Warning there are several expletives, in the student footage and it's VERY loud so turn your speakers down or the volume on youtube.
I'm not going to pass total judgement personally as we are still by all accounts getting one eyewitness account (take it with a grain of salt or not) and the video still seems to be somewhere in the middle of the encounter.
If somebody even agrees to leave but then doesn't move and screams, "Don't touch me," do the police have the right to use "dry tazer" techniques or any non lethal means to cause the person to submit? If the police are simply trying to get you to leave or move what IS and IS NOT within their option spectrum?
Is there any sort of punishment for saying, "I have a medical condition!" if it turns out that that is not true?
I admit I tend to be sympathetic typically towards the police, alot of the students there seemed quite confrontational, but admittedly restrained.
Also, I know police are required to give you their badge numbers, and obviously there is no protocols stating when it must be given, I assumed police are allowed to control the situation before worrying about giving their badge numbers to bystanders. Or am I wrong and should you insist on getting numbers, how do you do so appropriately?
Should the police be diciplined IYO? Or were they right to handle the situation as they did?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been in a heated debate about this on another forum and everyone there thinks I'm crazy, so I'm interested to see what other people's responses are.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not get why they didn't just cuff his wrists and legs and carry him out.
I would guess that you're not supposed to taser someone unless you are doing it to protect yourself or someone else. This looks like the tasering was for punishment.
I am proud of the students for standing up to the cops.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless there's more to the story, it certainly sounds like use of unnecessary force to me. They said he was inciting a riot, but the only possible construal of that is that after the police had already started tazering him, other students stood up for him. Your cause to tazer can't be an effect of your tazering.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he was going to leave, then why wasn't he gone before the police showed up? It's a lot shorter route to the door for him than it is from the police station (or where-ever the police were coming from). I think the students are just protecting "one of their own." But I have been known to be wrong before.
The police could have at least cuffed his hands and led him down any stairs if any. Really though, a taser and being carried out is far from brutallity. That and his arguement while being carried out made absolutely no sense.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I mean, they guy was screaming "I have a medical condition." What if he had a pacemaker and their taser had messed it up?
Responsible of the students to ask for their badge numbers.
And how does "get up or you'll get tased again" make any sense? Stop tasing him and he might get up! Either way, you can't tase him to compel action. You cuff him, and you carry him out. Even the students were yelling "pick him up!" I can't understand a lot of what they are saying once they get into that hallway, too much echo.
Scary though, that scene looked like a recipe for how a riot starts. I don't know if I'd call it police brutality like on the scale of that video of the cops repeatedly punching that guy in the face, but, this situation strikes me as wrong. I can't name the law that was broken, but that can't possibly be police procedure.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: According to the Times, police said they used the Taser only after Tabatabainejad urged other library patrons to resist the police
I don't know. The kid might have thought he was being racially profiled (that's what the lawyer is saying anyway). Whatever the case may be, Why was he even there to begin with? I think both parties involved are messed up some.
posted
Is he a student or not? I keep hearing him referred to as a student, but if he was, why didn't he show them his ID? If he wasn't, why do news reports keep calling him a student?
And I don't remember him urging the others to join in resisting the police. They seemed pretty keen on getting involved without prompting.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I said I don't know. Each report reads different. Google News is listing almost 400 articles on this so far.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While i agree the student probably should have just left the premises when initally asked to leave, in which case none of this would have happened, it still looked to me like it was a completely unnecessary use of force. I was glad he stuck up for himself, as well as the other students that were outraged by the actions of the police.
Did you hear the cop at the end threaten the one student who was talking to him? "get back in there or i'll taser you too"!!!
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, It says in both articles that he refused to show his ID because he believed he was being singled out because of his middle eastern heritage.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Lyrhawn, It says in both articles that he refused to show his ID because he believed he was being singled out because of his middle eastern heritage.
I gathered as much too. Lots of students at my school attend but do not have ID's, you don't need one to enter the library but you do to check out any materials, I imagine not all schools are the same, it seems perfectly reasonable to request ID before allowing entrance.
I doubt the police materialized there instantly, there HAD to have been some event that took place that was serious enough to warrant the librarian, an usher, or assistant calling police or security of any type.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:he refused to show his ID because he believed he was being singled out because of his middle eastern heritage.
Which is a stupid reason to not give your ID to the police, especially when it appears the police were well within their rights - in fact, carrying out an explicit duty - to ask anyone in the library for their ID at that time.
I couldn't find the links, but there was a college dance on the east coast which was crashed by several non-students who ended up shooting a student. There was quite a lot of outrage that the University didn't keep non-students who were not guests of students out of the dance. Assuming the library is closed to all but students/faculty after a certain time, campus security should be checking IDs after that time.
(Note: this goes to the asking for ID and justness of arresting for refusal to comply with an order to leave after a refusal to show it, not to anything related to use of force. I don't have enough info to make a call on the appropriateness of the use of force yet. I can't watch the video right now.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did you hear the cop at the end threaten the one student who was talking to him? "get back in there or i'll taser you too"!!!
Again, I haven't watched the video, but I have no problem with an officer threatening force to move back people closing in on an arrest if the circumstances are right. It depends on how close this guy was to the officers, whether he was moving toward the officer, and whether he was occupying too much of the officer's attention to allow the officer to stay alert to possible threats.
This is an incredibly dangerous time, and people who get in an officer's face trying to "explain" what's going on, who won't back off when ordered to, or who approach uninvited are a serious danger to the officer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is an incredibly dangerous time, and people who get in an officer's face trying to "explain" what's going on, who won't back off when ordered to, or who approach uninvited are a serious danger to the officer.
This is very true, especially the principle of occupying the officers attention. I suggest you find some time to watch the video Dag, though I imagine you already planned to when occasion permits.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The video just shows what happened later though. It doesn't show what happened before. It's only part of the story, and not really that much to go off of.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the student was acting in a completely ridiculous manner. Let's remember this is a library, how many times do people scream in normal conversation at the library. The kid was obviously not moving and following orders, and he was yelling in a library, likely just to draw attention.
It just reminds me of episodes of Reno 911 where some loser in a white tee-shirt and tighty-whiteys in the middle of an alley says he'll comply, then keeps running away. Get over yourself, go outside, explain the situation there. Don't be a martyr over the fact that you can't follow rules.
And the police probably didn't have to taze him so quickly, but I guess if they were trying to deal with the situation as quickly as possible, it seemed logical on their end. Not the brightest move though.
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's very difficult to defend the way these campus cops used the taser.
They did it at least four times (five, I think, since he alludes to being shocked before the video began). And they did it after he was already handcuffed. (People seem not to have grasped this fact, but it's there in the video. The cuffs are on him. http://www.dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960 )
As to whether he was inciting the other students, it should be clear to anyone watching the video that the crowd was very calm and controlled. Neither the kid himself nor the crowd was posing any sort of apparent threat to anyone. And I don't hear him doing any inciting, except to cry out that the use of force was unjust. That's just a statement of obvious fact.
This kid is going to make some serious money off the lawsuit to come, and rightly so.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone but the bystanders played the whole thing stupidly.
My favorite part was when the guy started railing against the Patriot Act as if that's how the rent-a-cops were able to tazer him.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the Patriot Act speech was pretty silly.
But put yourself in the mindset of a Middle Eastern guy who's just been tasered in his school library for no good reason...
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that the student acted on poor judgement, but the police seem beyond defense. Attacking an unarmed person who was not behaving violently for the crime of refusing to show ID to police (which I assume is a crime) is just wrong.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See again if he had just refused to show ID the library staff would have asked him to leave, what happened from there until the moment that student turned on his camera is still pretty uncertain.
edit: Why were the police called in the first place I think is an unanswered question of deep importance.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, there's a lot we don't know about this case. But even if (to use an extreme example) the student had threatened the police with a weapon or something before the video started, there's no justification for using tasers on him after he's handcuffed.
I think we know enough to determined that the police acted wrongly.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
from what i gathered, he for some reason didn't show ID to the library staff, but also refused to leave. they called the cops who came to escort him out. confrontation ensued, and that's where the video comes in.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Attacking an unarmed person who was not behaving violently for the crime of refusing to show ID to police
This characterization - popular amongst several UCLA students as well - is very inaccurate.
quote:As to whether he was inciting the other students, it should be clear to anyone watching the video that the crowd was very calm and controlled
Bull. Try imagining it from eye-level, especially when the crowd made the rush through the door. There were several instances where it is not clear they are are going to stop, and several more where one officer has to intervene to keep them away from the suspect.
The crowd was as calm as it was in part because the police were controlling the front of it. That doesn't mean this isn't a very dangerous situation for officers.
quote:And I don't hear him doing any inciting, except to cry out that the use of force was unjust. That's just a statement of obvious fact.
You can't see what's happening at the time he yells "Don't touch me." (Paraphrased not exact quote.) I suspect it is at this point that he pushed the officer or shrugged away from him, and at that point he is resisting arrest. He's yelling "I said I would leave" as if that changes the fact that he's being arrested for trespassing.
He is clearly irrational at the beginning of the video, and irrational people are dangerous. The fact that he is resisting like this definitely is relevant to the officer's state of mind as to whether a danger existed. At the time he says he's not fighting, he also yells "I said I would leave." In response to being told to stand up he says "f&^% you." He never says he can't stand up. He's resisting arrest.
Then the onlooker asks him for the badge number in the middle of the incident, when the guy is definitely struggling and trying to get away. The officer has no responsibility to give it to him at that point and every right to back him off.
I need to do it second by second and analyze each individual application of the tazer to decide if this was excessive force. But it's not as clear as some people seem to think it is.
I also think people lack a lot of understanding about how much both he and the officers can get hurt if they try to carry him while he's resisting. If he shrugs out of their grasp and hits his head, he can suffer serious injury. It is very easy to inadvertantly dislocate shoulders or break arms when dragging someone who is cuffed. I know a lot of prolife protestors were injured when carried while limp, and police tactics to limp suspects were changed as a result.
That's not to say the officers were correct in their actions. But it seems to me those rushing to judgment have considered about a tenth of what needs to be considered.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He is clearly irrational at the beginning of the video, and irrational people are dangerous."
I am far more disturbed by the officer's "rationality," if that is what their evidently total lack of pathos indeed is. Almost chillingly non-human. Unnatural vices are born of emotion, but evil is born of banality.
I was impressed by the way in which the students calmly attempted to remind the officers of their duty, and take their badge numbers.
I have no interest in what is legal or illegal, Legalism is a dangerous mindset to my eyes. The greatest crimes are the legal ones, the crimes of bureaucrats and soldiers who follow orders. Everything that happened in Gulags, Death Camps and killing fields was not only legal, it was done in the name of the law. That is what Hannah Arendt meant we she wrote of the "banality of evil," how it is born not of hatred (for she did not find Eichmann to be a particularly hateful man) but of compliance.
quote: I had to obey the rules of war and my flag. I am ready.
Last words of Adolf Eichmann
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I need to do it second by second and analyze each individual application of the tazer to decide if this was excessive force. But it's not as clear as some people seem to think it is.
Wait, you're saying that use of a taser on an unarmed, handcuffed, seated person can sometimes count as "necessary"?
I feel like if there isn't a blanket injunction against that sort of force, there should be.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
For nonviolently resisting arrest, the nonviolence is and must be the deciding factor. The first side to use of threaten force is almost always the first side to loose the moral high ground.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Use of a tazer is nonleathal (with exception of medical). You what? Wanted them to use their batons on him? That is too far up of a level of force to use for this. The videos are incomplete, so we don't know how much was done to talk him out of it.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait, you're saying that use of a taser on an unarmed, handcuffed, seated person can sometimes count as "necessary"?
I feel like if there isn't a blanket injunction against that sort of force, there should be.
He's not visible for most of the taser shots, so I'm not sure why you're stating the scenario as you are.
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)?
quote:"he was tazed for resisting arrest."
For nonviolently resisting arrest, the nonviolence is and must be the deciding factor. The first side to use of threaten force is almost always the first side to loose the moral high ground.
One, you don't know that. The start of the incident is not on camera. We know he was telling the police to remove their hands. We know he was loud and profane. We don't know if he tried to escape or if he pushed an officer.
Second, even if I grant you your description of events, it still means your initial description, and the description repeated by several UCLA students, was inaccurate.
Finally, your contention that use of force in response to no force is untenable if we are going to have police officers arrest people. Suppose I steal a diamond ring. The police tell me to halt. I do, but then I simply don't obey when they tell me to allow them to cuff me. Are you saying I shouldn't be arrested?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said "the first side to use of threaten force is almost always the first side to loose the moral high ground." It is clear that force, in response to force, is often necessary.
I am concerned that this is becoming a legal argument, that you are arguing as a lawyer. I cannot hope to win a legal argument and am not interested in doing so. I am interested in a study of the use of force and nonviolence.
It would seem the police have already lost. Anytime authority is seen using force against nonviolence or using excessive force in response to minimal violence, authority has lost. That is why nonviolence is so effective in countries with free press.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said "the first side to use of threaten force is almost always the first side to loose the moral high ground." It is clear that force, in response to force, is often necessary.
But in my diamond example I haven't used force. I've simply refused to comply.
quote:I am concerned that this is becoming a legal argument, that you are arguing as a lawyer. I cannot hope to win a legal argument and am not interested in doing so. I am interested in a study of the use of force and nonviolence.
I'm not sure why you think that. Neither response to you has been about the law.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Noncompliance is the nature of nonviolent resistance.
"I'm not sure why you think that. Neither response to you has been about the law."
Perhaps I should have been more clear: the minutiæ of the case are of little interest compared to the larger questions raised. Little interest that is, except to lawyers.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks to me like the cops were doing their job. They weren't beating an innocent man, they were trying to protect the students from an unknown person in the library who was causing a disturbance and resisting arrest.
Every time they asked him, calmly and professionally to comply with their orders and leave the building, the acted like a spoiled child, yelling, swearing, falling to the ground.
When the police tell you ten times that they're going to taze you, and you swear at them and scream in their face, surprise, you get tazed.
I'm glad that the police handled it as well as they did. Towards the end of the student video when there were dozens of students yelling, coming down the stairs from several locations, yelling at the cops. I was afraid there would be a riot, and I wasn't even there.
I hope that idiot who got arrested doesn't get a penny.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"he acted like a spoiled child, yelling, swearing, falling to the ground."
I am not even sure how to respond to that except by asking if spoiled children also deserve to be electrocuted by police forces.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Noncompliance is the nature of nonviolent resistance.
Yes, and do claimed that the police would lose the moral high ground if they used force to arrest me. Since they have no way to arrest me absent force, you seem to be suggesting that if I choose to use no force, the person arresting me is less moral than I.
I don't buy that. The fact that your general rule leads to what I consider an immoral result is evidence to me that the general rule is either wrong or incomplete.
quote:Perhaps I should have been more clear: the minutiæ of the case are of little interest compared to the larger questions raised. Little interest that is, except to lawyers.
I know many non-lawyers who would discuss the rightness and wrongness of such an incident by focusing on the minute details.
You seem to enjoy making sweeping moral pronouncements. However, sweeping moral pronouncements are useless if they cannot be mapped to situations where people must decide what to do. And to make that choice, a person must consider the minutia.
Further, you seemed willing to make a conclusion about the morality of how the police officers acted - specifically that it is "beyond defense." I have no real problem if someone comes to the conclusion that the use of force was unjustified. At best their use of force was marginal in my opinion, and I haven't made up my mind fully.
I do have a problem with someone declaring the officers to be "beyond defense" who refuses to consider the actual situation the officers faced. And the only way to do that honestly is to look at the minutia.
If that bores you too much, then you should refrain from judging specific incidents.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "he acted like a spoiled child, yelling, swearing, falling to the ground."
I am not even sure how to respond to that except by asking if spoiled children also deserve to be electrocuted by police forces.
Actually, there's a lot to be learned about the situation by considering a child having a temper tantrum.
Have you ever had to carry a two-year old having a temper tantrum? You're likely to end up bruised, you have to be very careful not to drop them - which is made very hard to do by the twisting, kicking and flailing about they do.
Now imagine that the person you're carrying weighs 10 times as much and is about 20 times as strong. Even with restrained arms, it's hard and it's dangerous.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Since they have no way to arrest me absent force, you seem to be suggesting that if I choose to use no force, the person arresting me is less moral than I."
Depeding on the crime. Refusal to show ID is not much of a crime by any standards, not worth beating people up over.
"However, sweeping moral pronouncements are useless if they cannot be mapped to situations where people must decide what to do."
On the contrary, specific instances are useless unless the can be formed into philosophical theses. Isn't that part of the basis of common law? It is certainly a driving force in my study of history.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Now imagine that the person you're carrying weighs 10 times as much and is about 20 times as strong. Even with restrained arms, it's hard and it's dangerous."
Doubtless, yet you stop short of saying parents should be equiped with tasers, why?
Perhaps becouse the use of such force would be excessive?
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Since they have no way to arrest me absent force, you seem to be suggesting that if I choose to use no force, the person arresting me is less moral than I."
Depending on the crime. Refusal to show ID is not much of a crime by any standards, not worth beating people up over.
But refusal to leave when the reason for requiring the ID in the first place is to ensure that possibly dangerous outsiders are excluded is a worth arresting people for. Resisting arrest is a crime worth using force to stop. Not necessarily any possible level of force, but some force.
BTW, there's a lot of force between "none" and "beating people up."
quote:On the contrary, specific instances are useless unless the can be formed into philosophical theses. Isn't that part of the basis of common law? It is certainly a driving force in my study of history.
No, it's not. Common law is based on the minutia. Sure, there are broad themes. Were those themes followed exclusively, much injustice would result. Common law's shape derives from the distinguishing of otherwise similar situations based on the minute details.
quote:Doubtless, yet you stop short of saying parents should be equiped with tasers, why?
Well, now we have to look at details: 1) the level of culpability in a two-year old is much less. They can't necessarily understand the choice facing them nor do they necessarily have full control over their actions. This person chose to resist armed officers. 2.) As you quoted, the level of danger and amount of injury at risk with adults is significantly greater.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pel, sit and think of what you just wrote. READ Dagonee's post, and don't construe it out of proportions. He wasn't talking about tazering, he was reffering to how much damage can be done. THAT IS IT!
Refusal to show ID can be very much a crime. Just try getting on any military installation without one. If you refuse to turn away, I will arrest you. If you struggle, I have pepper spray, a baton, and a 9-mill on hand. Where do you want me to start? I'll tell you, not with those 3. Unless you show some kind of threat to me anyways. Then I would probably give you 2 warnings and spray you.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Were those themes followed exclusively, much injustice would result."
Probably less than resulting from contemporary strict legalism. I believe the man under attack actually quoted Portia, he certainly said something similar, but here it is in context
quote: The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes: 'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown; His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute to awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; But mercy is above this sceptred sway; It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew, Though justice be thy plea, consider this, That, in the course of justice, none of us Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy; And that same prayer doth teach us all to render The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much To mitigate the justice of thy plea; Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.
Shakespeare, as usual, had a better understanding of humans than most. These words should be inscribed on every courtroom in the world, along with the dire warnings of Iuvenal
quote: sed quid custodiet ipsos custodes? But who shall guard the guardians themselves?
quote:"Were those themes followed exclusively, much injustice would result."
Probably less than resulting from contemporary strict legalism.
Doubtful.
I'm not going to trade quotes with you. If you want to refuse to engage what actually happened then you should have the decency to not judge what actually happened. Once you take it upon yourself to judge - as you have - then you have a moral duty to consider every aspect of the situation. If you choose to live in your clouds and only view morality from a thousand feet, then stop commenting on what happens down here in the forest.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
