What's new

UCLA student gets tasered and no to very little media attention (1 Viewer)

Carlo_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 31, 1997
Messages
13,385
Know his height/weight? Height/weight/strength of the officers involved? How can you say "easy" then?

Also, you continue to ignore that yes, while the cops could have deadlifted him, they should not have attempted to do that, in order to be able to defend themselves against a potential attack. When you deadlift someone, you basically expend all effort lifting and have none left to be able to defend yourself if the suspect does get violent. This is in cop-training 101. Basic stuff. That is something that they should absolutely NOT do in this case.
 

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
8,515
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer

Two concerns. One, your opinion. That's fine. But it's been presented as more than that, from your first post. Ignorance of danger sometimes manifests itself as "moral judgements from afar". Of course the police overreacted from a layman's point of view. Of course some actions of military, in armed conflict, are extreme from a layman's POV.

And sometimes the layman is right. Probably pretty often.

But it's not the layman's right to judge. They are allowed their opinion. But their woeful lack of experience and judgement prevents them from having a measured and responsible view.

1) I firmly believe that police personnel, military personnel, and other authority figures (FBI, etc) should be held to a HIGHER standard. They are often armed, and allowed to enforce the law by "breaking" it (use of force, assault, etc). Therefore, their actions must be constantly scrutinised.

2) And they should be scrutinised by people who DO have the requisite experience and understanding of the stresses and responsibilities their job entails. Not by those who have never stood in harm's way. Not by those who have never approached an uncertain, dangerous situation with immediate and long-standing repercussions for all involved.

3) Hence the investigation that is already in-progress for this. By qualified people to determine if the action was appropriate, if the response was correct. If not, then the UCPD should be counselled or even removed.

But I don't know. If their actions were wrong, then the student has every right to pursue legal and moral restitution.

I personally believe the student was wrong, escalated the situation for attention (and possibly financial gain), and put the cops in a bad spot. They probably reacted a bit harshly.

I fully admit that I tend to give those who protect us a little benefit of the doubt. When I'm wrong, I go the other direction, hoping they throw the book at those who violate their responsibilities. But lots of good public servants have been unjustly tried by an ignorant and ungrateful populace. I prefer to let the experienced make that call.

EDIT: Second concern. If it was my kid...my initial thought would be to determine how HE could have better handled the situation. Once satisifed, I would THEN determine where the authorities might have acted poorly. But I would honestly look at him first.

My mother immediately assumed I was at fault when the teacher called. I know that "blame assignation" is reversed these days :frowning:
 

JeremyErwin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2001
Messages
3,218

Some time ago, I was reading a paper on the originalist conception of the fourth amendment. The author posited that search warrants were originally a defense against trespass and burglary charges. An interesting conception, if true.

Either the cops were acting in a lawful manner, or they were not.

Of course, your comparison with the terrorist assumes that I can see a fundamental difference between the cop's "job" and the terrorist's "job". Now, that assumption might invalid, it be might be valid, or it might be irrelevant. But, it stands to reason that the argument, which prong it takes, will be a political one, which is not appropriate for htf. :)
 

Carlo_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 31, 1997
Messages
13,385
And that's part of the problem. My generation (I'm 32) the kids were largely initially thought to have been the source of any problem, and when they explained themselves first (and were vindicated), then we looked at the external (other) participants and causes.

But you are correct, in today's world kids are treated as if they couldn't be the source, something else had to set them off, and blame is attempted to be assigned to every other thing first. Even the Columbine shooters: initially blame was assigned to violent videogames, being picked on in school, etc. Parents have figured out that they can't sue their kids, but they can sue everyone else.
 

TV555

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
59
Real Name
Tom Veryal
Carlo,
Painting w/ some broad strokes there on changes in parenting today ;).

Anyway I started this thread to try and incite some discussion. My stance is pretty clear that the use of force was not justifiable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYK_d...elated&search=

Many people disagree. Hopefully, this legal case will have transparency and accountability and due process the way the legal system is intended to. I hope it doesn't turn into
the sham that the Duke LAX case did.
 

Carlo_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 31, 1997
Messages
13,385
No broader strokes than most people in this thread regarding their own opinions on things :D

I think Chuck's point is the best: let Internal Affairs (or a 3rd party) investigation deal with it. They know what's proper given the guidelines, etc. and should hopefully take appropriate action. I remember the Rodney King incident. Yes, Rodney was in the wrong (and often found himself on the wrong side of the law) but that was clearly excessive force in my eyes--so I'm not incapable of sympathizing with the suspect.

I still don't see the parallel w/ the Duke incident, as the Duke incident--if true (and I don't recall the verdict of that case)--was in my view way worse than a tasering (potential rape vs. tasering an uncooperative suspect). Also, Duke does have apparently (again only from reading/seeing news from that event, not firsthand knowledge) some problems with racial tensions, something again that UCLA does not have on the whole (though I'm sure there are individual incidents that happen, it happens everywhere).

And again, if the followup investigation proves that they did use excessive force, I do hope they throw the book at the offending officer(s). I just can't jump to conclusions based on the youtube video.
 

Chu Gai

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
7,270
Certainly an investigation is warranted and to my mind that would include looking into if this was planned or staged by the student or students. The Duke case looks weaker and weaker. If it collapses, imagine how difficult it'll be for the accused students to get their name back.
I am though a little sick of this...

 

Holadem

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2000
Messages
8,967
Believe it or not, I mosly agree with your excellent post Chuck, with the reservation that some of us have slightly less faith in those institutions, and blind faith has never served anyone in these matters. Just like we have a crowd always willing to blame law enforcement, there are those for whom they could do no wrong.

It's worth noting that you've served, along side side what I do not doubt are fine men and women. I grew up under a military dictatorship and have seen first hand what the people with the guns can do when left unchecked. The point I am making is that our admitted biases are informed by our personal experiences among other things. Consequently, and playing the "extremes game" for a second, I find unweavering law enforcement/military apologists more dangerous than paranoid overzealous whistle blowers. So long as we agree that the matter needs to be investigated (evidently not everyone does), it's all good.

And yes, my mom was deeply uncool as well.

--
H
 

Paul Padilla

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
767
Assuming a specific threat of any kind isn't the point. The point is you don't know what this yahoo is up to and under-compensating for unknowns gets officers killed. We have an individual who is non-compliant (over the silliest and simplest of requests), combative, inciting of the crowd, and purposefully took his "rag doll" position on the floor. He could be altered, intoxicated or both. The officers have no idea what this guy is up to, if anything, but they have to handle the situation as if their life depended on it. It's completely improper, even negligent for them to assume a situation is not dangerous while it's still heated in the slightest. A slumped on the floor individual isn't without it's dangers, handcuffs not withstanding, and the officers had no way of knowing if he was the only one involved in what had all the earmarks of a planned demonstration. Really...it would have taken zero effort to simply say, "I forgot my ID (or lost it, or don't have one and really needed to use the library, or really want to hook up with the girl behind the desk, or the guy in the reference section, ad infinitum)" When someone goes out of their way not to take the easy, non-confrontational way out of a situation like this, there is definitely an ulterior motive.

I am by no means a "police good...civilians bad" kind of guy but it takes more than a few misfiring brain cells to take a taser hit and not snap out of it with, "Sorry...I was just leaving." He was looking for a fight, and found one.

As to the actual topic, sure, a google search will show up a bunch of articles, but I live in San Diego County and I hadn't heard of this incident. It may have been a blurb in the local news, but if it was I didn't catch it. The other incident with the video of the man's face getting pummeled has been taking precedence. I think this student should consider himself lucky that his stunt won't require facial reconstructive surgery.
 

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
8,515
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer
H,
They always need to be investigated. 90%+ of the folks doing that type of work are honest, hard-working reasonable people. But not all are.

Carlo brought up the Rodney King incident. That was indisputably excessive force, even though the perp was guilty and high. The military is in the middle of two major cases of abuse in Iraq...Haditha (murder) and a rape/murder. I assure you the court martial is far worse than a trial. The jury is much less tolerant. I temper my support for the "institution"s (good choice of words, H) with staunch support for 3rd party investigations.

The balance between peace (fascism) and freedom (anarchy) is a see-saw...always moving. Investigation and punishment of violations is required to ensure the support of the populace and moral authority.

My mother was usually right about me, so I can't blame her :D

In this case, did the kid control his own destiny? Yup. They asked for an ID, and were legally authorized to do so. He refused, and made his own problems. They were right to ask him. Like I said, perhaps their force was excessive. If the investigation shows that...then they should be punished. youtube and watching a few episodes of Law and Order doesn't suffice to pass judgement :)

EDIT: I find both sides equally dangerous Holadem. The military and cops do far too difficult a job to let their work be impugned daily by those that live under said protection, but do not have the grasp of "reality" (not all people are good and honest). Again, it's a balance. I can't get worked up over this incident when real infractions are occuring.
 

Joe S.

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
196
Location
Boulder, CO
Real Name
Joe
I have to throw in with Hol here. The kid was acting up, but he was obviously a college age kid and his only known infraction was using the school's computers without showing an ID. He didn't claim to have a gun/knife/bomb, wasn't assaulting another student, didn't exhibit any signs of dangerous behavior other than having a loud mouth. As the official account goes, they grabbed him before he shook them off and hence needed to be tased. Why were they grabbing him if he was already heading for the door?He was in that stairwell with his bookbag and not by the PC anymore, so it seems a fairly safe assumption that he was in the process of leaving.

It did escalate quickly and the kid has a MAJOR chip on his shoulder concerning authority, but unless he looked like he was reaching for a gun/knife, did the situation warrant tasing him? We trust the police with guns and tasers for our safety, but that trust must be repaid with responsibility. I just can't fathom how anyone here can claim that the only path left open to 3 cops to get him out of the library was to tase him another 5 times. I could have picked that kid up by myself and taken him down the stairs and out the front single-handed. 3 cops could have done that easily, handcuffs or no.

It's hard to condemn the inital tasing as we don't see it (and know what triggered it), but the subsequent 5 tasings of one prone student by 2+ cops (who weren't attacked at all) is pretty clearly an overreach of their mandate IMHO. The police were hired and trained for this purpose, the kid was not. So the onus is on them to prove that they NEEDED to tase him in that situation, not on him to defend his own ill advised reactions. And if the cops don't have a clearly defined reason for tasing him, they shouldn't be trusted with tasers at all.



To close, a cute story from my college days:

I went to college in the Silicon Valley mid-90s, we had public security officers on campus. They were unarmed but always were asking for guns (despite any on campus incidents to justify the precaution.) Until one day a PS officer was assaulted and thrown down a flight of cement stairs in a dorm. He said he was overpowered by two students and that a gun could have saved his life. SJ forensics was called in and after an interview and reviewing the crime scene, it was concluded (decisively) that he threw himself down the steps and bashed himself around in the stairwell alone. While in uniform. On duty. To prove that he needed to carry a gun on the job. He was fired and they never got their guns. To date they still have never needed them.



So you'll pardon my skeptism, but from what I've experienced in life people either join the police because they believe in the law, or because they lust for the power and priviledge the badge provides. I always hope we have more of the former, but it pays to always be on the lookout for the latter. Blind faith in the responsibility of the police isn't usually such a hot idea.

Before giving someone a gun or a taser, it's a good idea to hammer home the responsibilty that instrument implies. These guys in UCLA have a whole lot of explaining to do.
 

KurtEP

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
698
Real Name
Kurt

Strange. Having seen the full video a few times, I always though that this was a far greyer case, where you could easily accuse someone of bringing it on themselves. He charged the officers, refused to submit, and kept getting up, despite being beaten by night sticks.

If I beat someone with a night stick and they kept getting up (and I dabbled in the MA for around 10 years), I'd assume there was a huge problem on hand.

To this point, I haven't seen anything to suggest that this kid wasn't anything more than an idiot. If the officer though he was in danger, he needs to justify it. If he can't he should be out of a job. I've known a number of guys that have gone into law enforcement, and I'd have to imagine that most of them would have been embarrassed to use a taser in a situation like this.
 

Magnus_M

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 9, 2002
Messages
82
My view on this incident is that it could have been resolved easier with a more "non violent" approach, this isn't something new and before cops were equipped with tasers they could handle these things with ease.
Fact is that this is something that has happened in every country in the world, and in the numerous countries were the police aren't equipped with tasers they solve issues like these with satisfactory results.

It's no secret that there is an issue with overuse of the taser by the police, the fact that it IS a non lethal weapon has been forgotten.
A weapon should only be used if the situation is to risky that someone could be hurt or killed, a loudmouth a**hole is annoying but he didn't seem to pose enough of a significant threat to require use of a taser.
A person holding a knife or an aggressive junkie would qualify for taser use, an unarmed individual with a loud mouth resisting arrest doesn't.

And yes, cops couldn't have known he was unarmed, but then again this could be said about every single incident they arrive to.
The driver in every traffic stop could be a terrorist, but just as in this situation it's very unlikely.
Does that mean that they should use their taser at these too, or maybe a double tap with their service weapon just to eliminate the risk that the 'potential suicide bomber' might blow his charge?
Escalation of force can be infinite if we were to assume the worst in every situation.

There's also the fact that some people have died after getting tasered to consider, in some cases there has been pre-existing conditions that contributed but also healthy individuals have died to.
With that in mind it's no longshot that a pacemaker could be compromised by the taser, or even worse, does anyone know what would happen if a person with DBS gets shocked?
DBS for those who don't know is - deep brain stimulation - in short a pacemaker thingy supplying a low current to electrodes placed in the brain (to reduce symptoms for parkinson and dystonia for example).
I have no idea what could happen if a person with DBS would to get shocked, my guess is that neither does the police, but there's obviously a risk that something bad might happen.

Considering that (even though) all we know about tasers there are still unknowns, we should therefore be careful when using them.
Restrict the use only to cases severe enough to warrant use of weapons, in cases where physical restraints or a nightstick can be used then use that instead.
Sure, it might cause some injuries but a bruise or a broken bone is better than becoming a vegetable for life or dying.

The taser was never considered to be used as a cattle prod and even a cattle prod is unnecessary in most cases, farmers have managed their cattle for thousands of years with use sticks to direct them or on horseback.
What I'm getting at is that if something worked well for hundreds or even thousands of years it can work just as well in todays society, things might change over time but the basics remain the same.
 

Joe S.

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
196
Location
Boulder, CO
Real Name
Joe
I agree completely with Magnus, he crystallized my earlier thoughts perfectly.

The cops on scene used a weapon on a student. The onus is now on them to prove that it was required, it is not on the student to prove his innocence. One college student ranting about the Patriot Act, the value of anarchy, or whatever else does not constitute an imminent threat to 2-3 cops trained in law enforcement. They could have easily blocked the PC room entrance and slowly "corraled" him out the exit without even touching him. If he got violent, they could take him to the ground, cuff him, and then walk him out involuntarily. But minus a knife, gun, or a pointed threat (ie - I've got a knife/gun in my pocket), I don't see how the tasing is justified. Repeated tasings on the ground is just asinine; I can't see how they could ever justify that in these circumstances.

With power comes responsibility. If these cops can't handle the responsibility of the tasers, then they shouldn't be allowed to carry them around. If I was the student, I would consider suing the university for allowing unfit people to carry semi-lethal weapons. Going after the cop is almost pointless, going after the university can actually get something changed for the better.
 

Chu Gai

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
7,270
You've largely condemned the actions of the officers as being rash and inappropriate without knowing all the particulars and in your own way have demonstrated at least an equivalent amount of rashness. For shame.

There is far more to protect than the officers. There are the 'appreciative' students who rail about things and get their talking points without benefit of knowledge. They too can be considered to be in danger and need to be protected. The threats that exist today were never imagined several years ago. It's not just a question of a gun or a knife anymore. If bombs can be hidden in bottles and shoes or strapped to oneself and triggered in a fraction of a second then judicious and prompt action will be needed to deal with this. Just because we live in the US there's no reason to think that what happens in places like Israel will never happen here.

There's more to this story though. Whether the investigations by the University turn it up or some enterprising reporters, in due time we'll hear about it. Until then, it happened so let's see how this shakes out. I'd imagine though, having been a rebellious student at one time, that there will be other students at UCLA who to demonstrate their intelligence and profound knowledge of concepts like freedom will take it upon themselves to push things.
 

Paul Padilla

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
767
Namely, the plaintiff’s bank account. If this is a pattern, then yes, the university should be sued for not taking care of an ongoing problem but showing poor judgment in one situation (if these officers are so judged) does not constitute being unfit. If this is an isolated incident and the officers are found to have gone overboard, then the university should handle it internally.
 

Joe S.

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
196
Location
Boulder, CO
Real Name
Joe

Not at all, Chu. The officers are trained, have lethal (and non-lethal) means at their disposal, and are charged by oath to uphold the law. The kid has no such obligations. The standard held to each is different; namely, the cops must measure up to a higher sense of criticism as they have the greater amount of power in this situation. They tased a student, multiple times while he was prone on the ground screaming for them to stop. Either they can justify that action as appropriate (by bystander accounts) or they cannot. If not, they need to face some sort of appropriate consequences.

BTW - I did a little research online and the main cop has been under review before for: choking an unarmed student with a nightstick, shooting an unarmed homeless man in a campus bathroom, and a few other complaints of abusive behavior. And he was back on the job Monday after this happened on Friday. So yeah, I'm thinking the kid having a lawsuit might be the only way that the campus does jack squat about it. It sucks, but rich people only seem to give a damn when you can threaten their money...

EDIT: Since I know you'll question the above: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...nes-california
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top