posted
I've had to be a part of a restraint before. When one of our clients has a meltdown and needs (non-violent) restraint, one person from each house in the centre is called to go help, in addition to all the staff normally in the house of the person being restrained. That means seven extra bodies in addition to the two-five already in the house. For one person's restraint.
I know at least one person in the centre who can and will kick the people standing behind him in the head while he's in restraint. When a restraint becomes a floor restraint, it requires four people minimum to carry it out properly. And it's still dangerous to the restrainers.
You cannot know what a person is capable of. The restraint of any person, even the most mild, is definitely dangerous. If you don't know the person, the danger level goes through the roof. You don't know what they are capable of, and what they might attempt, even when lying on the ground.
The man was already acting erraticly and disobeying police instructions. After that, they have no reason to trust him. I know I wouldn't. The presence of a large and potentially hostile crowd would make me anxious to get out of the situation as fast as I possibly could.
I don't know what happened before that camera started rolling. I know that if I walked into a situation like that with the experiences I've already had, I would probably react in much the same manner. To me it looks like they were in a potentially very dangerous situation, and doing their best to get it over with in the safest and fastest manner possible.
There's a lot of people here whose criticism I've read, and I can tell by the words that they've likely never been in a situation like that. Even when you've been trained so that it comes automatically, it is a situation that plays havoc with your adrenaline. You weren't there, and if you never have been, be careful about saying what the officers "should" have done.
posted
Ok, running this past Deputy Brown in more detail, he feels the officers got nervous and messed up a bit. Once the suspect was in cuffs, he'd have hauled him out bodily and certainly not tased him again. (I think that might have been more uncomfortable with his feet bumping down the stairs all the way, but ok.)
As for his opinion of the crowd, well, let's just say they should be glad it wasn't Deputy Brown at the scene. He'd have offered them the choice to back off or join the other kid in getting arrested. He feels pepper spray would have been warrented to keep the crowd back at a safe distance.
In the end, anything we say is armchair quarterbacking. None of us was there risking our lives. None of us can know for sure how we'd have reacted, only how we hope we'd have reacted.
Slapping cuffs on a guy and removing him from a volitile situation is neither arresting him nor presuming his guilt. Deputy Teems has told me plenty of stories where he's cuffed someone and put them in the back seat to keep everyone safe while he sorts out what happened. They don't all go to jail.
I'll be the first to tell you I don't trust cops. I've had some unpleasant experiences with them myself. But I've never seen a cop pick a fight with someone. Whatever else they've done, they've put safety first.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the presumption of innocence is at all out the window. Nobody has even brought up the adjudication of this kid. The only people whose guilt or innocence is at all in question here are the cops, and I see Dagonee and others saying that it may have been excessive but that they cannot say that with absolute certainty based on the limited information they have. The only people I see throwing out the presumption of innocence is those who say that this is absolutely police brutality, and that there can be no question of this, and that those who question this are some kind of authoritarian police state monsters. Or aren't the police entitled to the same level of consideration as the student in this situation?
Hell, I think it's excessive and that the cops messed up, but many of the posters on tha side of the issue are pushing me into Dagonee's camp with their absolutism and their moral grandstanding.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Why should he be arrested if he's in the active process of leaving? For that matter, why issue a summons?
Again, find me a statute that says that arrest is mandatory for simple tresspass. Where are you getting this "should" from?
(edit: darn 50 post page limit, didn't see the other posts)
Icarus, I guess I see your point about who needs defending. Essentially you're saying that the police deserve presumption of innocence as well. I think everybody has conceded that we don't know enough about the situation to make judgments, which is why I'm breaking it down into component parts.
I can't understand Dag's assumption that a student who is walking towards the door needs to be arrested on the word of a security officer who says that he refused to show ID and refused to leave. If he's in the active process of leaving, doesn't that refute the CSO's statement that "he wouldn't leave?"
The policy was put in place primarily to keep out non-students, particularly the homeless, who may try to sleep in the library. If the guy's leaving, the problem's solved.
I can also see the position of a student who is working on research, and gets asked to leave. He's got a web page open, he's copying down notes, and he's told to leave. "Hold on, let me just finish this..."
To answer my own question, if I was the police officer walking into the library, and found the student walking out, the appropriate response would have been to watch him, to see if he's leaving. If he does I have no reason to touch him. If he doesn't, I still don't think it's reasonable to assume that the CSO's statement is enough to arrest him. I'd ask him if he's aware of the 11:00 policy, and ask him if he has ID, or if he's planning to leave. All of this is phrased in the form of a question, rather than a command.
If his response is belligerent, then I could see the whole situation changing fast.
[ November 19, 2006, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is he leaving to do? Is he leaving to go home or is he leaving to go get a weapon and return?
I think his earlier behavior (and behavior once they tried to arrest him) warrented the cops talking to him for a bit to see what he was up to.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why should he be arrested if he's in the active process of leaving? For that matter, why issue a summons?
[quote]Again, find me a statute that says that arrest is mandatory for simple tresspass. Where are you getting this "should" from?
Never said it was mandatory. Almost no arrest is mandatory - the sole exception I'm aware of is in some states where there is an allegation of domestic abuse and there is either physical evidence or an admission. Arrest isn't even mandatory in murder cases.
The should is a policy preference for trespass charges when people refuse to leave when asked. Once the police have to come out, if they find probable cause for trespass, they should summons or charge it.
At this point the cops had every right to stop him because it's clear that reasonable suspicion of trespass had occurred. As AvidReader said, at minimum I want him stopped to be investigated so an assessment can be made. Really, though, I'm in favor of charges when someone refuses to leave when asked to do so by a proper person (Campus Security here, a store manager in a store, etc.).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is he leaving to do? Is he leaving to go home or is he leaving to go get a weapon and return?
Now this gets straight back into presumption of innocence. You can't go around assuming that someone is leaving to get a weapon and return. You've got absolutely no basis to make that accusation.
I still haven't seen any statment from the CSO describing the behavior of the student before the police returned.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
As I said earlier, I was in Powell in August. My son and I began our tour of the campus there, and he's currently applying to go there. I certainly hope he gets in, but my perspective is that the police behavior made the situation less safe, not more.
Again, I base my assessment on the behavior of the people in the video, who approached the police in defense of the student. When the police begin threatening innocent bystanders, there's something terribly wrong.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying that you are leaving is not leaving. His statements came after a specific point of no return.
He had ample opportunity to leave before the officers arrived.
If he actually was walking out when the officers arrived they couldn't have confronted him near all those students. I think that because he was still there when the cops arrived indicates he had no intention of leaving at all. Until it finally sunk in that the cops were going arrest him for tresspassing.
Then come the assurances that he will leave. But at this point it time to go downtown and it is too late to initate the "active process of leaving." Which for people acting rationally entails about twenty to fourty seconds of walking.
To me its like the kids in grade school that tease someone till they lash out and then cry foul as if they had nothing to do with it. Often they even believe in thier own innocence.
Think about the evolution of the incident. It's not as if the cops walked in looked a the kid demanded he show his id and before he could say boo tazed him. The individual definitely went through many phases where he could have resolved the situation with out getting tazed.
I don't think the debate should be about whether or not force should have been used in the situation, rather how much.
This individual had a great number of ways to avoid the situation and chose not to in a belligerent fashion.
Or is the implied suggestion that if the person is uncooperative, throwing tantrums like 180 lb toddler that you should just let them walk?
I don't understand why people refuse to realize that this kid could have complied at any point in this process and this would not have happened. Maybe I should repeat that. Again.
The kid was too stupid to leave when he did not have the authorization to be there. He could have left and everything would have been fine.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya know, one thing I haven't read in the news reports is of any charge of lawbreaking or even reasonable suspicion that the student was a suspect in a crime that preceded the confrontation.
And while the SupremeCourt has ruled that asking for identification is legal when police officers are engaging in a manhunt, it has also ruled in Lawson v Kolender that there must be probable cause for such stops.
So what is the preceding/underlying probable cause in this case? Cuz thus far, the resisting arrest charge seems to be nothing more than malicious abuse of the legal system by the DistictAttorney to cover up criminal misconduct by the police.
quote:Again, I base my assessment on the behavior of the people in the video, who approached the police in defense of the student. When the police begin threatening innocent bystanders, there's something terribly wrong.
Distracting someone who is attempting to restrain a potentially dangerous person instantly makes you a hazard. You (hypothetical you) might be innocent in intent, but you aren't thinking of the threat the guy might be, and the damage that could occur because you distracted a restrainer. The people attempting the retraint are. And they are justified in protecting themselves and everyone else by insisting they be left alone until the situation can be deemed safe.
After that, you can ask for the badge number of the officer all you like. You aren't part of the threat then.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. From my viewing of the longer video, I don't think the threat was at all out of line. I do lean toward thinking the repeated tazing was. But that crowd situation was very scary.
(Out of curiosity, who else routinely maximizes videos before watching them? I wonder if that makes a difference. I was viewing this on a largish screen that was filling my field of vision at the time, and it felt much more real to me.)
-o-
If I were a store manager, say, having trouble evicting someone and I called the police, and the person left at that point, only when he or she saw the police show up, I would be very concerned if the police let that be the end of it, because I would have reason to believe that the only reason he left was the threat of police action, and that once that threat was removed, he or she would come back. (Diagram that!)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Ya know, one thing I haven't read in the news reports is of any charge of lawbreaking or even reasonable suspicion that the student was a suspect in a crime that preceded the confrontation.
And while the SupremeCourt has ruled that asking for identification is legal when police officers are engaging in a manhunt, it has also ruled in Lawson v Kolender that there must be probable cause for such stops.
So what is the preceding/underlying probable cause in this case? Cuz thus far, resisting arrest seems to be merely a case of the DA's legally malicious abuse of the legal system to cover up criminal misconduct by the police.
Trespassing. The security guards were asking people without student ID to leave the premisis according to well established and enforced school policy.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Please provide a cite to a statement made by the CSO regarding what happened before they returned with the police. I haven't seen it. These are the pieces as I've heard them:
The student was in the back of the library working working on a computer.
The CSO asked for ID and he failed or refused to show it.
He was asked to leave and refused.
The CSO left, and returned with the police.
When the police arrived, he had his backpack on, and was walking toward the door.
The police grabbed his arm, and he shouted "Get your hands off me!"
When they continued to hold him, and tried to escort him out of the building, he went limp.
From this point forward, there are a lot more details, many of which can be seen or heard in the video.
Here are questions that I'd want answered:
Did the CSO ask any other students for their ID? Or did he walk past them to ask this particular student for his ID? What was the demeanor of the CSO?
How exactly did the student respond to that request? Was there belligerence or swearing at that point? Did the student point out CSO behavior that indicated that he was being singled out?
When asked to leave, did the student refuse belligerently, or was he just trying to finish his work?
How much time passed during the exchange between the CSO and the student? How many times was he asked to leave?
How much time passed between when the CSO left, and when he returned with the police?
What did the student do during the time in between? Did he finish his work and prepare to leave, or did he "incite the other students" in some way, as the police have claimed?
Do any of the other witnesses recall the student attempting to incite them to act against the police?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first question has been answered a couple times in this thread already, Glenn. The request for ID was part of a routine check of everyone in the library after a certain hour.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I have read, it is policy there that after 11:30 or so they ask for IDs. The articles I have read do not clarify if they followed this policy for all the students present or only for this kid, but they do make it clear that this is the policy. The articles I have read also make it clear that it was not a case of him wanting to finish one last citation or whatever, but that he felt he was being singled out due to his arabic features. In fact, it is not clear that he didn't have ID. He may have had it but refused to show it as a protest.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rule is after 11. The check happened to be at 11:30 that particular night.
And as I said before, I simply don't believe than any UCLA student would go to Powell without the ID card which also acts as their library card. Especially at night, when Powell is one of several places that have the must-show-ID-after-11pm-rule.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Distracting someone who is attempting to restrain a potentially dangerous person instantly makes you a hazard.
Look back at the video. The original student had already been removed from the room. The cop who made the threat was not part of the process of restraining anybody.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was trying to prevent a mob scene. And going by both the video and previous incidents on the UCLA campus, I think it was a very legitimate concern.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The CSO asked for ID and he failed or refused to show it.
He was asked to leave and refused.
And at this point he had committed a crime, assuming California's trespass laws are anything like Virginia's.
quote:Did the CSO ask any other students for their ID? Or did he walk past them to ask this particular student for his ID? What was the demeanor of the CSO?
Certainly relevant to an examination of library policies, but irrelevant to the issue of whether this student committed a crime.
quote:How exactly did the student respond to that request? Was there belligerence or swearing at that point? Did the student point out CSO behavior that indicated that he was being singled out?
When asked to leave, did the student refuse belligerently, or was he just trying to finish his work?
Totally irrelevant.
At this point he's committed a crime. The police may rely on the account of the CSO in making a Terry stop (which what aspectre was referring to with the references to reasonable suspicion - he's totally wrong about their not being suspicion based on your account).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You can't go around assuming that someone is leaving to get a weapon and return. You've got absolutely no basis to make that accusation.
I don't know this guy from Adam. He's already refusing to show id like he's supposed to or leave. Why should I assume he's perfectly reasonable?
Maybe I'm a cynic, but I don't think that assuming someone acting out in public could be a threat is unreasonable. It's a dangerous world. There's a lot of people out there doing crazy stuff.
A big deal has been made about this man's behavior being similar to behavior in the 60s. The cops react differently now. According to the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, an average of 146 officers a year died in the line of duty. In the 90s, it was over 1,500 a year.
We have more cops on the street than we did then, so the numbers will be higher. But it sure looks to me like the job's gotten a lot more dangerous since then. I bet it looks that way to a lot of cops, too. They just can't take any chances with anyone.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, he was. The "crowd control" person is just as much a part of a restraint as are the "hands-on" people. Especially when he's the only one stading between the large crowd who would otherwise be following after and the officers with the student. A potentially volatile crowd.
Try keeping your eye on 30 people at once who may rush you, and then hold a conversation with one of them while keeping your eye on the rest.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also curious, from listening to the begining of the video again, just where the crossover point was.
The student in question is already yelling "get your hands off me" at the beginning of the video. Is this right at the point where the police had entered and grabbed his arm? Or had he repeated that for some time until someone started the video? Did the video start before the first time he was tased, or after?
If this is the beginning, then I want to know where it was that he was supposed to have incited the crowd. It seems pretty clear to me that the crowd came to his defense on their own, not at his request, unless he had made some kind of request earlier. And even then, if he had made such a request, why is it not repeated? You'd think that just after he's screaming in pain he might have said "somebody help me," or something, but I didn't hear that anywhere.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look back at the video. The original student had already been removed from the room. The cop who made the threat was not part of the process of restraining anybody.
Look back at the video. The crowd has already rushed en masse toward the officers once.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote:How exactly did the student respond to that request? Was there belligerence or swearing at that point? Did the student point out CSO behavior that indicated that he was being singled out?
When asked to leave, did the student refuse belligerently, or was he just trying to finish his work?
Totally irrelevant.
At this point he's committed a crime.
He's committed a crime at the instant the CSO asked for ID? Or at the instant he refuses to show ID? Or at the instant he refuses to leave?
Are you saying that if the CSO walked past 20 white students and demanded to see the Iranian students ID, that the Iranian student has committed a crime if he points out that behavior rather than producing his ID?
Or are you saying that if the CSO says "you have to leave now," and the student attempts to save their work rather than complying instantly, that the student has broken the law by not complying instantly?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Ok, running this past Deputy Brown in more detail, he feels the officers got nervous and messed up a bit. Once the suspect was in cuffs, he'd have hauled him out bodily and certainly not tased him again. (I think that might have been more uncomfortable with his feet bumping down the stairs all the way, but ok.)
BlueWizard:
This reenforces the very point I was trying to make. Once the office issued the command to 'stand up', his ego and his conditioning would not allow him to back down. He was so bent on forcing compliance with this order that he was willing to be deterred from the task at hand and was willing to take actions that served to escalate the situation to dangerous levels.
All they had to do was drag him out of the library, but no, once the office said 'stand up' and refused to yield or compromise on that command, he lost control of the situation by his own actions. His failure to yield and get on with it, cause him to take actions that were counter to accomplishing the task and acted to further escalate the situation and incided the crowd against him.
It was about a gross error in judgement brought about by conditioned training that says 'never compromise' 'never yield'.
If the office had been focused on the task at hand, on the true objective, instead of an insignificant secondary command, the arrest and resulting hostility and violence could have been avoided.
I don't totally place full blame on the officer. As I said, he is responding to conditioned training that I personally think is in error. Once again, I ask you to imagine this absolute to the letter compliance being applied to the Civil Rights Protests and the Vietnam War Protests. If the same attitude, tactics, and weapons had been applied in that situation, it would have been one of the darkest days in US history. We would all be shamed by the level of violence that would have likely occurred.
Those Protests already resulted in levels of violence that shame us, but I predict if law enforcement had had the attitude that they have now, the level of shame would have been unbearable as we watched the videos and film of those events.
Don't get me wrong, this guy was an idiot, but I think he was within his rights to allow himself to be passively arrested. The simplest thing would have been to simply leave the library and come back tomorrow. But again he may have been working on an important and due immediately research paper. He may have not been refusing to leave the library but simply trying to gather a few more notes and references before he did so.
Again, the most critical and crucial bits of information, the events that would truly allow us to make an informed determination occur before the video started, and without that information we are just guessing.
None the less, I think the offices actions were totally unproductive, totally counter productive, and based in a concept of training that is flawed when not tempered with common sense and a willingness to compromise if that compromise results in the great good of the situation.
My brother and I are both hard of hearing, and I can't help but wonder how quickly I would be Tazed if I were in a police situation where I couldn't clearly hear what the police were saying.
Certainly, I would do everything I possible could to yield to the needs of the police, to cooperate in every way. I am certainly not as big an idiot as the supreme idiot in this video. But the police won't accept complete surrender, they won't accept my complete and passive non-resistance to my being arrested or detained. The only thing they will accept is absolute and complete compliance even when that compliance is counter productive to accomplishing the task at hand, as I believe it was in the case of this video.
I would very much be interested in what Deputy Brown has to say about that.
quote:He's committed a crime at the instant the CSO asked for ID? Or at the instant he refuses to show ID? Or at the instant he refuses to leave?
When he refused to leave, again with the caveat about basing this on Virginia's trespass law, not California's.
quote:Or are you saying that if the CSO says "you have to leave now," and the student attempts to save their work rather than complying instantly, that the student has broken the law by not complying instantly?
There's a reasonableness criteria that will be applied. But if he "refused" to leave as you said, I don't think that will be applied.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is the guy being gone relevant to the threat posed by the crowd? Further, he wasn't far away.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"[aspectre]'s totally wrong about there not being suspicion"
errm... I said that I wasn't made aware of a probable cause through news reports I've scanned through. I did not say that there was no probable cause. Hence my question, "So what is the preceding/underlying probable cause in this case?"
I wasn't aware of that a late-hours identification check was standard procedure in a campus library. Nor was I aware that CampusSecurity was separate from law enforcement. I've always assumed that the security I've run across on California campuses were also sworn in as officers of the law. And they were, as far as the officers I've talked to or read news accounts of.
Do all campuses have private security as well as police? Or do only private universities hire private security guards?
posted
No Glenn, the crowd was a continuing threat, and the guy being gone didn't make it any less of a threat.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a reasonableness criteria that will be applied. But if he "refused" to leave as you said, I don't think that will be applied.
All I did was repeat what I'd heard; that he refused to leave initially. I didn't say HOW he refused to leave, because I don't know. That's why I asked the question. If there is a question as to how reasonably the CSO was behaving, or a question of what the student did that the CSO translated into refusal, it makes a big difference with regard to the behavior of the police when they arrived and found him in the active process of leaving.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally agree with Dagonee: Once a citizen complaint of unlawful behaviour has been reported to law enforcement -- even if the complaint is determined to be wrongful at a later time -- there is probable cause for police intervention; and probable cause for arrest if the suspect refuses to show identification or is otherwise uncooperative.
Physical resistance, passive or active, to an arrest by police is not the legally proper way to dispute a complaint.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
The crowd had been explicit: They wanted to document the situation. They wanted the police ID's in exactly the same way the police wanted the student's ID, and the police were belligerent, refused to provide the ID, and threatened to tase someone who had asked for legitimate information.
If they wanted to make the situation safer, they should have appeased the crowd by giving their names and badge numbers.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm interested in how all the "just drag him out of the library" people would feel about the situation if the police had do so, and during the process the suspect had dislocated a shoulder, or broken a finger, or struggled and caused the officers to fall down the stairs while carrying him.
If any armchair police officers can come up with a way for the police to get out of the situation that escalated to physical danger by the suspect, and take into consideration all the variables and possible bad outcomes, I'm interested in hearing it.
The guy got tasered, but nobody at the scene sustained any longterm damage. Had the police dragged him out and someone had been seriously hurt, would you be shouting that the police should have NOT dragged him out, and given him time to sit in the goodbye chair and think about what a bad boy he'd been?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Again we get back to the fact that from what we know, the student was in the process of leaving the library when the police arrived. Unless someone tells me that the student made some kind of remark or motion toward the police officers before they grabbed his arm, you're not going to change my opinion of the situation.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm no lawyer, but I believe so. However, I think it's pretty reasonable that they don't have to until the situation is under control.
Posts: 1466 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the crowd should have waited until the threat to the officers was ascertained and dealt with, if necessary.
Distracting people involved in a restraint is dangerous. It's dangerous to everyone involved, including the person being restrained. It's not the belligerence of the crowd only that's dangerous. In fact, I specifically said that one could be acting with all innocent intent and still cause a threat.
I'm pretty sure police don't have to show ID, but they may be required to give badge numbers. However, I'd be surprised if they were required to do so in the middle of a situation.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Please provide a cite to a statement made by the CSO regarding what happened before they returned with the police. I haven't seen it. These are the pieces as I've heard them:
The student was in the back of the library working working on a computer.
The CSO asked for ID and he failed or refused to show it.
He was asked to leave and refused.
He refused to comply with the CSO. Noncompliance with someone who has specific authority is a belligerent action. In this case the belligerent action is trespassing and not complying when asked to leave.
Saying anything other than that he merely declined is speculation, so I am sure he was the very model of civility when he declined to follow the policy.
quote: The CSO left, and returned with the police.
When the police arrived, he had his backpack on, and was walking toward the door.
His location and attitude in the building is not know at the time that contact is initiated because it is unclear if the video starts right when the individual first meets the officers. In fact in the video you cannot even see the inital attitude of the student towards the officers.
The student who turned on the camera did it for a reason. So there had to be enough commotion before that outburst for the person to consider turning on the camera to record the incident.
quote: The police grabbed his arm, and he shouted "Get your hands off me!"
When they continued to hold him, and tried to escort him out of the building, he went limp.
How else do you arrest somone. After he refused to leave he is trespassing and subject to law. He is resisting arrest. At this point the officer would have stated your options are these: comply to avoid getting tazered or continue to resist and get tazered. He continued to resist by not complying. So he got tazered.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Aspectre:
Again we get back to the fact that from what we know, the student was in the process of leaving the library when the police arrived. Unless someone tells me that the student made some kind of remark or motion toward the police officers before they grabbed his arm, you're not going to change my opinion of the situation.
And there is no record in the video either way. However his decision to leave when the authorities arrive comes after he is obligated talk with them about his lawbreaking. He had all the time between when he declined to leave the premisis and when the cops got there to leave. If he had left when he was supposed to the cops wouldn't have to have been called.
Are you suggesting that it's all right to trespass just as long as you're willing to leave when the heat gets there?
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
