<p>
[quote]
Wait...didn't the situation become a lot more tense AFTER the police tazed him? How would tazing him make the crowd calmer?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't care about the crowd. The point is that the officers needed to get him to comply as soon as possible. That means more tasing. Which brings us to your next point about "why didn't they just drag him out?" - well the answer to that is more safety.
To drag this kid from the CLICC lab to the patrol car, they would have to physically drag him down several flights of stairs, which increases the likelihood of injury to the subject and isn't particularly fun for the officers either. You are much more likely to drop someone you are dragging down stairs than you are dragging them across level ground. And when you drop someone whose hands are handcuffed, they are much more likely to fall smack on their heads, etc.</p>
<p>Just picking someone up and dragging them while handcuffed is one of the last options on the officer's mind. Getting them to comply by other methods (i.e. verbal commands, taser, etc.) is much more preferable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was pointing that out in case some authority-enthusiast evoked the "these men are in danger in the line of duty" argument. I know they are part of the police force, but their duties basically make them campus security.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As for that comment... well, I guess if you don't understand by now...
UCPD's "duties" are the same as any other police force - to enforce local, state, and federal laws. The amount of a certain type of crime that an officer sees in the typical day does not determine whether they are real police or "campus security"... :rolleyes:</p>
I disagree. It's not like the guy was curled up in a ball, refusing to move. Eyewitness accounts say that he was on his way out when a cop grabbed him and told him to move along. If you watch the video again, you'll hear him distinctly say several times after being shocked things like "I'm going! I'm going!" and "I'm not fighting you!"</p>
<p>Even if one tazer shock might be justified (I still don't think it is, but hypothetically speaking), after the victim tells the cops that he's trying to leave on his own, there's really no reason to shock him again. I think this is a case of hurt pride on both ends - the victim doesn't want to be patronized and lead out of the library like a criminal, and the cops don't want anybody to disrespect their authority. </p>
<p>However, we trust our nation's police force to be able to swallow their pride in this type of circumstance, and just diffuse the situation as quickly as possible. These UCPD officers failed miserably in that regard. </p>
<p>I would imagine that incidents like this are not too uncommon - an unruly kid doesn't leave somewhere when told, saying "don't touch me" to a police officer, etc. Yet assumably, since we rarely hear about incidents of police brutality in situations like this, MOST officers are able to handle the incident properly and without getting flustered and abusing their power.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's not what you said earlier. See post #16.</p>
<p>The victim himself obviously posed no danger to the police.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fair enough - I should clarify... I don't care about calming the crowd as much as I do getting the subject to comply so that the situation can end.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagree. It's not like the guy was curled up in a ball, refusing to move. Eyewitness accounts say that he was on his way out when a cop grabbed him and told him to move along. If you watch the video again, you'll hear him distinctly say several times after being shocked things like "I'm going! I'm going!" and "I'm not fighting you!"</p>
<p>Even if one tazer shock might be justified (I still don't think it is, but hypothetically speaking), after the victim tells the cops that he's trying to leave on his own, there's really no reason to shock him again.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok but again you misunderstand the position of the officers. They have to stop this guy and at least talk to him. They can't just let him leave, and it is perfectly valid for them to grab his arm and stop him. They weren't trying to escort him out - they were stopping him. This is because of the suspicious way he acted prior to his starting to leave (which only came when he saw two uniformed police enter the building. Up until that point, he had refused to show ID and refused repeated requests from CSO's to leave the building. It takes a little while for police to show up after being requested for this lower-priority task, so he had plenty of time to leave on his own. Now he is just being suspicious, so the officers need to stop him and talk to him a bit about why he refused to show ID/leave the building.</p>
<p>It is perfectly legal for the officer to grab his arm and stop him, and he had no reason to then start screaming and going crazy. This in turn looks more suspicious. (and, btw, is illegal)</p>
<p>Also, just saying (or rather screaming as loud as you can) "I said I would leave!!!" and "I'm not fighting you" doesn't make it true. I can be punching someone while I tell them that I'm not punching them. My statement doesn't make it true. Unfortunately, the video we get is absolute crap, and we only actually see the suspect for a few seconds. The rest of it is obscured by computer screens and the crowd. So we have no idea what he was actually doing.</p>
<p>Also, if he was so adament that "he would leave", why didn't he stand up when the officers told him to? He was only asked about a million times to stand up. If he really had an intention to leave under his own power, he had plenty of opportunities.</p>
<p>Again, it comes back to actions vs. words. Even though he "tells the cops that he's trying to leave on his own", there is absolutely NO indication of this from his actions, which are to just lay on the ground and scream and curse at the police.</p>
<p>There was plenty of reason for the extra tasings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the victim doesn't want to be patronized and lead out of the library like a criminal, and the cops don't want anybody to disrespect their authority.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, the subject wanted to make a political statement (a very loud one at that), and the police don't have to put up with people disrespecting their official authority (and the Penal Code of the state of CA says that they don't - sec. 148)</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for that comment... well, I guess if you don't understand by now...
UCPD's "duties" are the same as any other police force - to enforce local, state, and federal laws. The amount of a certain type of crime that an officer sees in the typical day does not determine whether they are real police or "campus security"...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What I'm saying is that these were not NYPD officers who may have crossed the line a bit when dealing with a gang of violent drug dealers, but a group of officers dealing with a solitary unarmed student.</p>
<p>Did anyone else hear the "Stand back, or you're going to get tased too," towards the end of the video? I'll bet that officer relished the opportunity to say that in a highly official tone.</p>
<p>They had the offender in handcuffs and restrained by two cops, but proceeded to tase him 3 more times. Clear incompetence without any stretch of the imagination, regardless of what the idiot was screaming at the time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Did anyone else hear the "Stand back, or you're going to get tased too," towards the end of the video? I'll bet that officer relished the opportunity to say that in a highly official tone.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, he did say that. That may be the most telling example of the blatant abuse of power in the video. No police officer has a right to threaten a civilian when asked for his or her badge number. I believe it's against the law to do so. But I have to sympathize with the police officer as well: by this time, his head was probably spinning with the events of the last 10 minutes and wasn't thinking straight.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No police officer has a right to threaten a civilian when asked for his or her badge number. I believe it's against the law to do so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wanna bet? Its not - don't you think it might have something to do with the time at which they request the badge number? :rolleyes: Cause next time I'm walking by a cop exchanging fire or stuggling with a suspect, I think I'll run up to him in an aggressive manner and demand his badge number. And if he threatens me or shoots me, I'll cry and sue him. And then when I lose the case, I'll complain that I saw it on CSI once - he had to give me his badge number when I request it!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, just saying (or rather screaming as loud as you can) "I said I would leave!!!" and "I'm not fighting you" doesn't make it true...we have no idea what he was actually doing.
[/quote]
An article published by the Daily Bruin says that Tabatabainejad screamed "I'm not fighting you!" and "I said I would leave!" as he was being dragged through the room by two officers. The officers then proceded to taze him a few times after dragging him along for a while. No, he couldn't leave like he said, he was busy being dragged across the floor. After that, he was busy being in agony after being tazed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, if he was so adament that "he would leave", why didn't he stand up when the officers told him to? He was only asked about a million times to stand up. If he really had an intention to leave under his own power, he had plenty of opportunities.
[/quote]
First of all, he was on the way out when the police initially stopped him. It appears that if the police hadn't been looking for trouble by accosting the victim, there would have been no incident, because the guy would've just left by himself.</p>
<p>Secondly, quoted from the Daily Bruin: according to a study published in the Lancet Medical Journal in 2001, a charge of three to five seconds can result in immobilization for five to 15 minutes, which would mean that Tabatabainejad could have been physically unable to stand when the officers demanded that he do so. </p>
<p>
[quote]
No, the subject wanted to make a political statement (a very loud one at that), and the police don't have to put up with people disrespecting their official authority (and the Penal Code of the state of CA says that they don't - sec. 148)
[/quote]
Wrong. Here's the section of the penal code you're referring to.</p>
<p>
You'll see that the punishments are a fine and/or jail time. Tazing isn't authorized by any stretch of the imagination.</p>
<p>Once again, kids loitering and not leaving places when they're told is a common occurrence. Police deciding to taze those kids when they don't comply is NOT a common occurrence. These police abused their power. </p>
<p>And how do you know that the victim wanted to make a political statement? Because ONCE, after getting tazed out of his mind and rolling on the ground in pain, he screamed something about the Patriot Act? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Wanna bet? Its not - don't you think it might have something to do with the time at which they request the badge number? Cause next time I'm walking by a cop exchanging fire or stuggling with a suspect, I think I'll run up to him in an aggressive manner and demand his badge number.
[/quote]
No, you're wrong. Read the article published by the Daily Bruin after the incident. </p>
<p>In the article, Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, is quoted as saying that such a threat of the use of force by a law enforcement officer in response to a request for a badge number is an "illegal assault." Unless you're also an attorney, I'd say Eliasberg is the authority on this one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cause next time I'm walking by a cop exchanging fire or stuggling with a suspect, I think I'll run up to him in an aggressive manner and demand his badge number. And if he threatens me or shoots me, I'll cry and sue him. And then when I lose the case, I'll complain that I saw it on CSI once - he had to give me his badge number when I request it!!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now everyone will see why I made it a point to emphasize that these were campus officers and not the cast from NYPD Blue dealing with TV's most dangerous criminals. You draw an analogy between the "arduous" task of gang-shocking a solitary unarmed student with "a cop exchanging fire or stuggling with a suspect".</p>
<p>
[quote]
You'll see that the punishments are a fine and/or jail time. Tazing isn't authorized by any stretch of the imagination.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, the punishments are a fine and/or jail time. But that is decided by the courts. The way they get those punishments is by being arrested for this offense, and an officer can use whatever means he needs to effect that arrest (including a taser)</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, you're wrong. Read the article published by the Daily Bruin after the incident.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you honestly think that an ACLU lawyer isn't a bit biased? And what section of the law code is he referring to, or isn't it noted?</p>
<p>So I ask you again, do you think it would be right for me to aggresively approach an officer who is trying to control a suspect and demand his badge number without expecting to be told to back up or face consequences (per 148 P.C.)?</p>
<p>Stop letting the Daily Bruin find your "facts" for you. Do your own research and find out that not everything the Daily Bruin says is true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You draw an analogy between the "arduous" task of gang-shocking a solitary unarmed student with "a cop exchanging fire or stuggling with a suspect".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Its a fair analogy. I used a more extreme case to illustrate the point. You can't possibly make a judgment call of when it is appropriate for you to approach an officer in a situation - it is for the officer to tell you what to do. Officers didn't know that he was an unarmed student at that point. And why is that? Oh yeah, because he was resisting and refused to show ID. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Wow Savant. You criticize the ACLU and the Daily Bruin yet the only source you've mentioned - CA Legal Code Sec 148 - is completely irrelevant (as you said, it talks about punishments dealt by judges. Nowhere does it mention HOW police officers can effect arrests. Don't make stupid assumptions). </p>
<p>The ACLU guy is biased, sure. But he's a certified lawyer. I think this is fairly black and white - an officer threatened a student, and that's against the law. Saddam Hussein could say it and it would still be true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So I ask you again, do you think it would be right for me to aggresively approach an officer who is trying to control a suspect and demand his badge number without expecting to be told to back up or face consequences (per 148 P.C.)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Simply? Yes. You would justified in asking for the officer's badge number, especially because you think the officer is abusing his power. The officer has every right to protect himself, but from what I've seen - and you have no more evidence than I do about what actually happened - the officers were in no danger.</p>
<p>If you were wielding a weapon, or if you were openly hostile, that might be another situation - but in this case, the student was NOT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
yet the only source you've mentioned - CA Legal Code Sec 148 - is completely irrelevant (as you said, it talks about punishments dealt by judges. Nowhere does it mention HOW police officers can effect arrests. Don't make stupid assumptions).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It isn't irrelevant, because it states that someone CAN be arrested for that offense. HOW officers effect arrests is up to their individual departments policies and such. These officers acted within their policies, so there was no wrongdoing in effecting the arrest. </p>
<p>Whether you or I think it was excessive or not has no bearing. The officers felt it necessary to use a taser multiple times, and that usage was within the scope of their use of force policy, so who are we to question it?
Its folly to say "well, they can't have felt threatened by a single unarmed student" because 1) we can't know what the officers were thinking and 2) the officers had no way to know at that point that he was unarmed (they hadn't done a patdown yet) and the way he was acting was resistive to the officers carrying out their duties (investigating a subject refusing to leave a building), for which (as the penal code says) he can be arrested.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Simply? Yes. I think this is fairly black and white - an officer threatened a student, and that's against the law.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then you don't know your rights and you apparently have no common sense whatsoever. Whats the harm in waiting until the suspect is in the back of the officer's car or, even better, until the entire event is over to request the officers badge numbers? Do you think their badge number will change in those few minutes or something?</p>
<p>Again, show me the penal code that says its against the law for an officer to control a scene. The guy in the white shirt wasn't threatened because he requested the officer's badge number - he was threatened because he was aggressively approaching the officer and was interfering with police activities (again - an arrestable offense - see my "irrelevant" penal code above)</p>
<p>You both seem to be blinded by emotion and think that you can do anything you want at a police scene as long as it doesn't directly involve you. But let me tell you that you are incorrect.</p>
<p>A recent MSNBC news report adds a new dimension to the issue - apparently the victim was the only person in his vicinity asked to produce his ID that night. He suspected that it was because of his race that he was singled out. Angry about that, he decides to finish off his paper that was due the next morning and then leave. After he finishes his paper and is walking towards the exit, minding his own business, the policeman grabs him and that's where the tape begins.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It states that someone CAN be arrested for that offense. HOW officers effect arrests is up to their individual departments policies and such.
[/quote]
I think you misunderstand me. Once he starts yelling and making a scene, I agree that he can be arrested. It's HOW officers effected the arrest that bothers me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The officers felt it necessary to use a taser multiple times, and that usage was within the scope of their use of force policy, so who are we to question it?
[/quote]
Wait, where's this force policy you keep talking about? Are you just assuming that using the taser on noisy kids is part of their policy?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its folly to say "well, they can't have felt threatened by a single unarmed student" because 1) we can't know what the officers were thinking and 2) the officers had no way to know at that point that he was unarmed
[/quote]
1) Well, it's folly to assume the student was in the wrong, because we don't know what he was thinking.
2) Are you joking me? So you taze him because you DON'T KNOW whether or not he's armed? Why not go around tasing random people on the street who make noise? And seriously, what are the odds that a kid writing his paper in the library is armed.</p>
<p>If he was acting in a hostile manner towards the policeman, like motioning to pull out a weapon or making hostile moves towards them, then maybe not knowing whether he's armed makes a difference. But as every report confirms, that's not the case.</p>
<p>But to top it off, they keep tazing him when he's on the ground, handcuffed! Oh yeah, he's handcuffed and screaming in pain, but we gotta taze him because we don't know whether he's armed. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Whats the harm in waiting until the suspect is in the back of the officer's car or, even better, until the entire event is over to request the officers badge numbers? Do you think their badge number will change in those few minutes or something?
[/quote]
Wouldn't the cops go with the student into the officer's car? And it's not like the student was barring the police from doing their jobs. If you watch the video, there are clearly about 6 cops there at the end, and 2 of them are restraining the victim (who is handcuffed and in't resisting at all), and the other 4 are just standing around. </p>
<p>If you saw a policeman tasing your best friend and your best friend screaming out in pain, you wouldn't wait until your friend was in the back of the officer's car to find out what they were doing, or to find out who the officers were if you thought they were in the wrong.</p>
<p>You've gotta be kidding me if you thought tazing the poor guy was necessary to control the scene. It wasn't getting out of control before he got tazed. He was yelling a few times for the officers to stop touching him. If an officer whipped out his taser every time someone tells them to stop touching them...</p>
<p>In the end I guess this argument doesn't really matter. The people who know the most about the situation - the victim, the bystanders, and the cops - will be testifying in the lawsuit filed by the victim's attorneys. We'll see how that turns out.</p>
<p>But you clearly don't think tactically, which is what police officers (whether UCPD or NYPD) have to do constantly. So what is tactically sound may seem like unnecessary paranoia or use of force to you.</p>
<p>Right, Savant. Are you a police officer? Do you know how to "think tactically," or are you just making crap up? Furthermore, just because police officers may "think tactically" while civilians don't - it doesn't mean they're justified in doing whatever the hell they want under the guise of expertise.</p>
<p>Regardless, the people that will decide whether the police action was justified or not will NOT be people who "think tactically." They'll be a judge and the members of the jury (if it becomes that kind of trial).</p>
<p>The UCPD taser policies, I'm talking about the page that is lettered A-G, are vague and mostly subjective - it's now up to the judge/jury in the lawsuit to determine whether any of these were violated. From the knowledge I've gained about the situation, the victim violated none of those reasons to deploy the taser. In fact, point G says that if time permits (e.g. in the case of passive demonstrators), to consider other reasonable alternatives first. The UCPD clearly did not do this, or else they would've removed him peacefully, or would've allowed him to leave on his own without interference.</p>
<p>Also, good job ignoring all of the previous points I've made against you.</p>
<p>To be perfectly blunt, your points are repetitious, but I will address them anyway...</p>
<p>
[quote]
1) Well, it's folly to assume the student was in the wrong, because we don't know what he was thinking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He wasn't in the wrong because of his thoughts, he was in the wrong because of his actions. His thoughts have nothing to do with it (nice try though - changing a few words of my earlier point). We could get into the philosophy of mind issues here, but I have a degree in philosophy and that would be way too easy to win.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2) Are you joking me? So you taze him because you DON'T KNOW whether or not he's armed? Why not go around tasing random people on the street who make noise? And seriously, what are the odds that a kid writing his paper in the library is armed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In the order of your questions: Um, no, not joking. Yes, you definitely do taser him exactly because you don't know if he is armed (check with any LEO on this one). No you don't tase random people for making noise - again, you tase people who resist police officers. (see above for why their reasoning for resisting doesn't matter) The odds dont' matter, the police still need to take precautions and you can't blame them for doing so - I imagine they want to try to guarantee their ability go home at the end of the day just like you do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wouldn't the cops go with the student into the officer's car? And it's not like the student was barring the police from doing their jobs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see what the first thing has to do with anything (perhaps you could elaborate). Secondly, they dont' have to be barring the police from doing their jobs, only interfering to be breaking the law and be deserving of threat of force/arrest.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you saw a policeman tasing your best friend and your best friend screaming out in pain, you wouldn't wait until your friend was in the back of the officer's car to find out what they were doing, or to find out who the officers were if you thought they were in the wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If my friend was being as much of a dumb@$$ as that guy was, yeah, I would stand back and do nothing while he was arrested.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You've gotta be kidding me if you thought tazing the poor guy was necessary to control the scene.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, you (untrained civilian who wasn't there and only saw a crappy video) vs. trained police officers who were there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If an officer whipped out his taser every time someone tells them to stop touching them...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But he didn't just tell them to stop touching him. He physically resisted their attempts to (legally) detain him. If every person who did that was guaranteed a tasing, I'd imagine the job of police officers would be much nicer.
Looking at the responses of some police officers on other message boards, there are those who have said that in their part of the country, the subject wouldn't even have been asked to stand so many times like the guy at UCLA was. As soon as he resisted their detaining him, he would have been tased and that would have been the end of it. More resisting = more tasing. Beautiful system if you ask me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He wasn't in the wrong because of his thoughts, he was in the wrong because of his actions. His thoughts have nothing to do with it.
[/quote]
The police weren't in the wrong because of their thoughts, they were in the wrong because of their actions. Their thoughts have nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The odds dont' matter, the police still need to take precautions and you can't blame them for doing so - I imagine they want to try to guarantee their ability go home at the end of the day just like you do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you're right in that both of us are getting repetitive. Let me try to distill it down to basics.</p>
<p>Deciding to taze the victim the first time may be morally/legally debatable. Deciding to taze him 5 more times when he's in pain, partially incapacitated, and handcuffed is ridiculous. Numerous sources (just look through this thread) state that it was clear to everyone that the police officers were never in danger. This leaves the only possible reason for them to taze him being that they thought it would diffuse the situation faster, ie get him to leave the building faster.</p>
<p>But if this had been their intention, they would've let him go on his own, as he was trying to do. And the other clear choice is that, among the 5 of them, the police officers probably could've managed to physically force the kid out of the library. Instead, they decide to taze him, not once, but six times. And not while he's trying to physically resist them, but while he's crying out in pain, writhing on the floor, handcuffed.</p>
<p>As for the other kid and the "I'll taze you too" comment...I really don't buy that the kid was interfering with the police operation. The only thing he was "interfering" with that officer standing still and staring at the wall. I imagine that the extra cops were brought there so they could keep the situation under control, what with a bunch a college kids mad that the police just tortured someone in front of their eyes. However, the mere presence of the cops kept the situation under control. Tazing, or the threat thereof, of the bystanders should seem wholly unnecessary to any reasonable person watching to video.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, Savant. Are you saying that, as soon as the kid asked for the cops' badge numbers, the cop should've whipped out the taser and shocked him too? Because that's the kind of system you seem to be arguing for.</p>
<p>Firstly, all I have to say is that these police officers deserve to be fired. If I were that student's parent, I would have demanded that the LAPD fire their asses, and then sued them out of their jobs, pensions and their entire life savings. Who the **** do they think they are to taser an UNARMED HANDCUFFED COLLEGE STUDENT on UNIVERSITY PROPERTY? If the student indeed WAS causing enough of a ruckus to warrant the use of a taser SIX TIMES, those officers need to be fired for incompetence. They're taught to avoid confrontation at (almost) all costs for a reason. Mr. UCLA president, I'd like a word with you please. </p>
<p>I WANT THOSE *******S FIRED RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!</p>
<p>I want to see heads roll and asses fired, starting with the head of security at UCLA. How about you guys?</p>