Student Taserd for not having ID

[Hapless]

Nor is it the fatal kind you're used to. Your arguement is irrelevant because a TASER only incapacitates somebody for a couple seconds after the trigger is released.

Another thing a lot of people dont realize is that the police are in a college building surrounded by multiple dozens of people who were very pissed and probably threatening. This might explain why they may threaten to taser other students if they didnt stay back. If I was one of 3 officers in a VERY riled up crowed of college kids... I wouldnt take my chances by letting one of them close to me either.

The repeated tazerings are justified by the fact that the kid was still resisting arrest even after being handcuffed. Just because the kid is in handcuffs doesnt mean he is completely immobile and harmless. The kid was being irrational and could very well have kicked or bit the officers when they go to pick him up. I once was with some people who were playing a prank on a friend and they lifted up the guy by his hands and feet. The guy obviously wasnt in a mood for pranks, and he started kicking so they would let go. One of his feet broke the grasp of the other guy, and he kicked the dude in the face, breaking his jaw.

Now imaging this case where the guy being picked up is probably going to jail (as opposed to having a prank pulled on him), and is very very angry at the officer (as opposed to him being a friend). Do you not see any danger for the police there?

Haven't you read this thread? REAL police are trained to incapacitate someone with one finger. REAL police are trained to be able to talk people into doing anything. REAL police would have let the guy alone, because after all, he was only trespassing and that's not murder or rape. REAL police would never have had to resort to force at all, because people never really want to hurt the REAL police.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

How was none of this warranted? It is unlawful to resist the police, whether passively, aggressively or verbally.

Duh.

It's also obvious that the kid posed no threat.
Like you said, the level of response is always one step above the level of resistance - but the kid was offering no active resistance.
So what was the precedent to use the taser?
Does anyone who yells during an arrest get tasered?

The police are authorized by law to use that force which is necessary to effect an arrest or bring someone under control.

Again, duh.

The question is if it was necessary.
He was under control (no active resistance), and he was already under arrest (handcuffed on the floor, surrounded by officers, clearly either unable or unwilling to attempt any escape).

It sucks ass for the 5 seconds the juice is on, but once it's over, it's over.

So does me punching you in the face.
Punching you in the face actually only lasts one second, maximum.
Can I punch you in the face?
Note that I am kind enough to ask, and that you have already volunteered for taser duty that is at least four seconds worse.

That fact of the matter that inflicting pain without legitimate reason or consent is assault.
What people such as myself are proposing is that the actions of the officers, even if they are within pre-existing legal bounds, were not backed up with adequate legitimate reason.

The simple fact of the matter is, there are several people on this board who believe the police should never use force on anyone for any reason

Oh, that's a fact, is it?

Well, I'm glad that you have presented the fact that "several people on this board believe that police should never use force on anyone."

Because that's a fact. And not only is that statement entirely factual, it is a simple fact.

Yup, those are actual arguments made by actual people. People in reality.
People in reality said "police should never use force on anyone".


No, that's indisputable. Because it's a fact.
A factual account of real arguments made by real people.

Accounts of real people, recorded as fact.

... and those same people have no clue what it's like to try to get someone to do something they really, really don't want to do.

Another fact.
A simple fact!

Don't worry, I sympathize.
Nobody understands you. It's so hard for you. Crawling in your skin, your wounds they will not heal.

Well, they won't heal unless you get your perscription from Dr. Tasering Passive Suspects Without Any Opposition From The Public, that is.

It is a fact that those departments which have gone to TASER's report a dramatic decline in both officer and suspect injuries resulting from resistance situations.

This wasn't a resistance situation.
It was a non-resistance situation.

This was not a violent suspect, and don't pretend that the word of law is perfect, or that what you are legally allowed to do can be conflated with what you are legally required to do.
It was a bad call, and that is a simple fact.

 

[Krynn72]

Hapless WINS!

And mecha you obviously have no experience in real life. First off... much of your post doesn't make any damned sense. Secondly... you havent been in many situations like this. You claim that it was a "non-resistance situation"

If that were the case then the kid would have left right when the faculty and staff told him to. Instead he waited for the police to show up so that he could resist arrest and cause a scene. The kid wasn't leaving. That IS resistance.

And your punch to the face comparison also doesn't hold up because a punch to the face causes long term and physical damage. Broken blood vessels, broken skin, broken bones are often the results of a punch in the face. A Taser doesn't cause any trauma, which is why police forces around the world have adopted it as an alternative to more physical alternatives such as batons and blunt impacts.

I would argue against the rest of your post... but I neither understood it nor think it would do any good since you wouldn't be able to understand it anyways. Have fun in your naive and closeted world buddy.

 

[Sulkdodds]

And mecha you obviously have no experience in real life. First off... much of your post doesn't make any damned sense. Secondly... you havent been in many situations like this. You claim that it was a "non-resistance situation"

ASSUMPTION ALERT!

Another thing a lot of people dont realize is that the police are in a college building surrounded by multiple dozens of people who were very pissed and probably threatening. This might explain why they may threaten to taser other students if they didnt stay back. If I was one of 3 officers in a VERY riled up crowed of college kids... I wouldnt take my chances by letting one of them close to me either.

Are you mad? How bloody dangerous do you think students in a library are?

 

[Hapless]

Duh.

It's also obvious that the kid posed no threat.
Like you said, the level of response is always one step above the level of resistance - but the kid was offering no active resistance.
So what was the precedent to use the taser?
Does anyone who yells during an arrest get tasered?

One does not need to pose a threat to resist. The fact that the kid refused to comply with numerous commands by the police is resistance. Sitting or lying on the floor refusing to get up is resistance. The fact that he was yelling has very little to do with it.

Again, duh.

The question is if it was necessary.
He was under control (no active resistance), and he was already under arrest (handcuffed on the floor, surrounded by officers, clearly either unable or unwilling to attempt any escape).

I did not see at what point he was handcuffed, or if he was ever handcuffed. If in fact he was TASE'd after he was handcuffed, that would definitely be a problem. However, as I've already pointed out, just because someone is handcuffed does not mean they are under control.

So does me punching you in the face.
Punching you in the face actually only lasts one second, maximum.
Can I punch you in the face?
Note that I am kind enough to ask, and that you have already volunteered for taser duty that is at least four seconds worse.

The effects of you punching me in the face could last for several weeks. Bruising, cuts, even potentially more serious damage. That's an asinine argument. And no you can't punch me in the face no matter how nicely you ask.

That fact of the matter that inflicting pain without legitimate reason or consent is assault.
What people such as myself are proposing is that the actions of the officers, even if they are within pre-existing legal bounds, were not backed up with adequate legitimate reason.

Well, the fact of the matter is that the standard for judging a police officer's actions in using force is what a reasonable, prudent person, in the same or similar circumstances would believe based upon the knowledge of the facts surrounding the event as they existed at the time of the event. Not what a bunch of people on a message board who saw a very poorly shot tape of a portion of an event would believe.

Oh, that's a fact, is it?

Well, I'm glad that you have presented the fact that "several people on this board believe that police should never use force on anyone."

Because that's a fact. And not only is that statement entirely factual, it is a simple fact.

Yup, those are actual arguments made by actual people. People in reality.
People in reality said "police should never use force on anyone".


No, that's indisputable. Because it's a fact.
A factual account of real arguments made by real people.

Accounts of real people, recorded as fact.

Another fact.
A simple fact!

Don't worry, I sympathize.
Nobody understands you. It's so hard for you. Crawling in your skin, your wounds they will not heal.

Well, they won't heal unless you get your perscription from Dr. Tasering Passive Suspects Without Any Opposition From The Public, that is.

This wasn't a resistance situation.
It was a non-resistance situation.

This was not a violent suspect, and don't pretend that the word of law is perfect, or that what you are legally allowed to do can be conflated with what you are legally required to do.
It was a bad call, and that is a simple fact.

I disagree, but I also can't say for sure because I wasn't there. You also were not there. I never said the word of law was perfect. I am fully aware that it is not.

 

[Hapless]

Are you mad? How bloody dangerous do you think students in a library are?

ASSUMPTION ALERT!
Have you ever heard of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris?

 

[Sulkdodds]

They carefully planned and executed a massacre that was motivated by events that took place over a very long period of time.

Meanwhile, Klynn is apparently claiming that a student library near you could be a hotbed of spontaneous, violent resistance. Where's he getting his "surrounded by multiple dozens of people who were very pissed and probably threatening" stuff from? It's not a riot.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance - even if you're saying 'students can be dangerous too'.

Give me cases where a crowd of students working in a library have suddenly turned violently on police and I'll take your point.

 

[Hapless]

Anyone can be violent. Anyone can be dangerous. In groups, people can be even more dangerous. If I was in that situation, whether it was on the street, in a grocery store or in a campus library, and I was attempting to arrest someone, I would definitely threaten to spray or TASE anyone who appeared to be attempting to obstruct the performance of my duties, and I would go beyond threats if necessary.

Look at this objectively. You are the police officer attempting to control one person. This person is resisting. His yelling draws more and more of a crowd, who also begin yelling at you and becoming more and more irate. You don't see a potential for that situation to erupt into violence against you? The fact that these are students in a library is irrelevant. Furthermore, I'm not going to take the time to give my badge number to an angry mob.

 

[Solaris]

Anyone can be violent. Anyone can be dangerous. In groups, people can be even more dangerous. If I was in that situation, whether it was on the street, in a grocery store or in a campus library, and I was attempting to arrest someone, I would definitely threaten to spray or TASE anyone who appeared to be attempting to obstruct the performance of my duties, and I would go beyond threats if necessary.

Look at this objectively. You are the police officer attempting to control one person. This person is resisting. His yelling draws more and more of a crowd, who also begin yelling at you and becoming more and more irate. You don't see a potential for that situation to erupt into violence against you? The fact that these are students in a library is irrelevant.

You want to avoid a riot, so in order to stop things escalating you get out a taser, bringing the confrontation up a notch?

Furthermore, I'm not going to take the time to give my badge number to an angry mob.

Aren't you required to do by law?

 

[Hapless]

You want to avoid a riot, so in order to stop things escalating you get out a taser, bringing the confrontation up a notch?

He was yelling before they TASE'd him. He was yelling after they TASE'd him. If they had sprayed him, it would have affected the police as well as probably everybody in the library. If they had used pressure point contols, joint manipulations, etc., he would have yelled and possibly been injured, still drawing a crowd. If they would have tried to talk to him, the event could have extended for much longer, disrupting other students work and still attracting a crowd. So tell me, what would you have done?

Aren't you required to do by law?

No, department policy requires it, however officer safety takes precedence.

 

[CptStern]

ASSUMPTION ALERT!
Have you ever heard of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris?

oh come on ..that's like saying "Humans are dangerous, ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer?" or "soldiers are dangerous ever heard of Allison Krause, Jeffrey Glen Miller, Sandra Lee Scheuer, and William Knox Schroeder?" or "cops are dangerous ever heard of Rodney King?"

 

[Solaris]

He was yelling before they TASE'd him. He was yelling after they TASE'd him. If they had sprayed him, it would have affected the police as well as probably everybody in the library. If they had used pressure point contols, joint manipulations, etc., he would have yelled and possibly been injured, still drawing a crowd. If they would have tried to talk to him, the event could have extended for much longer, disrupting other students work and still attracting a crowd. So tell me, what would you have done?

Surely just dragging him away would have been best.

 

[CptStern]

If they had used pressure point contols, joint manipulations, etc., he would have yelled and possibly been injured, still drawing a crowd.

what's the difference?

He said Tabatabainejad was hit by the Taser five times and suffered "moderate to severe contusions" on his right side

edit: oops double post

 

[Tyguy]

Why is it when you people see a video of someone getting zapped, you instantly say its police abuse and what not. He didnt comply with the police, didnt listen to them, resisted them multiple times, and then the police did what they needed to do to get this moron to follow instructions.

 

[Hapless]

what's the difference?




edit: oops double post

HIs lawyer said that. You'll excuse me if I tend to take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Hapless]

oh come on ..that's like saying "Humans are dangerous, ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer?" or "soldiers are dangerous ever heard of Allison Krause, Jeffrey Glen Miller, Sandra Lee Scheuer, and William Knox Schroeder?" or "cops are dangerous ever heard of Rodney King?"

That's no more absurd than comparing getting TASE'd to getting punched in the face. Or claiming that you can learn to control someone with one hand in one 30 minute self-defence class.

 

[Solaris]

There was 3 of them, I do not see why they could not have just dragged him out.

 

[Hapless]

There was 3 of them, I do not see why they could not have just dragged him out.

They put hands on him, he fights with them, they injure him. Now you have video of what appears to be 3 police officers beating the shit out of a guy. Which looks worse?

Anytime an officer or officers have to put hands on someone, there is a higher probability of officer or suspect injuries. Didn't you hear the guy screaming, "Don't touch me!!!" over and over? Is that a statement or a warning?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

If in fact he was TASE'd after he was handcuffed, that would definitely be a problem.

I suppose that's the cause of the confusion, because he was tased after being handcuffed.

And a passive-resisting kid isn't going to leap up and steal a van, and attempted no such thing.
The officers used disproportionate force against a non-resistant and neutralized suspect.
They also threatened to use force on witnesses.

The effects of you punching me in the face could last for several weeks. Bruising, cuts, even potentially more serious damage. That's an asinine argument. And no you can't punch me in the face no matter how nicely you ask.

Tasers are classified as "less than lethal" because their use always carries a risk of death, just as my punching you in the face does.
The kid in this case reportedly recieved bruises from the use of the taser, just as my punching you in the face would probably cause.

So what exactly makes my argument stupid?

Small amounts of pain, bruising, and a chance of death.
You and hundreds of other cops voluntarily subjected yourselves to worse and said it wasn't too bad.

"Don't be a pussy, it's not bad at all," everyone is saying.
I agree, and ask that I be allowed to inflict a similar lack of harm.

Don't be a pussy. It's not bad at all.

Well, the fact of the matter is that the standard for judging a police officer's actions in using force is what a reasonable, prudent person, in the same or similar circumstances would believe based upon the knowledge of the facts surrounding the event as they existed at the time of the event. Not what a bunch of people on a message board who saw a very poorly shot tape of a portion of an event would believe.

Oh, so that's how opinions work! You need to be reasonable and base them on facts!
Gee, I'm just so STUPID that I completely forgot that there is a difference between an event happening in the past and a video of that event being watched in the present.
If only I were smart enough to stop trying to reach through my screen whenever a food commerical pops up, and hiding in abject terror when I see a hurricane on The Weather Channel.
Clearly the more reasonable course of action is to assume, for safety, that food and hurricanes don't exist.

I guess that since I wasn't in the room, inside the officer's brains, it makes me completely unable to hold the opinion about an event documented in several news articles and on video.

Because news articles and video documentation are not basis for fact, while the claim that "people, in this thread, in reality, said 'police should never use force on anyone'" is simple fact.

I suppose that if I were there, I would have repeatedly tasered the motionless, handcuffed man in the (lack of) heat of the moment, and threaten to do the same to onlookers.
Nobody can or should question that reasonable and prudent course of action because they weren't there.

If they were there, they would have seen that he was beginning to shapeshift into his final stage: a ten-foot reptile with guns for hands and a single, glowing red eye.
The eye is his weak spot! Hit it with the taser!

Of course, since Iranians are basically vampires, none of this shows up on tape or in mirrors.

It's a legitimate argument. You're throwing out the word "fact" as though it's candy at a santa-day parade.

Typically, facts have to be factual to qualify as facts.
And no-one respects people who label others "anarchists", "fascists", "communists" or whatever for utterly frivolous reasons.

I disagree, but I also can't say for sure because I wasn't there. You also were not there.

You've certainly put a lot of effort into having no opinion at all.

See, what I am doing is forming an opinion based on extensive evidence that is currently avaliable.

I'm good at doing that.

 

[CptStern]

That's no more absurd than comparing getting TASE'd to getting punched in the face. Or claiming that you can learn to control someone with one hand in one 30 minute self-defence class.

why are you comparing what you said with what others have said? it still doesnt make your statement anything more than alarmist rhetoric

 

[DeusExMachina]

I really don't see "don't touch me" as a warning :|. And I usually stick by the cops with these kind of things. Ok so the kid wasn't leaving. Boot his ass out. If the kid is preparing to leave, then just make sure he leaves. Do not tazer him.

 

[CptStern]

HIs lawyer said that. You'll excuse me if I tend to take that with a grain of salt.

well I'm sure he'll be entering that into evidence if there's a hearing ..so I see no reason to lie ..and again you cant simply dismiss that fact because it's his lawyer ..by that same token one could dismiss whatever the police ddefense lawyer says because of self-interest

you didnt answer my question btw

 

[Hapless]

This video is a perfect example of how video is less than reliable at showing exactly what happens in a situation:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kKmQFu8xiTM

 

[Hapless]

well I'm sure he'll be entering that into evidence if there's a hearing ..so I see no reason to lie ..and again you cant simply dismiss that fact because it's his lawyer ..by that same token one could dismiss whatever the police ddefense lawyer says because of self-interest

you didnt answer my question btw

IN my Federal lawsuit, the plaintiff made claims that he suffered extensive injuries, which he later admitted were false. You don't think it's possible his lawyer is making this claim to inflame public opinion?

 

[CptStern]

this is an example of how video can reliably convey certain attitudes

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MxtEggVqhyY

i fail to see your point

IN my Federal lawsuit, the plaintiff made claims that he suffered extensive injuries, which he later admitted were false. You don't think it's possible his lawyer is making this claim to inflame public opinion?

you cant judge this situation by what happened in your personal experience ..and yes it's possible ..a whole bunch of things are possible ..doesnt make it probable

 

[Absinthe]

This video is a perfect example of how video is less than reliable at showing exactly what happens in a situation:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kKmQFu8xiTM

Except this isn't just video. This also includes the multitude of witnesses that were present at the time.

Corroboration ftw

 

[Tyguy]

Its apparent that the majority of people strongly opposed to the actions of the officers in this forum already have a strong distaste for police. Theres no rational way to convince them the actions were justified.

And what do you do when a suspect in in cuffs and still resisting? Lets say hes on the ground kicking, screaming and biting.....do you A. let the officer risk being harmed, or B. Get him in control by warranted means....

 

[Hapless]

I really don't see "don't touch me" as a warning :|. And I usually stick by the cops with these kind of things. Ok so the kid wasn't leaving. Boot his ass out. If the kid is preparing to leave, then just make sure he leaves. Do not tazer him.

If I yell, "don't touch me," at you as you are about to put hands on me, that carries with it the implication that if you do attempt to touch me, I will take action to prevent you touching me. It's a warning.

 

[Tyguy]

this is an example of how video can reliably convey certain attitudes

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MxtEggVqhyY

Except this is a different video with different circumstances....

Plus who wears red in a protest :sniper:

 

[Hapless]

Its apparent that the majority of people strongly opposed to the actions of the officers in this forum already have a strong distaste for police. Theres no rational way to convince them the actions were justified.

And what do you do when a suspect in in cuffs and still resisting? Lets say hes on the ground kicking, screaming and biting.....do you A. let the officer risk being harmed, or B. Get him in control by warranted means....

Just make sure you don't state that as fact or Mecha might get mad at you.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

No, Absinthe!

If you were there, you would have seen that, at the time, that crowd was a potentially dangerous mob that posed a seemingly legitimate threat to our heroic boys in blue. Those "eyewitnesses" apparently can't be trusted.

Its apparent that the majority of people strongly opposed to the actions of the officers in this forum already have a strong distaste for police. Theres no rational way to convince them the actions were justified.

You can't honestly claim that I won't be convinced with rational arguments. Do you not know who I am?

Also, I freaking love the police. I chose to live almost directly beside a police station because they are invaluable.
What I don't like is unecessary use of force.
This isn't some sort of "if you question the president, you hate our troops" bullshit.

Speaking of rational arguments:

Lets say hes on the ground kicking, screaming and biting...

He wasn't. Don't obfuscate with imagined events.
If he were harming the officers, then obviously he would need to be stopped.
He wasn't.

 

[Absinthe]

And what do you do when a suspect in in cuffs and still resisting? Lets say hes on the ground kicking, screaming and biting.....do you A. let the officer risk being harmed, or B. Get him in control by warranted means....

There was no risk of harm. There were (let me repeat this again) three officers present that would have been entirely capable of removing him with at least one tasing (assuming it was necessary). Not the clear abuse that came with three. There are at least one or two instances in that video in which the student was clearly motionless and handcuffed while getting tased.

Until there is some evidence that the student was kicking and biting like you seem to imply he was, I suggest you not wander off into such what-if scenarios.

 

[Tyguy]

There was no risk of harm. There were (let me repeat this again) three officers present that would have been entirely capable of removing him at least one tasing. Not the clear abuse that came with three.

Until there is some evidence that the student was kicking and biting like you seem to imply he was, I suggest you not wander off into such what-if scenarios.

Where is the evidence that he was being compliant? If we saw the same video then I assume you saw the part where the suspect wasnt in very good plain view.....and i dont recall saying he was kicking and biting, I said he could of been.

 

[Hapless]

Except this isn't just video. This also includes the multitude of witnesses that were present at the time.

Corroboration ftw

The question here is, was the force justified under legal and department policy standpoints? What are the witnesses going to corroborate? That force was used? That's not in question here. Are they going to say it was unneccessary? More than likely, because they are college students who generally don't have a fondness for the police. So this situation needs to be viewed and judged by an unbiased person, using the reasonable man standard.

 

[zleppelin]

There was no risk of harm. There were (let me repeat this again) three officers present that would have been entirely capable of removing him with at least one tasing (assuming it was necessary).

If the first tasing does not work then you need more. The first tasing did not work.

Not the clear abuse that came with three. There are at least one or two instances in that video in which the student was clearly motionless and handcuffed while getting tased.

I did not see that part of the video

Until there is some evidence that the student was kicking and biting like you seem to imply he was, I suggest you not wander off into such what-if scenarios.

I saw the student kicking in one instance.

 

[Hapless]

No, Absinthe!

If you were there, you would have seen that, at the time, that crowd was a potentially dangerous mob that posed a seemingly legitimate threat to our heroic boys in blue. Those "eyewitnesses" apparently can't be trusted.

You're so smart. Can we be friends?

 

[CptStern]

she's a middle aged attorney who worked at the courthouse nearby ..and what does what she wore have to do with whether the police acted inapproriately when they shot her 4 times and then laughed about it?

 

[zleppelin]

I don't agree with Mechagodzilla. Students are not dangerous. They are smart kids, most of them from middle class backgrounds, who would not resort to violence under any circumnstances.

 

[Absinthe]

Where is the evidence that he was being compliant? If we saw the same video then I assume you saw the part where the suspect wasnt in very good plain view.....and i dont recall saying he was kicking and biting, I said he could of been.

3:10 mark - Student is motionless and is either unable or unwilling to stand up. He is tased. No indication of any kicking, biting, or other physical resistance.

Wether or not he could have been doing so at any other point in time is moot, as there is no mention of such acts. I refer you to my previous suggestion.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The question here is, was the force justified under legal and department policy standpoints? What are the witnesses going to corroborate? That force was used? That's not in question here. Are they going to say it was unneccessary? More than likely, because they are college students who generally don't have a fondness for the police. So this situation needs to be viewed and judged by an unbiased person, using the reasonable man standard.

Don't stereotype.
I'm a college student, and I have absolutely no problem with police.
In fact, the entire claim that college students can be assumed to hate police is bullshit. Have you even been to a college?
And where is this assumption that all thirty or so witnesses are all going to lie in court coming from?

And what did I tell you about following the letter of the law so closely that it ignores the spirit?

Jeez. Whatever the "reasonable man standard" is, it's pretty clear that you are not that man.