UCLA student tasered by campus police for not showing ID

[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...

[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.

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.

[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.