UCLA student tasered by campus police for not showing ID

[koleah]

UCLA student tasered by campus police for not showing ID
Video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W3CdNgoC0cE

Story:
http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38958


Somethings seriously wrong. Yes you can argue he should have left, he should have had his ID, etc. And no, obviously one story about what happened won't give the full extent of his actions with the officers before the tasering. But he was headed out.

Did the police really need to taser him? Especially more than once?

Please check it out for yourself.

[koleah]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/16/student.stunned.ap/index.html

Mostafa Tabatabainejad was the guy. I wonder if he would have been tased if he'd been John Smith.

Anyway, its interesting to compare the events in the Bruin article to the events in the CNN article.

Kolea

[Glickman]

i say they didnt taser him enough <_<

it seems that he was walking out until an officer grabbed his arm where he stopped in his tracks and wouldnt move.

seems like something exactly a 5 year old would do...

people with disrespect for the people that one day may save their lives or the lives of their loved ones should have a good one upside the head.


its like the problems i see people giving the TSA nearly every other weekend when i fly. people give the screeners a hard time for no purpose other than just to give them a hard time. they are they're to protect your sorry *** so let them do their job, and be thankful we have a program like TSA in place.

[chip08]

What kind of camera phone is he using? Its got pretty sweet resolution.

I would have tazed him, he pitched a fit, and was non compliant.
And he cried...

[RabidFuzzle]

Coming from one who has been on the recieving end of a taser I would have to say that the UCLA cops were way out of line. Especially due to the fact that their reason for the later taserings in the video was that he wouldn't stand up. I sure as hell couldn't satnd up on demand for at least a good 5 minutes after I was hit. Now don't get me wrong here. I support the use of tasers as a substitution for deadly force and have been a bit disgusted at the lawsuits coming from people that have been tased. They should be happy they were tased and not shot for resisting the officers in the first place. In this case however the abuse is blatant.

Fuzz :bounce:

P.S. If you have rude or derogatory things to say to me about my opinions please feel free to e-mail me as there is no reason to expose the forum to that kind of trash.

[SCpoloRicker]

Good.

/Trojan

[Lohman446]

Life lesson

The people carrying tasers may not deserve respect (I think they do) but you dang sure better give it to them.

[beam]

Gordy was visibly upset by the incident and said other students were also disturbed.

"It's a shock that something like this can happen at UCLA," she said. "It was unnecessary what they did."
-------------------------------------------

No kidding it's a shock.

[geekwarrior]

so um, why wouldnt he leave? i don't think he should have been tasered more than once, but why not listen when your told to do something?

probably the best thing that will ever happen to him though, seeing as he'll probably win millions. I would take a couple times being tasered for a couple million. Although I would rather go the route the firefighter did here in CA. Couple of his buddies put dog food in his dinner as a prank(his nick name was big dawg) and he sued the city for 10 and settled for 2.7 yay tax payer dollars.

[beam]

I couldn't watch the video earlier because I was at work, but now having seen it...that just ticks me off.

The guy "played to the crowd" and as soon as he saw they were on his side, he wasn't going anywhere.

Why would anyone scream at the top of their lungs like that at the authorities? Especially in a computer lab? :tard:

[koleah]

Why would anyone scream at the top of their lungs like that at the authorities? Especially in a computer lab?

10's of thousands of volts coursing through one's body? Lots of pain? Being told to get up after being tased? Repeatedly? Frustration? Anger?

K

[beam]

10's of thousands of volts coursing through one's body? Lots of pain? Being told to get up after being tased? Repeatedly? Frustration? Anger?

K

No. The screaming happens long before the tasing begins. In fact, the first words in the video are "DON'T...TOUCH...MEEEEEEE!"

[grEnAlEins]

What other options did the officers have? They could not deploy their OC Spray (or CN or Triple Action, depending on what their department issues) because they were in an enclosed area. Deployment of deadly force is out of the question. They could have deployed ASPs... Given that they were in a crowd, which was likely to become unruly (this was in LA after all), the officers needed to gain control of the situation as quickly as possible. Suspect was non-compliant, so he got tased, end of story. Would you rather see the suspect beaten with ASPs? I think not.

EDIT: They could have utilized a choke hold too... not really though. They could have physically subdued the individual, but that would be seen as far more brutal. "Six officers jumped him, cry, complain, etc"

/"I fought the law and the... law won"

[Pacifist_Farmer]

You can't tell much from the movie, although your right it does have really nice quality. It seems he was Tasered 3 times, the whole time he was being instructed to stand up. I see two reasons, one unfamiliarity with their tools, and the fact that they had 30 or 40 college students surrounding them complaining of abuse of power. Standing up after being "incapacitated" seems unrealistic. I would never want to be in either the kids shoes or the Policemen's.

We can only speculate that he deserved it, I would definitely say that the kid in the white shirt at the end deserved to get shocked, Police officers have more important things to worry about in those situations than what a bystander thinks of someone else's civil rights being/or not being violated.

He will get lots of money.

[grEnAlEins]

It seems he was Tasered 3 times, the whole time he was being instructed to stand up. I see two reasons, one unfamiliarity with their tools, and the fact that they had 30 or 40 college students surrounding them complaining of abuse of power. Standing up after being "incapacitated" seems unrealistic.

1) Officers do need to get certified to carry the Taser, most departments do mandate extensive training before an officer is allowed to carry.

2) The taser hardly incapacitates. Watch any training videos and the officers are able to get right back up. I have not been tased yet, I go through the academy either next year or the year after depending on what I wanna do school wise, but everyone I know who has been hit says it hurts like heck, but you are able to regain composure and control of yourself after the current is stopped. Granted they did not ride a full five second cycle, they only went till they dropped plus a little more (around 2-2.5 seconds is what I was told).


I would never want to be in either the kids shoes or the Policemen's.

QFT, but for some reason I am trying to place myself in the officers' shoes


We can only speculate that he deserved it, I would definitely say that the kid in the white shirt at the end deserved to get shocked, Police officers have more important things to worry about in those situations than what a bystander thinks of someone else's civil rights being/or not being violated.

I wouldn't say he deserved it outright, he just left the officers no reasonable means to regain control of the situation barring the deployment of the Taser. As far as the other kid goes, he should have been taught respect during his upbringing. It looked to me as if the officer exercised a great degree of self control there. That situation was handled with the utmost profesionalism, or at least it looks that way from where I sit.


He will get lots of money.

Gosh I hope not, but you've likely hit the nail right on the head here... :(

[$tevo]

i say they didnt taser him enough <_<

it seems that he was walking out until an officer grabbed his arm where he stopped in his tracks and wouldnt move.

seems like something exactly a 5 year old would do...

people with disrespect for the people that one day may save their lives or the lives of their loved ones should have a good one upside the head.


its like the problems i see people giving the TSA nearly every other weekend when i fly. people give the screeners a hard time for no purpose other than just to give them a hard time. they are they're to protect your sorry *** so let them do their job, and be thankful we have a program like TSA in place.

i second that..

[Steelrat]

Tasers are NON-LETHAL tools, and there appropriate use is to counter active or passive resistance. That includes actively resisting the officers, or just passively resisting them (like he was doing, just hanging there are making it difficult to move him).

The officers had every right to put their hands on his arm to escort him out. It's probably the lowest level of physical control, and causes no harm. The idiot himself decided to make a scene of it by shouting and carrying on, and brough the eventual tasering on himself. As for the "medical condition" line, you wouldn't believe how often cops hear that sort of crap. It's like people complaining that their handcuffs are too tight. Gee, sorry, but they aren't built for comfort. If you have a medical condition, maybe you should just let the officers escort you out without engaging in any sort of moronic grandstanding.

It's ironic that the centers of higher learning produce some of the greatest stupidity.

"Here's your Frigging Patriot Act!!!!" What an idiot.

[grEnAlEins]

"Here's your Frigging Patriot Act!!!!" What an idiot.
:spit_take I missed that the first time...

[Recon by Fire]

I would have tazed him, the guy with the camera phone, and you for being upset about it. Maybe the guy next to you for heck of it too.


:cool:

[Steelrat]

:spit_take I missed that the first time...

The stupid part is, the incident had NOTHING to do with the Patriot Act. The moron might has well have shouted about the drug benefit plan legislation, as it would have made just as much sense.

I hope the department backs the officers up.

[grEnAlEins]

I hope the department backs the officers up.
Me too, but in LA IDK how well it'll go. My bet is that they'll settle it out of court, so the officers will get documentation in their files and maybe a public censure... :(
And I know darn well that the Pat Act was not relevent in the situation, I laughed so loud the guys down the hall came over to see what was so funny... :D I can't believe I missed that the first time through.

[Altimas]

They shoulda tased him Once and Drug him out. I counted 4 times he got Tased and thats a little much imo. Sorry I think its a little abusive just for student ID, its required at my University too but I forgot my ID all the time.

[tropical_fishy]

I'm talking to my friend at UCLA now; there's a rally tomorrow about "justice."

Interesting. I shall find out tomorrow how that went.

[kosmo]

I love being one of the few lucky enough to be impervious to tazing. Damn, I cant wait to be a drunk and unruly college student.

[Flamebo]

You don't need to use a Taser to drag someone out of the building against their will. Two of the cops could have just grabbed under the arms and pulled him out. Any responsible officers would have done just that, and recognized that this is gross misuse of authority. I'd fight this until I had their badges and my tuition covered, especially at UCLA. That's screwed up.

[grEnAlEins]

They shoulda tased him Once and Drug him out. I counted 4 times he got Tased and thats a little much imo. Sorry I think its a little abusive just for student ID, its required at my University too but I forgot my ID all the time.
He was still a non-compliant suspect though. As I said above, the officers looked to be in a crowded library in close quarters with said suspect and others. If he was asked to present ID to a school official (I bet the coppers don't hang at the library, that's what 7/11 and Dunkin Donuts is for :p ), he was most likely causing an issue. The police had to be called because the individual was a problem that needed to be removed (again, I assume that the police were not on scene for the entire time that the event transpired, although neither was I :rolleyes: ). He was asked politely to vacate. He refused. Officer deploys what is known as a "come along" hold. Suspect becomes belligerent. Officers deliver further verbal instruction. Suspect is non-compliant still. Taser (or other electronic control device, I could not clearly see it) was deployed as the only feasible means of gaining control quickly and safely. It was re-deployed after suspect demonstrated complete lack of will to comply even after said device was deployed. Job well done, they gained custody of unruly suspect without causing injury to suspect or bystanders. Yes, they hurt the suspect, but hurt is not equal to injured. Any pain that the gentleman may have felt were well deserved. This situation was a total success, nobody was injured and order was restored/maintained.

Note: I am not certified or certifiable in the state of CA, but I am working towards a certification, and have been educated--thoroughly I might add--on the subject of use of force/less-lethal munitions. The above statement is based on what I was taught.

[grEnAlEins]

I love being one of the few lucky enough to be impervious to tazing. Damn, I cant wait to be a drunk and unruly college student.
:rofl: Are you really? I wish I was you... I get to get tased soon :dance: , part of the certification in these parts :(


You don't need to use a Taser to drag someone out of the building against their will. Two of the cops could have just grabbed under the arms and pulled him out. Any responsible officers would have done just that, and recognized that this is gross misuse of authority. I'd fight this until I had their badges and my tuition covered, especially at UCLA. That's screwed up.
Not so... They were in tight quarters. It is quite dificult to gain control of a non-compliant individual, let alone without space to utilize. What makes it worse is the limited space the officers had was also filled with innocent (non-officer/non-suspect) parties. The officers had to resolve the situation quickly, and they did. Good job officers :clap:
Authority was misused?!?!?! Where? Force was not misused either.

[Steelrat]

You don't need to use a Taser to drag someone out of the building against their will. Two of the cops could have just grabbed under the arms and pulled him out. Any responsible officers would have done just that, and recognized that this is gross misuse of authority. I'd fight this until I had their badges and my tuition covered, especially at UCLA. That's screwed up.

Why does everyone think the police have to play fair? Why should they have to wrestle with him, and thereby get their firearms within his reach, when they can just tase him a few times? And police seldon grab someone under the arms and pull them, just for that reason. If he didn't get the tase, he'd probably have gotten some nasty pressure-point control, or thrown to the ground and cuffed.

[Steelrat]

They shoulda tased him Once and Drug him out. I counted 4 times he got Tased and thats a little much imo. Sorry I think its a little abusive just for student ID, its required at my University too but I forgot my ID all the time.

Hey, keep being non-compliant, and keep getting tased. And they didn't tase him for not having ID. They tased him for non-compliance. If you are told to leave campus because you were caught without ID, I'd suggest you comply peacefully, and if the offers want to grab your arm and escort you out, let them.

Idiot deserved what he got.

[billybob_81067]

Good lord what a :tard:! Completely deserved everything that he got and probably should have been punched in the face a few times as well just to even out the score.

[PyRo]

Me too, but in LA IDK how well it'll go. My bet is that they'll settle it out of court, so the officers will get documentation in their files and maybe a public censure... :(
And I know darn well that the Pat Act was not relevent in the situation, I laughed so loud the guys down the hall came over to see what was so funny... :D I can't believe I missed that the first time through.
They didn't taze him for not having a student ID. They tazed him for refuseing to cooperate and to gain control of the situation in a manor least likely to cause injury.

[Gitaroo Man]

Maybe he deserved it the first time but after that it was just crazy. For one, I'm not sure but maybe he couldn't move very well or get up because he had been tazered. And Secondly, how the hell can two cops not DRAG him out of there...it's not that hard...you tazered him once...then drag. No need to do it multiple times.

[Rudz]

idk but i heard that taser go of atleast 3 times..the idiot should have just left, heck its LAPD, luckily they didnt just shoot and ask questions later... :shooting:

[Lenny]

I actuall found that funny :spit_take

...is that bad?

[bornl33t]

Tasers are NON-LETHAL tools, and there appropriate use is to counter active or passive resistance. That includes actively resisting the officers, or just passively resisting them (like he was doing, just hanging there are making it difficult to move him).

The officers had every right to put their hands on his arm to escort him out. It's probably the lowest level of physical control, and causes no harm. The idiot himself decided to make a scene of it by shouting and carrying on, and brough the eventual tasering on himself. As for the "medical condition" line, you wouldn't believe how often cops hear that sort of crap. It's like people complaining that their handcuffs are too tight. Gee, sorry, but they aren't built for comfort. If you have a medical condition, maybe you should just let the officers escort you out without engaging in any sort of moronic grandstanding.

It's ironic that the centers of higher learning produce some of the greatest stupidity.

"Here's your Frigging Patriot Act!!!!" What an idiot.

"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and higher education positively fortifies it. "
Stephen Vizinczey

Especially in CA... what up with that state?

The officers where telling him to stand up before he was teasered the first time. He was clearly acting in defiance and was NOT "About to leave". 600 cool point will be deducted from the moron and given to the Officers

[Lohman446]

I'm talking to my friend at UCLA now; there's a rally tomorrow about "justice."

Interesting. I shall find out tomorrow how that went.


Ok class, we did fairly well in yesterdays lesson on "tasering"

Todays lesson, crowd dispercement (sp).

Ready the tear gas

[grEnAlEins]

Maybe he deserved it the first time but after that it was just crazy. For one, I'm not sure but maybe he couldn't move very well or get up because he had been tazered. And Secondly, how the hell can two cops not DRAG him out of there...it's not that hard...you tazered him once...then drag. No need to do it multiple times.
Have you ever tried to drag a non-compliant individual away while it tight quarters with them. Fitting an officer in the aisle along with the suspect is difficult enough, and want them to fit in such a tight space... seems logical :rolleyes:
They did try to use a come along hold, and suspect became belligerent. Officers then had to increase their use of force. Read the posts above yours, this was explained several times. Also the Taser does not permanently cripple the subject it is used on. I have not yet been Tased (I will soon as it is part of the certification process here), but I know people who have, and I have seen it happen. Bodily control is regained fairly quickly, like within seconds after the Tase cycle is stoped. This was also stated above.

[grEnAlEins]

They didn't taze him for not having a student ID. They tazed him for refuseing to cooperate and to gain control of the situation in a manor least likely to cause injury.
What I was getting at in that post was that the department will settle to avoid a messy trial, an expensive trial, and the (further) soiling of public image. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it is all money and politics. I do understand that the officers were more than justified to Tase, and I do fully comprehend why the Taser was deployed. Unfortunately the police in LA have a piss poor public image as it is (in most cases), and a trial would not benifit the department, nor would it benifit the officers (probably not anyways).

[DiRTyBuNNy]

to me the funniest part was the idiocy of the student body in the background asking for badge numbers and the information of the officers while they're trying to do their job. How about next time they're trying to take a BioChem test an officer just sits right next to them and starts asking them about their home life while they're trying to concentrate.

--Mr. DB

[billybob_81067]

Ok class, we did fairly well in yesterdays lesson on "tasering"

Todays lesson, crowd dispercement (sp).

Ready the tear gas

I lol-ed! :D

[ZEROte]

college students seem to think that because they are in an institution to better themself that it gives them the liberty to express themselves and show what they know. this whole dont touch me thing is First and only warning. We do not cuss on AO. Continue to do so will result in a temporary or permanant ban. Army if an officer of the law puts their hands on you its for a reason. and no matter what the police are always to blame. the kid could have been a fed up student who was planning a school shooting and these idiots are over here asking for badge numbers. the kid was begging for attention screaming stupidities like heres your patriot act. he is lucky they were peace officers and not real lapd. lapd would not have put up with that yelling.

[ZEROte]

this whole thing really just angered me. i hope the justice system comes through and doesnt award this kid a dime. as a matter of fact ucla should go right ahead and tell him he is no longer welcome. to me this kid just gave ucla a bad name.

[Remington]

A job well done in my opinion! It's a shame police officers don't get the kind of respect they deserve for doing the kind of job they do. :hail:

That kid doesn't even deserve a higher education; clearly it's just making him less intelligent. :rolleyes:

[grEnAlEins]

this whole thing really just angered me. i hope the justice system comes through and doesnt award this kid a dime. as a matter of fact ucla should go right ahead and tell him he is no longer welcome. to me this kid just gave ucla a bad name.
Unfortunately that is not the way this will play out politicaly :( The officers are probably screwed here, even though they've done nothing wrong. I just hope the department backs them, but as I said before, I bet they settle the case...

[DiRTyBuNNy]

somebody needs to create a meme for ytmnd.com with the "Here's your Patriot Act" whine...

--Mr. DB

[tribalman]

that could have gotten ugly real fast, especially when they were into the foyer. lots of angry "intelligent" students thinking they are in the right. /idiots. i think blame resides on both parties. but inital is on the student. 3 tazes is excessive, after they got him into the foyer, they could have just dragged him out. there was room. and you typically get the person outta there before they cause even more trouble. he already was playing to the crowd, so get him outta there. i've had people dragged outta my store before, there is enough room in a door way to drag people out. i think the student did that whole thing on purpose. trying to protest the patriot act or thought at least thought he was. i think he is going to try and play the race card (Mostafa Tabatabainejad, definatly not a typical white anglo-saxon name).

to everybody who ever tries the stupid "i pay taxes, you work for me" line(which i'm sure is running through everybody's in that computer lab brain), police funding is provided by property taxes. so no, little johny living in the dorms doesn't pay for his salary and isn't their "boss".


qft
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and higher education positively fortifies it. "
Stephen Vizinczey

[Armory]

Excessive force absolutely, I didn't see the guy twisting and turning (till he was tased) and scence I didn't hear exactly why they where attempting to detain him does that give them the right to tase the We do not cuss on AO. Repeat violations will result in a ban. Army out of some college kid. If he was standing there not moving he wasn't provoking the officers. When he failed to comply then they can detain him and drag him out but using a taser just to get someone to move when your asking for a freaking ID badge and there's 4 officers there? Come on...

[Lohman446]

He was not tasered for not having ID, quit trying to dramatize it. He was tasered for resisting a lawful order. You cannot figuratively flip off authority without repercussion. The officers could make the argument that he was trespassing and refused to leave - I am not sure on what rental rights one has in a dorm, but they surely did not beleive he had a right to be there.

[evildead420]

after the tazed him the time when people were going WTF and going out to the hall, i would of got the some of the students and beat the officers , seriously, that was way out of line from them, even though the student was being a little Do not cuss on AO. I will ban you if you do so again. Army, repeatin tazing that guy is uncalled for, they could of just dragged him. that video defently made me mad. :mad:

[geekwarrior]

after the tazed him the time when people were going WTF and going out to the hall, i would of got the some of the students and beat the officers ***. seriously, that was way out of line from them, even though the student was being a little *****, repeatin tazing that guy is uncalled for, they could of just dragged him. that video defently made me mad. :mad:


no you wouldnt have.

[Lohman446]

after the tazed him the time when people were going WTF and going out to the hall, i would of got the some of the students and beat the officers EDIT seriously, that was way out of line from them, even though the student was being a little EDIT, repeatin tazing that guy is uncalled for, they could of just dragged him. that video defently made me mad.


Good to see you have a respect for rules and authority....


Taser: Pretty well known risks to using one - very effective and range, allowing one to watch the rest of the crowd. Fairly quick.

Physical force: Swinging a baton probably is riskier to the suspect than a taser. His movement may cause you to hit soft areas. It is also less effective. It also puts your firearm in raech of suspect. It also requires more "engagement" than a taser, less watching the hostile crowd.

Im sorry, tell me again what the best tactical decision was once it was decided the suspect presented a threat?

[Flamebo]

Why does everyone think the police have to play fair? Why should they have to wrestle with him, and thereby get their firearms within his reach, when they can just tase him a few times? And police seldon grab someone under the arms and pull them, just for that reason. If he didn't get the tase, he'd probably have gotten some nasty pressure-point control, or thrown to the ground and cuffed.

Why do the police have to play fair?? I can't even comprehend what you might have intended by that statement. First of all, it's one guy and there were 3 "trained police officers" there, minimum. You're implying that they are incapable of handcuffing a person without causing a huge scene, which is entirely absurd. If he really *had* to be removed, cuff him first then drag him out and that would be that. There's no reason to screw around and argue and start ELECTROCUTING people in some sort of pissing match because they have a personal vendetta against someone for making their night not go as smoothly as they'd like. Personally, I'd take thrown to the ground and cuffed any day before getting tased, though I think even that would be unnecessary.

People die from TASERS, and they continued to use it on him after he said he had a medical condition. Police are trained to believe that the use of them is harmless and basically a notch above handcuffing a suspect. When compared to the use of live ammunition yes, it's much less lethal. However, to use it on a person non-violently resisting arrest is excessive force. The fact that they routinely use these things on children completely blows my mind.

That not enough for you? When other students requested the officers name and badge numbers, they simply started threatening to start tasing everyone that asked a question or challenged the idea that what they did was completely insane. If you ask a on-duty cop for their name and badge number, they are REQUIRED to give it to you without arguing. These police knew they were out of line. They were pissed off that they had to deal with "whiney" students that (god forbid) know their rights and that the cops overstepped their bounds. Had they known they were being taped by another student, they probably would have had the sense to deal with the situation in a more civil manner.

As to the Patriot Act comments, probably not the best argument to his situation, but after just after getting a few hundred thousand volts zapped through your system, I'd like to see you come up with a more coherent response. It is NOT used appropriately on someone passively resisting. If the kid say, threw a punch or grabbed for the cops gun, then zap his dumb butt. Since he did not, this was gross misuse of force.

Perhaps I'm biased. I know I have rights, and I won't hesitate to stand up for them if a police officer or anyone else decides they'd like to try and infringe on those rights. In my dealings with police officers, the majority are perfectly reasonable individuals and there's a handful of Flamebo, as you are one of the most senior members of AO, I expect better useage of communication skills. Armywho misinterpret their authority as power. I also attend Kent State University, which I think has a good handle on the idea of "excessive force". And as a college student, I believe that any person should have "the liberty to express themselves and show what they know", and can't understand the reasoning behind anyone who uses that statement like it's some sort of character flaw to believe in such liberties.

[geekwarrior]

Good to see you have a respect for rules and authority....


Taser: Pretty well known risks to using one - very effective and range, allowing one to watch the rest of the crowd. Fairly quick.

Physical force: Swinging a baton probably is riskier to the suspect than a taser. His movement may cause you to hit soft areas. It is also less effective. It also puts your firearm in raech of suspect. It also requires more "engagement" than a taser, less watching the hostile crowd.

Im sorry, tell me again what the best tactical decision was once it was decided the suspect presented a threat?


QFT



I also think most people arent familiar with the rules and the amount of latitude cops are given in this type of situation...I think most people would be suprised.

[Lohman446]

People die from TASERS, and they continued to use it on him after he said he had a medical condition. Police are trained to believe that the use of them is harmless and basically a notch above handcuffing a suspect. When compared to the use of live ammunition yes, it's much less lethal. However, to use it on a person non-violently resisting arrest is excessive force. The fact that they routinely use these things on children completely blows my mind.

People die (with medical conditons) from being handcuffed, and physical force. Poor argument.


That not enough for you? When other students requested the officers name and badge numbers, they simply started threatening to start tasing everyone that asked a question or challenged the idea that what they did was completely insane. If you ask a on-duty cop for their name and badge number, they are REQUIRED to give it to you without arguing. These police knew they were out of line. They were pissed off that they had to deal with "whiney" students that (god forbid) know their rights and that the cops overstepped their bounds. Had they known they were being taped by another student, they probably would have had the sense to deal with the situation in a more civil manner.

Probably not. Urban legend? Documentation?




Perhaps I'm biased. I know I have rights, and I won't hesitate to stand up for them if a police officer or anyone else decides they'd like to try and infringe on those rights. In my dealings with police officers, the majority are perfectly reasonable individuals and there's a handful of ***-holes who misinterpret their authority as power. I also attend Kent State University, which I think has a good handle on the idea of "excessive force". And as a college student, I believe that any person should have "the liberty to express themselves and show what they know", and can't understand the reasoning behind anyone who uses that statement like it's some sort of character flaw to believe in such liberties.

Proper dealing is very very seldom resistance. Such people are best dealt with after the situation with there superiors.

The best thing to do was to get this "threat" out of the area before the crowd turned hostile. This was probably the most sound tactical method to do so. Again, this is not just some random person, the officers beleived him a threat for a reason.

[Army]

California law. When asked by law enforcement personnel to show ID, you must, or face arrest.


He didn't, and discovered the consequence of failing to comply with a Police officer.

[Flamebo]

college students seem to think that because they are in an institution to better themself that it gives them the liberty to express themselves and show what they know.

It does not. I believe the Constitution itself gives all citizens such liberties.


if an officer of the law puts their hands on you its for a reason.

Any action has a reason behind it, it's the legitimacy of the reason that is in question.


and no matter what the police are always to blame.

Absolutely not. They should always be accountable for their actions like anybody else, however.


the kid could have been a fed up student who was planning a school shooting and these idiots are over here asking for badge numbers.

He wasn't. He was just a legitimate student in a computer lab who happened to forget his ID, and happened to have parents of Iranian descent. To assume that anyone meeting the above criteria is planning a school shooting is completely ridiculous. Those "idiots" are simply people looking for accountability, and I'm suprised they showed as much restraint as they did after witnessing that.


...once it was decided the suspect presented a threat?

I watched a video of an angry kid arguing by nonetheless attempting to comply by leaving without getting manhandled by police. Who decided that he was a threat?

[geekwarrior]

The best thing to do was to get this "threat" out of the area before the crowd turned hostile. This was probably the most sound tactical method to do so. Again, this is not just some random person, the officers beleived him a threat for a reason.


I think people are going too much off emotion on this...that or i'm watching a different vid. You can't tell what the guy was doing before he got zapped, you can't see him most of the time so you don't know if he's resisting or not. We also don't know if he has a history with the police. He was also repeatedly warned that he was going to get zapped, and chose to let them do it. If he couldnt stand up after the first time like some people in here are claiming, than he should have told them that.

[Lohman446]

He wasn't. He was just a legitimate student in a computer lab who happened to forget his ID, and happened to have parents of Iranian descent.


Funny how you forget the important part

AND FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A LAWFUL ORDER

So, he was unable to prove he should be there, and failed to leave when asked = threat.

[Steelrat]

Why do the police have to play fair?? I can't even comprehend what you might have intended by that statement. First of all, it's one guy and there were 3 "trained police officers" there, minimum. You're implying that they are incapable of handcuffing a person without causing a huge scene, which is entirely absurd. If he really *had* to be removed, cuff him first then drag him out and that would be that. There's no reason to screw around and argue and start ELECTROCUTING people in some sort of pissing match because they have a personal vendetta against someone for making their night not go as smoothly as they'd like. Personally, I'd take thrown to the ground and cuffed any day before getting tased, though I think even that would be unnecessary.

I mean that they don't have to engage in a fair fight. The guy was resisting being led away by the arm, what makes you think that he would have allowed himself to be handcuffed? 75% of fights happen during handcuffing. Tasers are one of the ways that you would incapacitate someone in order to cuff them. Otherwise, it's a brawl, and tasers are one of the tools supplied so officers don't have to engage in a scuffle, or "fair fight." Why do you jump to the conclusion that they had a vendetta? Sounds like they were perfectly professional with him. Tasers are recognized as being non-lethal devices, and are accepted as such. Fatalities happen in many different instances, from OC to tasers to simple physical restraints.


People die from TASERS, and they continued to use it on him after he said he had a medical condition. Police are trained to believe that the use of them is harmless and basically a notch above handcuffing a suspect. When compared to the use of live ammunition yes, it's much less lethal. However, to use it on a person non-violently resisting arrest is excessive force. The fact that they routinely use these things on children completely blows my mind.

Suspects lie about crap all the time, from "physical conditions" to "cuffs being too tight." If he did, in fact, have a condition, it's really incumbent upon him to behave in a manner that doesn't place him into jeopardy. If a guy steals a TV, runs away from police, then collapses due to a heart condition, is that the police's fault? This guy should start fights with cops if he isn't physically capable of dealing with it. And you should really try to read up on use-of-force continuums before you start mouthing off about what is, and is not, appropriate. Passive (and active) resistance is EXACTLY the sort of situation that a taser should be used in. Close in physical scuffles are bad news, as they place an officer's firearm within reach of a suspect, and that has led to officer fatalities. Hence the use of tasers, which gives the officer a stand-off capacity.


That not enough for you? When other students requested the officers name and badge numbers, they simply started threatening to start tasing everyone that asked a question or challenged the idea that what they did was completely insane. If you ask a on-duty cop for their name and badge number, they are REQUIRED to give it to you without arguing. These police knew they were out of line. They were pissed off that they had to deal with "whiney" students that (god forbid) know their rights and that the cops overstepped their bounds. Had they known they were being taped by another student, they probably would have had the sense to deal with the situation in a more civil manner.

Care to show me where it is a requirement that the officers supply their information? The behavior of the students actually inflamed the situation, and probably forced the officers to deal with the situation quickly before a larger hostile situation developed. They should have sat down, shut up, and let the officers do their job. Creating a possible riot situation didn't help at all.


As to the Patriot Act comments, probably not the best argument to his situation, but after just after getting a few hundred thousand volts zapped through your system, I'd like to see you come up with a more coherent response. It is NOT used appropriately on someone passively resisting. If the kid say, threw a punch or grabbed for the cops gun, then zap his dumb butt. Since he did not, this was gross misuse of force.

If he lunged for their guns, the appropriate response would be to shoot him. If he tried to punch them, it's time for mace or a baton. Again, tasers are intended to be used for active and passive resistance.


Perhaps I'm biased. I know I have rights, and I won't hesitate to stand up for them if a police officer or anyone else decides they'd like to try and infringe on those rights. In my dealings with police officers, the majority are perfectly reasonable individuals and there's a handful of Flamebo, as you are one of the most senior members of AO, I expect better useage of communication skills. Armywho misinterpret their authority as power. I also attend Kent State University, which I think has a good handle on the idea of "excessive force". And as a college student, I believe that any person should have "the liberty to express themselves and show what they know", and can't understand the reasoning behind anyone who uses that statement like it's some sort of character flaw to believe in such liberties.

Sorry, but freedom of speech is not absolute. Try looking it up sometime.

[Steelrat]

after the tazed him the time when people were going WTF and going out to the hall, i would of got the some of the students and beat the officers , seriously, that was way out of line from them, even though the student was being a little Do not cuss on AO. I will ban you if you do so again. Army, repeatin tazing that guy is uncalled for, they could of just dragged him. that video defently made me mad. :mad:

You have no idea what you are talking about. If a bunch of students try to beat down police officers, they will end up getting shot. Think it's worth it? If so, it's proof of natural selection at work.

[evildead420]

sorry for the cuss, that did make me mad, wont happen again. im just angry at the current state of the world thats all . overall its wrong to do what they did, ok, im mad at you guys. :mad: piss off.

[geekwarrior]

another vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttBZuWdGPxg)


here's another claim of excessive force that is currently under investigation. Vid looks pretty bad, but the cops probably will be cleared of any wrong doing. Why? becuase you dont see that the guy ran from the cops, had to be tackled, threw a punch at the cops, and is not allowing himself to be handcuffed. Those punches are allowed...they are called diversionary punches..the idea is to try to make the guy think about the pain in his face so he a) doesnt grab for your gun b) allows you to handcuff him.

[Flamebo]

People die (with medical conditons) from being handcuffed, and physical force. Poor argument.

Probably not. Urban legend? Documentation?

Since the burden of proof is now on me, from wikipedia: "Amnesty International have documented over 150 deaths following the use of tasers. The US National Institute of Justice has begun a two year study into taser-related deaths in custody."

Taser deaths and long-term effects are increasingly more well-documented in recent years. Try google, there's plenty of information on the subject.



The best thing to do was to get this "threat" out of the area before the crowd turned hostile. This was probably the most sound tactical method to do so.

I don't see how anyone could have viewed him as a threat to any person or property. I'd bet everything I own that this was not the most tactically sound method, as by not removing him as quickly as possible and instead trying to "shock" sense into him, the police ended up causing a huge scene which could have easily turned into a riot. That riot would be in reaction to their methods and not the student's resistance. I'd hardly call that sound or tactical.


Again, this is not just some random person, the officers beleived him a threat for a reason.

What reason? Racial profiling? Your arguments are made on assumptions.




And Army, my apologies. It's been a long time since I've been on this forum, though I should have remembered you guys keep strict guidelines. Won't happen again.

[Lohman446]

Lack of ID in a restricted area + failure to comply with instructions to leave = threat.

Yeh, race might have been part of it, but the above is enough.

The weakest point of my argument, I beleive, is if he was a threat or not.

[evildead420]

California law. When asked by law enforcement personnel to show ID, you must, or face arrest.


He didn't, and discovered the consequence of failing to comply with a Police officer.


well, true that, my ex almost went to jail cause of that, long story and yes she was drunk. :nono:

[Flamebo]

Funny how you forget the important part

AND FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A LAWFUL ORDER

So, he was unable to prove he should be there, and failed to leave when asked = threat.

First of all, you didn't know it was a lawful order to present ID when asked until Army said something about it.

Honestly, neither did I. I'm wasn't familiar with that particular California law, as in Ohio we don't anything like that on the books. Probably because we don't have a huge problem with illegal Canadians swimming Lake Erie.

Second of all, he didn't fail to leave when asked. He was on his way out when he was grabbed, and then made a big deal out of wanting to leave without being touched. Most people would. Most police would have let go, let him leave, and forgot about it.

[geekwarrior]

First of all, you didn't know it was a lawful order to present ID when asked until Army said something about it.

Honestly, neither did I. I'm wasn't familiar with that particular California law, as in Ohio we don't anything like that on the books. Probably because we don't have a huge problem with illegal Canadians swimming Lake Erie.

Second of all, he didn't fail to leave when asked. He was on his way out when he was grabbed, and then made a big deal out of wanting to leave without being touched. Most people would. Most police would have let go, let him leave, and forgot about it.


I think Lohmans lawful order was that you couldnt be in that building without ID...not that the state of CA says you have to present ID. So he was disobeying two orders.

[Lohman446]

First of all, you didn't know it was a lawful order to present ID when asked until Army said something about it.

Honestly, neither did I. I'm wasn't familiar with that particular California law, as in Ohio we don't anything like that on the books. Probably because we don't have a huge problem with illegal Canadians swimming Lake Erie.

Second of all, he didn't fail to leave when asked. He was on his way out when he was grabbed, and then made a big deal out of wanting to leave without being touched. Most people would. Most police would have let go, let him leave, and forgot about it.

I was not talking showing ID. I was talking the order from a uniformed officer. Perhaps the officer was arresting him for trespassing?

[tropical_fishy]

Ok, I'm not going to get into whether or not the police should have initially tasered the kid, but they got him five-- that's right, FIVE times. Now, I've never been tasered, but I decided to do a little research:


According to the many sources, a shock of half a second duration will cause intense pain and muscle contractions startling most people greatly. Two to three seconds will often cause the subject to become dazed and drop to the ground, and over three seconds will usually completely disorient and drop an attacker for at least several minutes and possibly for up to fifteen minutes.

So let's say the kid deserved the first shock, and let's say the shock was ~1-1.5 seconds, assuming the officers just wanted him to be quiet and comply. All the shocks afterwards were longer than ~2-3 seconds; I counted one at 4. That's enough to drop a grown male for a substantial amount of time. After you shock someone and they don't expect it, and then you shock them again, how can you expect them to get up and walk out? The kid was tased FIVE TIMES. Each time increased in length (according to the people I know from UCLA). How on earth do you expect someone to be able to get up and walk out after that, especially when he thinks his rights are being grossly violated?

Perhaps the first time was warranted. Anything after that-- egotism and arrogance on the part of the cops.

[Lohman446]

I think it goes like this. If you want to beleive it was excessive, you will see that. If you want to beleive it wasn't, you will see that. Both sides seem to have justification, and much of it has to do with ones past experiences.

[tropical_fishy]

I think it goes like this. If you want to beleive it was excessive, you will see that. If you want to beleive it wasn't, you will see that. Both sides seem to have justification, and much of it has to do with ones past experiences.

I guess I just don't see how you can zap the dude for 4 seconds, then be like, "come on dude, get up and walk it off! DUDE, seriously, or I'm gonna do it again."

[geekwarrior]

I guess I just don't see how you can zap the dude for 4 seconds, then be like, "come on dude, get up and walk it off! DUDE, seriously, or I'm gonna do it again."

while I agree with that, why didnt the guy say he couldnt stand if he wasnt capable?

[tropical_fishy]

while I agree with that, why didnt the guy say he couldnt stand if he wasnt capable?

Most police have been tased, right? Isn't it part of going through the academy? I feel like if you're going to be a police officer, you need to have a higher IQ than a houseplant, and realize that when you send thousands of volts of electricity through a person's body, they're going to be a) KIND of testy and b ) have a tiny case of the jelly-legs. It's obvious from the video the kid can't stand very well (if he can stand at all).

[Flamebo]

Care to show me where it is a requirement that the officers supply their information? The behavior of the students actually inflamed the situation, and probably forced the officers to deal with the situation quickly before a larger hostile situation developed. They should have sat down, shut up, and let the officers do their job. Creating a possible riot situation didn't help at all.



If he lunged for their guns, the appropriate response would be to shoot him. If he tried to punch them, it's time for mace or a baton. Again, tasers are intended to be used for active and passive resistance.



Sorry, but freedom of speech is not absolute. Try looking it up sometime.

In the states I've lived in, a police officer is required to give you at *least* his badge number when requested, usually a name to go with it. I imagine that's also the case in California, but in light of Army's post there's a possibility that it's not.

The behavior of the officers inflamed the situation. If they insisted on grabbing him on his way out, they could have QUICKLY dragged him out the door and been done with it without causing that big of a scene. Or cuffed him and dragged him to their cars.

They did not. They had something to prove, and wanted to make an example out of him. Then they began threatening to zap anyone who questioned them, because they knew they could potentially be reprimanded for the unncessary force they'd already used, and the situation could have easily turned into an unruly mob. This all could have been avoided had the officers handled the situation with some common sense.

Tasers are not supposed to be used for passive resistance. The fact that they occasionally *are* does not justify it.

I can't tell if your freedom of speech statement was in reference to the video, or the fact that I was censored by Army, so I won't touch down on that yet.

[beam]

A couple of things to remember:

1. wikipedia is not necessarily a reliable/unbiased source. It can pretty much be edited by anyone.
2. The dude not only didn't comply with the officers' requests to leave the lab, he was screaming at the top of his lungs and belligerent.

Really, how long does it take to walk out of a computer lab when asked?

This is all speculation, but consider the following scenario:

Guy goes to lab and either a)knows he needs an id and doesn't bring it or b) doesn't know he needs an id

Sits in the lab and works/whatever

Is asked to show id for the safety (now get this) of the OTHER students in the lab. This is random and while we can speculate there was racial profiling involved, he was asked for his id.

I believe he was asked first by a lab monitor who in turn called the police?

He doesn't/can't produce the id.

Officers, in the interest of the safety of the OTHER students, ask the guy to leave.

Guy won't leave, officers try to escort him out.

All heck breaks out.


Now, if the officers had just turned the other way when the guy didn't/wouldn't produce his student id, and he went on to commit some horrible crime, what would everyone be talking about now?

The fact that he wouldn'/couldn't produce an id, along with the fact that he wouldn't obey requests to leave, along with the fact that he SCREAMED AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS IN A THREATENING MANNER TOWARDS THE OFFICERS just exponentially increases his image as a risk.

The longer he plays it out, the more risk he is.

[beam]

Most police have been tased, right? Isn't it part of going through the academy? I feel like if you're going to be a police officer, you need to have a higher IQ than a houseplant, and realize that when you send thousands of volts of electricity through a person's body, they're going to be a) KIND of testy and b ) have a tiny case of the jelly-legs. It's obvious from the video the kid can't stand very well (if he can stand at all).


he was testy long before the tasing

btw...doesn't youtube have a bunch of vids of officers getting tased? I don't remember them being out of commision for much more than the juice was going through them.

[Lohman446]

In the states I've lived in, a police officer is required to give you at *least* his badge number when requested, usually a name to go with it.

Are you 100% sure of that? Not asking to be a jerk, serious question. My understanding is that it is generally not true at all and is some underground urban legend.

[Riddler236]

I won't argue the merit of the initial tasering. That's a judgement call the officers made to resolve the subject's noncompliance.

From eyewitness accounts, the subject was handcuffed immediately after the initial tasering. So what the officers have is a young adult male, subdued, handcuffed, and laying prone on the floor. They should have hoisted him up and dragged him out. Instead, they yell at him to get up under his own power (why?) and proceed to tase him repeatedly for his noncompliance. That, to me, is excessive force. There is quite simply no need to tase someone who is handcuffed and curled up in the fetal position on the floor.

[billybob_81067]

I won't argue the merit of the initial tasering. That's a judgement call the officers made to resolve the subject's noncompliance.

From eyewitness accounts, the subject was handcuffed immediately after the initial tasering. So what the officers have is a young adult male, subdued, handcuffed, and laying prone on the floor. They should have hoisted him up and dragged him out. Instead, they yell at him to get up under his own power (why?) and proceed to tase him repeatedly for his noncompliance. That, to me, is excessive force. There is quite simply no need to tase someone who is handcuffed and curled up in the fetal position on the floor.

You're right... since he had the capability to walk they should have to drag his sorry butt out of there (or carry him like the little baby he's being). :rolleyes: Heck while there at it why throw him in the back seat of the police car... why not just tie him to the bumper and drag him the rest of the way down to the station?

Go find someone and drag them around. Harder than it looks huh?

[Riddler236]

You're right... since he had the capability to walk they should have to drag his sorry butt out of there (or carry him like the little baby he's being). :rolleyes: Heck while there at it why throw him in the back seat of the police car... why not just tie him to the bumper and drag him the rest of the way down to the station?

Go find someone and drag them around. Harder than it looks huh?

I'm sorry, your post is somewhat contradictory. Are you suggesting that repeated tasering of an incapacitated actor is an acceptable solution for his unwillingness to walk, because carrying him is just too inconvenient?

Not sure what point you were trying to make with the comment about dragging the subject by a bumper, but I don't approve.

[Lohman446]

Tasering him repeatedly may have been questionable. Around here they would have hogtied you and thrown you in the backseat. When the "deer jumped out in front of the police car and I had to slam my brakes" it would have sucked for him too. :D

[geekwarrior]

I guess I just feel he got what was coming to him for not obeying and acting like a moron. He's yelling at the top of his lungs when the video starts, so he's either crazy to just go off like that or there's more to the story than we know about.

[billybob_81067]

I'm sorry, your post is somewhat contradictory. Are you suggesting that repeated tasering of an incapacitated actor is an acceptable solution for his unwillingness to walk, because carrying him is just too inconvenient?

Not sure what point you were trying to make with the comment about dragging the subject by a bumper, but I don't approve.

I'm just saying why the heck should they have to drag his whiny butt anywhere. I would have kicked him in the ribs until he got up and walked on his own. Stop being a baby and just get up and quit resisting.

I just made the dragging behind the bumper of the car comment because everyone else thinks the cops should have to drag him to the car... why not all the way to the station?

Oh and I don't really care if you approve or not. :)

[Riddler236]

I'm just saying why the heck should they have to drag his whiny butt anywhere. I would have kicked him in the ribs until he got up and walked on his own. Stop being a baby and just get up and quit resisting.

I just made the dragging behind the bumper of the car comment because everyone else thinks the cops should have to drag him to the car... why not all the way to the station?

Oh and I don't really care if you approve or not. :)

I see.

I respectfully elect not to reply to your inflammatory, offensive viewpoint, and will let someone else take the bait and give you the argument you're so obviously fishing for.

[SCpoloRicker]

"A hive of scum and villiany"

[Steelrat]

"A hive of scum and villiany"

Villiany?

[SCpoloRicker]

My google-fu is weak. :(

[Lohman446]

I see.

I respectfully elect not to reply to your inflammatory, offensive viewpoint, and will let someone else take the bait and give you the argument you're so obviously fishing for.


Its not all that inflamatory. Many people in middle America who beleive in a respect for authority see no problems with the actions. The man failed to show ID, failed to comply wiht police instructions in a crowded area and started to respond in a less than logical fasion. Did the officers know he was not carrying a weapon? or (and oh look, I can accuse you of being racist when you say it so noone dares) having a bomb strapped to his chest? Racial profiling is highly questionable, but ignoring obvious facts is stupid. I'm not necessarily ok with it but I would have totally understood had one of the officers decided, given his actions, that he was an immediate threat and used his sidearm. Using the taser to me was being exceptionally nice to the guy.

[bleachit]

I think its pretty obvious after the first tazing the officers were trying to pull him up and he flat out refused. You can see his white shirt, barely, contrasting against their dark uniforms and you can hear the officers clearly state "stand up or you will get tazered again"


boo hoo. moron.



God forbid someone should do what an officer tells them... if he had half a brain the first time he was tazered would have been enough to make him comply. I mean, dogs eventually learn that if they go too far in the yard they will get zapped when you have an electric fence installed.

[Dubstar112]

You don't need to use a Taser to drag someone out of the building against their will. Two of the cops could have just grabbed under the arms and pulled him out. Any responsible officers would have done just that, and recognized that this is gross misuse of authority. I'd fight this until I had their badges and my tuition covered, especially at UCLA. That's screwed up.

You know, I sort of agree. I think the problem boils down to that anyone given athourity has the belief(or maybe its more of an attitude) that they are not to be underminded in any form, and feel the need to demonstrate this and make examples out of people if they are. It kinda comes to did the officers attitude relfect the severity of the situation??? I understood that less than lethal(Thats what a taser is right?) was to be substituted where a lethal device would have been used. Would they have used their guns, only to say "Oh.. let us use our less than lethal instead" The article is obviously biased but I would say the actions were unecessary from what I could see and read. Lacking in credible sources, its hard for anyone to make a fair judgement. (Cellphone camera, and the bruin are lacking quality, and biased)

I would not have left immediatley, but before they tasered me for sure. California law or not, if I know Im a student and Im there for a reason... screw'em. NY says if you refuse a breathalyzer test you are taken in custody and charged with DUI.

I got pulled over and accused of being intoxicated and underage. I was sober, and I almost refused the test, but I had to drop what I felt was right, and go by what the man says. right or wrong. .00 was my reading and they let me go without telling me what I did to get pulled over in the first place. They obviously checked my ins and regi.... even called my mom.(city police not state of sherriff). Maybe flinched and jerked the wheel a degree or two.... Must be drunk!! Forgot your ID? Must be a threat to the school and society. FRY!!!

If every rebellious student is a threat... theres a lot of threats. :shooting: :shooting:

I wrote a college term paper on police brutality, I dont think this is an example of that, but it is an example of something and Im sure the courts will give it a name. Id drop the police brutality face, maybe irrational treatment of a student without proper id. yeah..... :rofl:

I dont think anyone can say they didnt have adrenaline flowing, and we know what that does to peoples emotions and actions. The police act the best they can as humans, atleast they better have or they're done. The student? Was refusing to leave worth getting tasered? in a year we'll know.

As of now I have too many questions and what if's floating in my head to pass judgement and pick sides.

[pbzmag]

He wasn't. He was just a legitimate student in a computer lab who happened to forget his ID, and happened to have parents of Iranian descent. To assume that anyone meeting the above criteria is planning a school shooting is completely ridiculous. Those "idiots" are simply people looking for accountability, and I'm suprised they showed as much restraint as they did after witnessing that.

If the others did try to stop the officers, they could/would have been arrested for obstructions and assault and battery on a police officer.It would carry a max fine of $10k and up to three years in prison if there were any bodily injuries(PC 243). This is also classified as a felony "wobbler".

[Dubstar112]

So maybe there is a good debate here. The objective of police is to serve and protect citizens while upholding the law that relativley few percent of the citizens would have helped create. Well, it would be counter productive to commit "assault and battery " to the officers even if it could be proven that there was blatant police brutality. However the citizens in the room at the time for the most part back the "victim" for lack of a better term. There isnt any thing they could do to prevent an occurrance without being punished themselves.

If the student would have been beaten excessivley does any one feel that the people in the room should have tried to stop the police from beating him? Or does any one feel that if a police officer is out of line, that a civilian should try to correct that officer, or just let them be? Or is it the general consensus that police are "always right" because no one can stop them? Whos instructions were the officers following. Does school policy state that without ID you are not allowed in, or is it if asked for ID you must provide. So if you arent a student, but dont get checked you're in the clear... Maybe they should card students at the door... to prevent students from forgetting they need ID.

Anyone feel that insubordination on a low level like this poses a threat? Im not asking if he was right or wrong by not doing what told, but more was what he did a threat to the people in the room? School ID is mandatory I understand, so he should have known. He's to blame for the whole thing then. If he wouldnt have forgotten his ID he wouldnt be in this position. I feel that often the law overrides rational thoughts to some extent. Why couldnt they have just found a way to verify his identity. Its a learning center, he would have learned to bring his ID next time and to stop slacking while avoiding a bit of pain. Thats something maybe they should have considered.

They know they have the athourity, and they know when they use it, they become the most scrutinized form of public service. They are held accountable for every single thing they have control over, and somethings that they dont. So before they use their power, they need to consider the consequence aswell. Asking a student to leave has little consequence, dragging him out has a bit more consequence, and using force above that is begging for a frenzy. They have the power and the tools for the job. They just have to be very precise on how they do it.


Then again, what good is any kind of law enforcement when no matter what the enforcers do, they are criticized and scoped for thier actions. It usually becomes a complex matter.

Id like to remain indifferent, but for now the questions I come up with focus on the police a bit. Im sort of biased though, as I am a student myself. I can see that the older people on this forum support the police and the younger support the student. Thats a general statement.

[pbzmag]

They did not have the time to verify his identity. They were conducting an arrest in close quarters with other students around. Once they have control of the situation, then they can start their search for ID and any other contrabands. All arrests that I have seen on the streets and shows like COPS started with detainment and then the body search were conducted.

[Dubstar112]

Well, i did some editing before/while you posted that.

But I dont see how in that setting they could not have any sort of time for that. Do you need to have a person in handcuffs to verify thier identity? It was only his school identity that he was lacking correct? He must have had a state issued drivers or something similar? Innocent until proven guilty might lead one to think, take his name, look his info up is he enrolled? yes or no... then take it from there, opposed to, he doesnt have id, so hes not a student and cant use the facility, kick him out.

I must have overread that he was placed under arrest at the same time as being tasered and prior to being asked for any other form of ID. Im only assuming that they would have asked for another form after he is in custody.

[bornl33t]

Better word for "victim" = moron

why? Because the word victim implies he was Innocent. When he refused to leave he became guilty of criminal trespassing. Also he was given ample time between each blast from the teaser to raise his voice to cuss out the officers, complain and refuse to comply some more. This indicates that he was thoroughly capable of leaving himself.

Furthermore, you can see the officers trying to move him toward the exit. And after each teasering they make some progress.

Oh and if you watch the time at the bottom you will be able to tell the first time he is teasered it was 2 seconds.
the second time a minute later it was 4 seconds
and the third time it was 2 seconds almost 2 minutes later


So that rules out that he couldn't leave and if you watch this video for the rest of the story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4_s4Un0TkI&NR
you'll see that beam got it right, the police where called in because he refused to leave.

I see nothing so far that would indicate that this kid was either Innocent or acting rational. I stand by the police in this issue.

[Lohman446]

I love this. "All he did was forget his ID" Wrong. Once he could not prove he was supposed to be there and refused to leave the police had to consider it criminal trespass, unlawful entry, whatever you want to call it. That is acting on the knowledge they had at the time.

When he started his little temper tantrum he became a threat. Now the judgement call of the officers to how much of a threat is a judgement call based on any number of factors, but apparently the trained officers on scene considered it a pretty serious threat.

Tasers are not, correctly or not, taught to be used only as a less than lethal device only to be deployed in place of a firearm. They are used to counter active and passive resistance to an officer. It may be questionable but the officers on scene are probably taught that they tasers are a safe measure to use in such a situation. I would rather have an officer taser me (known risks) than decide to deploy his baton against me. That being said, there is no way I am letting a situation escalate to that level.

Could they have done better? Sure, and the situation would have been much much better had the other students stayed out of it (or just taped it quietly). I'm sorry, your dealing with a non-compliant individual you beleive a threat and are being threatened by a group of people. Judgement is obviously not perfect in such a situation.

The officers had a duty to remove him from the lab. They acted on that duty. Its not like they were walking down the street, cried "ARAB" and attacked. Despite the shock "journalism" that some students seem so fond of.

[pbzmag]

Well, i did some editing before/while you posted that.

But I dont see how in that setting they could not have any sort of time for that. Do you need to have a person in handcuffs to verify thier identity? It was only his school identity that he was lacking correct? He must have had a state issued drivers or something similar? Innocent until proven guilty might lead one to think, take his name, look his info up is he enrolled? yes or no... then take it from there, opposed to, he doesnt have id, so hes not a student and cant use the facility, kick him out.

I must have overread that he was placed under arrest at the same time as being tasered and prior to being asked for any other form of ID. Im only assuming that they would have asked for another form after he is in custody.

Again, they did not have time. Do you really think that he would have given his name or any other identification after his tantrum? He already demonstrated that he is unwilling to comply. It is already beyond if he is enrolled. It is now tresspassing and that is arrestable. Getting any ID becomes their secondary goal. But what about the other officers? They're the backup. They are there to help if the situation gets out of control. Detaining the person is their main objective.

[Steelrat]

I love this. "All he did was forget his ID" Wrong. Once he could not prove he was supposed to be there and refused to leave the police had to consider it criminal trespass, unlawful entry, whatever you want to call it. That is acting on the knowledge they had at the time.

When he started his little temper tantrum he became a threat. Now the judgement call of the officers to how much of a threat is a judgement call based on any number of factors, but apparently the trained officers on scene considered it a pretty serious threat.

Tasers are not, correctly or not, taught to be used only as a less than lethal device. They are used to counter active and passive resistance to an officer. It may be questionable but the officers on scene are probably taught that they tasers are a safe measure to use in such a situation. I would rather have an officer taser me (known risks) than decide to deploy his baton against me. That being said, there is no way I am letting a situation escalate to that level.

Could they have done better? Sure, and the situation would have been much much better had the other students stayed out of it (or just taped it quietly). I'm sorry, your dealing with a non-compliant individual you beleive a threat and are being threatened by a group of people. Judgement is obviously not perfect in such a situation.

The officers had a duty to remove him from the lab. They acted on that duty. Its not like they were walking down the street, cried "ARAB" and attacked. Despite the shock "journalism" that some students seem so fond of.


Yep, the student escalated the situation past where it was. The officers were not trying to arrest him, just escort him out of the building.

Tasers are correctly considered non-lethal weapons. A lot of the fatalaties that people try to pin on them were, in fact, the direct result of drugs the people were on, or pre-existing medical conditions that were affected by a tense/stressful situation. I love how people expect the officers to "duke it out" with a suspect, even though officers are routinely injured in physical struggles with suspects. Tasers are probably the least dangerous of the devices that can be used, with batons and OC being the other choices. Batons are especially bad because a missed strike, due to bad aim or target movement, can result in a shattered knee.

The best irony is, of course, that people love to complain about the police, but who are the first people they call when they need help?

[Glickman]

The best irony is, of course, that people love to complain about the police, but who are the first people they call when they need help?


byaaah!

[Ole Unka Phil]

The best irony is, of course, that people love to complain about the police, but who are the first people they call when they need help?


First person I call is Gaston Glock... then I let the police do the paperwork... and tote off the body. :ninja:

[tropical_fishy]

The best irony is, of course, that people love to complain about the police, but who are the first people they call when they need help?


Ghostbusters!

[kosmo]

does any one feel that if a police officer is out of line, that a civilian should try to correct that officer, or just let them be? Or is it the general consensus that police are "always right" because no one can stop them?


Not that this incident fits the bill, but the second ammendment constitutionally guarantees your right to shoot bad cops. I havent tested that theory in court yet, but it says it plain as day.

[olinar]

i dont think its a big deal.i mean sure they could have just taised him once but oh well who wouldnt get trigger happy.the kids name just had to be mostafa didnt it.i bet hes going to turn this into a racistr thing if it gets to court.then i will lmao while rofl and then get up and lol.possibly crap myself a little later after thinking about it again.

[olinar]

if i were one of those cpos i would just kicked him in the head a couple times.i would love to be a police officer.but anyway i would beat the crap out him after the first taser.

[kosmo]

if i were one of those cpos i would just kicked him in the head a couple times.i would love to be a police officer.but anyway i would beat the crap out him after the first taser.

In that case, he definitely wouldve been constitutionally right in shooting you.

[Dubstar112]

I didnt say I thought he was innocent, and I didnt say all he did was forget his ID. But forgetting his ID obvisouly did cause the whole situation though. You could call him a vitcim of his own stupidity? Maybe I was succeptable to the bias written in the article. I know the police did what they had to do and that leads to the after thought could they have done better.

I think they had every right to boot him out, and although I cant pin point and real judgement errors from viewing the video, the more coverage this gets, the more likley somone will have a "theory" and find one.

Yeah, I was a little misled by the all he did was forget his id thought, and I can see that now.

I certainly think the people who encourage violence above what it took to subdue the student are wrong though.

[Glickman]

I certainly think the people who encourage violence above what it took to subdue the student are wrong though.

thus leading to the question of how much is too much? ;)

if im drunk and being beligerant, feel free to kick the back of my knee, and forcibly escort me out. its the general student population safety that comes first.

[pbzmag]

Not that this incident fits the bill, but the second ammendment constitutionally guarantees your right to shoot bad cops. I havent tested that theory in court yet, but it says it plain as day.

As stated in the Constitution:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this guarantee you the right to shoot bad cops? It does not. It gives the state a right to form a malitia. It includes the right to bear arms but not shoot bad cops. In California, if you shoot a peace officer it becomes a felony "wobler" (PC 243b), (e)). That carries a maximum $10000 fine and up to three years in prison (PC 243(c)(2)).

[Steelrat]

As stated in the Constitution:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this guarantee you the right to shoot bad cops? It does not. It gives the state a right to form a malitia. It includes the right to bear arms but not shoot bad cops. In California, if you shoot a peace officer it becomes a felony "wobler" (PC 243b), (e)). That carries a maximum $10000 fine and up to three years in prison (PC 243(c)(2)).

I'm fairly sure that shooting a peace officer is NOT a wobbler. A case of bad cut-and-pasting?

[kosmo]

As stated in the Constitution:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this guarantee you the right to shoot bad cops? It does not. It gives the state a right to form a malitia. It includes the right to bear arms but not shoot bad cops. In California, if you shoot a peace officer it becomes a felony "wobler" (PC 243b), (e)). That carries a maximum $10000 fine and up to three years in prison (PC 243(c)(2)).

Wobler my butt. Youre not reading into it right. Well regulated militia= me with a gun. Free state= me not being oppressed by bad cops. Keep and bear arms= me with a gun using it against bad cops and/or AFN Television workers intent on taking away my status as a free state.

[Steelrat]

Wobler my butt. Youre not reading into it right. Well regulated militia= me with a gun. Free state= me not being oppressed by bad cops. Keep and bear arms= me with a gun using it against bad cops and/or AFN Television workers intent on taking away my status as a free state.

Why on Earth did you join the military?

[pbzmag]

Taken from the "California Criminal Law Concepts" 15th edition 2001.

http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/4778/batterynz9.png

[bleachit]

thank you, pbzmag, for making that abundantly clear.

[Ole Unka Phil]

Wobler my butt. Youre not reading into it right. Well regulated militia= me with a gun. Free state= me not being oppressed by bad cops. Keep and bear arms= me with a gun using it against bad cops and/or AFN Television workers intent on taking away my status as a free state.

Its pretty clear what the authors of the Constitution meant, although often its misrepresented. But we have tons of writings by its authors explaining their intent was thier fear of ever disarming the individual. Many instances of clear definitions of what Malitia meant in those days. And it was every male capable of handling a gun. And that the second phase was the right of each individual to have and carry them (keep and bear). If you want I can quote you some of those?

It is clear from their explanations what they meant was that the Government should always serve the people, Not the other way around. So that the individual right to bear arms must be there in order for the government to be kept in check. They feared a govenment that kept a standing army would disarm is citizens and rule for the government and not the people. They foresaw the time and place that the people may need to retake their country from their government. They were not unpatriotic in that. They meant it to be a check and balance. The first sign of a socialist Government is to disarm its people. Hitler did it. Many monarchys have attempted to do it. It was clearly their love for the country and thier belief in a Federalist form of government that made them design a Constitution to protect the peoples rights from its government. Remember that they were all coming from countries where these rights had been taken away. And the government was corrupt and the people somewhat powerless to defend themselves from either them or a standing Army.

They also said that this Government should not maintain a Standing Army in times of Peace. But it almost always does. Which is unconstitutional. They also distinguish between a "well regulated malitia" (Now sort of our National Guard and was intended to put the power in each state not in the federal governement) from an "unregulated malitia" (the individual people who can or cannot organize as need be). But it is very clear from MANY documents that the right to bear arms was intended for the individual citizen and malitia means other things than many want to think it does now. What we see not here is an attempt to forget all this and turn this around. The federal government exerts its will on states by taxation regulations and blackmail. Which is the begining of a socialist mindset. Exactly what our forefathers warned us against. The attempts to disarm the people are and will be a part of that effort. But there is hope at the voting booth. There is plenty of time to do it peacefully if all of you will remember the REAL reasons for your rights. And not be mislead by ignorant "reinterpreters". The facts are still there. Read them! Then vote.


But whats that got to do with this kid getting tazed?

[PyRo]

If he lunged for their guns, the appropriate response would be to shoot him.

Not in NY. One of my professors (retired NYPD Sergent) told us about a situation where a single officer was gaurding somthing or someone (can't remember what) and got into an argument with someone that escalated to the point where he tried to arrest the guy. So the guy started fighting and attempting to get the officers gun. Eventually the gun came out, the officer got a hold of it and shot the guy. He did two years for manslaughter. Apparently the person wasn't armed so it wasn't alright to use deadly force.

On another note, a tazer probably would have diffused the situation with no injuries to anyone.

[PyRo]

Since the burden of proof is now on me, from wikipedia: "Amnesty International have documented over 150 deaths following the use of tasers.
On another note, the amount of lives tasers have saved is likely in the thousands. The number of injuries tasers have prevented is most likely in the hundreds of thousands.

[PyRo]

I don't see how anyone could have viewed him as a threat to any person or property. I'd bet everything I own that this was not the most tactically sound method, as by not removing him as quickly as possible and instead trying to "shock" sense into him, the police ended up causing a huge scene which could have easily turned into a riot. That riot would be in reaction to their methods and not the student's resistance. I'd hardly call that sound or tactical.

He wasn't supposed to be there and he was. That's threat enough to remove him, forcefully if necessary. Say someone breaks into your house, makes a sandwhich, sits down, and starts watching a football game. They're not poseing any threat but I'd bet you would want him removed no matter what amount of force it took to get him out of there.

As far as tactically sound goes. They got him out of the building, no one was injured, and a riot didn't start. That sounds like a good ending to a potentially hazerdous situation to me. You can sit here now and say they could have done this and that. They however did not have the time to sit there and think of a plan, they had to make quick desisions to defuse a potentially dangerous situation.

[PyRo]

California law. When asked by law enforcement personnel to show ID, you must, or face arrest.

Has that law actually held up in court? That has to violate the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights somehow.

[PyRo]

In the states I've lived in, a police officer is required to give you at *least* his badge number when requested, usually a name to go with it. I imagine that's also the case in California, but in light of Army's post there's a possibility that it's not.


Even if they're required to give their badge numbers they arn't required to drop everything they're doing and give their badge numbers. They are attmepting to detain someone and control an unruly crows.

[WenULiVeUdiE]

btw...doesn't youtube have a bunch of vids of officers getting tased? I don't remember them being out of commision for much more than the juice was going through them.

But none of them show someone being tased 5 times for long durations each time...

[Lohman446]

But none of them show someone being tased 5 times for long durations each time...

At least initially those were not long tasings.

That being said most officers who volunteer to be tasered at training (and from what I have been told you don't have to) are in reasonably good health, know roughly what to expect, are pandering to there own crowd in a macho sort of way, and are prepared for it. They are also in a far more controlled situation where they trust the people doing the tasering.

[tropical_fishy]

At least initially those were not long tasings.

That being said most officers who volunteer to be tasered at training (and from what I have been told you don't have to) are in reasonably good health, know roughly what to expect, are pandering to there own crowd in a macho sort of way, and are prepared for it. They are also in a far more controlled situation where they trust the people doing the tasering.


The last place I would want to be tasered would be in that situation... guys get macho, things escalate, and pretty soon things are out of hand.

[behemoth]

The place I would want to be tasered would be in that situation... guys get macho, things escalate, and pretty soon things are out of hand.

did you forget the word 'last' or am i missing something?

[Recon by Fire]

Has that law actually held up in court? That has to violate the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights somehow.


You can pretty much count on every state of the union having a law in their penal code stating that you must identify yourself to law enforcement.

Produce your ID or make a trip to teh station for fingerprinting and identification over the period of several hours; you could be suspicious, an officers judgement.....your choice.



Too many people have trouble with any forms of authority. They do not realize the LEO is not there to debate with you or have a discusion about your feelings. And somebody ends up getting a taste of OC, taser, etc...

:cheers:

[bornl33t]

I wanna thank phil for once again inciting me to do research. I have been a long time gun advocate and have held a CCW for a few years now. Until your post I never bothered to do any research on the arguments FOR gun ownership and why the 2nd applies today just as it did back in the beginning.



Ok back to the issue at hand. It's irrelevant if he could stand or not. If after you are asked to comply and do not do so you are going to get it.

Only facts are of value:

1. UCLA does not permit non UCLA students in the library after a certain hour.
2. This person along with all the other occupants at the time were notified that their ID's would be inspected
3. The criminal could not produce said Student ID
4. The cops were called and he was once again asked to leave
5. He refused once again and made it clear that he was not going to leave
6. He was warned that he would be teasered if he would not comply.
7. He was teasered.
8. He was again asked to leave. This time with police escourt.
9. He refused again
10. He was warned again that non-compliance would result in another teasering
etc.


The thing to note is that between each teaser blast he refused to comply at the least it was verbal. There is no action that would indicate the guy was going to comply.

in the words of Cam Brainard "...lets slow it down and savor it"

[tropical_fishy]

I wanna thank phil for once again inciting me to do research. I have been a long time gun advocate and have held a CCW for a few years now. Until your post I never bothered to do any research on the arguments FOR gun ownership and why the 2nd applies today just as it did back in the beginning.



Ok back to the issue at hand. It's irrelevant if he could stand or not. If after you are asked to comply and do not do so you are going to get it.

Only facts are of value:

1. UCLA does not permit non UCLA students in the library after a certain hour.
2. This person along with all the other occupants at the time were notified that their ID's would be inspected
3. The criminal could not produce said Student ID
4. The cops were called and he was once again asked to leave


I agreed with you up till 4. The kid was turning around to walk out when the officer touched him, hence causing the entire scene.

[Thordic]

So an officer touching you is permission for civil disobediance?

[Steelrat]

Not in NY. One of my professors (retired NYPD Sergent) told us about a situation where a single officer was gaurding somthing or someone (can't remember what) and got into an argument with someone that escalated to the point where he tried to arrest the guy. So the guy started fighting and attempting to get the officers gun. Eventually the gun came out, the officer got a hold of it and shot the guy. He did two years for manslaughter. Apparently the person wasn't armed so it wasn't alright to use deadly force.

On another note, a tazer probably would have diffused the situation with no injuries to anyone.

That's just plain wrong. I don't know the details of that case, but once they try to lay hands on your gun, it's a deadly force situation. It doesn't matter that they weren't armed, if they had shown the intent to get your weapon, the only purpose of which would be to use it. Now, if the guy had backed off and was complying with commands, or was running away, the justification for shooting would be greatly diminished. I suspect there is more to the case than what your professor told you.

[Steelrat]

I agreed with you up till 4. The kid was turning around to walk out when the officer touched him, hence causing the entire scene.

They were escorting him out, which is normal. It's a method of positive control. the kid got stupid and escalated it.

[Steelrat]

Taken from the "California Criminal Law Concepts" 15th edition 2001.

http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/4778/batterynz9.png

That's battery. You specifically mentioned shooting a peace officer. That's attempted murder. Attempted murder is not a felony wobbler.

[PyRo]

You can pretty much count on every state of the union having a law in their penal code stating that you must identify yourself to law enforcement.

Produce your ID or make a trip to teh station for fingerprinting and identification over the period of several hours; you could be suspicious, an officers judgement.....your choice.





I know you legally have to identify yourself in most states. As recently as fifteen years ago in NY they would just put John of Jane Doe on a report if you did not wish to give your name so long as you wern't being charged with anything. The thing about legally having to have some identification on you at all times is what I'm questioning. If you forget your wallet tey can take you in just for that?

[PyRo]

I suspect there is more to the case than what your professor told you.

Not really, we went over most of the investigation and trial as part of the course.
It's possible the cop shot him for the heck of it. Being the only witnesses were the cop and the dead guy we will never know exactly what happend. This was a white cop, and a black man who got shot. Their was a lot of community pressure on the DA because their were all kinds of claims of discriminatory practices by the police department (their was probably enough truth in those claims). They basically did the same thing everyone is doing with this taser thing now. In hindsight they came up with differant courses of action he could have taken. Then got him to admit it might have been possible to resolve the situation without shooting the guy. Based on they got a conviction. Basically the guy was a PR sacrifice.

[Ole Unka Phil]

I wanna thank phil for once again inciting me to do research. I have been a long time gun advocate and have held a CCW for a few years now. Until your post I never bothered to do any research on the arguments FOR gun ownership and why the 2nd applies today just as it did back in the beginning.

*** Click... off topic ****

here is some good reading here:

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Our forefathers had not much trust in Governements did they? Probably with good reason. Seems they felt that if every man was armed, then it would be difficult or at least less likely for any Regular Militia or standing Army to overthrow the Government. Or to use the standing army to remain in power without the will of the people. They also felt defense (of both the country and ones self and loved ones) was a personal responsibility. It very well is. Then, today... and tomorrow it may become even more important.

*** Click back on topic ****

[Recon by Fire]

The thing about legally having to have some identification on you at all times is what I'm questioning. If you forget your wallet tey can take you in just for that?


It is not a question of identifying yourself because you are being arrested or charged, it is a requirement to identify yourself at all times. In reality though a LEO is not going to walk uop and just ask you for identification for no reason what so ever. If there is a need to verify your ID or just get your information for witness/investigation purposes, they will ask. Someone who did not appear of interest or importance at one moment may be crucial later on...would you want the nice LEO to not obtain the information of an accident witness who may save your butt in insurance liability or catch a criminal later who slipped by? It is no privacy concern or violation.


:cheers:

[kosmo]

My point about the whole second ammendment thing is that its original intent was to allow for personal protection against criminals, be they thugs or a shady tax collector, etc. Our founding fathers were extremely untrustful of government, and tried in many ways to ensure that our government on any level would never be able to have too much power over the people, and that if they tried it, the people would have the means to stop them. Our society now has far too much of either butt-kissing the police, or hating them for no reason. Not enough people fit in the middle. I dont hate police, but I do recognize the need for a way to be able to protect yourself from the authority that a corrupt individual wields while wearing a badge.

In order for a cop to justly have the authority they are given now days, they need to be of impeccable personality. They need to understand that they are there to serve the people, at the risk of their own life. Its the same way with the military, really. By volunteering to do a service job like that, you are saying that you will put the lives of those you serve above your own. The problem comes in that far too many cops become police officers for the wrong reasons. In my experiece, which as been extensive, most cops become one for one of two reasons: It is an effective means of satisfying their Napoleon complex, or they enjoy living vicariously through the drama in other peoples lives (or both). There are so many police officers with a Napoleon complex that they establish a culture of being Boss Hoss, and the people that accept that attitude do so because they believe that the police are the impeccable moral characters that they are supposed to be. Thats why people accept such stupid crap as "positive control". Under most circumstances, voluntary compliance is positive control (unless the person has just proven themselves to be a threat and is now complying). Someone who is asked to leave somewhere for not having an ID and is voluntarily complying is not a threat. The cop had no need to attempt to gain further control by touching the individual. His lust for authority compelled him to do so, and then when the individual challenged that authority in a non threatening manner, the cops power lust compelled him to go way above and beyond what he needed to do to reestablish that control.

[pbzmag]

That's battery. You specifically mentioned shooting a peace officer. That's attempted murder. Attempted murder is not a felony wobbler.

Your right. Attempted murder carries life imprisonment with the possibility of parole and attempted premeditated murder of a safety officer is punishable by a minimum term of fifteen years of a 15-to-life sentence. Murder of a peace officer is second-degree murder which carries life without parole(PC 190(b)). There is also 1st degree murder with special circumstances which carries death or confinement in the state prison for life without possibility of parole(PC 190.2). Been drinking the night before till 2am. :cheers: Everyone knows what happens the next morning. :cry:

[PyRo]

It is not a question of identifying yourself because you are being arrested or charged, it is a requirement to identify yourself at all times. In reality though a LEO is not going to walk uop and just ask you for identification for no reason what so ever. If there is a need to verify your ID or just get your information for witness/investigation purposes, they will ask. Someone who did not appear of interest or importance at one moment may be crucial later on...would you want the nice LEO to not obtain the information of an accident witness who may save your butt in insurance liability or catch a criminal later who slipped by? It is no privacy concern or violation.


:cheers:
It seems we are talking about two differant things here. I'm not against requireing people to identify themselves. It seems that detaining someone because they don't have proof of identity on their person may be going too far.

[bornl33t]

*** Click... off topic ****

here is some good reading here:

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Our forefathers had not much trust in Governements did they? Probably with good reason. Seems they felt that if every man was armed, then it would be difficult or at least less likely for any Regular Militia or standing Army to overthrow the Government. Or to use the standing army to remain in power without the will of the people. They also felt defense (of both the country and ones self and loved ones) was a personal responsibility. It very well is. Then, today... and tomorrow it may become even more important.

*** Click back on topic ****

Thanks, that's a good read!

[Recon by Fire]

It seems we are talking about two differant things here. I'm not against requireing people to identify themselves. It seems that detaining someone because they don't have proof of identity on their person may be going too far.


Then what is a cop supposed to do when Mr. Anti-Govt Student claims his name is John Doe and has no ID. Guess he should just say "okay" and let him go on his way...he didn't want to play the game.

[Glickman]

It seems we are talking about two differant things here. I'm not against requireing people to identify themselves. It seems that detaining someone because they don't have proof of identity on their person may be going too far.

thats colleges for you though. they have gotten extremely serious when it comes to ID and students.

[FactsOfLife]

What kind of camera phone is he using? Its got pretty sweet resolution.

I would have tazed him, he pitched a fit, and was non compliant.
And he cried...


He cried? Tazer him again!

[bornl33t]

I'm not positive, but I would place a bet on the nokia N series. Nokia is the undisputed king of cell phones.

[DiRTyBuNNy]

It seems we are talking about two differant things here. I'm not against requireing people to identify themselves. It seems that detaining someone because they don't have proof of identity on their person may be going too far.

next time you're going through an airport how about you tell them you don't have an ID and see if they let you on the plane because you swear you are who you say you are..

--Mr. DB

[Lohman446]

It seems we are talking about two differant things here. I'm not against requireing people to identify themselves. It seems that detaining someone because they don't have proof of identity on their person may be going too far.

So your required to show ID, but if you don't thats ok too?

[Altimas]

next time you're going through an airport how about you tell them you don't have an ID and see if they let you on the plane because you swear you are who you say you are..

--Mr. DB

Sure they wont let you on the plane, but they arn't gonna tazer you just because you dont have ID and are in an airport.

[PyRo]

Then what is a cop supposed to do when Mr. Anti-Govt Student claims his name is John Doe and has no ID. Guess he should just say "okay" and let him go on his way...he didn't want to play the game.
The situation in question here occured on private property and they did exactly what they should have.

[PyRo]

thats colleges for you though. they have gotten extremely serious when it comes to ID and students.
A college is a private organization and has a right to require ID. I'm talking about state or local law though.

[Pneumagger]

Why the heck is everyone saying he got tazed for not showing ID? Whoever titled this thread needs tazed. He got tazed for failing to comply with lawful orders that were to prove his right to be there... period. He continually posed himself as more and more of a threat to the peace, the officers saftey, and the saftey of the students through both his direct actions and words.

That is exactly the situation a tazer was designed for - to control escalating situations and mitigate potential danger to persons before physical or lethal action is required. PERIOD.

The only question in my mind was did he deserve it 3 times. But honestly, IMO, that was the most polite tazering ever. The first use was merited by the situation and subsequent uses were clearly communicated to the vagrant. Basically (in not so many words):
"Let us escort you out, or you will be tazed"
"No, F*** OFF"
~~ZAP~~~
"Now let's try this again... get up and leave"
"Patriot act blah... rabble rabble... F*** OFF ...."
~~ZAP~~~
etc, etc, etc

Seriously, he baited and fronted the law... and he got every bit he deserved. The sad part is, even when the cops are aquitted in court of law, the guy's gonna win in civil court and sue the crap out everything in that room. Dang freaking liberals :cuss: :shooting:

[PyRo]

next time you're going through an airport how about you tell them you don't have an ID and see if they let you on the plane because you swear you are who you say you are..

--Mr. DB
That has absolutly nothing to do with what I'm saying. I never said they should take your word for it. Getting on a plane, into a government building, etc is one thing. Walking down the street is another. If you go to the airport, try to get your ticket and find you don't have your wallet should you be detained until they can confirm your identity? Or should they just refuse to let you on the plane and send you on your way?

[PyRo]

So your required to show ID, but if you don't thats ok too?
I'm talking about state law. Say you didn't have any ID on you and you were walking down the street and for whatever reason you were asked by an officer for ID. I bet you'de be pretty annoyed if the officer proceded to put you in the back of the car and detain you until you could prove who you were.


What I'm talking about here is a law that requires every person in the United States or a given juristiction to carry an ID on their person at all times.

[Pneumagger]

Sure they wont let you on the plane, but they arn't gonna tazer you just because you dont have ID and are in an airport.

If you make half the scene that kid did in an airport @ the TSA line because you didn't have an ID... you bet your buns your gett tazered. Keep up the attitude and your likely to get tazed again. There's even a 2 for 1 special for middle eastern people.

Guess what fascist liberals... Law > You

[Steelrat]

Sure they wont let you on the plane, but they arn't gonna tazer you just because you dont have ID and are in an airport.

No, but they will if you refuse to leave, and throw a fit and resist officers. Nice try.

[Pneumagger]

I'm talking about state law. Say you didn't have any ID on you and you were walking down the street and for whatever reason you were asked by an officer for ID. I bet you'de be pretty annoyed if the officer proceded to put you in the back of the car and detain you until you could prove who you were.

now say there was a city ordinance requiring you to have ID or that was the consequence, then you have to show ID, whether it gets your rocks off or not.

The student was on campus and on private property that enforces this regulation, and I'm 100% this policy is posted a dozen times as you enter thier campus and buildings. Having to show ID where requested on private or government property is not a violation of any rights as long as it's posted... failing to comply with an officer called to escort you out because you broke the rules is in fact a crime.

If an officer asks you to stop on the street FOR WHATEVER REASON, and you feel like ignoring him... you have broken the law via non compliance with an officer of the law.

[Pneumagger]

Here's an interesting semi OT thought...

What if you are you are tazed in the face? I might actually cry.

[FactsOfLife]

Sure they wont let you on the plane, but they arn't gonna tazer you just because you dont have ID and are in an airport.


This is exactly the kind of nonsense response that people willfully use to make their case against the evil police.

Got news for you, you resist arrest, or mouth off to the cops you get what you deserve.

He was asked to show his ID. He refused.

He was asked to leave PRIVATE PROPERTY. He refused.

He was going to be forcibly ejected for being a punk. He tried to refuse.

They tazered his dumb *** for being said punk. He cried.

What part of this are you having difficulty understanding?

Your lame attempt at rationalizing is exactly that. Lame.

[chip08]

Doesn't everyone get it? This is America, land of the free. I should be able to come and go as I please, disregard all regulations that I do not see fit for me to follow and challenge authority who is there not to rough me up, but protect the general public.

This kid was just that, a kid. He thought he was citing some sort of higher value, above the law. Well, that's called the Constitution and I'm pretty sure he wasn't drawing on that one. The police were doing their job. Forget that he is Middle Eastern, what if he had in fact been a criminal (like a stalker or rapists or theif) or some terrorist using the library as research tool. The cops don't know that. But you know what, the point of the tazer is to use them. They allow police to quickly take charge of a hostile or uncontrollable situation. They also give options. If he drew his gun, the kid either obeys or disobeys, and the cop either holds back or shoots him if he remains noncompliant.

I like pneumagger, I want to taze someone's face. The dork in the video would be nice...

[Altimas]

This is exactly the kind of nonsense response that people willfully use to make their case against the evil police.

Got news for you, you resist arrest, or mouth off to the cops you get what you deserve.

He was asked to show his ID. He refused.

He was asked to leave PRIVATE PROPERTY. He refused.

He was going to be forcibly ejected for being a punk. He tried to refuse.

They tazered his dumb *** for being said punk. He cried.

What part of this are you having difficulty understanding?

Your lame attempt at rationalizing is exactly that. Lame.

I agree that he should have gotten tazed, my point is they wont taze you just for not showing ID he got tazed because he resisted and mouthed off. There would have never have been a problem if he just said "Yes Sir." And let them escort him out. My only problem with the whole thing was how much he got tazed.

[Pneumagger]

I agree that he should have gotten tazed, my point is they wont taze you just for not showing ID he got tazed because he resisted and mouthed off. There would have never have been a problem if he just said "Yes Sir." And let them escort him out. My only problem with the whole thing was how much he got tazed.

I am in the same boat altimas... he deserved the first one... but the subsequent ones could be questionable. Although, in the police's defense, the student's attitude nor intentions changed after being tazed. And the cops were somewhat polite about warning him each time and giving him multiple opportunities to change his tune.

The point of a tazer is to either physically subdue a vagrant, or persuade him to willingly comply. The fact that this kid was not letting up cause he was on some sort of power trip puts the cops in the same situation where physically approaching him could be very risky and put many people in harms way. <--- And guess what device is used in a situation like that?
hint: starts with a "T" and ends in "aser" ;)

You can't expect the cops to taser somebody to avoid a physical confrontation and end up having a physical confrontation with an even moreso resistent person. You also can't expect them to just walk away saying "We tried, oh well". If at first you don't succeed, try and try again.

The fact that kid was stubborn was the root of all his problems. Some people just need to learn some respect and humility for authority.

[lasrsktr]

I am in the same boat altimas... he deserved the first one... but the subsequent ones could be questionable. Although, in the police's defense, the student's attitude nor intentions changed after being tazed. And the cops were somewhat polite about warning him each time and giving him multiple opportunities to change his tune.

The point of a tazer is to either physically subdue a vagrant, or persuade him to willingly comply. The fact that this kid was not letting up cause he was on some sort of power trip puts the cops in the same situation where physically approaching him could be very risky and put many people in harms way. <--- And guess what device is used in a situation like that?
hint: starts with a "T" and ends in "aser" ;)

You can't expect the cops to taser somebody to avoid a physical confrontation and end up having a physical confrontation with an even moreso resistent person. You also can't expect them to just walk away saying "We tried, oh well". If at first you don't succeed, try and try again.

The fact that kid was stubborn was the root of all his problems. Some people just need to learn some respect and humility for authority.


The only problem i have with the tasering his the amount of times it occurred. The whole point of a taser is to render someone unable to fight and or stun them for a period of time.

So with that being said the first one was warranted because he was trying to resist and cause a scene... The second and third were unneeded due to effects of the tasering..... After the first taser the police should have just picked him up and carried him out....


And the UCLA ID policy has been in place for several years and all students are made aware of the policy and to have their id on them at all times.

[Lohman446]

So with that being said the first one was warranted because he was trying to resist and cause a scene... The second and third were unneeded due to effects of the tasering..... After the first taser the police should have just picked him up and carried him out....


Ever have first hand experience with a taser? I mean, you would think this, but I don't think it does really render someone unable to fight if they are still willing.

I've seen people on COPs run after being tasered....

[beam]

Ever have first hand experience with a taser? I mean, you would think this, but I don't think it does really render someone unable to fight if they are still willing.


But Lohman....wikipedia SAYS it so it must be correct. :rolleyes:

[koleah]

California law. When asked by law enforcement personnel to show ID, you must, or face arrest.


He didn't, and discovered the consequence of failing to comply with a Police officer.


Somewhat OT and ignorant question, but is there somewhere to find out laws like this in clear plain english? I'm sure its in legalese "in the books" somewhere, but a layman like myself has never heard of it before.

[Triangle]

http://photos-415.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v50/211/34/2501031/n2501031_32876415_2543.jpg

[bentothejam1n]

bahhh whooopp

[punkncat]

The officers had every right to put their hands on his arm to escort him out. It's probably the lowest level of physical control, and causes no harm. The idiot himself decided to make a scene of it by shouting and carrying on, and brough the eventual tasering on himself. .

I really cannot speak intelligently on what rights an officer has to "reduce" a civilians rights and when. I do know that simply placing your hand on an officer constitutes battery. An officer can just short of rough up a civilian w/o being charged for assault or battery.

Not being there I cannot say what should have happened. IF the kid was moving along then he should have been escorted out w/o physical contact. What I suspect is that you had a group of highly uncomfortable officers trying to control a volatile situation and needed to show what some would consider undue force to get a handle on it before it escalated.

Smarting off or talking back to a cop like you might try and get away with your parents will always end up bad. Don't ask me how I know.... :ninja:

[Triangle]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v36/StaticKnight/1165018283083.jpg

[Steelrat]

I really cannot speak intelligently on what rights an officer has to "reduce" a civilians rights and when. I do know that simply placing your hand on an officer constitutes battery. An officer can just short of rough up a civilian w/o being charged for assault or battery.

Not being there I cannot say what should have happened. IF the kid was moving along then he should have been escorted out w/o physical contact. What I suspect is that you had a group of highly uncomfortable officers trying to control a volatile situation and needed to show what some would consider undue force to get a handle on it before it escalated.

Smarting off or talking back to a cop like you might try and get away with your parents will always end up bad. Don't ask me how I know.... :ninja:

It's generally a good idea to use an "escort position" when escorting someone out of a facility, in case they get rowdy. It's easy to transition from the escort position to several different type of holds or takedowns. If the guy wanted to leave without having his arm held, he should have done it the first time he was asked. It's not a reduction of rights.