[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

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.


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.

Repeating the words and impressions of someone who was AT LEAST on the scene is a damn sight closer to the reality of the situation than totally ignoring it and making up a complete fantasy.

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.

[bstone]

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.

One is not capable of moving when thousands of volts of lethal electricity is repeatedly being zapped through your body.

[marden]

Originally Posted by bstone 

One is not capable of moving when thousands of volts of lethal electricity is repeatedly being zapped through your body.

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.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by marden 

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.

Even if he refused to move, there is no reason to use potentially lethal and deadly force on a person who poses absolutely no threat at all. The force the police use must be proportional to the threat posed. A man laying on the floor not moving is not a threat to anyone, other than possibly tripping over him. In the end the police dragged him out. Why did they do that in the beginning? They had enough officers there, it would have been much less damaging to their reputations and would have been the proper amount of force to exert on someone who was peacefully resisting.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by marden 

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.

Purely from a logical standpoint, it makes sense that if it hurts as much as people claim, and he had the ability to get up, he would have. Or maybe, he is just that much of a *********.

[dcolton]

The whole thing was staged by CAIR. The student was an a$$hole and deserved everything he got.

[marden]

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

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

The whole thing was staged by CAIR.

Got proof?

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

Got proof?

Proof? Proof is for the PL. All I know is that CAIR jumped on this bandwagon pretty damned quick because this jerk has a muslim name. Why the hell do you think he was screaming about the patriot act?

[Wiskedjak]

On "Drive-Stun"

"Taser International, urges caution about use of the weapon in the "drive-stun" mode and with repeated shocks ... The Taser training manual advises that because it is not incapacitating, this mode can lead to "prolonged struggles" and that "it is in these types of scenarios that officers are often facing accusations of excessive force.""
Taser's effects fueling concern

"A recent amendment to the DeLand Police Department's Taser policy is clearer, saying that the "drive-stun" mode can be used only under exceptional circumstances. Local policies don't address the use of the "drive-stun" mode in writing, although narratives in some of the reports examined by The Post acknowledge that this use is discouraged."
Taser's effects fueling concern

"Boca Raton's policy states that the drive stun mode should be used when it is impossible to fire probes or to stop aggressive suspects. Some departments in Florida have stated in their policies that officers should avoid using the weapons in the drive stun mode."
Less Lethal

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by marden 

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

How do you know that guy doesn't just have something against the kid? Or that he's a rabid anti-arab asshole that's making **** up?

I haven't seen this guy's 'testimony' reported on the news. I wonder why not? Maybe it's because they actually research the stuff they say (sometimes) and they determined that what this guy was saying is bullshit.

Regardless, you've posted that link and quotes a million times already and we don't give a ****. When one tact doesn't work try another one.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by marden 

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

I think you've posted this a dozen times or so, no?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

When one tact doesn't work try another one.

When one only has one tact, one must continue to flog it until it becomes the truth.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

The whole thing was staged by CAIR. The student was an a$$hole and deserved everything he got.

Right.

[dcolton]

The Council on American-Islamic Relations - CAIR: Home Page

[rambo47]

He's an A-rab?! Git 'em again!!

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

Proof? No. I speculated.

Fixed.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

The whole thing was staged by CAIR. The student was an a$$hole and deserved everything he got.

ummmm .... if the checking for student cards is random, how could the whole thing have been staged?

[mapleleaf]

Originally Posted by marden 

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.

What I was making was an observation based on personal experience and not directed at anyone specifically on this site. I have found that people generally have a more sympathetic view of police actions at home whereas had a similar thing occur in a country of supposed less freedoms, those same people are the first to wail how an individual's rights are being violated.

As for the incident in the library, I was not there. I've seen the video and as everyone knows appearances can be deceiving. Eyewitness accounts are seldom objective. There are still conflicting stories as to the actual course of events.

My opinion is that if the student posed a real threat to the safety of the police or public, then it was necessary to protect by any means. However, if the police used the taser simply because it was convenient and perhaps as an outlet for their frustrations in dealing with yet another scuzzy individual then they were very, very wrong.

The impression I got from the video and information available is that the student was a first class jerk or that he had mental problems. Nonetheless, I cannot see where his behaviour was a threat. It was a nuisance and disruptive, yes. And if he went limp as a protest, then there was sufficient personnel to cuff him and drag him off the premises if need be. The taser was overkill.

Your last response to me had you placing the student in the library on par with a bank robber. That seems far more ridiculous than what you accused me of.

[mapleleaf]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations - CAIR: Home Page

Uh oh, the gaybasher has come over to this thread too!

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf 

Uh oh, the gaybasher has come over to this thread too!

What gay bashing. Please define.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

Repeating the words and impressions of someone who was AT LEAST on the scene is a damn sight closer to the reality of the situation than totally ignoring it and making up a complete fantasy.

That is not remotely true. If he had said, "Well, the dude wasn't white, so obviously it was OK to rough him up," would that make it true that it's OK to rough up Persians? No. Eyewitness testimoney is valuable because it might contain facts that we don't have, but he wasn't offering any new facts, just his opinion. The validity of an opinion is determined through logic, not by proximity to a given event.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

What gay bashing. Please define.

Saying things like "you guys (gays) are molesting the minds of our youth." Combine that with comparing them to Nazis and again to child molesters and I think we can pretty definitely call that "bashing" — extremely melodramatic bashing, at that.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

What gay bashing. Please define.

Comparing gays to child molesters. Doing your best to destroy a thread that you claimed was about teaching people how to be gay.

[marden]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf 

What I was making was an observation based on personal experience and not directed at anyone specifically on this site. I have found that people generally have a more sympathetic view of police actions at home whereas had a similar thing occur in a country of supposed less freedoms, those same people are the first to wail how an individual's rights are being violated.

As for the incident in the library, I was not there. I've seen the video and as everyone knows appearances can be deceiving. Eyewitness accounts are seldom objective. There are still conflicting stories as to the actual course of events.

My opinion is that if the student posed a real threat to the safety of the police or public, then it was necessary to protect by any means. However, if the police used the taser simply because it was convenient and perhaps as an outlet for their frustrations in dealing with yet another scuzzy individual then they were very, very wrong.

The impression I got from the video and information available is that the student was a first class jerk or that he had mental problems. Nonetheless, I cannot see where his behaviour was a threat. It was a nuisance and disruptive, yes. And if he went limp as a protest, then there was sufficient personnel to cuff him and drag him off the premises if need be. The taser was overkill.

Your last response to me had you placing the student in the library on par with a bank robber. That seems far more ridiculous than what you accused me of.

Oh, so that means the police can allow trespassers to have their way and move along at their will and their own speed?

What about the campus that was left unpatrolled for an hour because of this jerk?

You seem to think the only reason for using persuasion is if there is a threat to safety?

You have no idea of what it takes to maintain order so you have no say in whether the police should or shouldn't have acted as they did.

If you were chief of police you would have ALOT of problems keeping order at the abortion clinics or any other kinds of protest or in dealing with any other kinds of offenses or altercations if non-lethal persuasion is not used.

When safety is at stake lethal methods are authorized. When safety is not at stake non-lethal methods are authorized. Duh!

Why in the heck do you think non-lethal tools are issued to and used by EVERY POLICE FORCE ON EARTH???

And until this happened many of you couldn't have cared less or else you all WOULD KNOW THE REALITIES OF LAW & ORDER and not expect the police to act like your mommies.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Eyewitness testimoney is valuable because it might contain facts that we don't have, but he wasn't offering any new facts, just his opinion. The validity of an opinion is determined through logic, not by proximity to a given event.

But your statement benefits from neither logic nor proximity.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

What about the campus that was left unpatrolled for an hour because of this jerk?

Yes, what about that? If they had let this guy walk out as he planned, the problem would have been solved. Instead, they chose to confront him, handcuff him and waste time shocking him over and over while he lay on the ground. Not only was this abusive, but they were neglecting their duty!

Originally Posted by marden 

You seem to think the only reason for using persuasion is if there is a threat to safety?

"Persuasion" is not a synonym for "torture."

Originally Posted by marden 

If you were chief of police you would have ALOT of problems keeping order at the abortion clinics or any other kinds of protest or in dealing with any other kinds of offenses or altercations if non-lethal persuasion is not used.

This wasn't a fight or a riot. Don't change the subject.

Originally Posted by marden 

Why in the heck do you think non-lethal tools are issued to and used by EVERY POLICE FORCE ON EARTH???

Why would women be allowed to carry guns in their purses if not to shoot any guy who pisses them off? It's almost like just because somebody is given a tool, that doesn't make it appropriate in every situation.

The police should take the route that results in the least harm possible. If somebody would get hurt as a result of them not using a certain degree of force, they should use that force. If they can not hurt anybody and everybody will be fine, they should do that. I don't see how you could possibly disagree that this is ideal.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

ummmm .... if the checking for student cards is random, how could the whole thing have been staged?

It is called pleading in the alternative and is often done in civil matters, not sure about here though.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The police should take the route that results in the least harm possible. If somebody would get hurt as a result of them not using a certain degree of force, they should use that force. If they can not hurt anybody and everybody will be fine, they should do that. I don't see how you could possibly disagree that this is ideal.

As already posted,
"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)

whether seizure extends to getting an ID card from someone is up for debate but I am willing to bet that a bit more time searching the law will find something even more on target.
Just because you think something should be a certain way doesn't mean it is.

[climber]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

The whole thing was staged by CAIR. The student was an a$$hole and deserved everything he got.

Who the hell cares if it was staged or not. It really does not matter. It also does not matter if the guy was a class A jerk that "deserved" to get beat on. If he broke the law he is supposed to get a trail, and if found guilty go to jail, etc. Since when do we want the cops to start administering street justice instead. What if the guy wasn't the ahole you claim, but instead a regular guy just making his point known. Should the police really be able to respond with that kind of force to anyone that refuses to simply obey the command to move along? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by marden 

Oh, so that means the police can allow trespassers to have their way and move along at their will and their own speed?

What about the campus that was left unpatrolled for an hour because of this jerk?

You seem to think the only reason for using persuasion is if there is a threat to safety?

You have no idea of what it takes to maintain order so you have no say in whether the police should or shouldn't have acted as they did.

If you were chief of police you would have ALOT of problems keeping order at the abortion clinics or any other kinds of protest or in dealing with any other kinds of offenses or altercations if non-lethal persuasion is not used.

When safety is at stake lethal methods are authorized. When safety is not at stake non-lethal methods are authorized. Duh!

Why in the heck do you think non-lethal tools are issued to and used by EVERY POLICE FORCE ON EARTH???

And until this happened many of you couldn't have cared less or else you all WOULD KNOW THE REALITIES OF LAW & ORDER and not expect the police to act like your mommies.

Of course we (the public) get to decide what the police can and can't do. Or do you actually suggest we leave up for themselves to decide? Just brilliant!

Why do you think that many municipalities have passed new rules/policies that flat out prohibit the kind of taser use seen on the video? Because stupid cops around the country started using them on everything from 9 year olds, 80 year old blind great grandmothers, and even some pregnant ladies that were never a threat to anyone. It is not necessary, it is dangerous if not fatal, and is plain stupid to the police image. As pointed out earlier in this thread, tasers were supposed to be used as a better alternative to shooting someone dead.

Let me repeat, it is not the job or responsibility of the police to punish anyone. Their job is simple, protect and serve. In case you have trouble remembering that concept, it is written on the side of a lot of patrol cars. If the cops can't figure another way to move a handcuffed non-combative suspect from a library to a patrol car, we need to find smarter cops.

Please someone explain the justification of pointing tasers at the other students and threatening them! To me at least, it proves just how out of control the cops were.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

As already posted,
"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)

How do we determine what is "reasonable" without the question pivoting around whether there was a less extreme alternative? I'm not saying that they need to use the least intrusive degree of force possible in an absolute sense (as that isn't always easy to determine), but they should aim for that, and they should certainly not inflict harm that is clearly not necessary. Doing something just to harm someone is not reasonable by any measure I can think of.

And besides that, even if we establish that the system allows police officers to needlessly torture harmless students, doesn't that just mean it's an even bigger problem than some bad cops?

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How do we determine what is "reasonable" without the question pivoting around whether there was a less extreme alternative? I'm not saying that they need to use the least intrusive degree of force possible in an absolute sense (as that isn't always easy to determine), but they should aim for that, and they should certainly not inflict harm that is clearly not necessary. Doing something just to harm someone is not reasonable by any measure I can think of.

And besides that, even if we establish that the system allows police officers to needlessly torture harmless students, doesn't that just mean it's an even bigger problem than some bad cops?

There was no torture of a harmless student from what I saw. The first case I mentioned here gives an example of what is reasonable. A nonviolent resist after a traffic stop led to a man getting tasered. He sued and was awarded $19k for the 4% that the city was held responsible for negligent infliction of emotional distress. He lost on his cause of action for unnecessary force and every other claim since he was held to be 96% liable for them. This student was able to walk and could have avoided everything even before the police got there. That seems like contributory negligence to me. I have seen someone get tasered many more times than this guy and he was able to curse the same way and walk just fine.

Is there a problem in letting people use more than necessary force? Maybe, but there is also this problem of people thinking that something should be a certain way when it isn't. The man in the first case appealed and lost by the way.

[climber]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

There was no torture of a harmless student from what I saw. The first case I mentioned here gives an example of what is reasonable. A nonviolent resist after a traffic stop led to a man getting tasered. He sued and was awarded $19k for the 4% that the city was held responsible for negligent infliction of emotional distress. He lost on his cause of action for unnecessary force and every other claim since he was held to be 96% liable for them. This student was able to walk and could have avoided everything even before the police got there. That seems like contributory negligence to me. I have seen someone get tasered many more times than this guy and he was able to curse the same way and walk just fine.

Is there a problem in letting people use more than necessary force? Maybe, but there is also this problem of people thinking that something should be a certain way when it isn't. The man in the first case appealed and lost by the way.

Use any force necessary to apprehend and neutralize the threat. But once the handcuffs were on, the tasers should have been put away. Not used again and again, and absolutely not pointed at anyone else in this situation.

[marden]

http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthr...65#post2895465

11-18-2006, 10:02 PM #87
Synch
Registered abUser

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,999
Let's piece this story together...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Associated Press
"As the officers attempted to escort him out, he went limp and continued to refuse to cooperate with officers or leave the building," Greenstein said.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/16021566.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Times
"He was 200 pounds and went limp and was very hard to manage. They were trying to get him on his feet," Young said.

http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholasti...c1b82da021f96d

He was 200 hundred pounds. His limping was resistance against the officer's attempt to escort him out, this was before he was stun gunned. This was directly resisting arrest. The police were trying to get him back on his feet, because he refused to get up and walk out of the library. This was before he was stunned.

And then, after resisting arrest and refusing to cooperate with officers even though he was clearly wrong and was breaking university rules, he tried to gather a crowd to add impetus to his cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Associated Press[from earlier link
]Instead, Greenstein said, Tabatabainejad encouraged others at the library to join his resistance. When a crowd began to gather they used the stun gun on him.

As you can see, he was resisting arrest and not cooperating with authorities who at first tried to escort him out of the library not through the threat of a stun gun but physically, subsequent to the officers trying to remove him from the library peacefully and to obtain his school ID, he screamed for a crowd to gather and show resistance and support his unjustified rebellion against the officers, in fact before he was stunned he asked for students to take their camera phone outs to take pictures, he wanted attention.

He was doing this to attack the authority of the state through means of the media, he was stunned only by stun mode, very light actually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Times
The officers used the device in stun mode -- which affects only the part of the body being touched -- rather than the dart mode, in which tiny electrodes are fired into a person and pass a current through them, disabling the person entirely.

http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholasti...c1b82da021f96d

He not only resisted the police, but regular campus police and community service officers. He was an attention whore, not a victim. He was apparently screaming the whole time he was being tazered, mind you this was a very light tazer and only subdued him from resisting arrest by the officers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Times
UCLA also said that Tabatabainejad refused repeated requests by a community service officer and regular campus police to provide identification or to leave. UCLA said the police decided to use the Taser to incapacitate Tabatabainejad only after the student urged other library patrons to join his resistance.

http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholasti...cf67eafc4119da

In conclusion, a rogue student was being apprehended by local police officers after he resisted campus police and community service officers. Before he was stunned under light stun mode in which the stunned part is only where the wires are tangent, he screamed in order to gather a crowd, and repeatedly refused to cooperate with authorities. he was tazered in order to be subdued, and now he is claiming he is a victim of police brutality.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

There was no torture of a harmless student from what I saw. The first case I mentioned here gives an example of what is reasonable. A nonviolent resist after a traffic stop led to a man getting tasered. He sued and was awarded $19k for the 4% that the city was held responsible for negligent infliction of emotional distress. He lost on his cause of action for unnecessary force and every other claim since he was held to be 96% liable for them.

The man won $19,000. That's not a loss in my book — it's a recognition that the officers did something wrong. The rest of it is just legal wiggling. (So, they were negligent in inflicting emotional distress but reasonable in doing the same thing? Yeah, thanks, lawyers.)

Originally Posted by SSharon 

Is there a problem in letting people use more than necessary force? Maybe, but there is also this problem of people thinking that something should be a certain way when it isn't.

Enlighten me: How is wanting things to be better than they are a "problem"? It seems to be that this "problem" is the reason America exists at all.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The man won $19,000. That's not a loss in my book — it's a recognition that the officers did something wrong. The rest of it is just legal wiggling. (So, they were negligent in inflicting emotional distress but reasonable in doing the same thing? Yeah, thanks, lawyers.)


Enlighten me: How is wanting things to be better than they are a "problem"? It seems to be that this "problem" is the reason America exists at all.

The point is that $19k is what he got out of a verdict for nearly half a million. After lawyers and court fees he probably got next to nothing.

As for the second part I only meant on this forum, I should have been more clear. The law is always evolving and only does so because we question it. The problem I was alluding to is that people question it with nothing but their own subjective feelings and then apply it to current cases. I think people need to be more clear and say although the police acted legally today, I don't think that law is appropriate any more and should be changed. (this is in fact an accepted defense according to the rules of civil procedure.)

[bstone]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

The point is that $19k is what he got out of a verdict for nearly half a million. After lawyers and court fees he probably got next to nothing.

As for the second part I only meant on this forum, I should have been more clear. The law is always evolving and only does so because we question it. The problem I was alluding to is that people question it with nothing but their own subjective feelings and then apply it to current cases. I think people need to be more clear and say although the police acted legally today, I don't think that law is appropriate any more and should be changed. (this is in fact an accepted defense according to the rules of civil procedure.)

Stephen, you sound like a first year law student.

I wonder why.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by climber 

Please someone explain the justification of pointing tasers at the other students and threatening them! To me at least, it proves just how out of control the cops were.

Quoted until it gets answered. No one supporting the actions of the officers seems to want to deal with this question, and all seem intent on ignoring it in the hope it will go away.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Quoted until it gets answered. No one supporting the actions of the officers seems to want to deal with this question, and all seem intent on ignoring it in the hope it will go away.

The other students were being, to some extent, confrontational with the police as well. Again, I think the police response was disproportional, but I think there was a genuine and reasonable fear on their part that the other students could become violent. A violent mob would not have been a good thing for anyone.

Of course the fact that the police recognized that implies that they also recognized that what they were doing was very questionable.

But what the students were doing was as well. They were perfectly within their rights to voice their disapproval and to ask for the officers' badge numbers. However, in the middle of an arrest is not the time to be doing that.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by marden 

If you were chief of police you would have ALOT of problems keeping order at the abortion clinics or any other kinds of protest or in dealing with any other kinds of offenses or altercations if non-lethal persuasion is not used.

woohoo! marden advocates tasing anti-abortion protesters!

[climber]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

The point is that $19k is what he got out of a verdict for nearly half a million. After lawyers and court fees he probably got next to nothing.

As for the second part I only meant on this forum, I should have been more clear. The law is always evolving and only does so because we question it. The problem I was alluding to is that people question it with nothing but their own subjective feelings and then apply it to current cases. I think people need to be more clear and say although the police acted legally today, I don't think that law is appropriate any more and should be changed. (this is in fact an accepted defense according to the rules of civil procedure.)

I am not convinced that the police in this case acted legally. Although they maybe within the UCPD policy on the use of tasers, that same policy may in fact allow the violation of a persons civil rights. Many if not most police jurisdictions (including the LAPD) forbid the use of tasers on a non-combative passive resisting suspect that does not pose a threat to anyone. The policy at UCLA would effectively permit the use of a taser to gather a confession if the officer thought that was in the public interest.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The other students were being, to some extent, confrontational with the police as well. Again, I think the police response was disproportional, but I think there was a genuine and reasonable fear on their part that the other students could become violent. A violent mob would not have been a good thing for anyone.

Of course the fact that the police recognized that implies that they also recognized that what they were doing was very questionable.

But what the students were doing was as well. They were perfectly within their rights to voice their disapproval and to ask for the officers' badge numbers. However, in the middle of an arrest is not the time to be doing that.

The students were being confrontational because the police were beating the hell out of a handcuffed suspect. The only justification I have heard that makes any sense is he deserved it for being an ass. While I tend to agree with the sentiment that he needed a good butt kicking, I don' think it is our collective best interest to give the cops the authority to do so.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by climber 

I am not convinced that the police in this case acted legally. Although they maybe within the UCPD policy on the use of tasers, that same policy may in fact allow the violation of a persons civil rights. Many if not most police jurisdictions (including the LAPD) forbid the use of tasers on a non-combative passive resisting suspect that does not pose a threat to anyone. The policy at UCLA would effectively permit the use of a taser to gather a confession if the officer thought that was in the public interest.

I would like to see some support for this. The case I cited to took place in LA and was affirmed on appeal. When I get home I can show you some more cases where a man was tasered in handcuffs and there was no claim against the police.

bstone: regardless of how I sound, at least I can say that I am defending my views with the law and not with personal speculation.
My posts may seem like I don't care he was tasered and to be honest I think this could have been dealt with differently. Yet again, precedent cases support that police are not to be held to act with hindsight knowledge. The student could have refused to produce ID for many reasons and I don't want to speculate on them.

[marden]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

woohoo! marden advocates tasing anti-abortion protesters!

If they are breaking the law or refuse lawful instructions, of course! Just like the jerk in the library. What the heck would you think?

What makes you think I would support lawlessness?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Quoted until it gets answered. No one supporting the actions of the officers seems to want to deal with this question, and all seem intent on ignoring it in the hope it will go away.

How many cops were there?

How many students were there?

What was the attitude and demeanor of the students?


Use your answers to the three questions above to answer the question you quoted.

[marden]

Originally Posted by climber 

Who the hell cares if it was staged or not. It really does not matter. It also does not matter if the guy was a class A jerk that "deserved" to get beat on. If he broke the law he is supposed to get a trail, and if found guilty go to jail, etc. Since when do we want the cops to start administering street justice instead.

WTF do you know about policing? Obviously nothing.

Originally Posted by climber 

What if the guy wasn't the ahole you claim, but instead a regular guy just making his point known.

What if, what if!

What if the jerk was responsible for the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa?

Since we are introducing our own make believe fantasies to the issue why not get some of mine in there too?

Originally Posted by climber 

Should the police really be able to respond with that kind of force to anyone that refuses to simply obey the command to move along? I don't think so.

It happens EVERY day, Matlock! How has the world been able to spin on it's axis without you telling it how to do it better??

Originally Posted by climber 

Of course we (the public) get to decide what the police can and can't do. Or do you actually suggest we leave up for themselves to decide? Just brilliant!

Why do you think that many municipalities have passed new rules/policies that flat out prohibit the kind of taser use seen on the video? Because stupid cops around the country started using them on everything from 9 year olds, 80 year old blind great grandmothers, and even some pregnant ladies that were never a threat to anyone. It is not necessary, it is dangerous if not fatal, and is plain stupid to the police image. As pointed out earlier in this thread, tasers were supposed to be used as a better alternative to shooting someone dead.

Let me repeat, it is not the job or responsibility of the police to punish anyone. Their job is simple, protect and serve. In case you have trouble remembering that concept, it is written on the side of a lot of patrol cars. If the cops can't figure another way to move a handcuffed non-combative suspect from a library to a patrol car, we need to find smarter cops.

Please someone explain the justification of pointing tasers at the other students and threatening them! To me at least, it proves just how out of control the cops were.

Please argue THIS incident. Not the whole matter of community policing or police oversight or rules of behavior and the sociological ramifications of tasing. Maybe I didn't see a SECOND video or read an account of the cops' pointing their tasers at the mob but if you were trying to keep order and there were only a few of you and a much larger number of maniacal students (since we can introduce our own take on the matter without regard to the facts, I choose to call them maniacal) lunging towards you with insane hatred in their eyes (sort of like the attitude you seem to have, but on a mob scale...and if you know nothing about mob mentality I suggest you go up against one before you open your yap) what would you do to keep them from attacking you, hmmm?

I believe some people are so used to doing things online that they believe it is possible to do EVERYTHING by remote control. I am willing to allow the people who are TRAINED and the PROFESSIONALS whose JOB it is to maintain order and who are experienced in doing it to do it.

If someone is a professional clown I wouldn't try to tell them how to do their job and I wouldn't expect a clown to try to tell dedicated law enforcement officers how to do their job.

You have issues pal. I think that Berserkly or West Hollywood have just the right kind of police force for your sensibilities. But in the meantime I hear that a female cop in your town had to use a choke hold to subdue a 250 lb. drunk. Why don't you go and file suit against her, huh?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by climber 

The students were being confrontational because the police were beating the hell out of a handcuffed suspect. The only justification I have heard that makes any sense is he deserved it for being an ass. While I tend to agree with the sentiment that he needed a good butt kicking, I don' think it is our collective best interest to give the cops the authority to do so.

I agree. However, a large group of confrontational people bearing down on a handful of cops trying to detain an unruly subject is not going to make the situation any better. If anything, I suspect the behavior of the crowd contributed to the mistreatment of the kid (not in any sort of intentional way, just because in a hostile environment the cops are going to instinctively become a little more desperate to instill order).

Although I agree that the cops were clearly in the wrong and that their behavior was unjustified, every single student in that video was exhibiting a common trait among young people to act as though, for whatever reason, they're always in the right and 'the man' is always just trying to oppress them while at the same time not having any real power over them. Whether or not they should respect the police officers, they should at least respect the power that those police officers have. Legally or not, a group of people armed with guns has the power of life and death over you. Respect that, if not them.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

How many cops were there?

How many students were there?

What was the attitude and demeanor of the students?


Use your answers to the three questions above to answer the question you quoted.

Yup, certainly sounds like a formula for a riot. Perhaps the officers should have thought about that. I don't think a handful of stun guns would have been very effective at preventing a riot, and I think threatening to zap people who weren't yet violent would only add fuel to that formula.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Yup, certainly sounds like a formula for a riot. Perhaps the officers should have thought about that. I don't think a handful of stun guns would have been very effective at preventing a riot, and I think threatening to zap people who weren't yet violent would only add fuel to that formula.

When will people who have no real knowledge, experience or interest in the very challenging field of law enforcement STOP trying to tell trained and dedicated professionals how to do their job????

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by marden 

When will people who have no real knowledge, experience or interest in the very challenging field of law enforcement STOP trying to tell trained and dedicated professionals how to do their job????

Good question.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

When will people who have no real knowledge, experience or interest in the very challenging field of law enforcement STOP trying to tell trained and dedicated professionals how to do their job????

At the same time people who have no real knowledge, experience or interest in the very challenging field of law enforcement STOP blindly defending law enforcers who abuse the power intrinsic to their job simply because they happen to match your political views.