Within Reason?

Xnapalmxmorningx · Post by **Xnapalmxmorningx** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:27 pm

Has anyone else seen this yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyvrqcxNIFs

Is it just me or did things get taken too far?

Putaro · Post by **Putaro** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:45 pm

I just found that video from a different direction.

I thought the cops were way out of line. Then, UCLA's assistant chief goes on and says that "If he was able to walk out of here, I think he was OK"

All he did was object to them touching him and then they zapped him. After that, it's unclear whether he was going limp intentionally or becaused he had just been tasered. In either case, if someone is passively resisting, tasering them is not a reasonable use of force in my book.

I think the US really needs a nationwide civics lesson. There's so many cops and other government officials out there who think that they are rulers and that any resistance to their rule is illegal. And there's a lot of citizens who support that idea.

Here's another one where a cop goes nuts with his taser. The cops got a noise complaint and when the band didn't shut down the music immediately (it's possible they couldn't hear him) he jumped on stage and then tasered the guitar player. After that he tasers a bunch of other people in the audience.

http://www.stereogum.com/archives/003687.html

Fnyunj · Post by **Fnyunj** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:25 pm

Germany got a nationwide civics lesson in the 1938-1943 timeframe. It's the US's turn pretty soon. . .

Swordsman3003 · Post by **Swordsman3003** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:05 pm

HOLY FUCKING SHIT AMERICAN KIDS ARE FASCIST!! LOOK AT THE COMMENTS BELOW THE VIDEO!

Indigo Violent · Post by **Indigo Violent** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:41 pm

I love the comments that talk about "liberal kids" getting what they deserve. I know I certainly object to receiving electric shocks at the hands of law enforcement personnel because I believe in maintaing a social safety net and minimising the use of military force.

RavenxDrake · Post by **RavenxDrake** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:54 am

And here's where I step in and be the badguy.

I can't condemn what the cops did. I don't know if they were RIGHT in doing it, but I certainly can't say they were in the wrong. Why? Because I couldn't see CRAP at the begining before he was tazered the first time. The camera toteing student didn't run up and get close to the action until after that first incident.

You can't see what the student was doing, but I can clearly hear him screaming(very loudly) and in a beligerent tone. I have no idea if he made a sudden move that the cops interpreted as intended violence or what, but he was deffinintely NOT co-operating. The proper response to a police officer asking you to leave the building when you're tresspassing is "Yes sir." not "Don't fucking touch me."

He's certainly well enough off after being tazed the first time to start spouting santimonious "Here's your patriot act" bullshit. Regardless of whether the initial taze was "justified" I don't see a problem with any other attempts. He continued to struggle with the police, refused to co-operate, and was tazed because of it.

If anything, It was BECAUSE of the crowd of onlookers forming up into mob behind them that was pressing them into action. They're trying to subdue a criminal(yes, he's a criminal, he's tresspassing and resisting arrest) with 30+ people breathing over thier shoulders going "Give us your badge number!" "Stop that!" etc. They were trying to get him out, and he's busy egging the crowd on like he's going to incite a riot. It's ridiculous to ascribe him any ammount of leeway in how he's being treated, because he's acting like a criminal.

Putaro · Post by **Putaro** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:14 am

Well, he's not trespassing.

UCLA has a policy that only students are allowed in the libraries after 11:00 PM. To enforce this they do ID checks. He is (by all accounts I've seen) a UCLA student but he either did not have his ID or declined to show it. Some people have speculated that he thought he was being singled out for an ID check because he is Iranian.

In any case, he is a UCLA student and he is allowed in the library after 11:00 PM. He simply was not able to prove it.

He wasn't inciting a riot. The police were inciting a riot by abusing someone with their tasers. If the police weren't being so militant the students in the library would have just ignored him.

Not every disobedience or disrespect of a police officer should be met with violence. They have plenty of tools in their arsenal to punish people through the system.

In a free society, "Yes sir" is not the only allowable response to a police officer.

Putaro · Post by **Putaro** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:55 am

Since I'm frothing at the mouth about police powers this evening, I've been bouncing around the web.

I found this http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Arts/ ... ?oid=86694 account of an abuse of police power and a local sheriff who fully understands his obligations in a free society and his responsibilities. A bad situation occurred but the guy in charge is cleaning it up with a good attitude.

Read it and learn about the difference between police with bad attitudes and police with good attitudes.

Sheriff Vasquez of Pinal County, Arizona, doesn't think that calling the police "Gestapo" is a legitimate reason for an officer to slam someone into a wall and handcuff him.

Foolosophy · Post by **Foolosophy** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:07 am

fnyunj wrote:Germany got a nationwide civics lesson in the 1938-1943 timeframe. It's the US's turn pretty soon. . .

though, looking at current events in politics, we do not seem to have learned our lession, yet...

Swordsman3003 · Post by **Swordsman3003** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:08 am

Even if he was making a scene, even if he was technically trespassing by not having his ID, those circumstances are an absurd reason to electrocute someone!

Depending on the settings, tasers are supposed to be remarkably painful, and this kid wasn't in any position to harm the students or the officers. Tasers have caused almost 150 deaths since they've started to be used by law enforcement, and should be used only in a circumstance that warrants an extreme use of force. Let me explain:

I do think that it is a better idea to tase somebody than beat them up with a nightstick or something. But was that a circumstance where you'd beat the shit out of someone with one of those? I think that a taser should be used only in an equivalent situation. It seems that police are using them liberally because they don't leave visible damage.

Xnapalmxmorningx · Post by **Xnapalmxmorningx** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:22 am

Isn't the point of a taser to stun a subject so that they can be cuffed easily and then moved in a timely manner?

I think the crowd gathering didn't help the situation. The police had to keep their eyes on a crowd and not just the lone suspect.

Swordsman3003 · Post by **Swordsman3003** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:47 am

Well c'mon...if there was some kid yelling with a blood curdling scream ever few minutes I'd come over to see what was going on.

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:54 am

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, people need to realize the postion that police officers take when they put on that badge.

You typically have a guy or girl with a college education, a family, and the desire to protect others. Once they put on that uniform and badge though, they suddenly become the enemy. They are marked out as a target for violence, insult, ridicule, and hatred, even though they are tasked with keeping the peace and protecting the lives and property of everyone, even the people who insult them.

Being a cop is fucking hard work. The pay sucks, its physically demanding, there is a serious social stigma attached to the job, and your life is on the line every single day. I've had several friends who's parents were officers or who are officers themselves, and they tend to be some of the most stable, caring, and compassionate people you could ever meet. They work hard and never get much thanks. Still, they put on the badge every day.

Now, do individuals abuse their power and authority? Hell yes.
Should officers ignore insults and be respectful to your rights? Again, yes.
Did this guy need a good tasing? Who knows.

Like RavenXDrake said before, the video doesn't show the events leading up to, or the first tasing. All we see is a big group of people surrounding the scene, and a limp body being dragged away. The kid could have been reaching for something, he could have made the attempt to strike the officer, of the officer could have been a racist fuck who needs to be kicked the fuck off the force.

As for Swordize's assertion that tasers are bad because there have been 150 deaths (where? and since when exactly?), I would say they have saved more lives than they have taken. With a non-lethal tool like a taser, the police may be a bit more anxious to use it, but it keeps their hands off their guns and it keeps their hands off their nightsticks. Being shot and being beaten with a club definately cause more pain and more lasting damage than the taser.

Kingofthemorlocks · Post by **Kingofthemorlocks** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:13 am

A similar discussion appeared at another forum I belong to, a few months ago:

http://gagg.geneseo.edu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1394

Swordsman3003 · Post by **Swordsman3003** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:05 am

It's an ACLU report...that said around 150 people have died from tasers. Do you want a link? And yes...it is indeed the ACLU so take it with a grain of salt.

Vaevictus · Post by **Vaevictus** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:40 am

A local guy around here ( Central Florida ) got tazed and died as a result. Whether he deserved it or not, i'm not sure. I don't care.

Granted, he was coked up.

I vote we go back to the good-ole-days where you'd conk someone with the nightstick and toss them into a pillory.

RavenxDrake · Post by **RavenxDrake** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:47 am

putaro wrote:Well, he's not trespassing.

UCLA has a policy that only students are allowed in the libraries after 11:00 PM. To enforce this they do ID checks. He is (by all accounts I've seen) a UCLA student but he either did not have his ID or declined to show it. Some people have speculated that he thought he was being singled out for an ID check because he is Iranian.

In any case, he is a UCLA student and he is allowed in the library after 11:00 PM. He simply was not able to prove it.

Potential for racism aside, he was indeed tresspassing. The established rules are that only students can be in the building after a certain time, and you must produce ID to that effect. When he declined or was unable, he was immediately tresspassing. He was in an area in violation of the rules established because he was unable to verify his need to be there.

It's exactly the same as if you bought tickets for a concert, but lost them, and went anyway. The second you step onto someone elses property, you are immediately bound to the rules and regulations they establish, so long as those rules are within the boundarys of the law. The rule is Only Students are allowed and you must be able to prove it. He couldn't prove it, therefore he was tresspassing.

All it takes is for the operator of an establishment to ask you to leave. Every second you spend not doing so you are without a doubt tresspassing.

He wasn't inciting a riot. The police were inciting a riot by abusing someone with their tasers. If the police weren't being so militant the students in the library would have just ignored him.

I disagree. The simply fact that he provoked the police to resort to any degree of force was enought to cause a riot. As Squidflakes has mentioned earlier, police are under the singular position of having to maintain peace, order, and safety under the scrutiny of a public who's grown up afraid of them. No matter how many police officers each day go out of thier way to handle themselves with decorum and courtsey, they are all held in comparison to the worst officers.

The students don't register people like police officers are forced too. To the students they saw 3-5 armed, trained, men using a weapon on an "unarmed" student. The officers on hand, however, have to consider the possiblity that he might be armed with a hidden weapon, on drugs, mentally unstable, or just inherently violent. Regardless of whether he would have left on his own or not, he was struggling with the police and beciming increaseingly loud and beligerent, signs which point to a chance of violent escalation.

I've worked college security before(all I did was check ID's as people come in the building, if we had anything serious, I called the campus police). I've been punched square in the face for asking an intoxicated student to see his ID. I know for a fact that there are people who immediately jump to the conclusion that they're under suspicion the second anyone asks them to verify thier right to be in a location. The fact that the police were called to escort the student off of the premises by the school representives operating the building points to the fact that he was not going to just leave quietly, else he most certainly would have done so prior.

Not every disobedience or disrespect of a police officer should be met with violence. They have plenty of tools in their arsenal to punish people through the system.

This is not about "punishment", unless you're ascribing some vicious streak to the cops that they needed to inflct pain on this student to feel good about themselves. The fact is that taser technology IS the new tool in the arsenal. It means that, when faced with an angry, violent, and/or completely unco-operative detainee they no longer have to result to a flying body tackle and beating him with nightsticks to subdue him. Tasers, on the whole, are safe except in very rare cases, and do little to no permenant damage. They don't "incapacitate" the subject for more than a few seconds at most. It's not like they're knocked unconscious, and they're not left writhing in agony like they would be from pepper-spray.

In a free society, "Yes sir" is not the only allowable response to a police officer.

Oh please. You should know good and damn well that what I mean is the proper response to a polite request from the police is compliance. When asked to leave the premises, you had better do it. Whether that's "Yes sir," and leaving, "Yeah, fine," and leaving, or even "Damn cops," and leaving, the key aspect of this is complying with the officer's request. He was refusing to comply, and becomeing increasingly verbally agressive.

Once the police have arrived and informed you of their intention to escort you from the premises, you no longer have the right to choose the time and method of your leaving. You leave with them, how they say and when they say. That's not facism, that's courtsey for law enforcement officials.

Swordsman3003 wrote: Even if he was making a scene, even if he was technically trespassing by not having his ID, those circumstances are an absurd reason to electrocute someone!

Depending on the settings, tasers are supposed to be remarkably painful, and this kid wasn't in any position to harm the students or the officers. Tasers have caused almost 150 deaths since they've started to be used by law enforcement, and should be used only in a circumstance that warrants an extreme use of force. Let me explain:

So you Know he wasn't in a position to harm anyone? That he didn't have a gun or knife in his backpack? That he wasn't stalking someone on campus that happened to be in the building? That he wasn't suffering from delusions and bringing in a pipe-bomb cause the gobblins told him to?

Regardless of that, the police have to act in the best interests of everyone involved. What people seem to forget is, that includes the officers themselves. They have to analyise the situation, assess the potential danger to the suspect, the surrounding bystanders, and themselves. If he communicated any degree of threat to any of those groups, as angry and antagonistic as he was acting, the police are well within thier rights to subdue him with force appropriate to the situation, which they did.

As far as "electocuting" him, please. I'm well aware that tazer's are dangerous. There is no way to subdue a human being that isn't. But the fact remains that a few mileseconds of electric shock are far more humane than being maced or clouted over the head with a stick.

As for the possibility of thier causing death(I'd like to see some hard figures on that from a trustworthy source myself, at least as far as numbers go), I certainly believe it possible. I've seen a paramedic accidently stop his own heart when the dumbass was goofing around with the Defib paddles, so it's entirely possible for their electicity to stop a heart, especially if the tazer is used imporperly (by "Improperly" I mean applied constantly over a 30 second or greater time frame, applied in excess of one at a time, or applied repeadedly in a very short time-frame). But they remain a "Less lethal" means of response, and an effective means to subdue potentially dangerous suspects.

I do think that it is a better idea to tase somebody than beat them up with a nightstick or something. But was that a circumstance where you'd beat the shit out of someone with one of those? I think that a taser should be used only in an equivalent situation. It seems that police are using them liberally because they don't leave visible damage.

The police are using them "liberally" because they're effective and comaritively safe. The idea that they're being employed "because they don't leave visible damage" is almost as ludicrious and insulting to the vast majority of police officers as your insinuation that tazer's should become a substitute for the good old fashioned ass-whupping that they're used to handing out. The idea of equating a tasering with "beating the shit out of someone" is a pretty skewed evaluation of the power of a taser.

Major Maxillary · Post by **Major Maxillary** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:36 pm

How exactly do we know that all he did was say not to touch him?

he had to have done something to have get the campus cops called on him.

and I've known enough college brats to know not to trust their point of view without complete proof.

the comments fail to sway my opinion.

Trust me, when dealing with a crowd of unruly shits, it's best to drop the loudest ones right off the bat. it's not gestapo tactics, it's crowd control. only difference is that back in the day before tasers cops used nightsticks, and before that they used saps, which are very good for calming people down quick even when you don't even hit them.

plus, they were snotty college brats. not saying they got what they deserved, but they are, by nature, pissy, defiant, and like to paint authority in a negative light. just like their Maoist professors teach them to.

also, this is LA we're talking about, too; practically the nations capitol for antiestablishment parasites and terrible law enforcement officers.

Wilmo · Post by **Wilmo** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:43 pm

squidflakes wrote: The pay sucks

I hate to be defiant squiddy, but I dont know about UCLAPD but UCIPD pay starts around $52k, but I guess whether or not that sucks is entirely subjective.

Granted that Tasers are not always nonlethal, they one heck of lot less lethal than .40 S&W.

The story I heard is that he was asked to leave by CSOs ("community service officer" student security guards) he refused, the CSOs called the UCLAPD, the cops told him to leave, and *I heard* he started leaving and a cop grabbed his arm, he flipped out, dropped to the floor and yelled "dont touch me" or something, then they tased him, which is around where the video picks up.

also, try a quick news.google search; here's a link

also, major, if you dont like california, dont live here, oh noes!

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:53 pm

Yea.. people wonder why LA is such a hot bed of police/civilian tensions.

The cops are more corrupt, the kids don't trust the cops and act out, the cops get violent in response, the kids get worse, the cops get worse.. its a vicious fucking circle.

Though Major, I gotta say... there are very few college professors who follow that Right wing fabricated stereo-type of the Communist Manifesto thumping Marxist, Maoist, Lenninist, hippie, drug-addict, freakazoids.

I find that particular propaganda to be of the most insidious sort, painting the whole higher education system as some sort of Leftist mind control factory, and instilling fear of intelligence and learning in the general populace. I fact, I can't think of a more idiotic thing to tell people. They tried that in Europe in the Middle Ages, and look what happened.