UCLA Student Tasered by Police Take 2 [Archive]

Sithdarth

11-19-2006, 12:59 PM

Old thread here. (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showthread.php?t=16189)

Ok I missed the other thread but I noticed a couple of things no one brought up and I thought perhaps some of the other stuff wasn't finished.

1) I object to the use of the term kid. It was almost universally used in the last thread. This person is not a kid. He is at least 18 probably 19-20. He is, or nearly so, at his physical prime. In short, he's about as dangerous as a person can get without carrying a weapon.

2) The kid pulled away the first time someone touched him. As far as I can see no one touched him again till after he was tasered. (Ie, after officers had already esclated to force.) So basically the officers probably figured if they tried to grab him on the ground he'd struggle like when he was standing up.

I don't know about you but I'm not getting down on the ground with someone that is nearly a match for me in physical strength, and has demonstrated a will to resist. That and I think police officers are actually trained not to put themselves in such a vulnerable position.

3) Just because they can't see a weapon doesn't mean the kid isn't carrying one. He could have a small knife stashed just about any where. Which is actually a bigger threat to officers because you need a special kind of vest to stop knifes. (Normal bullet proof vests don't)

Even if you completely take away the possibility of a weapon the officers still do not know what kind of training this kid has had. For all they know he could have 10 years of some foreign martial arts training. He could be just waiting for one of them to bend down to counter attack. Enforcing the law is dangerous. The people you encounter are generally dangerous. One cannot assume under any circumstance the person they are dealing with is not dangerous. That's just the nature of the job.

4) The kid probably got out of this with far less actual injury, and much less long term pain, then if the officers had just tried to subdue him. Any technique an officer could use to get the arms of a struggling person into proper postion to be cuffed has a higher probability of causing serious long term injury than a taser. (He already demonstrated a willingness to resist to the officers. It is unsafe to assume just because he threw himself on the ground he wasn't going to continue that same resistance.) After nearly 5 years of Karate I've learned a lot of ways to subdue a resistant person. After learning every single last one of them I was informed, "be careful when you use this because it will dislocate joints and break bones if the person resists."

Really if they had gone to cuff him right when he hit the floor we'd probably be discussing how they used excessive force and dislocated his arms.

5) I stated this a couple of times in general but I'll do it again. Officers have a set of guidelines they have to follow to maintain saftey. Foremost is to treat everyone that resists arrest as dangerous possibly lethal. Another, or so I would imagine, is not to put themselves in situations where they are vulnerable. This would include tieing up their hands carrying a struggling person out of a building. They have no idea if the guy has friends in the crowd or what weapons those potential friends could have. So in short when the people you deal with are violent and dangerous towards you, probably, 90% of the time you have to treat everyone(and every situation) that way.

I think I heard somewhere that there are no half measures when it comes to enforcing the law. I'd have to agree to that. When you're doing a job like being a police officer you have to treat every person that resists as pontentially lethal. The one time you don't could be the time you end up in a body bag.

Red Fighter 1073

11-19-2006, 01:31 PM

Damn, Sithdarth got to the "Create Thread" button faster..

Anyway, Here is how I see the situation. I will put myself in the tazered guy's shoes.

At first, just like this article (http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38958) says in the third paragraph, the student went into the library at a time where he needed his ID in order to be able to stay there. I could easily see myself being in that situation. Before going to the library,the student might have been walking in the street when he realized that he had to go to the library because he might have had to do some essay for school or something. In this case, while on the way to the library, he might have a) realized that he didn't have his ID but didn't want to back to his dorm or wherever he might have left his ID because it was too far away. b)only realized that he didn't have his ID once he was search by the CSOs at the library.

I am sure that many of you have been in Situation A. You don't want to walk (if you're a college freshman and not allowed to park on campus) all the way back to where you left your ID because your library trip might only take a second. So, you risk the chance that you will get caught like the UCLA student did.

CSOs asked a male student using a computer in the back of the room to leave when he was unable to produce a BruinCard during a random check. The student did not exit the building immediately.

The bolded part is what I mainly talking about. Even though he was caught without ID, he might have not left the building immediately because he wanted to save his computer work.

The CSOs left, returning minutes later, and police officers arrived to escort the student out. By this time the student had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack when an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, at which point the student told the officer to let him go. A second officer then approached the student as well.

At this time, the student might have just finished saving his work when the officers came in. The student was on his way out which is what the CSOs wanted in the first place, when a police officer grabbed him by the arm.

The student began to yell "get off me," repeating himself several times.

Now, this is where the story starts to get really distorted. Like the article says, the student yells for the police to let go of his arm. The student might have freaked out because of someone grabbing him. I know I'd be a little nervous if I had been grabbed.

It was at this point that the officers shot the student with a Taser for the first time, causing him to fall to the floor and cry out in pain.

At this point, even though the student was only verbally telling the police to stop grabbing him, they felt that they had to tazer him. This is what I find completely pointless. The student wasn't physically fighting the police. The way I see it, the only reason you should ever use a tazer is when the student is hitting the police and even in this hypothetical physical situation, the use of tazer seems kinda unethical.

Then, after getting tazered the first time, the student absolutely gets out of control. But still, he is only verbally saying stuff. He isn't phyisically resisting (by means of kicking) at all. Also, even though he was yelling, I atleast think he wasn't trying to start a riot. He was just trying to get someone to help him. The police making him get up seemed really stupid too, because I would just want to lay on the floor after having just been tazered. I actually doubt I would even be able to get up after having been hit. So, in other words, the police really overreacted. For some reason, they saw verbal vulgarity as some kind of immense threat which was enough to make them use their weapons.

What I would have done if I was a police officer is to grab the student by the arm. Like others have said in the previous Tazer Thread, this action is a practical way to get to the student to listen. Then, while the student was telling me to let go of him, I would have told him to calm down. He wasn't kicking so I don't see how I wouldn't be able to get him to shut up with just words. I would have told him he needed an ID to stay at the library past 11 PM. Then, I would have, while still holding his arm, escorted him out of the building. If he resisted, I would have calmed him down and still have been able to get him out of the building without using any physical force whatsoever.

And if for some odd reason, I found myself in the situation as a police officer and have just tazered him once, I would have and could have easily avoided tazering him again after the first time. In this case, after having just tazered him once, I would have rolled him with his stomach on the floor, and have just handcuffed him. Then, I would pick him up and tell him why the hell I am doing this and that would be that. If he started to physically resist, then I would get one of my police partners to help me grab his arms and atleast get him out of the library, away from the student crowd and handle it from there.

Even the hypothetical situation I stated in the paragraph above is really unecessary.

Mesden

11-19-2006, 01:33 PM

Sith:

What do you do when someone, atleast from your view, randomly grabs your arm? I'm pretty sure that the answer would be pull away, since that's the instinctive reaction to being GRABBED.

Now, I don't fault the police officers for grabbing him, that's what they were supposed to do. But I do fault them for, once the kid went completely limp, going straight from verbal commands to threat of PAIN.

And don't give me that "Potential to be dangerous" crap. He was not moving and on the floor, as well as refusing to stand up. Sorry, but being on the floor makes you much less dangerous than if you're standing up.

Now, he was yelling. After being tased, too. But that didn't seem to change the Police Officer's tone at all. They just kept repeating "Get up or we will tase you." This was not Okay. You do not resort to violence BEFORE the other party has. Just because they have the ability to, doesn't warrant you automatically going to violence.

Potential means nothing, because it's a constant for almost any situation in which the police are involved.

Bells

11-19-2006, 01:37 PM

i would have to agree with you sithdart...

Yes, i think the officers had options... they dindt have to use the taser... but there is a logic on why they used it! Even if it isnt a pretty one or the best idea...

We can only imagine the many scenarios that could scalate from there... its not to justify the semi-brutality that i say this, but its also that nobody thinks that those cops are "just" mindless brutes who say "get up" once, than shock the guy before he has time or conditions to do so... it didnt happen like that, its clear on the videos...

Being scort outside of the building by hand by a cop is the least minimal to expect on a situation like this... we dont know if the cop just grabbed the kid without saying nothing first... if he pulled the kid, if it was an excessive grab or pull...

and really... if they just dragged the guy out of there, THAT would be excessive force, and it had a even higher chance of causing real damage and injuries... as far as i can tell, they tased the guy to drain his strength, so they could take him out... and they did infact persisted on wanting the kid to get up several times, so the kid would walk out on his own legs

Now, this is where the story starts to get really distorted. Like the article says, the student yells for the police to let go of his arm. The student might have freaked out because of someone grabbing him. I know I'd be a little nervous if I had been grabbed.

At this point, even though the student was only verbally telling the police to stop grabbing him, they felt that they had to tazer him.

The video disproves this...
they grabbed the guys arms, he shoke himself free and -then- started yelling, waving his arms around... yelling and shouting a few times

Its unkown if the cops tried to talk or reason with him during...

THEN the cops subdue him, which made him throw himself to the ground and refused to get up, even with cops telling him to a few times (During which he was shouting about the "Patriot act" (i think) ).

THEN he got the first shock. But was still yelling and refusing verbally to get up.

Tydeus

11-19-2006, 01:47 PM

4) The kid probably got out of this with far less actual injury, and much less long term pain, then if the officers had just tried to subdue him. Any technique an officer could use to get the arms of a struggling person into proper postion to be cuffed has a higher probability of causing serious long term injury than a taser. (He already demonstrated a willingness to resist to the officers. It is unsafe to assume just because he threw himself on the ground he wasn't going to continue that same resistance.) After nearly 5 years of Karate I've learned a lot of ways to subdue a resistant person. After learning every single last one of them I was informed, "be careful when you use this because it will dislocate joints and break bones if the person resists."

Really if they had gone to cuff him right when he hit the floor we'd probably be discussing how they used excessive force and dislocated his arms.

Fucking EXACTLY what I've been trying to say, but put more clearly.

See, a taser hurts. And, considering that we've probably all been shocked by light sockets or outlets once in our lives, we know how much that fucking hurts. However, once you step back (and stop getting shocked), it doesn't hurt any more. Maybe it tingles a little, but that's it.

Let me also put at the beginning of this thread, something that was said in the last thread towards the end -- the kind of taser they used is designed for multiple use, on people who they don't want to entirely incapacitate.

Anyway, any move that police use to subdue can cause serious, potentially lasting injury, and that's not even taking into account that they don't know if he will resist violently or (as SithDarth pointed out) have a knife, or other kind of weapon.

So, what would have been more ethical:

(1) Inflicting very intense, but very short-lived pain to get someone to obey of their own free will.

(2) Forcing someone to obey against their free will, very likely causing intense pain, which unlike a taser, will persist, and may be accompanied by significant injury.

It's not like you can just "carry someone out" and not hurt them. You ever try to move someone against their will? It's not easy. And even if you subdue them first (handcuffing, special holds, whatever), you can still injure them while subduing them (and considering how he reacted when they tried to touch him the first time...), or can be injured while they attempt to become, uh, unsubdued.

Now, here's something we all keep expecting everyone else to agree with us on, but none of us are providing reasons behind our claims:
(1) Inflicting pain is always bad and/or is always torture if you use it to get someone to obey you
(2) Inflicting pain is not always bad, and is rarely torture if you use it to get someone to obey you

I'm of opinion (2). Here's my reasoning. Pain, though unpleasant, is just that -- unpleasant. Maybe even really, really unpleasant. But that's it. Pain, by itself is not a big deal. It's fleeting. Is it so horrible to be in pain? Our society treats pain, or even absence of pleasure, as horrible beyond terrible. But, pain is not such a terrible thing. Many times, it even teaches us valuable lessons. The point being, pain is temporary, and, really, unpleasant sensation has never been the end of the world.

Also, it's not torture because (a) they're not using pain as punishment, (b) they're not trying to cause as much pain as possible, and (c) they're only using pain after he broke he law. They're not interrogating him to see if he broke the law, they're not using pain because of his beliefs -- they're using pain to get him to obey them after breaking the law. Oh, and (d) they only inflicted pain in a very temporary manner, and did not prolong it.

Mesden

11-19-2006, 01:51 PM

Edit: You know, I give up. No one here is listening to anyone else, really. It's just everyone restating what they think is right. But this:

(2) Inflicting pain is not always bad, and is rarely torture if you use it to get someone to obey you

Also, it's not torture because (a) they're not using pain as punishment, (b) they're not trying to cause as much pain as possible, and (c) they're only using pain after he broke he law. They're not interrogating him to see if he broke the law, they're not using pain because of his beliefs -- they're using pain to get him to obey them after breaking the law. Oh, and (d) they only inflicted pain in a very temporary manner, and did not prolong it.

Torture (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Torture):

tor�ture (t�rchr) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "Torture" [P]
n.

1.
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.

Yeah, it's very well goddamn torture. It's inflicting pain for coercion. That's exactly what torture is. Just because you can hurt someone MORE doesn't mean it isn't fucking TORTURE. And it was Torture they didn't have to do, and proved they didn't need to do later on. It's fucking wrong, I can't stress this enough, and I'm out of here.

And, you know, constantly rethreatening to use very painful attacks on someone so they'll get up is pretty much TORTURE. "Get up or we will taser you." This is crap, pure crap. It's threatening to hurt him to 'obey the law'. Which law, now? A school Rule to need a pass to be in a library? Disregarding and Officer's orders? Neither of those are laws that apply means of using physical violence and, yes, very well fucking torture to get him to do what you want.

Bells

11-19-2006, 02:06 PM

This is the video i was talking about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3GstYOIc0I

It goes on before the first shock... you can hear the guy screamign with the police before they subdue him.

There was a shock (the first one)

Then the guy goes on a speech about the patriot act, abuse of power, and tells the cop to "fuck off" (after being tased the first time, and told to stand up)

The cops tell him to stand about about 5-6 times, warning that if he didnt comply they woudl shock him again (3 times they said this)

The guy keeps on pushing away, talking and struggling...

he gets shocked again... (it seens that the cop on the left of the screen is the one that did all the shocks)

that is all in the first 2 minutes of the movie

Yes the police could hauled him out of there by force... except that hey couldnt, because that would be excessive brute force (its a person capable of walking, not a carcass). They also couldnt hit him by hand or with a stick, and they -have- to carry this guy outside by hand (common procedure), verbal command didnt work at all... what else was there to do?

Sithdarth

11-19-2006, 02:13 PM

What do you do when someone, atleast from your view, randomly grabs your arm? I'm pretty sure that the answer would be pull away, since that's the instinctive reaction to being GRABBED.

Yes I pull away. I don't sceam at the top of my lungs not to touch me several times then throw myself on the ground.

Now, I don't fault the police officers for grabbing him, that's what they were supposed to do. But I do fault them for, once the kid went completely limp, going straight from verbal commands to threat of PAIN.

Except that's exactly what they are trained to do. Verbal commands then you use force. In this case that was either the taser or getting down on the floor and wrestling with the guy. Given his earlier extreme reaction to being touched I'd go for the taser. It was probably the safest, in terms of long term injuries, for both parties.

And don't give me that "Potential to be dangerous" crap. He was not moving and on the floor, as well as refusing to stand up. Sorry, but being on the floor makes you much less dangerous than if you're standing up.

I'd actually wager being on the floor could make you more dangerous. In that to go down and get you the officer has to place himself in an unbalanced and vulnerable postion. That's something I would very much not want to do. Especially if I have no idea what other threats might be lurking in that crowd.

Now, he was yelling. After being tased, too. But that didn't seem to change the Police Officer's tone at all. They just kept repeating "Get up or we will tase you." This was not Okay. You do not resort to violence BEFORE the other party has. Just because they have the ability to, doesn't warrant you automatically going to violence.

That's because the police always use the same firm commanding tone when dealing with someone that will not comply. Also, as a police officer you do infact react with violence before someone uses violence. Generally you do this because when someone is going to use violence against you as an officer they are looking to kill. (Or at least seriously injure.)

If you ever watch those police video shows you'll see a whole bunch of traffic stops were an officer walks up to a car and gets shot as soon as he's even with the driver. That or DWI arrests, with women more often then men, were the officer lets his guard down for an instant and suddenly gets attacked.

Potential means nothing, because it's a constant for almost any situation in which the police are involved.

Exactly, and police all over the country respond with exactly the same level of force when anyone demonstrates an unwillingness to cooperate. Its how they are trained. Its what helps keep them alive.

It's threatening to hurt him to 'obey the law'. Which law, now? A school Rule to need a pass to be in a library? Disregarding and Officer's orders? Neither of those are laws that apply means of using physical violence and, yes, very well fucking torture to get him to do what you want.

People run from traffic stops over tailights even when they know they haven't done aything wrong. Putting a lot of innocent people in harms way. Its not unreasonable to assume a person that commited an inherently non-violent crime will up the anty to violent crime. It's actually prudent to assume they will.

Edit: And yeah after watching that video they police do tell him to stand up several times before he ever screams.

Tydeus

11-19-2006, 02:16 PM

First of all, Red Fighter -- you must watch the video. The article is inaccurate. The kid screams "Don't touch me," (and I mean SCREAMS. It's like the most horrible, overwrought, overacted high school play ever) then the police start telling him to stand up, which they say about 10 times. The kid refuses. Then they tase him, after warning him that if he does not get up, they will tase him. You can hear all of this if you listen while watching the video. Hell, watch it four or five times, like I have.

Furthermore, if we're talking about legality, then this is open-and-shut in favor of the cops. I thought we were talking about ethics. They've been trained to use tasers in exactly this kind of situation, when someone is non-violently resisting them. This is the very reason why tasers have been purchased by police around the country.. Furthermore, the tasers they used were designed specifically for multiple tasings, of people who do not warrant incapacitation by other means, and the tasers were purchased by the police for that very reason.

So, nothing illegal happened, regarding the offending student (who was 23 years old, by the way, and is therefore not a minor by any stretch of the imagination, but a full-grown man), but maybe they should get suspended without pay for a week or two for their treatment of the crowd, and as a way to save face.

Oh, and I just showed this to my dad (who, by the way, is a bitter aging hippie, the kind of guy who's political motto is [verbatim] "fuck the state", the kind of guy who voted for Nader in 2000, the kind of guy who frequently states "I hate the fucking cops, especially LA cops.") and he immediately saw nothing wrong with the police's actions.

But what's really interesting, is after I told him all the context of the incident, he mentioned something I hadn't thought of. He said "it seems like a set-up to me." Now I can't help but wonder if one, or several students, were trying to provoke an instance of tasing, because they don't like the cops on campus, or that the cops have tasers, or whatever. I mean, the kid's reaction seems so horribly overwrought and fake, when you watch it. The way he screams everything. It just seems fake, even rehearsed, at times.

Anyway, Mesden -- what would you have done? We've been over the fact that there is no consequence-free way of removing the student. Subduing him (which the police must do, out of regulation, and saftey precautions, because, though he wasn't failing, he could have decided to, and his screaming profanities at the top of his lungs doesn't inspire confidence in this guy's self-control) has its consequences, including pain, and unlike a taser, a high likelyhood of serious injury.

The perfect answer is irrelevant if it doesn't exist in the practical, messy, real world.

Loki, The Fallen

11-19-2006, 02:20 PM

Yeah, it's very well goddamn torture. It's inflicting pain for coercion. That's exactly what torture is. Just because you can hurt someone MORE doesn't mean it isn't fucking TORTURE. And it was Torture they didn't have to do, and proved they didn't need to do later on. It's fucking wrong, I can't stress this enough, and I'm out of here.

Yes, torture is evil and wrong, which now rules out any submission holds, handcuffing, or defecation on one's holy book. So I guess, with that option gone, we could:

A) Knock the perp unconcious, either using a sap or a slightly more powerful Taser, and cary them to the squad car;
B) Let the stay there for an hour and a half, saying "Please leave now" until the local ACLU lawyer / Channel 6 News gets there, making a larger scene;
C) Shoot him. It's the non-torturous thing to do.

Okay, I'm open to more suggetions, but really, can't TORTURE him now, so be careful with that. (It is a slight peve of mine. In theory, telling one's child to stand in a corner for punishment could be torture, because it is uncomfortable, or even painful.)

A Slight Hyperbole.

And, you know, constantly rethreatening to use very painful attacks on someone so they'll get up is pretty much TORTURE. "Get up or we will taser you." This is crap, pure crap. It's threatening to hurt him to 'obey the law'. Which law, now? A school Rule to need a pass to be in a library? Disregarding and Officer's orders? Neither of those are laws that apply means of using physical violence and, yes, very well fucking torture to get him to do what you want.

Tresspassing is a law, I think (Or against it last time someone screamed at me to get off thier lawn). Without that pass, all of the sudden you are not welcome. A Tresspasser. I know some places where tresspassers are shot, so I think the "Kid" (only calling him that 'cause of his attitude) got off easy.

Of course, what do I know?

EDIT: To keep post count down

1-Regarding the Tresspassing in a Library = Bullhocky:

So what right did the cops have to even be there? What right did the campus security have to ask the police to remove him?

2- Tasers vs Standing in a corner:

So there are degrees now? At what point does it become torture?

3- What makes it unwarrented? Officer thinks it could turn ugly. (Crowd of kids, Very Vocal person resisting requests. Late night, etc.) How do we know the kid wasn't on drugs, or packing? (I know, argument was made before)

4- Any human can be leathal. Better to be overly cautious then dead.

Final Note: Agree's with Tydeus's final statement (Maybe final - It is only post 17.) Heck, I found myself getting a bit overly emotional. Sure sounds like an impasse.
But also agree with a differnt point you made above... it does smell awfully fishy the circumstance surounding this taping.

Mesden

11-19-2006, 02:26 PM

Except that's exactly what they are trained to do. Verbal commands then you use force. In this case that was either the taser or getting down on the floor and wrestling with the guy. Given his earlier extreme reaction to being touched I'd go for the taser. It was probably the safest, in terms of long term injuries, for both parties.

I swear, if two men can't handle a non struggling teenager, two men that are supposedly absolutely trained to know how to take down bigger, stronger men, while said teenager had throw himself on the floor and never reacted violently to anything, not even the first taser, not the second, not the third, then I don't see where in hell they thought tasering as okay.

All it did was hurt the poor man, over and over again. To get him to 'obey the law', which in this case was nonviolently resisting arrest.

If he's laying there, unthreateningly, cuff him first. Try to, but be ready. If he starts to react violently, then apply force, if he doesn't, then you need to carry him.

While he is subdued in cuffs on the floor, call for more assistance. It is easily handled at that point, without ever having to go into Attacking a completely nonviolent subject.

Don't freakin' tase him until he is disabled enough to be carted out pseudo-easily.

I'd actually wager being on the floor could make you more dangerous. In that to go down and get you the officer has to place himself in an unbalanced and vulnerable postion. That's something I would very much not want to do. Especially if I have no idea what other threats might be lurking in that crowd.

Two men, standing up, have the advantage over one lying limp on the ground. Especially since cuffing his legs would instantly be easy(If he kicked, then tasering would instantly be acceptable and the best choice for the situation). And with two men, either side grabbing each of his arms? There's no way he could struggle out of that. He wasn't the biggest guy in the world, and these are trained officers. There's little doubt in my mind that he was a threat at that point.

That's because the police always use the same firm commanding tone when dealing with someone that will not comply. Also, as a police officer you do infact react with violence before someone uses violence. Generally you do this because when someone is going to use violence against you as an officer they are looking to kill. (Or at least seriously injure.)

Yes, like I said, resort to violence. I didn't mean apply violence, that's stupid. I meant, if they are showing no reasonable amount of violent intent, then there's little reason for you to resort to multiple acts of violence.

Exactly, and police all over the country respond with exactly the same level of force when anyone demonstrates an unwillingness to cooperate. Its how they are trained. Its what helps keep them alive.

You know, I've failed to see this kind of reaction, ever before, in anything I've ever heard of about reasonable police officers.

Edit: It's the world against me and I cannot keep up against all these posts. Honestly. Too many. I'll just say that:

1: Tasers fucking hurt. That's a lot more than putting a child in the corner.
2: I gave a better alternative, to my mind. The police officers showed, patience, but the wrong kind.
3: WARNING THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO DO SOMETHING UNWARRANTED DOES NOT MAKE THE UNWARRANTED ACTION ACCEPTABLE.
4: Two Men that are known to have training, versus one, practically immobile man who only has the potential to be dangerous like any other human being in the world.
5: Again, it was a library. Tresspassing in a Library of a State School. That is bullhockey to consider it even above nonviolently resisting arrest.

katsielyonz

11-19-2006, 02:32 PM

What I don't understand is how come so much force for such a small infraction? He was in the library without an ID. Since when has force ever been needed to extract someone from a freakin' library? It wasn't like he was uploading a virus. We tow peoples cars when they're in a parking spot longer than they need to be or where they're not supposed to be or we ticket them, but we don't tazer them or yell at them. I know where I live we have a hard enough time getting people to GO to the library let alone getting them to leave. It's ridiculous.

And it's not just that. It's increasing police brutality. This is just another example of an even worse case.

http://pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=2299

Mirai Gen

11-19-2006, 02:35 PM

notasfatasmike

11-19-2006, 02:38 PM

Furthermore, if we're talking about legality, then this is open-and-shut in favor of the cops. I thought we were talking about ethics. They've been trained to use tasers in exactly this kind of situation, when someone is non-violently resisting them. This is the very reason why tasers have been purchased by police around the country.. Furthermore, the tasers they used were designed specifically for multiple tasings, of people who do not warrant incapacitation by other means, and the tasers were purchased by the police for that very reason.

Nice try, but the entire point of non-violent resistance is that violence cannot legally be used against you. Not that handcuffing is *not* considered violence, and despite your assertation that it's somehow more dangerous and painful than getting shocked 4 times, it carries a minimal risk of injury, especially in the case of someone who isn't resisting. Seriously, if someone has gone limp, how difficult is it to pull their arms together and handcuff them?

But what's really interesting, is after I told him all the context of the incident, he mentioned something I hadn't thought of. He said "it seems like a set-up to me." Now I can't help but wonder if one, or several students, were trying to provoke an instance of tasing, because they don't like the cops on campus, or that the cops have tasers, or whatever. I mean, the kid's reaction seems so horribly overwrought and fake, when you watch it. The way he screams everything. It just seems fake, even rehearsed, at times.

Yeah, because it's so illogical that someone would scream in pain at the top of their lungs after being repeatedly electrocuted. Obviously it's a set-up. :rolleyes: I've watched the video, and if you think that the guy is acting, you must have seen some phenomenally convincing actors in your day.

But I'm with Mesden here: this is my last post in this thread. None of you seem to want to do anything but excuse authority figures' actions because they're authority figures. It's just sad to me that so few people seem to know about the basics of non-violent protest. Whether or not you agree with the kid, *everything* he did after the cops stopped him on his way out was well within the law. Going limp in response to physical contact from an officer is a long-standing tactic that has held up in court as being a legitimate and legal tactic, so to paint it as "resisting arrest" is wrong. All he did was not listen to the security guards immediately, and I haven't seen anything that gives the reason for that.

Of course, cops have a long history of using violence against people using non-violent protest methods and getting away with it. This case will probably be no different.

Sithdarth

11-19-2006, 03:25 PM

I swear, if two men can't handle a non struggling teenager, two men that are supposedly absolutely trained to know how to take down bigger, stronger men, while said teenager had throw himself on the floor and never reacted violently to anything, not even the first taser, not the second, not the third, then I don't see where in hell they thought tasering as okay.

First off it has been said he was 23. So the teenager stuff don't fly. Second, size isn't everything. I'm a large man myself and about two years into my training I spared a female brown belt that was 2 years my junior and barely cleared my waist. At first I thought it wasn't going to be a difficult fight. Then about 15 seconds later I was staring at the ceiling with a bruised rib. No one has ever hit me as hard as she did and I've fought guys of comparable size and training to me.

After the fact we can say that well he was actually a student and allowed to be there and probably not dangerous. All the police knew at the time was he refused to leave when asked before by the CSO or whatever. He greatly overreacted to light contact by the police. He's now refusing to obey them. For all they know he's got a mile long rap sheet of violent crime. Heck even knowing he's a student, possibly from a rich family, doesn't exclude him from being a threat.

If he's laying there, unthreateningly, cuff him first. Try to, but be ready. If he starts to react violently, then apply force, if he doesn't, then you need to carry him.

So you want to ask police officers, who willingly put themselves in danger, to forgo the small safty precautions in place to keep them safe just so a 23 year old that was in fact breaking a law doesn't suffer what couldn't amounted to more than 60 seconds of pain.

You know, I've failed to see this kind of reaction, ever before, in anything I've ever heard of about reasonable police officers.

I rarely watch the news, or TV in general, and I caught 3 seperate stories on police abuse of power that all looked fairly reasonable to me. Either I have weird timing or a lot of cops are doing things like this. Not to mention I used to have a thing for those police videos shows so I've seen a lot worse happen.

If he's laying there, unthreateningly, cuff him first. Try to, but be ready. If he starts to react violently, then apply force, if he doesn't, then you need to carry him.

While he is subdued in cuffs on the floor, call for more assistance. It is easily handled at that point, without ever having to go into Attacking a completely nonviolent subject.

Don't freakin' tase him until he is disabled enough to be carted out pseudo-easily.

If he resisted at all, which was likely given his earlier response,(and no being still on the ground doesn't negate that, plus you can't tell if he's limp without touching him. Something he made clear he didn't want to happen. And they probably didn't grab him tell after the first tase anyway) its very easy to dislocate shoulders, elbows, fingers, what have you, and/or actually break the guys forearms and wrists while trying to cuff him. There is simply no way to subdue someone who is resisting with physical strength without significant (we're talking over 50% here I'd wager) risk of a prolonged injury.

Subdual moves work because they cause pain. They cause pain because they put a lot of stress and pressure on joints; usually in a very short period of time. They do this by moving the joints in ways nature didn't intend at a rapid rather violent pace. This tends to cause injury.

I'm not saying violence isn't wrong and I'm not saying I like that this situation ended in violence. What I am saying is that the guy made it fairly clear he was going to resist violently if the officers grabbed him while he was on the floor. (That whole don't touch me thing.) So they took what they believed to be the best solution.

Also, as sort of a reiteration. Subdual moves are no less painful than a taser. I've had at least 60 different ones applied to me, at a level used only for training which means slow and easy with no resistance on my part, and everyone hurt about as bad as when my appendix burst. Most of them caused sore joints for days. One time I actually resisted a little and ended up having to have my shoulder reset. That hurts about as bad as a broken bone and for almost as long. Moral of the story is that any physical subdual the police could have used would have ended up inflicting more pain than the taser if the guy had resisted, which was reasonable to assume given his shouting about not being touched.

Mesden

11-19-2006, 03:35 PM

Sith, I can't stress this enough, you used physical resistance as a big point in this.

AT THE TIME HE WAS LAYING DOWN, HE SHOWED ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL RESISTANCE.

Unless he automatically began resisting, then what you're saying doesn't fly. ESPECIALLY the hitting part of your post.

They tasered him while he was goddamn limp, instead of trying to cuff his legs first. They could've tried, if he would've resisted, they could've stopped or tasered him. I doubt, at length and precaution as a police officer would be opt to take, he can even come close to hurting him with his legs.

He never physically resisted. Remaining limp is NOT physical resistance, it's what they WANT you to do when they cuff you. I can't understand why they didn't try that first. Not at all.

And no, not because of potential fucking danger. That's crap, and will stay crap, because everyone and everything, as you so pointed out with the martial arts analogy, can be dangerous.

The first action to take isn't always Taser, you know.

Tydeus

11-19-2006, 03:59 PM

Yeah, this topic is dead.

Basically, we're at an impasse, because people's opinions on the core issue here are just too much informed by emotion -- some of us don't believe that violence is always wrong, some people believe it's almost always wrong, and some people believe it is always wrong, and frankly, a lot of that decision making process depends on emotional response. I don't think anyone here can really disagree with that. Just, flat out, there's too much feeling involved in this opinion.

So, perhaps we just agree to disagree at this point, and be consoled in knowing that our society has a balance of people who support freedom (even to excess) and people who support order (even to excess), and we hope that, through their conflict, neither side ever gets too much power, resulting in the kind of imbalance that ends a society.

As Machiavelli would say -- conflict is the root of stability. If either side of a society's core issues (basically just different ways of phrasing the debate of liberty vs order) gains too much power, the society is thrown out of balance, and it stops functioning. Be happy that not everyone thinks like you do. I am.

Oh, and, just, it kind of pisses me off when people assert something like "violence is wrong" is fact, and that any debate on the issue makes you stupid. Because, certainly, that's an argument that's never been had before in any societies, ever, and can totally be proven one way or another using scientific experimentation (which still wouldn't make it incontrovertible fact). Have a little humility, people.

Sithdarth

11-19-2006, 04:02 PM

They tasered him while he was goddamn limp, instead of trying to cuff his legs first. They could've tried, if he would've resisted, they could've stopped or tasered him. I doubt, at length and precaution as a police officer would be opt to take, he can even come close to hurting him with his legs.

He never physically resisted. Remaining limp is NOT physical resistance, it's what they WANT you to do when they cuff you. I can't understand why they didn't try that first. Not at all.

And no, not because of potential fucking danger. That's crap, and will stay crap, because everyone and everything, as you so pointed out with the martial arts analogy, can be dangerous.

The first action to take isn't always Taser, you know.

If you can tell someone is limp just by looking at them you got one up on me. Heck I doubt he could be very limp while screaming at the police not to touch him. Sure they could have tried to cuff his legs first. Just like the cop I saw shot on TV walked up to that car without his flashlight on the driver and his hand on his gun. (Something I'm sure he'd done hundreds of times.) That poor guy took 2 shots to the chest and one to the arm.

The guy is laying there yelling at them to not touch them. They just can't assume he's not going to resist and that his obviously angry tone is a bluff. Say one officer goes to cuff his legs and the guy suddenly feels the need to get violent. All he needs to do is grab a pen or pencil from his pocket and ram it into the officer's neck while he's bent over his feet. Then bam you've got a potentially dead cop. Or hell he could just kick a little and catch the officer in the throat and collapse his wind pipe. Again, dead officer.

IF, and that's a big one, the guy had been quite or had calmly said "No I'm not leaving", like pretty much every other non-violent protester, then the use of force would have been excessive. In general when someone is that obviously angry and beligerent, irregardless of what else they are doing, its pretty safe to assume that they are going to resist violently.

And no, not because of potential fucking danger. That's crap, and will stay crap, because everyone and everything, as you so pointed out with the martial arts analogy, can be dangerous.

Exactly and that's how you have to treat every situation when you work in a job that by and large tends to bring out violence in people. Generally when a person yells at, and refuses to comply with an officer their next step is violence. More often than not while the officer is still attempting to use reason.

Heck I don't really approve of tasers. I'd much rather have something like a tranq dart that knocks 'em out cold. Heck I'd at least like more research on what taser side effects are and what amount of electricty is actually needed. Along with some better training on their use. In all there are many cases that blow this one out of the water in regards to misuse of a taser.

Heck read some of this. (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/05/30/m1a_taser_0530.html) They've been hitting kids as young as 13 and people as old as 85. (Not to mention 3 pregnant women.) Most of whom I bet were demonstrating a far lower threat level than this guy. Where is the moral outrage over these. Personally if I was an officer and a suspect pulled away from me while shouting like that. Then threw himself on the ground while still shouting like that and refused to comply that many times I'd give him a zap or two before I tried to grapple with him. I wouldn't be doing it with a smile and an evil laugh.

Simply put, once more, law enforcement does not have the luxury of waiting for the suspect to esclate the situation to actual violence. That's how officers die. Sometimes people get caught up and take it to far. Did that happen this time? I don't think so.

Mesden

11-19-2006, 04:15 PM

If you can tell someone is limp just by looking at them you got one up on me. Heck I doubt he could be very limp while screaming at the police not to touch him. Sure they could have tried to cuff his legs first. Just like the cop I saw shot on TV walked up to that car without his flashlight on the driver and his hand on his gun. (Something I'm sure he'd done hundreds of times.) That poor guy took 2 shots to the chest and one to the arm.

The guy is laying there yelling at them to not touch them. They just can't assume he's not going to resist and that his obviously angry tone is a bluff. Say one officer goes to cuff his legs and the guy suddenly feels the need to get violent. All he needs to do is grab a pen or pencil from his pocket and ram it into the officer's neck while he's bent over his feet. Then bam you've got a potentially dead cop. Or hell he could just kick a little and catch the officer in the throat and collapse his wind pipe. Again, dead officer.

This is why Police Officer's Work as PARTNERS. This is why you use CAUTION. You're acting like you have to pay complete focus on someone's legs while you're cuffing them. Not so. Kneel down, and keep arm's length to it, while his legs are at their length. It is impossible for him to kick you any except for in the HAND, maybe the toe if he starts to fumble around a bit towards you.

And then you have the other officer, who should be ready to stop the guy and anything he does with his hands. Have the Taser READY even. It's called diligence and caution AND Greater numbers. I really don't see how you think that holds up with two trained men against one lying down, atleast minimally unprepared teenager.

See him reach for anything? Then apply the taser. That's what the other guy is there for, it's why they sent two cops. Precaution.

IF, and that's a big one, the guy had been quite or had calmly said "No I'm not leaving", like pretty much every other non-violent protester, then the use of force would have been excessive. In general when someone is that obviously angry and beligerent, irregardless of what else they are doing, its pretty safe to assume that they are going to resist violently.

Actions speak louder than words. He was yelling in protest, but physically making no antagonistic effort.

Exactly and that's how you have to treat every situation when you work in a job that by and large tends to bring out violence in people. Generally when a person yells at, and refuses to comply with an officer their next step is violence. More often than not while the officer is still attempting to use reason.

They, honestly, didn't use reason in the first place. Hell, he was lying there. They could've called in more back up if all of what you're saying was so risky, rather than have to hurt the guy.

Heck I don't really approve of tasers. I'd much rather have something like a tranq dart that knocks 'em out cold. Heck I'd at least like more research on what taser side effects are and what amount of electricty is actually needed. Along with some better training on their use. In all there are many cases that blow this one out of the water in regards to misuse of a taser.

I understand that, and agree, save for the fact that justbecause there is worse in the world, doesn't mean that this isn't bad.

Heck read some of this. (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/05/30/m1a_taser_0530.html) They've been hitting kids as young as 13 and people as old as 85. (Not to mention 3 pregnant women.) Most of whom I bet were demonstrating a far lower threat level than this guy. Where is the moral outrage over these.

That's absolutely terrible, but it doesn't make this any less wrong, either.

Personally if I was an officer and a suspect pulled away from me while shouting like that. Then threw himself on the ground while still shouting like that and refused to comply that many times I'd give him a zap or two before I tried to grapple with him. I wouldn't be doing it with a smile and an evil laugh.

I didn't and will never say that those officers acted out of malice. I think that what they did was completely wrong and poorly thought out.

Simply put, once more, law enforcement does not have the luxury of waiting for the suspect to esclate the situation to actual violence. That's how officers die. Sometimes people get caught up and take it to far. Did that happen this time? I don't think so.

It doesn't have to escalate into violence, but he was honestly little threat, especially if they kept their eyes on him. Called for back. Hell, we could have a little back and forth about how two trained men could or couldn't have handled it pseudo-harmlessly without tasering him.

And really, do you think they thought this massive series of events through like this? I don't. I think their first reaction was to just use a taser, not out of spite, but because it was the easier way.

But that's just conjecture, don't hold me to it.

Mirai Gen

11-19-2006, 04:27 PM

Tydeus

11-19-2006, 04:33 PM

Mesden: It's worth noting that the guy is a college student. We've been falling prey to saying "Teenager", which isn't true, but it's not very far off either.

Other than that, feel free to continue, because I gave up a while ago.

Yeah, me too, but hey, that's OK.

Like I said before -- feeling and emotion too much informs the core issues of this debate, but, so long as we passionately make our opinions known, and try to make sense of what the reality is of the situation, and use reason and rationality to do what we can to find what objective truth there is in this event -- well, then I think we can safely say that we're doing all a human being can really be asked to do.

Sithdarth

11-19-2006, 04:38 PM

And then you have the other officer, who should be ready to stop the guy and anything he does with his hands. Have the Taser READY even. It's called diligence and caution AND Greater numbers. I really don't see how you think that holds up with two trained men against one lying down, atleast minimally unprepared teenager.

See him reach for anything? Then apply the taser. That's what the other guy is there for, it's why they sent two cops. Precaution.

The officers looked rather out numbered to me. While one officer is cuffing him and the other watching him who is making sure 2-3 people in the crowd don't decide to help out their buddy.

This is why Police Officer's Work as PARTNERS. This is why you use CAUTION. You're acting like you have to pay complete focus on someone's legs while you're cuffing them. Not so. Kneel down, and keep arm's length to it, while his legs are at their length. It is impossible for him to kick you any except for in the HAND, maybe the toe if he starts to fumble around a bit towards you.

I've used cuffs a couple of times before (and no not in that way) it generally takes one free hand to operate them. Meaning he'd only have one hand to hold down two legs. He couldn't just pin them to the ground either because then they get in the way of the cuffs. Not to mention as long as his torso is free he can still bend his knees, buy pulling his but closer to his feet, and then kick. I'm not sure who you've been around but I find that generally a person's leg is longer than another person's arm.

I really don't see how you think that holds up with two trained men against one lying down, atleast minimally unprepared teenager.

Once again not a teenager. Fully grown 23 year old in the prime of his life not getting any stronger.

It doesn't have to escalate into violence, but he was honestly little threat, especially if they kept their eyes on him. Called for back. Hell, we could have a little back and forth about how two trained men could or couldn't have handled it pseudo-harmlessly without tasering him.

And really, do you think they thought this massive series of events through like this? I don't. I think their first reaction was to just use a taser, not out of spite, but because it was the easier way.

But that's just conjecture, don't hold me to it.

Again, police can't assume someone who is acting irrationally, throwing himself on the ground and yelling about not being touched, isn't also going to act violently. They can't call for back up for every uncooperative suspect. That takes officers off of patrol beats. Those things they do where they drive around incase another emergency pops up or something. Not to mention adding 3 more officers would have done nothing for the amount of violence they had to use. If anything having 3 officers trying to subdue him at the same time would have caused more injuries.

Also. I'm more inclined to believe that it was their first reaction because they were trained that way. You can't train someone to do something and then punish them when they do it.

Bells

11-19-2006, 04:38 PM

once again... what could be done?

after the first shock the guy still was talking a LOT, really calm, real loud... he was grabed by the police, which told him to get up... to which he replied "Fuck off" and refused to get up... again and again...

The police could just grab him and -forced- him up, or simples dragged him?
Sure... but THAT is illegal, not police training AND abuse of brute force...

Instead they ordered him to stand up several times, and warned him about being shocked again if he resisted (after being shocked once, the guy knows the cops are serious about this)

What does the guy do? A speech... and refuses to get up...

not a "my leg is numb" not a "i cant get up" not anything aside from him not wanting to get up...

So, since the cops cant and wont drag his body like a dead carcass out of the building... what they could have done?

The cops arent 100% right on their actions by no means... but the guy sure as hell aint innocent nor simply a victim...

Archbio

11-19-2006, 04:48 PM

The police could just grab him and -forced- him up, or simples dragged him?
Sure... but THAT is illegal, not police training AND abuse of brute force...

I'd like to see a source on that. It goes counter to everything about police work I've seen and heard. Unless maybe the United States has much stricter laws regarding brute force.

someone who is acting irrationally, throwing himself on the ground

Tasers are supposed to take suspects down.

They don't make police officers like they used to.

Sithdarth

11-19-2006, 04:51 PM

Tasers are supposed to take suspects down.

They don't make police officers like they used to.

Actually they are made to incapcitate suspects. When one is standing up that usually includes falling down. People can be just as dangerous on the ground as standing up.

Archbio

11-19-2006, 04:53 PM

Actually they are made to incapcitate suspects. When one is standing up that usually includes falling down. People can be just as dangerous on the ground as standing up.

That's what I said.

They're not made to make suspects comply to instructions quicker, make them stand up, make them shut up or make them walk.

Bells

11-19-2006, 05:00 PM

I'd like to see a source on that. It goes counter to everything about police work I've seen and heard. Unless maybe the United States has much stricter laws regarding brute force.

Police brutality and excessive use of force are right there... if i guy is on the ground ,refusing to stand up, refusing to comply to law enforcement and the cops just drag him around, pull him up, toss him around or whatever, its going to cause him way more injuries then the taser for sure...

From bruises to broken bones and deslocated shoulders... the human body is not made from steel... and on those situations its fairly easy to hurt or break something by uncontroled use of force... thats why the cops keep on saying the same phrase over and over again "Stand up." or their variantions "Just stand up" or "Stand up, thats all we want, just stand up".

Because they cant just grab the asshole and toss him trhough the window into the squad car... nor grab him by the arms and drag him by the corridors while the guy flails and resists like if he was a fresh catched monster-bass...

Sithdarth

11-19-2006, 05:00 PM

That's what I said.

They're not made to make suspects comply to instructions quicker, make them stand up, make them shut up or make them walk.

Except in situations where the suspect is acting irrationally/in a potentially violent manner. (As in this case) When officers would put themselves at undo risk by physically handling the suspect. (Not to mention it wasn't about getting him to shutup just getting him to peacefully comply with orders to move.)

Archbio

11-19-2006, 05:12 PM

the suspect is acting irrationally

Like "throwing themselves on the ground"? Or would that be "made to fall by the taser discharge"?

in a potentially violent manner

That's a very easy criterion to fulfill, if this situation fulfills it.

When officers would put themselves at undo risk by physically handling the suspect.

We're talking about Police Officers dealing with a suspect that was cuffed some of the time.

If there's undue physical risk then, maybe they should find another line of work, because there's going to be physical risk everywhere. The suspect was agitated from the start, and, yes irrational in some ways. If he had been potentially violent in an irrational way, there's no way to tell if the taser was going to agitate him more and more.

(Not to mention it wasn't about getting him to shutup just getting him to peacefully comply with orders to move.)

Yes. Like I said, a taser aren't made to accomplish either.

Sithdarth

11-19-2006, 05:25 PM

Like "throwing themselves on the ground"? Or would that be "made to fall by the taser discharge"?

Watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3GstYOIc0I) which starts before the tasering. The officers clearly tell the guy to stand up before he ever screams in pain. Confirming what one of the officers maintained when he said the guy did infact throw himself to the ground before being tasered.

We're talking about Police Officers dealing with a suspect that was cuffed some of the time.

If there's undue physical risk then, maybe they should find another line of work, because there's going to be physical risk everywhere. The suspect was agitated from the start, and, yes irrational in some ways. If he had been potentially violent in an irrational way, there's no way to tell if the taser was going to agitate him more and more.

That would be the portion were the officers were in the wrong. Not the initial use. Which again happened after the first few times they asked him to stand up. Which I've also neglected to make clear up to this point. My bad.

Also, its very very rare that a taser ends up making a suspect fight harder. At the very least it gives you the 3-5 seconds you need to cuff them without having to force their arms to move.

Yes. Like I said, a taser aren't made to accomplish either.
Maybe I should be clearer. Tasers were made to induce potentally violent suspects who refused to comply with ANY police order to comply with ANY police order. Well any legal police order, like stand up and come with us say. But again after the cuffing part, which was after the first and possibly the second(can't really tell) tasering, was slightly excessive. Just don't condem them for the use of it against the UCLA student on principle.

Mesden

11-19-2006, 05:37 PM

Archbio

11-19-2006, 05:40 PM

The officers clearly tell the guy to stand up before he ever screams in pain. Confirming what one of the officers maintained when he said the guy did infact throw himself to the ground before being tasered.

I'm not sure if I saw that in the video, I'm going to have to hold judgment on that.

Also, its very very rare that a taser ends up making a suspect fight harder.

I was going by your own suppositions. A subject that can be thought to suddenly lash out in a bout of irrational violence won't necessarily be deterred by pain.

Maybe I should be clearer. Tasers were made to induce potentally violent suspects who refused to comply with ANY police order to comply with ANY police order. Well any legal police order, like stand up and come with us say.

Are you sure? Tasers seem to be touted as non-lethal methods of self-defence for police officers. If they're meant to be used to force compliance and officers are instructed to use it in this way, then I find this very irresponsible as it's literally inviting abuse.

To use a weapon made to subdue, knock down and restrict a suspect's mobility to make a suspect stand up and walk.

But again after the cuffing part, which was after the first and possibly the second(can't really tell) tasering, was slightly excessive. Just don't condem them for the use of it against the UCLA student on principle.

I'm very dubious on the first tasering, but it might be justifiable. I mostly object to the subsequent taserings, the threats to the other students; I don't think it's reasonable to think this was normal procedure.

Ryanderman

11-19-2006, 05:43 PM

Mesden

11-19-2006, 05:45 PM

The "Get off Me!" Didn't have anything to do with the taser. That was because the officer grabbed him. Personally, I thought from the video and related articles that it was pretty clear that he threw himself limp on the floor before being tasered.

I'm not sure what to think about the appropriateness of the officer's actions though. At least not yet. I just know I wouldn't want to be in their situation, and that they had to make a tough decision in very little time. Whereas we've had days and days of hindsight to decide the guilt or appropriateness of their actions.

Do you mean this Related Article? (http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38958)

The CSOs left, returning minutes later, and police officers arrived to escort the student out. By this time the student had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack when an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, at which point the student told the officer to let him go. A second officer then approached the student as well.

The student began to yell "get off me," repeating himself several times.

It was at this point that the officers shot the student with a Taser for the first time, causing him to fall to the floor and cry out in pain. The student also told the officers he had a medical condition.

Because I'm pretty sure the related article says otherwise.

The officer only ever says "Get up" multiple times before saying "Get up or we will taser you again" IIRC.

edit: I rewatched it again, and caught the get off Me's, then heard another scream. The video kicks in a bit late to be sure, because you never see him 'throw' himself to the floor.

Sithdarth

11-19-2006, 05:54 PM

Sith: He was yelling "GET OFF ME" before he hit the floor. He hit the floor because of the taser shock, and then refused to get up. Your video doesn't really show that part, because he's yelling "GET OFF ME" while the guy is setting up the camera.

I can't really see what going on but here's what I hear being said:

Don't touch me! (4 times)

then some stuff I can't hear

(Then suddenly without any screams of pain)Get up.(twice)

Then more stuff I can't quite make out.

Get off me.

Get up.(a few more times)

Then he screams in pain from the taser. I assume that's the first taser cause it makes sense to me that he'd start the camera when the suspect first yelled Don't touch me. Not to mention if you assume that when he changed to get off me while on the floor that the police were actively on the ground trying to subdue him then the situation meets your qualifications for escalation of force.

I'm very dubious on the first tasering, but it might be justifiable. I mostly object to the subsequent taserings, the threats to the other students; I don't think it's reasonable to think this was normal procedure.

Yeah I thought that was universally understood that most of the latter part of the video was really stupid on the part of the officers.

Mesden

11-19-2006, 06:01 PM

Yeah I thought that was universally understood that most of the latter part of the video was really stupid on the part of the officers.

You know, I still don't see how tasering was an A-OKAY thing to do there, even in the first shock. "Get up or we'll tase you" as I said way long ago and as AB already said, is not right. As well as self-defeating.

And yeah, hurting him until he 'gets up' is what I call torture to 'enforce the law', as I'm aware.

Bells

11-19-2006, 07:05 PM

The 3rd and 4th shocks were the parts were i see the officers loosing handle of it... those even i findt wrong... doubtfull to the least...

The first one (as shown in the video after several warnings adn after they had subdued him) was inside of the scope of law

The second one was the one that actually worked, with that, they were able to get the kid OUT of the library, and he was walking (barely) on that part... but then, he toss himself to the ground again... here is the part were the officers went almost over 30 times telling to get up... and then...

Then there is the 3rd... also on the video... its the one were you can see the guy almost jumping in the air.. his foot went above his head! Showing a shock on the lower parte of the back... THAT hurts like hell... you can even hear the taser (like on the 2nd shock)

That was excessive and wrong (the 3rd and 4ft) so much that on THOSE happen is when the students actually went over the officers complaining... until the second shock they were only complaing fro ma distance...

but the first 2 shocks were inside the scope of law and conduct of the cops. Even if it seens extreme and by far not pretty... the cops were inside their autorithy... (At least on half of it) even if it looks like it was extreme...

Mesden

11-19-2006, 07:39 PM

Bellsouth: It's less legal and more ethical.

I'm pretty sure we were talking on whether or not they were morally justified in it. Some don't, some do, lots of points on either side.

Ryanderman

11-19-2006, 08:10 PM

Ok, most of what I had read had been articles that focused more on the statements by the police, which seem to maintain that he fell limb before the first taser. That was obviously contradicted by other articles and reports.

Azisien

11-19-2006, 08:44 PM

But it was not contradicted by the actual video, made by an unbiased recorder (more or less, he didn't know what was going on, wasn't even looking at the scene really, and happened to have a camera).

It took a few listens, but anybody can then easily infer he had gone limp and refused to cooperate before a taser was used.

Ryanderman

11-19-2006, 08:49 PM

It seemed that way to me too when I watched it. But I can understand where people could take that same video and see that he was tasered first.

Bells

11-19-2006, 09:45 PM

It seemed that way to me too when I watched it. But I can understand where people could take that same video and see that he was tasered first.

The problem is that most of these people dont care if it was before or after. He got tased. And thats enough for then to say the police was wrong all the way.

Cant say that these people are 100% wrong, but sure as hell i cant see any other way to go around the situation in the video that isnt worst or illegal.

Fifthfiend

11-20-2006, 06:27 AM

So, coming back to this:

Edit: honestly, what the fuck? I stated my viewpoint in a pretty straightforward manner. It's like I said the magic "switch Fifthfiend to evil" words with the reaction I and others got.

Talk about this like grownups? That would be a lot easier if some of us didn't fly off the handle and go apeshit over discussion threads. It's not like I said "NO MORE TALKY BOUT POLITICS EVER AGAINS" without warning (again). So what the hell gives?

Well, I had just asked that we please settle down, in light of the increasingly violent edge to the rhetoric in here. And then you came in --

the guy was a complete asswad and while maybe he didn't deserve getting tazed however many times, he should thank his lucky fucking stars that it isn't still the pre-Rodney days in LA.

-- saying someone who was on the receiving end of an egregious display of unprovoked violence (operating from the view, mind, that insufficient politeness does not actually constitute provocation of violence) should have to thank his "lucky fucking stars" that he was not on the receiving end of an even more egregious display of unprovoked violence. Coming into a thread where I was already trying to indicate could we possibly move the thread away from violent fantasism and name-calling and legitimizing such conduct with your own behavior as an administrator, could, I suppose, have flipped the fifthfiend switch. I'd take a moment to note that people criticizing the police's behavior managed to get at least that far into the thread without calling them crazed, evil scumbags and dreaming of what violence might be visited upon them.

The remainder of the thread mostly comprising Tydeus' stirring defense of sociopathy as a superior moral outlook, yes, by that point, I thought that closing was not the worst possible action that could be taken. Which was also much the reasoning behind his short-lived ban, for all that I made a (possibly rather ill-advised, though I thought it was obvious enough) rhetorical flourish of the thing.

With all that said, there are any number of ways I could have addressed all this without flying completely off the handle, and doing so certainly does little to recommed whatever point of view I could advance. For all that I would explain why I reacted as I did does not excuse the reaction and as such I owe an apology to you and to anyone else who had been trying to discuss the issue.

As far as Tydeus goes, all I'm going to say there is whatever the wrong or right of it he clearly pushes every single button I have, so I'm goint to try and do this the easy way, just setting him to ignore and call all that outside my jurisdiction.

shiney

11-20-2006, 11:29 AM

I apologise for using the word "fucking", but all I was saying is, if he'd tried this back then h'ed have probably been taken behind the library and beaten. He honestly is lucky it isn't those days. That by no means suggests I condone police violence, it merely states my belief that this kid is damn lucky he has what safeguards he does these days. He could have been put in the hospital for all I know if it weren't for the procedures police have to follow (and now actually do).

You might have missed my further posts where I considered my position and did state that I don't agree with the multiple tasings, but you then might have also missed the part where I said I wondered what was going through the policemen's minds. I find it difficult to condemn them and their actions without fully understanding where they are coming from, be those actions excessive or not. Before I can pass judgement and state with solid and concrete fact "you guys are jerks and mistreated that kid" I want to know their side. From what I saw, the kid was an ass, and the cops were handling a potentially volatile situation, supported by the kid not crying for help so much as trying to incite the others to join him.

That said, I think it could have been done without the repeated tasings. Once would have been enough. I do hope there is a full assessment of the situation, and inquiry, and the appropriate parties have the appropriate punishment from all quarters of the event.

BitVyper

11-20-2006, 03:41 PM

Once would have been enough.

Well from what I've read, the thing about drive-stun is that once isn't enough. It's made to be used repeatedly when someone isn't cooperating, and specifically doesn't disable people.

I'm given to understand that the use of drive-stun has resulted in questionable circumstances like this before, so once again, if I'm going to blame anyone, I'll blame the system for not having addressed the matter yet.

Mesden

11-20-2006, 04:26 PM

Well from what I've read, the thing about drive-stun is that once isn't enough. It's made to be used repeatedly when someone isn't cooperating, and specifically doesn't disable people.

Yes, by repeatedly ordering someone to stand up. With tasers. The sense in this is miniscule at best...

Stand up or be tased, after being tased? Say what now?

Raiden

11-20-2006, 05:07 PM

Being tasered, while often painful, is not an end-all crippling move. The guy could still get up after getting hit by one the first time, unless he was hit somewhere critical like the neck. From what I saw in the film, it wasn't so much that he couldn't get up. It was that he was going to make it as hard for the cops as he could.

Very basic terms? He was throwing a tantrum.

Do I see the cops are justified by the third or fourth hit? No.

Were they in their legal rights the first and second time? Technically yes. Was it ethical of them to do it the first two times? In my view, it was. The first time was a strong warning to cooperate, and the second time was an enforcer to get him to leave without trying to put on a show.

There were two cops. There were massive amounts of students. And we've all heard about cop brutality, but it's not RARE for a bunch of students to riot and attack a few cops. Which is why if they do have to bring out the taser, they need to get out and bring in the person as soon as they can before it can escalate into something dangerous for others.

From what I saw and what I've heard about the situation, the guy was trying to instigate other students to hassle the cops so he could get away. It wasn't that he couldn't walk. He just didn't feel like going with the cops, and hoped for a distraction.

POS Industries

11-20-2006, 05:16 PM

I've been debating for a while whether or not I should jump in here, and regardless of the fact that all the cooool kids are doing it, I might as well say my piece anyway.

I'm going to tell you two things that are most likely accurate assessments and/or predictions regarding this incident. The first is that this was a case of use of excessive force. The suspect was merely being a belligerant ass. Tasers are for use in the case of a suspect being a danger to the officers, the public, and probably him or herself. They are not intended to just make some loudmouth shut up and do what he's told. Similarly, a police baton is intended and designed to be used as a stable means of restraining suspects, not to bludgeon them over the head like a club. Basically, the taser is meant to be used in a situation more threatening than screaming yahoo throwing a hissyfit (as in this case) but less threatening than suspect with a gun. If it gets to the point where officers have exhausted all other alternatives and have to move up to violently electrocuting a human being, so be it, but it was quite clear that they had not.

Secondly, the officers involved will probably get off without even so much as a reprimand. They'll play the "Well, he could have been dangerous and you just don't know what it's like on the field, so we couldn't take any chances and our actions seemed appropriate at the time" card and the DA and Internal Affairs won't have enough evidence to really say otherwise, plus the fact that the authorities are going to want to get this issue swept under the rug as quickly as possible. Seriously, if the cops in Redding, CA, can get away with various incidents involving shooting a man eight times after he's already hit the ground, roughing up a man to the point that he has a heart attack and dies (in an attempt to stop him from possibly commiting suicide, which he had no intent to do anyway), and breaking the arm of a 17-year-old autistic kid just because he was black, I can't say that an incident like this is going to blow the lid off of anything. Well, unless, ya know, the public doesn't allow these things to be swept under the rug, but I understand that Grey's Anatomy is on and folks don't wanna have their attention torn away from Dr. McDreamy or whatever. It's cool, it's cool.

I do wish that the guy that got tased hadn't been so intolerable, however. I don't think he at all brought it on himself, but the fact that he kinda overplayed the role of "oppressed citizen" really bothers me. Like the "Here's your fucking Patriot Act" thing. As much a stalwart detractor of the Patriot Act as I am, even I know the thing doesn't cover police brutality. Complete ignorance of Habeas Corpus? Yeah. Racial profiling? Sure. Getting tased in public? Naw. Honestly, it's almost as if he had been waiting around forever to make a fuss over being fucked around with on the basis of race. Screaming "ZOMG PATRIOT ACT!!1!" on any occasion that the authorities have to deal with someone for any reason who happens to be Arab only makes legitimate instances of racism and/or unconstitutional behavior so much harder to deal with in the long run.

And that's terrible.

Bells

11-20-2006, 05:22 PM

Actually... i cant say that im all that synpathetic to the actions of the other students really... i dotn know... its jsut their tone of voice in the movie or something to that effect that gives me aversion to then...

*2 cops wrestling a suspect to the ground, who is VERY agitaded*
*Kid all-so-calm* Yeah... officer... like.. uhn... i would kie your badge number mm'kay?
*other kid* Yeah... your badges numbers...
*Cops* ....WHAT? *wrestling the guy on the ground*
*Keanu-reeves-like-kid* Yeah... y'know... like... your badge number and stuff...
*Cop* Kinda busy here!... y'know?!

Other than that... they ordered the guy to stand up several times, including warnings that he would be tasered again if he dosent comply, -then- the tasered him...
for the first 2 times, there was nothing wrong with the cops actions... now.. the 3rd shock looked excessive (c'mon the guy almost flipped over!) and the 4th one were like a freebie that was unecessary....

By the way...

and that's terrible (http://www.superdickery.com/images/oneshot/lex5sz.jpg)

10 points for you