Seems like it.To me it seems as if he had a tantrum, then stopped. Then was tasered.
As you can see, video does not tell the whole story. It is by nature a manipulative medium, and is rendered even more manipulative when tiny portions are edited and slapped up on the web. A camera shows a single point of view that can be very deceptive, based upon differing lens lengths, f stop settings, lighting and actions by the operator.
No one here was present in the courtroom and knows what happened. It seems everyone is ready to jump to a short attention span conclusion ("police brutality"), when in fact, further analysis and witness interviews may well establish that the use of force was appropriate under the circumstances. I have worked in courtrooms on a daily basis, and even civil case like family law, often involve serious risk.
I believe that it is so he doesn't receive the effect of the Taser.What's deal with the old bailiff? From reading the story, it looks like he let go because he heard "taser," which means they decided to tase him as soon as he flipped the table, no?
That much is certain. There is no way to follow the flow. We can only see parts, if you will.EDIT:Yes, the video had very weird cuts that leaves much to the imagination.
I believe that it is so he doesn't receive the effect of the Taser.
Yeah, I understand how tasers work. I'd venture a guess to say that if that's how quickly they went to tasers, it's just their SOP. I wonder if they have a fallback in case the target is in contact with a civilian.
My understanding, which is not the understanding of the police, is that it should be used when the alternative is to take a gun and shoot and kill someone. A taser is always potentially lethal and has been lethal in many cases.
Here is what the hero in possession of the taser said: "It ended it quickly," Yates said. "That's what they are trained to do. We're not going to fist fight and roll around the floor with people."" Every time a taser is used someone could die.
And every time violence of any sort is employed by any of the parties, a death could ensue. Tasers are certainly a far preferable way to deal with a violent assault than nearly any other method in use or realistically available today.
Remember, the point is not to non-violently make someone to stop, but to make them stop with a minimal risk to the officer and bystanders, period. Screw the assailant. Being told to use their inside voice or putting them in time-out is not going to resolve the situation.
It seems to me that the only reason tasers are used is because the person doing the tasering is too lazy to use any other means of resolving a heightened situation, or that they take pleasure in doing it?
Holy crap - this video is shocking. Shocking!