two issues here:

1) Was Gerber's intervention appropriate? in my opinion probably not but 28 year olds who have been drinking don't always make good decisions (been there, done that)\

2) Did the officer use excessive force in response to the situation? Again in my opinion, yes. He was not dealing with a felony or even a disorderly situation. He had others asking questions, and he could have repeatedly (yes, over and over) responded that it was not Gerber's business. As an officer, he is supposed to do that. If he can't gain the patience to deal with the public in that way, then he needs to choose another job.

harrrier wrote:

2) Did the officer use excessive force in response to the situation? Again in my opinion, yes. He was not dealing with a felony or even a disorderly situation. He had others asking questions, and he could have repeatedly (yes, over and over) responded that it was not Gerber's business. As an officer, he is supposed to do that. If he can't gain the patience to deal with the public in that way, then he needs to choose another job.

See that's where the disagreement stems from. Alot of people have formed an oppinion around what was seen and reported.

However, no one knows what was said between the two as no one was close enough. The only report we have on that is from the guy that was in the women's room and is friends with Mike.

That's the interesting part of the conversation that I wish we knew about.

Why does everyone keep saying that Mike stepped in to defend a friend? Mike didn't know the guy.