<p>he was overly dramatic..</p>
<p>but i doubt they needed to taze him like 5 times...i'm sure they could have dragged him out after 1.....</p>
<p>yOU STUPID LIBERAL PUNK! I M FROM THE NORTHEAST, WHICH MEANS IM DEFINITELY IM MORE CULTURED THAN YOUR WEST COAST SURFING ASS! I DEFINITELY AINT NO BOOK WORM. Would you have rather cops punch him in the face to get him to shut up? Or how about remove him from the library by force?? No. You wouldve been saying the same thing if they had done that, except youd probably be whining about why they DIDNT use a taser. GROW UP! People used to be a punks to me bc my dad is spanish. Yeah, I dunno about racism...ok mr. california. I think its time you go surf a wave or something</p>
<p>why are we nerds? and why are we bookworms? Apparently this is not a good thing ilovecali? As far as this situation goes, listen to the video, read the first hand accounts..he was in the library at a time when they require identification he refused to show any, he was warned and insisted on aggrivating the situation then he starts shouting about the PATRIOT ACT if this guy did not have an agenda going into this, I would be very suprised.</p>
<p>why are you nerds/bookworms? who the hell do you think participates in this website? nerds and wannabe nerds..</p>
<p>this site is PACKED with nerds....but i directed that comment at any nerd who doesn't know anything about being tasered and says he deserved it bc he wouldn't get up..but they dont realize that he was probably unable to get up..</p>
<p>what is up with all the generalizations....."bookworms.......surfer kids".....now your being hypocritical and ignorant and making your argument weak......</p>
<p>thats so F<strong><em>ed up..... ya'll dont know </em></strong></p>
<p>oh and the cursing doesn't make your argument weak...good one lol</p>
<p>The noun nerd has one meaning:</p>
<p>Meaning #1: a student who studies excessively</p>
<p>Nerds and bookworms have nothing to do with the actual issue. The thread degenerates rather quickly when people start mounting personal attacks...</p>
<p>At any rate, I agree with ijflexi that the student probably had an agenda going into his dramatics. Further, the youtube video doesn't show the full story. My friend who attends UCLA said that the dude was making a scene well before the cops arrived.</p>
<p>your friend who attends UCLA or your friend who was at the library?</p>
<p>YEA OK THEN, obviously your friend is as unaware of the true events that took place, as you are.</p>
<p>I know someone who was there as an eye witness, and she has explained to me what really happened and like i said, the cops used much more force than necessary and were twisting his arm..things went down that we couldn't see on the video.</p>
<p>it says on bruin daily that the student was already leaving the library. 2 cops then approahced him and grabbed him on his arm. he told them to get off, which the cops did and tased him.</p>
<p>well... he was leaving the library. they should have let him do so to make things easier.</p>
<p>Funny how you guys call the dude an "idiot" and cops "racist" without knowing the full set of facts.</p>
<p>pellman, when in history have people known the full set of facts on anything before drawing personal conclusions?</p>
<p>do you have the full set of facts on the war in iraq? no, but i'm sure you have an opinion on it...</p>
<p>Here’s my understanding of the subject...it’s a bit long =(</p>
<p>The policy for students to have a student ID is created to protect both the students and the police. Those with a student ID are not likely to be convicted felons, dangerous criminals, sex offenders, etc., due to the filtration of the admissions process. As for criminals, it'd be illogical to commit a crime in a location where they could be easily ID'd and identified. In other words, UCLA students that wish to commit a crime where they are easily identifiable seems unlikely. This elevates the potential danger of an unknown individual in the eyes of the police, dually elevating the need to force the individual to comply.</p>
<p>It's also important to mention the liability aspect of UCPD and UCLA. Both institutions would be liable if an unknown individual had entered the library and caused any kind of crime while under the supervision of any authority. Thus, from their perspective, it'd be prudent to take the safe route, and force the individual in question to comply. This is one of the reasons why UCPD was holding the individual's arm; incase he does something dangerous, the officer is ready to react. I have witnessed first hand this policy in action at USC, and things do get heated. I’ve seen individuals leave visibly angry for being kicked out of the library and sometimes even try to run away. USC’s Leavey library is 5 floors so it was easy to run away. The UCPD officer’s action of holding one arm is a reasonable precautionary measure. ABC news said they were only holding one arm btw.</p>
<p>When an unidentifiable individual appears, an officer will try to profile the student as much as possible. The student in the UCLA library shows signs of anger and rage, and possible radicalism due to the way he criticized the Patriot Act. There's absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing the Patriot Act, but given the time, place, and the way he shouted it, it most definitely made the officer feel that this individual might do something dangerous or disruptive (even more than he already is). According to a witness interviewed by ABC that was at the scene, he was not submissive and he attempted to break away from the officer's arm, “DON’T TOUCH ME!”. With hindsight, i'm sure it's only because he didn't want to be touched but there's no way of the officer knowing that – what if he wanted to stay in the library to do something disruptive? Why would he go limp when the officer’s first began escorting them, and before the first taser shock? Later on, it is known that the student tried to get other people involved in the resistance (Can I see your badge number?), then the situation really got dicey. So now this individual is: ID-less, hunkered down in one spot by limping, successful in inciting some of the crowd to interfere with the investigation, shouting at the Patriot Act, and arguing with the police. </p>
<p>Due to the nature of unknown variables and the situation, officers are faced with several options ranging from baton use, physical force, cartridge taser, drive stun taser, and leaving him to exit by himself. Baton use causes significant damage in order to force an individual to comply. Physical force is dangerous to both the officer and individual, a possible skirmish can ensue. Even in a 5v1 skirmish, a single person can still inflict significant damage even when outnumbered. Additionally, they have no idea if the individual is armed since they are unable to pat him down due to his vehement refusal to be touched. Since the subject is not violent, there is no need to use the harsher form of tasing - the cartridge taser. According to my research, cartridge use is reserved for apprehending violent individuals, and is more potent. Thus, the officers resort to the melee ranged taser. The melee ranged taser is less potent than the ranged taser as stated in the research I posted below. In the same medical research that UCLA quoted from about the “15 minutes of immobilization,” I found that the melee ranged taser left no permanent damage to healthy individuals. </p>
<p>This is probably the most controversial point written here, but in summary, I feel that the UCPD’s use of taser was substantiated because of the need to avoid a skirmish with the officers, to force the individual to comply without inflicting permanent damage, to mind the safety of other library patrons, and to resolve a situation that is becoming worse.</p>
<p>On the topic of excessive force, there is just not enough information even in the original source to make a 100% assumption. If I knew the probability of a immobilization per taser use, then things would be much more clear. I posted excerpts below from the original Lancet Medical Journal that the Daily Bruin quotes from. From reading this, one will notice that the Daily Bruin cut out quite a few words from the original statement. They forgot to mention that the source is talking about a cartridge taser as opposed to the drive stun taser that was actually used at the UCLA incident. Officer Young of UCPD publicly stated that UCPD used a drive stun taser. Yet even with the cartridge taser, the effects vary greatly, depending on the distance and location of the shot. In order to prove that the UCLA student was actually immobilized, and thus the 4 out of the 5 times of tasering would then be deemed excessive, more research needs to be done. The Lancet Medical Journal doesn’t actually show the rate of immobilization per taser case, but I’m pretty sure that it’s unlikely this student was “immobilized.” If you look at the video, it shows student’s legs flailing in the air, thus I can somewhat assume he was in control of his legs. If he can’t move his legs, why didn’t he say so? He’s definitely a very vocal person, and i’d expect him communicate to the officer about his immobilization. Anyhow, the immobilization statement in the Lancet Journal is taken from "Robinson MN, Brooks CG, Renshaw GD. Electric shock devices and their effects on the human body. Med Sci Law 1990; 30:285-400." I'll probably dig this article up later on to find the rate of immobilization after individuals are tasered.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, several posters have degenerated this thread rather quickly with childish attacks. To my understanding, the initial discharge from a taser would stun the victim for several seconds. However, there are several health factors involved that could result in fatality (cardiac arrest). So I think that at several instances, he did have the opportunity to just walk out, if the tasers used were standard issued tasers. If indeed the victim did cause a scene well before he was tased, then it is extremely likely that he did have some sort of agenda.</p>
<p>to ilovecalifornia: are you 13 or something? coz i havent heard anyone use the term "nerd" the way you used it for a while...and im 16. and you have 1205 posts...um ok.</p>
<p>you also need to stop acting like you know so much more than the "nerds" on this forum. according to the official police report (<a href="http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf/2006/Taser%2011-15-06.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf/2006/Taser%2011-15-06.pdf</a>), the drive stun method was used, which is far less severe than the traditional method of tasering. and it sure as hell does not paralyze you. </p>
<p>im guessing the taser wasnt necessary, but the kid was being a real jerk and tried to incite a riot by pulling out the race card.</p>
<p>I wouldn't go so far as to say that the student was attempting to incite a riot. People often make political statements when they are being arrested, especially when there is an audience watching (ever watch COPS?). If he was trying to incite a riot, he would have said stuff like "Don't just stand there and watch, help me!".</p>
<p>I don't really see a problem with the police officers handcuffing and then forcibly removing the student out of the library when he would not comply with their orders to stand up. If someone is being uncooperative, in a non-violent way, they should be forcibly removed, but they should not be subjected to physical pain in an effort to gain their compliance.</p>
<p>Is it okay to user tasers to resolve sit-ins? Once the protestors are handcuffed they probably will not get up and walk out, they will demanded to be carried / dragged. It is okay for the police to tase the protestors because they are not getting up and assisting in their own arrest?</p>
<p>yea i'm 13..that is EXACTLY why i'm on the transfer forum...<em>rolls eyes</em> i'm busy...later</p>
<p>ghost, he did actually say something similar. in fact he said, "am i the only martyr?". so yeah i think he did use the race card to start something.</p>
<p>and ilovecalifornia, you should look up what a rhetorical question means. it could benefit you. even with your transfer prospects.</p>
<p>Hrrm..gh05t brings up a good point. In that case, i'll change my stance to: </p>
<p>The UCPDs use of taser before the student was handcuffed is OK due to the factors mentioned in my previous post. However, the taser policy should change when he was handcuffed. If UCPD officers are able to drag the student out without being hurt, then they should always take that route. </p>
<p>Taser use following the handcuffing should be primarily limited to two scenario's. The first scenario would be if student physically puts himself in a position where UCPD is unable to remove him, and the second would be if the student attacked the UCPD officer in handcuffs.</p>
<p>Since I cannot discern whether scenario one and or two happened in the video, I can only speak about what should have happened, given certain situations.</p>
<p>It's important to protect the rights of protestors, especially under the cruel and unusual punishment statute. One day, this may come in handy when any of you are protesting...</p>
<p>The police handcuffed him, then tasered him several for not standing up. He was not tasered before he was handcuffed. There is little evidence to suggest that he was actively resisting arrest; and there is a large amount of evidence suggesting he was passively resisting (both eye witness accounts, and the audio from the video).</p>
<p>There are also claims that the officer who repeadedly tased the student has had previous problems involving the use of excessive force. I haven't been following this story very closely so I can't elaborate.</p>
<p>Either way I agree that there shouldn't be a rush to final judgement. Before any possible disciplinary action is taken there needs to be an independent review of what happened, and it looks like one is underway.</p>