# No ID - College Student Tazed - 3 Times



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2006)

There is a seven minute video floating around YouTube. 

Apparently a Middle-Eastern Looking student at UCLA was walking into the schools computer lab. He did not display his student ID. 

The campus police tazed the student three times. 

It is unclear what occurred before the first shock. The student, later in the tape, claims he was leaving the building. 

From what I heard and saw, the student, after the first tazing, began practicing what appeared to be a civil disobedience tactic of not assisting the officers. They yelled at him several times to stand up (He hands were restrained behind his back at the time). When he could not, or would not acceed to their request, they tazed him a second, and then a third time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tased-repeat_n_34272.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2006)

[yt]VP_M8s0GFEc[/yt]

Looks like an abuse of power to me.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 17, 2006)

A bit complicated

From this update



> Yes, I was indeed at Powell Library at approximately 11:30 on Tuesday night, and yes I did see the entire event as it went down.
> 
> Let me start off by saying that the guy DEFINITELY was asking to get his *** kicked. He was being extremely rude with the campus patrol guys (who are college studentsthis was before the real UCPD got called in). He was not complying with their requests to leave the premises, and he was definitely itching for a fight. I actually know the guy and a few of his friends, and I can tell you that hes the kind of guy that loves to make trouble.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2006)

Colorful description there....lol

Heres a few (gazillion) links
http://tailrank.com/847886/OH-MY-GOD-UCLA-student-tased-in-library-by-uni-police

My question is, if he was passively resisting (ie going dead weight), why the need to zap him at least 3 times?


----------



## Arizona Angel (Nov 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:


> My question is, if he was passively resisting (ie going dead weight), why the need to zap him at least 3 times?


Yeah, why not cuff and carry...they had enough officers.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Colorful description there....lol
> 
> Heres a few (gazillion) links
> http://tailrank.com/847886/OH-MY-GOD-UCLA-student-tased-in-library-by-uni-police
> ...


 
Maybe because the goal was to make him leave the building, not to go limp and fall to the floor?  

Honestly, this is something my son did when he was two.  What a child.  In any case, the whole romantic fantasy of Standing Up To The Man (tm) kinda falls apart unless somebody gets tazed once in a while.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2006)

Well, if that was the case, why not just draw guns and point them at his head, then? That would move my *** outta there at warp speed. 

I'd like to know what the law, and police rules of engagement consider justified use of force, in regards to using a taser on a non-resisting subject, and on a passive-resisting subject.

If he was refusing to go, if he was being violent, I have no problem. Zap the hell outta him.  But if all he did was go limp, I see no need to zap.  Cuff n carry sure.

The other part is, if he was actually moving towards the exit as demanded, even if in a slow manner, I again see no reason to zap.

I'm sure theres more than 1 video floating around, and over the next day or 3, more eye witnesses will come forward with more information.

At this time, I feel that excessive force was used. More info will either change or reinforce that opinion.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

I totally appreciate the use of a tazer as a non-lethal tool to end dangerous confrontations.  I oppose the use of a tazer as a tool of compliance.  When we allow these methods to be used in this way, we are saying that it is okay to torture someone to get them to do what they want.

And by torture, I mean torture.  I was once a security guard and we had to be tazed for training.  This was THE most painful experience of my life.  I think of it as a muscle cramp that hits the entire body.

Not pleasent.

Anyway, for those of you who have no problem with this, lets just hope that you aren't the one who is peacefully protesting something you believe is wrong...


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 17, 2006)

Why is it that when I watch this, I have absolutely no sympathy for the student? I realize that it is hard to see what is going on in the video, and that it is hard to get the whole story. But from what I am able to tell, the student was being a total jackass, in my opinion. He seemed completely unwilling to cooperate with the officers, both before and after the "tazing." He seemed more interested in making a political statement of some sort, neglecting the fact that he was the one who didn't have his ID on him. It is hard to tell, but I am assuming by the video that the student didn't just say "O.K. I'll go grab my ID and I'll be right back." It appeared that the student was unwilling to leave or cooperate, and that was what led up to the incident.

I'll tell you what, If I don't have my ID or parking pass for U of D, I won't even be let passed the gated enterance unless I can produce some sort of documentation that I am supposed to be there. And I am as white as the day is long. So I don't think that this was a case of profiling, or "patroit act" crap, or anything that the student was yelling. Requiring proper identification is pretty standard at most universities now a days.

That said, I will state one opinion regarding tazers. I think that they are incredibly useful in controlling a subject, and I think that when properly used can be a great asset to the officer as well as the perp., reducing injury for both participants. 

However, I don't believe that tazers should be used when the cuffs are on. I just don't think that tazers should be a part of the force continuum at that point, unless there is a clear case that the cuffed person is putting others in serious danger where tazing is the only viable option to stop the subject without lethal force. That would be a huge stretch, however, and I can barely think of a circumstance where a cuffed person should be tazed. Now, keep in mind that a cuffed person can still do a lot of damage, and that cuffs aren't the magic end all to the threat. But certianly, I think that trained officers with numbers on their side can subdue a cuffed subject in almost all cases without the use of electricity. My opinion is open to change with experience or evidence regarding this, but I doubt that will happened.

That said, I can't exactly fault the officers in that situation. Most likely the blame lies in their training. Since the widespread use of tazers, I am seeing some of the same mistakes that were being made over 15 years ago with OC spray training; that being that the tool is being taught as the end all be all magic solution. The tool is being touted as completely safe and harmless, and as completely effective. This is not the truth, however. Although it is true that tazers are more effective then other less lethal tools, while the risk is minimal, there is no end all be all solution. There is still a need for a proper force continuum that includes hand-to-hand subject control.

So, I hope that many of the departments who might view this incident as well as other incidents will rethink how tazers are being taught, if they are of course guilty of the training mistakes I described. Because although the student was probably being a jackass who deserved to have his *** tazed, you can't just do what you think people deserve when you wear the badge. And I am sure that the last thing these officers wanted was to end up on "you tube" with questions as to whether or not they acted appropriately...

Paul


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 17, 2006)

One thing is certain - Cynthia McKinney better stay clear of the UCLA computer lab.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

Jut a couple of questions:

1) Why did he not have his ID? ** I mean anyone can forget but on college you cannot do anything without it **

2) Why is their a video? 

3) Put question one together and Question Two together and the fact of how he reacted and acted to begin with, maybe he knew the tactics and responses and planned the whole thing. So this question is Hmmmm, this make me wonder?



Edit:

Why was the person with the video hiding it from the security and police? Why was it not running before they showed up? If the person was really trying to capture the event why did they only capture what they did?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> Jut a couple of questions:
> 
> 1) Why did he not have his ID? ** I mean anyone can forget but on college you cannot do anything without it **
> 
> ...


 
Does it matter?  Should a tazer be used as a compliance device?  I would say no.  In my opinion, that sort of thing infringes on our 1st amendment rights of Freedom of Expression.


----------



## airdawg (Nov 17, 2006)

There is always a video. People can record vids with their phones. Some are pretty good too.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Anyway, for those of you who have no problem with this, lets just hope that you aren't the one who is peacefully protesting something you believe is wrong...



All I can say to that, is we used to zap ourselves for fun... it hurt like hell, but I'd take a quick jolt or 3 over being Pepper Sprayed or beaten with a club anyday.

Were these guys in the right?  How the hell do I know, I wasnt actually there... but if the "kid" in question was not complying, and was standing up for himself (by laying down so to speak) I applaud his effort, but am not supprised by the results, nor should he, or anyone else be.  You have to expect consequences for those type of actions, I think we should be glad it was not a beating with clubs, or somthing worse.


----------



## airdawg (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Does it matter? Should a tazer be used as a compliance device? I would say no. In my opinion, that sort of thing infringes on our 1st amendment rights of Freedom of Expression.


 
I've been tased several times. Not that bad. Compared to the alternatives. Exp. OC spray.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 17, 2006)

BTW, whatever happened to making _principled_ stands?  How did protest come to be defined as "having a temper tantrum over every little thing".  Cripes, my kid is on his seventh year of civil disobedience.  Yesterday, he wanted to play Playstation after karate.  I told him no because it was too late.  Apparently, what he did next is now considered staging a peaceful, if somewhat noisy, demonstration on the living room floor.

Protest for the sake of protest is lame.  Throwing a fit and calling it a protest is ultra-lame.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Does it matter? Should a tazer be used as a compliance device? I would say no. In my opinion, that sort of thing infringes on our 1st amendment rights of Freedom of Expression.




John,

A tazer was not used by the students who were part of the safety from my understanding. It was used by the PD which are actual police and trained in use of force and the laws associated with it. 

As to use of force, people are upset when four or five police carried a person away and they jerked and the police could not stop the person from falling. Another tactic used to make a point or by those who are so high or drugged up they do not know any better or feel it. 

Some people are upset about impact tools as a weapon of compliance. 

Some people are upset by the use of fire hoses as a weapon of complaince.

The Tazer might seem cruel, and it might hurt but it usually gets the response required. 

As I have seen all of the above tactics myself,  the Tazer gets peoples attention no matter what condition they are in mentally or physically. 

So, the question John is if a child in your class refuses to comply what do you do? Obviously you do not taz them but they get their way with their disruption. 

While I personally think the Government has taken more of our civil liberties than these tactics have. 

The question I have to ask is no one in this country wants to take responsisbility for their own actions and no one wants to educate people with the note that certain things are not acceptable in public or in society.  Yet it seems more and more people want to protect everyone from being touched, but the person was not complying with a reasonable request. 

I proved a point once at a University, by using water guns and water ballons to make my point that between 12:00 Noon and 1:00 PM the only person who could respond or make a decision was a student dispatch and a student safety officer. It too them much longer than anyone expected to get someone of authority their to respond to my requests/demands. At the sign of the first person of authority, I complied with all requests. I was not in trouble for no damage was done. The senior staff of the U were impressed that I had figured out the best time to cause a problem, and asked what I had done before my scene to try to change it. I talked to Safety and the Dean's Office and student government which I was a member of, and no one thought it was important. 

So there are ways to make your point. 

There are ways to bring things to people attention and still take responsibility for their own actions.

So yes in my opinion in this case from what I have seen, it was a reasonable response.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:


> [yt]VP_M8s0GFEc[/yt]
> 
> Looks like an abuse of power to me.


 
At the very end of the video, they carried him out.  And I counted the number of tazerings as FIVE (listen for the screams).  

Campus security could have avoided a huge lawsuit by just carrying the man out.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> All I can say to that, is we used to zap ourselves for fun... it hurt like hell, but I'd take a quick jolt or 3 over being Pepper Sprayed or beaten with a club anyday.
> 
> Were these guys in the right? How the hell do I know, I wasnt actually there... but if the "kid" in question was not complying, and was standing up for himself (by laying down so to speak) I applaud his effort, but am not supprised by the results, nor should he, or anyone else be. You have to expect consequences for those type of actions, I think we should be glad it was not a beating with clubs, or somthing worse.



Yep the Police ring of being pushed into another officer who has to defend himself sucks real bad. For as soon as one sees it is open as you move even with your hands behind you you are stil hit. ** I know from experience on this one **

There are ways of protesting and making a point, there are ways of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting an over zealous officer. 

In this case, I still stand on my experiences of watching and being involved in receiving many of the other methods of control, that this situation was not out of hand and as long as the department had authorized the use of Tazers and the officer had his training then no probelm in this case.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> At the very end of the video, they carried him out. And I counted the number of tazerings as FIVE (listen for the screams).
> 
> Campus security could have avoided a huge lawsuit by just carrying the man out.




I disagree.

If he kicked out or struggled and the dropped him, and he hit his head then they get sued. 

But now he knows they are serious, and so do the rest of the studnets at that college.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> All I can say to that, is we used to zap ourselves for fun... it hurt like hell, but I'd take a quick jolt or 3 over being Pepper Sprayed or beaten with a club anyday.


 
Part of my training included the use of OC and mace and I have taken quite a few shots with a club during training.  None of that compared to being tazed.  That single shock was overwhelming.

While I see your point...that we should expect consequences for our actions...I would like you to ponder what it would be like if you wanted to protest against something/someone and they had a weapon that would completely nullify your efforts and render your actions as useless.  

I think that using the tazer as a tool of compliance walks a thin line between our constitutional rights and the states rights.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> John,
> 
> A tazer was not used by the students who were part of the safety from my understanding. It was used by the PD which are actual police and trained in use of force and the laws associated with it.
> 
> ...


 
While I understand your point, I still must say that I think that using a tazer to get someone to do a simple task, like leave a building, walks a thin line.  Imagine how effective protests against Veitnam would have been if a tazer had been in use.  Think about how effective a tazer would have been at stopping various the various unions from fighting for the rights we enjoy?  Think about Rosa Parks being tazed and hauled off the bus like some animal?

Yeah it might make them a martyr.  Most likely it just gets them out of the way.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> BTW, whatever happened to making _principled_ stands?


 
How far did that get Ghandi?  MLK?


----------



## zDom (Nov 17, 2006)

One of the problems in this situation was the student was an ***. Enough experiences like this one should convince him it just isn't worth it.

On the other hand, one of the other problems seemed to be a lack of people-skills on the part of those police officers. A really good cop could have got the jerk to produce an ID or leave without reaching for the tazer or causing a big scene.

There are a lot of hard working good people in uniform. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of pricks who believe the badge makes them "The Law" as opposed to a public servant.

And that only makes things more difficult on those hard working public servants out there trying to make this country a safer place to live.

In this case it looked like the officers were using the tazer to punish the student for not complying, similar to the LAPD officers who recently punched a reputed gangbanger as they cuffed him. That isn't their job, as frustrating as it must be for them at times to deal with jerks.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> While I understand your point, I still must say that I think that using a tazer to get someone to do a simple task, like leave a building, walks a thin line. Imagine how effective protests against Veitnam would have been if a tazer had been in use. Think about how effective a tazer would have been at stopping various the various unions from fighting for the rights we enjoy? Think about Rosa Parks being tazed and hauled off the bus like some animal?
> 
> Yeah it might make them a martyr.  Most likely it just gets them out of the way.




As to the Union, they were locked in a building and the police did not enter. 

If they had and many times they did before and dragged people out, which is what drove people to think up locking themsleves in. 

As to Rosa Parks there was no Police officer telling her to leave. Just a person on the bus. 

Your conclusions are not the same situation. 

You try to make one thing fit all, and that is not the way it works and Iam very surprised by you as you work with the young. Do all the young ones respond the same? Does the same word and instructions get the exact same response form all of them? No it does not.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

zDom said:


> One of the problems in this situation was the student was an ***. Enough experiences like this one should convince him it just isn't worth it.
> 
> On the other hand, one of the other problems seemed to be a lack of people-skills on the part of those police officers. A really good cop could have got the jerk to produce an ID or leave without reaching for the tazer or causing a big scene.
> 
> ...


 
Good points.  This guy is not innocent by any means and, by all accounts, was acting like a jerk before he was tazed.  However, imagine what the world would be like if you could taze everyone you thought was a jerk.  

Sweet...right?

Until someone thinks you are the jerk.  

And when people in positions of power start thinking you are just being a jerk, this can trample on your constitutional rights.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Good points. This guy is not innocent by any means and, by all accounts, was acting like a jerk before he was tazed. However, imagine what the world would be like if you could taze everyone you thought was a jerk.
> 
> Sweet...right?
> 
> ...




John you are being silly.

That is like aying you can go out and shoot or stab or beat anyone you want because they looked at you wrong in traffic.

You complain about logic in some arguements, yet I am having a problem following your points here.

It is nice of you to say that in this case the guy was being a jerk which is what I have been saying all along. Nice of you to agree with my original points in a manner that makes it look like you thought this all along but instead you go off on tangents on this thread.


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> There is a seven minute video floating around YouTube.
> 
> Apparently a Middle-Eastern Looking student at UCLA was walking into the schools computer lab. He did not display his student ID.
> 
> ...


 
Like any news story, or video tape that is shot without knowing the full story, we don't have enough to base solid facts on.  Its amazing how people want the cops to do their job, but when the suspect does not comply, it makes the cops job that much harder.  The person who was tazed, could have avoided this mess, by simply complying with the officers.  Instead, he was a jerk and wanted to be a tough guy and show off, and resist, so the police are forced to escalate their response.

I'll admit, I'm sure there are some that abuse their power, but I just can't see any abuse here.

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> As to the Union, they were locked in a building and the police did not enter.


 
Not always.



> If they had and many times they did before and dragged people out, which is what drove people to think up locking themsleves in.


 
And if the companies private security force could force their way in and taze people they wanted to remove, what then?



> As to Rosa Parks there was no Police officer telling her to leave. Just a person on the bus.


 
There could have been.  There are many "Rosa Parks'" out there.  It was just an analogy.  Just imagine if Ms. Parks was hauled out of the bus like some animal after being tazed?



> Your conclusions are not the same situation.


 
I think you may be missing my point.  They were analogies.



> You try to make one thing fit all, and that is not the way it works and Iam very surprised by you as you work with the young. Do all the young ones respond the same? Does the same word and instructions get the exact same response form all of them? No it does not.


 
One of the things that I have learned, working with the population that I do, is that when you do say something, you had better be able to back it up.  Otherwise it won't matter.  Often, this had led to me reassessing what I considered important...reassessing my values by looking through another person's eyes.  

This is very important for all people in positions of authority.  

With a tazer, you don't have to do this.  The response is always the same.  NO ONE can fight a tazer.  It is physically impossible.  You never EVER need to understand why a person is doing what they are doing.  You only need to zap.

This lack of understanding is damaging to society, IMHO.


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I totally appreciate the use of a tazer as a non-lethal tool to end dangerous confrontations. I oppose the use of a tazer as a tool of compliance.


 
What do you suggest as an alternative?


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Does it matter? Should a tazer be used as a compliance device? I would say no. In my opinion, that sort of thing infringes on our 1st amendment rights of Freedom of Expression.


 
If its required that people have ID, then yes, it does matter.  Its no different than a suspect taking off on foot, the cop telling him to stop, suspect refuses, and they send a dog after him.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Not always.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The lack of understanding is damaging our society, I agree.

But take responisibility for your actions is the bigger damage to our society, for if one if not taught responsibility then they do things that get them into trouble that when they were younger people laughed at or ignored. 

Like I said you are trying to apply one small point across a lot of points and issues here. 

I also note you did not answer my other questions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> John you are being silly.
> 
> That is like aying you can go out and shoot or stab or beat anyone you want because they looked at you wrong in traffic.
> 
> ...


 
I'm sorry if you think that I'm being silly, Rich.  All I'm trying to say is that one person's jerk is another person's friend.  Alot of this is relative.

My point is this...if people in power can use a tazer to enfore their opinion of what they think is right upon you, even if you are being peaceful, what does this do to your freedom?

I deal with angry and uncompliant people all of the time, Rich.  Imagine if I had a tool that I could use to just make them do what I want?  Imagine if I just didn't have to listen anymore?  When the State has this power, you lose your rights.

And I don't think that this is terribly tangetial to the thread...


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

MJS said:


> If its required that people have ID, then yes, it does matter. Its no different than a suspect taking off on foot, the cop telling him to stop, suspect refuses, and they send a dog after him.


 
In the five years I worked as a security guard, not once did I have to use force against someone for not having an ID.  Sure, some people were very angry.  Some people verbally abused me.  Some people even threatened me...but I stood my ground and they eventually left.  That is all the officers had to do.  If the student threatened them in any way or assaulted them, then have at it, but, from the video and the report that I read, that is not clear.

I remember dealing with an incident very similar to this.  I stated the policy.  Listened to the other person.  Stood my ground.  And I didn't say a thing.  When the person got tired of ranting and raving, they left.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> But take responisibility for your actions is the bigger damage to our society...


 
I'm not sure this is true.  If you think about how relative taking responsibility is, then you start to understand how understanding why the person is acting in such a way is so important.

It's a two way street.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I'm sorry if you think that I'm being silly, Rich. All I'm trying to say is that one person's jerk is another person's friend. Alot of this is relative.
> 
> My point is this...if people in power can use a tazer to enfore their opinion of what they think is right upon you, even if you are being peaceful, what does this do to your freedom?
> 
> ...




John,

It is difficult.

I have complained and called my representatives about the HSA and the fact that they can come into my house without a warrant now if the President thinks it is a state of emergency, I have somplained about the no need for warrants for tapping phones and such. 

I have complained and wrote letters and made phone calls. 

I talk to people.

My biggest complaint about my boss is that he does not listen he only states and talks, but does not listen. Even if he tells me he does not agree if he listened then I would feel somewhat validated. 

The problem with this case and in most cases like this is that the person does not want to listen and or talk or see what the problem is with their actions. Why is it bad for them to drop their pants and leave execrement on the floor. 

There are ways within the system to accomplish any task this guy may have wanted without being a jerk and requiring action to be taken for his action. 

Instead people all complain that he was abused and no one knows what really happened. Once again I question the video and it source and why did it hit the web so fast. 

I know there are bad people out there and some of them wear a badge. 

I know there are bad people out there but some are also good. 

I have to wait for more information, but based upon what I have seen I am fine with what happened. 

If more comes to light then I will review it then. 

And by your arguements, what is to stop the Government from coming into your home right now? Nothing. They can come in and take you away. Hold you without trial under charges of terrorism. 

That to me is much more of a crime and also a bigger threat to my rights, then someone else not taking responsibility for their actions and looking to me to make a point.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I'm not sure this is true. If you think about how relative taking responsibility is, then you start to understand how understanding why the person is acting in such a way is so important.
> 
> It's a two way street.




John,

It is a two way street. Nice of you acknowledge the other point. Like I said in other threads it cannot be only one way.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> My point is this...if people in power can use a tazer to enfore their opinion of what they think is right upon you, even if you are being peaceful, what does this do to your freedom?



I don't think its a matter of enforcing "their opinion". If there is a law written saying this guy needs an ID, then it needs to be enforced. If the guy is being disruptive and breaking the law, what do you suggest the cops do? Say something along the lines of "Well, just go around w/out your id. You can just lay on the floor and curse. Thats fine".

If they take him out by force, they risk injury to themselves and the jerk. Somebody breaks something or gets seriously injured, then you regret the whole stupid thing. From my understanding, while being TASERed is not fun, its not going to leave permanent damage. Its unpleasant, but not lethal (normally). There needs to be some method for enforcing the law.

I'm imagining this situation has come up hundreds of thousands of times. If they guy takes it cool, go gets his ID or simply leaves, this is a non-event that would be -extraordinarily- boring on youtube.



> I deal with angry and uncompliant people all of the time, Rich.  Imagine if I had a tool that I could use to just make them do what I want?  Imagine if I just didn't have to listen anymore?  When the State has this power, you lose your rights.


Cops have power to do things. Given the rights circumstances they can shoot someone. When you are breaking the law, you lose rights. Thats kind of the nature of the beast. Jail is one such expression of losing your rights, death by gunshot being another. I don't think you automatically start losing rights when the government weilds power, but I expect it to happen when you break laws.

I don't get frantic every time a cop shoots someone, but if its unjustified then we have a problem. Same thing here. I don't think we have enough info, but I'd like to hear all of the cops account of what happened and why the TASER was used. I think that would be insightful... anyone know if statements have been issued?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> In the five years I worked as a security guard, not once did I have to use force against someone for not having an ID. Sure, some people were very angry. Some people verbally abused me. Some people even threatened me...but I stood my ground and they eventually left. That is all the officers had to do. If the student threatened them in any way or assaulted them, then have at it, but, from the video and the report that I read, that is not clear.
> 
> I remember dealing with an incident very similar to this. I stated the policy. Listened to the other person. Stood my ground. And I didn't say a thing. When the person got tired of ranting and raving, they left.




And in the years as a bouncer and security I talked my way out of lots of conflicts and go lots of people to leave. 

Sometimes force was required. 

What about the time I saw five guys beating on this small guy by himself. Should I have not gotten involved? Should I have just asked them how they were feeling? 

No, I acted and stopped the fight by hurting multiple of them real fast as they did not listen to me when I yelled stop. Afterwards, I was able to talk to them but I had their attention and they knew the result of not listening to me when I am the one who at the moment is responsible and in charge. 

The police once told me I should have let this guy and his 10 friends hit this young woman. I asked him and the rest of the police if they would have wanted their wives/girlfriends or daughters to get hit like that or not? 

Sometimes talking does not work.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

First of all, Rich, I commend you for taking the initiative to actually call and write your representatives about what you feel.  People need to realize that the only way that they'll see your point of view is if you communicate it.

Secondly, I want to attempt to show you how your two analogies may be linked.



Rich Parsons said:


> I have complained and called my representatives about the HSA and the fact that they can come into my house without a warrant now if the President thinks it is a state of emergency, I have somplained about the no need for warrants for tapping phones and such.


 
Imagine if they came into your home while you were at home and you simply asked the officers why...and they tazed you while they ransacked your house.  Imagine standing in front of your private records, demanding a reason for their confiscation, and they taze you to get them.



> And by your arguements, what is to stop the Government from coming into your home right now? Nothing. They can come in and take you away. Hold you without trial under charges of terrorism.
> 
> That to me is much more of a crime and also a bigger threat to my rights, then someone else not taking responsibility for their actions and looking to me to make a point.


 
If you look at this as a continuum, where the government uses more and more force merely to make you comply, then you'll see the connection.  If the state has the right to make "jerks" dance just for being "jerks," then this is a step in the direction of actual tyranny.

Its the difference between having a law on the book and actually being able to carry it out.


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> In the five years I worked as a security guard, not once did I have to use force against someone for not having an ID. Sure, some people were very angry. Some people verbally abused me. Some people even threatened me...but I stood my ground and they eventually left. That is all the officers had to do. If the student threatened them in any way or assaulted them, then have at it, but, from the video and the report that I read, that is not clear.
> 
> I remember dealing with an incident very similar to this. I stated the policy. Listened to the other person. Stood my ground. And I didn't say a thing. When the person got tired of ranting and raving, they left.


 
What would you do in your situation, if the person you were dealing with, did not comply to your verbal instructions?  I don't frequent bars/clubs, but I'd imagine if the bouncers told someone who was not complying with the rules of the establishment, to leave, and the person refused, I'd imagine he'd be forcefully removed.  

If an officer tells someone to turn around and put their hands behind their back and they refuse, is the ofc. supposed to keep repeating himself until the suspect complies?  I wouldn't think so.  They are now resisting and the officer would be well within their rights, to turn the person around, bring them to the ground, etc., and handcuff them.  Of course, bystanders are going to think this is abuse.  If the gu listened the first time, it would've been a much easier process.


Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> And in the years as a bouncer and security I talked my way out of lots of conflicts and go lots of people to leave.
> 
> Sometimes force was required.
> 
> ...


 
I totally agree.  And this is why the use of a tazer is sometimes warrented.  If the police or yourself would have tazed someone in order to stop someone from beating up a smaller person, I would have no problem with that.

Using a tazer to get a nonviolent person to comply is different, however...especially in a situation regarding an ID.  Tazing someone for that doesn't seem worth it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

MJS said:


> What would you do in your situation, if the person you were dealing with, did not comply to your verbal instructions? I don't frequent bars/clubs, but I'd imagine if the bouncers told someone who was not complying with the rules of the establishment, to leave, and the person refused, I'd imagine he'd be forcefully removed.
> 
> If an officer tells someone to turn around and put their hands behind their back and they refuse, is the ofc. supposed to keep repeating himself until the suspect complies? I wouldn't think so. They are now resisting and the officer would be well within their rights, to turn the person around, bring them to the ground, etc., and handcuff them. Of course, bystanders are going to think this is abuse. If the gu listened the first time, it would've been a much easier process.
> 
> ...


 
Alot of this changes if the officers were placing him under arrest.  If the person isn't resisting arrest and is simply not complying with instructions, why can't the officers just take the person out without making a scene?  I've seen it plenty of times before and I've certainly escorted my share of people out of the building peacefully.  Why not just put the cuffs on someone and put them in the back of the squad?  Why do they have to force the person with a tazer to comply when they could simply bend down and do it much quieter with some elbow grease?

Look, if the person fights, taze the dude.  If they are simply just lying there or just standing there, the need to do so, hasn't been met, IMHO.  It's like any other force continuum that we have to think about as martial artists.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2006)

I would like someone to convince me that this is not an incident related to walking while Muslem? 

As I have said, the video does not show the beginning of the altercation. We can not know how it began. The video does show the student restrained by handcuffs when the tazings occurred. I noticed three incidences. Someone else mentioned five. As for the availability of videos: in the video you can see students recording the event on their telephones. 

As to whether the student was being a jerk or not ... we have only the video tape to refer to, by which time he was restrained. I think I can understand someone acting like a jerk if they believe they are restrained for an inappropriate reason. But, it is also irrelevant. 

How the detained person acts should have no bearing on how the authories act. This is the discussion we have had many times over concerning torture/aggressive interrogation. The reason we should not torture is because of what it does to and says about US. Not because of what it does to the subject. 

When the authority powers are crying out for the detainee to 'Stand Up' (repeatedly), it would seem obvious that the detainee is not resisting. Again, we have no clear vision in the video. I suppose he could have wrapped his legs around a supporting column beam to resist. But, the instruction 'Stand Up', by the very nature of its repetition seems to indicate the subject is exercising some sort of passive resistance. 

Yes, there is a bit of speculation in this post. I remain open to new evidence. 

But it has never been a crime to be an ******* in this country. And in most places in this country, you do not have to be tattooed with an ID number to move about your community.


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Alot of this changes if the officers were placing him under arrest. If the person isn't resisting arrest and is simply not complying with instructions, why can't the officers just take the person out without making a scene? I've seen it plenty of times before and I've certainly escorted my share of people out of the building peacefully. Why not just put the cuffs on someone and put them in the back of the squad? Why do they have to force the person with a tazer to comply when they could simply bend down and do it much quieter with some elbow grease?
> 
> Look, if the person fights, taze the dude. If they are simply just lying there or just standing there, the need to do so, hasn't been met, IMHO. It's like any other force continuum that we have to think about as martial artists.


 
Something tells me that if they had atempted to physically remove this person, he would not have gone quietly.  Did they not ask him to leave at first and for ID?  He was escalating the situation himself.  When the suspect resists, the officers are within their rights to escalate their force.  Less lethal such as OC, taser, and eventually deadly force.

I'm still interested to hear what you would have done in your instance, with people that you mentioned.  If they did not comply, what was your next course of action?

Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> First of all, Rich, I commend you for taking the initiative to actually call and write your representatives about what you feel. People need to realize that the only way that they'll see your point of view is if you communicate it.
> 
> Secondly, I want to attempt to show you how your two analogies may be linked.
> 
> ...




John,

My exwife before she moved out but after I filed, had her boyfriend come over to kick my *** and "Kill me" ** His words to me when I picked up the phone to make a call **. I called 911 and asked for the police to come out. 

A few minutes later the boyfriend showed up and started taking out a metal pipe from the back of his truck. The ex-wife was opening the garage door up for him. 

Note: I cannot stop her a she lives there.  I cannot touch her. 

I call 911 again and get the same dispatch. I explain that I had called earlier and that I was calling back because the boyfriend had showed up. 

The dispatch told me that a detective would come out the next day to bring charges against me for calling falsely to 911 if I called again. I then yelled at her that the Boyfriend had a weapon and she had opened the door from the house to the garage. SHe told me to shut the door. ** I explained to her that I cannot stop her, I cannot kick the door for that would be considered an assault on her. So I ran out the back with the phone. 

The 911 dispatch set an officer who was only told "Domestic". 

She shows up and weighs about 115 pounds with her vest on and was about 5'2" . I come out of the shadows of the front porche with the phone. She gets out of the car and see the Ex and Boyfriend in the Garage. 

She see me, and tells me to stop. I said, "Officer I called". all she knew was that I was not doing as she wanted. I was not quiet even though I had stopped moving. She then tells me to sit. I sit. She then pulls her weapon and points it at me. Her hands are shaking. I am very afraid. She then tells me to stand, and asks what is in my Hand. "The phone I called you from". She said put it down. I dropped it on the grass. She then said coem over to her car where I did and then followed instructions to get frisked and cuffed.  The weapons check in the groin area caught each testicle as she checked for dangerous weapons. I refused to move even in the pain. Why as I did not want to give her a reason to shot me or beat me or what have you. She then puts me into the back of her car, and goes and talks to the ex and the BF. She comes back and says get out I am leaving as they did not call. I did not leave her car as I was hand cuffed with my hands behind my back and told not to speak. I staid there until she asked me if I wanted to go down to the station. I said yes I did as then I could talk to someone. At this point three other vehicles roll in as she had not cleared yet. She reaches in and grabs me by the hair and pulls me out. I comply as I do not want to be seen resisting no matter how peaceful my intentions. She un-cuffs me shoves me back in the car and goes back to the Ex. An officer gets me out, much nicer, and I am asked if I live there. I reply yes. I tell them I have filed and she has not moved out yet. He is the BF. They then ask the initial responding officer why she called, and she replies that my ex has stated she did not call. They turn to me and ask if I did. I said yes sir. The officer turns to her and asks her what she is going to do now? She states she is going to leave is there is no issue. I ask if she would take apolice report so I could get a PPO against her BF. She then told me the law was there for women and that I could not abuse it that way. I turned to the Sergeant (* quiet until now *) and ask if I can have a report, or I will call the state police directly for a report and before they leave could I get their names and badge numbers and vehicle numbers.  The sergent then turns to her and tells her to do the report. 

She get my ex and BF to state that he had called and that she had egged him on over to have me fight him. The ex also told her I was into Martial Arts. The police officer took the report and then took over a week for her to write it up so I could get a copy and get my PPO. When I got it stated that I was running around with the weapon not the BF and that I was trained to kill people and that she thought I was the one who should have been jailed that night. ** Not that anyone as jailed at all **

The good thing about that night was that the police officer told th ex for her safety she should leave for that night, and the next morning she filed her own PPO against me *** Hmmm maybe why the officer delayed my report as a male I need some proof where as a female in our state is given all benefit for their safety and rightfully so ***. The point is that she then had to list she lived elsewhere so she could not come back while I was there and as I lived there I could call the police and they would just ask her to leave.

So as to the police who tazered this guy you do not know what they were told.

As to what as said before the tape started you do not know. 

As to have my person violated and abused in front of my neighbors I completely understand. 

So I understand more so than many about abuse of power. 

I still say based upon the information I have here it was a good call. Like I said, if more details come out then I can reivew my position at that time.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I would like someone to convince me that this is not an incident related to walking while Muslem?
> 
> As I have said, the video does not show the beginning of the altercation. We can not know how it began. The video does show the student restrained by handcuffs when the tazings occurred. I noticed three incidences. Someone else mentioned five. As for the availability of videos: in the video you can see students recording the event on their telephones.
> 
> ...




MichaelEdward,

I have no proof that it was or was not as you suggest. They might be prejudiced. I grant that. 

As to the Nazi reference of Tattoo of your ID, like I said even in the 80's when I was in college it was required for any computer use or library use, and that was just the rule. If you forgot it you went back and got you ID and then did your work. I do not believe the issue was no ID at all it was how the person handled themselves.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2006)

MJS said:


> Something tells me that if they had atempted to physically remove this person, he would not have gone quietly. Did they not ask him to leave at first and for ID? He was escalating the situation himself. When the suspect resists, the officers are within their rights to escalate their force. Less lethal such as OC, taser, and eventually deadly force.
> 
> I'm still interested to hear what you would have done in your instance, with people that you mentioned. If they did not comply, what was your next course of action?
> 
> Mike


 
What is that 'something' that so tells you? 



> Neither the video footage nor eyewitness accounts of the events confirmed that Tabatabainejad encouraged resistance, and he repeatedly told the officers he was not fighting and would leave.
> 
> Tabatabainejad *was walking with his backpack toward the door when he was approached by two UCPD officers, one of whom grabbed the student's arm.* In response, Tabatabainejad yelled at the officers to "get off me." Following this demand, Tabatabainejad was stunned with a Taser.


 
I suppose it will take a while to determine. But it seems that there are many assumptions about the student, that are being made without substantiation. 
http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> John,
> 
> My exwife before she moved out but after I filed, had her boyfriend come over to kick my *** and "Kill me" ** His words to me when I picked up the phone to make a call **. I called 911 and asked for the police to come out.
> 
> ...


 
Good God Rich, you're lucky you're still with us today!!  Sorry to hear that you had this experience.  The dispatcher needs some serious retraining, as there were a number of questions that should have been asked that were not.  The officer sounds like a rookie, as she seemed pretty clueless.  I can see her being on the defense, as until things are sorted out, they really don't know who is who upon first arrival.  Still, she didnt seem to handle the case well at all.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> MichaelEdward,
> 
> I have no proof that it was or was not as you suggest. They might be prejudiced. I grant that.
> 
> As to the Nazi reference of Tattoo of your ID, like I said even in the 80's when I was in college it was required for any computer use or library use, and that was just the rule. If you forgot it you went back and got you ID and then did your work. I do not believe the issue was no ID at all it was how the person handled themselves.


 
Whether a tattooed ID is a reference to Christian Mythology or Nazi Internment camps or anything else, I will allow you to project. I made no reference to Naziism.


EDIT - This incident occurred after 11:00 PM in the evening. This makes the requirement of a Student Identification more relevant, in my opinion. - END EDIT


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

MJS said:


> Good God Rich, you're lucky you're still with us today!! Sorry to hear that you had this experience. The dispatcher needs some serious retraining, as there were a number of questions that should have been asked that were not. The officer sounds like a rookie, as she seemed pretty clueless. I can see her being on the defense, as until things are sorted out, they really don't know who is who upon first arrival. Still, she didnt seem to handle the case well at all.




My lawyer advised me that being 6'3" over 250 lbs and dark complected and dark facial hair at night with her being as small as she was, there was no way anyone would not believe her if she said she was afraid at a domestic with two on one side and the odd man out being my size. 

Thanks for the well wishes on that situation in the past. 

*** I am off to go watch Casino Royale  Ciao for now everyone ***


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Whether a tattooed ID is a reference to Christian Mythology or Nazi Internment camps or anything else, I will allow you to project. I made no reference to Naziism.




ME,

In today's age with the internet arguement tht a thread has reached it point of no return when Nazi's are brought in or Hitler is referenced, I think you are walking a very thin line of leading the witness.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

MJS said:


> Something tells me that if they had atempted to physically remove this person, he would not have gone quietly.


 
This is really hard to determine from the video.  All I know is that I have had to de-escalate similar situations without using a tazer.



> Did they not ask him to leave at first and for ID? He was escalating the situation himself.


 
The problem is that we don't see any of this.  We don't see what led up to the actual tazing.



> When the suspect resists, the officers are within their rights to escalate their force. Less lethal such as OC, taser, and eventually deadly force.


 
I didn't see any resistence other then a refusal to comply.  



> I'm still interested to hear what you would have done in your instance, with people that you mentioned. If they did not comply, what was your next course of action?


 
Inform them of the rule and wait.  If they are agitated, I would attempt to use my CPI skills to de-escalate and hopefully gain compliance.  If they still wouldn't comply, I would call the police and inform them that they would be charged with tresspassing.  If they still didn't comply, I would let the police arrest them.


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> My lawyer advised me that being 6'3" over 250 lbs and dark complected and dark facial hair at night with her being as small as she was, there was no way anyone would not believe her if she said she was afraid at a domestic with two on one side and the odd man out being my size.


 
2 officers should always be sent on domestic calls.  I don't know the policy of the dept in question, but she should not have been sent alone.  In addition, as a LEO, facing danger is a daily event.  If she can't handle it, IMO, she should not be a LEO.



> Thanks for the well wishes on that situation in the past.


 
You're welcome.


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> What is that 'something' that so tells you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
What tells me?  This tells me.

http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-cellphone1116.artnov16,0,698173.story

According to a campus police report, the incident began when community service officers, who serve as guards at the library, began their nightly routine of checking to make sure everyone who was using the library after 11 p.m. was authorized to do so. Campus officials said the long-standing policy was adopted to ensure students' safety.

When Tabatabainejad refused to provide his ID, the officer told him he would have to show it or leave the library.

After repeated requests, the officer left and returned with campus police, who asked Tabatabainejad to leave the premises "multiple times," according to a statement by the UCLA Police Department.

"He continued to refuse," the statement said. "As the officers attempted to escort him out, he went limp and continued to refuse to cooperate with officers or leave the building."


Seems to me that they made verbal attempts and they went ignored.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> This is really hard to determine from the video. All I know is that I have had to de-escalate similar situations without using a tazer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Please see the link that I posted.  It gives a bit more detail than the video.





> Inform them of the rule and wait. If they are agitated, I would attempt to use my CPI skills to de-escalate and hopefully gain compliance. If they still wouldn't comply, I would call the police and inform them that they would be charged with tresspassing. If they still didn't comply, I would let the police arrest them.


 
In this case, you're not doing anything different than what happened here.  Again, see the link.  Security told him to leave, he refused, and they came back with the cops.  I'm asking you, if you were in the shoes of the cops, what would you have done???

Mike


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

Upnorth:

After re-reading, I may have not been clear as to what I was asking.  In your case, as a security officer, you stated what you would do, which sounds to me, just like what the security officers did in this case.  Now, the debate is not on the security, but instead the campus police.  If you were in the shoes of them, would you have used the taser, after repeatedly asking the guy to leave, or would you continue to verbally ask him to go?

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

MJS said:


> In this case, you're not doing anything different than what happened here. Again, see the link. Security told him to leave, he refused, and they came back with the cops. I'm asking you, if you were in the shoes of the cops, what would you have done???


 
Escorted him out...physically.  If he escalates, then I would escalate accordingly.  Put the cuffs on, take him to jail for resisting arrest.

From what I saw on the video and from what I have read on this thread, I haven't seen any cause to taze him even once.  Not to mention five times.  

What justification do you think the cops had for tazing him, not once, not twice, not thrice...five times?


----------



## Drac (Nov 17, 2006)

Arizona Angel said:


> Yeah, why not cuff and carry...they had enough officers.


 
It's not as easy as it sounds..Dead weight is just THAT...Now your suspect is cuffed you have to make sure he doesn't sustain further injuries while in your custody...


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Escorted him out...physically. If he escalates, then I would escalate accordingly. Put the cuffs on, take him to jail for resisting arrest.


 
So you would never use a less lethal device?  You would always use physical skills?



> From what I saw on the video and from what I have read on this thread, I haven't seen any cause to taze him even once. Not to mention five times.
> 
> What justification do you think the cops had for tazing him, not once, not twice, not thrice...five times?


 
I'm not a cop, I don't know the rules/regs. of that area, there is still not enough info to go on.  I can only assume it was because he was still resisting.  The city in which I dispatch for uses tasers.  There have been times when a suspect was tased more than once due to non-compliance.  

Mike


----------



## Drac (Nov 17, 2006)

airdawg said:


> I've been tased several times. Not that bad. Compared to the alternatives. Exp. OC spray.


 
I've not been tazed..OC Pepper is bad news...The officer always seems to get contaminated too...


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 17, 2006)

A few things are interesting to me in this thread.

I find it interesting that some of you would make a logical leap that the student was being treated that way because he was Muslim. As I have mentioned before, being required to produce student ID or documentation to be on a college campus is pretty standard nowadays. I can't imagine that they would have treated anyone any different if they acted that way.

I also find it interesting that people would compare this student to Dr. King or Ghandi. This student wasn't properly protesting in a public area, or properly making a political statement. It would appear that he was being a big baby because he didn't want to leave the library, and because he must be "special" in that he doesn't have to follow the rules like everyone else, so he decided to make some sort of political statement because he couldn't have his way.

I also find it interesting that some people seem to think the force continuum goes from verbal comands to tazing. Then, of course it sounds reasonable to say, "Well, they told him....so what else were they supposed to do?" I am not saying the student didn't deserve what he got, but I do think that the cops could have cuffed and carried without the use of electricity. I explained my position with that in my previous post.

Last but not least, I thought I would mention that tazers do NOT have a 100% success rate, for those of you who might think that it is an end all be all. The success rate is very high, but there is still about a 15% or so room for failure do to a number of reasons; one of those being that some subjects simply won't stop fighting even when tazed. Bottom line, sometimes you just have to be prepared to put your hands on the subject to gain complaince, and there is no magic answer or two ways about it. After tazing the subject, they still had to carry him away because he wouldn't voluntarily move. The results would have been the same had they of not tazed him. I would err on the side of caution and not taze at all when a subject is cuffed pending extrodinary circumstances.

Paul Janulis


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

MJS said:


> So you would never use a less lethal device? You would always use physical skills?


 
I would opt for physical removal before resorting to a tazer and I would do this because laying hands on someone and escorting them out is using less force then a tazer.  If the person continued to escalate, then it may become neccessary to use a tazer.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2006)

MJS said:


> What tells me? This tells me.
> 
> http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-cellphone1116.artnov16,0,698173.story
> 
> ...


 
Mike, 

It is interesting that you stopped reading before the next paragraph. 

_Witnesses disputed that account, saying that by this time Tabatabainejad had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack. When an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, the witnesses said, Tabatabainejad told the officer to let go, yelling, "Get off me" several times.
_​Those Witnesses disputed accounts were mentioned in my 8:55 post. 

You may be right ... the fact is we don't know. It sounds like the student was blowing off the Resident Advisor, but when the "real" police showed up he started to move. And in both articles, it is the police that put hands on the student, when he was apparently leaving. 

I'm wondering if there is a bias toward the 'police can't be wrong'. 

What we do know, as we all should have been able to see, is the student was tazed while handcuffed.


----------



## Drac (Nov 17, 2006)

MJS said:


> Good God Rich, you're lucky you're still with us today!! Sorry to hear that you had this experience. The dispatcher needs some serious retraining, as there were a number of questions that should have been asked that were not.


 
If one of OUR dispatchers dispatched a call like that they would be up on charges..



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> The officer sounds like a rookie, as she seemed pretty clueless. I can see her being on the defense, as until things are sorted out, they really don't know who is who upon first arrival. Still, she didnt seem to handle the case well at all.


 
Some females won't admit that this is not the profession for them..If shew was a rookie where was her FTO ( Field Training Officer)..If she had been "kicked loose" to work on her own where was her back up??? We always sent 2 cars to domestics-in-progress...Then again the dispatcher probably didn't make it sound urgent enough...A week to do ONE REPORT??? One of the departments I work for will not allow me to clock out for the day until ALL reports are completed.


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I would opt for physical removal before resorting to a tazer and I would do this because laying hands on someone and escorting them out is using less force then a tazer. If the person continued to escalate, then it may become neccessary to use a tazer.


 
Thanks for the reply.  As I said, we still don't know enough and I for one, dont know the policies they go by.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> I also find it interesting that people would compare this student to Dr. King or Ghandi. This student wasn't properly protesting in a public area, or properly making a political statement. It would appear that he was being a big baby because he didn't want to leave the library, and because he must be "special" in that he doesn't have to follow the rules like everyone else, so he decided to make some sort of political statement because he couldn't have his way.


 
Much of this is hard to determine from watching the video, however, if a person acted like this before the invent of the tazer, they would simply be hauled off.

Now that we have this device, officers can use it to torture compliance out of a person.  Imagine what widespread use of this would do to our freedoms?

That is where comparisons to Ghandi and MLK are warrented?  How much more difficult would social movements like those have been if the authorities could torture compliance out of people?


----------



## Drac (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Now that we have this device, officers can use it to torture compliance out of a person. Imagine what widespread use of this would do to our freedoms


 
The newer Tazers have tamper proof cameras built in that activate the minute it's pulled from the holster..This is too insure it's NOT used as a "torture device"...When taken to court the jury SEES how the subject the suspect/subject *BEFORE* he was tazed...Eliminates a lot of this "I-wasn't doing-anything-wrong-crap"...


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Mike,
> 
> It is interesting that you stopped reading before the next paragraph.
> 
> ...


 
I read the link you posted.  I see what you're saying...it seemed he was leaving but they tased him anyway.  Who knows, maybe they took him pulling away, the way he did, as aggression.

Were they wrong in the way they did things?  I honestly dont know, but I do know, that as usual, the cops are taking 100% of the heat for this.  Maybe if people had a little more respect for LEOs, didn't resist, etc., they wouldnt be forced to bring the person down, tase someone, and end up having people get half a story on a cell phone camera.  The common question is "Why did they do what they did?"  The question that seems to be forgotten is "Why did the person resist?"


----------



## crushing (Nov 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I'm wondering if there is a bias toward the 'police can't be wrong'.


 
Michael,

I think there definately is something to that; from Abner Louima to Waco.  Many people like to think that those that are hired to protect and serve aren't capable of doing things so wrong.  On the flip side, others believe that corruption is the rule when it comes to police.  I think people are mostly good with good intentions, but there are some bad apples.


----------



## Drac (Nov 17, 2006)

crushing said:


> think people are mostly good with good intentions, but there are some bad apples.


 
On both sides of the badge...


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

Drac said:


> If one of OUR dispatchers dispatched a call like that they would be up on charges..


 
Yes, there would be some big time issues.




> Some females won't admit that this is not the profession for them..If shew was a rookie where was her FTO ( Field Training Officer)..If she had been "kicked loose" to work on her own where was her back up??? We always sent 2 cars to domestics-in-progress...Then again the dispatcher probably didn't make it sound urgent enough...A week to do ONE REPORT??? One of the departments I work for will not allow me to clock out for the day until ALL reports are completed.


 
2 cars is standard for us as well.  If there is alot of history, 1 or 2 more will usually go as well.  One think about the cops where I am...if they dont get the info they're looking for, they have no problems with asking for it.  Not that they should have to, as we should be giving it to them, but some request that little bit more, and rightfully so.  As for the reports..a domestic report needs to be done that night.


----------



## Drac (Nov 17, 2006)

MJS said:


> 2 cars is standard for us as well. If there is alot of history, 1 or 2 more will usually go as well. One think about the cops where I am...if they dont get the info they're looking for, they have no problems with asking for it. Not that they should have to, as we should be giving it to them, but some request that little bit more, and rightfully so. As for the reports..a domestic report needs to be done that night.


 
With the new CAD system dispatches can tell officers how many times we've been there and why..This is done before they arrive...


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

Drac said:


> With the new CAD system dispatches can tell officers how many times we've been there and why..This is done before they arrive...


 
Yup, we have the same thing.  The addy will come up red on the screen, indicating that there is a history.  Granted, its not 100%, ie: new home owners, etc., but at least they have something to go on.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Much of this is hard to determine from watching the video, however, if a person acted like this before the invent of the tazer, they would simply be hauled off.
> 
> Now that we have this device, officers can use it to torture compliance out of a person. Imagine what widespread use of this would do to our freedoms?
> 
> That is where comparisons to Ghandi and MLK are warrented? How much more difficult would social movements like those have been if the authorities could torture compliance out of people?


 
If you are saying that allowing tazing not just for subject control (meaning that the subject is out of control and resisting, and a tazer would force compliance while reducing injury to the subject and officer) but to simply make people do what they are told (you didn't move when I said so or the way I wanted you to, so you got tazed) is a slippery slope towards human rights violations, then I would agree with you. If you are saying that under this logic, MLK could have been tazed for  his opinions, or Ghandi could have been tazed for not leaving a public area fast enough, then I see your point.

That is why I think that a force continuum regarding tazers needs to be very clear.

But, if I understand what you are saying to be correct, then your not really COMPARING Ghandi toTabatabainejad, of whom I think we can agree was being an *** rather then a hero. Your just saying that being too loose with the force continuum regarding tazers could lead to a disaster.

I think I can agree with that.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2006)

Upnorth:

I would rather be tazed with a taser than beat with a club.  The taser pain goes away farily quickly, broken limbs last longer.  

Mike, 
I can fight pretty well, while handcuffed. Its part of our training. My instructor can slip them from behind his back to the front (hinged, mind you, not chained, that I suspect would be even easier) while he is falling and rolling.  So, call me stupid, but *I* personally would never see restrained in cuffs as "helpless."  None of us know what that kid knew, and with the officers onsite, they certainly didnt either.  

Again, should they have been tasing him?  How the **** do any of us know, we weren't there... but like I said, at least they didnt *beat* him and break his bones... somthing I know for a fact, if it were me in his place, I would be thankful for.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Mike,
> 
> It is interesting that you stopped reading before the next paragraph.
> 
> ...


 
I don't think we can fault the police for putting their hands on the subject, at that point. If the police are called because someone (of whom they still don't know is a student or not because he produced no student ID) was refusing to leave, then they have the right to detain him to at least ask some questions. From what I have read so far, Tabatabainejad was hostile to begin with, and his hostile reactions escalated the situation. I don't blame the police for the escalation of the incident; I just think that once the subject was cuffed, the tazer should not have been the next part of the force continuum after verbal command.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 17, 2006)

Drac said:


> The newer Tazers have tamper proof cameras built in that activate the minute it's pulled from the holster..This is too insure it's NOT used as a "torture device"...When taken to court the jury SEES how the subject the suspect/subject *BEFORE* he was tazed...Eliminates a lot of this "I-wasn't doing-anything-wrong-crap"...


 
This is great protection for the police as well as the perps.


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> This is great protection for the police as well as the perps.


 
I agree.  Right up there with dash mounted cameras.  I'm sure the use of these tools has cleared the air, so to speak, on alot of issues.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2006)

Oh, and Upnorth, there is a_* BIG *_difference between a taser and a stun gun, and tho its hard to tell from the video it appears those were stun guns... Most Stun guns cause momentary pain and no lasting effects.  You can pop somone with one, and they can stand immediatly back up... assuming you hit them somplace that can knock them down in the first place.  Arms and legs are uncomfortable, but dont really DO anything except make the limb twitch.

I KNOW THIS FROM (PLENTY OF) EXPERIENCE.  ​


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 17, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Upnorth:
> 
> I would rather be tazed with a taser than beat with a club. The taser pain goes away farily quickly, broken limbs last longer.
> 
> ...


 
Well, we can see from the video that the force continuum went from verbal command to tazing with nothing in between.

I think that this is appropriate in many circumstances where putting hands on the subject would be a danger to the subject and the officers. However, in the case when the subject is restrained, I don't think that this is the proper force continuum. I think that control should be attempted hand-to-hand, and if that is failing, then tazing is appropriate.

In this case, it seemed pretty clear that the subject was not fighting, just being a baby and not wanting to move. It seemed that the right thing to do would be to carry him out. If he was fighting so skillfully at that point while restrained, the officers could then taze him if nessicary. The thing is, and as I am sure you know, it is much easier to escalate the force continuum rather then descalate.

I just think that some people in the LE industry are trying too hard to create an environment where officers will never have to put hands on a subject. I think that this is the wrong approach.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> If you are saying that allowing tazing not just for subject control (meaning that the subject is out of control and resisting, and a tazer would force compliance while reducing injury to the subject and officer) but to simply make people do what they are told (you didn't move when I said so or the way I wanted you to, so you got tazed) is a slippery slope towards human rights violations, then I would agree with you. If you are saying that under this logic, MLK could have been tazed for his opinions, or Ghandi could have been tazed for not leaving a public area fast enough, then I see your point.
> 
> That is why I think that a force continuum regarding tazers needs to be very clear.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, that is what I'm saying.  I think that we need to have a well defined force continuum.


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Yes, that is what I'm saying. I think that we need to have a well defined force continuum.


 
Well, I for one, would like to know what theirs was.  I think it would answer many unanswered questions here.  Every dept. has a use of force policy.  I remember when I used to work for Corrections.  Any time there was a disturbance, cell extraction, etc., one person would be in charge of bringing the video camera.  This would ensure that policy was followed and there would be documentation for the investigation that would follow.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Upnorth:
> 
> I would rather be tazed with a taser than beat with a club. The taser pain goes away farily quickly, broken limbs last longer.


 
Have you ever been tazed?  I've broken a dozen bones in my body and none of that hurt worse then being tazed...and I'm just being honest.  When I broke my collar bone...the last time I hope...I was laughing with my friends.  After being tazed, I found myself lying on the ground in a cold sweat and absolutely exhausted...not to mention damn glad that it was over.

One of the problems with tazers is that they leave hardly any mark.  You can always show a judge your bruises and broken bones to prove police brutality...but with tazers, that isn't the case.  

You can be tortured and it will hardly leave a mark.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> I just think that some people in the LE industry are trying too hard to create an environment where officers will never have to put hands on a subject. I think that this is the wrong approach.


 
This statement sparked a thought...because I've often wondered about the same thing...I wonder how much insurance and lawsuits have to do with this?  Why wouldn't it be the same as medical malpractice?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Well, we can see from the video that the force continuum went from verbal command to tazing with nothing in between.



Yeah, I believe it went:

"Do this or we will tase you!"
"**** You!"
"DO THIS OR WE WILL TASE YOU!"
"**** YOU!"

IMO, thats kinda like saying "Hey, Tase me!"

Upnorth, read what I wrote.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Yeah, I believe it went:
> 
> "Do this or we will tase you!"
> "**** You!"
> ...


 
I think you are missing the point.  When you issue a command like that, you lock yourself into that course of action...to that particular force level.  However, a guy telling you to **** off is not grounds for tazing.  If it was, I'd be tazing mother****ers left and right.

However, if you attempt to use a lesser level of force first and fail, then, by all means, fire em up.  

And, btw, they were still tazing him after he was handcuffed.  What good could that have done?  

I'm not sure how many ways one can take that...other then a way for the police to assert their authority over a person in an extreme way.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2006)

Has anybody counted how many times the police officers gave the subject the instruction "stand up" or 'get up' in this video? That just doesn't seem to be an instruction that is appropriate for someone who is forcably resisting. 

If the subject was resisting in any way, I would guess the instruction would be more like 'Stop'. 

I counted 'Stand up' or 'Get up' more than 40 times in the first two minutes, during which the student was tazed twice.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I think you are missing the point.



No, I think you are missing it. 

They didnt zap him for saying **** You.  They Zapped him because "**** You" was the response to the comply-or-get tazed command they issued him.  

If a staff member of this board said to you "Comply with me Or I will suspend you." and your response was "**** You" you would not get Suspended from them for using foul language.  You would get the suspension for non-compliance.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Has anybody counted how many times the police officers gave the subject the instruction "stand up" or 'get up' in this video? That just doesn't seem to be an instruction that is appropriate for someone who is forcably resisting.
> 
> If the subject was resisting in any way, I would guess the instruction would be more like 'Stop'.
> 
> I counted 'Stand up' or 'Get up' more than 40 times in the first two minutes, during which the student was tazed twice.



Well, if the action they did not want the subject to take was not to be sitting, saying "Stop" is kinda... vague.  Stand Up or Get Up is specific to the action they demanded he take.  If they just said STOP and then tased him, that would be worse than what happened, because what was he supposed to stop... after all, all he was doing was sitting.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 17, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Yeah, I believe it went:
> 
> "Do this or we will tase you!"
> "**** You!"
> ...


 
I agree, he was asking for it.

But for LE, and for almost anyone for that matter, you don't give it to em just because they ask for it. It wouldn't be appropriate to shoot him because he says go ahead and shoot me, or fist fight a perp because that's what they want to do, and so on.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 18, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> No, I think you are missing it.
> 
> They didnt zap him for saying **** You. They Zapped him because "**** You" was the response to the comply-or-get tazed command they issued him.
> 
> If a staff member of this board said to you "Comply with me Or I will suspend you." and your response was "**** You" you would not get Suspended from them for using foul language. You would get the suspension for non-compliance.


 
But, that supports his point, and the point I am trying to make. By going straight to the tazer with a cuffed, non-fighting individual, you missed a step, in my opinion. Hand-to-hand subject control should be the next step before a tool is used on a restrained individual, in my opinion. Remember, this is different then an unrestrained individual.

MJS had asked what is there force continuum. I don't know there's, but I do know that a lot of academies and departments now a days are teaching the tazer as a magic solution. I know that a lot of departments simply teach for the officers to give many clear verbal commands, warning that the tazer will be used, then the tazer is used. The force continuum as is taught with the tazer is simply: verbal command/warning - tazer use.

This is fine in most situations. I will assume that the officers responded exactly how they were trained, because it seemed almost textbook in its execution. The only difference is that the subject appeared not to be fighting, and was restrained. Well, that is a huge difference. No one reasonable would question the officers judgement if the subject was uncuffed and moving erratically and not cooperating.

That is why I think the grey areas need to be covered regarding tazer use; with limits in regards to restrained individuals, or injured individuals, etc.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Has anybody counted how many times the police officers gave the subject the instruction "stand up" or 'get up' in this video? That just doesn't seem to be an instruction that is appropriate for someone who is forcably resisting.
> 
> If the subject was resisting in any way, I would guess the instruction would be more like 'Stop'.
> 
> I counted 'Stand up' or 'Get up' more than 40 times in the first two minutes, during which the student was tazed twice.


 
I think the key here is that he wasn't *fighting*. But, he certianly was resisting, and he was certainly refusing to comply, even after being tazed. I don't view this guy as much of a victim here.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 18, 2006)

One more, and I'll quite multiple posting, I swear. 

This whole thing begs the question: Which is the safer route, hand-to-hand subject control or tazing?

This question is much more complex then it seems.

However, companies like Tazer Intl. want you to believe that tazing is the safest, most humane was of handling a subject in every case. They will claim that this is a very black and white issue. They have sponsered many studies to support their claims.

Groups like Amnesty intl. have also sponsered studies. They claim with their evidence the opposite; and they would completely ban the use of tazers if they could.

I think both sides of the arguement, each with their sponsered studies, are completely biased and often extremist in their view. There isn't much 3rd party evidence available on this issue.

Amnesty and others of similar ilk would rather that every officer handle the subject without the use of tools, and that no one gets hurt. Their view on subject control and law enforcement is completely unrealistic at best. At worst, they seem often in favor of putting our operators in excess danger to protect the criminals. This is not a fair view.

Tazer Intl. and their ilk, however, has a clear agenda; which is to make their stock go up, and to sell their product. This makes their opinion a bit unbalanced. Police also have a clear agenda as well; albeit a much more noble one which is to make their job easier and safer so they can go home to their familes at the end of the day rather then the hospital or morgue. Yet, this agenda can also skew an objective viewpoint. 

The reality is, the jury is still out on the effects, both short term and long term, of tazer use. This is contrary to what many will claim as this being a completely safe, "nonlethal" alternative. We know from studies that a short burst of electricity in the case of a restisting subject is relatively safe. We don't know what the effects are of repeated use (like tazing 3, 4, and  times), and long or multiple bursts (more then a second or so). We also haven't taken into consideration all the different body types, or physical influences that might alter the results of tazer effects.

We do know that at lower voltages then what tazers provide, many ill effects of electricy can be seen on the body. Electric shock can cause protien coagullation, tissue necrosis (death), ventricullar fibrillation (disordered heart rhythm that can be fatal), irregular blood clotting (decrease or increase), seizures, and so on. Respitary failure, perminant nervous system damage, and perminent organ damage can occur at high voltages or for longer durations. People have dies from voltages around 32 under certain conditions. A tazer delivers around 50,000 volts. 

The fact is, electricity can be very damaging. How damaging in regards to tazers? We don't have a lot of information or studies regarding the long term effects of tazer use, or the effects after repeated, long duration shocks.

We do know the effects of a subject beating down an officer, or vice versa, or the range of effects that could occur to the officer or the perp if a fight occurs. These effects could also range from perminent injury to death.

So I am willing to support tazers, with the risks involved, on a fighting, unrestrained subject, as it seems proven to be more effective and less injurous to both parties (but especially the officer who should be protected the most here) in that case. But, I am not willing to regard tazer use as being with no ill after effects, or as "perfectly safe." The evidence just isn't available to support that claim.

So, I would maintain that the question isn't exactly black and white. But, I think that until it is, we should consider erring on the side of caution in regards to tazer use, and should avoid them in cases of a non-combative or restrained individual.

Paul


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 18, 2006)

John aka Upnorth,

I believe there was a defined force continuum. 

What would you do with a 6'3" 280 or 290 pound person. How would you drag me out? In particular if I grab something to hang on. And scream stop beating me stop beating me. Ouch that hurts? How is that better? 

ME, 

Your question of the isuue being discrimination against a Muslim, please provide your evidence. For your theory is as good as mine. And that is just theory. No amount of arguement will change that, so why argue it. 

As to the stand up and get up commands this sure makes it look like he was "willing" to leave with no problems as some have stated was his intent from watching the video. 

Can you resolve this conflicting point. ** I know you did not say it the confliction, but asking for you to explain to me how can it be both ways? **


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 18, 2006)

And....here is an article from our local paper on the subject:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0502/18/D01-93891.htm

I think that anything touted as "non-lethal" should be looked at with scrutiny. When will people understand that a fight or use of force is never gauranteed to be "non-lethal," no matter what is used. "Less lethal" is definatily a more appropriate term.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 18, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> I think that anything touted as "non-lethal" should be looked at with scrutiny. When will people understand that a fight or use of force is never gauranteed to be "non-lethal," no matter what is used. "Less lethal" is definatily a more appropriate term.



I've read this entire thread and that video is *still* loading on my dial-up.  But your post I quoted above and the one you posted just before that are key elements to this whole issue and others like it.

In the meantime, this really is the crux of the taser debate - the term is "Less-Than-Lethal" or "LTL" (as *I* recall when it was still in testing phases - yes, I remember back that far - gah) Technology.  Tazing can still be lethal but not as assuredly nor nearly as often as a bullet fired with the same accuracy at the same range.

The advent of this techology was praised early on for not only being a viable alternative to the more deadly firearm but also as a very viable alternative for hand-to-hand altercation, the interest being the increased chances of safety to not only the perp but the uniform as well.  I distinctly remember hearing an officer make the remark that with this kind of technology police would be safer, arrested subjects would be safer and perhaps fewer people would have to die from a gunshot or sleeperhold and more cops could go home to their families not only safe but with the assurance that they did not permanently harm their charges that day.

Wonderful words and a great idea.

Problem is the good ol' human factor - we muck things up every time.

I haven't viewed the video yet, so I'll refrain from commenting on it, though I'm reading that he was asked to leave, then hands were placed upon him and then he was tazed.  If it's that simple, then it seems reasonable ... but I'm having trouble getting past that this guy was on the ground AND cuffed ... AND TAZED? while on the ground?  I'll even grant Cryo's notation about ability to roll out of a rear-cuff position, but ... well ... I'll shut up for now until I watch the video.


----------



## Carol (Nov 18, 2006)

In a situation where  unstable, belligerent man was trying to gain access to a restricted area full of college students, and police resorted to tasering the man because after he was cuffed and down he still is not leaving the area where he was trying to gain access.... 

....had I been there at that particular time, I think I would have been horrified by the event but also grateful for the cops for removing the person that was trying to gain access to where I was.

I don't think the situation was particularly pleasant. But I'm not sure if it was abuse.


----------



## Drac (Nov 18, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> "Less lethal" is definatily a more appropriate term.


 

That's the term used at a number of LEO schools that I've attended...


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> ME,
> 
> Your question of the isuue being discrimination against a Muslim, please provide your evidence. For your theory is as good as mine. And that is just theory. No amount of arguement will change that, so why argue it.
> 
> ...


 
In one or two of the articles, it was pointed out that the student did not show his ID to the library staff because he felt he was being singled out because of ethnicity. I have no other evidence than that. Please see the thread about Congressman Elect Ellison. Apparently, in some circles today, it is acceptable to work from the supposition that someone is 'Working for the Enemy'. 

The first vocalization on the video is the student crying out "Take Your Hand Off Of Me'. 

If, as according to the articles, the student was walking out of the library - because the staff called the real police - and the real police took him by the arm, as described in the articles - I can absolutely see that the student feels jeapordized by the police, and taking the passive resistance action of sitting down.

Something like this:
Resident Advisor says to student show me ID or leave.
Student says 'Up Yours'
Resident Advisor requests police
Police arrive
Student begins to leave
Police put their hands on Student
Student yells 'Don't Touch Me' and begins passive resistance

Police taze student 
Police restrain students hands 

Student continues passive resistance
Police say 'Stand Up'
Police say 'Get Up'
Police taze student​We can't tell from this video whether the first tazing occurs with the students hands restrained or not. We can tell at later incidents that they are tazed. 

I have no evidence other than the news articles and the video from which I posit this time line. This time line does seem to match with the news articles and the video and audio. 

By the time the video starts, the police apparently are "Hands On" the student ... is there a way for the police to de-escalate and allow the student to leave - if that were his intent - I don't know.  But through most of this tape, the police have their hands on the student - which would, I think, bring out the resistance we observe - demanding 'Stand Up'.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 18, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> No, I think you are missing it.
> 
> They didnt zap him for saying **** You. They Zapped him because "**** You" was the response to the comply-or-get tazed command they issued him.
> 
> If a staff member of this board said to you "Comply with me Or I will suspend you." and your response was "**** You" you would not get Suspended from them for using foul language. You would get the suspension for non-compliance.


 
I think that I understand what you are saying.  I disagree with the point that a tazer should be used to force compliance from non-physically resisting people.  I think it is a step up on the force continuum.  It would be like me telling a student to do something.  Them telling me to **** off and me punching them in the face.  

They may have been asking for it, but it doesn't excuse my actions.


----------



## bydand (Nov 18, 2006)

Watched the video, and personally have to agree that tazing the guy after he was in cuffs and not activly fighting back probably was uncalled for.  In my opinion, if somebody is cuffed and just using that old trick of going limp, each LEO grab an ankle (Don't want to get close to the part that bites on somebody acting like a baby already you know) and drag them away face first down the steps.  I guess I have very little patience for this kind of crap-o-la.  Didn't work in the 60's, didn't work in the 70's, why try it today?


----------



## Drac (Nov 18, 2006)

This* WHOLE *ugly incident and *MANY* more like them could be avoided if people *STOPPED* acting like butt heads when the cops arrived..I didn't always wear a badge and did my share of really stupid this that could have landed me in real trouble...My saving grace was I NEVER gave responding officers a ration of ****..I've been escorted out of businesses and not very gently but I never fought back or played the irate citizen routine...


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 18, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I think that I understand what you are saying.  I disagree with the point that a tazer should be used to force compliance from non-physically resisting people.  I think it is a step up on the force continuum.  It would be like me telling a student to do something.  Them telling me to **** off and me punching them in the face.
> 
> They may have been asking for it, but it doesn't excuse my actions.



No, in your example you didnt give them clear consequence for the refusal to follow the command.

Also, I keep hearing that we see that the subject was leaving when the cops grabbed him.  Maybe I am stupid, but I didnt see this on the video.  I saw some computer monitors, and a desk, and a crowd and HEARD the guy say not to touch him... but I never SAW him leaving.  Are we extrapolating the fact he must have been in the same way we are assuming he was tased for being muslim?


----------



## bydand (Nov 18, 2006)

Same here Drac.  I have never wore a badge, but haven't given a ration af **** to any cop when asked to leave a place.  I have never thought the whole idea of getting slapped in cuffs, stuffed in the backseat of a car and spending time in a closed cell with drunks pissing and puking on me, sounded like a good night on the town.  Guy deserved to be tazed the first time I'm willing to bet, sure needed to be hauled out and arrested, and I'll bet he did it just to "prove a point" that nobody else gives a rip about.  Why else would you put up such a fuss in that type of location, Oh yeah, sure to be a student or three with camera phones and get your mug splashed all over the news and papers for being an idiot, oops an activist I meant.


----------



## MJS (Nov 18, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> *This whole thing begs the question: Which is the safer route, hand-to-hand subject control or tazing?*
> 
> This question is much more complex then it seems.
> 
> ...


 
The part I put in bold, brings up some good questions IMO.  What is going to get the quickest results, with the least amount of risk of injury to the LEO?  I'd have to say that the Taser would give this.  Do the cops really want to roll around for X number of minutes, or end the situation as quickly as possible?  Then again, I suppose it all comes down to how well schooled the LEOs are, as far as controlling methods go.  When I saw what they were teaching at Corrections, I was thinking, "Holy ****!  Someone is going to get seriously hurt or killed if they try this stuff!"

So...should the LEOs have a more indepth training program, or do they go with what they have, and with the tools that they have available, and hope for the best?

Mike


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 18, 2006)

According to at least one witness, he said he was leaving but did not make any motions to leave.  Hopefully it will all come out.  Tasering the guy may have been the wrong response but it seems that the guy went in intentionally looking to provoke a response

I think there is a big difference between protesting and the cops happen to show up, and protesting *hoping* the cops show up to provoke them so that the cops response becomes part of the story

There's a saying in footall (or most sports) that the second shot draws the flag.  In other words, you take a swing at me, I take a swing at you, but by that time the refs are paying attention so I get the penalty because they didn't see you.  I think this video fits into that description because actions were already in motion by the time the vidoe starts recording so you don't see the setup or context of the events on the video.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:


> In a situation where unstable, belligerent man was trying to gain access to a restricted area full of college students, and police resorted to tasering the man because after he was cuffed and down he still is not leaving the area where he was trying to gain access....
> 
> ....had I been there at that particular time, I think I would have been horrified by the event but also grateful for the cops for removing the person that was trying to gain access to where I was.
> 
> I don't think the situation was particularly pleasant. But I'm not sure if it was abuse.


 
There is no evidence the person was 'unstable'. And the question of 'belligerent' is open. He certainly was un-cooperative with the Library staff. The man as I understand it, is a college student at the facility.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> In one or two of the articles, it was pointed out that the student did not show his ID to the library staff because he felt he was being singled out because of ethnicity. I have no other evidence than that. Please see the thread about Congressman Elect Ellison. Apparently, in some circles today, it is acceptable to work from the supposition that someone is 'Working for the Enemy'.
> 
> The first vocalization on the video is the student crying out "Take Your Hand Off Of Me'.
> 
> ...



To be a college student and not expect to show your ID is unrealistic.

Is someone walk in and says Hey Jim how is it going, and what score did you get on the last Discrete Structure Test and lets the person is someone who knows them. The next person who they do not know is asked to show an ID.

Would you expect someone to get access to your bank account with them asking for an ID?

** Example of mythical person no involved with this particlar case, only for example **
If they had not asked for an ID on someone and this someone then transfered large sums of monies to terror cells to support a coordinated launch against multiple large cities in the USA. Would you and or others give an outcry on "gosh it is so easy to ask for an ID why did they not just ask the suspected student or terrorist if they had an ID" ?

As to other thread I understand it. 

With Oklahoma City, many people said I looked like the second person they were looking for. 

On 9/11/01, In the morning people at worked "joked" about how it could not have been Rich as they had seen me. 

In the afternoon of 9/11/01 getting gasoline, I was told to go home to my own country, by a man who was blonde hair and blue eyes and very upset and yelling at everyone who was not obviously blonde hair and blue eyed.  I replied, "You go home 'WHITE MAN', and give me back my lands!" His wife told him to shut up and get into the car. Not only was he half my mass, but she knew that there was not going to be a riot/mob to get me and or the store owner (* Christian Middle Eastern *), as I had now pointed out that one could not tell who was who. 

In the 70's I was called Wet Back or Mulatto, and after the late 70's with the Iran hostage event, I was called Camel Jockey and other such terms. 

I know discrimination very well. 

But, what I see here is just a little information and people all want to think it is Racism or abuse of power, instead of looking that it might be the person. 

You see if people look to themselves first for responsibility and also for change, then not only does one have controll over it but they could possible influence others with their actions, instead of just pointing to some external reason as the cause of what ever the problem is or was.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 18, 2006)

Drac said:


> This* WHOLE *ugly incident and *MANY* more like them could be avoided if people *STOPPED* acting like butt heads when the cops arrived..I didn't always wear a badge and did my share of really stupid this that could have landed me in real trouble...My saving grace was I NEVER gave responding officers a ration of ****..I've been escorted out of businesses and not very gently but I never fought back or played the irate citizen routine...



Once the police arrive, they make decisions. You are not going to argue with him/her. They could be 110 % wrong. But you do not get a chance to prove it until you get your day in court. 

If you go with the flow it helps.


As to the person saying he was going to leave, but he was restrained and being tazered, I have a hard time to believe. being someone who has escorted people out with room and also by my control, if they tried to get ahead of me (* the first time *) so they could leave, I always let them. If they made a move to leave I always let them. But if they staid and continued to cause problems either I escorted them out by force or the police did, depending upon the situation safety of others and response time.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> According to at least one witness, he said he was leaving but did not make any motions to leave. Hopefully it will all come out. Tasering the guy may have been the wrong response but it seems that the guy went in intentionally looking to provoke a response
> 
> I think there is a big difference between protesting and the cops happen to show up, and protesting *hoping* the cops show up to provoke them so that the cops response becomes part of the story
> 
> There's a saying in footall (or most sports) that the second shot draws the flag. In other words, you take a swing at me, I take a swing at you, but by that time the refs are paying attention so I get the penalty because they didn't see you. I think this video fits into that description because actions were already in motion by the time the vidoe starts recording so you don't see the setup or context of the events on the video.


 
Two of the articles posted in this thread stated when the police showed up,

a) the student took his backback 
b) the student began moving toward the exit
c) the police put their hands on the student

http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960



> Tabatabainejad was walking with his backpack toward the door when he was approached by two UCPD officers, one of whom grabbed the student's arm. In response, Tabatabainejad yelled at the officers to "get off me."


 
http://www.nbc4.tv/news/10325914/detail.html



> Officers were escorting Tabatabainejad out of the computer lab when the trouble started, according to the Daily Bruin. One of the officers placed a hand on one of his arms, to which the student objected.


 
As for the suppositions that the student showed up at the library in order to create a scene, that is false according to all reports. The student was in the library doing work. After 11:00 PM, it is school policy to require ID's in this facility. The reports state the student didn't have the ID, and was unresponsive to the librarian. The student was not misbehaving in any way. He was apparently doing school work. This incident begins because the student did not have his "Papers".


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 18, 2006)

Another article http://www.yahoo.com/s/440637 on the subject.

Once again this brings to me the question of why was their a video and why did it start when it did. Until I get those questions answered I will suspect it and the reasons for it. 

It looks to me like someone wanted to make a name for themselves and prove a point. 

I wonder if we could find video of him getting tazered by his friends before hand to see how much it hurts. *** NOTE: Conjecture and theory here, so it is as valid as others, but at least I express it as such and not as fact.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 18, 2006)

Did the police respond properly here: http://www.yahoo.com/s/440640

G20 meeting  . . . 


> A meeting of top financial officials from around the globe opened Saturday against a backdrop of 3,000 marching protesters, some of whom turned violent, pelting police with stones, bottles and smoke grenades.
> . . .





> Police struck out with batons as protesters rushed the barrier in at least two places, and at one site overturned fences and broke through the initial cordon, according to Associated Press reporters who witnessed the incidents.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2006)

Rich,
 In your example, I would deem it self-defense.  Big difference between swinging back at a flailing attacker, and zapping a handcuffed and non-combative passive resister.


----------



## zDom (Nov 18, 2006)

My main issue in this discussion is that LEO are using TASERs inappropriately in _many_ cases.

Now before I start citing examples, let me first say: I think they are great technology and will probably end up saving many lives, making things safter for both LEOs, perps and citizens.

BUT they are NOT a "magic wand" that LEOs should just whip out and use at a whim or because they are too lazy to do their job the way they did it before TASERs were available. 

IMO, it is an alternative to drawing a firearm, not an alternative to a billy club or using other physical force.

Also, they affect people differently. Some people describe the pain as one of the most excruciating things they have ever felt; some people it apparently has no effect on!

 From the Associated Press, TASERS being used on children:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6468373/

"Police Director Bobby Parker defended the decision to use a Taser on the 6-year-old boy last month because he was threatening to injure himself with a shard of glass."

And THAT was his best response? What would he have done BEFORE TASERs? Shot the kid?

"Police have acknowledged using a stun gun to immobilize a 12-year-old girl..." because she was running away. Howabout, "chase her down"?

If someone TASERs one of MY children, there is going to be trouble.

 TASERs are NOT always "less than lethal:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/12/earlyshow/main648859.shtml

"...by the count of CBS News, 70 people have died after being TASERed, including 10 in August alone..."



http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/1224taserlist24-ON.html

"The Arizona Republic, using computer searches, autopsy reports, police reports, media reports and Taser's own records, has identified 167 cases in the United States and Canada of death following a police Taser strike since September 1999..."

LEOs need to consider that, while deaths are rare, they CAN and DO occur with TASERs! They have been identified as a "contributing factor" in deaths:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/201827_taser01.html


 Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks many lazy LEOs use them simply because they are easier:

http://blog.zmag.org/ee_links/death_by_taser_lazy_cops_and_a_lazy_reporter

"Tasers, among other things, are a way of not doing police work, which is often unpleasant to be sure. Problem is, this convenient little tool to help cops 'subdue' people without throwing out their out-of-shape (too many hours writing out tickets and too many Venti Double Carmel Lattes?) backs has a long record of killing people. Everyone in the city tomorrow will be saying, "wow did you know those things can kill you?" but the fact is people have been talking about the lethality of tasers for a while now."

 Speaking of lazy (grin), there was a recent news story of a guy in Jackson, Mo. (about 40 miles north of here) who shrugged off TASER hits like they were nothing! Sorry I was too lazy to search through google results and pull it up, but trust me on this one: it happened.

So in conclusion my point is: should LEO use them as a compliance tool? Hell no! What if that person DIES? It should be one of the LAST resorts, way down on the list like drawing a firearm, not at the top of the list right after "issuing a reasonable request."

Martial artists are often taught their best weapon is their brain, so USE it. I would submit LEOs need to consider THEIR best LE tool is THEIR brain, NOT the TASER.

A TASER is a good tool and will save lives, I think, but it is not an all-purpose tool and DEFINATELY should NOT be used to enforce compliance.

(steps off the soapbox and wanders off to find a beer... )


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2006)

Hey, stories been picked up over seas too:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/16/ucla_taser_incident/

Also has links to other taser tales.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> To be a college student and not expect to show your ID is unrealistic.


 
Why? Are we still living in the 'Land of the Free'? 

The student was not trying to access presonal, private information, such as my bank balance. He was in a school library. These tend to be public places. But colleges especially, are not just places of business. Campuses are where the students live. It is their community, their town, their home.

As I recall from my college days, anyone could access the main floor of the campus library. A college ID was required to access 'The Stacks'.

The articles state that they check ID's after 11:00 PM. This kind of indicates that earlier, the students are not required to show ID. 

We don't know from these articles, but what if this student had been in the library from 7:00 PM ... he's doing his work, minding his busines and time gets by him? Some 'clown' comes up asks for an ID. I can imagine a response of 'go away jerk, I've got a half an hour left to finish this project'. To which, the 'clown' in question just knows his job duty says 'Check ID's after 11:00'. The 'Clown' in question then gets the police involved. 

This brings us to the sequence where the police show up, the student starts to leave and the police take him by the arm. 

Again here ... several unverified assertions. We don't know. I guess the point I see is, that if the ID is more important than the person, we have fallen quite far.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 18, 2006)

I dunno, folks.  There are so many facets here and all of them just send up red flags:

The kid was, indeed, a student which was verified by the police later.  But I would agree - if you don't have your card you should expect to be asked to leave IF IT'S CAMPUS POLICY, which the articles state it is.  

College kids are known for political dissidence and obnoxious behavior with police (not all, but it *seems* like a typical time to go through in college) and I'd like to see a little consideration of that fact by law enforcement.

But I'd also like to see a little more respect of law enforcement and the understanding that cooperation *can* get a person farther than protest - not always (e.g. Rich), but sometimes.

That said ...

If the kid was walking out which some witnesses say he was, why was it necessary to put hands on him?  Why not just walk with him? Corral him out? Talk to him?

Tasers can have a lasting effect on the human system where the electrical impulses are disturbed enough to keep a subject unambulatory for up to 15 minutes.  There is also evidence that repeated tazing in a short period of time can cause permanent damage and could be considered abuse.

The things that bothered me the most about the video were:

I'm concerned that others in the crowd were threatened with being tased if they didn't clear the area and stop asking for officer information.  Any officer who feels s/he has to threaten someone who is compliant, law-abiding, peaceful and asks for officer information HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE OR NEEDS BETTER TRAINING.

I'm also concerned about repeated tazing once the suspect is down - in this case, seated, rear-cuffed and being physically held by officers.  

As much as this kid did wrong, I imagine it's a very frightening situation to be in and I don't ever want to be in it and wonder just how I'd react.

So ... I think the student was not the only one in the wrong, the situation was handled poorly as an isolated incident, caveat being we do not see the whole incident on tape nor do we know if this kid has history.

For the record, all you LEOs on the board ... I would *not* want your job.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> He was in a school library. These tend to be public places. But colleges especially, are not just places of business. Campuses are where the students live. It is their community, their town, their home.



No.  A college library is, in most cases, no more of a PUBLIC place than a Mall.  It is a place *open to the public* *at the sole discresion of the owner.*

If they want to insist you not be allowed in unless you show ID, wear a Tie, or  in the case of the mall here, NOT wear spikes, or a wallet chain... they have that right.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> No. A college library is, in most cases, no more of a PUBLIC place than a Mall. It is a place *open to the public* *at the sole discresion of the owner.*
> 
> If they want to insist you not be allowed in unless you show ID, wear a Tie, or in the case of the mall here, NOT wear spikes, or a wallet chain... they have that right.


 
Maybe we should close down all the libraries, and burn all the books. That'll solve these problems, won't it. 

I understand your point, but this student is a member of the community the library is built to serve. He *is* the reason the library is there.

Maybe he can get a job being a janitor in Houston.


----------



## bydand (Nov 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I understand your point, but this student is a member of the community the library is built to serve. He *is* the reason the library is there.



Then he should know the rules already then.  ID required, means ID required, not "neo-nazi check point ahead."  If he didn't like that particular rule, a) use a different library, b) change schools, c) carry his ID and shut up.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2006)

bydand said:


> Then he should know the rules already then. ID required, means ID required, not "neo-nazi check point ahead." If he didn't like that particular rule, a) use a different library, b) change schools, c) carry his ID and shut up.


 
Yep. 

And the fact that he was uncooperative means he should get tazed.

I got one for my home. When my kids don't clean their room ... ZAPPP!!


----------



## bydand (Nov 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Yep.
> 
> And the fact that he was uncooperative means he should get tazed.
> 
> I got one for my home. When my kids don't clean their room ... ZAPPP!!



Damn man, don't talk to my wife alright!  She just may agree with you about my garage.  

I didn't say what they did was acceptable, just he knew the rules, he made the choice to break them.  Not being there, and not being privy to everything leading up to where the video picks up, I can't make the call about the first time they zapped him.  The other times were totally unacceptable and I have already stated that.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Maybe we should close down all the libraries, and burn all the books. That'll solve these problems, won't it.



What a RATIONAL, SANE rebuttal to being shown you are wrong.  Spoken like a Typical Liberal, and a perfect example of why I hate libs.  Refute their argument with a cold, unarguable fact, and they attack a random, yet similar idea to throw off the fact they lost the argument.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> What a RATIONAL, SANE rebuttal to being shown you are wrong. Spoken like a Typical Liberal, and a perfect example of why I hate libs. Refute their argument with a cold, unarguable fact, and they attack a random, yet similar idea to throw off the fact they lost the argument.


 

And you have not posited any suggestion to for the function of a school library ... if it is not there to serve the student body. And the owners of this particular school are the citizens of California. 

We have not determined the citizenship of the student. But we do know he was a student.

That he did not have his "papers" certainly justifies the response. That's the perfectly sane response of the  ... whatever you want to describe yourself as.

I hear they need more Mounted Police in Houston. ... Interested?




P.S.  And I didn't realize this thread was about ME ... and whether I am right or wrong. That you for valueing my opinion so highly that you must attack me. Although, I would rather you pay attention to the student body at UCLA. Or the Janitors in Houston.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 18, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> What a RATIONAL, SANE rebuttal to being shown you are wrong. Spoken like a Typical Liberal, and a perfect example of why I hate libs. Refute their argument with a cold, unarguable fact, and they attack a random, yet similar idea to throw off the fact they lost the argument.


 
Right.  RFID anyone?

Gimme those verachips!


----------



## fireman00 (Nov 18, 2006)

I guess the next time this nitwit will think twice before being a jerk.  He was asked to show his ID multiple times - he refused.  He thought he was being profiled due to his ethnicity (he's Iranian I believe); which of course gives him all the rights in the world - at least in his little "I can do anything I want 'cuz I'm an American" mind. 

He was then asked to leave multiple times by the campus cops and he refused.

so they fried his arrogant butt like a sunny side over light - next time he's asked - politely - he might listen.

What if smoking joe wasn't a student and followed a female student out and raped then killed her.  Would everyone whose upset that he was Tazzed feel better?  

Stop acting like the cops just picked out a random person and without warning zapped them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 18, 2006)

fireman00 said:


> I guess the next time this nitwit will think twice before being a jerk. He was asked to show his ID multiple times - he refused. He thought he was being profiled due to his ethnicity (he's Iranian I believe); which of course gives him all the rights in the world - at least in his little "I can do anything I want 'cuz I'm an American" mind.
> 
> He was then asked to leave multiple times by the campus cops and he refused.
> 
> ...


 
Maybe the next time you really care about something...care enough to try and say something...someone will taze you.  Maybe they will even handcuff you and taze you because your body can't move fast enough for their authoritarian commands.  Maybe they will taze you so long that someone will catch your screams on their cell phone camera and then post it on the internet.

Then people who disagree with you can comment on your behavior.

This is the danger of this thing.  It's a slippery slope.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> And you have not posited any suggestion to for the function of a school library ... if it is not there to serve the student body. And the owners of this particular school are the citizens of California.
> 
> We have not determined the citizenship of the student. But we do know he was a student.



So... by that logic, anyone from the state of california can show up, use the library, take the materials out they need, attend any class, play on the football team, use the pool, science lab, etc... _*

without proving they are registered or belong there.

*_Gotcha.  Go give that a try in your state.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 18, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Maybe the next time you really care about something...care enough to try and say something...someone will taze you.  Maybe they will even handcuff you and taze you because your body can't move fast enough for their authoritarian commands.  Maybe they will taze you so long that someone will catch your screams on their cell phone camera and then post it on the internet.



This is a ******** answer, because he was not  "taze you because your body can't move fast enough for their authoritarian commands." He was *REFUSING* to follow their instructions.  Big Difference.

And, Mike, you are right, ok... everyone should have access everywhere, regardless of whether or not they belong...  So take the doors off your house.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 18, 2006)

For that matter... try going to the God Damn PUBLIC library and Call the librarian a nazi for requiring a library card to check out a book.  Tell her this is America, and you dont need to show your papers, or Follow the god damn rules.  Do it the next time you are fishing and a conservation officer asks for your ID, or a cop wants to see your drivers licence because you were speeding.  You dont like the god damn rules, instead of fighting the cops who come to enforce them, you fight the rule makers in the proper manner to get them changed.  That guy *could not or would not* prove he belonged there, and was in the eyes of the *Staff* and *Police* guilty of criminal trespass.  PERIOD.

Im done arguing this ******** with you people who seem to think that acting in a *criminal* fashion is your ****ing right, and there should be ZERO consequences for it.​


----------



## MJS (Nov 18, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> Another article http://www.yahoo.com/s/440637 on the subject.
> 
> Once again this brings to me the question of why was their a video and why did it start when it did. Until I get those questions answered I will suspect it and the reasons for it.


 
And this is the #1 reason why there is always that shadow of a doubt on the end of the police.  Its video that is shot by someone who is getting half the story!  9 times out of 10, we see the middle or end of an incident, but rarely do we ever see something from the beginning...the beginning, where the story really beings to unfold.

We can specualte till we're blue in the face about what should/should not have happened, but I agree with what you're saying Rich...there are many unanswered questions.

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 18, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> This is a ******** answer, because he was not "taze you because your body can't move fast enough for their authoritarian commands." He was *REFUSING* to follow their instructions. Big Difference.
> 
> And, Mike, you are right, ok... everyone should have access everywhere, regardless of whether or not they belong... So take the doors off your house.


 
When you are tazed and breathing heavy on your hands and knees trying to make your body work like you want it to work...then you might understand what is happening here.  

When I was tazed, I felt like my entire body was heavy.  Like I couldn't move even afterward.  It totally sucked.


----------



## MJS (Nov 18, 2006)

Mike,

You seem almost like you're offended that the security asked to see his ID.  Its really no different than someone who is trying to gain access to a bar.  If the bouncer wants to see ID, you have 2 choices: 1) show him the damn ID or 2) refuse and you dont get admitted.  Its that simple!!  The college has rules in place, and apparently this kid didn't want to listen to them, so he was removed.  

Its no different than at an airport, a train station or bus station.  Considering there is a heightened terror alert, its a given that at any time, the chances of a LEO or security personnel asking to see the inside if your bags.  

The bottom line is...why do people have to be jerks?  Simply comply with the rules in place and things will be so much easier.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Im done arguing this ******** with you people who seem to think that acting in a *criminal* fashion is your ****ing right, and there should be ZERO consequences for it.​


 
No one is arguing ZERO consequences ... except in your "your with us or against us" mind. 

What we are arguing is that the response was disproportionate with the offense.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2006)

MJS said:


> Mike,
> 
> You seem almost like you're offended that the security asked to see his ID. Its really no different than someone who is trying to gain access to a bar. If the bouncer wants to see ID, you have 2 choices: 1) show him the damn ID or 2) refuse and you dont get admitted. Its that simple!! The college has rules in place, and apparently this kid didn't want to listen to them, so he was removed.
> 
> ...


 
The difference seems to be ... is that the student was already in the library working ... minding his own business. He was not, apparently, attempting to gain entry. This seems to have been started by a 'RANDOM SWEEP' - whcih probably wasn't so random. It probably happens in some area of the library every evening. BUT ... It's not like he was trying to get in to the library. He was already there. 

And he wasn't removed ... he blew off the librarian ... and when the police showed up ... according to at least two articles linked in this thread, and the audio of the video ... was grabbed by the police officer *while he was leaving*. 

Only FearlessFreep has offered any arguments against those facts, and he has not posted supporting links. 

It is exactly the 'Heightened state of terror alert' that is driving this crazy behavior. 

I don't care if Osama bin Laden is walking through times square, the Authorities in the United States have an awful lot of explaining to do about their behavior when using "Less Lethal" weapons against handcuffed, passive resisting students. You know, Kind of like trampelling striking workers with horses. 

http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/54346.php

That seems to be an UNREASONABLE SIEZURE, something I thought was prohibited by one of those Amendments on that God Damned Piece of Paper --- as described by our President.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml


----------



## MJS (Nov 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> The difference seems to be ... is that the student was already in the library working ... minding his own business. He was not, apparently, attempting to gain entry. This seems to have been started by a 'RANDOM SWEEP' - whcih probably wasn't so random. It probably happens in some area of the library every evening. BUT ... It's not like he was trying to get in to the library. He was already there.


 
And if someone was already in a bar, and the cops walk in to do a check to make sure no underage people are in there getting served, its really no different.  Are you suggesting that this kid was 'targeted' by a racial profile?  Who knows...AFAIK, nobody on this fourm was there, so what do we have to go by?  A video clip?  Interviews by other students? A half *** report by the local newspaper reporter, who very well could have left details out? We just dont have enough to go on.  We all have our opinions, and you seem to have picked yours and thats cool with me.  But, I'm the type of guy that wants to get all the facts.  



> And he wasn't removed ... he blew off the librarian ... and when the police showed up ... according to at least two articles linked in this thread, and the audio of the video ... was grabbed by the police officer *while he was leaving*.


 
Why did he blow off the person that asked for the ID?  IMHO, thats a question that needs to be answered by someone.  As for being grabbed...I don't know why that happened.




> It is exactly the 'Heightened state of terror alert' that is driving this crazy behavior.


 
Who knows.  I'd imagine that its on the minds of some.  Do you feel that he was 'targeted' by the staff there?  



> I don't care if Osama bin Laden is walking through times square, the Authorities in the United States have an awful lot of explaining to do about their behavior when using "Less Lethal" weapons against handcuffed, passive resisting students. You know, Kind of like trampelling striking workers with horses.


 
Just because someone is cuffed, does not mean that they can't continue to resist.  If he was no longer resisting, I'd have to say that the use of the taser would not be justified.  If he was still resisting, then yes, handcuffed or not, I'd say they'd be justified.



> That seems to be an UNREASONABLE SIEZURE, something I thought was prohibited by one of those Amendments on that God Damned Piece of Paper --- as described by our President.
> 
> http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml


 
I dont see whats unreasonable about asking someone to show ID.  

Mike


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2006)

So Let me see if I have this clear.

Not having ID is now a Criminal Offense?

Tazering a prone, handcuffed, non-combative individual is acceptable behavior for a Law Enforcement Officer?

Complying with the order of a LEO at a speed the LEO deems to be slow, is acceptable grounds for said LEO to physically assault you?

Questions:
Did the student do anything, other than move too slow, to justify the initial tasering?

After the first tasering, when he was handcuffed, other than not getting up, and yelling at the LEO, did the student do anything else that might somehow have justified being tasered again?


Let me be blunt here. I don't believe that this was justified. I believe that the LEO's in question, who several witnesses have indicated threatened them with tasering and arrest for simply asking for -their- ID, exceeded their authority, used excessive force, and are themselves guilty of assault on this student.

The fact that this student did not physically retaliate against these people while they were assaulting him, says a lot for his restraint. I doubt I would be able to hold back a kick or a swing at them, in self defense.


As to the question of how video happened to come about.....most phones sold today have cameras and video capability. Cell phone usage is huge among college age people. I'm surprised there aren't more clips up as I saw several people with phones out and recording. 

Why did he blow off the original person asking him? No clue.  Maybe he was preoccupied, maybe the person asking him didn't look like an "official" so he didn't take it seriously, maybe as was suggested, he wanted to create a scene.  

As to what is unreasonable to show ID...what is reasonable about being assaulted and arrested for failure to show it...or have it at all?  When did it become a law that one must have ID with them and show it on demand to LEO's in the US?  Last I heard, we didn't have to do that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As to what is unreasonable to show ID...what is reasonable about being assaulted and arrested for failure to show it...or have it at all?  When did it become a law that one must have ID with them and show it on demand to LEO's in the US?  Last I heard, we didn't have to do that.



Guess I was wrong.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/03/24/buses-to-skip-denver-federal-center/



> *Buses to skip Denver Federal Center*
> 
> By Michael Hampton
> Posted: March 24, 2006 12:29 am
> ...


Creative Commons License


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2006)

Hmm.  This zapping frenzy seems to be a California Hobby.
Rather old news:



> Orange County, Calif. sheriff&#8217;s deputies continue assaults, battery
> By Michael Hampton
> Posted: October 12, 2005 9:46 am
> Share this story:  del.icio.us  reddit.com  Newsvine
> ...


http://www.homelandstupidity.us/200...-sheriffs-deputies-continue-assaults-battery/
Creative Commons License


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2006)

Hmm.

More on possible excessive force used by LAPD
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/11/10/los-angeles-police-beating-caught-on-video/


Added: YouTube videos concerning LAPD brutality cases, including several clips, press conferences and such
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=LAPD+brutality&search=Search


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2006)

So.  After finding these additional stories, it would seem to me that there is reason to believe that maybe, just maybe, excessive force was used, and in fact is used more often than not by some LA and Orange County cops. I've found a large number of additional stories on excessive force issues, with a good percentage of them being from these 2 California counties....2 counties that I will not be visiting anytime soon I might add.

I realize that being a LEO is a stressful, emotionally draining, and very often thankless and dangerous job, a job that needs to be done because people simply can't play well with each other in too many cases. But. This does not give them permission to abuse the trust that we place in them to as so many of their cars and badges say to "Protect and Serve". To the honest cops out there, you have my thanks, and my wish that you retire someday with full health and well being.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 18, 2006)

So Cal cops use excessive force a lot???    No!    Sorry, Bob, but that's news for ...  who??

And I'm sorry, but I think a Student ID Req'd after 11 PM rule for a college library *IS* appropriate and should be enforced ... though, not to the extent of abusing a patron which I think happened in this case.

IMO, they had a right to ask him for ID according to the rules of the library and campus policy, when he couldn't/wouldn't show ID they had a right to ask him to leave and even to corral him to and through the exit.  

But I don't think they did the right thing in tazing him at all, let alone multiple times while cuffed behind the back, seated, and under officer control.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2006)

No problem with the "ID after x" policy, or asking him to leave because he didn't have it.

Problem with the excessive force used, and threats to other law obiding students.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 18, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:


> No problem with the "ID after x" policy, or asking him to leave because he didn't have it.
> 
> Problem with the excessive force used, and threats to other law obiding students.



Agreed.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 19, 2006)

> As to what is unreasonable to show ID...what is reasonable about being assaulted and arrested for failure to show it...or have it at all? When did it become a law that one must have ID with them and show it on demand to LEO's in the US? Last I heard, we didn't have to do that.



Bob.  If this were out in public Id agree with you.  The guy shouldnt have to have ID and show it on demand.  In a PRIVATE building, which is open to the public _*SO LONG AS THEY CAN PRODUCE AND SHOW ID*_, that situation changes.  You are, so long as you are in that location, be it a bar, a school building, or even a SAM'S Club, required to show ID upon request or leave.  If you refuse, you are guilty of criminal tresspass.  It's not a protest, its not a joke, its not a rights violation, its a crime.  I had numerous people who failed to understand that when I worked for Hot Topic arrested. (not for not having Id, but for failing to leave on demand)

I spoke to a LEO that I train with about this situation, and she said that policy HERE, (I cant speak for CA) would be to remove him, and if he resisted, which includes the definition of droping to the floor and refusing to walk, or grabbing an object to stay in place, they are authorized to stun, or spray the subject so he will comply with a LAWFUL order.  So if we assume that CA policy is similar, and there was a problem caused by his CRIMINAL actions (refusing to leave the premisis after being asked for ID) and the police responded, and the student resisted, I'd say that #1 that action would generate that response in keeping with policy, and #2 is expected.  

If its a problem we should look to change policy, not the actions of the cops, who, IMO, were doing their jobs in an obviously hostile environment (just listen to the audio) and probably wanted to exit the scene as quickly as possible to protect themselves and probably the other students.

Tell me, in a situation where someone's breaking into your home, and you call the cops, and they come out see the guy by a window and ask, "Are you the homeowner here" and the burgler says "YES!" and the cops ask for ID from him to prove it, are YOU gonna tell em, "When did it become a law that one must have ID with them and show it on demand to LEO's in the US?"


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 19, 2006)

The 2 situations are different, in the following:

In the actual situation, the person was reported by several witnesses to be in the process of complying when he was assaulted by the police.

In your hypothetical situation, the police would be seeking to establish if the person did belong there. If the person could not present ID in this case, there are simple ways to verify ID.  If the person says his name is "john smith", and the address is 25 mockingbird lane, the police can run his non-existant ID based on other factors, which would in most cases be tied in to the ID he cannot present, to check. They can query their database which should contain a physical description of Mr Smith, and other identifying information. My drivers license has my hair, and eye color, birthdate, and other bits that a casual criminal would not have. One would expect that anyone they give a gun and badge to, would understand how to ask for a name and call in an ID check.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 19, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The 2 situations are different, in the following:
> 
> In the actual situation, the person was reported by several witnesses to be in the process of complying when he was assaulted by the police.



Well, I gotta ask... Were they Random witnesses or his friends?  Because In the video, he certainly was NOT complying, and one post had a witness saying this guy was being beligerent on purpose, and that he has a habit of doing this.  It was also stated that when he was asked to produce ID in the first place he ignored the request... that doesnt sound like he was complying, at least not at the begining and the cops probably wouldnt have been called if he was in the process of complying.  I find it hard to blieve he went from not complying, to complying, back to not complying.

But even still, Assuming he was on his way out the door, and the officer took hold of his arm to do a walk out, and he jerked away and yelled dont touch me... (which we have to extrapolate from the audio and the witnesses since the video didnt actually show it) well... you make a violent move like that around a cop, and yeah, they are likley to respond poorly... 

The "assault" by the cops aside for a minute...

I just cant see anyplace in this incident where a large measure of fault cannot be lumped on the student for his actions.  My understanding of the incident goes like this: He was in the library in viloation of the rules for being there.  He was asked to show id and he ignored the staff member making the request, and he was asked to leave, which he ignored.  He went from Breaking the rules to Criminal Tresspass. The police were called.  He was again asked to leave, which, depending who you listen to he either did or didn't, but we will assume he was, when he became, at the least from the audio track on the video, verbally abusive with the cops.  So, ok, lets assume at that point they stun him for no reason, (again, we cannot see what happened at that point) and he drops down they cuff him and then he wont get up, he starts screaming about the patriot act instead. (thats not a protest, btw, its resisting arrest) So, the cops issue a command to get up and he responds, "**** You!" and continues to resist, they tell him to get up repeatedly, and he responds the same every time. So following what we will assume is policy for a resist they shock him again. He continues to ignore the command and gets shocked again.  We pretty much know where it went from there... 

Ok, so lets look at the situation from the perspective of how someone who wasnt being an *** would have handled it.

If he had replied from the initial request, "Oh, im sorry, my Id is in my dorm, I can go get it, but I am almost finished here, like 5 more minutes, would that be ok?" they probably would have said no, Im sorry, you have to go get it.  Then, instead of sitting there, he could have said, "oh ok, let me just pack up here, and Ill run back and get it" and they probably would not have been so agressive and maybe not called the cops.  But lets assume they did.  When the cops arrived, we will assume he was walking out, as we are assuming he was from witness accounts, when the officer took his arm to escort him, he could have allowed it.  Bet 100 bucks he wouldnt have gotten that first shock.  So assume that they decide he didnt leave fast enough and are gonna arrest him so they tell him to get down, and they cuff him.  When the cop said "get up" he responds "yes officer" and stands.  Bet he avoids the other 3 shocks.  And I bet when he gets to court his attitude and the testimony of everyone around him says "he didnt do anything"

Ya know, I really dislike most cops, and even moreso the way the system uses them.  Cops should be the sheepdogs who protect the flock from the wolves, but in reality they spend most of their time snapping at the heels of the sheep and making the sheep more wary of them than the wolves.

That said... I *can't* fault the cops in this situation.  You can blame the system if it says tasers are appropriate first responses in situations where the subject resists, and you disagree with that level of escalation, or their definition of resistance... but lets face the TRUTH... who made this happen, the cops or the student?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 19, 2006)

So, what you are saying is, as long as you do whatever the person with the taser and badge says, you should be ok?

That electric shocks are a justified response to the spoken word?


I don't believe electric shocks, or pepper spray, or swung batons are a justified response to spoken words. Swung fists, thrown rocks, etc, most likely. But when saying "no" to a LEO earns an automatic electrocution or face full of capsayin, I think there is a problem in the system, yes. This particular situation deals with a police force with a long history of abuse and physical attacks on people, far exceeding acceptable response. 

According to TheRegister:
"According to a report on NBC4.tv, he was given "a citation for obstruction/delay of a peace officer in the performance of duty and then released from custody". A UCLA police sergeant who saw Tabatabainejad after the incident claimed he had not suffered serious injury as a result of the tasering. He said: "If he was able to walk out of here, I think he was OK.""

"If he was able to walk out of here, I think he was OK."?????
I walked away from 2 car accidents. I wasn't ok. Nice to see though that the UCLA Police are also trained medical personel too.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 19, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So, what you are saying is, as long as you do whatever the person with the taser and badge says, you should be ok?
> 
> That electric shocks are a justified response to the spoken word?



No, I am saying if he had not been a dick in the first place, or, for that matter, commited a criminal act this wouldnt have happened, regardless of whether the use of force was justified or not.  Especially since, according to one witness he was looking for the most difficult answer to a simple problem... if thats true, he caused this intentionally... hes not a victim.

Secondly, and this is the MYTH that everyone is perptrating that has my panties in a knot, _*HE WAS NOT TASED FOR HIS WORDS.*_  HE WAS TASED FOR COMMITING A CRIME AND RESISTING ARREST.  His choice of language and tone probably didnt HELP, but thats not what got him tased.

Bob, you dont think a taser, mace, or a baton is justified response to spoken words.  I agree.  But what is justified response to criminal tresspass, refusal to vacate, and resisting arrest, which is what occured there?  If what the cops did was the _*wrong*_ course of action, how SHOULD they have gotten him to leave when he refused?  And at what point do we treat a criminal in the act of commiting a crime like a criminal and respond to their actions?


----------



## kenpo0324 (Nov 19, 2006)

This prolonged and cruel assault on a student is outrageous and the officers involved should be dismissed.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Why? Are we still living in the 'Land of the Free'?
> 
> The student was not trying to access presonal, private information, such as my bank balance. He was in a school library. These tend to be public places. But colleges especially, are not just places of business. Campuses are where the students live. It is their community, their town, their home.
> 
> ...




michaeledward,

Back in 1984 through 1990 I could not get into and use a computer unless I presented my ID for them to know where I was and on which station. In case of any damage to the unit, or the requirement to get a print out, (* to stop people from taking others programs or papers to copy from *) and also for security as some machines such as the 8086 and the later the 80286 were limited to certain clases that required the computing power. 

The ID on a college is very important. 

While being a student member of the government, I had to follow up with someone who filed a complaint. They said they were being stalked by a none student upon the campus. Someone who went out and bought a backpack and then some freshman class books and then proceded to follow women to class to and to follow them home. When appraoched on this, he had no ID. He was never registered at the university or any of the other local colleges. This was a security risk for the students. An actual in their face of being assualted and being attacked and possible being raped. 

If this was your daughter or wife or niece who was followed or attacked, would you not be outraged with the Univeristy for not taking the simpliest precautions for thier safety? 

We may have failed as a society, yet I go back to people not taking responsibility for themselves. In a perfect world there would be no need for any ID's.  In a perfect world there would be no  need to protect ourselves or worry about the protection of others. 

I still say that until a detailed investigation with full data, the event was in line with the usage as long as they were properly trained in the usage of Tazer's and it was within their training usage. Until I hear more about what happened before the video I have to think it was fine, as long as procedure was followed. If evidence comes about that procedure was not followed then I will review that data and make another opinion.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Maybe we should close down all the libraries, and burn all the books. That'll solve these problems, won't it.
> 
> I understand your point, but this student is a member of the community the library is built to serve. He *is* the reason the library is there.
> 
> Maybe he can get a job being a janitor in Houston.




Yes just knee jerk and burn all the books when someone points out something that disagrees with your perception of what should be. 

He a a student is required to display an ID to use it. 

If a police oficer pulls you over and you do not have your driver's license on you, the police can be nice and escort you home, give you an appearance ticket, or impound your car at your expense and take you in and right lots of tickets and bring charges against you. 

An ID is an evil of today's society. 

I do not have a solution for not having one. 

Maybe if Space travel was allowed and capable then people could move out and look at starting over, but I expect that when a population gets to a certain size that first names are no longer required, then last names will be used to keep track of people and or middle names, and then eventually ID's.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Yep.
> 
> And the fact that he was uncooperative means he should get tazed.
> 
> I got one for my home. When my kids don't clean their room ... ZAPPP!!




Michael,

I think you are being silly now. First off it is not legal to use on children. Second I do not believe for a second you would ever use one on a child. 

I do believe that if you and othes teach their children responsibility and action reaction. or cause and effect then they understand that if you hit someone the will hit you back. If you are being civil disobedient, then expect to be treated as such.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> And you have not posited any suggestion to for the function of a school library ... if it is not there to serve the student body. And the owners of this particular school are the citizens of California.
> 
> We have not determined the citizenship of the student. But we do know he was a student.
> 
> ...




Michael,

It is abotu all us. You exprss your opinion in a huff and take your ball and go home is a tactic of a child and also of those who try to take some higher moral ground approach like all the rest are below them. 

You maybe higher morally than I. 

You may be right in the long run, but where is your evidence other than in your mind right now to make these points? 

First it was all about being Muslim for you. Discrimination.

Then it was all about having an ID. Hits at "Papers" another reference to Nazi German that leads people into thinking down a path. Nice usage of words without really saying it. 

Now it is all about us attacking you, when you make a silly comment about us wanting to burn books, because a college and every college I know requires an ID for access to a computer room or library. 

Show me your evidence that your opinion is better than mine, and I will review my opinion. In the mean time I state based upon the evidence at this time, ... versus you and others who just seem to want to crusade this issue.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Right.  RFID anyone?
> 
> Gimme those verachips!




John,

Please see my response to Michael about knee jerk reactions and leading the reader and trying to take the higher ground. 

While I do not want such a chip and do not approve it, an ID is required now by our society.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Maybe the next time you really care about something...care enough to try and say something...someone will taze you. Maybe they will even handcuff you and taze you because your body can't move fast enough for their authoritarian commands. Maybe they will taze you so long that someone will catch your screams on their cell phone camera and then post it on the internet.
> 
> Then people who disagree with you can comment on your behavior.
> 
> This is the danger of this thing.  It's a slippery slope.




John,

If the police pulled him over for driving and had no ID he would be taken in as I have stated. How is this different?

Has anyone proven that he did have his ID?

Has anyone stated that the policy did not require an ID?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> No one is arguing ZERO consequences ... except in your "your with us or against us" mind.
> 
> What we are arguing is that the response was disproportionate with the offense.




Michael,

As I have stated to me it looks like both you and John are the With us or against us. 

There are others on this thread who are speculating improper force, or the change in a policy, or that something might be wrong, but they present it as such which is their opinion or that they dislike it and want to change it versus you are all wrong for thinking like this and it was wrong to have such a device and all who agree with this usage are Nazi's or looking for a government to come into their home and take them away. 

Let me ask some qustions about policy what is the policy of the police department?

What is the usage of force?

Are they required to use the tazer versus a club because of the previous issues? 

Are there issues with safety of someone might have AIDs or Hepatitus or some other blood born illness? 

If the person left and walked out side the computer room to the hallway it would have gone far to show is desire to leave peascefully, instead he was inside making a protest, where someone has a video, and the video is dropped when ever someone of authority comes by. Like they knew they were not supposed to be taping it.  Yet, instead the video hits the internet in hours and starts to get the media and other people upset.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> The difference seems to be ... is that the student was already in the library working ... minding his own business. He was not, apparently, attempting to gain entry. This seems to have been started by a 'RANDOM SWEEP' - whcih probably wasn't so random. It probably happens in some area of the library every evening. BUT ... It's not like he was trying to get in to the library. He was already there.
> 
> And he wasn't removed ... he blew off the librarian ... and when the police showed up ... according to at least two articles linked in this thread, and the audio of the video ... was grabbed by the police officer *while he was leaving*.
> 
> ...





Random Sweep?

Do you have a specific link for this? 

Why was security called in the first place? or was it truly a random sweep?

Also see my previous post about stalking and security of students.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So. After finding these additional stories, it would seem to me that there is reason to believe that maybe, just maybe, excessive force was used, and in fact is used more often than not by some LA and Orange County cops. I've found a large number of additional stories on excessive force issues, with a good percentage of them being from these 2 California counties....2 counties that I will not be visiting anytime soon I might add.
> 
> I realize that being a LEO is a stressful, emotionally draining, and very often thankless and dangerous job, a job that needs to be done because people simply can't play well with each other in too many cases. But. This does not give them permission to abuse the trust that we place in them to as so many of their cars and badges say to "Protect and Serve". To the honest cops out there, you have my thanks, and my wish that you retire someday with full health and well being.




Bob,

There might be the use of excessive force. Ths is true. But based upon the initial evidence and my experience in walking people out and dealing with beligerant *******s and such, it could be a reason response depending upon what happened before the video. 

As to the comments about the Federal Building and security.

I have complained and complained that rights are being taken away from us. but people still seem to think they need to have these people in power, (* recent elections may have swayed the issue *), but it is the law of the land, be it unconstitutional or not, it stands until another law is in place or until the Supreme Court deems to review the issue. 

There are ways to contact people to make your claims. If the issue is with the LAPD then call the County Sheriff of the State Police to file a complaint.  One can organize an event legally upon a University to protest something or to promote a cause. 

There are ways of doing this with out being in this situation.


PS: Can you send me the stuff for my site? Thanks


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The 2 situations are different, in the following:
> 
> In the actual situation, the person was reported by several witnesses to be in the process of complying when he was assaulted by the police.
> 
> In your hypothetical situation, the police would be seeking to establish if the person did belong there. If the person could not present ID in this case, there are simple ways to verify ID. If the person says his name is "john smith", and the address is 25 mockingbird lane, the police can run his non-existant ID based on other factors, which would in most cases be tied in to the ID he cannot present, to check. They can query their database which should contain a physical description of Mr Smith, and other identifying information. My drivers license has my hair, and eye color, birthdate, and other bits that a casual criminal would not have. One would expect that anyone they give a gun and badge to, would understand how to ask for a name and call in an ID check.




Bob,

In many situations the witnesses were friends or plants of thsoe who came to fight me or challenge me or try to hurt me. So while this looks bad up front, I would still want to see an investigation, and see the relationship between the witnesses and the person who caused this event. 

And yes, If you can question the policies, cannot I question if the witnesses are not biased?


----------



## Drac (Nov 19, 2006)

kenpo0324 said:


> This prolonged and cruel assault on a student is outrageous and the officers involved should be dismissed.


 
Are you a cop???


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So, what you are saying is, as long as you do whatever the person with the taser and badge says, you should be ok?
> 
> That electric shocks are a justified response to the spoken word?
> 
> ...




Bob,

Yes the guy with the badge, can shot you by mistake, and or abuse of power. It sucks. I hate it. I think it sucks and should not be. But once shot you are still shot. So clubs were used. This was seen as excessive force so Tazers are used now, and as others have stated less lethal would be better terminology, but in either case, like I Said and my lawyer told me, once the police respond it is useless to argue with them. Just wait for your day in court. 

As to the walking wounded, yes endorphines make up for a lot.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2006)

Rich Parsons ... with four posts to reply too, this could be a confusing response. Bear with me. 

Sometimes this medium does a poor job of conveying tone; Where sarcasm and hyperbole is in place. You are at least one post late in determining the 'silly' quotient in my posts. My responses to Technopunk / Cryozombie ... whatever descended into hyperbole and sarcasm earlier than you think. When I make a statement about closing libraries ... rest assured it is sarcasm driven by frustration. Not about not making or winning my point, but about the terms demanded by the points of others. 

As I read it, Technopunk is putting forth the proposition that when a badged officer arrives on the scene that we must all immediately become subservient to them. That to me, is an abhorent idea. 

I'm wondering when the United States of America became a 'Police State'. 

I am not arguing that the student was in the right, nor that the school is not able to set policies and have the expectation that those policies be followed. But what we are talking about is a student who does not have an ID on him. And *THIS* is the justification for tazing the student? All arguments flow from this. My argument is that the law and order mentality has brought a response that is out of proportion with the infraction. 

I guess we truly are not a free society if we must have the correct *government sanctioned paperwork* to exist. I graduated from college in 1986. I honestly have no recollection of a college ID. I quite probably had one, but I don't ever remember having one, nor where it was used. 

Yes, the use of the term 'Papers', in quotes, is designed to represtent all of the bad connotations of all the governments that my country has fought against to spread democracy and freedom. Remember, we not only defeated Nazi Germany, but we also worked for a half of century to bring down communist governments. 

I believe that if we demand possession of government issued documentation for doing our daily activities, we, as a nation, are becoming the thing that we have worked so hard to prevent and destroy. 

President Bush, in his second Inagural Address told us "There is no justice without freedom". 

This has nothing to do with moral high ground. It has to do with basics civics. What were the principles upon which this country was founded. 

Apparently, we have been conditioned to think that every person is a bad person. Always we must be on highest alert. Our reactions to even the most minor infraction must be severe. To inflict Punishment and to Teach lessons to those standing by. 

Rich Parsons ...  In one post, I asked for someone to explain if this could be not motived by the students religion. Looking back, that is a poor choice. I should have directed it to ethnicity, rather than religion. We have no idea about the students faith, but we do know he is of middleeastern heritage. 

When I put forth that argument, I can not help but wonder if someone like myself, a caucasion of European descent, behaving in the same manner, would have received the tazer blasts. Do you believe that caucasions are well behaved, and only african americans and middle easterners and hispanics misbehave? Why don't we read about people like me being tazed or trampled with horses or beat with clubs? 

There is probably much more that deserves response, but this has probably already confused the issue too much. 

Really ... the kid didn't have his ID. Being a Jerk is not a crime. But what we are talking about is repeated tazer strikes because he did not have is 'PAPERS' .... 

Who needs civil liberties. Just the ID.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> michaeledward,
> 
> Back in 1984 through 1990 I could not get into and use a computer unless I presented my ID for them to know where I was and on which station. In case of any damage to the unit, or the requirement to get a print out, (* to stop people from taking others programs or papers to copy from *) and also for security as some machines such as the 8086 and the later the 80286 were limited to certain clases that required the computing power.
> 
> ...




Oh wait I forgot something. 

The guy who was asked for his ID was Black/African American, and he said it was all about discrimination against the Black Man. 

This was not the case. He was not a student. That was the issue.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> Michael,
> 
> As I have stated to me it looks like both you and John are the With us or against us.
> 
> ...


 

MR. PARSONS .... 

This is the third time in this thread that you have accused me of bringing 'NAZI's into this thread. I have prompted you once on this issue. 

I have just posted response to indicate that there are many governments that required papers ... and I was indeed attempting to draw those connotations. 

I have not mentioned Nazis, except in response to your accusations. There are enough other connotations which can be equally valid.  

Please Stop putting words in my mouth. 

Mike Atkinson


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> If the person left and walked out side the computer room to the hallway it would have gone far to show is desire to leave peascefully, instead he was inside making a protest, where someone has a video, and the video is dropped when ever someone of authority comes by. Like they knew they were not supposed to be taping it. Yet, instead the video hits the internet in hours and starts to get the media and other people upset.


 
Rich Parsons, your continued inferences to a co-conspirator video taping this altercation has been adquately explained, and refuted. It seems that you are displaying willful ignorance on the technology. You seem to be making a choice  to believe that college students do not have video 
capable cell phones. I suggest a visit to your local mall.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2006)

This quote is from the first story I read on this incident, several days ago. It is the genesis of my post. It is an accurate description of all the posts I have made on this thread. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/freedom-is_b_34362.html



> when a piece of paper with your name on it - laminated or otherwise - becomes more important than your whole body, your Constitutional rights, and your basic human rights, then that piece of paper - laminated or otherwise - needs to be returned to its master as a "thanks but no thanks" gesture.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Rich Parsons ... with four posts to reply too, this could be a confusing response. Bear with me.
> 
> Sometimes this medium does a poor job of conveying tone; Where sarcasm and hyperbole is in place. You are at least one post late in determining the 'silly' quotient in my posts. My responses to Technopunk / Cryozombie ... whatever descended into hyperbole and sarcasm earlier than you think. When I make a statement about closing libraries ... rest assured it is sarcasm driven by frustration. Not about not making or winning my point, but about the terms demanded by the points of others.
> 
> ...



michaeledward,

Thank you for the reply.  Sarcasm is great. But to those who do not know you from here and or might be a first time reader could have read it the way I presented. Thank you for your follow up. 

I agree the ethnicity could have been an issue. 

But once again when I have told people about my border crossings, no one here took up arms and wanted to have the US border patrol investgated for profiling me based upon my dark complexion, and in some cases jokes were made about it. Why is ok for me to be profiled while it is nto for this guy?


As to the Police state, I agree we are and I absolutely hate it. I think the Home Land Security Act has taken too much from us and I have been saying this since 2001. Recent changes to another act that now allows the President to declare martial law and send it into a single person's home, or neighborhood or city or state, and has authority to do such is horrible in my mind. 

I called my reps in congress and e-mailed them.

I voted against anyone currently in congress, even though some of my third party votes may not have cast a winning vote I cast my vote to my conscious and I feel great by it. I have shown that there is a movement of those who vote who are looking to move away form this two party not with us against us mentality. 

I think it is horrible where this country is. 

I see no answer away from an ID. 

I have been told by my German friends that in 2007 all external Passports will have to be created and have a computer chip in them to help against the forgery and entry into the USA. The USA will also be issue new Passports with such a device. Existing ones are good until they expire. 


As to the issue of Whites/Caucasions versus the minorities, I could say that you know to what ground people will go to conquer a nation and steal a nation and realize this and go with the flow. I could say that it is not news unless it is something about us ver them. I could say that as Time MAgazine has stated in the October 30th issue of 2006, the stats fare from 2004:

80.1 % Caucasion
12.8 % Black
4.4 % Asian
1.6 % Multiple Races
1.0 % Native American and Alaska Native
0.2 % Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander

With another minority being Hispanic made up of all races mentioned above
that is 14.8 % of the population. The major portion of the Hispanic population is from Caucasion decent. 

So, I could say that it is news as it is a minority issue, and this country's news media is all about minority conflict and conflict in general. 

I could say it is actual racism, or discrimination.

I could say and more than like believe it is not an overt issue of discrimination but an issue of economics and where people live and how much money they make. 

Like I said above, not many were concerned about me, being caucasion and what I get when I go through security or go through an airport. It is not news. Just a mistaken profile and I have been told to live with it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Rich Parsons, your continued inferences to a co-conspirator video taping this altercation has been adquately explained, and refuted. It seems that you are displaying willful ignorance on the technology. You seem to be making a choice to believe that college students do not have video
> capable cell phones. I suggest a visit to your local mall.




I accept they have video capable cell phones. 

But does my opinion on this issue have any less validity then anyone else's conjecture?

Other people are allowed to speculate and make their desires and cast shadows, but I am not? 

Thank you sir.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> MR. PARSONS ....
> 
> This is the third time in this thread that you have accused me of bringing 'NAZI's into this thread. I have prompted you once on this issue.
> 
> ...



Mr Atkinson, 

You are allowed to make conjecture, and I am not allowed to make conjecture about your comments? 

Thank you I know understand more.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> This quote is from the first story I read on this incident, several days ago. It is the genesis of my post. It is an accurate description of all the posts I have made on this thread.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/freedom-is_b_34362.html




While I agree it sucks that this seems to be the case. 

While I agree that the U.S. Constitution has been shredded in my opinion.

The issue is that I see people making comments without facts.

I see people making agendas against people (* police, and while I have nothing for and nothing against the police as I have meet and dealt with both good and bad *), and not agendas against the government of the politicians who voted away mine and your's rights.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 19, 2006)

*MODERATOR NOTE:

ATTENTION EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS THREAD:

This thread has been the subject of multiple RTM's to the moderating team.  There is excellent conversation and debate going on and I would hate to see action against anyone involved in the thread or have this thread closed.

So, Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.  Please use the RTM button if you feel you are being unjustly accused and ridiculed and Please feel free to use the ignore feature to ignore other members, this can be found in their profile.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator*


----------



## MJS (Nov 19, 2006)

kenpo0324 said:


> This prolonged and cruel assault on a student is outrageous and the officers involved should be dismissed.


 
I suppose if you saw 3 cops piled on top of a suspect, you'd think that was an assault too?  See, this is the problem...people tend to not realize that when someone is resisting, the cops need to take it to the next level.  If that means bringing someone down, putting their knee on their back or the back of their head to keep them down, then so be it.  Maybe if the guy wasn't resisting he wouldn't end up on the ground in the first place!

Mike


----------



## MJS (Nov 19, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So Let me see if I have this clear.
> 
> Not having ID is now a Criminal Offense?


 
I dont think its criminal, but if its policy, then it needs to be shown upon asking for it.



> Tazering a prone, handcuffed, non-combative individual is acceptable behavior for a Law Enforcement Officer?


 
No, that is not acceptable, if he is no longer resisting. If he is still fighting, while cuffed, then I'd say yes, the taser, OC, etc., is within their right to use.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2006)

MJS said:


> I suppose if you saw 3 cops piled on top of a suspect, you'd think that was an assault too? See, this is the problem...people tend to not realize that when someone is resisting, the cops need to take it to the next level. If that means bringing someone down, putting their knee on their back or the back of their head to keep them down, then so be it. Maybe if the guy wasn't resisting he wouldn't end up on the ground in the first place!
> 
> Mike




Mike,

I think this hits what is my problem with this thread. Some people are screaming violation of rights. Yet they are willing to condemn and convict officers without evidence or a trial which is also a violation fo their rights. 

If the points in my opinion were presented in a manner such as to leave doubt, without using all negative terms and leading people to draw conclusions to get people upset and for them to take it the next level, while they sit back and say they are innocent for they have not done wrong. To me it is similiar to insighting a riot, or yelling fire in a movie theater. 

Those that ask questions, are fine. Those that express their opinions and state they are opinions is great. But those that express their opinions as fact and also as the only logical solution, are what I have problems with. (* not everyone or anyone specific not even sure if I can point to specific post here but in general these topics turn into this type of arguement. *) 

But as this thread has been warned, and I expect that some of if not many of the reported posts may have been directed at my posts; I have decided that I will make this my last post. If anyone wants to have me read their post send me a message. 

If anyone wants to give me feedback positive or negative feel free, as I am no longer an admin here and capable of seeing who gave me the feedback. 

Enjoy your discussions. 
:asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2006)

MJS said:


> I suppose if you saw 3 cops piled on top of a suspect, you'd think that was an assault too? See, this is the problem...people tend to not realize that when someone is resisting, the cops need to take it to the next level. If that means bringing someone down, putting their knee on their back or the back of their head to keep them down, then so be it. Maybe if the guy wasn't resisting he wouldn't end up on the ground in the first place!
> 
> Mike


 
An issue that seems not to have been addressed in this thread, but that I think could be a valid concern, and possibly a motivation for the police in this thread. The police were outnumbered by the students. 

Actually, I guess it has been addressed, where one officer apparently threatened to taze a bystander ... I did not hear that on the tape ... but I think it has been referenced here. 

There were three or four police officers at the scene, and quite a few more students than that. Seems to me, that would be a very stressful environment for the police. If this incident escalated, if students decided to come to the aid of their tazed colleague. (Police reports indicate the student attempted to incite others - however witness statements and video do not confirm this, according to stories). 

What if . . . The students decided to assist the student on the ground?

I have to imagine the police officers were far more worried, and mindful of that possibility. And I wonder what impact it had on their behavior choices. 


I will say this. I was raised with the utmost respect for police. Some state troopers in Massachusetts might be able to tell you about how that respect was demonstrated. But the law enforcment officers that post on this board, have done many things that have caused me to downgrade the level of respect those officers receive. It's sad. I think.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> Mr Atkinson,
> 
> You are allowed to make conjecture, and I am not allowed to make conjecture about your comments?
> 
> Thank you I know understand more.


 
You can certainly interpret my comments in any way you wish, Mr. Parsons. But do not ascribe to me words that I have not used. They are your interpretations. 

Michael


----------



## Drac (Nov 19, 2006)

MJS said:


> I suppose if you saw 3 cops piled on top of a suspect, you'd think that was an assault too? See, this is the problem...people tend to not realize that when someone is resisting, the cops need to take it to the next level. If that means bringing someone down, putting their knee on their back or the back of their head to keep them down, then so be it


 
Had to arrest a skinny black 19 yr old last week that had been smoking wet cigarettes..He decided that HE WASN'T going to jail and started resisting..He fought 3 *BIG *cops...Someone who had not been there from the beginning would have drawn the wrong conclusions..Did I mention that he was attempting to gain entry into an elderly female car WHILE she was sitting at a traffic light and steal her purse by punching the window with his fist???




			
				MJS said:
			
		

> Maybe if the guy wasn't resisting he wouldn't end up on the ground in the first place


 
That would make too much bloody sense..It's EASIER for some individulas to to yell and scream and fight...Go figure...

Mike[/quote]


----------



## fireman00 (Nov 19, 2006)

If you are pulled over for speeding and you are asked for your license, registration and insurance  can you tell the officer no thanks then drive away?

If you are asked to show ID before boarding a plan and refuse do you think you'll make it on the plane?

When you go to a bank to cash a check and you're asked for photo ID do you think they'll cash it when you refuse to provide an ID?

Most all major businesses now use magnetic badges to allow employees access to/ from office buildings.    Parking passes are needed to acces parking garages and yes, student IDs now fall into the same categor... I was taking classes 10 years ago at Fairly Dickenson University and I was issued a photo ID and required to show it to gain access to particular areas of the campus.

Mr. Tabatabainejad was asked to show his ID, for whatever reason, and he felt that it was his right to disobey this request.    He also felt it was his right to refuse to leave the library when asked.   He also felt that it was his right to call for an impromptu student demonstration against what he felt to be inappropriate behavior of the campus police.  He felt it was time to make a statement; be it discrimination against Arab Americans or whatever  and he was called on it.   

All he had to do was show his ID or explain to the officers that he didn't have it with him but that he'd get it.  

As for the folks that feel we live in a police state or all the rights that we've given up - please  let me know what you haven't been able to do since 2003 that you could do prior to '01?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2006)

fireman00 said:


> As for the folks that feel we live in a police state or all the rights that we've given up - please let me know what you haven't been able to do since 2003 that you could do prior to '01?


 
Apparently, study at the school library.


----------



## Drac (Nov 19, 2006)

fireman00 said:


> If you are pulled over for speeding and you are asked for your license, registration and insurance can you tell the officer no thanks then drive away


 
You could..Then there would be another story of excessive force as we pulled you outta your car and arrested you for failure to comply..


----------



## Kacey (Nov 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Apparently, study at the school library.



I first went to college from 1984-1988; we were required to show our student ID to get into the library, as well as to check books out.  

We also had to show them to get into the cafeteria, as it was our meal ticket; people without an ID card could not enter, because there was no cashier in the dorm cafeteria - even if you were known by the person checking - it had to do with the accounting system, which was primitive enough at the time that they couldn't input data manually, only by inserting the mag stripe on the ID.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Apparently, study at the school library.



Really?  REALLY?  REALLY? SHOW ME ONE, ONE, only ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE WHERE If you can PROVE you are memeber there and FOLLOWING THE RULES of the establishment you cannot study there.

Show ME ONE EXAMPLE, Mike. JUST ONE.  Because THIS story doesnt show that AT ALL.  

CITE YOUR EXAMPLES.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 19, 2006)

Kacey said:


> I first went to college from 1984-1988; we were required to show our student ID to get into the library, as well as to check books out.
> 
> We also had to show them to get into the cafeteria, as it was our meal ticket; people without an ID card could not enter, because there was no cashier in the dorm cafeteria - even if you were known by the person checking - it had to do with the accounting system, which was primitive enough at the time that they couldn't input data manually, only by inserting the mag stripe on the ID.



How Repressed you were!  The American Neo-facisits are keeping you down!   How dare they make you show your papers! You should go break the law!  

At least... some folks here would have you believe that.


----------



## Drac (Nov 19, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Really? REALLY? REALLY? SHOW ME ONE, ONE, only ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE WHERE If you can PROVE you are memeber there and FOLLOWING THE RULES of the establishment you cannot study there.
> 
> Show ME ONE EXAMPLE, Mike. JUST ONE. Because THIS story doesnt show that AT ALL.
> 
> CITE YOUR EXAMPLES.


 
Looking forward to that answer myself...


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 19, 2006)

Drac said:


> Looking forward to that answer myself...



You wont get one, just some random mumbo jumbo about how we should burn books since they arent availible to everyone or some such nonsense.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Really? REALLY? REALLY? SHOW ME ONE, ONE, only ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE WHERE If you can PROVE you are memeber there and FOLLOWING THE RULES of the establishment you cannot study there.
> 
> Show ME ONE EXAMPLE, Mike. JUST ONE. Because THIS story doesnt show that AT ALL.
> 
> CITE YOUR EXAMPLES.


 
Your right ... I can't.  Nope ... No incidences .. .Not one. 

This student was a student. But ... at 11:30 at night he did not have his ID. That piece of paper is way more important than everything else. So he deserved to be zapped. Hell, he probably should be sent to Guantanamo. 

Tell you what Cryopunk Technozombie .. .. Why don't you come over and tazer me? I obviously am a degenerate subversive. Silly me. I do not think what happened here was appropriate. Bet you'll get your jollies zapping the **** out of a librul. 

You win Punk ... You're the better man ... or at least the better armed. And that's what we need more of in this society, eh?


Bob Hubbard. ... can you please suspend me for a week.. Cuz I can't seem to find one example that meets Mr. Punks requirements.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 19, 2006)

*Thread locked pending admin review.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator*


----------

