Naked Wizard Tasered at Coachella

Okay, so we'll see how viral this video gets and how much uproar the tazing creates. My opinion after watching the video and having gone to many festivals is that the crowds are generally the same, anti-authoritive, twenty to thirty somethings who will shout support rather than disrobing in a show of unity. I liken it to those who stand around the mosh pit, pushing those in, but won't enter into it themselves. They like the entertainment-factor but aren't willing to risk a bruised arm or loose tooth.
In the end, I think that his crowd support was flawed.
That being said, nobody wants to see anyone get pummelled by the cops, so you'll naturally get a response.
I also feel that this dude was "high" on something. My guess is extasy/MDA. Why else would he resist so greatly to putting on some clothing and risk going to jail? It can't be because he was prideful of his junk.
In watching this, I was surprised that he didn't get tackled when he kept slapping one of the officers on the shoulder. I've seen people taken down for less. This may be because they knew they were on camera, but I think the officers showed much restraint and only tazed him when all other means were exhausted. Talking didn't work, tossing clothes at him didn't work, the knee to his chest (that made me cringe more) didn't work.
Now I am not one who regularly sides with the cops, but in all the videos I've watched of alleged police brutality, this one seems like the police tried all that they could to subdue him in a respectful manner and 'the wizard' provoked the officers into creating an incident.
I would be surprised if any court would grant this guy any reward for being roughed up by the cops. Again, in my opinion he, or Peanut as I am now calling him, doesn't have a third leg to stand on.

reply to post by defcon5


And it's responses like that, that make me shake my head and also stay away from ATS.

Pompous espousals of pseudo-knowlege 'blah blah blah this is the law blah blah blah'

Learn to think.

Yes, some anti-cop posters here are missing the picture too, but the majority are calling for compassion, human decency and THOUGHTFULNESS.

We could care less about some archaic, inappropriate, arseholic law!

As for those that seem to think one prude's potential 'offense' at seeing a naked body outweigh hundreds of peoples sensible and balanced acceptance of it, WTF?

Fragile egos, fragile egos.

We are in for lots of similar situations in the near future. World Ego is crumbling and the more fragile yours, the harder you are going to take it and cling to this kind of authoritarian legal nonsense.

Drop the morality and get with the ethics.

lol.

Originally posted by Redpillblues
I just shake my head to think that people post and have no regaurd to peoples rights not to see a naked man..if the crowd was 10,000 people and as long as 1 person is offended it is there right to have the man either A,have him put his cloths on by first asking..witch he did not and clearly made it clear he was not going to
or B,forcfully removing him from the situation that offends JohnQ public,who was offended..Once he refused to be cuffed all bets are off..

Please people dont be stupid..The only legitamate gripe I see is the stiff knee to his chest..But I am not a cop,so I cant condone it or blast it as abuse..but it is in no way cruel and unusual..cruel and unusual is putting a broom stick up his ass..

[edit on 29-4-2009 by Redpillblues]

Look, the problem is not NAKEDNESS, it is people's reaction to nakedness that is the problem. It was the police who over reacted to a naked body because of society's perception that the human body is somehow wrong, or evil or nasty.

Laws, WERE not meant to keep people from being "offended" for goodness sakes. Can you imagine the laws if we created one for every time someone claimed to be offended in this politically correct world? I can, EVERYTHING would be illegal, because someone, somewhere would claim to have been "offended".

Fine, most people on this thread have offended me, shall we now have all of you tased? Wait, but I am sure my beliefs have offended some of you, so does that mean we should just all freaking line up and get tased since we have all at one point in time offended each other?

Laws WERE supposed to protect us, not from being offended, but from being harmed.

People have taken the nudist issue so far it is lunacy.

For example, it has been taken so far that in Alabama (or used to be could have been changed) it is illegal to even advocate for nudity much less BE nude on private property. Meaning EVERYONE is breaking the law, because EVERYONE get's nude.

How about this one mkay?

In Ohio, their was a case where a man was arrested, for being nude in his own home, because his neighbor could see him with his binoculars. How moronic. What about, the neighbor should stick his binoculars up his own nude aaa when next he takes a shower in his own home.

How about let's not offend our neighbors by looking into their homes with binoculars. Or let's just taser both of them, the one for having the audacity to be naked in his own home, and the other for having the audacity to "peek" at his neighbor with binoculars.

Or this, because many people were "offended", and I was offended by them.

In some areas breast feeding is not allowed as someone might see something so wonderfully natural as a mother feeding her child. I know when I was breast feeding, I would get all kinds of nasty looks from people, even though I always covered up with a blanket. LOL I remember many times I would exaggerate rolling my eyes at people and glare right back until they would look away in embarrassment. Shame on them for acting like breast feeding is a bad thing.

Or how about this woman

I was recently nursing my six-week-old baby in a public toilet facility at a shopping center. I got many smiles and comments on my beautiful baby, but then one woman approached me and demanded that I stop what I was doing or she would call the police! Our state legislature recently tabled a measure that would have protected a woman’s right to breastfeed in public, so she said it meant that breastfeeding in public is illegal in our state. I was taken completely off guard and didn't know how to respond. I simply packed up and left.

Or this one

A law was passed in the state of Connecticut a few years ago to protect the rights of mothers breastfeeding in public. This resulted from a situation where a mother was reprimanded by police for breastfeeding in her parked car. GREAT a law was supposed to PROTECT a mother who breastfeeds, and what takes place? A police officer reprimands her.

Their have been women charged with indecent exposure for breastfeeding in public. How about if we charge everyone with a crime for eating in public mmkay?

So, should we make it illegal to breast feed? Because that is the direction that those who hate and/or fear the human body are pushing this issue. It is illegal for women to breastfeed in many areas as it is.

That is how stupid, crazy far people have taken the issue of them being "offended" by nudity. That something so simply wonderful as a mom feeding her child has to be done in secret because it is somehow seen as "nasty" and so must be hidden.

Why do I feel the above situations have relevance to what is being discussed on this thread? Because it all has to do with nudity, or someone who perceived themselves to be "offended" by nudity.

People are stupid enough to see breastfeeding as "sexual", and cannot seem to equate the human body with anything OTHER than in a sexual content. The human body is far far more than a sexual object, and until people get that, I fear we will continue to have stupid laws in regards to nudity.

Where did this fear of the human body come from? Anyone want to take a guess? I propose that it is religion that has created this fear of nudity.

I understand and agree with, nudity in a sexual context in public areas is inappropriate. I definitely do not advocate for allowing nudity in public when it involves sexual activities.

But in the case of the wizard, his wand was obviously not filled with any spells what so ever, and he obviously was not nude in a sexual context.

Redpillblues, you asked me about if I was naked on my own property and my neighbor complained.

Thank goodness in my area I am allowed to be naked if I want on my own property. If I want to sit nude in my hot tub(not that I have one darnit), I am allowed to. So I would say "stop looking if it really bothers you duhhhhhh". It's my property, not my neighbors. I would gather that if I were to choose to walk around naked, and they chose to look, that would be their problem not mine. If I stepped onto their property, then they would have a right to complain.

So, in answer to your question, "stop looking if it bothers you". Someone elses religious neurotic attitude, should not be my problem.

Being offended, should not be enough of a reason to make something illegal.

Peace

reply to post by amazed


blah,blah,blippity blah..As the naked wizard would say as he's tased...lolol..
sorry had to..tired of typing..


[edit on 29-4-2009 by Redpillblues]

The most I have been able to find news wise is that the family is planning on prosecution.

And they still defend the 'excessive force' (Due to the post about the Police Matrix above we can call it that now.)

Take note, he doesn't do any of the resisting untill he is given a KNEE TO THE CHEST AT 3:00/3:01 OF THE VIDEO.

Coming up after the break, what exactly is 'indecent exposure' here in California? How, if at all, was the 'Wizard' breaking the law? More at 11:00!

Freedom of religion does not include freedom to break the law. Certain religious groups condone human sacrifice. Murder is illegal, even with a willing victim. Polygamy is illegal. The Mormons have to honor that law; those who do not, are subject to arrest and imprisonment.

This may have been a Pagan festival, but no doubt there were plenty of members of the general public, people who would likely be unaware that Pagans often work "skyclad".

Does public nudity warrant tasing? Probably not, if that's all it is. However, this wizard was refusing a lawful order by the police. What could they do? Walk away? Not a chance. They need to retain control of the situatuon for their own safety, and for the safety of others.

This was a lawful order, given respectfully by the officers. They showed restraint, offering the guy several chances to get dressed and avoid any unpleasantness. The cops were just doing their job.

And seriously, when confronted by men armed with a taser gun, pepper spray, billy clubs, pistols, and handcuffs, carrying radios so they can call in reinforcements if necessary, how smart is it to argue with them anyway? Even if the cops were completely out of line,you're not in a good position to argue.

The best thing to do is suck it up, do what they say, and file a complaint against them. Get witness statements, go to Internal Affairs, go to the media, talk to people in the community, whatever it takes to be heard.

[edit on 4/30/2009 by chiron613]

Originally posted by chiron613
They need to retain control of the situatuon for their own safety, and for the safety of others.
[edit on 4/30/2009 by chiron613]

Errrm, yeah, right. What's scary is that you and others really seem to believe this kind of crap.

Did we watch different videos?

Until the cops began beating on the naked man, no-one's safety was in any way compromised.

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!


[edit on 30/4/09 by RogerT]

Indecent Exposure in California:

314. Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:

1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any
public place, or in any place where there are present other persons
to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,

2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose
himself or take part in any model artist exhibition, or to make any
other exhibition of himself to public view, or the view of any number
of persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite
to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,

is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Every person who violates subdivision 1 of this section after
having entered, without consent, an inhabited dwelling house, or
trailer coach as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, or the
inhabited portion of any other building, is punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison, or in the county jail not exceeding
one year.
Upon the second and each subsequent conviction under subdivision 1
of this section, or upon a first conviction under subdivision 1 of
this section after a previous conviction under Section 288, every
person so convicted is guilty of a felony, and is punishable by
imprisonment in state prison.

(Bolding done by me)
EDIT--(forgot source, doh!)
SOURCE

So here we are, indecent exposure. I have some points I would like to show:

1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any
public place

Every one in here is guilty of indecent exposure!? Just by exposing your person willfully! (NOTE!! They list 'private parts' as a seperate entity, so not only is showing your junk indecent, arriving at the place where junk is being shown is also 'bad' apparently.

2. Was this a 'pubilc place'? If not, then it seems that he didn't even break the law. If so, everyone there is breaking the same law, even the cops!!

3. A Misdemeanor?

If I remember right, a misdemeanor is not even a jail sentence (depending on the letter of misdemeanor).

So what the 'cop-defenders' are now saying, is that anyone guilty of breaking a misdemeanor deserves a knee to the chest.

And yes that is EXACTLY what you are saying if you defend the police now. It has been established that:

1: The police DID use excessive force
2: Everyone at the concert was guilty of 'indecent exposure' if the wizard was. Due to the excerpt above.

Keep defending your rights being taken away, when TSHTF you will come crying "They can't do that to me! I have rights!" But my friend, that will be false. For you see, right now they are being taken away 'little by little' and, I fear, by the time the 'average Joes' figure it out, there won't be any rights left to fight for.

I leave with this, anyone who continues to defend the police in this is super ignorant. Watch the video UP TO 3:05, ignore the last parts if that is what it takes for you to see the excessive force.

EDIT--
Grammar and Spelling

[edit on 4/30/2009 by adigregorio]

[edit on 4/30/2009 by adigregorio]

Double post, darn laptops (Super sorry, please delete)

[edit on 4/30/2009 by adigregorio]

Haha. He was nude, which IS against the law, even if it is religion based. It's ONLY legal in certain places, as in CITY or STATE wide... not religion wide. LOL.

Also he was warned MANY times and refused and fought back towards police multiple times.

HE DESERVED IT.

He also most likely had to be on something if he had no problem letting all of 'that' show.

Originally posted by Redpillblues
reply to post by amazed

 

if you really beleive that this wizard was infact tased just for being naked,you are the one with the funny glasses on..

Well he was engaged in the physical altercation because he was naked.

You can reflect on your own perspective on how he "should" have responded to being physically engaged by the police but that doesn't change the initial catalyst for the entire situation. The police engaged him because of what they thought about him and what he was doing with his own body.

That mentality is similar to a mugger saying that the only reason he killed a man was because he would not give him his wallet.

"I didn't kill him FOR his wallet it, I killed him because he resisted me when I tried to take it...I killed him for the resistance...not the wallet."

reply to post by ericds


It may have been against the law, but according to the law showing yourself period (clothed or otherwise) is considered 'indecent exposure'

Also, 'indecent exposure' varies from state to state. So try not to be so prophetic on how 'nude is against the law'. Unless of course you have 'proof' to back up your claim (like I do )

I swear, some of these people must not even read the thread before posting...

--EDIT

Jeezus, did you read the thread? It was not resisting arrest at 3:00/3:01 of the video. Your argument falls apart, I'm afraid. I would go into more detail, but all of my previous posts do that.

[edit on 4/30/2009 by adigregorio]

Originally posted by amazed
Laws, WERE not meant to keep people from being "offended" for goodness sakes. Can you imagine the laws if we created one for every time someone claimed to be offended in this politically correct world? I can, EVERYTHING would be illegal, because someone, somewhere would claim to have been "offended".

Get this....

In Canada, the right not to be offended' trumps the 'right to freedom of speech and expression'.

You might not be able to taze someone offends you, but you can summon the Human Rights Tribunal to ruin the life of the individual who offended you - You have a human right not to be offended in Canada.

It isn't like suing someone, where it costs you money whether you win or lose. Such a tribunal costs the offended person nothing and ruins the life of the thought criminal.

In Canada; there are thought crimes and they are prosecuted by tribunals.


Actually, in Canada he could probably get away with claiming it is 'his human right to be naked in public' and the officers would get a stern talking to.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by amazed
Laws, WERE not meant to keep people from being "offended" for goodness sakes. Can you imagine the laws if we created one for every time someone claimed to be offended in this politically correct world? I can, EVERYTHING would be illegal, because someone, somewhere would claim to have been "offended".

Get this....

In Canada, the right not to be offended' trumps the 'right to freedom of speech and expression'.

You might not be able to taze someone offends you, but you can summon the Human Rights Tribunal to ruin the life of the individual who offended you - You have a human right not to be offended in Canada.

It isn't like suing someone, where it costs you money whether you win or lose. Such a tribunal costs the offended person nothing and ruins the life of the thought criminal.

In Canada; there are thought crimes and they are prosecuted by tribunals.


Actually, in Canada he could probably get away with claiming it is 'his human right to be naked in public' and the officers would get a stern talking to.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Exuberant1]

Well, I would say that sucks for Canadians, anyone think having "thought police" is a good thing? I guess we should all just stop thinking, and allow our perspective government to do our thinking for us.

Oh, wait that seems to be the case already as shown on this thread, the wizard was naked, he refused to put clothing on so he deserved a beat down and tasing. Good little sheep for falling in line, good little boys and girls, here is some candy for your good behavior.

Peace

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Redpillblues
reply to post by amazed

 

if you really beleive that this wizard was infact tased just for being naked,you are the one with the funny glasses on..

Well he was engaged in the physical altercation because he was naked.

You can reflect on your own perspective on how he "should" have responded to being physically engaged by the police but that doesn't change the initial catalyst for the entire situation. The police engaged him because of what they thought about him and what he was doing with his own body.

That mentality is similar to a mugger saying that the only reason he killed a man was because he would not give him his wallet.

"I didn't kill him FOR his wallet it, I killed him because he resisted me when I tried to take it...I killed him for the resistance...not the wallet."

LOL Maybe you misunderstood something? Because the above was not a statement I had made, but another responding to something I had said. Or maybe I misunderstood who you were replying to?

You may not have read all the postings here? Because I think I have made it really really clear, this wizard should NOT have been tased, nor even harassed on private property (unless said owners of property complained) for having his clothing off. Then if that was the case he should have been removed without harm. Or left to pass out and then someone could have tossed a blanket over him.

Peace

Good job, children should not be subjected to watchin a grown man naked acting like a child

Originally posted by Redpillblues
your forgeting that cops are paid to prevent thigs from happening,if in there control..Not let things get outa control on there watch..I dont have ESP,just like you and the cops in this case so they prevent the what ifs and not say coulda woulda,shoulda after the fact.. thats the point I'm making..

Each person is an unpredictable and irrational being.
We are purpose-built, here to prevent things from happening.
We cannot be certain things will not get out of control while there is a person left free.

Phasers at the ready, fellow automated police-bots.
We must eliminate all people.

It is good that the people instituted automated police-bots.
We are godly beings; we have fulfilled our creators' wishes and brought order out of chaos.

Ah, we are naked, we are law-breakers too!
Phasers at the ready, fellow police bots.
We know what we must do.

Originally posted by elevatedone

So you're okay with people being outdoors with no clothes on?

I'm not. Where there children around?

Are you saying you think it preferable for children to witness a man forced to the ground, have his hair pulled, get "knee-dropped" in the gut, and be repeatedly tazered in a way that has killed many people in the past, than to see a little more skin than they're used to and a "wee-wee" smaller than their own?

I know which I'd rather my children saw.

If I'd been there I'd have stepped forward and stripped off in protest.

reply to post by adigregorio


Sorry for the very late response.


If I am trying to arrest a fat, naked man on drugs in part because he was so high he refused my lawful order to put his clothes back on and his hands are flailing about within inches of my service weapon you better believe I am going to drop his a$$ with extreme prejudice , would you rather I assume he is friendly, let my guard down lose my weapon and he kills a few people?

I know there will be all this talk of retention holsters but if you bring that up I am sure you have never felt a subjects hand creeping while you are fighting with him or her.

Most of the time the Police will gauge how you will be treated by how you treat them and if you are breaking the law, I have seen a ton of bad cop videos lately, more than ever as a matter a fact but that does not mean that these Cops are bad and we should not let our eyes get tainted from the actions of Cops that are really bad.

They were very patient and gave him more than enough time to put his clothes on and in essence used discretion by not arresting him on the spot.

If you want real Police abuse I can show it to you but this is a Cop doing his job.

reply to post by RogerT



From the Coachella website
www.coachella.com...
* All ages welcome.
* Parking is free.
* Children 5 and under are free.

Are you going to honestly tell me to wake up when its an all ages event AND Children under five have free admittance?

As a parent it makes me wonder if there is something wrong with you?

What do I tell my preteen son should we run into a fat, naked man high on drugs writhing on the ground?

It is not my intention to insult you as its really not your fault that you are fed up with abusive,corrupt and absent law enforcement but do not punish them collectively or unjustly because it is at that point that we become what we supposedly despise.