quote:There is great value in the abstract, it is clean.
Yes. I know this. I use the abstract extensively. I'm a big fan of hypotheticals that remove all the obfuscating details.
But I also realize that those hypotheticals are only hypotheticals. They are useful for examining one or a few moral principles at a time.
Whether these officers acted immorally is not a hypothetical question. They did not have the luxury of eliminating all the complicating details, nor of taking time to even attempt to do so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, thanks for actually putting forward some reasoned arguments in defense of the cops, rather than pointless ad hominems about the young rascal's bad manners.
quote:He's not visible for most of the taser shots, so I'm not sure why you're stating the scenario as you are.
Let's see. The student eyewitness in the Daily Bruin article said he was handcuffed, and if you look closely at some of the shots of him in the full version of the video you can see that his arms are indeed restrained.
The cops were exhorting him to "stand up," so I presume he was sitting or lying down. And I imagine we'd know if he'd had a weapon.
Hence my characterization of him as unarmed, seated and handcuffed. I guess for all I know he might've been unarmed, prone and handcuffed, although from the way he jumps in the air the third (?) time he gets shocked, I suspect he was sitting.
quote:I'm waiting for one of you to demonstrate that the non-taser options available to the officers were less dangerous to the suspect. Should we simply let people go who go limp but haven't exhibited violence (not that I'm granting he wasn't threatening)?
What about letting the guy sit down for a while, handcuffed, and giving him a chance to simmer down while dealing with the crowd? Obviously if you want to arrest him you have to bring him in eventually, but I don't see any indication that the situation was at all urgent.
As for whether he was non-threatening: if he was being threatening, would they have said "Stand up. Stand up or you'll get tased again."? They weren't using the taser to hold him off, they were using it to force him to move. That seems like something they should only do if he might escape or hurt someone -- unlikely, if he was cuffed.
My impression, which you should feel free to correct, is that a police officer's weapons are there to defend the officer himself, to defend civilians, and to prevent criminals from escaping. I don't see any of those three ends being served by their use of the taser.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: police officer's weapons are there to defend the officer himself, to defend civilians, and to prevent criminals from escaping
That's for use of deadly force. Specifically, but can be somewhat used for this as well. As far as unarmed, he most likely was. I'm not going to say he was. However, you would be amazed how you can hide a weapon, and nobody would know.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's see. The student eyewitness in the Daily Bruin article said he was handcuffed, and if you look closely at some of the shots of him in the full version of the video you can see that his arms are indeed restrained.
Handcuffed people can resist. They can actually cause a lot of damage.
quote:The cops were exhorting him to "stand up," so I presume he was sitting or lying down. And I imagine we'd know if he'd had a weapon.
He could be kicking. He could be twisting out of the officers' grasp when they bend over to pick him up.
quote:What about letting the guy sit down for a while, handcuffed, and giving him a chance to simmer down while dealing with the crowd? Obviously if you want to arrest him you have to bring him in eventually, but I don't see any indication that the situation was at all urgent.
While there's a crowd around, the situation is not safe. I also don't know if they had frisked him yet - that is not always done immediately. So the question isn't "Did he have a weapon?" but "Did the officers know that he did not have a weapon?" If the answer is "No" then he is treated as if he had a hidden weapon. Which means they don't leave him outside their control. They need to know he's not working a knife or gun out of his pocket.
I wish everyone could go on a ride-along some time. There's a lot of bad stuff that can happen very quickly. The officer being in control of the situation - not letting an unfrisked suspect sit alone on the ground, not letting a student put his finger in your face and demand your badge number while a crowd of students is pushing toward four officers and an uncontrolled arrestee - is what keeps the officer and those around him safe.
quote:That seems like something they should only do if he might escape or hurt someone -- unlikely, if he was cuffed.
Again, we don't know if he had been frisked. Suppose he had lunged suddenly while on the ground. The officers' choice at that point is tase him or tackle him. I don't know enough to know tasing is the worse option. (BTW, this demonstrates the error of your assumption that he was sitting or prone - there's nothing in "stand up!" that tells us he was still.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was a man in a University Library. Most people do not take weapons with them to the reading room. Most people, in fact, never carry weapons and would have little idea how to use one.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This was a man in a University Library. Most people do not take weapons with them to the reading room. Most people, in fact, never carry weapons and would have little idea how to use one.
Most people don't refuse to show ID, refuse to leave when ordered, then shout and swear at officers as they try to escort him out.
And the ID policy is specifically there to protect students. I already alluded to one incident which led to accusations of not caring about safety against a university for not checking IDs.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you suggesting that police should operate on that assumption?
And do you really want to get into a 'most people...' contest here? Most people present ID and cooperate with police if asked.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pelegius, just stop the moral high ground stuff, and look at REALism. Come back to Earth young padawan. Now see what life is really like.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: This was a man in a University Library. Most people do not take weapons with them to the reading room. Most people, in fact, never carry weapons and would have little idea how to use one.
posted
Here's how a rational person would deal with this situation:
Librarian: I need to see ID Person: I don't have any. Librarian: You'll have to get your student ID, or I can't let you stay past 11:30. Person: O.K. It's in my room, I'll be right back with it. *leaves*
The fact that police had to be called, and that the person was yelling and resisting arrest tells us blatantly and without argument that this was not a normal, rational situation.
The police had every reason to be wary, and it was their responsibility to the rest of the students, even the ones getting in the officer's face, to protect THEM from a potentially dangerous and certainly aggitated and uncooperative unknown person.
I would say using a taser on a possibly dangerous person who is resisting arrest is much better than having him seriously injure himself or someone else because the officers are not staying in control of the situation.
He could have prevented the tasing, and the arrest, by simply leaving when told to, rather than fighting.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:He could have prevented the tasing, and the arrest, by simply leaving when told to, rather than fighting.
I don't understand why this fact is even worth mentioning. In almost all cases of actual police brutality, the victims could've avoided harm if they'd been more reasonable. That does nothing to justify the cops' actions.
quote:While there's a crowd around, the situation is not safe.
This can't be a blanket guideline, that any crowd is considered unsafe, or else we'd have a lot more taser videos floating around the Web. I presume the cops have to make some judgment call about the mood of the crowd. If they thought this crowd of college students was dangerous, then I think they made the wrong call.
quote:Handcuffed people can resist. They can actually cause a lot of damage.
...
He could be kicking. He could be twisting out of the officers' grasp when they bend over to pick him up.
You're right. I am presuming, based on the fact that the guy says "I'm not fighting you," and that the cops keep saying "Stand up" instead of "Quit kicking" or "Quit struggling," that he's not struggling. If he were struggling, I doubt that their first priority would be to get him on his feet.
I think it's very likely that I'm right about this. From what we hear them say, it sounds like the only reason for using the taser was to get him to move.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm on dial up, so I haven't watched the video. Are the students approaching the cops to get badge numbers while the guy is refusing to stand?
If the crowd looks like they might be getting confrontational, I can see where the cops' first priority would be to get the arrestee out of there.
On a side note, my buddy the deputy swears tazers are only dangerous if you're obese or on a lot of drugs. Every officer who uses one has been shot with one and knows exactly how much it hurts. He even claims the tazer isn't as bad as the pepper spray. And it's certainy better than the baton.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Pelegius, just stop the moral high ground stuff, and look at REALism."
Like the police were "REAListic" in their actions. MLK was a real human being, Gandhi was a real human being— their views are as real as anyone elses.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is not about Police using tasers because some one resisted arrest, this person was clearly not resisting arrest. This is about people not complying with the absolute letter of police instructions. I've seen this several times in recent videos of police making arrests.
In a recent episode of Dateline's 'To Catch a Predator'. A man was fleeing the scene, the police ordered him to stop which he did immediately. The police (several of them at once) started yelling at him to 'get on the ground'. The subject stopped, turned toward the police, and raised his hands. No aspect of his actions or his body language could be construded as 'aggressive' or 'threatening'. He was clearly surrendering. Yet, within a second of him clearly surrendering, he was tasered simply because he hadn't 'gotten on the ground'. The whole incident lasted less than 5 seconds before he was tasered.
In this case, it was the type of taser that has wires leading back to the gun, so that, while the wires are still stuck in him, he can be tasered over and over again.
Now consider the many passive arrests the occurred during the civil rights movement. Many many people did not resist arrest, in fact they full intended to be arrested, but at the same time, they did not cooperate in their arrest. That is, they remained passive, and the forced the police to have to carry them away.
Now imagine if that happened today? Those protesters would not be allowed to be 'passively' arrested. If they didn't, absolutely to the letter, comply with police requests, that would be sufficient justification for them to be repeatedly tasered or beaten until they did comply.
Imagine seeing old news footage of that today. Imagine hundreds of white and black protesters being repeatedly tasered until they complied with the letter of police requests, and all this retaliatory response to people who are not actually resisting being arrested, who are not responding agressively, belligerently, threateningly, or with hostility.
That seems to be what happen in the case of this student. He was allowing himself to be arrested, he was already in handcuffs, but that the same time he was being somewhat passive. The Taser was in response to his refuse, or perhaps his inability, to stand up. Wise police officers would have simply dragged him out of the building, but officers are train to respond with increasing hostility and increasing aggressiveness if the subject does not comply with the absolute letter of their requests.
In this case, the police were so hung up on this absolute compliance that that desire overrode their creater task in that moment.
Another consideration is that being stunned by a taser is not small thing. It will knock you to the ground, and in some cases will even induce mild convulsions. After a horendous shock like that, 'stand up' is not an easy request to comply to, and each time they (the police) tried to force specific, but in my opinion incidental, behavior, their action (repeated tasering) made compliance LESS possible.
I think the police were completely out of line here, but I also acknowledge that they were responding within the conditioned training they have been given. That 'conditioned training' is that if a subject does not absolutely, to the letter, comply with your request, then anything goes, and amount of force is justified to force compliance. For example, if the police are in the processs of arresting someone, and that person moves into neutral space, gets on his knees, and puts his hands behind his head, that would seem a clear and unconditional surrender, and it that is what the police officer requested, everything is fine. But if the police office had requested 'get on the ground', despire the subject clear and unconditional surrender, the police feel justified in using whatever force it takes to forces absolute compliance.
Again, consider this attitude and action on the part of the police in light of the 'passive resistance' and 'passive arrest' of civil rights and Vietnam war protesters. Given todays police tactic, those individuals would not have been allowed to allow themselves to be passively arrested.
To my last point, at what point does the actions of the police stop being 'forced compliance' and become an out and out assault? At what point does the police response become so brutal that you are within your right to protect and defend yourself. According to the police -never. You just take whatever they dish out and accept that you are defenseless against their assult. Personally, I think there is a fine line which if the police go beyond, and individual is well within his rights to defend himself. Though I fear not many judges would agree.
One aspect of the videos of this incident is that the video doesn't start soon enough. We don't actually see what happened prior to this person being handcuffed. Again, I suspect this whole thing results for the person not complying to the letter of police requests rather than any attempt by the person to physically resist the police or to physically resist arrest.
posted
It looks to me like the police's use of force was excessive. I can't speak in absolutes, because there may be more to the situation that I don't know, but at a glance that's how it looks to me. However, I disagree with those who say the crowd was calm and not at all threatening. The crowd's actions were extremely threatening. They were crowding in on and following the police, and that one guy, who was later threatened with a tazing, was talking to one officer (before he was threatened, watch it again if you need to) very loudly, very closely, and wildly waving his hands. He was agitated and confrontational. I think asking the police for their badge numbers was the right thing to do, but it is important to realize that the officers have a right to finish with one situation before complying with that request. As I watched the crowd close in on the officers, my thought was that if I were there, and not watching this video after already having seen the news piece and knowing how it turned out, I would have been extremely concerned about a riot of some sort.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One additional point, we are not priviledge to what happened prior to the video. I know I already made that point, but now from a different aspect.
When the appointed time came, did the librarian walk through the library checking the ID's of everyone she didn't specifically know to be a student, OR did she (presumably a 'she') specifically walk up to this one person and challenge him.
Librarian in general seem pretty liberal, so racial profiling seems unlikely, but since we don't have a clear account of what preceeded the video we can't say for sure.
It is possible that the person full intended to leave, but need to finish off a bit of research, copying some lines, or citing some references, etc..., and that cause him to not leave immediately. You all know how that happens. You intend to just jot off a quick response to a post, and next think you know an hour has slipped away (as an example).
It seems that when he didn't leave, the campus police were called, and based on discussion here and in the new article, he seemed to have realized his time had run out. It seems as if he agreed with campus police that he had overstayed his welcome, and that is when the local/real police arrived and started ordering him around. Again note, he is in handcuffs when the video starts.
[Amended note: I read a couple more news articles, it seems that what the suspect did or didn't do prior to the real police arriving is unclear. Some articles indicate he was uncooperative. Also, according to one article, it was campus police who routinely came through checking ID's, not the librarian (with appologies to any librarian I may have offended). ]
Again, though I've already made this point, this is not about him resisting arrest, though I'm sure the police will spin it differently, this is about his refusal to 'stand up'; about his refusal or inability to conform to the absolute letter of police requests.
Personally, I think he was well within his right to refuse to 'stand up'. As I and many others have said, all they had to do was drag him out, but once a policeman issues a command, then he must follow through and enforce absolute compliance even though that absolute compliance may be detrimental and counterproductive to accomplish the task at hand. This is about enforcement of absolute authority rather than enforcement of the law or accomplishing a safe effective arrest.
I will close by once again pointing out the very critical and crucial aspects of this indicent were not caught on video tape, and without that information it's hard to accurately judge this one incident.
Final note; it appears that there are more than two police officers on the scene, my best guess is that there are five or six, though certainly some of those are Campus police.
I will also note that while the students are not happy with what is going on, they do seem to be keeping their distance. The one incident near the end of the additional student being threatened seems to have occurred after the primary student has been removed from the scene.
Once the 'arrest' indicent is over, the remaining students seem more willing to confront the police. I think that is a well measured, fair and reasonable response on the part of the students. Again, I only wish they had started video taping sooner.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Pelegius, just stop the moral high ground stuff, and look at REALism."
Like the police were "REAListic" in their actions. MLK was a real human being, Gandhi was a real human being— their views are as real as anyone elses.
Pel, I think we'd all appreciate what what you were saying more if it made sense. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting the day when those logic processors that haven't dropped yet, do.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Umm, did anybody else read this in the Bruin?
I'm seeing all kinds of assumptions that the police were called because he had not produced ID. That isn't said anywhere in any stories I read. The University Police were conducting a random ID check, and initiated the interaction by grabbing his arm, according to this report.
Also:
quote:But according to a study published in the Lancet Medical Journal in 2001, a charge of three to five seconds can result in immobilization for five to 15 minutes, which would mean that Tabatabainejad could have been physically unable to stand when the officers demanded that he do so.
We only hear his screaming after he has been tased. I'll tell you something. One time I grabbed a clothes dryer and caught a strong shock. At the time I couldn't let go, and had to throw my body backwards away from the dryer to pull my hands loose. My mother was standing right next to me, but when I got my hands loose and recovered enough to try to say something, it came out in almost exactly that same scream, even though there was no reason for me to scream it. Pain alone is reason enough to scream. Anybody that is claiming that someone who has just been tasered should be calm and rational is just plain nuts.
As to whether the officer is required to provide his ID to bystanders, but refuses. Does that mean that the police officer should be tasered? It has always been my understanding that police officers are supposed to wear ID for exactly this reason; so they can be identified by bystanders if they abuse their position.
No where in any of the eywitness accounts is there any mention of the student making any attempt at violence. He went limp when he was grabbed by a police officer, which makes sense. By being limp he presents no threat, and therefore provided no justification for the police officers to resort to violence. That's exactly what I'd do too. At one point, you can hear the officers are demanding that he stand up while he is being tased. "Sure, stand up and I look like a threat, but you're already tasing me when I'm no threat. So I'm supposed to stand up and give you more reason to hurt me?" Sorry, it was the cops that were not making sense, case closed.
There are assumptions being made in this thread, that really bother me. They are contrary to the reactions of the other students who witnessed the event. Look at what's happening in the video. The other students are telling the police that they're being abusive. They are asking for the police to provide ID, and making sure that the event is being recorded on video (you can see other students also recording it on camera phone). Has anyone read anything about a witness who thinks the police were right to do what they did? If not, then why are these assumptions being made by people who weren't there?
[ November 18, 2006, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
airmanfour, to answer as clearly as possible and as politely as manageable, my point was that the real world does not demand that we turn our hearts into stone.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every once in a while the real world does demand that someone be hurt as a consequence of poor decision making.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Pelegius, just stop the moral high ground stuff, and look at REALism."
Like the police were "REAListic" in their actions. MLK was a real human being, Gandhi was a real human being— their views are as real as anyone elses.
While I'm very impressed with your attempt to furiously hyperbole this kid into the stature of a Gandhi or Martin Luther King, this kid is emphatically neither. This kid was being a dip.
He was ragdolling and attempting to incite the crowd. In some people's emotional response to the story, they decided to inherently label it "good arrest" or "bad arrest" and never got to look at the particulars without a skewed initial preconception of the event.
It's sort of a moot point now, since details are emerging that this was in no way a gross abuse of power, and the kid was acting in obstruction to legal enforcement. He's actually admitted to such by trying to play the race card.
quote:The lawyer said Tabatabainejad eventually decided to leave the library but when an officer refused the student's request to take his hand off him, the student fell limp to the floor, again to avoid participating in what he considered a case of racial profiling. After police started firing the Taser, Tabatabainejad tried to "get the beating, the use of brutal force, to stop by shouting and causing people to watch. Generally, police don't want to do their dirties in front of a lot of witnesses."
UCLA also said that Tabatabainejad refused repeated requests by a community service officer and regular campus police to provide identification or to leave. UCLA said the police decided to use the Taser to incapacitate Tabatabainejad only after the student urged other library patrons to join his resistance.
quote:Yes, I was indeed at Powell Library at approximately 11:30 on Tuesday night, and yes I did see the entire event as it went down.
Let me start off by saying that the guy DEFINITELY was asking to get his ass kicked. He was being extremely rude with the campus patrol guys (who are college students...this was before the real UCPD got called in). He was not complying with their requests to leave the premises, and he was definitely itching for a fight. I actually know the guy and a few of his friends, and I can tell you that he's the kind of guy that loves to make trouble.
Just as a little backstory, one of the quotes the guy has on his facebook (which he now has taken down) was "I like to find the most difficult solutions to the simplest of problems".
He definitely taunted the UCPD into behaving the way they did with him.
Edit: Many people have questioned the fact that the cops tazed him and asked him to get up, and tazed him again even though he shouldn't have the capability to get up. This was not the case here to my knowledge, because the cops were using their "drive-stun" method which administers less of a jolt than normal. I believe this because anyone who can ramble on about this being the patriot act and yell at the top of his lungs should have the capability of getting up.
The bits fall together. The police response was very mitigated in nearly all accounts. The repeat stuns were on account of his intent to provoke repeated stuns and draw a crowd.
As a matter of course, you must take into consideration what actions Tahanabwhatever mitigated against himself within clear application of legal and due police action. You can stun static resistors. It's encouraged because it allows cops to better manage cramped or duress situations with less chance of injury to the subject, and threat from brandished taser is enough to enact compliance with resistors without them having to pull guns.
The cops probably did go too far, though. If they tased the kid while he was cuffed, they get in trouble for that! They'll probably also get told that they don't try to assert compliance with a static resistor once tased, you just cart him out. The cops got flustered and did some things wrong, it looks like. But I'm not exactly fond of this kid getting viewed as the ohnoez victim of brutality, since the whole mess started because he was not playing by the rules and probably trying to start trouble in a fit of anti-authoritarian gooberness.
I've watched people do that before. The 'goal' is to see if you can't get the police to go just a wee bit too far by egging them on, then you try to sue the [swear word censored for sake of fragile hatrackian ears] out of them. Well -- let's find out, did he succeed?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Umm, did anybody else read this in the Bruin?
I'm seeing all kinds of assumptions that the police were called because he had not produced ID. That isn't said anywhere in any stories I read. The University Police were conducting a random ID check, and initiated the interaction by grabbing his arm, according to this report.
First, that's not what the report says. It does not say that this was the first request for the ID. Further, this is a very bad news story. The reporter should be reporting that "witnesses reported," not that this happened.
Did you read this in the Bruin?
quote:UCLA said Tabatabainejad refused repeated requests by a community service officer and campus police to provide identification or leave the computer lab. Officials said the police decided to incapacitate Tabatabainejad with the stun gun after he urged other library patrons to join his resistance.
Or this in the AP story?
quote:The incident occurred about 11 p.m. Tuesday after police did a routine check of student identifications at the University of California, Los Angeles' Powell Library computer lab.
"This is a long-standing library policy to ensure the safety of students during the late-night hours," said UCLA Police Department spokeswoman Nancy Greenstein.
She said police tried to escort Mostafa Tabatabainejad, 23, out of the library after he refused to provide ID and would not leave.
quote:You're right. I am presuming, based on the fact that the guy says "I'm not fighting you," and that the cops keep saying "Stand up" instead of "Quit kicking" or "Quit struggling," that he's not struggling.
The police said "Stop fighting us."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a UCLA alum, I have a few general comments. I know nothing about this specific case (other than what was said/linked in this thread).
Going to Powell without one's student ID would be extremely stupid. Not only has it long been policy to have to show it after 11 (and not only at Powell, but at several other locations on campus), it acts as one's library card. Campus security come around checking IDs every night, AFAIK.
I don't think this guy didn't have his ID. I think he decided to be a martyr.
The Daily Bruin is notorious for insufficient fact checking, and for finding the most rabble-rousing spin on any given story.
posted
I've kept out of this thread for the time being, mostly because Dagonee once again says pretty much anything I could want to, and far more eloquently.
I do have a small plea to Pelegius from a student of ancient languages. Please stop using the ash when forming Latinate words. It's distracting and inaccurate. You seem to care about classical usages, given your quote from "Iuvenal." Classical Latin does not have the [æ] sound. The letter was created when Latin scholars encountered the Anglo-Saxons, because Old English does have [æ].
Classical pronunciation dictates the [aɪ] diphthong, which is represented as "ae." Not æ. I have no idea why early-modern scholars adopted it - probably it was a medieval manuscript ligature and historical phonetics wasn't a big deal until more recently. Regardless, please stop using it in Latin words. It's inaccurate. It's visually jarring.
This small linguistic rant was brought to you by too much time reading Old English and Latin in one day. I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't frame it like that. Really, it's an issue of looking at what actions are mitigated by the student's noncompliance with the law.
Brutality isn't the ends of this form of law enforcement, it's applied as a means. I pull a gun on a cop, he can shoot me dead on the spot. In this circumstance, it's not that my action 'deserved' a swift and bloody execution, it's that my actions necessitated the use of deadly force on the part of a police officer, acting in the role of a functionary of the state and an element of civic control systems.
But this is only partially applicable, since the student was using static resistance as opposed to anything active. You can be threatened with tasering if you ragdoll, refuse to remove yourself from a vehicle, the street, etc. The issue is noncompliance.
In this particular situation, I'm thinking that the police went too taser happy despite having the authority to taser, so I'm doing a lot of study into when cops have the right to taser, what tasers actually do to people in stun drive mode, etc.
In the drive mode, it's kind of light a light-duty stun gun and while there's a lot of videos demonstrating full taser use (mainly from police departments where you have to have the taser tested on yourself in order to earn the rating to use one) .. not so much on stun prod mode.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Several people in this thread have referred to the "librarian" asking for his ID and then calling police. Every news source that I've read says the initial ID check was made by campus security, not a librarian. You're right that the quote I provided is not clear. Other articles make it clear that he was working on a computer in the computer lab, and was asked for his ID. Exactly what happened in that interchange I haven't seen described, only that he didn't provide the ID. At that point campus security left Powell to get armed police.
Several other stories match the description in the one I quoted, that he was apparently leaving the library when the campus security came back with the police. The quotes from UCLA police all say that he "went limp" when they tried to escort him from the building. Not one quote I've seen (even from the police themselves) claim that he was violent, only that he went limp and refused to leave.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Consider that the tasing may not have been just for the person being arrested, but for the crowd as well. Not only were they subduing a person resisting arrest, they were providing a show of force to keep the crowd in check. Once the guy started yelling about the Patriot Act and getting the crowd worked up, it's a short step to mob mentality.
I don't know if any of you have ever been in a mob scene. I've been in a very minor one, during which myself and several friends were knocked down, kicked, and nearly trampled by a group of studnets. It's very frightening, and the worst part is that there's nothing you can do about it on an individual level.
It doesn't matter if the dozen people who are about to crush you see you fallen on the ground, the fifty people behind them keep pushing forward.
Consider the fact that there a whole lot of students filing through doorways and down stairs, and you'll see that there's a large risk of harm to the officers, the students, and the man being arrested. If the crowd had gotten a few notches more aggitated, there could easily have been severe injuries instead of a single person being tased.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me it looks like the peace officers were handling the situation by the book. 1. (balancing effect) which means to get the suspect to do what you want by talking. In which case this suspect began to yell and curse which constitutes non-compliant 2.(Firm Grip) which is when the peace officer makes physical contact with the suspect in order to gain control of the situation(I believe he says in the video "get your hands off me". non-compliant 3.(Pain Compliance) which means the use of pressure points, baton, flash light, mace/pepper spray, Electronic Stun Devices in which to get the suspect hand cuffed.
As for the shocking after he was hand cuffed that is uncalled for and mst likely against the department code which is how it is for most of california at least. For the student I feel nothing, he was acting juvenile and should have refusing arrest and inciting a riot added to his other charges.
Plus the peace officers who use the tazers are considered an expert and knows what the suspect is capable of doing after each time he is stunned.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've greatly enjoyed seeing this thread develop, I've seen this in a few departments but I was wondering if it was standard practice.
Apparently for some police officers to qualify to use a tazer they have to first endure being tazered under controlled conditions, so they can empathize with the person being shocked and thus better judge the weapons appropriate use. Does anybody know how widespread this practice is? One of my good friends actually turned down a security job because they required him to endure having pepper spray applied to his eyes, as that was the only thing that particular security force carried.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Several people in this thread have referred to the "librarian" asking for his ID and then calling police.
OK, even if you're correct, this is absolutely irrelevant.
quote:Several other stories match the description in the one I quoted, that he was apparently leaving the library when the campus security came back with the police.
I'm sorry, this is too late. He's committed trespass, he's wasted a bunch of time, and he needs to be arrested at that point.
They couldn't issue a summons because he wouldn't show them ID.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Plus the peace officers who use the tazers are considered an expert and knows what the suspect is capable of doing after each time he is stunned."
Apparently they don't, because after you've been tasered for 5 seconds (the first tasering) it takes you 5-15 minutes to regain control of your body, and these police were not aware of that.
Every tas after the first one was excessive use of force... they'd already "subdued" the subject (who was, of course, subdued BEFORE they sued the taser).
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apparently they don't, because after you've been tasered for 5 seconds (the first tasering) it takes you 5-15 minutes to regain control of your body, and these police were not aware of that.
Unless you have access to some information not already linked, I don't see how you know at this point which setting the taser was on. What's your basis for this conclusion, Paul?
quote:Every tas after the first one was excessive use of force... they'd already "subdued" the subject (who was, of course, subdued BEFORE they sued the taser).
posted
"Unless you have access to some information not already linked, I don't see how you know at this point which setting the taser was on. What's your basis for this conclusion, Paul?"
Well, I've never seen any information that a pulse of about 5 seconds (the length of time the first use was on the subject) doesn't incapacitate someone for at least 5 minutes, and everything I've seen on tasers either explicitly or implicitly says that you will be incapacitated with a pulse of 3 seconds or more.
In other words, it doesn't matter what the power of the weapon was... if its a taser, and its used on you for for 3 seconds or more, you are down and out. I've checked out wikipedia, plus several companies that sell tasers, and their information.
Do you have any information that says otherwise?
"Cuffed != Subdued."
True. But lying on the ground not indicating any liklihood of fighting the officers=subdued.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here in FLorida we had a guy kill three police officers after being cuffed and placed in the backseat of the car. Cops can never be too careful with a suspect.
quote: In a recent episode of Dateline's 'To Catch a Predator'. A man was fleeing the scene, the police ordered him to stop which he did immediately. The police (several of them at once) started yelling at him to 'get on the ground'. The subject stopped, turned toward the police, and raised his hands. No aspect of his actions or his body language could be construded as 'aggressive' or 'threatening'. He was clearly surrendering. Yet, within a second of him clearly surrendering, he was tasered simply because he hadn't 'gotten on the ground'. The whole incident lasted less than 5 seconds before he was tasered.
Cops don't want you looking at them when they go to cuff you. If you can't see them, you're less dangerous. In this example, the guy has already fled once and is now standing looking at them. He can still be getting ready to kill them, even if his body language doesn't show it.
We've had a lot of cops get killed in the line of duty here in Florida. I take the opinion that if you don't fully comply with all police instructions, you are giving the officer cause to beleive you intend to harm them. Do some cops go overboard? Sure. Do all of them? No.
And frankly, I'd have a lot less suspicion of brutality claims if you didn't hear them every single time the police used force. It's the boy crying wolf. I've got no patience left for it.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:True. But lying on the ground not indicating any liklihood of fighting the officers=subdued
No, that = not fighting. It does not mean compliant with lawful orders. Resisting arrest does not require force, but resistance. Most states have multiple levels of the offense.
quote:Well, I've never seen any information that a pulse of about 5 seconds (the length of time the first use was on the subject) doesn't incapacitate someone for at least 5 minutes, and everything I've seen on tasers either explicitly or implicitly says that you will be incapacitated with a pulse of 3 seconds or more.
In other words, it doesn't matter what the power of the weapon was... if its a taser, and its used on you for for 3 seconds or more, you are down and out. I've checked out wikipedia, plus several companies that sell tasers, and their information.
Do you have any information that says otherwise?
Did your reports mention the multiple levels and account for the difference? Until then, I have no basis for believing that your reports are taking multiple levels into account, and no certainly no basis for "it doesn't matter what the power of the weapon was."
Either way, I'm the one who has maintained from the beginning that I don't have enough information to judge this yet. I'm advocating waiting until we know more before making definitive statements about whether this was police brutality.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe there wouldn't be so many claims of police brutality if the police weren't brutal on so many occassions?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Did your reports mention the multiple levels and account for the difference? Until then, I have no basis for believing that your reports are taking multiple levels into account, and no certainly no basis for "it doesn't matter what the power of the weapon was.""
No, they've all said that tasering for 3 seconds results in incapacitence. Period. End of discussion of immediate effects of being tasered for 3 seconds or more.
Do you have information that different levels of tasering do not always result in incapacitence if someone is tasered for more then 3 seconds? Or are you just guessing?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, they've all said that tasering for 3 seconds results in incapacitence. Period. End of discussion of immediate effects of being tasered for 3 seconds or more.
So you don't know if multiple levels are mentioned in that statement. OK, good to know.
quote:Do you have information that different levels of tasering do not always result in incapacitence if someone is tasered for more then 3 seconds? Or are you just guessing?
You mean like you're guessing about multiple levels being taken into account? You can't see the guy after the first tasing, you don't know if he was moving, you don't know if there are exceptions, and you don't know if the multiple levels affect the time required.
Please read the last sentence of my previous post again and acknowledge that I, unlike you, haven't posted a conclusion about whether this suspect was incapacitated after the first tasing.
I'm not guessing anything. You are.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you are guessing something, dagonee. You're guessing that its possible to not be incapacitated after being tasered for the length of time this guy was tasered.
I, on the other hand, have found no mention ANYWHERE that it is possible not to be incapacitated by a taser if shocked for more then 3 seconds. On the other hand, I have found information that you WILL be incapacitated if you are shocked for 3 seconds or more.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:es, you are guessing something, dagonee. You're guessing that its possible to not be incapacitated after being tasered for the length of time this guy was tasered.
Yes, I am guessing something is possible. I am guessing that tasers are not somehow the only man-made device that always function perfectly, affect all people exactly the same, and have multiple settings that don't actually do anything different.
quote:I, on the other hand, have found no mention ANYWHERE that it is possible not to be incapacitated by a taser if shocked for more then 3 seconds. On the other hand, I have found information that you WILL be incapacitated if you are shocked for 3 seconds or more.
You are guessing that 1) the battery was fully charged, 3) the device was functioning properly, 3) multiple levels do not affect incapacitation, 4) this person was not unusual in his response to tasers.
In short, you're GUESSING that he was incapacitated. I'm reserving judgment.
BTW, I thought you did research and didn't find ANY source saying is possible not to be incapacitated by a taser if shocked for more then 3 seconds. From wiki:
quote:The recipient that is 'connected' to a stun gun feels great pain and can be momentarily paralyzed (only so long as there is an electrical current being applied) because his muscles are receiving electrical 'shock'. The (relatively) low electric current must be pushed by (relatively) high voltage to overcome the electrical resistance of the human body.
quote:What is it like to be incapacitated by a Taser weapon? When fired the Taser propels two barbed darts with trailing wires that attach to the skin or clothing. Upon impact a 50,000-volt electric shock is discharged into the victim for a period of five seconds. Whilst the barbs remain attached this discharge can be repeated multiple times by pulling the trigger again (and again). The immediate effects are debilitating. The current causes involuntary muscle contraction and extreme pain. The victim completely loses control over their body and falls to the floor until the current stops. The whole experience is both painful and degrading.
quote:Scottsdale-based Taser International has warned police departments that its newest electric stun gun, the X26, has recently failed to subdue some suspects.
As a result, the company has decided to increase the power of the weapon by about 14 percent. The change is intended to make the gun more effective, according to a bulletin the company has sent to police departments.
A spokesman, Steve Tuttle, said the change to the X26 did not mean that the weapon was unsafe or did not work. Taser says its guns are successful about 95 percent of the time, although an independent study by the Defense Department found a much lower rate of effectiveness.
...
Independent data on the effectiveness of Taser's weapons is difficult to find. The question of effectiveness is further complicated because the X26 delivers an electric shock only about 25 percent as large as that delivered by Taser's other electric gun, the M26. The X26 has about the same amount of power as the company's original weapon, the Air Taser, which Taser stopped selling after finding that it often failed to work.
In marketing material, Taser says the X26 works as well as the M26 despite its lower power output because it delivers its electric shock in a special wave form that enters the body more efficiently. Both guns put out multiple pulses of electricity each second, causing muscles to tighten and loosen uncontrollably.
See p. 3 for an account of a man taking a full 5-second shot of the more powerful model and getting to his feet within a couple of seconds of the end of it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, Paul, I checked with my buddy Deputy Brown. When he was qualifying, he was zapped for three seconds. It hurt a lot, but it did not incapacitate him.
Apparently, it's not the electricity that messes you up. It's something called p-waves. That's what your brain uses to communicate with your muscles. The taser's p-waves interfer with your body's communication and cause your muscles to tense up.
Once the voltage stops, the effects stop.
Tasers are preset to fire a five second burst. The cycle can be interrupted for shorter bursts, or multiple bursts can be used. My friend has seen tasing for 10 seconds at a time with no ill effects.
He suggests checking Taser International for more info. Apparently, that's who the cops use around here.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
An incident where after repeated 3+ second tazes an individual is still mobile. The response to a taze depends on many things. In this videos case the guy is blitzed. My guess is that the effect tazers have can depend on body mass, athleticism, even level of hydration.
Tazing can render you immoble but in some cases the individual will only be disoriented and in some situations a taze can be shaken off quickly.
The following videos show the varied responses and recovery times of people enduring tazer training.
Complete incapacitation is not the result in many of these tests, especially in athletic, youthfull or high mass individuals. It's painfull, not lethal. Also note the recovery time.
Additionally, It seems to me that people don't realize the requisite level of situational awareness that is inherent in police work. Officers have specific guidlines they follow in these situations and these guidlines are in place to minimize uneccessary injury and death for both civilians and police.
It seems to me our cultures current outlook on Police officers is defined more by hollywood and tabloid magazines then through any actual contact with the law enforcment community.
Because of this they become paraiahs in a social sense and often aren't afforded due process in the court of public opinion. For me it's tough to judge somone who has employment wherein they have to consider facing life threating situations on a daily basis.
I would also like to point out that just because somone has been hancuffed you cannot imply that they are either compliant or a non threat. Even while restrained a non compliant individual can present a serious threat for injury to both him/herself and the responding officers. That is why officers give specific instructions to these individuals. They also tell them what consequences thier non complience entails.
IMO the individual in question had ample opportunity to avoid the outcome.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
The point here isn't that it's possible that the subject was not disabled by the taser.
The point is that it's NOT reasonable for police officers to demand that a subject "stand up or we'll taser you again" if there is ANY possibility that the subject isn't capable of standing up.
It would have been appropriate for the police officers to ask "can you stand up?" I didn't hear them say that. It would have been appropriate for the police officers to tell him that they were going to give him some time to recover, and that he should tell them when he was ready to stand up.
quote:I'm sorry, this is too late. He's committed trespass, he's wasted a bunch of time, and he needs to be arrested at that point.
"Needs to be"? Sorry. There are mandatory arrest laws for certain circumstances, such as drunken driving, or domestic abuse. You're the lawyer. Find me a statute that says that simple trespass requires an arrest. Unless there was another charge, all that needed to happen was for him to leave the library, which apparently is what he was doing when they grabbed him.
If he had been resisting arrest without offering to leave, that would be a different story, but again, I've seen very little explanation of what happened between the time the CSO asked for ID and the time the Campus police grabbed his arm.
What really bothers me about this thread is that "presumption of innocence" has been completely turned on its head.
Take the role of the police officers entering the building. You've been told by the CSO that a student didn't show his ID and refused to leave. As you enter the building, the student is walking toward the door, and the CSO identifies him. What action needs to be taken at this point?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he refused to leave before? He should be arrested (as I mentioned before, summons would be OK if he had ID), especially if the library has had to implement this policy for security reasons.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
