NationStates Jolt Archive

The guy was a psycho or on drugs. The cops did the right thing. He wouldn't leave.

He's lucky he wasn't in Conservatiana, or he'd be getting a lobotomy in my dungeons.

What a mature and educated response...

Now show me a clear video that completely supports the students statement in opposition to the police statements.

Show me video showing that he WAS alledgedly leaving w/o problems and didn't struggle w/ the police from the time he was stopped.

well there was no indication of him struggling. all the shots of him writhing about were accompanied by the sound of the tazer. and whether he was complying with their requests or not the use of a tazer was a disproportionate use of force. there was at least 3 police officers on the scene, that's plenty to restrain and remove one unarmed, and rather skinny, guy. when i was arrested not long ago i actively fought back and the police never used tazers on me, nor did they have to use their batons. it just took two of them to bring me down and one more to open the door of the police car and help bundle me in. the police that arrested me had these remarkable things called restraint and patience despite me trying to fight them and shouting at them continuously.

Am I missing something or was that student screaming at the top of his lungs at being asked to produce an ID card in a library?

If you ask me he deserved it for being an abusive idiot in a public place.

well there was no indication of him struggling. all the shots of him writhing about were accompanied by the sound of the tazer. and whether he was complying with their requests or not the use of a tazer was a disproportionate use of force. there was at least 3 police officers on the scene, that's plenty to restrain and remove one unarmed, and rather skinny, guy. when i was arrested not long ago i actively fought back and the police never used tazers on me, nor did they have to use their batons. it just took two of them to bring me down and one more to open the door of the police car and help bundle me in. the police that arrested me had these remarkable things called restraint and patience despite me trying to fight them and shouting at them continuously.

So you acted like an ass and got lucky. Had you been tazed, I'ld feel about as sorry for you.

The video's only show the later parts of it after he had been alledgedly resisting arrest and after the students crowded the police. Could the police have shown more 'restraint"? Possibly. Could the student actually have tried to not cause problems by showing his ID and then leaving BEFORE more police were called? Yes.

Im unfamiliar with anyone that doesnt expect police to use weapons and/or force when a suspect repeatedly fails to obey a lawful order.
Let me just repost my as of yet unanswered post from above:
Yes. And at what point did the law get changed to include disproportional use of force to forcibly remove someone?

It really boils down to how much force and what kind of force. Id argue that in terms of damage to his body, stress to his joints etc, hog tying him and dragging him many hundreds of feet would injure him more so then a taser would in the long run.
Yes, of course. Because carrying him out of the library obviously would have entailed hog tying him and "dragging him many hundreds of feet" (some mighty huge library, btw.). :rolleyes:

WTF?
Did you miss the fact that two of the cops already were carrying him the whole time?
They had him grabbed under his arms, which is exactly the way people are usually carried away by the police, but instead of walking out with him - and hey, guess what, their colleagues could even have come and grabbed his feet, and no dragging whatsoever would have resulted - they rather stayed there, yelled at him, and kept giving him electroshocks for no reason whatsoever.

Yes, absolutely logical.


Now show me a clear video that completely supports the students statement in opposition to the police statements.

Show me video showing that he WAS alledgedly leaving w/o problems and didn't struggle w/ the police from the time he was stopped.

As has been said here many, many, many times before - even if he did something that might justify the first tasering they gave him, *nothing* that he did justified any of the following. And even if you argue that "well, we didn't see the subsequent couple of times" we still saw the last ones, and those were all definitely unjustified - because, hello, they had him grabbed, he was just hanging there, he wasn't threatening them, nothing.

Let me just repost my as of yet unanswered post from above:



Yes, of course. Because carrying him out of the library obviously would have entailed hog tying him and "dragging him many hundreds of feet" (some mighty huge library, btw.). :rolleyes:

Haven't been in many University Libraries have you? They are huge and most are multi-leveled.

WTF?
Did you miss the fact that two of the cops already were carrying him the whole time?
They had him grabbed under his arms, which is exactly the way people are usually carried away by the police, but instead of walking out with him - and hey, guess what, their colleagues could even have come and grabbed his feet, and no dragging whatsoever would have resulted - they rather stayed there, yelled at him, and kept giving him electroshocks for no reason whatsoever.

Yes, absolutely logical.

Now try reading police procedure for someone who resists arrest.




As has been said here many, many, many times before - even if he did something that might justify the first tasering they gave him, *nothing* that he did justified any of the following. And even if you argue that "well, we didn't see the subsequent couple of times" we still saw the last ones, and those were all definitely unjustified - because, hello, they had him grabbed, he was just hanging there, he wasn't threatening them, nothing.

And it's been said 'many, many times" that they weren't police either. That was also wrong.

At least you admit you are judging the whole story based on the the few minutes of video at the end.

I agree the comment to the bystanders was inappropriate. Excessive force is of course a subjective judgement however.

Thats rubbish, it is objective how much force you need to move any given ovbject based on it's mass. So it is objectivly clear that 5 police tazering one person over, and over again is excesive force.

If it weren't so disgusting, that would have made me crack up. Did you just wake up and come straight here?

Do me the favour and read the replies to your tirades last night before you latch onto something else that misses the point and start spouting the same kind of bull again.

Hehe and you know what is even more disgusting? This very person was talking to me about how we should not turn away from God, and it is our fault if we end up in hell.

Haven't been in many University Libraries have you? They are huge and most are multi-leveled.
"Many hundreds of feet"? Sure. I'm sure they were on the 5th floor, would have taken the stairs, and parked all the way down the street.

Now try reading police procedure for someone who resists arrest. Oh, I'd love to. Maybe you want to highlight the parts to me where it says "Grab the person but do not carry them out. Instead, stand there and taser him repeatedly while yelling at him to stand up."

And it's been said 'many, many times" that they weren't police either. That was also wrong. Are you for real? o_O
What has one to do with the other? Something was said repeatedly and was wrong - why, everything that was said repeatedly has to be wrong! Eureka!
I wasn't even pointing out that some piece of factual information had been posted repeatedly, but pointing out that I was about to state an opinion that many others before me had already stated.

At least you admit you are judging the whole story based on the the few minutes of video at the end.
You cannot be for real.

Am I missing something or was that student screaming at the top of his lungs at being asked to produce an ID card in a library?

If you ask me he deserved it for being an abusive idiot in a public place.

Hahahah man I can't wait until you gorw old enough to drink, get a little tipsy and become abusive and loud in public. Shit freedom of speach yeah? I though your lot was big on that?

Im glad its clear to you. Its not clear to a good many other honest and well intentioned people.


BTW i live in New York and the Campus Police at Cornell University also have full police powers and carry guns.

The police at my university do too. In fact, my town has 5 different law enforcement agencies with presences here, all of which are state-certified, the State Police, County Sheriff, City Police, Tribal Police, and University Police.

I don't know if it's possible to add a poll at this point, but I'd be curious to see how many people have actually been tazered themselves.

I don't know if it's possible to add a poll at this point, but I'd be curious to see how many people have actually been tazered themselves.

Yeah good idea. I have not but I have suffered from electric shoock on a few occasions. It hurts, it tightens up your muscles so that even after the shock is over you can't really move for a while, ohhh yeah and it hurts.

"Many hundreds of feet"? Sure. I'm sure they were on the 5th floor, would have taken the stairs, and parked all the way down the street.

The Library at my school has at least 200' from the computers to the exit and there are levels above that as well. It's considered a small library. Try again.

Oh, I'd love to. Maybe you want to highlight the parts to me where it says "Grab the person but do not carry them out. Instead, stand there and taser him repeatedly while yelling at him to stand up."

I guess making stupid ad hominems is your best defense. Standard procedure is to subdue them and to make sure they remain subdued. Yes, that can involve multiple tazerings and yelling at them to keep them from starting up again.

Are you for real? o_O
What has one to do with the other? Something was said repeatedly and was wrong - why, everything that was said repeatedly has to be wrong! Eureka!
I wasn't even pointing out that some piece of factual information had been posted repeatedly, but pointing out that I was about to state an opinion that many others before me had already stated.


You cannot be for real.

ANd now going for the personal attacks and ad hominems. Good argument. So far, every argument supporting this student has been exaggerated and wrong. He refused to show ID to lawful police, wouldn't leave, then when detained, he became hostile and arguementative.

Did you miss the fact that two of the cops already were carrying him the whole time?
They had him grabbed under his arms, which is exactly the way people are usually carried away by the police, but instead of walking out with him - and hey, guess what, their colleagues could even have come and grabbed his feet, and no dragging whatsoever would have resulted - they rather stayed there, yelled at him, and kept giving him electroshocks for no reason whatsoever. Yes, absolutely logical.

They were tasering him while in physical contact? I doubt it. Do you understand the principles of electricity?

The Library at my school has at least 200' from the computers to the exit and there are levels above that as well. It's considered a small library. Try again.

still doesn't excuse tazering.

I guess making stupid ad hominems is your best defense. Standard procedure is to subdue them and to make sure they remain subdued. Yes, that can involve multiple tazerings and yelling at them to keep them from starting up again.

i doesn't take repeated tazering to subdue someone when there are several police officers on the scene. the guy was subdued well before they stopped tazering him. like i said before, tazering was excessive.

ANd now going for the personal attacks and ad hominems. Good argument. So far, every argument supporting this student has been exaggerated and wrong. He refused to show ID to lawful police, wouldn't leave, then when detained, he became hostile and arguementative.

that wasn't a personal attack. what are you talking about?

nothing that man did required the use of a tazer.

They were tasering him while in physical contact? I doubt it. Do you understand the principles of electricity?

His feet were in contact with the ground. The tasers were being applied to his lower body. Path of least resistance. The only person who does not understand the principles of electricity is you.

I saw the video and it did not seem so shocking and disgusting. I bet that taser might help this student learn the value of listening to the police when they tell you to get moving. Obviously, the kid did not have his ID so what is the problem? Serves him right.

I saw the video and it did not seem so shocking and disgusting. I bet that taser might help this student learn the value of listening to the police when they tell you to get moving. Obviously, the kid did not have his ID so what is the problem? Serves him right.

Telling tazing him because he did not move after being tazed was pointless its like tazing a cripple in those first few moments

No matter how many times you shock them ya aint going to make them be able to move.

Ok it's too hard to tell whats really going on to make a serious comment but I have been tazered before and it wasn't the most painful thing ever, though it is painful. If there was real high voltage applied you would not be able to scream as your muscles seize up.

The guy may have been making a scene to the rest of the people in protest or to show off etc... Though I don't know for sure.

If the guy was refusing to get up when being told repeatedly for several minutes then it is not unusual to administer a slight shock to control the person however I admit the policemen were goung way over the top.

However if the guy was unable to get up, thats a different matter.

I saw the video and it did not seem so shocking and disgusting. I bet that taser might help this student learn the value of listening to the police when they tell you to get moving. Obviously, the kid did not have his ID so what is the problem? Serves him right.

What did you actualy say that? So would you be happy for it to happen to your kid then?

still doesn't excuse tazering.

i doesn't take repeated tazering to subdue someone when there are several police officers on the scene. the guy was subdued well before they stopped tazering him. like i said before, tazering was excessive.


that wasn't a personal attack. what are you talking about?

nothing that man did required the use of a tazer.

That's all personal opinion. This is alot like the classic Rodney King episode where the whole video was never shown on TV where he was fighting w/ the police, only the after effects.

Im unfamiliar with anyone that doesnt expect police to use weapons and/or force when a suspect repeatedly fails to obey a lawful order. Engraved invitations to prison tend to be ineffective.

Well Hi there.

Now, you are. Theres no need to beat the shit out of people in that situatuation unless they violently resist. From the way he was whinging, I'd imagine the victim would think "Violently resist" to be a punk band.

What did you actualy say that? So would you be happy for it to happen to your kid then?

"Happy"? When did that come into play? Oh, right, it didn't.

If my kid were stupid enough to not show ID to police and then argue/struggle w/ them, He'ld have a lot of explaining to me as to why he did it.

That's all personal opinion. This is alot like the classic Rodney King episode where the whole video was never shown on TV where he was fighting w/ the police, only the after effects.


The after-effects being him beaten to a pulp unable to defend himself against a group of cops with batons.

The after-effects being him beaten to a pulp unable to defend himself against a group of cops with batons.

After fighting and assaulting the cops repeatedly and refusing to stay down on the ground.

I guess making stupid ad hominems is your best defense. Standard procedure is to subdue them and to make sure they remain subdued. Yes, that can involve multiple tazerings and yelling at them to keep them from starting up again.
.

A non-resisting subject? I think not. Though then again, being Amerika maybe you're right....

That's all personal opinion. This is alot like the classic Rodney King episode where the whole video was never shown on TV where he was fighting w/ the police, only the after effects.

beating someone when they are down is wrong. there is no matter of opinion there. i don't know anything about what supposedly happened before rodney king got beaten (i assume he's the black guy that was filmed being brutally beaten by several policemen while he was huddled on the floor?).

After fighting and assaulting the cops repeatedly and refusing to stay down on the ground.

So why were they hitting him when he couldnt get off the ground? Being "dark" at them?

A non-resisting subject? I think not. Though then again, being Amerika maybe you're right....

And now the traditional "America bashing"

Show me video where he was "non-resisting". Please.

I bet he was a cocky arrogant sob that pissed off a tired or new policeman. I read that a kid was threatened with being tasered for asking for a cop's name and badge number. Now that is just plain wrong if true but honestly I could not hear that from the video. So a cop gives some punk an extra zap or two, no big deal. The problem as I see it is a cop threatening and intimidating a concerned citizen.

If my kid (I am childless) was a cocky sob thinking that the rules did not apply to him I'd hope he got the reality shock that this punk got.

I saw the video and it did not seem so shocking and disgusting. I bet that taser might help this student learn the value of listening to the police when they tell you to get moving. Obviously, the kid did not have his ID so what is the problem? Serves him right.

i really don't get this kind of response. why should they use violence against somebody if he wasn't trying to attack them or anybody else? is that the kind of glorious freedom you want?

"Happy"? When did that come into play? Oh, right, it didn't.

If my kid were stupid enough to not show ID to police and then argue/struggle w/ them, He'ld have a lot of explaining to me as to why he did it.

Yeah but I doubt he would be punished by you by being tazed 7 times

"Happy"? When did that come into play? Oh, right, it didn't.

If my kid were stupid enough to not show ID to police and then argue/struggle w/ them, He'ld have a lot of explaining to me as to why he did it.


But you would fully support a multipule tazering and feel that your kid deserved it? You did say that, you did say that the kid deserved it. If that is how you feel then I inferered that if he deserved it, you would be happy to support it.

So why were they hitting him when he couldnt get off the ground? Being "dark" at them?

And now more cries of "racism". Obviously you've never watched the whole thing. He kept getting up and attacking the officers. Never saw that on network television, did you.

Keep trying.

But you would fully support a multipule tazering and feel that your kid deserved it? You did say that, you did say that the kid deserved it. If that is how you feel then I inferered that if he deserved it, you would be happy to support it.

Now you're trying to demonize. Did I say anything about being "happy" about it? No. Justified? Probably. The two are not the same. Show me where I said the kid "deserved" it?

And now more cries of "racism". Obviously you've never watched the whole thing. He kept getting up and attacking the officers. Never saw that on network television, did you.

Keep trying.

Rodney King, isn't he the one they killed?

Rodney King, isn't he the one they killed?

No.

And now the traditional "America bashing"

Show me video where he was "non-resisting". Please.

Where he was on the ground....thats "non-resisting". When protestors do that they just pick them up and off they go.

Now you're trying to demonize. Did I say anything about being "happy" about it? No. Justified? Probably. The two are not the same. Show me where I said the kid "deserved" it?


And your reading to much into my words. Read instead, that you are happy to support it.

Rodney King, isn't he the one they killed?


Theres been a few. However you may mean the guy in new york who had a large number of rounds fired at him, rather famously.

And your reading to much into my words. Read instead, that you are happy to support it.

The two are not the same. Keep trying.

Originally Posted by Glorious Freedonia View Post
I saw the video and it did not seem so shocking and disgusting. I bet that taser might help this student learn the value of listening to the police when they tell you to get moving. Obviously, the kid did not have his ID so what is the problem? Serves him right.

What did you actualy say that? So would you be happy for it to happen to your kid then?

And you also responded to my comment to another person.

If this guy was fighting with the cops, tasering is pretty appropriate. My momma told me as a kid to never resist arrest if I was ever arrested. Apparently this dumbass never had the same lesson. He is lucky that cops have tasers instead of cubs. Remember that punk Rodney King? That tape looked a hell of a lot worse than this and when the jury got all the facts they realized that the cops were in the right.

The kid was asking for it. When a suspect resists arrest his dumbass just bought a nonrefundable ticket to Beatdown City. There was a little sh** in my high school class or maybe the one above me that just died this week because of wrestling with a cop over a gun during arrest. I do not feel bad for the wasted punk but I feel bad for the officer who was injured in the incident.

Yeah there are some bad cops out there but I am not convinced that these guys were in the wrong unless there really was a cop intimidating a witness to the event who asked for the cop's badge ID and name.

Where he was on the ground....thats "non-resisting". When protestors do that they just pick them up and off they go.

Now show me that in the video. Show me where he wasn't being agressive and arguementative w/ the police before he sat/fell down or even after that.

And now more cries of "racism". Obviously you've never watched the whole thing. He kept getting up and attacking the officers. Never saw that on network television, did you.

Keep trying.

And this video is available to view where?

And this video is available to view where?

Exactly. Look online. Google is your friend.

Edit:

Here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingvideo.html

You're making judgements based off of incomplete information.

By the students own admission, he refused several lawful instructions and was beligerent w/ police.

School library. Private property.

He was intruding upon private property, resisting arrest, and obstructing justice. That deserves a good ass kicking.

I love it when posters troll simply to be contrary. You clearly don't believe what you're saying, FHR; you're just trying to be the "voice of the opposition."

Sure. A student using a library on his way out the door is stopped, grabbed by the arm and, when he refuses to allow them to grab him (he was NOT being arrested, by the way,) he's TASED.

What weapon did the student possess that justified the use of a weapon on him?

Which officer did he strike BEFORE the officers TASED him?

You haven't bothered to ask those questions, FHR, because you already know the answers defeat your obvious attempts at being "contrary."

It is one thing to reasonably disagree. It is quite another to offer an opinion which is so obviously flawed that others begin to wonder about your morals. But then, you are carrying a "Fourth Reich" tag. Say "Hey" to Hitler for us on your way OUT of the US. Thanks.

Amazing.


:sniper:

Originally Posted by Glorious Freedonia View Post
I saw the video and it did not seem so shocking and disgusting. I bet that taser might help this student learn the value of listening to the police when they tell you to get moving. Obviously, the kid did not have his ID so what is the problem? Serves him right.

What did you actualy say that? So would you be happy for it to happen to your kid then?

And you also responded to my comment to another person.


What I meant is that the kid told the cops he had no ID and the cops replied get out of the library if you do not have your ID. The kid did not listen to the cops because he probably thought he was above the rules or some such nonsense. Then he resisted arrest. If I had a kid that did this I would be happy he got tased (as long as there was no serious health problems just the pain) because it would teach him a lesson that I thought I taught him as a child just like my mom taught it to me as a child.

Now show me that in the video. Show me where he wasn't being agressive and arguementative w/ the police before he sat/fell down or even after that.

Hmmm, so being argumentative/"aggressive" in on instance is all thats needed for multiple taserings later on?

After he went down, he could have been removed without any further need for tasering, by the way, or is being on the ground being "aggressive" again?

This is abuse of power if I ever saw it. Tasering a student for not leaving the library fast enough? Even once would have been scandal enough to start an enquiry that would most certainyl have finished in an officer being sent to do paperwork for the next few years here at worst, or lose his job at best. But one of these officers tasered the student repeatedly, while yelling him orders to get UP, which is something anyone is incapable of doing so shortly after being tasered.

Right now, I have to wonder: do UCLA security officers go through the process of being tasered before they get the weapon? I know the Montreal police force has to go through the expercience at least once before they get to use the weapons. The reasons are twofold: to avoid making fucktards of themselves as they yell orders to someone to get up after they've been incapacitated, and to realize that tasers do, in fact, hurt like shit, and that they should not be used irresponsibly.

I hope the student associations of the university fall down on the security forces and make them regret hurting one of their charges instead of protecting their safety.

Hmmm, so being argumentative/"aggressive" in on instance is all thats needed for multiple taserings later on?

After he went down, he could have been removed without any further need for tasering, by the way, or is being on the ground being "aggressive" again?

Now try and keep up. Maintaining the subdued condition is SOP.

By the students own admission, he refused several lawful instructions and was beligerent w/ police.

Several lawful insturctions ....Well Jaysus help my five year old nephew the next time he's here...I'll bate shite out of him......though being a child I'll only use the blunt end of the hatchet...I better get a few over to help too....

.....being "beligerent". Those poor men probably had their feelings hurt.
I am wrong. You are right. No Officer Sir person should have to take abuse without being able to taser the bastards doing it until they at least defecate thesmselves....

Hmmm, so being argumentative/"aggressive" in on instance is all thats needed for multiple taserings later on?

After he went down, he could have been removed without any further need for tasering, by the way, or is being on the ground being "aggressive" again?

He could have still been aggressive on the ground. Remember the Rodney King trial. The cops did the right thing when they were beating a guy on the ground. It seems wierd to us but it was true. A jury figured it out.

Now try and keep up. Maintaining the subdued condition is SOP.

There is NO need to subdue a single, unarmed, unthreatening student.

No matter that he might or might not have been playing dickhead or being cheeky to the officers: when there are 5 law enforcement officers against a single unarmed civilian, subduing is NOT needed unless the civilian tries to attack directly an officer. And there is absolutely no evidence of an attack from the student directed at any of the officers.

He was not being arrested, he was being shown the door. There is no need of tasering to evict anyone from somewhere. Doormen don't need tasers for that, and police officers should need them even less.

Several lawful insturctions ....Well Jaysus help my five year old nephew the next time he's here...I'll bate shite out of him......though being a child I'll only use the blunt end of the hatchet...I better get a few over to help too....

And now more stupid exagerations.

.....being "beligerent". Those poor men probably had their feelings hurt.
I am wrong. You are right. No Officer Sir person should have to take abuse without being able to taser the bastards doing it until they at least defecate thesmselves....

And even more. If you would just remember the bolded sections. Things would go much smoother.

There is NO need to subdue a single, unarmed, unthreatening student.

No matter that he might or might not have been playing dickhead or being cheeky to the officers: when there are 5 law enforcement officers against a single unarmed civilian, subduing is NOT needed unless the civilian tries to attack directly an officer. And there is absolutely no evidence of an attack from the student directed at any of the officers.

He was not being arrested, he was being shown the door. There is no need of tasering to evict anyone from somewhere. Doormen don't need tasers for that, and police officers should need them even less.

Now you get to show me the proof that he wasn't resisting arrest and/or that he wasn't becoming agressive w/ the officers.

He could have still been aggressive on the ground. Remember the Rodney King trial. The cops did the right thing when they were beating a guy on the ground. It seems wierd to us but it was true. A jury figured it out.

Exactly. Because the whole video was NEVER SHOWN on television. Not the part of him assualting the police or where he kept getting up . Only the end.

I think people are being overly dramatic. The officers request for ID is legitimate. Detaining someone for questioning is legitimate. ie placing a hand on someone who isnt fully stopping to allow an interrigation. Asking a person at least 70x to stand up is a legitimate police request. Not standing up and followingf the polices legitimate order is not legitimate. The officers asked REPEATEDLY. Was tased, then asked to get up at least 20 or 30 times more after that. The suspects voice was clear and cohesive after he was tasered the first time and STILL failed to obey the cops requests at least 20 more times to stand up. This didnt appear to be a case of cops yelling at a corpse to stand up. If the guy refused to give ID and refuse to obey a single police order what exactly should the cops have done? Given up and left?

1) he was NOT under interrogation. interrogation, in the US, is ONLY used on suspects charged with a crime that have also been read their rights and told they're charged with said crime. if those two things aren't met, they're only being interviewd, and are free to leave at any time. (CJ major, just had that class, i know...)
2) you've obviously never been tased, as standing up and walking right after getting hit is the last thing you can do. no amount of requesting a return of motor funtion can chane that.
3) i don't know about you, but i could not see the guy's body the majority of the time. too many people in the way. i can't tell if he was corpse-like, so i go on the only other knowledge of similar situations i have: testing out a taser myself :p
4) what should they have done? as said by many people, the cops should have carried him out, and then read him his rights and arrested him if they want. not immobilize him, then complain that he's not moving out the door!

Now you get to show me the proof that he wasn't resisting arrest and/or that he wasn't becoming agressive w/ the officers.

Watch the video again. Notice you NEVER hear an officer say "You're under arrest. You have the right to remain silent." The student was NOT under arrest, therefore he could not be considered as resisting arrest. He was being evicted of the building, not arrested.

Being agressive with an officer is not a crime. Being agressive is not a crime at all. If a police officer is agressive towards me, I'll be agressive towards him. There is a significant difference between being agressive and actually acting up on your agressiveness and attacking someone. That student did not attack any officer. Therefore, tasering him is excessive use of force, especially considering he was unarmed, and outnumbered five-to-one, by police officers who had combat training.

You won't be able to justify multiple taserings of this student by saying he was being agressive, which we have no proff of either, by the way.

What kind of a country is the USA? I thought you were the land of liberty. If this sort of shit happened here in Quebec, all hell would break out and heads would fall in the security service for allowing such an obvious and serious blunder to happen, especially when such a situation could have been avoided.

"Happy"? When did that come into play? Oh, right, it didn't.

If my kid were stupid enough to not show ID to police and then argue/struggle w/ them, He'ld have a lot of explaining to me as to why he did it.

Thank you. Plus the loud pussy bellowing. Little jerk-off. That was NOT offering no resistance. The guy was unstable and refusing orders from the police.

Truth is, Tasing is a lot safer for all involved then a physical altercation. Once a cop lays his hands on someone anything can happen. He can get an eye ripped out, an ear ripped off (takes almost no pressure) he can get bit and get a serious disease, both cop and assailant can get broken bones, etc. You don't know what martial arts training or even knives or other weapons an assailant might be carrying.

With a Taser you are normally fine within seconds (and that is why the multiple shocks when the brat wouldn't cooperate).

The people that should get Tased are whoever raised that jerk.

This isnt an example of a guy who CANT get up, this is about a guy who REFUSES to get up. Big difference. At no time in his protestations did he ever say he was unable to get up, he just simply willingly refuses to do so. So i dont buy this lower taser paralysis BS at all.
and you're an example of someone who has never been tasered, and refuses to listen to facts about tasers.

(a taser could readily paralize most gross motor skills, yet leave vocal cords and lungs working - otherwise, do you think they'd be classified as "non-lethal"?)

I have actually seen this, though I admit I had my doubts the way yer man was going on. Its actually worse than I remember. Theres half a station there fer fucks sake.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingvideo.html

Theres no way on this planet that kind of a beating was needed. And with that number of cops there its even more riduclous.


And now more stupid exagerations. 3 or 4 to 1 odds against some geek in a library would strike me as a similar situation. Especially after an initial taser jolt.


The cops did the right thing when they were beating a guy on the ground. It seems wierd to us but it was true. A jury figured it out.

Yes, the jury from the cops - sorry "Officers" - area, wasn't it? Besides - those blacks are lethal once they get riled....take no chances....

Watch the video again. Notice you NEVER hear an officer say "You're under arrest. You have the right to remain silent." The student was NOT under arrest, therefore he could not be considered as resisting arrest. He was being evicted of the building, not arrested.

So the video shows the ENTIRE situation? You can hear every word that's spoken? Police don't place people under arrest AFTER being cuffed?

Being agressive with an officer is not a crime. Being agressive is not a crime at all. If a police officer is agressive towards me, I'll be agressive towards him. There is a significant difference between being agressive and actually acting up on your agressiveness and attacking someone. That student did not attack any officer. Therefore, tasering him is excessive use of force, especially considering he was unarmed, and outnumbered five-to-one, by police officers who had combat training.

Being aggressive towards police isn't a crime? Resisting the police isn't a crime? Try again.

You won't be able to justify multiple taserings of this student by saying he was being agressive, which we have no proff of either, by the way.

Right. So you, along w/ most of the reactionaries here, have made preliminary judgements against the police.

What kind of a country is the USA? I thought you were the land of liberty. If this sort of shit happened here in Quebec, all hell would break out and heads would fall in the security service for allowing such an obvious and serious blunder to happen, especially when such a situation could have been avoided.

And more US bashing. Because nobody ever attacks the authorities. Never.

Watch the video again. Notice you NEVER hear an officer say "You're under arrest. You have the right to remain silent." The student was NOT under arrest, therefore he could not be considered as resisting arrest. He was being evicted of the building, not arrested.

Being agressive with an officer is not a crime. Being agressive is not a crime at all. If a police officer is agressive towards me, I'll be agressive towards him. There is a significant difference between being agressive and actually acting up on your agressiveness and attacking someone. That student did not attack any officer. Therefore, tasering him is excessive use of force, especially considering he was unarmed, and outnumbered five-to-one, by police officers who had combat training.

You won't be able to justify multiple taserings of this student by saying he was being agressive, which we have no proff of either, by the way.

What kind of a country is the USA? I thought you were the land of liberty. If this sort of shit happened here in Quebec, all hell would break out and heads would fall in the security service for allowing such an obvious and serious blunder to happen, especially when such a situation could have been avoided.

Ok let me get something straight for you guys. An arrest happens when a reasonable citizen would reasonably believe that he is not free to leave. The reading of rights is done before a policeman can ask for incriminating statements. This is the law. There is some vagueness to it but it is the law.

Exactly. Because the whole video was NEVER SHOWN on television. Not the part of him assualting the police or where he kept getting up . Only the end.


Well, its there in all its glory now. "assaulting" my ass. He should have been charged with making a pathetic attempt at assault. 3 cops could have had him in the back of a car in seconds. Instead they might as well have sold tickets for the "Negro stomping".

I have actually seen this, though I admit I had my doubts the way yer man was going on. Its actually worse than I remember. Theres half a station there fer fucks sake.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingvideo.html

Theres no way on this planet that kind of a beating was needed. And with that number of cops there its even more riduclous.

3 or 4 to 1 odds against some geek in a library would strike me as a similar situation. Especially after an initial taser jolt.


The cops did the right thing when they were beating a guy on the ground. It seems wierd to us but it was true. A jury figured it out.

Yes, the jury from the cops - sorry "Officers" - area, wasn't it? Besides - those blacks are lethal once they get riled....take no chances....



SO you're trying to justify King assaulting the police and refusing to stay down?

Well, its there in all its glory now. "assaulting" my ass. He should have been charged with making a pathetic attempt at assault. 3 cops could have had him in the back of a car in seconds. Instead they might as well have sold tickets for the "Negro stomping".

SO you admit he tried to assault the police? You admit that even after that he kept trying to get up?

Nice that you keep having to take it back to "racism" even after that's been refuted for years.

Yes, the jury from the cops - sorry "Officers" - area, wasn't it? Besides - those blacks are lethal once they get riled....take no chances....



SO you're trying to justify King assaulting the police and refusing to stay down?[/QUOTE]


So having just viewed the video and thought "Fuck, that was unnessecary" you want to throw up a few strawmen?

Know what the fight or flight reaction is?

the only part of the video I could really see is when he was down on the ground and the rent-a-cop was telling him to stand up and he didnt so the dude tased him. He was not endangering anyone at that point , so I feel the tasing was unjustified in that instance. Obviously the students that were there and watching it didnt feel it was necessary so I'm inclined to believe the innocent onlookers than I am the rent-a-cops who are just tryignt o cover their asses.

EDIT: OMG and then at the end where the gaurd tells the guy complaining about their tactics that he needs to stand "over there or you'll get tased too"

what a moron that gaurd is... OBVIOUSLY he is easily prone to abuse of power and isnt worried about justification.

So having just viewed the video and thought "Fuck, that was unnessecary" you want to throw up a few strawmen?

Know what the fight or flight reaction is?

Yep. And guess what. Choosing to "fight" the police is a badly choosen "reaction".

the only part of the video I could really see is when he was down on the ground and the rent-a-cop was telling him to stand up and he didnt so the dude tased him. He was not endangering anyone at that point , so I feel the tasing was unjustified in that instance. Obviously the students that were there and watching it didnt feel it was necessary so I'm inclined to believe the innocent onlookers than I am the rent-a-cops who are just tryignt o cover their asses.

Once again SB, they are real police. Not "rent-a-cops".

SO you admit he tried to assault the police? You admit that even after that he kept trying to get up?

Nice that you keep having to take it back to "racism" even after that's been refuted for years.


Looked to me like he ran for it - that could be interpreted as "lunging at" a cop. Either way, he in no way justified the beating he received there. And how many cops does it take to arrest a black man in America?

"refuted" my ass.......

Yep. And guess what. Choosing to "fight" the police is a badly choosen "reaction".

Its not a "choice" its an instinctive reaction. Nor is it nessecarily so that he was fighting them, he may have been trying to get away. And even if he had, it doesnt justify the beating he received. 3 cops could have had him in a car cuffed and gone in seconds. Same in the library. Its brutality employed for the sake of it.

Looked to me like he ran for it - that could be interpreted as "lunging at" a cop. Either way, he in no way justified the beating he received there. And how many cops does it take to arrest a black man in America?

"refuted" my ass.......

So "lunging " TOWARDS police now equals "running away from" police? That's getting pretty weak.

Try reading up on it sometime.

I guess it was racism that caused him to commit numerous crimes after the whole situation?

When a person is refusing to cooperate with police, one would have to assume that the guys is drugged and you do not take chances. Tase him until he gets cooperative or passes out. The critical onlookers were not the ones in harm's way. An officer must be mindful of his own safety.

So the video shows the ENTIRE situation? You can hear every word that's spoken? Police don't place people under arrest AFTER being cuffed?

You keep trying to support the claim that he was being under arrest. So, prove to me he was under arrest. What evidence we DO have show no hitn of him being arrested. If you want to prove otherwise, the burden of proff falls on you. Innocent until proven guilty is the axiom of the judiciary system; likewise, we should assume he was not being arested until we see evidence to the contrary.

Did the security service take him into custody? Did they charge him with anything? Did they cuff him at all? What we see is simply them dragging him off.


Being aggressive towards police isn't a crime? Resisting the police isn't a crime? Try again.

No, it's not. It can be, at worst, an infraction, depending on the local laws, and that would entitle the officers to fine him. At least, that's how it is here, and how it should be everywhere. Law enforcement officers should not have to power to arbitrarily


Right. So you, along w/ most of the reactionaries here, have made preliminary judgements against the police.

Wrong. I have made judgement about a situation, based on what evidence I had at my disposal. If you can find any evidence that my assesment is false, feel free to provide it. So far though, all you've done is throw empty rhetoric without any facts to support your claims. I judge based on what I saw, and what I see might well be incomplete, that I grant you. But you, on the other hand, are trying to judge based on assumptions of things we have not seen, and making speculations. In other words, you prejudged the situation, and are simply making the correct assumptions that fit your pre-prepared vision of what happened.


And more US bashing. Because nobody ever attacks the authorities. Never.
That would not be US bashing. Simply a reminder that tasering an unarmed and unthreatening civilian several times for being an ass does not fit my vision of what I naively thought would be the land of freedom and liberty.

So you support your country becoming a police state? Because that's what democracies become once their law enforcement corps do not have to answer for their actions, and to not have strict rules and regulations to follow on how they should treat the very citizens they're sworn to protect.

Once again SB, they are real police. Not "rent-a-cops".


oh my bad... I was got the wrong impression from the pathetic way they were acting. Probably rookies then. Send those idiots into the heavily infested gang areas where they could make good use of force on people who actually deserve it then.

hey you guys are blowing this way out of proportion. This guy was asked to leave due to the fact he didnt have an id card, is that a stupid rule maybe, but it is still the fule and you have to follow it. Then he was asked to leave and refused resulting in his arrest. Then he resisted arrest and he was tasered. Then he refused the police commands to stand up and exit the building, his and your excuse was he had just been tasered and couldnt move. That being said let me just add as a member of the United States army we buy all kinds of things to help us in our trade and we test them on each other, so i have been tasered and let me say that while it is painfull and lasts a second you can still perform tasks like standing up and such without to much assistance. So before you go jumping all over the cops maybe you should take a long look at the guy who was causing the disturbence in the first place.

When a person is refusing to cooperate with police, one would have to assume that the guys is drugged and you do not take chances. Tase him until he gets cooperative or passes out. The critical onlookers were not the ones in harm's way. An officer must be mindful of his own safety.

When a guy is lying on the floor, pretty much incapable of getting up quickly because you just tased him, and then you tell him to get up and tase him again, does that really seem like it helps the officer? And why assume he is drugged if he shows no signs of it, and is sitting there studying for his classes?

What about the guy who was being entirely cooperative with police, the officer shot him in the leg, then when he was unable to stand up at the officer's command, shot him again? Was that for the officer's safety?

The woman who didn't get out of her car because she thought the officer was pointing a gun at her, who then got tased out of her car and onto the ground, even though she wasn't being threatening in the least?

This kid, who, as far as we can tell, was not being threatening? Who made it very clear that he would willingly leave after being tased the first time, but then got tased several more times?

The truth is, sometimes cops use brutality way beyond anything even remotely necessary. The power goes to their heads, or they get caught up in the moment, or whatever. And they deserve the punishment that comes along with that brutality.

He was under arrest the moment that an officer stopped asking him questions and or chatting with him and started giving him specific commands.

Excessive use of force, is my verdict after watching the vid.

I smell a lawsuit in this one...

He was under arrest the moment that an officer stopped asking him questions and or chatting with him and started giving him specific commands.

No, he has a duty to follow the commands of the police, but he's not under arrest when the commands are issued. Placing someone under arrest is a separate action.

hey you guys are blowing this way out of proportion. This guy was asked to leave due to the fact he didnt have an id card, is that a stupid rule maybe, but it is still the fule and you have to follow it. Then he was asked to leave and refused resulting in his arrest. Then he resisted arrest and he was tasered. Then he refused the police commands to stand up and exit the building, his and your excuse was he had just been tasered and couldnt move. That being said let me just add as a member of the United States army we buy all kinds of things to help us in our trade and we test them on each other, so i have been tasered and let me say that while it is painfull and lasts a second you can still perform tasks like standing up and such without to much assistance. So before you go jumping all over the cops maybe you should take a long look at the guy who was causing the disturbence in the first place.

IN the video during the time of the tasing the student getting tased yelled that he was trying to leave but was stopped. The onlookers that WERE ACTUALLY THERE, THAT WITNESSED THE ENTIRE THINGfelt that the force was excessive and yelled at the police repeatedly asking for badge numbers.

Some guy trying to reason with the police was threatened to be tasered for questioning them.

When a person is refusing to cooperate with police, one would have to assume that the guys is drugged and you do not take chances. Tase him until he gets cooperative or passes out. The critical onlookers were not the ones in harm's way. An officer must be mindful of his own safety.
That's some of the most stupid comments on what the job of law enforcement officers is. Assume that someone is drugged because they refuse to cooperate?

Has it never entered your mind someone might consider an officer to be going over the board and protesting? If an officer ever comes over and starts roughing me up, or even raising his voice to me while I was in no way looking for confrontation, I will be pissed.

Being a cop does not grant you license to abuse of your authority, of your power, and your equipement. It does not grant you license to bully anyone. It does not grant you unchecked discretion to taser anyone just because you don't like them or because they said something you didn't like.

What happened in that video calls for an immediate complete inquiry into what happened, and an opportunity for the student tasered repeatedly to place charges of abuse of power against the officer tasering him if he feels he can make a solid case out of it.

However, some posters on this forum seem to arbitrarily dismiss any POSSIBILITY of officers being guilty of abusing their powers. I find that very disturbing. Officers are first and foremost human beings, and human beings can make mistakes in good faith, lack training, or simply be a complete moronic bully who likes to bash others. Which of these happened? Only a complete inquiry can tell.

hey you guys are blowing this way out of proportion. This guy was asked to leave due to the fact he didnt have an id card, is that a stupid rule maybe, but it is still the fule and you have to follow it.

Suppose I was parked in the wrong place. An officer asked me to move my car. That would be the rules, right? If I say that I don't want to move my car, can he start tasing me over and over and over again, all the while yelling at me to get up, especially when I have not threatened him in any way? That would be appropriate treatment?

Then he was asked to leave and refused resulting in his arrest. Then he resisted arrest and he was tasered.

What resistance? I don't see him attacking the cops, nor do any of the witnesses claim that he did. In fact, I hear him yell, "I said I would leave!" before he is tasered repeatedly.

Then he refused the police commands to stand up and exit the building, his and your excuse was he had just been tasered and couldnt move. That being said let me just add as a member of the United States army we buy all kinds of things to help us in our trade and we test them on each other, so i have been tasered and let me say that while it is painfull and lasts a second you can still perform tasks like standing up and such without to much assistance. So before you go jumping all over the cops maybe you should take a long look at the guy who was causing the disturbence in the first place.

If you had actually played around with tasers, you would know that they can be set in different ways. That you can either use them with a short burst or a longer one. It is actually possible to kill someone with a taser, were you aware of that? Different people react differently to tasers. In some people, they cause seizures. Difficulty with muscle control is normal after being tased. In fact, that is the whole point of using a taser - to disorient and help disable someone.

As far as we can tell, the officers were in no danger here. The student was being an asshole, yes, but was not being violent. There was no reason for the tasers to be used at all, much less repeatedly. And when the cops began threatening onlookers with the tasers, specifically one threatening a student who asked for his name and badge number, the fact that they were out of line is exceedingly obvious. The only other possibility is that an entire library full of students, most of whom probably didn't know this guy from Adam, are just lying through their teeth.

He was under arrest the moment that an officer stopped asking him questions and or chatting with him and started giving him specific commands.
Bullshit. You're only under arrest from the point on when an officer tells you he's placing you udner arrest. A police officer CANNOT order people around for no reason whatsoever. He can only use his authority when someone has comitted a crime, is in danger or putting others in danger. There are strict guidelines that limit the power that can be exercised by authorities. Our personal freedom is contingent upon avoiding excessive use of law enforcement power.

sounds funI like doing it. :)

The issue is what was actually said. A refusal would be "Fuck no, get away from me". A refusal would also be "I don't have it with me". There are no reports from either the boy or the CSO who approached him first. According to the article, Campus Security who patrols the library asked to see his ID. ID was not shown (no reason given, it could be that he didn't have it, or it could be that he didn't want to show it, either way, it was not shown.) he was then asked to leave.

His refusal to leave could have, again, been anything from "No" to "Just let me finish this"which is a refusal. if NON Students (or anyone without a student ID) are not supposed to be in there after 11:00. then a "Just let me finish this" is not acceptable. however, for the sake of argument, let's say he did say that, there is also no evidence to say the security did continue his "patrol" and then returned to still find him sitting there still "Finishing up." either situation, still points to him Refusing to leave. after several requests to leave, then the CSO would be called.


Judging from how the library is set up, he would have to be up and moving before he could see the officers.without knowing the true setup and where he was at originally, he could've been walking out, or he could've been packing up to leave when officers came in.

Yes, someone grabs you without giving a decent reason, rather than treating you decently, you tend to get poor responses. This would be their first mistake. You do not _ever_ just grab someone when they do not expect it. It would typically start with "sir, please come with me".now here is where we are assuming things. there is no evidence whatsoever that officers did not at first approach him and ask him to come with them or even a "Please wait" as they try to grasp the situation.

it is equally possible that they did ask him to stop, but for whatever reason he didn't, (everything from an innocent listening to MP3, to ignoring them.) and so the officers put their hand on his arm (again anything from grabbing him to just touching is arm to signal to stop.) he pulled away, which could've been mis-interrpreted as a signal that he was going to run.

Escourting out at no time requires a finger to be laid on a person unless they are not cooperating. Either the boy was already violent (which, judging by the video start time and the confused looks in the very beginning, is not the case) or the cops made the wrong first move.this is an assumption. the video starts with him yelling and arguing with officers. we agreed that what was said and done before officers arrive. maybe he was violent (since he was being kicked out of the library.) he certainly won't be in a good mood, and seeing uniformed officers coming towards them (he and the Security officer asking him to leave.) may have aggrivated him even more.

We don't know the cops were in the room. That is an assumption that is too great to make, as it would place too much responsibility one way or the other.

from the article.
Witnesses disputed that 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.

he began walking towards the door when officers arrived, that means when the officers entered the room, he THEN BEGAN WALKING TOWARDS THE DOOR.


I wouldn't expect one for a whileunusual, usually if it was fault of the officers, (Throwing him to the ground, forcing him down... etc... ) witnesses would be saying that in the article. it shows brutality on the part of the Officers. but again, I do admit, the article and video is missing alot of things.


Standing up, okay. Why should he explain why he was delayed in leaving? The entire issue was trying to get him to leave. He is leaving. Problem solved.not really, he refused to leave when asked. the point CSO arrives is too late. had he left before CSO got into the building then problem solved, once CSO (or any police officer in fact) comes in, the situation changes. if he could ligitametly prove his status as student, then the officers would allow him to stay, but if not then he would've been escorted out. how depends on how he responds to officers. since the video starts with him yelling, it's known that the situation deteriorated. who started what tho, we cannot say.

They have every right to demand this information, and the officers SHOULD be giving it. They are employees of the university, and are employed to protect the student population. They are required to give badge numbers when requested.true, but not when the officers are busy with another situation. it's just as easy to get the officer's names (on their badge) without confronting them the way some of those students did. that adds to a hostile environment that could easily explode to violence. Getting their car number is also another way of identifying the officers.


We don't know the actual situation of this moment. Was he refusing to stand up, or was something preventing this? hard to say, but if we assume all parties are truthful, he did go limp (no explination was given to counter this statement.) and you can see at the point before the second stun use, that the officers were trying to stand him up.
see above. I know that if I'm in the middle of research or writing a paper, I would want to save it or print it before I leave.which is another assumption. we don't know why he refused to show his ID nor why he refused to leave. he could just as equally just have been an Asshole. but that is another assumption.


Why is it too late to leave? They are campus officers...all they can do is tell him to leave before calling in the real cops. They don't question, and can't arrest.actually, they do have the power of arrest. they can also detain as well as question students. that is part of their job. once they are on the scene, attempts to leave (especially when they tell/signal otherwise,) can be construed as resisting arrest.

*sings*"We're a big unruly mob"[/rocko's modern life] (all together now...) we are all individuals! :D


honestly, at this moment, the other student is right. Give the kid a second. according to Youtube, the officers gave him Minutes between stunnings.

I didn't see the handcuffs...I'll look in a few minutes.at the second stunning you see his hands behind his back. it's more visible at the top of the stairwell/ramp going down. when the third stun causes him to jump up and kick forward.

This covers the two taser blasts that I maybe could justify. At this point, in my opinion, the officers go past their rights.

rightfully so.didn't say it was wrong for the crowd to get angry... I'm just glad none of them did what people here said they would do.

This would be third...first was the one before he started his rant, second put him on the ground again. the first one had him screaming about the Patiot act and abuse of power. the second one was before the doorway leading down. I only said possibly is because we don't know what happened before.

And they are demanding that they give their badge numbers (something they should have done long ago) as well as demanding that they stop shocking the kid (not an outrageous demand)and perfecty ok... as long as it doesn't get physical. nothing wrong with that. just stating what's happening.

From what noises he made earlier, I'd say it is pretty safe to assume twice.hard to hear in the video.


Backup should have been called LONG ago. As well as REAL cops. Both big mistakes. backup was called (more officers in the foyer), and as far as some say on this thread, they were equvalent to real cops.

Before this, you hear them telling the boy to stand up again. They clearly have little idea of what tasering a person 3 or 4 times does. Additionally note, the person who blocks the camera is an officer. the boy is not attempting to walk, as his legs don't have strength. The officers are essentially pulling him out. He can't resist or help. several people bock the camera, but moot point. the officers are pulling him out, but he is concious and this time, he was attempting to also walk out.

also, after several requests, you see them talking to him, and not telling him to stand up. then they do let him sit there for a long time (longer than the other times anyway) before shuffling/draging him out.

the officers have yet to provide their badge numbers. Now would be the time they should.and they are investigating. so they know which officers were involved.
He shouldn't have complied. But that is neither here nor there. That is absolutly horrible crowd control technique. If "I'll taser you" is the only trick you have, you are fucked. You can't pull your taser as fast as 60 students can jump into attack mode. Their best move would be to comply and leave. They are the reason for the mob, and will be able to do nothing to control it. Additionally, if they want crowd control, they should be calling the police. not the best move, but then what else could he have said that would be better... I'll arrest you? still could be jumped by the rest of the students. but all that should also be investigated.

that comes from witness reports.which is why I included it. if someone does hear him saying "I have a medical condition" then great.

In the beginning, no. At the point of the third taser, it became clear that he was no longer resisting. He was quite a loud screamer...you would hear him. Expecting a person who was tasered 3x to stand is, quite honestly, stupid.not stand alone, but to at least make the attempt to stand. you can tell when someone makes the attempt to cooperate and when you don't.

They can make the rules. They are shitty rules, but they can make them. A better idea would be to bring in a security guard or two to keep an eye on things.

But wait...that makes sense.and since when do city and state workers do anything that make sense? :D

actually, what the secuity guard should've done was radio for assistance and stay by the student. that way, if the studen did leave, he could've waived the arriving officers off. by that officer leaving the student, he wound't know if the student was leaving or just moving to another area of the library.


Edit: DC gave some new info about UCLA police. Disregard anything that contradicts that. It is almost 3 AM and I really don't care to go back through this and fix it.I'm catching up, so if I did not disreguard what DC gave... sorry.

I guess it was racism that caused him to commit numerous crimes after the whole situation?


What has what he did afterward go to do with the massive beating he was given while lying on the ground? I was unaware that they had a time-crime viewer in the patrol car. Nor was I aware that 'beating by cops' was a possible sentence.

You wouldnt be trying to give that beating justification in hindsight would you?

What has what he did afterward go to do with the massive beating he was given while lying on the ground? I was unaware that they had a time-crime viewer in the patrol car. Nor was I aware that 'beating by cops' was a possible sentence.

You wouldnt be trying to give that beating justification in hindsight would you?

No offence, but you and Kecibukia are discussin another case entirely, that has nothing to do with the OP. Perhaps it would be best for you to start another thread instead of throwing this off its tracks? It could get confusing for someone just joining the thread.

Bullshit. You're only under arrest from the point on when an officer tells you he's placing you udner arrest. A police officer CANNOT order people around for no reason whatsoever. He can only use his authority when someone has comitted a crime, is in danger or putting others in danger. There are strict guidelines that limit the power that can be exercised by authorities. Our personal freedom is contingent upon avoiding excessive use of law enforcement power.

If an officer is asking you to comply with his requests, you are simply having a conversation. If an officer is telling you to do something, like "come with me to the police station. You are under arrest. If you are unsure if you are under arrest, you have the right to ask the officer if you are under arrest. You can be under arrest and not be handcuffed or read your rights. The reading of the rights must be done before anything you say in response to an officer's questioning can be used against you (but why people say anything after being arrested is beyond my ken).

Maybe next time he will just show his damn ID.:rolleyes: Why do people resist showing ID's? He got what was coming to him, I would not have stepped in at all and would have supported the cops.




(If you guys have a right to disagree with this, I have a right to agree)

Maybe next time he will just show his damn ID.:rolleyes: Why do people resist showing ID's? He got what was coming to him, I would not have stepped in at all and would have supported the cops.




(If you guys have a right to disagree with this, I have a right to agree)


I think that the suspect did not have his ID on him. The problem was not even that he did not leave when told, the problem was that he resisted arrest.

Maybe next time he will just show his damn ID.:rolleyes: Why do people resist showing ID's?

(a) He didn't have his ID. He had accidentally left it in his dormroom, from what I've read. Of course, it is not uncommon for students to lose their IDs. I've had that problem as a student, and I would be rather upset if I had to fail a class or something like it because the ID office wasn't open that day.

(b) People resist showing ID's, quite often, because we don't live in the USSR. "Papers, comrade," is not a common saying here, and it shouldn't be. Many people are suspicious of their government, and they should be. That suspicion was expected and even lauded by the founders of our government.

He got what was coming to him, I would not have stepped in at all and would have supported the cops.

What if they had shot him with their guns, would that have been ok, too? What if he had died? He wouldn't have been the first to die from a taser, if he had. :rolleyes:

I think that the suspect did not have his ID on him. The problem was not even that he did not leave when told, the problem was that he resisted arrest.

That MAY warrent one tazer hit ... hitting him the other 6 times had no positive effect

I think that the suspect did not have his ID on him. The problem was not even that he did not leave when told, the problem was that he resisted arrest.

And the evidence of this is......where?

Maybe a quick taser jolt will jog his memory....

(a) He didn't have his ID. He had accidentally left it in his dormroom, from what I've read. Of course, it is not uncommon for students to lose their IDs. I've had that problem as a student, and I would be rather upset if I had to fail a class or something like it because the ID office wasn't open that day.

(b) People resist showing ID's, quite often, because we don't live in the USSR. "Papers, comrade," is not a common saying here, and it shouldn't be. Many people are suspicious of their government, and they should be. That suspicion was expected and even lauded by the founders of our government.

WTF? You are making no sense. If you think showing an ID to validate your identity is wrong...Then you are hopeless. You have to show ID a ton of times, and maybe someday you will understand the logic behind it.



What if they had shot him with their guns, would that have been ok, too? What if he had died? He wouldn't have been the first to die from a taser, if he had. :rolleyes:



I have a short answer...I don't care.

If an officer is asking you to comply with his requests, you are simply having a conversation. If an officer is telling you to do something, like "come with me to the police station. You are under arrest. If you are unsure if you are under arrest, you have the right to ask the officer if you are under arrest. You can be under arrest and not be handcuffed or read your rights. The reading of the rights must be done before anything you say in response to an officer's questioning can be used against you (but why people say anything after being arrested is beyond my ken).
Again, nothing recorded on the video or nothing said in the article informs us that the student was considered under arrest. None of the witnesses said as much, either.

If an officer wishes someone to follow him to the station, and that person says no, it's his job to say "you're under arrest, you have no choice but to come with me". Because it's entirely possible a police officer could ask someone to follow him to the station without that person being under arrest, for a deposition, for example. In those cases, a person is entirely entitled in refusing to follow.

I'm not saying the student wasn't necessarily being stupid; but the burden of being clear and unambiguous falls to the police officers. It's not a civillian's job to ask pointed questions to know exactly what is going on in the policeman's head.

In any case, as was stated by many others before me, the officer that tasered him certainly does look like he's having a power trip. Threatening that other student that asked for his name and badge is certainly indication enough he's not reacting with calm level-headedness, at the very least.

I've never been for the instant lynching of anyone; but the unwillingness of some to even begin questionning the law enforcement's handling of events is very disturbing. Like they won't even begin to think a police officer is capable of abusing his power. Like it's not possible for them to make mistakes or behave like an ass.

Well, that strikes me as unhealthy. Authority should be questioned, and all authority should have a higher body where they have to answer their actions. A world where authority goes unchecked quickly becomes a police state ruling by the law of terror.

I am watching it now. That student was being an ass. He should have left when told to leave. When asked to stand up, he should have stood up. Those officers had every right to kick his ass. You shouldn't resist the police.
Maybe in your country.

You meet force with force...you do not meet non-compliance with that level of force.

He was under arrest the moment that an officer stopped asking him questions and or chatting with him and started giving him specific commands.

Don't talk about the law when you clearly don't understand it.

Again, nothing recorded on the video or nothing said in the article informs us that the student was considered under arrest. None of the witnesses said as much, either.

If an officer wishes someone to follow him to the station, and that person says no, it's his job to say "you're under arrest, you have no choice but to come with me". Because it's entirely possible a police officer could ask someone to follow him to the station without that person being under arrest, for a deposition, for example. In those cases, a person is entirely entitled in refusing to follow.

I'm not saying the student wasn't necessarily being stupid; but the burden of being clear and unambiguous falls to the police officers. It's not a civillian's job to ask pointed questions to know exactly what is going on in the policeman's head.

In any case, as was stated by many others before me, the officer that tasered him certainly does look like he's having a power trip. Threatening that other student that asked for his name and badge is certainly indication enough he's not reacting with calm level-headedness, at the very least.

I've never been for the instant lynching of anyone; but the unwillingness of some to even begin questionning the law enforcement's handling of events is very disturbing. Like they won't even begin to think a police officer is capable of abusing his power. Like it's not possible for them to make mistakes or behave like an ass.

Well, that strikes me as unhealthy. Authority should be questioned, and all authority should have a higher body where they have to answer their actions. A world where authority goes unchecked quickly becomes a police state ruling by the law of terror.

Myself and all Americans and most people all over the world wholeheartedly agee with your last paragraph in the above quote.

I can assure you that I believe it is possible for a policeman to abuse his power, become corrupt, or engage in any sort of wickedness or stupidity.

I do not think we know enough to say one way or another that the police abused this boy. All I know is that sometimes police on citizen violence looks pretty bad but later upon a full inquiry the violence was proper and justified such as in the California trial of the officers who beat Rodney King.

It is the job of a rights maximizing citizen (which I believe is the construct that the Supreme Court uses in its analysis of question of when someone was arrested) to ask the officer if he is under arrest or not if he is uncertain. Typically, this may be asked by asking "Am I free to leave?" If an officer says no then you are under arrest.

A prime example of this is the traffic stop. When you are pulled over nobody tells you that you are under arrest. You are pulled over, asked for ID and proof of insurance and issued a citation. Nobody ever says that you are under arrest or reads you your Miranda rights. Yet you are still under arrest.

I think that the suspect did not have his ID on him. The problem was not even that he did not leave when told, the problem was that he resisted arrest.

No.
LA Times: (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cellcamera16nov16,0,4794591.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines)
After repeated requests, the officer left and returned with campus police, who asked Tabatabainejad to leave "multiple times," according to a statement by the UCLA Police Department.

"He continued to refuse," the statement said. "As the officers attempted to escort him out, he went limp and continued to refuse to cooperate with officers or leave the building."

Witnesses disputed that 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.

"Tabatabainejad encouraged library patrons to join his resistance," police said. "The officers deemed it necessary to use the Taser."

Officers stunned Tabatabainejad, causing him to fall to the floor.
No arrest.

Remesnitsky said officers told him to leave or he would be Tasered.
Still no arrest...


Tabatabainejad declined to comment. He was arrested Tuesday night and cited by campus police for resisting and obstructing a police officer and was released.

There's the arrest! And he's not cited for resisting arrest (because he wasn't arrested) but he was cited for resisting the officer. :)

Don't talk about the law when you clearly don't understand it.


What if things are reversed?

Excessive use of force, is my verdict after watching the vid.

I smell a lawsuit in this one...

False imprisonment/false arrest, assault, battery, to name a few. I would also hope there will be criminal charges, but I won't hold my breath.

What if things are reversed?

Clarify.

Don't talk about the law when you clearly don't understand it.

What makes you think that you know more about the law than I?

What makes you think that you know more about the law than I?

Oh, that would be your ignorant, and erroneous statements, especially in regards to the legality of an arrest. I agree that the student was arrested, "deprived of the liberty of going where he pleased", but the legality of the situation is very much in question. One can absolutely resist a false arrest, and if refrained from doing so, sue the asses off those that carried out the false arrest.

THey could have done something besides taser him that circumstance was not a tasering type of circumstance he was causing no harm to anyone they could have just as easily escorted him or physically removed him from the room

Oh, that would be your ignorant, and erroneous statements, especially in regards to the legality of an arrest.

Well I do not practice criminal law so I am not an expert on the subject. However, I must know enough about it to have passed my Criminal Procedure classes in law school so I am not completely ignorant.

Well I do not practice criminal law so I am not an expert on the subject. However, I must know enough about it to have passed my Criminal Procedure classes in law school so I am not completely ignorant.
You don't need to practice criminal law, did you study torts?

All the torts I mention (false imprisonment/false arrest, assault, battery) stem from the tort of trespass to person. No harm or damage must be proven, and there is a reverse burden of proof on the defendant.

Myself and all Americans and most people all over the world wholeheartedly agee with your last paragraph in the above quote.

I can assure you that I believe it is possible for a policeman to abuse his power, become corrupt, or engage in any sort of wickedness or stupidity.

Glad we agree on this :)


I do not think we know enough to say one way or another that the police abused this boy. All I know is that sometimes police on citizen violence looks pretty bad but later upon a full inquiry the violence was proper and justified such as in the California trial of the officers who beat Rodney King.

I disagree with you on this. What we do see seems very much like abuse to me, AND the several witnesses there also seems to think so.

Like I said, I'm not condemning the guy outright, but I am calling for a full inquiry, and if I was a witness and saw everything that happened, or even worse the poor lad who'd been tased over and over,I would not rest until justice had been rendered.


It is the job of a rights maximizing citizen (which I believe is the construct that the Supreme Court uses in its analysis of question of when someone was arrested) to ask the officer if he is under arrest or not if he is uncertain. Typically, this may be asked by asking "Am I free to leave?" If an officer says no then you are under arrest.

A prime example of this is the traffic stop. When you are pulled over nobody tells you that you are under arrest. You are pulled over, asked for ID and proof of insurance and issued a citation. Nobody ever says that you are under arrest or reads you your Miranda rights. Yet you are still under arrest.

See, the trafic stop can't be considered the same situation. Driving isn't a right; it's a privilege. When you're pulled over, officers can ask to see your driver's license, not just any ID or ask any questions that doesn't pertain to your driving a car. So it's about you having the proper "permission" to exercise a privilege, kinda like showing the proper permit while hunting in order not to get a fine.

That the student's ID was asked IS a good parrallel; the student needed his ID in order to keep using the privilege of the computers in that library. But it's what happens AFTER ID is asked but not shown that's completely different. Let me explain:

Driving a car without a license is a crime. Using a computer against school regulations isn't a crime, it's an infraction of school rules. Driving without a license is a crime, because it's a serious offense and it puts other people in danger, because someone driving without a license is considered unfit and dangerous. So doing so can get you arrested, and your car towed and confiscated.

But using the computer past allowed time without ID is NOT a dangerous behaviour, not to yourself, and certainly not to others. The policemen certainly were justified in showing him the door, or they would have been justified in having his computer shut down. They would have been right stripping him of this privilege because he did not show the required ID in order to keep enjoying his privilege. But because he was not endangering anyone, they were not justified in using force against him.

A crazy driver at the wheel of a car can kill people. A student using a computer can't.

Use of force should always be justified. In this case, using force was NOT needed in any way to protect others from harm.

You don't need to practice criminal law, did you study torts?

All the torts I mention (false imprisonment/false arrest, assault, battery) stem from the tort of trespass to person. No harm or damage must be proven, and there is a reverse burden of proof on the defendant.

But we were talking about when someone becomes under arrest.

I am quite knowlegable on the subject of torts.

I am not sure what you are getting at when you say a reverse burden of proof on the defendant. Are you referring to the preponderance of the evidence standard?

WTF? You are making no sense. If you think showing an ID to validate your identity is wrong...Then you are hopeless. You have to show ID a ton of times, and maybe someday you will understand the logic behind it.

I don't think showing an ID to validate your identity is wrong. I do think that being routinely asked to do so, when the authorities have no reason to suspect you of wrongdoing, is.

Glad we agree on this :)


I disagree with you on this. What we do see seems very much like abuse to me, AND the several witnesses there also seems to think so.

Like I said, I'm not condemning the guy outright, but I am calling for a full inquiry, and if I was a witness and saw everything that happened, or even worse the poor lad who'd been tased over and over,I would not rest until justice had been rendered.



See, the trafic stop can't be considered the same situation. Driving isn't a right; it's a privilege. When you're pulled over, officers can ask to see your driver's license, not just any ID or ask any questions that doesn't pertain to your driving a car. So it's about you having the proper "permission" to exercise a privilege, kinda like showing the proper permit while hunting in order not to get a fine.

That the student's ID was asked IS a good parrallel; the student needed his ID in order to keep using the privilege of the computers in that library. But it's what happens AFTER ID is asked but not shown that's completely different. Let me explain:

Driving a car without a license is a crime. Using a computer against school regulations isn't a crime, it's an infraction of school rules. Driving without a license is a crime, because it's a serious offense and it puts other people in danger, because someone driving without a license is considered unfit and dangerous. So doing so can get you arrested, and your car towed and confiscated.

But using the computer past allowed time without ID is NOT a dangerous behaviour, not to yourself, and certainly not to others. The policemen certainly were justified in showing him the door, or they would have been justified in having his computer shut down. They would have been right stripping him of this privilege because he did not show the required ID in order to keep enjoying his privilege. But because he was not endangering anyone, they were not justified in using force against him.

A crazy driver at the wheel of a car can kill people. A student using a computer can't.

Use of force should always be justified. In this case, using force was NOT needed in any way to protect others from harm.

My point was only to illustrate that somebody may be under arrest without being explicitly told that he is under arrest. I was not making any point about the propriety of carrying ID.

I don't think showing an ID to validate your identity is wrong. I do think that being routinely asked to do so, when the authorities have no reason to suspect you of wrongdoing, is.

Are you morally opposed to drivers licenses? Library Cards? I had to show Photo ID at school to use the computers, gotta problem with that to?

But we were talking about when someone becomes under arrest. True...the way I read your comments was that you were automatically applying legality to arrest, rather than simply describing what constitutes an arrest, hence my ire. If I read it wrong, I apologise, but the issue of legality should be brought up, or there are bound to be (as there have been) misunderstandings.

I am quite knowlegable on the subject of torts.

I am not sure what you are getting at when you say a reverse burden of proof on the defendant. Are you referring to the preponderance of the evidence standard? I'm referring to the burden of disproving intention, negligence, or wrongdoing, opposite to the burden of proof in criminal proceedings.

Yes it looks like abuse to me as well, but I am leary to say one way or the other until all the facts are in. When I watched the videotape of the police beating Rodney King I was infuriated. When I discovered that a jury found them not guilty I realized the importance of not jumping to conclusions.

True...the way I read your comments was that you were automatically applying legality to arrest, rather than simply describing what constitutes an arrest, hence my ire. If I read it wrong, I apologise, but the issue of legality should be brought up.

I'm referring to the burden of disproving intention, negligence, or wrongdoing, opposite to the burden of proof in criminal proceedings.

Ok I think you mean that in civil cases, generally the standard of proof is preponserance of the evidence. In some cases it is a higher standard known as clear and convincing. Even this middle standard is less of a burden than the beyond reasonable doubt standard required in most criminal proceedings.

I don't think showing an ID to validate your identity is wrong. I do think that being routinely asked to do so, when the authorities have no reason to suspect you of wrongdoing, is.

One assumes that the CSOs were asking for his ID to confirm he was a student, since only students are allowed in the library after 11pm.

Yes it looks like abuse to me as well, but I am leary to say one way or the other until all the facts are in. When I watched the videotape of the police beating Rodney King I was infuriated. When I discovered that a jury found them not guilty I realized the importance of not jumping to conclusions.

Unfortunately, juries err, as do judges. Yes, it's important not to promise a certain result when things can really go anyway...but one can avoid this while at the same time continue to offer one's legal and moral opinion.

That the jury found them not guilty is one thing...agreeing that they were not guilty based solely on that decision is quite another.

Ok I think you mean that in civil cases, generally the standard of proof is preponserance of the evidence. In some cases it is a higher standard known as clear and convincing. Even this middle standard is less of a burden than the beyond reasonable doubt standard required in most criminal proceedings.

Right...explaining why people like OJ can be found not guilty in criminal proceedings, but found guilty of wrongdoing in the civil proceedings.

Unfortunately, juries err, as do judges. Yes, it's important not to promise a certain result when things can really go anyway...but one can avoid this while at the same time continue to offer one's legal and moral opinion.

That the jury found them not guilty is one thing...agreeing that they were not guilty based solely on that decision is quite another.

I think that the jury of the police who beatdown R. King had access to all the facts available. We do not have all the facts available. All we have is a kid with a wierd name who got tased, some students that thought there was too much force, a really poor quality tape of the event, and some accusations.

Did R. King ever sue those cops? I forget.

Are you morally opposed to drivers licenses? Library Cards? I had to show Photo ID at school to use the computers, gotta problem with that to?

I have no problem with priviledges being contingent upon having ID, although the enforcement of such policies should be reasonable. And, in every case that requires a specific type of ID, other identifiers should also be accepted - specifically, the same identifiers that would get you that type of ID.

If I lose my library card or don't have it with me, I can still use the library. They have my record on file and I can show them whatever form of ID I used to get the library card. The same goes for student ID's. If I do not have my student ID, or I have lost it, or it is defective, I can still use school facilities by giving them my student number and/or social security number.

Yes it looks like abuse to me as well, but I am leary to say one way or the other until all the facts are in. When I watched the videotape of the police beating Rodney King I was infuriated. When I discovered that a jury found them not guilty I realized the importance of not jumping to conclusions.

Juries are not infallible, you know. The fact that a jury decided something does not make it 100% true. Have you heard of OJ's latest, "I didn't do it, but this is how I would've done it if I did...." interview?


One assumes that the CSOs were asking for his ID to confirm he was a student, since only students are allowed in the library after 11pm.

Indeed. I was speaking in more general terms.

Of course, like any school, the library at UCLA should have alternate forms of identification in place in case of a lost or defective student ID.

I think that the jury of the police who beatdown R. King had access to all the facts available. We do not have all the facts available. All we have is a kid with a wierd name who got tased, some students that thought there was too much force, a really poor quality tape of the event, and some accusations. Nonetheless...would you take the case if the student came to you?

Did R. King ever sue those cops? I forget.
Yes he did. First he sued the city of Los Angeles. He was awarded $8.3 million dollars. He sued the police officers and got nothing. I'm not sure if the Los Angeles decision was overturned, but I can't find anything saying it was.

Yeah I'd take his case if this happened where I was licensed to practice law. I bet I'd win too at least if we are talking about him suing the cops. I am not sure that I could beat the charge that he is facing though. I would need to do more fact gathering before I could prepare a defense. However, I am not a criminal defense attorney.

Indeed. I was speaking in more general terms.

Of course, like any school, the library at UCLA should have alternate forms of identification in place in case of a lost or defective student ID.

Alas it seems he was in possession of his ID, but refused to show it because he felt he was being singled out because he's Iranian/of Iranian descent. Link-gasm (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11960376&postcount=243)

He should have been tasered properly until he apologized for his gross disrespect to the authorities and his refusal to comply with their simple orders. Also, let's not forget that he endangered the safety and welfare of all students by committing the transgression of staying in the library too late and without a card. Furthermore, he should be expelled from UCLA for his rule-breaking and the ensuing commotion. Not only did he perform an improper act (staying in the library too late), but he also completely disregarded the security officers and their directions. Too bad the video didn't last longer -- I was enjoying that ungrateful prick screaming in agony.

He should have been tasered properly until he apologized for his gross disrespect to the authorities and his refusal to comply with their simple orders. Also, let's not forget that he endangered the safety and welfare of all students by committing the transgression of staying in the library too late and without a card. Furthermore, he should be expelled from UCLA for his rule-breaking and the ensuing commotion. Not only did he perform an improper act (staying in the library too late), but he also completely disregarded the security officers and their directions. Too bad the video didn't last longer -- I was enjoying that ungrateful prick screaming in agony.

You are, evidently, a horrible person.

Words cannot explain my feelings, my fear, and my anger.

There is only one solution: REVOLUTION. :)

He should have been tasered properly until he apologized for his gross disrespect to the authorities and his refusal to comply with their simple orders. Also, let's not forget that he endangered the safety and welfare of all students by committing the transgression of staying in the library too late and without a card. Furthermore, he should be expelled from UCLA for his rule-breaking and the ensuing commotion. Not only did he perform an improper act (staying in the library too late), but he also completely disregarded the security officers and their directions. Too bad the video didn't last longer -- I was enjoying that ungrateful prick screaming in agony.

I love satire!

He should have been tasered properly until he apologized for his gross disrespect to the authorities and his refusal to comply with their simple orders. Also, let's not forget that he endangered the safety and welfare of all students by committing the transgression of staying in the library too late and without a card. Furthermore, he should be expelled from UCLA for his rule-breaking and the ensuing commotion. Not only did he perform an improper act (staying in the library too late), but he also completely disregarded the security officers and their directions. Too bad the video didn't last longer -- I was enjoying that ungrateful prick screaming in agony.

I hope this is sarcastic, because that passage makes absolutely no sense.

You are, evidently, a horrible person.
Yes he is :)

That's what you get when you find a guy with the "wrong" kind of morals.

Yes he did. First he sued the city of Los Angeles. He was awarded $8.3 million dollars. He sued the police officers and got nothing. I'm not sure if the Los Angeles decision was overturned, but I can't find anything saying it was.
Seems like he kept it:
Rodney King won $3.8m damages from the City of Los Angeles. Much of it went to pay his lawyers, but he used the rest to found a rap record business, the Straight Alta-Pazz Recording Company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King#Verdict.2C_LA_riots.2C_and_aftermath

Words cannot explain my feelings, my fear, and my anger.

I think Aretha Franklin put it best.

Oh, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me. A little respect; sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me.

All the security officers asked for was a little bit of respect; they found a potentially dangerous individual and asked him to verify that he was a student. The little prick refused. Appropriate action was taken to subdue the subject, yet the asshole still failed to comply with extremely simple orders. Well, he deserved to have it "socked to him." Addtionally, he also deserved to be expelled.

He should have been tasered properly until he apologized for his gross disrespect to the authorities and his refusal to comply with their simple orders.
Em, no. They might be able to send him to arrest him, but they don't get to torture an apology out of him.
Also, let's not forget that he endangered the safety and welfare of all students by committing the transgression of staying in the library too late and without a card.
Are you serious? Why don't you go ahead and explain how he was endangering anyone by refusing to show his ID?
Furthermore, he should be expelled from UCLA for his rule-breaking and the ensuing commotion. Not only did he perform an improper act (staying in the library too late),
Expulsion for breaking a relatively minor rule? Eh, no.
but he also completely disregarded the security officers and their directions.
Well yes, he should have just shown the CSOs his ID card.
Too bad the video didn't last longer -- I was enjoying that ungrateful prick screaming in agony.
You enjoy watching other human beings suffer? How vile.

I hope this is sarcastic, because that passage makes absolutely no sense.

I'll put it simply for you. The prick not only deserved his punishment, but he should have been expelled from the school. He broke a rule and refused to comply with the simple orders of security officers. It's not complicated at all. I don't see what the security officers did wrong; I feel sorry that they didn't whip out their batons to beat him into submission. Tasers are too easy for an asshole like him.

One can absolutely resist a false arrest, and if refrained from doing so, sue the asses off those that carried out the false arrest.

The way you resist a false arrest is with a lawyer in front of a judge. NEVER with a police officer.

I'll put it simply for you. The prick not only deserved his punishment, but he should have been expelled from the school. He broke a rule and refused to comply with the simple orders of security officers. It's not complicated at all. I don't see what the security officers did wrong; I feel sorry that they didn't whip out their batons to beat him into submission. Tasers are too easy for an asshole like him.

You don't have to put it simply. We're not stupid. We realize how amoral you are.

I think Aretha Franklin put it best.

Oh, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me. A little respect; sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me.

All the security officers asked for was a little bit of respect; they found a potentially dangerous individual and asked him to verify that he was a student. The little prick refused. Appropriate action was taken to subdue the subject, yet the asshole still failed to comply with extremely simple orders. Well, he deserved to have it "socked to him." Addtionally, he also deserved to be expelled.

No, they asked for his ID card, then left and got campus police, who attempted to subdue him, and in the process tased him repeatedly while demanding he stand up(which shows just how smart you need to be to get onto a campus police force), and later they arrested him. Yes, his was being an idiot, but that is not against the law and it is not just cause for a person to be tased repeatedly.

Em, no. They might be able to send him to arrest him, but they don't get to torture an apology out of him.

The video showed that he was resisting arrest. He was unwilling to comply with the orders of the security officers and he violenety shouted at them. He needed to be further subdued before it would be prudent to approach; his screaming of profanity revealed that he still posed a danger. An apology would have been sufficient to end his punishment and allow a peaceful arrest, but he made no such utterance.

Are you serious? Why don't you go ahead and explain how he was endangering anyone by refusing to show his ID?

There's a reason that everybody needs to show an ID card after 11:00 at night. If he refused to show it, the security officers were forced to assume that he had no such card and that he was not a student there. That means that he posed a significant risk to other students and needed to be detained until everything could be sorted out.

You enjoy watching other human beings suffer? How vile.

No, only pissy liberals who break rules and then cry when they are punished for it. It doesn't help that they have an angsty feeling of "rebelling against the establishment."

I'll put it simply for you. The prick not only deserved his punishment, but he should have been expelled from the school. He broke a rule and refused to comply with the simple orders of security officers. It's not complicated at all. I don't see what the security officers did wrong; I feel sorry that they didn't whip out their batons to beat him into submission. Tasers are too easy for an asshole like him.

I take it trying to explain "excessive use of force" would be a waste of time.

By the way, if you had actually bothered to read the OP's article, you would have seen that the person who got tasered was already leaving.

The video showed that he was resisting arrest. He was unwilling to comply with the orders of the security officers and he violenety shouted at them. He needed to be further subdued before it would be prudent to approach; his screaming of profanity revealed that he still posed a danger. An apology would have been sufficient to end his punishment and allow a peaceful arrest, but he made no such utterance.
Hows about you go back to the OP and read the article. The police grabbed his arm as he tried to leave. Unless the long arm of the law is to be taken literally they had already approached him.

Yes, they should have insisted he leave the building and questioned him as they escorted him out, or if he resisted subdued him with minimal force and brought him to the station for questioning. They did not need to taser him repeatedly to achieve this.


There's a reason that everybody needs to show an ID card after 11:00 at night. If he refused to show it, the security officers were forced to assume that he had no such card and that he was not a student there. That means that he posed a significant risk to other students and needed to be detained until everything could be sorted out.
Yes, so homeless people don't try and sleep in the library. How very dangerous a tired homeless person could have been, and how fortunate all those students were that this person who could very well have been tired and/or homeless was violently assaulted and removed from the premises. :rolleyes:



No, only pissy liberals who break rules and then cry when they are punished for it. It doesn't help that they have an angsty feeling of "rebelling against the establishment."
Oh, so when you said you enjoyed "that ungrateful prick screaming in agony" you didn't really mean it?

By the way, if you had actually bothered to read the OP's article, you would have seen that the person who got tasered was already leaving.

He had broken a rule. If you shoot somebody and then hastily throw the gun away, should the police be powerless to arrest you because you were finished with your murder spree? No, of course not. He needed to be arrested and questioned.

Oh, so when you said you enjoyed "that ungrateful prick screaming in agony" you didn't really mean it?

Yes I did. The two statements are by no means contradictory.

The video showed that he was resisting arrest. He was unwilling to comply with the orders of the security officers and he violenety shouted at them. He needed to be further subdued before it would be prudent to approach; his screaming of profanity revealed that he still posed a danger. An apology would have been sufficient to end his punishment and allow a peaceful arrest, but he made no such utterance.



There's a reason that everybody needs to show an ID card after 11:00 at night. If he refused to show it, the security officers were forced to assume that he had no such card and that he was not a student there. That means that he posed a significant risk to other students and needed to be detained until everything could be sorted out.



No, only pissy liberals who break rules and then cry when they are punished for it. It doesn't help that they have an angsty feeling of "rebelling against the establishment."

I know a guy who was tasered locally. He died from it. Because of a medical condition. There is no situation under which violence from an officer should be used against anybody if no violence or threat of violence is exhibited, "violent yelling" is not physical violence.

Ever hear of the Use of Force Continuum?
1. Presence
2. Verbalization
3. Empty hand control
4. Intermediate weapons (e.g., chemical, electronic or impact weapons)
5. Deadly Force (any force likely to cause permanent injury or death)

From what I understand, the police started with 3 and went straight to 4.

Watch the video again. Notice you NEVER hear an officer say "You're under arrest. You have the right to remain silent." The student was NOT under arrest, therefore he could not be considered as resisting arrest. He was being evicted of the building, not arrested.

You can't make that statement. The video was about as complete a record of the incident as the bluff Creek Bigfoot sightings. The police weren't bellowing at the top of their lungs "you're under arrest" when the camera phoine gyywas 200 feet away,m that is about all you can say.

And they did take him back to the station house and he was charged, so he was arrested at some point.

Being agressive with an officer is not a crime. Being agressive is not a crime at all. If a police officer is agressive towards me, I'll be agressive towards him. There is a significant difference between being agressive and actually acting up on your agressiveness and attacking someone.

Lol....try that one out on the streets. The difference between being aggressive toward a cop and acting out your aggression is not a distinction most cops will wait around to discern.

That student did not attack any officer. Therefore, tasering him is excessive use of force, especially considering he was unarmed, and outnumbered five-to-one, by police officers who had combat training.

How do you or anyone know what kind of combat training anyone might have, particularly an angry young Arab in America?

It is not incumbent upon our police to get stabbed or lose and eye or get bitten by some psychotic guy ignoring their instructions who they have to wrestle down when they have tasers.

You won't be able to justify multiple taserings of this student by saying he was being agressive, which we have no proff of either, by the way.

You can close your eyes and listen and hear he is being aggressive. Raised voices and defiant tone constitute aggression.

Tasering is done in multiples because it is only debilitating for a few seconds. The guy wasn't getting the fucking clue.

What kind of a country is the USA? I thought you were the land of liberty. If this sort of shit happened here in Quebec, all hell would break out and heads would fall in the security service for allowing such an obvious and serious blunder to happen, especially when such a situation could have been avoided.

I think it was handled perfectly. It probably is because we are the land of liberty that assholes like that guy think he can behave in that manner and be a dick to authority. But that has its bounds.

This wasn't some innocent student suddenly beat upon. This was an Arab or Arab-American with an attitude toward authority. He was yelling about the Patriot Act in the first ten seconds.

Yes I did. The two statements are by no means contradictory.

So you enjoyed his suffering, but somehow that doesn't equate to enjoying the suffering of human beings. Oh right, I get it, he's a "pissy liberal", and they don't count as human, right?

So you enjoyed his suffering, but somehow that doesn't equate to enjoying the suffering of human beings. Oh right, I get it, he's a "pissy liberal", and they don't count as human, right?

I forget and need reminding too, so don't take it personally when I say -

You're feeding it.

He had broken a rule. If you shoot somebody and then hastily throw the gun away, should the police be powerless to arrest you because you were finished with your murder spree? No, of course not. He needed to be arrested and questioned.

He hadn't shot anyone. He was complying with the officers and was trying to leave. Because a rule had been broken, the officers had only the power to escort him out of the building, not to taser him repeatedly.

Arrested and questioned? About what? He was in a library without an ID, not part of a conspiracy to circumvent school policy. Do you really think that anyone that breaks any rule automatically loses even the presumption of making a mistake, that enforcing a rule about ID's is so important it justifies abuse of a suspect?

I know a guy who was tasered locally. He died from it.

Do you have a source? In either case, the police shouldn't use words in a futile attempt to contain an obviously psychotic and aggressive person. They are liable to get stabbed or shot if they are in such a position. They need to subdue a violent suspect, which this guy obviously was.

So you enjoyed his suffering, but somehow that doesn't equate to enjoying the suffering of human beings. Oh right, I get it, he's a "pissy liberal", and they don't count as human, right?

No, I only enjoy the suffering of certain human beings. Liberals are definitely human, but I do not necessarily enjoy their suffering. However, I do enjoy the suffering of pissy, prissy, angsty, liberal rule-breakers.

Do you have a source? In either case, the police shouldn't use words in a futile attempt to contain an obviously psychotic and aggressive person. They are liable to get stabbed or shot if they are in such a position. They need to subdue a violent suspect, which this guy obviously was.

A source? Sure.

This fall, a New York family filed a series of lawsuits seeking $1 billion in damages from the Southampton Village Police, Suffolk County and Taser over the death of a mentally ill man shocked repeatedly during a struggle with officers who were trying to stop him from yelling in the middle of a street.
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/1107tasermain07.html

''He was Tasered at least nine times," Glowczenski's lawyer, Jennifer Miller,
said in a phone interview. ''That's 450,000 volts of electricity into a human
being. How can they claim that's not dangerous?"
http://www.saveourcivilliberties.org/en/2005/03/965.shtml

(SOUTHAMPTON, Long Island) The family of a Southampton man who died in police custody last year says they have medical proof of brutality by the Southampton Village Police Department.
(SOUTHAMPTON, Long Island) The family of a Southampton man who died in police custody last year says they have medical proof of brutality by the Southampton Village Police Department.

Police officials say officers tried to calm 35-year-old David Glowczenski, who was mentally ill, when he became confrontational and ended up wrestling with them. According to authorities, they were forced to use Mace and a Taser stun gun to subdue him. The Suffolk County medical examiner said Glowczenski died of acute exhaustive mania, or in other words, he was scared to death.

Glowczenskis family say they hired their own medical examiner who found injuries - such as bruises and damage to testicles - that are evidence of excessive force. Their attorney - Fred Brewington - says the Suffolk County medical examiner underplayed those injuries in his report. The family is now calling for the officers involved to be charged with murder. They also are demanding an investigation into the medical examiners office.

The Glowczenskis have filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the county, the Village of Southampton and the Taser stun gun company.
http://www.saveourcivilliberties.org/en/2005/04/1052.shtml

He was a locally known man who was on various drugs for schizophrenia. He hadn't taken his medication that day. He was found yelling on a corner. He was not being violent. A policewoman freaked and then tasered him. Repeatedly.

He had broken a rule. If you shoot somebody and then hastily throw the gun away, should the police be powerless to arrest you because you were finished with your murder spree? No, of course not. He needed to be arrested and questioned.
Breaking UCLA rules are a police matter? So do they call in the local CSI team to do forensics when someone cheats on a test?
You can't make that statement. The video was about as complete a record of the incident as the bluff Creek Bigfoot sightings. The police weren't bellowing at the top of their lungs "you're under arrest" when the camera phoine gyywas 200 feet away,m that is about all you can say.
I heard them telling him to stand up pretty clearly, I don't see why they'd lower their voice to inform him he's under arrest.

gyywas?

And they did take him back to the station house and he was charged, so he was arrested at some point.
That means nothing. Just because they arrested him doesn't mean it was right to tase the bejaysus out of him.


Lol....try that one out on the streets. The difference between being aggressive toward a cop and acting out your aggression is not a distinction most cops will wait around to discern.
I don't know about you, but if someone was tasering me I'd be feel pretty damn aggressive.



How do you or anyone know what kind of combat training anyone might have, particularly an angry young Arab in America?
What relevance does his ethnicity have on what combat training he might have?

It is not incumbent upon our police to get stabbed or lose and eye or get bitten by some psychotic guy ignoring their instructions who they have to wrestle down when they have tasers.
Tasing him once would have been sufficient.


You can close your eyes and listen and hear he is being aggressive. Raised voices and defiant tone constitute aggression.
Yes, how stupid of him to shout and try to get attention when he's being electrocuted by policemen.

Tasering is done in multiples because it is only debilitating for a few seconds. The guy wasn't getting the fucking clue.
A few seconds which could be well spent handcuffing him, making him pretty incapable of fighting back all that much, if needs be another set of cuffs round his ankles would have made in unable to do anything but thrash around, the cops could have carried him out.



I think it was handled perfectly. It probably is because we are the land of liberty that assholes like that guy think he can behave in that manner and be a dick to authority. But that has its bounds.
There's no law against being an asshole.

This wasn't some innocent student suddenly beat upon. This was an Arab or Arab-American with an attitude toward authority. He was yelling about the Patriot Act in the first ten seconds.
He is a student, and his ethnicity is irrelevant. And the video doesn't capture the whole event, as has been pointed out.

No, I only enjoy the suffering of certain human beings. Liberals are definitely human, but I do not necessarily enjoy their suffering. However, I do enjoy the suffering of pissy, prissy, angsty, liberal rule-breakers.

Oh, well that makes it ok :rolleyes:

I forget and need reminding too, so don't take it personally when I say -

You're feeding it.

It's so hard to resist sometimes.

I just asked my stepfather (a deputy of the local sherrif's office) his opinion. After having watched it, and having laughed our asses off (Though I think I laughed slightly more than he did. We both cracked up when he yelled "Here's your patriot act!"), he concluded that they were perfectly in line. He probably would have done the same, had he a taser. But he doesn't have a taser. So he usually has to resort to beating people with his flashlight.

Oh, well that makes it ok

Exactly my point.

Fucking hell... that's all I can really say.

I just asked my stepfather (a deputy of the local sherrif's office) his opinion. After having watched it, and having laughed our asses off (Though I think I laughed slightly more than he did. We both cracked up when he yelled "Here's your patriot act!"), he concluded that they were perfectly in line. He probably would have done the same, had he a taser. But he doesn't have a taser. So he usually has to resort to beating people with his flashlight.

Where do you live, it'd be helpful to know where I should avoid the overly violent deputies.

So he usually has to resort to beating people with his flashlight.

Indeed. Who cares about being "humane" or whatnot? If a suspect is being aggressive, he needs to be subdued in the most efficient way possible. We don't need expensive technology to beat the crap out of somebody. If our object is rapid submission, batons or flashlights are quite effective. I have to agree, though -- the scene where the angsty liberal screamed something about the PATRIOT Act was hilarious. :D

Where do you live, it'd be helpful to know where I should avoid the overly violent deputies.

Don't go to Louisiana, man. If you fuck with the police, you'll get your ass kicked.

Do you have a source? In either case, the police shouldn't use words in a futile attempt to contain an obviously psychotic and aggressive person. They are liable to get stabbed or shot if they are in such a position. They need to subdue a violent suspect, which this guy obviously was.
No, they weren't a violent suspect all.

I just asked my stepfather (a deputy of the local sherrif's office) his opinion. After having watched it, and having laughed our asses off (Though I think I laughed slightly more than he did. We both cracked up when he yelled "Here's your patriot act!"), he concluded that they were perfectly in line. He probably would have done the same, had he a taser. But he doesn't have a taser. So he usually has to resort to beating people with his flashlight.


I hope to hell I don't live anywhere near to where your dad works, since he's clearly not a policeman who can be trusted with his authority.

Exactly my point.

Apart from the fact I was being sarcastic. But I'm gonna go ahead and assume you knew that.

Don't go to Louisiana, man. If you fuck with the police, you'll get your ass kicked.

Where I live, it's more like if you fuck with the police, it's against the law, and the police have no other choice, you will get your ass kicked. Which seems to make more sense.

Indeed. Who cares about being "humane" or whatnot? If a suspect is being aggressive, he needs to be subdued in the most efficient way possible. We don't need expensive technology to beat the crap out of somebody. If our object is rapid submission, batons or flashlights are quite effective. I have to agree, though -- the scene where the angsty liberal screamed something about the PATRIOT Act was hilarious. :D


The problem with beating people up manually, though, is that places the police officer in danger...and you don't always wanna shoot someone with a gun. Know what I mean? So tasers are actually a very good way of subduing a subversive. They get subdued; you don't have to kill them.

My stepfather did say, however, that they probably didn't taser him right if he was still resisting after the first shot.

Here's how it is supposed to work.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WcQ501U6pA0

He probably would have done the same, had he a taser. But he doesn't have a taser. So he usually has to resort to beating people with his flashlight.
Police brutality, eh?

Nice.

I hope to hell I don't live anywhere near to where your dad works, since he's clearly not a policeman who can be trusted with his authority.

Don't get me wrong. My stepfather, and most policemen, aren't madmen who are looking for peoples' asses to kick. They have better stuff to do. In fact, if you cooperate with the police, you don't have to worry about anything. But if you act like an ass, you get your ass beaten, and, if they are in a bad mood, absolutely stompted.

So just don't act like an ass. :p

This isnt an example of a guy who CANT get up, this is about a guy who REFUSES to get up. Big difference. At no time in his protestations did he ever say he was unable to get up, he just simply willingly refuses to do so. So i dont buy this lower taser paralysis BS at all.You haven't been tasered, have you? It is the same as a stun gun: its sole purpose is to stop someone from moving.

Sorry for posting the OP and abandoning the thread, but it was 6am and I was really pretty damn upset.
Thanks esp. to Sarkhaan for jumping in so quickly.
Did anyone watch that?
I don't really want to, to be honest.
No prob :)
As for that video, it is really short, and not nearly as bad as the other one. But it does offer a different perspective of the beginning of the episode.

They didn't need to ID him there, they could have taken him to the station as soon as he refued to produce ID(to the police, not the CSOs). I still don't see why they didn't just cuff him and carry him out.Exactly.

ok for the TWENTYFIRST TIME NOW. THE CAMPUS SECURITY OFFICER WAS A POLICEMAN. He has the PERFECT right to ask for a student ID, a Drivers licence or ANY OTHER form of identification. The law does not say that he HAS to run it on the computer for warrants. Maybe he just wanted to know the guys name. Either way, the officer was completly within his rights to ask. How can someone with almost 13 THOUSAND posts still try to assert a fact that has been demonstrated otherwise repeatedly and as recently as 3 POSTS ago.The issue is NOT the refusal to show an ID. We all admit that he should have been evicted for breaking the rule. The issue is the fact that he was repeatedly tasered, as well as the threats against other students.

I've seen people escorted out of the Georgia Tech library before, but that doesn't require even the grabbing of an arm. This is absolutely disgusting police behavior. I didn't read through most of these posts, was there a link available that showed the current situation.Exactly, again. Even if he did resist, it is not difficult to cuff someone and drag them up. And if they had to taser him ONCE, okay...maybe. After he was tasered, it really would not be difficult to move him. That is SOP for cops


He refused to move. Therefore, they made him move. Besides, I am sure they would have been nicer, had he not been giving the :upyours: to the police.Refusal to move =/= inability to move. Go get taserd, then try to walk.

Yahoo says he now is claiming that he refused to show his ID because he thought he was being profiled. I'm thinking he wanted some reaction. Like the guy that tried to get past the security of that senator and was taken down then cried abuse.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061117/ap_on_re_us/student_stunnedWe get it. He was wrong not to show his ID, regardless of his reasoning. If he had an issue with being profiled, it should have been raised later. No one is debating the issue of not showing the ID

He is required to show ID REGARDLESS of why HE thought the police were asking him for it. Its not his right to determine why or why not an officer wants to see identification.Again, no one is debating the ID.

I don't know if it's possible to add a poll at this point, but I'd be curious to see how many people have actually been tazered themselves.I think we have 4 or 5 in this thread now...ranging from my experience, where I was unable to walk for around 10 minutes, to others who were hurt, but not knocked down.

hey you guys are blowing this way out of proportion. This guy was asked to leave due to the fact he didnt have an id card, is that a stupid rule maybe, but it is still the fule and you have to follow it. Then he was asked to leave and refused resulting in his arrest. Then he resisted arrest and he was tasered. Then he refused the police commands to stand up and exit the building, his and your excuse was he had just been tasered and couldnt move. That being said let me just add as a member of the United States army we buy all kinds of things to help us in our trade and we test them on each other, so i have been tasered and let me say that while it is painfull and lasts a second you can still perform tasks like standing up and such without to much assistance. So before you go jumping all over the cops maybe you should take a long look at the guy who was causing the disturbence in the first place.He STILL wasn't arrested. Not untill much later. Go back and read what the charges were when he WAS arrested.
When you are arrested, the first words out of the officers mouth must be "You are under arrest" followed by miranda rights.

He was under arrest the moment that an officer stopped asking him questions and or chatting with him and started giving him specific commands.No, he wasn't. That isn't how it works.


Junii, I'll do your post in a second.

Don't get me wrong. My stepfather, and most policemen, aren't madmen who are looking for peoples' asses to kick. They have better stuff to do. In fact, if you cooperate with the police, you don't have to worry about anything. But if you act like an ass, you get your ass beaten, and, if they are in a bad mood, absolutely stompted.

So just don't act like an ass. :p
'Acting like an ass' is very, very subjective. I might think that your stepfather seems to be acting like an ass if he's beating people down with a torch.

Doesn't really justify beating the shit out of people.

Don't get me wrong. My stepfather, and most policemen, aren't madmen who are looking for peoples' asses to kick. They have better stuff to do. In fact, if you cooperate with the police, you don't have to worry about anything. But if you act like an ass, you get your ass beaten, and, if they are in a bad mood, absolutely stompted.

So just don't act like an ass. :p

I'm sorry, but your stepfather is a public servant, I am not his servant. I have every right to be rude to him, so long as I do not attack him or stop him from being able to carry out his duty. Even then, he has a responsibility to use minimum necessary force.

'Acting like an ass' is very, very subjective.

It's very simple. If the police officer tells you to give him your ID, you give him your ID. Don't argue with him. He doesn't care. Don't try explaining. He doesn't care. He just wants your ID. Give him your ID.

If the police officer tells you to step out of your car, step out of the car. Don't start yelling at the police officer. Don't start yelling "IS THIS CUZ I IS BLAAACK?" No, that will definately get your ass beaten!

Just cooperate, and you'll be fine. If not, then you might find a big heavy piece of metal being slammed against the back of your skull.

It's so hard to resist sometimes.

I know, I know.....

Here's how it is supposed to work.

I thought that they had to be applied directly to the person's body; I didn't know that they could be shot like a gun. In that case, it is well worth the additional expenditure. However, a police officer should still retain the right of employing a flashlight or a baton -- it is an excellent way to vent your anger for some people and it may give some people a greater sense of accomplishment.

Don't go to Louisiana, man. If you fuck with the police, you'll get your ass kicked.
There's a reason why East Texas is so full of scary reactionary fascists. It's leaching in from Louisiana.

There's no law against being an asshole.


[quote]He is a student, and his ethnicity is irrelevant. And the video doesn't capture the whole event, as has been pointed out.

He is Iranian-Aerican, and now his case is being pleaded by some Iranian defense group.

Sorry, but we are at war. None of those 19 9-11 terrorists looked like Opie Taylor. And like it or not, angry young Arab guys at internet cafes and library computers are going to gather attention, thank god.

I thought that they had to be applied directly to the person's body; I didn't know that they could be shot like a gun. In that case, it is well worth the additional expenditure. However, a police officer should still retain the right of employing a flashlight or a baton -- it is an excellent way to vent your anger for some people and it may give some people a greater sense of accomplishment.

Heh. One shot from a properly employed taser, and you shouldn't need to employ the flashlight. That sumbitch'll be OUT!

I thought that they had to be applied directly to the person's body; I didn't know that they could be shot like a gun. In that case, it is well worth the additional expenditure. However, a police officer should still retain the right of employing a flashlight or a baton -- it is an excellent way to vent your anger for some people and it may give some people a greater sense of accomplishment.
I call TROLL!

I call TROLL!

It's a well known fact, better to just ignore it or revel in it.

Don't go to Louisiana, man. If you fuck with the police, you'll get your ass kicked.
And I'll do my best to sue them into non-existence afterward, unless it was justified.
Don't get me wrong. My stepfather, and most policemen, aren't madmen who are looking for peoples' asses to kick. They have better stuff to do. In fact, if you cooperate with the police, you don't have to worry about anything. But if you act like an ass, you get your ass beaten, and, if they are in a bad mood, absolutely stompted.

So just don't act like an ass. :p
There's no law against being an asshole, there are laws against assaulting someone for being an asshole.
It's very simple. If the police officer tells you to give him your ID, you give him your ID. Don't argue with him. He doesn't care. Don't try explaining. He doesn't care. He just wants your ID. Give him your ID.

If the police officer tells you to step out of your car, step out of the car. Don't start yelling at the police officer. Don't start yelling "IS THIS CUZ I IS BLAAACK?" No, that will definately get your ass beaten!

Just cooperate, and you'll be fine. If not, then you might find a big heavy piece of metal being slammed against the back of your skull.

Pity police in America can't be a bit more reasonable and have some restraint.

I call TROLL!

Why? Because I care more for a police officer's well-being than that of a common crook?

And I'll do my best to sue them into non-existence afterward, unless it was justified.

hahahaha.

There's no law against being an asshole, there are laws against assaulting someone for being an asshole.

Resisting arrest. Obstruction of justice. Disturbance of the peace.:cool:

Pity police in America can't be a bit more reasonable and have some restraint.

A pity you lefties won't just cooperate with the police and let them do their fucking jubs.

http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38958

With video:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/

A student at a UCLA library refused to show his student ID.
The campus police dragged him out, tasering him repeatedly.

The video is almost 7 minutes long.
It killed me to see that they would actually do that, that they would taser someone who was not even threatening to attack them. Again and again and again. While telling him to get up. The fuck??? How is he supposed to get up if you keep tasering him, you fucking assholes?

And it killed me almost more to see group dynamic in action - the other students, standing around, and only finally, finally, getting up the guts to step up.

I know that one is tempted to glorify one's own righteousness in things like this, but I'm positive I would have stepped in.

I'm not used to seeing things like this. I'm actually shaking now.
It's almost fucking 6 am and I reallyshould go to bed and really, really shouldn't have watched this. I feel sick.

If he didnt want to get tased, he should've shown some ID. Its not rocket science. If a cop asks you do to something, do it. If you don't then your not that bright and deserve a little shock.

edit: after watching this I couldnt help laughing. What a fucking hippie. "heres your patroit act" I mean come on. And then when the cops told him to stand or get tased, he says fuck off. A genius, really.

Why? Because I care more for a police officer's well-being than that of a common crook?

This guy had broken no law. He'd broken a university rule and last time I checked uni rules were not enforcable by the legal system.

He is Iranian-Aerican, and now his case is being pleaded by some Iranian defense group.

Sorry, but we are at war. None of those 19 9-11 terrorists looked like Opie Taylor. And like it or not, angry young Arab guys at internet cafes and library computers are going to gather attention, thank god.

So? It was alright for the police to assault him because he's of Iranian descent? Are you serious?

This guy had broken no law. He'd broken a university rule and last time I checked uni rules were not enforcable by the legal system.

HE WAS RESISTING ARREST. HE WAS DISTURBING THE PEACE. HE WAS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

This guy had broken no law. He'd broken a university rule and last time I checked uni rules were not enforcable by the legal system.

He resisted arrest, he disturbed the peace, he disobeyed simple and reasonable orders given by a police officer, etc. All of these actions are illegal. I am not a lawyer, however; it is possible that he broke some additional laws, too.

hahahaha.
:confused:



Resisting arrest. Obstruction of justice. Disturbance of the peace.:cool:
Need a reason to arrest someone before they can resist arrest you know.



A pity you lefties won't just cooperate with the police and let them do their fucking jubs.
If they could do there jobs without violently assaulting people I wouldn't have a problem. Ain't life just a bitch like that though?

Need a reason to arrest someone before they can resist arrest you know.

They can make something up. There's always something they can pull out. :D

If they could do there jobs without violently assaulting people I wouldn't have a problem. Ain't life just a bitch like that though?

They wouldn't have to beat the shit out of people if those people would just do what they are told.


PS: As to your confusion. Just go on thinking that. By the time you get the phrase "I'll s..." out of your mouth, you'll be knocked the fuck out. :D

HE WAS RESISTING ARREST. HE WAS DISTURBING THE PEACE. HE WAS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

At no point did the officer say you are under arrest, if he had then he would have been resisting arrest but he didn't. A fact bourn out by the lack of a charge for resisting arrest wouldn't you say? He only began diturbing the peace after the police go involved, had they just stepped back and let him leave then the situation wouldn't have gotten so out of hand. A little common sense on the part of the officers would have averted a lot of trouble.

However, a police officer should still retain the right of employing a flashlight or a baton -- it is an excellent way to vent your anger for some people and it may give some people a greater sense of accomplishment.Duh, those aren't the words of a troll.
Oh, I forgot, you don't get sarcasm. If you or your relative really believe that officers should vent at people or get a sense of accomplishment via a baton or flashlight, you're too stupid to be able to use the internet. Hence, troll.

He resisted arrest, he disturbed the peace, he disobeyed simple and reasonable orders given by a police officer, etc. All of these actions are illegal. I am not a lawyer, however; it is possible that he broke some additional laws, too.

You are obviously not a lawyer. One actually has to be arrested to be resisting it, the guy wasn't.

At no point did the officer say you are under arrest,

How do you know? Because an amateur video captured on a camera phone did not capture that particular event? Ha.

HE WAS RESISTING ARREST. HE WAS DISTURBING THE PEACE. HE WAS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

He refused arrest, he disturbed the peace, he disobeyed simple and reasonable orders given by a police officer, etc. All of these actions are illegal. I am not a lawyer, however; it is possible that he broke some additional laws, too.

Since he wasn't trying to escape maybe they should have, ya know, told him he was under arrest.

Does shouting in public really warrant such a violent arrest?

Ah yes, he was obstructing taser justice, the most electrifying this side of the chair.

I think what is happening here is people defending police no matter what and people defending people who resist arrest no matter what, without looking at the actual facts of this one case.

The man was leaving. He was bodily handled and resisted which led to him being tasered. The first two items of the use of force continuum were completely ignored.

How do you know? Because an amateur video captured on a camera phone did not capture that particular event? Ha.

No, because the police never stated that they did. Think about it for a second, if the police had told him he was under arrest then they'd all be screaming themselves blue about how he was resisting arrest. I haven't seen anything like that.

At no point did the officer say you are under arrest

Not that we heard on the video. Who knows. They well may have. Besides, they don't have to say "You are under arrest." By definition, to arrest someone is to seize them and prevent them from leaving. Those police officers seized them, and certainly that Arab wasn't leaving. Thus, he was under arrest

A little common sense on the part of the officers would have averted a lot of trouble.

A little cooperation on the part of the Arab would have averted all of the trouble.

How do you know? Because an amateur video captured on a camera phone did not capture that particular event? Ha.

No, because he wasn't charged with resisting arrest. If he had been resisting arrest then he would have been charged with it when they finally did get around to arresting him.

Do try to keep up dear.

If you or your relative really believe that officers should [employ] a baton or flashlight, you're too stupid to be able to use the internet. Hence, troll.

That's the technique which was employed prior to the advent of Tasers. If you cannot accept a simple historical fact, you are a troll and there is no point in arguing with you.

Does shouting in public really warrant such a violent arrest?

Absofuckinglutely.

I like doing it. :) me too :)

According to the article, Campus Security who patrols the library asked to see his ID. ID was not shown (no reason given, it could be that he didn't have it, or it could be that he didn't want to show it, either way, it was not shown.) he was then asked to leave.
I don't debate the ID issue, although, there is a difference if he didn't have it. If he didn't have it, they could easily check to make sure he was a student.
which is a refusal. if NON Students (or anyone without a student ID) are not supposed to be in there after 11:00. then a "Just let me finish this" is not acceptable. however, for the sake of argument, let's say he did say that, there is also no evidence to say the security did continue his "patrol" and then returned to still find him sitting there still "Finishing up." either situation, still points to him Refusing to leave. after several requests to leave, then the CSO would be called.fair enough.


without knowing the true setup and where he was at originally, he could've been walking out, or he could've been packing up to leave when officers came in. yep

now here is where we are assuming things. there is no evidence whatsoever that officers did not at first approach him and ask him to come with them or even a "Please wait" as they try to grasp the situation. Sadly, there is no evidence either way.

it is equally possible that they did ask him to stop, but for whatever reason he didn't, (everything from an innocent listening to MP3, to ignoring them.) and so the officers put their hand on his arm (again anything from grabbing him to just touching is arm to signal to stop.) he pulled away, which could've been mis-interrpreted as a signal that he was going to run.might have been, but that is a pretty big difference. I know high tension situations breed fast reactions, and it would seem that either way, both groups are at fault atleast somewhat.

this is an assumption. the video starts with him yelling and arguing with officers. we agreed that what was said and done before officers arrive. maybe he was violent (since he was being kicked out of the library.) he certainly won't be in a good mood, and seeing uniformed officers coming towards them (he and the Security officer asking him to leave.) may have aggrivated him even more.That is assuming he saw the officers.



from the article.


he began walking towards the door when officers arrived, that means when the officers entered the room, he THEN BEGAN WALKING TOWARDS THE DOOR. It's a poorly worded sentence, and pretty ambiguous. It isn't clear if he was already moving, or if the officers got there, and then he was moving. I could justify both readings fairly easily.


unusual, usually if it was fault of the officers, (Throwing him to the ground, forcing him down... etc... ) witnesses would be saying that in the article. it shows brutality on the part of the Officers. but again, I do admit, the article and video is missing alot of things.That is what I was thinking too...I am leaning towards the fact that we are missing too many details. However, up to this point, I'd say the officers are in the clear. My issue doesn't come in untill the first tasing, and, depending on what the actual details are, possibly including the first tasing.


not really, he refused to leave when asked. the point CSO arrives is too late. had he left before CSO got into the building then problem solved, once CSO (or any police officer in fact) comes in, the situation changes. if he could ligitametly prove his status as student, then the officers would allow him to stay, but if not then he would've been escorted out. how depends on how he responds to officers. since the video starts with him yelling, it's known that the situation deteriorated. who started what tho, we cannot say.yep

true, but not when the officers are busy with another situation. it's just as easy to get the officer's names (on their badge) without confronting them the way some of those students did. that adds to a hostile environment that could easily explode to violence. Getting their car number is also another way of identifying the officers.Very true. However, there were 5 officers there at the time. One should have been working crowd control from the start, and he could have given atleast his information. It would have satiated the crowd for a few minutes.
My other issue is how they handled the situation when the boy was removed. At that point, they should have given their information, rather than threaten more students.


hard to say, but if we assume all parties are truthful, he did go limp (no explination was given to counter this statement.) and you can see at the point before the second stun use, that the officers were trying to stand him up. That is where I start to have an issue. A taser is a version of a stun gun. It is meant to stop a person from moving. I have trouble beliving that anyone would be very difficult to move after a first tasing, but it seems that others in this thread could. Possibly, the second tase was okay (again, reliant on further evidence which we do not have)
which is another assumption. we don't know why he refused to show his ID nor why he refused to leave. he could just as equally just have been an Asshole. but that is another assumption.damn all these assumptions ;)


actually, they do have the power of arrest. they can also detain as well as question students. that is part of their job. once they are on the scene, attempts to leave (especially when they tell/signal otherwise,) can be construed as resisting arrest.yeah, someone corrected me on that, and I was way too tired to go find this and fix it. Point conceded.

(all together now...) we are all individuals! :D


according to Youtube, the officers gave him Minutes between stunnings.I was down 10 minutes after being tased. For atleast three of those minutes, I could be easily moved. The second tase, without a doubt in my mind, would have been enough for any average person.

at the second stunning you see his hands behind his back. it's more visible at the top of the stairwell/ramp going down. when the third stun causes him to jump up and kick forward.I keep missing them, and don't see them when he is exiting the building...but I might just be out of it right now. However, if he was handcuffed, then he presented no threat to them. He isn't going to harm the officers with his hands tied.



didn't say it was wrong for the crowd to get angry... I'm just glad none of them did what people here said they would do.True. I personally would never attack an officer (as it just hurts your case), but when they threatened the other boy with tasing, had it been me, I would have pulled off my shirt and said "I'll move when I get your badge number. Otherwise, you have no reason to demand I move without fulfilling my request. Either give me your badge number or tase me" (tasers are effective when they hit skin, obviously, hence removing the shirt...it demonstrates that I would be serious about not moving and that I would, in fact, be willing to take a taser for it)

the first one had him screaming about the Patiot act and abuse of power. the second one was before the doorway leading down. I only said possibly is because we don't know what happened before. Ahh...okay. I doubt he was tased prior to this, or else I think the video would have started earlier.

and perfecty ok... as long as it doesn't get physical. nothing wrong with that. just stating what's happening.gotcha

hard to hear in the video.definatly...but the screams when you can be sure he was tased are very clear.


backup was called (more officers in the foyer), and as far as some say on this thread, they were equvalent to real cops. Again, point conceded...I just didn't fix this one.

several people bock the camera, but moot point. the officers are pulling him out, but he is concious and this time, he was attempting to also walk out. The one that gets me is the cop. He deliberatly moves infront of the camera (watch him. Black outfit, short dark hair.) He very clearly positions himself there for a reason.

also, after several requests, you see them talking to him, and not telling him to stand up. then they do let him sit there for a long time (longer than the other times anyway) before shuffling/draging him out.That should have been done around the first, second, or third tasing. I'm willing to give the cops their right to judge a situation...but beyond the first and second, it got rediculous. The third, without question, would require some recovery time before he would be able to move.

and they are investigating. so they know which officers were involved.
not the best move, but then what else could he have said that would be better... I'll arrest you? still could be jumped by the rest of the students. but all that should also be investigated.I would say threatening arrest is a better call. Threatening unprovoked (the boy never hit the officer, and never threatened to hit the officer, and never made actions to do so) physical violence is unjustifiable.
The department would know who responded, of course, so they would know who was involved. However, when you have a group of students making a reasonable and simple demand, it is easier to defuse the situation by complying rather than by making it worse (and showing a willingness to tase further students)

which is why I included it. if someone does hear him saying "I have a medical condition" then great.It seems someone did hear it in the video. They said it was after the second tase, and is hard to hear, but once you do, it is obvious. I haven't watched it again yet, so I don't know myself.

not stand alone, but to at least make the attempt to stand. you can tell when someone makes the attempt to cooperate and when you don't. They're officers...they are trained to deal with people who won't cooperate. Once someone is cuffed, it is easy to get them to move (the body follows the head. Move the head, the body will follow). After one or two tases, it would not be difficult to physically lift the boy and move him

and since when do city and state workers do anything that make sense? :D touche.:p

actually, what the secuity guard should've done was radio for assistance and stay by the student. that way, if the studen did leave, he could've waived the arriving officers off. by that officer leaving the student, he wound't know if the student was leaving or just moving to another area of the library.yeah


I'm catching up, so if I did not disreguard what DC gave... sorry.no prob...its one of "those" threads, like the God thread, where it takes a while to get up to speed each time.

They can make something up. There's always something they can pull out. :D
Just like I can bash my head off the wall and claim later it was police brutality. Works both ways.



They wouldn't have to beat the shit out of people if those people would just do what they are told.
Yes, we should all obey mindlessly and never ever question authority. :rolleyes:

PS: As to your confusion. Just go on thinking that. By the time you get the phrase "I'll s..." out of your mouth, you'll be knocked the fuck out. :D
I'll continue my sentence when I regain consciousness, and I'll carry though on it. With any luck I'll get a sadistic cop fired and sent to jail.

No, because he wasn't charged with resisting arrest. If he had been resisting arrest then he would have been charged with it when they finally did get around to arresting him.

Do try to keep up dear.

In many instances, criminals are not charged with the full extent of their crimes for political reasons. For example, a pregnant mother who killer her abusive husband in his sleep was recently charged with manslaughter in the first degree even though she should have been slapped with murder in the second degree. Why? Because the jury would sympathize with her and disregard the letter of the law. In a liberal district, it would be hard to convict the darling of the Democrats for his transgressions, especially given how the police treated him (they're not called bleeding hearts for nothing). Thus, they reduced the charges on him to appease public sentiment. Do you get it, sport?

Absofuckinglutely.

I hope you never become an officer of the law anywhere with that kind of mentality, or you learn better during training.

That's quite enough baiting and trolling, folks.

Road Closed for constituting a hazard to public forum safety.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Given that the principal troll in the thread managed to earn a five day ban elsewhere, we'll take a shot at reopening the thread.

Given that the...troll...managed to earn a five day ban

Aha! An implicit admission that I'm not a troll! What now? :)

Aha! An implicit admission that I'm not a troll! What now? :)

Well, you could jack yet another thread into about whether you're a troll or not, cuz apparently the thread you created on that subject wasn't quite enough for you.

Well, you could jack yet another thread into about whether you're a troll or not, cuz apparently the thread you created on that subject wasn't quite enough for you.

No need to be so harsh. This thread was sliding down the page in free-fall mode, and I was trying to bump it back up. Chillax, man.

No need to be so harsh. This thread was sliding down the page in free-fall mode, and I was trying to bump it back up. Chillax, man.

I thought I was on that ignore list of yours?

No need to be so harsh. This thread was sliding down the page in free-fall mode, and I was trying to bump it back up. Chillax, man.
You already have one thread on this subject, what's the matter, hoping against hope that people won't follow you here to pound your so-called-points apart yet again?

If he couldn't prove that he is a student, then he will be considered a NON student.
Which is not the same as being a non-student. The rule is that non-students may not be there after 11.00pm. Now it could be true that this is a rule that is extended to 'students who are not able to prove they are students' or even 'students who dont produce id', but (as per my earlier assertion) this is not stated one way or the other in either of the articles that I read.

he didn't show his Student ID. no matter what the reason, if he didn't have his id, he couldn't prove he was a student.
That is not necessarily the case either. If I dont have ID at my uni, and I know my student ID number, then I can prove that I am a student in most, if not all uni-buildings.
However, that is not really the point here. The point is the student was not tresspassing at the time the incident began unless there is a specific, legally binding instruction that students without ID not be present in the library after 11pm. It is not established in the article that this is the case.
So there is no evidence that any law breaking of any kind was taking place before the officers intervened, and that being the case, any law breaking that did occur, occured soley because of the 'peace/law enforcement officers' intervention. The police dont exist to provoke and be the cause of crime that would not have happened in their absence.

I did not state he was fleeing, but once the officers arrived, it's to late to just "walk out".
No it isnt. The police were called because of a situation, in order to put an end to that situation. If when the officers arrived the person was leaving, then their intervention was no longer required or merited. Unless they had good cause to believe that there was some criminal intent involved they ought simply have observed that the person left. Problem solved.

the officers do have the right to detain you for qestioning, however, he refused to be detained.
Speculation on your part. There is no indication (in the two articles I read) whatsoever that the officers sought to legally detain this person in custody (ie to arrest the person). Rather there is an absence of any claim that the officers were attempting to arrest or apprehend the person. Tellingly the charges do not include 'resisting arrest'.
What is stated in the article is that as the person was complying with the order to leave, officers suddenly (and without good cause) placed their hands on him - this alone might constitute assault. The person was not (by all accounts given) moving sufficiently fast to justify placing hands on him ahead of directly stating that he is under arrest. The officers are obliged to refrain from unnecessarily touching someone against their will. Unless they had told him to halt and that he was under arrest, touching him was uncalled for and might in itself constitute assault. There is no indication that they had placed him in their custody prior to touching him. It would be odd both for their attempt to arrest not to be directly cited in one or both articles (if it occured) and even more odd for the person not to have been specifically charged with resisting arrest. Given these facts, it is more reasonable to conclude that he probably was not under arrest when the officers, laid hands to him, than it is to conclude otherwise.

it became resisting arrest once the handcuffs were put on and he still refused to cooperate.
Yet he has not been charged with resisting arrest. Evidently it is not resisting arrest, if, having been arrested ,one resists unlawful assaults against their person.

he was in cuffs in the video.
Says you, other posters seem to think otherwise. It would be very odd for this factor to not have been mentioned in either article were it to be the case.

and read the article again. for your assistance, here is the quote.
Thanks. I note that the quote makes no claim about the person having been under arrest at the time of the tazoring. Further, the fact that he wasnt charged specifically with resisting arrest indicates that he was not resisting arrest more than it indicates the opposite. So the police dont claim he was under arrest at the time the tazoring occured, he has not been charged with resisting arrest as would be expected if he were resisting arrest. What evidence and indictors do exist, do not support the conclusion you appear to have reached.

refusal to comply to a POLICE OFFICER'S orders when he tells you to move is resisting.
It is not resisting arrest if in fact you are not under arrest.

err... the officers were telling him to stand up. this was waaaay before the first taser use. they were telling him to get up repeatedly. watch the video.
None of which indicates resisting arrest.

One factor you seem dead set on ignoring is that one isnt obliged to blindly obey police, they are obliged to obey orders that do not superceed the legal authority of police. I do not have to jump off the Empire State Building if a police officer orders me to do so. A women is not required to strip and do the bump 'n' grind in Times Square if a police officer orders her to.
Many legal jurisdictions would find if the police officers' orders or conduct prior to the order were such that a reasonable person might reasonably conclude the police were superceding their authority in some manner, that the order therefore was not a reasonable and lawful directive, and therefore that there is no obligation to obey it. Quite what the case is in the jurisdiction concerned is not (as was my initial point) made clear in either of the articles I read.

He wasn't leaving,
Eye-witnesses indicate otherwise. According to the eye-witnesses, when the police arrived the person was already leaving.

Please indicate where in the video they show him leaving.
More evidence than the video is available (mulitple eye-witnesses were present and some have given accounts that are recounted in the two articles). I note that you are happy to assume he was arrested prior to his 'resistence' without the arrest being on the video tape, despite not a single claim in either article, by any party, that this was the case. Yet you insist that things claimed by eye-witnesses to have happened, didnt happen unless it's on the tape. It's difficult to believe that you are being objective when what might disprove your argument only happened if it was on tape (regardless of uncontested eye-witness claims), yet what no one claimed at all and isnt on tape definately happened (in your view) if it helps your case.

they didn't show him trying to leave on his own. the video starts with the officers telling him to get up.
Yes, and so far as the two articles that I referred to are concerned, the reason for his being on the ground is unclear. What is clear from the accounts given by eye-witnesses, is that this was after the officers had laid hands to the victim.

Now I don't know where you live, but here, when someone tells another person to "get up", that would be in one of two situations, one, the person is sleeping and the other person wants that person to wake up. the other situation where that phrase will be used is if the other person is on the ground or sitting, and the person/officer wants said person in either a sitting or standing posistion.
How it is where I live, is that if people wont get up and are under arrest, they are informed they are under arrest and officers hand cuff them, and then remove them. Mostly this is easily achievable with one officer (once the person is cuffed as you claim this victim was), but certainly with two. Traditionally when one resists arrests where I come from, they are charged with resisting arrest rather than resisting/obstructing police officers/justice.

how do you know they didn't? please show me anywhere in the article that they did more than "Grab his arm"
How do you know he was under arrest prior to the tazoring? Please show me where in the article they are shown to have arrested him prior to his 'resistance'. Again you refuse to put any credence in what is likely but not explicitly stated while appearing to whole heartedly believe what isnt likely, as can be deduced from it's failure to be stated.
No one has stated (including the police, despite it being in their interests to do so) that he was under arrest prior to resisting, the charges very strongly indicate he wasnt. There are indicators that he wasnt under arrest prior to resisting, and none that he was, yet you conclude (and post as though it is a fact) that he were arrested. The two articles do not indicate this at all (as was my initial statement), further the absence of any such claim from the police constitutes a counter-indicator (that the victim was arrested), the absence of any charge of resisting arrest constitutes a strong counter-indicator. You are arguing as though what is strongly counter-indicated is proven, while stating that those who argue the opposite strongly indicated conclusion is likely to be true are arguing in the absence of evidence...to which I can only suggest, arguing what is strongly rather than conclusively evidenced is a great deal more reasonable than arguing what is strongly against the evidence that does exist.

LOL... sorry, please show me in police procedures that they have to do this. and if he was leaving as you so vehmently claim, how do you know the officers did not first ask him to stop, and he didn't.
The police have the task of minimising crime, not esculating situations until crime happens. The onus is on the police to sort out the matter with the minimum of fuss. I dont see why I as a taxpayer ought to shell out thousands of dollars in resources to chase people through the justice system who would have not committed a crime but for police incompetence. Therefore the actions that will most contain the situation and least esculate it are the actions we should expect from police. Grabbing someone unnecessarily is of course going to esculate the matter. So it is always best practise if the circumstances allow (such as when a person is merely walking toward an exit as he was asked to) to not grab people unless it is necessary.
If the police had asked him to halt, it's odd that this was not stated by them in their statements about the incident and so reported. It is odd that the witnesses or saw enough to know he was leaving when police arrived also didnt see or hear the officers state that he was obliged to stop.
I see no evidence that they asked him to halt prior to touching him and this lack indicates that the police themselves very probably did not claim as much in their own defence when making statements about the issue. So neither police nor eye-witnesses make mention of it - yet you expect we assume it probably happened rather than assuming that it very well may not have?

all we know is that from the video, he was on the ground. the officers say he went limp and refused to move, no other witness can contradict that. and if he was thrown to the ground or even tripped, you would think SOMEONE would mention that.
Right, you expect eye-witnesses to know if in the apparent struggle that ensued when he was grabbed that he definately was or was not tripped, and to state as much, but you dont expect anyone (including the police) would mention an arrest prior to the resistance if it happened? Again you simply dismiss what is probable according to the reports if it goes against your pre-determined position while assuming as true what is counter indicated simply because it's not conclusively disproving when it suits your position. I hope after doing so you dont expect to reatain any credibility.

you mean YOU THINK THAT HAVING APPARENTLY NOT HAPPENED.
Yeh, I think what is apparent is apparent. The capitals are not needed. I stated 'apparently', since many people have formed the same opinon, it is obviously apparent to more persons than myself. You know as in 'appears to be the case'.

funny, in the video the officers were telling him REPEATEDLY to get up before the first taser use and he REFUSED. that is resisting.
It is not resisting arrest if he were not already in custody (and there are more indications he wasnt than there are that he was). Further if he ended up on the floor as a result of the police grabbing him, and if they grabbed him without legal cause, then it could indeed be the case that the victim was resisting an illegal assault, something that people are well within their rights to do in free-countries. In such a case there might be doubts about the obligation he would be under to obey the officers. One isnt obliged to obey police officers for the purpose of aiding and abetting them in carrying out criminal acts. Quite what the situation would be legally (were the proceeding circumstances to be found to apply) in the particlar jurisdiction is not made clear in the articles - hence my earlier assertions regarding what is and is not indicated by the two articles.

I'd have stepped in immediately and kicked the bloody FUCK out of all of those campus police officers. Fuck 'em all if they're going to pull that kind of ridiculous shit.


then you would have been on the floor crying for mommy....say hello to the new nazi's

i was just at a detectives house,and no joke...million dollar house...he likes me so i get a pass up to murder...lol
fuckin dude is a coke dealer,lives in the lap of luxury,on a small salary..go figure.

total asswipe..but i will kiss his hypocrite ass cause i dont want my world fucked with...they got us.

saying that when campus police arrived, Tabatabainejad had begun to walk toward the door


he began walking towards the door when officers arrived, that means when the officers entered the room, he THEN BEGAN WALKING TOWARDS THE DOOR.
No, it doesnt. At the time the officers arrived, he had (as in past tense) begun to walk (toward the door). So the student had begun to walk toward the door at the time the police arrived. When the police officers arrived beginning to walk was already in the past tense. That's why the article doesnt state 'when the polic arrived Tabatabinejad begun to walk', but rather states that at the time of the police officers' arrival he 'had begun to walk'.

in the city i lived in before i went to uni (in the uk) the bouncers at a night club eviced somone for no reason then started beatin the living daylights out of him, me and the people i was with, plus some other people who sw what was happening managed to stop the bouncers and someone managed to knock them unconcius with something, i canno remember what but we placed them undercitizens arest and called the police, when this went to court the defence lawyer tried to slam us for assult but the prosecution was good enough to get it cited as legitimate us of force to protect the other bloke, or whtever the legal jargon he used, with us as witnesses we managed to get the bouncers liecences stripped had a hufe payment to make to the person and also got 5 years for gbh, the person who was being beaten up was a twat but he didnt deseve what he got,

from this video the security guards were way over the top, the fact that in the uk very few of our officers are armed and even then they are specially trained and not regular beat officers, ( i belive lincolnshire and nottinghamshire police are the only forces outside of london that have tasers, and that nottigham police are the only police force outside of london to openly display guns) i feel this incident higlights the needs for weapon controls. i also feel that giving people non lethal weapons that the person doesnt have to put an force into encourages people to use them more than nessisary, im not going to go on about the us constitution and guns thats a topic for another thread but i do feel that weapons should be kept out of the hands of all but the trained proffesionals in work environments

In many instances, criminals are not charged with the full extent of their crimes for political reasons.
Such an argument holds no water in a case where it would politically expediant for the authority or entity concerned to press the charges referred to (resisting arrest). In this case, it would be in the interests of the authority concerned to prove that the person was resisting arrest. In this case a justifiable charge of resisting arrest would be politically expediant for the authority involved, an absence of such a charge is contrary to their interests.

Just as sometimes authorities dont lay charges where it is expediant not to, so too, when it is possible that it wont be immediately proven that the charges are falsified, authorities will lay charges that are not justifiable simply because it is politically expediant to do so. This is a case where it would be politically expediant if there is any chance the charges could be justified (even if not proven).

It seems to me that the charge wasnt laid not because it is politically expediant not to lay such a charge, but rather because even though it would be politically expediant to lay the charge if it could be gotten away with, the authority is well aware there are too many witnesses who would step forward to discredit the charges and thus lay the authority open to further accusations of abuse of authority.

No, it doesnt. At the time the officers arrived, he had (as in past tense) begun to walk (toward the door). So the student had begun to walk toward the door at the time the police arrived. When the police officers arrived beginning to walk was already in the past tense. That's why the article doesnt state 'when the polic arrived Tabatabinejad begun to walk', but rather states that at the time of the police officers' arrival he 'had begun to walk'.

Po-TAY-Toe
Po-Tah-Toe

saying that when campus police arrivedwhen the campus police arrived, so the CSO were in the Library.

Tabatabainejad had begun to walk toward the doorhad begun, meaning that he STARTED to walk towards the door. for the sake of argument, I'll give him at least three steps.

the fact is, when the officer returned with his partners, the KID was STILL in the library. he was asked repeatedly to either show an ID or leave, then the Officer left, and returned to the building with his partners. how long do you think that period was. a minute? 5 minutes? 15 minutes? the fact that the kid did not show his ID or vacate the premises when asked shows that the kid was either stupid or trying to make a statement by breaking the rules.

the fact that the kid did not show his ID or vacate the premises when asked shows that the kid was either stupid or trying to make a statement by breaking the rules.

And repeatedly tasering someone for failing to produce a piece of plastic shows that the campus goonsquad was either stupid or trying to make a statement by abusing their power publicly, and with impugnity.

No matter how you slice it.

And repeatedly tasering someone for failing to produce a piece of plastic shows that the campus goonsquad was either stupid or trying to make a statement by abusing their power publicly, and with impugnity.

No matter how you slice it.

I'm not defending the Tasering. read back, I'm only supporting to wait for the final judgement of the investigation.

however there are those here that say the Kid was totally innocent. that he is not.

Po-TAY-Toe
Po-Tah-Toe
I take it you have no actual response. Funny how 'what is said in the article' is less important to you when it contradicts your assertions. The article clearly stated that when the police arrived the person had begun to leave, not that he began only after the police arrived. Stating "Po-TAY-Toe
Po-Tah-Toe" does not alter or address those facts in any way.

when the campus police arrived, so the CSO were in the Library.

had begun, meaning that he STARTED to walk towards the door.
Had, as in past tense. At time of arrival, beginning to leave was in the past tense. He had began when the police arrived, not after. That is clearly stated. What did you think the word 'had' meant?

for the sake of argument, I'll give him at least three steps.
Which is ridiculous and irrelevent. You chose to interpret (and to specifically pull up other people on their assertion to the contrary) that the artical meant something contrary to what it states. He had begun to leave at the time the police arrived. He didnt begin when they arrived, or after, when they arrived he already had begun to leave.

the fact is, when the officer returned with his partners, the KID was STILL in the library. he was asked repeatedly to either show an ID or leave, then the Officer left, and returned to the building with his partners. how long do you think that period was. a minute? 5 minutes? 15 minutes? the fact that the kid did not show his ID or vacate the premises when asked shows that the kid was either stupid or trying to make a statement by breaking the rules.
None of which is contrary to any statement I have made anywhere in this thread. When you argue against things people have never said instead of addressing what they have said, they call that a straw man. Unfortunately it isnt working here. It's meant to distract me from the point (that you argued falsely that the artical suggested he only began to leave after police arrived rather than before), as you can see, it didnt work.

I take it you have no actual response. Funny how 'what is said in the article' is less important to you when it contradicts your assertions. The article clearly stated that when the police arrived the person had begun to leave, not that he began only after the police arrived. Stating "Po-TAY-Toe
Po-Tah-Toe" does not alter or address those facts in any way.considering you are ignoring the fact that he refused to leave, show id and was still IN THE LIBRARY when the officer returns... :rolleyes:

Had, as in past tense. At time of arrival, beginning to leave was in the past tense. He had began when the police arrived, not after. That is clearly stated. What did you think the word 'had' meant?Had is past tense, but it doesn't state at what point in time the student HAD started to leave the library.

The fact that you are so ignoring is that he was still in the Library after the Officer repeatedly asked him to either show his student ID or leave?
it doesn't matter that he started to leave when the officers returned or if he started to leave two seconds before officers returned, he was still IN THE LIBRARY when the officer returned and after being told to either leave or present his id.

Which is ridiculous and irrelevent. You chose to interpret (and to specifically pull up other people on their assertion to the contrary) that the artical meant something contrary to what it states. He had begun to leave at the time the police arrived. (which means he started to leave when the officers arrived, glad you agree with me.) He didnt begin when they arrived, or after, when they arrived he already had begun to leave. someone's getting his arguments all tied up here folks. :p


None of which is contrary to any statement I have made anywhere in this thread. When you argue against things people have never said instead of addressing what they have said, they call that a straw man. Unfortunately it isnt working here. It's meant to distract me from the point (that you argued falsely that the artical suggested he only began to leave after police arrived rather than before), as you can see, it didnt work.funny you agreed with me one paragraph ago. go to sleep, you are not thinking clearly. ;)

considering you are ignoring the fact that he refused to leave, show id and was still IN THE LIBRARY when the officer returns... :rolleyes:
I'm not ignoring that in any way. If you have nothing less desperate than strawmen to add, why bother at all?

Had is past tense, but it doesn't state at what point in time the student HAD started to leave the library.
At a point where by the time the police arrived the beginging to leave was in the past tense. Otherwise the word had wouldnt have been needlessly and erroneously inserted into the quote. The quote states that when police arrived he had begun to leave. If he began when police arrived the quote would reflect that by stating "when police arrived he began to leave". Are you really suggesting you cannot comprehend that 'when the police arrived he began to leave' and 'when the police arrived he had begun to leave' communicate different things?

The fact that you are so ignoring is that he was still in the Library after the Officer repeatedly asked him to either show his student ID or leave?
I'm not ignoring that fact at all. I was addressing the false interpretation you made of a particular sentence. Whether or not he refused to leave earlier is not the point, the point is you are going out of your way in this thread and others to 'correct' others, based on your provably erroneous interpretation of a particular statement.

it doesn't matter that he started to leave when the officers returned or if he started to leave two seconds before officers returned, he was still IN THE LIBRARY when the officer returned and after being told to either leave or present his id.
So it mattered when you bothered to 'correct' posters in this and another thread, but suddenly stopped mattering when it became apparent that you couldnt back that up....I see:rolleyes:

someone's getting his arguments all tied up here folks. :p
Yup, although I suspect you are doing it intentionally.
I suggest you pull out a dictionary and look up the word 'had'. Once again at the time that the police arrived, the student beginning to walk out was already in the past tense (that's what 'had' means). 'Had' doesnt refer to the present or future tense. It refers to the past tense.

funny you agreed with me one paragraph ago. go to sleep, you are not thinking clearly. ;)
No I didnt, your inability to comprehend the meaning of the word 'had' in this context does not indicate anything about the clarity (or lack thereof) of my thinking.
If it helps you out, the statements "when they arrived he had already begun to cry", and "when they arrived he had begun to cry" are identical in meaning, unlike the statement "when they arrived he began to cry".

First off, If a government is based on protection, not oppresion, this should not happen. If we lived in a country based around control this would not surprise me. But we do not. It was the students fault for reacting (for lack of better words) like a goddamn hippy ass spaz. But it was also the fault of the officers for being (once again for lack of better words) pricks. Even the students were at fault for not stepping in. Everyone was terrible in this situation and it is NOT the fault of one person. I see a future of 2 things that could happen in the same scenario:
1: Our country is more oppresive, He knows better than to piss off our police and quickly leaves silently out of fear.
2: Our country is more based on our citizens and he leaves out of respect.

No offence to anyone who thinks no#2 sounds great, but its a fairy tale, use fear, it works. If we set out and make sure citizens know what TO do and what NOT TO do, they will respect it, and if they rebel, they get what is coming to them.

I'm not ignoring that in any way. If you have nothing less desperate than strawmen to add, why bother at all?considering that the strawman you see is only in your mind...

I agree... Why bother with you at all.

A question to those who think the kid deserved what he got;

Would the police have been justified in shooting him?

If not, why? After all, he was being a nuisance, and his name sounds foreign.

A question to those who think the kid deserved what he got;

Would the police have been justified in shooting him?

No. But it is important to realize that tasering may have prevented that from happening. If you begin a mass wrestling battle, the guy grabs a cop's gun, suddenly it is at a higher level.

Tasering is meant to avoid escalation of physical situations and also to protect the officers from any hidden weapons or biting.

If not, why? After all, he was being a nuisance, and his name sounds foreign.

Well, that is a good point, you made me think now.
Way to be intelligent.

http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38958

With video:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/

A student at a UCLA library refused to show his student ID.
The campus police dragged him out, tasering him repeatedly.

The video is almost 7 minutes long.
It killed me to see that they would actually do that, that they would taser someone who was not even threatening to attack them. Again and again and again. While telling him to get up. The fuck??? How is he supposed to get up if you keep tasering him, you fucking assholes?

And it killed me almost more to see group dynamic in action - the other students, standing around, and only finally, finally, getting up the guts to step up.

I know that one is tempted to glorify one's own righteousness in things like this, but I'm positive I would have stepped in.

I'm not used to seeing things like this. I'm actually shaking now.
It's almost fucking 6 am and I really should go to bed and really, really shouldn't have watched this. I feel sick.

He deserved what he got.

Given that the principal troll in the thread managed to earn a five day ban elsewhere, we'll take a shot at reopening the thread.Given that the...troll...managed to earn a five day ban

Aha! An implicit admission that I'm not a troll! What now? :)
Taking mod posts out of context? Troll. Proof positive.

Try that shit again and I'll move straight to deletion.

It really seems to me that the officers used their weapons in an incorrect manner - I mean, it seems like they were tazering the kid as punishment for his failure to comply, and NOT to subdue him. If they at any time tazered (is that the right word?) him while he was down on the ground, it is - in my opinion in this case - gross misconduct.

It's a terrible camera angle. I wish we could have seen him twitch more. *nod*

It's a terrible camera angle. I wish we could have seen him twitch more. *nod*

lol

lol

Well, I'm certainly not going to condone the campus police's actions. They sure looked like they were acting in an unprofessional manner to say the least.

But at the same time, a young hotheaded college student getting repeatedly jolted with a taser is something that amuses the hell out of me. I know a good show when I see one. :)