No ID - College Student Tazed - 3 Times

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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'.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.