Student Taserd for not having ID

[zleppelin]

But how can one not act like an idiot when one is an idiot hmm?

Through inaction

 

[Absinthe]

Then you need to listen to what you say:

You need to understand that I am not entirely serious with such comments. However, I do think that if he were to find himself under the jackboot he worships, his views on many things would make a turn for the better.

I do not wish physical harm on him, nor do I think he deserves it. Stupidity is not an acceptable reason for physical force. Therein lies the key difference between you and I.

 

[Aenama]

Holy cow, it is like the exact opposite-world version of a typical politics forum outcome, except that Lemonking continues to fail at life.

HAHAHA ,If you knew.

 

[kirovman]

That's some real Zen shit right there.

You always say that!

HAHAHA ,If you knew.

lol? What do we all not know? D:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

There's no escaping the lemonking.
If you lived secluded in a castle and broke, with your crude fists, all of the mirrors for miles around, the sheer fact of being lemonking would be yet inescapable.
"Out with you, lemonking! Leave me be!" you would cry, but to no avail. Lemonking is burned into your character like a cattle-brand upon your soul.

In two-score years, when you are brought before tribunal for some unmentionable crime, the press will hound you, snapping at your heels - the very name so scorned, slathering at their lips.
"Lemonking, why did you do it?" they cry in unison, and with a glance upon your features, the answer will speak itself: "Because I am the lemonking, most monstrous amoung men. Reviled yet not feared, secluded in this stout tower far from the eyes of humanity, hiding even from myself."

And in their pity, the press will circulate that cursed name, so ingrained upon your person, throughout the lands as tales of news soon turn to legend. Lemonking will be the name of the shadows beneath children's beds, and lemonking will inhabit the pitch of space and the brackish depths of the ocean.

Sailors and youngrels alike will remember, vaguely, the lemonking as a monster both great in turpitude and small with trepidity.
But the name! The name will remain the constant. A fixed, polar star, burning in the heavens with disgrace unimaginable. The men of future times will look to this star and intone amongst themselves:
"By grace of nature's contingent whim, I Am No Lemonking!"

 

[Core407]

I don't know how accurate the article is, but, it states that the kid was grabbed by the officer as he was leaving the library. Is that even necessary? Also, do you think that if the officer just verbally told the kid to step aside for a moment first, would have been a better deal? Or what the officer did was perfectly fine and was handled in an acceptable manner?

As the article says, the kid was grabbed by an officer as he was leaving the library, repeatedly yelling, "Get off of me!" as a 2nd officer approached... then shortly after got tazered.

Isn't there a video of it somewhere? From what I know, the kid was making a scene. He didn't have his ID card so they asked him to leave, he didn't want to, so the cops show up and next thing you know the kid is screaming about the cop trying to grab him. What is that bullshit? Cop CAN grab you. If you don't want to leave and you're not allowed in, what do you expect the cops to do.

 

[Krynn72]

There's no escaping the lemonking.
If you lived secluded in a castle and broke, with your crude fists, all of the mirrors for miles around, the sheer fact of being lemonking would be yet inescapable.
"Out with you, lemonking! Leave me be!" you would cry, but to no avail. Lemonking is burned into your character like a cattle-brand upon your soul.

In two-score years, when you are brought before tribunal for some unmentionable crime, the press will hound you, snapping at your heels - the very name so scorned, slathering at their lips.
"Lemonking, why did you do it?" they cry in unison, and with a glance upon your features, the answer will speak itself: "Because I am the lemonking, most monstrous amoung men. Reviled yet not feared, secluded in this stout tower far from the eyes of humanity, hiding even from myself."

And in their pity, the press will circulate that cursed name, so ingrained upon your person, throughout the lands as tales of news soon turn to legend. Lemonking will be the name of the shadows beneath children's beds, and lemonking will inhabit the pitch of space and the brackish depths of the ocean.

Sailors and youngrels alike will remember, vaguely, the lemonking as a monster both great in turpitude and small in trepidity.
But the name! The name will remain the constant. A fixed, polar star, burning in the heavens with disgrace unimaginable. The men of future times will look to this star and intone amongst themselves:
"By grace of nature's contingent whim, I Am No Lemonking!"

And with that, I think this thread has run its course.

 

[Aenama]

There's no escaping the lemonking.
If you lived secluded in a castle and broke, with your crude fists, all of the mirrors for miles around, the sheer fact of being lemonking would be yet inescapable.
"Out with you, lemonking! Leave me be!" you would cry, but to no avail. Lemonking is burned into your character like a cattle-brand upon your soul.

In two-score years, when you are brought before tribunal for some unmentionable crime, the press will hound you, snapping at your heels - the very name so scorned, slathering at their lips.
"Lemonking, why did you do it?" they cry in unison, and with a glance upon your features, the answer will speak itself: "Because I am the lemonking, most monstrous amoung men. Reviled yet not feared, secluded in this stout tower far from the eyes of humanity, hiding even from myself."

And in their pity, the press will circulate that cursed name, so ingrained upon your person, throughout the lands as tales of news soon turn to legend. Lemonking will be the name of the shadows beneath children's beds, and lemonking will inhabit the pitch of space and the brackish depths of the ocean.

Sailors and youngrels alike will remember, vaguely, the lemonking as a monster both great in turpitude and small in trepidity.
But the name! The name will remain the constant. A fixed, polar star, burning in the heavens with disgrace unimaginable. The men of future times will look to this star and intone amongst themselves:
"By grace of nature's contingent whim, I Am No Lemonking!"

You need a life,you hippie.

 

[kirovman]

There's no escaping the lemonking.
If you lived secluded in a castle and broke, with your crude fists, all of the mirrors for miles around, the sheer fact of being lemonking would be yet inescapable.
"Out with you, lemonking! Leave me be!" you would cry, but to no avail. Lemonking is burned into your character like a cattle-brand upon your soul.

In two-score years, when you are brought before tribunal for some unmentionable crime, the press will hound you, snapping at your heels - the very name so scorned, slathering at their lips.
"Lemonking, why did you do it?" they cry in unison, and with a glance upon your features, the answer will speak itself: "Because I am the lemonking, most monstrous amoung men. Reviled yet not feared, secluded in this stout tower far from the eyes of humanity, hiding even from myself."

And in their pity, the press will circulate that cursed name, so ingrained upon your person, throughout the lands as tales of news soon turn to legend. Lemonking will be the name of the shadows beneath children's beds, and lemonking will inhabit the pitch of space and the brackish depths of the ocean.

Sailors and youngrels alike will remember, vaguely, the lemonking as a monster both great in turpitude and small in trepidity.
But the name! The name will remain the constant. A fixed, polar star, burning in the heavens with disgrace unimaginable. The men of future times will look to this star and intone amongst themselves:
"By grace of nature's contingent whim, I Am No Lemonking!"

I literally cried with laughing.

You have the gift, Mecha.

 

[zleppelin]

There's no escaping the lemonking.
If you lived secluded in a castle and broke, with your crude fists, all of the mirrors for miles around, the sheer fact of being lemonking would be yet inescapable.
"Out with you, lemonking! Leave me be!" you would cry, but to no avail. Lemonking is burned into your character like a cattle-brand upon your soul.

In two-score years, when you are brought before tribunal for some unmentionable crime, the press will hound you, snapping at your heels - the very name so scorned, slathering at their lips.
"Lemonking, why did you do it?" they cry in unison, and with a glance upon your features, the answer will speak itself: "Because I am the lemonking, most monstrous amoung men. Reviled yet not feared, secluded in this stout tower far from the eyes of humanity, hiding even from myself."

And in their pity, the press will circulate that cursed name, so ingrained upon your person, throughout the lands as tales of news soon turn to legend. Lemonking will be the name of the shadows beneath children's beds, and lemonking will inhabit the pitch of space and the brackish depths of the ocean.

Sailors and youngrels alike will remember, vaguely, the lemonking as a monster both great in turpitude and small in trepidity.
But the name! The name will remain the constant. A fixed, polar star, burning in the heavens with disgrace unimaginable. The men of future times will look to this star and intone amongst themselves:
"By grace of nature's contingent whim, I Am No Lemonking!"

What is trepidity? I don't care. You are a talented writer and I take my hat off before you. If your arguments were just as eloquent as your prose...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Oops, my bad. That should be "with trepidity".

 

[Absinthe]

You need a life,you hippie.

TASE HIM

 

[bliink]

What if the person draws a gun? A knife? What if the person becomes loud and obscene in a place that is supposed to be quiet? What if the person refuses to follow orders?

What if they have a weapon? Thats something that is automatically applied to everyone a police officer deals with. From a speeding ticket, to a murder suspect, to someone asking for directions- police are always on their guard. Yet everyone who has contact with the police doesn't end up getting tased.

Thats the point of "excessive" force, it's about context. If a person needs to be forced to do something, you use commensurate force. You are making a flawed point, because I could use your logic to defend my injuring someone simply because of the perception that they may have posed a more deadly threat than they were seen to be.

It's like saying you could pre-emptively go and hit random people because they "might be criminals".

I change my mind and think what they did was indeed a bit excessive.

!!! someone changed their point of view! in here??!
*checks outside to see if the sky is falling*
wow

 

[Hapless]

I'm still researching the whole active resistance thing in case law, so I'll have to get back with you on that. However, Bliink, you are wrong regarding trespass. Trespass is indeed a civil tort, however, most if not all states also have a Criminal Trespass to Real Property statute. In fact, if California is like Illinois, then they also have a statute along the lines of Criminal Trespass to State Supported Property. A public university, as is the case here, is state supported property, so that would apply. That is also a higher class of crime than Criminal Trespass to Real Property.

 

[bliink]

I'm still researching the whole active resistance thing in case law, so I'll have to get back with you on that. However, Bliink, you are wrong regarding trespass. Trespass is indeed a civil tort, however, most if not all states also have a Criminal Trespass to Real Property statute. In fact, if California is like Illinois, then they also have a statute along the lines of Criminal Trespass to State Supported Property. A public university, as is the case here, is state supported property, so that would apply. That is also a higher class of crime than Criminal Trespass to Real Property.

Well, I don't know US law, I'm speaking commonly. Regardless, thats a minor issue, at best your argument is only picking at the sides of the root issue.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Even if the letter of the law makes no distinction between active and passive resistance, there should obviously be one.

 

[bliink]

I thought I would add this comment on it that I read from slashdot. The guy claims to be a cop, but on the internet of course, he could be anyone. The points are still interesting and valid though.

As a police officer, I have two things to say about this:

1) This kid sounds like an ass and I'm certain that there will be more than enough "He got what he deserved posts." I might even agree in the moral sense, but not in the ethical or legal sense, because....

2) This cop should never work in law enforcement again. This is inappropriate use of force by any professional standard. One post is not nearly enough to recount the things he did incorrectly, but I'll hit the high points;

General rules for any controlled encounter (one where you aren't in danger from the get go) include finding out what the issue is, telling the subject what he/she needs to do, and explaining what will happen if they do not. There is almost never a need to place your hands on anyone for any reason until you are ready to take them into custody unless you are suddenly attacked. This "officer" is grossly incompetent. Understand we deal with aggressive people that posture by yelling and swearing at us all the time - this should not disrupt the officer on bit. Keep. Your. Cool. So, screaming/swearing or not, this encounter should have been over with three sentences from the officer.

A) "Sir, per university rules and regs, I need you to show me your valid student ID or leave the library."
B) "I need to to show me your valid student ID or leave the library right now, or I'll have to take you into custody for trespassing and disturbing the peace."
C) "Sir, I am placing you under arrest." Then Mirandize him and be done with it. If he does anything but exactly what you tell him ("Sir, place your hands behind your back.") then....

Now and only now, if he/she resists (NOT if he simply fails to cooperate i.e. passive resistence), you may use force sufficient to subdue him to the point of having him cease to be a danger to the officer or bystanders. That's pretty simple stuff, folks. Basically, never be the first to use force, but when you do - do it quickly and overwhelmingly then STOP when he's restrained. You are a trained professional who owns the situation and NOT a street brawler.

From what I can tell, he never told the subject he was under arrest until after at least five taserings, some of which occurred while he was in cuffs and all but the first while he was on the ground unable to stand under his own power. This "officer" grabbed the guy's arm while he was leaving. Bad move, even if it seems like a little thing. Physical contact constitutes use of force, and any trained officer knows this is a big line to cross. I don't care if he didn't leave immediately - in that case place him calmly in custody early on and be done with it, no argument needed. You're the cop; you NEVER need to be in an argument. You aren't asking him what he wants to do, you're telling him. Never ever let a subject think they are in control. Arguing tells the subject they have some power.

What he did is inexcusable. If this power-tripping bully didn't have a badge what would you think of somebody tasering a defenseless person on the ground FIVE TIMES some while he was handcuffed and yelling at him to "get up." A badge doesn't free you from responsibility, it adds to to it exponentially.

This sadistic SOB gives all true professional LEOs a bad name and is part of the reason so many distrust cops. I've had training on most of the common less-than-lethal systems (lawyers don't let us call them non-lethal) including tasers, stun guns, pepper spray, rubber bullets and even conducted some training on the same. Unless this guy was issued a system with no training, he knows damn well the individual won't be getting up immediately after one tasing, let alone five. Frankly, I hope this guy answers for assault charges.

To summarize, to non-cops this might appear to be a case of overreacting during a tense moment with a belligerent person. To most professionals, this is about as vanilla an arrest as there is where the cop did basically everything wrong. So wrong, in fact, I intend to use these videos as a training aid.

This was so absurd that I actually laughed when the guy threatened to to taser the bystander who asked for his name and badge number. It's almost like he was trying to get fired and sued.

 

[CptStern]

very interesting post ..i'd like to hear Hapless' opinion on this

 

[zleppelin]

I am a cop too.

 

[CptStern]

and a psychiatrist, and a fireman, and a chemical engineer, and an astronaut, and a cowboy, and main pastery chef for mariah carrey, and alto soprano in the sydney opera, and underwater interpretive ballet lead at the Jacques Cousteau Museum of Nautical Arts ......

 

[Sulkdodds]

And Indiana Jones.

 

[Solaris]

And knghenry

 

[bliink]

Also, the cop who tasered the kid has been the subject of two additional use-of-force complaints.

One involving an alledged assualt with/on a fraternity and another where he shot a homeless person in a study hall.

(http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-taser21nov21,0,1459046.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

 

[Geogaddi]

I am a cop too.

and a psychiatrist, and a fireman, and a chemical engineer, and an astronaut, and a cowboy, and main pastery chef for mariah carrey, and alto soprano in the sydney opera, and underwater interpretive ballet lead at the Jacques Cousteau Museum of Nautical Arts ......

And Indiana Jones.

And knghenry

All but one of these is a lie. Can you guess which one it is?

 

[Operational]

Sulkdodds is telling the truth. Everyone knows zleppelin is Indiana Jones. :|

Basically, never be the first to use force, but when you do - do it quickly and overwhelmingly then STOP when he's restrained. You are a trained professional who owns the situation and NOT a street brawler.

Nuff said.

 

[Hapless]

Ok, I finally remembered to bring my policy manual home. Here is my department's entire Use of Force Scale in order from least force to most force:

Officer Presence
Verbal Persuasion
OC/TASER X26
Contact Controls
Nerve Center Controls
Joint Restraints
Weapon Assisted Pain Compliance Techniques
Unarmed Defensive/Control Countermeasures
Lateral Vascular Neck Restraints
Impact Weapon Techniques with Low Potential for Great Bodily Harm
Impact Weapon Techniques with High Potential for Great Bodily Harm
Chemical Munitions (CS/CN) Tactical Insertion
Firearm Use

Furthermore, here are the relevant passages related to this incident:

The Department recognizes that effective management of the police use-of-force can only be accomplished by ensuring that:

4. Officers are trained effectively for both the skills necessary to use provided use-of-force equipment and for the tactical fundamentals to determine when to use force

Justification for Use of Force

1. In general, all use-of-force incidents involving Department officers will be evaluated by the "objective reasonableness" standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

USE-OF-FORCE SCALE

A. The use of force model scale shall be used as a guideline by Officers in making their decisions as to what level of force is to be used in gaining control of an individual. These guidelines illustrate the escalating nature of use-of-force options.

B. It is not the intent of this policy to require an Officer to begin at the lowest level of the scale and then to work their way up to the level necessary to gain control. When possible, Officers should evaluate the totality of the circumstances and select the use-of-force option which he reasonably believes is necessary to overcome the resistance demonstrated by the suspect.

TASER X26 (R)

B. The TASER (R) shall not be used:

1. At the same time OC is applied; or

2. On subjects that are covered with known flammable liquids/materials, are in the immediate vicinity of flammable liquids or materials, or within methamphetamine laboratories.

C. TASERS (R) are intended for use in those cases wherein:

1. The officer is confronted by a person threatening to resist or when the person, or an animal, poses an articulable threat of harm to an officer or another person. The TASER (R) may also be used when a subject poses a threat of harm to himself such as a self-inflicted injury or suicide attempt.

2. Use of the TASER (R) is also allowed in instances of passive resistance when the officer reasonably believes that the subject's resistance will escalate, thereby placing the officer, offender or another in jeopardy.

D. When utilizing the TASER (R), officers shall not intentionally aim or fire at a subject's head, face, neck, breasts or groin area. In addition:

2. Officers shall avoid use on subjects who are pregnant, elderly, standing on ledges, perched in trees, or upon elevated or slanted surfaces where falls could cause permanent injury or death.

The underscore in the last quote is as in the original. Now on to my opinion of the other cop's opinion:

As a police officer, I have two things to say about this:

1) This kid sounds like an ass and I'm certain that there will be more than enough "He got what he deserved posts." I might even agree in the moral sense, but not in the ethical or legal sense, because....

We've already seen the, "he deserved it," posts here.

2) This cop should never work in law enforcement again. This is inappropriate use of force by any professional standard. One post is not nearly enough to recount the things he did incorrectly, but I'll hit the high points;

Here is where we begin to disagree considerably. Nothing in the video or news accounts suggests to me any conduct which should result in termination of the involved officer(s). I also am not convinced by any stretch of the imagination that the use of force was inappropriate. Maybe according to this guy's department policy, but not mine.

General rules for any controlled encounter (one where you aren't in danger from the get go) include finding out what the issue is, telling the subject what he/she needs to do, and explaining what will happen if they do not.

I can only assume that the officers involved already knew what the issue was. They did tell the subject numerous times what he needs to do (Stand up) and what will happen if he does not (He will be TASED).

There is almost never a need to place your hands on anyone for any reason until you are ready to take them into custody unless you are suddenly attacked.

I can think of numerous occasions where I have, "needed," to place my hands on someone when I was not going to take them into custody and I was not suddenly attacked. It's not the best thing to do, but nothing forbids it (except this guy, I guess.)

This "officer" is grossly incompetent.

Really? I begin to wonder how many actual use-of-force situations this guy has actually been involved in.

Understand we deal with aggressive people that posture by yelling and swearing at us all the time - this should not disrupt the officer on bit. Keep. Your. Cool.

Well, I know I deal with aggressive people all the time, but I sure don't know about this guy. Can anyone point out to me where, in the video, any of the officers lost their, "cool?" I would consider yelling and screaming at the guy, calling him names and cursing at him, as well as maybe beating the crap out of him losing their cool. Instead, they were giving him loud verbal commands and using no apparent force other than the TASER.

So, screaming/swearing or not, this encounter should have been over with three sentences from the officer.

A) "Sir, per university rules and regs, I need you to show me your valid student ID or leave the library."
B) "I need to to show me your valid student ID or leave the library right now, or I'll have to take you into custody for trespassing and disturbing the peace."
C) "Sir, I am placing you under arrest." Then Mirandize him and be done with it. If he does anything but exactly what you tell him ("Sir, place your hands behind your back.") then....

Now and only now, if he/she resists (NOT if he simply fails to cooperate i.e. passive resistence), you may use force sufficient to subdue him to the point of having him cease to be a danger to the officer or bystanders.

Man, this guy has the answer. "How to Calm a Disorderly Subject in Three Sentences or Your Money Back!" He must work in Perfectville. The part about Mirandizing him as soon as you take him into custody really makes me wonder if this guy is actually a cop. While I realize that some Department's require this for some unknown reason, it is not required by the Miranda decision. Miranda is only required when the suspect is in custody or not free to leave and you are questioning him regarding a crime for which he is being charged. The notion that you should Mirandize someone as soon as you arrest them is ludicrous as it may cause you to lose voluntary statements made by the subject. It's really unnecessary when you are arresting someone on a warrant for, say, failing to pay a parking ticket. You aren't going to interview them about why they didn't pay, so there is no need for Miranda. Some people watch too much TV.

That's pretty simple stuff, folks. Basically, never be the first to use force, but when you do - do it quickly and overwhelmingly then STOP when he's restrained. You are a trained professional who owns the situation and NOT a street brawler.

What kind of malarkey is "Never be the first to use force?" The rest of it is right, but that first part is dead wrong. If someone points a gun at me, I have to wait for them to fire before I can fire? What the hell? If someone runs from me, I can't tackle them?

I'll get to the rest of his post another time. In an ironic side note, after proclaiming that I have never used my TASER before, I finally had to use it tonight. We did a narcotics search warrant and one of the dealers went running out the back. We caught him after he fell while trying to get over a fence in the back yard. While he was on the ground, one of the other detectives tried to handcuff him but the guy kept pulling his hands away. I drive-stunned him on the back of his leg at which point the guy immediately placed his hands behind his back and said, "I'm done, I'm done." We got him handcuffed and found about 2 grams of coke ( a decent amount considering that a user amount is about .2 grams) and a similar amount of weed in his pocket. He was able to stand right up and walk back into the house under his own power. Inside the house were two loaded assault rifles.

If I haven't said it before, I more than likely would have handled this situation differently. I don't necessarily agree with how it was handled. The point I'm trying to make is that I was not there so I can't say for sure how I would have handled it. Additionally, I really don't think the cops involved have anything to worry about legally. Their department may try to do something to them because of the public outcry, but if they have a union, that will be taken care of. Hell, even Stern said he didn't disagree with the first TASING.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

2. Use of the TASER (R) is also allowed in instances of passive resistance when the officer reasonably believes that the subject's resistance will escalate, thereby placing the officer, offender or another in jeopardy.

Come on now, did you honestly miss that bold part?
It's specifically not a tool used to force someone to stand up.

General rules for any controlled encounter (one where you aren't in danger from the get go) include finding out what the issue is, telling the subject what he/she needs to do, and explaining what will happen if they do not.

... They did tell the subject numerous times what he needs to do (Stand up) and what will happen if he does not (He will be TASED).

The person, according to your own rules, does not need to stand up. Or, at the very least, they cannot be tased for refusing to do so.

Can anyone point out to me where, in the video, any of the officers lost their, "cool?" ... other than the TASER.

Question answers itself. Next!

So, screaming/swearing or not, this encounter should have been over with three sentences from the officer.

A) "Sir, per university rules and regs, I need you to show me your valid student ID or leave the library."
B) "I need to to show me your valid student ID or leave the library right now, or I'll have to take you into custody for trespassing and disturbing the peace."
C) "Sir, I am placing you under arrest." Then Mirandize him and be done with it. If he does anything but exactly what you tell him ("Sir, place your hands behind your back.") then....

Now and only now, if he/she resists (NOT if he simply fails to cooperate i.e. passive resistence), you may use force sufficient to subdue him to the point of having him cease to be a danger to the officer or bystanders.

Man, this guy has the answer. "How to Calm a Disorderly Subject in Three Sentences or Your Money Back!" He must work in Perfectville.

What is so horribly, laughably unreasonable with taking those three simple steps in The Case of the Missing Library Card?

Perhaps it's not required at UCLA, but it sure as hell is reasonable. And I think by now it's become clear that using the most reasonable response is the entire point of being a police officer.

The part about Mirandizing him as soon as you take him into custody really makes me wonder if this guy is actually a cop. ... The notion that you should Mirandize someone as soon as you arrest them is ludicrous as it may cause you to lose voluntary statements made by the subject.

He didn't say anything about "immediately". He said "after they are under arrest" - which is the correct procedure.

What kind of malarkey is "Never be the first to use force?" The rest of it is right, but that first part is dead wrong. If someone points a gun at me, I have to wait for them to fire before I can fire? What the hell? If someone runs from me, I can't tackle them?

He already adressed that as active resistance, which includes attempted escape and brandishing a firearm:
"... if he/she resists (NOT if he simply fails to cooperate i.e. passive resistence), you may use force sufficient to subdue him to the point of having him cease to be a danger to the officer or bystanders."
This also happens to be exactly what your rules say to do.
It's clear to me that this guy is following the rules far more correctly.

I'm glad that you would have handled the situation differently (and presumably better) but you've just confirmed what we've been saying all along:

That the guy had excessive force inflicted upon him as a direct result of officers breaking the rules of conduct.
Your rulebook says so.

It's even more obvious that they've failed at their jobs.

 

[Tyguy]

That the guy had excessive force inflicted upon him as a direct result of officers breaking the rules of conduct.

I would'nt say they broke the rules as much as maybe stretched them. I think its more of a PR problem then a violation of the policy and thats why you wont see them punished....

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I would'nt say they broke the rules as much as maybe stretched them.

So, when the rules say:
-you can only apply force to those who actively resist or who threaten to actively resist
and
-you apply force to someone who is doing neither of those things
that's not breaking the rules?

And, when the rules say:
-use an amount of force that is reasonable under the circumstances
and
-you jump straight to grabbing and tasing, in response to a missing library card
that's not breaking the rules?

Clearly you shouldn't be interpreting the rules.

 

[zleppelin]

Use of the TASER (R) is also allowed in instances of passive resistance when the officer reasonably believes that the subject's resistance will escalate, thereby placing the officer, offender or another in jeopardy.

Come on now, did you honestly miss that bold part?
It's specifically not a tool used to force someone to stand up.

It's up the officer then. Whatever *he believes* is likely to happen is up to him, not up to you or anyone else. And judging by what we saw in that video, it wasn't unreasonable for the officer to think this individual would escalate his verbal aggression into something more serious.

 

[Tyguy]

So, when the rules say:
-you can only apply force to those who actively resist or who threaten to actively resist
and
-you apply force to someone who is doing neither of those things
that's not breaking the rules?

And, when the rules say:
-Use an amount of force that is reasonable to the circumstances
and
-you jump straight to grabbing and tasing, in response to a missing library card
that's not breaking the rules?

Clearly you shouldn't be interpreting the rules.

You really have to stop being so hostile mecha...if you disagree, then do so.....

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm not being hostile. I'm saying, clearly, that you should not support needless breaches of law.
That's only hostile if you are deeply hurt by the idea that you should not support needless breaches of law.

Also, officers are specifically prohibited from assuming a worst-case scenario like violence based on nothing more than the fact that the guy was loud.
The officers clearly understood that the guy wasn't even attempting to stand.

 

[zleppelin]

It appears that the use of the Taser was appropriate in this case:

UCLA's police rules allow officers to use Tasers on suspects engaging in passive resistance, which is what police said 23-year-old senior Mostafa Tabatabainejad was doing last week.

Tabatabainejad was repeatedly stunned with a Taser after he refused to show his student ID card to officers, and, according to authorities, wouldn't leave Powell Library, went limp and asked others to join his resistance.
...........

UCLA police are allowed to use Tasers on passive resisters as "a pain compliance technique," Assistant Chief Jeff Young said last week. Officers can use the weapons after considering the potential injury to police and to the suspect, as well as the level of the suspect's resistance and the need for a prompt resolution.

Also Tuesday, the lawyer Tabatabainejad hired last week, Stephen Yagman, said he was no longer representing the student.

It's settled then.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/l...taser22nov22,1,6338955.story?page=1&track=rss

 

[CptStern]

lol it would have been cheaper just to fire him

UCLA police purchased 16 Taser stun guns two years ago, at a cost of nearly $800 each, said Nancy Greenstein, UCLA's director of police community services. The Daily Bruin, the student newspaper, reported at the time that police said the purchase was made to reduce injuries and prevent lawsuits.

The purchase came about a year after Terrence Duren, the UCLA police officer who used the Taser on the student last week, used a gun in October 2003 to shoot and wound a homeless man who had been in a campus study hall room.

I'm sensing a pattern here

 

[Absinthe]

It appears that the use of the Taser was appropriate in this case:



It's settled then.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/l...taser22nov22,1,6338955.story?page=1&track=rss

That's quite disheartening. What took place may have been appropriate in sheer legal terms, but ethically this was despicable.

 

[Aenama]

could you explain why?


No pun intended,I just want to understand why you think this was wrong.

 

[Absinthe]

could you explain why?


No pun intended,I just want to understand why you think this was wrong.

Jesus Christ, all you would have to do is click on any page of this topic.

And where's the pun?

 

[Aenama]

I thought you might think Im just asking to annoy you




;(

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Alright, now that the official legality has been cleared up (which doesn't change the fact that most folks (including hapless, who is a police officer) were arguing, for the last 17 pages, that the actions were legal, under misinterpretations of laws that specifically call the actions illegal) the topic becomes whether such action against passive resistors should be illegal in UCLA and everywhere.

There is a reason that most places don't allow this action and why there is such an outrage. "Pain compliance technique" is another word for torture. (And yes, hap I know that you already condone torture. But, if I remember correctly, you only condone it when it happens overseas to non-americans.)

Sometimes this is necessary, such as against an active resistor where there is a real danger. In the case of passive resistance, there is no such thing, rendering the application of extreme pain heavy-handed. This special law makes UCLA comparatively barbaric when contrasted with places without it.

I can honestly think of no logical reason to torture passive resistors, other than to make work easier for police.
Not safer. Just "easier".
The fact that something is easier does not make it moral.

 

[Hapless]

It appears that the use of the Taser was appropriate in this case:



It's settled then.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/l...taser22nov22,1,6338955.story?page=1&track=rss

I rest my case. It's what I've been saying all along.