Student Taserd for not having ID

[Absinthe]

Mecha, your rebuttals are getting stupid now.....its safe to say that an actual police officer might know a few more things than you on the subject...seeing as your experience goes as far back as reading news articles......

Experience means nothing when the actual arguments put forth don't make sense.

 

[Tyguy]

Experience means nothing when the actual arguments put forth don't make sense.

Which argument does not make sense?

Hey Hapless, apparently your years of experience being a police officer is irrelevant

 

[Qonfused]

Read the last few pages

Ok.

Now that I've read the last few pages (read: 10-14, again) and haven't seen anything relevant to my post, my viewpoint still stands.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

We've already outlined the nonsensical arguments, but they include:

-People in this thread are anarchists.

-The witnesses are untrustworthy because they are college students, and college students - like most people - hate the police.

-We can't base an opinion on only a video (ignoring several far more detailed news articles), but based on the video I say everything was okay.

-Mecha isn't extremely smart.

-Colleges hate police because they don't have police parades.

...and many others.

 

[Tyguy]

Ok.

Now that I've read the last few pages (read: 10-14, again) and haven't seen anything relevant to my post, my viewpoint still stands.

What can I tell you, this whole thread has been a debate about your question....

 

[Tyguy]

We've already outlined them, but they include:

-People in this thread are anarchists.

-The witnesses are untrustworthy because they are college students, and college students - like most people - hate the police until they need help.

-We can't base an opinion on only a video (ignoring several far more detailed news articles), but based on the video everything was okay.

-Mecha isn't extremely smart.

...and more!

alright, well apparently its going nowhere (big suprise) so lets all agree to disagree. (With mecha and absinthe)

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Thanks for your input! Bye!

 

[Hapless]

When that advice is "stop making stuff up", then yes.
Absolutely.

What have I made up?

I already told you: it is influenced by the several news articles which I read, and the video which I saw.
I also listened to your opinion and explained that it wasn't accurate.

I see, my opinion is inaccurate because you say it is. You know because you watched a shitty video and read some news articles. I watched the same video and read the same articles, and I say your opinion is inaccurate.

You said that there was no problem unless he was handcuffed while tastered.
I explained that he was handcuffed while tasered.

Again, handcuffed does not mean under control. If in fact he was handcuffed, walking out of the library and offering no further resistance, then that is excessive. It did not appear, from the video, that this was the case.

You said that tasering is acceptable when there is enough resistance.
There was no mention of any resistance in any of the accounts.

But when you watch the video, you can clearly hear the officers telling him to get up numerous times. You can tell the officers are bending over him as if he is on the ground. Passive resistance is still resistance, and force is acceptable to overcome that resistance.

No, your argument was that everyone should be quiet because it's impossible for anyone to comprehend an event based on a video.
Then you reversed that position by adding a MAY:

No, I didn't say everyone should be quiet. I said that video can be inaccurate. I didn't reverse anything, I qualified my opinion with a disclaimer.

I agree, except for the "may" part and the "video" part.
Your perception seems to be off when you say some things are facts when they aren't and make assumptions about the witnesses's character that sound paranoid.
You have said that the firsthand eyewitnesses who form part of our interpretation of events are probably unreliable, without any reason to believe as much.

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. You can interview 10 people who saw the same event and get 10 different stories. Plus you have to consider their motivations and bias when trying to determine what actually happened. You and I both know that the news media looks for the sensational stuff to report, and the witnesses with the juiciest comments got printed in this case.

Claiming that's the case without any reasonable evidence is paranoid.

Sigh. Nowhere have I said that was the case in this instance. You won't even consider the possibility, even after I've given you examples of this happening.

Mission accomplished?

Yep, I'm not an arrogant p***k like you.

 

[Absinthe]

Which argument does not make sense?

He says tasing a handcuffed individual is wrong, but defends it in this particular instance. He defends the use of an incapacitating tool as a method to incent movement. He compares trained, expecting police officers' reactions to being tased to that of a student with a medical condition. He's inclined to dismiss the accounts of the witnesses because he generalizes that college students hate the police. And you're in league with him, albeit in an even worse position: total irrelevance such as my profile.

Arguments should stand on their own.

Hey Hapless, apparently your years of experience being a police officer is irrelevant

Experience is only worthwhile if it is applied. The bottom line is that his experience means diddly jack when a handcuffed, immobile student is tased multiple times.

 

[Qonfused]

What can I tell you, this whole thread has been a debate about your question....

Well... yes. What other subject would be discussed in such a, seemingly, controversial thread? From the posts, I have only gathered two viewpoints: it was okay for the officers, under no threat from the submissive student, to repeatedly TASE the student, and the one I side with: it was wrong. From what was shown, I still think that the actions expressed by the officers was extremely uncalled for.

But when you watch the video, you can clearly hear the officers telling him to get up numerous times. You can tell the officers are bending over him as if he is on the ground. Passive resistance is still resistance, and force is acceptable to overcome that resistance.

So, in order to overcome this "passive" resistance of being on the ground, they TASE him again only to force him to the ground. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say they didn't know it forced people to the ground: wouldn't they have learned the first two times they TASED him?

 

[Tyguy]

Experience is only worthwhile if it is applied. The bottom line is that his experience means diddly jack when a handcuffed, immobile student is tased multiple times.

What are you talking about? His opinions are based off his experience as a police officer.

 

[Krynn72]

He says tasing a handcuffed individual is wrong, but defends it in this particular instance. He defends the use of an incapacitating tool as a method to incent movement. He compares trained, expecting police officers' reactions to being tased to that of a student with a medical condition.

He says tasing a handcuffed indivudual who is complying with the officer's demands is wrong. He defended Tasing a individual who is in handcuff but STILL NOT complying.

The Taser doesnt permenantly incapacitate. It does for a few seconds and its entire purpose is to encourage compliance. If they do something like shoot him in the leg then of course that would make it neigh impossible for him to comply with their demands, but as it is the Taser doesnt and it allows perfectly fine movement after the initial shock. And the medical condition could be anything from dry skin to a heart condition... but the officers didnt know what it is and if you think that they should take the time to ask him what it is (which he 99% likely wont tell them out of spite or defiance) instead of doing their job (removing him from the premises) then you are wrong. If the guy had a condition then he should have listened to the police when they said to get up and leave or be tasered again.

 

[Tyguy]

So, in order to overcome this "passive" resistance of being on the ground, they TASE him again only to force him to the ground. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say they didn't know it forced people to the ground: wouldn't they have learned the first two times they TASED him?

THe kid was obviously being non-compliant and trying to make a scene. He wouldnt get up or listen to the officers. I dont know what else to say. How hard is it to listen to a police officer? And dont give me the "He couldnt get up" crap.

 

[Absinthe]

What are you talking about? His opinions are based off his experience as a police officer.

His experience is meaningless if he says stupid things.

Who cares about his experience? I care about what he says and argues. All of the experience in the world can't make statements akin to "tasing subdued students is acceptable" any less retarded. If a member of the scientific community were to tell me the world is flat, would I write him off or take his opinion into serious consideration because "lol hes a scientist".

We're not debating personal history or qualitative accounts. Nobody is challenging his experience as a police officer. The contention lies with the very words that he types into this topic, and they don't measure up.

 

[Qonfused]

THe kid was obviously being non-compliant and trying to make a scene. He wouldnt get up or listen to the officers. I dont know what else to say. How hard is it to listen to a police officer? And dont give me the "He couldnt get up" crap.

You cannot deny that they were on a power surge. He may have been able to get up. But here comes the question again: was the TASING necessary? How easy would it have been to just drag him out. Obviously he wasn't moving. Three officers could have easily dragged him out in a non-"scene" making fashion.

 

[Absinthe]

The Taser doesnt permenantly incapacitate. It does for a few seconds and its entire purpose is to encourage compliance.

Didn't bother to read my previous posts. Stopped.

 

[Tyguy]

You cannot deny that they were on a power surge. He may have been able to get up. But here comes the question again: was the TASING necessary? How easy would it have been to just drag him out. Obviously he wasn't moving. Three officers could have easily dragged him out in a non-"scene" making fashion.

either way its still a "scene".

I have nothing left to contribute to this anymore. The video we can all agree, stinks....But i respect your opinions, you are scholars and gentlemen :cheers:

 

[zleppelin]

I already told you: it is influenced by the several news articles which I read, and the video which I saw. I also listened to your opinion and explained that it wasn't accurate.

How can an opinion not be accurate? An opinion is just that, an opinion.

 

[kirovman]

How can an opinion not be accurate? An opinion is just that, an opinion.

Are opinions not supported by facts and evidence?

 

[Qonfused]

Are opinions not supported by facts and evidence?

They don't have to be. Which explains why this site is up.

 

[kirovman]

They don't have to be.

Nope, but if they aren't, that makes those opinions less credible or invalid.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What have I made up?

Stop getting me to repeat myself.
All your assumptions aren't based on anything tangible.
Like your incredibly dumb thing about how the students are all probably subconsciously lying, because everyone - or at least "society in general" - subconciously lie against the police all the time.

I watched the same video and read the same articles, and I say your opinion is inaccurate.

If your opinion is also based all but entirely on the media, and you think this media makes one's opinion incredibly shitty, then why are you even here?

Clearly the media is useful for forming conclusions. The problem is that most of yours have very little to do with anything.

Again, handcuffed does not mean under control. If in fact he was handcuffed, walking out of the library and offering no further resistance, then that is excessive. It did not appear, from the video, that this was the case.

He was doing all those things . He was walking out, and he was tasered. Then he was handcuffed, and he was tasered. Then when he continued acting passive, he was tasered.

What about this is hostile? What was so out of control?

You can tell the officers are bending over him as if he is on the ground. Passive resistance is still resistance, and force is acceptable to overcome that resistance.

It's the minimum of resistance, and the police are supposed to meet that resistance with only one step higher on the scale, right?
So, what's one step higher than minimum?
You said it was mediation.

I'm not sure why you are so steadfastly certain that there were no more reasonable ways to resolve the situation, beyond tying him up and prodding him repeatedly.
Why is this even newsworthy if it's so utterly normal and reasonable?

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. You can interview 10 people who saw the same event and get 10 different stories. Plus you have to consider their motivations and bias when trying to determine what actually happened. You and I both know that the news media looks for the sensational stuff to report, and the witnesses with the juiciest comments got printed in this case.

One eyewitness maybe. Two, perhaps. Several dozen plus a video, and you're really pushing it.
Also, it's apparent that we are not getting ten different stories here. This isn't goddamn Rashomon.

Jeez, and now the media is unreliable too.
Let's check the list of things that cannot be considered reliable:

-Eyewitnesses.
-People who aren't police officers.
-Print Media.
-Video.

Well fuck, let's just knit our socks then while you tell us tales, because the only person you're allowing us to trust is yourself.

Sigh. Nowhere have I said that was the case in this instance. You won't even consider the possibility, even after I've given you examples of this happening.

Lots of things are possible.
It's possible that the movie Jurassic Park in nonfiction.
I'm not just going to assume that something actually happened, without evidence, just because it's possible.

If the best you can claim about your stance is that it doesn't break any physical laws of the universe, you might want a better stance.

Yep, I'm not an arrogant p***k like you.

The question isn't arrogance. It's whether I'm correct or not.

Also it's spelt "Pokémon". The "k" is in the middle.

Although Mechagodzilla is a character from Japanese pop culture, he's not a Pokémon.

 

[63]

Also it's spelt "Pokémon". The "k" is in the middle.

Although Mechagodzilla is a character from Japanese pop culture, he's not a Pokémon.

 

[joule]

I wonder if the posters in this thread have similar arguments to the recent LAPD police brutality incident. :|

 

[Hapless]

Nowhere did I say anything about "mediation." I said verbal persuasion. That boils down to, "Get up or I'm going to TASE you." ALso, in our Use of Force policy, verbal resistance is in line with OC/TASER. You still apparently don't understand how the Use of Force Continuum works.

http://www.laaw.com/howmuchforce.htm

THis site is a good read about how use of force by the police is looked at by the courts.

 

[bliink]

Why couldnt they handcuff and drag him? There were about 5 cops there?

I thought a taser was a defensive weapon? a less-lethal alternative to a firearm?

THis site is a good read about how use of force by the police is looked at by the courts.

Those police used too much force. Even the factor scale on the site you link would agree;
Imminent Threat to Officers/Others - As far as I could see, he was shouting but did not appear violent, he was refusing to leave the building.
Resisting Seizure - He was
Circum. Tense, Uncertain, Rapidly Evolv. - Rapidly evolving perhaps because the police actions nearly started a riot, the amount of angry people multiplied by about 20 upon each tasering.
Severity of the Crime(s) at Issue - not having a library id card
Attempting to Evade Seizure by Flight - none

They were no defending themselves, protecting others, protecting property or fighting some danger- they were trying to seize/detain someone. Reasonable force would be the use of handcuffs and lifting the guy by each of his limbs- he was on the floor already, and there were enough cops to do this.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I understand more than you think. In more ways than one.
Let's look at the site, why don't we?
In bold, ignoring irrelevant sections:

2. An officer must have a lawful objective for taking action. Any time an officer uses his governmental authority to bring a person under control the officer MUST have a "lawful objective" for taking the action.
2a. Lawful objectives may include: detention, frisk, arrest, involuntary mental commitment, self defense, defense of others, defense of property, preventing escape, and others.

On that list, "detention" and "arrest" are the only two that could apply to this situation.

2b. Contempt of Cop" or a person's disrespectful attitude toward an officer is not a "lawful" reason for using force.

That should shut up the people saying he deserved it for being disrespectful.

8. Even Use-of-Force Without Injury Can Be "Excessive" Force - The mere fact that a force recipient does not sustain a significant injury does not, by itself, defeat an excessive force claim. A jury could properly find that an officer's use of pain compliance techniques before a suspect posed any immediate threat to the arresting officers was excessive force.

So there goes all that bullshit about the taser being "harmless."

15. The "Reasonableness" Inquiry - The reasonableness of an officer's use of force is, in part, based upon the totality of the circumstances as known by the officer at the moment the force is used. The following five (5) questions are the basic reasonableness determining factors.

1. Imminent Threat to Officers and/or Others - Is the person an imminent threat of injury to the officer and/or others?

No, he wasn't. He was lying on the floor in handcuffs, surrounded and offering no active resistance.

2. Actively Resisting Seizure - If the person is actively resisting seizure then the officer may escalate his (the officer's) justified (reasonable) level of force response.

He was not actively resisting. He was passively resisting.

3. Circumstances are Tense, Uncertain, and Rapidly Evolving - ("Officer's legitimate anxiety factor") - Some incidents take hours to resolve, while others start and are over in seconds. The more tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving the incident the higher level of force that will be judged to be reasonable.

Besides the arrival of the onlookers (which isn't an unexpected event in such a situation), I don't see what was so tense and rapidly evolving about an incapacitated and bound man lying on the floor.

4. Severity of the Crime at Issue - The more severe the crime committed the more force that an officer may justify. Remember, an officer cannot assume the negative if time and circumstances permit.

No-one can argue this "crime" is severe (at most, it was suspected trespassing).

5. Attempting to Evade Seizure by Flight - Is the person attempting to evade seizure by flight?

No.

Objectively, this was an extremely low-risk situation.

The "subjective" test asks the following four (4) questions.
1. What was the need for the officer's use of force upon the person?

Getting him to stand up.

2. What was the relationship between the officer's need to use force and the amount of force that the officer used?

Passive refusal to stand up in a low stakes, low-risk scenario, compared to being tasered three times.

3. What was the extent of the injuries inflicted on the person by the officer's use of force?

Bruises.

4. (the "subjective" element of the test) Was the officer's use of force applied in good faith or maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm?

Subjectively, I'd obviously say that this was definitely not in good faith.


So wait, that website was supposed to debunk me?
It matched up with everything I've been saying all along.

 

[Hapless]

I understand more than you think. In more ways than one.
Let's look at the site, why don't we?
In bold, ignoring irrelevant sections:

2. An officer must have a lawful objective for taking action. Any time an officer uses his governmental authority to bring a person under control the officer MUST have a "lawful objective" for taking the action.
2a. Lawful objectives may include: detention, frisk, arrest, involuntary mental commitment, self defense, defense of others, defense of property, preventing escape, and others.

On that list, "detention" and "arrest" are the only two that could apply to this situation.

agreed

2b. Contempt of Cop" or a person's disrespectful attitude toward an officer is not a "lawful" reason for using force.

That should shut up the people saying he deserved it for being disrespectful.

I was not one of those people, and I hope you aren't implying thast I am.

8. Even Use-of-Force Without Injury Can Be "Excessive" Force - The mere fact that a force recipient does not sustain a significant injury does not, by itself, defeat an excessive force claim. A jury could properly find that an officer's use of pain compliance techniques before a suspect posed any immediate threat to the arresting officers was excessive force.

So there goes all that bullshit about the taser being "harmless."

If you read the case law to which this refers (Barlow v. Ground) you would see that the officers involved tackled a man from behind after he allegedly knocked down a counter-protestor's sign, and allegedly prior to him even being arrested or offering any resistance whatsoever. Doesn't apply here. In this instance, force was apparently only used after the subject began to resist. Whether or not you call it passive resistance, resistance is still an act and he is acting to obstruct/resist the police in their efforts to arrest/detain him.

15. The "Reasonableness" Inquiry - The reasonableness of an officer's use of force is, in part, based upon the totality of the circumstances as known by the officer at the moment the force is used. The following five (5) questions are the basic reasonableness determining factors.

1. Imminent Threat to Officers and/or Others - Is the person an imminent threat of injury to the officer and/or others?

No, he wasn't. He was lying on the floor in handcuffs, surrounded and offering no active resistance.

Forgot this part:
However, keep in mind that since the standard is the "totality of the circumstances," the five (5) questions are not the ONLY questions (other aspects of the incident could be considered).

2. Actively Resisting Seizure - If the person is actively resisting seizure then the officer may escalate his (the officer's) justified (reasonable) level of force response.

He was not actively resisting. He was passively resisting.

Again, this is semantics. Tensing your body up, or becomeing dead weight, and refusing to move is an act. Was he attempting to defeat his seizure? Absolutely.

3. Circumstances are Tense, Uncertain, and Rapidly Evolving - ("Officer's legitimate anxiety factor") - Some incidents take hours to resolve, while others start and are over in seconds. The more tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving the incident the higher level of force that will be judged to be reasonable.

Besides the arrival of the onlookers (which isn't an unexpected event in such a situation), I don't see what was so tense and rapidly evolving about an incapacitated and bound man lying on the floor.

I see. So, you are one of the cops involved in the situation. You tell this kid to get up numerous times and he begins cursing and yelling at the top of his lungs at you. As time goes on, more and more people gather around and begin yelling and cursing at you as well. This causes two of the officers with you to turn their attention away from assisting you with the kid, and try to keep the crowd back. Nothing tense or rapidly evolving about that.

4. Severity of the Crime at Issue - The more severe the crime committed the more force that an officer may justify. Remember, an officer cannot assume the negative if time and circumstances permit.

No-one can argue this "crime" is severe (at most, it was suspected trespassing).

No, it was trespassing up until he resisted, then it also became obstructing/resisting police. Which is slightly more severe. If they TASE'd him to stop him from trespassing, that would definitely be excessive. TASE'ing him to end the resistance is not. Keep in mind as well that they were "drive stunning" him, which is different than full-on TASING him with the barbs and everything. The drive-stun is a pain compliance technique, and the full-on TASING with the barbs is for incapacitating. Look it up.

5. Attempting to Evade Seizure by Flight - Is the person attempting to evade seizure by flight?

No.

Ok. And?

Objectively, this was an extremely low-risk situation.

So it's a good thing they didn't use higher levels of force. Such as impact weapons, punches, kicks, or shooting him. THe TASER is very low on the Use of Force Continuum, between verbal persuasion and soft empty hand controls.

The "subjective" test asks the following four (4) questions.
1. What was the need for the officer's use of force upon the person?

Getting him to stand up.

2. What was the relationship between the officer's need to use force and the amount of force that the officer used?

Passive refusal to stand up in a low stakes, low-risk scenario, compared to being tasered three times.

3. What was the extent of the injuries inflicted on the person by the officer's use of force?

Bruises.

4. (the "subjective" element of the test) Was the officer's use of force applied in good faith or maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm?

Subjectively, I'd obviously say that this was definitely not in good faith.

Read the site again. The subjective reasonableness test does not apply here.

So wait, that website was supposed to debunk me?
It matched up with everything I've been saying all along.

I disagree.

 

[Hapless]

Why couldnt they handcuff and drag him? There were about 5 cops there?

I thought a taser was a defensive weapon? a less-lethal alternative to a firearm?




Those police used too much force. Even the factor scale on the site you link would agree;
Imminent Threat to Officers/Others - As far as I could see, he was shouting but did not appear violent, he was refusing to leave the building.
Resisting Seizure - He was
Circum. Tense, Uncertain, Rapidly Evolv. - Rapidly evolving perhaps because the police actions nearly started a riot, the amount of angry people multiplied by about 20 upon each tasering.
Severity of the Crime(s) at Issue - not having a library id card
Attempting to Evade Seizure by Flight - none

They were no defending themselves, protecting others, protecting property or fighting some danger- they were trying to seize/detain someone. Reasonable force would be the use of handcuffs and lifting the guy by each of his limbs- he was on the floor already, and there were enough cops to do this.

No, you misunderstand the scale. Let's say, for the sake of argument that TASER use is 3-4 on the use of force scale from that site. Rate the rest of it on the 1-10 scale and it makes more sense. The reason I place it at 3-4 is that ur department places it at 3. Some departments place it higher, some lower.

 

[bliink]

Again, this is semantics. Tensing your body up and refusing to move is an act. Was he attempting to defeat his seizure? Absolutely.

I think you are mistaken here, active resistance would be attacking the officers in order to prevent seizure, whereas passive is when you do nothing to aid seizure.

They are vastly different in that one presents a hostile front.

 

[Hapless]

I think you are mistaken here, active resistance would be attacking the officers in order to prevent seizure, whereas passive is when you do nothing to aid seizure.

They are vastly different in that one presents a hostile front.

No. "Active" resistance could be anything from pulling away from the officer to attacking him. "Passive" resistance, i.e. refusing to move, is still an act to attempt to defeat seizure. Where are people getting this idea that there HAS to be a threat to officers in order for them to use force? That is one consideration of many, and would apply more if higher levels of force, such as deadly force, were used.

 

[bliink]

No. "Active" resistance could be anything from pulling away from the officer to attacking him. "Passive" resistance, i.e. refusing to move, is still an act to attempt to defeat seizure. Where are people getting this idea that there HAS to be a threat to officers in order for them to use force? That is one consideration of many, and would apply more if higher levels of force, such as deadly force, were used.

I never said that an active threat was the only cause for force. I'm saying that the amount of force dealt was unreasonable. Handcuffs and physically carrying him would have been more than enough.

However, it should never have gone to that point, considering that just talking to him would have solved the situation without such a huge scene.

 

[zleppelin]

2b. Contempt of Cop" or a person's disrespectful attitude toward an officer is not a "lawful" reason for using force.

That should shut up the people saying he deserved it for being disrespectful.

I was not one of those people, and I hope you aren't implying thast I am.

With that in mind, now read this:

Hapless, if a cop tells a person to do something, and that person tells the cop to **** off, what steps is the cop allowed to take at that point?

Depends on whether the order given was lawful. If I, as a police officer, tell you to give me $20 and you tell me to **** off, well, there's nothing I can do to you legally. If I, as a police officer, tell you to turn around and place your hands behind your back because you are under arrest, and you respond the same way, I am well within policy and law to spray or TASE you.

I don't understand. Did you just contradict yourself? I'd like to know if I can swear at a police officer and challenge his authority. With my luck, I probably get lynched.

 

[Raeven0]

I fail to see why they couldn't just pick up the moron and carry him out.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I was not one of those people, and I hope you aren't implying thast I am.

If I meant thast you were, I would have said thast you were (stop assuming things).

In this instance, force was apparently only used after the subject began to resist. Whether or not you call it passive resistance, resistance is still an act and he is acting to obstruct/resist the police in their efforts to arrest/detain him.

If there is no such thing as passive resistance, then why on earth do the rules specify that the resistance must be active?

This doesn't check out. You're saying that the rules make no distinction between passive and active resistance, yet have presented no reasons to think as much.

Forgot this part:
(other aspects of the incident could be considered).

I didn't "forget" it (stop assuming things). I said I left out the parts that weren't relevant to the discussion. You presented the website, and made no effort to elaborate what the "other" cases are. Am I supposed to guess them?

Again, this is semantics. Tensing your body up, or becomeing dead weight, and refusing to move is an act. Was he attempting to defeat his seizure? Absolutely.

That's not active resistance. It's just plain deceptive to define "lack of action" as an action.
Once again, the law specified that the person actively resist.
Lack of action is not an action.

I see. So, you are one of the cops involved in the situation. You tell this kid to get up numerous times and he begins cursing and yelling at the top of his lungs at you. As time goes on, more and more people gather around and begin yelling and cursing at you as well. This causes two of the officers with you to turn their attention away from assisting you with the kid, and try to keep the crowd back. Nothing tense or rapidly evolving about that.

That outcome could and should have been anticipated by any reasonable person. That's probably why they sent in 3-5 officers. Beyond that, there were what, curse words?
There was no legitimate reason to believe that random people in a library were going to attack a group of armed police officers. Unless you count the fact that they were using curse words - because curse words equal violence I guess.

No, it was trespassing up until he resisted, then it also became obstructing/resisting police. Which is slightly more severe. If they TASE'd him to stop him from trespassing, that would definitely be excessive.

So your entire hang-up is in the difference between "dragged while moving feet" instead of just "dragged while not moving feet".
And that's the only thing that prevents the force from being "definitely excessive?"
Come on.

This is stupid.

Keep in mind as well that they were "drive stunning" him, which is different than full-on TASING him.

You assume I don't know a lot of things. I'm taking that into account. The kid was not resisting. He was down, in pain cuffed, and not making any threatening movements.
He was incapacitated, intentionally or not.
So what do you do when a suspect is (un)intentionally incapacitated?
You say a lot about ignoring hindsight, so it should have been a fairly safe assumption at the time that the kid had been injured. Such things do happen, and he did apparently have a medical condition.

So it's a good thing they didn't use higher levels of force. Such as impact weapons, punches, kicks, or shooting him. THe TASER is very low on the Use of Force Continuum, between verbal persuasion and soft empty hand controls.

Wikipedia lists the continuum as:
* Verbal command
* Handcuff suspect
* Search suspect
* Use wrist/arm lock
* Use takedown
* Block/punch/kick
* Strike suspect
* Wrestle suspect
* Pepper spray
* Use baton
* Use firearm

I'm assuming the taser qualifies under "takedown", which is not lower on the scale than "arm lock".

The fundamental problem here is that you think it was alright to attempt repeated tasterings, yet not to attempt repeated arm grabs, when simply picking the kid back up when he dropped is by far a more reasonable course of action.

Why should we be thankful they didn't shoot him?
Are we to assume that if the taser continued to fail, they would just keep escalating their response to his "resistance" until it became "necessary" to shoot him dead?
After all, he has the superhuman ability to resist whether he likes it or not!

He didn't become more resistant after he dropped. He became less resistant, and he was not a legitimate threat in the first place, given that he wasn't attempting escape or harm, under arrest for something that's barely even a crime, in a low-stakes situation where the biggest threat to the officers was hurt feelings.

Read the site again. The subjective reasonableness test does not apply here.

I indentified it seperately as my subjective opinion.
If you're saying it doesn't apply at all, how so?

Do you not get why most people here consider this unacceptable?

And no, the answer isn't that we hate america or some such bullshit.
Bliink said it concisely:

I never said that an active threat was the only cause for force. I'm saying that the amount of force dealt was unreasonable. Handcuffs and physically carrying him would have been more than enough.

However, it should never have gone to that point, considering that just talking to him would have solved the situation without such a huge scene.

 

[zleppelin]

Tensing your body up, or becomeing dead weight, and refusing to move is an act. Was he attempting to defeat his seizure? Absolutely.

That's not active resistance. It's just plain deceptive to define "lack of action" as an action.
Once again, the law specified that the person actively resist.
Lack of action is not an action.

ac·tion
n (plural ac·tions)
doing something toward goal: the process of doing something in order to achieve a purpose

I think he did something. He threw himself on the floor and refused to cooperate. For the guy to be inactive he would have had to play dead, which he did not do.

Query: Whether becoming dead weight, and refusing to move, constitutes passive or active resistance, according to the law, not according to Hapless or Mechagodzilla.

 

[Qonfused]

Whether or not we was resisting is not the point. The point is whether or not using the TASER was justified which, after 16 pages, no one has proven to me that it was justified yet.

 

[zleppelin]

Whether or not we was resisting is not the point. The point is whether or not using the TASER was justified which, after 16 pages, no one has proven to me that it was justified yet.

If the student was actively resisting detention, then the use of the taser would have been justified. If the student was passively resisting detention, then the use of the taser would NOT have been justified. That's why it is important to determine the way in which the student was resisting detention before determining whether the use of the taser was justified.

There is the school of thought that says that throwing yourself on the floor, being loud and obscene, does not constitute active resistance. The other school of thought says that it does.

 

[Hapless]

(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)

(720 ILCS 5/31‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 31‑1)
Sec. 31‑1. Resisting or obstructing a peace officer or correctional institution employee.
(a) A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor.

Nonviolent resistance (or nonviolent action) is the practice of applying power to achieve socio-political goals through symbolic protests, economic or political noncooperation, civil disobedience and other methods, without using violence.

Passive resistance is a variety of nonviolent resistance, and is a term sometimes used imprecisely as a synonym. It implies resistance by inertia or non-energetic compliance, as opposed to resistance by active antagonism. Satyagraha is a refined variety of nonviolent resistance developed by Mohandas Gandhi

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=490&page=394

THe above case is what the majority of the previous website I posted was based on.


Wikipedia's Continuum is an example. It is not my department's. It is presumably not UCLA's. I don't know what UCLA's is. I am going by Illinois Law and my department's policy. As I've already pointed out, every department is different. Some place the TASER just under deadly force, others, like mine, place it above verbal persuasion and below soft empty hand controls. My department's Use of Force policy is based on both statutory and case law, and has been found in Federal Court to be within both.

 

[Krynn72]

(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest.

Quoted for additional emphasis. That kid was freaking out and obviously not following instructions. Compiled with the fact that a huge mob was growing around the officers, I (if I were a cop in this situation) would be afraid the kid would try to do something to me if I went to pick him up. He made it damn clear he didnt want to be touched, and as such I would make him move his own damn self like the cops did in this situation. And if you dont think someone can still cause harm while in handcuffed... I refer you to the example I presented earlier.