UCLA student tasered by campus police for not showing ID

[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. piss off.

[geekwarrior]

another vid


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.

[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.