Student Taserd for not having ID

[Mechagodzilla]

No it wasn't. What you've been saying all along is that you had no clue how UCLA's system worked, but that tasering passive resisitors was legal under your jurisdiction.

That argument proved to be false.

 

[Hapless]

No. It did not. Use of the TASER against passive resistors is authorized if the officer reasonably believes the persons resistance may escalate. I believe the officer could easily articulate a reasonable belief that would happen based on not the volume of what he was saying, but WHAT it was he was saying. He wasn't simply stating, "**** you, pig" while passively resisting. He was screaming at the top of his lungs, "DON'T TOUCH ME!" That implies a threat that action will be taken to prevent the touching, as I've already said before. At least prior to the first TASING, there was definitely a reasonable belief the resistance would escalate. If, as the UCLA PD claims, he was inciting others to join in the resistance, then that would also contribute to the totality of the circumstances. Remember that phrase? And for Christ's sake, it was an ID card, not a damn library card.

I also find it interesting that the guy's lawyer is no longer representing him. I wonder why that is. Maybe because there is no case and he knows he's not going to get paid?

 

[CptStern]

I have to agree with Mecha here:

Police officers on six UC campuses carry Taser guns, but UCLA appears to be alone in expressly allowing officers to stun not only violent suspects but those who are passively resisting their orders.

there's no way you'd know that hapless or you would have brought it up by now

 

[Hapless]

I have to agree with Mecha here:



there's no way you'd know that hapless or you would have brought it up by now

I already said I didn't know that. Your point? And are you now changing your mind about the initial TASING?

 

[CptStern]

I wasnt ..from what i understood he was resisting arrest (had no idea he was on the floor handcuffed at the time) ..all I had to go on initially was the video as did everyone else

and if you knew how can you argue that it was a fair use of force when only ucla allows it?

btw maybe you can answer this: are UCLA police the real thing or "rent-a-cop" similiar to what some schools have?

 

[Hapless]

I said I didn't know what UCLA's policy was. I was going by my department's policy, which would allow the same thing, contrary to Mecha's interpretation. The fact that UCLA's policy allows it only serves to prove my point which I made in my original post which was:

but I can almost guarantee you that he will not have the satisfaction of seeing the officers disciplined, nor will any Federal lawsuit he files stand up.

And he was not handcuffed until after the first TASING.

 

[Hapless]

University police are the real thing, in that they have police powers. Also, they have jurisdiction anywhere the university owns property, which in my state means pretty much the entire state. When it comes down to it, for the most part, they are basically glorified security gaurds. They generally don't deal with the kinds of stuff that municipal police deal with, like endless domestic problems, home invasions, shootings, etc. After all, they are dealing with college stuents who by and large aren't disposed toward committing major crimes.

 

[CptStern]

University police are the real thing, in that they have police powers. Also, they have jurisdiction anywhere the university owns property, which in my state means pretty much the entire state. When it comes down to it, for the most part, they are basically glorified security gaurds. They generally don't deal with the kinds of stuff that municipal police deal with, like endless domestic problems, home invasions, shootings, etc. After all, they are dealing with college stuents who by and large aren't disposed toward committing major crimes.

sounds like rent-a-cops to me

 

[Hapless]

I was being diplomatic to my brethren officers............

 

[CptStern]

are you a rent-a-cop too?

 

[Tyguy]

Calling a Campus Police officer a rent-a-cop is ridiculous, especially when a large amount of campus police carry a firearm...

 

[CptStern]

so do most security guards

 

[Tyguy]

Which makes him a scurity guard, not a Constable on Patrol....

I think your picturing the guys that work at the mall with the big hats, uniform, and acne......although giving them a gun is like giving a child a hand grenade

 

[CptStern]

they're a private police force paid by UCLA are they not?

 

[Tyguy]

So what your saying is that they are in fact security guards?

 

[CptStern]

you didnt answer my question

 

[Tyguy]

Private POLICE force, yes you are correct.

 

[CptStern]

rent a cop

 

[Hapless]

Actually, they are employed by the State, which makes them State Police. At public universities anyway.

 

[Krynn72]

What the hell does it matter if they are a "rent a cop" anyways? They still are allowed to do what Police do. Your just trying to offend people Stern.

 

[15357]

Heh, us here it's illegal for the Police to go into Universities. Because they used to arrest student protesters, so they set up a sort of assylum for them in Universities. I believe that the Military Police does the guarding nowadays.

 

[Hapless]

Heh, us here it's illegal for the Police to go into Universities. Because they used to arrest student protesters, so they set up a sort of assylum for them in Universities. I believe that the Military Police does the guarding nowadays.

I find that somewhat disturbing. The military should not be policing it's own citizens except for times of civil strife or disaster, and then only under the direction of civilian police authorities.

 

[15357]

Well, it's the Military Police, specially trained in Military and Civillian/Criminal codes of law.

 

[Hapless]

Well, it's the Military Police, specially trained in Military and Civillian/Criminal codes of law.

It's still the military.

 

[15357]

Well, what about the paramilitary Combat Police used to contain protests? I don't see a problem..

 

[bliink]

What the hell does it matter if they are a "rent a cop" anyways? They still are allowed to do what Police do. Your just trying to offend people Stern.

There is a huge difference between security guards and police.

The main difference between security guards and cops is that security guards have the same rules of force and power of arrest that any private citizen have. (eg, if a security guard detains you, he/she is making a "citizens arrest", or "private person" arrest). If a security guard has a gun, they can only use it in the same situations that a private citizen could.

The exception with security is that they are an agent (representative) of whoever they work for, which means that they can, for example, boot you off property (by declaring you a tresspasser). Security guards cannot search you unless you give permission first (which is why shops have signs like "By entering this store you consent to have any bag searched" etc...

The best way to sum it up is that security guards get their power from their 'owner', whereas police get their power from the government.

Advantages of being a security guard:
*You have more control/discretion in taking action, police are often compelled into making an arrest for every crime, whereas security can ignore minor things or things that don't have an effect on their employer.
* No need for 'probable cause' like police when it comes to questioning people
* Less compliance is required when it comes to specific proceedures and techniques as far as the law is concerned- there isn't a huge body of legislation governing the actions of private security compared to the police. (however, the employeer may put tighter controls on you than the govt. police are under)

Disadvantages:
* You are personally liable for everything you do, police get limited liability (eg, someone sues the police department/state, not the officer). If you make a false arrest as a security guard, you can be guilty of false imprisonment.
* Less authority generally speaking, which can hinder you if you're trying to control some situation. Usually you have to call the cops for most things.

If a security guard is hired/commissioned by the government, then these disadvantages/advantages may swap to some degree. Extra powers may occur, it's like being deputised, or being a semi-cop. I think the term is "security police".

 

[Hapless]

There is a huge difference between security guards and police.

Not the least of which is hiring standards, pre-employment testing, and training.

The main difference between security guards and cops is that security guards have the same rules of force and power of arrest that any private citizen have. (eg, if a security guard detains you, he/she is making a "citizens arrest", or "private person" arrest). If a security guard has a gun, they can only use it in the same situations that a private citizen could.

right on the money.

The exception with security is that they are an agent (representative) of whoever they work for, which means that they can, for example, boot you off property (by declaring you a tresspasser). Security guards cannot search you unless you give permission first (which is why shops have signs like "By entering this store you consent to have any bag searched" etc...

Again, right on the money.

The best way to sum it up is that security guards get their power from their 'owner', whereas police get their power from the government.

Advantages of being a security guard:
*You have more control/discretion in taking action, police are often compelled into making an arrest for every crime, whereas security can ignore minor things or things that don't have an effect on their employer.

Not necessarily true. Police have a great amount of discretion with the exception of certain things like DUI and domestic violence.

* No need for 'probable cause' like police when it comes to questioning people

There is no need for probable cause to question someone. A police officer can make a voluntary contact with a person for the purpose of questioning him (provided he does it right and does nothing to cause the person to reasonably believe they aren't free to leave or refuse to answer questions). A cop can temporarily detain someone in a public place if he has a reasonable articulable suspicion that he has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime (Terry v. Ohio). During this questioning a person is not free to leave. Reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause.

* Less compliance is required when it comes to specific proceedures and techniques as far as the law is concerned- there isn't a huge body of legislation governing the actions of private security compared to the police. (however, the employeer may put tighter controls on you than the govt. police are under)

Yep.

Disadvantages:
* You are personally liable for everything you do, police get limited liability (eg, someone sues the police department/state, not the officer). If you make a false arrest as a security guard, you can be guilty of false imprisonment.
* Less authority generally speaking, which can hinder you if you're trying to control some situation. Usually you have to call the cops for most things.

If a security guard is hired/commissioned by the government, then these disadvantages/advantages may swap to some degree. Extra powers may occur, it's like being deputised, or being a semi-cop. I think the term is "security police".

99% right.

 

[zleppelin]

99% right.

And the other 1%?

 

[CptStern]

What the hell does it matter if they are a "rent a cop" anyways? They still are allowed to do what Police do. Your just trying to offend people Stern.

offend whom? the cop in question isnt a member of our boards ..so whom am I offending? I think people go out of there way to take offense with what I say, whether justified or not ..I had a point which Hapless clarified when he said they're hired by the state

oh and knghenry stop trolling