There was another story recently about police brutality.

Chasse, a frail musician who was mentally ill, died in police custody on Sept. 17, 2006, after doing, well, what exactly did he do? The main thing, it appears, is that he acted a little strange and ran when police asked him to stop. And when they caught up with him, and an officer tackled or fell on Chasse, he didn't just meekly allow himself to be taken into custody for doing -- what was it again? Nothing. He continued to scream in terror, and fight back as officers kicked, punched and Tasered him.

When Chasse died not quite two hours later, he had 16 broken ribs, a punctured lung and massive internal bleeding. Why paramedics allowed him to be taken to the jail is not clear, or why jail personnel didn't insist he be taken by ambulance to a hospital. Instead, he was taken the slow way around to the hospital, in a police car.

Okay, I admit that one is far worse than the University incidents, since this one involved death. At least Oregon is doing something about the problem.

Officers are now required to obtain a paramedic's approval to take someone in Chasse's situation to the hospital. They're also required to tell medical personnel how much force they used.

The most pivotal change, though, thanks to Mayor Tom Potter, is that Portland is now giving patrol officers 40 hours of crisis intervention training. Officers are now required to obtain a paramedic's approval to take someone in Chasse's situation to the hospital. They're also required to tell medical personnel how much force they used.

The most pivotal change, though, thanks to Mayor Tom Potter, is that Portland is now giving patrol officers 40 hours of crisis intervention training.

I think they should have courses in common sense and decency as well. Breaking someone's ribs and not sending them to a hospital is not becoming. I wonder if anyone was charged in that guys death, since it appears to be intentional.

This is truly horrible. Tasers are supposed to be used in lieu of deadly force. These officers appear to be using it to punish a student they already have on the ground.

According to the police in this video, asking a politician questions they may not like is "inciting a riot."

It's really hard to tell why the police moved in on the student. They were standing behind him while he was making his statement and asking questions. Then, when he was finished they moved in on him, despite Kerry saying that he would answer his questions. Interestingly, the police made it out that he was only making a big deal out of it for the cameras.

Police noted that his demeanor "completely changed once the cameras were not in sight" and described him as laughing and being lighthearted as he was being driven to the Alachua County Detention Center.

"I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong. You were just trying to do your job," Meyer said, according to the police report.

But why should we believe this?! The police lied in another part of the report, as evidenced by the video.

"You will take my question because I have been listening to your crap for two hours," Meyer told Kerry, according to the police report of the incident.

That's a lot different than the actual dialogue: "He's been talking for two hours, I think I can have a couple minutes." The CNN article also quoted Clarissa Jessup as saying, "Organizers had cut off questioning before Meyer went to the microphone." This is unconfirmed, but I think the fact Kerry actually called on him contradicts that the question/answer period was finished.

Two of the officers have been suspended with pay. I think all of the officers involved in this incident should be suspended without pay, and the ones that actually used a taser on him should be fired or suspended without pay for half a year. If this goes unpunished, it will encourage more police to use excessive force when dealing with free speech issues. This must be nipped in the bud before we slide even further toward a police state.

The easy solution for the mess in Utah is to require people to be at least 18 to marry. That way, if anyone arranges a marriage to a 14 year old, they are indeed an accomplice to rape.

I do believe that people under 18 can make very adult decisions and understand the consequences. However, minors are in no position to go against their parents wishes, so they risk becoming trapped in a union that even seasoned adults consider messy to break. Minors have no way to escape as they are limited in their means to survive without their family backing them up. The lesser of two evils is to ban marriage for those under 18; not to restrict their freedom, but to preserve it.