[UNTeMac]

Originally Posted by PacHead 

The kid whining about the patriot act should move back to the motherland country if he doesn't like it here and he can have a jolly good time with the mullahs over there. It's highly likely that the US will be in an armed conflict with Iran at some point in time, and just like Germans and Japanese were held under a higher suspicion under WWII, the same should be true for people who come from countries which the US is at war with today.

Originally Posted by PacHead 

Benedict Arnold was born here also.
Just admit that you're a kneejerking Liberal and be done with it. I don't like people who hide behind their race to further their questionable political agendas. I don't care if the person is as white as snow or black as night or anything else in between.

Me kneejerk? Ok kettle, pull out the labels... oh wait you already did. I'm not sure how it makes sense to hold a natural-born citizen in higher suspicion than anyone else just because his ethnic heritage says he's "not from here." If you don't want to be called a racist, don't promote racist ideas. Being called a liberal is much nicer anyway, even if your use of it is an example of how narrow your thinking is.

[Kerrigan]

This video demonstrates a couple of things:

Politically aware college students like the Iranian kid can be immature d0uchebagss

Police can be abusive, sadistic assholes

UCLA students are whiny, dickless sheep who would rather fiddle around with their cameraphones than correct a serious injustice.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

UCLA students are whiny, dickless sheep who would rather fiddle around with their cameraphones than correct a serious injustice.

Kinda like American liberals, ain't it?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by UNTeMac 

If you don't want to be called a racist, don't promote racist ideas.

The moron who got tasered is the racist, he's the one (and his liberal defenders) who are whining about racism and bringing up the subject.

Originally Posted by UNTeMac 

Being called a liberal is much nicer anyway,

That is debatable.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Those cops had every right to take his arm and escort him out. Period. It was HIS way over-the-top reaction and abusiveness that escalated the situation. He never ONCE tried to comply.

I repeat my questions to you:

1) Did he assault anybody?

2) Is it morally acceptable to attack someone who is not a threat to anyone?

In my opinion, the government should not be allowed to torture people just because they are "rude" or unpleasant. I don't like rude people, but shocking them as they lie on the floor handcuffed is still wrong.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

But hey, lets all blame "The Man™". Maybe we should lobby to strip cops of all their tools and teach them to be nice, criminals and whacko students respond well to that.

Oh, please. Try to hold back on the straw men, dude. Asking for police not to escalate a nonviolent situation into an attack on one man and a threatened attack on several others is not the same as suggesting that police should not be able to do their jobs.

You don't see me going, "What? I'm not allowed to pull the fire alarm whenever I'm feeling frustrated at work? Next thing you're going to tell me I can't use Photoshop!" Why? Because it's not necessary for me to pull the fire alarm to get my job done, just like it's not necessary for the police to electrocute a harmless student to get theirs done. In case of a fire, I should pull it, but that doesn't make it a generally acceptable solution anytime I'm feeling irked.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Politically aware college students like the Iranian kid can be immature d0uchebagss

Given all his seemingly nonsensical shouting about the Patriot Act, I'm not sure how politically aware this dude is.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Is it morally acceptable to attack someone who is not a threat to anyone?

You do not know that he was not a threat. The cops were dealing with an unstable maniac, that was screaming and carrying on like a little bitch. The only mistake that the cops made was that they didn't initially use more powerful force to subdue the troublemaker right away.

[marden]

It seems as though we have to re-state things to make sure people get it.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

In my opinion, the question is whether you believe he assaulted anybody. If he assaulted somebody, the cops were reasonable to attack him. If he did not assault anybody, they should not have shot him with a weapon that would be considered assault if anybody else had done it.

11-16-2006, 06:46 PM #3
Doormat
Junior Member

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 21
vCash: 500
Validation Points: 111


Okay kids, I'm here!

Yes, I was indeed at Powell Library at approximately 11:30 on Tuesday night, and yes I did see the entire event as it went down.

Let me start off by saying that the guy DEFINITELY was asking to get his ass kicked. He was being extremely rude with the campus patrol guys (who are college students...this was before the real UCPD got called in).

He was not complying with their requests to leave the premises, and he was definitely itching for a fight. I actually know the guy and a few of his friends, and I can tell you that he's the kind of guy that loves to make trouble.

Just as a little backstory, one of the quotes the guy has on his facebook (which he now has taken down) was "I like to find the most difficult solutions to the simplest of problems".

He definitely taunted the UCPD into behaving the way they did with him.

Edit: Many people have questioned the fact that the cops tazed him and asked him to get up, and tazed him again even though he shouldn't have the capability to get up. This was not the case here to my knowledge, because the cops were using their "drive-stun" method which administers less of a jolt than normal. I believe this because anyone who can ramble on about this being the patriot act and yell at the top of his lungs should have the capability of getting up.
Last edited by Doormat : 11-16-2006 at 06:50 PM.

11-16-2006, 06:48 PM #4
Doormat
Junior Member

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 21
vCash: 500
Validation Points: 111


Also I'd like to add that our local campus patrol officers (the college guys with the night jobs) and the UCPD have a really good track record, and my experiences with them have been great. In the food chain of good cop/bad cop, these guys are definitely on the "letting **** slide" part.

I have class with one campus officers who was there last night, so I'm going to ask him what his take was on it and what they were discussing while this was going down.

By the way if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

11-16-2006, 06:53 PM #6
1 track mind
jumps in with both feet.



Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NY/NJ
Posts: 146
vCash: 1116
Validation Points: 255


Thank you for posting this. Some people around here, and **** load of people on YouTube have gone whiny liberal "you can't do that to another human being he wasn't doing anything wrong OMG." I said it in the other thread. It's completely clear that the kid was acting like a jackass, deserved everything he got, and the UCPD were working completely within their protocol.


EDIT: I've been getting rep for my post in the other thread responding to Goonit; one of the many whiny pussies who got their panties in a twist.

"You're a douche bag. Get real, pick his ass up if there are multiple guys. Tasering should be last resort and used against physical threats you insane ****."

Just to respond to that in an appropriate place, I asked one of the LEO's on this board about necessary use of force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Someone who knows more than you.

We can use force to a) defend himself or the public b) overcome resistance or c) prevent escape. If someone's resisting, we're allowed to hit with our hands, kick, use twist locks, strike with an impact device, taze, shoot w/ a bean bag gun, OC spray ... I think that's it.

Tucker Max Message Board - The UCLA beat-down: We have a witness

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I repeat my questions to you:

1) Did he assault anybody?

Technically YES. Look up the definition of assault.

OK, I'm not really going to argue semantics, I know what you mean. No he didn't. My now very repetitive point is that it wasn't necessary for him to have assaulted anyone to have been taken out by the arm and it wasn't necessary to have been violent to be made to get the f*ck up and comply. It didn't show up in the crappy video but when he first starts screaming "DON"T TOUCH ME!" I guarantee he was making a very exaggerated physical gesture to jerk away form the cop. THAT is grounds to be manhandled right there.

Plus, it is not the cops mandate or duty or even courtesy to have to carry a jerk-wad trouble-maker down stairs and out of a building simply because the guy is too much of an asshole to walk. Drive-stun is a perfectly acceptable method in a case where someone is absolutely REFUSING to comply.

2) Is it morally acceptable to attack someone who is not a threat to anyone?

I don't believe the cops "attacked" him. That's the wrong word. They told him what to do and warned him repeatedly what would happen. Now, hindsight is 20/20 but with his ranting and raving how is anyone to know if he IS dangerous? Should they wait until he slips a knife between the cops ribs THEN do something? It's a cops job to PREVENT the unknown as well as react to the known.

[Tiresias]

Was it a hand-held Taser, or did they shoot the prongs into him?

[Tiresias]

"Police officers ... are not required to use the least intrusive degree of force possible. Rather ..., the inquiry is whether the force used to effect a particular seizure was reasonable, viewing the facts from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene ... Whether officers hypothetically could have used less painful, less injurious, or more effective force in executing an arrest is simply not the issue."
(Rios v. City of Fresno, ruled 4 days ago so not officially reported yet.)

Interesting that the judge does not define a reasonable amount of force as the least injurious amount of force under the given circumstances, because it implies that using more force than necessary is not necessarily unreasonable.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Was it a hand-held Taser, or did they shoot the prongs into him?

I think the information included in the posts and links would provide a good indication. I know the answer after reading it. Let's see how well you do at reading comprehension and reading thoroughness.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by marden 

I think the information included in the posts and links would provide a good indication. I know the answer after reading it. Let's see how well you do at reading comprehension and reading thoroughness.

You're being like that cos' I said your poll was dumb.

[moodymonster]

think it was a hand held one that they applied to his buttocks

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

think it was a hand held one that they applied to his buttocks

Hm. Starting to look more like a storm in a teacup. But even borderline Taser abuse is pretty worrying stuff in the age of the Active Denial Systems technologies.

Check these boys out. Makes a Taser look like a pussy.

Active Denial System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Say hello to my little friend!

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Hm. Starting to look more like a storm in a teacup. But even borderline Taser abuse is pretty worrying stuff in the age of the Active Denial Systems technologies.

Check these boys out. Makes a Taser look like a pussy.

Active Denial System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Say hello to my little friend!

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/2579/activedenialsystemey4.jpg

They already have some crazy stuff that they can do with sound waves. A person can be incapacitated while people six feet away will look at them like they are a moron. I wish I knew the words to Google it. It is crazy stuff.

[Tiresias]

Maybe Wiki "Directed-energy weapon". They list a bunch of different kinds.

[nonhuman]

Keith Olbermann interviews the student's lawyer: YouTube - Keith Olbermann interviews Mostafa's Lawyer

Obviously the lawyer is biased in favor of his client, and Olbermann has just a tad of bias himself. However, they re-show parts of the video (editing out the boring parts) and it's helpful to hear the Mostafa's side of the story.

Of particular interest, I think, is that one of the first times they were yelling at him to stand up, you could still hear the taser. Were they yelling at him to stand up while at the same time intentionally incapacitating him? Or were they just using it as a threat?

Also, as has been pointed out and ignored several times, he was in the process of leaving when all this started. There was no problem until the cops caused on themselves.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Keith Olbermann interviews the student's lawyer: YouTube - Keith Olbermann interviews Mostafa's Lawyer

Obviously the lawyer is biased in favor of his client, and Olbermann has just a tad of bias himself. However, they re-show parts of the video (editing out the boring parts) and it's helpful to hear the Mostafa's side of the story.

Of particular interest, I think, is that one of the first times they were yelling at him to stand up, you could still hear the taser. Were they yelling at him to stand up while at the same time intentionally incapacitating him? Or were they just using it as a threat?

Also, as has been pointed out and ignored several times, he was in the process of leaving when all this started. There was no problem until the cops caused on themselves.

This makes the kid an even bigger ********* than before. His method of protest, however, was peaceful, and not agressive. He still did not deserve the treatment he deserved. I also doubt racial motivation.

[Spliffdaddy]

well, if he was leaving - why were the cops called?

are cops normally called to handle situations where people are being cooperative?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

well, if he was leaving - why were the cops called?

The cops were presumably not standing right outside the door, so they must have been called a few minutes before he was leaving.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

well, if he was leaving - why were the cops called?

It was a random ID check. The ********* disputed the randomness of it and requested that a white kid get carded too. Cops were called. The cop regarded this as irrational behavior, and it was. The cop touches him, and the ********* flips out and starts to protest by going limp. The cop pulls out the tazer and abuses him.

are cops normally called to handle situations where people are being cooperative?

Are cops supposed to shock every non-violent, noisy, *********?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The cops were presumably not standing right outside the door, so they must have been called a few minutes before he was leaving.

Oh, OK.

So he wasn't being cooperative. Not before the cops were called, nor after.

[nonhuman]

[QUOTE=Tuoder;3211579]It was a random ID check. The ********* disputed the randomness of it and requested that a white kid get carded too. Cops were called. The cop regarded this as irrational behavior, and it was./QUOTE]

I don't think it was irrational at all. No one should be required to present ID without just cause. If you're trying to get into a restricted area, fine. If you're suspected of a crime, fine. If you're just sitting there minding your own business, the police should do the same. And he was right to dispute the randomness of it, if he felt he were being unfairly treated simply because of his genetics.

Now, if they had asked for his ID because some other student had said that they didn't think he was actually a student there (whether it was because he appeared middle eastern or not), then I think the ID check would have been justified.

If I'm ever asked by a police officer to present ID for no good reason, you better believe I will refuse.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Oh, OK.

So he wasn't being cooperative. Not before the cops were called, nor after.

I think (assume) that what happened was that he was asked to show ID. He said no, and, to some extent, made a bit of a scene out of demanding that they check someone else's ID too. The cops were called. He realized that it was getting a bit out of hand and started to leave. The cops showed up and accosted him. He reacted to the police's tactics with non-violent resistance. And we all know what happened then.

Yes, he wasn't being cooperative. But that, in and of itself, is not justification for what happened.

[mapleleaf]

Location, location, location!

I cannot help but wonder if those who are firmly behind the police with this incident would think much differently if the events had taken place in say, oh, North Korea or Cuba.

[bstone]

If someone is limp on the ground then why taze him? He is not a threat.

If someone if fighting the police, then it might be ok to taze him. He is a threat.

Threat=possibly tazing

No threat=don't taze

This student=limp on ground=don't taze

Kapish?

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

It was a random ID check. The ********* disputed the randomness of it and requested that a white kid get carded too. Cops were called. The cop regarded this as irrational behavior, and it was.

I don't think it was irrational at all. No one should be required to present ID without just cause. If you're trying to get into a restricted area, fine. If you're suspected of a crime, fine. If you're just sitting there minding your own business, the police should do the same. And he was right to dispute the randomness of it, if he felt he were being unfairly treated simply because of his genetics.

Now, if they had asked for his ID because some other student had said that they didn't think he was actually a student there (whether it was because he appeared middle eastern or not), then I think the ID check would have been justified.

If I'm ever asked by a police officer to present ID for no good reason, you better believe I will refuse.

I think that it is not at all unreasonable to ask for ID in this case. I have always thought that colleges were of abnormally low security. If the Iranian guy would have just given the pig his ID, it could have been someone else that got tazered unneccessarily. The entire college campus is restricted access to students. It is not unreasonable to make sure that a person there is a student, after hours. Even the ********* would not have said htat. He just thought the cop was racist. Maybe he was, but that ain't enugh proof to go limp on the floor, like a moron. Going limp on the floor is not an excuse to tazer a ********* who just called you a racist.

That being said, I don't think it is unreasonable to not answer any questions a cop asks you, besides getting your ID.

[marden]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf 

Location, location, location!

I cannot help but wonder if those who are firmly behind the police with this incident would think much differently if the events had taken place in say, oh, North Korea or Cuba.

That is a ridiculous question.

No matter WHAT the system of government, they have a basic right to maintain order and use reasonable means to do so.

No matter what you think of them, North Korea and Cuba have a right to maintain order within their jurisdiction and if all they did was to use a 'move along' taser to get a jerk to leave after he'd been repeatedly asked to go and refused then I'd have no problem with their actions.

In fact, this punk wouldn't have done that crap in Iran. He'd have likely been locked up and beaten.

When a North Korean or Cuban cop responds to a store hold up in progress should the robber go free just because the government is communist?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I don't think it was irrational at all. No one should be required to present ID without just cause. If you're trying to get into a restricted area, fine. If you're suspected of a crime, fine. If you're just sitting there minding your own business, the police should do the same.

Except, in this case, he was in a restricted area. Use of the library after hours is restricted to students. They had every right to check to make sure those in the library are students. It is, in fact, a service for the students. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they chose to check his ID because of his ethnicity, but there is no way to prove that unless there is a pattern of that. Likely, there isn't.

[marden]

Originally Posted by bstone 

If someone is limp on the ground then why taze him? He is not a threat.

If someone if fighting the police, then it might be ok to taze him. He is a threat.

Threat=possibly tazing

No threat=don't taze

This student=limp on ground=don't taze

Kapish?

He was not moving along as he was told to do and was capable of doing. In short he was resisting their lawful instructions.

Capisce is an Italian word that initially became popular in English in the 1940s, popularized by Italian immigrants in America's eastern cities and by use in onscreen portrayals of Italian-Americans, often in organized crime roles.

It means "Get it?" and comes from the Italian capisci? ("do you understand?"), deriving from the verb capire, to understand. It is commonly misspelled and mispronounced, and has been rendered in English as "coppish" and "capeesh", among other variations. Confusion about its meaning is memorably recorded in an episode of The Simpsons, in which a hardboiled supermarket security guard appends it to a warning to Bart.[1]

It was used in the 1937 film Ali Baba Goes to Town in a slightly different manner - "Capisce Italian?"[2] It was also used in the films Bound[3], Zoolander[4], and The Rookie[5], among others.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Except, in this case, he was in a restricted area. Use of the library after hours is restricted to students. They had every right to check to make sure those in the library are students. It is, in fact, a service for the students. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they chose to check his ID because of his ethnicity, but there is no way to prove that unless there is a pattern of that. Likely, there isn't.

I can't tell you how much it pleases me to see you arguing on the right side of an issue!

[marden]

[QUOTE=nonhuman;3211608]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

It was a random ID check. The ********* disputed the randomness of it and requested that a white kid get carded too. Cops were called. The cop regarded this as irrational behavior, and it was./QUOTE]

I don't think it was irrational at all. No one should be required to present ID without just cause. If you're trying to get into a restricted area, fine. If you're suspected of a crime, fine. If you're just sitting there minding your own business, the police should do the same. And he was right to dispute the randomness of it, if he felt he were being unfairly treated simply because of his genetics.

Now, if they had asked for his ID because some other student had said that they didn't think he was actually a student there (whether it was because he appeared middle eastern or not), then I think the ID check would have been justified.

If I'm ever asked by a police officer to present ID for no good reason, you better believe I will refuse.

Because you may not be able to adequately and immediately know or understand the good reason the Police might have for asking you to present your I.D. (but later on after some more thought or more info than was available to you at that moment it becomes clear to you that they DID have a good reason beyond just that they SAID so) you might get your ass beaten and/or arrested or worse.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

I can't tell you how much it pleases me to see you arguing on the right side of an issue!

Oh, I still think the officers made some stupid choices and were stepping very close to, if not over, the bounds of their authority when they continued to taze him after being cuffed and threatening to taze the bystanders who were asking for their badge numbers. But that doesn't mean that I don't think the student also made some stupid decisions that contributed to the situation.

[marden]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Keith Olbermann interviews the student's lawyer: YouTube - Keith Olbermann interviews Mostafa's Lawyer

Obviously the lawyer is biased in favor of his client, and Olbermann has just a tad of bias himself. However, they re-show parts of the video (editing out the boring parts) and it's helpful to hear the Mostafa's side of the story.

Of particular interest, I think, is that one of the first times they were yelling at him to stand up, you could still hear the taser. Were they yelling at him to stand up while at the same time intentionally incapacitating him? Or were they just using it as a threat?

Also, as has been pointed out and ignored several times, he was in the process of leaving when all this started. There was no problem until the cops caused on themselves.

He could have left when the student safety officers asked him to. He had ALREADY been resisting the authorities if not just good sense. He deserved every watt.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Oh, I still think the officers made some stupid choices and were stepping very close to, if not over, the bounds of their authority when they continued to taze him after being cuffed and threatening to taze the bystanders who were asking for their badge numbers. But that doesn't mean that I don't think the student also made some stupid decisions that contributed to the situation.

Ok. That's the last time I compliment you.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

Ok. That's the last time I compliment you.

No worries. I didn't really take it as a compliment, anyways. It's in my nature to look at both sides of an issue rather than blindly choose one.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

No worries. I didn't really take it as a compliment. It's in my nature to look at both sides of an issue rather than blindly choose one.

As though I don't examine all sides of an issue before debating the right position?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

He was not moving along as he was told to do and was capable of doing. In short he was resisting their lawful instructions.

And the police were shocking him as he lay bound on the floor. Do two wrongs make a right in your world?

Originally Posted by marden 

As though I don't examine all sides of an issue before debating the right position?

No, you don't. You'll jump into a situation involving several men you don't know and declare with absolute certainty that none of them would ever dream of doing anything wrong. Then you'll argue based on that assumption.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

As though I don't examine all sides of an issue before debating the Right position?

I didn't say that

(also: fixed)

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And the police were shocking him as he lay bound on the floor. Do two wrongs make a right in your world?

He SHOULD have been zapped unconscious the first time he resisted. I.E. when the student officers couldn't get him to move along. When the 'real cops' zapped him it was to get him to stop acting like a limp dummy and cooperate with moving along. The jerk was resisting every moment of the time when he was first asked for his I.D.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, you don't. You'll jump into a situation involving several men you don't know and declare with absolute certainty that none of them would ever dream of doing anything wrong. Then you'll argue based on that assumption.

I swear! I guess I DO have to post this on every succeeding page of 'debate!'

11-16-2006, 06:46 PM #3
Doormat
Junior Member

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 21
vCash: 500
Validation Points: 116


Okay kids, I'm here!

Yes, I was indeed at Powell Library at approximately 11:30 on Tuesday night, and yes I did see the entire event as it went down.

Let me start off by saying that the guy DEFINITELY was asking to get his ass kicked. He was being extremely rude with the campus patrol guys (who are college students...this was before the real UCPD got called in). He was not complying with their requests to leave the premises, and he was definitely itching for a fight. I actually know the guy and a few of his friends, and I can tell you that he's the kind of guy that loves to make trouble.

Just as a little backstory, one of the quotes the guy has on his facebook (which he now has taken down) was "I like to find the most difficult solutions to the simplest of problems".

He definitely taunted the UCPD into behaving the way they did with him.

Edit: Many people have questioned the fact that the cops tazed him and asked him to get up, and tazed him again even though he shouldn't have the capability to get up. This was not the case here to my knowledge, because the cops were using their "drive-stun" method which administers less of a jolt than normal. I believe this because anyone who can ramble on about this being the patriot act and yell at the top of his lungs should have the capability of getting up.
Last edited by Doormat : 11-16-2006 at 06:50 PM.

11-16-2006, 06:48 PM #4
Doormat
Junior Member

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 21
vCash: 500
Validation Points: 116


Also I'd like to add that our local campus patrol officers (the college guys with the night jobs) and the UCPD have a really good track record, and my experiences with them have been great. In the food chain of good cop/bad cop, these guys are definitely on the "letting **** slide" part.

I have class with one campus officers who was there last night, so I'm going to ask him what his take was on it and what they were discussing while this was going down.

By the way if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

11-16-2006, 06:52 PM #5
Tucker Max
Administrator



Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,828
vCash: 525
Validation Points: 1894


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doormat
Okay kids, I'm here!

Yes, I was indeed at Powell Library at approximately 11:30 on Tuesday night, and yes I did see the entire event as it went down.

Let me start off by saying that the guy DEFINITELY was asking to get his ass kicked. He was being extremely rude with the campus patrol guys (who are college students...this was before the real UCPD got called in). He was not complying with their requests to leave the premises, and he was definitely itching for a fight. I actually know the guy and a few of his friends, and I can tell you that he's the kind of guy that loves to make trouble.

Just as a little backstory, one of the quotes the guy has on his facebook (which he now has taken down) was "I like to find the most difficult solutions to the simplest of problems".

He definitely taunted the UCPD into behaving the way they did with him.

Edit: Many people have questioned the fact that the cops tazed him and asked him to get up, and tazed him again even though he shouldn't have the capability to get up. This was not the case here to my knowledge, because the cops were using their "drive-stun" method which administers less of a jolt than normal. I believe this because anyone who can ramble on about this being the patriot act and yell at the top of his lungs should have the capability of getting up.


Yeah, it seems obvious that the kid is itching for a fight. He was yelling at them about the ****ing Patriot Act and claiming all kinds of ridiculous ****, all while being tazed. If I have getting electricity shot through me, I'd shut the **** up until that was stopped, then start bitching.
__________________
"...highly entertaining and thoroughly reprehensible..."
-NY Times describing TuckerMax.com

11-16-2006, 06:53 PM #6
1 track mind
jumps in with both feet.



Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NY/NJ
Posts: 147
vCash: 1116
Validation Points: 260


Thank you for posting this. Some people around here, and **** load of people on YouTube have gone whiny liberal "you can't do that to another human being he wasn't doing anything wrong OMG." I said it in the other thread. It's completely clear that the kid was acting like a jackass, deserved everything he got, and the UCPD were working completely within their protocol.


EDIT: I've been getting rep for my post in the other thread responding to Goonit; one of the many whiny pussies who got their panties in a twist.

"You're a douche bag. Get real, pick his ass up if there are multiple guys. Tasering should be last resort and used against physical threats you insane ****."

Just to respond to that in an appropriate place, I asked one of the LEO's on this board about necessary use of force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Someone who knows more than you.
We can use force to a) defend himself or the public b) overcome resistance or c) prevent escape. If someone's resisting, we're allowed to hit with our hands, kick, use twist locks, strike with an impact device, taze, shoot w/ a bean bag gun, OC spray ... I think that's it.

Tucker Max Message Board - The UCLA beat-down: We have a witness

[mapleleaf]

Originally Posted by marden 

That is a ridiculous question.

I don't believe I put what I said in the form of a question.

And you completely missed what I was saying.

[marden]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf 

I don't believe I put what I said in the form of a question.

And you completely missed what I was saying.

Believe it or not I LIKE it when junior posters point out my infrequent and minor lapses. It keeps me fresh. Thanks.

And it was ridiculous no matter what it was. Whether it was a ridiculous statement or a ridiculous question. No matter what, it was still ridiculous.

And if I missed what you were saying then please accept my apology and restate your statement.

[G4ME]

all i know is i just added him on facebook

i hope he acepts me

[Tuoder]

[QUOTE=marden;3211813]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Because you may not be able to adequately and immediately know or understand the good reason the Police might have for asking you to present your I.D. (but later on after some more thought or more info than was available to you at that moment it becomes clear to you that they DID have a good reason beyond just that they SAID so) you might get your ass beaten and/or arrested or worse.

I might get rich in the process. I might get some nimrods sent to jail. There is no justification for an ass-whooping if they can't even provide a reason for asking for ID. I'd like to have the badge of the meathead that has the balls and lack of brains to do that. Let hime come. Cops are justified in whopping on someone when they are a threat, or at least when they need to be subdued.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

I might get rich in the process. I might get some nimrods sent to jail. There is no justification for an ass-whooping if they can't even provide a reason for asking for ID. I'd like to have the badge of the meathead that has the balls and lack of brains to do that. Let hime come. Cops are justified in whopping on someone when they are a threat, or at least when they need to be subdued.

From above.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Except, in this case, he was in a restricted area. Use of the library after hours is restricted to students. They had every right to check to make sure those in the library are students. It is, in fact, a service for the students. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they chose to check his ID because of his ethnicity, but there is no way to prove that unless there is a pattern of that. Likely, there isn't.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by marden 

From above.

I am confused, what is your point?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

I am confused, what is your point?

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

I might get rich in the process. I might get some nimrods sent to jail. There is no justification for an ass-whooping if they can't even provide a reason for asking for ID.

There was justification for asking for his I.D.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Except, in this case, he was in a restricted area. Use of the library after hours is restricted to students. They had every right to check to make sure those in the library are students. It is, in fact, a service for the students. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they chose to check his ID because of his ethnicity, but there is no way to prove that unless there is a pattern of that. Likely, there isn't.

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

I'd like to have the badge of the meathead that has the balls and lack of brains to do that. Let hime come. Cops are justified in whopping on someone when they are a threat, or at least when they need to be subdued.

From above.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Except, in this case, he was in a restricted area. Use of the library after hours is restricted to students. They had every right to check to make sure those in the library are students. It is, in fact, a service for the students. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they chose to check his ID because of his ethnicity, but there is no way to prove that unless there is a pattern of that. Likely, there isn't.

[Tuoder]

My posts don't conflict. It makes sense to check IDs. It doesn't makes sense to just taze him over and over and over while he is handcuffed and no longer a threat. It didn't make sense when he lied down on the floor. That just makes the Iranian kid a *********. You chopped up posts that are not in direct response to the matter at hand. You are really bad at this. Do you think that I am WiskedJak?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Hm. Starting to look more like a storm in a teacup.

Tempest in a teacup?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

He SHOULD have been zapped unconscious the first time he resisted. I.E. when the student officers couldn't get him to move along. When the 'real cops' zapped him it was to get him to stop acting like a limp dummy and cooperate with moving along. The jerk was resisting every moment of the time when he was first asked for his I.D.

It is as reasonable for them to electrocute a nonviolent protester as it would be for me to electrocute you right now. They're not in any danger, I'm not in any danger — but hey, there's nothing wrong with electrocuting people just because you don't like their attitude, right?

The police have a duty to protect and serve us, not to make up for their abnormally small man-bits by torturing brown folk.

Originally Posted by marden 

I swear! I guess I DO have to post this on every succeeding page of 'debate!'

No, you really don't. As I have pointed out every time you've regurgitated that, posting somebody else's personal opinion doesn't lend yours any additional credibility.