Student Taserd for not having ID

[bliink]

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.

You can see at the end of the video, the police are dragging away his limp, handcuffed body.

I don't think a taser is reasonable force for making someone compliant. I would only expect one to be used when you are defending yourself from aggressive and hostile behaviour- a taser is a weapon.

Hapless keeps pointing out that officers are allowed to use reasonable force to effect a seizure, and I agree. Where I disagree is that the amount of force was reasonable.

There were enough officers to take him into custody without using the taser.

Did they even need to arrest him? I think it only came to violence because the police were acting in a way that precluded de-escalation. The student was (according to the evidence so far) already leaving the library, if the police used words instead of weapons, things would have turned out better.

It's very easy for someone of police authority to throw around weight, and very hard for them to step down without feeling like they're losing authority, which is why training is essential when it comes to dealing with conflict. That is one thing that I feel many police (especially urban, where density is higher), are lacking.

A police officer should be a person of the people, not a person against them. The job of the police includes maintaining the peace, and you can't do that if you're electrocuting people.

There did not appear to be an unprovoked threat to the police, and if they provoked violence, then they did so due to lack of proper training.

Maybe they thought they were doing the right thing, maybe their vision was clouded, but there is no way that a dispute over a library card should EVER result in a taser being shot into someone.

 

[Krynn72]

You can see at the end of the video, the police are dragging away his limp, handcuffed body.

I don't think a taser is reasonable force for making someone compliant. I would only expect one to be used when you are defending yourself from aggressive and hostile behaviour- a taser is a weapon.

Hapless keeps pointing out that officers are allowed to use reasonable force to effect a seizure, and I agree. Where I disagree is that the amount of force was reasonable.

There were enough officers to take him into custody without using the taser.

Did they even need to arrest him? I think it only came to violence because the police were acting in a way that precluded de-escalation. The student was (according to the evidence so far) already leaving the library, if the police used words instead of weapons, things would have turned out better.

It's very easy for someone of police authority to throw around weight, and very hard for them to step down without feeling like they're losing authority, which is why training is essential when it comes to dealing with conflict. That is one thing that I feel many police (especially urban, where density is higher), are lacking.

A police officer should be a person of the people, not a person against them. The job of the police includes maintaining the peace, and you can't do that if you're electrocuting people.

There did not appear to be an unprovoked threat to the police, and if they provoked violence, then they did so due to lack of proper training.

Maybe they thought they were doing the right thing, maybe their vision was clouded, but there is no way that a dispute over a library card should EVER result in a taser being shot into someone.

I dont think you understand what a Taser is. Have you ever been shocked by one? Me and my friends used to play pranks on each other with a stun gun... thats how harmless they are. Your comparing it to "electrocuting" people and even said its a "less-lethal" weapon (i think it was you who said that). Its NON-Lethal. It far less damaging than physical persuasion which would have been the only alternative really.

You also seem to think that they Tas'd him because he didn't have an ID. That is not the case. Its why they were called by the faculty... but the reason for the whole incident was that he wasn't complying with Police demands. Despite what the "media" says, the kid probably wasn't leaving and instead was making a scene (remember him screaming about the patriot act?). The faculty told him to leave.... he didn't. I really doubt he would leave just like that when the officers asked him to.

At the beginning of the video you can hear the kid telling the cop get get off him. I think here the officer was trying to take the kid by the arm or something to force him to leave the building when they realized he wasn't actually going to do it on his own. At that point he started resisting and we get back into the whole argument that we just spend 16 or so pages arguing over.


The reason why the cops were able to carry him out at the end was because it was probably safe for them to now do so. They had more back up (I think 3 extra officers) once they made it to the lobby, and after 6 tasings the kid probably stopped resisting them. If thats the case... then the force was not excessive because it led to an arrest that caused no harm to anybody, and even made it so there wasnt even RISK of injury to anyone.

 

[bliink]

I dont think you understand what a Taser is. Have you ever been shocked by one?

Yes, I have, and I can tell you its worse than a stun gun because its actually attached to you, and you end up being juiced for longer. You drop instantly, waves of pain flow through your body and you can't move. You're pretty much fine to stand after one burst (of say... 7 seconds, which iirc, is the recommended 'dose'), but after three, you'd be pretty dazzled. It's painful, it's incapacitating, it is most certainly a weapon.

You can die from a taser.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/44455/
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510392006?open&of=ENG-2M4
http://www.campaignagainstthetaser.com/categories/taser_related_death

Its a minority of cases, and some include misuse, but many occur during "normal" use. There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon.. And if you've been messing around with stun guns for the fun of it, then you're grossly irresponsible. I think I'll favour my own knowledge and experience of them over yours.

You also seem to think that they Tas'd him because he didn't have an ID. That is not the case. Its why they were called by the faculty... but the reason for the whole incident was that he wasn't complying with Police demands.

No, I don't, and I never said that. I said (and even bolded and italicalised, so that you wouldn't make this conclusion) that "there is no way that a dispute over a library card should EVER result in a taser being shot into someone."

It was a dispute over ID. Library ID is a small and petty thing, when compared to other grounds for hostility. Being in a library without ID is not a criminal act. These are objective statements.

My point is that violence was not the answer to this situation, and nor was force. Police can and should act as mediators, not strongmen, soldiers or thugs. Force is the last resort.

Despite what the "media" says, the kid probably wasn't leaving and instead was making a scene (remember him screaming about the patriot act?). The faculty told him to leave.... he didn't. I really doubt he would leave just like that when the officers asked him to.

1) The media, eyewitnesses, and video all place him at the library exit, trying to leave. All you have counter to this is your speculation.
2) He can talk about whatever act or legislation he wants to, thats not illegal. Especially when he was obviously trying to claim he was being brutalised by the government.

Finally, how can you not know he would "just leave like that" when officers asked? Apparently, according to witnesses (multiple), he was on his way out as the police arrived. Secondly, you underestimate the power of police.

Remember when I mentioned it was easy to throw your weight around if you were a police authority? I'm not refering to force alone. A lot of power simply comes from being a legitimate authority (moreso than the CSO)

At the beginning of the video you can hear the kid telling the cop get get off him. I think here the officer was trying to take the kid by the arm or something to force him to leave the building when they realized he wasn't actually going to do it on his own. At that point he started resisting

I would speculate (as you are) that this is because the officer was either attempting to detain him as he left, thus preventing exit, or that the officer was trying to forcefully eject him, without need, simply to excercise authority and justify his presence there.

If thats the case... then the force was not excessive because it led to an arrest that caused no harm to anybody

The end does not justify the means!! thats the point of excessive force! it's excessive in reaching a certain means! This point is logically contradictory!

If a degree of force can be judged as successful simply because it achieves a certain objective, then "excessive" force would not exist!

Your argument is invalid, brigand!

 

[Krynn72]

Well... Ive certainly never received that insult before. Brigand? haha

You are confusing yourself I think. You quoted me saying "You also seem to think that they Tas'd him because he didn't have an ID. "
Then reply saying "No, I don't, and I never said that." and then the next line down you say "It was a dispute over ID." You also claim that not having clearance to a building (no ID) and being in said building isnt a criminal offense. Since when is trespassing legal?

How does that make any sense?

As for your point about strength of a Taser... yeah they can be lethal in cases of freak accidents or misuse. Want me to bring up some news articles about how people died from sticks off a tree? Those can be lethal in freak accidents or misuse. Every time they shocked him it was for less than 2 seconds. After the first one the rest were just jolts, which clearly isnt misuse. Your argument is invalid, brigand!

Your next point brings up the most important thing. Both of us are speculating as to why there was that initial contact right as the video started. Since we couldnt see what was ACTUALLY happening... we have to take the word of possibly (and probably) unreliable sources, or formulate our own ideas based on what few facts are presented. I will not say for sure that I am right, because I may very well not be. But I BELIEVE that the officers wouldnt have just grabbed the guy for no reason. A MUCH more likely scenario is that (despite what his friends and classmates say) he wasnt ACTUALLY leaving the building. That would better explain why the cop might grab his arm in attempt to lead the student outside.

From what I saw the kid had to be dragged all the way from the computer room to the lobby and then out the door. I very much doubt he was on his way out if he was still in the room where the faculty initially told him to leave.

As for the all too common cliche of "The end does not justify the means!!" What would you rather happen? The cops pick him up by the legs kicking and screaming? Risking personal injury? Waiting hours on end for the kid to get tired of laying on the floor, thus taking part of a possibly small police force away from the rest of the community just because some punk ass kid thinks he is above law and rules? With the support of other classmates he could probably stay there for days.

I suppose they could also give him a knock to the head with a night-stick and render him unconscious so they can drag him out without risk of their own persons. However I would think you would agree with me when I say that THAT is excessive force.

Considering the alternatives, a couple quick (non-trauma causing, non paralytic, over in 2 seconds or less, etc) electric shocks to persuade him to stop fighting seems hardly excessive.

 

[bliink]

Well... Ive certainly never received that insult before. Brigand? haha

You are confusing yourself I think. You quoted me saying "You also seem to think that they Tas'd him because he didn't have an ID. "
Then reply saying "No, I don't, and I never said that." and then the next line down you say "It was a dispute over ID."

I will clarify;
He was tasered because the cops wanted him to comply.
They wanted him to comply because he was apparently refusing allow them to remove him.
They were trying to remove him because he had no library ID.

Thats what I meant

You also claim that not having clearance to a building (no ID) and being in said building isnt a criminal offense. Since when is trespassing legal?

How does that make any sense?

I'm talking about Common Law, it would be, in this case, the Civil tort of trespass, because it is library imposed, and while they own the property, they cannot make law.

Its like how the RIAA claims piracy is the crime of "stealing", when its actually a civil copyright infringement.

As for your point about strength of a Taser... yeah they can be lethal in cases of freak accidents or misuse. Want me to bring up some news articles about how people died from sticks off a tree? Those can be lethal in freak accidents or misuse. Every time they shocked him it was for less than 2 seconds. After the first one the rest were just jolts, which clearly isnt misuse. Your argument is invalid, brigand!

You can hear the clicking of the taser for certainly more than 2 seconds during the video at one of the shocks, and after the first shock. Also, sticks from trees are not designed as weapons.
Also, like I said, normal use of a taser can have lethal results. The taser is not harmless, and it shouldn't be treated as non-lethal. (nor should any weapon).

Your next point brings up the most important thing. Both of us are speculating as to why there was that initial contact right as the video started. Since we couldnt see what was ACTUALLY happening... we have to take the word of possibly (and probably) unreliable sources, or formulate our own ideas based on what few facts are presented. I will not say for sure that I am right, because I may very well not be. But I BELIEVE that the officers wouldnt have just grabbed the guy for no reason. A MUCH more likely scenario is that (despite what his friends and classmates say) he wasnt ACTUALLY leaving the building. That would better explain why the cop might grab his arm in attempt to lead the student outside.

predictably, the police claim that he was resisting the whole time, but witnesses who were not police claim otherwise:

Witnesses disputed [the police] account, saying that when campus police arrived, Tabatabainejad had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack. When an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, the witnesses said, Tabatabainejad told the officer to let go, yelling "Get off me" several times.

From what I saw the kid had to be dragged all the way from the computer room to the lobby and then out the door. I very much doubt he was on his way out if he was still in the room where the faculty initially told him to leave.

The only stuff on the tape is at the door to the library, and then it moves into the library atrium, and then into some outer hall, afaik.

As for the all too common cliche of "The end does not justify the means!!" What would you rather happen? The cops pick him up by the legs kicking and screaming? Risking personal injury?

Well, it is their job... and there isn't a very big risk of injury if you do it properly, there is an evolved pracitice of physical grappling and technique that police have learnt over decades and decades of existing. Dozens of holds and tactics, putting someone who is resisting in handcuffs is not non-standard. Moving a resistant person is not non-standard.

And I would say it was safer for the officers if they didn't use the taser. Once they did, the situation blew out of control. They were surrounded with shouting, angry people, they had people in their faces blowing up at them... it would have taken one hothead to turn it into a riot, and dozens of people would be crammed on top of them in some bottlenecked room.


Questioning if the end justifies the means may be a cliche, but that does not invalidate it. It's famous for a reason- it's the right thing to do.

Besides, that doesn't change the fact that they could have, and should have talked him out. If you need to rely on a weapon to deal with someone in this particular situation, someone refusing to leave a library because they haven't got their library card, then you are not the type who should be policing the neighbourhood.

You don't earn respect by forcing people into complicity. Police should be community leaders, not hired muscle. A hostile response to a conflict situation is a stupid one, it is a matter of public record that the best way to deal with conflict is to defuse it quickly and peacefully. You resort to force only if it is 100% required, if all other options are exhausted.

I saw lazy policing, people eager to put their hands on each other, nobody trying to calm the situation, kneejerk behaviour and unreasonable use of force.

(Furthermore, telling someone to "stand back or you're gonna get tased too!" is a threat, and is only going to make bystanders more defensive and hostile towards you. That's an unskilled way to deal with an angry crowd, especially when you're surrounded. It only reenforces the hostile perception the crowd has of you, makes them more angry at you, makes them more sympathetic to the original person, destabilises the situation further, and ensures that more people will be less likely to help in future. You can see what I mean when I say there is a training issue present.)

There is no way to justify how the officers acted as being the best course of action. Absolutely no way.

 

[15357]

Well, I trust the police much more than University students, since the students are always the ones causing trouble and doing demonstrations in my experience.

Anyway, I now belive that all police officers should be equipped with a net gun, and a reverse/semi-reverse shield. Very non-lethal, unlike the less-than-lethal tasers and batons.

 

[bliink]

Well, I trust the police much more than University students, since the students are always the ones causing trouble and doing demonstrations in my experience.

Ohhhh don't you start numbers!

 

[15357]

Ohhhh don't you start numbers!

Please ignore first part of post.

IGNORE THIS IGNORE THIS IGNORE THIS

Anyway, I now belive that all police officers should be equipped with a net gun, and a reverse/semi-reverse shield. Very non-lethal, unlike the less-than-lethal tasers and batons.

 

[bliink]

A net gun eh? Doesn't batman have something similar?

 

[15357]

Hehe.... Net gun equipped police would be rather cool in my opinion. No more wrestling people to the ground, just fire the net gun, and there you have your suspect.

 

[kirovman]

And if the net gun option doesn't work, send in the Murmillos!

 

[MiccyNarc]

1) The media, eyewitnesses, and video all place him at the library exit, trying to leave. All you have counter to this is your speculation.

Eh? Watch the video again, he's still in the middle of the computer lab, nowhere near an exit.

 

[zleppelin]

Maybe they thought they were doing the right thing, maybe their vision was clouded, but there is no way that a dispute over a library card should EVER result in a taser being shot into someone.

What if the person draws a gun? A knife? What if the person becomes loud and obscene in a place that is supposed to be quiet? What if the person refuses to follow orders?

I think there is no way a dispute over a library card should EVER result in a person creating a scene such as the one we all saw in that video. Either you show the card and go on your way, or you say that you don't have it, and kindly walk out of the library.

 

[CptStern]

what if the person is carrying a nuke? or abrahms tank? your points are nonsensical knghenry

 

[15357]

what if the person is carrying a nuke? or abrahms tank? your points are nonsensical knghenry

A nuke? Sniper bullet to head. A tank? Carrying a tank? You wouldn't need anything, unless the laws of gravity have reversed themselves, or the guy is superhuman, in which you wouldn't need anything either.

 

[MiccyNarc]

what if the person is carrying a nuke? or abrahms tank? your points are nonsensical knghenry

It's unreasonable to think that a person would carry a nuke or a tank, whereas the likelihood of someone pulling a gun or knife in that situation is much higher, especially if the guy is as dumb as that video makes him out to be.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest

Yes, we know that already. You aren't saying anything new.

The majority of sensible people here strongly believe that the amount of force, repeated use of force, threats of force and so on were not a reasonable response to passive resistance. A reasonable officer wouldn't have resorted to arm holds as a first resort and the taser as a second resort in such a low stakes scenario, and certainly would not have used it repeatedly after the scenario had already de-escalated and the suspect was handcuffed as a third resort.
Handcuffing should not be higher on the scale than being cattle prodded.

Do you understand why we consider picking a non-resistant, handcuffed person up instead of repeatedly cattle prodding somone to be more ethical?

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.

Anything can technically "obstruct" a police officer.
Asking an officer his badge number is also obstruction (he has to go through the trouble), so does that girl also get a $4000 fine and year in jail?
And at the time, it was wrong to assume that the suspect was simply non-compliant instead of injured or otherwise incapacitated.
If this is considered resistance (which it should not be) then it is an extremely minor form of resistance.

You know what else is a Class A misdemeanour?
-Trying to buy alcohol as a minor.
-Failure to certify certain agricultural products.
-Being an unregulated home inspector.
Oh shit, crack out the taser!
It's undoubtedly a sliding scale, but it "passive resistance" any worse than any of those? Fuck no.

See, we don't enjoy the idea that "not moving your legs" is a criminal offense deserving of repeated cattle proddings.

Do you understand why we do not think that is just?

It implies resistance by inertia or non-energetic compliance, as opposed to resistance by active antagonism.

Right, so passive resistance is a form of compliance that is not the same as active resistance.

Thanks for clarifying what I've already said repeatedly.

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.

If that isn't it, it should be.
So UCLA goes straight from "arm-grab" to "taser" without verbal commands, handcuffs and so on either before or in between?
I find that highly unlikely.
Looking at the wiki list again, it seems more appropriate to classify the taser higher on the list of force.

Do you see why the taser is considered by us to be too powerful to use as the second resort in a low-stakes situation?

 

[hungryduck]

well, whatever.
**** the police.

 

[Ennui]

Since I'm not interested enough in this thread anymore to continue taking part, just pretend Mechagodzilla's name is "Mechagodzilla, Ennui concurring" for the duration

well, whatever.
**** the police.

lol. **** tha police comin' straight from the underground...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

if the guy is as dumb as that video makes him out to be.

Being dumb or disrespectful is directly excluded as a justification for force.
An officer is also required, as a rule, not to assume a worst-case scenario as a justification for force, without reasonable cause.

You cannot simply assume that a "dumb" person is armed, and then treat him as an armed suspect.


Your opinion does not reflect reality.

 

[15357]

well, whatever.
**** the police.

-_-;;


I'm sure that you wouldn't be able to live without the police.

 

[zleppelin]

The majority of sensible people here strongly believe that the amount of force, repeated use of force, threats of force and so on were not a reasonable response to passive resistance.

Stop assuming that the student's resistance to his detention constituted passive resistance. If you can prove that his resistance was passive, even though he was yelling obscenities, kicking and screaming, I'll be the first one to accept that these police officers exceeded their authority. Similarly, if it turns out that the student was offering active resistance, I'd expect you to accept that your argument is flawed.

 

[Danimal]

-_-;;


I'm sure that you wouldn't be able to live without the police.

He was joking, numbers. lol.

Equal share for all!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Stop assuming that the student's resistance to his detention consistituted passive resistance. If you can prove, that this resistance was passive even though he was yelling obscenities, kicking and screaming, I'll be the first one to accept that these police officers exceeded their authority. Similarly, if it turns out that the student was offering active resistance, I'd expect you to accept that your argument is flawed.

Being dumb or disrespectful is directly excluded as a justification for force.
"Obscenities" and being loud are a non-factor, and should have been expected by any reasonable person.

As for kicking, he moved his leg once as an immediate result of being tasered.
The entire purpose of the tasering, reportedly, was to get him to move his legs.

There was no reason to assume the worst-case scenario of active resistance, and you have provided no attempt at such a reason.
You won't accept that though, I am sure. So don't put forwards disingenuous offers.

And obviously I'm going to change my opinion if new contradictory evidence comes to light.
Until that happens, that argument is deceptive.
Don't be stupid, henry.

 

[zleppelin]

Being dumb or disrespectful is directly excluded as a justification for force.
"Obscenities" and being loud are a non-factor, and should have been expected by any reasonable person.

As for kicking, he moved his leg once as an immediate result of being tasered.
The entire purpose of the tasering, reportedly, was to get him to move his legs.

There was no reason to assume the worst-case scenario of active resistance, and you have provided no attempt at such a reason.
You won't accept that though, I am sure. So don't put forwards disingenuous offers.

And obviously I'm going to change my opinion if new contradictory evidence comes to light.
Until that happens, that argument is deceptive.
Don't be stupid.

I want you to quote the letter of the law in regards to the meaning of passive resistance. Until you do that, you don't have a case.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The law, as already posted by our buddy Hapless, makes clear that the resistance must be "active".

Passive resistance is, by definition, not active.
If you want to argue that that is not the case, then by all means describe to us why you believe as much, henry.

Otherwise, it's not my job to disprove your unsourced claims that the evidence appears to refute.

 

[Absinthe]

A nuke? Sniper bullet to head.

Because, you know, that's an ever-present force at any place and any time...

Jesus Christ.

 

[15357]

Because, you know, that's an ever-present force at any place and any time...

Jesus Christ.

Thats about the same as a guy in library having a nuke.

 

[kirovman]

Passive Resistance? **** you Ghandi!

 

[MiccyNarc]

Being dumb or disrespectful is directly excluded as a justification for force.
An officer is also required, as a rule, not to assume a worst-case scenario as a justification for force, without reasonable cause.

You cannot simply assume that a "dumb" person is armed, and then treat him as an armed suspect.


Your opinion does not reflect reality.

....if you take it completely out of context as you so skillfully did.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Let's look at the full context, which I took into account:

It's unreasonable to think that a person would carry a nuke or a tank, the likelihood of someone pulling a gun or knife in that situation is much higher, especially if the guy is as dumb as that video makes him out to be.

So, you imagined a worst case scenario of a concealed knife or handgun being used, based on nothing except that "guns and knives are smaller and more common than nuclear warheads".

Then, you said that the chances of this worst-case scenario are increased when a person appears "dumb".

So, I said:

Being dumb or disrespectful is directly excluded as a justification for force.
An officer is also required, as a rule, not to assume a worst-case scenario as a justification for force, without reasonable cause.

You cannot simply assume that a "dumb" person is armed, and then treat him as an armed suspect.

Your opinion still does not reflect the reality.

 

[MiccyNarc]

That's not the full context. The full context is bliink's statement, followed by zlepplin's response, followed by stern's inane rambling, THEN my statement.

My point was that the stern's situation was completely off the wall. It was.
The idea that a moron would pull a weapon in a situation like that is not. Therefore, a library card incident could escalate to that point if the person did carry a weapon (fortunately he did not) and a taser, or worse, could be used.

Get it now?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Stern's post was a sarcastic response to henry's assertion that a missing library card could theorhetically result in a gun battle, in a hypothetical worst-case scenario.

That speculation, as Stern pointed out, is completely irrelevant to the discussion of this situation, for the reasons I posted.

 

[Qonfused]

THERE IS NO REASON HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TASED 4 TIMES FOR SOMETHING SO MINUSCULE.

For all of you who do not see that, you need a common sense lesson or two. Honestly.

 

[kirovman]

But he might have been a filthy peace-nik! He should have been tased more in that case! D:

 

[Krynn72]

I disagree. EDIT: With both Qonfused and Kirovman.

Why didnt anyone multi-quote-rebuttal my last post? Did I make too much sense and therefore cause you guys to just ignore it so that you could go on with your own ramblings?

 

[Absinthe]

I disagree. EDIT: With both Qonfused and Kirovman.

Why didnt anyone multi-quote-rebuttal my last post? Did I make too much sense and therefore cause you guys to just ignore it so that you could go on with your own ramblings?

Did you completely miss Bliink's reply?

So much for you making "too much sense".

 

[kirovman]

Yeah, Krynn. Pay more attention.

 

[Krynn72]

oops! My bizzle.

/goes to read

 

[Aenama]

a friend of mine has that job ..he's a hothead police-wanna be who's slightly cowardly so he uses macho activities to make himself feel better ...nice guy though


there is some prisoner beating involved

wow you are an idiot/