UCLA student tasered by campus police for not showing ID

[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.

[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...